de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 12:52 pm
de Havilland DH.93 Don
The DH.93 Don was designed to meet Air Ministry Specification T.6/36 for a multi-role trainer and was a single-engined monoplane of wooden stressed-skin construction. The DH.93 Don was intended to be a trainer for pilots and radio operators, and as a gunnery trainer, the gunnery requirement involved the mounting of a dorsal gun turret. Student pilot and instructor sat side by side up front, while accommodation for a trainee WT (radio) operator and the turret gunner was behind in the cabin.
The prototype with test marks E-3 (later military serial number L2387) first flew on 18 June 1937 and was transferred to RAF Martlesham Heath for official evaluation. In the course of the trials, more equipment was added which increased the weight, and as a result, in an attempt to reduce weight, the dorsal turret was removed. The aircraft was also modified with small auxiliary fins fitted beneath the tailplane.
Despite the changes incorporated from the fifth aircraft, the type was deemed not suitable for training and the original order for 250 aircraft was reduced to only 50 aircraft, 20 of which were delivered as engineless airframes for ground training. The remaining aircraft served as communications and liaison aircraft, serving with No. 24 Sqn and numerous RAF Station Flights throughout the UK until early 1939, but all were grounded for use as instructional airframes in March 1939.
Source: Wikipedia
Images: dieselfutures via tumblr
The DH.93 Don was designed to meet Air Ministry Specification T.6/36 for a multi-role trainer and was a single-engined monoplane of wooden stressed-skin construction. The DH.93 Don was intended to be a trainer for pilots and radio operators, and as a gunnery trainer, the gunnery requirement involved the mounting of a dorsal gun turret. Student pilot and instructor sat side by side up front, while accommodation for a trainee WT (radio) operator and the turret gunner was behind in the cabin.
The prototype with test marks E-3 (later military serial number L2387) first flew on 18 June 1937 and was transferred to RAF Martlesham Heath for official evaluation. In the course of the trials, more equipment was added which increased the weight, and as a result, in an attempt to reduce weight, the dorsal turret was removed. The aircraft was also modified with small auxiliary fins fitted beneath the tailplane.
Despite the changes incorporated from the fifth aircraft, the type was deemed not suitable for training and the original order for 250 aircraft was reduced to only 50 aircraft, 20 of which were delivered as engineless airframes for ground training. The remaining aircraft served as communications and liaison aircraft, serving with No. 24 Sqn and numerous RAF Station Flights throughout the UK until early 1939, but all were grounded for use as instructional airframes in March 1939.
Source: Wikipedia
Images: dieselfutures via tumblr
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 1:34 pm
I doubt that the engine impressed anyone -- 4-500 hp with 12 cylinders.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:30 pm
By all accounts, an abomination of an aircraft! Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Don was the engine installation, the cooling air entered via the intakes at the wing roots and was ducted forward through the engine compartment and exiting via the vent under the nose. The Albatross airliner used the same engine (air-cooled Gypsy King V-12) and the same style of cooling system.
Any chance this thread can be deleted to save any more embarrassment for us Brits??
Any chance this thread can be deleted to save any more embarrassment for us Brits??
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 2:53 pm
LysanderUK wrote:Any chance this thread can be deleted to save any more embarrassment for us Brits??
Just getting warmed up!
Besides, Premier League's been postponed for the duration of Paranoiavirus, so might as well have fun posting pics of butt-ugly craft from around the globe.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 3:33 pm
LysanderUK wrote:Any chance this thread can be deleted to save any more embarrassment for us Brits??
Aww... I like the final pic version, looks like a nice GA aircraft
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:56 pm
Hmmmm so this explains alot!
So after selling the RAF a 3 seater pilot and gunnery trainer that was so bad that most were delivered without engines in anycase DH strolled up and said “can I interest you in a twin engined wooden bomber that is so fast it doesnt need armament to defend itself?” - and the RAF Officer stared at the truck load of DH93 Dons heading to the fire dump for fire practice and said “Thanks but I think we will be right for now - dont call us, we’ll call you!” Smiles
So after selling the RAF a 3 seater pilot and gunnery trainer that was so bad that most were delivered without engines in anycase DH strolled up and said “can I interest you in a twin engined wooden bomber that is so fast it doesnt need armament to defend itself?” - and the RAF Officer stared at the truck load of DH93 Dons heading to the fire dump for fire practice and said “Thanks but I think we will be right for now - dont call us, we’ll call you!” Smiles
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 5:59 pm
Embarrassment! Excellent! Let's do that!
The R-1340 by this time was producing 550 hp with 9 cylinders. With spectacular reliability.
… heh... heh...
But the sad truth is that the Brits had an excellent engine in the mid-30s with Nuffield's Wolseley engines. Big development potential. But the Bureaucracy ticked him off. He said to the Air Ministry, "Screw you", and went back to making ground vehicles and their engines.
Very large loss, with significant wartime repercussions.
The R-1340 by this time was producing 550 hp with 9 cylinders. With spectacular reliability.
