Lockheed Electra/Hudson derivative projects

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Source: Bill Slayton article in Dirty Plastic newsletter Fall 1983, IPMS Phoenix

 

[Stargazer]

New to me. Thanks Paul!

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-101 was developed from Model-214 Hudson,and intended to use as a medium bomber,
recce,observation,Photographic or personal transport aircraft,remained a project only.


AAHS Journal

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Lockheed L-107 was a Hudson derivative,intended for British Air Ministry,
to use by RAF.


AAHS Journal

 

[cluttonfred]

OK, I'll bite, what's a "tunnel gun?"

 

[Jemiba]

OK, I'll bite, what's a "tunnel gun?"

A rather simple installation of a downward firing gun in the rear of an aircraft, from what I read
in most cases not very effective, due to the limited arc of fire. As an example a phot of a tunnel
gun in a B-24 (via http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/idea-plane-31857.html )

 

[Apophenia]

The removal of the Boulton Paul Type C turret suggests that the focus of the proposed L-107 variant was to be ASW patrol outside of the range of enemy aircraft. So, field of fire for the tunnel gun may have been less important than the ability to fire downwards while passing over a maritime target.

Taken more literally, that "tunnel gun" can refer to a scalloping of the ventral fuselage. Perhaps the idea came from the Catalina? The attached photo shows a PBY-1 but the RAF Catalina installation was similar (other than being armed with a Vickers GO rather than a Browning).

RAF installation: http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/catalina_rear_gun.jpg

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-110 was a twin engined Electra derivative project,intended for to be use
as military trainer and personnel transport.


AAHS Journal

 

[Apophenia]

Interesting. Sounds like a precursor to the Lockheed Model 212s that went to the ML-KNIL in the Netherlands East Indies.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Source: Bill Slayton article in Dirty Plastic newsletter Issue110/112, IPMS Phoenix

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-116 was a twin engined mid-wing attack bomber project,developed
from Model 37-21-01 Ventura.


AAHS Journal

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-119 was a twin engined mid-wing cargo and transport project,developed
from Model-18 Lodestar and called Model-19.


AAHS Journal

 

[Jos Heyman]

Pity the picture shows the cargo version. I would love to see the passenger version with the nose wheel.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Lockheed L-123,a development of Lodestar.


AAHS Journal

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-125 was a troop transport aircraft,or a commercial Model 18-56-XX Lodestar II.


AAHS Journal

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Lockheed L-126 was a conversion of Model-12A into a pilot trainer,project only.


AAHS Journal

 

[Stargazer]

Instead of starting a new topic for each Hudson or Electra derivative project, wouldn't it be best to have a "Lockheed Husdon and Electra derivative projects" topic instead??


title changed

 

[cluttonfred]

It's not surprising that it was not adopted as a trainer. As a stressed-skin all-metal design it would have been quite expensive at the time, and the smaller engines would not have brought the cost down that much. There is a reason why the most common American multiengine trainer was the steel tube fuselage, wood wing, fabric covered Cessna Bobcat series designed from the start to use the same little Lycomings, though most later used Jacobs engines. I suspect only the Avro Anso and Airspeed Oxford were produced in greater numbers among Allied trainers, though I actually have no idea what the Soviet Union used for multiengine training and a quick search turns up nothing.

 

[juanT]

Hi
Lockheed Electra 10A Bomber, from: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lockheed-aircraft-model-10a-bomber-1853374823

 

[BlackBat242]

I would love more info on the Lockheed XJO-3 (tricycle-geared arresting hook-equipped carrier-capable Model 12-A Electra Junior)

It made 11 landings and take-offs from CV-2 Lexington on 30 August 1939.

 

[iverson]

I would love more info on the Lockheed XJO-3 (tricycle-geared arresting hook-equipped carrier-capable Model 12-A Electra Junior)

It made 11 landings and take-offs from CV-2 Lexington on 30 August 1939.

