The first prototype just after first rollout at Bagington (via Ray Williams).

ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH A.W.52

Manufacturer Specification Role First Flight Date Sir W G Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft Ltd E.9/44 Research Prototype TS 363 -13th November 1947 TS 368-1st September 1948 low speed end of the flight envelope; this was allocated the firm's designation of A.W.51. After some revision of the overall design, the glider's designation was changed to A.W.52G. This was of all-wood construction and had a fixed undercarriage, and on completion was flown for the first time in February 1945. Although it produced useful data regarding lowspeed handling, there were obvious restrictions to its use asa research tool due to its very limited flight time per sortie, which varied anywhere between 5 and 35 minutes, dependent on the particular profile flown and the launch height. Having been towed to altitude by the last production Whitley bomber, maximum release height was 20,000 ft. and the maximum permitted speed was217 kts. The Whitley was replaced as tow-aircraft by a Lancaster, and trials continued until March 1950.It was transferred to the Airborne Forces Experimental Establishment at Beaulieu for brief trials, towed to launch height by a Valetta. It was returned to Armstrong Whitworth, and was put on static display. Sadly,the wooden structure deteriorated rapidly in the open air and it was eventually scrapped in the late 50s. As the limitations of the glider as a research tool were recognised early on, a powered version was projected in 1944to explore the high speed end of the flight envelope. Specification E.9/44 was raised, covering the manufacture of two prototypes, the first to be powered by two Rolls-Royce Nene engines and the second by two Derwents. (The use 31

During the War years, much work had been done on the characteristics of the laminar flow wing and its promised large reduction in drag, which would therefore be of immense benefit for greater range and speed for a given power output. Several examples had been tested with varying degrees of success,one being on the North American Mustang fighter. Armstrong Whitworth submitted such a design as early as 1942and, to optimise the benefit from the laminar flow sections, they selected an allwing design with only the cockpit canopy spoiling the lines. Their work was eventually to result in Britain's only flying wing design to get off the drawing board -the A.W.52.

Although initially aimed at a bomber project, after the War had ended, Armstrong Whitworth proposed the all-wing design as a basis for a sixengined airliner. In view of the radical nature of the design and the many unknowns, it was felt prudent to build a 1/3 scale glider version to investigate the

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

A rear three-quarters view showing jet orifices, control surfacesx and landing flap profiles. Note also subtle shape of wingtip profile due to washout angle. (via Ray Williams)

of axial flow turbojets, which due to their smaller diameter, could have been accommodated entirely within the wing without the nacelle bulges, had been considered. However, it was thought that they would not be available in time and so they were rejected.) Although primarily a pure research vehicle, provision was made for the aircraft to carry up to 4,000 Ibs. of mail. As the design was further refined, the pure wing 'sprouted' a central fuselage nacelle which projected ahead of the wing leading edge; otherwise, the overall shape followed very closely that of the earlier machine. Construction of the first prototype, TS 363, was completed, and initial taxi-ing trials started on 1st April 1947. The aircraft was dismantled and taken by road to be reassembled for static display at the 1947 Farnborough Air Display, before being taken apart again and transported to Boscombe Down, where taxi-ing trials recommenced on 28th October. It was found that, at high speed, the nose rose uncontrollably and could only be made to drop by cutting power to the engines. Adjustments to the control settings finally solved the problems but, even atthis early stage, it was apparent that the aircraft was extremely sensitive in pitch. These taxi-ing trials resulted in two short 'hops', the first being unintentional as the nose could not be lowered in time! The first flight was finally made on 13th November 1947. The flight lasted only 20 minutes and the landing proved to be difficult. There was little drag and, despite the use of landing flap, the aircraft floated a long way before touching down, and during this stage no movement of the control column was made in pitch, as the slightest elevator movement set up a rapid pitch oscillation. 32

