Martin XB-51

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 05/20/2015 at 11:05 • Filed to: planelopnik, planelopnik history, planes you've (probably) never heard of

6

10

From the Planes You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of Department of Planelopnik, we bring you the Martin XB-51.

The Martin XB-51 began with a 1945 design for a low-level bomber/attack aircraft designated the XA-45 and first flew in 1949. It was unique for the time in its use of three jet engines, one in the tail with a dorsal air intake and two pod-mounted jets suspended from the forward fuselage. The crew consisted of a pilot, who sat under a bubble canopy, and a bomber/navigator who sat inside the fuselage, behind and below the pilot with only a small porthole to look out of. Both crew members were equipped with ejection seats, a first for Martin.

Based on experience in the Korean War, the US Air Force issued a requirement in 1950 for a new jet-powered night intruder/bomber to replace the aging !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The US-built entrants in the competition were the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , and the newly designated XB-51, while the international contenders were the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . The Tornado, Savage and Canuck were quickly dismissed. And while the XB-51 was substantially faster than the Canberra, it lost the competition largely because its range and loiter time over target were considerably poorer than the Canberra, and its landing gear design, a tandem main gear with outriggers on the tips of its !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! wings, was not considered ideal for unimproved forward airfields.

The cancellation of the XB-51 wasn’t entirely bad news for Martin. The company was contracted to build Canberras under license in the US that were given the designation Martin B-57A, and the innovative rotating bomb bay doors from the XB-51 were incorporated into the production Canberra. Of the two XB-51s built, one was lost in a crash in 1952 during a low-level flight demonstration, killing the pilot. The other, which was featured in the 1956 film !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! playing the role of the “Gilbert XF-120 fighter,” !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on takeoff from El Paso, Texas in 1956 while en route to record additional footage for the movie, killing both crew members.

Author’s note: Had the Air Force not chosen the Canberra, I wonder if the XB-51 would have had near the service life of the B-57. One of the reasons for dismissing the Tornado and Savage was their older design and concerns about limited growth potential. The XB-51 was clearly a design of an earlier era, and would likely have been far less upgradeable in the future in the way that the Canberra was. And while it surely would have been effective for the first few years of operation, it almost certainly would not have had a 50-year service life. Clearly, the Air Force made the right choice.

This report from Pathé News shows the maiden flight of the XB-51, as well as footage of the launch of a Republic-Ford LTV-N-2 Loon from a submarine. The Loon was an American copy of the German V-1 flying bomb.

••••••••••••••••••••••

If you enjoy these Planelopnik History posts, please let me know in the comments. I’d also be interested in suggestions for future articles about obscure or also-ran aircraft, military or civilian. And if you missed any of the past articles, you can find them all at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

Jcarr > ttyymmnn 05/20/2015 at 11:13

2

I love this.

“Where should we put the engines?”

“Just mount ‘em anywhere.”

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 05/20/2015 at 11:17

0

It’s really a crazy arrangement. It must have been hell for picking up FOD.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Jcarr 05/20/2015 at 11:19

1

FOD catchers.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > ttyymmnn 05/20/2015 at 11:20

0

In fact, I had heard of this aeroplane previously, at least, I’d seen pictures of it.

There’s a mention in an Air & Space write-up:

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-fli…

ttyymmnn > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 05/20/2015 at 11:23

0

Boy, you’d think I’d written that article too. But that’s the first I’ve seen of it. We probably used the same source. But the XB-51 really isn’t all that obscure.

NoneOfYourBiz > Jcarr 05/20/2015 at 11:27

1

Engine service, a tutorial:

“Just pull that pin there...”
“This one?”
*CLONK!*
“Engine’s off.”

Jcarr > ttyymmnn 05/20/2015 at 11:57

2

Yeah, or if you have an explosive tire failure you can kiss that engine goodbye.

Jayhawk Jake > ttyymmnn 05/20/2015 at 12:51

1

On your note, I think had it won the contract they would have improved it enough to stick around for a while, but likely not as long as the Canberra

user314 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 05/20/2015 at 14:13

0

I was an avid watcher of Discovery Channel’s Wings (especially the Strange Planes series imported from Australia) back in the late ’80s / early ‘90s, so I’ve seen most of the post-WWII / pre-Korea airplanes before.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > user314 05/20/2015 at 14:39

0

#WingsChannel on Dish. Me, too.