UK SST projects

[hesham]

I agree with my dear Dan,

we don't have all Hawker-Siddeley papers or drawings to can judge, and many artist drawings we showed it as a speculative design from other companies, but after while we discovered it was a real Projects, and was not just ideas.

 

[Schneiderman]

While absence of evidence is in no way evidence of absence it does leave plenty of room for doubt and questions. Sure, HS carried out a wide range of supersonic and hypersonic studies through the 1960s for which we do not have details but that does not necessarily mean that specific projects or designs remain to be found. One obvious question would be, why would there be gaps in the material released into the public domain either at the time, as would be expected for a civil project, or over the last 50 years, as has been the case for the military hypersonic studies?
You were quite clear that one project was a Mach-4 SST, that is quite specific and really needs to be supported by references or other evidence. It may yet prove to be the case but we have to have a plausible starting point for a search.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Sure, HS carried out a wide range of supersonic and hypersonic studies through the 1960s for which we do not have details

But... we do. And they're explained in British Secret Projects 5, which you've read. So you know all about them.

 

[Schneiderman]

Typing too quickly, it should read '.......do not have details for all', acknowledging that there are probably gaps thus leaving room for additional projects, if the conjectural SST was a product of this department. Some sort of a plausible clue is all we require to get started

edit....yes I do own and have read Secret Projects 5 although its less well thumbed than some of the others in the series.

 

[newsdeskdan]

its less well thumbed than some of the others in the series.

Understandable - there's less in it and it's not very well written. Certainly not up to the standard of Tony Buttler or Chris Gibson. But it does at least explain how HSA came to research SSTs in the first place and why, specifically, the APG returned to them later to fulfill the terms of a particular contract or series of contracts depending on how you look at it.
The APG lasted for years and was constantly working on a range of projects. The documents we do have bear this out. However, unlike the output of HSA's regular design department much of which is readily accessible thanks to the excellent Brooklands Museum, the output of the APG is not at Brooklands and what does survive of it appears to be in the J E Allen collection at the Science Museum. Some of which, they told me, remains 'sensitive'.

 

[CJGibson]

Right, Dan, before criticising earlier work by people who blazed the trail in the subject, please bear in that:

a) BSP4 was published a decade ago
b) The research and most of the writing was done two decades ago when we had to scribble in pencil in the PRO and before the Grand Opening of the company archives. (I was hunting hypersonics before it became fashionable)
c) Midland Counties' (the publisher) guidelines were rightly very strict on what went in BSP4 i.e. rather than a book on just hypersonics and propulsion systems, it had to include the guided weapons, which effectively reduced the amount of content on the hypersonics.
d) Nothing had been published in this area before, so the publisher had no idea whether it would be successful, hence the 'reconnaissance by fire' approach of putting a wide range of subjects in BSP4. Tony had enough faith in me to put his name to it.

You have benefited from that earlier work, so don't knock it.


Those mistakes...
1) APD stands for Advanced Project Drawing not Department, so the APD labels refer to the drawings as the designs studies are referred to as 'Type'. Hindsight and experience will see that corrected and made consistent in a later edition.
2) The Type 1019A1 was a Mach 4 military transport while the Type 1019A5 was a Mach 4 civil transport. Technically neither of these are hypersonic.
3) The difference was that the A1 was to use exotic fuels, Sheldyne and Decaborane, while the A5 was to use good old-fashioned kerosene.

Right, I'm off for some lunch.

Chris

 

[Rickshaw]

2) The Type 1019A1 was a Mach 4 military transport while the Type 1019A5 was a Mach 4 civil transport. Technically neither of these are hypersonic.
3) The difference was that the A1 was to use exotic fuels, Sheldyne and Decaborane, while the A5 was to use good old-fashioned kerosene.

Chris, I think you have the designations reversed, going from your posted image...

Oh, and what is "Sheldyne" and "Decaborane" when they are at home? "Sheldyne" searches to a girl's name under Google...

 

[newsdeskdan]

Right, Dan, before criticising earlier work by people who blazed the trail in the subject, please bear in that:

a) BSP4 was published a decade ago
b) The research and most of the writing was done two decades ago when we had to scribble in pencil in the PRO and before the Grand Opening of the company archives. (I was hunting hypersonics before it became fashionable)
c) Midland Counties' (the publisher) guidelines were rightly very strict on what went in BSP4 i.e. rather than a book on just hypersonics and propulsion systems, it had to include the guided weapons, which effectively reduced the amount of content on the hypersonics.
d) Nothing had been published in this area before, so the publisher had no idea whether it would be successful, hence the 'reconnaissance by fire' approach of putting a wide range of subjects in BSP4. Tony had enough faith in me to put his name to it.

