|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 19, 2015 0:11:03 GMT 12
The first flight of a Lockheed Hudson was made in New Zealand when NZ2003 was test flown. The first six Hudsons had arrived in Auckland onboard the ships Limerick and Waiotapu in late April-early May, and were undergoing assembly and test flying at RNZAF Station Hobsonville
It has often been recorded that the test pilot for that first flight in NZ2003 was Pete Jury, however Jim Mungall showed me a copy of Jury's logbook which shows this is incorrect, he was only testing Harvards at that time and never flew his first Hudson till the 11th of June 1941. So I wonder who it was that flew the first Hudson in New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 19, 2015 10:07:50 GMT 12
Just off the top of my head, but one of the flight commanders of No. 2 Squadron at Nelson was sent to Australia to undergo a Hudson familiarisation course in early 1941, his name was F/L J J (Jack) Busch (postwar was, I think, chief pilot, or perhaps operations mananger for NAC for many years.) I include below an extract from my chronology of the Hudson in RNZAF service, published in AHSNZ Journal many years ago. David D
9/1/41; NZ requests supply of 36 Hudsons “as soon as possible”, and another 24 “plus wastage” for 1942.
25/1/41; F/L J J (Jack) BUSCH, a senior flight commander with No.2 GR Sqdn at Nelson, departed for Australia to undertake a course of instruction on Hudson aircraft with the RAAF. The RAAF is equipped at this time with P & W-powered Hudsons.
28/3/41 (approx); Party of 12 technical personnel sent to Australia for 4-week course on Hudson maintenance with RAAF, including W/O G C ELLIS, engineer W/O to No.1 GR Sqdn.
29/3/41; Believed date first shipment of three Mk.V Hudsons (P & W R-1830 S3C4-G Twin Wasp engines, Hamilton Standard counterweight-type constant speed propellers) departed Los Angeles for Auckland aboard MV LIMERICK, with second shipment of three also departing about this time aboard SS WAIOTAPU.
Late April/early May 1941; two shipments arrived Auckland about one week apart, taken by barge to No.1 Aircraft Depot, Hobsonville for assembly. A Lockheed “Tech Rep”, Mr Walter M Wood, arrived Auckland in early May, to assist with assembly of the new aircraft and to instruct technical personnel on the many new features incorporated in the Hudson.
19/5/41; First flight of a Hudson in NZ, AM591 (NZ2003). Pilot unknown for certain, but almost certainly F/L J J BUSCH (see under 25/1/41). No armament (including the hydraulic Boulton Paul turret), ASV (Radar), wireless, or safety equipment available, as this to be supplied from the UK.
29/5/41; First Hudson (NZ2003) transferred to No.1 GR Sqdn at Whenuapai.
Week Ending 3/6/41; Two dual control conversion sets received at Auckland; one despatched to Whenuapai for fitment to aircraft of No.1 Sqdn and one incorporated in another Hudson during assembly.
13/6/41; Hudson NZ2002 delivered to No.1 GR Sqdn at Whenuapai by F/L A V (Pete) Jury (believed first test flown 11/6/41).
1/7/41; Hudson AM589 (NZ2001) test flown by F/L Jury at Hobsonville, delivered to Whenuapai on 3/7/41.
3/7/41; Hudson AM592 (NZ2004) test flown at Hobsonville by F/L JURY.
Week Ending 7/7/41; Type “F” dinghies received at Hobsonville but NOT the CO2 inflation bottles.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 19, 2015 21:34:12 GMT 12
Thanks David, yes that makes sense that it would most likely have been Jack Busch.
There must have been a collective sigh of relief around NZ when the Hudsons began arriving and taking to the air to replace the Vildebeests and Vincents. As good as the V-bombers were, having two engines and an enclosed cockpit and better defensive and offensive capabilities would have been most welcome indeed.
|
|
|
Post by martymonsta on May 24, 2015 19:19:07 GMT 12
Of course the first hudsons were delivered without defensive/offensive capabilities! I'm sure david d could tell us how long it took to fit out..