The second flight was not made until the 17th November, and ended in an emergency when the nosewheel could not be locked down. Surprisingly, after landing the aircraft was much easier to manoeuvre due to the nosewheel jack not being fully extended and the oleo having less rake. So this emergency actually helped the programme by pointing the way to modification of the nosewheel oleo geometry! Flight testing continued, and the phenomenon of over-sensitivity in pitch continued to cause problems. The rapid pitching oscillations were triggered in all but the smoothest air. The aircraft was ferried back to the firm's factory for minor modifications on 14th December, after which trials continued. Under certain conditions, marked airframe buffet was also experienced, which was caused by wing flexure, but the main problem still remained the pitch control and the general lack of harmonisation between the pitch and roll controls. Modifications to the control surfaces were made during November 1948, separate spring and trim tabs being fitted,and the control hinges were stiffened. Meanwhile, having flown on 1st September 1948, the second prototype, TS 368, had joined the flight test programme, its primary task being the investigation of airframe and control vibration. On 26th May 1949, during a test flight in TS 363, very rough air was experienced whilst descending at 320 kts. at 5,000 ft. The rapid pitch oscillation started and became dangerously divergent, such that after only 15 seconds the pilot had to abandon the aircraft. He thus became the first British pilot to use the Martin-Baker ejection seat in an emergency. The aircraft eventually stabilised, possibly due to the change of trim and airflow after the pilot had

ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH A.W.52

departed, but crashed tearing off its engines. No Tests results were disappointing in that laminar repair was attempted and the airframe was scrapped. flow was achieved over a very small percentage of Just before this incident, similar violent pitch the wing chord. Due to surface irregularities, especially in the region of the nose spar and skin oscillations were experienced in TS 368, producing accelerations in the order of +12g and -5g; joint, and the problem of dust particles and insects however, the aircraft was luckily in a climb and, adhering to the wing skin, laminar flow was limited after throttling back and decelerating, they ceased to as little as 5% of the chord! All spanwise joints on upper and lower surfaces and a very careful recovery and landing was made! Following the crash of TS 363 under similar were practically obliterated by filling and paint and, circumstances, and after a delay for structural to prevent adherence of the dust and insects, the check, trials continued, but with a limiting maximum leading edges were even covered with sheets of speed of 250 kts. being imposed. These trials paper, removed at the last minute before take-off. concerned detailed pressure plotting of the wing But even these measures produced little improveand attempts at determining the actual position of ment. Transition from laminar flow was achieved at the transition of the boundary from laminar to the following points during these tests: normal flow. The aircraft was ferried to Farnborough on 25th On the top surface: 5% chord at 120 kts. 15% chord at 180 kts. October 1950, for continuation of laminar flow 5% chord at 210 kts. trials and general research into the airflow over swept wings. To enable the airflow to be visualised, On the lower surface: 5% to 6% at all speeds from a thin chemical film was sprayed over the wings 120 - 240 kts. outboard of the engines and, to enable it to be seen, the wings had to be painted black over the The programme was terminated in September 1953 and, after languishing at Farnborough, the aircraft test area.

DIMENSIONS Span Length Height Track Wheelbase AREAS Wing (gross) Flap Fin and Rudder (total) Rudder (each) tab (each) Controller (each) tab (each) Corrector (each) WEIGHTS empty loaded wing loading PERFORMANCE Vmax Sea Level 20,000 ft 36,000ft Rate of Climb Sea Level 20,OOOft 36,000 ft

DATA

TS 363
90'11/1 90'0/1 37'3.5/1 14'4.6/1

TS 368 45,OOOft

(overall) (between fin centrelines)

(23'7/1 to outer tyre centres)

Ceiling Range (20,000 ft) or Range (36,000 ft) or Maximum Take-Off Run Landing Roll Max Lift Coefficient

50,000ft

21'7"
15'2.3/1

1,314.0 sq ft 148.75 sq ft 75.06 sq ft 12.68 sq ft 1.46 sq ft 57.7 sq ft 6.65 sq ft 48.2 sq ft TS 363 19,6621bs 34,154lbs 25.1 Ibs/sq ft. TS 363 434kts 434kts 417 kts 4,800 ft/min 3,000 ft/ min 1,600 ft/ min TS 368 19,1851bs 33,3051bs 24.7Ibs/ sq ft TS 368 390kts

