Armstrong Whitworth A.W.29

20

reply

It was built to satisfy Air Ministry specifications P27 /32, which was for a single-engined long-range day bomber. The A.W.29 was a mid-wing cantilever monoplane. Its front fuselage was a welded tubular steel structure, and the rear fuselage a monocoque light alloy with an unbraced tailplane, fin and rudder. The conventional landing gear was hydraulically retractable by either an engine-driven or hand pump leaving the tyres partially exposed. The long-chord cowled, nose-mounted engine drove a three-bladed propeller.
The A.W.29 was a two-crew aircraft. The pilot was seated ahead of the wing leading edge and the gunner /observer in a distant cockpit aft of the spar enclosed in a hand-operated turret. The aft cockpit could be fitted with a second set of controls for flight training.
Not long after the A.W.29's first flight on 6 December 1936, it was damaged in a wheels up landing. Since the Fairey Battle had been awarded the P27 /32 contract, the A.W.29 was not repaired to fly again.

General characteristics-
Crew: 2
Length: 43 ft 10 in (13.36 m)
Wingspan: 49 ft 10 in (14.94 m)
Height: 13 ft 3 in (4.04 m)
Wing area: 412 sq ft (38.3 m²)
Empty weight: 9,000 lb (4,082 kg)
Useful load: 1,100 lb bombs (500 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Armstrong Siddeley Tiger VIII, 870 bhp at 2,450 rpm (650 kW)
Propellers: Hamilton metal two-pitch propeller
Performance-
Maximum speed: 225 mph at 14,700 ft (362 km /h at 4,480 m)
Cruise speed: 208 mph at 14,700 ft
Range: 685 mi (1,100 km)
Ferry range: 1,200 mi (1,900 km)
Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)
Rate of climb: 1,100 ft /min at sea-level (5.6 m /s)
Armament-
Guns: 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis Gun in Armstrong manual turret, 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers wing gun
Bombs: 2 × 500 lb, 4 × 250 lb, or 4 × 100, 112, or 120 lb bombs

reply

Performance figures look optimistic and the proposed A.W."Tiger" engine would have given problems.I'm glad this one did not see service.

reply

The fairey "Battle" has been criticized as being one of the worst aircraft foisted upon RAF aircrew during World War II. However, when one considers that this is what they might have had instead, the benighted "Battle" doesn't seem quite so bad after all!

reply

This is a new one for me- and I thought I was knowledgeable about pre-war military aircraft. General configuration looks as though this ugly heap could have been produced to the same Air Ministry specification as the Fairey "Battle" and would have been equally unsuccessful ! Performance figures look optimistic and the proposed A.W."Tiger" engine would have given problems.I'm glad this one did not see service.

reply