It's something many British designs did. How about the Short Sturgeon?
Cheers
Steve
Gloster F.9/37
- Thread starter merlin
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It's something many British designs did. How about the Short Sturgeon?
Cheers
Steve
In a manner of speaking, Steve, but the F.9/37 or G.39 was a different aeroplane to the Reaper and it was not suggested that it be modified with a higher gross weight or to be fitted with Merlins until F.18/40 was released to tender. The G.39, the first design for Gloster by Carter was initially proposed to have been powered by Kestrels as well as Tauruses. The F.18/40 Reaper was proposed as a Merlin engined aircraft and although a paper development of the earlier machine it was a very different design and would have been in practise an entirely new aeroplane. It would have been a potent machine, looks rather like a twin finned Fw 187!
Sigh - Well, not if you want Britain to have no suitable nightfighters in numbers until the Beaufighter and Mossie come on line in numbers from 1942. Remember Defiants were the mainstay of Fighter Command's night fighter force until mid/late 1942. Not really worth cancelling if the Luftwaffe are conducting its operations at night. Canning Beaufighter Mk.IIs makes sense though, Tomo.
F.18/40 was initially for a fixed gun night fighter, but on 9 December this was altered to equip the fighters with a gun turret. Despite the Defiant's uninspiring showing during the Battle of Britain, it looks like the British still had a predilection for the turret fighter. The original Gloster turret fighter I mentioned earlier was designed to F.34/35 and would have been powered by two Bristol Aquilas and was canned in favour of F.9/35, which produced the Defiant.
The F.18/40 specification allowed the substitution of Merlin engines and Gloster planned to base their submission on the F.9/37. They had already established that the extant F.9/37s were capable of taking the increase in weight.
It was because of the existence of the two prototypes of the F.9/37 that N.E.Rowe at the D.T.D. wrote to Gloster saying that their plan to effectively upgrade the F.9/37 to the new specification was a 'particularly attractive idea'.
Development work for the F.18/40 was carried out using L8002 with Peregrine engines.
Here she is.
Here is a Gloster drawing of the single seat, Merlin powered 'Reaper' developed from F.18/40
The similarities are fairly obvious.
Here's a mock up, built by Gloster in September/October 1940.
The latter mock up is for a two seat night fighter, powered by Merlin engines. This was offered by Gloster as a 'modified F.9/37' to Specification F.18/40.
Here's what Gloster thought it would look like. It is also called 'Reaper' on drawings.
Both the night fighter and the single seat heavy fighter would ultimately have been a different aeroplane to the F.9/37 prototypes but Gloster documents make it quite clear that they were modifications and development of the earlier type. This is also why the Air Ministry's D.T.D found the idea 'particularly attractive'. It seemed that a large part of the design and development had already been done.
L7999 was allocated for conversion to F.18/40 configuration as early as November 1940. Some work was done before it was stopped in January 1941.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
But, I want Britain to have suitable night fighter force - albeit with F.9/37 in that role, instead of Daffy II
But, I want Britain to have suitable night fighter force - albeit with F.9/37 in that role, instead of Daffy II
The problem with that is that because of the delay in getting the F.9/37 developed neither it nor the F.18/40, into which it was being transformed, would have been ready until late 1942, even had a contract been issued.
That assessment was made on 18th September 1940, when the F.18/40 project was put on the back burner. Work on conversion of one of the F.9/37 prototypes to F.18/40 stopped in January 1941 and the project was finally cancelled on 1st May 1941.
Gloster missed the boat with what might have been a very good aeroplane. They more than made up for it with their work on early jets, starting with the E.28/39.
Cheers
Steve
Yes, Steve, all that's pretty interesting and the photos of the Peregrine powered aircraft are great to see, but none of this contradicts what I stated.
I suspect that we both might be getting our wires crossed. The F.9/37 was only to be conceived to be powered by Merlins after Gloster recieved the tender to F.18/40, not before. Im not stating that it wasn't based on the ealier aircraft, but that the change to Merlins on paper was done as a result of the issuing of F.18/40. Might be lost in translation; I do have a different accent.
'Configuration' is more likely to be incorporation of F.18/40 features - 'conversion' on its own suggests that Gloster was going to re-work the existing aircraft into the prototype of the new type, which I doubt. Also, in paperwork, of course Gloster are going to use 'modification' to describe changes to the basic F.9/37, I'm not denying it was based on the earlier design, but the F.18/40 was to be an entirely new aeroplane. It was heavier, powered by bigger engines, was a two seater and dimensionally probably slightly larger and could carry a greater load with better performance and I doubt just tacking a couple of Merlins and adding a new cockpit is going to do it, frankly. Can you provide evidence that L7999 was actually going to be converted to be powered by Merlins? If it was I suspect that major modification was needed as suggested in an earlier post.
