Armstrong Whitworth AW.169: F155T contender

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AW.169 model from Midland Air Museum.

Details from brochure to follow later.

 

[zen]

One of the few F155T tenders that struck me as navalisable in theory, and a potential Canberra replacement. Its chief issue as I see it is the limited armament.

As I understand it, a "33 inch dish for an x-band radar" is quoted, but oddly this does not name the AI.18.....was there something else perhaps they had in mind? Range however is still 20nm for detection.

Also a Q-band ranging radar for use when the target produces a lot of ECM, mounted in on of the nacelle inlet cones.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It wasn't that far away from their Buccaneer design, AW.168.

The AW 169 had a miniaturised X Band AI Mk 18 derivative radar from GEC, with 33" antenna (radome had room for a 40" swept sphere volume). The Q band ranging radar was fitted in the starboard intake centrebody. Other equipment included X band, L band and S band "F.I.S. Mk 4" receivers (appears to be some kind of passive radar homing / RWR?) and Mark 10 IFF. Radar, FIS and IFF all displayed on the navigator's CRT display.

Span: 45 ft 4 in excluding weapons
Length: 84 ft 0 in excluding probe
Height: 16 ft 10.5 in
Wing area: 680 sq ft
Engines: 4 PS.53 Gyron Juniors & 1 Armstrong Siddeley rocket.
Fuel: 11,600lb kerosene, 4,500lb HTP
Gross Weight: 54,000lb with IR weapons, 53520lb with radar weapons [this must be accidently reversed]

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Wind tunnel model of wing and engine pod.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More shots of the model from Midland Air Museum. Big thanks to Barry James for giving me access to it for closeup shots.

 

[zen]

Other equipment included X band, L band and S band "F.I.S. Mk 4" receivers (appears to be some kind of passive radar homing / RWR?)

I think those might be the same Wide Band Homers as used on the Buccaneer and SeaVixen....odd to think their displayed on the same CRT as the radar though, as on both Bucc and SV its seperate smaller CRT unit.
Likely its to assist interception on a bomber by homing onto its radar emissions, that covers X-band, and the others might be to avoid SAMs radars on warships or overland?

Now Tony Butler makes reference to AWA considering an "unstable aircraft concept" for this type, which is to my knowledge the first reference I've seen to artificialy stabilised aircraft. Quite how they intended to do however is a good question for that time.

 

[BAROBA]

Whats the story on the cockpit(s)?
Why are the lay-outed like that?

 

[Thorvic]

Whats the story on the cockpit(s)?
Why are the lay-outed like that?

The pilot has a clear view of the for take off, landing and flight, whilst the Navigator is in a darkened room to see the radar and watch the instruments for plotting course and intercepts. The dark room meantt he wasnt trying to fight the glare of the daylight on what were small radar scopes at the time. The Sea Vixen and Canberra aircraft were similar and of the same era.

G

 

[Rickshaw]

That cockpit arrangement always struck me as unusual. Only the poms ever adopted it. All other designers put their radar ops in the same cockpit as the pilot. What struck me as unusual in this one was the strengthening around the radar ops' cockpit. Does anybody know why that was necessary?

 

[Thorvic]

That cockpit arrangement always struck me as unusual. Only the poms ever adopted it. All other designers put their radar ops in the same cockpit as the pilot. What struck me as unusual in this one was the strengthening around the radar ops' cockpit. Does anybody know why that was necessary?

Do you mean the hatch above his position ?, if so than its its similar to the Sea Vixen FAW2 in being raised to allow easier ejection AFAIK, think there was some issue with the panel not blowing away cleanly when during ejection (plus it give the navs a bit more headroom in a rather cramped cockpit.

Well these were intended as all weather missile interceptors using radar and missile to target enemy bombers, dont forget we had alot of night fighting experience during the war on the defensive side. The darkened coal hole meant the aircraft was advertising itself by light polution allowing the nav to plot and intercept course with use of radar scope and instruments and charts, where as US type the op would be head down on the radar scope trying to work out the intercept.

G

 

[Trident]

Still, a conventional tandem seat arrangement with no windows for the GIB would seem more straightforward. What does the coal hole offer that this solution cannot provide, apart from making the aircraft look hideous

 

[RP1]

My tuppence on the cockpit arrangement:

1. Which came first, the fuselage width or the cockpit arrangement? If the fuzz is wide enough for side by side seating anyway...

2. It may just be that the RAF got used to operating NF Mosquitoes with this arrangement and stuck with it - many people involved with the design of fighting aircraft at this time would have been intimately involved in 2WW, and one should never underestimate the attraction of the devil you know...

RP1

 

[Petrus]

As for the Sea Vixen's crew seating arrangement, the radar operator i.e. the observer was seated at a darkened compartment because the radar had TWO scopes, one for azimouth and the other for elevation. So he must have look at them both simultaniously, not interfered with any light coming from outside.
US radars of that time used one scope only, so the radar operator (or pilot) could look there with head down.

Best regards,
Piotr

 

[Weaver]

Still, a conventional tandem seat arrangement with no windows for the GIB would seem more straightforward. What does the coal hole offer that this solution cannot provide, apart from making the aircraft look hideous

Small point, but in the Sea Vixen, the pilot and Nav can talk to each other without using intercom.

 

[Thorvic]

Still, a conventional tandem seat arrangement with no windows for the GIB would seem more straightforward. What does the coal hole offer that this solution cannot provide, apart from making the aircraft look hideous

Small point, but in the Sea Vixen, the pilot and Nav can talk to each other without using intercom.

And pass over the flask of Hot Chocolate and butties ;D

Odd how some find issue with the Night fighter style side by side arrangement but not the Strike Aircraft like the Intruder, F-111 and Su-24, both groups are intended to operate by instruments rather than line of sight in adverse conditions..

G

 

[Triton]

Model of Armstrong Whitworth AW.169.

Source: http://prototypes.free.fr/fd2/fd2-3.htm

Model of Armstrong Whitworth AW.169.
Source: http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Cancel/UK-AW.htm

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Armstrong_Whitworth_A.W.169_(6261131429).jpg
http://picssr.com/tags/armstrongwhitworth/page11
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9hs467u3gma42r9nkr5fq3je81&topic=5284.165

You can see rocket engine at the bottom of the fuselage.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Armstrong_Whitworth_A.W.169_(6261131429).jpg

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://duhraviationart.com/index.php/portfolio/aw-169-2/