… heh... heh...
But the sad truth is that the Brits had an excellent engine in the mid-30s with Nuffield's Wolseley engines. Big development potential. But the Bureaucracy ticked him off. He said to the Air Ministry, "Screw you", and went back to making ground vehicles and their engines.
Very large loss, with significant wartime repercussions.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sat Mar 14, 2020 7:52 pm
Scott Rose wrote:LysanderUK wrote:Any chance this thread can be deleted to save any more embarrassment for us Brits??
Aww... I like the final pic version, looks like a nice GA aircraft
I was gonna say the same thing. Looks like a great 3-4 seat GA aircraft. Looks like it would compete with the globe swift and bellancas quite nicely.
Sean
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:23 am
Ah the beauty that was the GAL Fleet Shadower! The competing Airspeed Fleet Shadower was only slightly better looking, get behind the sofa before opening the following link...
https://alchetron.com/General-Aircraft-Fleet-Shadower
Still no chance of this thread being deleted?? What about if I threaten to put up a post on the Blackburn Botha??
https://alchetron.com/General-Aircraft-Fleet-Shadower
Still no chance of this thread being deleted?? What about if I threaten to put up a post on the Blackburn Botha??
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:12 am
Or worse, you could retaliate with a post about the XP-75. 
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sun Mar 15, 2020 2:24 pm
Dave Hadfield wrote:Embarrassment! Excellent! Let's do that!
The R-1340 by this time was producing 550 hp with 9 cylinders. With spectacular reliability.
… heh... heh...
What's the number of cylinders got to do with it?
The Gipsy King or Twelve delivered 425bhp with less than half the capacity of the R-1340 - 560 cu in - and that's bad?
Wolseley/Nuffield was a glaring example of idiot bureaucrats destroying a potentially brilliant engine.
Even I have trouble rooting for the Don. The best I can say is that from some angles it looks less bad.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:54 pm
Mew
.
.
.
.
.
.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:57 pm
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:08 am
Sometimes a bad design leads to a later great design. Not familiar with this one, I first thought it was a post war , late 1940’s bad design. For the good, it’s actually quite streamlined for pre-war, especially the nose area. It fell to the same flaws as many from that era. It would’ve been really heavy for the amount of available horsepower. Probably had poor climb performance. The tail has those ventral strikes, like on the DH 82 Tiger Moth, this suggests poor spin recovery and other problems. The tail is way too small, another common pre-war error.
It had the turret position, which was all the rave , as Bouton Paul, Fairey , and others thought it was a good idea to put a very heavy weapons station far behind the center of gravity. Last, the retractable landing gear was still a fairly new idea, but they succumbed to the Bristol Blenheim type gear doors that create an immense increase in drag and would’ve caused a pitch change. Poorly flown , I bet it wspossible to stall the plane when coming into land( reduced throttles) just by lowering the gear. This design represents so many lessons yet to be learned and those improvements were to be incorporated into wartime designs.
It had the turret position, which was all the rave , as Bouton Paul, Fairey , and others thought it was a good idea to put a very heavy weapons station far behind the center of gravity. Last, the retractable landing gear was still a fairly new idea, but they succumbed to the Bristol Blenheim type gear doors that create an immense increase in drag and would’ve caused a pitch change. Poorly flown , I bet it wspossible to stall the plane when coming into land( reduced throttles) just by lowering the gear. This design represents so many lessons yet to be learned and those improvements were to be incorporated into wartime designs.
Re: de Havilland DH.93 Don
Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:09 am
Sometimes a bad design leads to a later great design. Not familiar with this one, I first thought it was a post war , late 1940’s bad design. For the good, it’s actually quite streamlined for pre-war, especially the nose area. It fell to the same flaws as many from that era. It would’ve been really heavy for the amount of available horsepower. Probably had poor climb performance. The tail has those ventral strikes, like on the DH 82 Tiger Moth, this suggests poor spin recovery and other problems. The tail is way too small, another common pre-war error.
It had the turret position, which was all the rave , as Bouton Paul, Fairey , and others thought it was a good idea to put a very heavy weapons station far behind the center of gravity. Last, the retractable landing gear was still a fairly new idea, but they succumbed to the Bristol Blenheim type gear doors that create an immense increase in drag and would’ve caused a pitch change. Poorly flown , I bet it wspossible to stall the plane when coming into land( reduced throttles) just by lowering the gear. This design represents so many lessons yet to be learned and those improvements were to be incorporated into wartime designs.
It had the turret position, which was all the rave , as Bouton Paul, Fairey , and others thought it was a good idea to put a very heavy weapons station far behind the center of gravity. Last, the retractable landing gear was still a fairly new idea, but they succumbed to the Bristol Blenheim type gear doors that create an immense increase in drag and would’ve caused a pitch change. Poorly flown , I bet it wspossible to stall the plane when coming into land( reduced throttles) just by lowering the gear. This design represents so many lessons yet to be learned and those improvements were to be incorporated into wartime designs.