:;: INTRODUCTION CONTRIBUTORS page 77 was gleaned from reports provided by LAWRENCE WEBSTER. CAPT L. WAYNE SMITH, USN, Di Photo and technical information in Bob Kowalski who wrote Naval rector, Strike Aircraft Test Directorate addition to the above contributors Fighters Number Twenty, Grumman and MR. W. M. FRIERSON, JR., came from the following persons: AF Guardian, and has helped me Public Affairs Officer, NAS Patuxent CLAY JANSSON, WILLIAM 1. LAR immensely over the years with infor River, Maryland, fortheir help with the KINS, DAVE MENARD, BOB LAW mation and leads to complete the NATC portion of the Mauler's history. SON, B. BURGER, ALAN SPARKS, difficult projects covered by the Naval RADM F. B. STONE, USN (RET), EX HARRY GANN, ROY MILLS, DAVE Fighter series, has authored book CO of VA-85. RADM L. V. SWAN OSTROWSKI, FRED ROOS, JIM number twenty-four, Martin AM-1 /1Q SON, USN (RET), CDR W. W. "BUD" BURRIDGE, RON DOWNEY, GENE Mauler. This manuscript appeared in TILGHMAN, AND CAPT W. L. RUS HOLMBERG, S. NICOLAOU, CARL its original form as "Mable Wasn't Very SELL, USN (RET), for help and pho from Plane Crazy, MICK ROTH and Able" in the spring 1981 issue of The tos forthe VA-44 and VA-45 portion of WILLIAM SWISHER. Hook (journal of the Tailhook this book. RADM SWANSON (RET), Association). This book has been ex CO of VA-45. For the VA-84 and panded and updated with additional SERVICE DIAGRAM VA-85 chapter; VA-85 CO, RADM F. inJormation, although better photo 1.) WING FUELTANKLH B. STONE (RET), CAPT S. W. coverage of VA-44, VA-45, VA-84, 2.) WING GUNS CALLAWAY, JR. (RET), CDR P. P. and VA-85 are requested from the 3.) GUN CAMERA LH ONLY HAMBSCH (RET), and LCDR K. D. readers. 4.) EXTERNALAUX. WING FUELTANK BOYER (RET). Reserve section con 5.) FLOAT LIGHTS The AM-1 Mauler (the runner-up in the tributors included: HANK GASTRICH 6.) CANTEEN and JOHN WOODS from VA-923 at 7.) MAINLANDINGGEAR AIRBOTTLE BT competition) and the AD Skyraider NAS Saint Louis, CAPT CHARLIE 8.) OILTANK (the winner) are both worthy subjects LOMAS (RET) from NAS Glenview, 9.) OILTANKFILLER in their own rights. However, the CDR B. J. LONG (RET), member of 10.) HYDRAULICRESERVOIR Bomber Torpedo (BT) program and 11.) WATER INJECTION SYSTEM FILLER the Society of Experimental Test Pi the similar Scout Bomber (SB) and the 12.) HYDRAULICACCUMULATOR lots, for providing the missing photo Torpedo Bomber (TB) programs fos 13.) WING FUELTANKFILLER documentation of the NAS Atlanta tered a very unique and interesting 14.) WING FUELTANKRH Maulers which has kept this project on series of naval aircraft. These aircraft, 15.) MAIN LANDINGGEARSHOCKSTRUT including the Douglas XSB2D-1 and hold for five years, and for his written 16.) MAIN LANDINGGEARTIRE BTD-1 "Destroyer" entrants, the Dou evaluation on the Maulerwhich begins 17.)BATTERYRH ONLY glas XTB2D-1 "Sky Pirate", the on page 68. The Mauler In Plastic 18.) EMERGENCYHYDRAULICACCU. contributors included: JOHN RUCKS 19.) OXYGEN BOTTLE Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1, and the Curtis-Wright XBTC-2 and XBT2C-1 from Combat Models (400 3rd street, 20.) FUSELAGE FUELTANK(AM-1 ONLY) West Easton, Pa. 18042), TOMMY 21.) CANOPYHYDRAULICACCU. will be covered in a future Naval 22.) FUSELAGE FUELTANKFILLER Fighters book. THOMASON, THOMAS GATENS, 23.) OXYGEN FILLERVALVE and DONALD SMITH. NICK WILL- - 24.) TAILLANDING GEAR AIRBOTTLE Anyone having photos or other infor- lAMS for proofing and grammar 25.) TAILLANDING GEAR SHOCKSTRUT mation on this or any other naval or corrections. The information for the 26.) SNUBBER CYLINDER marine aircraft, may submit them for_~chaptero~Ma~~M§~ap'sstarting on 27.) ARRESTING HOOK l possible inclusion in future issueS' Any material submitted will become the property of NAVAL FIGHTERS unless prior arrangement is made. In dividuals are responsible for security clearance of any material before sub- mission. ISBN 0-942612-24-8 Steve Ginter, 1754 Warfield Cir., Simi Valley, California, 93063 All rights reserved. No part of this publication mayb(1 reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, ortransmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission ofthe publisher. © 1994Steve Ginter FRONT COVER AM-1 122397 sets unofficial world's record lifting 3torpedoes and 122501b. bombs. 