Hawker Siddeley HS-134

[EZYA319]

Britain's answer to the Boeing 757 before Boeing had even come up with the 757!
I'm trying to source some information about the Hawker Siddeley HS-134 but not having much luck online and was hoping someone may be able to point me in the right direction or had any information on the aircraft?

[CAEBr]

Britain's answer to the Boeing 757 before Boeing had even come up with the 757!
I'm trying to source some information about the Hawker Siddeley HS-134 but not having much luck online and was hoping someone may be able to point me in the right direction or had any information on the aircraft?

It gets a brief mention in Richard Payne's book "Stuck on the Drawing Board, unbuilt British commercial aircraft since 1945"
There is a small three view view to accompany, with the detail that in its initial form it had the Trident fin and tail.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1290/20231127_131518_06407b99a98336d041fee174ee8e7972794c41af.jpg

[TCU]

The HS134 gets a good page and a half reference in Graziano Freschi's book "The BAC Three-Eleven". Not sure if copy right prevents a photo, so will resist, but happy to post if this is given the thumbs up....otherwise source the book as it is an excellent read and reference

Edit: Copy added following Jhieminga's comment below

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1527/e8f7f934_8823_4ccc_bf66_eb93f0fe84ef_1_201_a_99d32330f39ded4 839347b593162bf7d52298630.jpeg

[Jhieminga]

Generally, posting a photo of a small section of a book should not be a problem. I was going to look at Richard Payne's book as well... but that has been covered by CAEbr already.

Edited to add: The RB178 and RB207 were pushed aside in RR's journey to develop a three-shaft large fan engine. As we know, this crippled the company four years later, but around 1967/68 a decision was taken to discontinue the development of a 757-sized engine.

[DIBO]

Does not provide much additional info, but I'll post it anyway
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/639x439/hs134_2_faacf3e99ce582207a30814f29b9c7e86712270e.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/472x293/hs134_dac8fd162396f6735d40f5a24418dfb652dbc964.jpg

[TCU]

My word. An A321 some 30 years ahead of its time.

[Jhieminga]

A 757 but thirteen years early, an A321 about 30 years early... at the time there was no money to develop the airframe and no money to develop both the needed engines for this and the large three-spool turbofan that RR had set its sights on and which would bankrupt the company in 1971. Would it have sold? There's no way to tell. In the late '60s it would have been battling the VC10s, the 707s, the DC-8s and others. There were too many miles left in those designs to replace them in the '70s, but that's just my guess. We know that the Trident could have been larger, so perhaps it would have sold in that market.

If anyone would like to see more of the books mentioned... here are some links: https://amzn.to/3QX01nV and https://amzn.to/3sU41O0.

[treadigraph]

Front end looks to be all Trident though it seems to have eschewed the offset nose gear.

Never heard of it before, amazing how many actual types and still-born projects like this one appear via these pages.

[Allan Lupton]

I should be able to fill in a few matters but it is rather a long time ago. I was in Sales Engineering and the HS134 was being schemed in Future Projects which was on the floor below us in the New Design Block at Hatfield.
One matter that may be relevant is that twin-engined aeroplanes were not permitted to fly more than one hour's flying time from a suitable and open airfield. As we know, the improved reliability of power units eventually allowed the permissable range to be increased and we now have twin-engined operations that would have been impossible when the HS134's market was being assessed.

[ATNotts]

You just know that given the era, HS would have pitched the HS-134 to BEA who would have tinkered with the design, making it smaller, shorter range or whatever else that would have made it pretty well unsaleable to any other carrier - well thats pretty well what they did to the Trident 1!

As it was it looked, from the drawings up thread, pretty good on paper and way ahead of its time.

[Dr Jekyll]

My word. An A321 some 30 years ahead of its time.

Of course the Airbus 321 (and 318 319 and 320) have their origins in the Jet2 collaborative project which began with a series of meetings at the Bae offices in Weybridge. Not that a largish twin engined narrow body could ever have looked much different.

[TURIN]

It gets a brief mention in Richard Payne's book "Stuck on the Drawing Board, unbuilt British commercial aircraft since 1945"
There is a small three view view to accompany, with the detail that in its initial form it had the Trident fin and tail.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1290/20231127_131518_06407b99a98336d041fee174ee8e7972794c41af.jpg
The 757 design also started off with a T tail. Great minds think alike or plagiarism?

[Dr Jekyll]

The 757 design also started off with a T tail. Great minds think alike or plagiarism?

I read that it changed on the 134 because BEA didn't like the T tail, and on the 757 at least partly because BA didn't.

[EZYA319]

Thanks for the replies everyone. Very much appreciated. It certainly could have been a very interesting aircraft had it been built.

[SWBKCB]

The 757 design also started off with a T tail. Great minds think alike or plagiarism?

The 757 was originally a development of the 727, in the same way as the 134 was developed from the Trident - so great minds, I think.