Talk:Handley Page Halifax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interesting Halifax Story

Our Incredible Escape

Halifax Heavy Bomber No. LW 337 F, known to us at 102 Squadron, Pocklington, Yorkshire as ‘Old Flo’, was similar to the Halifax Mk 2 Series 1a, shown above. She ended her ‘days’ on the night of 20 January 1944, after we had dropped our bombs (using H2S radar techniques) from 18000 ft. over the centre of Berlin. It was the most heavily defended German city, with huge ack-ack flak towers, and was surrounded by ack-ack batteries and nightfighter stations.

We were shot down by ace German nightfighter pilot Hptm L. Fellerer in a Messerschmitt Bf 110 G4. Using radar aids, he flew beneath ‘Old Flo’, out of sight, and with upward firing cannon, fired into our starboard wing fuel tanks. (Fellerer shot down five aircraft that night and had clocked up 41 victories by the end of the war. He was awarded the Knight’s Cross).

‘Old Flo’ caught fire from wing to wing, with over 1000 gallons of fuel still in her tanks. At 17000ft, she went into a spiral dive, and then blew up only hundreds of feet from the ground.

Of our crew of eight, four survived, all of us having had remarkable escapes, sustaining just a few cuts and sprains. Seconds before the spiral dive, navigator Reg Wilson and bomb-aimer Laurie Underwood, having kicked out the jammed escape hatch, baled out at 17 - 18000 ft. into the upcoming flak and tracer of Berlin. A minute or so later, the pilot George Griffiths and rear gunner John Bushell were blown out when Old Flo’ exploded - both were in free fall but sufficiently conscious to be able to open their parachutes fully, before they hit the ground.

The débris of ‘Old Flo’ fell onto waste ground near the river, at Oberspree, in Berlin. Laurie, George and John were lucky enough to be caught by the military, and Reg by the civil police, and thus we were not exposed to the potential wrath of the local civilian population! We all spent the rest of the war as POWs.

Of those killed, 2nd pilot K.Stanbridge and wireless operator E.Church, (who had helped to kick out the escape hatch, but who had had no time to bale out himself!) are buried in the Berlin 1939-45 War Cemetery. Mid-upper gunner C.Dupueis, (who, to no avail, had always carried a rabbit’s foot as a good luck charm) and flight engineer L.Bremner, are remembered on the RAF War Memorial at Runnymede, as they have no known graves.

102 Squadron had 15 aircraft involved in the Berlin raid that night, of which 7 were lost. It was the Squadron’s greatest single loss, of all the bombing raids it carried out in both World Wars.

Precise details about Hptm.L. Fellerer and ‘Old Flo’s’ crash site were obtained from German archive records.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.194.138 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

The above was added by 194.217.194.138. I don't know where it came from or it's copyright status, but it is interesting... -Lommer | ^talk 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be nice to have more information about the author. -Mmartins 1 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

Halifax salvage

A mostly-intact Halifax was salvaged from the bottom of Lake Mjosa in Norway in 1995. It is currently undergoing restorations and will be displayed in a museum at CFB Trenton. See the Halifax Restoration Project and Halifax Association for more details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.11.30.147 (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Location/date of maiden flight

I added a link to RAF Bicester as the location of the first flight, the Halifax is mentioned in the Bicester article but the dates disagree, perhaps a Halifax expert can help. I wonder why such a large aircraft was moved such a distance for its first flight, secrecy perhaps? Cheers Nimbus227 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't be sure, it was more likely because of too short a runway at the factory site. Many of the large aircraft manufacturers (HP, Avro, etc.) had built sites in the 1920's-30's in semi-built up areas to ensure a sufficient local workforce. As aircraft increased in size and weight the newer designs outgrew the available runway length, in addition to the encroachment of new housing in the area preventing the runways being extended. I believe the later Victor had to be moved by road and flown from elsewhere for its maiden flight because of this. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, Bicester is not very big although I think it was bigger around that time. Must have been a fair logistics exercise to transport it there. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Merlin Halifax?

Can anyone tell me how many Rolls-Royce Merlin powered Halifax aircraft were produced (even roughly)? A reference source would be great, could even be added to this article for clarity/readers enlightenment! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1857 according to http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hphalifax/tech.htm (on the presumption I can add up properly!) MilborneOne (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Marvellous, thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

546 Squadron

I have removed No. 546 Squadron RAF from the military operators section as I can find no reference to it on the web or in Lakes book Flying Units of the RAF, which was published at roughly the same time as the quoted source by the same author. Is there anyevidence of this Squadron actually existing? If so please cite it and replace the entry.!!Petebutt (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree that 546 does not appear to exist, I have also removed 547 sqn which did exist but didnt operate the Halifax! MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Last of the few.

