NEI Martin WH-3's

[72modeler]

 

@jimmaas,

 

In view of the pending SH kit and your comments- not to mention your knowledge of the theater and colors/markings, I was thinking that the NEI Martin WH-3/3A's with the Wright R-1820's would be a very nasty-looking version, and even if Special Hobby doesn't do it, it would be a fairly easy conversion. I found this article, and thought it might be of interest, providing you don't already have it. Didn't we have some discussion and reference photos on this version a few years back? Not being one of those who whines about a favorite version not being done before a kit is even released, I don't care which version is produced; I will just be happy to get a more state of the art B-10! Regards!

Mike

 

https://thejavagoldblog.wordpress.com/background-info-book-1/airplanes-2/glenn-martin-b10-bombers-in-dutch-service/

[JWM]

Interesting articles. The photo showing two Martins 139-WH3 reveals (or am I wrong?) difference : the M556 (closer to us) seem for that she does not have a light bottom of fuselage (and has nose art), whereas the next machine for sure has light belly.

Both without orange rudders and likely no triangles from top of wing and still large triangles on bottom sides 

 

[alt-92]

I believe the SH kit would be fine (with alterations) for the earlier WH1 and WH2, not so sure about the -3 & 3A. 

That was rather redesigned, as quoted in the article:
 

Quote

Triggered by these sales, the Glenn Martin Company significantly improved the design and gave it a different export designation (model 166). The most striking difference was a single long ‘glass house’ canopy. Apart from redesigned wings and an altered nose, the 166 had better and more powerful engines (900 hp. Wright Cyclone R-1820-G5) fitted with Curtiss constant speed propellers. But the most important new feature consisted of bomb shackles under the wings, between the fuselage and the engines.

Missing in this quote is also a wider fuselage to increase bomb load capabilities, the wing changes also include sweep angle.
There's more info on the Dutch IPMS site:

https://www.ipms.nl/artikelen/nedmil-luchtvaart/vliegtuigen-m/vliegtuigen-m-martin-139/1636-vliegtuigen-m-martin-139-modelbouw

3A were 1200hp R1820-G102.

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by alt-92

[JWM]

18 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

That was rather redesigned,

Indeed, besides canopy if you think on scratch conversion the main problem is maybe with a bit swept wings like in Il-2 strielka (arrow) in WH-3 and stright in earlier...The trailing edge is stright, like in DC 3.

[mhaselden]

3 hours ago, JWM said:

Interesting articles. The photo showing two Martins 139-WH3 reveals (or am I wrong?) difference : the M556 (closer to us) seem for that she does not have a light bottom of fuselage (and has nose art), whereas the next machine for sure has light belly.

Both without orange rudders and likely no triangles from top of wing and still large triangles on bottom sides 

 

 

I think the nearest aircraft does have the aluminium underside to the fuselage.  There's a visible line just under the fuselage national marking which matches the one visible on the other airframe.  For some reason, the lighting on the nearer aircraft is much worse, making the whole underside appear darker.  

 

The nose art is possible Jiminy Cricket:

 

Edited February 21, 2020 by mhaselden

[72modeler]

5 hours ago, JWM said:

Indeed, besides canopy if you think on scratch conversion the main problem is maybe with a bit swept wings like in Il-2 strielka (arrow) in WH-3 and stright in earlier...The trailing edge is stright, like in DC 3.

Oh, well- it was a thought, anyway! Looks like a lot of major alternations would have to be made. The wider fuselage is the deal breaker.

Mike

[alt-92]

Then again, until someone comes up with the measurements, nothing stopping you from investigating further
There's also a good section of pictures on the IPMS article that may be helpful.

[JohnMacG]

/ah......FINALLY. A Dutch Martin 139, I've been waiting c.40 years for one of these. (in the meantime we've had about 25000 P-51Ds/Spitfires/ 109s - sorry a very small rant).

Does anyone know when this is due for release?

[JWM]

IN net I have found only such drawings to WH3 as here 

https://www.ipms.nl/artikelen/nedmil-luchtvaart/vliegtuigen-m/vliegtuigen-m-martin-139

 

[72modeler]

48 minutes ago, JWM said:

IN net I have found only such drawings to WH3 as here 

https://www.ipms.nl/artikelen/nedmil-luchtvaart/vliegtuigen-m/vliegtuigen-m-martin-139

 

JWM,

 

I'm having a hard time finding photos or drawings that show how the wings on the WH-3A NEI Martins with the R-1820 Cyclones were different from the earlier versions. Is there also any reference that describes or details the "wider" fuselage mentioned in the earlier posts? I really like the Cyclone-powered WH-3A's, but fear the modifications necessary are beyond my limited skills. Found this website with some nice photos as a thank-you. It will be interesting to see how the Special Hobby kit will be engineered, but doubt very much if it will be a WH-3A, as the earlier variants were much more numerous and flown by more than just one nation. (Why is it that I always seem to fall in love with an airplane for which there is no kit or conversion?) 😥

Mike

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-10#/media/File:Martin-B-10B.jpg

[alt-92]

 

This RFI has a nice side-shot that might serve as comparison with the pictures of the -3 models.

