AWA Achilles the AW.58 scenario

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
15 July 2007
Messages
4,460
Reaction score
3,672
Thread the examine potential developments of AW.58...
And to develop scenario for a British F4 type aircraft.
As per NOMISYRRUC's AH efforts.

Relevant history and images thread

Extrapolations from supersonic research. A dalliance to near theory, but still alternative history.

AWA.58 variant with twin engines .
60 degree swept wing with drooped leading edge slats and elevons.

BP.114 twin engines
Bristol 177 twin engines
EE. P.1 twin engines
Fairey scheme 2 (seat not prone) twin engines
Gloster would need to scale up to a twin it's P.285
Hawker also needs to scale up to a twin.

Of these AWA.58 was actually ordered alongside EE (two each) to Specification E.16/49 and OR.282

However this was the single engined option AWA had put more effort into and was preferred by Ministery.
A more far-sighted decision would be to order the twin.

Serials WD466 and WD472 assigned.
Cranked wing of 40 degrees on outer portion.
Meeting 27 September 1949 to choose which to cancel Fairey or AWA.
AWA was asked to develop medium sweep option. Cranked wing was a result.
Revised high wing of delta form at 48 degees sweep and much musing on low tailplane or canard options. Though high T tail was the result (RAE really didn't like the low tailplane option as EE also encountered and seems to be down to RAE's Handel Davies).
Scaled model powered by Adder.
Which in theory could have tested low tail positions as well....
16 May 1950 AWA informed it was cancelled in favour of Fairey's Delta.

Had twin engined option been selected poor performance estimate might have been different and would certainly be a better basis for development into a fighter.
This element does stray into near hypothetical but it's a reasonable extrapolation from the real.

The high mounted delta is actually quite attractive for weapons pylons and fusilage waisting for Area Ruling ought to narrow majoritively behind the main gear stowage.
Seperating the engine inlet into two around a reprofiled nose ought to accommodate a decent AI scanner.
Main gear is fusilage mounted and so narrow of track, but various aircraft managed.

We can assume an increase in fusilage width and weight translates to increase in span to at absolute least 30ft and area to 350sqft.
Wing loading of 42lb/sqft.

A military version might have to raise wing area further to above 450sqft and thus span of at least 38ft, probably 42ft.
But this could rise to 500sqft and 45-50ft span.

Irony is Fairey efforts delayed due to superpriority for Gannet and that rather undermines the pessimistic view of AWA held by AR/ARD(Res) and RAE.
DMARD was contact involved in giving AWA the chance to revise a delta wing submission.

Tunnel testing Nov 1950 showed high T tail showed instability at certain lift coefficients.

Tunnel testing also validated Fairey's wing root inlets, despite RAE preference for nose inlet.

Applied to twin AW.58 ought to leave room in the nose or alternatively the D section side inlets as used in Swift and Scimitar programs. Designated AW.58B

F.23/49 OR.268 issued for supersonic interceptor fighter. Issued April 1951
Decision '51 On inlets, RAE notes AW.58 is better configured for this than EE P.1.

Additional Prototypes ordered '52
reissued Specification F.23/49 3 June '53
Prototype flight by '54
Admiralty investigation early 1954 to NR/A.38 meeting speed, climb, ceiling, acceleration and potentially endurance.
order for navalised prototype September '54

AW.5B flight '56

FAW mk8 Javelin sacrificed to provide funding for RAF Achilles.

Ministerial priority to AW.58B over P.1 which is felt less ideal for a Weapon System. Noting not only better inlet potential, better radar electronics space but engines remove vertically for easier maintenance.
Armament fit for four Firestreak was found reasonable and vertical fin area could be increased along with ventral fins if necessary.

Approval for AW.58C navalised FAW given March 1957
Prototype flight 1958
Production aircraft arrive 1960
IOC '62.
 
Last edited:
The design seems an unpromising basis on which to build anything much.

"Pouvez-vous me dire comment aller à Paris"?
"Ben si j'étais vous je ne partirais pas d'ici!"
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the delta-winged AW.58 development might be a better bet? Getting a decent intake other than a nose-intake would be harder with the high-mounted wing though and the Navy would likely have kittens about landing deltas on carriers.

Like Overscan, I don't get good vibes from the AW.58 as a AW fighter, to me it seems more like an F-100 Super Sabre kind of aircraft.
I could get more excited about a developed AW.58 with a single RB.106 or Gyron or even an Olympus to be honest.
 
I wonder if the delta-winged AW.58 development might be a better bet?
Literally what this thread is about...
Getting a decent intake other than a nose-intake would be harder with the high-mounted wing though
And yet worth it.
Navy would likely have kittens about landing deltas on carriers.
They had no kittens over the delta on the Saro P.177.
This is not a 60 degree delta
This is not an F4 58 degree delta.
This is a 48 degree delta.
I could get more excited about a developed AW.58 with a single RB.106 or Gyron or even an Olympus to be honest.
If a twin Avon or Sapphire machine is the focus. Then twin RB.106 or BE.30, or AS.X is quite reasonable a development.
 
Literally what this thread is about...
Sorry, all the festivities have got to me and I missed that, I thought you were going with the cranked wing.
 
The design seems an unpromising basis on which to build anything much.
I think I agree

It's probably better to can AWA.58 as historical and leave P.1 as a pure research aircraft rather than sucking loads of resources into such a dead end configuration.

Probably the missing day fighter F-100 / MiG-19 analogue is the Supermarine 545 or Hawker 1083 (or something later like 1100). This wouldn't be to get some world-beater or sorely needed capability (definite questions over quality of both) but rather to give these companies supersonic design and operating experience as competition to EE; and avoid the P.1/Lightning dead end.

These then potentially follow on to a Mach 2, single seat, single engine radar/AAM product as a Draken / Mirage III analogue - probably not of interest to RAF or RN, but something realistic.

Or for a potential Phantom (-4C etc.) analogue, then I think the route is probably through a less overloaded dH led team from Super Venom to a higher performance follow on; in order to get the best chance of an airframe, engines, avionics and missiles that work together. Maybe something like a non-VTOL 127

I really struggle to see that taking a historical AWA concept, making some changes to it, is really going to get to a better place rather than another dead end
 
Back
Top Bottom