Super Maryland

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by yulzari, Nov 23, 2012.

  1. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    The Martin Maryland bomber was fast for it's day on fairly low powered engines, with forward firing armament, reasonable range and was able to perform low level unescorted PR missions and let it's pilot shoot down the opposition.

    How far could the design be taken without making it something else?

    Martin went down the road of a better medium bomber as requested by Britain as the Baltimore. Maybe the 60% power increase could have gone down the road of increased speed and climb and/or carrying more fuel for range.

    This issue came up in an alternative Mosquito thread but I see it as a better Beaufighter.
     
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,987
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If it can take the R-2600 as trouble-free as A-20, great. Maybe ditching the bombardier's nose in process, while installing the enlarged rudder to cater for greater power.
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    The U.S. purchased large numbers of A-20, B-25 and B-26 twin engine bombers. Plus large numbers of B-17 and 24 four engine bombers. The Maryland would need outstanding performance to obtain a U.S. Army Air Corps purchase order.
     
  4. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    Comparing it to the barely smaller Grumman Tigercat you can see the weight of structure to carry R2800's with the loaded Maryland bomber lighter than the empty Tigercat fighter. Lose the bomb bay and swap the glazed nose for 4x20mm, or 2xM4 37mm HE in the ex bomb bay with 120 round belts for ground attack (not tank busting).

    The Baltimore took R2600s OK with a similar structure so a straight swap to R2600 seems possible but they are far heavier than Twin Wasps or Cyclone 9s.
     
  5. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    An empty late model Baltimore weighs as much as a loaded Maryland while keeping almost the same wing. There is more to engine swaps that the dry weight of the engine. The increase in wing loading may affect some of the flying qualities that made the Maryland so popular.

    Bombers were not stressed to do the same maneuvers as fighters. US fighters were stressed ( for the most part) to 8 "G"s service and 12 "G"s ultimate. Bombers may have been 1/2 that? Or 2/3? Trying to turn bombers into fighters requires a lot more than changing engines and sticking guns in. Night fighters are not supposed to be trying to out maneuver day fighters and can use lower "G" maneuvers to to gain firing positions on bombers.
     
  6. yulzari

    yulzari Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    Gentleman
    Location:
    Limousin
    The Beaufighter was, essentially, a Beaufort with a narrow fuselage and strengthened engine mounts for the Hercules/Merlins in place of the Taurus. The Baltimore was a Maryland using the power of R2600s to carry defensive armament and gunners so it had the same bomb bay load of 2,000lb as the Maryland. Almost a reverse Beaufighter.

    I hypothesis that one could use the extra power in alternative directions and perhaps members could explore what those might have been. Martin built the Maryland/Baltimore as British export items so USAAF use is not imperative but perhaps people can see there might have been merit in some long range Pacific use or night fighters, land based torpedo bomber that could defend itself, maritime reconnaissance in hostile skies etc. where normal light/medium bombers needed escort.

    Wing Commander Warburton may have been a 'one off' but made aggressive use of the Twin Wasp Maryland destroying 8 aircraft so a faster better armed R2600 Maryland has to have some potential.
     
  7. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    It may have more potential, does it have more potential than an A-20?

    Part of the reason for the Baltimore was that the crew of the Maryland could not change positions in flight ( at least not with out extreme difficulty) or give each other aid. Same is true of of the A-20 and the rear gunners of both aircraft were given rudimentary flight controls as a back up. Warburton's rear gunner used those controls on one occasion.
    Granted may twin engine fighters/attack planes could not swap crewmen in flight.
    Unfortunately good information for the Maryland seems hard to come by and information on armament and performance seems a bit contradictory at times.

    No torpedo bomber could defend itself while caring a torpedo. The early B-25s and B-26s were provided with a mount of a torpedo although seldom (if ever for the B-25?) used.
     
  8. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Low endurance was the only serious shortcoming of the A-20. Unfortunately that's a critical problem.

    Did Douglas make any effort to give the A-20 more internal fuel?
     
