Blackburn designations

[AM]

Hi all

(from Putnam)

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Alexei! This solves quite a few mysteries in my Blackburn list. I don't have the Putnam book and it's a tough one to find!

 

[AM]

hi,

The new version of Blackburn list with numbering in series "B" and "P" to number P.183

 

[hesham]

Hi,

B-114 jet flap Anson replacement 1960.
B-115 cold jet flap experimental aircraft 1960.
B-118 vertical rising transport aircraft 1960.
B-119 naval AEW aircraft 1960.
B-120 Anson replacement 1960.
B-121 Beverley/Argosy replacement 1960.
B-122 STOL freighter 1961.
P-139 AEW aircraft 1963.
P-143 Buccaneer fuel and stores pallet 1966.
P-146 light tactical aircraft 1967.
P-147 basic trainer 1967.
P-162 variable-cycle engine configurations 1979.
P-164 trainer 1980.

 

[Stargazer]

You guys ROCK!!!

Only missing Blackburn designations I find now are as follows:

- B-125, P-137, P-144, P-166, P-172, P-174, P-175, P-176, P-179, P-180, P-182

Aircraft types/projects that do not have a B- designation identified for them:

- two-seat fighter project for F.34/35
- Y.A.2 project, no details
- Y.A.3 project, no details

- Y.A.7 project = B-54
- Y.A.8 project = B-54

- Percival P.40 PRENTICE subcontracted for 21/46/P
- Percival P.108 BALLIOL subcontracted for T.14/47/4

Any ideas? Thanks a lot for your great help!

 

[hesham]

Oh sorry,

I forget the B-125;

B-125 STOL freighter to NATO requirement NBMR.1 of 1961.

 

[robunos]

From Putnam's 'Blackburn', page 50 :-

SBAC Designations...

Y.A.1 B-48 Firecrest prototype to Specification S.28/43 (1945)

Y.A.2, Y.A.3 Design studies only.

Y.A.4 B-55 project for a Rolls-Royce Dart powered 24-seat commercial aircraft.

Y.A.5 anti-submarine two-seater to specification G.R.17/45 with Napier Double Naiad (turboprop0

Y.A.6 B-62 project for Firecrest with Armstrong-Siddeley Python (1946)

Y.A.7 Y.A.5 two-seater with Rolls-Royce Griffon 56.

Y.A.8 Y.A.5 three seater with Rolls-Royce Griffon 56. (1950)

Y.A.9 B-75 feederliner with two Blackburn Cirrus Majors or Bombardiers (1947)

Y.B.1 B-88 - Y.A.8 with Armstrong-Siddeley Double Mamba (1950)

Y.B.2 HP.88 research aircraft using a Supermarine Attacker fuselage and Handley-Page Victor scale model crescent wing (1951)

Y.B.3 B-103 (otherwise the N.A.39) low-level strike fighter prototype (Buccaneer) (1955)

and from page 462:-

"Production

Three prototype aircraft only:

WB871 Blackburn B-54 Griffon 56, first flown 20 September 1949 as Y.A.7, scrapped at Farnborough 1957

WB788 Blackburn B-54 Griffon 56, first flown 3 May 1950 as Y.A.8, scrapped at Farnborough 1956

WB797 Blackburn B-88, Double Mamba, first flown 19 July 1950 as Y.B.1; to AS Motors in 1951, scrapped at Bitteswell july 1955"

So it would appear that the Y.A.7 and Y.A.8 retained the B-54 type number.

B-125, P-137, P-144, P-166, P-172, P-174, P-175, P-176, P-179, P-180, P-182

From 'From Spitfire to Eurofighter', Roy Boot, Airlife, 1990, pp.261-2

P.137, P.144, Project number unused.

Finally, from reading the Putnam book, I get the impression that when when building 'other peoples aeroplanes', where no design work has been done,
no 'B-number' was issued.


cheers,
Robin.


so I would hazard a guess that the Y.A.7 and Y.A.8 retained the B-54 number.

 

[Stargazer]

so I would hazard a guess that the Y.A.7 and Y.A.8 retained the B-54 number.

That's EXACTLY how it was in my list until recently. In a streak of cautiousness I decided to question this and removed the B-54 allocation for these two... I shouldn't have. Thanks a lot!

