1-Q Mauler

:;:

'---~

CONTRIBUTORS

INTRODUCTION

CAPT L. WAYNE SMITH, USN, Director, Strike Aircraft Test Directorate and MR. W. M. FRIERSON, JR., Public Affairs Officer, NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, for their help with the NATC portion of the Mauler's history. RADM F. B. STONE, USN (RET), EX CO of VA-85. RADM L. V. SWANSON, USN (RET), CDR W. W. "BUD" TILGHMAN, AND CAPT W. L. RUSSELL, USN (RET), for help and photos for the VA-44 and VA-45 portion of this book. RADM SWANSON (RET), CO of VA-45. For the VA-84 and VA-85 chapter; VA-85 CO, RADM F. B. STONE (RET), CAPT S. W. CALLAWAY, JR. (RET), CDR P. P. HAMBSCH (RET), and LCDR K. D. BOYER (RET). Reserve section contributors included: HANK GASTRICH The AM-1 Mauler (the runner-up in the and JOHN WOODS from VA-923 at BT competition) and the AD Skyraider NAS Saint Louis, CAPT CHARLIE (the winner) are both worthy subjects LOMAS (RET) from NAS Glenview, in their own rights. However, the B. J. LONG (RET), member of CDR Bomber Torpedo (BT) program and the Society of Experimental Test Pithe similar Scout Bomber (SB) and the lots, for providing the missing photo Torpedo Bomber (TB) programs fosdocumentation of the NAS Atlanta tered a very unique and interesting Maulers which has kept this project on series of naval aircraft. These aircraft, hold for five years, and for his written including the Douglas XSB2D-1 and evaluation on the Mauler which begins BTD-1 "Destroyer" entrants, the Douon page 68. The Mauler In Plastic glas XTB2D-1 "Sky Pirate", the contributors included: JOHN RUCKS Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK-1, and the from Combat Models (400 3rd street, Curtis-Wright XBTC-2 and XBT2C-1 West Easton, Pa. 18042), TOMMY will be covered in a future Naval THOMASON, THOMAS GATENS, Fighters book. and DONALD SMITH. NICK WILLlAMS for proofing and grammar Anyone having photos or other information on this or any other naval or corrections. The information for the marine aircraft, may submit them for_~chapter o~Ma~~ M§~ap's starting on possible inclusion in future issueS' Any material submitted will become the property of NAVAL FIGHTERS unless prior arrangement is made. Individuals are responsible for security clearance of any material before submission. ISBN 0-942612-24-8

Bob Kowalski who wrote Naval Fighters Number Twenty, Grumman AF Guardian, and has helped me immensely over the years with information and leads to complete the difficult projects covered by the Naval Fighter series, has authored book number twenty-four, Martin AM-1 /1 Q Mauler. This manuscript appeared in its original form as "Mable Wasn't Very Able" in the spring 1981 issue of The Hook (journal of the Tailhook Association). This book has been expanded and updated with additional inJormation, although better photo coverage of VA-44, VA-45, VA-84, and VA-85 are requested from the readers.

-

l

Steve Ginter, 1754 Warfield Cir., Simi Valley, California, 93063

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may b(1 reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical or otherwise without the written permission of the publisher. © 1994 Steve Ginter FRONT COVER AM-1 122397 sets unofficial world's record lifting 3 torpedoes and 12 2501b. bombs. 122398 is seen with 12 5" rockets, 2 11.75" rockets and 1 7501b. bomb.

