![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Needs an infobox, fairly decent information but details, details. Regrettable that the importance is "low" but as a "failed type" and obscure to boot it's not as important as some others, despite being one of the great What-Ifs and (not NPOV) worst decisions-to-cancel ever made (/not NPOV). - Aerobird 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You have details. The airplane was magnificent. It's performance was astounding given the problems inherent with seaplanes. The decision to cancel was fully justified. The program had slipped for too long, was so far over budget that the number of aircraft to go into service would have been too small.
-- begin new comment by different editor-- The P6M was a result of inertia and defense politics. The Navy wanted to have a strategic nuclear role, and before the A3D it did not have a credible carrier aircraft to perform it. The Navy had always had seaplanes (it was, after all, the Navy) and a 'jet' seaplane just seemed logical in 1950.
I will fix the info box problem. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The P6M was part of a bigger plan than just giving the Navy a nuclear strike capability before the A3D. The AJ had already given it a carrier based nuclear strike capability. The P6M patrol, minelayer and bomber, R3Y transport and F2Y fighter were to constitute a sea based "Seaplane Striking Force." The demise of the P6M was more a matter of failing to deliver the product in time. There was Pentagon politics involved, but the ultimate axe came due to the 29% reduction in defense funding by the Eisenhower Administration and the development of the Polaris Missile System.
Seaplanes were a marginal part of Naval Air. The other two elements of the Seaplane Striking Force, the F2Y which was to defend the sea bases, and the R3Y transport were miserable failures, one for hydrodynamic reasons, the other because of it's engines.
This left the Seamaster without a rational aside from it's ability to lay precision mine fields and perform nuclear strikes.
Inertial navigation systems, high specific impulse solid rocket motors, and nuclear power enabled the creation of the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile boats.
The Submarine community was far larger than the flying boat community. The Polaris was an infinitely superior strategic nuclear strike system. The A3D and upcoming A3J satisfied any need for a 'fleet' nuclear strike capability.
Eisenhower wanted to cut US defense spending from absurd levels to reasonable ones and the P6M was one of many systems to be cut for sound reasons. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have some books in my library which will allow a quick solution to the lack of references and citations. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyone disagree or have input? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This article states: "In the age of the ICBM and SLBM, the manned bomber had become an expensive and unreliable nuclear weapon delivery system." Sounds like someone's opinion - don't think the DoD or Congress think this is the case. If they do, why are they spending huge amounts of tax dollars building and maintaining a land-based strategic bomber fleet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:300:7520:B027:3E10:13E2:E7AC ( talk • contribs)
This document, an extended version of The Oxcart Story (declassified at the same time), claims that the Seamaster originally intended to use the J58. No such claim appears here, where the larger engine is the J75.
Does anyone know more about this? I believe the Oxcart version is wrong.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. There would be no use for a turbo-ram jet on the P6M. I have no idea where the idea might come from aside from a 'source' which contained a typo (8 instead of 7). Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite a highly detailed information about one of P6M crashes, something is strange at the following article statement: "The first prototype, BuNo 138821, c/n XP-1, disintegrated in flight at 5,000 feet due to horizontal tail going to full up in control malfunction, subjecting airframe to 9 G stress as it began an outside loop...". Well, as far as I know, if a horizontal tail goes up (i.e., the elevator or the whole horizontal assembly deflects upward), the aircraft makes an inside loop, not an outside one. Since I have no detailed information about this particular event with BuNo 138821, I cannot correct or edit the above mentioned text. Can someone with specific familiarity/information about that incident review/revise that statement regarding that control surface logics I've mentioned? Thanx. RobertoRMola ( talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is in wording. Due to an actuator failure, the stabilizer was driven rapidly into a full nose down position which which caused a violent pitching movement. This cause the lower wing blankets and spars to buckle in compression. This resulted in the wings failing at the roots. This resulted in the floats on the wing tips 'clapping' beneath the fuselage. The engine became detached. The tail hinge failed with the horizontal stabilizer separating from the vertical stabilizer. The maximum G-force was -9Gs. The fuselage impacted the water about 20 seconds after the runaway stabilizer and with a force of 100+ Gs. The two test observers both ejected but only one survived. Though their ejection hatches had been actuated, only one of the pilot's had cleared. Neither pilot initiated an ejection and both were at the controls upon impact. The kind of bad day that was all too common in test flying in the 1950s. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I got it. I confused things a little bit: what was gone up was the whole tail, not the elevator... My mistake! -- RobertoRMola ( talk) 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't say exactly when the P6M's were scrapped, just that they were. Any chance that they survived long enough to be momentarily assigned the otherwise unused P-6 designation in the tri-service designations? Carolina wren ( talk) 07:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
So, removed his delusional idea that the aircraft could carry a 30,000 pound bombload since a cursory glance at the empty weight and loaded weight shows that if it carried 30,000 pounds of stores then it didn't carry fuel. Globalsecurity gives the bombload as a more sane 4,000 pounds. Herr Gruber ( talk) 16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Also this video ends with one laying mines, as well as an explanation of why the plane wasn't exactly suited to the minelaying role. Herr Gruber ( talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
AIUI, the P6M was a pure flying boat rather than an amphibian. Like most of such, it came out of the water on a dolly. However, owing to its large size and deep draught, it was too deep to pull out with the usual tractors. The solution was a floating dolly, with attached camels, and for the aircraft's own engines to be used to taxi up the ramp. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Infobox says 12 were built, while the body of the article says 2 prototypes, 6 pre-production models and 8 production models. Obviously both can't be right, so how many were there? 12 or 16? 207.98.198.84 ( talk) 06:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Needs an infobox, fairly decent information but details, details. Regrettable that the importance is "low" but as a "failed type" and obscure to boot it's not as important as some others, despite being one of the great What-Ifs and (not NPOV) worst decisions-to-cancel ever made (/not NPOV). - Aerobird 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You have details. The airplane was magnificent. It's performance was astounding given the problems inherent with seaplanes. The decision to cancel was fully justified. The program had slipped for too long, was so far over budget that the number of aircraft to go into service would have been too small.
