Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2. (4 Viewers)

z42 said:

Yes, I meant the Caproni F.5 images you showed. I suspected they'd be some kind of exhaust stubs, but if one looks at the second picture from slightly the rear of the plane, it seems there's no hole for the exhaust pipe, those blisters seem to smoothly merge into the cowling at the rear?

Click to expand...

I think you're right, they're not exhaust ports. Here is the Caproni's Fiat A.74 engine and there is an exhaust manifold just like any other radial.



I now think the bumps around the engine cowl are to make space for the tappets at the top of the push rods. Perhaps these are access panels for easy adjustment? Here are the same bumps on the Macchi C.200.

Macchi 200, Same engine as the Caproni. Vertical pipe at the junction of the fuselage and wing leading edge is more than likely the exhaust pipe (one of two)
Using rocker box covers to reduce the overall size of the cowling was quite popular during the 30s.

Streamlining was in it's infancy and a lot was was NOT backed up wind tunnel research. The "tear drop or rain drop" school of streamlining was very popular. Blunt front end with gradual taper/s to the rear.

record setting/race winning planes of the mid 30s.
If you are faster than the enemy how does he get behind you?
Actually a lot of ways but people were looking for simple solutions.

I am not making a secret of my dislike for the Gloster F.5/34, it may have been a very creditable design try in 1936-38.
But it is a rather poor choice for trying to counter the Zero in 1942 unless........

1, you come up with a new engine.
2. you come up with a new wing, that 18% thickness is the same as the Beaufighter and only 1% thinner than the Hurricane.
3. you redo the landing gear. (least of the problems)
4 you fix some of the other aerodynamic problems, doable but unless you fix #1 and #2 you are putting lipstick on a pig.

Basically take the guns out, jack up the very good canopy, build new plane and engine, stick the guns back in and lower the canopy and voila
Zero beater!

P-36/Hawk 75 used a 15% wing and thus, so did the P-40.
Buffalo used an 18% wing
The Wildcat used a 15% wing. The Wildcat wing was over 23% bigger in area than the Buffalo and they were close in speed using similar power engines.
Zero used a 15% wing (?)

I agree with your assessment.
It is worth remembering that in 1942 the RAAF had to take on Zeros with the Wirraway. I believe the first encounter was six Wirraways against far more Zeros. The result was five shot down Wirraways and one hiding in the clouds until the Zeros left the area.
The Gloster would have been an improvement on that, but not by much.
Letting the Gloster F.5/34 die on the vine was the best outcome wrt pilots, mechanics, design staff, factory capacity and admin load.

Shortround6 said:

I am not making a secret of my dislike for the Gloster F.5/34. Basically take the guns out, jack up the very good canopy, build new plane and engine, stick the guns back in and lower the canopy and voila

Click to expand...

Well said. But to its defence there was no better radial-powered, single-seat, single-engine fighter to come out of Britain until the Centaurus-powered Tempest and post-war Fury. I wonder if the F5/34 could defeat the best pre-war British-engined, raidial-powered single-seat, single-engined fighter to see service, the Fokker D.XXI.

Bristol really let their side down with their sleeve valve distractions and delays, while what the Air Ministry needed was a two-row, 14 or 18-cylinder poppet valve engine, essential a double Bristol Neptune or Pegasus with sodium valves, better bearings, etc. If such an engine was available pre-war we might have seen something better from Gloster as well as other single-engine radial-powered, single-seat fighters out of Britain.