With Steve on this, sorry Tomo; besides, what are you going to use as an interim before the Reaper or indeed the F.9/37 is ready? Might as well use the Defiants already in service and rolling off the production line eh. It'd make sense since Defiants carried out night operations prior to the Battle of Britain, 264 Sqn crews already had night fighter experience before the type was confined to night ops only, in late August.
Missed this the first time round; didn't know that - notice I didn't use it in my latest post.
Don't you think the illustration of the two-seat Reaper looks like a twin fin Fw 187???
I suspect that we both might be getting our wires crossed. The F.9/37 was only to be conceived to be powered by Merlins after Gloster recieved the tender to F.18/40, not before. Im not stating that it wasn't based on the ealier aircraft, but that the change to Merlins on paper was done as a result of the issuing of F.18/40. Might be lost in translation; I do have a different accent.
'Configuration' is more likely to be incorporation of F.18/40 features - 'conversion' on its own suggests that Gloster was going to re-work the existing aircraft into the prototype of the new type, which I doubt. Also, in paperwork, of course Gloster are going to use 'modification' to describe changes to the basic F.9/37, I'm not denying it was based on the earlier design, but the F.18/40 was to be an entirely new aeroplane. It was heavier, powered by bigger engines, was a two seater and dimensionally probably slightly larger and could carry a greater load with better performance and I doubt just tacking a couple of Merlins and adding a new cockpit is going to do it, frankly. Can you provide evidence that L7999 was actually going to be converted to be powered by Merlins? If it was I suspect that major modification was needed as suggested in an earlier post.
With Steve on this, sorry Tomo; besides, what are you going to use as an interim before the Reaper or indeed the F.9/37 is ready? Might as well use the Defiants already in service and rolling off the production line eh.
It'd make sense since Defiants carried out night operations prior to the Battle of Britain, 264 Sqn crews already had night fighter experience before the type was confined to night ops only, in late August. Missed this the first time round; didn't know that - notice I didn't use it in my latest post.
Don't you think the illustration of the two-seat Reaper looks like a twin fin Fw 187???
Last edited:
I'm with you 100% on the first bit. It was the Specification F.18/40 which allowed Gloster to 'substitute' Merlin engines for those used previously.
I think that converting L7999 into the prototype F.18/40 was precisely what Gloster started to do in November 1940.
Only a month had elapsed between the return of the L7999 to Gloster and the relegation of the project to a low priority so it's not surprising that little was done. The writing was on the wall. Although the project wasn't cancelled until May I bet someone digging in the Gloster archives, or the National Archives, could turn up a letter much earlier than that, probably January when work stopped, letting Gloster know what was going on, or even telling them to stop the work. That's how these things were normally done.
We know some work was done. There is a surviving report from January 1941 on the Frise ailerons which were one modification fitted.
The F.18/40 in Gloster drawings is only 9.5 inches longer than the F.9/37 and has the same wing. When I think how easily other aircraft were lengthened by small amounts (like the Hurricane or P-47) I don't think it's an enormous problem.
L7999 remained with Gloster until April 1942 when it was flown to RAF Halton where it suffered the ultimate ignominy of serving as an instructional air frame
L8002 suffered the same fate at roughly the same time (I'd have to look it up) going to RAF Cosford.
Cheers
Steve
I think that converting L7999 into the prototype F.18/40 was precisely what Gloster started to do in November 1940.
Only a month had elapsed between the return of the L7999 to Gloster and the relegation of the project to a low priority so it's not surprising that little was done. The writing was on the wall. Although the project wasn't cancelled until May I bet someone digging in the Gloster archives, or the National Archives, could turn up a letter much earlier than that, probably January when work stopped, letting Gloster know what was going on, or even telling them to stop the work. That's how these things were normally done.
We know some work was done. There is a surviving report from January 1941 on the Frise ailerons which were one modification fitted.
The F.18/40 in Gloster drawings is only 9.5 inches longer than the F.9/37 and has the same wing. When I think how easily other aircraft were lengthened by small amounts (like the Hurricane or P-47) I don't think it's an enormous problem.
L7999 remained with Gloster until April 1942 when it was flown to RAF Halton where it suffered the ultimate ignominy of serving as an instructional air frame
L8002 suffered the same fate at roughly the same time (I'd have to look it up) going to RAF Cosford.
Cheers
Steve
- Thread starter
- #29
First of all - thanks for all the interesting replies.
The story of the Gloster 'twin' seems to back a long way, and sad in some way no 'career' to go with it!