As an aside... Wonder why I wrote "project, no details" in front of these two types. ??? I must have been tired from too much designation hunting!!! :

 

[Schneiderman]

OK, so this thread has been dead for many years so I guess there is not a lot of interest in Blackburn, but a word of caution - the project list in Jackson's Putnam volume is far from complete and has errors.
I visited the Blackburn archive last week with a request to see any flying boat projects between the Nile and B20. The volunteers there did a quick search of the catalogue, not a deep search, and had a few files available for me to view. I only had two hours but in that time the files and drawings I saw were almost entirely previously unknown designs missing from Jackson's list. So, should you be researching Blackburn it looks like there is a great deal just waiting to be uncovered in the archive, a nice project for anyone who is able to make a few visits. The archive is held by BAe Systems at the former Blackburn factory at Brough, near Hull

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

OK, so this thread has been dead for many years so I guess there is not a lot of interest in Blackburn, but a word of caution - the project list in Jackson's Putnam volume is far from complete and has errors.
I visited the Blackburn archive last week with a request to see any flying boat projects between the Nile and B20. The volunteers there did a quick search of the catalogue, not a deep search, and had a few files available for me to view. I only had two hours but in that time the files and drawings I saw were almost entirely previously unknown designs missing from Jackson's list. So, should you be researching Blackburn it looks like there is a great deal just waiting to be uncovered in the archive, a nice project for anyone who is able to make a few visits. The archive is held by BAe Systems at the former Blackburn factory at Brough, near Hull

Interesting info, thanks

 

[hesham]

Thank you for clarify us my dear Schneiderman.

 

[Schneiderman]

Blackburn project design numbers in the 1920s and early 1930s are refered to as Specification numbers. They appear in the headers to official documents but not on drawings and can have a number of sub-varients, hence C.B.1, C.B1A, C.B.1B and so on.
Where I have have seen only the drawings and not the documents the Specification number is uncertain although related designs will no doubt have the same Spec number. ?? below is probably a further sub-spec of C.B.1 and ??? of C.B.3. The titles are as seen on the GA drawings

C.B.1A - Three Engined 14-16 Passenger Flying Boat - 1926 (civil derivative of metal-hulled Iris with Bristol Jupiters)
?? - Three Engined 14 Passenger Flying Boat - 1927 (as above with Liberty engines)
??? - Three Engined Monoplane Flying Boat Commercial - 16 Passengers - 1928? (version of Nile with sponson stabilisers)
C.B.4 - 3 Engined (Leopard) All-Metal Biplane Civil Flying Boat (Iris type) - 1928? (Iris development with Nile style hull)
C.B.5 - 6-Engined Commercial Flying Boat "Oceanic" type - 1929 ( Rolls-Royce 'H' type = Buzzard)

 

[Schneiderman]

There is also a specification for further developments of the Nile design

C.B.2.E - Three-Engined Monoplane Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion

The landplane is titled Three-Engined (Jupiter IX) Commercial Landplane and is slightly different from the version Hesham posted here

Blackburn « Sydney » and « Nile » flying boats

Hi, the Blackburn Nile was three engined recce bomber flying boat,it was designed for R5/27 Spec.,but never completed. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1929/1929-1%20-%200125.html

www.secretprojects.co.uk

The outer engines are slung under the wings, a feature to which the commercial department objected as it was different from that on the Nile and hence added cost

 

[Schneiderman]

Some projects that appear to lack Specification numbers

Four-Engined Monoplane Merchant Flying Boat for Imperial Airways - Type "L4"

From the description this sounds like an enlarged Nile, or a smaller version of the "Oceanic". L4 appears to refer to the choice of four Leopard engines as an alternative was the "J4" with four Jupiters or Jaguars. Mention is also made of a "J3" with three Jupiters or Jaguars

Four-Engined Merchant Flying Boat - Junkers Jumo IV C.I. Engines - 1933

For Trans-atlantic routes, two alternative layouts, either four tractors or two tandem pairs. Both sesquiplanes but with different top wings. Design tested by the RAE. Hull design is featured in patent GB422982 with cantilevered balance floats on stub wings. Likely to have formed the basis for Blackburn's submission to spec R.2/33.

