Martin Model 316: XB-68 Tactical Bomber

With all respect , but I think the windtunnel model is not the
Convair VTOL seaplane design created by Hans Amtmann.

There's no planning botom as far as I can see...
 
If hydrofoils would have been used, there would have been no need
for a dedicated planing bottom, I think. Just an idea, of course ..
 
lark said:
With all respect , but I think the windtunnel model is not the
Convair VTOL seaplane design created by Hans Amtmann.
Click to expand...

With all due respect *nobody* said it was VTOL, just that the engines swiveled up to keep them from being submerged - specifically, in this case the whole wing tilts up. And with all due respect, nobody said that this design was created by Amtmann. Convair *did* have other designers (such as Sladek and Tyson, who produced a number of other similar - and not so similar jet seaplane designs).

There's no planning botom as far as I can see...
Click to expand...

Nor does there need to be one. Sladek's "water-based B-58" did not have one.
 

Attachments

  • Image8.gif
    Image8.gif
    17.7 KB · Views: 1,180
  • Image15.gif
    Image15.gif
    19.6 KB · Views: 555
  • Image19.gif
    Image19.gif
    26.9 KB · Views: 487
mmmm, a definitive answer will come only when someone finds the NACA report descriìbing those tests. One ha already surfaced on a later, definitive, XB-68 configuration, and a score have on supersonic seaplanes. Today I did a cursory search using keywords like "high tail" and "delta wing" in 1955-1958 timeframe, but to no avail. Let's search.
 
Hi,

I found this tunnel model by NACA,for delta wing jet bomber,they
suggested that it will be Martin XB-68,can anybody identify it ?,
and something else,the 6 picture shoes the NA F-100 in a tunnel
model,but I think it was anther aircraft !.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201828.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201829.html
 

Attachments

  • bomber.JPG
    bomber.JPG
    45.6 KB · Views: 1,800
See in this same thread a few post up...
 
source is known...

US Bombers by Lloyd S. Jones
Aero Publishers Inc. 1974
pp. 226-228

key word is *provisional*
 

Attachments

  • xb-68-3.jpg
    xb-68-3.jpg
    114.4 KB · Views: 536
  • xb-68-2.jpg
    xb-68-2.jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 539
  • xb-68-1.jpg
    xb-68-1.jpg
    151.2 KB · Views: 556
Yep, the "Unbuilt US post-World War II bombers from circa 1998.. though it sported Jones' drawings.
 
I know that there was some confusion over the real XB-68 configuration. Wasn't the final design a straight-winged, slender aircraft with separate tailplanes?
 
It seems from the Type Description published by Scott some years ago.
 
In the same Flying Review-July 1957-mention is made
of a Douglas contender with the Martin model 302A(XB-68)

Anyone an idea about this Douglas design?
 
Paul, actually the Douglas contender cited in that article is none other that the B-66 Destroyer, the TAC version of the Navy Skywarrior, that was ordered as an "interim" solution to the TAC light-bomber requisite. This doesn't exclude that Douglas tendered some project of their own for the definitive plane, on par with other companies. A Lockheed entry could be Model CL-266, or a unknown Georgia Lockheed project.
 
This in interesting Sky...
These info is not mentioned in the XB-68 entry in LLoyd S. Jones book(1962)
 
Hi Skybolt!

If is and if it is possible show us pictures and drawing of Lockheed Model CL-266.
 
I like that XB-68! It cries out for a kitbash involving an F-102 and some B-58 parts.
 
Paul, accoring to Knaack ("Encyclopedia of post-World War II bombers"), the competition for WS-302A run a first time in 1952 and another in 1954: to both the official contenders were Martin, Douglas and North American. Boeing submitted a project but beyond the closing time so was automatically rejected. Martin won the second competition in 1954 "on paper", so in 1957 there were no other contenders still in the table. The CL-266 so could have been an internal study not officially submitted (its timing fit with the second run). I post the relevant page.
 

Attachments

  • WS302A.jpg
    WS302A.jpg
    489.5 KB · Views: 526
Mayby it's me , but this concept looks different compared
with the drawings in in Scott's prototype APR issue article about...
 
I thought bombers were by nature strategic? Does the term "Tactical bomber" come from the fact that the USAF until the A-7 ended up being used by it, did not use the term "A" for Attack?

KJ
 
At the Glenn L. Martin Museum archive I foudn some rolled-up large format photocopies of layout drawings of the Model 302. The only way to get copies was via photography. Sadly, it seems my camera is developing a fair amount of "noise," but I was still able to get a few shots that I could stitch together.
 

Attachments

  • model302a.jpg
    model302a.jpg
    205.2 KB · Views: 725
You did well there ;) Tony Buttler couldn't trace any for his US secret projects book.
 
Four engined?? :eek:

It seems to have some point of contact (coincidental??) with "Luft 46" projects...
 
Great Scott....
To KJ, no bombers in the 50s were strategic and tactical, and light, medium and heavy. Tactical means they would have been operated by TAC. The B-66 was a medium tactical bomber, and the B-68 would have been the same. The tactical were intended for use in Europe and Korea. The type ended for good when in 1959 USAFE decided that the long range (theatre) nuclear mission of the tactical bombers would have been left to missiles (and immediately asked the MMRBM), while the conventional and short to medium range nuclear mission to GOR-183/TFX. If you think tehere were wild overlapping of missions, yes there were.
 
Please... any more back ground info on the 302? I see podded engines have spikes 3D symmetrical similar to Convair B-58 Hustler. Fuse intakes appear 2D (no spikes). Very strange combo? High T-tail and notched swept wings.What time period is this from?
 
Maybe a bit off side...
If the final XB-68 was the Martin model 316
than the initial Martin XB-68 deltawing design should be the model 302A
wile the 302 was the longrange interceptor maybe from 1958...?
 
At the Glenn L. Martin Museum archive I foudn some rolled-up large format photocopies of layout drawings of the Model 302.

Figures. I tried contacting the GLM via email about archival research, but didn't get anything back from them. :mad:
 
Skybolt,

To KJ, no bombers in the 50s were strategic and tactical, and light, medium and heavy. Tactical means they would have been operated by TAC. The B-66 was a medium tactical bomber, and the B-68 would have been the same. The tactical were intended for use in Europe and Korea.
Click to expand...

Then what's the difference between a tactical-bomber and an attack plane?

If you think tehere were wild overlapping of missions, yes there were.
Click to expand...

That I do!


Kendra Lesnick
 
Paul, the 302A designation refers to Weapon Systems WS-302A... it is a notorious error in the first Martin projects list published by Stan Piet (later corrected...) I too made the same mistake. ;)

KJ, the differences were less and less. Originally an attack airplane would have used guns and rockets at a rather low altitude, while light bombers would have used bombs from a medium to high altitude. With the rise in weight carrying capabilities of attack planes and fighter-bombers, the difference waned. During the mid-to-late fifties bombers were supposed to attack fixed targets removed from the front (railway nodes, large airports, harbours), while attack planes would have targeted near the front. Nuclear weapons rendered the picture still more murky: a solitary F-105 with a 100 kton tactical bomb on Kronstadt would have made little different from a B-66 in the same mission...
 
Stan has a lot of things to do.. and he is one.. so be patient.
 
Thanks for the correction Sky...
I have to review my info/sources ;D
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom