The Hawker Henley ; the Missed British Stuka? 

@@BlackMasterRoshi When I joined the navy we still towed our targets behind us, sometimes when they fired at certain angles you could hear the shells whistle past us, quite exciting! It was a step up from being the actual target though when we just changed the aspect or angle of the gun sights so the fire should miss us by let's say 30°. We did, unfortunately, have a few accidents, but that was once a ship was hit first it went through the funnel, the second one went straight through the chest of a lad who slept in a cabin a few decks below as he sat up with a jolt when the first round went through the ship. The captain immediately took the radio and call for an immediate ceasefire, but the response he got back was: "duck and cover boys, there are three more rounds in the air".

@@BlackMasterRoshi - I was a mechanic, AD assigned to VC-13 from 1980-84. The squadron used the 2 seat TA-4J to tow targets. Banners for aerial gunnery and simulated missiles for surface ships to fire at. Not one of out "Scooters" were shot down, or even hit.

Quality.✅😂

@@billy4072 - Meaning?

Classic, understated “wtf…!)

Remember building the Airfix models of both planes.

@@Bruce-1956 Only thing good about a Defiant was the powered turret, though it did serve well as a night fighter and got the first kill of the war over the UK.. They really should have sent the Henley to north Africa, where it would only have to contend with second rate Italian stuff, at least till Rommel got re supplied.. (most was shipped off to Barbarrossa in 41 anyways').. I think it would have served far better in that Theater considering it's ruggedness, and simplicity.. Don't know why the Merlin was prone to breaking in this plane, but these things can be overcome, if it could be re gigged for a radial, maybe a Centaurus? or a Jupiter (poppet valve is less complicated), might have made a great, reliable desert fighter/bomber , with no rad's and coolant to worry about... keep the top line stuff for home defense, and European theater... Only other thing would be drop tanks and a nice cannon, since it had good range to begin with, it could escort Wellingtons to and from French targets , not a great fighter but good to Harass 109's etc off the bomber groups ...Id rather have the Henley along then nothing.. Tactically as a dive bomber.. allied lines of communication were too long by 42', and the Stuka was easy meat unless there was fighter cover, or air superiority over the target.. it was put to good effect in Russia, but the Russian air force was effectively wiped out till Stalingrad was won, by Kursk things were very bad for the Stuka's..

@@planegaper always thought it was a Spitfire of 603 City of Edinburgh squadron based at Turnhouse, October 1939. 1939 - Equipped with the Spitfire and credited with shooting down the first enemy aircraft over the UK in World War Two, shooting a bomber into the Firth of Forth

@@Bruce-1956 could be right Bruce, the Defiant may have gotten the first night kill, and I gave it the day credit..

The Defiant was a good aircraft but it was criminally misused

More than welcome :)

I suspect the gent is George Bullman, Hawker's chief test pilot, as the Hurricane is K5083, the prototype of that model. Somewhere I have Paul Gallico's book, "The Hurricane Story", that spends a lot of time on K5083 but never once mentions the Henley. It's like a Victorian story complete with the deformed sister locked in the attic! Cheers!

@@joseywales6146 Thanks for that extra detail Josey. I was, of course, making a (hopefully) humorous comment on what I thought was an amusing/odd image but I'm now keen to learn more of the dapper Mr Bullman!

The sleeve isn't fully winched in/out.

The thing in the front was the target 😂😂

He wasn't especially well liked.

There’s a school of thought that says that with most fighter jocks, the closer you are to the target, the less likely you are to get hit....

@@dorsetdumpling5387 One exception being when you're _in front_ of the target.

That would be Sydney Camm. His brother, FJ Camm was editor of Practical Wireless.

There is stuff out there. A great aeroplane plagued by crappy engines and a fast landing speed, requiring longer airfields. Merlins and airbrakes...