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 24, 2015 22:09:48 GMT 12
It was not long at all before they were operational with guns and turrets (some of them).
|
|
|
Post by davidd on May 25, 2015 11:20:04 GMT 12
Some more extracts from the Hudson chronology. Sorry about the presentation of my original post (above) on this forum; likewise this post has also emerged with the same problem -centralised sentences, which somewhat mess up the page. Can anybody suggest the means to correct this formatting problem? - many of my messages have ended up this way. The properties icon above the message when it appears is obviously not intended to control the format (or is it?)
Now on with the extract. Note that it took until mid-July 1941 before the turrets for the MK. Vs arrived; in the interim they simply flew with the turret hole fairing in place. See also under date "week ending 15/10/41" (below). In fact not all Hudsons received turrets (although most eventually did), and the early armament scheme was to fit the bow guns, the ventral (belly) gun, and bombs. Many Hudsons were sent to Fiji without turrets in the early days of the Pacific war, as is alluded to below. ASV Mk. II (radar) likewise never equipped all RNZAF Hudsons, although eventually about two thirds probably had this fitted (excluding transport and utility conversions of course).
Week Ending 7/7/41; Type “F” dinghies received at Hobsonville but NOT the CO2 inflation bottles.
Week Ending 14/7/41; “DOMINION MONARCH” arrived with operational equipment for Hudsons. This included gun turrets, wireless gear, navigational instruments, universal bomb carriers, and compressed air cylinders for firing mechanisms.
21/8/41; First shipment Mk. III Hudsons departed Los Angeles per MV LIMERICK. It was proposed at this time to use these and later Hudsons to equip No. 1 Sqdn at Whenuapai, No. 2 at Nelson, and No. 3 at Harewood, each squadron to have a strength of 27 aircraft (although No. 2 and 3 Sqdns to receive only 18 Hudsons each, balance to be Vincents/Vildebeests).
28/8/41; Last of Mk.V Hudsons (NZ2006) test flown at Hobsonville by F/L JURY and P/O K J NEWMAN. It was delivered to No. 1 GR Sqdn at Whenuapai on the 2/9/41.
8/9/41 (approx); MV LIMERICK, with 12 Mk.III Hudsons (Wright Aeronautical GR-1820 G205A Cyclone engines, Hamilton Standard Hydromatic full feathering constant speed propellers) arrived Auckland. These aircraft became NZ2007 to 2018; NZ2007 to '11 and 2014 to No. 2 Sqdn, Nelson, balance to No. 1 Sqdn at Whenuapai.
25/9/41; First Mk.III Hudson (NZ2015) test flown at Hobsonville by F/L JURY, others all test flown by same pilot by 5/11/41.
28/9/41; First Mk.III (NZ2014) delivered to a squadron; in this case No. 2 GR Sqdn at Nelson; ferried south by F/L J J BUSCH and S/L R J COHEN, AFC.
29/9/41; Further six Mk.IIIs arrive at Auckland per WAIOTAPU (to be NZ2019 to 2024), all test flown 8/11 to 26/11/41, all to No. 1 Sqdn at Whenuapai apart from NZ2024 to No. 2 Sqdn at Nelson. Test pilots now F/L A E WILLIS and P/O K J NEWMAN.
1/10/41; First operational patrols flown by No. 1 Sqdn Hudsons with three machines (and four Vincents) out looking for a suspected German raider. During month of October the installation of British ASV Mk.II in Hudsons (Mk.IIIs only) was commenced at Wigram.
5/10/41; No. 2 Sqdn became operational with Mk.IIIs, with NZ2011 and NZ2014 in use this day.
Week Ending 15/10/41; pending arrival of armament equipment, arrangements being made to fit temporary bomb carriers and one lower Browning gun to each of the 12 Mk.IIIs.
20/10/41; Six Mk.IIIs arrive Hobsonville, shipped per SS DONERAIL, to be NZ2025 to 2030 (test flown 4/12 to 14/12/41). First two to No. 1 Sqdn, and 2027 to '30 to No. 2 Sqdn, Nelson.
Week Ending 20/10/41; “Two dual conversion sets for Mk.III Hudsons being manufactured at Hobsonville.”
29/10/41; Final shipment of Mk.IIIs arrived Hobsonville, shipped per SS MANUEL, to become NZ2031 to 2036. NZ2031, '32, and '36 to No. 2 Sqdn, with other three to No. 1 Sqdn at Whenuapai. These aircraft test flown December 1941 through January 1942.