1 ---

page 77 was gleaned from reports provided by LAWRENCE WEBSTER. Photo and technical information in addition to the above contributors came from the following persons: CLAY JANSSON, WILLIAM 1. LARKINS, DAVE MENARD, BOB LAWSON, B. BURGER, ALAN SPARKS, HARRY GANN, ROY MILLS, DAVE OSTROWSKI, FRED ROOS, JIM BURRIDGE, RON DOWNEY, GENE HOLMBERG, S. NICOLAOU, CARL from Plane Crazy, MICK ROTH and WILLIAM SWISHER. SERVICE DIAGRAM 1.) WING FUEL TANK LH 2.) WING GUNS 3.) GUN CAMERA LH ONLY 4.) EXTERNAL AUX. WING FUEL TANK 5.) FLOAT LIGHTS 6.) CANTEEN 7.) MAIN LANDING GEAR AIR BOTTLE 8.) OIL TANK 9.) OIL TANK FILLER 10.) HYDRAULIC RESERVOIR 11.) WATER INJECTION SYSTEM FILLER 12.) HYDRAULIC ACCUMULATOR 13.) WING FUEL TANK FILLER 14.) WING FUEL TANK RH 15.) MAIN LANDING GEAR SHOCK STRUT 16.) MAIN LANDING GEAR TIRE 17.) BATTERY RH ONLY 18.) EMERGENCY HYDRAULIC ACCU. 19.) OXYGEN BOTTLE 20.) FUSELAGE FUEL TANK (AM-1 ONLY) 21.) CANOPY HYDRAULIC ACCU. 22.) FUSELAGE FUEL TANK FILLER 23.) OXYGEN FILLER VALVE 24.) TAIL LANDING GEAR AIR BOTTLE 25.) TAIL LANDING GEAR SHOCK STRUT 26.) SNUBBER CYLINDER 27.) ARRESTING HOOK

THE

Among the lessons the US Navy learned from the pivotal carrier battles of 1942 was the need to include more fighter aircraft in its carrier air groups. The fighters were needed to both defend the carrier's strike force from enemy fighters and the carrier from the enemis attack force. Within the limitations of space aboard a carrier, this increase in fighter complement forced a reduction in the number of aircraft that would be available to perform the other missions of the air group; scouting, dive-bombing, torpedo-bombing, etc. A new category of aircraft was created (BT for Bomber Torpedo) to combine those functions. These new BT aircraft would function most efficiently if they were multimission aircraft and fast enough to minimize the numbers of fighters needed for escort duties. In September 1943, the Navy let contracts to the aircraft industry for that category of aircraft. The manufacturers chosen were Martin, who had a good record of developing advanced aircraft and would have excess production capacity, KaiserFleetwing for perhaps political reasons, and Curtiss-Wright, for whom it might have been a chance to redirect

MARTIN

AM-1 1-1 Q

MAULER

what was left of their stumbling SB2C program. At that time, Douglas was not included in the competition because of their heavy involvement with the production of the S'sD and their on-going development of the . XSB2D-1. The Glen L. Martin Company's response to that Navy requirement for a single-engine, single-place attack airplane for carrier or shore based operations was the XBTM-1. The aircraft was, after the 1946 change in mission designators, produced as the AM-1. Although 139 were built and did serve with five VA and one VC fleet squadron before being relegated to the reserves, the type was out-performed by its contemporary, the Douglas ADSkyraider. The AM-1 's place in naval aviation history can perhaps best be described as, "... and now, the runner-up is ... ". The AM-1 was powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-4360-4W, a 28 cylinder engine that developed a Military Rated power of 3,000 BHP and used a take-off power setting of 53" manifold pressure and 2,700 RPM at sea level. The AM-1's armament consisted of four 20 mm guns with 800 2

Natural metal XBTM-1 85162 on an early test flight with the short carburetor scoop. (National Archives)

rounds of ammunition and various combinations of bombs, rockets, and ·torpedoes. The Mauler was equipped to carry the AN/APS-4 radar which was an air-to-surface radar with limited air-to-air capability. Equipped with a constant speed, four bladed propeller, there was one noticeable differehce between the aircraft purchased under the two separate production contracts. The AM-1 s purchased under the original contract (BuNos. 22257 to 22355), used a Curtiss propeller that was electrically operated and had blades that were cuffed at the spinner and rounded at the tips. Those aircraft purchased under the subsequent contract (BuNos. 122388 to 122437), used the Hamilton Standard propeller which, although of the same diameter as the Curtiss propeller, was hydraulically controlled and, perhaps because of the squared-off tips, decidedly angular in appearance. The AM-1 also featured a unique "finger" type dive brake that was 10-

•

Top - natural metal XBTM-1 with O. E. "Pat" Tibbs at the controls in flight; the size of the pilot's head gives you a clear indication of the Mauler's immense size. Middle - toothcomb style dive brakes are shown open both above and below the wing. Bottomgear is seen in its fully extended position with the flaps partially lowered. Note that the tail hook had not yet been installed.

