Armstrong Whitworth designations

[hesham]

in a French magazine,I found this; AW.12 and AW.13 were a light bombers,
but I don't remember it now or its name.

We must don't forget this Info.

 

[Schneiderman]

in a French magazine,I found this; AW.12 and AW.13 were a light bombers,
but I don't remember it now or its name.

We must don't forget this Info.

No, I think that we can ignore that for now. Without a reference to the source that we can check it is not information.

 

[ursrius]

The Aries was ordered to contract 725892/26 to meet Specification 20/25. Clearly there was a very long ‘gestation period’ as it didn’t fly until May 1930. By the time the Aries finally appeared, the Type Number system was well underway, so perhaps not unreasonable that it was retroactively denoted AW.17 when it became clear the original recipient of that type number would not see the light of day.

 

[Schneiderman]

The AWXVII twin-engine fighter concept is a bit of an oddity. It would certainly fit the remit for F.7/30 (4 guns, excellent view for the pilot) although what the unspecified R-R engines would have been is hard to say. The nacelles are far too small for Kestrels. The AW20 twin-engine bomber, which is the same design with very minor modification and Kestrels, makes much more sense.
As a concept the AWXVII probably did not really need a full project number so reusing 17 for the Aries makes sense.

 

[Bazinga]

The AWP projects even had sub designs

 

[AM]

hi all

Type 130 - may be Sinaia
Type 137 - Atlas Mk.I
Type 154 - Argosy Mk.I

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dear AM.

 

[Schneiderman]

hi all

Type 130 - may be Sinaia
Type 137 - Atlas Mk.I
Type 154 - Argosy Mk.I

Interesting suggestion, can you give us a source for the information. Thanks

 

[AM]

http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Indexes/Crafts1-2.htm

 

[Schneiderman]

Hmmmm, never happy with secondary or tertiary sources. Questionable at best.

 

[ursrius]

Hmm, don't know what you saw at that site, but I cannot see those designations.
It is a well known Russian site AviaDejaVu, which just contains snippets culled from books and magazines (not necessarily with permission!)

 

[Arjen]

Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913 by Oliver Tapper, Putnam 1973 gives constructor number 139 for the first Atlas, constructor number 154 for the first Argosy. The Sinaia was originally a Siddeley Deasey product - that company was taken over by A-W at the time the Sinaia first took to the air. Tapper writes an 'unlikely' type number 103 was mentioned for it.

 

[Schneiderman]

Indeed he does, and that is probably the source of the confusion. Construction numbers are a very different thing from project designations.

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane monthly 1988.

 

[Stargazer]

in a French magazine,I found this; AW.12 and AW.13 were a light bombers, but I don't remember it now or its name.

After finding the selfsame article, I concluded that it is simply wrong: indeed, according to the author, the "A.W.12" was the Tadpole and the A.W.13 was the Wolf. That doesn't make any sense in terms of chronological order. Of course we can only speculate as to what A.W.1 to 13 (or rather, I to XIII) may have been, but working from the order of the constructor's numbers, contracts, and RAF serial numbers, I've come up with this new list that is still entirely tentative, although more logical than the previous attempts:

Early types, no A.W. designations
(produced by the Aerial Department of Armstrong Whitworth in Gosforth*, or Siddeley Deasy in Parkside)

• F.M.4 Armadillo * (License No.18 / first flown April 1918 / first serial X19)
• Ara * (contract 35a/1221/C1134 — 1918? / first flight 1918 / first serial F4971)
• Sinaia (contract 5553/18 — 1918 / first serial X21 / all cancelled)
• R.T.1 (contract 7903 — first flight 1917 / first serial B6625)
• S.R.2 Siskin (contract 11537 — 1918 / first flight Spring 1919 / first serial C4541)

Later types, likely A.W. designations (first hypothesis)
(produced by Armstrong Whitworth in Whitley)

• A.W.I — may have been the Tadpole (contract unknown — 1920 / early c/n serial J6585)
• A.W.II — may have been the Sinaia I (contract 55143/21 — 1921 / early c/n / first serial J6858)
• A.W.III — may have been the Siskin II (no contract ; registered 1922 / first c/n 10)
• A.W.IV — may have been the Siskin III (contract 217448/20 — 1920 / first c/n 12 / first serial J6583)
• A.W.V — may have been the Awana (contract 306069/20 — 1920 / first c/n 13 / first serial J6897)
• A.W.VI — may have been the Wolf (contract 195547/21 — 1921 / first c/n 15 / first serial J6921)
• A.W.VII — may have been the Siskin IV (first registered Nov. 1923 / first c/n cancelled / second c/n 143)
• A.W.VIII — may have been the Siskin IIIDC (first contract 439840/23 — 1923 / first c/n 64 / first serial J7180)
• A.W.IX — may have been the Siskin V (cancelled Romanian order / first c/n 68)
• A.W.X — may have been the Atlas I (registered 1925 / first c/n 139 / contract 735668/27 — 1927)
• A.W.XI — may have been the Ape (contract 437548/23 — 1923 / first c/n 144 / first serial J7753)
• A.W.XII — may have been the Argosy (first c/n 154 / first registration May 1925)
• may have been the Siskin IIIA (first contract 625304/25 / first c/n 160 / first serial J8048)
• A.W.XIII — may have been the Ajax (contract 743656/27 — 1927 / first c/n 273 / first serial J8802)

