"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" wrote in message
...
"Firefighting certainly wasn't what Glenn L. Martin had in mind for
the design of the Martin Mars. Originally conceived as a bomber for
long range missions and patrols, the production aircraft were
redesigned and classified for long-range general transport because of
the demonstrated heavy-lift capability of the prototype."
http://www.martinmars.com/mars.html

Key word: "redesigned".

The prototype was never used as a water bomber. The airplanes in use as
water bombers (and not of the same design as the prototype) were never
intended for use as a bomber. Claiming that they were doesn't make it so.


Sorry Peter. You said in an earlier post:

"Martin Mars (originally
designed as a military troop transport, now used *only* for fire
fighting)"

and

"It was not. I already told you, it [the Mars] was originally
designed as a military
troop transport. You don't need to take my word for it. Just read up
on
the history of the Martin Mars."

Clearly *you* were wrong here. You didin't say 'Originally designed as
a bomber, then redesigned as a troop transport'. You said 'Originally
designed as a troop transport'. It was clearly designed as a bomber,
and the 'repurposing' as a transport didn't involved structural
redesign of the wing or structural components of the fuselage. It
consisted of

"All the turrets and guns, bomb bays, and armor plate were removed,
cargo-loading hatches and cargo-loading equipment were installed, and
the decking was reinforced. The modified aircraft was designated
XPB2M-1R. "

So essentially the Mars in use today is the same *design* originally
designed as a bomber, which you incorrectly stated as being
'originally designed' as a troop transport.


Yes it was repurposed, but don't you think it's rather ironic that you
chimed in on this thread to chastise the poster for being wrong about
the original purpose of the aircraft, and the being provably incorrect
about it *yourself*?

Cheers,

Cap