Martin AM-1/1-Q Mauler

84 Pages·1994·73.27 MB·English

by  Bob Kowalski

:;:
INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTORS page 77 was gleaned from reports
provided by LAWRENCE WEBSTER.
CAPT L. WAYNE SMITH, USN, Di Photo and technical information in
Bob Kowalski who wrote Naval
rector, Strike Aircraft Test Directorate addition to the above contributors
Fighters Number Twenty, Grumman
and MR. W. M. FRIERSON, JR., came from the following persons:
AF Guardian, and has helped me
Public Affairs Officer, NAS Patuxent CLAY JANSSON, WILLIAM 1. LAR
immensely over the years with infor
River, Maryland, fortheir help with the KINS, DAVE MENARD, BOB LAW
mation and leads to complete the
NATC portion of the Mauler's history. SON, B. BURGER, ALAN SPARKS,
difficult projects covered by the Naval
RADM F. B. STONE, USN (RET), EX HARRY GANN, ROY MILLS, DAVE
Fighter series, has authored book
CO of VA-85. RADM L. V. SWAN OSTROWSKI, FRED ROOS, JIM
number twenty-four, Martin AM-1 /1Q
SON, USN (RET), CDR W. W. "BUD" BURRIDGE, RON DOWNEY, GENE
Mauler. This manuscript appeared in
TILGHMAN, AND CAPT W. L. RUS HOLMBERG, S. NICOLAOU, CARL
its original form as "Mable Wasn't Very
SELL, USN (RET), for help and pho from Plane Crazy, MICK ROTH and
Able" in the spring 1981 issue of The
tos forthe VA-44 and VA-45 portion of WILLIAM SWISHER.
Hook (journal of the Tailhook
this book. RADM SWANSON (RET),
Association). This book has been ex
CO of VA-45. For the VA-84 and
panded and updated with additional SERVICE DIAGRAM
VA-85 chapter; VA-85 CO, RADM F.
inJormation, although better photo 1.) WING FUELTANKLH
B. STONE (RET), CAPT S. W.
coverage of VA-44, VA-45, VA-84, 2.) WING GUNS
CALLAWAY, JR. (RET), CDR P. P.
and VA-85 are requested from the 3.) GUN CAMERA LH ONLY
HAMBSCH (RET), and LCDR K. D.
readers. 4.) EXTERNALAUX. WING FUELTANK
BOYER (RET). Reserve section con 5.) FLOAT LIGHTS
The AM-1 Mauler (the runner-up in the tributors included: HANK GASTRICH 6.) CANTEEN
and JOHN WOODS from VA-923 at 7.) MAINLANDINGGEAR AIRBOTTLE
BT competition) and the AD Skyraider
NAS Saint Louis, CAPT CHARLIE 8.) OILTANK
(the winner) are both worthy subjects
LOMAS (RET) from NAS Glenview, 9.) OILTANKFILLER
in their own rights. However, the
CDR B. J. LONG (RET), member of 10.) HYDRAULICRESERVOIR
Bomber Torpedo (BT) program and
11.) WATER INJECTION SYSTEM FILLER
the Society of Experimental Test Pi
the similar Scout Bomber (SB) and the
12.) HYDRAULICACCUMULATOR
lots, for providing the missing photo
Torpedo Bomber (TB) programs fos 13.) WING FUELTANKFILLER
documentation of the NAS Atlanta
tered a very unique and interesting 14.) WING FUELTANKRH
Maulers which has kept this project on
series of naval aircraft. These aircraft, 15.) MAIN LANDINGGEARSHOCKSTRUT
including the Douglas XSB2D-1 and hold for five years, and for his written 16.) MAIN LANDINGGEARTIRE
BTD-1 "Destroyer" entrants, the Dou evaluation on the Maulerwhich begins 17.)BATTERYRH ONLY
glas XTB2D-1 "Sky Pirate", the on page 68. The Mauler In Plastic 18.) EMERGENCYHYDRAULICACCU.