 

[Schneiderman]

Finally a set of projects with retractable hulls or derived from them

B.B.3 - a twin-engined military high-speed flying boat design - 1935. The hull was subject to extensive tests in the water tank and wind tunnel at the RAE to ascertain the best configuration for the retractable hull to avoid spray over the tailplane and to minimise drag.
B.B.4 - un-named 32 seat civil flying boat with 4 x Aquila engines - 1935. Fixed hull
B.B.5 - Twin-Engined Amphibian Flying Boat - Type B.B.5 - 1936. Two Aquila engines. Two seat with both retractable hull and wheels, possibly tendered to spec. S.9/36. The description of this in Jackson's Putnam is completely wrong.

There is also an un-numbered retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35
High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3. There are a number of alternative layouts; two different span of the wing, choice of sponsons or wing floats.
A civil version, with no specification number, was Four-Engined Merchant Flying Boat which is very similar to B.B.4

I assume that there must have been a B.B.1 and B.B.2. It is possible that one may be shown in patent GB433925 for the retractable hull system.

 

[Maveric]

I have never seen a picture or drawing of the Blackburn B.27 Botha II. Is there possibly the possibility?

 

[hesham]

What about C.A.1 ?.

 

[ursrius]

Finally a set of projects with retractable hulls or derived from them

B.B.3 - a twin-engined military high-speed flying boat design - 1935. The hull was subject to extensive tests in the water tank and wind tunnel at the RAE to ascertain the best configuration for the retractable hull to avoid spray over the tailplane and to minimise drag.
B.B.4 - un-named 32 seat civil flying boat with 4 x Aquila engines - 1935. Fixed hull
B.B.5 - Twin-Engined Amphibian Flying Boat - Type B.B.5 - 1936. Two Aquila engines. Two seat with both retractable hull and wheels, possibly tendered to spec. S.9/36. The description of this in Jackson's Putnam is completely wrong.

There is also an un-numbered retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35
High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3. There are a number of alternative layouts; two different span of the wing, choice of sponsons or wing floats.
A civil version, with no specification number, was Four-Engined Merchant Flying Boat which is very similar to B.B.4

I assume that there must have been a B.B.1 and B.B.2. It is possible that one may be shown in patent GB433925 for the retractable hull system.

Rather late to the party here. If the B.B. designation did not stand for "Blackburn-Bristol", what did it stand for?

 

[Schneiderman]

Rather late to the party here. If the B.B. designation did not stand for "Blackburn-Bristol", what did it stand for?

Welcome back, its been a long time.
B.B as Blackburn Bristol seems a bit like guesswork to me and is rather out of line with some of the 'known' designations. It implies a direct link to Bristol, for which I see no evidence.

 

[ursrius]

Welcome back, its been a long time.
B.B as Blackburn Bristol seems a bit like guesswork to me and is rather out of line with some of the 'known' designations. It implies a direct link to Bristol, for which I see no evidence.

Yes, it has been a while. There is a direct link to Bristol, for at least B.B.4 and 5 were powered by Bristol engines. You also give "High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3", so maybe the B.B.3 was also Aquila powered. According to Jackson, this "Blackburn-Engine" designation was used back in 1923, with the BN-8 (Blackburn-Napier 8-seater), a.k.a C.A.0, the similar BN-10, a.k.a. C.A.1, the BL-6 (Blackburn-Liberty 6-seater), a.k.a. C.Bo.1 and finally the BR-5 (Blackburn-Rolls-Royce 5-seater), a.k.a C.Bo.2.
The question would still then arise, why revive such a cumbersome naming system after 12 years?

Looking back at an earlier post, #13 of 11 May 2019:

C.B.2.E - Three-Engined Monoplane Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion

but on https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blackburn-«-sydney-»-and-«-nile-»-flying-boats.5028/ relating to the C.A.10, you state "Looking briefly in the Blackburn archives I see that the project actually started under designation C.E.2E and was included in the same technical specification as the Nile." C.B. or C.E.? Or perhaps the C.E.2E was the landplane equivalent of the C.B.2E.?