View attachment 690731

I'm writing from (possibly faulty) memory, but I believe it was a testbed for tricycle landing gear (non-retractable).

 

[riggerrob]

I would love more info on the Lockheed XJO-3 (tricycle-geared arresting hook-equipped carrier-capable Model 12-A Electra Junior)

It made 11 landings and take-offs from CV-2 Lexington on 30 August 1939.

View attachment 690731

I'm writing from (possibly faulty) memory, but I believe it was a testbed for tricycle landing gear (non-retractable).

It was also used to test an instrument-landing-system.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, it was originally ordered by the USN specifically to test tricycle landing gear aboard a carrier (and to test twin-engine carrier characteristics) - and later used for other tests... but I would like better info, drawings, performance, etc.

There were a number of tricycle landing gear aircraft around by 1939 - the USN had no need for an aircraft to test that in a generic way, this was specifically to test that aboard ship.

 

[hesham]

From, Lockheed Hudson in World War II,

the Lockheed Model 414-08.

 

[Apophenia]

the Lockheed Model 414-08.

Lockheed model 414-08 was the RAF's Hudson IVA.

 

[lark]

Hi
Lockheed Electra 10A Bomber, from: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lockheed-aircraft-model-10a-bomber-1853374823

Remarcable find!
There is some interesting piece of text on the website with this drawing.
Lockheed model 10D is mentioned . This was the Lockheed designation
for their unbuilt competitor in the XFM multiseat fighter competion won by the Bell Airacuda.

 

[PMN1]

What was the driver behind the shape of the Model 14's fuselage, an increase in passengers over the Model 10 but did this need the deeper fuselage?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Apophenia]

What was the driver behind the shape of the Model 14's fuselage, an increase in passengers over the Model 10 but did this need the deeper fuselage?

Yes. The cabin could be better-utilized for passenger space by moving much of the stowage into that deepened belly space.

 

[PMN1]

What was the driver behind the shape of the Model 14's fuselage, an increase in passengers over the Model 10 but did this need the deeper fuselage?

Yes. The cabin could be better-utilized for passenger space by moving much of the stowage into that deepened belly space.

Ahh that makes sense, presumably made it easier to turn into a bomber as well.

Intresting that other companies did not feel the need for this apporach.

 

[Coenraad]

I can't figure out this one

 

[riggerrob]

I can't figure out this oneView attachment 707187

An odd picture.
Perhaps a composite or what-if??????
Odd that wing center section leading edges are straight ... unlike Lockheed 10.
The aft fuselage and tail surfaces look more like a Beech 18. Especially since it is missing Lockheed's iconic half-circle horizontal stabilizer extensions outboard of the rudders.
Beech 18 and Barkley-Grow T8P-1 worked on floats in Canada, but I have never seen photos of Lockheed twins on floats????

 

[GTX]

I can't figure out this oneView attachment 707187

Where did you find it?

 

[hesham]

Welcome aboard Coenraad,

and if this aircraft was not a fake,it looks like Lockheed L-126 ?.

 

[Hood]

This is fake what-if.
The dead give away is the engine nacelles and propellers which don't match the rest of the drawing in line thickness etc. and with obvious crop marks at the base of the nacelles on the top view.

I can spot a Blenheim turret too.
Its a well done fake but not so well done that you can't spot its fake.

 

[Coenraad]

Where did you find it?

A client from Australia sent it for me to make a sketch of it in three dimensions. She will send photos in a couple of months so hopefully we will be able to find out if it's real. I agree that this blueprint image must be a composite. Thank you!

 

[Apophenia]

This is fake what-if.
The dead give away is the engine nacelles and propellers which don't match the rest of the drawing in line thickness etc. and with obvious crop marks at the base of the nacelles on the top view.

I can spot a Blenheim turret too.
Its a well done fake but not so well done that you can't spot its fake.

Yep. Plus the aft fuselage and empennage seem to have come from a Beech 18.