- Thread starter
- May 28, 2009
The Hawker Siddeley combine was bigger than I thought. Hawkers, Glosters, AVRO, Armstrong Whitworth, Armstrong Siddeley and Air Training Services.
This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yes, but only in 1935, by which time it was too late to create a competitor to Bristol sleeve valve radials. Throughout the interwar period what was to become AS was first stuck in a failing Armstrong Whitworth conglomerate, and then broken off into a relatively small private firm by John Siddeley, with primary focus on automobiles rather than aircraft.Armstrong Siddeley was part of Hawker Siddeley which was possibly the biggest aircraft company in Britain.
Avro Canada as well, which always perplexed me why the Avro Arrow wasn‘t more promoted to the home country.The Hawker Siddeley combine was bigger than I thought. Hawkers, Glosters, AVRO, Armstrong Whitworth, Armstrong Siddeley and Air Training Services.
Hawker Siddeley already has an eight gun single seat Merlin fighter; no chance Camm puts another forward. We might as well expect Vickers to put Merlins onto their Venom instead of allocating them to Spitfires.In 1938-39 unless you stick a Merlin in it none of the possible choices are very good.
Just so we are all on the same page (or at least the same chapter.
View attachment 617418
This is from C.A.H. Pollitt's 1940 book "Scale Plans of Military Aircraft"
They seem to have taken lessons from Seversky in fuselage design.
With a 51.5in diameter engine they managed a 60in (roughly ) diameter in the cockpit area? Roomy for long range flights?
Great vision from the cockpit for combat or landing but that rise from cowl in drawing is not far off.
View attachment 617428
In 1938-39 unless you stick a Merlin in it none of the possible choices are very good.
The Mercury IX weighs 1010lbs (51.5in dia) or so and gives 840hp at 14,000ft and 725 hp for take-off.
The Perseus X sleeve valve weighs about 1100lbs (52.0 in dia) and gives 880hp at 15,500ft and 750hp for take-off.
The two speed Pegasus weighs about 1135lbs (53.3in dia) and gives 885hp at 15,500ft and 965 hp for take-off.
Taurus seems a bit of crap shoot.
The MK II is about 1300lbs ( 46.2in dia) and gives 1110hp at 4000ft and 1060hp for take off at 3100rpm.
The MK III is about 1300lbs ( 46.2in dia) and gives 1060hp at 14,5000ft and 935hp for take off at 3300rpm.
No Taurus after the MK III is listed at running faster than 3100rpm. And no production Taurus is listed as using more than 4.75lbs of boost regardless of fuel.
The early ones start at about 1835lbs (52in dia) and the MK III (first two speed engine) gives about 1210hp at 15,000ft in high gear.
None of the Bristol engines offer much in the way of exhaust thrust.
Only British radial left is the Tiger and a discrete curtain will be pulled across that one.
French engine/s are pretty much limited to the G-R K series, the Ns don't show up in time.
For the American engines it is pretty much the R-1820 G 100 of about 1000-1100hp for take off (engines used in the Buffalo) or
the P & W R-1830 but in 1938-39 they are single speed supercharger engines and around 1000-1050hp is about max power.
I want a Gloster fighter able to meet a Bf109E on roughly the same terms as the Spitfire MkI.
Hawker Siddeley already has an eight gun single seat Merlin fighter; no chance Camm puts another forward. We might as well expect Vickers to put Merlins onto their Venom instead of allocating them to Spitfires.
We need the F5/34 to present Hawker with an opportunity to meet different markets than the Hurricane. If the F5/34 is just duplicating and dispersing Hawker’s investment and time, it has to die. That needs to be the point of this thread, we need to first find a niche for the F5/34 and then modify the aircraft accordingly. That niche needs to be either the FAA, colonial/dominion RAF/RAAF/RNZAF/RIAF/SAAF service or export sales, perhaps produced outside the UK.
If competitively-engine and improved as listed in the posts above, the F5/34 would be a good alternative to the CW-21, P-26, P-36, P-43 and P-66 used by the Chinese and/or DEI, for example. But the engine is the issue, we must toss Bristol for a P&W or CW power plant.
Well, you aren't going to get such a fighter out of the Gloster F5/34.
Drawing may very well not be true to scale.
Series of pictures here.
