Handley Page Hampden top speed?
- Thread starter hobbes154
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
From the Air Ministry Hampden Mk I ADS (Aircraft Data Sheet) dated 7 August 1941:
Maximum internal fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, clean
245 mph__13,800 ft
232 mph___4,000 ft
From Air Ministry Hampden Mk I Performance Tables, unknown date but probably 1940-41:
Maximum internal fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, clean
247 mph__13,800 ft
Reduced fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, 1000 lbs bombs external (1x 500 lb under each wing)
239 mph__13,800 ft
From the Air Ministry Hampden TB Mk I ADS (Aircraft Data Sheet) dated 5 July 1942:
Maximum internal fuel, 1x 1750 lb torpedo + 1000 lbs bombs (1x 500 lb under each wing)
233 mph__13,800 ft
221 mph___4,000 ft
Maximum internal fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, clean
245 mph__13,800 ft
232 mph___4,000 ft
From Air Ministry Hampden Mk I Performance Tables, unknown date but probably 1940-41:
Maximum internal fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, clean
247 mph__13,800 ft
Reduced fuel, 2000 lbs bombs internal, 1000 lbs bombs external (1x 500 lb under each wing)
239 mph__13,800 ft
From the Air Ministry Hampden TB Mk I ADS (Aircraft Data Sheet) dated 5 July 1942:
Maximum internal fuel, 1x 1750 lb torpedo + 1000 lbs bombs (1x 500 lb under each wing)
233 mph__13,800 ft
221 mph___4,000 ft
Last edited:
From A&AEE tests.
Similar to what ThomasP posted - as the MAP data sheets are very often based on A&AEE reports
Blue - Hampden L.4044
254 mph at 13,800 ft - 243 mph at 4,000 ft
5.5 boost, 2600 rpm
18,752 lb (normal loading)
Green - Hampden P.4354
246 mph at 14,200 ft - 235 mph at 4,200 ft
5.5 boost, 2600 rpm
22,500 lb (overload)
Red - Hampden P.4354
247 mph at 12,500 ft - 236 mph at 2,400 ft
6.75 boost at 2600 rpm
22,500 lb (overload)
'Normal' and 'Overload' both have 4 x 500 lb bombs, but the overload test mainly had more fuel.
Similar to what ThomasP posted - as the MAP data sheets are very often based on A&AEE reports
Blue - Hampden L.4044
254 mph at 13,800 ft - 243 mph at 4,000 ft
5.5 boost, 2600 rpm
18,752 lb (normal loading)
Green - Hampden P.4354
246 mph at 14,200 ft - 235 mph at 4,200 ft
5.5 boost, 2600 rpm
22,500 lb (overload)
Red - Hampden P.4354
247 mph at 12,500 ft - 236 mph at 2,400 ft
6.75 boost at 2600 rpm
22,500 lb (overload)
'Normal' and 'Overload' both have 4 x 500 lb bombs, but the overload test mainly had more fuel.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 1,102
- Sep 30, 2021
Performance Tables of British Service Aircraft, Air Publication 1746, dated August 1939 but data includes 1940/41 aircraft. a note says Hereford currently cleared to 18,200 pounds maximum take off weight
| Mode | Condition | Detail | Hampden Clean | Clean | Hampden 2x500 lb External | External | Hereford |
| Engine | Number | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Engine | Make | Pegasus XVIII | Pegasus XVIII | Dagger VIII | |||
| Engine | Cooling | Air | Air | Air | |||
| Power | Horse Power | 885 | 885 | 1,000 | |||
| Power | At Height (feet) | 15,500 | 15,500 | 8,750 | |||
| Size | Span (feet, inches) | 69.3' | 69.3' | 69.3' | |||
| Size | Length (feet, inches) | 53.3' | 53.3' | 53.3' | |||
| Size | Height (feet, inches) | 14.9' | 14.9' | 14.9' | |||
| Size | Wing Area (square feet) | 737 | 737 | 737 | |||
| Men | Crew | 4 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Armament | Forward Fuselage | a | 1 Browning, 1 Vickers | 1 Browning, 1 Vickers | 1 Browning, 1 Vickers | ||
| Armament | Dorsal | c | 2 Vickers | 2 Vickers | 2 Vickers | ||
| Armament | Ventral | d | 2 Vickers | 2 Vickers | 2 Vickers | ||
| Armament | Rounds Per Machine Gun | 400 (Brn.), Vickers Mags.:6(a),9(c),9.5(d) | 400 (Brn.), Vickers Mags.:6(a),9(c),9.5(d) | 400 (Brn.), Vickers Mags.:9(a,c),9.5(d) | |||
| Bomb Load | Normal (pounds) | 4,000 | 5,000 | 5,000 | |||
| Bomb Load | Maximum (pounds) | 5,000 | |||||
| Bomb Load | 1 Alternative (pounds) | 2,000 | 3,000 | ||||
| Weight | Tare (pounds) | 12,764 | 12,764 | 12,973 | |||
| Normal | Maximum Speed (m.p.h) | 247 | 239 | 251 | |||
| Normal | Max Speed Height (Feet) | 13,800 | 13,800 | 8,750 | |||
| Extended | Overload Weight (pounds) (Max bombs (or Fuel if same)) | 22,500 | 22,500 | 22,500 | |||
| Extended | Take Off (Over 50 ft) (Yards) | 1,100-1,200 | 1,100-1,200 | 900 | |||
| Extended | Climb to Height (feet) | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | |||
| Extended | Climb to Height Time (mins) | 26.5 | 26.5 | 18 | |||
| Extended | Service Ceiling | 19,000 | 19,000 | 20,600 | |||