Mr Jack Leeson of Coleshill Birmingham England, died on Saturday 4th July 2012 and is to be buried in the family's local church at Coleshill. He is the last of his crew to die. The previous was his Irish commerade who settled in Australia, who died three years ago. He was the Radio operator of a Halifax Bomber, and is believed to be the last remaining crew member of any operational Halifax. He had over twenty missions to his credit. God Bless and we will remain forever grateful. ( Quote from Prince Charles's Wreath placed at Normandy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.220.86 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean that Mr Leeson was the last remaining crew member who flew on operations in a Halifax? If so, that is not the case. My step-father was a Navigator in Halifaxes and is still alive. He flew on more than 30 missions. Mark126 19:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Operational Service?

The first thing under oprational service is:

The Halifax was originally intended to be used to bomb the Soviet Caucasus oil fields. The raids were to be carried out from Syrian and Lebanese territories. However, the first Halifax entered service with No. 35 Squadron RAF at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in November 1940, while Syria and Lebanon were already ruled by Vichy. Therefore its first operational raid was against Le Havre on the night of 11–12 March 1941

Why would the British plan to attack Soviet oil fields? In early 1941 Soviets were still neutral. This section is unreferenced and unless a reference is supplied it probably should be removed.

There was a plan for the RAF to attack the oilfields at Baku as the Soviets were supplying large quantities of oil to the Germans, who were reliant on the Russian oil for their war machine. The RAF went as far as to carry out reconnaissance flights over the area, organised by Sidney Cotton, but the plans came to naught. I don't think the British cared much about Russian 'neutrality', as the Soviets were de-facto allies of the Germans (the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) in many ways at that time, prior to the German invasion.

Update; the sortie over Baku was flown by Cotton on 30 March 1940 using his Lockheed 12A and using a camera with a 12" lens. The film is labelled XEA/002.

Operation PikeKeith-264 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

First photo

Erm, isn't this photo a bit squashed? Halifaxes were longer and thinner, surely?Keith-264 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the tricks caused by perspective and the camouflage paint, I'd say it looks right to me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some picture links above in the "Flawed...." section and the Halifaxes look skinnier in those....Keith-264 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the pic in its larger form, the change from the lighter brown/green camo on top to the black might trick the eye into thinking the join line is an edge and the lighter parts are the top surface and the black the side and as such it appears broader than in reality.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps but it still looks a little portly to me.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Images aplenty at the IWM, this appears to be the same aircraft at a different angle and looks longer, whereas this Mark II from beam on looks rather short.

It stll looks a little squashed to me. There are several versions here http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oG7kIiR5lQbR0AbhlXNyoA?p=halifax+Mk+III&fr=&fr2=piv-web and some make the aircraft look tubby and some a bit stretched. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Harverror notices

There are a lot of red harverror notices in the references so I amended one which got rid of the red. If anyone fancies joining in, the template is * {{cite book |title= |last= |first= | authorlink= |year= |publisher=|location=| edition= |isbn=}} .Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed up the remainder, all bar one: those linking to #CITEREFRoberts.2C_N.1975 The problem here is that there are two books by someone named Roberts, but neither is shown as 1975 - one is 1979, the other 1982.

Please note that the construct |ref={{harvid|surname|year}} is not normally necessary - it can be simplified to |ref=harv provided that the author's name has been correctly split into |lastn=|firstn= pairs. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Avro/Halifax