I knew an old guy when i was a kid that flew whirlwinds.....he reckoned that it was very nice to fly but wasn't something you could put a newbie straight out of flight training into.....that little problem aside however if you knew how to fly it and work the throttles and prop pitch in conjunction with the rudder it would turn inside a hurricanes turning circle and the big guns on it where unreal in their effectiveness, he got 2 kills in them, both at close range of about 100 yards, one fighter he hit at the wing root and the wing fell off, other one was a Do17 that he cut in half just aft of the rear gunners position......he spent pretty much all of his time shooting up german airfields and the chateaus that the germans where using as headquarters, both the aircraft he got were returning to their airfields when he jumped them......he liked the aircraft, he was somewhat miffed when he was transferred onto hurricanes in the we desert.

I have seen somewhere on youtube a person claiming that the whirlwind was plauged by propellers that caused vibrations causing the bad reputation of the aircraft. I too love the whirlwind.

I'm sorry, but why?? It looks nothing like a Hurricane at all, the only thing they share im common is an engine, and by that logic the P51 mustang is a Hurricane knockoff.

The tail and the outer wings were exactly the same as those used on the Hurricane, Hawker decided at an early stage that it would significantly cheaper to produce if it used as many components as possible from their other design.

Due to be retired before the war but I believe it sank more ships than any other naval aircraft

what an aircraft that was ..... great dark skies 🌌 video on it

The Stuka was a slightly better dive bomber than the Dauntless, but the Dauntless had a much heavier payload and longer range In a fly off between the two the Dauntless would have won

@@Steve-cc6xc 'A great Dark Skies video' is an oxymoron. The maker just wants to push as much content out to the undiscerning as possible. His narratives bundles in all kinds of mixed up tosh.

@@Farweasel I call Dark Skies, and all of his other channels "Keep Beach City Weird" because his narratives always remind me of the character in "Stephen Universe" from Cartoon Network that makes conspiracy theory videos.

I am 65 and I thought I know about most of the planes from the era but ones I never heard of keep popping up.

Me too, John. Me too. 🍺

Yeah me too , and a bit " random"

@@doones4649 Well I haven't. But then. I'm a tractor.

Pah. The Irons are way better than Motley Crew.

I'm thinking about doing a series for patreon supporters on that subject 😁

Got some new one :)

@@chanman819 Actually the Il-2 is a good example. It was a lot less successful as a tank-buster than its reputation would have you believe (like most WW2 CAS aircraft, actually). One reason cited for this is that it had to be fitted with an enormous weight of armour - partly to protect the engine. So it could only carry quite a light weapon load. I think the lack of tank buster success in WW2 was down to a combination of doctrine, training, techniques and available equipment. CAS aircraft were pretty effective against soft targets but nothing they carried was both accurate enough or hard-hitting enough to kill a tank consistently. That experience had a profound effect on the design of the A10 Warthog. The amazing, rapid fire cannon with DU rounds that can penetrate top armour like a knife trough butter. The gun has a great aiming system and basically sends so many rounds down range that a few are bound to hit something :-) Those options weren't really available to WW2 CAS aircraft.

Lol It does seem to be headed that way.

www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/hawker-tornado/ they were even going to put an 18 cyl Centaurus in the thing, for 2100 hp, sort of an early Thypoon, think it needed a more robust empennage to handle the weight.. as evidenced by the Typhoon, and taller gear, but the dna is there for sure

Looks like an engineer-type. Probably carried a slide rule during test flights.

Noticed that. must have been going out for dinner after flight....

That’s a Homburg. It’s Churchill.

@@hekatoncheiros208 naw an imposter, Churchy wouldn't fit in the cockpit by that time, plus a stach just isn't him.. it's a Marx brother !!!

Top marks to your eagle eyes sir! 🤓

I think it was just a question of availability. The battles got yanked from the frontline and were otherwise sitting around - might as well get some use from them.

Glister?

They did try to get a centaurus in there , over 200hp, but it looks like a more robust fusalage was needed.. and we got the Typoon

Don't forget the pipe!

I'm sorry to be "that guy" and ruin the joke, but that's a homburg, not a trilby.

@@theoriginaldylangreene Hatzi fanboy.