3

cated along the trailing edge of the wing. This dive brake offered a combination of uses. When closed, it could be deflected downward in a single panel to act as a conventional landing flap. When opened, the intermeshing "fingers" separated into alternating upper and lower sections to slow the diving speed of the 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 was well-liked by the fleet VA pilots for its effectiveness, part of this effectiveness was due to its great area. This was contributed to by the length of its span, which in turn however, reduced the span of the ailerons. This reduction in span minimized the low-speed effectiveness of the Mauler's ailerons. Once this lowspeed deficiency revealed itself to the NATC pilots, the spoiler aileron sub-' system was introduced into the design.

NAVAL AIR TEST CENTER (NATC) To illustrate the extent of NATe's work with the AM-1, the flight test program eventually involved 18 (almost the complement of a fleet VA squadron) and lasted longer (three years) than the type stayed in service with the active duty squadrons. The aircraft assigned to NATC for these trials are listed by their BuNos and assigned Test Divisions at the end of this portion of the Mauler's operational history.

4

The XBTM-1 seen later in life in NATe markings. By this time the tail hook had been added and the carburetor scoop had been lengthened. Aircraft is loaded with a 750 pound centerline bomb and what appears to be two napalm bombs on the wing stations. (via Bob Kowalski) Recalling the bomb, airplane and ship silhouettes of WW II, Martin test pilot Ray Nessly points out the 18 dive and six spin silhouettes on the side of the XBTM-1 to Ozzie Zahnow and R. D. Gilson. (Martin)

The Martin AM-1 Mauler production line on 16 December 1946. (Martin)

5

--------------------------

NATe

BIS

TEST

RESULTS First production AM-1 22257 without spinner on 12-28-46. 22257 would be the first AM-1 accepted for BIS trials at NATe on 3-31-47. standards of BuNo. 22307, did possess satisfactory or acceptable flight stability and control characteristics. The following performance figures were demonstrated by the modified BuNo. 22307:

First flown on 26 August 1944, XBTM-1 (BuNo. 85161) reached the Naval Air Test Center on 11 December 1944. Being joined in the Test program by its sister ship (BuNo. 85162), which was fitted with a spinner that was a distinguishing feature of the AM-1, testing revealed deficiencies that resulted in noticeable modifications to the design. The most apparent of these changes were the' ones that were made to the cowling and air scoop. On the AM-1, the cowling was lengthened by six inches and canted two degrees to the right while the carburetor air scoop's length was increased so that it now extended out over the cowling to a point just forward of the cowl flap hinge line. The Board of Inspection and Survey, assisted by the personnel and

facilities of the Naval Air Test Center, NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and the Naval Aircraft Torpedo Unit, NAS Quonset Point, Rhode Island, conducted Service Acceptance Trials on the Martin AM-1 from 31 March 1947 until 18 April 1950. The first test airplane, BuNo. 22257, contained 17 modifications as a result of the earlier flight tests of the XBTM-1 s. In spite of these modifications serious and unacceptable deficiencies remained in the production aircraft. In the correction of these deficiencies, NATC flight tested major modifications in five successive AM-1 aircraft. The last of these, BuNo. 22307, contained nine modifications of which eight were to improve flying qualities. Tests completed on 21 March 1950 showed that the production AM-1 airplane, modified to the

