Martin XB-16 and XB-16A bomber projects (Model 145)

Alan, sorry if I gave the impression I was tossing the B-17 and B-18 in the "Project A" discussion... In fact I wasn't!

I only said that they took the next available slots after XB-15 was changed to XBLR-1 and XB-16 was canceled. Therefore the next available slot when XBLR-2 was redesignated into the "B-" series was "B-19"...
 
Alan, folks... I believe the story behind the XB-16 is taking a new, exciting turn!

First of all, I've located the original patent for the twin-boom XB-16. It was filed on July 31, 1935 under the name DESIGN FOR A HIGH WING CANTILEVER MONOPLANE (Serial No. 57,883) by James G. Taylor, Roscoe C. Wilson and Oscar A. Swanson. The design got patented much later, on May 2, 1939 (Des. 114,626).

The interesting thing is that the three engineers did NOT apply on behalf of the Glenn L. Martin Co. at all, but "as assignors to Government of United States of America."

In other words, the aircraft that we routinely describe as the second "Martin XB-16" was designed by three freelance engineers on a contract with the U.S. Government, and submitted a whole year after the very first Martin 145-1 design and seven months after the "Model 145A" XB-16 design.

Now the twist in the story is that the very same team of Taylor, Wilson and Swanson filed another design a few days earlier, on July 22nd, under the name DESIGN FOR A LOW WING CANTILEVER MONOPLANE (Serial 57,770), which was eventually patented on April 18, 1839 (Des. 114,417). Why do I mention this patent? Because the aircraft they submitted, also as "assignors of the U.S. Government," was that of the Boeing B-17, no less!!! The tail fin may look slightly different, but we can find the characteristic fin design of the early Fortresses on another Taylor-Wilson-Swanson of the same period...

Which all leads to new questioning:
[list type=decimal]
[*]If the "Taylor XB-16" was not done for Martin, not only is it wrong to make it a second "Martin XB-16", but it also has absolutely no reason to have been designated the Model 145B by Martin!
[*]If the "Taylor XB-16" and Boeing "YB-17" were designed by the same guys at exactly the same time and on behalf of the same customer (the U.S. Government), and since it is such a different configuration, could it be that the second "XB-16" was simply a re-allocation of the designation to a new design drafted to the same Circular Proposal CP35-356 as the B-17, B-18 and Martin 146?
[*]If the B-17 was not thought up by Boeing's inhouse designers, it was therefore simply a U.S. Army Air Corps template that Boeing had to work from (kind of crushes the myth of Boeing as visionary in bomber design, doesn't it?!?).
[*]Even if the new "XB-16" was a completely new Army design, they would have needed a contractor to build it, and Martin could still have received the order from them to work on that design...
[/list]Of course I'm open to any criticism, comments and suggestions on what I think is a major piece of our XB-16 puzzle...
 

Attachments

  • USD114626-cleaned.gif
    USD114626-cleaned.gif
    65.1 KB · Views: 645
  • USD114417-cleaned.gif
    USD114417-cleaned.gif
    58.1 KB · Views: 492
I'm not seeing the relation between the lower patent and the b-17.


There are obvious differences between it and Model 299. That patent was also filled a few days before model 299s first flight.


I'd say its probably a superficial resemblance, but maybe there is some link between the work of those engineers and boeing


EDIT: thread for other patents by this bunch at the material division - http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2529.0
 
According to my data the Model 299 was a Boeing creation. "Under project engineer E. G. Emery, the Boeing designers began to flesh out the new bird of president Clairmont L. Egtvedt. The clean lines of Model 299 were based on those of the sleek Model 247. In ordr to scale up the Model 247 into the larger Model 299, Emery's designers adopted many of the engineering innovations that had been developed by the Model 294 design team leaded by Jack Kylstra"

Source: Superfortress by General Curtis LeMay and Bill Yenne.

http://www.amazon.com/Superfortress-Boeing-American-Airpower-World/dp/1594160392
 
There is actually a Boeing patent, the # of which I cannot recall at the moment, that clearly defines the B-17. I also cannot remember the exact date on it, but IIRC it is earlier than the lower one shown here...
 
This Boeing patent?


http://www.google.com/patents/USD97355


Because this is pretty clearly a B-17. Whereas the above patent bears a resemblance, but has far more differences then similarities. If anything that patent has a closer resemblance to the Xb-15 then the b-17.
 
You guys are very right. Caught up in my enthusiasm to debunk the "second Martin XB-16" myth, I failed to see that, not only the "Taylor et al" low wing cantilever monoplane" had but a fleeting resemblance with the B-17, but that indeed it was closer in size to the B-15. Probably shows how much I dislike the Fortress but of course that's no excuse!
 
Very interesting discussion!

I don't understand the four year difference in dates on the two patent drawings that we are looking at. Is there any significance to this? The 1939 patent looks to my eyes as being less advanced than the 1935 drawing.
 
Basically it took the patent office 4 years to accept and formally issue the patent from the date it was applied for
 
Okay...I'm about to muddy the waters even more.

