Convair P6Y

[Skybolt]

Also known as the last Navy seaplane (which is wrong, since there were alot of activities going on for years after the P6Y concellation).
Convair won the competion in 1956/7 to substitute the Martn P5M ASW seaplane. The designer was Hans Amtmann, of Blohm und Voss fame, who went on a cruise in a US submarine to look first hand at the problems in hunting a sub by plane (very German-style , I'd say). Specs were: lenght 36.90 m; span 38.86 m; wing area 232.25 sqm; engines: 3 Wright 3350-32W. I have also an internal arrangement plan, BUT, since they come from a book I STRONGLY recommend (Vanishing Paperclips, Monogram), I'll post only the model photos and the 3-views. For the rest, go and buy ;D
No, Monogram doesn't pay me (sigh).
Forgot: competitors were Martin (model 313, AKA as P7M) and possibly Boeing. Anyone has details/info?

 

[TinWing]

The designer was Hans Amtmann, of Blohm und Voss fame, who went on a cruise in a US submarine to look first hand at the problems in hunting a sub by plane (very German-style , I'd say).

Very German style indeed.

Three engines, cantalever wing, etc.

It looks like a Dornier Do-24. Oddly enough, Dornier equipped one their tri-engined flying boats with Pratt&Whitney turboprops...in the 1980s. They didn't sell any, not unsurprisingly.

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

It looks like a Dornier Do-24. Oddly enough, Dornier equipped one their tri-engined flying boats with Pratt&Whitney turboprops...in the 1980s. They didn't sell any, not unsurprisingly.

Wasn't the Do-24TT really just a flying testbed to validate the wing planned for the Do-328 turboprop?

 

[frank]

ISTR reading of a proposal in the '60s or '70s to fit the Do-24 with 2 P & W R-2800s for some specification. Maybe Spain?

The designer was Hans Amtmann, of Blohm und Voss fame, who went on a cruise in a US submarine to look first hand at the problems in hunting a sub by plane (very German-style , I'd say).

Very German style indeed.

Three engines, cantalever wing, etc.

It looks like a Dornier Do-24. Oddly enough, Dornier equipped one their tri-engined flying boats with Pratt&Whitney turboprops...in the 1980s. They didn't sell any, not unsurprisingly.

 

[Skybolt]

Found a photo of the Martin P7M mock-up. From Martin Aircraft, Narkiewicz/Thompson Publ.

 

[devi]

General Dynamics/Convair Model 24-------------XP6Y-1
Martin Model M-313-----------------------------------XP7M-1

 

[Triton]

Three-view drawing of Convair P6Y.

Technical data on Convair P6Y.

Source: http://theflyingboatforum.hostingdelivered.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=444

 

[Orionblamblam]

Where oh where have I seen detailed, attractive and affordably priced drawings of this before...

Hmmm...
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocair.htm#airdwg3

 

[fightingirish]

CONVAIR P6Y ASW WARFARE FLYING BOAT PROPOSAL

The missions for this airplane in order of importance were as follows:
1.) Detect, locate and destroy submarines.
2.) Perform barrier patrols, convoy escort, hold down, hunter/killer operations, and area search.
3.) In a search and rescue configuration, rescue personnel from the sea.

The P6Y was to be powered by 3 Pratt & Whitney R3350-32W engines with two General Electric YJ85-GE-1 turbojets mounted in the rear engine nacelle of the center engine. The aircraft was to be equipped with a MAD boom.

[Attached Images defunct due to copyright issues & forum rules!]

Source: Convair XP5Y-1 & R3Y-1/2 Tradewind by Steve Ginter, Ginter Books, Simi Valley, 1996

 

[AeroFranz]

Agreed. these are VERY good. Thanks!

 

[saturncanuck]

Perhaps these flying boats ans seaplanes could be the subject of a future Tony Buttler work.

 

[foiling]

I have this general arrangement in E R Johnson's "American Flying Boats & Amphibians" (2009). In my opinion this is an excellent book for anyone with an interest in this topic, and it includes a substantial chapter on projects. All aircraft mentioned in the book are covered by a breif account, as well as technical data, usually a black-&-white photo, and a good 3-view drawing. I am not an expert on .... well anything .... but I thoroughly recommend it.

 

[frank]

I can't find that title, but found this one. "American Flying Boats and Amphibious Aircraft". Are they the same book?

