Build an improved Gloster F5/34

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

The problem in the 1930s with the fast unarmed bomber concept was the issue of just how long it could maintain its speed advantage over the fighter in an era of rapid aircraft development. So the bomber leapfrogs the fighter only to lose its speed advantage again to the next fighter generation and leave the RAF back at square one with a bomber fleet needing a defensive armament.

1936 the Britain First is about 100mph faster than then current RAF biplane fighters. It leads to the Blenheim. But by then the much faster Spitfire and Hurricane were flying in prototype form.

In 1936 the Air Ministry issued the Spec that led to the Manchester (and subsequently the Lancaster) & Halifax. In May 1937 George Volkert, chief designer at Handley Page, produced a detailed proposal for a 300mph cruising speed medium bomber to carry 3,000lb bomb load which was calculated to be faster than the Spitfire. But it was rejected precisely because it wasn't expected to maintain that advantage for long.

1937 saw Hawker start work on what became the Tornado/Typhoon for which a formal spec for a 400mph fighter was issued in March 1938.

And when it comes to using alternative non-structural materials the RAF issued Spec B.9/38 that led to the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle which first flew in March 1940. But still an aircraft with defensive armament.

So although De Havilland had been working on the Mosquito concept from spring 1938, it was Dec 1939 before officialdom could be convinced that the Mosquito concept was worth pursuing.

In terms of production the first 50 were available by March 1942 but only after a lot of chopping and changing as to which models were to be built. Due to the night threat (the Luftwaffe could have reappeared just as quickly as they left for Russia) the NF.II was prioritised over the B.IV entering squadron service in Jan 1942 and Nov 1941 respectively.

So if you build your "Mosquito lite" earlier, it might be available in small numbers from early-1940 (eliminating the 18 month delay in development 1938/39 and in 1940 as a result of German invasion of France). But it will have lost its advantage by the time the historical Mosquito reaches service. So you better have a design that can be updated rapidly before you get too locked in to mass production.
 
Shortround6 said:
The Mosquito lite will be more effective than the older light bombers, just don't expect quite the same performance (either speed or load) that the Merlin 21 powered versions had.
Click to expand...

I've never did

...

A 340 mph Mosquito lite is head and shoulders above the smattering of night fighters the RAF was using, like the Blenheim, Defiant or Turbinlite. The Merlin XII is perhaps also an option from late 1940, it mimics the power curve of the Merlin X (yes, the XII was required for Spitfires).
The next step is a proper Mosquito, for starters using the Merlins from the two aircraft not materializing this time around - Defiant II and Beaufighter II. Granted, Merlin 45 is also an option from early 1941.


The earlier Battle makes the switch from Merlin to Pegasus, the better. Talk 300-400 Merlin-powered A/C, plus 700-800 of Pegasus-powered A/C. All made by Fairey. Austin gets to make more useful aircraft, be those fighters, Welligtons or Hampdens.
The earlier Boulton Paul is tasked to make Spitfires, the better. Yes, the idea of the turret fighter needs to be forgotten by 1930s.

Shortround6 said:
Take a Fairey Battle and
1, take out the existing fuel tanks and fit smaller ones with some sort of protection ( horsehide and glue, 4mm sheet steel, something) . There is no reason for 1000 miles of range for a tactical bomber in Europe.
Click to expand...

Battle was not conceived as a tactical bomber. Idea that RAF (in dribs and drabs) is to be deployed in the Continent was approved after the Battles entered the initial service.
But yes, a sort of protection for the fuel tanks is needed at any rate.


Those unsporty Krauts were outfitting their air defenses and aircraft with 20mm weapons. A 'protected Battle' flying at low level will be treated like the TBMs were treated by Zeroes at Midway.
BTW - "adding stuff" is diametrical opposite to "removing stuff" - tends to kill performance and maneuverability

Shortround6 said:
8, Provide fighter escort
9. Provide fighter escort
10. provide fighter escort


It won't save France but cutting losses by even 50% would have been huge.
Click to expand...

Points 8, 9 and 10 are right on the money.
Saving France will require major change at the French and British governments, society and high commands (or equivalents) at their approach towards many things, not just towards the mechanized and motorized war.
 
EwenS said:
1936 the Britain First is about 100mph faster than then current RAF biplane fighters. It leads to the Blenheim. But by then the much faster Spitfire and Hurricane were flying in prototype form.
Click to expand...

Britain First was not a military aircraft - civilian aircraft tended to be very fast in mid-war period.
That RAF was still buying biplane fighters in 1936 (and later) was mistake or RAF's making. A leading airforce that it was, the monoplane fighters with retractable U/C should've been in their service before Americans do it in 1934, or the Soviets in 1935.
A 2-engined bomber that uses same engine as Spitfire, as well as same principles in streamlining will be much faster than the Blenheim.

EwenS said:
So although De Havilland had been working on the Mosquito concept from spring 1938, it was Dec 1939 before officialdom could be convinced that the Mosquito concept was worth pursuing.
Click to expand...

Nobody had monopoly of not jumping at a good chance - not Luftwaffe, not Japanese, not Americans, not RAF.


Luftwaffe could not reappear quickly above Britain in 1942 without dire consequences for the German war effort, since they were fighting a major war against the Soviet Union, as well as in the N. Africa.
An early push for an 'almost Mosquito' in 1939 leaves more than enough of them in winter of 1941/42 so the RAF does not has to make tricky choices.


By 1942, engine choice and availability is far better, that helps a lot. Germany is much more of a threat in 1940-42 than it was in 1942-44, that alone is a nod for the early Mosquito force to be available.
 
tomo pauk said:
Luftwaffe could not reappear quickly above Britain in 1942 without dire consequences for the German war effort, since they were fighting a major war against the Soviet Union, as well as in the N. Africa.
Click to expand...

That is pure hindsight. There was grave concern in British Military and Govt circles in the aftermath of the German invasion of Russia that the USSR would collapse entirely, politically as well as militarily. If that happened then the Luftwaffe could be switched back to attacking Britain just as quickly as it had left.

It was Sept/Oct 1941 before the British Chiefs of Staff felt sufficiently confident that, for example, 7 Hurricane squadrons could be released from defending Britain to be sent to the Middle East with a view to defending Malta and the oil fields in Iraq & Iran and maybe supporting an advance into the Caucasus to prevent the Germans getting access to those oil supplies.
 
The problem is the 2-3 years from start of project to first squadron (or couple of squadrons) The Mosquito first flew in Nov of 1940 and it got the Merlin XX (21) from the start. It didn't go operational until Nov 1941 so you need to start the whole program sooner. However even a 6 month gain would still just about everything except the the prototype (?) using Merlin 21s.

Still doesn't change my point. The Mosquitos as night fighters, entered service with more reliable radar, more experienced radar operators and pilots, more experienced ground controllers and perhaps better ground radar? Sticking the Sept - Dec 1940 radar and radar operators (from Blenheims) into 1942 Mosquitos really would not have changed much.
You don't get any Wellingtons or Hampdens, you used up all the Pegasus engines on the radial Battles