6

WEIGHT EMPTY--LBS. 15,257 BOMBER/SCOUT BOMBER USEFUL LOAD -- LBS. 7,066 SCOUT USEFUL LOAD --LBS. 6,157 BOMBER GROSS WEIGHT --LBS. 22,323 SCOUT GROSS WEIGHT --LBS. 21,414 MAX SPEED (MRP) AT SEA LEVEL--KNOTS BOMBER 264 SCOUT 269 MAX SPEED (MRP) AT AIRCRAFT'S CRITICAL ALTITUDE OF 15,400 FEET--KNOTS BOMBER 281 SCOUT 290 SERVICE CEILlNG--FEET BOMBER /SCOUT 27,000 STALLING SPEED, FLAPS UP, SEA LEVEL-KNOTS, BOMBER/SCOUT 94

Final assembly of the 4th production AM-1 22260 on 2-26-47. This aircraft would also take part in the BIS trials. The cannons are clearly visible through the wing fold mechanism. (Martin)

~

It was during the arrested landing phase of the carrier suitability trials that the infamous "tail-shedding" accident occurred. An inadequacy in the design was making itself evident to the pilots by a "violent" tail shake occurring upon engagement of the arresting wires. This was a symptom of the high stresses that were being placed on the aircraft. During the 51 st engagement of the test phase, BuNo. 22279 was making its 16th fly-in engagement when the enti re aft fuselage was torn from the airframe. This revealed that the design strength of the fuselage was inadequate and that a different type of tail hook was needed. The fuselage was strengthened by the reinforcement of the longerons in the carry-through structure to 300 percent of their former strength. To cure the tail shake problem, a program was undertaken that included the testing of nine different tail hooks of various lengths, weights and types of heads. The tail hook designated as "No. 6B" was finally

developed as part of this program. This "roller hook" featured a roller bearing as an integral part of the head of the tail hook. This bearing would be engaged by the arresting wire and would roll (rotate) under the stress of any sideways forces that were encountered during arresting wire pullout, thereby eliminating the tail shake problem. With the reinforced aft fuselage structure and tail hook "No. 6B" installed, BuNo. 22298 completed the last of 100 fly-in engagements on 15 August 1948. With this phase of testing completed, the results showed that the production AM-1, configured to the standards of BuNo. 22298, were acceptable for carrier based arrested landings. For catapult launching, the weight of the AM-1 necessitated a heavy duty bridle that had an increased diameter of 7/8 of an inch. This heavier bridle was now beyond the capacity of the

7

This photo of a clean-winged AM-1 was a censored photo with the pylons airbrushed out. The wing pylons just inboard of the cannons were an integral part of the aircraft's construction. Note the center wing section Swiss-cheese style dive flap. (via Clay Jansson) .

standard bridle catcher, (NAF 90967-1). As a result the catapult launching phase report recommended that; "to prevent damage to the catapult bridle spreader, set the catapult to give an end-speed of no more that 65 knots and provide wind to give a launching airspeed of 95 knots which is a comfortable airspeed for the pilot when the aircraft is loaded to its heaviest weight." BuNo. 22259 was assigned to the AM-1 22269 assigned to Armament Test is seen minus its spinner and carrying two 500 pound bombs on the wing pylons in 1947. (via Larkins)

Three views of an AM-1 with the APS-4 installed on the port wing pylon and a 750 pound bomb located on the fuselage pylon. The top photo is of 22257, which had a slab-sided (flat-sided) windscreen not used on later aircraft. (via B. J. Long) The bottom photo shows the split dive-flaps open just prior to rollover for a dive run on 4-26-49. (National Archives)