The article would be greatly improved with a section comparing the two. Can someone oblige? Spicemix (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison sections are discouraged, whole articles based on comparisons have been deleted, mostly because they have contained original research. Unless sources directly compare types and the statements can be cited then we are stuck. All I can suggest (and it's what I do sometimes) is open two windows for both articles and compare the 'specs' sections directly, there's no rule against that! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nimbus. I was thinking more of performance evaluations at the time, and archives of crew opinion etc. Production and development decisions must have been based on some such material, and the two planes must have had distinct reputations within the RAF. E.g. this blog [1] (not RS) says, "Compared to the Halifax 2, the Lancaster was so light on the controls and the pilot expended much less effort in going through the different stages of the corkscrew." And loss rates must be available: the Lancaster article compares loss rates with the Mosquito. Cheers! Spicemix (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources are probably out there, a different aircraft but Spitfire test flying reports (including testing against later marks and of course against the Bf109) are readily available and can be cited (and have been). Just a matter of time till someone finds the sources and enters them (must be careful as I've just been ticked off for 'stating the obvious'!!). I don't read much about these bombers but there must have been some kind of procurement/selection/competition process but I suspect it was more of a case of 'we want all these types and build them quick!'. Don't know so I will stop guessing! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also hope that any such entry would include the third four-engined heavy, the Stirling. This aircraft is overlooked in almost every such comparison. DiverScout (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we dont normally do comparisons as the extent of such comparison is only limited by the fan base. Any such comparisons should be in campaign or operators articles where they can be more specific. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is actually some good comparative info in the Stirling article.[2] Spicemix (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Halifax was an average aeroplane in its in initial Mk I and Mk II versions but became a good aeroplane in the Hercules-engined MK III and later. In contrast the Lancaster I/III was an excellent aeroplane right from the start. The Hercules-engined Lancaster II was however less well matched to the Hercules and so was not quite so well regarded. The early Halifax's were better than the Stirling although the latter was very manoeuvrable, it had a very limited service ceiling. Both were unable to carry the larger size of bombs that later became the norm, due to their compartmentalised bomb cells/bomb bays. The early Halifax's had certain vices - rudder stall - that proved dangerous under certain circumstances. The Halifax and Stirling were both better than the Manchester simply due to poor engine reliability on the latter, although that was solved with the switch to four Merlins. The Lancaster shared the Manchester's 33ft long bomb bay which could accommodate almost anything capable of being dropped from the air. From RAF Bomber Command's POV the best bomber was the one that could carry the heaviest load to Germany and bring its crew back alive. The Lancaster proved able to do this to a greater extent than the others, despite the heavy losses that later occurred, although that was a result of the very large numbers they were being sent out in. From the pilot's and crew's POV the best was again the Lancaster as it flew so well that few had a bad word to say about it.

The Halifax was a capable bomber for its day, but it was overshadowed by the Lancaster simply because the latter was so good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This rather shows why such content tends to not be included. Sources? PoV content. Rather brushes over the fact that the Lancaster was a rebrand for a later development type of the Manchester, and therefore not "an excellent airoplane right from the start". DiverScout (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

'Sources'? Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Arthur Harris, Air Officer Commanding RAF Bomber Command 1942-1945, in his memoir, Bomber Offensive, Collins 1947, pbk Pen & Sword 2005, p.103: 'The Lancaster was so far the best aircraft we had that I continually pressed for its production at the expense of other types; I was even willing to lose nearly a year's industrial production from the Halifax factories while these were being converted to produce Lancasters. I did not get my way in this, but by other means we succeeded in the later stages of the offensive in re-equipping many Halifax squadrons with Lancasters.' If you root around you'll find that Air Marshal Sir Wilfred Freeman, Air Member for Research and Development on the Air Council, spoke to the Halifax's (German) chief designer and eventually discovered why the Halifax was no good: the engine bearers were set too high to the wing and too short, so that the props and the wings interfered with each other's airflow and reduced each other's efficiency. However much power you put on the Halifax, it would always lame itself. It is in a book somewhere, but, frankly, for the sake of Wikipedia, which is a lost cause, it's not really worth looking it up again. -Hugo Barnacle 87.115.68.226 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That would possibly have been Gustav Lachmann. IIRC Handley Page did experiment with a redesigned Merlin nacelle with a lowered thrustline and a Halifax flew with them, however it did not enter production. IIRC, there are pictures of a Halifax with the new nacelles in 'Famous Bombers' by William Green, although my copy is from about 1976 and may have been revised in new editions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As regards the Stirling, the aeroplane was generally liked by pilots, although it had a limited ceiling that proved a distinct tactical disadvantage, it was very manoeuvrable for a heavy bomber, and once in the air flew well. On the ground however, it was ungainly and difficult to taxi until one learnt the ropes. The bomb compartments, fuselage and wing, were limited in size which restricted the carriage of bombs larger than IIRC 2,000lb, and as RAF BC was standardising on the 4,000lb Cookie, this was a serious drawback. Another was that a burst of fire aimed at the fuselage roundel usually put the tail hydraulics out of action which disabled the mid-upper and tail turrets. The Luftwaffe soon discovered this. In addition, the tall undercarriage was not particularly robust and required careful handling of the aircraft on take off and landing as it would likely collapse if ground looped. IIRC, like the Halifax, the pilot's throttle controls were connected to the engine carburettors by 'Exactor' hydraulic controls and this made precise throttle setting and engine synchronisation difficult, the Lancaster however used normal cable-operated throttles, and this was was much preferred by pilots and flight engineers.

