|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 3, 2021 12:03:03 GMT 12
Following a conversation with a mate about RNZAF Venturas and Hudsons, I have a couple of questions. The first is, did the RNZAF crews flying Hudsons and Venturas in the Pacific and at home in New Zealand carry parachutes? They were usually patrolling at low level, 1,000ft to 2,000ft, due to their reconnaissance role and I know that when any Hudsons or Venturas had a premature end to their flight they tended to ditch in the sea with all the crew onboard, rather than the crew bailing out and taking to the silk. I have never seen a photo of crew with their aircraft that I can recall where they are carrying parachutes. The other question is about the Venturas. There are a couple of photos of RNZAF Venturas with a second seat fitted for a second pilot in the right of the cockpit.  AFMNZ Photo PR5260 LINK AFMNZ Photo PR3104 LINKThe PV-1 and B-34 in RNZAF service had only one pilot as standard in the crew. The crew was usually a pilot, a navigator, a wireless operator-air gunner, and two straight air gunners. So why the second seat? Was it a duel kit on only a couple of aircraft? In the MOTAT B-34 there's only a small flat squab seat which I believe the nav sat on for take off and landing rather than sit in his normal nose position. It was minimal to allow access to the nose position. But these seats in the photos seem to block access. How many of our PV-1's got this second seat added? Was it temporary for ferrying (the second photo above was from a ferry flight from Hawaii). Was it for conversion? I know that early in the Hudson's service there was at least one Hudson set up with a dual kit for exactly that. Any thoughts please? DavidD? Denys? |
|
|
|
Post by denysjones on Jun 3, 2021 15:14:12 GMT 12
hmm Dave that's a tad strange but I think the answer lies thus. Here's the appropriate page from the PV-1 IPC  The seat in the foreground is visually the same as the Hudson and so I'd say that comes from the nose bay just like the Hudson. The legs have rollers on the ends (in the imbedded scrap view) that run in tracks either side of the bomb aiming panel and enable the seat to be slid forward to facilitate said function. The rearground seat again looks like the one in the Hudson which clips onto the steps down to the nose but can be stowed on the sidewall just behind it to allow access to the nose. So these must refer to the early PV-1's with the glazed nose as per the Hudson. Here's the page that shows the seat for a co-pilot.  Same physical seat pan but different mounts (and for that matter looks to be the same unit as used in making the Hudson navigator and w/o's seats). So obviously, well to me, the view in the photo must be from the later solid nose model a/c. hth |
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jun 3, 2021 15:55:04 GMT 12
Dave, I think that in the case especially of the Hudsons during long transit flights the crew carried chest parachutes which were stowed in the cabin. They only wore the harnesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jun 3, 2021 16:04:31 GMT 12
Dave, an interesting extract from The PV1 -Ventura in Action book
"All Venturas were delivered in single pilot cockpit configuration, the standard British practice in attack bombers. Copilot controls were added by the Navy as soon as they were delivered as a field modification". Certainly in looking closely at a few air-to-air photos there is often a second head on the right side of the cockpit presumably using the seat that Denys has described.
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 3, 2021 16:45:44 GMT 12
I think most American Medium bombers were generally flown with two pilot’s . Did the RAF fly their B25, PV1 single pilot? Helicopters like Chinook are flown 2 pilot in the States but I believe RAF flew them single pilot with a navigator for a long time in their early career.
|
|
|
|
Post by denysjones on Jun 3, 2021 20:08:48 GMT 12
Re the parachute and stowage question...in the Hudson main cabin there are three bins (two stbd and one port) for said use. Regarding two pilot configs... The Hudsons (well certainly 2035) had a fixture in the centre consolethat would allow for the installation of the second set of controls by way of extension of the install port set. The wall covering of the stbd wall itself was also furnished with the recess in it to allow the control column end clearance as it swept fore and aft.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 3, 2021 20:40:24 GMT 12
Certainly in looking closely at a few air-to-air photos there is often a second head on the right side of the cockpit presumably using the seat that Denys has described. They are probably the Navigator. That was his seat when not in the nose. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 3, 2021 20:42:09 GMT 12
I have never seen a Ventura or Hudson crew wearing a harness either. Webbing belt around the overalls is all you ever see. Wonder if the harnesses were last minute things to put on before take off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 3, 2021 20:42:47 GMT 12
I really wish all the Hudson and Ventura guys I used to know were not dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 3, 2021 23:47:16 GMT 12
Following a conversation with a mate about RNZAF Venturas and Hudsons, I have a couple of questions. The first is, did the RNZAF crews flying Hudsons and Venturas in the Pacific and at home in New Zealand carry parachutes? They were usually patrolling at low level, 1,000ft to 2,000ft, due to their reconnaissance role and I know that when any Hudsons or Venturas had a premature end to their flight they tended to ditch in the sea with all the crew onboard, rather than the crew bailing out and taking to the silk. I have never seen a photo of crew with their aircraft that I can recall where they are carrying parachutes. How about this which is just one of numerous photos of Hudson crews at Nelson wearing parachute harnesses and carrying chutes in the RNZAF Museum on-line collection. fotoweb.airforcemuseum.co.nz/fotoweb/archives/5003-Search-the-Collection/Collection/PR246_1.jpg.info#?c=%2Ffotoweb%2Farchives%2F5003-Search-the-Collection%2F%3Fq%3Dhudson |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 4, 2021 8:38:04 GMT 12
Well done, I wondered who'd be the first to spot that...  |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 4, 2021 19:00:57 GMT 12
The navigator in the PV-1s (and presume B-34s) had a larger chart table in the main cabin (well aft of the W/Opr station) and also an appropriate seat which folded away against the opposite fuselage wall when not required. Did the Hudson have any such arrangement, apart from the nose compartment? Another thing about aircraft seats in multi-seat aircraft during WW2 was that, apart from the pilot's seat, most other seats were of fairly light construction, and were NOT intended to be sat in when an emergency landing (or any landing) was being attempted, or take offs for that matter. There may be exceptions, and some multi-seat aircraft were also so tight inside that there were really not that many options for moving about or bracing for an emergency landing (for instance, some gunner's positions, as well as inside turrets).