Week Ending 4/11/41; “Thirty Hudson IIIs have now been delivered. Action is in hand to equip some of these aircraft with temporary armament equipment.” At this time the plan was to allocate the Hudsons as follows; No. 1 Sqdn, 18 (plus 9 Vincents), No. 2 Sqdn, 12 (plus 9 Vincents), and No. 3 Sqdn, 6 (plus 18 Vincents). Later deliveries up to July 1942 were to provide No. 1 Sqdn with 27 Hudsons, No. 2 Sqdn with 18 Hudsons and 9 Vincents, and No. 3 Sqdn as for No.2 Sqdn.
Week Ending 25/11/41; “Large quantities of spares for Twin Wasp engines (Hudson Vs) now in hand.”
Week Ending 1/12/41; “Hudson situation:- 19 aircraft serviceable, one U/S, and 16 in Depot awaiting assembly action.”
9/12/41; five Mk.IIIs flown to Nandi in Fiji to reinforce No. 4 Squadron, with one (NZ2020) returning to Whenuapai on the 12th. The four which remained were NZ2012, '13, '17, '18. These Hudsons included the first aircraft equipped with ASV equipment - No. 4 Sqdn's ORB recorded ASV Hudsons on patrol from 15/12/41. Presume most had turrets, possibly transferred from the Mk.Vs. This emergency diversion of Hudsons to Fiji scuttled plans to re-equip No. 3 Sqdn at Harewood for the time being.
15/12/41; first RNZAF Hudson destroyed in an accident. No. 2 Sqdn's NZ2007 (with 4 crew aboard) failed to return to Nelson from an afternoon operational perimeter patrol. The burned out wreck was finally located 22/12/41 on a hillside 3 miles north of Westhaven Inlet, about a mile inland.
22/12/41; all RNZAF's Hudsons grounded following crash of No. 1 Sqdn's NZ2020 near Helensville on the 21/12 with loss of three lives. This aircraft was seen to crash and explode after stalling in a tight right hand turn at 1500 feet. The aileron controls were suspected of contributing to this accident and all Hudsons were grounded until the aileron control chains and cable joints could be inspected. All Hudsons were flying again by the 25th December, although it was reported that signs of factory sabotage were discovered in the control columns of some of No. 4 Sqdns aircraft in Fiji. (Compilers note; discoveries of suspected sabotage were found in various American aircraft at this time in different parts of the world, but poor workmanship and/or quality control would seem to be a more likely explanation. At this time the American aircraft industry was undergoing rapid expansion, with large orders for aircraft from the British and French governments and thousands of newly recruited and inexperienced workers operating the production lines).
29/12/41; Another five Hudsons (NZ2015, '16, '19, '25, '26) to Fiji for No. 4 Sqdn, made nine available in the Crown Colony. Of these, two were without turrets. At this time the disposition of Hudsons was as follows:- No. 1 GR Sqdn, Whenuapai 11 (Mk.V and Mk.III) No. 2 GR Sqdn, Nelson 9 (all Mk.IIIs) No. 4 GR Sqdn, Nandi (Fiji) 9 (all Mk.IIIs) No. 1 AD, Hobsonville 5 (under assembly) TOTAL 34
|
|
krisd
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 5
|
Post by krisd on Feb 16, 2022 13:39:46 GMT 12
Hello David
Have read this post with interest.
May I ask what your source(s) were? I am particularly interested in your ‘Compilers note’ where you mention, “discoveries of suspected sabotage being found in various American aircraft at this time in different parts of the world, but poor workmanship and/or quality control would seem to be a more likely explanation.” Do you have any reference sources to acts of suspected sabotage that I may follow up on?
My reason for asking is that I came across a case of fuel system sabotage on a Mk III Hudson that occurred in February 1939 at Speke Aerodrome outside Liverpool where Lockheed technicians found thin pleated cloth packed into a fuel manifold assembly which caused fuel starvation at high fuel flow during takeoff. I was wondering if RNZAF technicians found something similar during their investigations?
