Handley Page Fighter

Just Leo

I am quite enamored of a forgotten prototype made by Handley Page for a US Navy contract, a cantilever monoplane naval fighter, from 1922. Two examples were built. The first had no dihedral and a poor, ineffective tail. The second model added the dihedral, and had a more effective, but very ugly tail. This aircraft achieved 146 mph with a 44 mph stall speed with a 230 hp. Bentley BR2 rotary engine, on a 29 foot and something wing span. That wing had full span slats and dlotted flaps. The undercarriage failed on a full weight landing test, and the US Navy backed off. What if they didn't, or someone else stepped in, like the Air Ministry, or the Admiralty? Could the monoplane have come 10 years or more sooner?

There also remains the question of names. So far, I seem to have Harpy.

HPS-3.png
 

phx1138

I like the gallery a lot.:cool:

IMO, butterflying away a gear failure isn't a problem, nor is butterflying a rejection on that basis.

As for names, what about Hellfire? Hellion (used by Hawker?)? Hazard?:p
 

Just Leo

phx1138 said:
As for names, what about Hellfire? Hellion (used by Hawker?)? Hazard?:p
Click to expand...

Thank you. More on the list. The Mercury powered unit with canopy and cantilever gear legs is named Victor. The one in the upper right is one of the four Horsemen that defended Malta. Harald is another name I like. Hellfire might suit something that is still to come. The naked Jupiter airplane with basic undercarriage is Harbinger. Filling in nicely.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
You put a photo of the prototype in one of the carrier aircraft threads a couple of weeks ago, if I remember correctly.

For a 1922 design, I thought the plane looked 10-15 years ahead of it's time - except for the sheeptrap landing gear. This appears to have been a true missed opportunity, either for the US Navy, or for the RN.

In particular, I like the:
* Prototype - top left, even with the erector set landing gear
* Blue cowled (Townend Ring) version (2nd column & row)
* Top right corner - It makes me think of a monoplane Gladiator (even with the several differences) *edit* Doh! I just re-read your comment on the Malta plane.
* Bottom right corner - 1934/35 version? or 32/33 version, since this bad-boy is ahead of OTL curve....
 
Last edited:
ennobee

ennobee

To your question whether the Handley-Page monoplane would make the biplane fighter obsolete ten years earlier then OTL, I am skeptic. For all its aerodynamic cleanliness and speed advantage, in the 1920's, especially in Britain, the main quality desired from a fighter was maneuverability. And as a monnoplane with a high wing load, the HP fighter had the deck stacked against him. Even if you butterfly away the landing gear collapse and make the plane proceed to service trials, it would loose out to such contemporaries like the Armstrong-Withworth Siskin and the Gloster Grebe/Gamecock. In order for the HP monoplane fighter to be successful, you must not only butterfly away the landing gear incident but also the complete way of thinking of the RAF in the early 20's

This being said, If HP would have doubled down on the design and solved the landing gear issue and probably a few other childhood diseases the prototype was suffering from, it would have made a nice export fighter and we might have well seen it in the skies over Estonia,Portugal, Peru or even Japan
 

Just Leo

One should be skeptical thinking that this aircraft would be proceeded with, because it wasn't. Acting on its performance requires some foresight and wisdom. Bristol made a racer with retractable performance, with a trash wing, and a trash result which would tend to confirm the failure of anything modern, and the American Daytona racer did likewise over the pond. The Sperry-Verville racing cantilever monoplane with retractable gear is mentioned in one of my coffee table books as being a cutting edge design, not recognized as such for decades. Sometimes, you don't know what you got 'till it's gone. The Royal Navy lived with the Fairey Flycatcher for a decade. It's undercarriage was the same as the failed HPS-1 only in reverse, with trailing link rather than leading link. The Flycatcher was a beloved aircraft because you could never approach the edge of any envelop; It wasn't fast enough, and service flying, without war, was just a lark. The Flycatcher was slower than the HPS with near half the engine power. Did the Royal Navy need slow airplanes even before the onset of war? Apparently so. Did it need to be so? I think not, but the Blackburn Roc, et al, proves that they did. Could the Air Ministry have an individual hanging around Martlesham Heath with enough acumen to see potential, and require a model with conventional period undercarriage made for RAF evaluation? Surely there's someone. Someone told me once, alternate history is fiction. So, yes there was someone.

Havoc is good, and Harald, although based on Herald, is Harald, based on Penrose. A great test pilot, who might get involved. I don't know Huma, but it could be what I do when I don't know the words. When I know the words, I'll write them down.

This all started when I was looking up info on the Nieuport and General Nighthawk, and HP Folland's undercarriage is featured on the first RAF Handley Page, and Bristol's engines feature large in development, something the Nighthawk didn't have, being cursed by the Dragonfly, an engine developed by Air Ministry foresight. Fedden's Jupiter was saved by that same foresight. Sometimes, you get the bear.
 