Spec. F.5/33 was the start with a Aquila powered turret-armed two-seater. This was updated to meet F.34/35 - with both forward machine guns and a turret - (see p.38 Butler for photo of a model). Gloster tried it also for F.9/35 - but when the Defiant was selected for that, the F.34/35 was dropped. Next came the F.9/37 initially with cannon turret, but then come late '38 the turret aspect was dropped. And later of course came the F.18/40 (Reaper). Aircraft adidn't get any orders as a result of - the engine, Beaverbrook, and delays meant others could do the job.
Note here the only difference between F.34/35 F.9/37 is cannon instead of machine guns for the forward armament, so it seems plausible that when F.37/35 is being formulated - Gloster is asked to submit an update of the earlier design with 2 x 20 mm cannon, as a back up to the 4 x 20 mm cannon spec. So that could mean first flight - could be late '37 !!? To follow on from that, gives you scope for a two-seater version i.e. A.I. operator - and does away with the Blenheim 1F. But the aircraft is still stuck with the problem of the engine. Either it gets rectified or something else.....
To stretch the 'what if' - if the Aussies go for the Gloster F.5/34 with the P-W 1830, the might go for the Gloster twin to - also with the P-W 1830 !!.
The story of the Gloster 'twin' seems to back a long way, and sad in some way no 'career' to go with it!
Spec. F.5/33 was the start with a Aquila powered turret-armed two-seater. This was updated to meet F.34/35 - with both forward machine guns and a turret - (see p.38 Butler for photo of a model). Gloster tried it also for F.9/35 - but when the Defiant was selected for that, the F.34/35 was dropped. Next came the F.9/37 initially with cannon turret, but then come late '38 the turret aspect was dropped. And later of course came the F.18/40 (Reaper). Aircraft adidn't get any orders as a result of - the engine, Beaverbrook, and delays meant others could do the job.
Note here the only difference between F.34/35 F.9/37 is cannon instead of machine guns for the forward armament, so it seems plausible that when F.37/35 is being formulated - Gloster is asked to submit an update of the earlier design with 2 x 20 mm cannon, as a back up to the 4 x 20 mm cannon spec. So that could mean first flight - could be late '37 !!? To follow on from that, gives you scope for a two-seater version i.e. A.I. operator - and does away with the Blenheim 1F. But the aircraft is still stuck with the problem of the engine. Either it gets rectified or something else.....
To stretch the 'what if' - if the Aussies go for the Gloster F.5/34 with the P-W 1830, the might go for the Gloster twin to - also with the P-W 1830 !!.
A more likely what if would be a Taurus powered F.5/34 which at least got onto the drawing board
F.34/35 had a turret whereas this was dropped from the F.9/37 very soon after the specification was issued. No F.9/35 was built with a turret, though some odd arrangements of armament were tried.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
Kind of depends when the Aussies go for them.
In 1938 the Twin Wasp was rated at 1050hp for take-off (2700rpm) and 900hp max continuous (2550rpm) at around 11,000ft on 87 octane and 1200hp for take-off (2700rpm) and 1050hp max continuous (2550rpm) at 6500ft using 100 octane (US 100 octane but nobody knew the difference then). Engine went around 1420lbs give or take depending on propeller gear ratio. The 1000lb Mercury was good (with 87 octane) for 725hp for take-off9(2650rpm) , 795/825 max continuous at 13,000ft (2650rpm) and 840hp at 14,000ft (5 min) at 2750rpm. The Mercury was a better fighter engine in 1938/39. A two speed Pegasus was good (87 octane) for max continuous 855hp at 5000ft and 800hp at 15,000ft. Or 965 hp for take-off and 1000hp at 3000ft and 885hp at 15,500ft 5 min rating while weighing just over 1100lbs.
Aussies have to know when they pick the engine that 100 octane will be available to them and that Britain will fail to provide adequate aircraft and engines. By the time they know this the Gloster F.5/34 is a done deal, too old and now better than what they can do on their own. There is no production tooling or even production drawings.
In 1938 the Twin Wasp was rated at 1050hp for take-off (2700rpm) and 900hp max continuous (2550rpm) at around 11,000ft on 87 octane and 1200hp for take-off (2700rpm) and 1050hp max continuous (2550rpm) at 6500ft using 100 octane (US 100 octane but nobody knew the difference then). Engine went around 1420lbs give or take depending on propeller gear ratio. The 1000lb Mercury was good (with 87 octane) for 725hp for take-off9(2650rpm) , 795/825 max continuous at 13,000ft (2650rpm) and 840hp at 14,000ft (5 min) at 2750rpm. The Mercury was a better fighter engine in 1938/39. A two speed Pegasus was good (87 octane) for max continuous 855hp at 5000ft and 800hp at 15,000ft. Or 965 hp for take-off and 1000hp at 3000ft and 885hp at 15,500ft 5 min rating while weighing just over 1100lbs.
