Help with the last of sealords big three.

Wasn’t it designed to meet a perceived requirement for a transport capable of delivering Pegasus engines/spares to Harrier Squadrons operating off rough strips near the front line?

Hence max all up weight may well have been relatively low compared to the C130 or Belfast?

Though why they couldn’t use Andovers to carry spare Pegasus’ is perhaps beyond me…I thought they were designed for rough-field operations, and were fairly STOL. Limited size of the fuselage perhaps?

….Or was the AW681 perhaps actually supposed to offer true VTOL capability, rather than just a STOL capability?

Paul F

It was intended to add large packs of lift engines under the wings for V/STOL operations, most of the time (had it have gone operational probably all the time) it would have operated under STOL conditions. As somebody above said, the variant with the Nimrod wing looks like a better transport option, of course it would not have the same short field performance.

.
If this slant suggests, not that Healey was bad to chop these things, but that Thorneycroft had not interrogated bright Requirors, you would be right.

IMHO this is a fair summary of what happened . Also , with respect to TSR2, I think many in the previous Conservative administration had also realised that the specification was inappropriate. Many were relieved when Labour (Healey) had to take the flack for a decision which would have had to have been taken anyway by them, had the Conservatives not lost the election.
Incidentally, looking at the stage stops of how TSR-2 was to deploy to the Far East (without AAR!) required hold over airfields fast moving out of the UK’s control under the “winds of change”.
I think Healey bit the bullet pretty well ,under the circumstances. Part of his direct post-HS681 legacy is still with us in the shape of the original Hercules buy, which was surely on reflection good value for the U.K.
Some older forum members may recall how he was heavily attacked for buying an “obsolete” American aircraft at the time!

HS681

It was all to do with Luftwaffe operating off autobahns, as MiGs/Sukhois did and Zippers did not. A NATO Basic Military Requirement transport was to support dispersed ops. of those incredible 1959-65 German V/STOL things. Preferred bidder was Dornier 31, Pegasus+RR liftjets. We were to do P.1154, with self-sufficient systems to permit it to wander away from Gutersloh, sit quietly till summoned, go do the business, then come back to a copse…and be replenished by a flying bowser/ammo truck. Verticality would seldom/never have been used, but rough field and Sarajevo approach: it was Slow, more than Short Landing. RAF was opposed to anything foreign that was not US, so specified bigger than Do., to avoid being lumbered with it (same as jets for MR, to disqualify the miscegenated Atlantic).

When Healey arrived he asked for a presentation of the 1154 Design Case sortie – supersonic + V/STOL. There was (is, sorry F-35) none, so he killed that. He accepted some of this dispersal stuff and took (to be)Harrier GR.1, despite no payload. For its succour he asked for a presentation of the dispersal site which could take Army vehicles but not Andover C.1/C-130E. There was none, so he killed HS681.

If this slant suggests, not that Healey was bad to chop these things, but that Thorneycroft had not interrogated bright Requirors, you would be right.

Wasn’t it designed to meet a perceived requirement for a transport capable of delivering Pegasus engines/spares to Harrier Squadrons operating off rough strips near the front line?

Hence max all up weight may well have been relatively low compared to the C130 or Belfast?

Though why they couldn’t use Andovers to carry spare Pegasus’ is perhaps beyond me…I thought they were designed for rough-field operations, and were fairly STOL. Limited size of the fuselage perhaps?

….Or was the AW681 perhaps actually supposed to offer true VTOL capability, rather than just a STOL capability?

Paul F

Considering the trust of your latest Pegasus engines are in the region of 20 to 24,000 pounds trust x 4 – that would equate to a maximum all up weight of just 36 metric tons, I doubt if it would have worked. Even the Rolls Royce Medway was rated lower. Or, am I missing some vital piece of information.

Thanks for your help everybody. I have to agree that the Nimrod winged version would probably be the nicer looking aircraft but for the intended role the final configuration would have been more functional.

The one with the Nimrod wing looks so clean, much better than podded installation.
I like the whole concept, such a shame it never left the drawing board

more ‘Aldershot’ info

http://groups.msn.com/TSR-2ResearchGroup/aw681transport.msnw?Page=1

A nice collection (seven pages worth) of pics and line-art, including MAMs manufacturer’s model, some hypothetical profiles and a scratch built example. Also includes a 3 view G/A drawing of the HS.802 (681 with Nimrod wing)

There is some coverage of the AW.681 in Oliver Tapper’s “Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913” (Putnam) with some text and a photo of a model on pages 50 & 51 and a 3 – view and proposed specifications on page 344.

The Midland Air Museum have a large scale model (and several smaller ones) of the 681.

Roger Smith.

Thanks everybody. It certainly looks very C17ish. Does anybody know what the requirements were for this project?

So now we know where the idea for the C17 came from!

There’s a big article on the HS 681 in AE124 of a couple of months ago.

HS.681

Just found a site with a couple 3D renderings… the second link also contains a 3-view and a shot of what looks to be a conceptual model on exhibition

http://www.bisbos.com/aircraft/hs681/hs681.html

http://www.bisbos.com/aircraft/process.html