• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Armstrong Whitworth AW.166 high-speed research aircraft

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,276
Reaction score
3,187
Hi,

here is the AW.166 high-speed research aircraft project,
it was a twin engined jet aircraft led to develope the
AW.169 with four engined.
 

Attachments

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
580
Reaction score
142
This Meteor-like layout was RAE's 1953 perception of stainless steel optimum for M3 cruise, funded 1955 as Avro 730 recce/later bomber. 1954 proof-of-concept funding was released, won by Bristol as T.188. AW.166 came second, but AWA/HSAL/HDA's manufacturing capability was esteemed, so Bristol was required to sub-contract wing fabrication to AWA, who were also to take a fabrication share of 730. Its 1957 cancellation caused UK industry to lose any yen for the residual research task, which drifted to first flight 14/4/62, and grounding, 12/1/64 (having reached, oddly, M.1.88). The value of the whole exercise was to cause UK to stick at M2.2 for its SST.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
640
Curious, what is the engine for this RAE study?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,261
Reaction score
2,949
zen said:
Curious, what is the engine for this RAE study?
2 x 4/9th scaled RB.106 turbojets with integral reheat. The single seat swept wing study, essentially a P1A, used a single RB.106 with long reheat (i.e mid mounted engine, jet pipe, then reheat in tail).
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
738
RB.106 again!

I was musing recently and wondered how awesome a English Electric P.8 would be with a pair of RB.106s and a Napier triple scorpion rocket!
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,688
Reaction score
1,817
sealordlawrence said:
RB.106 again!

I was musing recently and wondered how awesome a Lighting P.8 would be with a pair of RB.106s and a Napier triple scorpion rocket!
Have mercy on the poor maintainers, would you? ;D
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
640
2 x 4/9th scaled RB.106 turbojets with integral reheat.
Once again the answer raises its head. Its these scaled RB.106 types that resolve the issues they faced IMO, by focusing the latest technology on producing engines of similar thrust to the Avon but at smaller sizes and weights.

So we see EE's P.6D with 2/3 scale RB.106s (late '53), and Bristol's T.188 with similar (again late '53).

Consider the effect of such engines on the Lightning, Scimitar, Sea Vixen and even the Hunter. Smaller size means more volume free for fuel, more cross section tradable for area ruling, and more space to get at the engine for maintenence. It also makes it far easier to design a new twin engined fighter for either the RN or the RAF.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
738
I am not even sure how much scaling would have been required, remember that the RB.106 was meant to be the same size as an Avon, just lighter and with higher thrust. And think it could have been used in multiple platforms to produce very high quality aircraft, I mentioned the English Electric P.8 earlier but the SR.177 also comes to mind as does the P.1121 for the scaled up RB.122 intended for the Fairey Delta III. I maintain that the cancellation of the RB.106 was a genuinely aweful decision.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
640
I think the 2/3 power version is appropriate at 10,000lb static thrust and from the P.6D a reheat chamber diameter of no more than 33 inches.

This RAE design could do with looking at a canard variant for comparison. I have a nasty feeling their figures for military load are a bit off at 2,400lb.
The whole thing is rather long at 82ft, seems a bit excessive.
 
Top