Build an improved Gloster F5/34

Admiral Beez said:

I'd argue a Twin Wasp would be better.

Click to expand...

Because the P-36 with a Twin Wasp was ever so much better than the early P-40 with an Allison?

Admiral Beez said:

Indeed. Some bright Aussie paintwork will be needed, like the dazzle scheme used on this Buffalo

View attachment 814048

...Or in modern day at Qantas.

View attachment 814039

Or go RAAF anniversary blue (skip the red strips) and swap out the roundels for 'roos.

View attachment 814047

Click to expand...

It's Oz. Leave the roo's there and call them Roondells

Shortround6 said:

Because the P-36 with a Twin Wasp was ever so much better than the early P-40 with an Allison?

Click to expand...

The Twin Wasp would be better because we've already got two Merlin fighters. The only reason for putting the F5/34 into service is that it provides a benefit that does not compete with existing, and better aircraft. That's why I've recommended it to CAC and P&W to get it away from the British Air Ministry's priorities for Merlins and Bristol engines.

Admiral Beez said:

The Twin Wasp would be better because we've already got two Merlin fighters. The only reason for putting the F5/34 into service is that it provides a benefit that does not compete with existing, and better aircraft. That's why I've recommended it to CAC and P&W to get it away from the British Air Ministry's priorities for Merlins and Bristol engines.

Click to expand...

When????
You keep recommending a totally fictitious version of the Twin Wasp engine.
You don't have the choice of the 1940-41 versions of the Twin Wasp in 1938.
You NEVER have the choice of 1250lb 1200hp Twin Wasp at anytime in it's history. Wiki is wrong.
The Mercury engine is 1938/early 1939 is not a bad fighter engine. What is has is no growth.
840hp at at 14,000ft is not bad in 1938. Now can you wait for a 'better' engine?
And what is the 'better' engine going to cost in weight?

Shortround6 said:

You NEVER have the choice of 1250lb 1200hp Twin Wasp at anytime in it's history. Wiki is wrong.

Click to expand...

I was appalled with the last sentence quoted there. Appalled, I say.



Whoops, I've proved you right.

Admiral Beez said:

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 think this is the best chance of getting the Gloster F5 into service. We've removed it from the British Air Ministry's oversight, taken over the rights, drawings and any tooling from Gloster's new owners at Hawker Aircraft and thus removed any internal company competition with the Hurricane, and replaced its imported Bristol engine with a domestically produced engine of superior power and reliability.

The challenge is how do we install a longer and heavier Twin Wasp into this airframe, shown below with a Bristol Mercury.

View attachment 814064

Perhaps we can move the wing spar and cockpit backwards. Or stick a lump of weight in that fat tail. I like the incline from the windscreen to the nose for visibility, which should be keepable with the P&W diameter. It would be handy to see a cutaway of the Gloster, as perhaps there's empty space behind the engine like on the Skua.

Here's a P&W Twin Wasp. Fourteen cylinders. 30L, 59 in length, 48 in diameter, 1,250 lb (dry), 1,200 hp. And here's what we're trying to replace. The Bristol Perseus. Nine cylinders. 25L, 49 in length, 55 in diameter, 1,025 lb (dry), 905 hp. Doesn't that American engine look space-age by comparsion?

View attachment 814067View attachment 814066

Click to expand...

Are we giving it to Australia? I had no prior knowledge of this. When I mentioned the Pegasus engine, I assumed aircraft that was designed and built in the UK, would be flown by said UK forces.
Seeing how the Pegasus was similar to the Cyclone in displacement, configuration and power, it would make more sense to use an engine already available in the UK, as opposed to importing one in from the US.
...and what family of Bristol engines were the Aussies against? The poppet valve engines or the sleeve valve engines?
Bristol made both.
I could see if it was the sleeve valve engines. That was a troublesome valve train. Why it's pretty much extinct anymore, while almost every reciprocating engine on the planet now is a poppet valve engine.
Both the Mercury and Pegasus were Poppet valve engines.
...however...
IF we are giving the whole design to CAC, then yes, it makes sense to use the R-1830, since its already being built there.
So how do we make a plane work with a 1438 lb. engine (specifically R-1830-S3C4G) replacing one that was 1065 lbs.(Mercury IX)?
You could start by pushing the firewall back. Possibly behind the leading edge of the wing (if that's possible).
If you can push the firewall back a foot (will probably preclude moving the cockpit back a bit, too), that will allow you to install the longer engine, while the overall length of the airplane remains the same.
This gives the heavier engine less of a "lever" for which to move the CG of the aircraft.
Pushing the cockpit back will help counterbalance that extra 373 lbs., too.