122398 is seen with 12 5" rock ets, 211.75" rockets and 17501b. bomb. 1 '---~ --- THE MARTIN AM-1 1-1Q MAULER Among the lessons the US Navy what was left oftheir stumbling SB2C Natural metal XBTM-1 85162 on an ear learned from the pivotal carrier battles program. At that time, Douglas was ly test flight with the short carburetor of 1942 was the need to include more not included in the competition be scoop. (National Archives) fighter aircraft in its carrier air groups. cause of their heavy involvement with The fighters were needed to both de the production of the S'sD and their fend the carrier's strike force from on-going development of the rounds of ammunition and various enemy fighters and the carrier from .XSB2D-1. combinations of bombs, rockets, and the enemis attack force. Within the ·torpedoes. The Mauler was equipped limitations of space aboard a carrier, The Glen L. Martin Company's to carry the AN/APS-4 radar which this increase in fighter complement response to that Navy requirementfor was an air-to-surface radar with limit forced a reduction in the number of a single-engine, single-place attack ed air-to-air capability. Equipped with aircraftthat would be available to per airplane for carrier or shore based a constant speed, four bladed pro form the other missions of the air operations was the XBTM-1. The air peller, there was one noticeable group; scouting, dive-bombing, torpe craft was, after the 1946 change in differehce between the aircraft pur do-bombing, etc. A new category of mission designators, produced as the chased under the two separate aircraft was created (BT for Bomber AM-1. Although 139were builtand did production contracts. The AM-1s pur Torpedo) to combine those functions. serve with five VA and one VC fleet chased under the original contract These new BT aircraft would function squadron before being relegated to (BuNos. 22257 to 22355), used a most efficiently if they were multi the reserves, the type was out-per Curtiss propeller that was electrically mission aircraft and fast enough to formed by its contemporary, the operated and had blades that were minimize the numbers of fighters Douglas ADSkyraider. The AM-1's cuffed at the spinner and rounded at needed for escort duties. place in naval aviation history can the tips. Those aircraft purchased un perhaps best be described as, "... and der the subsequent contract (BuNos. In September 1943, the Navy let now, the runner-up is ...". 122388 to 122437), used the Hamil contracts to the aircraft industry for ton Standard propeller which, that category of aircraft. The manu The AM-1 was powered by the although of the same diameter as the facturers chosen were Martin, who Pratt & Whitney R-4360-4W, a28 cyl Curtiss propeller, was hydraulically had a good record of developing ad inderengine that developed a Military controlled and, perhaps because of vanced aircraft and would have Rated power of 3,000 BHP and used the squared-off tips, decidedly excess production capacity, Kaiser a take-off power setting of 53" mani angular in appearance. Fleetwing for perhaps political rea fold pressure and 2,700 RPM at sea sons, and Curtiss-Wright, for whom it level. The AM-1's armament consist The AM-1 also featured a unique might have been a chance to redirect ed of four 20 mm guns with 800 "finger" type dive brake that was 10- 2 • Top-natural metal XBTM-1 with O. E. "Pat" Tibbsatthecontrols inflight; the sizeofthepilot's head gives you aclear indication ofthe Mauler's immense size. Middle -toothcomb styledive brakesare shown open both aboveand belowthewing. Bottom gear isseen in itsfully extended position with theflaps partiallylowered. Notethatthetail hookhad notyetbeen installed. 3 cated along the trailing edge of the wing. This dive brake offered a com bination of uses. When closed, it could be deflected downward in a single panel to act as a conventional landing flap. When opened, the inter meshing "fingers" separated into alternating upper and lower sections to slowthe diving speed ofthe aircraft. The dive brakes could be positioned at any point between the "full open" and "full closed" position by means of the pilot's control lever. The dive brake was assisted in both modes of operations by a perforated panel that was located on the underside of the fuselage. Although this dive brake NAVAL AIR TEST CENTER (NATC) The XBTM-1 seen later in life in NATe was well-liked bythe fleet VA pilots for markings. Bythistimethetail hookhad its effectiveness, part of this To illustrate the extent of NATe's been added and the carburetor scoop effectiveness was due to its great ar work with the AM-1, the flight test had been lengthened. Aircraftis loaded ea. This was contributed to by the program eventually involved 18 (al with a 750 pound centerline bomb and length of its span, which in turn how most the complement of a fleet VA what appears to be two napalm bombs ever, reduced the span of the squadron) and lasted longer (three onthewing stations. (via Bob Kowalski) ailerons. This reduction in span mini years) than the type stayed in service mized the low-speed effectiveness of with the active duty squadrons. The Recalling the bomb, airplane and ship the Mauler's ailerons. Once this low aircraft assigned to NATC for these silhouettes of WW II, Martin test pilot speed deficiency revealed itselfto the trials are listed by their BuNos and Ray Nessly points out the 18 dive and NATC pilots, the spoiler aileron sub-' assigned Test Divisions at the end of six spin silhouettes on the side of the system was introduced into the this portion ofthe Mauler's operational XBTM-1 to Ozzie Zahnow and R. D. design. history. Gilson. (Martin) 4 The MartinAM-1 Maulerproduction lineon 16December1946.