You have benefited from that earlier work, so don't knock it.

Should I begin 'Right, Chris'? Perhaps not. I would never treat anyone with such outright contempt.
I don't believe any work by anyone, least of all mine, should be above constructive criticism if the information presented is incorrect. It's not a personal slight to the author if it turns out, eventually, that what they wrote years ago under difficult circumstances was not entirely accurate.
I began working on Mustard as a result of seeing Tom Smith's obituary and eventually decided to write a book on his work which I called Britain's Space Shuttle. You'll remember that I told you all this at the time. I was as surprised as anyone when I discovered that Mustard was actually a result of P.42, thereby necessitating my research in that area.
I originally had no intention of covering P.42 and the HSA Type 1019 designs - the research simply led me to a point where it was unavoidable. And in researching those designs (I read widely on anything I'm writing about in primary, secondary and tertiary sources - whatever I can find) I realised that what was in Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles did not fit with what I was seeing in the documents.
Crecy decided to make Britain's Space Shuttle the fifth part of the British Secret Projects series and I was just happy to see my work in print.
I would also take issue with the idea that I benefitted from your earlier work. I wrote most of what became BSP5 without reference to it in any way (as you will be able to tell from reading it). Those aspects of BSP5 which refer to P.42 etc. are based on the original documents, not Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles. Furthermore, I have not 'benefitted' from BSP5 in any way, financially or otherwise. In fact, all it has brought me is grief, particularly from your good self.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please refrain from getting personal, gentlemen.

I'm pretty sure Chris meant you benefited from BSP4 in that it showed that a book on (primarily) hypersonics could sell reasonably well, which helped lay the groundwork for BSP 5 to be released, rather than any more direct benefit.

APD is the designation on the drawings, and several authors have referred to the APG designs by 'APD xxxxx' in the past, probably because they didn't have access to much more than the drawings at that time. Strictly speaking it is wrong unless you are specifically referring the drawing itself.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Please refrain from getting personal, gentlemen.

I'm pretty sure Chris meant you benefited from BSP4 in that it showed that a book on (primarily) hypersonics could sell reasonably well, which helped lay the groundwork for BSP 5 to be released, rather than any more direct benefit.

APD is the designation on the drawings, and several authors have referred to the APG designs by 'APD xxxxx' in the past, probably because they didn't have access to much more than the drawings at that time. Strictly speaking it is wrong unless you are specifically referring the drawing itself.

Thanks Paul - I appreciate the intervention. In my view, mistakes are mistakes. Highlighting them is not a personal slight and I will happily acknowledge any mistakes found in my work - I welcome it - so that I can improve my own understanding and avoid making the same mistake next time. Chapter 16 of the book previously mentioned does repeatedly refer to the Advanced Projects Department (except where previously noted) but I would very much welcome any examples of original documents which use 'APD' in reference to a drawing number.
Perhaps the book in question did lay the groundwork for BSP5, but as mentioned, I would have written it anyway (even if I had never seen or heard of BSP4) and found some avenue, undoubtedly a less contentious avenue, by which to publish it.

NB: I recently discovered a mistake in my Luftwaffe: Secret Jets bookazine concerning the Skoda-Kauba ramjet fighter thanks to this forum. I'll have to find a way of correcting it...

 

[newsdeskdan]

Those mistakes...
2) The Type 1019A1 was a Mach 4 military transport while the Type 1019A5 was a Mach 4 civil transport. Technically neither of these are hypersonic.

Just checked my notes. You showed us page 4.7, Chris. Can we see what's on page 4.6? What Mach does qualify as hypersonic...?

Ah, found my copy and a few pictures - Type 1019/A1, Type 1019/A1 later version (the Type 1019/A1') and Type 1019/A6. Always with the Type number SLASH the subdesignation. Now with added info about the Type 1019/A series in general and the A6 in particular.

 

[hesham]

Great find My dear Dan.

 

[CJGibson]

Paul’s interpretation is how my last post was intended to be taken, but like Paul I can thoroughly understand Dan’s response. I’ll take a leaf out of Hesham’s book next time.

