Lockheed Electra/Hudson derivative projects

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
 

Attachments

  • L-101.png
    L-101.png
    51.6 KB · Views: 363
  • L-101 data.png
    L-101 data.png
    106.2 KB · Views: 320
Hi,


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


AAHS Journal
 

Attachments

  • L-107.png
    L-107.png
    31.2 KB · Views: 391
  • 107-1.png
    107-1.png
    3.5 KB · Views: 344
  • 107-2.png
    107-2.png
    33.4 KB · Views: 338

Attachments

  • tunnel gun.JPG
    tunnel gun.JPG
    21.3 KB · Views: 301
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
 

Attachments

  • pby-tunnel-gun.jpg
    pby-tunnel-gun.jpg
    76.7 KB · Views: 271
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
 

Attachments

  • L-110.png
    L-110.png
    19.7 KB · Views: 361
  • 110.png
    110.png
    75.8 KB · Views: 351
Interesting. Sounds like a precursor to the Lockheed Model 212s that went to the ML-KNIL in the Netherlands East Indies.
 

Attachments

  • lockheed-212-nei.jpg
    lockheed-212-nei.jpg
    26 KB · Views: 264
Source: Bill Slayton article in Dirty Plastic newsletter Issue110/112, IPMS Phoenix
 

Attachments

  • LockheedModel16.png
    LockheedModel16.png
    531.1 KB · Views: 316
Hi,


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


AAHS Journal
 

Attachments

  • L-116.png
    L-116.png
    17.6 KB · Views: 324
  • 116.png
    116.png
    73.4 KB · Views: 307
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
 

Attachments

  • 119.png
    119.png
    93.4 KB · Views: 296
  • L-119.png
    L-119.png
    21 KB · Views: 320
Pity the picture shows the cargo version. I would love to see the passenger version with the nose wheel.
 
Hi,


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


AAHS Journal
 

Attachments

  • L-123.png
    L-123.png
    23 KB · Views: 252
  • 123.png
    123.png
    83.9 KB · Views: 240
Hi,


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


AAHS Journal
 

Attachments

  • L-125.png
    L-125.png
    18.4 KB · Views: 151
  • 125.png
    125.png
    73.3 KB · Views: 139
Hi,


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


AAHS Journal
 

Attachments

  • L-126.png
    L-126.png
    29.6 KB · Views: 198
  • 126.png
    126.png
    25.1 KB · Views: 181
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
 
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.
 
BlackBat242 said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm writing from (possibly faulty) memory, but I believe it was a testbed for tricycle landing gear (non-retractable).
 
iverson said:
BlackBat242 said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm writing from (possibly faulty) memory, but I believe it was a testbed for tricycle landing gear (non-retractable).
Click to expand...
It was also used to test an instrument-landing-system.
 
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.
 
From, Lockheed Hudson in World War II,

the Lockheed Model 414-08.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    973.3 KB · Views: 149
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?
 
PMN1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Attachments

  • Lockheed-Model-14-stowage.jpg
    Lockheed-Model-14-stowage.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 112
Apophenia said:
PMN1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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 said:
I can't figure out this oneView attachment 707187
Click to expand...
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????
 
Welcome aboard Coenraad,

and if this aircraft was not a fake,it looks like Lockheed L-126 ?.
 
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.
 
GTX said:
Where did you find it?
Click to expand...
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!
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom