Talk:Martin P6M SeaMaster

message: Needs an infobox, fairly decent information but details, details. Regrettable that the importance is "low" but as a "failed type" and obscure to boot it's not as important as some others, despite being one of the great What-Ifs and (not NPOV) worst decisions-to-cancel ever made (/not NPOV). - Aerobird 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: This article states: "In the age of the ICBM and SLBM, the manned bomber had become an expensive and unreliable nuclear weapon delivery system." Sounds like someone's opinion - don't think the DoD or Congress think this is the case. If they do, why are they spending huge amounts of tax dollars building and maintaining a land-based strategic bomber fleet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:300:7520:B027:3E10:13E2:E7AC (talk • contribs) 
:I think your comments are valid and I've citation-tagged the passage. Carguychris (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference? 

message: This document, an extended version of The Oxcart Story (declassified at the same time), claims that the Seamaster originally intended to use the J58. No such claim appears here, where the larger engine is the J75.
Does anyone know more about this? I believe the Oxcart version is wrong.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this  1954 Flight news item, the P6M was originally due to have Wright J67 engines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The J58 was originally developed by the Navy, and was later modified for the SR-71. It could well have been intended for the P6M at some point. - BilCat (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  J58 engines 

message: Despite a highly detailed information about one of P6M crashes, something is strange at the following article statement: "The first prototype, BuNo 138821, c/n XP-1, disintegrated in flight at 5,000 feet due to horizontal tail going to full up in control malfunction, subjecting airframe to 9 G stress as it began an outside loop...". Well, as far as I know, if a horizontal tail goes up (i.e., the elevator or the whole horizontal assembly deflects upward), the aircraft makes an inside loop, not an outside one. Since I have no detailed information about this particular event with BuNo 138821, I cannot correct or edit the above mentioned text. Can someone with specific familiarity/information about that incident review/revise that statement regarding that control surface logics I've mentioned? Thanx. RobertoRMola (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside loop 

message: The article doesn't say exactly when the P6M's were scrapped, just that they were.  Any chance that they survived long enough to be momentarily assigned the otherwise unused P-6 designation in the tri-service designations? Carolina wren (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so, according to various sources the P-6 designation was not used at the request of the Navy, assumed to avoid confusion with the P6M although I suspect they had all gone by 1962 having been grounded in 1959. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  P-6 and scrapping 

message: Infobox says 12 were built, while the body of the article says 2 prototypes, 6 pre-production models and 8 production models. Obviously both can't be right, so how many were there? 12 or 16? 207.98.198.84 (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number built