Improved interwar RAF/RN ASW (1 Viewer)

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.

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.

The US had a number of aircraft in the pipeline to replace it.

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.

Britain had more modern bombers than the USA did by 1939 and was more of a match in capability to the Luftwaffe, which it can be said set the benchmark. That the USA was going to catch up was inevitable and rightly so, but the Brits helped that process a lot more than most Americans are prepared to admit. As I mentioned, the secret to the USA's success before the shooting started was its potential. The Brits knew this early on, that's why the Brits and French turned to the USA for modern aircraft with the joint Purchasing Commission. That manufacturing potential was very useful to Europe.

America's "isolationist policy" set it back in military matters between the wars. British forces, including the RAF had combat experience in that period which no doubt aided its development, but again, what has to be asked is, when rubbishing the Brits and their policy decisions, could any other armed forces in the world with their pre-war policies have done any better in 1939/1940 against Germany? I sincerely doubt it.

Boeing was disappointed when they only sold 75 of 247 model.

Yup, the USA is a bigger country, and the airline market is larger, as mentioned, Britain had an extensive rail network that was far more comprehensive than the USA's simply because the country was smaller. The USA is today the world's biggest airline market for the same reasons as it becoming a giant in the first place, great distances across the same continent serving a big population in spread apart centres. Britain and other European aircraft crossed greater distances, sure, but they did not require the same number of aircraft because there wasn't the same volume of passengers travelling those distances. Two very different markets and requirements.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
Some of the differences between the US and British (and German) aircraft can be attributed to timing.

The Bolo wasn't a particularly good bomber it is true. However it was around 1 to 1 /2 years earlier in timing than the Wellington and Hampden. It was within a couple of months of the Whitley MK I.

Had the Americans wished, or needed to, they could have expanded production and upgraded a bit. They built the B-18s in small numbers and they did it while Douglas was building DC-3s for airlines.

The B-18s were built with R-1820 G series Cyclones. They never got the R-1820 G100s (1100hp for take-off), The R-1820 G 200s don't show up until late in 1939 so they are too late.
And in 1939 the Americans just skipped the 1200hp class of engines for twin engine bombers and stuck them in 4 engine aircraft. The US went to 1600hp an up for twin engine bombers.
The B-23s were ordered in late 1938 as a change order on the existing B-18A contract, 1st plane was delivered July of 1939. 2nd one shows up on Feb 1940. Yes it is deficient in guns but it is pretty close to the Wellington III in capability.

The commercial aircraft meant that the US companies were good at structure and aerodynamics. P & W and Wright were ahead of Bristol (at least the poppet valve engines) but may have lacked a bit in superchargers compared to Bristol. Most airliners weren't flying at over 12,000ft.
The US and the British were operating at somewhat offset timing. The B-18 was early, the British twins showed up a bit later, the US was looking at replacements for the B-18 in late 1938/early 39 and they flew by the end of 1940.
The British were in the shooting war, Some of their plans were sidetracked or delayed or unrealistic, like the Albemarle or combinations. Some of the American aircraft were also unrealistic but most of those didn't make it into production except in handfuls

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.
 
Getting back on track, somewhat, what could the British have done in the interwar years.

Assuming somewhat similar budgets and development of aircraft and weapons.

Now with budgets there are some games that could be played. From the earlier post by Geoffrey Sinclair

Coastal Command 3 September 1939
9 Squadrons of Ansons, establishment 200, serviceable 135.
1 Squadron of Hudsons, establishment 9, serviceable 9
2 Squadrons of Londons, establishment 16, serviceable 9
1 Squadron of Stranraers, establishment 8, serviceable 6
2 Squadrons of Sunderlands, establishment 16, serviceable 12
1 Squadron of Vildebeeste, establishment 16, serviceable 12

You not only have the cost of the aircraft but you have the cost of the crews (including ground crew) and you have the cost of adding/improving bases.

In the interwar years escort carriers are an expensive way to get 12-24 aircraft (or fewer?) a base, even though it is mobile/relocatable.

The threat also changed during the interwar years. Almost 1/2 the German subs in the late 30s were the Type IIs that were short ranged. The British may not have known their exact capabilities but there is only so much you can do with a 250ton boat. The Germans were building both the Type VIIs and the Type IXs and the Germans had sent U-boats to the coast of America in WW I. The exact mix of boats known to the British may not have been known but a rough guess was possible and educated guesses as to their capabilities was possible.

Unfortunately for the British (and some other countries) Anti-sub warfare often got the short end of the stick and just about anything that could fly without crashing was pressed into use as the more modern aircraft were needed for other duties. A number of country's did try a high and low mix to get a small number of modern/high performance aircraft in addition to cheap or old aircraft.

For the British the Sunderlands were excellent, modern aircraft but were costly and would be limited in numbers without additional factory facilities being built when additional funds became available.
Unfortunately the smaller modern flying boat crashed, literally. Problems with the Saro Lerwick required keeping the Saro Londons and Stranraer's, in service.
It took a while for both of those to be produced and the thinking that caused 40 of the Stranraer's to be built in Canada needs a lot of explaining ("Buy British" should not cover it).
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.

The Vildebeeste were supposed to be replaced by the Beauforts but again the British ran out of luck and time. And again, other needs took resources.

Prying a few Blenheims away from Bomber Command would seem the best bet. A few (6-12) to spread out to 2-3 of the Anson Squadrons over the summer of 1939 as conversion trainers for the Blenheim MK IVs coming on line. Replace a few of the Ansons squadrons with MK IV Blenhiems while waiting for more of the Hudsons to show up.

The Blenheims will have the least amount of change to BC actual bomb lift capacity but will count against them as to squadron totals. This goes back to actual combat effectiveness vs winning the war/s in Whitehall.
 
The US and the British were operating at somewhat offset timing.

Very much so, but you can take a period of time and state where anyone was, technology-wise.

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.

This is stating the obvious.

Let's not forget why the comparisons are being made by me, to provide context, not to illustrate anything more than that. Stating that British pre-war bombers (for example) were rubbish (which you have done in the past, SR) requires clarification and context, which is why I have added what I have, to illustrate the very pertinent point that if you are going to state that the RAF was somewhat out of touch because of its pre-war policies but not mention that almost every other air force in the world was the same ignores the fact that this was normal for the time. Note that I attempted to clarify when these things I stated applied, which adds context and a place for the comparison to sit.
 
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.

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.

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. The competing designs, the B-17 and B-18 were not suitable, they were too expensive, and they would not be ready in sufficient numbers in haste. Within two years of the Anson entering service the British were looking to replace it, mind you, when a specification is issued, a replacement is sought almost immediately.

Prying a few Blenheims away from Bomber Command would seem the best bet.

Coastal Command received its first Blenheims in February 1940 from Fighter Command, but 254 Sqn began training on the type in January 1940.
 
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 am confused.
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.

Good thing the prototype Hudson bomber flew in Dec 1938 or Howard Hughes would never have made that around the World Record flight in July of 1938. ;)

As bit of notoriety, It was a Lockheed 14 that Chamberlin flew back to Britain on Sept 30th 1938.
640px-MunichAgreement.jpg

One of eight of that version of the Model 14 to go into service with BOAC.

Yes the British did get some modifications to the airliners to suit them for the bombing role and to fit them with a power turret, which had to be fitted in the UK.

As far as flying boats go, Sikorsky never made a military version of the S43 (Military transports yes)
Sikorsky_JRS-1_USN_in_flight.jpg

But it first flew in 1935. One of these was Hughes 1st choice for the around the world flight but he changed his mind and went for the Lockheed with it's higher speed.
The short low nose may not have been as good in rough water but the S-43 had more speed than the Biplanes.
 
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.

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.

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 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.
Hi
The book 'Air Arsenal North America' by Butler and Hagedorn has a list of aircraft looked at by the BPC in 1938:
WW2rafmaint009.jpg

It is of interest to note they were also looking for a single-seat FAA fighter, none were available to view in the USA. The British (and the French) spent a lot of money in the USA, not only for aircraft but also to expand the US aircraft factories to produce them, a summary of pre-Lend Lease expenditure appears on page 30:
WW2rafmaint010.jpg

The US aircraft orders were a 'minor' part of the British orders for aircraft, the domestic production being rather larger, fighting the NAZIs was very expensive for the British taxpayer.

Mike
 
The thing about the Hudson was that its British credentials go beyond inspiring its order potential. Shortly after the meeting with the BPC in the USA, a company team, which included Kelly Johnson spent two months in London going over the design aspects of the new aircraft with the British Air Ministry. In this time the British decided on the use of the Boulton Paul Type C, it was originally intended on a US turret, of which I'm not sure of the design of as the USA did not have any power turrets in production in 1938, possibly a Lockheed design (?). Nevertheless, foreign, meaning US aircraft imported into the UK were to be fitted with Boulton Paul turrets, which included the Douglas Boston and the Liberator, for which the latter was but plans to fit the former with a power turret did not eventuate until the later models fitted with Martin turrets.

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. The Lockheed concept impressed the BPC, and its most attractive feature to the British was the speed at which it was promised for production and being largely based on an existing design definitely assisted in its selection.

The Hudson couldn't have come at a better time for Lockheed; existing orders were fast approaching finishing, only 112 Lockheed 14s were built (oddly the Japanese production resulted in 119 being built between two companies) the same with Lockheed 10s and 12s, hence the keen interest by the firm to interest the Brits in an order for a military machine. It represented a milestone in company history as it was the first Lockheed type that was bult in higher numbers than 160 examples, and the first Lockheed aircraft ordered in such large numbers in one order, the first British order was for 200 examples. It put Lockheed into the big league of US and world manufacturers and the speed at which Lockheed designed, built and began mass production of the Hudson impressed the industry.

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.

(Information from Putnam's Lockheed Aircraft since 1913 by Rene Francillon among other sources on my bookshelf)
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

It was Jan 1940 before the next order was placed, this time for 30 Model 28-5. That was followed during 1940 by taking up options for another 20 + 9 transferred from an Australian order, together with 40 taken over from a French order all considered Catalina I. The first aircraft from these orders arrived in Britain in Feb 1941. 9 of these went to Canada and 1 to Australia.

In addition another 7 Catalina II were ordered from spare capacity earmarked for the USN. Surprisingly, the first aircraft from this order arrived in Britain slightly earlier, in Jan 1941

After modifications by Scottish Aviation Ltd at Greenock, Catalinas began to enter RAF service in March 1941 with 240 squadron at Killadeas on Lough Erne in Northern Ireland, followed the next month by 209 squadron at Castle Archdale further up the Lough. Both of these squadrons had been operating Lerwicks. Deliveries of these pre-Lend Lease orders took about a year.

By the outbreak of WW2 Shorts had delivered 40 Sunderland I aircraft to the RAF. Another 28 were delivered by the end of 1940. All these came from the Rochester factory.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
I can't do much better.
The Lockheed 14 that flew in 1937 used P&W R-1690 engines of 850hp for take-off and 750hp max continuous at 7000ft. Single speed supercharger.
Max gross weight (provisional) as an airliner was 17,500lbs. Standard gross was 15.650lbs, the difference was fitting de-icing equipment and fuel dump valves. Landing was not permitted at the higher 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?
Did it even try use a different fuselage like the B-18 did from the DC-2?

Lockheed 14-H2 used slightly more powerful Hornets.
14-F62 used Wright SGR-1820-F62 Cyclones with 900hp for take-off and 760hp at 5800ft.

14-WG3B aircraft used a different model of the Cyclone engine of 840hp at 8,000ft.

The 14-N model aircraft used the newer Cyclone 100 series engines of 1100hp for take-off, the slightly different engines had different rated altitudes.
These were the engines the Hudson got in the MK I.
Depending on customer the planes got controllable pitch or constant speed props (with any of the engines) and they were introducing fully feathering props.

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.
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?

You can swap payload around between fuel, passengers (crew/bombs) and baggage.
Useful load for one version was 6475lbs
with 644 US gallons of fuel you could haul 1821lbs (10 passengers and 121lbs of baggage)
With 400 US gallons of fuel you could haul 3285 lbs (11 passengers and 1415lbs of baggage)

From a structural standpoint the baggage compartments were rated at up to 1500lbs for the nose, 800lbs for the forward belly, 400lbs for the middle belly and 700lbs for the aft belly.
However this much weight required only 380 gallons on board and no passengers.

I would note that the increased ceilings of the later MK Hudsons were much more a function of fitting engines with two speed superchargers than any actual changes to the airframe or aerodynamics.

Lockheed was well aware that the emphasis on speed was restricted the sales in the commercial market and in 1939 they took one returned crash damaged aircraft and two other used ones back into the factory and stretched the fuselages by 5ft 6in to fit in two more rows of seats (14-15 passengers) to improve the operating economics.

Evaluating sales at this point is like looking at tea leaves in the dark. Lockheed built around 625 of the stretched fuselage model 18s but many of them were transports for the military who was taking just about anything. Once you add in the Venture's and Harpoons the numbers get enormous but have nothing to do with how good or bad it was as an airliner.
But most of the fuselage structure stayed (at least in form), the tail stayed (also at least in form/shape) and the wings remained the same shape until the PV-2 Harpoon and then it was the outer wing panels that were changed. How much actual structure was changed to accommodate the increase in gross weight over the years (up to 36,000lbs for the PV-2) and bigger fuel tanks I don't know.

So I will stick my position on the Lockheed 14 and Hudson.

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. Such was progress. In 1937 you had to use what was available.

The Lockheed 14 was a much closer to the Hudson than Vickers Wellington prototype was to a production Wellington.
 
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?

You can hold whatever opinion you like, doesn't mean you're accurate in your assessment.

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.

What bollocks! :laughing3: This is what I wrote:

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....
 
So, in case anyone chooses to doubt the role of the BPC in the development of the Hudson, this is what Lockheed Martin says about the aircraft.

"In April of 1938, with news of Hitler's recent annexation of Austria sending shockwaves across Europe, a contingent of the British Air Commission led by Sir Henry Self landed in New York on a vital mission. European airplane manufacturers were operating at near-capacity. Self's team urgently needed to survey manufacturing facilities across the United States and find novel ideas for new warplanes.

The young Lockheed Aircraft Corporation did better than supply an idea; awaiting members of the commission was a full-sized wooden mock-up of what designer Kelly Johnson called a "convertible transport bomber."

By modifying Lockheed's Super Electra with a bomb bay and three machine guns, Johnson delivered what would later go down in history as the Hudson, the first aircraft of American design to destroy an enemy aircraft during World War II.

Lockheed, which at the time was inexperienced in manufacturing military aircraft, was committed to earning the trust and confidence of the Royal Air Force (RAF).

After the British offered advice on how to improve the model, Lockheed worked around the clock, in a truly Herculean effort, to integrate all of the suggested changes, offering an entirely new plywood model, complete in every detail right down to a choice of alternative nose designs. In the matter of just a few days, Lockheed had provided the British the aircraft they desired.

Sir Arthur Harris, who would later lead the RAF's Bomber Command, wrote, "I was entirely convinced that anyone who could produce a mock-up in twenty-four hours would indeed make good on all his promises—and this Lockheed most certainly did."

The ensuing contract, signed on June 23, 1938, authorized Lockheed to produce up to 250 Hudsons by December 1939, making it the largest contract to date for an international airplane sale by an American company. Competitors scoffed that the upstart manufacturer would never meet its deadline. But Lockheed did. And then it proceeded to establish manufacturing facilities and support bases in Liverpool and Ireland, the latter responsible for assembling, modifying, and repairing some 22,500 aircraft of all types during Britain's greatest moment of need."

From here: The Hudson

Here's a detailed account about the company's development of its excellent twin-engined airliners and their bomber derivatives:


This includes the following:

"To the United States in April 1938 came the British Purchasing Commission in search of good-quality American aircraft to bolster the strength of the Royal Air Force in its preparation for an inevitable war: the mission had $25 million with which to acquire its finds. At that time Lockheed engaged only 2,000 workers, and had eschewed the design of military types in favour of the commercial market. But in 10 days of frantic labour the concern had cobbled together some- thing that might whet the appetites of the commission: this was nothing other than a mockup of a Model L-14 provided with bomb- bay, bomb-aimer's panel and nose glazing, and provision for various armaments. The British, with a need for a medium-range maritime patrol bomber for North Sea operations with RAF Coastal Command, were impressed. At the invitation of Sir Henry Self, the contracts director at the Air Ministry in London, Courtlandt Gross (brother of Robert Gross) travelled to the UK with Carl Squier, C. L. Johnson, Robert Proctor and R. A. van Hake for consultations. The initial order for 175 Model B14s, now known as the Hudson, was signed on 23June 1938, with provision of up to a maximum of 250 by December 1939: it was the largest military order gained by a US company to date."

This account from the insightful U boat.net adds more information about how Lockheed produced the bomber mock-up to impress the British in the hope of winning an order.

"In February 1938, Lockheed's design team learned of an impending visit of the British Purchasing Commission and, after five days and nights of rushed design work, proposed the B-14L, a reconnaissance bomber based on the Model 14. The British requested changes which were incorporated within 24 hours. Because the British were already impressed with the Model 14, and because the proposed Lockheed aircraft was cheaper than its competitors and could be delivered in quantity more quickly, on 23 June 1938 the British Purchasing Commission placed an order for Lockheed's proposed patrol bomber. This order specified 200 aircraft to be delivered by 31 December 1939, plus up to 50 additional aircraft if these could also be delivered by that date. All 250 were delivered well before that date (plus one replacement for an aircraft which was lost before delivery), at a price of about $100,000 each. The outbreak of war interrupted delivery because of a 1935 law which put an embargo on arms sales to belligerents. The Neutrality Act, signed by Roosevelt on 4 November, 1939, allowed the British and French to buy weapons on a "cash and carry" basis."

From here: Lockheed Hudson Patrol Bomber - Aircraft - Fighting the U-boats - uboat.net

So, this information speaks for itself.
 
It's not even worth debating with you at this point.

Baaad British. BAAAAD British..

Not much point in debating you either.

Wonderful Brits, WOOONDERFUUL BRITS.

Stupid Lockheed and Americans.
Saved by the British Purchasing Commission's brilliance from bankruptcy and ignominy.


Lockheed has drawings/sketches of a bomber version in 1937.
Hears that the British are coming in early 38, builds mock up.
British ask for modifications to the mock up, Lockheed complies quickly.

From Joe Baugher's web site (with a few corrections)

"
The military version of the Model 14 airliner, named B14 by the company, was to be a fairly straightforward conversion of the Super Electra. It was to seat a crew of four: a pilot, a bombardier, a navigator/radio operator, and a rear gunner. It retained the wing, tail surfaces, and engines of the Lockheed 14-WF62, which was the export version of the Super Electra powered by Wright SGR-2820-F62 Cyclone engines rated at 900 hp for takeoff and 760 hp at 5800 feet. However, the B14 differed from the Super Electra in featuring a modified fuselage with nose and dorsal turrets (each equipped with a single flexible machine gun), a large bomb bay in the lower center fuselage (where the cargo hold was located on the airliner version), and a navigator's station behind the wing trailing edge fitted with a single ventral flexible aft-firing machine gun.

The RAF did not like this crew configuration for a general reconnaissance aircraft, and recommended that the navigator be relocated to a position much closer to the pilot. In addition, it was felt that the nose gun turret would probably interfere with forward vision. These suggestions were readily adopted by Lockeed, which produced a revised mockup within 24 hours. The nose turret was eliminated, and the navigator was moved forward to a position right behind the flight deck. The navigator was also given the bombardier's role, for which he would shift into the transparent nose when releasing the bombs. The radio operator took his former position behind the bomb bay, where he operated the ventral machine gun. The original dorsal gunner's position was retained."

"A Lockheed team, including Courtlandt Gross, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, Carl Squier, Richard Von Hake, and Robert Proctor, went over to the UK to negotiate with the Air Ministry. During the course of meetings between the Lockheed team and the Air Ministry, a decision was reached to replace the proposed dorsal turret with a Boulton Paul turret carrying a pair of 0.303-inch machine guns and to mount a pair of 0.303-inch machine guns in a fixed forward-firing position in the upper nose over the navigator's position. The bombload was decreased (decreased from what?) to 1600 pounds, made up of four 250-lb bombs and ten 100-lb bombs.(which doesn't add up) The engines were changed to a pair of 1100 hp Wright GR-1820- G102A nine-cylinder air-cooled radials." (the first of a number of engine and propeller changes )

"[Specification of Lockheed Hudson Mk.I
Two Wright R-1820-G102A air-cooled radial engines, rated at 1100 hp for takeoff and 900 hp at 6700 feet. Performance: Maximum speed 246 mph at 6500 feet, cruising speed 220 mph. Initial climb rate 2180 feet per minute. Service ceiling 25,000 feet. Range 1960 miles. Weights: 11,630 pounds empty (only 630lbs more then 14-N civil version, but late Hudsons would gain a lot of empty weight), 17,500 pounds loaded. (In later MKs would go up to 18,500 pounds gross, 22,360 pounds maximum ?) Dimensions: Wingspan 65 feet 6 inches, length 44 feet 4 inches, height 11 feet 10 inches, wing area 551 square feet. Armament: Two fixed, forward-firing 0.303-inch Browning machine guns mounted in the nose above the bombardier-s windows plus two 0.303-inch machine guns in a dorsal Boulton Paul power turret. Four 250-pound bombs or ten 100-pound bombs ( note the change from "and" to "or" from the text above) could be carried in an internal bomb bay."


Basically the British commission pulled the Lockheed nose gun mount/turret out and restored the Nose shape to the original airline shape or close to it. (fuselage length is often as the same right to the inch).

They swapped some of the crew positions around.
Lockheed positions on Hughes round the world aircraft.
l-features-of-the-14-picture-id515163962?s=612x612.jpg


The round the world plane was operated at 24,000-25,000lbs but the landing gear/tires may have been a little iffy at that weight.
It was possible for the crew to go between the tanks in the fuselage to change positions,


(edit)The Hudsons put the navigator behind the cockpit nose and had him go into the nose to act as the bomb aimer (edit) , and moved the radio man back to the trailing edge of the wing.

They added/changed the dorsal gun turret position. Later models got a ventral tunnel/ramp and/or waist gun windows.
Original proposal/s have a ventral gun. Specifications for the MK I don't list it.

They added the bomb bay doors where the baggage compartments were and the bomb gear.

And it seems nobody can tell me what else they did????

Later MKs of Hudson got different engines (which could add a little or almost 300 lbs each depending engine) different propellers. Different fuel tank set ups, different armament (usually just 1-3 additional .303 guns starting in the MK III ?) but just about every other warplane added weight as it went along. Want to compare the Wellington MK I to the Wellington MK III?


Some Hudsons got de-icing and some did not?


The big changes to the Judson came with the later versions and more powerful engines. Just like many other aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Saved by the British Purchasing Commission's brilliance from bankruptcy and ignominy.

Yeah, no one's actually saying this, this is why it's pointless debating with you, you're being extremely presumptuous about what I'm stating and twisting my words. I have never stated this. This is all you. That last point I made is a classic example, I never said what you accused me of at all. In doing so, you completely miss the point of why the British liked the Lockheed proposal in the first place, because it was based on the Lockheed 14, which made it quicker to develop and put into production, but hey, why not just twist the points I'm making to suit your own agenda?

Not much point in debating you either.

Yup, the weird thing about everything you've just posted lines up exactly with what I've posted, which makes your entire argument pointless. Are we agreeing with each other here? :lol:

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.
 
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.

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.
Pot calling kettle.

And if I correct you I get accused of being anti-British.

Or if I ask what was modified to justify your position it gets blown off.

Or we get stuff like this.

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.

There were 6 MKs of Hudson. Or at least 6 with actual differences and not just a difference in funding. Granted some of the differences were minor (adding waist window guns?)
But the original MKIs were very close to the Lockheed 14, Just like many other planes both the empty weight and gross weight increased. And, like many other airplanes the engines were improved with time. Many of the Hudsons used single speed superchargers. Some got two speed superchargers. Depending on the engines and gross weight, like many other aircraft, the ceilings would vary. But the differences of 1941-42 and on don't count in the development story or who was responsible for what.


The British did a lot of stuff right, and they also did a lot of stuff wrong.
So did the Americans.
So did the Germans.
So did the Soviets.
So did the Japanese.
So did the Italians.
So did the French.

But if I point out some of British mistakes I am accused of being anti-British.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back