Thoughts on the Handley Page H.P.47?

[Admiral Beez]

It was a tough spec.

View attachment 613711

Casualty evacuation? For that you need rough field capability and internal space for litters. Plus the need for torpedo, recon, etc. With its fixed and seemingly though undercarriage, internal space and bomb capability, the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow could do it, except dive bomber. Need an inflight refueling aircraft, Harrow is your man.

Bristol Bombay deserves a look too. IMO the Harrow could have been useful in greater numbers throughout the early war years.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If its wierd AND ugly, its Russian.

In the case of this British spec, none were exactly good-looking. But, if we're going to have small tail booms, I like this Soviet design that was never quite completed: Grokhovsky G-38.

It used French Gnome-Rhone radials, and COULD have been a neat airplane. Alas, the designer apparenly somehow ran afoul of Stalin or was just caught up in a purge and, as so many others who had done so did, he died in prison.

"Too sleek and effeminate looking to be Russian! Subversive foreign influence! A threat to our revolutionary society. You know what to do with him, Comrade Beria."
Soviet prisons of the era were known for pandemics of "9MM disease".

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It was a tough spec.

View attachment 613711

Have you ever seen the spec for McNamara's COIN fighter that produced the OV10? Another do-it-all attempt that produced a weird looking machine, though a bit more successful than this albatross.

 

[fastmongrel]

Casualty evacuation? For that you need rough field capability and internal space for litters. Plus the need for torpedo, recon, etc. With its fixed and seemingly though undercarriage, internal space and bomb capability, the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow could do it, except dive bomber. Need an inflight refueling aircraft, Harrow is your man.

View attachment 613729

Bristol Bombay deserves a look too. IMO the Harrow could have been useful in greater numbers throughout the early war years.

Plenty of Bombay's and Harrows could have been very useful for Dunkirk. If a big enough field could have been kept clear of course.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Plenty of Bombay's and Harrows could have been very useful for Dunkirk. If a big enough field could have been kept clear of course.

Agreed. Keep tyre pressure low and land on the hard packed sand at low tide.

 

[fastmongrel]

Bombay's certainly operated off some rough desert landing strips.

 

[glennasher]

Agreed. Keep tyre pressure low and land on the hard packed sand at low tide.

That would spook the heck outa me, I'd be worried about FOD and mucking up the engines.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That would spook the heck outa me, I'd be worried about FOD and mucking up the engines.

If at Dunkirk someone will need to clear the beach of debris. The radial engines are pretty tough, and no worry of radiators getting wrecked. But yeah....

Back to our Handley Page H.P.47, it looks tailor made for rough landings. If there was ever an overengineered undercarriage.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

It was a tough spec.

View attachment 613711

The DeHaviland Mosquito could do most of those things

 

[XBe02Drvr]

That would spook the heck outa me, I'd be worried about FOD and mucking up the engines.

He went "feet wet" on his u-turn before takeoff! Mighty glad I'm not on corrosion control detail.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hmmm. Not the brightest offering from HP, the HP.47 was one of Gustav Lachmann's designs, Lachmann was a German import and had studied metal construction at German universities and at the time, the construction methods employed in the HP.47 were very advanced and were influenced by techniques in use in Germany, notably the Junkers company - the corrugations for example. Nonetheless, when first flying in late 1933 it was a thoroughly modern aircraft, with all-metal construction, a cantilever wing with landing flaps and leading-edge slats, and so forth.

Problem was, the specification, as already highlighted was a bit of a basket case and there was no way that anything that was built to it would stand the test of time. The winner to the spec was the Vickers G.4/31, but by 1935 that was looking decidedly passe compared to other aircraft that were appearing, including Vickers' own Wellesley and Wellington under construction. The HP.47, on testing was found to be too flimsy and flexed in flight, but its undercarriage was indeed strong. After being notified of its unsuitability HP used it for low-speed testing and it was eventually scrapped in 1937. Probably the best thing to have happened to it.

 

[Shortround6]

Soviet prisons of the era were known for pandemics of "9MM disease".

More like 7.62mm disease

9mm would have identified the user as a fascist

 

[GregP]

They wanted everything? Must be an F-35!

 

[fastmongrel]

They wanted everything? Must be an F-35!

I don't think they have specified casualty evacuation YET.

If Lockheed smells a contract it could happen. You've been shot well here's a $250,000,000 evac pod I know it looks like a drop tank with a hatch but it will be fine. Oh and we have put a post it note on the instrument panel to remind the pilot.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The DeHaviland Mosquito could do most of those things

Ten years later sure, that spec was from 1931.

Want to see what brand new de Havilland bomber first flies in 1931? The de Havilland DH.72 - Wikipedia

 

[Big Jake]

Re corrugations: major part of the B-17 wing is made up of corrugated aluminum structure. Fortunately, it is inside the wing...

 

[Terry37]

Makes me think of the Curtis Shrike - ugly, but I love it!!!

Terry