The point I was making is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Twenty years ago we had nothing but Gunston and Wood to base our work on but now we have a much clearer view of what went on. I wouldn’t describe what Gunston wrote about Fifties guided weapons or what Wood wrote about the P.1121 as ‘mistakes’.

Chris

 

[newsdeskdan]

Paul’s interpretation is how my last post was intended to be taken, but like Paul I can thoroughly understand Dan’s response. I’ll take a leaf out of Hesham’s book next time.

The point I was making is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Twenty years ago we had nothing but Gunston and Wood to base our work on but now we have a much clearer view of what went on. I wouldn’t describe what Gunston wrote about Fifties guided weapons or what Wood wrote about the P.1121 as ‘mistakes’.

Chris

If it fits the dictionary definition, it's a mistake. Interesting question though - is it better to write about something even though you know that what you're writing is wrong (or you know there's a good chance that what you're writing is wrong) or should you simply not write it. It's a fine line. I would opt for the latter but there's certainly a case for the former.
Anyway, here's some more of Hawker Siddeley's thinking on supersonic transports circa 1964.

 

[hesham]

Paul’s interpretation is how my last post was intended to be taken, but like Paul I can thoroughly understand Dan’s response. I’ll take a leaf out of Hesham’s book next time.

The point I was making is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Twenty years ago we had nothing but Gunston and Wood to base our work on but now we have a much clearer view of what went on. I wouldn’t describe what Gunston wrote about Fifties guided weapons or what Wood wrote about the P.1121 as ‘mistakes’.

Chris

You are right Chris,many things in the past was not right.

My dear Dan,I am little confuse about Hawker series,was that APG.1011 the same as HS.1011,honestly
I can't determine what was the different between APG,APD & HS,for second used of 1000 series ?.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Paul’s interpretation is how my last post was intended to be taken, but like Paul I can thoroughly understand Dan’s response. I’ll take a leaf out of Hesham’s book next time.

The point I was making is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Twenty years ago we had nothing but Gunston and Wood to base our work on but now we have a much clearer view of what went on. I wouldn’t describe what Gunston wrote about Fifties guided weapons or what Wood wrote about the P.1121 as ‘mistakes’.

Chris

You are right Chris,many things in the past was not right.

My dear Dan,I am little confuse about Hawker series,was that APG.1011 the same as HS.1011,honestly
I can't determine what was the different between APG,APD & HS,for second used of 1000 series ?.

The contemporary images posted elsewhere on this forum by the inestimable Barrington Bond are labelled 'Type 1011'. And we'd best not go anywhere near the Hawker Siddeley Type AW 681.

 

[hesham]

My dear Dan,I am little confuse about Hawker series,was that APG.1011 the same as HS.1011,honestly
I can't determine what was the different between APG,APD & HS,for second used of 1000 series ?.

The contemporary images posted elsewhere on this forum by the inestimable Barrington Bond are labelled 'Type 1011'. And we'd best not go anywhere near the Hawker Siddeley Type AW 681.

That means they are the same,right ?.

 

[newsdeskdan]

My dear Dan,I am little confuse about Hawker series,was that APG.1011 the same as HS.1011,honestly
I can't determine what was the different between APG,APD & HS,for second used of 1000 series ?.

The contemporary images posted elsewhere on this forum by the inestimable Barrington Bond are labelled 'Type 1011'. And we'd best not go anywhere near the Hawker Siddeley Type AW 681.

That means they are the same,right ?.

I have no independent research on that design but I trust Barrington Bond to offer up good quality contemporary images. If the drawings are labelled 'Type 1011' then I would feel confident that this is the proper name of what they depict.

 

[martinbayer]

Paul’s interpretation is how my last post was intended to be taken, but like Paul I can thoroughly understand Dan’s response. I’ll take a leaf out of Hesham’s book next time.

The point I was making is that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. Twenty years ago we had nothing but Gunston and Wood to base our work on but now we have a much clearer view of what went on. I wouldn’t describe what Gunston wrote about Fifties guided weapons or what Wood wrote about the P.1121 as ‘mistakes’.

Chris

If it fits the dictionary definition, it's a mistake. Interesting question though - is it better to write about something even though you know that what you're writing is wrong (or you know there's a good chance that what you're writing is wrong) or should you simply not write it. It's a fine line. I would opt for the latter but there's certainly a case for the former.

