Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The canopy looks quite good but I wonder if something like the Whirlwind or Miles M20 canopy might be possible.
The cooling system on the Hurricane was not particularly inefficient, and was actually more efficient than the cooling system on the Spitfire. It is only when you start to compare it to the radiators on later designs (P-51, Mosquito, etc) that it lags behind any significant amount. The only real problem with the location of the radiator on the Hurricane was that it did not allow for center-line carriage of ordnance or DTs, but since the landing gear arrangement also prevented center-line carriage it is kind of a moot point.
I prefer keeping the radial engine. Swap out the Mercury with a Perseus for added power. If a FAA version is considered this will gain some skills/parts compatibility with the Skua and Albacore. Avoiding the Merlin also prevents engine delays when the Spitfire and Hurricane need/demand every unit produced.The engine. It has to be a Merlin nothing else comes close unless Daimler Benz suddenly start exports.
Agreed. This will require a new wing, ideally one with wide track undercarriage and provision for folding wings.The undercarriage. That has to go
I believe this was due to a spin recovery issue.The Tail. The rudder on the F5 was noted as very heavy I wonder if the forward position had anything to do with it.
No chance. Gloster is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hawker. Yes, we seem to forget that the Gloster Meteor was a Hawker Siddeley aircraft. There's zero chance that the stubborn and strong-willed Sidney Camm will allow his Hurricane design to be replaced with Folland's. This, I suggest is the primary reason the F5/34 was killed upon Hawker's acquisition of Gloster in 1935. And besides, in your suggested time period the entire Hawker Siddeley design team is working on finalizing the Hurricane and designing the Typhoon (first flight in Feb 1940), there's no time to be fiddling with the F5/34.The redesigned F5 needs to be in service at the latest spring 1940. First flight of the F5 is according to Wikipedia December 1936 tests can take place in summer 1937 so the decision to rebuild the prototype has to happen late 1937. That gives Folland and his team 2 years to produce a Hurricane beater and 109E equivalent.
I have been followingtomo pauk No Spitfire thread with interest and it seems to me that another British aircraft manufacturer is going to have to step up and try to build an equivalent or near equivalent to the Spitfire. It has to be British I just can't see imported or license built foreign designs being ordered or even ready to meet the Bf109 E and F.
I think the Gloster F5/34 is the most promising design. All the alternative designs come from companies that are too busy building bombers (Bristol and Vickers) too small (Miles and MB). Glosters had no projects beyond the twin engine heavy fighter which won't be missed if it's cancelled.
So starting with the F5/34 what do we need to get it up to or near 109E standard.
The engine. It has to be a Merlin nothing else comes close unless Daimler Benz suddenly start exports.
The undercarriage. That has to go what on earth was Folland doing. Maybe the Hurricane undercarriage design is used I don't think it had any problems.
The Tail. The rudder on the F5 was noted as very heavy I wonder if the forward position had anything to do with it.
The Wing. It's a one piece wing which was unusual for the time maybe design a new two piece wing.
Radiator. I believe the radiator on the Hurricane was less thanerc optimal. What is best for the radiator I would like a P51 type but that may be too early. I think it has to be Spitfire type.
The redesigned F5 needs to be in service at the latest spring 1940. First flight of the F5 is according to Wikipedia December 1936 tests can take place in summer 1937 so the decision to rebuild the prototype has to happen late 1937. That gives Folland and his team 2 years to produce a Hurricane beater and 109E equivalent.
It's a shame that A-W didn't design a new engine based on their Tiger, but with central bearing and other structural reinforcements. They might have kicked Bristol's arse or at least got them thinking of re-focusing on poppet valves like everyone else.
It's a shame that A-W didn't design a new engine based on their Tiger, but with central bearing and other structural reinforcements. They might have kicked Bristol's arse or at least got them thinking of re-focusing on poppet valves like everyone else.
Best plan to see this plane in service? Have Hawker Siddeley sell/license the F5/34 design to someone else. The Aussies can build it before/instead of the Boomerang, with P&W R-1830 Twin Wasps, like their Beauforts. Send the technical drawings and any pre-production tooling to CAC in 1936 when it's clear the Hawker Siddeley group is focused elsewhere. Hawker needs to focus on the Hurricane and Typhoon and then get on with the Tempest and Meteor programs. There is no time nor resources in the company to pursue a concurrent 1930s fighter program.
Like much of the UK's aerospace industry, Armstrong Siddeley is too small, it needs to be merged into a larger operation. Had it remained part of Vickers Armstrong it AS would have had the scale to get more done.I like the idea of a better Armstrong Siddeley engine I wrote a little what if about it. However there is a problem AS manufactured the Cheetah which was a very important engine for training aircraft. If AS is busy building a better Tiger where do the 35000 plus Cheetahs come from for the Anson and Oxford.
The problem seems to be that Bristol is producing a dung heap of engines in the 800hp class, some single row, some two row, some poppet valve some, sleeve valve almost any permutations so long as it is around 700-800hp. They only deliver an 1100hp it will be only available in 1939 and it is at its development limit because its cobbled together from two single row radials at their development limit. Rather than developing a 1200hp engine like the R-1830 Bristol is busy inventing the sleeve valve.
Like much of the UK's aerospace industry, Armstrong Siddeley is too small, it needs to be merged into a larger operation. Had it remained part of Vickers Armstrong it AS would have had the scale to get more done.