Just Leo

Admiral Beez said:
I also suggest the Handley Page Hobby. Defined as a small, swift falcon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobby_(bird)
Click to expand...

I don't wish to prolong a tradition wherein bird names or alliteration are necessarily de rigueur in naming an aircraft, and for those not of an ornithological bent, the name seems so wrong. It is, however, quite perfect, particularly for the Kestral powered HP. It is a bird and an aircraft that is fast and capable of eating those pesky highly-manoeuvrable little snacks. Thank you.
 

Just Leo

riggerrob said:
Slow speed is an advantage when landing-on a ship.
Slow speed is also and advantage during dog- fights.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the Soviets should have maintained production of the I-15, and the Gladiator and CR-42 were the way to go. The Grumman F4F should be a bi-plane. Slats and full-span slotted flaps allowed the HPS-1 to stall at 44 mph. They allow an aircraft to fly slow when deployed, and fast when retracted. Partial combat flap settings allowed the Lockheed Lightning to turn with anything. Why invent the jet engine if slow is the way to go? Technology can bridge the gap and make an aircraft which can make a fast aircraft fly slow, and turny. Shunning new technology while others do not leads to inferiority. When Sabres battled MiGs, did the engineers go back to the drawing boards to make slower, more manoeuvrable aircraft? Only the fast aircraft can disengage from an unfavorable situation and pick a time to re-engage. Slow aircraft can only react, and reacting is defensive.
 

Just Leo

In 1921, the US Navy established the Bureau of Aeronautics, BuAer, with William Moffett at the head. They issued a requirement for a single seat naval ship-board fighter armed with two machine guns. Frederick Handley Page thought he could meet the requirement, and the BuAer ordered three test examples, one on floats. The reason for Handley Page's hopes and expectations was the company's newly invented leading edge slats, combined with slotted flaps, a decided novelty in 1921. These were to be incorporated on an aircraft with a cantilever monoplane wing and a monocoque fuselage of molded plywood, similar to the form adopted much later by RE Bishop on an aircraft designated DH-98, and called the Mosquito. The goal was simple. Low drag, high performance. The aircraft built had the capacity to mount a 400 hp engine, but war surplus Bentley BR2s were available and supplied 230 hp. The first example was a flop. Directional control was very poor. It flew on Sept. 7, 1922 at Martlesham Heath. The second example flew the next February with revised tail and 6 degrees dihedral on the wing. Handling was improved. Specifications follow.
Length 6.64 m, 21' 51/2 "
Wingspan 8.92m, 29' 3"
Weight empty, 1320 lbs, Max loaded, 2030 lbs.
Max. speed 146.5 mph, 127 kts.
Stall speed 44 mph, 38 kts.
Ceiling 21,000 '
Rate of climb 1,800 fpm
Endurance 3 hours
Armament, proposed, 2 Marlin .30 mgs.
Unfortunately, the undercarriage collapsed on full load landing trials and the BuAer cancelled the contract. For the BuAer, this meant waiting for the first flight of the Boeing FB5 on Oct 7, 1926, powered by a 525hp Packard engine. The partially built floatplane fighter contract remained unfulfilled.

Sir Geoffrey Salmon witnessed these proceedings at Martlesham Heath with some interest. As Air Minister for Supply and Research, he was overseeing trials of the new Gloster Grebe biplane fighter, and he encouraged Sir Frederick to build the third example as a private venture, equipped with conventional undercart. Sir Frederick took the advice to heart, and the third aircraft flew in April. Upon completion of trials, the performance was found even faster, with speed up to 152 mph, and a contract was drawn up to produce an example powered by one of Mr. Roy Fedden's Jupiter engines. As it turned out, the Grebe was not all it could have been, encountering wing flutter which had to be tamed by additional struts, and the Armstrong-Whitworth Jaguar III engine was heavy, shaky, unreliable and prone to fires. While the Grebe's performance exceeded the Sopwith Snipe, which it replaced, it was not expected to excede that of a Jupiter HPS. The HPS subsequently received the name "Harbinger", and the RAF Jupiter model was named the Harpy. When the Harpy first flew in November, it flew well and notched 186 mph in trials. An order for 60 examples followed in due course. It was a beginning for Handley Page, and for Bristol. Even the Admiralty took notice, and ordered a single model with a modified undercarriage.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Just Leo said:
In 1921, the US Navy established the Bureau of Aeronautics, BuAer, with William Moffett at the head. They issued a requirement for a single seat naval ship-board fighter armed with two machine guns. Frederick Handley Page thought he could meet the requirement, and the BuAer ordered three test examples, one on floats. The reason for Handley Page's hopes and expectations was the company's newly invented leading edge slats, combined with slotted flaps, a decided novelty in 1921. These were to be incorporated on an aircraft with a cantilever monoplane wing and a monocoque fuselage of molded plywood, similar to the form adopted much later by RE Bishop on an aircraft designated DH-98, and called the Mosquito. The goal was simple. Low drag, high performance. The aircraft built had the capacity to mount a 400 hp engine, but war surplus Bentley BR2s were available and supplied 230 hp. The first example was a flop. Directional control was very poor. It flew on Sept. 7, 1922 at Martlesham Heath. The second example flew the next February with revised tail and 6 degrees dihedral on the wing. Handling was improved. Specifications follow.
Length 6.64 m, 21' 51/2 "
Wingspan 8.92m, 29' 3"
Weight empty, 1320 lbs, Max loaded, 2030 lbs.
Max. speed 146.5 mph, 127 kts.
Stall speed 44 mph, 38 kts.
Ceiling 21,000 '
Rate of climb 1,800 fpm
Endurance 3 hours
Armament, proposed, 2 Marlin .30 mgs.
Unfortunately, the undercarriage collapsed on full load landing trials and the BuAer cancelled the contract. For the BuAer, this meant waiting for the first flight of the Boeing FB5 on Oct 7, 1926, powered by a 525hp Packard engine. The partially built floatplane fighter contract remained unfulfilled.