-- begin new comment by different editor-- The P6M was a result of inertia and defense politics. The Navy wanted to have a strategic nuclear role, and before the A3D it did not have a credible carrier aircraft to perform it. The Navy had always had seaplanes (it was, after all, the Navy) and a 'jet' seaplane just seemed logical in 1950.
I will fix the info box problem. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 15:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The P6M was part of a bigger plan than just giving the Navy a nuclear strike capability before the A3D. The AJ had already given it a carrier based nuclear strike capability. The P6M patrol, minelayer and bomber, R3Y transport and F2Y fighter were to constitute a sea based "Seaplane Striking Force." The demise of the P6M was more a matter of failing to deliver the product in time. There was Pentagon politics involved, but the ultimate axe came due to the 29% reduction in defense funding by the Eisenhower Administration and the development of the Polaris Missile System.
Seaplanes were a marginal part of Naval Air. The other two elements of the Seaplane Striking Force, the F2Y which was to defend the sea bases, and the R3Y transport were miserable failures, one for hydrodynamic reasons, the other because of it's engines.
This left the Seamaster without a rational aside from it's ability to lay precision mine fields and perform nuclear strikes.
Inertial navigation systems, high specific impulse solid rocket motors, and nuclear power enabled the creation of the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile boats.
The Submarine community was far larger than the flying boat community. The Polaris was an infinitely superior strategic nuclear strike system. The A3D and upcoming A3J satisfied any need for a 'fleet' nuclear strike capability.
Eisenhower wanted to cut US defense spending from absurd levels to reasonable ones and the P6M was one of many systems to be cut for sound reasons. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have some books in my library which will allow a quick solution to the lack of references and citations. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyone disagree or have input? Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This article states: "In the age of the ICBM and SLBM, the manned bomber had become an expensive and unreliable nuclear weapon delivery system." Sounds like someone's opinion - don't think the DoD or Congress think this is the case. If they do, why are they spending huge amounts of tax dollars building and maintaining a land-based strategic bomber fleet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:300:7520:B027:3E10:13E2:E7AC ( talk • contribs)
This document, an extended version of The Oxcart Story (declassified at the same time), claims that the Seamaster originally intended to use the J58. No such claim appears here, where the larger engine is the J75.
Does anyone know more about this? I believe the Oxcart version is wrong.
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. There would be no use for a turbo-ram jet on the P6M. I have no idea where the idea might come from aside from a 'source' which contained a typo (8 instead of 7). Mark Lincoln ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite a highly detailed information about one of P6M crashes, something is strange at the following article statement: "The first prototype, BuNo 138821, c/n XP-1, disintegrated in flight at 5,000 feet due to horizontal tail going to full up in control malfunction, subjecting airframe to 9 G stress as it began an outside loop...". Well, as far as I know, if a horizontal tail goes up (i.e., the elevator or the whole horizontal assembly deflects upward), the aircraft makes an inside loop, not an outside one. Since I have no detailed information about this particular event with BuNo 138821, I cannot correct or edit the above mentioned text. Can someone with specific familiarity/information about that incident review/revise that statement regarding that control surface logics I've mentioned? Thanx. RobertoRMola ( talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is in wording. Due to an actuator failure, the stabilizer was driven rapidly into a full nose down position which which caused a violent pitching movement. This cause the lower wing blankets and spars to buckle in compression. This resulted in the wings failing at the roots. This resulted in the floats on the wing tips 'clapping' beneath the fuselage. The engine became detached. The tail hinge failed with the horizontal stabilizer separating from the vertical stabilizer. The maximum G-force was -9Gs. The fuselage impacted the water about 20 seconds after the runaway stabilizer and with a force of 100+ Gs. The two test observers both ejected but only one survived. Though their ejection hatches had been actuated, only one of the pilot's had cleared. Neither pilot initiated an ejection and both were at the controls upon impact. The kind of bad day that was all too common in test flying in the 1950s. Mark Lincoln ( talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Now I got it. I confused things a little bit: what was gone up was the whole tail, not the elevator... My mistake! -- RobertoRMola ( talk) 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't say exactly when the P6M's were scrapped, just that they were. Any chance that they survived long enough to be momentarily assigned the otherwise unused P-6 designation in the tri-service designations? Carolina wren ( talk) 07:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
So, removed his delusional idea that the aircraft could carry a 30,000 pound bombload since a cursory glance at the empty weight and loaded weight shows that if it carried 30,000 pounds of stores then it didn't carry fuel. Globalsecurity gives the bombload as a more sane 4,000 pounds. Herr Gruber ( talk) 16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Also this video ends with one laying mines, as well as an explanation of why the plane wasn't exactly suited to the minelaying role. Herr Gruber ( talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
AIUI, the P6M was a pure flying boat rather than an amphibian. Like most of such, it came out of the water on a dolly. However, owing to its large size and deep draught, it was too deep to pull out with the usual tractors. The solution was a floating dolly, with attached camels, and for the aircraft's own engines to be used to taxi up the ramp. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Infobox says 12 were built, while the body of the article says 2 prototypes, 6 pre-production models and 8 production models. Obviously both can't be right, so how many were there? 12 or 16? 207.98.198.84 ( talk) 06:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)