You need Defiants.............................to replace Hawker Demons
Seriously, nobody stuck a movie camera in a Demon to see what it would take to engage a maneuvering target?
They were expecting the sporting Krauts to fly at steady speeds and courses for the turret fighters?
tomo pauk said:
Battle was not conceived as a tactical bomber. Idea that RAF (in dribs and drabs) is to be deployed in the Continent was approved after the Battles entered the initial service.
But yes, a sort of protection for the fuel tanks is needed at any rate.
Click to expand...
The thing is that the Battle, misconceived as it was, was in production in numbers in 1938-39. Stopping production to introduce something else was going to leave the British hundreds of aircraft short in 1939-40 even if the "new" aircraft would have been much better in 1941-42.
The Fairey F. 4/34 that lead to the Fulmar flew 10 months after the first Battle. If they had changed to it instead of the Battle they might have been short 300-400 aircraft in Sept 1939 (or using Hawker Hinds)
A lot of the German close support/tactical aircraft were not a whole lot better. The Ju 87 gets a lot of headlines but they were using the Hs 123 and a bunch of Hs 126s and some older twin engine bombers.
Germans were one/two generations ahead in having air officers on the ground with radios to communicate with the strike aircraft.
Well, the unsporty Krauts did not have the number of 20mm guns they would have later, and a lot of the 20mm AA guns in 1940 were older slower firing guns.
Beats the heck out of the British AA guns in 1940 but Germans were depending on a lot of twin MG 34s.


And the Germans had not converted all of their 109Es over to 20mm wing guns (they were working on it) and even when they did, you had the 55-60 round drums which means that the 109 had the same problems as the A6M2 did at Midway. About 6 seconds of firing time and then trying to use a pair of 7.9mm machine guns for the next 24 seconds or longer (109E carried up to 1000 rpg for the cowl guns?).

a modified Battle is not an IL-2, just give the poor crew some chance of making back alive instead of near certain death.
Using a liquid cooled engine with no protection with a pair of 106 Imp gallon tanks (and unprotected auxiliary tanks) and not even an armored seat back for the pilot and tasking the now "tactical" bombers with bombing German supply lines/points over 100 miles inside the German lines (trying to fly back over 100 miles with leaking radiator or fuel tanks) was not a good idea.

BTW - "adding stuff" is diametrical opposite to "removing stuff" - tends to kill performance and maneuverability

Replace the 106 gallon tanks with 75 (?) gallon tanks is worth over 400lb of fuel plus the smaller tank. Adjust fuel as you see fit. The Fairey F 4/34 carried 1/2 the bombload and war winning Lysander had a range of 600 miles on internal fuel and with clean bomb racks
Leaving one crewman home and using a two man crew saves another 200lbs.
4mm of steel can cover about 2.75 Sq Meters for 90kg
4mm of steel is NOT proof against 7.9mm AP or even against ball at steep angles of impact. However when combined with the aircraft skin (or the tank material) it does stop a lot of shallow angle impacts.

The British had built 210 of these Sopwith Salamanders in WW I but were too late to see service.

Wiki describes the protection as
"The forward portion of the fuselage was a 605 lb (275 kg) box of armour plate, forming an integral part of the aircraft structure, protecting the pilot and fuel system, with a 0.315 in (8 mm) front plate, a 0.433 in (11 mm) bottom plate, 0.236 in (6 mm) side plates and rear armour consisting of an 11-gauge and 6-gauge plate separated by an air gap.[7]"​

Not trying to turn the Battle into a flying tank, Just trying to keep the crew alive from light gun fire, stray bullets, etc. ​
BTW the Salamander was good for 125mph at 500ft and needed over 9 minutes to climb to 6500ft. so ability to evade ground fire was not great. ​



Yes a purpose built aircraft with smaller wings and fuselage carrying the same load would be better performing but it might have been possible to modify existing Battles in maintenance facilities.

the Battles, Blenheims and Lysanders were all pretty much in the same situation. Little or no protection, little or no escort, poor planning (raids were launched hours after recon photos taken) by staff who were often not talking to the ground commanders in front lines.

Changing the aircraft does not solve any of those problems.
Changing the aircraft might keep some of the crew (and aircraft) alive to perform more missions though.
 
Going back to the original
Lets remember that in 1937 (let alone 1934) the 109 was using the Jumo 210 engine. A pair of experimental planes (without guns?) showed up at the July 1937 Zurich Air Meet. But the other 3 109s had Jumo 210s. Germans were lying through their teeth about the DB 601 engines but it was a big indication of where Allied aircraft needed to go.
However be a bit careful, the two planes with the DB 601 racing engines were using flush exhausts (no exhaust thrust) so a lot of things in 1937-38 were not as obvious as they are now.

