1920's Handley-Page Naval Fighter

Driftless

Donor
This thread inspired by one current thread (WI the Grumman FF designed.....)by Tomo Pauk, and one old thread (Handley Page Fighter) by the late Just Leo.

What if the 1922 Handley Page fighter prototype were built with a sturdier undercarriage from the get-go? Either the USN, or the RN pick it up on a limited run basis for either of their fledgeling carrier fleets

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.

View attachment 261906
 
If the USN were to accept the type it's likely the FAA is going to take a very close look at it. Whether that can overcome the Air Ministry's prejudice against monoplanes though I don't know. It's a shame it never flew with its planned 400hp engine, I suspect it would have been an eye opener. As it was it had better performance than the Fairey Flycatcher on half the power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Type_S
1280px-HP21S.jpg
 
Last edited:
Excellent thing, too bad it was not pursued with. It might've also rendered the biplanes and strutted monoplanes unwanted for most air forces/services by late 1920s, with interesting consequences on many European powers.

Though, I don't think that that fighter might fly off from the USS Langley, let alone land on it ;) ;)
 

Driftless

Donor
Excellent thing, too bad it was not pursued with. It might've also rendered the biplanes and strutted monoplanes unwanted for most air forces/services by late 1920s, with interesting consequences on many European powers.

Though, I don't think that that fighter might fly off from the USS Langley, let alone land on it ;) ;)

Maybe the HP is the inaugural fighter off the Lexington or Saratoga?
 
Excellent thing, too bad it was not pursued with. It might've also rendered the biplanes and strutted monoplanes unwanted for most air forces/services by late 1920s, with interesting consequences on many European powers.

Though, I don't think that that fighter might fly off from the USS Langley, let alone land on it ;) ;)

From Wikipedia.

The British aircraft manufacturer Handley Page, which had recently developed the leading edge slot, realised use of slots and flaps could allow a high-speed monoplane to fly at the low speeds needed for carrier operations with a much higher wing loading than a normal biplane, and decided to develop an aircraft to meet this requirement. The resulting design, given the Handley Page designation Type S (and later retrospectively known as the H.P.21) was a small, low-wing cantilever monoplane, with full-span leading edge slots and full-span slotted flaps.
 
From Wikipedia.

The British aircraft manufacturer Handley Page, which had recently developed the leading edge slot, realised use of slots and flaps could allow a high-speed monoplane to fly at the low speeds needed for carrier operations with a much higher wing loading than a normal biplane, and decided to develop an aircraft to meet this requirement. The resulting design, given the Handley Page designation Type S (and later retrospectively known as the H.P.21) was a small, low-wing cantilever monoplane, with full-span leading edge slots and full-span slotted flaps.

See post #5 :)
 
If this fighter does get adopted by the RN, it could have very interesting consequences in the future. RN/FAA will have a proof that a carrier based aircraft can have similar performance to Land based ones, and perhaps greater attention paid to the US carrier aircraft development might mean that FAA fighter aircraft do not have a requirement for the 2 men crew for the navigational purposes.
 

Driftless

Donor
Kidding about the small, relatively plodding Langley aside, imagine this plane landing on the Saratoga. The Saratoga cruizing at 20 knots, heading into a 10mph breeze and the HP landing at 60. would they even need an arrestor hook under those conditions?
 
Kidding about the small, relatively plodding Langley aside, imagine this plane landing on the Saratoga. The Saratoga cruizing at 20 knots, heading into a 10mph breeze and the HP landing at 60. would they even need an arrestor hook under those conditions?

Hurricanes managed to land on the HMS Glorious during evacuation from Norway.
 
Even old Argus had her arresting gear removed during the twenties as it just wasn't needed due to relatively low landing speeds and consequently short landing runs.
 
Top