Alan, this sample is pretty impressive in itself. Wow! The NAA NA-116 artwork is especially nice.
Please note that the beautiful Model 145 general arrangement does describe the type as the "Model B-15" but this may well have been wishful thinking on the part of Martin and not an official designation at all. Don't forget that apart from the B-11 slot (used by Douglas) Martin had had B-10, B-12, B-13 and B-14. In all logic they would have been tempted to call their next bomber proposal "B-15" even before any formal contract was considered.
What you're saying about not finding any mention of a "Model 145B" anywhere is certainly worthy of consideration, but let's not forget that Martin seldom communicated on their inhouse designations anyway.
Back to the subject of Model 145, I just realized that the Jones book does NOT mention the designation "XB-16A" anywhere. It talks about two different XB-16 proposal, one for 1934 and a revised one a year later. Allow me to quote from the book (I need to retype so I'll only use excerpts):
Since the so-called "B-15" design is dated June 1934, it can't have been approved or accepted by the Army, let alone been given a designation prior to that December contract.
This confirms previous posts about the purchase of the design by the Army, which likely resulted in the four-engine/two-turret artist's view that had nothing to do with Martin.
I'd like to venture the notion that there may have been three sub-designations for three completely different variants:
- Model 145 - June 1934 (four-engine tractor, single tail fin, depicted above as the "Model B-15")
- Model 145A - 1934 (four-engine tractor, twin tail, the second XB-16 project)
- Model 145B - 1935 (six-engine tractor/pusher, twin-boom, the second XB-16 project)
What I do not understand, however, is why the Boeing, Douglas and even Sikorsky projects were allocated BLR- designations and not the Martin one.