A lot of aircraft were using the "fold the landing gear backwards" and leave the bottom of the wheel hanging out. Some customers were insisting on it as a way to keep damage down when the pilots forgot to lower the landing gear.
1936-38 is a tricky period as you are going from well under 300mph (or even 250mph) to 300-325mph with a few planes trying for close to 400mph (P-38 first flew in Jan 1939, it didn't make 400mph in that version but they were trying). What was the latest things on year was obsolete in 2-3 years.

The one piece wing, well, It was used by the A6M2, It was also used by the Buffalo. It may have been used by a few others.
It was supposed to save weight. It did make repair more difficult, Maybe if you have 800-950hp engines you pay more attention to weight, if you have 1100-1200hp engines you can trade a little weight for easier repair?

Nobody had good radiators until you get to the P-51. This was a period of tremendous change. RR changed from water to "steam" to Ethylene Glycol to water/glycol mix all in about 10 years. The Meredith effect paper wasn't read until 1935 and it was a concept, there was no test data and no actual explanation on how to do it. You can't just throw a duct around a radiator and hang it off the bottom of the plane and get much of anything.
In theory the heat of the coolant was supposed to transfer to the air flowing though the duct and increase the pressure/speed of the air flowing through the duct to give thrust.
Now when climbing at 160mph you have a lot air flowing through the radiator than when flying level at 320mph, even though the engine needed the same amount of cooling.
Your airflow through the radiator is creating about 4 times as much drag at a high speed even if everything is perfect. And you have to get the exhaust air to match or exceed the speed of the air flowing past the radiator duct/housing or you don't get any thrust. And it is not just speed but the mass of the air which changes with altitude
The theory is simple, getting it to work at even a couple of speeds/altitudes is hard. It turns out that the Mustang used a lot of volume in the fuselage to house the radiator and upper part of the duct. The Spitfire and the 109 used most of the thickness of wing to bury the radiators into the wing but the short ducts give problems.
The poor Hurricane has the radiator and oil cooler pretty much hanging out the bottom however the duct it 3-4 times the length of the radiator core. The flow is pretty much straight through. So now we have to figure if the smaller frontal area is worth the the twist and turn of a semi buried radiator and the problems of any abrupt changes in the cross section of the air flow. There is a lot more going on than just the location.
 
Shortround6 has it right. The RAF had no clue of what to do with the aircraft they had even if the war they planned for had come to pass. They did not plan to have the LW across the channel inside escort range. They did not plan to support the army except with Lysanders. They thought they were going to destroy German industry and morale with a bunch of mediocre twins which could not survive by day or find their targets by night. They recognised no role for a fighter other than interception.

In terms of simple single-seat fighters there was no magic in designing a decent fighter IF you had a competitive engine. Stick to basics, keep it simple. You do need to know who you are going to fight and when the war will start. A year out and you have a MS406 when you need a D.520.
 
Ok, this might sound kinda dumb, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway.
Feel free to tear it apart (like you guys need permission ).
I don't like the idea of a Merlin in the Gloster because the power you get comes at a weight and balance penalty.
The engine is more than 650 lbs. heavier than the Mercury it replaces.
This means lengthening out the fuselage and possibly increasing the size of the horizontal stabilizer and/or pushing the cockpit rearward.
Instead, I prefer the Bristol Pegasus.
Only slightly larger and heavier, but can be spun up to 1000 hp (almost the same as the Merlin in the Mk.1). That's a 20% + improvement over the Mercury engine.
Combine that with a "paddle"-type prop, like a Rotol, and I wonder how climb and speed performance would improve (as a comparison, with the Mercury engine, the F5/34 had a 316 mph top speed and took 11 minutes to get to 20K ft.).
Earlier in this thread the idea of replacing the canopy with the one from the Miles M20 was introduced.
It does seem to offer a little better visability, although I don't know if its any better aerodynamically.
Now the big one...what if you could take the Spitfire wing and mod it so it could fit the Gloster?
It's slightly shorter (36'10" vs 38'2") but offers more overall wing area (242.1 sq.ft. vs 230 sq.ft.)
Seems to me like it might offer a little better control while reducing drag.
...SO...
Taking these 3 elements; The drivetrain, The canopy and The wing, and apply them all to the Gloster.
Would it make the plane "better" enough to be a suitable adversary to the 109E?
 
