Hawker Henley Vs Fairey Battle

I’ve always thought that the Skua/Roc airframe was underpowered and also that the Roc and Defiant suffered the problem even more as the weight of a turret on a single engined aircraft is pushing the power to weight ratio even lower. Mind you I’ve never liked the idea of single engine fighters having more than one person on board either so much as I like the Firefly that and its predecessor the Fulmar are out as serious contenders for a fighter.

I think the engine failure problems of the Henley were due to the ‘effort’ of target towing hence the speed reduction. There shouldn’t really have been any difference in engine reliability anyway as it was the same Merlin engine!

Interesting also the Blackburn Roc was mentioned as I think I remember that the crews that flew Blackburn Skuas on bombing sorties to Norway from Scotland were dismayed to see Henleys sitting idle on the airfield; the Henley being better in almost all respects (except dive bombing?) than the Skua!

If you read some of the earlier posts on here you would have seen the reasons explained. One reason above all others that makes me say it was the right decision is its history of engine failure. An engine failure over home soil is a minor annoyance, over enemy territory it could be fatal.

Welcome to the forum Tex.
Since Tex has reopened this old thread… in the book…. ‘What were they like to fly ?’ by S/L D H Clarke… he also asks the same question about the Henley.
He flew some of the obsolescent a/c for a while and his book includes an extremely low level combat with a German flying boat or seaplane in a Blackburn Roc,I dont know how many times Rocs were involved in combat but must be pretty rare.

cheers baz

Rocs were in the front line during the ‘Battle of Scapa Flow’ in late 1939, though their lack of range meant they probably never made contact with any German aircraft. They also operated with 800 and 801 Squadrons during the Norwegian campaign, again with range relegating them to fleet defence duties. Again, I believe they never made contact with any enemy aircraft, though I believe there were some attempts to pursue fleet shadowers.

It was a different story over the Dunkirk evacuations where 801 and 806 Squadrons were in the thick of the action, bombing enemy positions and patrolling over the beaches. It was during these operations that the Roc made its only air-to-air claim of a Junkers 88 destroyed. I’ve also been informed that a Roc that was used as a machine gun post at an airfield also shot down a German bomber during the Battle of Britain – allegedly the only time during the battle that an aircraft was shot down by another aircraft that had not taken off!

The Henley question is an interesting one. Given that it was rather faster and more manoeuvrable than the Battle it would probably had a better chance against German fighters but little difference against flak. It does seem ludicrous that there were 200 Henleys target-towing at the same time as the RAF was sending Hawker Hectors against heavily defended German positions.

Welcome to the forum Tex.
Since Tex has reopened this old thread… in the book…. ‘What were they like to fly ?’ by S/L D H Clarke… he also asks the same question about the Henley.
He flew some of the obsolescent a/c for a while and his book includes an extremely low level combat with a German flying boat or seaplane in a Blackburn Roc,I dont know how many times Rocs were involved in combat but must be pretty rare.

cheers baz

i save a lot of fairey battle parts and engins in the past

Whenever I read about the couragous but ultimately disasterous missions flown by Fairey Battles in the early stages of WWII,I often wonder what made the Air Ministry choose the type over the Hawker Henley. The Henley was quicker,carried a heavier bomb load and had a similar range,but despite these obvious advantages somebody somewhere decreed that the Fairey battle should be a front-line type and that the Henley was only good for target towing!
Can anyone shed any light on this seemingly crazy decision making?Am I missing part of the story somewhere?I just can’t believe that the AM/RAF would freely choose the Battle over the Henley…

hi -my name his tex lavallee and i was a big ww2 aviation collectors and museum founder an in quebec in the past,during many years i got the chance to put my hand and preserve many fairey battle items, so, if you want to be in touch with me here is my email [email]texlavallee@sympatico.ca[/email] i also have a new web site about aviation under the name of tex lavallee aviation collector and historian,you can find it on yahoo or google,your aviation freinds tex lavallee

The reference to the Fulmar is appropriate – the Fulmar was a development of a bomber prototype built to meet the same requirement as the Henley was (if you follow that). In other words, it’s appropriate to compare the Henley to the Fulmar rather than the Battle.

