Warbird Information Exchange

No possibility of having some group buy one and put her back in military condition and fly her? Or is the prices too steep

Everything I've read suggests that it would be almost prohibitive for any of these potential buyers to maintain these as flyable aircraft.

I see this as one last great opportunity to see one of these beautiful big airplanes in the air on the East Coast as it makes its way to a landing in the Baltimore, Maryland area. Contributing to the effort just to see that last flight is worth it to me. And there is no more appropriate final destination for preserving one of these airplanes in a museum setting then at its original home in Middle River, Maryland.

The Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum website now allows ON-LINE donations to the MARS procurement effort.


Jim C.

1 thing is for sure........ all the popular av mags are certainly talking it up in their current issues!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Great Jan. 30 article on the Martin Mars aircraft from The Globe and Mail in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National

Let bring ONE of the Mars Flying Boats Home to Maryland!



Jim C.

Another 10 years of fire fighting. That man needs to nap. They are having trouble finding parts for it as it is now. Fire fighting is not an easy thing on an airframe.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

-

I think Terry Dixon (a man who I've interviewed, and isn't a PR geek) knows a little more about it than you do, MD.

They have a large spares holding including spare wings and numerous engines, and have a workshop where they are able to undertake major work on the engines themselves. I'm not an engineer, but I've toured the facility.

You are right that generally fire fighting isn't easy on an airframe, but it does depend on the airframe - the Mars are, as fire-fighters, S L O W, so their cycles and loadings are much lower than faster higher 'g' aircraft with smaller wings and so forth. FT are also grand-daddys in fire-fighting experience - they don't load their aircraft badly, and as working aircraft they're better looked after than most airliners and general aviation Cessnas. There's no question over the integrity or future of the airframes as I understand it from recent research.

A lot of people have difficulty getting their heads around the fact that a 60 year old design is, after 40 years in the job, still the best at what they do. They aren't new and shiny, so they must be second rate, right? Wrong. There's not a waterbomber that can touch what they do. They aren't cheap, and they don't fly fast, but with access to water, they can put more suppressant on target until it's out than any other water-bomber in the world - bar none. And there's no good reason, providing the cash required to support a four engined piston type is available (think Fifi), that they can't continue for at least ten years more.

And bear in mind that many other water bombing strategies rely on containing fires - the Mars can knock down and put out fires that are otherwise too big for the competition. There's talk of 747s and Russian jets - but they aren't in service and even if they were couldn't make the turnaround the Mars can.

I was a fan of the Mars before I visited Sproat Lake. Afterwards, I realised what amazing and unique machines they really are. If they're retired, it's a sad day and the premature end of an era for one of the few W.W.II era designs that's earning it's keep.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I am sure that he knows a ton more about the Mars than I do. One of the pilots told me that they were having trouble finding props for it. Also wing loading is one of the facotrs that would be rough on an airframe. But there are others. You have to consider that the chemicals that they are using are highly corrosive to the airframe. I spent a ton of time working on an ex firebomber, and trying to help correct alot of the damage done by this stuff. I still say ten years is a bit long. Maybe 5.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

James - it's conceivable given the right amount of money and special attention that the firebombers may have 10 years left. It might even be more. But the fact remains they won't fly forever and if they keep flying for an extended period eventually something catastrophic may possibly happen.

The main point is that if they are not going to be economically viable for the company to continue to operate them and they are going to be sold, then it seems to me it would be better to retire them in good shape to museums that can preserve them, rather than have them end up as scrap or in another country with someone trying to fly them who can't do justice to the maintenance required of these old birds. Just my opinion.

Jim C.

-

Another fairly recent article on the continued effort to return a Mars to Maryland:

http://www.topix.net/content/trb/211350 ... 3039418190

Hopefully March will be the month we find out the results of the effort.



Jim C.

They are water bombers, not borate bombers... so the sorts of corrosion problems you are speaking of are very different in this case. I've talked to a couple of the engineers there too (I had some Martin Mars specific gauges)... and they seemed to think they could keep them flying for many years to come.

Cheers,
Richard

On that topic...I wonder if the engines are part of the problem? Unless I'm mistaken they're similar, if not identical, to the engines on the B-29. It occurs to me that if the Mars are bought by a firefighting operator, rather than being retired, perhaps all that work Gary et al are doing toward an engine update for "Fifi" might benefit the Mars as well...? Just a thought.

S.

Nothing really new, just an article last month from the Baltimore Sun that I hadn't remembered seeing yet:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/ ... morecounty



Regarding the engine question, The Mars and the B-29 both used versions of the Wright R-3350, but the Mars used a later/higher horsepower version (3,000 max. HP vs. the 2,200 max HP on the B-29 engines). I don't think the engines per se, are a major problem, they have been very well maintained over the years to the best of my knowledge - I think the issue is primarily the increasing cost and practicality of maintaining the 2 airplanes as firebombers indefinitely.

Jim C.

-