Hawker Henley WIs

[merlin]

I did this on another site, thought I'd try it here for comments!

I thougfht it would be interesting to see what everyone thoughts on alternatives - most likely that could happen and best outcome as a result.

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell...ker_henley.htm

See the above link for info -

1: Henley is ordered as per specification, RAF in France is split between Battles and Henleys (+ Blenheims( - the Henleys therefore had more time to train, but debatable if the right training!

2: In 1939 When War declared the 112 Henleys the RAF had are converted back to active service, rather than Target tug, but little time for training.

3: After Dunkirk, RAF Squadrons e.g ex-Battles are re-equiped with re-converted Henleys - Squadrons have experienced at first hand what dive-bombing is all about - have been on the receiving end. That is - then see service in North Africa, together with improved versions built.

4: Whether or not Henley enters first-line service with the RAF, a navalised version Sea Henley FDB enters service in spring of 1940 - FAA have more experience and interest in 'dive-bombing'.

5: None of the above OTL was best.

 

[wietze]

your link doesn't work(frespace instead of freespace), this is the correct link:
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/henley/hawker_henley.htm

 

[Some Bloke]

For the sake of least change early on 3 and 4 (maybe the Sea Henley is introduced Autumn 1940).

If the Henley is deployed in Spring 1940 it could butterfly away the sinking of the Carrier Glorious

as this event might potentially no longer apply

The captain of the Glorious, Captain Guy D'Oyly-Hughes was a former submariner who had been executive officer of Courageous for ten months.[37] He was granted permission to proceed independently to Scapa Flow in the early hours of 8 June to hold a court-martial of his Commander (Air), J. B. Heath, who had refused an order to carry out an attack on shore targets on the grounds that the targets were at best ill-defined and his aircraft were unsuited to the task and who had been left behind in Scapa to await trial.[36] On the way through the Norwegian Sea the funnel smoke from Glorious and her two escorting destroyers, Acasta and Ardent was spotted by the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau at about 3:46 pm[Note 3] The German ships were not spotted until shortly after 4:00 and Ardent was dispatched to investigate. Glorious did not alter course or increase speed. Five Swordfish were ordered to the flight deck but Action Stations was not ordered until 4:20. No combat air patrol was being flown, no aircraft were ready on the deck for quick take off and there was no lookout in Glorious's crow's nest. Scharnhorst opened fire on Ardent at 4:27 at a range about 16,000 yards (15,000 m), causing the destroyer to withdraw, firing torpedoes and making a smoke screen. Ardent scored one hit with her 4.7-inch (120 mm) guns on Scharnhorst but was hit several times by the German ships' secondary armament and sank about 5:25.

If the Naval version precedes the ground version and is introduced in Spring 1940 and it was ordered in 1935 it would probably influence further changes in procurement for the Fleet Air Arm, after all it was just as fast as the Fulmar.

 

[Arachnid]

While it's very easy to criticise the RAF with the benefit of hindsight for making the wrong decision by focusing on strategic bombing rather than Army co-operation from their perspective it seemed a reasonable move and as long as the RAF remains focused on strategic bombing it's going to be crap at supporting the Army. Different aircraft wouldn't help much because they wouldn't be trained to attack columns.

 

[Just Leo]

The Henley was better than the Battle, in that only two crewmen would die. The Henley was never equipped with self-sealing tanks or armor protection. It had no fixed forward-firing armament. As a naval bomber, it carried only 250lb bombs. As a work in progress, it might have become viable with many changes. Hercules radials might have produced enough power to carry those changes. At the outset, neither the RAF nor the RN had defined a system of tactics which would have allowed the Henley to prevail.

 

[Some Bloke]

At the outset that's certainly true although after the Battle of France that might change. Although IOTL the Light Cruiser Koenigsburg was sunk by Skua divebombers.

 

[Just Leo]

At the outset that's certainly true although after the Battle of France that might change. Although IOTL the Light Cruiser Koenigsburg was sunk by Skua divebombers.

As humble as the Skua was, it carried a 500lb bomb and was equipped with forward-firing armament. I wouldn't think the Skua would do better in France.

 

[merlin]

The Henley was better than the Battle, in that only two crewmen would die. The Henley was never equipped with self-sealing tanks or armor protection. It had no fixed forward-firing armament. As a naval bomber, it carried only 250lb bombs. As a work in progress, it might have become viable with many changes. Hercules radials might have produced enough power to carry those changes. At the outset, neither the RAF nor the RN had defined a system of tactics which would have allowed the Henley to prevail.