Last edited:
Elvis said:
Would it make the plane "better" enough to be a suitable adversary to the 109E?
Click to expand...
probably not.

The Pegasus is a decent improvement 840 hp to 1000hp so that is plus.

Problem is that the 109 has about 1100hp (or 1000 hp continuous) and the 109 has exhaust thrust and the Pegasus does not.
I would worry more about the engine cowling of the Pegasus than the wing.

Maybe it is a small crewman

Like most Bristol engines the front of the cowl is the exhaust collector so even when you loose that 6ft or so of flame damper exhaust pipe your chances of getting much exhaust thrust in minimal. A 109 has about 50 sq ft less wing area and the pilot is close to sitting down (legs almost straight), You could stick an office chair behind that Pegasus with room to spare.

The 109 did have some streamlining issues but there are a lot of issues with the Gloster too.
Here is a Hawk 75A-8 with a Wright R-1820 engine with 1000hp at 14,000ft

It did 322mph at 15,000ft. Climb to 15,000ft was supposed to be 6 minutes.
It had a two speed supercharger. Not sure if the speed was with or without the football on top.
This was the Fastest Hawk Hawk 75/P-36 out of all of them.
It was about 20-22mph slower than 109E-1/3.

The very close Hawk 75A-4 did pretty good against the 109 but I am not seeing a 109 beater here. Close maybe.
 

Italians have had the same thing to worry about when MC.200 was morphing into the MC.202. Installation of a heavier, and yet more powerful and more streamlined powerplant turned a meh fighter into a performer. Germans did the same wihen Bf 109D became Bf 109E (although the 109D was the one more streamlined), that was also a succes. Cockpit stayed where it was, increased weight of engine in front of the CoG was conuter-ballanced by cooling system that went aft the CoG.


Merlin III was making 1030 HP at 16250 ft. Pegasus engine was making 885 HP at 15500 ft (and ~860 MP at 16250 ft). Mercury was good for 790 HP there (and for ~770 HP at 16250 HP). Pegasus is doing that kind of power is 100 lbs heavier than the Mercury.
So the Merlin III makes 20% more than Pegasus, that makes 12% more; Merlin III makes 34% more than Mercury at 16250 ft. All figures for 87 oct fuel.
Merlins were great on 100 oct fuel ( = 1300 HP at 9000 ft for the Mk.III), Mercury was making close to 1000 HP on 100 oct fuel at ~9000 ft.

Pegasus engines making more than 900 HP were either the low-leve types (we probably don't wasnt these on a proper fighter), or the 2-speed types, that were required for Wellingtons and Hampdens.


Probably no worse than Hurricane I?
 
Last edited:
How about Hawker, upon its acquisition of Gloster in 1937 sells Folland's design and the prototype to the French or Russians? Modify the design to fit a Gnome-Rhône 14N or Shvetsov ASh-62. The Poles and Dutch might want it too, but they don't have any engines.

To me, even if it's uncompetitive against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica's fighters, I'd still like to replace the Fulmar with the F5/34 as the FAA's first all metal, folding-wing fighter. If only to put the FAA on the right path for subsequent designs, so that rather than the Firefly as a Fulmar follow-on, we get something good to follow the F5/34, likely Hercules powered. Something like a 7/8 scale Hawker Sea Fury.

Okay, this is 1/2 scale, but just for fun I had to include it.