8

stability and control phase of the trials. Testing on this aircraft was repeatedly delayed by the evaluation of various fixes to cure major deficiencies. In correcting two of these deficiencies, the spoiler aileron system and the elevator demand assist mechanism were added to the flight controls. Being added to the existing design, these hydraulically-powered devices probably contributed their share of leaks to the hydraulic problems that gave the Mauler its poor record of maintenance reliability. RADM F. B. Stone USN (ret) commanded VA-85 when they flew the AM-1 and describes the hydraulic system as "complicated and poorly-sealed. The airplane would be sitting silently in the chocks on the line, nobody near it, and hydraulic fluid suddenly would come streaming out from anyone or more of a number of points, a real bleeder." Taking these fixes separately, the spoiler ailerons were developed to improve an inadequate rate of roll at low airspeeds that was coupled with an adverse aileron yaw. The spoiler aileron panels were located forward of the dive brake/landing flap panel and did increase the roll rate sufficiently to allow a reduction in maximum aileron travel. This reduction cured the ad-

verse aileron yaw problem.

engagement with the barrier."

The elevator demand assist mechanism was designed to help the pilot overcome what the interim report called, "excessively high elevator stick forces." Described perhaps prophetically by the report as a system that, "due to it's intricate design, is an additional possible source of maintenance difficulties." With the elevator demand assist installed, the consensus of the NATC pilots was that the stick forces were "reasonable throughout take-off, climb following take-off and landing." However the test data does show that the elevator stick forces would still momentarily exceed the specifications (SR-119A) limit of 35 pounds pull. Perhaps it was this combination of high elevator stick forces and the weight of the R-4360 engine that left the carrier pilot with the most demanding task of handling the Mauler after the cut. As RADM Stone describes that phase of flight: "In a carrier landing after getting the 'cut', the slightest temptation to relax a fine degree of back pressure on the stick, let alone any tendency to dive for the deck, resulted in that monstrous nose dropping irretrievably downward causing an unavoidable wheels-first, tail-high landing followed by a high soaring bounce and ultimate

The armament trials recommendations included the change to the MK. 9 Mod. 3 launcher as a result of damage to the ailerons from the firing of 5.0" HVARs from the initially installed launchers. The fixed gun installation was not found acceptable for use until fourteen recommended changes were made. Satisfactory tests of the bombing installation (which did not include a "bomb release arm") were made using various combinations of bombs, mines and 11.75" "Tiny Tim" aircraft rockets. The torpedo drop tests included five flights in a three-torpedo loaded condition and resulted in the torpedo installation being found acceptable for service use. By 1952, weight restrictions of 2300 pounds were placed on the fuselage and wing center-section bomb racks. Since the AM-1 was no longer serving with the fleet, the restrictions were meaningless except to serve as a comparison with the Douglas AD Skyraider of 1952.

9

Typical 1950s public relations photo of an aircraft's load carrying ability, showing bombs, torpedoes , depth charges and cannons with ammunition. (Martin)

After two series of tests by the Tactical Test Division, the results were not fully satisfactory or acceptable. It was concluded that the AM-1 did not meet the current tactical requirements for a carrier or land-. based attack airplane. It was recommended that, "(1) the cockpit be completely redesigned, (2) unsatisfactory performance of flight instruments be corrected, (3) internal and external lighting be improved, (4) lateral trim control be improved at low speeds, and (5) provisions be made for more adequate cockpit ventilation". On 20 September 1948, the Bureau of Aeronautics announced that a revised cockpit and instrument panel would be installed on the 1OOth and subsequent production aircraft. All previous production aircraft would be modified at the next major overhaul. The first two phases of Accelerated Service Trials also showed an unsatisfactory performance due to, "excessive maintenance requirements and inadequate accessibility." After numerous changes, the third phase of trials were conducted from 13 September 1949 to 18 April 1950. At this time, 18 April, the AM-1 was no longer being operated by any fleet VA squadron. Using BuNo. 122430, the 142nd production article, the results were much improved. It was then recommended that a further 28 discrepancies be corrected to insure satisfactory service operation of the AM-1 aircraft.

