Talk:De Havilland Hornet/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The Hornet was somewhat unusual in that it had propellors that rotated in opposite directions, the engines being of different marks to achieve this. The Merlin marks involved were the PR131 and PR132.

I don't think that this was unusual. Even the P-38 Lightning had "handed" engines.

Unusual for the UK more perhaps? Did the many twin and four engined bombers have handed engines? How many more twin engined fighters were there - and did they contra-rotate? GraemeLeggett 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

From memory, I can't think of any other UK piston-twin that had 'handed' engines. The only contempory of the Hornet I can think of ATM, the Short Sturgeon, had contra-props. The text was originally in the article and I think it was me who placed it here - that's probably why!. Ian Dunster 22:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just found a reference to a UK aircraft with 'handed' engines and that was the protoype Westland Whirlwind, L6844. Ian Dunster 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Infobox

I think this article needs an article infobox. I'd really appreciate it if someone does it because I am not sure on how to do it. JJ 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Most of the changes I have made are fairly minor but the one concerning the caption of the first photograph probably deserves some explanation. The caption is: "Note: both propellers are feathered and the engines are stopped". I have deleted the second part because it would be unlikely to have "both engines stopped". In addition, the caption was similarly edited some time ago; the original description of the picture only mentions the props being feathered, there is nothing about the engines being stopped. RASAM (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Hornet pictured HAS both engines stopped. This was a 'party trick' of the Hornet, which was so aerodynamically 'clean' that it could perform aerobatics gliding with both engines stopped and the propellers feathered. The Royal Navy had a display team composed of Sea Hornets for a while and they did an aerobatic routine where some of the aircraft doing the aerobatics had one engine stopped, i.e., were flying on one engine, while a single aircraft flew the same routine with both engines stopped, i.e, gliding. I'll re-instate the description as it was in fact, correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.30 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Sea Hornet formation with various feathered propeller combinations here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Three Sea Hornets each flying with port engine stopped and propeller feathered, here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Highball

What is Highball doing in the specifications section? As the note itself says, it was never a stndard or normal weapons fit, but at the most was a trials fit on one particular individual aircraft which was probably never used. In addition, the specifications are for a particular model of aircraft the F.3 - not the Sea Hornet which had different specifications. Use of Highball at most is worthy of a brief note in the article text, but including it in the specifications is grossly misleading.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So reword it or relocate it, but I think removing it entirely is unwarranted.

Hornet didn't use Highball because there was no Highball - the weapon was removed from service, in favour of rockets. Yet for as long as there was still a Highball, there was a development project to fit it to Hornet as a replacement for the Mosquito. As part of the Hornet's history, this is still relevant (and it is cited from a decent source, which is our benchmark for topics being notable). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if the Highball, a purely experimental weapon which was possibly never dropped by a Hornet, is described in specs why not describe every experimental weapon used by every aircraft type; eg: Tempest V 47mm guns, experimental weapons used by Lancaster? Specs are for Hornet F.3 NOT the Sea Hornet. If you're going to describe experimental weapons what's wrong with incorporating info into the main text instead, of the specifications, which are intended to describe a typical example of the type. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 09:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As noted, I'm all in favour of re-wording this much as you describe. However it does seem that Highball was a part of the Hornet's career, so we ought to cover it. Highball was no longer "experimental" either, it was in service from 1943 and could have been chosen for use against the German capital ships. The fact that it wasn't is mostly because it was considered to be more useful for the Axis against RN ships, so keeping its secrecy was more important than its relatively small tactical advantage. Also the other attacks on Tirpitz finally did the deed without needing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Highball dropped from Sea Mosquitoes was planned to be used in attacks against ships in Tokyo Bay shortly before Operation Downfall but the dropping of the two atomic bombs ended the war making 'Downfall' and the Highball operation unnecessary. I don't recall where I read this, it may have been in an old issue of Flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Prop rotation

"Initially, the propellers were "handed" to rotate inboard, rising towards the fuselage, but this was found to reduce the effectiveness of the rudder so propellers rotating outboard were used instead."

This is unclear at best. We all agree that on most (all?) Hornets the tops of the props moved toward the aircraft centerline, and maybe that's what it's trying to say, but the "inboard" and "outboard" confuse things.

Did any Hornet really operate the other way? Why would DH have tried that layout first? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The pic of a prototype Hornet in the Putnam shows unhanded props-- both had the usual Merlin rotation, clockwise viewed from the rear. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarified (hopefully) and references added. I don't know the photo to which you refer because photos I have seen, including this one, show the handed propellers quite clearly. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 11:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everyone agrees most Hornets had props whose blades moved toward the fuselage at the top of their arcs. Question is, did any Hornet (including the prototypes) do the opposite, as the article claimed? Tim Zukas (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Now the article has it backwards-- production Hornets actually had the conventional-rotation Merlin 130 on the port wing. Flight for 24 January 1946 does say they tried the other way first-- doesn't say on what. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps RR919 had 130s on both sides because they broke a 131 and had no spare so used a 130. AMCKen (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that RR may have supplied two Merlin 130s to de Havilland for the prototype Hornet because they hadn't actually built any 131s at the time. For initial flight testing purposes the same-handed rotation of two 130s would not have mattered too much.

BTW, 1946 Flight article on the Hornet here: [3] .... and article on Merlin 130-series engine in same issue here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

An August 1944 de Havilland report on the prototype Hornet's performance with a measured maximum speed of 490mph here: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

first flight was 28 july 1944

https://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/about-us/de-havilland-history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 13:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)