FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1953
1953 - 0261.PDF
27 February 1953 259 were at Aeroplane Repair Depots or at various aerodromes in the United Kingdom. Armament.—The 0/100 could carry up to 14x112 lb bombs; the 0/400's load varied, but could consist of up to 16 x 112 lb bombs, 8 x 250 lb bombs, 3 x 520 lb bombs, 3 x 550 lb bombs, or one 1,650 lb bomb. There were racks for two additional bombs carried externally under the fuselage. The Type H.A.iA bomb sight was fitted externally at the extreme front of the fuselage. Either one or twin double-yoked 0.303m Lewis machine-guns on Scarff ring-mounting on bow cockpit; upper rear cockpit contained either one Lewis on a rocking-post mount ing or, more usually, two Lewis guns, each on an individual bracket at each side of the cockpit. A further Lewis gun was mounted to fire backwards and downwards through a trapdoor in the floor of the fuselage abaft the mainplanes. Experiments were made with installations of two-pounder and six-pounder Davis guns, but proved to be ineffective. Service Use.—0/100: R.N.A.S. Squadrons No. 7, 7A (later No. 14) and "A" (later No. 16). Training Squadron at Manston. 0/400: Western Front.—IX Brigade: R.A.F. Squadrons No. 58 (82nd Wing), 207 (54th Wing), and 214 (82nd Wing). VIII Brigade (The Independent Force): R.A.F. Squadrons No. 97, 100, 115, 215 and 216 (all of 83rd Wing). Palestine.—One 0/400 attached to No 67 Sqn. (No. 1 Sqn., A.F.C.) (40th Army Wing, Palestine). Training Units.—No. 1 School of Naviga tion and Bomb-dropping, Andover. No. 2 School of Navigation and Bomb-dropping, Stonehenge. Notes on Individual Machines.—No. 1455, first prototype 0/100; 1457, 0/100; 3116, first 0/100 to land at Coudekerque; 3117, 0/100 with experimental installation of four 200-h.p. Hispano-Suiza engines in two tandem pairs; 3126, 0/100; 3134, 0/100 claimed by Germans as brought down in May 1918 (probably one of seven which bombed Mannheim, Thionville and Karthaus on May 2ist-22nd, 1918); 3135, o/roo of R.N.A.S. 5th Wing, Coudekerque (having the markings "B 3" on the fuselage), crashed; 3138, 0/100 modified to become 0/400 proto type; 3141, claimed by Germans as brought down in November, 1917 (Crew: Lts. Linnell and Smith. Probably one of four of Naval A Squadron which took part in the attempted raid of October 30th-3ist, 1917); B.8803, claimed by Germans as brought down in September 1918 (crew: Lt. Taylor, Grasbach, Bourton); C.9658, claimed by Ger mans as brought down in September 1918 (crew: Lt. Dodd (killed), Jeffkins, Jaisburd (?)); C.9662, claimed by Germans as brought down in September 1918; C.9682, claimed by Germans as brought down in September 1918 (crew: Lt. Lapp, Down, Yellerton); C.9689, claimed by Germans as brought down in September 1918; D.8326, 0/400 modi- . Weight empty... Weight loaded Max. speed at:— s.l 4,000ft 5,000ft 6,500ft 8,000ft 10,000ft Climb to:— 1,000ft 2,000ft 4,000ft 5,000ft 6,000ft 7,000ft 8,000ft 9,000ft 10,000ft Service ceiling... Endurance WEIGHTS 0 100 14,0001b 95 m.p.h. 2min 10sec AND PERFORMANCES 0 400 prototype, No. 3138 (Eagles) Without bombs 8,4801b 12,230 lb 91| m.p.h. 88i m.p.h. 85 m.p.h. 80 m.p.h. 2 min 10 sec 4min 35 sec 10min 30sec 18 min 28 min 10sec 34 min 40sec 42 min 35 sec 8hr With 16 x112 lb bombs 8,4801b 14,0221b 86± m.p.h. 834 m.p.h. 79* m.p.h. 75 m.p.h. 2min55sec 6 min 20sec 14min40sec 26 min 35 sec 34 min 55sec 46 min 05 sec 7,000ft 8hr Pro duction 0 400 (Eagle VIII) 8,200 lb 14,000 1b 97i m.p.h. 84* m.p.h. 80 m.p.h. 45 min 8.500ft 8 hr 0/400 (Liberty) 7,894 lb 14,3001b 92 m.p.h. 90 m.p.h. 85 m.p.h. 12 min 18 min 32 min 10,000ft fied in 1919 for use by Communications Wing and named H.M. Air Liner Silver Star; F.5414, became G-EAAF; F.5417, became G-EAAW; F.5418, became G-EAAG; J.2251, 0/400; J.2257, 0/400; J.2262, became 0/10 G-EATK. Losses of Independent Force Handley Page Aircraft, June- November 1918: Missing, 18; wrecked, 51. Analysis by Squadrons of Missing Machines: (period June- November, 1918).—No. 97, three; No. ioo, one; No. 115, one; No. 215, ten; No. 216, three. Total, 18. Costs.