Talk:Lockheed Hudson

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

References

Would be a B-class if it had any references. --Colputt 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number built

The article mentions, unreferenced/sourced, the number 2584. I do have a source, Francillon's Lockheed aircraft since 1913, that says 2914, all nicely tied up to versions, types and serial numbers. What is the source for "our" number of 2584, and what would it take to correct it according to Francillon? (I seem to remember some frowning in aviation article discussions here upon Putnam titles, of which this is one... ) Paaln (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Putnam book is a reliable source so just change it and add the book as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with such a cr*p of a plane! You are putting in more elbow grease than the plane's designer ever did. RAAF flew these in the New Guinea campaign and did not bother replacing them as they were destroyed. The first RAAF Hudson crash claimed the lives of the Minister for the Army, and some senior officers ... a high speed stall. The plane's real Vmc was likely much higher than Lockheed claimed. Many of them crashed trying to land on one engine. The machine's total unreliability soon sent civilian operators broke, after WW2.220.244.85.207 (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudson like the Blenheim, Beaufort and Botha of the same period was designed before the widespread availability of fully-feathering propellers, and was instead initially equipped with two-position 'VP' variable-pitch propellers. This meant that in case of an engine failure the remaining engine did not have sufficient power at some weights to overcome the drag of the wind-milling propeller. This was in fact why the fully-feathering propeller was developed, as while most earlier twins could manage with a wind-milling two-bladed propeller, they could not with a three- or four-bladed one.

As regards the 1940 Canberra air disaster the Hudson's/Electra's tapered wing was known to have difficult stall characteristics which is why a fixed leading edge slot was incorporated at the tips, and the accident above was almost certainly caused by flying at too low an approach speed for the weight the aircraft was loaded to. The recommended safe approach speed for landing would be in the relevant Pilot's Notes and would have been worked out by the test pilots at Boscombe Down before the Hudson entered RAF/RAAF service. These Notes would also have included information on the Hudson's stall characteristics.

The only serious bad characteristic of the the Hudson was a tendency to ground loop on landing which sometimes caused the undercarriage to collapse, which could occasionally rupture the wing fuel tanks. After some initial normal 'teething troubles' the RAF had no problems with them and the Hudson was generally well-liked, which is why the RAF asked for an enlarged version which became the Ventura.

By the time of the New Guinea campaign in 1942 the Hudson was obsolete. That's probably why the RAAF didn't replace them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Squadrons

I noticed that the Canadian section is divided into Home War Establishment and Article XV squadrons under RAF command. Why is Canada singled out for this and Australia isn't? They would fall under the same criteria.McMuff (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lockheed Hudson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in citation

Sorry, I haven't had time yet to muddle out how to add tags to things, but citation #5, the old 1933 Pop Mech article, doesn't actually say much of anything, certainly nothing about the sentence it appears to be a citation for. It just says "the RAF has bought a number of these nifty new dual-purpose planes, of the same type Howard Hughes recently broke a record with". It might say something about it being based on a civilian airliner, but that's as far as it goes. Oh, and it says very usefully that "it has a blister for machine guns in the rear and clear panels on the nose for aiming bombs". Finis. Nothing about model designations, or even the company that built it, nor any other particular information. Other than that Hughes used a Super Electra to break records...if it had said something about that, I could see using that as a reference, maybe. Idumea47b (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, I have re-written that bit and used a different reference. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlantic Ferry to Europe

The Hudsons were the first military aircraft to be ferried across the North Atlantic during WW-II. Seven Hudsons took off from Gander in Nov 10 1940 for Aldergrove, Ireland. The vast majority of aircraft ferried from Gander to Europe in 1941 were Hudsons. This article says Hudsons were dismantled and shipped by surface. That is not all true Hudicourt (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]