I have this general arrangement in E R Johnson's "American Flying Boats & Amphibians" (2009). In my opinion this is an excellent book for anyone with an interest in this topic, and it includes a substantial chapter on projects. All aircraft mentioned in the book are covered by a breif account, as well as technical data, usually a black-&-white photo, and a good 3-view drawing. I am not an expert on .... well anything .... but I thoroughly recommend it.

 

[LowObservable]

The P6Y looks very like a boat that appears on my notepad during boring meetings.

Related subject: Are there any sources on the relationship (if any) between the P6Y/P7M and the ShinMaywa boats? Both the original CONOPS (ocean landing to use dunking sonar) and technology (BLC with separate GE turbine engine) are very similar.

According to the Beriev site, the A-40 was also designed as a sea-sitter.

Cool video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LKAh3KpmtI

 

[foiling]

My apologies; yes you have the correct title - it is 'amphibious aircraft'. God, I yearn for a spell-check that leans over one's shoulder.

 

[saturncanuck]

My apologies; yes you have the correct title - it is 'amphibious aircraft'. God, I yearn for a spell-check that leans over one's shoulder.

Although I use the spell-check in WordPerfect, there is nothing better than a dictionary....

 

[lark]

If I'm correct Foiling,there should be a separate chapter in the book about
projected designs.
Have you an idea which are described ?
Thanks in advance.

 

[foiling]

Wow, two statements that beg a response, just when I felt like the village idiot again for trying to share something interesting. First, it's great to know that among a clearly very bright bunch of guys, someone still loves the dictionary. I play Scrabble at competition level, so a dictionary is a very precious possession, and my e-mail spell-check only understands French - I have no idea why. Frank, thanks, I feel less stupid, although an amphibian, to me, is always a frog (unless it's been kissed).
But, seriously, the book is constructed thus: Part 1: 1912 - 1928; Part 2: 1928 - 1945; Part 3: 1945 - present. Appendix 1: lesser known ....; Appendix 2: design concepts: Appendix 3: glossaries.
In appendix 2 (pp 336 onwards) you'll find Bel Geddes 4, Boeing Model 320 & Model 326, Sikorsky 45, Consolidated XPB3Y-1, Consolidated Pan Am project, Convair Skate, Edo Model 150, Convair XP6Y, Grumman G-132, Martin P7M Submaster, Convair Model 37, Martin M-193, Convair Supersonic Attack Seaplane, all covered in detail, and a couple others not illustrated.
In the main section of the book some of my favourites include Martin Seamaster, Martin Mars (both versions), Hughes H-4, Convair Sea Dart (2 versions), Convair Tradewind (2 versions), and Boeing 314, to name only a few.

 

[frank]

I guess 'amphibian' just depends upon its context during discussion. In my part of the USA, we have quite a few 'amphibs', as they're usually referred. Funny thing, in southern Louisiana, not far from me, a swamp or other body of water could have a couple of different 'amphibians' in it. A Cessna 185 on amphibious floats & some amphibious reptiles! Thanks for clarifying the title, I found one & have it on order. I hope it has decent info on the P7M.

Wow, two statements that beg a response, just when I felt like the village idiot again for trying to share something interesting. First, it's great to know that among a clearly very bright bunch of guys, someone still loves the dictionary. I play Scrabble at competition level, so a dictionary is a very precious possession, and my e-mail spell-check only understands French - I have no idea why. Frank, thanks, I feel less stupid, although an amphibian, to me, is always a frog (unless it's been kissed).
But, seriously, the book is constructed thus: Part 1: 1912 - 1928; Part 2: 1928 - 1945; Part 3: 1945 - present. Appendix 1: lesser known ....; Appendix 2: design concepts: Appendix 3: glossaries.
In appendix 2 (pp 336 onwards) you'll find Bel Geddes 4, Boeing Model 320 & Model 326, Sikorsky 45, Consolidated XPB3Y-1, Consolidated Pan Am project, Convair Skate, Edo Model 150, Convair XP6Y, Grumman G-132, Martin P7M Submaster, Convair Model 37, Martin M-193, Convair Supersonic Attack Seaplane, all covered in detail, and a couple others not illustrated.
In the main section of the book some of my favourites include Martin Seamaster, Martin Mars (both versions), Hughes H-4, Convair Sea Dart (2 versions), Convair Tradewind (2 versions), and Boeing 314, to name only a few.

 

[Stargazer]

If you dig into the beginnings of aviation, and look carefully at Curtiss, Wright, Aeromarine or Burgess aircraft, you'll find that the distinction was quite clear from the start: a float-planes was a land-based aircraft resting on underwing floats, a flying-boat was a hull type, and an amphibian was a flying-boat that could operated from water or land.