I wouldn't see any constructive value in knowingly publishing anything that is evidently wrong (other than contributing to alternate reality fanfic for entertainment rather than enlightenment), but I'd tend towards the former in case of doubt, however including a disclaimer that outlines all potential caveats and concerns. Disclosing information as fully and early as possible is the best way to advance the discussion and get closer to the truth, because somebody else might have missing pieces to the puzzle.

Martin

 

[Barrington Bond]

Does this help with the APD/APG problem?

Regards,
Barry Hinchliffe

 

[newsdeskdan]

Does this help with the APD/APG problem?

Regards,
Barry Hinchliffe

It might well do. What project does it refer to?

Oh, Type 1023 - BEA Transonic Transport, 1962. Variable geometry transport designed to carry 117 passengers for a perceived BEA requirement for the early 1970s and how it compared to the Trident IC/IE/IF and the Type 1011A. Is that the one?

 

[newsdeskdan]

I wouldn't see any constructive value in knowingly publishing anything that is evidently wrong (other than contributing to alternate reality fanfic for entertainment rather than enlightenment), but I'd tend towards the former in case of doubt, however including a disclaimer that outlines all potential caveats and concerns. Disclosing information as fully and early as possible is the best way to advance the discussion and get closer to the truth, because somebody else might have missing pieces to the puzzle.

Martin

The former only works if you're willing to accept and acknowledge the missing pieces of the puzzle as and when they appear. Some authors have gone to their graves defending their incomplete puzzles while denouncing those bearing the missing pieces.

 

[Hood]

Dates and designations are facts and if there are typos or mis-readings of source material then those are factual errors and can and should be corrected.

Interpretation of source material is another thing. Wilfully or not, we are all biased to some extent and we all employ different methods of logic and deduction so will make different analysis and conclusions. That is what historians do and that is what they argue over, interpretations. If getting to the 'facts' was easy there would only have ever been one book ever published on any historical event. Instead all historians rely on the work of others, recognising there are sources missing, finding them and building up a deeper picture. When your stepping into an uncovered area you have even less guidance on what to look for and where it might be found. Only rarely is a definitive history produced that covers all the source material on a given topic and even if that was possible (e.g. those tantalising still classified files the Science Museum holds), somebody else could read exactly the same material and give us a different story with a different conclusion. None of that makes history any the less enjoyable.

It's clear Wood et al back in the 1970s and 80s were not looking much further than the archives of the aeronautical press and companies and inside contacts they had and parliamentary sources like Hansard and white papers. They had no access to the deeper classified technical company papers and memos, nor the official Whitehall files. Much of those papers have been lost or culled over the years, so we'll never know exactly how much important information to making sense of various projects will remain unknown.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Dates and designations are facts and if there are typos or mis-readings of source material then those are factual errors and can and should be corrected.

Interpretation of source material is another thing. Wilfully or not, we are all biased to some extent and we all employ different methods of logic and deduction so will make different analysis and conclusions. That is what historians do and that is what they argue over, interpretations. If getting to the 'facts' was easy there would only have ever been one book ever published on any historical event. Instead all historians rely on the work of others, recognising there are sources missing, finding them and building up a deeper picture. When your stepping into an uncovered area you have even less guidance on what to look for and where it might be found. Only rarely is a definitive history produced that covers all the source material on a given topic and even if that was possible (e.g. those tantalising still classified files the Science Museum holds), somebody else could read exactly the same material and give us a different story with a different conclusion. None of that makes history any the less enjoyable.

It's clear Wood et al back in the 1970s and 80s were not looking much further than the archives of the aeronautical press and companies and inside contacts they had and parliamentary sources like Hansard and white papers. They had no access to the deeper classified technical company papers and memos, nor the official Whitehall files. Much of those papers have been lost or culled over the years, so we'll never know exactly how much important information to making sense of various projects will remain unknown.

