Handley Page Hampden

[PMN1]

Handley Page Hampden

Two Pegasus engines – 2,000hp maximum
Empty weight, 11,780lb
Max TO 18,756lb
Span 69ft 2”
Length 53ft 7”
Height 14ft 11”
Wing Area 668 sqft
Bombload 4,000lb


Douglas Boston MkIII

Two Cyclone engines – 3,200hp maximum
Empty weight 15,100lb
Max TO 25,000lb
Span 61ft 4”
Length 47ft 0”
Height 15ft 10”
Wing Area 465 sqft
Bombload 2000lb

With at least 50% more power, I would have thought the Boston should have been able to carry a bigger bombload even with the extra weight.

I've seen the empty weight of the Boston III being as low as 12,200lb which makes the difference in bombload stranger.

[Wuzak]

I think the wing area is the secret. The Hamden has much more lifting area.

I think that if the HP had the same power it may be able to have a higher TO weight than the Boston.

[PMN1]

Be interesting to know what the Hampden would have done with two Hercules engines in place of the Pegasus.

[GregP]

The Hampden, which was a good general purpose light bomber, was a 255 mph airplane. The A-20 Havoc, another good light bomber, was a 340 mph airplane.

The Hampden needed to bomb with an escort or at night. The A-20 could bomb without escort and sometimes outrun the opposition even with a bomb load. Or, it could be outfitted as a night fighter that could catch any opponent it would likely encounter.

One was not "better" than the other, but they were useful for different missions. Personally, I'd take the extra speed. but that's me. Nothing wrong with the Hampden.

[ChrisMcD]

With the combined talents of Donald Douglas, Jack Northrop and Ed Heinemann it is hardly surprising the A 20 was such a superb aircraft and the start of a whole line of famous bombers.

The load lifting capability of the Hampden may reflect HP's wing designing ability, but the Hampden made a number of sacrifices to be the fastest of the RAF's bomber trio at the start of the war and it's performance did not really reflect that.

Compared to the Whitley and the Wellington it did not have nearly as 'good' a war and it's rudder overbalance characteristics probably killed a number of good crews.

[Burunduk]

My father, Victor Fedorovich Kuzmin, was a navigator of A-20G in Soviet Air Force during WW2
In 1944 he was squadron navigator in 260th Bombardment Regiment, 244 Bombardment Aviation Division, 17th Air Army.

The USUAL bombload was 16 * 100kg (220 lb) bombs, part of them under wings. So the total bombload was 1600 kg (3520 lb), only 500lb less than Hampden

They also drop 500kg bombs.

And A-20G as Boston III also had 1600-hp engines (R-2600-23).

So 2000 lb for A-20 is nominal, but not maximal and even not usual load.

http://i549.photobucket.com/albums/ii383/burunduk_/kuzmin3sm.jpg
1944. My father is first from the right.

[PMN1]

The USUAL bombload was 16 * 100kg (220 lb) bombs, part of them under wings. So the total bombload was 1600 kg (3520 lb), only 500lb less than Hampden

They also drop 500kg bombs.

And A-20G as Boston III also had 1600-hp engines (R-2600-23).

So 2000 lb for A-20 is nominal, but not maximal and even not usual load.



True, but the A-20 does have the advantage that it was developed, while the Hampden wasn't.

[merlin]

Yes, the A-20 Boston was a very good light/medium 'attack' bomber. No doubt Douglas were very grateful for the French order!
But, Douglas did not have the restrictions within the specification that Handly Page had. The Air Ministry were inhibited at the time, by the potential impact of the Geneva Disarmament Talks - on bomber weight. For example - this is why the Hampden is so thin!
Whereas, with the Douglas design, it evolved from a series of 'attack' aircraft in the US that got steadily bigger from single engined to twin engined aircraft.

[Ricky]

Burunduk - welcome to the forum, and thanks for both the information and the photograph

[GregP]

Hi Bunrunduk, and welcome from another forum member. Very nice to have someone from Russia in the forum. We have beaten topics concerning WWII against each other for some years now, but we have not had much in the way of participation from Russia, though we HAVE had some.

