Martin YP6M SeaMaster

The Martin P6M SeaMaster, built by the Glenn L. Martin Company, was a 1950s strategic bomber flying boat for the United States Navy that almost entered service; production aircraft had been built and Navy crews were undergoing operational conversion, with a service entry about six months off, when the program was cancelled on August 21, 1959. Envisioned as a way to give the Navy a strategic nuclear force, the SeaMaster was eclipsed by the Polaris submarine launched ballistic missile. Due to the political situation at the Pentagon, the Navy promoted the P6M primarily as a high speed minelayer.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• P6M
• Seamaster
• Glenn
• L.
• Martin
• Company
• strategic
• bomber
• flying
• boat
• US
• Navy
• minelayer

[kingrex1002]

@VigilanteAgumon Maybe.

[VigilanteAgumon]

@kingrex1002 I wonder if today's Quickstrike and CAPTOR mines can survive a supersonic drop?

[kingrex1002]

@vawlkee What killed the Seamaster was no one could make a mine that would stay in one piece at mach 1.

[NickB1967]

@canals22: I doubt that it would have replaced land-based bombers. There are all sorts of problems with sea planes, not the least of which is corrosion from landing constantly in salt water. A whole bunch of sea planes developed in the 1950's are not in use today. And landing and taking off in salt water is just one issue. It made more sense for the military to have an Air Force base (or Navy aircraft carrier) to contain all of the maintenance and support facilities you need for a bomber.

[nastystank]

@tropeano73 that tail design is very common in sea planes to keep the sea spray from damaging the tail(the old martin mariners from ww2 has a similar tail). As for similarities with the ekranoplane there really are none. I dont think the ekranoplane can even be considered an aircraft like the seamaster.

[mobius1aic]

Most badass flying boat ever made >:)

[vawlkee]

Actually the Air Force wore the pants and didn't need competition from the Navy as atomic delivery aircraft were concerned.

What basically killed the Seamaster, besides politics was it's range and logistical (make that maintenance and fueling) problems.

It would have required submarines and in some cases surface ships to have maintained it.

[canals22]

I read that it was shitcanned because its performance was too close to the B-52.

Another good airplane lost to crooked politicians...

[f38stingray]

It may appear that way, but they are actually completely different. Ekranoplans are designed to operate primarily in ground effect, so the wings are designed to almost skim the water, unlike the high-mounted P6M wings. The reason for using the high tail is to prevent ocean mist from causing slow damage to the tail and is common in many seaplanes.

[tropeano73]

interesting to see how close the design was to the Ekranoplane of russian origin, i bet that design rough shape of the tail was coming from intellingence pictures of the early ekranoplanes cruising on the caspian sea...but p6m was much far ahead in terms of capabilties while ekranoplane was mostly designed for fast transportation of troups over the capian sea...