Hawker Henley

[Zipper730]

I'm curious why the Hawker Henley had so much trouble?

 

[tomo pauk]

Had it really?

 

[fubar57]

Hawker Henley - Wikipedia

 

[Shortround6]

I'm curious why the Hawker Henley had so much trouble?

In what way, it was never used as a dive bomber or close support aircraft.

SO it got drafted into the target tug role where it did have trouble.

The target drogue creates a lot of drag, the engine has to make more power to get an acceptable speed for the gunners (or aircraft) to practice.
Because of the drag the plane is not flying as fast as it should and that limits the amount of air going through the radiator and oil cooler and that leads to overheating.
Overheating the engine/s was a pretty common problem for a lot of target tugs.

 

[buffnut453]

"Like" that image, SR6. Great shot!

 

[Zipper730]

In what way, it was never used as a dive bomber or close support aircraft.

Why?

The target drogue creates a lot of drag, the engine has to make more power to get an acceptable speed for the gunners (or aircraft) to practice.
Because of the drag the plane is not flying as fast as it should and that limits the amount of air going through the radiator and oil cooler and that leads to overheating.
Overheating the engine/s was a pretty common problem for a lot of target tugs.

That makes enough sense, I figured the radiator had some kind of defect...

 

[wuzak]

I'm curious why the Hawker Henley had so much trouble?

What trouble, specifically?

 

[Zipper730]

What trouble, specifically?

It never entered service, it seemed to be a pretty good design that would have made an impact

 

[wuzak]

It never entered service, it seemed to be a pretty good design that would have made an impact

Impact at what?

Target practice?

As a dive bomber it was restricted by not having dive brakes and other necessary equipment.

As a level bomber, it was faster than the Battle, but started production later (Battle was in production when the prototype Henley flew) and carried less bombs?

And it did go into service - as a target tug (and bombing training aircraft?). But, as SR6 pointed out, it wasn't very good at that.

 

[Zipper730]

As a dive bomber it was restricted by not having dive brakes and other necessary equipment.

Why did they not put dive-brakes and other necessary equipment on the design? That seems pretty bone-headed...

BTW: Yes, I amended my message...

 

[Shortround6]

There may have been a change in doctrine. The RAF didn't want to do close support or even battlefield interdiction. However this fluctuated a bit from year to year and what a plane was designed for (or even a contract let for) may not be what was wanted when the planes started to be delivered.
the first Henley flew 10 March 1937 and the 2nd with towing winch flew 26 May 1938. Actual production didn't start until 1939 and first squadrons didn't get them until the fall of 1939 so there was NO real testing of the plane in the bomber or dive bomber roles before the decision to use it as a target tug was made.
Part of 1937 was used up refitting the 1st prototype with all metal wings (first flown Aug 1937).
The initial order for 350 bombers was cut to 200 target tugs.

 

[yulzari]

The curious thing is not that it had trouble dragging a drogue at maximum cruising power at reduced airspeed through the radiators (hence the overheating issues) but that the Boulton Paul Defiant did not have the same issues when doing the same task.

With hindsight the same tactical bombing task could have been better done with the engine in ordinary Hurricanes with bombs under the wings.

One must remember that there was a need for a high speed target tug that could simulate a loaded bomber at maximum power for the AACU units training AA gunners for land and sea service.

 

[Dinger]

Extensive info on the Henley on this web page.
Hawker Henley Light Bomber / Target Tug
Of particular note are its top speed in bomber configuration - notably higher than when used as a Target Tug which is the figure most often quoted. It was also tested OK with 2 X 500 Ib bombs, one under each wing giving it the same potential bombload as a Battle or Blenheim. Its a sobering thought that when the Skua pilots taxied out to at Hatston to raid Bergan in Norway at the limit of their range they actually taxied past Henley Target tugs which had a much longer range, cruised at the maximum speed of the Skua and carried potentially twice the bombload. - I know which one I'd rather have been flying! - The same goes for Gordon and Wellesley pilots in East Africa and Vildebeest and Albacore pilots in Singapore.

 

[Zipper730]

Extensive info on the Henley on this web page.

Why didn't the FAA use this?

 

[buffnut453]

Why didn't the FAA use this?

Because it wasn't developed for use on carriers. No arrestor gear, no catapult hooks, not corrosion protected for maritime ops, not strengthened for carrier deck landings...and no wing fold.

 

[Zipper730]

Because it wasn't developed for use on carriers. No arrestor gear, no catapult hooks, not corrosion protected for maritime ops, not strengthened for carrier deck landings...and no wing fold.

That didn't stop the FAA from navailizing Hurricanes and Spitfires

 

[Shortround6]

Aside from being 4 ft longer and 8ft more wingspan the Henley had the same Merlin II/III engine as the Early Hurricane and in all probability a 2 pitch prop.
Needs a lot of deck space and getting off the carrier deck might be problem. Engine in FUlmar I had 1080hp for take-off and not the 880hp of the engine in the Henley.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"You can't polish a turd"

 

[pbehn]

"You can't polish a turd"

Pick it up by the clean end and get rid of it.

 

[fastmongrel]

The RAF already had its fair share of "Pigs in knickers" so another munter like the Henley just isnt on. If the RAF has to have a useless light bomber then at least have something with nice lines like the Fairey P4/34.