Gloster F.5 / 34 - Destination's Journey
Unfortunately some of the good features, like the excellent view from the cockpit, come with a cost, high drag. Please see the MC 200 or the F4F or F6F.
To get a Spitfire equivalent out of the Gloster you need a new wing, new landing gear, a new fuselage/cockpit and a modified rudder/vertical stabilizer.
All in addition to sticking the V-12 engine in the plane. Seems like you get to keep the horizontal stabilizer and the canopy
I can't seem to figure out why the Bristol 146 was just about 30mph slower than the Gloster using the same engine?
View attachment 617442
unless that canopy was doubling as an airbrake?
When I look at these ugly pics I have to think that Camm and Mitchell were top artists of their trade.It think they simply over did the canopy and combined it with an overly cut down rear tail. The latter being the real problem I feel.
View attachment 617456
View attachment 617457
Here's the best way to that, if you can wait until 1941. 23 Feb 1940, the day before it flies, stick a Gloster emblem onto the company's Typhoon. Clearly if Camm was willing to call his first jet fighter a Gloster, he's not that determined to call everything a Hawker.I want a Gloster fighter able to meet a Bf109E
This is like sticking an Allison in a P-35 and still expecting to get a P-40. Let's also remember that the XP-40 didn't go over 300mph until they redid the radiator and fitted ejector exhausts.You will certainly got such a fighter if the Gloster is outfitted with Merlin III. Just like what the Re.2000 gotten when it became Re.2001, despite legacy of fuselage tailored erstwhile for a radial, the 'humpback' cockpit, and U/C not being example of streamlining.
This is like sticking an Allison in a P-35 and still expecting to get a P-40. Let's also remember that the XP-40 didn't go over 300mph until they redid the radiator and fitted ejector exhausts.
Here's the best way to that, if you can wait until 1941. 23 Feb 1940, the day before it flies, stick a Gloster emblem onto the company's Typhoon. Clearly if Camm was willing to call his first jet fighter a Gloster, he's not that determined to call everything a Hawker.
Here's three of Hawker's best aircraft. I'm not sure how we can get the F5/34 into this level of company. Maybe the Sabre engine is rejected along with the X-engines, and the Centaurus is late, meaning the Typhoon/Tornado project is dropped and a rush for a Hercules engined fighter is made? Someone pulls the dust cover off the F5/34 prototype and says, well we do have this as a starting point.
View attachment 617461
Now the Italians, they were the guys to ask for an attractive A6M-lookalike fighter, with a coincidentally similar designation.Macchi started to work on the MC202 late 1939 when a license to build the DB601 was obtained. The 202 came into service in November 1941 in Libya. 2 years to take an established design and re-engineer it to give a 370mph + fighter. If Mario Castoldi could do it whilst hampered by a comparatively less well developed aviation industry then I am sure Henry Folland backed by the British aviation industry could do the same a year or more earlier.
Just like what the Re.2000 gotten when it became Re.2001,
Something of the same as above. Macchi did a somewhat better job of converting but also made a larger jump in power. 870 hp to 1175..Macchi 200 to 202
Basically Gloster has to try again just like supermarine tried again, using a R-1830 as an interim engine until the Bristol Taurus is available.
Hmmm, The Re.2000 was supposed to do 329mph at 16,400ft with a 986hp Piaggio XI engine.
The Re.2001 was supposed to do 337mph at 16,400 with the 1175hp Alfa Romeo built DB 601. It did have under wing gun pods for more drag. It also gained about 1000lbs of empty weight. Somehow I see this as a Hurricane equal and not a Spitfire equal.
Something of the same as above. Macchi did a somewhat better job of converting but also made a larger jump in power. 870 hp to 1175.
The Gloster will go from 840hp to 1030hp if built before 1940.
The MC 200 was supposed to go 312mph at 14,750ft. Yes the MC 202 did 370mph at 16,400ft. and did it with a a 7.7mm gun inside each wing. The MC 202 did get a pair of 8.8imp gal fuel tanks in the wings to help feed the bigger engine. The MC 202 also gained about 1000lbs of weight while empty (and more loaded) Part of the MC 202s secret to high speed was that it was a small airplane, 180 sq ft. wing (78% the size of the Bristol's wing)
The Gloster does seem to rather light for it's size.