  9. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    #9 Shortround6, Nov 24, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2012
    Fuel for the later A-20s was 400 gallons in protected wing tank, 140 gallons in protected tanks in the upper bomb bay (fuselage) were added and the A-20-G-20 and up could have 325 gals in protected upper bomb bay tanks. For ferrying the A-20G 1 through -15 could have 676 gallons in unprotected tanks in the lower bomb bay. Total 1316 gals for Ferrying. A 374 gallon drop tank that fit over the closed bomb bay doors was developed ( to be dropped before bomb run) but not used in combat although it may have been used for some ferry mission.

    You do have to stay inside the gross weight limit for bombs and fuel total.

    You want bombs and fuel get a B-25.

    Late A-20s max grossed (overload) 27,000lbs. B-25Js went 33,000 pounds normal loaded, 35,000 pounds gross, 41,800 pounds maximum overload.
     
  10. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I agree.

    However the A-20 had excellent aerial performance for a 1941 bomber. Once the bombs were gone many contemporary (i.e. 1941) fighter aircraft would have a tough time catching it.
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Yes it did, but you don't get all three, Speed, Bomb load, Range. Pick two if you are real lucky and real good. Otherwise pick one.

    Small airframe means high speed, but it also means small bomb load and/or fuel load.
    Bigger airframe means a bit less speed but more bombs or fuel.
    BIG airframe means crap for speed but lots of bombs and fuel.

    Please remember that in 1939-41 (or longer) they were still attaching a lot of importance to field length. Best bomber in the world isn't much good if it won't operate from the majority of your air fields. Take-off distance is dependent on wing loading and power loading. A lot of the "high lift" devices do a lot more for landing than they do take-off.
     
  12. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    That isn't always true. F-111 had all three characteristics. So did the Ju-288.
     
  13. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    I was referring to planes using approximately the same power, Use 66% more power and things do get better.

    But on closer look actually they didn't. JU-288 had speed, but with over 5300hp available (B version) it couldn't carry the war load of a 4800hp B-17 or B-24 or carry it as far.

    The F-111 had all three but not at the same time. Load it up with lots bombs and it was subsonic. One hard point under each wing did not pivot. Full load of 50 750lb bombs was carried 2 inside and 48 under wings on eight hard points at 26 degrees wing sweep. Sweeping the wings to 54 degrees cut under wing load to 36 bombs and full sweep cut it to 18 bombs.

    Drop tanks were often carried on the non-pivoting hard point. A fuel tank could also be put in the internal weapons bay.

    Much more flexibility than older bombers but trying to figure out it's speed/payload/range combination is a little hard due to the many variations possible let alone mission profiles. Just don't expect to hit Mach 2+ with much of a weapons load, internal bay was good for a pair of 750lb bombs.

    It turned out to be a rather remarkable plane but lets not pretend it could do things it couldn't.
     
  14. gjs238

    gjs238 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Such a plane might have developed into a better nightfighter than the P-61.
    Or at least more cost-effective entering service sooner.
     
  15. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    792
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    It wold take a LOT of development.

    Take a look at both the Maryland and Baltimore. Maryland already has some vision issues from the cockpit (so did some other twin engine aircraft). The R-2600 is a good 6 in larger in diameter than the R-1830 making vision worse (solved in Baltimore by moving the cockpit up but that is more drag). I don't know the size of the Maryland propellers but most 1000-1200hp engines used props about 10 feet in diameter. Props on the A-20 with R-2600s were 11'3". Ground clearance gets dicey without longer landing gear. Prop size can be played with a bit but small props and high altitude do not work well together.

    R-2600 never had a "service" turbocharger or mechanical 2nd stage limiting it's altitude performance. Engines in the P-61 were identical to Navy engines with two stage superchargers and inter-coolers.
    Any souped up R-2600 you can imagine could have been put in an A-20 for even better performance. ( one or more A-20s did have turbo-charged R-2600s but had problems, perhaps more development, perhaps not?)

    If the P-70 didn't have adequate performance it is doubtful an R-2600 powered Maryland would.
     
Loading...

Share This Page