contributors included: JOHN RUCKS 19.) OXYGEN BOTTLE
Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1, and the
Curtis-Wright XBTC-2 and XBT2C-1 from Combat Models (400 3rd street, 20.) FUSELAGE FUELTANK(AM-1 ONLY)
West Easton, Pa. 18042), TOMMY 21.) CANOPYHYDRAULICACCU.
will be covered in a future Naval
22.) FUSELAGE FUELTANKFILLER
Fighters book. THOMASON, THOMAS GATENS,
23.) OXYGEN FILLERVALVE
and DONALD SMITH. NICK WILL-
- 24.) TAILLANDING GEAR AIRBOTTLE
Anyone having photos or other infor- lAMS for proofing and grammar 25.) TAILLANDING GEAR SHOCKSTRUT
mation on this or any other naval or corrections. The information for the 26.) SNUBBER CYLINDER
marine aircraft, may submit them for_~chaptero~Ma~~M§~ap'sstarting on 27.) ARRESTING HOOK
l
possible inclusion in future issueS'
Any material submitted will become
the property of NAVAL FIGHTERS
unless prior arrangement is made. In
dividuals are responsible for security
clearance of any material before sub-
mission. ISBN 0-942612-24-8
Steve Ginter, 1754 Warfield Cir., Simi
Valley, California, 93063
All rights reserved. No part of this
publication mayb(1 reproduced, stored
in a retrievalsystem, ortransmitted in
any form by any means electronic,
mechanical or otherwise without the
written permission ofthe publisher.
© 1994Steve Ginter
FRONT COVER
AM-1 122397 sets unofficial world's
record lifting 3torpedoes and 122501b.
bombs. 122398 is seen with 12 5" rock
ets, 211.75" rockets and 17501b. bomb.
1
'---~ ---
THE MARTIN AM-1 1-1Q MAULER
Among the lessons the US Navy what was left oftheir stumbling SB2C Natural metal XBTM-1 85162 on an ear
learned from the pivotal carrier battles program. At that time, Douglas was ly test flight with the short carburetor
of 1942 was the need to include more not included in the competition be scoop. (National Archives)
fighter aircraft in its carrier air groups. cause of their heavy involvement with
The fighters were needed to both de the production of the S'sD and their
fend the carrier's strike force from on-going development of the rounds of ammunition and various
enemy fighters and the carrier from .XSB2D-1. combinations of bombs, rockets, and
the enemis attack force. Within the ·torpedoes. The Mauler was equipped
limitations of space aboard a carrier, The Glen L. Martin Company's to carry the AN/APS-4 radar which
this increase in fighter complement response to that Navy requirementfor was an air-to-surface radar with limit
forced a reduction in the number of a single-engine, single-place attack ed air-to-air capability. Equipped with
aircraftthat would be available to per airplane for carrier or shore based a constant speed, four bladed pro
form the other missions of the air operations was the XBTM-1. The air peller, there was one noticeable
group; scouting, dive-bombing, torpe craft was, after the 1946 change in differehce between the aircraft pur
do-bombing, etc. A new category of mission designators, produced as the chased under the two separate
aircraft was created (BT for Bomber AM-1. Although 139were builtand did production contracts. The AM-1s pur
Torpedo) to combine those functions. serve with five VA and one VC fleet chased under the original contract
These new BT aircraft would function squadron before being relegated to (BuNos. 22257 to 22355), used a
most efficiently if they were multi the reserves, the type was out-per Curtiss propeller that was electrically
mission aircraft and fast enough to formed by its contemporary, the operated and had blades that were
minimize the numbers of fighters Douglas ADSkyraider. The AM-1's cuffed at the spinner and rounded at
needed for escort duties. place in naval aviation history can the tips. Those aircraft purchased un
perhaps best be described as, "... and der the subsequent contract (BuNos.
