Why Have We Heard of the Boulton-Paul Overstrand?

It was a very attractive aeroplane with that turret stuck on front. I wish I had made a model of it.
Mike

Why? Only twenty-eight were ever built, twenty-eight! What’s that, a single squadron, two? Were they ever used in action? They’re not exactly an attractive design, performance is, er…..don’t know…

…in fact, the only thing I really know is that they (apparently) had the first fully-enclosed turret?

Because it followed the Sidestrand into service of course!

John

..and the Consolidated Loan, the Short Circuit and the late 60’s Piper Athegatesofdawn.

Also the Miles Davis, the Bristol Fashion, the Curtiss Stigers and not forgetting the classic Ryan Giggs.

I’ll get my cloak.

That’s nothing Malcolm. I’ve heard of the Airspeed Indicator, the Fairey Godmother, the Boulton & Paul McCartney, the Blackburn Wanderer and the Martin Bowman.

😀

You forgot the Douglas Fairbanks and its development the Douglas Fairbanks Jnr.

Creaking Door: You are most kind.

Looks like I took my post a bit too seriously…

No need to apologise whatsoever…..certainly not for taking historic aviation ‘too seriously’ here!!!

Morning all,

Looks like I took my post a bit too seriously – sorry about that Creaking Door: too much Miles Merlot I fear. Indeed, why have we heard about the Overstrand? As you have suggested our awareness of it is far greater than its importance. No, I haven’t a clue either!

As for the Avro Alderhot, with two prototypes and 15 production aircraft, this large single engined, biplane heavy bomber had its first flight in 1922, entered service with 99 Squadron in 1924 and appears to have left service in 1925, being replaced by the Handley Page Hyderabad (38 aircraft), which lasted in front line service until 1930. (Source: Aircraft of the RAF since 1918 Owen Thetford 8th edition 1987)

Perhaps we should be grateful that Gloster wasn’t based in Norfolk and tempted to use local names. Mind you, I do feel that the Gloster Garboldisham would have had a certain ring to it, and as unpronounceable at the Happisburgh.

That’s nothing Malcolm. I’ve heard of the Airspeed Indicator, the Fairey Godmother, the Boulton & Paul McCartney, the Blackburn Wanderer and the Martin Bowman.

Well I’ve heard of the Fairey Hendon – so there!!! sucks to you.

I doubt if they could Reckless Rat, after all, no one in the MOD or RAF has ever been able to pronounce Neatishead properly.

Well, originally they were going to call it the Happisburgh, but no-one at the Air Ministry could pronounce it properly 😀

The Overstrand was massively hyped* in the mid-1930s, in the press and at air shows, as The Most Modern Bomber. It could out-manouevre contemporary fighters yet was as easy to fly as a Moth, they claimed**.

Then came those marvellous stall turns half rolls and loops and the
sickening stall for which the multitude of Overstrand fans had
been waiting..

It even demonstrated air-to-air refuelling at a Hendon show, I’m sure people were fainting with excitement at how the RAF were thrusting into the future with this fabulous machine.

I suspect that much of our literature has been influenced by that, particularly as authors who were exposed to the publicity as young pups. And then their successors noticed the column-inches that had been dedicated to the Overstrand and assumed it had been significant, so…

* though naturally they didn’t use that term back then
** In fact, much of the same stuff seems to have been regurgitated in the 1950s re: Vulcan, with similar effect on the public consciousness.

I get where you’re coming from with you initial point. I’ve heard of the Overstrand too, and for that matter, the Sidestrand….and I’ve no idea why! :confused:

Shame there wasn’t a Boulton Paul Mundesley…or Cromer…or Potter Heigham!

Regards;
Steve

Maybe just because it has such a stupid/memorable name?

You miss my point. I have absolutely no criticism of Boulton-Paul, the Overstrand, the Air Ministry or British aircraft manufacturing of the period in general…

…my question is why are only twenty-four completely unremarkable aircraft so (relative to their importance, relatively) well-known?

By the way, I have no idea what an AVRO Aldershot is.

It is very easy to question, or even denigrate, the decisions of the Air Ministry in the post-first and pre-second war period. I would suggest that, unlike today when we have few (and only one UK?) aircraft manufacturers, in that era there were many, each of which had much to bring to the table in terms of their innovation, concept and practical designs; this was a period of rapid and significant developments. With the benefit of hindsight we can look at such aeroplanes as the Avro Aldershot, Blackburn Botha, Boulton Paul Overstrand, Bristol Bombay, De Havilland Flamingo, Handley Page Heyford, Short Rangoon, Vickers Vernon and many other low volume production types and question the wisdom. What I believe it did was to keep a large number of manufacturers going in the hard times that prevailed and, by their innovation, the aircraft types that were developed in the immediate pre-WW2 period led to the successful types that came as a result of that conflict. It also meant that there were a large number of skilled people ready to meet the challenges that were presented by that wartime expansion. Alright, so only 24 Overstrands were built and they only equipped 2 squadrons (101 and 144, which latter had 4 aircraft). Don’t mock. The current, diminished RAF has, I don’t know, maybe, 7 squadrons of Typhoons, each of which has how many serviceable aeroplanes? Our government scrapped the only Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the inventory and left us with no MPA, or ELINT capability. Oh sorry, I forgot about the Sentry (5 airframes?) and one squadron, or is it now two each with two and a half aeroplanes? Sentinel (perhaps another 5). Just remind me how many aged Boeing 707 derivative airframes, with no traceable history, our political masters have acquired to equip a squadron with ELINT aircraft to replace the Nimrod airframes they has unceremoniously scrapped because of a claimed “non-traceable” history. You know what? Good old Boulton Paul. Without the Overstrand; no Defiant, no Balliol and, although the name Boulton Paul has disappeared from aircraft manufacture, without those links we wouldn’t be debating the benefits of the first enclosed turret bomber. And we might still have an aircraft industry to be proud of.

As the first aircraft with an enclosed turret, I’d have thought that was a good enough reason for having heard of it. The low numbers built was because the mid-war RAF didn’t have a lot of time/space/money for twin-engine bombers, making do with lots of cheaper Harts.

Uh? An aeroplane enthusiast complaining about having heard of an aeroplane?

Actually, I am extremely angry. I have heard of a Buckmaster! It should have been more obscure! Grrr! I’m going to burn all my volumes of Janes. That’ll show it!

Has everyone been drinking? If so, where’s mine?? 😀

In all seriousness, I would argue that the Overstrand and most of its inter-war stablemates aren’t well known enough. As far as I’m aware, Overstrands were never used in action, a fact which consigns many aircraft to the ‘forgotten’ pile.

How very dare you sir!? The Overstrand was the pinnacle of bespoke gentlemen’s flying provided by those good ol’ Nooorrrflk bouys Boulton Paul from Mousehold Heath, don u be sain naffn rong ’bout dem, Thems Norfolk n good!