Armstrong Whitworth AW.169: F155T contender

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,944
AW.169 model from Midland Air Museum.

Details from brochure to follow later.
 

Attachments

  • AW.169.jpg
    AW.169.jpg
    136.9 KB · Views: 442

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
1,511
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)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,944
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]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0457.jpg
    IMG_0457.jpg
    58.1 KB · Views: 347
  • IMG_0458.jpg
    IMG_0458.jpg
    34 KB · Views: 291
  • IMG_0459.jpg
    IMG_0459.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 281

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,944
Wind tunnel model of wing and engine pod.
 

Attachments

  • AW168-windtunnel2.jpg
    AW168-windtunnel2.jpg
    225.1 KB · Views: 89
  • AW168-windtunnel.jpg
    AW168-windtunnel.jpg
    237.3 KB · Views: 222

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,944
More shots of the model from Midland Air Museum. Big thanks to Barry James for giving me access to it for closeup shots.
 

Attachments

  • AW.169-1.jpg
    AW.169-1.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 133
  • AW.169-2.jpg
    AW.169-2.jpg
    165.4 KB · Views: 167
  • AW.169-3.jpg
    AW.169-3.jpg
    157.6 KB · Views: 119
  • AW.169-4.jpg
    AW.169-4.jpg
    140.8 KB · Views: 109

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
1,511
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.
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
653
Reaction score
176
BAROBA said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
240
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
653
Reaction score
176
rickshaw said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
790
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

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
480
Reaction score
373
Website
rp-one.net
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
645
Reaction score
401
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

Clarence: stop secrets...
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
49
Reaction score
25
Trident said:
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

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
653
Reaction score
176
Weaver said:
Trident said:
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
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
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.
 

Attachments

  • 1024px-Armstrong_Whitworth_A_W_169_(6261131429).jpg
    1024px-Armstrong_Whitworth_A_W_169_(6261131429).jpg
    131.9 KB · Views: 204
  • 14608462233_29ffe70c1d_b.jpg
    14608462233_29ffe70c1d_b.jpg
    183.1 KB · Views: 173
  • 14565455266_21c833c193_b.jpg
    14565455266_21c833c193_b.jpg
    133.2 KB · Views: 161
  • A.W.169 - 3.jpg
    A.W.169 - 3.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 83
  • A.W.169 - 7 intercept - a - re-size.jpg
    A.W.169 - 7 intercept - a - re-size.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 101
  • AW.169 AIR ENTHUSIAST 61.jpg
    AW.169 AIR ENTHUSIAST 61.jpg
    135.2 KB · Views: 115
Top