Westland Whirlwind revisited

[GregP]

As I recall, the rudders were overbalanced and, if you deflected them too far, they'd snap over to full deflection and stay there. The only way yo get the rudders back balanced was to slow down, pull up into a whip-stall and, when it stalled, puch the rudder back to center. Seems pretty easy to fix ... reduce the balance tab size. But, hey, that's just one way to fix it. I'm sure Rube Goldberg could come up with many fixes but, somehow, nobody ese seems to have acomplished it.

 

[MIflyer]

As I recall, the rudders were overbalanced and, if you deflected them too far, they'd snap over to full deflection and stay there.

I think it was the Rutan Long-Eze that had a problem where if you rolled into a turn at a certain point it would not roll out. You could roll into a steeper turn and then roll out but there was a range of bank angle in which you could not roll out. I should think this would be very disquieting, to say the least. I think that charcateristic was associated with wingtip rudders for roll control rather than ailerons.

 

[pbehn]

As its nickname was the flying suitcase, I think maybe rather it had a tendency to end up in the wrong airport.

One pilot may have been Guy Gibson said it was a nice plane to fly but not at all nice to fly in.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There are several bombers with a pretty similar shape during the early war. Making the cockpit (uncomfortably) narrow and thinning out the after fuselage are ways to reduce drag so you can ... in theory ... get a fast plane even with relatively weak engines.

The Ki-48 looks particularly similar to me.

Hampden

Ki-48

The Martin Maryland and Baltimore are also pretty similar

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Baltimore didn't have weak engines of course....

 

[SaparotRob]

Of course.

 

[pbehn]

There are several bombers with a pretty similar shape during the early war. Making the cockpit (uncomfortably) narrow and thinning out the after fuselage are ways to reduce drag so you can ... in theory ... get a fast plane even with relatively weak engines.

The Ki-48 looks particularly similar to me.

Hampden
View attachment 713958

Ki-48

View attachment 713959


View attachment 713956

The Martin Maryland and Baltimore are also pretty similar

View attachment 713957

I thinnk part of a Hampden and others "look" was dictated by having to carry a torpedo.

 

[SplitRz]

I thought the Hampden had issue with full rudder deflection, not rolling. Perhaps I misremember.

There were certainly serious issues with rudder 'hard over' lock with the Halifax. Not read any serious harmonisation issues with the Hampden though, I thought it was generally considered to be a pleasant, safe and maneuverable aircraft to fly?

 

[SaparotRob]

Those planes certainly bear similar shapes lengthwise but how similar were the widths?

 

[SplitRz]

I thinnk part of a Hampden and others "look" was dictated by having to carry a torpedo.

The Hampden was adapted to that role rather the designed to it though, I think?

 

[SplitRz]

The 'tadpole' look was definitely in vogue for late 30s twin-engined bombers

Dornier Do17

JU88
Beaufort ....

 

[SaparotRob]

One of the many reasons I love the interwar period of aviation.

 

[pbehn]

The Hampden was adapted to that role rather the designed to it though, I think?

Many British designs had the capability to carry Torpedoes in them, the Beaufort was also a "torpedo bomber".

 

[SplitRz]

Many British designs had the capability to carry Torpedoes in them, the Beaufort was also a "torpedo bomber".

Yes, but the Beaufort was designed as such from the beginning within its specification. I'm not sure that was the case of the Hampden,. But if you can find me evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be corrected. No mention of torpedo capability as part of the spec in this summary

B.9/32

OR.5

Twin-engine medium day bomber with appreciably higher performance than predecessors – later revised to specify Goshawk power and subsequently re-revised with Goshawk requirement dropped (resulted in Hampden and Wellington)

M.15/35 Land-based general reconnaissance/torpedo-bomber (resulted in Blackburn Botha, Bristol Beaufort)

 

[GregP]

I think it was the Rutan Long-Eze that had a problem where if you rolled into a turn at a certain point it would not roll out. You could roll into a steeper turn and then roll out but there was a range of bank angle in which you could not roll out. I should think this would be very disquieting, to say the least. I think that charcateristic was associated with wingtip rudders for roll control rather than ailerons.