 

[Schneiderman]

Bristol, for at least B.B.4 and 5 were powered by Bristol engines. You also give "High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3", so maybe the B.B.3 was also Aquila powered. According to Jackson, this "Blackburn-Engine" designation was used back in 1923, with the BN-8 (Blackburn-Napier 8-seater), a.k.a C.A.0, the similar BN-10, a.k.a. C.A.1, the BL-6 (Blackburn-Liberty 6-seater), a.k.a. C.Bo.1 and finally the BR-5 (Blackburn-Rolls-Royce 5-seater), a.k.a C.Bo.2.

The question would still then arise, why revive such a cumbersome naming system after 12 years?

Looking back at an earlier post, #13 of 11 May 2019:
but on https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/blackburn-«-sydney-»-and-«-nile-»-flying-boats.5028/ relating to the C.A.10, you state "Looking briefly in the Blackburn archives I see that the project actually started under designation C.E.2E and was included in the same technical specification as the Nile." C.B. or C.E.? Or perhaps the C.E.2E was the landplane equivalent of the C.B.2E.?The t

The problem is that there are quite a few projects/aircraft with B in the designation where the engine is not a Bristol. for example CB4- Armstrong Siddelley, and CB5 - Rolls-Royce.
CE was a typing error, should be CB
As far as I can see Blackburn had at least 8 series in play through the 1920s - 1930s based on, what did Jackson call it?, mission series or something like that.
There are
'B' series, which are a mixed bunch of civil and military land types with no obvious link as far as I can see
'C.A' series, which are all land civil transport types
'C.B' series, which are civil flying boats
'R.B' series, which are military reconnaissance flying boats
'T' series, which are torpedo bombers
'F' series, which are fighters
'B.B' series, which are flying boats of various types
Plus various odd ones, such as (apparently) T.C for troop carrier, a couple of civil flying boats, L.4 and J.4, where the letters denote Leopard and Jupiter, L, which seems to be for the Bluebirds

 

[ursrius]

So, joining and correcting two earlier statements, we get:
C.B.2.E - Three-Engined Monoplane Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion; the C.A.10 project actually started under designation C.B.2E and was included in the same technical specification as the Nile.
Does "Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion" mean that the aircraft could literally be converted from boat to landplane? Or was it an alternative design using the same flying surfaces attached to a new fuselage, eventually spun off as the C.A.10?

'B' series, which are a mixed bunch of civil and military land types with no obvious link as far as I can see

I don't believe so. Surely this was the beginnings of the logical "B for Blackburn" series that continued on for the life of the company. The "B" series began in 1930 with the Segrave, which had been given the Class B Conditions identity of B-1. The two systems continuing in parallel up to 1935, the B.B.5 being apparently the last usage of the older system.

As far as I can see Blackburn had at least 8 series in play through the 1920s - 1930s based on, what did Jackson call it?, mission series or something like that.

Indeed, that is how Jackson described them.
There were, though, more than 8 in Jacksons list. Additional are:
Class B.T. Bomber-Torpedo: B.T.1 Beagle of 1926
Class D.B. Dive Bomber: D.B.1 Skua of 1935
Class M Mailplane: M.1 Night Mailplane of 1923
Class R Reconnaissance: R.1 Blackburn of 1921; R.2 & R.3 Airedale of 1923
Class R.T. Reconnaissance Torpedo: R.T.1 Kangaroo of 1917
Class S Survey: S.1 of 1927
Class T.R. Trainer: T.R.1 Sprat

a couple of civil flying boats, L.4 and J.4, where the letters denote Leopard and Jupiter, L

I, personally, don't think of these as project designations, just convenient shorthand to refer to some basic studies, not far advanced enough to qualify for a "designation". But that's just my opinion.

Where I have have seen only the drawings and not the documents the Specification number is uncertain although related designs will no doubt have the same Spec number. ?? below is probably a further sub-spec of C.B.1 and ??? of C.B.3. The titles are as seen on the GA drawings

C.B.1A - Three Engined 14-16 Passenger Flying Boat - 1926 (civil derivative of metal-hulled Iris with Bristol Jupiters)
?? - Three Engined 14 Passenger Flying Boat - 1927 (as above with Liberty engines)
??? - Three Engined Monoplane Flying Boat Commercial - 16 Passengers - 1928? (version of Nile with sponson stabilisers)
C.B.4 - 3 Engined (Leopard) All-Metal Biplane Civil Flying Boat (Iris type) - 1928? (Iris development with Nile style hull)
C.B.5 - 6-Engined Commercial Flying Boat "Oceanic" type - 1929 ( Rolls-Royce 'H' type = Buzzard)

I'm thinking ??? would be a 'sub species' of C.B.2 (the Nile). I don't believe the C.B.3 project has been identified yet.

