Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Shortround6
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
If Japanese philosophy at the time considered a steel plate behind the pilot, or a radio to be excessive additional weight, then I suspect that the addition of the gyro autopilot, with its extra instruments and hydraulic or pneumatic flight control actuators would be an absolute non-starter. Especially considering that the autopilot didn't contribute anything that a well disciplined pilot couldn't do himself already
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It would be interesting to see how many IJN and IJA planes (and pilots) were lost to fatigue during extended flights.
- Thread starter
- #84
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Just because you have an auto pilot does not mean you can put your feet up and take a nap.
Admiral Beez
Major
Agreed. Though I wonder how often that's been attempted successfully without a CFIT.
Asleep On Autopilot
Unlike most aviation hazards, pilot fatigue usually isn’t on a checklist. Read about one pilot's experience with falling asleep in the air.
www.planeandpilotmag.com
Two pilots fall asleep mid-flight with more than 150 on board 36,000 feet in the air
One of the pilots woke up to find that the aircraft "was not on the correct flight path," an incident report says.
www.cbsnews.com
2 pilots allegedly fall asleep on flight from NYC to Rome as plane traveled 38K feet above ground
As many as 250 passengers were on board the ITA Airways flight.
Admiral Beez
Major
In addition to fuel starvation and fatigue, it must challenge your navigation skills. It's November 1943, and four A6Ms from Taiwan are sent to reinforce the garrison in Guam, departing for Orote field, located 1,700 miles away. At a cruising speed of 200 mph it's at least nine hours flying, meaning that a portion of the flight may be at night.
The flight looks simple enough, set your compass for SE and off you go. But the winds will push you around, its nothing but wide open sea, and it's also typhoon season, meaning visibility may be limited. And with a max ferry range of 1,900 miles, our IJN pilots do not have a ton of endurance for course deviations. I'd want a G3M Betty or similar with a dedicated navigator onboard to guide the way.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
I ran an Ai image of a Gloster F5 in FAA colours beside a Zero.
Original image here. I uploaded it to ChatGPT along with an image of Corgi's toy Sea Hurricane.
Original image here. I uploaded it to ChatGPT along with an image of Corgi's toy Sea Hurricane.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
How about a Wright R-1820? The Mercury was about 966 pounds dry weight and an R-1820 was about 1,165 pounds or so.
Should not be too hard to get one fitted and balanced. 1,000 to a bit more hp and, dare I suggest it, available.
Should not be too hard to get one fitted and balanced. 1,000 to a bit more hp and, dare I suggest it, available.
Last edited:
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Why is that Zero painted up all RAF like?
Admiral Beez
Major
It's a rare thing for the British to put a US-designed engine into their aircraft. It was done occasionally in the RAF, but more likely by the Australians onto their Beauforts. But Gloster's new owners, Hawker-Siddeley might be interested in not putting their competitor's Bristol engine in their aircraft, so that might be an opportunity to go Wright, so to speak. IIRC, along with their 1930's acquisition of Gloster, Hawker also acquired Armstrong Siddeley Engines. Maybe a super Tiger? But that's essentially a total redesign.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Super Tiger was always a good engine. I used to rerally like them, particularly the 60.
Admiral Beez
Major
Is that the Super Tigre r/c airplane motor?
- Thread starter
- #94
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Hope so 
The A-S Tiger and the word "super" do not belong in the same sentence, even paragraph is pushing things.
The Tiger was a less than good engine (trying to be polite) and you might as well toss it out and start over rather than trying to improve it.
Low boost, low rpm and it still broke a lot, leaked oil and was known for unscrewing it's spark plugs in flight.
The A-S Tiger and the word "super" do not belong in the same sentence, even paragraph is pushing things.
The Tiger was a less than good engine (trying to be polite) and you might as well toss it out and start over rather than trying to improve it.
Low boost, low rpm and it still broke a lot, leaked oil and was known for unscrewing it's spark plugs in flight.