In September 1943, the Navy let now, the runner-up is ...". 122388 to 122437), used the Hamil
contracts to the aircraft industry for ton Standard propeller which,
that category of aircraft. The manu The AM-1 was powered by the although of the same diameter as the
facturers chosen were Martin, who Pratt & Whitney R-4360-4W, a28 cyl Curtiss propeller, was hydraulically
had a good record of developing ad inderengine that developed a Military controlled and, perhaps because of
vanced aircraft and would have Rated power of 3,000 BHP and used the squared-off tips, decidedly
excess production capacity, Kaiser a take-off power setting of 53" mani angular in appearance.
Fleetwing for perhaps political rea fold pressure and 2,700 RPM at sea
sons, and Curtiss-Wright, for whom it level. The AM-1's armament consist The AM-1 also featured a unique
might have been a chance to redirect ed of four 20 mm guns with 800 "finger" type dive brake that was 10-
2
•
Top-natural metal XBTM-1 with O. E. "Pat" Tibbsatthecontrols inflight; the sizeofthepilot's head gives you aclear indication
ofthe Mauler's immense size. Middle -toothcomb styledive brakesare shown open both aboveand belowthewing. Bottom
gear isseen in itsfully extended position with theflaps partiallylowered. Notethatthetail hookhad notyetbeen installed.
3
cated along the trailing edge of the
wing. This dive brake offered a com
bination of uses. When closed, it
could be deflected downward in a
single panel to act as a conventional
landing flap. When opened, the inter
meshing "fingers" separated into
alternating upper and lower sections
to slowthe diving speed ofthe aircraft.
The dive brakes could be positioned
at any point between the "full open"
and "full closed" position by means of
the pilot's control lever. The dive
brake was assisted in both modes of
operations by a perforated panel that
was located on the underside of the
fuselage. Although this dive brake NAVAL AIR TEST CENTER (NATC) The XBTM-1 seen later in life in NATe
was well-liked bythe fleet VA pilots for markings. Bythistimethetail hookhad
its effectiveness, part of this To illustrate the extent of NATe's been added and the carburetor scoop
effectiveness was due to its great ar work with the AM-1, the flight test had been lengthened. Aircraftis loaded
ea. This was contributed to by the program eventually involved 18 (al with a 750 pound centerline bomb and
length of its span, which in turn how most the complement of a fleet VA what appears to be two napalm bombs
ever, reduced the span of the squadron) and lasted longer (three onthewing stations. (via Bob Kowalski)
ailerons. This reduction in span mini years) than the type stayed in service
mized the low-speed effectiveness of with the active duty squadrons. The Recalling the bomb, airplane and ship
the Mauler's ailerons. Once this low aircraft assigned to NATC for these silhouettes of WW II, Martin test pilot
speed deficiency revealed itselfto the trials are listed by their BuNos and Ray Nessly points out the 18 dive and
NATC pilots, the spoiler aileron sub-' assigned Test Divisions at the end of six spin silhouettes on the side of the
system was introduced into the this portion ofthe Mauler's operational XBTM-1 to Ozzie Zahnow and R. D.
design. history. Gilson. (Martin)
4
The MartinAM-1 Maulerproduction lineon 16December1946.(Martin)
5
--------------------------
~
NATe BIS TEST RESULTS
First production AM-1 22257 without
spinneron 12-28-46.22257would bethe
first AM-1 accepted for BIS trials at
NATeon 3-31-47.
