Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Actually the US was building some advanced commercial planes, to the extent that many airlines, companies and countries were buying American aircraft.
The US had a number of aircraft in the pipeline to replace it.
Boeing was disappointed when they only sold 75 of 247 model.
Yes indeed, the USA led the world in advanced airliner design and manufacture, but that did not directly translate to useful military aircraft until the USA entered the war in 1941/1942. by that time, America had learned a LOT from its erstwhile ally across the Atlantic by then.
Some of the differences between the US and British (and German) aircraft can be attributed to timing.Not lots, and its early prototypes of most of its pre-war bombers were heavily modified before they entered production or didn't see extensive service at all, look at the DB-7, B-25, and B-17 of course, and what about the B-23 and those big B-19 and B-15 giant bombers and so forth? Just because the Bolo was numerous, it doesn't mean it was suited for combat operations. That's the difference. Sure, the earlier Whitleys suffered with the Tiger, but the V powered by Merlins entered service before the war started. It was a superior bomber to the Bolo. Even the Hampden was designed to have power operated turrets, which no US bomber had before the war. And then there was the Wellington, which again, in the Ic model with proper power turrets rather than the gun installations designed by Vickers could carry heavier loads.
The US and the British were operating at somewhat offset timing.
But there were very few US and British aircraft that were conceived at the same time and developed at the same and went into service at the same time so true comparisons are difficult. I have used the example before, aircraft went from starting to use flaps to first aircraft prototype with double slotted fowler flaps in 10 years. Engines doubled in power in the same 10 years. Being off in timing by 1 1/2 to 2 years can make a big difference in an aircraft's capability.
Perhaps low budgets prevented the British from buying a handful (6-12) American flying boats to help tied them over at the time they bought the Lockheed Hudsons.
They did eventually buy (or lend-lease) the Catalinas.
Prying a few Blenheims away from Bomber Command would seem the best bet.
I am confused.Also, you were aware that the Hudson was designed specifically by Lockheed to meet the requirements of the British Purchasing Commission, like the Mustang?
I thought the Lockeed 14 first flew in July 1937, which meant it had do be designed during the months preceding that date.
Lockheed is supposed to have sent out cutaway drawings of 14 to various publications showing several interior layouts, including a light bomber.
But I guess that was a myth and it was the British Purchasing Commission that gets all the credit.
HiThe original Lockheed 14 that flew in 1937 was NOT the Hudson! Come on SR, you can do better than that and you know it.
The Hudson was based on the very mock-up for the Lockheed 14 bomber that you mention, but the BPC wasn't interested in the bomber, so on the BPC's recommendations changes were made for the general reconnaissance role by Lockheed engineers, the B-14 mock-up was prepared hastily to interest the BPC and it was from this that the Hudson took form, so the BPC was responsible for the impetus behind the birth of the Hudson. There's no "the BPC gets credit for" at play at all. Lockheed produced the general reconnaissance mock-up to win an order from the BPC. The Hudson was built for the British requirement.
The book 'Air Arsenal North America' by Butler and Hagedorn has a list of aircraft looked at by the BPC in 1938:
The Weir Commission examined the Model 28 PBY in 1938 and recommended an acquisition of one or two for evaluation at MAEE. That resulted in the delivery of Model 28-4 serial no P9630 in July 1939. The RAF had no others on order at that time. P9630 was extensively tested by the MAEE and a number of flying boat squadrons before crashing and being written off at Dumbarton on 10 Feb 1940.Which US flying boats are you referring to? The Catalina was the most modern and numerous and the RAF ordered (purchased) its first before the outbreak of war, the first arriving in the UK in July 1939, the first time US military aircraft deliveries to Britain were made by air across the Atlantic. Other than the Catalina, the US had no modern military flying boats with the capacity to match what the British already had in the Sunderland. The Martin Mariner first flew in mid 1939 around the time the RAF received its first Cats and didn't enter US Navy service until 1941.
he Weir Commission examined the Model 28 PBY in 1938 and recommended an acquisition of one or two for evaluation at MAEE. That resulted in the delivery of Model 28-4 serial no P9630 in July 1939.
You mean. Orders from Jan 1940. Deliveries from Jan 1941.Yup, that's the aircraft I was referring to in my statement, although I mistook its delivery date for when the RAF received its first examples, which were, as you mentioned in January 1940 (dangit, gotta read stuff more closely). It's interesting to note that that first Cat was flown cross the Atlantic, as I mentioned, from Botwood in Newfoundland to Felixtowe. Following from your comments, that first order of Model 28-5MEs was going to be named Plymouths (not Catalinas)!
Still, there was no other US built flying boat that was available in production before the war that Britain was interested in, although Mariners were ordered, as were Coronados eventually, but not until during the war.
You mean. Orders from Jan 1940. Deliveries from Jan 1941.
I can't do much better.The original Lockheed 14 that flew in 1937 was NOT the Hudson! Come on SR, you can do better than that and you know it.
Yeah, that whacking big domed turret sticking out the top might have had something to do with lower cruise and max speeds? and part of the reason for increase in empty weight?It was a masterpiece of modification to an existing design and retained the original dimensions of the Model 14, Lockheed managed to keep its performance to similar parameters as the airliner. This was impressive as, while the Hudson was slightly slower in cruise and maximum speeds, it had a (considerably) higher ceiling and longer range, despite a heavier (by 1,600 lbs) empty weight and (by 2,000 lb) max loaded weight.
So the British basically put windows in the nose baggage compartment, stuck at transparent nose cap on it. Put bomb doors into the baggage compartment/s under the floor and put the turret at the rear of the cabin. Taking out the cabin seats and re-arranging some of the equipment was not that big a deal.
Obviously by fitting different engines performance could be improved and since Lockheed had fitted both P&W and Wright engines to the model and 10 and the model 12 to suit customer preference that was not a big deal.
Did the Hudson use a different wing than the 14?
Did it use a different tail?
Different landing gear?
And use a bit of your own argument back at you. Claiming that the British had anything to do with the improvement in the ceiling of the Hudson compared to the Lockheed 14 overlooks the fact the engines used in the later Hudson's didn't exist in 1937-38 and when the engines did show up later they were American engines using American superchargers.
It was a masterpiece of modification to an existing design and retained the original dimensions of the Model 14, Lockheed managed to keep its performance to similar parameters as the airliner. This was impressive as, while the Hudson was slightly slower in cruise and maximum speeds, it had a (considerably) higher ceiling and longer range, despite a heavier (by 1,600 lbs) empty weight and (by 2,000 lb) max loaded weight.
It's not even worth debating with you at this point.
Baaad British. BAAAAD British..
Saved by the British Purchasing Commission's brilliance from bankruptcy and ignominy.
Not much point in debating you either.
Also, you were aware that the Hudson was designed specifically by Lockheed to meet the requirements of the British Purchasing Commission, like the Mustang? Lockheed had built a mock-up, which it offered to the BPC in April 1938, who initially wasn't interested until vital changes were made on its insistence. Lockheed responded in relocating the navigator's position in the nose and it won a contract.
he original Lockheed 14 that flew in 1937 was NOT the Hudson! Come on SR, you can do better than that and you know it.
The thing about the Hudson was that its British credentials go beyond inspiring its order potential.
The original B-14 mock-up had a nose turret, but the BPC insisted on changes to its internal configuration and crew layout, particularly in the redesigned nose, set at four in the original but increased to five to man the lower gun position.
It was a masterpiece of modification to an existing design and retained the original dimensions of the Model 14, Lockheed managed to keep its performance to similar parameters as the airliner. This was impressive as, while the Hudson was slightly slower in cruise and maximum speeds, it had a (considerably) higher ceiling and longer range, despite a heavier (by 1,600 lbs) empty weight and (by 2,000 lb) max loaded weight.
You can hold whatever opinion you like, doesn't mean you're accurate in your assessment.
Pot calling kettle.Look, you make a deliberate habit of criticising almost everything British, almost always out of context, which I correct you on simply because a lot of what you state is inaccurate.