- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,633
The third aircraft in the trio of projects axed in 1965 the AW681 transport is usually seen as a "no-brainer" cancellation since the C130 Hercules became such an essential part of the RAF inventory.
But with some tweaks to the design (losing the vectored thrust) it could have given the RAF a decent jet airlifter and might even have persuaded others to buy it. Japan made the outwardly similar but smaller Kawasaki C1 work.
The RAF took much longer than the USAF or some European air forces to equip Transport Command.
In 1960 its line up of Hastings, Beverley, Argosy, Britannia and Comet aircraft was in clear need of replacing.
Both the Transall C160 and the C13O were rejected because the RAF needed shorter take offs and landings and faster transit times.
Meanwhile the long gestation for a UK equivalent of the US Cargomaster and Globemaster transports had yielded not a C141 but the Belfast. To its credit the Belfast could take bulkier loads but it was a slow old bird.
Most successful of the new types adopted in the 60s was the VC10. Arguably more of these should have been ordered and built.
The Argosy was another British anachronism entering service after the Fairchild Packet and the Nord Noratlas. It joins a list of "why did we buy it" projects.
The RAF was also responsible for providing the Army with helicopter lift.
Instead of the Piasecki Banana adopted by other European countries the UK built the Bristol later Westland Belvedere.
Good use was made of Sikorsky licences to produce the Whirlwind and Wessex. The Mohave nearly followed but by then the Chinook was being looked at by both the RN and RAF.
The Chinook took decades to make it into RAF service, getting cancelled twice! Like the C130 it became a key RAF type.
I have to admit that the US types seem better value than the UK homegrown stuff, except the VC10 and the Andover. But as with my other threads I welcome other views and information.
But with some tweaks to the design (losing the vectored thrust) it could have given the RAF a decent jet airlifter and might even have persuaded others to buy it. Japan made the outwardly similar but smaller Kawasaki C1 work.
The RAF took much longer than the USAF or some European air forces to equip Transport Command.
In 1960 its line up of Hastings, Beverley, Argosy, Britannia and Comet aircraft was in clear need of replacing.
Both the Transall C160 and the C13O were rejected because the RAF needed shorter take offs and landings and faster transit times.
Meanwhile the long gestation for a UK equivalent of the US Cargomaster and Globemaster transports had yielded not a C141 but the Belfast. To its credit the Belfast could take bulkier loads but it was a slow old bird.
Most successful of the new types adopted in the 60s was the VC10. Arguably more of these should have been ordered and built.
The Argosy was another British anachronism entering service after the Fairchild Packet and the Nord Noratlas. It joins a list of "why did we buy it" projects.
The RAF was also responsible for providing the Army with helicopter lift.
Instead of the Piasecki Banana adopted by other European countries the UK built the Bristol later Westland Belvedere.
Good use was made of Sikorsky licences to produce the Whirlwind and Wessex. The Mohave nearly followed but by then the Chinook was being looked at by both the RN and RAF.
The Chinook took decades to make it into RAF service, getting cancelled twice! Like the C130 it became a key RAF type.
I have to admit that the US types seem better value than the UK homegrown stuff, except the VC10 and the Andover. But as with my other threads I welcome other views and information.