OK, rambled on enough! How I would dearly love to dive into those Blackburn archives!! Maybe next time I get to visit the old country!

 

[ursrius]

There is also an un-numbered retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35
High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3. There are a number of alternative layouts; two different span of the wing, choice of sponsons or wing floats.
A civil version, with no specification number, was Four-Engined Merchant Flying Boat which is very similar to B.B.4

Just clarifying: the "High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila" was the "retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35" and "A civil version" refers to a civil version of the R.12/35 submission?

 

[Schneiderman]

So, joining and correcting two earlier statements, we get:
C.B.2.E - Three-Engined Monoplane Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion; the C.A.10 project actually started under designation C.B.2E and was included in the same technical specification as the Nile.
Does "Civil Flying-Boat with Alternative Land Machine Conversion" mean that the aircraft could literally be converted from boat to landplane? Or was it an alternative design using the same flying surfaces attached to a new fuselage, eventually spun off as the C.A.10?

OK, best way to answer that is the show the title page of the Specification. Basically it means same flying surfaces, different fuselage/hull

 

[Schneiderman]

'B' series, which are a mixed bunch of civil and military land types with no obvious link as far as I can see

I don't believe so. Surely this was the beginnings of the logical "B for Blackburn" series that continued on for the life of the company. The "B" series began in 1930 with the Segrave, which had been given the Class B Conditions identity of B-1. The two systems continuing in parallel up to 1935, the B.B.5 being apparently the last usage of the older system.

!

Which sound fine except that as the B series is running in parallel with the others for a few years it isn't really a straightforward rationalisation.

 

[Schneiderman]

As far as I can see Blackburn had at least 8 series in play through the 1920s - 1930s based on, what did Jackson call it?, mission series or something like that.

Indeed, that is how Jackson described them.
There were, though, more than 8 in Jacksons list. Additional are:
Class B.T. Bomber-Torpedo: B.T.1 Beagle of 1926
Class D.B. Dive Bomber: D.B.1 Skua of 1935
Class M Mailplane: M.1 Night Mailplane of 1923
Class R Reconnaissance: R.1 Blackburn of 1921; R.2 & R.3 Airedale of 1923
Class R.T. Reconnaissance Torpedo: R.T.1 Kangaroo of 1917
Class S Survey: S.1 of 1927
Class T.R. Trainer: T.R.1 Sprat

Indeed. I don't agree 100% with Jackson's analysis but based on what I have managed to pull from various archives his 'Mission' designations seem OK

 

[Schneiderman]

a couple of civil flying boats, L.4 and J.4, where the letters denote Leopard and Jupiter, L

I, personally, don't think of these as project designations, just convenient shorthand to refer to some basic studies, not far advanced enough to qualify for a "designation". But that's just my opinion.

They are as legitimate as any of the others, taken from a project Specification submitted to Imperial Airways - the same one that resulted in the Short Kent

 

[Schneiderman]

Where I have have seen only the drawings and not the documents the Specification number is uncertain although related designs will no doubt have the same Spec number. ?? below is probably a further sub-spec of C.B.1 and ??? of C.B.3. The titles are as seen on the GA drawings

C.B.1A - Three Engined 14-16 Passenger Flying Boat - 1926 (civil derivative of metal-hulled Iris with Bristol Jupiters)
?? - Three Engined 14 Passenger Flying Boat - 1927 (as above with Liberty engines)
??? - Three Engined Monoplane Flying Boat Commercial - 16 Passengers - 1928? (version of Nile with sponson stabilisers)
C.B.4 - 3 Engined (Leopard) All-Metal Biplane Civil Flying Boat (Iris type) - 1928? (Iris development with Nile style hull)
C.B.5 - 6-Engined Commercial Flying Boat "Oceanic" type - 1929 ( Rolls-Royce 'H' type = Buzzard)

I'm thinking ??? would be a 'sub species' of C.B.2 (the Nile). I don't believe the C.B.3 project has been identified yet.