A.) "The AM-1 production aircraft, with all modifications installed in BuNo. 122430 and subsequent airplanes, substantially meets the contract guarantee." B.) "It is concluded that power plant cooling of the AM-1 aircraft is inadequate under certain operating conditions." One of these operating conditions could have been the "climb" as the pilot's handbook cautions: "Best climbing speed is approximately 145 knots lAS at 2350 RPM and 37". If engine will not cool with full open cowl flaps, it will be necessary to increase speed." C.) "It is concluded that the service suitability of AM-1 aircraft as land . or carrier based attack airplanes is marginal for long range operations, formation flying, night flying and instrument flying, which demand excessive pilot effort and cause excessive pilot fatigue."

AM-1 Mauler assignments for Board of Inspection and Survey Trials: 22257,22259,22267,22275, & 22307 were assigned to Flight Test (FT) for

The final report on the Service Acceptance Trials includes among its conclusions that: 10

AM-1 22263 assigned to the Tactical Test Division at NATe in 1948. (Warren Bodie via Larkins)

stability and control trials from 3-31-47 to 3-18-50. 22260, 22298, & 22307 were assigned to FT for performance and power plant trials from 1-20-49 to 4-14-50. 22268, 22279, & 22298 were assigned to FT for carrier suitability trials from 2-12-48 to 8-27-48. 22269 & 22308 were assigned to Armament Test (AT) from 8-4-47 to 7-14-48. 22262 was assigned to Electronic Test (ET) from 11-19-47 to 6-10-48. 22263 & 22306 were assigned to Tactical Test (TT) from 9-4-47 to 10-1 0-48. 22266, 22267, & 122430 were assigned to Service Test (ST) for accelerated service trials from 8-26-47 to 4-18-50. 22264 & 22292 were assigned to the Naval Aircraft Torpedo Unit at Quonset Point, R.1. for torpedo trials from 10-30-47 to 5-12-48 AM-1 22263 prepares for a test after being loaded with 12 5" rockets and 2 250 Ib bombs. (Boddie via Larkins)

I'

I

11

AM-1Q 22299 demonstrates the Mauler's heavy weight lifting capability by hauling over 9,000 pounds of torpedoes, rockets and cannons on 1-31-49. The different type antennas that are indicative of the AM-1Q can be seen on the lower aft fuselage behind the trailing edge of the win!:!. (Martin above and National Archives below)

12

(

Two more examples of the Mauler's heavy lift abilities. AM-1 122398 is loaded with 125" rockets, 2 11.75" "Tiny Tim" rockets and one 750 pound bomb. AM-1 122397 is loaded with 3 aerial torpedoes and 12 250 pound bombs. All weapons were yellow with red noses. (Martin and via B.J. Long)

-,

. 13

---::--.. . . ._-"'===

T

Above, AM-1 22307 on 3-27-50 while assigned to the Flight Test Division at Patuxent River, Maryland, for participation in performance and power plant trials. The APS-4 package is seen here beneath the port wing. Note the original round tipped cuffed propeller that was installed on early Maulers. (National Archives) Below, AM-1 22308 from above shows the offset of the engine nacelle that was needed to control torque on take-off and landing. (National Archives)

15

Two more views of AM-1 22308 which show the dive br£lkes and wing details from above. The white stenciled numbers 308 and NATC were painted with blue lines running through them. AT-2 on the nose stands for the Armament Test Division at NATC. (National Archives)

16

J

AM-1 22308 in early 1948 while assigned to Armament Test; note minimal clearance of the torpedoes and the ground. (Menard)

One of the changes that was incorporated on later AM-1s and retrofitted to earlier ones was the canopy shape. The photo above shows 22275 on 10-27-48 with the slab-sided windscreen and pinched bubble canopy. Below, Martin Reps. pose in front of a later AM-1 on 8-16-48 with the newer rounded windscreen and unpinched bubble canopy. Both aircraft have the round tipped, cuffed propeller. The civilians left to right were; H. Dahlinged, B. Mangurin, E. Ronan, N. Meehan, R. Schwab, L. Cuppeet, R. Aigner, unknown and C. Luhr. (National Archives)