Attached is one of my photos of a wind tunnel model of MATERIAL DIVISION 320 PROPOSED LONG-RANGE BOMBARDMENT AIRPLANE, Report No. 4133 dated August 17, 1935. compare this to the patent drawing below what I have ID'd as number 319. Wind tunnel tests were performed June 21 to June 26, 1935 and July 1 to 3, 1935.

Under "DESCRIPTION" it states "The 1/60 scale model of the Materiel Division Design 320, a proposed long-range bombardment airplane, was designed and built by the Materiel Divison at Wright Field." A reference to a drawing number is given at the end of the document but I've not yet found it.

The document is the wind tunnel tests on this design.

So...where does that leave us?

AlanG
 

Attachments

  • MDD 320 Specs and Wind Tnl 96dpi.jpg
    MDD 320 Specs and Wind Tnl 96dpi.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 743
More clarifying/muddying information.

If you look at the Patent applications posted by Star you will see three names listed - James G. Taylor,Roscoe C. Wilson and Oscar A. Swanson. I am now prepared to state uncategorically that during the mid-1930s these men were designers for the the Material Division in Dayton, Ohio.

Do a search on Oscar A. Swanson and you will find all three of them listed on nearly two dozen different aircraft design patents, most submitted in 1935. You will also find at least one granted Swanson while a designer for Douglas Aircraft in 1951.

When you check the patent applications with these three men's names on them you will find them listed as:
"...citizens of the United States, residing at Dayton, Fairfield, and Dayton...and State of Ohio..."

Second, here is what the U.S. Air Force has to say (in part) about General Roscoe C. Wilson in his official online bio:

"General Wilson's first tactical assignment was to the First Observation Squadron at Mitchel Field, N.Y. In July 1932 he began his service in the technical and scientific fields when he entered the Air Corps Engineering School at Wright-Patterson, Field, Ohio. Graduating a year later, he was assigned to the Aircraft Branch as the project officer on the B-15 (forerunner of the B-17) and the B-19. He returned to the U.S. Military Academy in June 1937 as an instructor in science (then called natural and experimental philosophy).

Entering the Air Corps Tactical School in May 1939, the general graduated a year later. He returned to West Point for one year and then was reassigned to Wright-Patterson Field for duty in the Experimental Engineering Section. In February 1942 he joined the Engineering Division of the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field.

Transferred to Air Force Headquarters the following January (1943), General Wilson was assigned to the Office of the Assistant Chief of Air Staff for Materiel, Maintenance and Distribution. On June 1, 1943 he was appointed Army Air Force project officer to support the Manhattan Engineering Division. In this post he was one of the first officers involved in the development of the atom bomb. He chose the site of the first test (Alamogordo, N.M.)"
While this doesn't explain how the so-called XB-16A came to be credited to Martin, it pretty much nails down that the original design originated under the auspices of the Material Division of Army Air Corps.

Feedback?

AlanG
 
In the FWIW category, I found the image below in a Boeing archive file back in the early 1990s. The sketch isn't dated, but what's especially interesting is that it's identified as Materiel Division Design 361. The caption reported a wingspan of 122 feet and a gross weight of 83,000 pounds. Power was to be provided by four R-2800s. One of the things I find most fascinating is the seeming permeability between the drafting boards of the Materiel Division/Command and the vendors...it's not always clear who was drawing from whom.
 

Attachments

  • MDD 361.jpg
    MDD 361.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 604
This is brilliant Clioman. I think you found the origings of what is often called
the 'Flying Whale' and mostly is seen as a free artistic interpretation
of the bomber for the future in the publications of the time.
 
Beautiful find, Clio! It is of special note that you found it in the Boeing Archives.

It certainly appears this design/concept was sent around for information and/or comment by the Materiel Division. Attached below is an artist concept of the NAA 116 four-engine bomber of 1943. Note the similarity between it and MD 361. Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not. I have a rather large file on this aircraft but have not yet read it in detail. I was a bit hesitant to share it here as I don't want to give ALL the secrets away of my next book, but I figure this much will help to encourage discussion.

Enjoy!

AlanG
 

Attachments

  • NAA Mdel 116 Specs 009 LO RES.jpg
    NAA Mdel 116 Specs 009 LO RES.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 514
Wonderful ACR.. thanks!.

Is there already a bit more info of your forth coming book available ?
 
Lark,

Many thanks for your kind words. I don't have anything much to say about my next book as I'm still researching, doing the drawings (my target for this weekend is to redraw the MD 361 that Clio provided) and working out what the format will be. It looks now that it will end up being two volumes or one of 300+ pages to do the job right.

To be honest, I'm hesistant to say what it will be about. I am willing to say it will be about propeller-driven aircraft. Does that help? LOL

AlanG
 
Thanks for the hint ACR.
A good start to dream about...
 
A scan of the same page :)
<edit> replaced 200 dpi scan with 800 dpi scan - improved readability of dimensions
<edit2> reduced scan size, send me a PM for original scan
 

Attachments

  • Martin XB-16 + XB-27 small.jpg
    Martin XB-16 + XB-27 small.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 227
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 6.png
    6.png
    930.5 KB · Views: 84
  • 7.png
    7.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 85
  • 8.png
    8.png
    1 MB · Views: 88
  • 9.png
    9.png
    512.4 KB · Views: 123

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom