Lockheed Hudson flying

[daveT]

I'm working on a historical study of Lockheed Hudsons used for training in the US.
I would like to know what pilots thought about flying the Lockheed Hudson? For training in them?
Did they like them or hate them? were they a safe plane to fly? did they have a good reputation?
Anything interesting about the Lockheed Hudson?
I'm not interested in their well documented RAF history.
I'm looking for their use by the USAAF. Especially their use for twin engine training.
photo of a Lockheed Hudson assigned to Columbus AAF Mississippi
Thanks in advance
DaveT

 

[Shortround6]

They could not have been that bad to fly. 354 built as Airliners and cargo planes, 240 under license by the Japanese. Quickly developed into the Model 18 Lodestar (5 foot fuselage stretch) with over 600 built and from that the Ventura bombers.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Have you thought about incorporating the use history of the USN variant of the Hudson, the Lockheed PBO-1 ASW and maritime patrol aircraft?

From: Lockheed PBO Hudson, Lockheed R4O Super Electra, by Jack McKillop

The first of twenty PBO-1's was delivered to Patrol Squadron Eighty Two (VP-82) at NAS Quonset Point, Rhode Island on 29 October 1941. By the end of December 1941, there were 18 aircraft in the inventory, 14 assigned to VP-82, two assigned to the Transition Training Squadron (TTS) at NAS Norfolk and two others at NAS Norfolk as spares. On 1 January 1942, VP-82 deployed a twelve detchment of PBO-1s to NAS Argentia, Newfoundland under Patrol Wing Seven (PatWing-7) to provide convoy coverage, harbor patrol and antisubmarine sweeps. During this period, the aircrews were berthed aboard the Seaplane Tender USS Pocomoke (AV-9) and later the Seaplane Tender, Destroyer George E. Badger (AVD-3) and the Small Seaplane Tender USS Barnegat (AVP-10). By May 1942, the crews were move to barracks on the air station.

On 28 January 1942, the squadron claimed a U-boat sunk off Cape Race, Newfoundland but postwar examination of German records do not indicate any losses during this period. The first authenticated sinking of a U-boat by a PBO-1 occurred on 1 March 1942 when U-656, a Type VIIC U-boat, was sunk south of Cape Race at 46.15N, 53.15W by an aircraft flown by Ensign Tepuni; the aircraft had been flying support for convoy ON-72. This was the first German submarine sinking attributed to U.S. forces in World War II.


In May 1942, a three of the PBOs at NAS Argentia, Newfoundland returned to NAS Quonset Point, Rhode Island and the final six aircraft returned on 10 June 1942. On 13 and 15 August 1942, another detachment consisting of nine PBO-1s departed NAS Norfolk, Virginia for NAS Trinidad, British West Indies accompanied by the Royal Air Force's No. 53 Squadron equipped with Hudson Mk. IIIs. While in Trinidad, the detachment flew antisubmarine patrols under the operational control of PatWing-11. VP-82 began to transition from the PBO-1 to the Lockheed PV-1 Ventura, q.v., in September 1942 and the last PBO-1 were stricken from the inventory of VP-82 on 31 October 1942. The remaining PBO-1's were transferred to PV operational training units at NAS Deland and NAS Sanford, Florida.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hi DaveT, Although you have no interest in RAF Hudsons, presumably this extends to the use of the type by the RAAF and RNZAF too, but it is worth mentioning that both those air arms used the Hudson for training also, as well as combat ops in the Pacific. To them the type was far in advance of what they had previous - the RNZAF replaced 1920s Vickers Wildebeest biplanes with the Hudson. It was a big improvement over the Avro Anson, which the Australians had in large numbers before the Hudsons arrived. They were generally well liked and proved a sturdy work horse, very much an unsung type of the war.

Do you intend on publishing your research?

 

[daveT]

Thanks for the info about the Navy use of the PBO-1 and the use by the RNZAF.
What I'm really trying to get at is USAAF use. Also ANY pilot accounts of flying the type plane. Not just that it was well liked. I want to know what was its flying charteristics, its tendencies, how it handled in flight and take-offs and landings. Any info about how safe it was to fly problems with maintenance.
Attached are a few more photos from 1942 and 1943 Columbus AAF
The info is needed for a historical study of USAAF training aircraft at Columbus AAF.
I will post the story on this web site when completed.
Also is that a British roundal on the side of the Hudson behind 3 crew members?
Thanks in advance for the info
DaveT

 

[oldcrowcv63]

great pics looks like a brit roundel. See attachedphot of RAF 224 squadron found at:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/s...ng][0]="Royal Air Force, 224 Squadron"&query=

imperial war museum website

 

[daveT]

The lockheed hudsons at Columbus were aircraft ordered by the RAF under lend-lease, but diverted for pilot training at Columbus AAF Mississippi. Interesting that the RAF marking remained on the planes for a while.

 

[nuuumannn]

Looking forward to reading your research, Dave.

 

[Dan H]

My father flew AT-18s in 1943 and 1944. He is 90 yrs old and in serious decline now, so trying to verify his experiences would be difficult. What I have is his stories. His first experience in a Hudson was as a cadet. He along with about 6 other cadets were standing behind a civilian training pilot in the cabin as he demonstrated the flying qualities of the Hudson. He demonstrated a power on stall and the plane when into a hammerhead stall and lost 8,000 feet before the pilot recovered at about 2,000 ft altitude. All my dad's recollection is arms and legs flying everywhere. The person most shaken up was the pilot.

Eventually he was flying Hudsons in Harlingen TX for gunnery students - practicing with turret guns I guess. Later he was transferred to Sioux Falls SD flying Hudsons with navigation students - eventually they transitioned to C-47's that could seat more navigation students.

Either in TX or SD, he went on a training flight and had half a dozen or so "sand baggers". He had to land in a stiff cross wind and as he was rolling out, lost control and ground-looped the plane. According to him, the Lockheed Hudson had a wet wing and he didn't know if he had raked the wingtip on the ground or not. The guys in back thought he was just showing them his "airmanship" until he got back there and started throwing guys out afraid the plane would burst into flames at any moment. I have no other information as to whether the Hudson had a wet wing or not. The Hudsons the RAF used had tremendous range for a relatively small plane so maybe they all had wet wings. It had Fowler Flaps. There is a bronze statue of Fowler at some smaller airport in NY State - I saw it once but forgot the location - probably his home town.

One final anecdotal story was when he was flying as a co-pilot on a Hudson that was transporting aircraft tires, the more experienced pilot wanted to see what the plane would handle like in a stall with a good load (which was tied down apparently). It did about the same thing as what happened when he was a cadet. They dropped thousands of feet, stalling above a cloud layer and recovering under the cloud cover. Neither ever wanted to try that again.

They got pretty good flying the Hudsons. When they transferred to Sioux Falls, there were some guys flying AT-6's who thought they were "hot stuff" and who were apprently not too impressed with twin engine pilots. For some reason they flew a number of them on a flight with the Hudson, taking off in formation then and climbing through cloud cover in formation so tight the wing tips overlapped. It scared the heck out of the AT-6 guys.