Blackburn Skua was it that bad? (1 Viewer)

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


Dive-brakes? Maybe, maybe not - perhaps the Air Ministry decision not to proceed with the light-bomber requrement means that that part of the prototype development has occured yet. But no doubt if (and they would) the FAA wanted dive-brakes, Hawkers would have them fitted.
The question then, would be with a more effective FDB in the offing, would the FAA still want an eight-gun Fighter (re-con) aircraft - the decision making timing is tight. I can see the Henley having four guns - like the Skua, but not eight - its main duty is a dive-bomber. And according to 'Dive Bomber!' p.51 "with capacity for four 500 lb bombs on underwing racks".
OTOH it gives a window of opportunity, for the FAA to go to single-engine fighters, rather than two-seaters.
 
In the context of this discussion it might be interesting to note that a Henley prototype was converted to RR Griffon power and was used to test the engine installation for the forthcoming Firefly, so why no Griffon Sea Henleys then, as it was obviously flying first?
 
Some large, sturdy aircraft were used as flying testbeds for engines with absolutely no intention of ever producing such a combination as a production/service aircraft.

First Flights of R-2800 were in a converted Northrop A-17.

Fairly Battles flew with a variety powerplants.

Second seat gave room for an engineer and much more extensive instrumentation than a single seat aircraft would have.
 
Oh yes, absolutely, but I was wondering, if the Henley was flying with Griffon power as a test bed why was it never considered for production? I am presuming there was a good reason, I just don't know what it is.
 
Waynos said:
Oh yes, absolutely, but I was wondering, if the Henley was flying with Griffon power as a test bed why was it never considered for production? I am presuming there was a good reason, I just don't know what it is.
Click to expand...

Just a wild guess but the Henley used the same type of construction as the Hurricane. A tube fuselage covered with fabric. Perhaps the specs for new aircraft called for all metal?
 
According to 'wiki' although the first had fabric covered wngs, later aircraft was with stressed-skin

"Although construction of a Henley prototype began as early as mid-1935, with all priorities going to Hurricane development it was not until 10 March 1937 that it was first flown, powered by a Merlin "F" engine; shortly after the competing Fairey P.4/34. Subsequently the aircraft was refitted with light alloy stressed-skin wings and a Merlin I engine, and further test flights confirmed the excellence of its overall performance."

Hawker Henley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: the Griffon, I think the Hurricane wasn't considered for fitting with this engine - it was considered too old a design, and therefore more benefit could be gained from using it on a newer model. It is possible then that a successful Henley may be considered 'worth' the upgrade - depending what the alternatives are, and what gain in performance bomb-load!
 
The wings were all metal the rear fuselage was not.

while Fabric covered aircraft did serve on carriers for the length of the war, they were older designs that were kept in production. In 1939 before the guns started firing picking a fabric covered plane (even partially) might have been viewed as old fashioned. Once the shooting starts build what is tooled up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Why was it?
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
nuuumannn
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
Fixed rearward-facing defensive guns - any worth in it?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Engineman
E
S
Some thoughts on "combat effectiveness/performance" factors that are often hidden.
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
6K
GregP
Lockheed Ventura - Why didn't the RAF rate it?
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register