Again, like the Halifax, the Stirling was an adequate bomber for the period, but again, like the Halifax, it was overshadowed by the Lancaster because the latter was, from just about everyone's POV, almost faultless. It (the Lancaster) had no vices, was easy to fly and handled well, could carry anything, and did just about everything that was asked of it without complaint. It even flew reasonably well when overloaded to 72,000lb, as it was when carrying a Grand Slam. The Lancaster original design MTOW was IIRC, 55,000lb, later increased for normal operations to 60,000lb, then 63,000lb, then 65,000lb, and finally 68,000lb. Empty weight was IIARC, 36,800lb.

I should perhaps point out that the numerous 'faults' I mentioned of the Halifax and Stirling were not unusual for aircraft of the time, most aircraft had aspects that were regarded as far from ideal, and in fact it was quite possible for any designer to design what turned out to be a 'lemon' that proved unsatisfactory, either operationally, or simply as a flying machine. These generally received well-deserved reputations for 'badness' and either didn't enter service or were withdrawn from use quickly if they did, although there were unfortunate exceptions. The Halifax and Stirling were quite adequate aircraft for the time, no worse than any other, and better than many. But the Lancaster was exceptional in that it was universally regarded as excellent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the Fortress and Liberator, these were not used by RAF BC as normal night bombers because they had too small a bomb load compared to the other British-designed 'heavies' for the same target, and required too large a crew so making them uneconomical in RAF eyes. A Fortress would carry a 4,000 lb load to Berlin, a Liberator 6,000 lb, and a Lancaster, 12,000 lb. The American bombers couldn't carry the larger of the standard RAF 'High Capacity' blockbuster bombs as the bomb bays were too small. The Fortress handled well and was liked by RAF pilots, the Liberator less so, both had external turbochargers that glowed red-hot at night and so required shielding of the turbochargers to make them less visible. Both also had the Sperry ball turret that was unusable at night as visibility was so poor from the tiny windows of the turret. The Liberator had the additional disadvantage of being fussy about longitudinal trim in the cruise, and invariably breaking its back if belly landed, writing off the aeroplane. It also caught fire very easily from enemy machine gun or cannon fire due IIRC to a wet wing.

The early Fortress I had marginal directional stability for bombing and insufficiently developed systems for high altitudes with freezing of components, causing fluid leaks upon descending to lower altitudes due to expansion/contraction of pipework and seals. It also had inadequate defensive armament, with no power-operated turrets and a noticeable blind spot to the rear with no covering defensive position, which was soon discovered by the Luftwaffe. The later Fortress II had a greatly enlarged fin curing the bombing stability problem and also had much better systems that were not affected by the low temperatures at high altitudes. It also had proper power-operated turrets and a tail gun position. The early Liberator I had no self-sealing fuel tanks and had low-rated supercharged engines and as such was not regarded by the RAF as usable in areas where it might meet enemy fighters. Neither the Fortress nor Liberator had power-operated turrets in the early versions first supplied to Britain and a four-gun Boulton Paul tail turret was fitted to some Liberators upon arrival. In both aircraft the navigator was located in the aircraft nose, and in the Liberator this was found to interfere with the operation of nose armament, necessitating an increase in nose and fuselage length ahead of the wing. RAF bombers had the navigator in a cubbyhole behind the pilot. This had the advantage of providing ample space for additional electronic navigation equipment such as Gee and H2S.

Both the Lancaster and the Halifax airframes were built from sub-assemblies and could be repaired easily, the Fortress and Liberator were not, and were therefore less easy to repair.

The two US aircraft had the advantage of being .5 in Browning-armed but the greater range and hitting power of the .5 over the .303 was limited in practice by the viewing distances at night, often the maximum range in which a night fighter was visible was well within the range of the .303. Generally one didn't open fire on a night fighter unless you were sure it had seen you, most experienced German night fighter pilots would seek easier prey if opened fire on, in which case, the .303 was quite adequate. All the guns on the British bombers were mounted in power-operated turrets, whilst some guns on the US ones were manually swung. This limits the number of guns in any one defensive position, as an average man isn't physically capable of swinging more than one gun due to the air resistance (drag) on the gun barrels at 200 mph and above. Both US aircraft had a higher operational ceiling than the RAF heavies, but for night use this was less useful as on some nights visible contrails would make the bombers visually obvious to night fighters from miles away. Both the Fortress and Liberator were slightly faster than the early Merlin-engined Halifax, and the Lancaster, although again this was not considered enough to be useful.

