Martin Mars to attend Oshkosh 2016

To quote Kermit from his Facebook page regarding the Sunderland:
“YES I plan on flying it again and NO it won’t be coming to Oshkosh this year.”
I guess all good things come to those who wait

If the Sunderland had stayed in the UK would it be flying? Probably not.

Even better, if the Sunderland had stayed in the UK would it still exist?

So it can join his non-flying Sunderland? :dev2:

He does get grief on this forum for not flying some of his rare UK types.
But remember, he bought them when no one else came forward.
If the Sunderland had stayed in the UK would it be flying? Probably not.
And given the toll the UK environment takes on outside display aircraft, it’s probably in any better condition than it would be if it remained in the UK.

makes sense if it does head for Kermit Weeks,he has a well deserved good reputation for the rescue of many airframes which otherwise could be scrapped.

So it can join his non-flying Sunderland? :dev2:

Over on WIX people are connecting the dots and speculating Kermit will take the Mars home after the show. We shall see!

And there is the truth of the situation. In our increasing march of technology, the Mars is a dinosaur in the business and much as we would like to see it flying forever, it’s days must be numbered.

A little more update on the Mars:

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/owner-looking-for-new-home-for-martin-mars-water-bomber-1.2250425

Plane Sailing’ could operate its Catalina on the sea if it wished to (we operated our original Catalina from salt water on a number of occasions in the 80s and 90s). The only reason we have not used G-PBYA on the sea to date is down to cost of maintenance which is much higher than on fresh water. I’m sure that we would do it, subject to sea conditions, if someone was prepared to accept a quote. As it is we have stuck to flying from fresh water only so far.

Apologies for the confusion. I thought that it was stated by the commentator at Ayr last year that 433915 wasn’t permitted to go in the sea, though I’m clearly getting confused.

“In the sea” isn’t the same as ‘from water”. The freshly-reactivated ZK-PBY certainly only operates from lakes as a matter of policy. It was the centerpiece of the Friday evening event on Lake Wanaka before Wings Over Wanaka, and used Lake Taupo for testing after its deep maintenance at New Plymouth.

Another reason the Catalina is a flying boat is that it was originally designed and produced as such, without wheels.

Re. the comparative difficulties of an Atlantic crossing, I’d say an open water landing becoming necessary might be more of a problem for a landplane.

I will be there thankfully, one will be fantastic to see, in the unlikely event that the other passes by that would be incredible

Be nice if the ferry flight of the “other Mars ” to Pensacola could be timed with the operational one appearing at Oshkosh .
A pair of Mars ! Now that would be a sight.
( not that I’ll be there).

You were misinformed. We operate from water on a regular basis – insured. The next occasion should be at Biscarrosse in southwest France next month.

Apologies for the confusion. I thought that it was stated by the commentator at Ayr last year that 433915 wasn’t permitted to go in the sea, though I’m clearly getting confused.

Ironically enough I was told last year that UK-based Catalina 433915 isn’t insured to actually go in water. I missed out on a chance to step on-board. Twice!

You were misinformed. We operate from water on a regular basis – insured. The next occasion should be at Biscarrosse in southwest France next month.

Ironically enough I was told last year that UK-based Catalina 433915 isn’t insured to actually go in water. I missed out on a chance to step on-board. Twice!

There is Youtube footage of Kermit Weeks’ Sunderland back when it still flew over here.

I read on Wikipedia (where else?) that the Philippine Mars, now in US Navy finish (as per Newforest‘s post) was going to be transferred to Pensacola this month. Is this still the case? Surely the ferry flight for that would be more interesting even than a red/white example?

And more Mars news! C-FLYK, the second Mars is sitting on Sproat Lake awaiting its delivery flight to the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida. It looks very sinister sitting on the lake as it is painted in U.S. Navy ‘glossy sea blue’, almost a midnight blue/black colour. A photo can be seen in the 2016 annual edition of ‘Propliner’ now available. 😀

I was using the practical definition of a flying boat….no wheels.
While I can certainly see the “hull makes it a flying boat” argument, there are limitations to that, I’ve never heard anyone call a Lake, Seabee, or any of the many homebuilt designs (Coot, Searay, etc) flying boats. Any guy who shows up at a fly-in with one of those and proclaims himself a “flying boat captain” would be immediately accused by his peers as having Pan Am or Sunderland visions of grandeur. 🙂

JB…………..Reckon the Catalina is classed as a flying boat as its hull sits in the water as opposed to a float plane where just the floats dip in the wet stuff.

Planemike – you are absolutely correct and J Boyle is not. The Catalina is most definitely a flying boat regardless of whether it is amphibious or not for the reasons you state.

JB…………..

Sadly have to agree with you about the practicalities of a trans Atlantic flight, simpler to fly a few thousand enthusiasts to Oshkosh. Must say I reckon it could “out Vulcan the Vulcan” even allowing for the fact that 99.999999999999% of the European population would not even know what a Mars looked like, (those in Britain would probably think it was a chocolate bar !!

Reckon the Catalina is classed as a flying boat as its hull sits in the water as opposed to a float plane where just the floats dip in the wet stuff. Guess the nearest we have to a proper four engine boat which could take to the air again is Kermit Weekes Sandringham/Sunderland. That of course did fly across the Atlantic.