@@theoriginaldylangreene If that's a reference to the shot at 5.50, I thought it was a Top Hat (Homburgs have less loft & far more brim) But then That chap's flying a bloody Hurricane not a Henley .......... And you're quibbling about *hats* ?

@@Farweasel There are a few different styles of Homburg, the US flat brimmed "Indiana Jones" style, and then the European style with the high crown and curled hard brim are the most common. A top hat has no indentation on the crown, the angle is bad in that photo at 5.50, but you can see an indented crown. I do promise you that it is a Homburg. As the other guy said, i'm a bit of a "hatzi". Though I do accept that flying an aircraft in any such headgear is (patriotically) the most gentlemanly thing a fine upstanding Britisher could do!

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters That answers my question, so when later Merlin variants would have been fitted the result would have been an outstanding attack bomber.

Merlin wasn’t designed to go slow at full power

The drag from towing a banner meant that the aircraft was operating at a lower airspeed but with higher engine power than what it had been designed for. This meant that airflow for engine cooling was inadequate leading to overheating and failure.

Is that why the A10 is so popular?!

A big problem was lack of military spending in the early 1930s particularly under Ramsay MacDonald's government. Manufacturer's need revenue to pay engineers and designers and build prototypes. There was also a misguided interest in turret fighters such as the Boulton Paul Defiant. After he became prime minister, Neville Chamberlain pushed the adoption of the Hawker Hurricane with pressure on Supermarine to get the Spitfire into production, while Winston Churchill apparently thought it was a mistake to produce Hurricanes instead of Defiants. Fortunate that while the Battle of Britain was fought under Churchill's premiership, it was fought with Neville Chamberlain's air force.

@@iansneddon2956 Interesting point about Chamberlain. Often criticised for not declaring war on Germany earlier. However, if he had, can only wonder at the outcome as Britain would have been far less prepared? Did he realise war was probably inevitable but take action to buy some time?

@@Steve-GM0HUU I think it would have been a disaster for Britain to go to war with Germany earlier. In hindsight we see September 1939 as working out okay and maybe being too late, but I wonder how Britain and the Commonwealth might have handled it if USA had pursued strict neutrality (no lend-lease, no US Navy support of convoy defense). And I think that the US attitudes supporting Britain came from Britain's stubborn defense and victory in the Battle of Britain. Considering how much Britain's military grew in 1939 to get to the level when war began, I doubt Britain could have staged the type of defense that would inspire Roosevelt to back Britain. And without American assistance coming in 1941 I don't see Hitler declaring war on USA. I think that growth in 1939 after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia was essential. His post-Munich re-armament sped up but still seemed cautious, as if he wanted a stronger military but didn't want to provoke Germany into a war. That it took Hitler making that first big move leads me to believe Chamberlain didn't have an overall plan here but was just trying to carefully manage a difficult situation. I think the lesson from Munich was that you wouldn't have peace with Hitler through normal diplomacy. I don't think he saw war as inevitable. I think the efforts to strengthen ties with France and Poland into a military alliance was based on a more traditional approach - that if they presented a strong united front then as a common bully Hitler would back down. I think war was inevitable because Germany needed the plunder that war might bring to keep their economy going, and Hitler was full of ideas that War would inspire Germans to achieve greatness (or something like that). So I think that it was inevitable Hitler would lead Europe into war even out of desperation. But I think Neville Chamberlain held out hope that a lasting peace could be obtained through strength.

Luftwaffe was the handmaiden of the Wehrmacht...by D day the British figured it out and used the tactic to great effect in the Falaise gap, Typhoons being devastating in that role.. Naval guns are handy too.. Germans dreaded those high tides...clipped wing Stangs, and 47's shortly afterward, and the Corsair in the Pacific.. Lines of communication were almost always shorter for the Axis, so the tactic was justified, but once the Allies gained ground in Europe and got the Corsair flying off carrier decks, they put flying close support to great effect, especially with the advent of Napalm later in the war..