Boulton Paul P.64 "Mail-Carrier"

[Stargazer]

I have two three-view plans for this little-known aircraft.

Unfortunately I don't have a photo for it, and the two plans are remarkably dissimilar. Indeed, it's almost as if we're in the presence of two different aircraft!

Can someone shed some light on the P.64 program, and let us know which of these two plans is closer to the real item? Thanks in advance.

 

[hesham]

The second is right.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks, hesham. The Boulton Paul book is one of the few Putnams that I really want but haven't gotten a chance to get my hands on...

Now that I see what the P.64 really looked like, it makes me wonder: What about the plan published in that 1932 magazine? Surely they didn't make it up (especially considering it was not primarily an aviation publication, and therefore presumably relied on outside material). Also it has the feel of the plans that used to be published in The Aeroplane, for instance.

Could this be an earlier configuration that was studied by Boulton Paul but discarded?

 

[Schneiderman]

The upper 3-view is the same as that included in BP's original tender document, which is undated but probably from May 1931 when drawings of a float-mounted version were produced. Lateral control was a problem with this aircraft, as mentioned in the Putnam volume, and the tail surfaces were all redesigned. I wonder whether this occurred prior to the first flight or after the early landing accident which wrecked the rear of the aircraft? Hopefully someone will have photos taken when it was first completed. Later small auxiliary fixed fins were added outboard on the tailplane.
In late 1933 a model of the aircraft was tested in the wind tunnel at the RAE in Farnborough. This was a step on the road to the P71A feederliner as it has triple rudders and slight sweep on the outer mainplanes, but differs in detail.

 

[Stargazer]

The upper 3-view is the same as that included in BP's original tender document, which is undated but probably from May 1931 when drawings of a float-mounted version were produced. Lateral control was a problem with this aircraft, as mentioned in the Putnam volume, and the tail surfaces were all redesigned. I wonder whether this occurred prior to the first flight or after the early landing accident which wrecked the rear of the aircraft? Hopefully someone will have photos taken when it was first completed. Later small auxiliary fixed fins were added outboard on the tailplane.
In late 1933 a model of the aircraft was tested in the wind tunnel at the RAE in Farnborough. This was a step on the road to the P71A feederliner as it has triple rudders and slight sweep on the outer mainplanes, but differs in detail.

Thanks, Schneiderman. When it comes to an authoritative and knowledgeable opinion on a British type I know we can always count on you!! Now let's hope these early photos of the P.64 do exist in someone's collection...

 

[riggerrob]

Those tail fins look like they were built by an outside contractor.

 

[Schneiderman]

Yes, it is rather strange. The tailplane is quite unlike that on any other B&P biplane and they reverted to their favoured straight-cut design for the passenger carrier derivative, the BP71A