A great deal of the misconceptions about the Russian front in WWII by many forum members in here are due to the simple fact that we have very little factual information from the Russian point of view.

We know that much of the Soviet Air Force was wiped out in the initial German advance due to poor equipment, poor traiing, and very poor standing orders from the Soviet High Command. We also know that the entire aircraft manufacturing capability of Russia was moved beyond the Urals to avoid the German advance, and that newer, much better equipment was developed, as were MUCH better fighter pilots and tactics.

Personally, I really like the Lavochkin La-5/9/9/11 series as well as the Yakovlev 3/7/9 series, and consider them to be near the top of WWII fighters. The Tu-2 and Pe-2 are also very good in their tasks.

Yes, we from the U.S.A., England, France, Germany, Australia, etc. fought during WWII, and we suffered a losses and casulaties. But not in numbers like the 20 million+ Soviet casualties. Such loss must generate stories from the war, and we simply do not have access to the Soviet war stories since the cold war that followed WWII together with the policies of Joseph Stalin combined to virtually close the flow of information from the entire Soviet block for 50 years after WWII.

So, it would be wonderful if you could give us some posts from the Russian point of view concerning the war; airwar or otherwise. This forum is about aircraft, mostly of WWII, but most other war posts would also be welcome, too, I'm sure.

By way of introduction, I volunteer at the Planes of Fame Museum in Chino, California, U.S.A. In our collection we have a flyable MiG-15 and MiG-17, a flyable AN-2, soon to have a new-build flyable Yak-3, and non-flying MiG-17, MiG-21, TS-11, and Yak-18. A good friend of mine also has a flyable Yak-52 with the Vedeneyev M-14P that is a wonderful plane to fly.

I am not unfamiliar with Soviet fast jets, but am only partly familiar with WWII-era Soviet piston aircfraft. Tough to get things like numbers built, the differences between models of the same basic aircraft, combat summary stories, etc. Maybe you know and could share some information about them?

Even if not, please join in our discussions as you see fit.

[Corsarius]

Hi there... Sorry I've been a little busy of late. I just want to say that I also think that the hampden's secret lies in the wings.

Having said that, the 'ferocious frying pan' had a lot of troubles.... lousy crew accommodation, sod-all defences, and a forward-firing gun that encouraged pilots to use it as a fighter even though it wasn't. It took the war to the Germans when there was nothing else really available except the blenheim and the whitbox, and it paid horribly. I love the look of it, but the A-20 was a truly fantastic aircraft in all aspects. I'd take the speed any day.

And to our wonderful new Russian member with that great photo.... Thank you! Welcome Aboard!

[Kutscha]

The Canadian Museum of Flight Hampden damaged by snow. The Vancouver area has had record snow this year. Langley BC is ~50km/30mi from Vancouver.

the restoration

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=187171

the damage

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87109

[PMN1]

We know HP Chief Designer was interested in the fast unarmed bomber idea so, could anything be done with the Hampden and Hercules engines.

He developed an unarmed version of the P13/36 idea and that is nothing like the actual original twin P13/36 design so what might he get if if he started from the Hampden?

[PMN1]

Does anyone know how the 4,000lb bombload was stowed internally?

Could the aircraft have been smaller, say A-20 size and still carry 4,000lb internally?

[Kutscha]

Does anyone know how the 4,000lb bombload was stowed internally?

Could the aircraft have been smaller, say A-20 size and still carry 4,000lb internally?

http://www.flightglobal.com/AIRSPACE/photos/militaryaviation1903-1945cutaways/images/10587/handley-page-hampden-cutaway.jpg

PMN1, the A-20 wasn't that much smaller.

[PMN1]

PMN1, the A-20 wasn't that much smaller.

Mhh, I know, i'm wondering about the possibilities of a NF version in the same way the A-20 was turned into the Havoc night-fighter....can't be any worse than the Blenheim NF