I know maybe 5 people who fly them and have never heard that before.

 

[pbehn]

Yes, but the Beaufort was designed as such from the beginning within its specification. I'm not sure that was the case of the Hampden,. But if you can find me evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to be corrected. No mention of torpedo capability as part of the spec in this summary

B.9/32

OR.5

Twin-engine medium day bomber with appreciably higher performance than predecessors – later revised to specify Goshawk power and subsequently re-revised with Goshawk requirement dropped (resulted in Hampden and Wellington)

M.15/35 Land-based general reconnaissance/torpedo-bomber (resulted in Blackburn Botha, Bristol Beaufort)

I have no evidence other than if a 1930s plane can carry an 18" torpedo internally it generally isnt an accident, US, German and Italian designs had to carry torpedoes externally. The Hampden could carry bombs or torpedoes and so could be considered for both. I think it was the size of a torpedo that governed the "cells" in a Stirling bomb bay, that screwed it up completely for carrying bombs like a "cookie".

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Those planes certainly bear similar shapes lengthwise but how similar were the widths?

Similar - all very narrow, too narrow to move from seat to seat in the cabin

 

[EwenS]

Looking through Air Britain's "The British Aircraft Specifications File" there is no mention in either B.9/32 which led to the H.P.52 Hampden prototype nor Spec 30/36 for the production aircraft of including a torpedo carrying capability. The latter lists the various bomb sizes to be included with no mention of torpedoes.

Hampdens were converted to the torpedo carrying role in early 1942 due to a shortage of torpedo carrying Beauforts to allow expansion of Coastal Command's TB force in the U.K. Two squadrons (415 & 489) were issued a few Beauforts in late 1941 only to have them withdrawn for issue to other existing Beaufort squadrons about to be shipped overseas. Instead they were issued with Blenheim IV until enough Hampden TB.I became available to fully re-equip them for the TB role in early 1942. In April 1942 Coastal Command was strengthened by the transfer of a number of squadrons from Bomber Command. Those included 144 & 455 with Hampdens which then also converted to the TB role. 3 of these squadrons then converted to Beaufighters in 1943 while 415 traded its Hampdens for Wellington XIII and Albacores in Sept-Nov 1943.

It was also early 1942 before the Wellington began to be used as a TB in the Med, again due to a shortage of Beauforts.

On the other hand, Spec P.13/36, which led to the Manchester and the Halifax, did initially include a requirement to carry two 18" torpedoes internally. As discussed in other threads this requirement was dropped fairly early, IIRC, in the development process. A number of other initial requirements were also dropped along the way before these types entered service.

Spec B.12/36 that led to the Stirling laid out the weapons it was to carry. These were a variety of types of 250lb, & 500lb bombs and the 2,000lb AP bomb. Again, no mention of torpedoes. None of these was wider than about 13-14" i.e. less than the diameter of a standard 18" air dropped torpedo. The bomb "cells" themselves were 19" wide, which would not have left enough working room around a torpedo to allow it to be loaded.

The Beaufort carried its torpedo "semi recessed". The main bomb bay was designed to house 4x250lb or 2x500lb or 1x2,000lb or a single torpedo. To accommodate the torpedo, the main bomb bay had fore & aft extensions, offset slightly to port to accommodate its full length.

 

[elbmc1969]

I have no evidence other than if a 1930s plane can carry an 18" torpedo internally it generally isnt an accident, US, German and Italian designs had to carry torpedoes externally. The Hampden could carry bombs or torpedoes and so could be considered for both. I think it was the size of a torpedo that governed the "cells" in a Stirling bomb bay, that screwed it up completely for carrying bombs like a "cookie".

The Hampden torpedo bombers couldn't carry their torpedoes internally. The bomb bay doors had to be left open with the torpedo sticking out.

That must have made the Hampden even colder and draftier, which is quite a trick.

 

[Just Schmidt]

Those planes certainly bear similar shapes lengthwise but how similar were the widths?

The Ki-48 was not that similar, I'd hazard. The Baltimore more from the front, and Pzl 37 and more so the Boston springs to mind. Though the latter two don't fit the profile.