Flying the transport Lockheed twins

[JDK]

Another one of those pages from that calendar again! Walter Boyne ends a note on the Lockheed Lodestar (and referring to the Lockheed 10, 12 Super Electra, Hudson, Lodestar and Ventura) that: "All of these high-performance aircraft were demanding to fly."

Now I've read that for the time some aspects of the Model 14 / Hudson's landing characteristics were challenging, particularly with full flap set, and fixed slats were added to the design. However I'm interested in any data that people may have as well as knowledgeable opinions to see whether they were 'challenging' or simply needed to be flown to the book, and had less latitude for slack or ham-fisted flying than contemporary types.

Thanks in advance!

[JDK]

Obviously impossible... Any offers?

[Rick65]

JDK , I can't help with the question as my only Lockheed twin experience was with an Electra Junior when I was 3 to 6 years old.
Probably VH-ASG "Silver Gull" (9M-ANK) when flying into a dirt strip at mining town Bukit Ibam in Malaysia near Bukit Besi where it (topically) crashed on landing in 1966, being damaged beyond repair.
http://www.lockheed.adastron.com/electra/vh-asg.htm
I know the family has footage of this plane but I can't find on the ones that have been digitised.
However judging by the long service of this plane and other similar Lockheed twins they must have been manageable though my parents did claim that the pilots were all ex military and passenger comfort wasn't high on the priority list.

[Dave Hadfield]

James,

My Dad flew Lockheed 14s and Hudsons in the 60s and 70s for a charter outfit in Toronto.

Yes, he says they are demanding. They like to groundloop more than, say, a DC-3. Crosswinds require more care. The approach speeds and VMC are fairly high when loaded, again compared to contemporary types. Single-engine handling is unforgiving if the speed gets low. (They're no Mosquito of course, but neither are they an Aztec.)

I have friends who fly the L10A for TCA/Air Canada, and another friend who flies his L12. Neither of these is too threatening. But when the weights and power loading went up with the 14-18 series, more care was required.

The best prep is a Be-18, of course, preferably with Harvard time before that, as per the BCATP.

Dave

[Mark Sampson]

1) I recently saw on this site someone's recent airshow photos which included pictures of a flying Lockheed 10. So there's at least one airworthy, its pilots could tell you what it's like.
2) Barry Schiff (who's flown everything) wrote a cover story on the L-12 Electra Junior for 'AOPA Pilot' magazine within the last 2-3 years. I can't remember his comments on its flying qualities but the article should be retrievable.
3) Apparently the only remaining L-14 belongs to Kermit Weeks and awaits restoration. That leaves you with the people who fly the Hudson in Australia or NZ. Robert Morgan (?) writes about landing a Hudson in his book about being the pilot of the 'Memphis Belle'.
4) Of course many Lodestars were in civilian service for decades after WW2 so there must be numerous pilots who can tell stories.
5) Taigh Ramey and the 'Hot Stuff' crew are still flying PV-2 Harpoons...

[JDK]

Thanks Rick, Dave!

Thanks also Mark. The world's only flying Hudson is operated by the Temora Aviation Museum in NSW, Australia, and I know several of the pilots quite well, and have canvassed their opinions (one owns a Lockheed 12 as well) I'm basically interested in more. (I also was lucky enough to have a flight in it last year).

As Dave's touched on, Air Canada operate a Lockheed 10, which I was also lucky enough to fly as a passenger in out of Rockliffe a few years ago now. Be interested in hearing any accounts of the Air Canada pilot's experiences, Dave? There seem to be more airworthy 12s than 10s these days, which is why it was a 12 flying as the 10E in the Amelia film.

I was kindly sent this neat link for an older opinion on civil Hudson ops: http://www.adastra.adastron.com/people/lvp2ron.htm

Bringing this back to the front for any more input... Thanks in advance!

Regards,

[Dave Hadfield]

I was in that film! I'm one of the guys in white overalls during the infinitesimally brief Air-Race scene. We brought the Taperwing, and taught Hilary Swank how to start it.

Both the TCA L-10a and Peter Ramm's prize-winning L-12 were on the ramp together this year at our airshow at Gatineau in Sept. It would have been wonderful to see them flying together, but the L-12 was a bit last-minute, and it the airshow program has to be approved well ahead of time. Perhaps next year.

I know several of the 10A pilots, and have chatted with them about the airplane. Apparently with the 2 PW-985s and light loads, it's not a terrible handful.

