It’s an argument with little foundation to it, the 150 ft wide C Type was already in design (1934, first examples built 1935) by the air Ministry specifically in anticipation for the larger aircraft still on the drawing boards, the aircraft themselves were not required to be kept, or even daily serviced, in hangars. Hangarage was mainly for repair and mods, with the major strip downs being conducted by MUs/CWPs on ASUs dedicated to the job, which had the 150′ sheds and were seen as more than adequate.
The 120ft A Type was older generation, I mentioned it as point thay were in existance at the time, but they were suitable at places like Upper Heyford, they were wide enough for 115′ spans.
If the aircraft would have had to be housed in a hangar with a shorter span than itself, the expediant way of dealing with it would be to put the aircraft on dollies and wheel them in sideways, as happened to Lincolns when the stations they were at only had the shorter span Bellman/T2 type hangars.
It’s nothing to do with ‘what people think’ in the time I’ve been looking into AM buildings (particularly of that era) I have never seen evidence that aircraft wing spans were ever specified to be of a certain width to fit into buildings.
Even the latter V Bombers were able to be serviced in the C Type sheds (and indeed narrowr B1 sheds) quite happily.
I can understand the AMs preference for 100′ spans in the reasoning in the other posts, but not building led.
If anyone can provide evidence that hangar sizes dictated aircraft design, I would be interested in seeing it.
Sign In