GregP
Major
Yes. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I flew pattern. I flew a Mach I and several Dirty Birdy airplanes in competition pattern. Used a Kraft 0.61 in the Dirty Birdys and a Super Tigre 0.60 in the Mach I. Pattern was basically a 0.60 engine at that time. After I got out of Pattern, I just flew for fun.
My favorite was a Morris Hobbies Jerry's Big Boy with a 108-inch wingspan and an 8 channel radio. On that one, I had aileron, elevator, rudder, throttle and several "mixes." The elevator halves were mixed with the ailerons so they helped the roll and the flaps were mixed with the elevator so the flaps went down when the elevator went up and vice versa. The amount of mix was adjustable, but it would take square corners. The engine I used was an MVVS 0.77 with a tuned pipe. I also had a button to put both ailerons up simultaneously with both flaps down for a speed brake on vertical down lines and a snap-roll button. Naturally, there were high and low rates on aileron, elevator, and rudder as well as proportional mixing. I also had a channel that would allow me to adjust the mixture by ±2 clicks while airborne. The whole airplane was flying at only 8.5 pounds, so the MVVS 0.77 was enough to hover and accelerate straight up easily from the hover. Stall speed was ridiculously low. It was red, yellow, and blue Monokote with transparent covering on the ailerons, stabs, fin, elevators and rudder. There was a button to drop a "bomb," which was usually baking flour in a small container or ziplock bag for fun fly bombing competitions.
Here's a stock internet pic of a Big Boy.
It's not MY color scheme, but you get the idea of the aircraft. Mine had a tuned pipe and not a muffler, and a Zinger prop. The control throws were wild. 40° up and down for flying surfaces. The takeoff roll from stationary to airborn was about 5 feet! Great Fun Fly airplane and could limbo with the best of them. After 4 years or so of great flying, I accidentally switched off the elevtor mixing and wound up with one elevator half unpowered for the rest of the flight. The servos were brushless, so the elevator surface was just in trail. On a vertical down line, I got elevator flutter that removed the horizontal tail in-flight and ended the Big Boy's lfe in a heap of parts.
Fortunately, I had written curse words all over the inside of the balsa wood (yes, a built-up wing, not foam) so I didn't have to say anything when I got to the scene of the crash. All I had to do was agree with the pile of parts! The MVVS was a write-off, but the radio was still good!
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Major
Someone needs to scratch build a r/c F5/34.
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
The 1820's available in 1935 were not quite that powerful.
I believe the F-53 and F-54 were the most powerful with high S/C gear ratio's, and comparing them with the Bristol Mercury IX results in:
This is for direct drive, geared engines will have a little less power.
Aero Digest June 1935 p32
The reason the 1520 in³ engine has more power than the 1823 in³ is due to the Mercury have a much higher operating RPM.
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
Moving on to ~1938, these are some potential engine candidates.
- Thread starter
- #99
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
There is a real problem with comparing the Cyclone engines to many other engines. Many engines had a number of models during their production lives. The Cyclone probably beats any other engine. The G version was introduced (first made?) in April 1935 and was offered with 6 different supercharger gear ratios. How many were sold with some of the ratios is subject to question.
That being said even the G model was not set up for high (high being in the mid teens) altitude work. With most sales going to commercial and passengers not wanting to wear oxygen masks in flight just about all Cyclone Gs were set up for good performance at less than 10,000ft.
Also many times the short specification sheets (not charts) only give "normal power" which is often 100-150rpm below take-off or max power.
An R-1820 G3 for instance was rated at 840hp at 8700ft "normal". But this is not very useful for a fighter plane as the power will fall to about 700hp at 14,000ft. The G3 was rated at 875hp for take-off.