17

2-1-50 photos of early AM-1s that were sent through rework at NAS Norfolk to incorporate the many changes that were dictated by the NATe BIS test results. Some of the changes seen are new spinners, canopies, engine cowls, etc. The top photo shows Grumman Bearcats being reworked in the foreground with Maulers in the background. (National Archives)

18

, ARMAMENT PILOT'S

MAIN

r,-

SWITCH PANEL

I

ENCLOSURE (SLIDING) INSTRUMENT PANEL GUN

SIGHT MK-'

LEAD~/N

,I /I r SEe nON

--------,

INSULATOR

RADIO EOUIPMENT LIGHT

COMMAND ANTENNA

-,

RUDDER

WINDSHIELD (BULLET RESISTING GLASS)

IWOOER TAB

OIL TANK LIAISON

ANTENNA

HYDRAULIC CARBuRETOR AILERON

TRIM

TAB

MAST

RESERVOIH AIR

_

AILERON

ELEVATOR TAB

o;~ ARRESTING GEA~"'> ARRESTING GEAR SNUBBING CYLINDER TAIL

GEAR

"

ACTUATING

CYUNDER

EMERGENCY AIR BOTTLE (TAIL GEAR) TAIL

WHEEL

TAIL

.....HEEL

DOORS

12"X5f~ SOLID

TIRE 8 WHEEL'"

.... CD BRAKES

0" [NGOtE

COOLER

PSlf'

OUCT _ / /

_

R-4360-4rt _ _

A IIfM UN! TlON

_ _ #ING WHEEL

-1

ARMOR

BOxES

GUNS

4-20MM

COOLER

TYPE

T31

COvER

ARMOR -----

GENERATOR - - - CATAPULT

2000 LB ALTERNATE

BC~B

HOOK

OR 26

INSTALLATIONS

_ _~

DUCT

_

,

WING 80MB

FuEL

TANK

SHACKLE

Figure J -2.

_

WING

POSITION LIGHT

MAIN WHEEL 36" x /1" CHANNEL EX TRA HIGH PRESSURE TIRE

OIL

LANDING FLAPS

2000 LB BOftlB ~R 43 ALTERNATE INSTALLATIONS

PIlOPELLER

ENGINE

a

General Arrangement, AM- J

TRE/4D

TIP (DETACHABLE)

ARMAMENr SWITCH PANEL PILor'S

----"

I

ENCLOSURE (SLIDING) MAIN

INSTRUMENT PANEL

GUN

-----,/

SIGHr MK-I

--"

WINDSHIELD (BULLEr RESISTiNG GLASS)

/

OIL rANK LIAISON

AILERON

rRIM

rAB

ANTENNA

~I

MAST

rAB

--,

/

AILERON

-ARRESTING GEAR SNUBBING CYLINDER rAIL

GEAR

RADIO ALTIMETER ANTENNA

ACrUATiNG CYLINDER

EMERGENCY AIR BornE (TAIL GEAR)

,

~---rAIL WHEEL .NTENNA TAIL WHEEL

~SIMMONOS POWER UNIT

I\)

o

ENGI/t,'E P. It rAIN GEAR

ACTUATING

CYLINDER TYPE

ENGINE

AIi.OR

OIL

T3/

TREAD

COOLER

ARMOR

GENERATOR CATAPULT

8

HOOK

I

,000 lB 80MB OR ,6 ALTERNATE

INSTALLATIONS

I

WING

80MB

FuEL

DEFROSTING

oucr

TANK

SHACKLE

Figure 1-3.

General Arrangement, AM-l Q

ODORS I"

12~X52 SOLID TIRE '8 WHEEL

ISTRUCTURAL

BREAKDOWN OF AM-1

FUSELAGE AND FUSELAGE FLAP

8

STA 140

-,USE

['

I

, @ @ ~

NOMENCLATURE

L

UPPER LONGERON

4~

2. 3.

BULKHEAD STA. 201 ~

4-5

SHELF STRi'NGERS

B-3 4-4,4-4A

FRAMES BULKHEAD-STA.459

4-7 4-5

7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12.

