I have just learned this today myself but I’m not sure if No.1 (B) OTU has anything to do with RNZAF’s No.10 (OT) squadron, as mentioned by Chris in his post. Do you know, by any chance?

There is a ’43’ just about visible on the tail of the Ventura in the photograph, which would make the serial number NZ4543

I didn’t expect to find anything of relevance so quickly but the first book I dug out of a box in the garage (the 1945 edition of “AIRCRAFT OF THE UNITED STATES” by R.A.Saville-Sneath) had useful three-view drawings, which I show below.

I have very slightly stretched the Hudson drawing horizontally in order to achieve equal wing spans and thus a better comparison. I don’t think this action has distorted the image in a significant way.

When I was much, much younger and spending hours looking through these old (even then) books, the text used to refer to the equal tapering of the Hudson’s wing in contrast to the slightly ‘bent’ rear edge of the Ventura’s wing. However, when I saw Ventura photos showing the wing, this shape was not readily apparent. Maybe you had to see the two aircraft in flight for real to appreciate the difference.

Thank you, Chris, for your response. I’d been looking for an RAF squadron with a “ZX” code and none I found seemed to fit the bill.

In terms of the aircraft type, I had it filed as a “PV-1”. Whether I got that designation from a photo caption or whether it was my own identification, I really cannot say. Whichever it was, let me explain why I was content to stick with Ventura or ‘PV-1’.

To be the best of my knowledge, Hudsons did not have the ventral gun position, which gives that ‘kink’ in the lower rear fuselage. Also, the Hudson, being based on the Lockheed 14, has a shorter fuselage than a Ventura, which is based on the Lockheed 18 (the Lodestar); this gives the Hudson a slightly ‘stubbier’ appearance. Also, the dorsal turret on a Hudson was much further back along the fuselage.

In respect of it being a PV-1 as against a Ventura, I actually think that, despite the roundel, it looks more like a PV-1 (as in the U.S. Navy) than it does a Ventura (as in RAF service). The reason I say that is that the Venturas had more of a bubble for the dorsal turret (rather like the dorsal turret on a Hudson, as it happens), whereas the PV-1s had a more ‘flat-topped’ bubble to the dorsal turret.

That’s just my personal view, of course, and, as I’ve often said in other threads on this site, I am very happy to be countered and/or contradicted.

Meanwhile, I will try to find some images to illustrate the differences that I have mentioned and, if I do, I’ll post them later.