Thoughts on the Handley Page H.P.47?

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

Graeme said:
It was a tough spec.

View attachment 613711
Click to expand...
Casualty evacuation? For that you need rough field capability and internal space for litters. Plus the need for torpedo, recon, etc. With its fixed and seemingly though undercarriage, internal space and bomb capability, the Handley Page H.P.54 Harrow could do it, except dive bomber. Need an inflight refueling aircraft, Harrow is your man.



Bristol Bombay deserves a look too. IMO the Harrow could have been useful in greater numbers throughout the early war years.
 
Last edited:
"Too sleek and effeminate looking to be Russian! Subversive foreign influence! A threat to our revolutionary society. You know what to do with him, Comrade Beria."
Soviet prisons of the era were known for pandemics of "9MM disease".
 

Plenty of Bombay's and Harrows could have been very useful for Dunkirk. If a big enough field could have been kept clear of course.
 
glennasher said:
That would spook the heck outa me, I'd be worried about FOD and mucking up the engines.
Click to expand...
If at Dunkirk someone will need to clear the beach of debris. The radial engines are pretty tough, and no worry of radiators getting wrecked. But yeah....

Back to our Handley Page H.P.47, it looks tailor made for rough landings. If there was ever an overengineered undercarriage.

 
Hmmm. Not the brightest offering from HP, the HP.47 was one of Gustav Lachmann's designs, Lachmann was a German import and had studied metal construction at German universities and at the time, the construction methods employed in the HP.47 were very advanced and were influenced by techniques in use in Germany, notably the Junkers company - the corrugations for example. Nonetheless, when first flying in late 1933 it was a thoroughly modern aircraft, with all-metal construction, a cantilever wing with landing flaps and leading-edge slats, and so forth.

Problem was, the specification, as already highlighted was a bit of a basket case and there was no way that anything that was built to it would stand the test of time. The winner to the spec was the Vickers G.4/31, but by 1935 that was looking decidedly passe compared to other aircraft that were appearing, including Vickers' own Wellesley and Wellington under construction. The HP.47, on testing was found to be too flimsy and flexed in flight, but its undercarriage was indeed strong. After being notified of its unsuitability HP used it for low-speed testing and it was eventually scrapped in 1937. Probably the best thing to have happened to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

H
Handley Page Hampden top speed?
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
NevadaK
N
S
Some thoughts on "combat effectiveness/performance" factors that are often hidden.
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
6K
GregP
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Why sleeve valves on the RR Eagle?
Replies
3
Views
1K
HP52
H
C
LB-30 AL557 on the move
Replies
0
Views
835
cvairwerks
C
Menu
Log in
Register