Talk:Martin JRM Mars/Archive 1

How many survivors?
How many of these are left? It sounds like two, based on the literature. Is that right? --Ragemanchoo 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the specifications for the JRM-3 Mars were taken off the page in an edit. I personally feel that they are valuable, and belong on the page because they are the specs for the mars that are currently flying, complete with water capacity for its waterbombing role instead of its obsolete Navy role. I can see that having two sets of specs on the page might be confusing, but I don't want to lose the Navy model specs either, especially as they are more complete. So, unless others have a problem with it, I'm going to revert and put the JRM-3 specs back on the page. Thoughts? Comments? -Lommer 18:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * By convention, the specifications section of aircraft articles details one specific variant that can be regarded as typical. Usually this will be the most numerous or famous version, and I think there's a good case for it also to represent the aircraft as it was manufactured, rather than reflect a standard it was modified to many years later. In any case, nothing was lost - the water capacity and the new engines are still detailed in the article. Another alternative you might want to consider is expanding the section on the water bomber variant into its own article - we're starting to see a small number of such cases across WikiProject Aircraft. --Rlandmann 22:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The general characteristics listed on this page are different than those in the article. Most different is the height and the engines used. Where did the original data come from, and which data should we use in the article? -Lommer 20:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * the original info I used was from the Vectorsite article, and it was as I recall for the JRM-2 model. At least three different engines were fitted, as well. -eric 03:33, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Parked at Alameda? I remember at least two of them stored at Terminal Island (Los Angeles) in the early to mid-1960's LorenzoB 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

7 were built, if you include the prototype "Old Lady". I am going to change the number on the main page from "6". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.37.224 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maiden flight
The vectorsite says that the first flight was made on either 23 June 1942 or 3 July 1942, it being uncertain which. At any rate, not 1941. Can anyone clarify this? Drutt (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name
What is the meaning or origin of the name "Mars" 96.244.179.203 (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mars is the Roman god of war. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Yes, but was the intent of Martin to name the aircraft type after a god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.179.203 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More likely was the propensity of Martin to use "M" names for their aircraft. FWiW, Martin Maryland, Martin Marauder, Martin Mauler, Martin Mercator, Martin Marlin, ad nauseum ... Bzuk (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC).
 * I think you can "blame" the British for Maryland but they had the right idea - alliteration works. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Other patrol aircraft are gods Orion, Neptune, Poseidon MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point - and I note Orion is "the hunter" like Nimrod ("the mighty hunter"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But then again, Avro Shackleton, Breguet Alizé, Fairey Gannet, Grumman AF Guardian, Grumman S-2 Tracker, Lockheed CP-140 Aurora and Lockheed S-3 Viking, as well as the ubiquitous Consolidated PBY Catalina, do not follow this trend. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

Bogus plane characteristic
"Based on historical data, each plane can make a drop every fifteen minutes."

This is not a characteristic or property of the plane. It depends how far the fire is,  from the nearest usable lake. This obviously depends on the local geography in the vicinity of the fire, and is in no meaningful way a descriptive attribute of the aircraft itself.Eregli bob (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I rewrote the sentence to only include the water carrying capacity of the aircraft.Ckruschke (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

New Comercial Use
Just found this: http://ultimateflyingexperience.ca/ The componny promotes trainig days and it seems like the airplane is still in service. maybe someone can edit the section — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZahrte (talk • contribs) 21:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Why no movie mention ?
Granted, it was onscreen for only a minute or two, but one of the two remaining ones was used in the 2010 movie The A-Team. 2600:8800:22C:F700:422:DC66:4086:1AAF (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)