 

[lark]

Thanks for the additional info Foiling.The book is on my 'to buy' list..

 

[Jemiba]

"..an amphibian was a flying-boat that could operated from water or land."

Nevertheless I would call a Cessna Caravan on floats, that house a retractable
landing gear an amphibian. To me it's just the possibilty to operate from land
and water, that makes an amphibian, not the type of fuselage. Cessna, too calls
it an amphibian with "dual-purpose floats" .
But I agree, that type is quite rare, compared to amphious flying boats.

 

[Stargazer]

Agreed. I didn't mention these because they came later on in history. Just like floatplanes can also be single main float under fuselage with additional small floats at the wingtips, and these also are not so common (Northrop N-3PB, Curtiss Seahawk, Japanese "Norm" and a few others).

So amphibian means both land and water capability, but with the capacity to land on the wheel gear. That's why I think a float plane or a flying boat with wheels used only for taxiing would not qualify as an amphibian.

 

[frank]

I'd venture to say that amphibious float equipped airplanes outnumber amphibious flying boats by far now-a-days. The majority of amphibs used in swamplands & for bush flying are float equipped airplanes as opposed to flying boats. Whether they're amphibious or not, I'm sure Cessnas & DeHavillands on floats are much more numerous than flying boats. Also, IIRC, Grumman considered their Albatross a 'tri-phibian', since it could operate on land on the wheels, water on its hull & ice on its hull.

"..an amphibian was a flying-boat that could operated from water or land."

Nevertheless I would call a Cessna Caravan on floats, that house a retractable
landing gear an amphibian. To me it's just the possibilty to operate from land
and water, that makes an amphibian, not the type of fuselage. Cessna, too calls
it an amphibian with "dual-purpose floats" .
But I agree, that type is quite rare, compared to amphious flying boats.

 

[Jemiba]

We're straying OT, but you're right with regards to numbers and nowadays types, too,
I think. I was thinking of amphibians (aircraft, not frogs) in general and had all those
Convair Catalinas, Martin Mariners (both types), Grumman Gooses and Widgeons in mind.
Nevertheless, calling the Albatross a "Tri-phibian" is just a PR trick, I think, that could have
been used for the Dornier Wal or He 115, too. A true Tri-phibian would be something like the
Dassault Trifibium design or another of those submersible aircraft, I think. Or perhaps an aircraft,
that can digg itself through the ground ?

 

[frank]

I just got my copy of "American Flying Boats and Amphibious Aircraft" from eBay. For those interested in a number of unbuilt or project a/c, this book is pretty informative, but the best thing is, it has 3 view drawings of a number of them, including the elusive P7M. I've looked for a 3 view of the P7M for years! How accurate, I dunno, but they're done by Lloyd S. Jones. The 3 view makes me think of a 4 engined evolution of a Grumman Albatross rather than a relative of the P6M, but I'm grateful nonetheless.

 

[Bill S]

I just came across these scans I made at NARA back in 2014 of the Convair Model 44. Not perfect scans,
you do what you can do.These scans were done with a book style overhead scanner. The dark areas are
caused by the blocks that were used to hold the drawing "more of less" flat during the scan.

Here are the general arrangement views.

 

[Bill S]

Another interesting view, especially to potential modelers or artists is this view of fuselage stringers and station numbers.

 

[Bill S]

A final couple of drawings.

This time the flight controls diagram.
And one I found really interesting was the
Boundary Layer Control Diagram.

 

[hesham]

Amazing drawings my dear Bill.

 

[Ray]

Off-topic: I use Grammarly although it doesn't know what an aeroplane is.

 

[AeroFranz]

Really cool post. thanks Bill!

 

[aim9xray]

I just came across these scans I made at NARA back in 2014 of the Convair Model 44. Not perfect scans, you do what you can do.These scans were done with a book style overhead scanner. The dark areas are caused by the blocks that were used to hold the drawing "more of less" flat during the scan.

Hmmm. Fixable, not a fatal error.

Thanks for the scans Bill!

 

[Bill S]

I just came across these scans I made at NARA back in 2014 of the Convair Model 44. Not perfect scans,
you do what you can do.These scans were done with a book style overhead scanner. The dark areas are
caused by the blocks that were used to hold the drawing "more of less" flat during the scan.

Here are the general arrangement views.