All very true. And as I said, it comes back to the willingness to be objective and acknowledge that the work of others has value and can add to our overall understanding of a given topic - a case in point being Barry's APD drawing. Chris pointed out that the Advanced Projects Group's drawings began 'APD' and I had written earlier in this thread words to the effect of 'nothing was ever called APD anything'. I was wrong. The drawings were evidently coded APD/XXXX/XXXX and they must be rare beasts indeed today since none of the APG reports I have feature those original straight-from-the-draftsman drawings - they're all 'cleaned up' for the reports with just Type XXXX/XX on them.
Returning to 'UK SST Projects', I was leafing through some APG reports and found this one (see below) - APG/1009/0701. It features drawings of three wind tunnel models labelled 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Following the logic of what's been said previously, it would seem that if those wind tunnel models were ever drawn up as the actual aircraft designs they're intended to represent, they would be HSA Advanced Projects Group Type 1009/A, Type 1009/B and Type 1009/C. The text refers to 'A' being tested as A1 and A2, which would follow the pattern of Type 1019/A1, A5, A6 etc.
Does any of that seem plausible? Perhaps a Hawker Siddeley APG designations thread is needed.

 

[hesham]

Many thanks to you my dear Dan,

and I think the APD and APG is the same series;

https://www.aerosociety.com/media/3788/research_guide_aircraft_co.pdf

 

[Barrington Bond]

This is the drawing with the APG/APD.

Regards,
Barry Hinchliffe

 

[hesham]

Very Nice,thank you my dear Barrington.

 

[LowObservable]

If you weren't there at the time or you aren't able to place yourself in that situation, to criticize what Gunston and Wood did is at best unhelpful. Both were covering the U.K. aerospace business in the great era of cancelled projects and wasted effort, at a time when the trade press was under the thumb of its advertisers and most of Fleet Street was glad to push the story of "Britain's Lead in Aviation", and when the Official Secrets Act was lavishly exploited to conceal misfeasance.

Both were susceptible to the counter-myth of inspired engineers frustrated by lackadaisical civil servants (Roger Bacon's Neddies and Kneddies). But Derek and Bill broke the ice and prepared the field for more detailed study that became possible as the files were opened up.. incompletely and imperfectly at first.

 

[newsdeskdan]

If you weren't there at the time or you aren't able to place yourself in that situation, to criticize what Gunston and Wood did is at best unhelpful. Both were covering the U.K. aerospace business in the great era of cancelled projects and wasted effort, at a time when the trade press was under the thumb of its advertisers and most of Fleet Street was glad to push the story of "Britain's Lead in Aviation", and when the Official Secrets Act was lavishly exploited to conceal misfeasance.

Both were susceptible to the counter-myth of inspired engineers frustrated by lackadaisical civil servants (Roger Bacon's Neddies and Kneddies). But Derek and Bill broke the ice and prepared the field for more detailed study that became possible as the files were opened up.. incompletely and imperfectly at first.

Are there some writers whose work may not be subject to constructive criticism?
Here's a Vickers variable geometry SST design from circa November 1961. I don't know it's designation - can anyone help?

 

[LowObservable]

Are there some writers whose work may not be subject to constructive criticism?

I don't know how you define "constructive". But there's a point where you have to place the work itself in the context of the time, even as you correct the record in the light of more recent discovery. Original documents weren't available - many were still classified - and people who could have spoken out about the true role of the "neddies", versus the quality of industry leadership, were silent. That's why alertken's posts are so interesting.

 

[newsdeskdan]

Are there some writers whose work may not be subject to constructive criticism?

I don't know how you define "constructive". But there's a point where you have to place the work itself in the context of the time, even as you correct the record in the light of more recent discovery. Original documents weren't available - many were still classified - and people who could have spoken out about the true role of the "neddies", versus the quality of industry leadership, were silent. That's why alertken's posts are so interesting.

There is a fine line. On the one hand, there is no need to be disrespectful of pioneering and professional writers who worked very hard to give an accurate account of the subject matter they were describing and who got many many things absolutely right. On the other hand, it is important to correct the record in the light of more recent discoveries. Given the nature of the debates we hold here in these threads it isn't always a straightforward matter to acknowledge achievements, highlight context and offer the appropriate degree of respect for a writer's outstanding dedication and effort, while at the same time indicating that their work may need to be corrected.
I would define constructive criticism, and I refer back to my dictionary again, as helpful and specific suggestions for improving the accuracy of the work in question. It is highly focused on a particular matter, as opposed to providing feedback on the book or the author in general.
If a fact within a book appears incorrect, particularly if it is being upheld as correct, I believe it should be possible to draw attention to that fact and offer an interpretation of how it might be set right, ideally supported by suitable evidence. This neither makes nor implies any personal criticism of the author or the book in general.

