Thoughts on the Handley Page H.P.47?

[Peter Gunn]

Yeah, but that's a foreign product. Can't have that, now, can we?

KLM didn't seem to mind.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

KLM didn't seem to mind.

That's different. They were Dutch.

 

[GregP]

If its weird, its British.
If its ugly, its French.
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. So, no really neat twin-boom fighter. But I like the design. At least it is NOT both wierd and ugly simultaneously.

If looks could kill, this would have been a winner. I wonder where exactly they placed the tailwheel ....

 

[SaparotRob]

If its weird, its British.
If its ugly, its French.
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.

View attachment 613655

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. So, no really neat twin-boom fighter. But I like the design. At least it is NOT both wierd and ugly simultaneously.

If looks could kill, this would have been a winner. I wonder where exactly they placed the tailwheel ....

Neat looking airplane! Had it been built, would those engines have impaired forward vision?

 

[Admiral Beez]

To be honest, I find this a massive embarrassment. All these companies had been designing aircraft for years, yet any notion of basic aerodynamics, use of modern technology, inspiration, anything was just thrown out of the window, ignored and/or forgotten.
Strapping a torpedo to the bottom of a DC2 would have been better than these

Sometimes you swing and you miss, and I suspect just take government funding for something you know isn't going to get picked.

 

[buffnut453]

For all the criticism of these designs, they were built to meet a Government requirement. Let's bear in mind that the Wellesley set a world distance record flying 7,162 miles non-stop from Ismailia to Darwin. Yes, the aircraft were modified from the service standard but that distance record for a single-engined aircraft lasted for over 68 years! The ability to fly that sort of range didn't come by accident; it must have been driven in large part by the original specification. One look at the Wellesley's aspect ratio suggests the design traded speed and manoeuverability for lift, presumably to meet the specification.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wiki says it flew in 27 November 1934 without spats or Townsend rings. I wouldn't expect much from a 650hp Taurus.

The main criticism I would have is the 3 legs used to support each wheel but consider that its forerunners were biplanes.

Without retraction there is lots of room for fuel in the wings. Its redeeming feature is a Range: 1,250 mi (2,010 km, 1,090 nmi) on a 650hp engine.

I read somewhere that the ASI was a calendar.

 

[Admiral Beez]

For all the criticism of these designs, they were built to meet a Government requirement. Let's bear in mind that the Wellesley set a world distance record flying 7,162 miles non-stop from Ismailia to Darwin.

It's hard to imagine a Bristol radial not running out of oil before the trip was done.

 

[GregP]

Fill up the oil and check the gas ...

 

[glennasher]

That thing is hard to look at. I always thought that the Wellesley was hard to look at, but that thing is even worse. In comparison, the Vickers looks pretty good. I presume they were supposed to be "light bombers", whatever that is/was. I'd hate to have to fly something like that knowing someone in a (name your poison here) was going to try to shoot me down.

 

[GregP]

The Wellesley was a "medium bomber," at least by early 1930s specs, and was obsolete by WWII. Nevertheless, it was operated in remote regions where the backwater crop of obsolete airplanes was generally used, ended up flying maritime patrol, and retired from that endeavor in 1942. It would not have been so bad to operate one in a backwater threater because the opposition was something like a biplane with about the same speed or maybe a P-26 Peashooter. Either way, the single flex MG and single fixed MG was enough to deter most 1920s - 1930s pursuits, and you really weren't going to encounter them to any great degree anyway seeing as how there wasn't any radar about. All you had were ground spotters who were not exactly the same as early warning radar.

I doubt anybody wanted to be a Wellesley if a Bf 109 or even a Fiat CR.42 somehow wandered along and found them.

 

[BiffF15]

If its weird, its British.
If its ugly, its French.
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.

View attachment 613655

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. So, no really neat twin-boom fighter. But I like the design. At least it is NOT both wierd and ugly simultaneously.

If looks could kill, this would have been a winner. I wonder where exactly they placed the tailwheel ....

Just turn the wing around and make it a tricycle geared beast. Pretty cool looking regardless. Definitely out of the box thinking.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Admiral Beez]

Fill up the oil and check the gas ...

I know, but how at 7,000 miles non-stop. I suppose you could enlarge the oil capacity and sump, but if you're burning oil you're fouling plugs.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

To be honest, I find this a massive embarrassment. All these companies had been designing aircraft for years, yet any notion of basic aerodynamics, use of modern technology, inspiration, anything was just thrown out of the window, ignored and/or forgotten.
Strapping a torpedo to the bottom of a DC2 would have been better than these

The militarized DC-2 was better know as the Douglas B-18 Bolo. Not exactly a roaring success.

 

[Glider]

The militarized DC-2 was better know as the Douglas B-18 Bolo. Not exactly a roaring success.

I agree but it was still better than what was proposed

 

[Graeme]

For all the criticism of these designs, they were built to meet a Government requirement

It was a tough spec.

 

[fastmongrel]

It was a tough spec.

View attachment 613711

Wow tough specifications I am only surprised they didn't want it to take off and land vertically.

Multi purpose specs never worked they always produced an aircraft that was mediocre at everything.

 

[fastmongrel]

If its weird, its British.
If its ugly, its French.
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.

View attachment 613655

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. So, no really neat twin-boom fighter. But I like the design. At least it is NOT both wierd and ugly simultaneously.

If looks could kill, this would have been a winner. I wonder where exactly they placed the tailwheel ....

I am wondering where the pilots feet go. What with the guns and the wing spars the pilot must have been prone. Unless the wing was very thick.

 

[pbehn]

It looks a bit of a lash up, but how much time and effort would you spend on a plane in the early 1930s where the client doesn't know what it wants, or rather it wants everything.

 

[Koopernic]

For all the criticism of these designs, they were built to meet a Government requirement. Let's bear in mind that the Wellesley set a world distance record flying 7,162 miles non-stop from Ismailia to Darwin. Yes, the aircraft were modified from the service standard but that distance record for a single-engined aircraft lasted for over 68 years! The ability to fly that sort of range didn't come by accident; it must have been driven in large part by the original specification. One look at the Wellesley's aspect ratio suggests the design traded speed and manoeuvrability for lift, presumably to meet the specification.

The Wellesley had the Geodesic structure also used in latter Wellington. It was very light. 2.5 times the wing area of a spitfire but only 30% more weight. I assume it was designed by Barnes Wallis.

The observers/gunner/navigator windshield folded down flat so the aerodynamics was pretty good.