Thu May 15, 2008 10:24 pm
I tend to believe that the Hawker Hind is not a Bomber. It was conceived and built as an Attack aircraft, not a bomber. With a fairly useful dive bombing capability, I think it definitely qualifies as a bomber since at the same time of the Hawker's manufacture Hawker was building O.400s, which were true bombers.
Thu May 15, 2008 11:55 pm
From what I've read, the RAF specification G.7/34 was for a light bomber which would be a stopgap until newer bombers arrived. In response to this specification, Hawker offered the Hind as a development of the Hart, and it fulfilled the specification. It had the lower rear cockpit, which was like that of the Demon, and a later Kestrel engine.
I thought the 0/400 was a WWI Handley-Page aircraft.
Cheers,
Matt
I thought the 0/400 was a WWI Handley-Page aircraft.
Cheers,
Matt
Fri May 16, 2008 3:37 am
Jollygreenslugg wrote:I thought the 0/400 was a WWI Handley-Page aircraft.
It was.
Fri May 16, 2008 8:26 am
Chris Brame wrote:Do any B-23s have an earlier build date than Ol' 927? There's one or two potential flyers left, as well as (dare we hope) the Hawaii B-18.
If N747M is airworthy it would have to be the oldest WW2 U.S. bomber. But is it airworthy?
Anyone know the early history of Miss Hap? Was it operated as a bomber first and then became a transport later?
Jim
Fri May 16, 2008 8:58 am
I think there was an Air Classics feature on Miss Hap from its Proud Mary days that covers its early history. But I can't recall what it said.
I have never heard the Hart or Hind bomber variants referred to as attack aircraft or anything else but light bombers, and the units to which they were assigned certainly were bomber squadrons. "Attack" is a fuzzy category that includes fighter-bombers, tactical true bombers, and specialized aircraft such as tank busters; it wasn't even a recognized category in most air arms in the 1930s. For my money if an airplane attacks ground targets principally with bombs as opposed to guns and/or rockets, it's a bomber. The Hart and Hind certainly would qualify.
August
I have never heard the Hart or Hind bomber variants referred to as attack aircraft or anything else but light bombers, and the units to which they were assigned certainly were bomber squadrons. "Attack" is a fuzzy category that includes fighter-bombers, tactical true bombers, and specialized aircraft such as tank busters; it wasn't even a recognized category in most air arms in the 1930s. For my money if an airplane attacks ground targets principally with bombs as opposed to guns and/or rockets, it's a bomber. The Hart and Hind certainly would qualify.
August
Fri May 16, 2008 9:51 am
What about the B-10 at the USAFM?
Fri May 16, 2008 12:09 pm
You asked about the B10 @ NMUSAF?
Not flying...except in someone's dreams.
Not flying...except in someone's dreams.