Quote:
It'll be great to see some of the Lockheed's saved!
Absolutely. It's one of the most under-rated, yet critically important warbirds of W.W.II
Quote:
Some nice pics here of the "Live" Hudson down under. It would be nice to have an example stateside, they just don't have the draw of fighters, but probably cheaper to purchase!
Sadly, you're right. There's not a lot of airframes out there either, but still several are 'outside' which is disgraceful (not having a go at the museums trying their best, but it's not a great way to treat such an important machine.)
It's ironic that the far less significant Lockheed Harpoon (
) is getting much greater attention from preservationists; again, not detracting from the 'Pooners here at all, but the Harpoon's record is far less significant (though, of course still important) to the Hudson family's. Even the generally unloved Commonwealth version the Ventura has more claims to fame than the Harpoon, including a pilot winning a VC. The Harpoons main advantage is availability of airframes, and a later, better provided for in terms of parts and equipment, machine. Any comment from the 'Pooners? Obviously the Harpoon fans will be putting me straight.
Quote:
To my knowledge there are not any Hudsons on display ( or flying?) in the USA.
AFAIK, no. There have been several later Lockheeds pretending to be Hudsons. There are 14 identities listed in Blewett's Survivors 2002. Six in NZ, One in the UK, a wreck in Luxembourg, four in Australia, two in Canada (both outside) and only one in the US, with Mr Weeks.
Quote:
It would be great to see one in the air again given its role in the early WWII days. I believe a Navy PBO flying out of NAS Argentia Canada (VP-82) sank the first U-Boat in early 1942.
The list of Hudson achievements and firsts is extensive and includes the first shots of the Pacific air war, first Japanese ship sunk, all
before Pearl Harbor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_I ... _of_MalayaQuote:
What kind of components were salvaged out of Canada ?? Boulton Paul Turret ??
Doubt it, although it would be most useful. They are very hard to find.
Quote:
The Lodstar and the Hudson were identical airframes other than the length...the Hudson being 5.5 feet shorter.
Now this is doing my head in. The Hudson and Ventura's wing is given as identical, yet the Hudson has a straight taper wing throughout production. The Ventura, Lodestar and other post Hudson Lockheed twins seem to often have a kinked trailing edge for a slightly larger area wing. What's going on? I can't find a reliable reference!
Quote:
Like many other early twin engine attack A/C the The Hudson did not have a co-pilot position.
The Lockheed Hudson was developed by Lockheed from the Model 14 to British spec, which had a standard British single pilot requirement, whereas the 14 was a two-pilot aircraft. The initial Lockheed tender was whipped up in no time by a very savvy Lockheed when the British Purchasing Commission was in town, but while the Brits were impressed, the first idea was scrapped as not fitting the British way of doing things. (The single pilot was one, more realistic turret positions another and a navigator who could see out a third...) The US Hudsons were generally developed, with US turrets and fitting from Lockheed's British version - by then in service with the Australia and New Zealand as well.
Anyone able to give a quick Lockheed twins 'wing 101'?
Oh, and great pic JDV. Thanks!
Cheers,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