However, both the Fortress and Liberator were used by RAF BC to carry ECM jamming equipment operated by No. 100 Group RAF and Liberators were also used as bombers by the RAF in the Middle East for bombing Italy, and in the Far East being operated from India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Lancaster, the only problems that affected some early aircraft was a weakness in the wingtip attachments, which led to some aircraft losing their wingtips. This was soon fixed with modifications in the design. The only other drawbacks the Lancaster had was that the parachute escape for the pilot was such that comparatively few pilots got out if shot down, compared to Halifax and Stirling pilots. Interior access was also a bit awkward due to the main spars passing through the fuselage, which meant clambering over them when passing the wing, which often meant bumped heads when doing this in full flying kit in the dark.

The Lancaster flew well on three engines fully loaded, and would maintain height on two if some of the fuel had been used. Handling with engines out was still good, and was well within the capabilities of an average pilot, at night as well as by day. The Lancaster could also be thrown about when needed without any sort of nasty surprises, and it inspired confidence in a pilot almost from his/her - some ATA ferry pilots were women - first flight in one. It was a very easy and pleasant aircraft to fly under almost all conditions, and pilots and crew generally loved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.202.43 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Surviving Halifax

I'm adding a fourth Halifax to the surviving list because one is currently being recovered in the Hebrides Islands west of Ireland and is to be restored in Nanton, Alberta, Canada (close to where I live).....Infact I visited the museum today that is heading the project. The aircraft number is LW170. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MA79OZ (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone ever found any sources for what the IWN did with the parts of their Halifax front fuselage that are not displayed in London? (Hoping that there is evidence that they didn't scrap such an important item).DiverScout (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the IWMs PN323 - It was not much of a complete item when they received it so I doubt they have anymore items, or do you now something specific is missing. This is before it was scrapped https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/parkstreetparrot/6991226795/ MilborneOne (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Handley Page Halifax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101015023401/http://www.kentpublishing.ca:80/ to http://www.kentpublishing.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Handley Page Halifax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a good article. Lots of information, organization is good and the writing is crisp. I think the operational use section could certainly be expanded.M Van Houten 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Flawed" tail design

Text

The Halifax Mk I series had a serious flaw in the design of its tail units that caused it to go into a steep, uncontrollable spin if the aeroplane lost engine power from two engines on the same wing or it was flung about vigorously. This fault undoubtedly caused a number of fatal crashes.

This was half sourced, but no specific reference page was given. I have the Bingham book which details the pros and cons of asymmetric flight in the Halifax and he never mentions this so-called flaw. He does say the wing suffered from aileron snatch on low powered climbs but that this was controllable. He also mentions the loss of two engines required air speed to above 140 mph, but says nothing in his book about a flawed tail design causing uncontrollable spins. Furthmore, if this was such a failed system then why was the tail design kept the same throughout its operational life? Dapi89 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The writer was probably referring only to the original triangular fin design, which was later changed to the rectangular one seen on later Halifaxes. Under certain conditions and aircraft attitudes the triangular fin could stall, leading to rudder overbalance. This usually happened at night, and resulted in the aircraft entering an inverted spin from-which the pilot was unable to recover. The aircraft then spun inverted into the ground with, usually no survivors, as the centrifugal forces prevented anyone from making a parachute escape.

The problem was eventually traced to the triangular fin design, which under certain conditions and configurations, such as with an engine stopped, etc., could be made to stall. The convergent turbulent flow over the stalled fin then caused rudder overbalance, which suddenly and without warning threw the rudder hard-over to its extreme travel. This often broke the pilot's ankle, but even when it didn't the control load was-such that the pilot often wasn't physically strong enough to move the rudder back from the hard-over position. The aircraft then yawed and eventually became inverted, and entered a flat spin. As many of these accidents happened at night and on operations, it was difficult to solve at first, and it was actually some time before the high losses of Halifaxes was thought to be due to anything other than enemy action.

One of the problems in solving the accidents was that the fin stall only occurred under certain specific conditions, and unfortunately one of these was subsequently discovered to be when the aircraft was corkscrewing with one or two engines on one side out, i.e., stopped, a condition which was unlikely to occur except when the aircraft was actually flying on operations over Germany.

One of the test pilots involved in tracing this problem was Eric "Winkle" Brown.

