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

M148T - alternatives to the Buccaneer

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
373
As per the Subject 'Grumman A-6 Projects' - I posted a reply regarding similarities to the Vought V-416 submission and the Armstrong-Whitworth AW.168 designs

The Armstrong-Whitworth AW.168 design was submitted to the Royal Navy`s NA.39 requirement of 1952, which was subsequently won by the Blackburn Buccaneer design

I am after more information and 3-view drawing of the AW.169 design if you have it please, so that I can compare it to the 3-view drawing and specifications of the Vought V-416

Regards
Pioneer
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
Hi Pioneer,

for the AW.168,please see;
http://www.vectorsite.net/avbucc.html
and for AW.169,please see;
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Cancel/UK-AW.htm
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,254
For both types I would recommend Tony Buttlers "British Secret Projects", the fighter and bomber
issue, and Derek Wood "Project Cancelled".
The AW.169 was to meet R.329/F.155T for a supersonic all-weather interceptor .The Armstrong-
Withworth proposal was a straight wing aircraft with four Gyron Junior engines and an additional
rocket engine. Aerodamically quite similar to the Bristol 188.
 

Attachments

  • AW-169.GIF
    AW-169.GIF
    60.6 KB · Views: 692

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,254
Yes, I know, but I saw just a request for a 3-view of the AW.169, sorry.
Here's the 168 . But I have to correct myself, this type isn't mentioned in
"Project Cancelled" but in Tim Lamings "Buccaneer".
 

Attachments

  • AW-168.GIF
    AW-168.GIF
    66.2 KB · Views: 714

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,965
Reaction score
373
Thanks for your time and efforts gents

So what do you think?
Some similarities to the Vought & Armstrong Whitworth designs???

Regards
Pioneer
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,254
Well, similarities, yes, of course, at a first glance, but that's true, too, for the
Sud-Oust Vatour, and even more I think.
Between the V-416 and the AW.168 there were quite a number of differences.
Swept to straight wing, mid wing to shoulder wing, tandem to side-by-side
seating and the AW.168 was a considerable larger and heavier aircraft, (40.000
compared to 25.500 lb) than the V-146, very similar to the before mentioned
Vautour. What remains is more or less the operational role and the basic layout
as a twin engined aircraft with the engines under the wing, I think.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
AW-168 model

Source:
Oliver Tapping, Armstrong-Whitworth Aircraft Since 1913, Putnam 1973
 

Attachments

  • AW-168.jpg
    AW-168.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 480

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
622
Reaction score
315
Do you have any further info on the AW.168's specifications? Its dimensions seem unreadable from the drawing you've posted (at least I cannot decipher them)... Especially it would be interesting to know what engines the plane would have had.

Best regards,
Piotr
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
It used two de Havilland Gyron Junior engines. Placing the engines in underwing nacelles freed the fuselage for an internal bomb bay sized to ft Green Cheese, but concern over thrust asymmetry pulled them inside the landing gear. A single wing fold was used for weight saving. Rather than flap blowing like Buccaneer, it used jet deflection of the engines through 45 degrees to improve takeoff/landing performance.

A full-sized wooden mock up of the aircraft was constructed, and it ran the Blackburn NA.39 a very close second in M148T. AW proposed building two prototypes as flying shells, without the wing fold mechanism or jet deflection, to check the aerodynamics.
 

lucamax

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
40
Website
www.res-aeronautica.com
Dear friends,
Malcolm English in Aeroplane Database April 2012 writes about a Percival interest in M148T specification: do you know if that factory sumbitted some project or drawings?
Thank you and best regards.
--
Lucamax
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
Dear friends,
Malcolm English in Aeroplane Database April 2012 writes about a Percival interest in M148T specification: do you know if that factory sumbitted some project or drawings?
Thank you and best regards.
--
Lucamax

In this competition,more than 12 firms submitted a proposals,and for Percival,may it was P.97.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,898
No Percival did not submit a design to M.148T.
Tony Buttler in the new edition BSP:2 shed some light on this.
Basically Percival wanted badly to tender until the MoS actually sat down and discussed what was wanted and then the firm felt the design would be too complicated for them to submit in time.
Therefore they were invited to design a 'ghost' aircraft focusing on using engine compressor air for aerodynamic purposes based around M.148T, but was purely a paper research study based on work they were doing connected with their helicopter research work.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
Hi,

but the Percival P.97 was a jet naval aircraft Project ?.
 
