M148T - alternatives to the Buccaneer

[Pioneer]

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]

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]

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Jens - AW.168 is a different beastie - naval attack aircraft.

 

[Jemiba]

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".

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for your time and efforts gents

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

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Jemiba]

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)]

Here's an original 3 view

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

AW-168 model

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

 

[Petrus]

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)]

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

.

 

[lucamax]

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]

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]

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]

Hi,

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

 

[lucamax]

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]

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]

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....

British Secret Projects 2: Jet Bombers since 1949: Amazon.co.uk: Buttler, Tony: 9781910809105: Amazon.co.uk

Buy British Secret Projects 2: Jet Bombers since 1949 by Buttler, Tony (ISBN: 9781910809105) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[hesham]

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)]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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?
In any case: thank you all for your help!
Best regards.
--
Lucamax

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

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?
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]

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.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! A.W.168 mockup.
Source : US & British Experimental & Projected Aircraft after W.W.Ⅱ, DELTA Publishing , Tokyo.

 

[blackkite]

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.php?aircraft_id=2322