M148T - Early Buccaneer and it's rivals

[ChuckAnderson]

Hi Everyone!

Presented here is a three-view line drawing (I have little else information) on the Hawker P.1108, one of the aircraft that competed with the ultimate winner of the contract, Blackburn.

The only information given besides the three-view, is the following:
"Two-seat Naval Strike aircraft to Spec. M.148T. Four small Rolls-Royce turbojets. Blackburn Buccaneer was successful tender to this Specification."

(If anyone has any tech data and other information on the Hawker P.1108, could they please post it on this website?)

My source is:
Hawker Aircraft Since 1920
p. 645
Author: Francis K. Mason
Original Publishers: Putnam Aeronautical Books (1991, Great Britain)
Current Publishers: Naval Institute Press (1991, Annapolis, MD, USA)Copyright: Francis K. Mason (1961, 1971 and 1991)

My apologies if this has already been brought up previously!


Chuck

 

[ChuckAnderson]

Hi Everyone!

I can't seem to get my three-view to post on the site. I'll keep trying!

Chuck

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its probably too large. Try resizing it smaller or send it to me.

 

[Jemiba]

In the moment no more information, but it is mentioned in Tim Lamings
"Buccaneer" book, I'll look for it this evening

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Original Hawker 3 view painting with dimensions is in Maurice Allward's Modern Combat Aircraft 7: Buccaneer.

 

[ChuckAnderson]

In the moment no more information, but it is mentioned in Tim Lamings
"Buccaneer" book, I'll look for it this evening

Hi Jemiba!

Thanks for posting the illustration! That's FAR BETTER than the one I was going to send anyway, and the most important thing is that this information gets to the website for everyone to see!

Chuck

 

[Jemiba]

The power plant is given both by Tim Laming and Tony Buttler as four RB.115 engines.
The dimensions are hopefully readable on the cutout of Lamings 3-view.

 

[Akaikaze]

:-\
Sigh...As much as I like Hawker, this is a case were the right choice was made. Had it been built for a fly-off, Blackburn would have eaten it alive.
(4 engines? Why....?)

 

[Sentinel Chicken]

Didn't the Royal Navy specify two engines for this requirement? I seem to recall reading in BSP that Hawker's design submission wasn't exactly a serious go at meeting the requirement, hence the four engines.

 

[smurf]

I think there was an Air Enthusiast article, called 'Pirates for the RN' or some such, but I may not have kept it. sometime mid 90's??

 

[lark]

'Choosing a Pirate for the Navy' - part I and II

By Tony Buttler.

(9 pages of absorbing reading)

Air Pictorial . March & April 1997.

 

[Jemiba]

"Didn't the Royal Navy specify two engines "

Yes, that's what told by Tim Laming in "Buccaneer"about Specification M.148T.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Re the Laming book, on the Thunder and Lightning website it now says:

"Buccaneer - The Last British Bomber by Tim Laming. Recent revelations mean we can no longer advise purchase of this volume."

What is that about? I thought it was a pretty good book.

 

[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

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is the original Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft from Flightglobal.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200490.html?search=scramjet%20aircraft

 

[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.

 

[Petrus]

The power plant is given both by Tim Laming and Tony Buttler as four RB.115 engines.
The dimensions are hopefully readable on the cutout of Lamings 3-view.

Do you have any idea what thrust the RB.115 would have had? I couldn't find the info, unfortunately.

Piotr

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Interesting.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

.

 

[ivran]

very interesning pictures,any data,wing aerea,span or lengh for this big wing plane

 

[hesham]

Hi Ivran,


it was Blackburn B-94 naval fighter,here is some info about it.

 

[Schneiderman]

Hesham,

Not quite, the version in Flight is the B.103, the first true step on the way to the Buccaneer. The B-94 is very closely related, but more of a fighter than a strike aircraft.

Early B.103
Span 45ft
Wing area 650 sqft
take-off weight 42,000lb
2 x 11,000 lb thrust Armstrong Siddely Sapphire ASSa.7

 

[ivran]

thanks very impresive Heppy New Year

 

[hesham]

From my dear Rolf,


and Keypublishing Ltd.; 100 years of British Flight,here is the Armstrong-Withworth AW.168,which
intended to compete Blackburn B.103 Buccaneer.

 

[Pioneer]

Mock-up of the Armstrong-Withworth AW.168
Would love to see more pics if anyone has them

Regards
Pioneer

 

[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 ?.