Regards Chris …..
|
|
krisd
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 5
|
Post by krisd on Feb 17, 2022 10:59:58 GMT 12
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 17, 2022 11:53:14 GMT 12
Although "suspected sabotage" is mentioned from time to time early in the war years in relation to certain American aircraft, later in the war there were other "certain American aircraft" delivered with problems that were attributed to "poor workmanship" and "incorrect adjustments" or inferior quality of materials . For instance the welding on the main undercarriage legs of the RNZAF's FG-1D Corsairs were found to be wanting at a later date, after they were shipped to Japan for occupation duties. About three of these aircraft suffered undercarriage structural failures, sometimes causing w/o of the airframe. This led to all the Corsairs in Japan being grounded until all legs had been inspected, with other defects being discovered, and they had to resort to requesting that a sufficient number of these legs be removed from aircraft already retired from service in New Zealand, and have them sent to Japan. I have also read of the float raising/lowering gearboxes on Canadian-built Catalinas (PB2B-1s) being discovered to have inferior heat-treatment of the gear which required complete replacement of the boxes, although this seems to have been first discovered by prior failures on these gearboxes in the aircraft of other services, followed by a factory recall. There was also one allocation of about four PB2B-1s with loose tappets (discovered when certain engines were performing badly during shake-down flying at San Diego), and closer inspection by RNZAF flight engineers revealed the cause. This was attributed to poor supervision or work practices at the factory. You can see how easily it would be possible, earlier in war, to suspect all faults such as these to be the work of fifth columnists, when it was more probable that poorly trained (or non-trained) technicians were the problem. One has only to read of such things happening to aircraft of the USAAF being assembled from their wooden crates in Australia in 1942 (actually A-24 dive bombers and P-40s) when the mechanics being employed were all former car assembly types, and some car mechanics, who put glycol in the hydraulic systems, and can you guess where the hydraulic oil ended up! The A-24s lost most of their bombing fittings when the crates which had protected these aircraft during their voyage to Australia, were prematurely destroyed by burning on order of their boss, only to discover on some additional correspondence that the boxed bombing gear had been thoughtfully taped inside some dark corner of the crates and were overlooked in the frantic rush to get the aircraft assembled! Also P-40s were fitted with only the outer spark-plugs installed because the mechanics had no idea that dual ignition systems were standard in all aircraft engines, so they never dreamed of looking in the hidden spaces between the cylinder banks (which probably had blanks in the spark plug holes). Of course these problems were easily (or sometimes not so easily) fixed, but not all the dreadful things that happen in wartime occur in the actual fighting! And then I read about the apparent "major failure" of Wright R-2600 aero engines fitted to USAAF aircraft in New Guinea in (I think) 1944. This "failure" concerned extensive rusting of the cylinder walls in large numbers of aircraft in open-air storage at various airfields. It resulted in a major inquiry in the USA about poor quality engines, and possibly inferior types of steel being used. The article never gave any particular cause for this miserable state of affairs (possibly more than a hundred engines were hinted at), and there were an awful lot of allegations being made, but most of the "experts" appeared to be politicians or people with axes to grind. I would not be in the least surprised if the "cause" of all the rusting was inferior preparation of the aircraft for medium-term storage, but as the inquiry I read had no actual cause, or even many questions, just accusations, it would probably be insensitive of me to blame anybody. The RNZAF operated the same type of engine (in our TBFs) in the Pacific theatre as well as in NZ, in war and peace, and also had these engines in storage for various periods, but never reported any particular problems with rusting cylinder walls. It is known that piston aero engines should not be left in the open in tropical areas for long periods without taking precautions to restrict the heating and cooling of such engines, such as securely blocking access to interior of engines with blanking plugs, etc., which, apart from prevention of outflow and inflow of moist air into the interior, might also prevent pesky birds gaining access.
Anyway, technical failures with airframes, aero engines, and all aircraft systems (including design failures) have always been with us, and so have the strengths and weaknesses of the humans who build and those who care for them. Likewise, in wartime, extra stresses are put on all aircraft and the humans who operate and maintain them, as well as those building or assembling them, and I believe that humans are just as likely to make (unintended) mistakes under wartime conditions when the pressure for high production rates is at the maximum, despite all the checking and inspections built into the system. My main sources for allegations of sabotage and/or manufacturing errors in aircraft received are from various air department files, usually engineering files, and/or accident report files. Reports of suspected sabotage always seem to occur early in the war, and it would be interesting to find official files on this subject, although so far as I know, the RNZAF has not got any such files themselves.
