1930s British modern fighters.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

These aircraft is pure talk as none was anywhere near a Spitfire but interesting to see that British aircraft design was cutting edge and that modern designs were coming from a number of factories.

I disagree with the idea that any fighter would have done. The Hurricane just scraped by. If we had to depend on the Venom or Gladiator then bad things may have happened.

considering the Hurricane accounted for more kills than any other aircraft or ground batterys combined in my humble view without the Hurricane not the Spitfire we would have lost the BoB
 
In britain at the end of the 1930s there were distinct groups who championed their own pet theories....when it came to fighter design.

The turret fighter was one. Twin engined fighters like the Whirlwind was another and big bruising 2000bhp single engine monsters were another.

An interesting aside is the Gloster F5/34 performance was not accepted by the RAF but the Japanese Imperial Navy did put a very similiar fighter into production.

The Hurricane on paper would have been a very marginal design in 1940 and had Hawker flown it in 1938 rather than 1935 then it would have gone nowhere and joined the list of also rans.
 
Rather than consider what could have been possible regarding the development of British fighter capability I consider what was in place and plausible. Before one decries the Blackburn effort as 'poor' one might consider the historical record as to what was achieved by these aircraft against superior force.

The reason Royal Naval vessels had aircraft removed form them was the buildup of land based aviation whose supposed range made shipboard aircraft superfluous. I believe this to have been an error of RN operations planning, removing force projection at a time of Third Reich submarine operational increase. The ability to take on attacking submarines in the North Atlantic was lost and only regained to the Allies in 1943 with the usage of long-range four-engine aircraft.

Point taken, Steve. As an addendum the National Health Care system does not have but one central organization, but several to cover the different areas you mention as comprising the UK. Regards
 
I am English with a Welsh mother who lives in Scotland.

And no...it still doesnt matter to me.
 

The Gloster's problem was the prototype flight delay, by the time of its flight tests, the Hurricane was already in service, and the Spitfire ordered and in production. An added complication could be that Hawker owned Gloster - the Hurricane would be built there. Nevertheless, given, an earlier flight, and perhaps more consideration as an 'Empire' fighter - seems an order was plausible.
The Hurricane was an 'old fashioned' design if it was designed later, it would be metal stressed skin rather than fabric covered.
 
A radial fighter would probably made a better ground attacker and be more robust in naval and desert warfare.

I will have to read more details about British radial engines of the period to see whats what.
 
The Basket said:
A radial fighter would probably made a better ground attacker and be more robust in naval and desert warfare.

I will have to read more details about British radial engines of the period to see whats what.
Click to expand...

If you are talking British radials you are talking Bristol (less said about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger the better) and from a practical point of view if you are talking Bristol you are talking the Hercules. Bristol had 5 different radials on offer in 1939-40 not including the Aquila and the Centaurus. The problem for the airstaff of the time and us modern revisionists is that 4 of them were too small/low powered to be worth bothering with. The Mercury was 1520cu in (24.9L) poppet valve engine from the late 20s. The Pegasus was a 1753 cu in (28.7L) poppet valve engine from the early 30s, it was basically a long stroke Mercury. Both had been designed when 73 octane fuel was hot stuff. Both had been updated but development slowed/stalled as effort was put into the sleeve valve engines and the later versions didn't quite keep pace with the Wright Cyclone. The Perseus was another 1520 cu in (24.9L) 9 cylinder radial and never went much beyond 900hp. The Taurus was a 1550cu in (25.4L) 14cylinder radial that went just over 1300lbs. It proved rather troublesome and because of it's small size didn't really offer much scope for the power that was coming into demand. That Leaves the 2360cu in (38.7L) Hercules as the only viable choice for a competitive fighter, ground attack/strike aircraft. The question is can you pry a worthwhile number of them away from bomber command? For some reason the Hercules was never used in a production single engined aircraft.
 
Still reading up on this issue as of interest to me.

Things I learnt so far. Vickers and Supermarine were the same company so if Vickers pushed the Venom it would be to the loss of another works plane.

There was a window but it wasnt taken and at the push there wasnt a radial producing 900bhp in the 1934-1935 timeframe.

The reliability issues of the Taurus was a show stopper.

The Hercules was too late.

