Talk:Martin AM Mauler/Archive 1

Archive 1

CAF

I worked with some of the indivuials of the West Wing of the Confederate Air Force. During the two years I was involved in the restoration of one of two AM 1 Maulers. Taking two to make one. One example from Baltimore Navy ship yard, and one from Socoro New Mexico navial ordince proving ground. I joined the restoring crew in 1981 then again 1982-84 in Brownfield Tx. In Feb. or Mar. of 84 the Mauler was oked by FAA as Experimental aircraft. The aircraft flew for five hours in Brownfield airport area below 3000ft. The aircraft was flown to Lubbuck Tx. for an air show. It was flown at the airshow without a problem that day. The next day the Mauler was to be flown to another CAF base in New Mexico. That day was foggy but cleared by early moring. The pilot taxied the Mauler out on the runway at Town and Country airport where he did his pre flight run up while watched. I removed the safty from the nitrogen bottle for gear blow down and gave him the OK. He throtled up and started down the runway upon rotation at 40ft the Prat sputtered and the wings banked sharply to the left. The pilot managed to leval the wings when the engine came back to life. At this time the Mauler sank to the ground at 45 degre from the runway heading in to horse pasture. The pilot hit four horses then ground loop the plane riping the right main gear. As it settled in it folded the 14ft4in paddles back and came to rest in a cotten bur pile. At that time the pilot climbed out and was unhurt.

Weight doesn't add up

Hello--

The article claims that a Mauler once lifted off with 3 2,200 lb torpedoes, 12 500 lb bombs and a full load of ammunition for a gross payload of 10,648 lbs. Without ammo the plane had 12,600 lbs of ordnance. Add anothe ton for ammo and you're looking at maybe 14,000 lbs. Who has the definitive source on this? Tsaman 04:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The correct figures are as follows; 10,689 lbs of ordnance (three torpedos, twelve 250 lb bombs, guns and ammunition). Total useful load on that flight was 14,179 lbs. Gross weight at takeoff was 29,332 lbs. Figures per Ray Wagner "American Combat Aircraft; Third Edition 1982". Source; Lee Pearson, the official historian of the U.S. Navy in the late 1950s. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Engine Issues

As written, the article states that the Pratt & Whitney Wasp Major was the engine. This webpage http://www.airtoaircombat.com/detail.asp?id=205 states that the prototype was the sole plane powered by the Wasp Major and that production planes were powered by the Wright R-3350-4. Curiously enough, the specs given at the end of this article quote the Wright engine installation without telling us how we got from the Wasp Major to the Wright Cyclone.

Capnned 02:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I have a source that confirms it was changed for production aircraft, so we can put that in. As to why it was changed, I infer from the earlier text re: problems with the Wasp Major (which was designated XR-4360-4, meaning it was an early version of the basic engine) that that was why it ws changed, but I don't have sources which specifically say that. - BillCJ 02:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifications

I recommend that the aircraft's specifications be changed from those taken from Swanborough's book to the specs stated in Wagner's book; "American Combat Aircraft". The reason is that Wagner's book remains the only source that has standardized its measurements and performance specs. When Wagner began work on the book in 1957 he realized right away that there was often a significant difference between the manufacturer's performance figures, the military's flight test evaluation results, and the final figures issued to aircrews on their performance and capabilities charts. Because Wagner had unlimited access to all the figures from Wright Field and the Navy test facility he decided to standardize the contents of his book, listing only the measurements and performance figures finally issued to flight crews. He eliminated the manufacturer's specs altogether (which are often optimistic, or tailored to satisfy a contract specification), and the testing results (which often exceeded the plane's practical breaking point). With regard to the aircraft's size and weight figures, again he listed only those actually issued to flight crews, eliminating weights and dimensions from the manufacturer, or the flight test evaluations, which are often not actual production examples. While I own, and frequently reference Swanborough's text, I discard it for measurements and performance figures because he draws his information from both manufacturer's and military test results, and often lists them indiscriminately without referencing the actual source. While this is not a great issue in most cases, in the unusual case of the AM-1 the test evaluation results showed the aircraft capable of far greater load handling than Martin had anticipated. Consequently, the aircraft weight and load carrying figures issued to aircrews were significantly higher than those specified by the manufacturer. I would encourage anyone interested in Writing for Wikipedia to purchase a copy of Wagner, as the book is often cited in articles for "Smithsonian Air & Space", "AAHS Journal", "Flight", "Air Classics", and "Aviation History". - Ken keisel (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Intrestingly enough - the specs in the article are virtually indentical to those in the 1947 Airplane Characteristics and Performance (equivalent to the Standard Aircraft Characteristics) - available here on the internet. It looks like the very high weights recorded in Wagner may be a once-only stunt carried out by a test pilot and not something that was ever approved.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The stats in Wagner are higher than in Swanborough's text, but below the figures for the one-time demonstration flight, reflecting the Navy's increased confidence in the plane's load-bearing capability. In addition, Wagner lists the stats for the bomber and scout versions seperately, in accordance with the Navy's specifications. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've made a good case for Wagner, as long we continue to use operational figures rather than ones that pertain to a demonstration flight. Note that we present figures for a single, representative variant, which should be noted in the "Specifications" heading in parentheses, currently: "Specifications (AM Mauler)". If necessary, this should be further qualified to indicate the scout or bomber version. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definately. Can you help with separating the scout and bomber variants and I'll supply the data? I'd like to suggest that we standardize the aircraft performance figures listed on Wikipedia based on Wagner, as I find the idea of using a source that is itself already standardized appealing, rather than to draw upon a variety of references that are themselves drawn from various sources. In most cases the difference between Wagner and the current posted figures are small. Must this be suggested in the "Talk" for every article? - Ken keisel (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

From reading Kowalski, there were no seperate versions of the AM-1. Things only differed in trade-offs between fuel and weaponry. So just go ahead and post Wagner's figures and don't worry about it. That said, please consolidate your references in the main body to Wagner down to a single citation. (Give the first cite a name and them use the name for the other places it occurs.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the AM-1 there were indeed two versions with different performance figures. The difference was mostly due to different load carrying ability and drag-inducing appendages. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about that in Kowalski, the most thorough source we have on the aircraft. Please detail what these drag-inducing appendages are if they aren't externally mounted ordnance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Kowalski is basing his information on. Wagner would be basing his on the performance figures issued to pilots of the AM-1 version, and pilots of the AM-1Q version. He found that different performance figures were issued for each type. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sturmvogel66 -- please bear with Ken a little longer as he learns about how to condense these references; he's very new at this and I'm helping him through, one step at a time. We're still working on getting page numbers in everywhere before we start condensing them down. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this in the strongest terms - on the say so of one editor, you propose to change dozens of articles that are referenced to good reliable sources, to use a single reference which will become the only permissible reference for specifications for US Navy aircraft - this needs to be discussed at a wikiproject level.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Specifications_for_US_Military_Aircraft here.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've commented there: and yeah, I agree it's a very bad idea. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish - The point is that not all of those dozens of articles are really referenced to "good reliable sources". Many of those sources use data with dubious authenticity. Wagner standardizes his sources for all aircraft, making it finally possible to compare aircraft without fear of inaccuracy due to multiple sources and mismatched standards. In most cases the differences are small, and often Wagner lists seperate stats for different versions of a single aircraft, something our current info boxes have been lacking. Also, this would not be for "US Navy aircraft". Wagner lists every American combat aircraft (including experimental, and export aircraft) from all branches of service. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you've replaced a small subset of the specifications with specifications from Wagner; can you please confirm that all the other specifications (span, length, range, climb rate) are identical in both Wagner and in Swanborough and Bowers? --Rlandmann (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. In most cases Wagner and Swanborough agree on dimensions, although Wagner lists additional dimensions for variants and Swanborough does not. The place where they most differ is in performance specs. Wagner lists only final operational figures issued to pilots, while Swanborough lists a somewhat random mix of manufacturer's specs, military test specs, civilian test specs, and sometimes doesn't say where he got his information at all. He has some nice photos though. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just got a hold of the latest edition of Wagner, American Combat Planes of the 20th Century: A Comprehensive Reference from 2004, where he provides stats for the XBTM-1 and the AM-1. In general, the stats for the latter match a 1950 report excerpted in Kowalski for a fully modified production aircraft. Unfortunately, Kowalski did not excerpt the data for climb rate, stall speed, cruising speed, range or dimensions so we can't cross-check those figures against Wagner. Since the latter's figures differ from the 1947 report found by Nigel, I can only assume that Wagner is using the data from the rest of the report not excerpted by Kowalski. The speed figure used by Bowers is from the XBTM-1 prototype, so that needs to change and I'll update the specs and bibliography as well to reflect the new info unless anyone objects.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Is there a need for the citation bombing tags on this article? Was there an issue with unsourced or unreferenced material? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Scout and bomber versions

