Warbird Information Exchange

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.

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

It was.

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

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

What about the B-10 at the USAFM?

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

You asked about the B10 @ NMUSAF?


Not flying...except in someone's dreams.