The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

7 December 2001, 11:08 PM

Thanks Andy and Dan San,

I read in Windsock Datafile No 72 (Airco DH9) by JM Bruce that:
" the true BHP was produced in relatively small numbers by the Galloway Engineering Co.,its large scale production was in the hands of Siddeley-Deasy (...).Unfortunately in more than one official record these
two different and non-interchangeable engines were quoted as " 230-hp B.H.P." without differentiation.

It would seem therefore that it was just a matter of record keeping, the true output of the Galloway Adriatic and that of the Siddeley Puma being 230 and 200-hp respectively.I still can't understand however why,for example, Ray Sturtivant in *"The DH4/DH9 File" cites some production series powered by the 200-hp BHP (thus the Siddeley Puma) and others by the 230-hp Puma (thus the Galloway Adriatic), has he falled in the same confusion? (I can't believe that).

Thanks in advance

7 December 2001, 11:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
Kay Guest Posts: n/a	Thanks Andy and Dan San, I read in Windsock Datafile No 72 (Airco DH9) by JM Bruce that: " the true BHP was produced in relatively small numbers by the Galloway Engineering Co.,its large scale production was in the hands of Siddeley-Deasy (...).Unfortunately in more than one official record these two different and non-interchangeable engines were quoted as " 230-hp B.H.P." without differentiation. It would seem therefore that it was just a matter of record keeping, the true output of the Galloway Adriatic and that of the Siddeley Puma being 230 and 200-hp respectively.I still can't understand however why,for example, Ray Sturtivant in *"The DH4/DH9 File" cites some production series powered by the 200-hp BHP (thus the Siddeley Puma) and others by the 230-hp Puma (thus the Galloway Adriatic), has he falled in the same confusion? (I can't believe that). Thanks in advance