Hawker Siddeley Postwar CTOL projects

[Jemiba]

I can just attach the HS.136, although in AIR PICTORIAL 11/98, as well as
in Payne "Stuck on the drawing board" it is shown as some kind of "mini
Airbus A300", with wing mounted engines.

 

[hesham]

Thanks my dear Jemiba,

Hawker HS.132 was 164 passenger airliner project and HS.134 was
210 passenger airliner project.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Does anyone know the Hawker airborne early warning AEW project
HS.6166 which was powered by two turbofans ?.

 

[Hood]

I don't think HS.6166 is the correct designation.

NAST.6166 in 1962 for a joint RAF/RN AEW aircraft led to the Blackburn P.39. NAST 6166 was replaced by ASR.387 for a new AEW system for the RAF.

Hawker offered a design, an Avro Andover with FMICW randomes at nose and tail and powered by two RR Trents. I'm asuming these were the RB.207 Trent of the mid 1960s before RR had its troubles in the early 1970s. This is the design I think your referring to.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

What was that project for Hawker ?.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Reference from Flight please.... ;D

 

[hesham]

OK dear Overscan,

but no indication to the model;

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%200920.html

 

[lark]

The two engined jetliner should be the HS.136.

It was one of the many feederliner projects to emerge from the
Hatfield design office as a DC-3 replacement.
It was dropped in favour of the HS.144.

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear lark,

but what was the HS.144 ?.

 

[Jemiba]

It was a project for a twin engined feeder liner with two RR RB.203,
mounted at the tail.

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear Jemiba.

 

[hesham]

My dear Jemiba,

please,can you tell us if there was existed of anther two projects
for Hawker called HS.142 and HS.143 or not ?.

 

[Jemiba]

Yes, there were !
The HS.142 and 143 were short- and long range versions of the A300B,
although at the time they were drawn up, HS no longer belonged to
the Airbus consortium.
(Info from R.Payne "Stuck o the drawing board")

 

[hesham]

Hi,

does anyone know Hawker HS.135?,which was appeared here;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1969/1969%20-%202951.html?search=hawker%20HS.135%20aircraft

 

[hesham]

Thanks my dear Jemiba,

Hawker HS.132 was 164 passenger airliner project and HS.134 was
210 passenger airliner project.

the Hawker HS.134.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1979/1979%20-%202951.html?search=future%20aircraft%20project%201940

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Hawker HS.144.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1970/1970%20-%201922.html

 

[fightingirish]

The designation HS.136 might be wrong. ???


Source: Klassiker der Luftfahrt - March 2013, page 70

 

[CJGibson]

Looks like a HS.144 to me.

See attached, HS.136 on the left, HS.144 on the right.

Chris

 

[hesham]

Very nice drawings Chris.

 

[Stargazer]

From HS.136 original company brochure:

 

[hesham]

From Air Enthusiast,

the HS.132 and HS.134 Airliner Projects.

 

[zebedee]

From an HSA Civil Aircraft Range Brochure, 1967

Zeb

 

[zebedee]

From the BAe Hatfield Future Projects Newsletter No.23, March 1988

Unbuilt 1975 design from HSA Hatfield for the third stage of the Noise Shielded Demonstrator tests. The initial tests used first an HS125 and later the sole Miles Student fitted with a noise shielding device. The design utilised the nose of a Gnat with 2x JT15D-4 engines.

Apologies for the quality but the originals are quite low resolution photocopies...

Zeb

 

[TsrJoe]

waw nice find, reminds me somewhat of the CMC Leopard, esp in derived trainer proposal form (manufacturers display model, Midland Air Museum, Coventry)

 

[Mike Pryce]

Ian Chichester Miles was a project designer at Hatfield in the 1970s so it is likely he was involved. Other small biz jet proposals from that team look like the Leopard.

 

[hesham]

Nice find my dear Zebedee.

 

[djfawcett]

Reminds me of the Rud Aero RA-6

 

[zebedee]

Joe, Harrier, that was my first thought when I saw some this and some of the other projects in the stash. There's 20 copies in all so its going to take a while to scan and collate everything...

Zeb

 

[hesham]

From L+K 25/1966

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hesham, when making a new post please ensure your attachment presents additional information or a better / different drawing. Poor scans from L+K are only interesting where we don't already have the information or picture.

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Paul.

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1970,

the HS-144 could accommodated 50 to 60 passenger and 40 as I know.

 

[hesham]

From this book.

 

[a flower]

From this book.