Aviation photographs of W.A.R. Sea Fury Replica :

Aviation photographs categorised as W.A.R. Sea Fury Replica
abpic.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
French or Russians? Modify the design to fit a Gnome-Rhône 14N or Shvetsov ASh-62. The Poles and Dutch might want it too, but they don't have any engines.
Click to expand...
The French and Russians don't really have any engines either.

The G-R 14N is sort of a AS Tiger only a bit better. It gets a little over 1000hp and then runs into the wall.

The Bloch 152 only had a 182 sq ft wing. It went 316mph.
It is 2 feet short and about 3 ft less wingspan.
The Gloster has got better vision.
The G & R 14R was not in production, it never made it into production, even post war although that may be economics.

Russian ASh-62 was pretty much a licensed Wright R-1820.
A Gloster F5/34 maybe a better plane than the I-16 but Russians are looking for something even better.
They were working on the I-180 series which lead to the I-185 (which was a bit too ambitious, or at least the engines were)
 
tomo pauk said:
Probably no worse than Hurricane I?
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Hurricane and the Spritfire used the same wing?
I don't think that's right.
 
Yes, probably not a 109 beater, but a heck of a lot better adversary than how it actually was.
Oh well, it was an idea.
 
Elvis said:
Are you saying the Hurricane and the Spritfire used the same wing?
I don't think that's right.
Click to expand...

No, Hurricane's wing was obsolete (wrt. aerodynamics), while Spitfire's was excellent. (that of F5/34 seems to be in-between the two - not as thick nor as with such a big area as on the Hurricane, while also not as thin as what SPitfire had)

I was refering to a Merlin-powered F5/34, and managed to skip you suggestion that it will be much improved if the Spitfire's wing is shoehorned on it. Sorry, my bad.
 
Thank you for clarifying your statement.
 
tomo pauk said:
I was refering to a Merlin-powered F5/34...
Click to expand...
Same as with Supermarine, I just can't see Hawker making two separate Merlin-powered single seat fighters. So, if the F5/34 goes with the Merlin, the Hurricane needs to go. Best of both words might be a combination, with the Hurricane with the F5/34's all metal construction and excellent visibility, but keeping the Merlin and the Hurricane's undercarriage and wing. Though at these speeds, does all metal construction offer any advantages over the easy to produce, robust and quick-to-patch metal fabric/dope covered framework of the Hurricane? Of course whatever Hawker makes had better be available in numbers by 1938.
 
Last edited:
And that is key to the situation.
If you don't have Hurricane's or the substitute going into squadrons in numbers British are in trouble, they may get out of it but even as it was by the end of 1938 they had Hurricanes in just 10 squadrons and only 5 of them were declared operational.

All of these have fabric wings, First wing metal flew on April 28th 1939.

The first production Hurricane flew Oct 1937.
The first prototype Gloster flew Dec 1937.

Neither Hawker or Gloster were tooled up to build the all metal airframe.

Maybe the Gloster would have been a better fighter, maybe. But you would have hundreds of not over a thousand aircraft short by early 1940.
Hawker ordered material before the contract was placed.in 1936.
The last of the 600 plane order (430 with fabric wings) was competed June 10th 1939.
The second contract was placed in 1938 for 300 planes. Started Sept 29th 1939 and finished on May 1st 1940.
3rd contract placed also in 1938. for 500 +44 attrition. Started Feb 21s 1940 and finished July 20th 1940.
Gloster 500 plane contract was also from 1938. Deliveries start Nov 1939 and finished April of 1940.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Can we make a slightly smaller Fulmar as an improved carrier fighter?
18 19 20
Replies
391
Views
19K
z42
Z
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
"Zerstörer" specification, but as an 1-engined fighter
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
marathag
A
Improved interwar RAF/RN ASW
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
7K
nuuumannn
A Radial Engined Fighter for the Australians to build (and maybe the Chinese and Indians)
26 27 28
Replies
555
Views
36K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register