1924, USN orders the Handley Page Type S (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez

Captain
8,544
9,619
Oct 21, 2019
Toronto, Canada
In 1922 the US Navy ordered three prototypes of the Handley Page Type S.

"The first prototype flew on 7 September 1923, but proved to have poor handling, with the rudder proving to be ineffective. The second prototype was built with its wings fitted with six degrees of dihedral, flying in February 1924. It had much improved handling, and showed good speed at low level."


You can see the two wing and tail versions below.

handley_page_hp_21_type_s-86924.jpg


aOwUQEpbMeof60JtI2u8O-psJbJdSj72gzK40JeTY&usqp=CAU.jpg


klTIf56Spn_3DXePGT0tBVOWdD4vcyEBEY1ZmSf88&usqp=CAU.jpg


Let's have the USN accept the HP Type S into service. Presumably it will be license produced in the United States, entering service in 1925. If it's successful perhaps the Royal Navy will take interest in the HP as a replacement to the Nightjar or Flycatcher.
 
Last edited:
for 1925 that plane visually looks super modern. I know it was cancelled for a good reason but it with WW2 era hindsight it certainly looks the part I guess looks aren't always everything. Although how many of it's issues were at least partially caused by the prototype having a 230 hp surplus WW1 era Bentley engine instead of the 400hp engine it was designed to use?
 
Last edited:
for 1925 that plane visually looks super modern. I know it was cancelled for a good reason but it with WW2 era hindsight it certainly looks the part I guess looks aren't always everything. Although how many of it's issues were at least partially caused by the prototype having a 230 hp surplus WW1 era Bentley engine instead of the 400hp engine it was designed to use?
A near doubling of the hp has to make a difference.
 
A near doubling of the hp has to make a difference.
The Bentley weighed about 490lbs. The likely British engines weighed around 730lb +.
The Bentley was just under 43in in Dia. One one British engine was close, the other was 53.5in
The British engines did not use a cowling. The Bentley did but that was to keep the pilot from breathing the exhaust and oil.
The Wright Whirlwind of 1925 didn't make enough power.
The P & W was didn't run on the bench until Dec 1925, it was over 51in dia.

There were experimental monoplanes during the 1920s. Like this one from 1920, notice the landing gear.
uc29dmmisyf41.jpg


Junkers had built a number of all metal monoplanes during WW I.
Junkers-D.I-6.jpg


Every airplane was a compromise. Trying to strike the right balance was difficult. Sometimes Air Forces/Air Ministries erred on the side of caution.
But sheer top end performance was not the only goal.
 
I've never heard of this airplane before, but it does look very cutting-edge, at least in aerodynamics, for 1925. Off to Wiki for the summary ...
I agree, a modern looking bird. I wonder if a fixed pitch three or four blade propeller would make any difference. I expect had the USN bought the design they would have eventually produced it at home and installed a US engine and prop.

I can't find much more than what I posted and linked to above. Here's another photo.

HANDLEY_PAGE_H_P_21-00.jpg
 
I agree, a modern looking bird. I wonder if a fixed pitch three or four blade propeller would make any difference. I expect had the USN bought the design they would have eventually produced it at home and installed a US engine and prop.

I can't find much more than what I posted and linked to above. Here's another photo.

View attachment 678468

USN will love it simply for the stubby look!
 
It is fun to look at some of the old "advanced" aircraft.
However it was not always just old fashioned thinking that resisted change. And come on guys, This thing flew just 20 years after the Wright Brothers, how hidebound do we thing they were?
Adt_busson_mono2.jpg

this was flying about 10 years earlier and the Fokker scourge was this aircraft 1915.
Fokker_EII_WNr_257.jpg


The Hawker Aircraft was prototype to evaluate the leading edge slat and full span flap/aileron system rather than a real fighter.

A proof of concept machine. By the time you got to a workable fighter you might have wound up with something rather different.

They had a lot of trouble with monoplanes folding up in normal fight, they also had some problems with biplanes folding up in flight.
Structure and stress was in it's infancy and there was also a difference between getting something to work as an experiment and getting it to work day in and day out, especially it stored in the open and not a hanger (or canvas tent)

Fokker had designed this to replace/supplement the D VII in 1918.
Fokker-D.VIII-Phil-Makanna-e1618343530999-600x400.jpg

It uses a thick wing both for the air foil (many biplanes use very thin wings) and because the thick wing allows for cantilever construction without bracing wires at low weight.

That was one of the primary considerations of Early aircraft design. Can they make the plane light enough to fly using the existing engines without the structure folding up in flight.

something to think about with Hawker, how good does the forward view have to be if you are using a full span leading edge slat and a full span drooping aileron in order get lift form a 114sq ft wing? You may be coming in with nose over 10 degrees high? well over 10 degrees high?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back