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Speed (m.p.h) | 206 | 206 | 200 | 200 | 200 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Height (feet) | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Bomb Load (pounds) | 4,000 | 2,000 | 5,000 | 3,000 | 5,000 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) | 1,100 | 1,720 | 700 | 1,380 | 704 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs | 5.35 | 8.35 | 3.5 | 6.9 | 3.52 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 2,840 | 4,450 | 1,900 | 3,720 | 1,830 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 450 | 450 | 450 | 450 | 433 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 3,290 | 4,900 | 2,350 | 4,170 | 2,263 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 439 | 654 | 313 | 556 | 302 |
| Extended | Maximum Bombs (Cruise) | Miles per 100 pounds of fuel | 38.7 | 38.7 | 37.1 | 37.1 | 38.5 |
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Speed (m.p.h) | 206 | 200 | 208 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Height (feet) | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Bomb Load (pounds) | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) | 1,720 | 1,655 | 1,770 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs | 8.35 | 8.25 | 8.5 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 4,450 | 4,450 | 4,427 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 450 | 450 | 433 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 4,900 | 4,900 | 4,860 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 654 | 654 | 648 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Cruise) | Miles per 100 pounds of fuel | 38.7 | 37.1 | 40 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel | Capacity (Gallons) | 654 | 654 | 648 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Speed (m.p.h) | 155 | 155 | 165 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Height (feet) | 15,000 | 15,000 | 15,000 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Bomb Load (pounds) | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Range (50 mins allow.) (miles) | 1,885 | 1,820 | 2,065 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Endurance (50 mins allow.) Hrs | 12.15 | 11.75 | 12.5 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Fuel (for range, pounds) | 4,450 | 4,450 | 4,427 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Fuel (for allowance, pounds) | 450 | 450 | 433 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Fuel (Total, pounds) | 4,900 | 4,900 | 4,860 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Fuel (Total, Gallons) | 654 | 654 | 648 | ||
| Extended | Maximum Fuel (Economical) | Miles per 100 pounds of fuel | 42.4 | 40.9 | 46.6 |
- Thread starter
- #6
Thanks all, so looks like the 265 has no basis at all*, the 254 is A&AEE L.4044 (normal load), and 247 or so is the most common and appears to be overload (except in Geoffrey Sinclair's table?).
*Wikipedia cites
*Wikipedia cites
- Moyes, Philip J.R. The Handley Page Hampden (Aircraft in Profile 58). Leatherhead, Surrey, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1965.
Before dismissing the 265mph speed entirely, you would need to examine the performance of the 3 prototypes K4240, L7271 and L4032 with the latter supposed to be to production standard and what changes (aerodynamic and weight wise) had occurred.
L4044 was a very early production airframe.
L4044 was a very early production airframe.
Admiral Beez
Major
All of which begs the question, how fast is the Hampden with skosh fuel, lightly loaded and no bombs?
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Not fast enough.
Always wondered why this fixation on the top speed (for all aircrafts)?
it's not like the flew at full power from the wheels up to wheels down.
This is just stupid, if i may give my opinion, as top speed was achieved at emergency power and no ww2 engine could do that for a long time and if done, some serious paperwork had to be filled, not forgetting the faces of the grease monkeys.
What i personnly think is more interesting is the max continuous speed as this the operational limit for the airplanes.
it's not like the flew at full power from the wheels up to wheels down.
This is just stupid, if i may give my opinion, as top speed was achieved at emergency power and no ww2 engine could do that for a long time and if done, some serious paperwork had to be filled, not forgetting the faces of the grease monkeys.
What i personnly think is more interesting is the max continuous speed as this the operational limit for the airplanes.
Nick Beale
Airman
I'd agree that normal cruising speed is a more useful thing to know for understanding how long a sortie would last, just as radius of action (how far you can go and still get home with some fuel in reserve) rather than maximum range makes it clearer what targets were in reach.
Last edited:
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
The difference between the 247mph and 265mph is with the feasible tolerances given the best and worst airframes and engines with one with all normal gear and crew etc. on board and the other with no guns, radios etc, canopies closed, just 2 crew, instrument errors, different fuelling and a very slight descent or ascent at the point of measurement. Not to mention air density and temperature. So all the above figures are within possible values.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The thing with the Hampden is that in the summer/fall of 1938 when orders were being placed the speed of the Hampden was rather impressive (compared to the Pegasus Wellington and the night bomber Whitley) and a difference of 15-20mph might make a difference to the survival of the bombers. Germans were build Jumo 210 powered 109s that topped out at around 290mph (give or take) and a pursuit that started with a 5-6 mile head start might be enough to get away. Once the 109S and 110s start showing up that are much faster the fighters are cruising 40-50mph faster than bombers using max power. A long drawn out chase is not usually going to end well for the bombers and a 10-15mph difference is speed with the engines running at max speed/pressure isn't going to make much difference.
Actual fit and finish could also make significant changes to speed so later data sheets may list slower speeds with the fitting of IFF, different radio antennas, and sometimes different bomb loads. At what point did the racks for the single 500lb bomb under each wing show up? Even with the bombs gone the drag might have been good for 4-5mph?
Difference between a day bomber (Green and Brown Camo) and a Night bomber (black) paint?
Difference between an early day bomber exhaust pipe and a night bomber exhaust pipe?
Actual fit and finish could also make significant changes to speed so later data sheets may list slower speeds with the fitting of IFF, different radio antennas, and sometimes different bomb loads. At what point did the racks for the single 500lb bomb under each wing show up? Even with the bombs gone the drag might have been good for 4-5mph?
Difference between a day bomber (Green and Brown Camo) and a Night bomber (black) paint?
Difference between an early day bomber exhaust pipe and a night bomber exhaust pipe?
The is the data from 'The Secret Years':
and we can see how various factors effect speed.
HP52
Airman
Thanks for all that. Good to know that other people still follow the Hampden. I wonder if the fuel detail was made before the Russian flight - Sumburgh - Afrikander though 2 others from 144 Sqn, got bushed and overflew, landing East of their target at Mongiegorsk. Their target incidentally was the frozen SW tip of the White Sea, Kandalaksha/Afrikander though 2 went as far as Mongiegorsk. Those not completely bushed, landed at Kandalaksha and without refuelling flew to Vaenga the next day.
Geoff Raebel - HP Hamdemon
Admiral Beez
Major
It's a question as old as any means of travel. The first guy to ride a horse would have asked, I wonder how fast this thing can go? Have you never looked at a machine, be it a 50cc Vespa or a B-29 Superfort and asked the same? It's about curiosity, not practicality or utility.
No, that's just sad. You see a group having a laid back chat about how fast an aircraft can go, and you dismiss the convo as stupid. If it's stupid to you, why weigh in?
Hi
On the whole BC 'night' bombers had green/brown upper surfaces and black under surfaces throughout the war. Green/brown was not just a day bomber thing. The main change as the war progressed was that the black under surface was brought further up the sides of the fuselage replacing some of the green/brown, however, the green/brown remained the upper surface colour.
Mike
Hi
To illustrate the above, 'early' Hampden camouflage as below from Moyes and Goulding's 'Royal Air Force Bombers of World War Two' Volume 2 (although the artist has reversed the 'N' in squadron code):
And the 'later' scheme, from 'RAF Bomber Command and its Aircraft 1941-1945' (Vol.2) by Goulding and Moyes:
Note also the change in engine exhaust with the later longer exhaust for night flying.
Mike
Admiral Beez
Major
What was the paint scheme for torpedo-bomber Hampdens? The black lower surfaces and green/brown under and side surfaces do not work well for maritime work.
Here's the Beaufort at the RAF Museum in London, for example.
Here's the Beaufort at the RAF Museum in London, for example.
Hi
In 1942 when some Hampdens became torpedo bombers they retained the standard BC camouflage, that includes the units that went to the Soviet Union. During 1943 other camouflage patterns are in evidence, page 27 of Warpaint Series No.57 'Handley Page Hampden' by Alan W. Hall, has three examples:
An aircraft of 1404 (Met) Flight (later 517 Sqn.) with Extra Dark Sea Grey uppersurface and white undersides in January 1943.
An aircraft of No. 415 Sqn. RCAF, with Extra Dark Sea Grey/Dark Slate Grey uppersurface and Sky underside in early 1943.
An aircraft of No. 489 Sqn. RNZAF, with Medium Sea Grey uppersurface and Sky underside in 1944.
Home based Beauforts also had a mixture of camouflage during 1940-42, including Dark Earth/Green uppersurface and Sky underside, or the same uppersurface and black underside. Also Dark Slate Grey/Extra Dark Sea Grey uppersurface and Black undersurface or a Sky underside and same uppersurface.
Mike