The Wright R-1820 G series should have been a warning shot to Bristol that they were on the wrong track with the Sleeve valves. The G series had over 2800 sq in of cooling fin area, introduced automatic valve gear lubrication with no external tubes (Mercury used grease fittings), stellite-faced exhaust valves and stainless steel exhaust valve seats. In other words, many of the problems the sleeve valve was supposed to solve had already been solved by other means. Wright was not sitting on their hands. The G100 series was first shipped Jan 1937 with many improvements including the forged steel crankcase.
The Mercury was a very good option in 1935-36. Unfortunately that is when it peaked.
I do have some questions about the graph in post #98.
Are those "normal" ratings for all 3 engines or max/military (5 minute) ratings?
That being said even the G model was not set up for high (high being in the mid teens) altitude work. With most sales going to commercial and passengers not wanting to wear oxygen masks in flight just about all Cyclone Gs were set up for good performance at less than 10,000ft.
Also many times the short specification sheets (not charts) only give "normal power" which is often 100-150rpm below take-off or max power.
An R-1820 G3 for instance was rated at 840hp at 8700ft "normal". But this is not very useful for a fighter plane as the power will fall to about 700hp at 14,000ft. The G3 was rated at 875hp for take-off.
The Wright R-1820 G series should have been a warning shot to Bristol that they were on the wrong track with the Sleeve valves. The G series had over 2800 sq in of cooling fin area, introduced automatic valve gear lubrication with no external tubes (Mercury used grease fittings), stellite-faced exhaust valves and stainless steel exhaust valve seats. In other words, many of the problems the sleeve valve was supposed to solve had already been solved by other means. Wright was not sitting on their hands. The G100 series was first shipped Jan 1937 with many improvements including the forged steel crankcase.
The Mercury was a very good option in 1935-36. Unfortunately that is when it peaked.
I do have some questions about the graph in post #98.
Are those "normal" ratings for all 3 engines or max/military (5 minute) ratings?
Simon Thomas
Senior Airman
The G103A and G105 are at rated power per the FAA type certificate. The US did not permit the UK to receive military engines at this time, so they were forced to use the civil engines.
I chose these models as they had the closest FT altitude to the Mercury IX, which for this discussion is the yardstick. As you pointed out, civilian engines with FT heights generally below 10k are not a good candidate for fighters which operate much higher.
Both of them were rated at 2200 rpm, and typically the FAA rated is a maximum continuous.
The take off power of the G105 was 1100 hp at 2200 rpm at 43" MP. It required 90 octane for lower blower and 95 octane for high blower. TC first issued 23 Feb 1938. (ATC192)
The take off power of the G103A was 1000 hp at 2350 rpm at 43.5" MP. It required 90 octane. TC first issued 14 Sep 1937, although revision including 103A was 20 Sep 1938. (ATC180)
The Perseus X is at "max power" at 2750 rpm on 87 octane. The Perseus take off power is only 750 hp. Clearly shows why just comparing hp between engines is folly.
ALTITUDE and the Aircraft Engine, EROLD F. PIERCE, SAE Transactions, Vol. 35 (1940)
I chose these models as they had the closest FT altitude to the Mercury IX, which for this discussion is the yardstick. As you pointed out, civilian engines with FT heights generally below 10k are not a good candidate for fighters which operate much higher.
Both of them were rated at 2200 rpm, and typically the FAA rated is a maximum continuous.
The take off power of the G105 was 1100 hp at 2200 rpm at 43" MP. It required 90 octane for lower blower and 95 octane for high blower. TC first issued 23 Feb 1938. (ATC192)
The take off power of the G103A was 1000 hp at 2350 rpm at 43.5" MP. It required 90 octane. TC first issued 14 Sep 1937, although revision including 103A was 20 Sep 1938. (ATC180)
The Perseus X is at "max power" at 2750 rpm on 87 octane. The Perseus take off power is only 750 hp. Clearly shows why just comparing hp between engines is folly.
ALTITUDE and the Aircraft Engine, EROLD F. PIERCE, SAE Transactions, Vol. 35 (1940)
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
