Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
An extract from my post to the Fantasy thread.
I'd like to have seen the Gloster F5/34 swap out its Bristol Mercury (Length: 47 in, Diameter: 51.5 in, Dry weight: 966 lb), skip entirely its intended Bristol Perseus (Length: 49 in, Diameter: 55.3 in, Dry weight: 1,025 lb) and instead use a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp (Length: 59.06 in, Diameter: 48.03 in, Dry weight: 1,250 lb). The 10 in. longer and significantly heavier engine will necessitate changes to the CoG. While we're at it, we'll replace the undercarriage and make a smooth lower wing surface.
Can we make this work?
I wonder if a Wright R-1820 would be a better choice?Sure, if you want to use the R-1830 that made about 950hp for take-off and max continuous of 830hp at a whopping 3600ft.
https://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/P&W/R-1830/R-1830Index.pdf
If you are looking for R-1830 engines that made 1100-1200hp for take off you need one of the ones that went over 1400lbs and you probably need a heavier propeller.
Lets remember that the Curtiss 75 started at about 4800lbs and wound up at around 5600lbs with the early R-1830s used the P-36. And they had problems with the wings and landing gear that needed beefing up.
Maybe you can get it to work, but it needs a lot of changes. Don't forget to increase the size of the fuel tanks to feed the bigger engine.
OK, let us assume that some British company (Tommy's tin whistles, LTD) signs a deal with P & W. Now the question to be answered are WHEN. As in which version of the R-1830 because it was undergoing constant development.It's easy, with our contrarian tendencies to focus on exclaiming why something would not, could not or should not have occurred. The trick is considering how to reasonably overcome these challenges. Focus on the how, not the why not.
They used both and Australia was not happy with the way the British treated them both before and during WW II.The Australians put "foreign made engines" into their Bristol Beauforts.
Had that made it to production AND the PTO, I could see a lot of blue on blue incidents.
Indeed. Some bright Aussie paintwork will be needed, like the dazzle scheme used on this BuffaloHad that made it to production AND the PTO, I could see a lot of blue on blue incidents.
Love that name.Tommy's tin whistles, LTD
If we're giving the Gloster to CAC the Australians will never want a Bristol engine. And with the 1940-start of P&W Twin Wasp production in Australia, the Wright R-1820 Cyclone is out. I'd like to see a performance comparison between Twin Wasp and Bristol-powered Beauforts.I wonder if a Wright R-1820 would be a better choice?
....probably make more sense to go with the Pegasus engine
Perhaps move the vertical stab rearward, and add a retract mechanism for the tail wheel. That would go part of the way in shifting the CofG into acceptable territory, but much more would be required.Perhaps we can move the wing spar and cockpit backwards. Or stick a lump of weight in that fat tail.
Perhaps have it presented to Lawrence Wackett's overseas evaluation mission to inspect aircraft production.Perhaps, having lost interest upon their acquisition of Gloster in 1935, Hawker Siddeley Group trades the F5/34 project to Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC) in Australia, where it becomes a RAAF fighter in 1941.
I'd say the Air Minister chose their better options in the Spitfire and Hurricane. The Gloster's only reason to be is that it doesn't use their engine.How bad would've been a Merlin-powered F.5/34?
Stick the darned Merlin in the nose, put the cooling system aft the CoG point and you're set (need be, juggle a bit with counterweights, or with a small fuel tank behind the pilot)....or instead of a major rebuild put a 50lb weight in the tail, like on later Spitfire variants.
Take the Merlin and glue a Spitfire or Hurricane to the back. But the OP is about the Gloster so I would say it has to have a non Merlin engine to justify its existence. Napier has the Dagger in production and service whilst the Mercury and Perseus are already committed to OTL types like the Blenheim, Lysander and Botha. The 20 litre E112 in production form should comfortably exceed 1,000bhp.Stick the darned Merlin in the nose, put the cooling system aft the CoG point and you're set (need be, juggle a bit with counterweights, or with a small fuel tank behind the pilot).
Italians did it with the DB 601 many times, and have gotten themselves a better, or much better fighter.
Nobody said that Merlin needs to be taken away from the Hurricane or a Spitfire in the 1st place. There are lesser aircraft around that are not deserving of a Merlin on them.Take the Merlin and glue a Spitfire or Hurricane to the back.
But the OP is about the Gloster so I would say it has to have a non Merlin engine to justify its existence.
That's just crazy talk.Merlin the nose of the Gloster it is same idea as the DB 601 in the nose of a Macchi, Fiat or Reggianne, or the V-1710 in the nose of a Curtiss.
Smart talk is boringThat's just crazy talk.
I'd argue a Twin Wasp would be better.Stick the darned Merlin in the nose, put the cooling system aft the CoG point and you're set (need be, juggle a bit with counterweights, or with a small fuel tank behind the pilot).
Italians did it with the DB 601 many times, and have gotten themselves a better, or much better fighter.