Jan Polc Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Hi all, is there any photographic reference for "white" Hampdens? I was browsing the web and found really only minimum of the pictures. Can somebody help me with this? Thanks in advance. Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Yes there are quite a few photos,....here are some; Photos deleted; Cheers Tony Edited August 21, 2016 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Usual warning about Hampden torpedo-bombers: unlike many profiles and conversions, these had standard bombbay doors with a reduced depth rear frame and ventral gunner's position. There is at least one more "white" picture - coded black 10. I think this was on the front cover of a very old IPMS UK magazine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Polc Posted August 21, 2016 Author Share Posted August 21, 2016 Sorry Graham, but - I checked my references and plans and I can not agree with you. Also from the point of airframe construction it is not easy conversion to reduce frame at one point of fuselage lenght. Can you provide me plans with cross sections, which confirm you wrote here? Also from the logical point of view - if I need to accomodate something huge into bombbay, torpedo in this case, I have to make more space in it. Reduction of fuselage cross section will never help me to accomodate something big in bombbay.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Jan: this one has been around the houses many times. Your references are wrong: most are. Curiously enough, William Green got it right in the 1950s in his book Famous Bombers of the Second World War, and a good description is given in Putnam's Handley Page Aircraft. I discussed this with ex-Handley Page Chief Aerodynamicist Harry Fraser-Mitchell, and he sent me a copy of a drawing of the Test Installation. The torpedo is narrow enough to fit inside the bomb bay, but in order to give stability when dropped at higher speed it was fitted with a Monoplane Air Tail. As seen on Barracuda kits, for example. This makes the overall assembly too long and the tail too wide for a Hampden bombbay. The torpedo is carried on a heavy duty carrier so that it half (approx) protrudes below the line of the closed doors. The outer doors close normally and the inner doors close until they are resting on the sides of the torpedo. When it is dropped, they close normally. The fuselage frame at the end of the bomb bay is modified to have a semi-circular recess to take the rear of the torpedo, and the ventral gunner's gondola is shallower so that there is a step up from the usual closed bomb bay doors - this can be seen in many photos and is what has been misinterpreted so often. The Monoplane Air Tail then rests below the bottom of the gondola. The windows in the gondola are different on the TB than the original bomber - this can be seen in photos. I have held this modified gondola in my hand at Cosford, where the recovered Hampden TB is being restored. The modification to the rear frame was not in production but carried out at Boulton Paul where these conversions were carried out. I suspect that the frame was made up of a number of sub-assemblies and that only the lowest of these was affected. Whatever the details of how it was done, done it was. I believe there was a posting of a photo showing this rear frame in an earlier thread on the subject. You will find a number of threads on this subject: there are a lot of people who read these references with errors and never took the time or effort to actually look at the photos and say "That can't be true!" Check for yourself. If you put a ruler on any decent side view of a Hampden bomber you will see that the bottom of the fuselage is parallel to the top. If you do the same with a torpedo bomber photo you will see the same. There is no sign of a major change in angles (ie deepening of the rear of the bomb bay) shown on profiles: because such a change did not exist. Edited August 21, 2016 by Graham Boak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Polc Posted August 21, 2016 Author Share Posted August 21, 2016 I want to see reference (pictorial) from you, if you tell me my references are wrong without asking what references we have in company archive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I think the white Hampdens were Meteorological recce aircraft, not torpedo bombers, therefore would not have had the mods described above ? AMO 1096/42 specifically states Hampden torpedo bombers to be in Temperate Sea (Extra Dark Sea Grey / Dark Slate Grey) scheme with Night undersurfaces. White undersurfaces are specified for other types but not Hampden. The Met Hampdens would have had white undersides as they were recce and would have been painted as GR (general recce) types such as Wellington, Liberator etc. with the Temperate Sea uppersurfaces changing to Extra Dark Sea Grey from early 1943. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) This is the earlier thread http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234975101-hampden-torpedo-bomber Edited August 21, 2016 by rossm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Hey no problem,..... I`ll just Google search and post up photos to help out,....no problems,.....but it would be nice to at least say thanks,......!!! Graham is correct,.....the bomb doors were not enlarged,.....the rear fuselage was altered to enable the rear of the torpedo and air tail to fit into place,....I would post some photos but please refer to point number one above!! Cheers Tony 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Polc Posted August 21, 2016 Author Share Posted August 21, 2016 Sorry for toniol that I did not say thanks. My fault. Thanks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 They don`t cost anything yet they mean so much! Cheers Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) Rossm: My understanding is that the white Hampdens were at the same training unit as the white Beaufort seen in the photo with it, and also in the famous wartime Charles Brown colour photo. Presumably 2 (coastal) OTU? Jan: Sorry about this, but I don't need to know which references you have available to you - you said in post #4 that they do not describe unaltered bomb bay doors and a modified gondola, so they have to be wrong. But then most are. If you follow the links