Author Topic: Interesting Picture of a MO-1 (Read 3625 times)

Joe Just · « **on:** February 11, 2014, 07:44:34 PM »

This photo, more than any other picture or drawing really shows some interesting facts about our beloved MO-1. The picture from the Martin library and the Langley Research facility shows the canvas covering that ran from the lead cockpit backwards to the rear gunners position. It also points out that perhaps the rear cockpit was moveable. The flight crew in the middle seems to be using a megaphone to keep in touch with the rear personal. Also note the trailing edge of the wing near the fuse. Just some observations.
Joe

wwwarbird · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2014, 11:15:40 PM »

Neat photo Joe, it shows some interesting details.

I wonder what the heavy mist is coming over the wing? Whatever it is, it seems to have their attention!

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #2 on:** February 12, 2014, 05:49:15 AM »

It looks like it is exiting from a pipe of sorts. The crew looks non military so my guess is some sort of airflow test. Notice what looks to me like a notebook by one of the crew. Thats a Langley picture source. I don't know why I am commenting on this. I can't stand MO-1s. More comments from you MO-1 efficieanados.
Wayne

Paul Smith · « **Reply #3 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:07:21 AM »

Quote from: wwwarbird on February 11, 2014, 11:15:40 PM

Neat photo Joe, it shows some interesting details.

I wonder what the heavy mist is coming over the wing? Whatever it is, it seems to have their attention!

I don't know what's venting, but I assume the camera plane is what really has their attention. These photo ops (B-70) can be risky bidness.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #4 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:40:09 AM »

This MO-1 was on loan to NACA Langley and was being used for some airfoil smoke tests, if I recall. I think that it had a couple of other modifications (perhaps a whole new wing). I've got some more info on it somewhere. I will update if and when I find it.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2014, 09:09:38 AM »

Turns out that I had some of that stuff right here at work -- Here is the text that goes with that picture. The photo and a second (attached) are from the book "Flight Research at NASA Langley Research Center" By Mark A. Chambers. The second photo shows the MO-1 in the hanger, and the observers window beneath the wing is clearly shown.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:10:10 PM »

Wheres the hook? Show me the hook!
Wayne

Joe Just · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2014, 08:43:02 PM »

Wayne, we all know that the MO-1 did not have a hook per sey, but one did make an "arrested" landing by using a "cow catcher" arrangement in the landing gear. My question concerning the MO-1 has always been, and I repeat it here is "Why would a huge (12 foot high) observation plane ever be considered for Navy Carrier when it had no relationship to any of the "combat type" Navy planes that are eligible? From it's inception the AMA Navy Carrier event was always set up to be a challenge with High Speed then low speed and an arrested landing. I further doubt that the people that followed the US Navy's request for a modeling event that reflected Naval Aviation had ever heard of the MO_1. However the rule of "Unintended Consequent" held through.

Wayne J. Buran · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2014, 05:44:58 AM »

There you go. The reason for it all. Unintended consequences, yep that explains it. Should be categorized as a disease. Thanks for clearing it up for me Joe.
Wayne

Paul Smith · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2014, 06:38:51 AM »

Joe, you are 100% correct.

The MO-1 and other light observation planes that might have been landed on carriers should be excluded. A Cessna 150, Piper Cub, Lysander, Storch, OV-10, or any other STOL plane could easily land and take off from a carrier. Especially one of the new super carriers.

The MO-1 is just a loophole in the rules that mocks the event and gets good scores. Doing a high speed run with an 80 MPH observation plane is just as ridiculous as prop-hanging with a fighter. Nobody is going to disallow observation planes and prop-hanging, so we might as well just live with it.

By the way, the same article that says the Germans might have used Bf-109's on the aircraft carrier they never built also mentions using Stukas on the non-existant Graf Zeppilin carrier. So the Stuka is just as legal as the Bf-109. I guess by that logic, practially any airplane might have been used on a carrier that was never built.

john vlna · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:07:59 AM »

The Russians knew the Germans better than anyone and here is what they have to say about the Bf-109