standards of BuNo. 22307, did
possess satisfactory or acceptable
flight stability and control characteris
tics. The following performancefigures
were demonstrated by the modified
BuNo. 22307:
WEIGHTEMPTY--LBS. 15,257
BOMBER/SCOUT
First flown on 26 August 1944, facilities of the Naval Air Test Center,
BOMBERUSEFULLOAD--LBS. 7,066
XBTM-1 (BuNo. 85161) reached the NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and
SCOUTUSEFULLOAD--LBS. 6,157
Naval Air Test Center on 11 Decem the Naval Aircraft Torpedo Unit, NAS
BOMBERGROSSWEIGHT--LBS. 22,323
ber 1944. Being joined in the Test Quonset Point, Rhode Island, con
SCOUTGROSSWEIGHT--LBS. 21,414
program by its sister ship (BuNo. ducted Service Acceptance Trials on
MAXSPEED(MRP) ATSEALEVEL--KNOTS
85162), which was fitted with a the Martin AM-1 from 31 March 1947
BOMBER 264
spinner that was a distinguishing fea until 18 April 1950. The first test air
SCOUT 269
ture of the AM-1, testing revealed plane, BuNo. 22257, contained 17
MAX SPEED (MRP) AT AIRCRAFT'S CRIT
deficiencies that resulted in noticeable modifications as a result of the earlier
ICALALTITUDE OF15,400FEET--KNOTS
modifications to the design. The most flight tests ofthe XBTM-1s. In spite of
BOMBER 281
apparent of these changes were the' these modifications serious and un
SCOUT 290
ones that were made to the cowling acceptable deficiencies remained in
SERVICECEILlNG--FEET
and air scoop. On the AM-1, the the production aircraft. In the
BOMBER/SCOUT 27,000
cowling was lengthened by six inches correction of these deficiencies,
STALLING SPEED, FLAPS UP, SEA LEVEL--
and canted two degrees to the right NATC flight tested major modifi
KNOTS, BOMBER/SCOUT 94
while the carburetorairscoop's length cations in five successive AM-1
was increased sothat itnow extended aircraft. The last of these, BuNo.
out over the cowling to a point just 22307, contained nine modifications Final assembly of the 4th production
forward ofthe cowl flap hinge line. of which eight were to improve flying AM-1 22260 on 2-26-47. This aircraft
qualities. Tests completed on 21 would also take part in the BIS trials.
The Board of Inspection and Sur March 1950 showed that the pro Thecannons areclearlyvisiblethrough
vey, assisted by the personnel and duction AM-1 airplane, modified to the thewing fold mechanism. (Martin)
6
It was during the arrested landing developed as part of this program. This photo of a clean-winged AM-1 was
phase of the carrier suitability trials This "roller hook" featured a roller a censored photo with the pylons air
that the infamous "tail-shedding" bearing as an integral part ofthe head brushed out. The wing pylons just
accident occurred. An inadequacy in ofthe tail hook. This bearing would be inboard ofthecannonswere an integral
the design was making itself evident engaged by the arresting wire and part ofthe aircraft's construction. Note
to the pilots by a "violent" tail shake would roll (rotate) under the stress of the center wing section Swiss-cheese
occurring upon engagement of the any sideways forces that were en stylediveflap. (via ClayJansson) .
arresting wires. This was a symptom countered during arresting wire
of the high stresses that were being pullout, thereby eliminating the tail standard bridle catcher, (NAF
placed on the aircraft. During the 51st shake problem. 90967-1). As a result the catapult
engagement of the test phase, BuNo. launching phase report recommended
22279 was making its 16th fly-in en With the reinforced aft fuselage that; "to prevent damage to the cata
gagement when the entire aft structure and tail hook "No. 6B" in pult bridle spreader, set the catapult to
fuselage was torn from the airframe. stalled, BuNo. 22298 completed the give an end-speed of no more that 65
This revealed that the design strength last of 100 fly-in engagements on 15 knots and provide wind to give a
of the fuselage was inadequate and August 1948. With this phase of launching airspeed of 95 knots which
that a different type of tail hook was testing completed, the results showed is a comfortable airspeed for the pilot
needed. The fuselage was strength that the production AM-1, configured when the aircraft is loaded to its
ened by the reinforcement of the to the standards of BuNo. 22298, heaviest weight."
longerons in the carry-through struc were acceptable for carrier based
ture to 300 percent of their former arrested landings. BuNo. 22259 was assigned to the
strength. To cure the tail shake prob
lem, a program was undertaken that Forcatapult launching, the weight
included the testing of nine different ofthe AM-1 necessitated a heavyduty AM-1 22269assigned to ArmamentTest
tail hooks of various lengths, weights bridle that had an increased diameter is seen minus its spinner and carrying
and types of heads. The tail hook of 7/8 of an inch. This heavier bridle two 500 pound bombs on the wing py
designated as "No. 6B" was finally was now beyond the capacity of the lons in 1947.(via Larkins)
7
Three views of an AM-1 with the APS-4 installed on the port wing pylon and a750 pound bomb located on the fuselage pylon.