It should be noted here that I have purposely omitted all the early types (F.K. and such), which were conceived under the Aerial Department of the A.W. company in Gosforth, and also the R.T.1, S.R.2 Siskin, and Sinaia I types, conceived under the Siddeley Deasy Motor Car Co. in Parkside. The subcontracted work on the Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.7 and R.E.8, and the Bristol Fighter has also been left out. I've also considered the Atlas TM trainer version as just a variant of the basic Atlas I.

Alternately, if we consider the Siskin IIIDC as just a variant of the Siskin III that may not have received a separate A.W. designation, then the list can still contain 13 types with the Siskin I becoming A.W.I:

Later types, likely A.W. designations (second hypothesis)
(produced by Armstrong Whitworth in Whitley)

• A.W.I — may have been the Siskin I (modified from first S.R.2 Siskin / first flown March 1921)
• A.W.II — may have been the Tadpole (contract unknown — 1920 / early c/n serial J6585)
• A.W.III — may have been the Sinaia I (contract 55143/21 — 1921 / early c/n / first serial J6858)
• A.W.IV — may have been the Siskin II (no contract ; registered 1922 / first c/n 10)
• A.W.V — may have been the Siskin III (contract 217448/20 — 1920 / first c/n 12 / first serial J6583)
• A.W.VI — may have been the Awana (contract 306069/20 — 1920 / first c/n 13 / first serial J6897)
• A.W.VII — may have been the Wolf (contract 195547/21 — 1921 / first c/n 15 / first serial J6921)
• A.W.VIII — may have been the Siskin IV (first registered Nov. 1923 / first c/n cancelled / second c/n 143)
• A.W.IX — may have been the Siskin V (cancelled Romanian order / first c/n 68)
• A.W.X — may have been the Atlas I (registered 1925 / first c/n 139 / contract 735668/27 — 1927)
• A.W.XI — may have been the Ape (contract 437548/23 — 1923 / first c/n 144 / first serial J7753)
• A.W.XII — may have been the Argosy (first c/n 154 / first registration May 1925)
• may have been the Siskin IIIA (first contract 625304/25 / first c/n 160 / first serial J8048)
• A.W.XIII — may have been the Ajax (contract 743656/27 — 1927 / first c/n 273 / first serial J8802)

---

Concerning constructor's numbers, the earliest known is c/n 10 (Siskin II). Leaving out the pre-1918 types, and following the order of contracts and serial numbers (and assuming the cancelled aircraft didn't get a constructor's number), I come up with this tentative list:

First hypothesis

• c/n 1 — may have been the first F.M.4 Armadillo (c/n X19; first flown April 1918)
• c/n 2 — may have been the first Ara (RAF s/n F4971 / first flown late 1918)
• c/n 3 — may have been the second Ara (RAF s/n F4972)
• c/n 4 — may have been the first S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4541; ff-Spring 1919 / rebuilt as Siskin I; ff-March 1921)
• c/n 5 — may have been the second S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4542)
• c/n 6 — may have been the third S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4543)
• c/n 7 — may have been the Tadpole (RAF s/n J6585; first flown February 1921)
• c/n 8 — may have been the first Sinaia I (RAF s/n J6858; first flown June 1921)
• c/n 9 — may have been the second Sinaia I (RAF s/n J6859)

Second hypothesis
Alternately, if we decide to leave out the Gosforth products, consider the Siskin as the first Whitley product (since the S.R.2 became the Siskin I) and consider that the cancelled examples received constructor's numbers, we come up with this alternate (and equally tentative) list:

• c/n 1 — may have been the first S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4541; ff-Spring 1919 / rebuilt as Siskin I; ff-March 1921)
• c/n 2 — may have been the second S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4542)
• c/n 3 — may have been the third S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4543)
• c/n 4 — may have been the fourth (cancelled) S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4544)
• c/n 5 — may have been the fifth (cancelled) S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4545)
• c/n 6 — may have been the sixth (cancelled) S.R.2 Siskin (RAF s/n C4546)
• c/n 7 — may have been the Tadpole (RAF s/n J6585; first flown February 1921)
• c/n 8 — may have been the first Sinaia I (RAF s/n J6858; first flown June 1921)
• c/n 9 — may have been the second Sinaia I (RAF s/n J6859)*

I'll readily admit I find this second hypothesis more likely, as it seems logical to me that both model numbers AND constructor's numbers would have started from #1 after setting up the new Sir W.G Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Co. Ltd.

---

As usual, I'd appreciate any comments, criticism and insight on these matters!