p6m_01.jpg

[Troy24]

[Paul Elliot]

That is one big beautiful (sea)bird! It's a shame that they never went
into production.


--
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics
German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics
French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians.

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/

[BILL]

I may be wrong but didnt this aircraft have a problem with its wings bending
in flight .Can anyone confirm please


regards Bill

[Harriet and John]

Right off the bat, I cannot give you a definitive answer about the
wings...but a good friend of mine ended up as the project officer on the
program and I have had an "interested" relationship with the Martin family
of aircraft over the years. It is my recollection that in addition to the
overall reluctance of the Navy to continue two lines of ASW aviation
communities by funding the high risk P6M (VP-S) program coincident with the
low risk P3 (VP-L) program, there were significant problems with high-sea-
state splash flameout resembling the Sea Dart experience, and a conscious
strategic decision to fund the land based program.

"BILL" > wrote in message
...
>I may be wrong but didnt this aircraft have a problem with its wings
>bending in flight .Can anyone confirm please
>
> regards Bill
>

[Ron Monroe]

It may have been a even more involved than that. The plane did actually go
into production, before it was canceled. There were a total of 9 built, with
3 P6M-2 production versions on the ramp. I am not sure it was considered a
competitor to the P-3. There was also fighting going on between the USAF
and Navy, as to who had the right to deliver nuclear weapons. From what I
have read, the original mission of minelaying was being changed to that of
being more of a bomber with nuclear strike capabilities. This was threating
the USAF mission, and also meant a fight for budget. If the P6M was not used
as a bomber, it had no mission. Ron

"Harriet and John" > wrote in message
...
> Right off the bat, I cannot give you a definitive answer about the
> wings...but a good friend of mine ended up as the project officer on the
> program and I have had an "interested" relationship with the Martin family
> of aircraft over the years. It is my recollection that in addition to the
> overall reluctance of the Navy to continue two lines of ASW aviation
> communities by funding the high risk P6M (VP-S) program coincident with
> the low risk P3 (VP-L) program, there were significant problems with
> high-sea- state splash flameout resembling the Sea Dart experience, and a
> conscious strategic decision to fund the land based program.
>
> "BILL" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I may be wrong but didnt this aircraft have a problem with its wings
>>bending in flight .Can anyone confirm please
>>
>> regards Bill
>>
>
>

[Ron Monroe]

Actually the problem was with the horizontal tail. I forget the particulars,
but, I believe it had to do with the actuator. Twice, the tail locked up, I
think in the max position. One time, this sent the airplane into a dive,
which overstressed the wings to the point that the tips touched before the
aircraft crashed. I think the other time, the tail was locked into the
opposite position. Once again, the tips touched. Another aircraft loss. One
of the times, the wings bent over the top, the other time, they bent
underneath. On one of the accidents, they found pieces of one tip float in
the other tip float. This is why they speculated that the wings bent until
the tips met. The tail was fixed on subsequent aircraft.
Ron

"BILL" > wrote in message
...
>I may be wrong but didnt this aircraft have a problem with its wings
>bending in flight .Can anyone confirm please
>
> regards Bill
>