980 miles at 243 kts (true) 880miles at 347 kts (true) 1,500 miles at 287 kts (true) 1,420 miles at 347 kts (true) 2,130 miles 600yds (approximately) OOOyds (approximately) 1.6 (flaps down)

REFERENCES Armstrong Whitworth Armstrong Whitworth Public Records Office RAE Farnborough Ray Williams Ray Williams 'Flight'

2,500 ft/min 'Aeroplane' Hawker Siddeley Group Data Sheet

-Drawing No 96665 -A.W.52 Manual Vol 1 -Avia Files -Library -Archives -Photographic Archives -19th December 1946 -15th January 1948 -16th January 1948 -A.W.52

33

was struck off charge on 10th March 1954 and was chord. That at the centreline was NPL Section allocated to Shoeburyness to act asa gunnery target 655-3-218, with a chord of 21'4", and thickness/ to where it was transported by road on 29th May. chord ratio of 18%. The section at Rib 4, to which As with all tail-less designs, the maximum value of the outer wing panels attached, was NPL655-3-118, the Coefficient of Lift was low, even with full flap, also with an 18% thickness/chord ratio, the chord the primary reason being the short moment arm being 15'7" at this point. The fuselage (nacelle' between the control surfaces and the centre of projected 5'9" in front of the theoretical apex of the gravity, resulting in high down-load on the surfaces wing. Its maximum diameter was 5'4" and it faired to correct the pitching moment at low speeds. The into the wing top surface at approximately 1/3 chord, problems of the aircraft's stability and control could and continued aft right to the trailing edge of the not be solved with the facilities and knowledge wing on the underside. The constant 5'2" chord Fowler-type slotted flap available at that time, and only now with artificial stability is this being achieved. But even now the extended across the centre of the trailing edge, problems of achieving satisfactory laminar flow spanning 28'4". It was hinged at six points, with a have yet to be resolved due to contamination of the maximum deflection of 40° for landing, with 25°-30° being used for take-off. The underslung wing surface by foreign bodies. engine nacelles were situated with their centrelines 7'0" out from the wing centreline. The engines were fed from a flat oval intake, the engine being The entire airframe was constructed from light mounted at approximately mid-chord, with the jetalloy, with a stressed skin. In the attempt to achieve pipe orifices exhausting over the flap upper surfaces laminar flow, the contour accuracy was kept to within semi-circular fairing ducts. Large side-hinged within 1/2000". This was done by using a thick (16to engine accessdoors were provided in the undersur18 gauge) sheet for the skin, and the wing was faces of the nacelles between the spars,for mainteconstructed in the jig from the skin inwards, the nance and for engine removal. This was achieved via structure being based around two spars.This meant two holes in the upper surface, through which cables that the ribs had to be split longitudinally, allowing from a standard 2,000Ibs. bomb winch could be the top and bottom surfaces to be made separately. passed to support the engine when being removed The closely spaced spanwise stiffeners formed a or installed. Two rectangular flaps were fitted in the corrugated inner skin to attempt to limit local intake for the control of the boundary layer suction system. Two massivesparsstretched right acrossthe distortion. The wing was built in three major sections, the whole centre-section, to the ends of which were centre-section and the two outer wing panels. The bolted the outer wing sections. Justoutboard of the engine nacelles on each side, centre-section span was 36'4" and its leading edge sweep angle was 17°33'48"; there was no sweep on between the spars, were the main undercarriage the trailing edge. The high lift wing sections were bays. Long travel oleos were fitted to allow for nondeveloped by the National Physical Laboratory, flare landings, each having a pair of wheels with 30" designed to maintain laminar flow back to 55% diameter low pressure tyres. The Dowty under-

CONSTRUCTION

A side view emphasising the clean wing profile and showing details of the fin tip and rudder surfaces (via Ray Williams).