The only reference in Kowalski to bomber and scout versions is a report by the Naval Air Test Center on testing completed on 21 Mar 1950 with BuNo. 22307 after modifications. It lists minor differences in performance between the two versions such in useful load, gross weight and max speed at sea level and critical altitude. Most importantly, empty weight and service ceiling were identical between them. Unfortunately there's no mention of the differences in equipment between them, but I'm fairly certain that they were mostly related to fuel/bombload tradeoffs. Much like the Dauntless was used for both roles depending on fuel and bombload.

Kowalski reprints a number of pages from the aircraft manual that cast doubt on your assertion that Wagner got his data from separate manuals issued for each type of aircraft. However, he doesn't provide the front page of the manual so we don't know exactly when it was prepared, but it does include the note on the standard aircraft characteristics page that reads, "Performance is based on calculations and partial AM-1 flight test." This does provide some info for the AM-1Q electronic warfare variant, but only notes that it lacks the 160-gal fuselage fuel tank and lists the extra electronics. Peformance data is only provided for the AM-1 with two different payloads, nothing for the AM-1Q. That note was why I was indifferent to which set of specs were used as it seems to be from an early manual printed before flight testing was complete. But considering that the aircraft was relegated to reserve units before flight testing was completed, the Navy may well have not bothered to update the manual.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the 1947 SCP that Nigel uploaded it looks like the only differences between the two versions was no sway links on the centerline bomb pylon and no racks on the outer wing panels for bombs or HVARs, so I see no need to discriminate between the two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Production Numbers

In the article 3 different numbers are cited for the number of AM-1Qs:

• In the infobox: 18
• In design and development: 12
• Variants: 17

Unless I am reading the numbers wrong (in relation to conversions vs actual production a/c). So, which is it? -Noha307 (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin AM Mauler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 08:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The ships are just about all done, let's start with the planes... Overall, this looks really good. I made a few tweaks to minimise the feedback on the text, but please check you are OK with the changes. In terms of comments, just the following:

Lead

• this doesn't seem to read well: "...the Navy standardized on the smaller and simpler Douglas AD Skyraider." Maybe replace "standardized" with "switched to"?
• I changed the original BTM to XBTM because there wasn't any reference to it being known as the BTM in the body of the article? The paragraph beginning "The first XBTM-1 made its..." mentions the change to AM-1 without mentioning it was originally BTM.

Footnotes

• Something wrong with formatting of cite 23.

Bibliography

• the Green & Pollinger and the Wilson refs don't appear to be cited.

Other stuff

Just so that people know I checked these:

• no duplicate links
• no disambig links
• external links check OK
• image tags look fine.

I'll check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback and for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Always a pleasure, passing as GA. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)