Would someone mind explaining the the specific variants of the HS.136 mentioned here? I'm particularly confused as to which ones had engines under their wings and which ones had them at the rear of the fuselage, and the order of events in which they were developed/appeared

 

[hesham]

Would someone mind explaining the the specific variants of the HS.136 mentioned here? I'm particularly confused as to which ones had engines under their wings and which ones had them at the rear of the fuselage, and the order of events in which they were developed/appeared

From Stuck on the Drawing Board.

 

[VictorXL188]

Would someone mind explaining the the specific variants of the HS.136 mentioned here? I'm particularly confused as to which ones had engines under their wings and which ones had them at the rear of the fuselage, and the order of events in which they were developed/appeared

Unlike the previous reply, I will try and give you a more detailed answer. The first iteration of the HS.136 had straight wings and a T Tail with rear mounted engines. That was first conceived in May 1964. Engines were RB.172 and passenger capacity was between 36 and 40. July 1966 saw a revision with the capacity raised to 50. A more swept wing was introduced, together with new powerplants in the shape of the RR Trent, although still rear mounted at this time. In January 1967 a new revision saw the underwing engine arrangement, still keeping the Trent. Also the tailplane was moved to the lower position. However, with competing designs also coming from Manchester, the HS board decided that any efforts in this sector would be best served by joint efforts from the two teams. This led on 1968 to the HS.144.

 

[a flower]

Unlike the previous reply, I will try and give you a more detailed answer. The first iteration of the HS.136 had straight wings and a T Tail with rear mounted engines. That was first conceived in May 1964. Engines were RB.172 and passenger capacity was between 36 and 40. July 1966 saw a revision with the capacity raised to 50. A more swept wing was introduced, together with new powerplants in the shape of the RR Trent, although still rear mounted at this time. In January 1967 a new revision saw the underwing engine arrangement, still keeping the Trent. Also the tailplane was moved to the lower position. However, with competing designs also coming from Manchester, the HS board decided that any efforts in this sector would be best served by joint efforts from the two teams. This led on 1968 to the HS.144.

Thank you so much for answering my query!

On the point of later developments past the 1967 revision for the HS136 i.e. the HS136-100 and the HS136-200 (and eventually the HS144-100 and HS144-200), did they immediately return to the T-tail rear engine mount solution; or did the 'underwing engine with cruciform tail/fuselage mounted horizontal stabilisers(?)' layout persist for the former two iterations?

(Please pardon my confusion; I'm trying to understand if (based on the AEW illustration) there were changes in the tailplane arrangements after the 1967 revision before the HS144 consolidation)

 

[VictorXL188]

Looks like a HS.144 to me.

See attached, HS.136 on the left, HS.144 on the right.

Chris

This is the first iteration of the HS.136 with rear mounted Trent engines as released in January 1966. By July of the same year, the configuration had changed to the below wing engine installation as well as the low tail. The big difference between the rear engines 136 design and the 144 was the access door to the rear of the engines.

 

[VictorXL188]

Thank you so much for answering my query!

On the point of later developments past the 1967 revision for the HS136 i.e. the HS136-100 and the HS136-200 (and eventually the HS144-100 and HS144-200), did they immediately return to the T-tail rear engine mount solution; or did the 'underwing engine with cruciform tail/fuselage mounted horizontal stabilisers(?)' layout persist for the former two iterations?

(Please pardon my confusion; I'm trying to understand if (based on the AEW illustration) there were changes in the tailplane arrangements after the 1967 revision before the HS144 consolidation)

As far as my knowledge is, there was no -100 or -200 variants of the 136. The Ian Allen book seems to have got erroneous information as posted by Hesham above. These designations were purely used on the 144. The reasoning, again based on my knowledge, for the change back to rear mounted engines on the 144, was that this was the first joint venture of the two teams from Hatfield and Manchester
This had been brought about, due to the HS board realising the waste of resources of two teams competing (you wonder why this hadn't happened earlier!). The low wing engine installation was seen as having a high risk of ingestion, particularly as the type was looked to serve more remote locations. It also means a lower fuselage, thus reducing need for infrastructure like air stairs.

 

[CJGibson]

This is the first iteration of the HS.136 with rear mounted Trent engines as released in January 1966. By July of the same year, the configuration had changed to the below wing engine installation as well as the low tail. The big difference between the rear engines 136 design and the 144 was the access door to the rear of the engines.

Ah, right, I'll sort that out. Thanks for the info.

Chris.