Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.As I recall, the rudders were overbalanced and, if you deflected them too far, they'd snap over to full deflection and stay there.
One pilot may have been Guy Gibson said it was a nice plane to fly but not at all nice to fly in.As its nickname was the flying suitcase, I think maybe rather it had a tendency to end up in the wrong airport.
I thinnk part of a Hampden and others "look" was dictated by having to carry a torpedo.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
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?I thought the Hampden had issue with full rudder deflection, not rolling. Perhaps I misremember.
The Hampden was adapted to that role rather the designed to it though, I think?I thinnk part of a Hampden and others "look" was dictated by having to carry a torpedo.
Many British designs had the capability to carry Torpedoes in them, the Beaufort was also a "torpedo bomber".The Hampden was adapted to that role rather the designed to it though, I think?
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 summaryMany British designs had the capability to carry Torpedoes in them, the Beaufort was also a "torpedo bomber".
| 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) |
|
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 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".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)
Those planes certainly bear similar shapes lengthwise but how similar were the widths?
The Hampden torpedo bombers couldn't carry their torpedoes internally. The bomb bay doors had to be left open with the torpedo sticking out.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 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.Those planes certainly bear similar shapes lengthwise but how similar were the widths?