34

ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH A.W.S2

carriage retracted upwards and rearwards into the wing. Each oleo had a central main shock absorber, with a Y-shaped retraction link and two radius arms leading forwards. Two fuel tanks occupied the remainder of the wing between the spars outboard of each undercarriage bay. The fore tank capacity was 178 gallons and the aft 228 gallons. The outer wing panels were attached to the centre-section by a series of high-tensile bolts at Rib 4, this junction being referred to as the wing 'knuckle'. The wing inboard of Rib 4 had no dihedral, but outboard to the tip it was 1° measured at 45% chord. Leading and trailing edge sweep angles were 34°6' and 22°44'43" respectively, the wing tapering to an extended tip chord of 8'8", with a thickness/chord ratio of 15%, the section changing to NPL 645-3-015. For the total wing planform this gave a quarter chord sweep of 24°45'18", but measured outboard of the knuckle only, this reduced to 13°21'14". Compared to the airframe fore and aft datum, the wing had an incidence of +1 °20' at the centreline, 0° at the knuckle, and _2° at the tips. The inboard end of the wing outer panels between the spars housed two more fuel tanks each side, the capacities being 204 gallons in the forward tank and 240 gallons in the aft. These brought total fuel capacity to 1,702 gallons. The elliptical fins were mounted at the very tips of the wings, with a root chord of 5'6". The rudders were each fitted with servo/trim tabs, and their movement was biased to give a range of 30° outward and 10° inward. For low-speed trials, cylindrical anti-spin parachute containers were mounted below the base of the rudders, on the outboard surfaces of the fins. A yaw vane boom and a pitot head were fitted to the wingtip leading edges on the right and left respectively. The fuselage nacelle contained the cockpit at its forward end, which accommodated two crew members, the pilot sitting in line with the root leading edge, under a long glazed canopy which was offset 3" to the left of the centreline. This could be jettisoned in an emergency and, at the same time, a system locked the control column forwards against the instrument panel to allow clearance for the pilot's legs during ejection. Only the pilot was provided with an ejection seat, a Martin-Baker Mk.1; the observer, who sat behind and below the pilot, had to bale out manually through the normal crew entry hatch on the lower right side of the nacelle, which was also jettisoned. The cockpit was heated and pressurised by engine bleed-air to a maximum differential of 5.5 psi. The 300 cu.ft. freight compartment was situated immediately behind the aft pressure bulkhead of the cockpit, but was neither heated nor pressurised. Access was via a door in the lower left side of the fuselage nacelle at approximately mid chord. The cockpit windscreen consisted of a flat centre panel which was both heated and de-iced, and curved quarter-lights, the left-hand one of which had an openable direct vision panel. Cockpit control layout was conventional, with a normal 'bomber-type' spectacle control column, to the centre of which was mounted an additional wheel for control of the nosewheel steering. The nosewheel oleo retracted rearwards into a bay under the forward end of the cockpit and, like the cockpit, this was offset 3" to the left of the centreline. (Note: no record can be found for the reason for this rather unusual layout for the nosewheel.) In addition to the specialist instrumentation and recording cameras, provision was made for the carriage of a 'Gee' indicator type ARI.5083 and a TR.1464 VHF radio, whip aerials for which were mounted below the fuselage in front of the nosewheel bay and on the upper fuselage behind the cockpit canopy. Hydraulically-operated dive recovery flaps were fitted to the undersurfaces of the centre-section, beneath the fuel tanks. These were rectangular surfaces each with a length of 5'3" and chord of 10", and they could be selected to one of two positions by the cockpit push-button control, either 30° or 45°. The outer part of the wing trailing edge was occupied by the large 20'2" span elevons, which were divided over their entire length, at approximately 50% chord, into 'correctors' forward, and 'controllers' aft. Spring and trim tabs were fitted at the inboard end of each controller. The 'controller' was the actual elevon for roll and pitch control; the function of the 'corrector', to which the controller was hinged, was to provide a powerful longitudinal trimmer to counteract the pitching moment caused by lowering and raising the flap but, in so doing, would not impair the lightness of the controls, stick-free stability being a requirement. The correctors were each operated by three screw jacks with a chain interconnection, these in turn being operated by a single hydraulic jack. When 20° flap was lowered, the correctors were raised 4°, at 40° flap they were raised another ~, with an override control allowing another 6° if required, total movement available thus being 12°. The elevon movement was -24° and +20°. Two different, but important, services to try to ensure laminar flow under all circumstances, were the wing anti-icing and boundary layer control systems. Both were run from air bled off from the engines. The boundary layer removal system was fitted to try to overcome the tendency that all swept wings 35

Serials:-

TS 363 TS 368

----~-~----

Flap in 40 posi ti on Section V- V

Colour Scheme:Gloss white overall. serial numbers on outboard surface of fins only. No national markings.