Chris, just one question. Was "your" Hudson sabotage attributed confidently to sabotage, or was it one of those "suspected" sabotage things, where attribution to human carelessness or malicious damage is problematic?
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 17, 2022 13:09:10 GMT 12
Chris, you say a Mk. III Hudson was found with serious faults in February 1939, but only Mk. I Hudsons existed at that time, MK. III not into production till 1941 so far as I know.
|
|
krisd
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 5
|
Post by krisd on Feb 17, 2022 13:42:10 GMT 12
Thanks for the reply Dave
The incident is recorded in a book titled ‘HIGH TIMES - Keeping ‘em Flying’ by Arthur Kennedy. He was an engineer with Lockheed. Apologies, I got my Hudson types transposed they were B-14’s being assembled at Speke in 1939. As mentioned earlier Lockheed technicians found a single thin pleated cloth packed into a fuel manifold assembly which caused simultaneous fuel starvation of both engines at high fuel flow during takeoff. It was considered deliberate sabotage be the British secret service as per the author’s account.
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Feb 17, 2022 16:40:02 GMT 12
The RNZAF has suffered from supply of "bogus" parts. There was a situation with the Sioux when parts from a third party supplier arrived but on checking the serial numbers with the approved Bell/US Army data base they didn't match up. Then on one occasion where time-expired Iroquois main rotor blades were sold for "Scrap" the eventually turned up on the marked as "reconditioned" items. Again the serial numbers gave the game away. After that incident time-expired blades were cut up to prevent this happening
|
|
krisd
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 5
|
Post by krisd on Feb 21, 2022 12:23:38 GMT 12
Thanks again for your perspective David. May I ask what your source was for the instances of poor manufacture practices (or suspected sabotage) found on RNZAF Hudson aircraft in 1941?
|
|
|
Post by Mustang51 on Feb 21, 2022 18:48:58 GMT 12
My business, Mustang Aviation, supplied parts to the RAAF for the Caribou fleet. The paperwork I had to supply for the parts from overseas was absolutely monumental. Reason....RAAF had been provided with bogus parts from the USA. I was told by an RAAF storesperson, although never chased it up, that it was rife around the world. He mentioned one instance where an un-named country with OH-58 Kiowas sold time ex rotor blades for scrap....they were spray can overhauled then sold on the US Civilian market. Unfortunately, he said that one of the aircraft with these blades went down with the loss of all aboard. Guess things have not changed all that much
|
|
|
Post by oj on Feb 21, 2022 19:19:10 GMT 12
"The RNZAF has suffered from supply of "bogus" parts. There was a situation with the Sioux ..."
I used to overhaul and repair the Bendix 756 series starter motors on the RNZAF Sioux. There were a lot of failures of the starter-jaw screw shaft that extended the jaw dog to engage with the engine. There were many different mod states of this item and several different materials tried. During these iterations we saw some examples of bogus screw-shaft assemblies made from sintered steel. The Bendix 756 series starter motor has a protective clutch that slips at 300ft lbs of torque to protect both the engine and the starter components in the event of a "lock up" during cranking. These sintered steel screw-shafts would fail before the 300 ft lbs of clutch-slip torque was encountered. The later mod state used only machined steel screw-shaft assemblies. When you consider a starter motor is only used briefly, once per flight, the incidence of failures at such low hourly utilisation was a frequent frustration to the operations crews.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 21, 2022 20:08:41 GMT 12
Although the RNZAF was talking about suspected sabotage in Hudsons in 1941 (particularly to do with flying controls for ailerons), with one aircraft (NZ2020) being destroyed on 21st December after going out of control, and an inspection of all the Hudsons in NZ as well as Fiji to check on adjustments and clearances, etc, but nothing seems to have come of it in the end, although some persons were convinced that it could only be sabotage. In 1942, after the introduction of Kittyhawks, there were instances of these aircraft fracturing their own fuel supply pipe (metal fatigue, I think the movement of a running engine on its mounts was more than anticipated) which fed the carburettor, which killed one or two pilots in that year by inhalation of petrol fumes, and subsequent loss of control. This was clearly a design fault and I think Curtiss put out a "fix" for this shortly afterwards, which solved the problem. I believe this fault resulted in other fatal crashes around the world. Harvards had some faults which needed correction in the early days too, including a major engine fault discovered in 1943, but I don't recall any of these being blamed on sabotage.