(Martin) 5 -------------------------- ~ NATe BIS TEST RESULTS First production AM-1 22257 without spinneron 12-28-46.22257would bethe first AM-1 accepted for BIS trials at NATeon 3-31-47. standards of BuNo. 22307, did possess satisfactory or acceptable flight stability and control characteris tics. The following performancefigures were demonstrated by the modified BuNo. 22307: WEIGHTEMPTY--LBS. 15,257 BOMBER/SCOUT First flown on 26 August 1944, facilities of the Naval Air Test Center, BOMBERUSEFULLOAD--LBS. 7,066 XBTM-1 (BuNo. 85161) reached the NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and SCOUTUSEFULLOAD--LBS. 6,157 Naval Air Test Center on 11 Decem the Naval Aircraft Torpedo Unit, NAS BOMBERGROSSWEIGHT--LBS. 22,323 ber 1944. Being joined in the Test Quonset Point, Rhode Island, con SCOUTGROSSWEIGHT--LBS. 21,414 program by its sister ship (BuNo. ducted Service Acceptance Trials on MAXSPEED(MRP) ATSEALEVEL--KNOTS 85162), which was fitted with a the Martin AM-1 from 31 March 1947 BOMBER 264 spinner that was a distinguishing fea until 18 April 1950. The first test air SCOUT 269 ture of the AM-1, testing revealed plane, BuNo. 22257, contained 17 MAX SPEED (MRP) AT AIRCRAFT'S CRIT deficiencies that resulted in noticeable modifications as a result of the earlier ICALALTITUDE OF15,400FEET--KNOTS modifications to the design. The most flight tests ofthe XBTM-1s. In spite of BOMBER 281 apparent of these changes were the' these modifications serious and un SCOUT 290 ones that were made to the cowling acceptable deficiencies remained in SERVICECEILlNG--FEET and air scoop. On the AM-1, the the production aircraft. In the BOMBER/SCOUT 27,000 cowling was lengthened by six inches correction of these deficiencies, STALLING SPEED, FLAPS UP, SEA LEVEL-- and canted two degrees to the right NATC flight tested major modifi KNOTS, BOMBER/SCOUT 94 while the carburetorairscoop's length cations in five successive AM-1 was increased sothat itnow extended aircraft. The last of these, BuNo. out over the cowling to a point just 22307, contained nine modifications Final assembly of the 4th production forward ofthe cowl flap hinge line. of which eight were to improve flying AM-1 22260 on 2-26-47. This aircraft qualities. Tests completed on 21 would also take part in the BIS trials. The Board of Inspection and Sur March 1950 showed that the pro Thecannons areclearlyvisiblethrough vey, assisted by the personnel and duction AM-1 airplane, modified to the thewing fold mechanism. (Martin) 6 It was during the arrested landing developed as part of this program. This photo of a clean-winged AM-1 was phase of the carrier suitability trials This "roller hook" featured a roller a censored photo with the pylons air that the infamous "tail-shedding" bearing as an integral part ofthe head brushed out. The wing pylons just accident occurred. An inadequacy in ofthe tail hook. This bearing would be inboard ofthecannonswere an integral the design was making itself evident engaged by the arresting wire and part ofthe aircraft's construction. Note to the pilots by a "violent" tail shake would roll (rotate) under the stress of the center wing section Swiss-cheese occurring upon engagement of the any sideways forces that were en stylediveflap. (via ClayJansson) . arresting wires. This was a symptom countered during arresting wire of the high stresses that were being pullout, thereby eliminating the tail standard bridle catcher, (NAF placed on the aircraft. During the 51st shake problem. 90967-1). As a result the catapult engagement of the test phase, BuNo. launching phase report recommended 22279 was making its 16th fly-in en With the reinforced aft fuselage that; "to prevent damage to the cata gagement when the entire aft structure and tail hook "No. 6B" in pult bridle spreader, set the catapult to fuselage was torn from the airframe. stalled, BuNo. 22298 completed the give an end-speed of no more that 65 This revealed that the design strength last of 100 fly-in engagements on 15 knots and provide wind to give a of the fuselage was inadequate and August 1948. With this phase of launching airspeed of 95 knots which that a different type of tail hook was testing completed, the results showed is a comfortable airspeed for the pilot needed. The fuselage was strength that the production AM-1, configured when the aircraft is loaded to its ened by the reinforcement of the to the standards of BuNo. 22298, heaviest weight." longerons in the carry-through struc were acceptable for carrier based ture to 300 percent of their former arrested landings. BuNo. 22259 was assigned to the strength. To cure the tail shake prob lem, a program was undertaken that Forcatapult launching, the weight included the testing of nine different ofthe AM-1 necessitated a heavyduty AM-1 22269assigned to ArmamentTest tail hooks of various lengths, weights bridle that had an increased diameter is seen minus its spinner and carrying and types of heads. The tail hook of 7/8 of an inch. This heavier bridle two 500 pound bombs on the wing py designated as "No. 6B" was finally was now beyond the capacity of the lons in 1947.(via Larkins) 7 Three views of an AM-1 with the APS-4 installed on the port wing pylon and a750 pound bomb located on the fuselage pylon. The top photo isof22257,which hadaslab-sided(flat-sided)windscreen notused on lateraircraft. (via B. J. Long)Thebottom photoshowsthe splitdive-flapsopen justpriorto rolloverfor adive run on 4-26-49. (National Archives) 8 stabilityand control phase ofthe trials. verse aileron yaw problem. engagementwith the barrier." Testing on this aircraft was repeatedly delayed by the evaluation of various The elevator demand assist The armament trials rec fixes to cure major deficiencies. In mechanism was designed to help the ommendations included the change to correcting two of these deficiencies, pilotovercome what the interim report the MK. 9 Mod. 3 launcher as a result the spoiler aileron system and the el called, "excessively high elevatorstick of damage to the ailerons from the evator demand assist mechanism forces." Described perhaps prophet firing of 5.0" HVARs from the initially were added to the flight controls. ically by the report as a system that, installed launchers. The fixed gun in Being added to the existing design, "due to it's intricate design, is an stallation was notfound acceptablefor these hydraulically-powered devices additional possible source of mainte use until fourteen recommended probably contributed their share of nance difficulties." With the elevator changes were made. Satisfactory leaks to the hydraulic problems that demand assist installed, the consen tests ofthe bombing installation (which gave the Mauler its poor record of sus of the NATC pilots was that the did not include a "bomb release arm") maintenance reliability. RADM F. B. stick forces were "reasonable were made using various combi Stone USN (ret) commanded VA-85 throughout take-off, climb following nations of bombs, mines and 11.75" when they flew the AM-1 and de take-off and landing." However the "Tiny Tim" aircraft rockets. The torpe scribes the hydraulic system as test data does show that the elevator do drop tests included five flights in a "complicated and poorly-sealed. The stick forces would still momentarily three-torpedo loaded condition and airplane would be sitting silently in the exceed the specifications (SR-119A) resulted in the torpedo installation chocks on the line, nobody near it, limit of 35 pounds pull. Perhaps itwas being found acceptable for service and hydraulic fluid suddenly would this combination of high elevator stick use. By 1952, weight restrictions of come streaming out from anyone or forces and the weight of the R-4360 2300 pounds were placed on the fu more of a number of points, a real engine that left the carrier pilot with selage and wing center-section bomb bleeder." the most demanding task of handling racks. Since the AM-1 was no longer the Mauler after the cut. As RADM serving with the fleet, the restrictions Taking these fixes separately, the Stone describes that phase of flight: were meaningless except to serve as spoiler ailerons were developed to "In a carrier landing after getting the a comparison with the Douglas AD improve an inadequate rate of roll at 'cut', the slightesttemptation to relax a Skyraider of 1952. low airspeeds that was coupled with fine degree of back pressure on the an adverse aileron yaw. The spoiler stick, let alone any tendency to dive Typical 1950s public relations photo of aileron panels were located forward of for the deck, resulted in that mon an aircraft's load carrying ability, the dive brake/landing flap panel and strous nose dropping irretrievably showing bombs, torpedoes , depth did increasethe roll rate sufficientlyto downward causing an unavoidable charges and cannons with ammunition. allow a reduction in maximum aileron wheels-first, tail-high landing followed travel. This reduction cured the ad- by a high soaring bounce and ultimate (Martin) 9