A late model Perseus or Mercury XV could have powered a fighter which could have seen service in the BoB and have a top speed of over 300mph. An interesting read although purely academic.
 

It is quite possible that a Perseus or Mercury powered fighter could have fought in the BoB and topped the 300mph. But that just gets to the level of a Curtiss Hawk/Mohawk if you are lucky. Once you stick in the self sealing tanks and armor the climb gets worse and without major development (which they did not/could not get) historically the plane would have been a dead end. Even with new cylinders/heads/finning and crankcase it is unlikely even the Pegasus would have gone much over 1200hp. A Perseus getting the same power per cylinder as a 1600hp Hercules is only 1028hp.
 
Good points Shortround. You mentioned the Hawk 75.

Looking into this is certainly going Japanese for me rather than American. Any British radial fighter would end up like an Oscar or a Zero. Power to weight ratio. If you dont have power then you dont have weight. So the radial fighter would be a dog but structually strong and robust or sparky performance but made out of toilet paper and coat hangers.

The radials didn't offer the power to go rival the Bf 109 and that in a nutshell is what the story is all about. The decision not to go down this road was a good one.

Interesting though. Plenty of good stuff for aviation fans but as always....Spitfire rules!
 
The Gloster design did seem to do better than most, considering the relatively low power of the Mercury - yet still get 316 mph at 16,000 ft. (Hurricane I = 318 mph). Granted there maybe weight rises, yet there are pluses that would have improved performance - constant speed propellor, and 100 octane fuel. Moreover, although an old design the engine still had some room for improvement - e.g. Mercury XV = 905 hp. No it's still not going to be a 'world-beater' but I suspect many Gladiator pilots would have prefered it, and possibly some Hurricanes ones too.
Other engine options, are the Taurus, and the P W R-1830 - both have a smaller diameter, than the Mercury.
 
The Taurus wasnt reliable enough so a non started for a Hurricane rival.

The Venom was good. 312mph on 625bhp is very good. Available in 1936. Proper job. Even with full kit I bet it still would have been a better bet than a Gladiator.

Gladiator had a 830bhp Mercury radial and just cracked 250mph. Had a Venom had the Mercury then it would have seemed like a rocket ship.

100 octane fuel and a constant speed propeller and it would have been at least on a performance par with a Hurricane.

Why did Vickers use the Aquilla when the Mercury was available and increasing in power and flying? The Venom may have been too small for the physically heavier and bigger Mercury...but maybe design for the Mercury in first place.

The Gloster F5/34 first flew in 1938 and was no where near fast enough. just too late. I wish it first flew in 1936 and it may have gone into production although I doubt it. The RAF and the British Air Ministy didnt believe in radials until the Fw 190 showed them the errors of that philosphy.

An American engine? Licence built? When we still had an engine industry? No thanks!
 
100 octane fuel won't do much for the Mercury. Unlike the Merlin which went from 6lbs boost to 12 and beyond with 100 octane the Mercury went from about 4lbs to 6.5 or so. An improvement but nowhere near the Merlin's. Without both structural strengthening and cooling upgrades (more finning) the Mercury won't handle high boost levels. With the engineering effort going into the sleeve valve engines that wasn't going to happen. While radials did eventually get down close to the drag of a liquid cooled inline it was't until later in WW II.
 
Was the 312 mph @ 625 Hp for Venom just a sales pitch, or a proven figure for a battle-worthy aircraft?
 
If the Gloster F5 could get 316mph out of an 830 hp Mercury wonder what performance it would have had with a Merlin engine and a redesigned undercarriage.
 

No can't see a US engine in a UK produced aircraft, but the original spec was for hot climate use, so while the Hurricane was produced in Canada, perhaps the Aussies should have done the Gloster with a US engine!?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Landing and basing fees at Brooklands and Croyden aerodromes, late 1930s
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
LCharnes
A
Any folding wing single seat biplane naval fighters?
Replies
8
Views
930
GrauGeist
A
The British Empire peaked 100 years ago this month
Replies
15
Views
1K
GreenKnight121
International Civilian Flights in the 1930s
Replies
0
Views
767
Browning303
Spanish Civil War Fighters
2
Replies
26
Views
13K
gekho
Menu
Log in
Register