Neither was the Hurricane given self-sealing fuel tanks, or armour initially - but had them later when the situation demanded it.
Actually it did have one fixed machine-gun firing forward! If a naval DBF would expect at least four.
The original spec 'was to consist of 4 x 20lb, 4 x 112lb/120lb, or 2 x 250lb GP bombs. Two assitional 250 lb bombs were to be carried as overload.' Normally the 250lb bombs were carried internally, yet Peter Smith in Dive Bomber states that it had capacity for four under-wing 500lb bombs.
Whilst the RAF in the 30s tried its best to ignore or dired dive-bombing the Navy trained for it - from the Nimrod, Swordfish and to the Skua.

 

[Paul MacQ]

I have gone for a naval option here Well there was a mention of improved models I do like the aspect of the use of Hurricane wings.

"In the bomber version this rearward firing gun would have been a .303 Lewis or Vickers "K" gun. The Henley was stressed for dive-bombing at angles up to 70 degrees, but there is no evidence of any arrangement for throwing the bombs in the bomb-bay clear of the propeller disk when dive bombing at high angles (most dive-bombers used a bomb "crutch" to swing the bomb away from the fuselage on release). There was provision in the original bomber design for a single browning .303 machine gun mounted in one of the wings to fire forward, but because the outer wings were essentially the same as those used on Hurricane fighters there would probably have been little trouble in increasing it up to the full compliment of eight machine guns if so required. In 1942 a Henley (L3276) was tested at Boscombe Down with two 500 lb bombs, one under each wing, and also two "light series" bomb carriers, again one under each wing, providing a total bomb load of 1,160 lb."

Maybe 4 MG like the Skua and then later maybe 2 cannon. Performance similar to Fulmar so maybe full fighter gun armament. Always liked the Idea of a Bristol Hercules powered Henley. Less vulnerable to ground fire. and easier to maintain on a carrier.

Henley
1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin II 1,030 hp (768 kW) 272 mph at 17,500 ft
Fulmar
1 × Rolls-Royce Merlin 30 1,300 hp (970 kW) 272 mph at 7,250 ft

Add wing guns extra drag and heavier mods like armor. Give the Henley the better engine and prop should be similar performance or better than original.

 

[Just Leo]

From my archive, a small remembrance. The original drawings were lost in a crash, much as many Henleys were lost due to the strain of pulling a target with their early production Merlins. I believe the original cockpit arrangement was quite ludicrous, but not hard to change.

 

[Paul MacQ]

From my archive, a small remembrance. The original drawings were lost in a crash, much as many Henleys were lost due to the strain of pulling a target with their early production Merlins. I believe the original cockpit arrangement was quite ludicrous, but not hard to change.

Leo nice pictures

 

[merlin]

Paul Macq:

I agree with your comment about the armament - at least 4 x0.303" machine-guns seems quite reasonable, and the 'MkII' with Merlin XX fitted with an additional 20mm cannon in each wing.

However, when you quote 272 mph - I believe that is the top speed with a drogue, as per the original spec. it was 292 mph (the Henley is sometimes refered to as a 300 mph aircraft.

 

[Some Bloke]

Well that reinforces my point about changing Naval procurement policy.
The divebomber being faster than the fighter.

 

[merlin]

Some Bloke:

Further to your earlier post ref HMS Glorious, after correspondence & meetings with families of the officers involved Captain S W Roskill wrote an article for the Sunday Times in 1980 - correcting his previous & 'official' histories. The article was entitled - 'The Cantankerous Captain of HMS Glorious' - a sort of Captain Bligh figure!!

 

[Just Leo]

Disputing the maximum speed is pointless. The maximum speed of the prototype aircraft was 292 mph. Spec sheets of the Henley III give the 272mph figure. The aircraft never was a dive bomber because it lacked the equipment to do so. Nobody realized the potential of the design even when the Battles were reduced to smoking holes in the ground. Just potential.

 

[merlin]

Disputing the maximum speed is pointless. The maximum speed of the prototype aircraft was 292 mph. Spec sheets of the Henley III give the 272mph figure. The aircraft never was a dive bomber because it lacked the equipment to do so. Nobody realized the potential of the design even when the Battles were reduced to smoking holes in the ground. Just potential.

Well yes it would be for the "TT III, it was fitted a windmill device on the port side of the rear cockpit, which wound in the drogue target". So not surprising that with the extra drag the speed dropped by 20 mph - yet still 30 mph faster than the Battle!
So what voting option didi you choose?

 

[Some Bloke]

Will we get a timeline?
Once you get rid of the extrenuous target tug equipment and equipment with
the necessaries for a modern warplane at that time it's still going to be just as fast if not slightly faster than
the Fulmar, especially in a dive, which could cause a major rethink in FAA fighter procurement.

 

[von hitchofen]

I might have voted

but the option "Throw the damn thing on the scrapheap and forget we ever made it" wasn't available

putting Merlins or Hercules' in them was just a waste of useful aero engines