The Battle was built to an earlier requirement. At the time the proposal was issued, international disarmament conferences were still going on and one of the proposals was for an international treaty to limit the weight of bombers. The proposed weight restriction if adopted could have ruled out some of the bombers then being looked at such as the Hampden. The requirement which led to the Battle was in part an insurance against the limit being adopted – to ensure that if the international limit was agreed and proposals for heavier bombers had to be scrapped, the RAF would still have bombers of the largest weight permitted. Put another way, the Battle was never intended as a normal light bomber, which would have resulted in a smaller plane, but was really a “light-medium”

A couple of years later, a proposal for a true light bomber was issued. That led to the Henley and the prototype of what eventually was developed into the Fulmar. However, both Hawker and Fairey were busy and by the time prototypes had been built, it was decided that it wasn’t needed any more. If you think about it, that’s probably right, could the Henley have achieved much more than just sticking bombs under a Hurricane’s wings?

The Battle however was already in production and because the RAF needed to expand as quickly as possible and nothing else was then available, it continued to be built.

Paul

I suspect that the RAf was unenthusiastic about the Henley because (unlike the Battle) its dive-bombing role tied it pretty firmly to the support of army operations – anaethema to the Trenchard generation. It took several years for a generally reluctant RAF to relearn the lessons of army close support which it mastered in WW1.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Thanks for the info Geoff,what you say about the losses at places like Maastricht makes alot of sense. Thanks for clearing up the thing about the Henley’s engine failures too,I had an incling that the drogue towing was actually the cause of the high failure rates,rather than the other way around.
The idea of the Henley as a Fulmar alternative is an interesting one,although the Fulmar did have folding wings which would’ve made storage on the smaller carriers much easier. Just a thought…

The Henley and the Battle were designed under different criteria. The Battle as a light bomber (1000-lb bomb load) and the Henley as a dive bomber (500-lb bomb load). By the late 1930’s, the RAF had changed it’s mind over the necessity of a specialist dive-bomber, and the Henley – as good a performance as it had – was deemed “unnecessary for current requirements”.

The high rate of engine failures it suffered as a target-tug was as a direct consequence of having to tow around a large target drogue at a relative high speed of 270 mph. The fact that the Defiant – used in the same role – had a lesser rate of engine failure, had much to do with being equipped with later Merlin engines and a cleaner aerodynamic shape.

When considering the heavy losses suffered by the Fairey Battle over France, it should be remembered what circumstance and opposition they were facing. The Battles suffered most of their losses over the Albert Canal/Maastrict and the Meuse bridgeheads when attacking fixed positions heavily defended with AA guns and Messerschmits. Under these conditions when the Messerschmits had achieved local air superiority and the Allied bombers lacked sufficient fighter cover, not only were the Battles massacred, so were the Blenheims and the French Breguets. I suspect that the Henley may have faired better in general conditions, but when attacking the bridgeheads would have suffered just as heavy a loss percentage.

Remember that the Stuka, which was so effective in Poland and France, suffered very heavy losses over England when it operated without fighter superiority. Even the Typhoon squadrons had heavy losses when attacking German tank concentrations, and flying into the teeth of quick-firing 20mm and 37mm cannons.

I wonder how the Henley would have performed as a radar equipped night-fighter or as an alternative to the Fairey Fulmar.

Food for thought,
…geoff

Chaps

According to my reference, British Warplanes of WWII, by Daniel March,

“The prototype Henley first flew on 10.3.37, fitted with a Merlin “F” engine. Subsequently, it was provided with light alloy stressed skin wings and a Merlin I, and testing confirmed the overall excellence of the design. It was at this time that the Air Ministry decided it no longer had a requirement for a light bomber, and the Henley was ordered into production as a target tug, with 200 to be built under sub-contract by Gloster Aircraft.”

Subsequently, Henleys were found to be unsuited to this role as they suffered abnormally high rates of engine failure, unless the tow was conducted at unrealistically low speeds. The Henley was finally replaced by the Defiant from mid 1942 onwards.

The Air Ministry decision might have been influenced by the fact that the Battle was already about to become available, and its shortcomings were not recognised as early as 1937. It’s probably fair to say that, under the same operating conditions in France as the Battle experienced, the Henley’s engine problems could have shortened its operational life (and those of its crews, I suspect!) somewhat, if it had been used in its original intended role.

Regards

Wombat

Can anyone shed any light on this seemingly crazy decision making?Am I missing part of the story somewhere?I just can’t believe that the AM/RAF would freely choose the Battle over the Henley…

Timing is all. The RAF was desperate for “modern” equipment – the Battle was entering service in May 1937 while the Henley didn’t fly until March that year, Hawkers having been preoccupied with the Hurricane. By then it was already obvious that the type would be obsolete before it would be ready.

Maybe Hawker was deemed to be already blessed with the Hurricane? – Nermal

Maybe they should have gone for the twin-engined Fairey Battle.

Geoff.

That’s a great question. I’d like to know more about this too.