The top photo isof22257,which hadaslab-sided(flat-sided)windscreen notused on lateraircraft. (via B. J. Long)Thebottom
photoshowsthe splitdive-flapsopen justpriorto rolloverfor adive run on 4-26-49. (National Archives)
8
stabilityand control phase ofthe trials. verse aileron yaw problem. engagementwith the barrier."
Testing on this aircraft was repeatedly
delayed by the evaluation of various The elevator demand assist The armament trials rec
fixes to cure major deficiencies. In mechanism was designed to help the ommendations included the change to
correcting two of these deficiencies, pilotovercome what the interim report the MK. 9 Mod. 3 launcher as a result
the spoiler aileron system and the el called, "excessively high elevatorstick of damage to the ailerons from the
evator demand assist mechanism forces." Described perhaps prophet firing of 5.0" HVARs from the initially
were added to the flight controls. ically by the report as a system that, installed launchers. The fixed gun in
Being added to the existing design, "due to it's intricate design, is an stallation was notfound acceptablefor
these hydraulically-powered devices additional possible source of mainte use until fourteen recommended
probably contributed their share of nance difficulties." With the elevator changes were made. Satisfactory
leaks to the hydraulic problems that demand assist installed, the consen tests ofthe bombing installation (which
gave the Mauler its poor record of sus of the NATC pilots was that the did not include a "bomb release arm")
maintenance reliability. RADM F. B. stick forces were "reasonable were made using various combi
Stone USN (ret) commanded VA-85 throughout take-off, climb following nations of bombs, mines and 11.75"
when they flew the AM-1 and de take-off and landing." However the "Tiny Tim" aircraft rockets. The torpe
scribes the hydraulic system as test data does show that the elevator do drop tests included five flights in a
"complicated and poorly-sealed. The stick forces would still momentarily three-torpedo loaded condition and
airplane would be sitting silently in the exceed the specifications (SR-119A) resulted in the torpedo installation
chocks on the line, nobody near it, limit of 35 pounds pull. Perhaps itwas being found acceptable for service
and hydraulic fluid suddenly would this combination of high elevator stick use. By 1952, weight restrictions of
come streaming out from anyone or forces and the weight of the R-4360 2300 pounds were placed on the fu
more of a number of points, a real engine that left the carrier pilot with selage and wing center-section bomb
bleeder." the most demanding task of handling racks. Since the AM-1 was no longer
the Mauler after the cut. As RADM serving with the fleet, the restrictions
Taking these fixes separately, the Stone describes that phase of flight: were meaningless except to serve as
spoiler ailerons were developed to "In a carrier landing after getting the a comparison with the Douglas AD
improve an inadequate rate of roll at 'cut', the slightesttemptation to relax a Skyraider of 1952.
low airspeeds that was coupled with fine degree of back pressure on the
an adverse aileron yaw. The spoiler stick, let alone any tendency to dive
Typical 1950s public relations photo of
aileron panels were located forward of for the deck, resulted in that mon
an aircraft's load carrying ability,
the dive brake/landing flap panel and strous nose dropping irretrievably
showing bombs, torpedoes , depth
did increasethe roll rate sufficientlyto downward causing an unavoidable
charges and cannons with ammunition.
allow a reduction in maximum aileron wheels-first, tail-high landing followed
travel. This reduction cured the ad- by a high soaring bounce and ultimate (Martin)
9