" In early 1939, "Messerschmitt" proposed carrier-based fighter Bf 109T ("Trager" - carrier-based). By design, it was close Bf 109E, had an increased wing area and sweep on each console was more than 0.6 meters Here are elongated slats and ailerons and flaps had a large area. Between the fifth and sixth frames fuselage attachment point was to catapult. Planting hook was attached directly to the seventh frames. The design of this place has been strengthened for the perception of large loads. Wings could be folded by hand directly on the hinge mounts for nodes guns. Overall width with reduced up to 4.1 m, however, folding wings was quite a complex operation, as previously required to disconnect the flaps. Armament consisted of two synchronous MG 17 machine guns, and on the wings could be mounted either two MG 17 machine guns or two guns MG FF. Bf 109T was adopted, but a detailed study of the project was transferred to the "Fieseler". At the same time directly to the assembly line began reworking 10 Bf 109E-1 in pre-production Bf 109T-0, and "Fieseler" received an order for 60 Bf 109T-1.
Bf 109T-0 engines powered DB 601A, to increase the glide angle on the upper surface of the wing spoilers were installed, and the landing gear were strengthened. After testing in Travemünde winter 1939-40 they were intended to convey to military trials in II / JG 186 (kernel which were 5th and 6th aircraft carrier fighter squadrons). However, work on the "Graf Zeppelin" in October 1939 to a halt, as they found the use of one aircraft carrier away from bases impractical. Finally, the work was stopped in May 1940 II / JG 186, meanwhile, came in as the third team in the JG 77 and participated in the French company. In June 1940, the group moved to Trondheim in Horvegii, and on June 6, it was renamed in the III / JG 77. Assembling 60 Bf 109T-1 on "Fieseler" stopped immediately after the suspension of work on the aircraft carrier. But the success of the British aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea at the end of 1940, has attracted renewed interest in this type of ships. Although immediately begin work on an aircraft carrier was considered premature (they resumed May 13, 1942 g), "Fieseler" was ordered to complete 60 Bf 109T, but without carrier-based equipment. The plane was made in the fighter-bomber version, adapted for use with short runways."

By the way the Germans did some testing, but I have never seen a picture of the Bf-109, attached is one of a Bk-534

john vlna · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:32:16 AM »

By the way the hooks they talk about on the MO-1 were not to stop the plane, but were hooks to engage the decks longitudinal landing wires. This was to keep the plane straight down the deck. Navalized planes were also equipped with a tail hook to engage the cross deck wires. Early US planes used this feature which was found un-necessary in the long run.
See attached

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2014, 09:07:11 AM »

Quote from: john vlna on February 13, 2014, 08:07:59 AM

The Russians knew the Germans better than anyone and here is what they have to say about the Bf-109

" Bf 109T-0

By the way the Germans did some testing, but I have never seen a picture of the Bf-109, attached is one of a Bk-534

Here ya go ....

Joe Just · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2014, 09:24:00 AM »

I had another thought, but Boy Oh Boy this one could cause the fur to fly. Here goes. What would happen if the NCS membership were to vote on the following rule change. Yes or no, should available aircraft for any of the 13 classes of Navy Carrier be limited to aircraft used in combat situations by any verifiable source be only those aircraft that flew from 1938 to 1945? If this were passed then a separate class for all 13 Navy Carrier events would allow any aircraft whatever. WOW 26 separate events! Think of how that would save and grow our event!! The mind simply would be unable to comprehend the vast number of Nats entries in Carrier. Perhaps registration might even grow to 10 or 12 people!
Joe (who will be in hiding for the next 3 days)

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2014, 09:41:32 AM »

Joe:

Go take your meds .. and eat a Snicker Bar. You get a little loopy when your hungry.

john vlna · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2014, 11:05:34 AM »

I couldn't go there. I fly a plane, used in combat during Korea, one of the late model Seafires, and have planes that pre- date 1938, like the F6C

Plus if you dump the MO-1 there aren't many people left.

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2014, 11:23:03 AM »

In addition to the 109 pix, here are some photos of the Stuka which would have accompanied it - NOTE the folding wings, in addition to the hook - Definitely a Carrier plane, definitely flown successfully.

And to be accurate, the Graf Zeppelin WAS built, WAS launched but was never operated or completed. In fact, the boilers were never installed. Unlike many other ships, it was not converted from some other type, but was laid down as a Carrier from the beginning. It was scuttled by the Germans when the Russians overran Germany, refloated by the Russians, and used as a transport by filling it with captured hardware and towing it back to Russia. In 1947 it was used for target practice by the Russians and sunk.

john vlna · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2014, 04:01:53 PM »

Mike
I'm not an expert on the Bf109, in fact I avoid German planes, but are the flaps bigger, /different from a normal fighter?
John

Mike Anderson · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2014, 06:37:07 PM »

Quote from: john vlna on February 13, 2014, 04:01:53 PM

Mike
I'm not an expert on the Bf109, in fact I avoid German planes, but are the flaps bigger, /different from a normal fighter?
John

I'm no expert either, I just squirrel this stuff away when I find it and then I can pull it up when threads like this one
wander off track.