.,
.•••••• _ •••• _ •••••••. '>

.'
'0" .

12 10 8

r ....wr ~_
6 4 2

01
1

i 1

Feet Metres V

Sheet

2 of 2

:.

..

c-c

Rivet detail shown. but much hidden by filler on aerofoil achieve surfaces to try to laminar- flow.

0-0
ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH

A.W.S2

Seria l numbers gloss black.

::

.:

...

A-A _____

\s-s
Views show anti-spin parachute cantai ner, actu ally fi tted to both wingtips.

I =:-=-=:===s.........:::::::::==~~:::=:=:j
.:=____

Various areas of underside of wing painted matt black during laminar- flow trials.

::1'-1-. --

..

..---,.Ii
.. [!

.........

:"_ ....

······0:

12 10 8

6 1

2 0

01 1

Feet Metres

Sheet 1 of 2

I ,
\

/section
Mainwheel in
c·.···

W-w

z
I

retracted

position

-""'-_\ --

Flap in 40· position

...........................

«> .

y
o

Section X-X

---~
Section y-y
ARMSTRONG

lie

]:::::>--SectionZ-Z

WHITWORTH

AW.S2;

had of stalling at the tips first, and to prevent stick force reversal. This was to be achieved by suction through one-quarter inch wide slots cut in the wing along the whole leading edge of the correctors at approximately 55% chord on the upper surfaces, which was the point at which laminar flow was designed to break down. The resultant flow was forwards between the wing sparsto partially sealed chambers in the wing leading edges, which were in turn connected to the engine intake ducts. The air flow was achieved by opening a pair of rectangular flaps in each engine intake duct. These flaps were automaticaly controlled from both the throttles and elevons. The idea was to increase suction whenever the throttle was retarded below 8,000rpm. and/or the control column was pulled back. The resultant loss of thrust from the engines was approximately 3001bs. at maximum suction bleed and, to help compensate, the engines' flight idling speed had to be increased by some 2,000rpm. The suction air ducts were connected by a balance pipe between each engine intake. The suction control flaps were opened 40% travel with the engines at flight idle, and 30%with the control column fully back and the engines at high power settings. In the situation of the column fully back and the engines also at idle, the flaps were 80% open.

The anti-icing system consisted of the outer wing leading edges being heated by using hot air bled directly from the engines' jetpipes. Just aft of each jetpipe orifice was mounted a curved pipe, which could be moved into the hot exhaust-gas stream whenever anti-icing was required. These hot gases were then mixed with cold air to give the correct temperature to the wing ducts, circulation being solely by ram effect. Part of the hot air was taken along the wing leading edges, to exhaust eventually through outlet ducts under each wingtip, the remainder recirculated back through corrugations between the outer and inner wing skins, over an area varying from 13% chord at the knuckle end to 20% at the tip. This then exhausted into the wing structure between the ribs, eventually being dumped overboard through a row of twelve circular holes behind the aft spar in the area of the fuel tanks.

First prototype Two Rolls-Royce Nene 2 R.N.2 centrifugal flow turbojets with a Sea Level Static Thrust of 5,000Ibs., each. Second prototype Two Rolls-Royce Derwent 5 R.D.7 centrifugal flow turbojets with a Sea Level Static Thrust of 3,500Ibs., each.

POWER PLANT

Underside and undercarriage details. Uneven skinning of underside aft of the rear spar and on control surfaces resulted despite special care during manufacture (via Ray Williams).

40