Generally nose compartments were abandoned for landings, and often also for take offs, for safety as well as trim consideraions. Because of the loading of the aircraft on take off (and landing) there was frequently the requirement to distribute the crew about the interior to get a better balance and trim for these portions of the trip, and in many aircraft it was not at all safe to be in certain positions. Typically many aircrew members were requested to stand in a braced position "behind the most substantial part of the interior structure", which was almost always aft of the main wing structure passing through fuselage, or a main frame for carrying through the forces from fuselage to wing centre section higher in fuselage. It is for this reason that any restraining belts mounted on free standing seats as used by navigators, W/Oprs for instance, were of a fairly light construction, and were only intended to save the occupant from being flung about the cabin in turbulence, or should the captain carry out some unexpected and dramatic manoeuvre when under attack for instance, or to avoid a collision.
It may seem strange that aircrew members were used as quickly adjustable ballast on operations, but that is just the way it was then - read through the hand-book of any multi-seat aircraft of the era, and you will see what I mean. Of course even in the large jet liners of the present, maintaining trim in flight is a full-time job for the computers, pumping fuel about, and the passengers will already be so-placed within the aircraft to get (roughly) the ideal balance for take off and cruise. If anybody can give a more coherent explanation for such activity, feel free to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 17:45:49 GMT 12
The screenshot from the PV1 POH below has a wt/unit index (wt x arm) table (3) used in conjunction with the PV1 loading chart. It shows the aircrew wt (standardized at about 90kg) and the unit index required for the aircraft's loading chart at the various crew positions in order to achieve a balanced aircraft during takeoff and landing. A unit index value is given for the nav at the nose and in the cabin so they could be in any either position as long as the aircraft remained balanced though the flight. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 5, 2021 21:42:37 GMT 12
Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 16:46:42 GMT 12
It seems unlikely that Ventura pilots regular undertook detailed calculations relating to aircraft max takeoff weight and COG balance through takeoff to landing using the PV1 POH wt/index unit tables for the various loads (crew, bombs, ammo, fuel oil etc) and various loading stations. I showed the PV1 POH loading chart and associated data to my father (Hudson and Ventura pilot), and he indicated he never used it, which begs the question who did the weight and balance checks. It is not like these aircraft had power to burn or would be pleasant to fly at the extremes of their COG balance envelope.
The POH states the preferred method for calculating max takeoff weight and aircraft balance was the use of the 'Librascope' a mechanical weight and balance computer developed by Librascope Inc. of Burbank, California, US. Does anyone know if these devices were available to and used by the RNZAF. Perhaps baseline calculations were performed on set aircraft configurations (strafing missions, bombing missions) to ensure max takeoff wt and COG balance though the flight was maintained. Then aircraft were loaded according to a predetermined formula which negated the need to perform max takeoff weight and COG balance calculations for each flight. Below is an image of a Librascope for a Lockheed 14.
|
|
|
|
Post by aircraftclocks on Jun 6, 2021 18:12:09 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 19:05:44 GMT 12
Thanks for the link, what an amazing computer from the 1940's. All major load stations represented for the PBY-5. I wonder if these devices were used for RNZAF Hudson's and Ventura's, if so, calculation of max take off weight and aircraft balance would have been a painless task compared to the laborious use of the tables and chart. It doesn't appear as if these calculations were the duty of the pilot in command, I wonder if this task was performed by non-aircrew members.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 6, 2021 20:23:42 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 23:06:18 GMT 12
Hey MadMac let those who are waffle free cast the first iron
|
|