NB: Worth pointing out that, in law, the dead have no reputation that is capable of being damaged and therefore they and/or their works may be subject to any form of criticism whether justified, unjustified, untrue or even malicious. Where the living are concerned, we should be mindful of the Defamation Act 2013.

 

[LowObservable]

NB: Worth pointing out that, in law, the dead have no reputation that is capable of being damaged and therefore they and/or their works may be subject to any form of criticism whether justified, unjustified, untrue or even malicious. Where the living are concerned, we should be mindful of the Defamation Act 2013.

Seriously? Why in the heck would you drag libel into this discussion?

As for pointing out where older works have been superseded by later research - that's entirely different, and part of the process of historical discovery. All I am saying is that the researcher should always consider the environment in which the original author was working before passing any kind of judgment on the quality of that earlier work.

 

[newsdeskdan]

NB: Worth pointing out that, in law, the dead have no reputation that is capable of being damaged and therefore they and/or their works may be subject to any form of criticism whether justified, unjustified, untrue or even malicious. Where the living are concerned, we should be mindful of the Defamation Act 2013.

Seriously? Why in the heck would you drag libel into this discussion?

As for pointing out where older works have been superseded by later research - that's entirely different, and part of the process of historical discovery. All I am saying is that the researcher should always consider the environment in which the original author was working before passing any kind of judgment on the quality of that earlier work.

Libel is, or should be, a consideration wherever and whenever the work of others is being subject to critical commentary. The Defamation Act 2013 tightens the rules on what was previously allowable as 'fair comment' and falls at one end of the spectrum. At the other is the fact that the deceased and their work may be subject to absolutely any form of comment or criticism without censure. I believe it is worth bearing these two extremes in mind as part of an informed debate about what may or may not be written about authors' work, since that is what you wish to discuss in this UK SST projects thread.
When I read a history book, I frequently know nothing about the author beyond what appears on the dust jacket. I own many books by historians the details of whose personal and professional circumstances are unknown to me. If I find a mistake inside one of them, is it reasonable that the onus should be on me, the reader, to then try to research and understand the conditions under which the historian was working and attribute the mistake to those conditions? I believe I would just think: you know what? This book has a mistake in it.
It is also worth noting that earlier works by original authors are not all full of errors. Some have evident errors in, but some don't. Some authors make mistakes in one book but seem to have got it entirely right in another. Can an individual work not simply be judged on its merits?
Anyway, here is another view of the same Vickers SST, from DSIR 23/29195, just in case anyone else is actually still reading this.

 

[LowObservable]

If I find a mistake inside one of them, is it reasonable that the onus should be on me, the reader, to then try to research and understand the conditions under which the historian was working and attribute the mistake to those conditions?

I would call it "being an intelligent reader who looks at the publication date" but that's just me. I have tons of old books and magazines that are full of things that the authors were told or believed at the time. Not all of them were true, many more of them did not show the complete story, but it's most useful to know what the context was - because that informed public decisions. "The Murder of TSR2" is nobody's idea of a definitive history, but from the viewpoint of aviation history it's a useful source as to how divisive the cancellation was.

It is also worth noting that earlier works by original authors are not all full of errors. Some have evident errors in, but some don't. Some authors make mistakes in one book but seem to have got it entirely right in another.

Well, doyyy. It's easier not making mistakes in documented history than it is in reporting on near-contemporary events.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I suggest that we've played out that diversion and we should get back to SST projects

 

[newsdeskdan]

I suggest that we've played out that diversion and we should get back to SST projects

Oh well, fun while it lasted. Anyway, this is a Handley Page SST and, like the Vickers design, I've no idea what its designation is. It was based on a Hawker Siddeley design (the accompanying HP report acknowledges this).

 

[hesham]

Oh well, fun while it lasted. Anyway, this is a Handley Page SST and, like the Vickers design, I've no idea what its designation is. It was based on a Hawker Siddeley design (the accompanying HP report acknowledges this).

My dear Dan,

it looks like the two Projects about Handley Page in replies # 13 & 17.

 

[GTX]

All of this would make the basis for a interesting book.

 

[newsdeskdan]

A little different from what actually ended up being said. Imagine how Hawker Siddeley must have felt.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Mr. Sydney Camm was Chief designer of Hawker company,and he created a 4 Mach SST
Project in mid of 1960s,does anyone know this concept ?.

Maybe based on this;

https://www.diomedia.com/stock-photo-hawker-siddeley-supersonic-transport-aircraft-study-image18093016.html