[TISO]

My basic observations on WH-3 (was planning to convert one for years now but never got to it)

RE wings:

Wing outer panels are a wee bit swept back comparing to trapezoidal WH-1/2 wing and on WH-3 have angle between centerplane and trailing edge of outer wing 14 deg -10' (as per WH-3 maintenance manual).

 

RE fuselage:

Looking at lot of photos fuselage doesn't seem wider on WH-3 but possibly deeper (especialy in front of the bomb bay) and shape of the nose was changed 

 

RE bomb shackles:

To me it seems that even WH-1/2 were equipped with them. At least they are seen on WH-1/2 planes that were sent to Malaya at the start of the war.

[JWM]

I also think that fuselage i deeper, not wider. Interesting is also Thai Martin 166  (no 12 on tail) with yellow leading edges and captured Japanese

 

 

[TISO]

WH-2's in Malaya (Kallang airfield) from 5:10

https://www.britishpathe.com/video/dutch-air-force-in-burma-1942

Edited February 23, 2020 by TISO

[72modeler]

TISO,

 

That is one neat video! Those three Buffalo's doing aerobatics look like something you'd see at Old Warden! Thanks for sharing it!

Mike

[TISO]

happy to be of assistance.

I'm Quite curious what Will be the end product of new Special Hobby kit. Hopefully they Will issue WH-3 in few years

[72modeler]

19 hours ago, JWM said:

Interesting is also Thai Martin 166  (no 12 on tail) with yellow leading edge

JWM,

That's a very interesting photo, indeed! I see another Martin to the far right, a Dakota/DC-3 behind #12, and a Beech 18/C-45 at the far left. I have no idea what the aircraft with the roundel on the wing upper surface is, as well as what belongs to the tip of the very dark fin/rudder that's visible in front of the Dakota's fin; not sure what the twin-engined aircraft is behind #12, but it has a single fin. Any guesses?

Mike

[alt-92]

Jugding by the wheels & antenna rod, another 166.

[JWM]

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

Any guesses?

Behind Martin it is Mitsubishi Ki21 Sally. Here is in similar position

 

Thailad had some of them

 

Cheers

J-W

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by JWM

[JWM]

The dark fin belongs to another Martin, as the wing with roundel, I think. The presence of Dakota suggest that photo was done after war.

J-W

 

[jimmaas]

The Thais had 139WSM (SM for Siam, these were like B-10's but with different cowlings) pre-war, and got several 139WH-3's from the Japanese after the surrender of the NEI.  There is evidently a surviving wing, which shows the two shades of green camouflage used by the NEI Army Air Corps, and some of this has worn off showing the original yellow wing color (the 139WH's were delivered with yellow wing/tails surfaces and blue fuselages).

[Chuck1945]

I may have missed it reading through this topic, but Azur-Frrom will be releasing variations different from SH. Quite a discussion over on the 72 Scale Aircraft Forum  Unfortunately I haven’t seen mention of the WH-3 version there.

[72modeler]

Good eye, JWM- I think you are 100% correct!

Mike

[72modeler]

I just remembered I have a copy of Martin Aircraft, 1909-1960, by Breihan/Piet/Mason. It has 1/120 scale drawings of the  B-10B reduced down from the 1/72 scale drawngs by Ian R. Stair, originally published in Aviation News. Doesn't help much with the WH-3A variant, though . In the text description of the WH-3A's built for the Dutch, it mentions  the long continuous greenhouse, sharply swept wings, blunt nose, external bomb racks on the inner wings, smooth non-corrugated lower fuselage from the aft end of the bomb bay forward, and Wright R-1820-G105A engines. No mention of a wider or deeper fuselage, but in the few profile photos I have found, the blunt nose looks deeper going back to the bomb bay, but from the front edge of the bomb bay aft to the tail cone, the depth looks the same as the earlier versions, so maybe that is why that version is said to have a deeper fuselage? I personally don't think the entire fuselage was widened, as that would pretty much require re-tooling all of the fuselage bulkheads and formers and would also result in a longer published wingspan. I'm only guessing here, but my thinking is that because of the heavier engines and bomb load, the wings were swept back for cg or aerodynamic reasons? No mention of the degrees of sweep back, doggone it! (Knowing that, it wouldn't be all that difficult to cut the outer wing panels and insert a wedge airfoil shape to give the proper sweep back, then re-attach the outer panels.) Best I can do from my meager references and internet research, I'm afraid.

Mike

 

This just in! From  American Combat Aircraft, the wingspan and overall length of the Model 166 WH-3A was given as 70' 2"  compared to the 70' 10" for the 139 WH-2; the reduced span  might be attributed to the increased sweepback of the WH-3A?

Edited February 27, 2020 by 72modeler
added text

[jimmaas]

From Hans Berfelo in the Netherlands....