provided you will see the correct installation on the existing aircraft. Try for yourself my suggestion about comparing side views in photographs. PS I've been looking for an earlier thread stating that Boulton Paul did not actually carry out the conversions but that this was done at an RAF MU, but can't find it. Presumably BP were responsible for the drawings, tooling and manufacture of the bits. However, I did find a thread including examples of Hampdens in Met squadrons. Edited August 21, 2016 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Polc Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 Hi all, I have to apologise myself, because Mr. Boak was right (what a surprise :-) ) . Good news is, that we checked our references once again and found simply way how to include TB conversion into the kit we are working on now. It will be conversion, it means that you will need three cuts. But narrow and simple. Mr. Boak, I am very sorry for my mistake and for the fact I did not believe to you. Sorry. I would like to ask you for assistance in the process of the kit preparation. If it is possible, please be so kind as to contact me on my company e-mail [email protected] Thank you beforehand. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Russell Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 because Mr. Boak was right (what a surprise :-) ) .Yep, he usually is.......... (:>) Good idea to enlist him and now we expect the conversion to be correct. I'll get one! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) It is always annoying not to be believed, but Jan is quite right to insist upon evidence not unsupported claims. In this case however, from the very first sight of drawings with these angled bottoms I has convinced they were wrong, simply by looking at the photos of these aircraft. I suspect this was the colour profile first published in the model pages of RAF Flying Review: R.C.Jones acknowledges the controversy in IPMS UK Mag June 1969, with its photo of white Hampden TB red (not black) 10 on the cover. It was certainly well before the publication of C.H. Barnes "Handley Page Aircraft since 1907" in Putnam's magnificent British aircraft industry series in 1976, where a much more correct description is given. I have long believed that people need only to look properly at the photographs to come to the same conclusion - it is dispiriting to see the myth perpetuated to this day. As a background detail: the torpedo was mounted on the existing attachments for a 2000lb SAP bomb. The bombbays of the RAF's WW2 large bomber aircraft were designed around this long but thin store, which was to create significant limitations for the Wellington, Stirling and Halifax. The Lancaster escaped this because the Manchester was designed to carry two torpedoes, presumably with the MAT and hence wider. The Halifax had been excused this requirement - perhaps unfortunately. The other useful store to be provided with a Hampden kit could be the Long Aerial Mine... I'm happy to help, but the photos available from the Cosford restoration will provide more help than I can. See companion thread here http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234975101-hampden-torpedo-bomber/page-4 Edited August 23, 2016 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Just as an aside, Did coastal command operate standard bomber Hampdens alongside the TB's on ops? Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Not that I know of, but a check through all the serials/squadron usages might bring a few to light. The TB could carry all the stores of the standard bomber, so there'd be no specific reason other than perhaps bulking up the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cossack52 Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 according to Air International,vol 27,no 5,november 1984,the central bomb doors were removed,the side doors hinged open,which would give the impression of a reduced depth ventral gun position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 (edited) Yes, but this presumably some kind of "backwards analysis" which I don't think actually makes sense - the open outer doors don't extend 12" below the normal bottom line of the bomber. Plus, a similar step would have been visible at the front. What was actually done is described above, and in the other thread(s). The reduced depth (12") ventral position and the "notch" in the bomb bay rear bulkhead, are present and visible on the example being restored at Cosford. The Servicing Manual describes the closing of the doors, so that the central doors rest on the side of the torpedo, the bottom of which is 3½" below the bottom line of the aircraft. Edit: an additional comment explaining why AE27 couldn't be right, and the correct dimension quoted (from Barnes). Edited August 24, 2016 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Hi Intresting thread, to me seems there was an easy way and a harder way to do the mod, the hard one was taken seems maybe due to aerodynamics/ balance ? cheers jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Some details of 415 Squadron ops with the Hampden: http://www.415sqn.com/john-enns.html http://www.415sqn.com/joseph-heffernan.html http://www.415sqn.com/arrand.html Jari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 The torpedo had to be carried high - there simply wasn't enough clearance underneath to carry it externally. Carrying it on the same carrier as installed for the 2000lb bomb would sort out the balance. Plus an adaptor for the torpedo, which would be needed anyway. Having it semi-externally with the inner bomb bay doors resting on the side of the weapon is certainly a good aerodynamic compromise, but it also means minimum change. The modification to the airframe was little more than a small piece of metal-cutting on the bulkhead/frame and a new shape for the gunner's fairing - which is small enough and light enough to be held in one hand. I can't see an easier option - what do you see? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 Hi I was thinking probably a little too basic, leave the doors off and a lower carrier. cheers jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 A lower carriage would still have permitted the doors to be kept, but I suspect the ground would be too close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now