12

FUSELAGE

INDEX

4. 5. 6.

~

10

REPAIR FIGURE

BULKHEAD- STA. 441

4-5

BULKHEAD- STA. 426

4-5

LONGERON

4-3

BULKHEAD- STA. 36B FLAP SHELF BULKHEAD-STA.140

4-5 B-3, B-5 4-5

FUSELAGE FLAP 13. 14. 15. FUSELAGE

ORIGINAL

RIB

B-6

SKIN

B-4

SPAR

4-10

FLAP

SLAB-SIDED

WINDSCREEN

21

AND

CANOPY

I

PRATT

WHITNEY

&

R-4360-4W

SIDE VIEW

2

3

..

5

ENGINE

LOOKING FORWARD FROM

6

THE FIREWALL

18 11---j~~~\

GENElAro.

~~i~S-+.I-'~T-fo\\I~ 7-rriilJ~~

9

11-+--9

25

STRUCTURAL

BREAKDOWN

OF

THE

ENGINE ENGINE

INDEX

SECTION

MOUNT

NOMENCLATURE

REPAIR FIGURE

I.

SPLICE

2. 3.

RING ASSEMBLY

B-9

TUBE

B-9

PLATE

NQNREPAIRA81E

MOUNT

INDEX

ENGINE SECTION

22

NOMENCLATURE

REPAIR FIGURE

l

ENGINE COWL

B-4"

2. 3. 4. 5.

ENGINE HOOD PANELS

6-2

COWL FLAPS ACCESSORY PANELS

6-2

OUTER BAFFLE

B-4"

"

STRUCTURAL

BREAKDOWN OF THE

EMPENNAGE ~

,.

~

DOf'SAL riM Sl(IN

liGHTLY 5r"[55£D

(ST&:'y- -./' ~

I.

~

~ ~

STABILIZER

STA8llll[R SfUN H[AV1L,.Y STM'SS!O

411.'

ova.

1(01 VERTICAL FIN 4(8).

a

vtIITICM.. ,.. . . .

~~./'

H(A~Y

INDEX FOR EMPENNAGE

INDEX

l

SKIN SPAR

4. 5. 6. 7.

CHANNEL

8. 9. 10.

9

NOMENCLATURE

2. 3.

ST"UKO

CONTROL SURFACES REPAIR FIGURE

,A)

8-4 ...

I",

B-5 ... ICI3-2.1l113-5.lf:13-3

IAI 3-2, 18l3-3.ICI 3-4,\013-5

STRINGER

1.. 3-3 .....13-2.ICI3-3.IDl3-3'EI3-3 (A) HOfIIIAEPIlI""8LE • teJ

B-8

BULKHEAD TAB ASSEMBLY RIBS BUTT STRAP NOSE RIBS NOSE CHANNEL

Is;:'"

10

----\ELEV J ··3(E)

.

STA) 20.: 6

fLt'VATOR

SKIN

~~

lIE)

ELEVATOR RUDDER LIGHTLY

SKIN

STRESSEO

23

9

ARMAMENT

GUN SIGHT

GUN SIGHT CONTROL lOX

GUN CAMERA CENTER 101.41 STATION

WING 10M. STATION

FIXEO WING GUNS

ROCKET STATIONS

CENTER BOMB STATION

WING BOMB STATION

Jt

....".'_WI ..,""')44.1 -..... .o.l'OIOllM

~~~~WI

----- - --

~~ :

::=~~

J

nS621i

, , • ,

1D-10l00fSi lo.2080HS )0-10801J6 'c>lOO<W70

•

lG.lcao~

•• aM_l

",,,. ..... ,,,. ... ,..,),.

,.""",." .. .,.row,,, ..-. ...

:

b l;.not. Doaalu A1rcnf'l Ah Gcat . . Finina F".ni°l

. ."

c..

OJ

.....

24

s..,... 114.·'" " r...

I.~

I

C.

e..-

............. IIMeotIlT ............. II

...........

O'-'J