But as your veteran's remarks point out, the later aircraft, the L14 and Lodestar that my Dad flew, were regarded as hot airplanes, particularly when heavy.

Here are 2 photos of the L-12 in 2011, during our Yellow Wings tour. Peter was kind enough to let us stay in his hangar for a couple of nights.





Dave

[Warbird Kid]

Have anymore pictures of that Van in the background?! That thing looks cool!

[JDK]

Have anymore pictures of that Van in the background?! That thing looks cool!

That's the Vintage Wings of Canada van, last I saw it was in the bar car park after the Canadian Warplane Heritage show in June. Looks nice, but could be kooler, with the right lights and ICE...

http://www.yellowwings.ca/?p=839

[Dave Hadfield]

Yes, that's our "Swag Van" . It travelled coast to coast, hauling T-shirts and ball caps and engine oil -- and sweaty pilots to and from the hotels.

This photo taken in 2011 at Dunnville, ON.



Dave

[K225]

Here's a closeup of the van when we were on the western leg of the Yellow Wings tour in 2011. We were at Nanton Alberta when they ran up two of the Lancaster's Merlins.

Last edited by K225 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

[Dan K]

...and Oshkosh 2011

[cwmc]

My Dad flew Howard Super Ventura and H-500 and he said they flew very well and landed very nicely.
The H-500 has a very well machined ball bearing supported vane mounted ventrally in the nose with which to sense yaw. If it senses yaw along with some substantial differential in BMEP with the throttles past a certain point of travel it will energize a servo to apply rudder in the direction necessary to counter the yaw. This drops the VMC to 95 kts, according to Ole Dad.
The Howards had lengthened fuselages so the moments were better for directional control compared to the PV-1. I imagine the L-14 might have been a little more unforgiving than the L-18 because it's length was shorter. Given that the CAF wiped out a perfectly good Howard 250 with all of it's evolutionary improvements would indicate the obvious, when flown properly they all fly just fine.
Chris...

[Taigh Ramey]

My Dad flew Howard Super Ventura and H-500
Chris...

Hello Chris,

Would your Dad happen to have any manuals from the Super Ventura or other Howard tech info? We have a Super Ventura project and any information is very helpful.

Thanks Chris,

Taigh

[RV8er]

Now I've read that for the time some aspects of the Model 14 / Hudson's landing characteristics were challenging, particularly with full flap set, and fixed slats were added to the design. However I'm interested in any data that people may have as well as knowledgeable opinions to see whether they were 'challenging' or simply needed to be flown to the book, and had less latitude for slack or ham-fisted flying than contemporary types.

I'm not a high time Lockheed driver with a mere 2+ hours and 6 landings as SIC in a CAF L18/C-60 Lodestar... my perspective is from a high time 737 puke who also flies a T-6 and RV-8.

Yesterday we did a hop to get my landing currency; what a hoot! It's not a responsive ship like an RV-8 (duh!) or even a T-6, but it's a nice flying machine. I've heard the stories of flying the DC-3, specifically herding it around through turns with lotsa aileron and rudder and a time delay until it decides to start turning... the Lodestar doesn't seem to act like that; turn the wheel, add some rudder and around she goes. She's a bit heavy in pitch and likes elevator trim, but that was with an empty aft cabin and a somewhat forward CG. Put some peeps and other crap in back and I'm sure it would be lighter in pitch. Speaking of pitch trim, you gotta use it with gear/flap movement! When gear/flaps are in motion, the ship pitches up and down a bit as drag and CG profiles change, but it's easily manageable once you expect and get used to it.

Landings seem to be fairly straightforward with no bad habits (yet!); on final with gear down, half flaps, 20" MP, 90 kts or so, it comes down like it's on rails, very stable. Power to idle and hold it off for a nice wheel landing. I can't imagine trying to 3 point land this sucker... with an empty aft cabin, during the flare I'm pulling as hard as I can on the yoke for a wheelie. Perhaps back in the old days with a heavy load of pax or freight back there it'd be easier, but for our current ops, no thanks; wheel landings please. For landing flap settings, we've done a few with full flaps and it seemed to fly about the same, just needed more power down final. The PIC flying yesterday prefers to use half flaps; the flaps are so effective, there's plenty of drag at half, and in case of a go around and power loss, full flap hanging out becomes quite a liability. On the landing roll, just normal rudder use kept 'er down the middle... with the tailwheel planted, the speed bled off so quickly there was barely any need for the brakes; just a quick tap at the end to make the runway turnoff.

Fun stuff.