OK, rambled on enough! How I would dearly love to dive into those Blackburn archives!! Maybe next time I get to visit the old country!

Something like that. It does seem plausible that the C.B.3 would have been the derivative of the Nile with sponsons, unfortunately I have only seen the drawing and not the Spec. and as noted before the Spec. designation never appears on the drawings, odd but true

 

[Schneiderman]

There is also an un-numbered retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35
High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila. Appears to be a scaled-up derivative of the B.B.3. There are a number of alternative layouts; two different span of the wing, choice of sponsons or wing floats.
A civil version, with no specification number, was Four-Engined Merchant Flying Boat which is very similar to B.B.4

Just clarifying: the "High Performance Flying Boat - 1935. 4 x Aquila" was the "retractable hull project tendered to spec. R.12/35" and "A civil version" refers to a civil version of the R.12/35 submission?

Yes, both with retractable hulls

 

[hesham]

Hi,

we have to don't forget the Blackburn "SP" series,which was began from SP-1
up to SP-65,we know only SP-60 and SP-62,after hawker absorbed this firm
it continued may be up to SP-90,and after became BAe,raised up to SP-113
and more ?.

 

[Apophenia]

we have to don't forget the Blackburn "SP" series,which was began from SP-1 up to SP-65,we know only SP-60 and SP-62,after hawker absorbed this firm it continued may be up to SP-90,and after became BAe,raised up to SP-113 and more ?.

A few questions on this ...

1: If "we know only SP-60 and SP-62", then where is the evidence that the SP sequence began with an "SP-1"?

2: If this is speculation ... can we sure that SP 60 and SP 62 weren't just study- or marketing-designations for the B.118A?

3: If this 'sequence' began with the SP.60, might that number have simply referred to an anticipated year of appearance?

4: Why would Hawker Siddeley have continued with the 'SP' sequence? (Since we know that those ex-Blackburn projects were rebranded as HL, HM, and HS under the new management.)

 

[hesham]

My dear Apophenia,

about the begining of the series SP-1,yes it's my speculation,but the Model 60 and 62
were for trhe years,that's not true at all,the blackburn was absorbed by Hawker in 1960,now how come the SP-62,second the Hawker company comntinued use this
sequence and after became BAe,we find SP-105 and SP-110,and that's a clue also
they didn't indicate to any years.

 

[Apophenia]

about the begining of the series SP-1,yes it's my speculation,but the Model 60 and 62 were for trhe years,that's not true at all,the blackburn was absorbed by Hawker in 1960,now how come the SP-62,second the Hawker company comntinued use this sequence and after became BAe,we find SP-105 and SP-110,and that's a clue also they didn't indicate to any years.

Not sure I understand exactly what we're arguing over here hesham.

Speculation and suppositions aside, we know that Blackburn used SP.60 and SP.62. But we don't know for certain what that nomenclature stood for. The SP.60 concept was issued the Blackburn designation B.118A which suggests that the 'SP' series - even at Blackburn - was used for early-stage studies (ie: prior to actually assigning 'B' designations.)

You mentioned that HSA/BAe used SP 105 and SP 110. There was, of course, also the SP 117. In the latter case, at least, we know for sure that 'SP' stood for 'Special Project'. In other words, it was a concept study. As the design firmed up, Hawker Siddeley applied the designation HS.1182. And there is a Brough connection - under BAe/BAE System, it acted as 'engineering centre' for that trainer and BAe Hawks were built at Brough. Still, few would see the Hawk as a Blackburn product.

BTW, I'm happy to abandon my musings on possible numbers relating to dates. However, the key word in my Question #3 was "anticipated year of appearance"

 

[Hood]

SP = Special Projects

This seems to have been a separate organisation within Hawker Siddeley working across all the design teams as far as can be told; references crop up for example on the HS.141 programme at Woodford.
M. J. Brennan was its Executive Director in 1970 and into the mid-70s
R. S. Williams was involved at Kingston circa 1968-70

It's worth noting that the SP 117 document is described on the cover as 'Project Study Note No.44'. This implies at least 43 other project studies before 1968. Of course that may or may not imply the these were all SP projects.