The 109T was a modified 109E and had wingspan increased by a couple of feet, as were the ailerons to match the
new wing to shorten the takeoff run. The flap TRAVEL was increased, but no mention of flap area being changed.
The wings on the 109T could either be folded by hand or not folded at all, depending on which source you believe.
Some strengthening of the landing gear and the fuselage in the area where the tailhook was mounted. After the
cancellation of the finishing of the Graf Zeppelin, Goring had the 109T's converted back to E's, but they kept the
increased wingspan.

john vlna · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2014, 08:39:44 PM »

Mike,
Thanks for the info. The 109 would have been a treat on a pitching deck. I've heard that more pilots were killed/injured on takeoff and landing due to the narrow gear
John

Randy Snow · « **Reply #20 on:** February 18, 2014, 05:10:49 AM »

About the MO-1 --- is there any photo of one with USS Langley on it's side? NO - not to my knowledge --when the " Wagon Top" entered service any aircraft assigned to her had USS LANGLEY painted on it's side -- if the aircraft was assigned to a squadron it received that squadron's ID markings. The MO-1 was not a Martin design but designed by the Navy contracted tobe built by Martin -- any statement from Martin that the design was intended as a carrier based aircraft by Martin is in error -- the Navy designed the aircraft for "ship board" use - battle cruiser and battle ship launched scoutplanes -VF-1 tested the type but found it to HEAVY for ANY SAFE ship board use - so the type was regulated to LAND BASED USE -only 36 were built. I've seen a photo of one MO-1 flying OVER "Wagon Top" but not on her deck being used - The type was tested on an airstrip equipped with arresting lines - again by VF-1 and again the type was found tobe unsafe - to HEAVY. There is NO record of any MO-1 assigned to any carrier based squadron - only land based squadron use. About naval aircraft that qualify for C/L carrier this should begin with what the RNAS in 1917 and the first aircraft to launch and land on a commissioned aircraft carrier - yes the britts did it first -- they had REAL aircraft carriers in WW1 - the Sopwith Pup was the first aircraft to successfully launch and land on a moving ship -NOT off of a platform built on a gun turret with the ship setting tied up in dock motionless. There are many photos showing RNAS aircraft on board these aircraft carriers during WW1- Pups, Sea Camels,Bristol Fighters. It took the US Navy awhile to get with the program - the navy of japan during the 20's had more carriers than the US. And the US Navy -with "Wagon Top" "Lady Lex" and "Sara" conducted war games with Pearl Harbor as the target -GO FIGURE THAT ONE- and the squadrons conducting the air attack found Pearl Harbor an EASY TARGET --- anyway it's early in the morning and I had nothing better to do so I've posted this - now on to some coffee

john vlna · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2014, 12:30:31 PM »

Attached are some pictures of the MO-1 from a book called; Martin Aircraft 1909-1960 by John Breihan et al. The scan isn't to good but it shows an interesting frame view. No mention in the article of carrier trials, and states that it was to heavy for catapult use on battleships. 36 were built.

PS The article does state that a lot of innovative design ideas were incorporated.

john vlna · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2014, 12:45:22 PM »

For those that don't like MO-1's, these are the guys that started the craze

john vlna · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2014, 12:51:49 PM »

By the way this is why it is legal, from Don Gerber's article in 1969
"During the summer of 1967 I corresponded with the Martin Marietta Corp. and got a photograph of the real plane and a good three-view drawing. Invaluable was the letter from Martin Marietta verifying the MO-1 as being carrier-based: "In response to your request for verification of the use of the early Martin-built MO-1, our records indicate that this plane was carrier-based along with the bombing and torpedo squadrons of the U. S. Navy in 1924, but was classed as a light-weight scout monoplane."

eric david conley · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2014, 02:34:56 PM »

Thanks John, lets hope than Randy can sleep in for a little while so the rest of us can get some sleep. Eric

john vlna · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2014, 06:51:03 PM »

One last comment on observation planes. In the early days of US carrier aviation many different planes were used solely for observation from carrier. In fact many thought the purpose of the carrier should be to scout for the fleet, much as the role of submarines. By WWII it was clear that purpose built carrier observation planes were not needed and the SBD typically filled the scout bomber role.

Author Topic: Interesting Picture of a MO-1 (Read 3625 times)

Joe Just

Joe Just

Joe Just