These problems were exacerbated by the increasing weights that the aircraft was, by then, being operated at, and the addition of much external drag-producing equipment, (such as the bulbous initial Boulton Paul 'Hudson'-type dorsal turret) so that the early Merlin-powered Halifaxes had by then become somewhat underpowered. The aircraft was subsequently subjected to an aerodynamic 'cleaning up' which included the replacement of the original BP turret by one of the same manufacturer's later low-profile ones, which became standard. It was also found that head-on attacks very rarely happened at night, so the nose turret was first not-installed and the position faired over with what was known as a 'Z fairing', and later completely eliminated, replaced by the final glazed nose position. The replacement of the early Merlins by the Hercules of greater power also further improved the performance of the aircraft.

The accidents are reminiscent of the Boeing 737 accidents later, and although the physical problem that caused the rudder hard-over was different, the Halifax having horn-balanced (with part of the rudder leading edge surface being in front of the hinge line) manual controls, the 737 hydraulically powered ones, the result was the same, the aircraft becoming uncontrollable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.124 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that’s better clarification. I believe that’s a fair assessment. I think it was just small fin area that was the main problem - but can this be called a "flawed" design? It was limited by a small number of conditions and operations - if I'm right in recalling, the D type fin replaced it in c. winter 1942-43. As far as I am aware the pilots stated rudder control was superior to the Lancaster during normal flight manoeuvre. They did say that rudder control suffered at speeds less than 120mph (hardly surprising) but was effective at high speed. I must say, overbalance occurred during engine cutting at already low stall-speeds, not a sudden loss of power (speed at the point of starvation not being discussed by the text) in flight (again position/motion of the aircraft not discussed by text). I don't recall violent movement as a point of overbalance. I'll have to dig Bingham's book out again. You might consider getting your learned self an account. We could use you. Dapi89 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ps. I'd like to know where you got this information. Dapi89 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that it allowed the aircraft to enter a manoeuvre/attitude from which the pilot was unable to recover classes it as a serious flaw. Usually an aircraft should be able to get out of any manoeuvre the pilot may put it in, providing it has enough height and stays in one piece. Also, the 'corkscrew' became the standard manoeuvre used on operations for removing the bomber from the 60-degree search cone of the German night fighter's Lichtenstein radar, so it had implications that it might not have had in other circumstances. The Halifax was used mostly at night and with crews of varying flying ability flying almost entirely on instruments, and any 'trap for the unwary' was not a thing to be tolerated. It makes a big difference if you're flying at night, as it's possible to allow the aircraft to enter an attitude that, unless you're paying attention to your instruments, can get you into serious trouble if you don't notice it in time.

IIRC, the later Hercules-engined Halifaxes were quite nice aircraft, and some pilots preferred them to Lancasters.

I used to be into aviation, and the RAF and Bomber Command's night offensive was a particular interest of mine, so I read a lot of books, including some rather obscure ones that my local library were able to obtain for me. Most of the information I have is from memory, so that's why I don't usually add much to articles. One of the magazines I used to get was Aeroplane Monthly, which used to be an excellent source for aviation articles on older flying subjects, and the RAF in particular.

I do have an account but I stopped using it, mainly due to the effects of some of the more exasperating people on Wikipedia. It started to become a PITA, and more trouble than it was worth. Too many people seem to have emotional baggage about certain subjects, and, as Father Ted would say, 'I can't be arsed'.

The Halifax fin-stall information came from various books, the names of-which I've long forgotten. There's a bit about Eric "Winkle" Brown's work on investigating the problem in Lancaster - The Biography by Sq Ldr Tony Iveson & Brian Milton, in a chapter at the end of the book where the Lancaster is compared to the Halifax, although it doesn't include all the information I've added above. I can't remember where I read the other more detailed explanation, but it should be fairly accurate. Often it involves several sources and sometimes a bit of reading between the lines, and adding-two-and-two together. I generally only add this sort of stuff to talk pages so that other people might be encouraged to research the subject or topic more deeply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.1 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was unrecoverable, did Brown mention this? Having got hold of a borrowed version of Bingham (I lost my own), it seems that recovery, as with all spins/stalls/failures etc, is dependent on height. He says crews that were high enough could recover. Although no detailed analysis is given on the amount of height lost. But again, I think flaw is too strong. After all there were preventative measures; maintain air speed about 120mph and avoid excessive yaw at low speed. And we are basically talking about a problem that was effectively solved by increasing the area size of the stabilizers; by 50 percent. It is better to state the technical problem rather than use a single word that carries multiple implications. Dapi89 (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIR, the pilot's foot-load was too high for the rudder to be returned from the hard-over position, and the suddenness and force with-which this occurred sometime broke the pilots ankle. IIRC, in some of the accidents where the crew's bodies were recovered, some of the pilots inexplicably had a broken ankle. As I said earlier, I can't remember where I read this, it may be twenty years ago. Brown only mentions that he thought that the geometry of the Halifax, i.e., the spacing of the engines on the wing, was part of the reason for the difficulties in controlling the aircraft when corkscrewing and experiencing an engine failure, and that if the pilot didn't 'catch it' quickly enough, the aircraft could spin-in. He also states: They had another problem in the early Halifaxes. When you are corkscrewing you need a lot of rudder to control it, but the Halifax had rudder over-balance. That means you're pushing the rudder and as you push it the force gets heavier and heavier. Suddenly the rudder will go straight over, but it's locked there. This is very nasty indeed, and we had to modify the shapes of the rudders (sic).