 

[Schneiderman]

SP = Special Projects

The BAe Systems archive of Blackburn material at Brough lists just two items with SP in the description; 'Fig 1 General Arrangement of SP38 - Jet-Flap Research' and 'Fig 1 General Arrangement of SP48 - Jet-Flap Research'. Both are associated with a brochure described as "CJF 2/59 Proposals for Cold Jet-Flap Research'.

 

[hesham]

The BAe Systems archive of Blackburn material at Brough lists just two items with SP in the description; 'Fig 1 General Arrangement of SP38 - Jet-Flap Research' and 'Fig 1 General Arrangement of SP48 - Jet-Flap Research'. Both are associated with a brochure described as "CJF 2/59 Proposals for Cold Jet-Flap Research'.

That's a proof for Blackburn used probably from number 1 this designation
for Special Project,and might it was not for aircraft,but generally aeronautical
research,and so logically the series was raised up to SP-117 and could be
more ?.

For my dear Hood,the "Project Study Note No.44" was meaning another sequence
for Hawker,which began from 1960,as a re-organized the firm after it absorbed
some companies,but it was not explain the SP series at all,they are separated
serials,such as SP-60 and B-118.

 

[Schneiderman]

That's a proof for Blackburn used probably from number 1 this designation
for Special Project,

Not at all. Also 'proof' and 'probably' are a bit of a contradiction.
The lack of references in the catalogue to any other items with SP in their description may be of greater significance.

 

[Hood]

I think what we're seeing is some kind of Hawker Siddeley central projects office, perhaps to conduct preliminary designs.
Maurice Brennan had been chief designer at Folland when it was taken into HSA, subsequently becoming chief designer at Avro before becoming Executive Director Special Projects sometime around 1968ish and until he left HSA in 1975.
Presumably therefore the SP group was located in Woodford but we have bits of evidence of SP-designated designs from Brough and Kingston which implies some cross-pollination was going on and bits of evidence that once the designs were firmed up they shifted from SP designations to local Brough/Kingston/Woodford HS.xxx sequences.

Plus there was the Advanced Projects Group with its own Type number designation sequence too.
Not really sure how any of this fits together, though doubtless someone on this forum with more in-depth knowledge of HSA's workings might be able to shed some light?

 

[hesham]

Not really sure how any of this fits together, though doubtless someone on this forum with more in-depth knowledge of HSA's workings might be able to shed some light?

I sheded the light before about Hawker many series to it,

- P.1000 from 1940,raised up to P.1163,after that the prefix changed into HS,from HS.1170 up to HS.1207

- P.122 after absorbing Blackburn in 1960,continued to P.161

- SP.63 also after purchased Blackburn in 1960,went on up to SP.90 (maybe)

- HS.131 up to HS.149,after taken over De Havilland in 1960,called Hatfield division

- HS.800 blew up to HS.837,after acquired Avro to became Manchester subsidiary

- HSA,APD & APG,all were the same,started from HSA.1000 and last known HSA.1034

- Project Study Note,maybe from number 1,began from 1960.

 

[Schneiderman]

A quick update.

I am working with a most helpful guy at the BAe Systems Brough archive to understand and refine their catalogue of material relating to flying boat projects in the 1920s and 30s. The archive is far from complete and relates predominantly to projects for which Brough were the ‘owners’, hence not so much for projects led by Leeds or, later, Dumbarton. This is a slow process and will carry on through this year and maybe later.

However it is readily apparent that several of the designation systems provided by Jackson are questionable and certainly incomplete. Many documents and drawings in the archive carry ‘designations’ different from those that Jackson suggests and there are a significant number that he overlooked completely. For example projects submitted as formal tenders to Air Ministry specifications carry no project designation other than the specification number. Jackson says that these are projects that had not matured to the point of being allocated a project number, but the very opposite is the case. Amongst these are full projects submitted to meet R.10/30, R.24/31 (Scapa/London), R.2/33 (Sunderland), R.12/35, and B.1/35 (Warwick).

In time I intend to write up all I have found but when and how that will look I cannot say at this point.