Last edited:

lucamax

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
40
Website
www.res-aeronautica.com
Dear friends,
Malcolm English in Aeroplane Database April 2012 writes about a Percival interest in M148T specification: do you know if that factory sumbitted some project or drawings?
Thank you and best regards.
--
Lucamax

In this competition,more than 12 firms submitted a proposals,and for Percival,may it was P.97.

Dear Hesham,
more than 12?
I only know the Armstrong-Withworth AW.168, Blackburn B.103, Fairey M.148, Hawker P.1108, Short P.D. 13 and Westland M.148 proposal: can you list the others?
Thank you.
--
Lucamax
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
but the Percival P.97 was a jet naval aircraft Project ?.

I correct that at first,

and for my dear Lucamax,I can't ID them,maybe my dear Tony Buttler knows ?.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
461
but the Percival P.97 was a jet naval aircraft Project ?.

I correct that at first,

and for my dear Lucamax,I can't ID them,maybe my dear Tony Buttler knows ?.

I’d suggest you check out Tony Butler’s excellent series of books on these topics for the answers and details you seek.
As opposed to your suggestion of him giving you all of that... for free....

 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
I’d suggest you check out Tony Butler’s excellent series of books on these topics for the answers and details you seek.
As opposed to your suggestion of him giving you all of that... for free....

Who said that I want to give his Info for free,impossible of course,I just answer my dear Lucamax that,if
Mr. Tony Buttler had only the names of competitors,that's all.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
Tony Buttler says:

"For the M.148T competition, the manufacturers who submitted designs were Armstrong Whitworth, Blackburn, Fairey, Hawker, Shorts and Westland. The original Ministry documents that assessed the competitors make NO reference to anybody else. Initially Percival asked for permission to submit, but then found they were unable to produce a complete design for such a complex aircraft, and so withdrew their interest. Saunders-Roe did draw some 'M.148-type' designs, but this was two months before the initial specification was issued and 8 months before the main proposals were submitted. Saro did NOT take part in the competition."
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
Many thanks to you my dears Overscan and Tony Buttler,

and as I remember the L+K magazine who said that,and of course the invitation was for more than 12 companies,
but most of them withdrew except the six main firms which mentioned here.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
Hesham, you are getting mixed up between "invited to submit" and "submitted a proposal". 'Invited to submit' means a letter was sent to each of 12 companies informing them of the requirement and asking if they were interested in submitting a proposal. Of the 6 companies who declined to submit, Percival started a design but abandoned it.

Do you want to know the six companies who received the invitation but didn't respond?
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,785
Reaction score
4,941
No my dear Paul,

I just explain from where I get this Info and what happened to the contest to be in this form,and of course
invitation to submit differs from submit a proposal,I only confirm Mr. Tony's saying.
 

lucamax

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
246
Reaction score
40
Website
www.res-aeronautica.com
Hesham, you are getting mixed up between "invited to submit" and "submitted a proposal". 'Invited to submit' means a letter was sent to each of 12 companies informing them of the requirement and asking if they were interested in submitting a proposal. Of the 6 companies who declined to submit, Percival started a design but abandoned it.

Do you want to know the six companies who received the invitation but didn't respond?

Dear,
I suppose that the Percival initial or preliminary design is impossible to find, right? :D
In any case: thank you all for your help!
Best regards.
--
Lucamax
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
4,798
Hesham, you are getting mixed up between "invited to submit" and "submitted a proposal". 'Invited to submit' means a letter was sent to each of 12 companies informing them of the requirement and asking if they were interested in submitting a proposal. Of the 6 companies who declined to submit, Percival started a design but abandoned it.

Do you want to know the six companies who received the invitation but didn't respond?

Dear,
I suppose that the Percival initial or preliminary design is impossible to find, right? :D
In any case: thank you all for your help!
Best regards.
--
Lucamax

Impossible, no, but it's not in the National Archives as they didn't submit a brochure. It depends on how much work was done and whether any drawings or brochures survive.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
1,898
I would suppose that the Percival 'ghost' design to research the aerodynamic use of engine compressor air would have been examined by the MoS, after all they did commission Percival to do the research work. I would guess there might be an RAE Tech Memo on the subject, so its possible a copy survives at Kew. But there are a lot of 'ifs' in my supposition.
But it will probably by a technical study with lots of algebra and tunnel tests rather than an aircraft study. It would be a generic datum design based on the requirements for M.148T, not a detailed aircraft proposal.
 
Top