—Airframe (less guns, instruments and engines), £6,000; Rolls-Royce Eagle, Mks. II and IV, £1,430 each; Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII, £1,622 10s each; Sunbeam Maori, £1,391 10s each; Fiat A.i2bis, £1,617 each; Liberty, £1,215 each. THE LORDS DISCUSS PRODUCTION (Continued from page 252) assured the House that there was no complacency on the part of the present Government legarding Naval Aviation. At this point Lord Mancroft remarked: "Your Lordships may have noticed a highly informative arid interesting article in the magazine Flight of, I think, February 6th [leading article, "Fighters for the Navy" —ED.], which in itself caused considerable comment in the daily and Sunday papers. I thought I could detect many of the opinions expressed in that article in some of the speeches made this afternoon." Continuing, Lord Mancroft said that means to improve the position were being constantly and earnestly sought. At the same time he stressed that more and more emphasis was being given by the Admiralty to a knowledge of air matters among senior officers of the Royal Navy. He admitted that co-operation between the Admiralty, Air Ministry, Ministry of Supply, and the industry itself was not perfect, but said the situation was being rapidly and successfully improved. He agreed that there had been perhaps too many changes to individual naval aircraft, and hoped it would soon be possible to say that those difficulties had been fully overcome. He did not think that the super-priority was likely to have any decisive effect on the production of naval fighter aircraft. For instance, delays on the Sea Hawk had been sufficiently overcome as to suggest that, at this particular stage, super-priority would not greatly accelerate production. Discussing particular types, he declared that the Attacker, which had attracted "a little unhappy notoriety," was a good aircraft and was giving good service. It was giving satisfaction to the Staff, and to the pilots who NAVAL PRODUCTION: Reference was made last week to the clearance of the Westland Wyvern SA for Naval service, and a picture of the aircraft appeared on page 239. These powerful strike air craft have Python turbo- props, examples of which are here seen during as sembly in the Armstrong Siddeley shops. The air screw is the work of Rotol, and early prob lems with the control of the Python, particularly for deck landing, were solved a few months ago. The makers now report a favourable reception from Boscombe pilots. flew it. The defects in armament and fuel supply were not major ones, and were not widespread throughout the class of aircraft. The Attacker was, of course, only a stop-gap, and should not be regarded as any thing else. Lord Mancroft went on to announce that the Sea Hawk would come into squadron service "in the immediate future, but a little late." There had been serious production delays, mostly through labour difficulties, but these had now been overcome. The Gannet had, unfortunately, been seriously delayed; but it was a potent anti-submarine weapon which the Staff had every confidence would fill all the tasks allotted to it; and production, with super-priority, was coming along well. He then made reference to transatlantic services, saying that there was no reason to suppose that the aircraft available for this important traffic, particularly in Coronation year, would be insufficient. Next he spoke of American C.s of A. for the Comet 3, saying there was "definitely no dog-in-the-manger attitude" by the U.S. on that score. There had recently been close conversations in America on the subject, and it was hoped in the very near future to announce a final and satisfactory result. Replying to criticisms about the financial situation of the industry, he said there was no case of aircraft manufacturers having their initiative damped, when they could otherwise go into the market, by lack of Government support or backing. Housing, he said, was not at the moment a serious difficulty. In certain specified areas there might be some difficulty, but on the whole the question was not at the moment standing seriously in the way of aircraft production.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
