Martin Project List

[Stargazer]

Interesting, I'd forgotten about it... Now I remember being surprised when I first saw that document.

My theory (for all it's worth) is that the Air Corps had already told the various companies that the winner of the new super bomber competition would get the B-15 slot. Martin decided to call it thusly but lost. However, since the Air Corps saw some interest in the Martin project and perhaps needed a "Plan B", they officially designated Martin's "B-15" as the B-16.

Funny that the very same scenario took place some forty years later when the various FX contenders all submitted "F-15" projects (as shown by company documents), though of course only the McDonnell Model 199 won and got designated this time.

 

[toura]

Thanks, Stephane, for your prompt anwser which is
certainly correct.

 

[Bill S]

*

 

[Stargazer]

Link's not working.

 

[aim9xray]

Search for 311055500147

Read the description carefully and look at the images closely.

 

[Bill S]

It looks like it comes from the Martin Museum, do they sell such a list?


bill

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.mdairmuseum.org/resources/Martin-Models/Models-word.doc


Freely available, so you are paying for 11 sheets of A4 paper.

 

[bobbymike]

Martin Company study under the Naval Bureau of Aeronautics - Nuclear Powered Logistical Seaplane

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1471210

 

[Bazinga]

I guess the NT5M-1 is actually the XT5M-1 Model 77 of the BM series?
This snippet is from AW&ST 1930

 

[Maveric]

Does anyone know the model numbers of the aircraft Martin X.24A, X.24B, X.4C and SV5J?

 

[nemo85]

Hello friends,
this aircraft is often referred to as Model 66 and also as Martin XNBL-2.I can't imagine that if there is this model photo below.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/u-s-army-air-corps-early-1920s-system-types-i-to-xvi-etc.20516/post-721368

What do you think about that?

 

[Stargazer]

Hello friends,
this aircraft is often referred to as Model 66 and also as Martin XNBL-2.I can't imagine that if there is this model photo below.
What do you think about that?

Now that's an interesting question!
One thing is for sure: the Martin Night Mail (MNM-1) was definitely the Model 66.
However, the XNBL-2 has also been listed as the Model 66!
And what makes it worse is that the MNM-1 is described as "the same aircraft delivered as night mail", which it obviously wasn't... Not just that, but the mailplane could never have been a bomber design in the first place.
So two possibilities: 1°) there is a typo somewhere (perhaps old, perhaps even in Martin documents), or 2°) the number was reallocated when the bomber was cancelled.
I tend to believe that the Martin listings have mistakes. Here is another example: the Model 124 is said to have been an export general purpose bomber linked to the Model 123 (B-10 prototypes). However, a 1932 publication shows it to be a biplane bomber! (which makes more sense... why would the US export a brand new extremely advanced type still being tested?)

 

[nemo85]

Thank you for your insightful assessment. What makes you so confident about your first two statements? Do you have original documents?
I only have secondary literature.

In the Flight issue from October 24, 1924, the model number is written as Martin Model 70. A year earlier, on November 1, 1923, only the term Martin Night Mail Plane is mentioned without a model number. I suspect that around this time, the model numbering system was introduced, likely starting with the Martin MO (first flown in December 1922).

Unfortunately, we probably won’t be able to resolve this unless someone contacts Lockheed Martin directly. But that might be taking it a bit too far.

Thanks again for your response.

 

[Stargazer]

Thank you for your insightful assessment. What makes you so confident about your first two statements? Do you have original documents?
I only have secondary literature.

I have this about the MNM-1 being the Model 66. The original source for these cards is not known to me, but there are hundreds of them and they have proved reliable most of the time.



The earliest known Martin model number is indeed Model 57 for the MO-1. I don't think there were more than 15 Martin aircraft types before it, and even by dividing them into variants, there can be no more than 40, so if ever there were 56 numbers allocated retroactively by Martin, they probably included quite a few unbuilt projects. I guess we'll never know, since the Martin museum archives list (see attachment) also start the list at Model 57... so if 1-56 ever existed, the whole thing was probably lost. Also note that the confusion over NBL-2 vs. MNM-1 probably results from that very document... We interpreted initially the "NBL-2 (MNM-1)" entry as these being two variants of the same design, but it could also mean that the designation has been found for both.

 

[nemo85]

Thank you very much for your explanation. I can understand that now.