o400

16 photos tagged o400, from 3 members of Flickr Commons.

When were these photos taken?

7
1916
2014

 

Where were these photos tagged?

43% of these photos are geotagged.

Tags that often appear on the same photos:

Members using this tag

Photos

Photos tagged o400:

Loading photos…

See more on flickr.com →

Recent uploads

The last upload was July 2014.

Conversations

Here’s a selection of the conversations happening on these photos:

Louis E. ""Slim"" Gordon Special Collection Photo

from SDASM Archives

  • Kees Kort said:
    The picture shows the tail and the end of the fuselage of a Handley Page O/400 twin-engined bomber dating from WW1. Just behind the back of woman can be seen the text 'LIFT HERE'. Personnel had to grip the machine there to man handle it. Typical biplane tail, with three rudders. Complex, kite like construction. A hundred of these Handley Page O/400 bombers were ordered by the US forces (serials 62445 - 62944) by Standard who built them under license, but actually 62445 - 62451 were built. Obviously we are looking at 62449.
  • Stig Jarlevik said:
    Very good ID Kees!! Thanks Stig

Carter Buton Album Loan_00100

from SDASM Archives

  • 6 older comments, and then…
  • Cautious Company said:
    Beautiful image of a Handley-Page re-born as civil transport, thanks!
  • mambo1935 said:
    grace!
  • Stig Jarlevik said:
    This is the O/400 G-EAAF which was sent to USA in May 1920. Still flying in 1923 and extant as static display in 1925. Stig
  • pastoh said:
    What's the plane hiding under her wing?
  • Idakoos Store said:
    Nice photo. I love these ancient airplanes

One of her propellers

from National Library of Scotland

  • Colin Howell said:
    The Handley Page O/400 had two Rolls-Royce engines, not four. The four-engine Handley Page was the V/1500, an even more gigantic aircraft. (Incidentally, in the type designation O/400, the character before the slash is a capital letter O. Handley Page used letters to designate its early types, and the O/400 was a version of the Type O. It's extremely common for sources to use a zero instead, but still incorrect.)