Mistake on my part it is of course a Model 24 not 44. I got the 44 by mistake while looking at Bradley's Convair Advanced Designs book
Sorry if it caused any confusion.

bill

 

[hesham]

From a member;

the Convair P6Y was NOT an amphibian, but strictly a flying-boat. Its wheel gear was only meant for beaching out of water, entering water on an ramp and taxiing autonomously on tarmac, in order to avoid the need for a crane or a separate beaching chassis that needed to be attached /detached each time (cf Martin P6M), and hence to reduce the demand on ground crew and equipment. This gear could not be used for taking off from or landing onto a runway and was not stressed for that, only to support the weight of the aircraft on the ground. The Shin-Meiwa PS-1 had the same configuration ; its US-1 successor is a true amphibian and photos clearly show that US-1 wheel gear (tires, wheels, legs etc.) are much sturdier, bulkier and larger.

 

[fightingirish]

Also known as the last Navy seaplane (which is wrong, since there were alot of activities going on for years after the P6Y concellation).
Convair won the competion in 1956/7 to substitute the Martn P5M ASW seaplane. The designer was Hans Amtmann, of Blohm und Voss fame, who went on a cruise in a US submarine to look first hand at the problems in hunting a sub by plane (very German-style , I'd say). Specs were: lenght 36.90 m; span 38.86 m; wing area 232.25 sqm; engines: 3 Wright 3350-32W. I have also an internal arrangement plan, BUT, since they come from a book I STRONGLY recommend (Vanishing Paperclips, Monogram), I'll post only the model photos and the 3-views. For the rest, go and buy ;D
No, Monogram doesn't pay me (sigh).
Forgot: competitors were Martin (model 313, AKA as P7M) and possibly Boeing. Anyone has details/info?

Some more pictures of that Convair seaplane P6Y prototype model, recently added to the San Diego Air & Space Museum Image Collection.

https://flic.kr/p/2oRFqaW

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRFqaW

https://flic.kr/p/2oRFqaF

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRFqaF

https://flic.kr/p/2oRErEP

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRErEP

https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsm5

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsm5

https://flic.kr/p/2oRBskZ

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRBskZ

https://flic.kr/p/2oRErDB

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRErDB

https://flic.kr/p/2oRFq9y

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRFq9y

https://flic.kr/p/2oRH1S8

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRH1S8

https://flic.kr/p/2oRErDg

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRErDg

https://flic.kr/p/2oRGugv

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRGugv

https://flic.kr/p/2oRGugq
https://flic.kr/p/2oRH1QV

 

[fightingirish]

Also known as the last Navy seaplane (which is wrong, since there were alot of activities going on for years after the P6Y concellation).
Convair won the competion in 1956/7 to substitute the Martn P5M ASW seaplane. The designer was Hans Amtmann, of Blohm und Voss fame, who went on a cruise in a US submarine to look first hand at the problems in hunting a sub by plane (very German-style , I'd say). Specs were: lenght 36.90 m; span 38.86 m; wing area 232.25 sqm; engines: 3 Wright 3350-32W. I have also an internal arrangement plan, BUT, since they come from a book I STRONGLY recommend (Vanishing Paperclips, Monogram), I'll post only the model photos and the 3-views. For the rest, go and buy ;D
No, Monogram doesn't pay me (sigh).
Forgot: competitors were Martin (model 313, AKA as P7M) and possibly Boeing. Anyone has details/info?

IMHO this asymmetric flying boat concept for a Convair PBY Catalina successor is really a first concept of the Convair P6Y.
Maybe this drawing, which was uploaded to the San Diego Air & Space Museum Image Collection today, is even from Hans Amtmann, who worked for Blohm & Voss during WW2. Blohm & Voss had a few asymmetric aircraft concepts during WW2.

https://flic.kr/p/2pvDG7J

View: https://flic.kr/p/2pvDG7J
Edit:
This drawing is also featured on page 102 in the book "Convair Advanced Designs I- Secret Projects from San Diego 1923-1962". In the text under the drawing, the German influence is also mentioned.

 

[Tybarious]

A final couple of drawings.

This time the flight controls diagram.
And one I found really interesting was the
Boundary Layer Control Diagram.

Maybe these photos in the SDASM are experimenting with this? They're all labeled XP6Y.

https://flic.kr/p/7XmyZu

View: https://flic.kr/p/7XmyZu

https://flic.kr/p/7XmyZm

View: https://flic.kr/p/7XmyZm

https://flic.kr/p/7XiktZ

View: https://flic.kr/p/7XiktZ