Sir Geoffrey Salmon witnessed these proceedings at Martlesham Heath with some interest. As Air Minister for Supply and Research, he was overseeing trials of the new Gloster Grebe biplane fighter, and he encouraged Sir Frederick to build the third example as a private venture, equipped with conventional undercart. Sir Frederick took the advice to heart, and the third aircraft flew in April. Upon completion of trials, the performance was found even faster, with speed up to 152 mph, and a contract was drawn up to produce an example powered by one of Mr. Roy Fedden's Jupiter engines. As it turned out, the Grebe was not all it could have been, encountering wing flutter which had to be tamed by additional struts, and the Armstrong-Whitworth Jaguar III engine was heavy, shaky, unreliable and prone to fires. While the Grebe's performance exceeded the Sopwith Snipe, which it replaced, it was not expected to excede that of a Jupiter HPS. The HPS subsequently received the name "Harbinger", and the RAF Jupiter model was named the Harpy. When the Harpy first flew in November, it flew well and notched 186 mph in trials. An order for 60 examples followed in due course. It was a beginning for Handley Page, and for Bristol. Even the Admiralty took notice, and ordered a single model with a modified undercarriage.
Click to expand...

I hear the sound of a Jupiter warming up and the Harpy picking up speed as it goes down the runway.

Keep going please....:)
 

Admiral Beez

Banned
Just Leo said:
So you believe that the Soviets should have maintained production of the I-15, and the Gladiator and CR-42 were the way to go. The Grumman F4F should be a bi-plane.
Click to expand...
I think that would have been better put as a question rather than an assertion. Why not ask the poster what he thinks instead of telling him?

Obviously speed has its own advantages in a dog fight.
 

Just Leo

Driftless said:
I hear the sound of a Jupiter warming up and the Harpy picking up speed as it goes down the runway.

Keep going please....:)
Click to expand...

I used to have a can of Castrol R40 just for aromatherapy, before I knew what aromatherapy was. A perfectly dreadful motor oil, but with scented memories. The scent of power and speed.
 

Just Leo

Assistant chief of Royal Navy Staff, Rear Admiral S.R. Bailey was quoted as saying that the RN knows more about sailing carriers than anyone else, but slow to arm our fleet with aircraft and to complete the carrier complement, and to become airminded. C. Northcote Parkinson, a naval historian among other things, noted that in the 1920s, the Admiralty grew by 78%, officers and men fell by 31%, and ships fell by 67%. He much later formulated a law which bore his name. The "work" that the Admiralty might be doing, formulating operational policy and procedures and establishing requirements and specifications, and scheduling exercises to validate such efforts wasn't done. The ability to accomplish much had been dithered away by Jellicoe and Geddes, and endorsed off by Beatty as the Smuts Report came into effect. Naval officers with thoughts of flying were faced with the knowledge that their careers were over as far as advancement was concerned, both during their flying stint, and after return to the RN fold. The position of Fifth Sea lord was left vacant. The role played by Murray Sueter during the war, forming the RNAS, and establishing a close liaison with Sir Frederick Handley Page was another post left vacant. Sueter was kicked out of the navy, after sending a letter to the King. He later wrote a book about the navy, not complementary, and fell into a successful life of politics. All in all, it's a wonder anything got done, but Sir Alexander Ramsay did drop by Martlesham Heath that chilly March day and witnessed the first flight of the naval HP fighter. He was airminded, and realized that this aircraft wasn't at all similar to the Fairey Flycatcher. With power to spare, the HP took off and flew like a rocket and landed like a feather. It got him excited. Sir Fred was excited as well. After prolonged testing, an order for 21 HPs with the name Hobby, was received. Roy Fedden got a kick out of it too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top