You may be right, but if I remember the size of the fin wasn't the issue, it was the triangular shape, (with swept-back leading edges) which caused an angled, converging airflow over the fin that caused greatly increased turbulence that was responsible for the force that was applied to the rudder. When the fin stalled, and the rudder was past a certain position off-centre it 'snapped'-over violently. The later fin although larger was basically just the older-style one with the corners filled-in. This shape had a more normal airflow when stalled, solving the problem. As I mentioned before though, this is mostly from memory, so you may be better off leaving it until you can find some references of your own.

I don't mind what the wording is. Do whatever you think right to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.214 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I get the picture. If I find anything on airflow disruption caused by the narrow triangle-shaped fin I'll post it. Out of interest, the D type fin chosen was 44.05 sq ft, anf the rudder 28.65 sq ft. This is massively bigger than the stabilizer on the Mk I (Type A config.) which had a smaller fin of 28.95 but a larger rudder of 29.85 sq ft. Dapi89 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're probably right. Like I said, this is mostly from memory so I could be confusing things. If you're that interested then I should think the relevant RAE files may be available by now, so you could try finding them. If you can trace the titles and reference numbers then, if they're not available on-line, your local library should be able to get them for you if you're in the UK - back in about 1985 they got me a 1945 'Restricted' report into German rotary wing developments that came from the library at the RAE. Also Handley Page would have had documents and reports from the RAE so whoever holds HP's old archives may be able to help. I had a quick look at this site; [3], but it requires registration and a fee so I didn't bother, but it looks like it may be useful for the technical paper sort of research. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, despite all this, some pilots didn't have a problem with throwing early Halifaxes around - see here: [4]

A similar picture of the same Halifax taken from a different angle and without the 'erks' present; [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

An article on fin and rudder design; "Tail Unit Design" - with a paragraph on the effects of fin and rudder stall, in a 1941 Flight article here: [6] - page 1 of article here: [7] The relevance to the Halifax is in the reference to angles of yaw with partial engine failure; "Stalling of the fin may occur at about 15 deg. angle of yaw. This is a large angle of yaw but can occur with a multi-engined craft climbing very slowly at a steep angle at full take-off power if partial engine failure happens." It states that stalling of a vertical surface; " ... may be accompanied by reversal of rudder force".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As regards to whether a rudder overbalance was recoverable, it seems that as has previously been suggested, available height was the critical factor. Here is a link to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down report, which finally proved the fault, and recommended recovery action. This report ultimately led to the adoption of the D shaped fin and rudder. http://www.jp137.com/lts/dishax.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickblue (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A very interesting pdf. Thanks for the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.24 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of surviving Handley Page Halifaxes

insufficient content for separate article DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with only three examples it wouldnt take up much room here also note we dont normally list wrecks or big bits particularly if whole aircraft exist, so after we prune the big bits here and then add the three survivors it would probably be a smaller footprint. MilborneOne (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Handley Page Halifax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202101159/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/world_war_2/bomber_harris/ to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/world_war_2/bomber_harris/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007111957/http://www.yorkshireairmuseum.org/halifax-360vr-tours to http://www.yorkshireairmuseum.org/halifax-360vr-tours

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture

The Halifax appears in two Call of Duty video games.184.186.4.209 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Cookie myth

This article repeats the perennial myth of the Halifax's inability to carry bombs bigger than 2,000lb. Quoting from my copy of Merrick 1980, p.30 (emphasis mine):

Improved navigational aids were not the only new items introduced by Bomber Command during the early months of 1942, the 8,000lb high capacity (HC) bomb also made its initial appearance at this time. L9485 had been used for trials with this large type of bomb which was of such proportions that it could not be entirely contained within the fuselage bomb compartment. It projected below the fuselage for about one quarter of its depth and the bomb doors had to remain partly open. [...] The trials were carried out with both a single 8,000lb installation and a double 4,000lb combination. Despite the bulkiness of the loads the trials showed no measurable adverse effect upon the take-off performance and the general handling characteristics. [...] on 11 April the first 8,000lb bomb was dropped, on Essen, by R9487:A of No 76 Squadron.

