Hawker Siddeley HS-134
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: liverpool
Age: 40
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker Siddeley HS-134
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?
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?
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?
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?
There is a small three view view to accompany, with the detail that in its initial form it had the Trident fin and tail.
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
Edit: Copy added following Jhieminga's comment below
Last edited by TCU; 27th Nov 2023 at 18:43.
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.
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.
Last edited by Jhieminga; 27th Nov 2023 at 18:29.
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.
If anyone would like to see more of the books mentioned... here are some links: https://amzn.to/3QX01nV and https://amzn.to/3sU41O0.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,635
Received 300 Likes
on
168 Posts
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.
Never heard of it before, amazing how many actual types and still-born projects like this one appear via these pages.
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.
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.
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.
As it was it looked, from the drawings up thread, pretty good on paper and way ahead of its time.
The following users liked this post:
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.
The 757 design also started off with a T tail. Great minds think alike or plagiarism?