Thought that I had some of the information on suspected sabotage of Hudsons included in the weekly summaries compiled by Air Department itself during this period, but on checking these notes, found that this was not the case. Am hoping that it will be included in the actual accident reports, but unfortunately I have not checked many of the Hudson accident reports, maybe only 10 - 15% of them, these are generally fairly comprehensive. Sadly I have never looked at the one which was implicated (NZ2020) as I was aware that "sabotage" in American war factories was widely reported in this period, but from memory, the talk was getting quite ridiculous, and from what little I can remember, the FBI was put to work to find out if any actual proof existed of such sabotage. There were a few, very amateurish attempts discovered, which had little effect. It seems that paranoia had just got out of hand. However I know that I wrote down some brief notes SOMEWHERE, they will turn up one day.
Finding design faults in new aircraft was quite common once large numbers of a new type were put into service and worked hard under normal operational conditions - it even happened with airliners, but most such faults are fortunately found by alert maintenance staff, or by pilots noticing strange noises or vibrations and advising maintenance. Thus the problem is nipped in the bud before a catastrophe occurs. I have never found in New Zealand a file on the specific subject of aircraft design defects (let alone sabotage), although each aircraft type would have generated files for this very purpose, maintained by the original manufacturer, as well as all operators, and with correspondence passing between them.
|
|
krisd
Leading Aircraftman
Posts: 5
|
Post by krisd on Feb 22, 2022 3:16:21 GMT 12
Once again appreciate your perspective David, but I believe you misunderstood my question regarding sources. To clarify, what is your source for the timeline you posted about the delivery and flight operations for Squadrons operating Hudson aircraft in 1941? Was this an ORB or appendices for these squadrons, if so what is the document number? Is it from the National Archives in London or another archival source in New Zealand? I would like to know the document/file numbers to pursue my own research.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 22, 2022 12:53:32 GMT 12
krisd, Have made an earnest attempt to find the source of the information on suspected sabotage of NZ2020 resulting in the accident of 21st December 1941, but so far have failed to find my original source, which would have been an Air Department file or other official document. However I can provide another source (also a file), the original accident report for this aircraft. This was Air 25/2/452, Flying Officer E F Holdaway and crew. You may require further information to obtain this file, which I cannot supply, as the filing systems at (New Zealand) National Archives (now known as Archives NZ) have changed somewhat over the years since I first hand copied my lists of air accidents, and they may require a Series number for the full reference. However most staff working there today would probably know about this large group of files, and may be able to help you locate it regardless. I am suspecting you may not be domiciled in New Zealand, in which case you may have to obtain the assistance of a local researcher, perhaps resident in Wellington (or close by), although not certain of their "Covid 19" status at this time. As noted in previous post, I have not personally studied this particular file, but one additional fact I have discovered is that at least one Hudson in Fiji was found to have similar faults in the aileron control system which required rectification, but that is all (from my file on the original published article).
Since I got rather keen on aviation history in about 1968, I have not been a particularly commercial author, and was definitely not trained in the scholarly rigour of noting source of ALL IMPORTANT FACTS (although for direct quotations I often provide source). This habit has naturally proved to be a serious failing when somebody questions something 50 plus years later. However I can usually attribute source, or provide a good guess in maybe 80 - 90 % of cases after a good search. I was of the old school, and rather than photocopy everything, I generally took notes by hand (much cheaper, but not really that searchable) - not an excuse, just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 3, 2022 19:10:44 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Mar 4, 2022 21:09:59 GMT 12
Some of the few pictures of our Mk. V Hudsons which do NOT have their black rubber "spinners" fitted to their props for some reason. However this configuration shows off the counterweights which were the heart of this type of propeller (Hamilton Standard type). These props must have been very similar to the ones fitted on our SBD-3 and -4 Dauntlesses.
|
|