This is further backed up on p.31 by a photograph of the double 4,000lb installation showing the partially open bomb doors nestled around the bombs.

Rapier 1987, p.64, broadly agrees:

This was not helped either by the fact that when carrying the maximum load of two 4,000lb MC[sic] bombs, the bomb doors had to be partly open.

Do any of the other sources contradict this? If not, I think the article needs changing accordingly. PT 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A Halifax standing empty weighed several tons more than a Lancaster. So it was load-sensitive and it didn't really like to carry bombs as well as fuel. Although some of its design faults could be corrected -- by fitting the later rectangular tail fins, taking off the front turret and putting horn balances on the ailerons -- the basic fault was too much trouble to fix: the engine bearers were too short and the props and wings interfered with each others' aerodynamic efficiency (as Handley Page's chief designer eventually admitted to Sir Wilfrid Freeman of the Air Council). You could, just, stick an 8,000 or a couple of 4,000s on a Halifax, but it couldn't go further than the Ruhr, the bomb doors wouldn't close and it flew very badly. It's not true that the handling was unaffected -- 76 Sqn discovered that overloading a Halifax produced lethal handling vices. The 4,000 and 8,000 armament was discontinued for Halifaxes after a short experimental period. And see Martin Middlebrook, The Berlin Raids, 1988, p.33, on the opening raid of the Battle of Berlin on 23-24 August 1943: 'The Lancasters of 5 Group carried the greatest total load, 495 tons or 3.95 tons per aircraft; but the Lancasters of 1 Group carried the largest load per aircraft, 4.17 tons... The average Halifax could carry only 1.52 tons of bombs to Berlin and the average Stirling only 1.43 tons, which demonstrated why Harris was begging for every Lancaster he could get.' Again, the Halifax didn't like to carry bombs as well as fuel. A 1.5-ton load at Berlin range (this was before the Mk III, but the Mk III wasn't much better) was lamentable, and Halifax loads tended to be all-incendiary at that time, because SBC cans of incendiaries would fill up the space in the bomb bay without actually weighing too much. And Halifax loss rates, due to poor ceiling and manoeuvrability, were drastically worse than the Lancaster's -- they only improved later on when Halifaxes were relegated to easier targets, and even in Operation Goodwood over the Normandy battlefield on 18 July 1944 the Halifaxes took most of the losses because you just couldn't weave the thing when you ran into flak, and even at that short range the Halifaxes, 'improved' Mk IIIs by then, had to carry far smaller loads than the Lancasters. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute most of that -- indeed the Halifax's performance was inferior to the Lanc, and its total load at a given range was smaller. But the article lede speaks of the Halifax's "inability to carry larger individual bombs such as the 4,000 pound "Cookie" blast bomb", while the Operational Service section says "Unlike the Lancaster, the Halifax's bomb bay could not be adapted to carry the 4,000 pound "Cookie" blast bomb, which was an integral part of Harris's fire-bombing tactics". I think it is clear that these statements are incorrect, so I shall be bold and remove them. PT 22:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

100ft wingspan limit under improvements?

In context of the whole chapter in Bingham, the ref to 100ft limit on p17 seems to be to HP.55 to the B1.35 heavy bomber spec (p4) and not the upscaling of the P.13/36 twin-engined medium to a four engine wing. For further context, the 100ft span limit in B.1/35 is to force a limit on the overall aircraft weight. (see for instance Buttler British Secret Projects Fighters and bombers) GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

But HP still stuck with a wing under 100ft for the Halifax (as did Shorts with the Stirling) until the MKIII, whereas Avro ignored it and got away with it !--JustinSmith (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Shorts were delivering to B.12/36 spec (pardon error above). I've not seen (though absence of evidence and all that) any mention of a similar limit on the P.13/36 for two-engined designs or after the redesigns to four engines. - they were expected to be similar overall weight to the Warwick (96ft span) but smaller. More likely that the length they chose was related to structural considerations and calculations than the Air Ministry's previous concerns about airframe size and weight. The Manchester's span was increased from 80 to 90ft after the prototype flew. Buttler says that any four engine wing had to go past RAE strength testing and the weight of the wing went up requiring other structural changes (in the redesign the wing went from 88 to 99 ft and overall weight from 17.7 t to 23.6 t). The 4-engine development of the Manchester was just going to get a wing stretched to 100ft but the Ministry said it wanted an operating weight of 25 t which led to a full redesign of the wing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)