GregP
Major
I believe the Jetstream was the last Handley-Page aircraft before voluntary liquidation in or about 1970.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Three-engine aircraft were a popular design solution in Europe between the wars because the engines were not that powerful and not that reliable, so having three decreased the chances of an engine failure leading to a crash. Westland, Fokker and Ford all made very good commercial tri-motors. But then engines in the late '30s got more powerful and more reliable, and two engines makes for simpler design, simpler instrumentation and control, better pilot view and just cheaper to build and service. When two engines weren't enough, most companies went to four engines. The problem with big bombers was to go with the simpler twin-engine design meant really big and powerful engines, and there were a lot of problems developing engines big enough. Rolls-Royce failed with the Vulture, and Daimler-Benz with the DB606 and DB610. Italy didn't have a powerful radial engine so the SM79 had to have three.Tri-motor seem like a nice compromised between He-111 and B-17. And SM.79 was also quite successful.
The Dart was used on several freighters and airliners, including the Handley-Page Dart Herald:
The voluntary liquidation was strange they had millions of dollars worth of orders for the Jetstream enough to keep the production lines running for years. However the bank called in the loans and without credit you can't build planes. I can't remember the exact details but there was an article in a major newspaper claiming that the government used dirty tricks to try and force Handley-Page to join up with the British Aircraft Corporation. When HP refused the government used the bank to do the job for them.
In this photo, you can see the bombs dropping from an SM.81 nose-first, so I'm not sure which carrying method was the norm.
I have always wondered why vertically mounted bombs were dropped tail first. I guess it could be to protect the delicate tail fins which could hit the sides of the bomb rack as the slipstream hit the bomb, dropped tail first the bomb nose is less likely to hit the sides and likely just slide rather than cause any damage.
I'll be danged...had no idea it was edited!You gotta be careful of this picture, this is in fact a Nationalist propaganda image, comprising a couple of different images carefully cut into one picture and drawn to look like an aircraft dropping bombs. The bomb bay doors and bombs are drawn on and aren't part of the original image of the SM.81.
It didn't have a 3rd engine and could carry bombs externally.Yet the he111 could hit with precision.
Yet the he111 could hit with precision.
I'll be danged...had no idea it was edited!
That's so the pilot can play "Eye of the Tiger" during combat.Yeah, the illustrious Quahar - complete with a Pioneer AM/FM cassette tape deck on the right console.
Nations tremble at it's very mention...
I guess...we had a thread about this crate's unveiling several years ago and in the press photos, the stereo was spotted.That's so the pilot can play "Eye of the Tiger" during combat.
You do not hit a target just to get there. Raf and usaaf are good examplesAny bomber can hit with precision, with the right support equipment, aircrew training, tactical and strategic use etc. That the He 111 was successful was no accident. In the early years of the war the Luftwaffe had an enormous advantage in technical use of aerial navigation aids, Knickerbein, X and Y-Gerat, and its crews had thorough training and experience in combat that neither the RAF nor other air forces had by the time WW2 broke out in 1939.
You do not hit a target just to get there. Raf and usaaf are good examples