1930s British modern fighters.

[woljags]

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

 

[The Basket]

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.

 

[Rivet]

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

 

[stona]

Very Pedantic. Matter to whom? The fighter design of 1930s?

I was making a friendly point,not seeking an argument. I'm surprised to see that it doesn't matter to you who I'm assuming is Scottish.
Cheers
Steve

 

[The Basket]

I am English with a Welsh mother who lives in Scotland.

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

 

[merlin]

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.

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.

 

[merlin]

I am English with a Welsh mother who lives in Scotland.

I'm Welsh - both Grandfathers, and my Mother were English.

 

[The Basket]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.

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.

 

[The Basket]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

Still reading up on this issue as of interest to me.

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

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.

 

[The Basket]

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!

 

[merlin]

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 Basket]

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!

 

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[tomo pauk]

Was the 312 mph @ 625 Hp for Venom just a sales pitch, or a proven figure for a battle-worthy aircraft?

 

[fastmongrel]

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.

 

[fastmongrel]

Some nice what if pictures of the Gloster here
Gloster F5

 

[merlin]

The Taurus wasnt reliable enough so a non started for a Hurricane rival.

It was used on the Gloster twin, and whilst the Taurus TE/1 (with which it reached 360 mph at 15,200 ft.) did give problems - even the IIIs derated to 900 hp reached 332 mph. But that maybe makes the case for retaining Mercurys but more powerful ones.

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.
Glad had 840 hp Mercury, Venom + Mercury, would have needed structural changes to cope with the centre of gravity with the heavier engine.

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 point is here surely that it was designed to get the best out of that low power, by having a small light aircraft, if it was designed with a Mercury doubt it would be any better than the Gloster.

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.

Earlier biplanes mostly had radials, the Ministry I don't think had any bias against them, it was just that the Merlin was more efficient than the radials available at the time. There were problems with the Hercules - Mercury stayed in production as a result, yet the Boulton-Paul P.88a coulld so easily have had a life, instead of being stillborn! And seems a difference of the Gloster first flight, Wiki says Dec '37, but LFE Coombs says Dec '36, and it was a Mercury IX 840 hp.

An American engine? Licence built? When we still had an engine industry? No thanks!

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!?

 

[Readie]

I'm Welsh - both Grandfathers, and my Mother were English.

All my family are southern English
Which means that we are French if you go back far enough...
Cheers
John