Aussies have to know when they pick the engine that 100 octane will be available to them and that Britain will fail to provide adequate aircraft and engines. By the time they know this the Gloster F.5/34 is a done deal, too old and now better than what they can do on their own. There is no production tooling or even production drawings.
- Thread starter
- #32
Shortround6 :
Thanks for the info - I take your point, have to be wary of hindsight!
Thus a few options:
Gloster 'single', taken initially with Mercury - which covers '38/39/40, then with the Gloster 'twin' being of interest (whether with or without the Beaufort) the Taurus is used for both - covers '40/41, but with the UK curtailing export of war material in April '40, then the next step is the P-W 1830 for '41/42.
Another change that could've happened is the RAF replacing the Blenheim Bomber - so less need for Mercury engines.
Thanks for the info - I take your point, have to be wary of hindsight!
Thus a few options:
Gloster 'single', taken initially with Mercury - which covers '38/39/40, then with the Gloster 'twin' being of interest (whether with or without the Beaufort) the Taurus is used for both - covers '40/41, but with the UK curtailing export of war material in April '40, then the next step is the P-W 1830 for '41/42.
Another change that could've happened is the RAF replacing the Blenheim Bomber - so less need for Mercury engines.
- Thread starter
- #33
Looking at the weight figures, Gloster have had a difference of ~ 2800 lbs between empty and loaded weight, vs. ~4800 lbs for the Bf-110 C-4 (data from Wikipedia, so bear with me). After allowing for extra crew, seems that 110 have had considerably more fuel?
Gloster F.9/37 was slightly smaller than the Bf-110, wing areas 386 ft² vs. 414 ft², and 3 ft shorter. If outfitted with Merlin, the length should be thereabout. Weight was ~1000 lbs less for the Gloster (empty weights), with Merlins we arrive close to what 110 weighted. Merlin III will give more power than DB-601A, considerably more under ~12000 ft.
My take: Gloster would've had speed climb, 110 maneuverabilty and another set of eyes or two. Should come down to tactics, current altitude and/or speed advantage, and surprise as maybe most crucial factor.
Gloster F.9/37 was slightly smaller than the Bf-110, wing areas 386 ft² vs. 414 ft², and 3 ft shorter. If outfitted with Merlin, the length should be thereabout. Weight was ~1000 lbs less for the Gloster (empty weights), with Merlins we arrive close to what 110 weighted. Merlin III will give more power than DB-601A, considerably more under ~12000 ft.
My take: Gloster would've had speed climb, 110 maneuverabilty and another set of eyes or two. Should come down to tactics, current altitude and/or speed advantage, and surprise as maybe most crucial factor.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
The trouble with the Gloster F.9/37 is that it so iffy/squishy.
We don't know what engine would have been used ( both engines used in the prototypes leave something to be desired), which means performance of a service version is very questionable.
Armament is a bit up in the air. Hispano guns of the time use 60 round drums. The Bf 110 used the rear gunner to reload it's cannon as the did the first 400 Beaufighters. Gloster F.9/37 has only 60 rounds per cannon if used as a single seater? Can 2nd crewman reach the cannon?
As for range? The Bf 110 was a bit larger and had more drag but then it also had a bigger payload. For the 110C-1 empty weight was 9775lb,empty equipped was 10,769lb, loaded was 13,289 and max overload was 14,880lbs. Payload over and above empty equipped was was 2520-4111lbs for crew, ammo, fuel and oil (and bombs?)
The Gloster went 8,828 lb empty and 11,615 loaded for the Taurus engine version but the 8,828lbs doesn't include the guns or radio,etc do it's empty 'equipped weight' could be 500-550lb more. 2287lbs (?) for crew, ammo, fuel and oil. Certainly doesn't seem like much different range than the Bf 110.
Sticking in Merlins adds hundreds of pounds to the weight (can you even use the same props?) just using Peregrines added about 400lbs to the empty weight.
We don't know what engine would have been used ( both engines used in the prototypes leave something to be desired), which means performance of a service version is very questionable.
Armament is a bit up in the air. Hispano guns of the time use 60 round drums. The Bf 110 used the rear gunner to reload it's cannon as the did the first 400 Beaufighters. Gloster F.9/37 has only 60 rounds per cannon if used as a single seater? Can 2nd crewman reach the cannon?
As for range? The Bf 110 was a bit larger and had more drag but then it also had a bigger payload. For the 110C-1 empty weight was 9775lb,empty equipped was 10,769lb, loaded was 13,289 and max overload was 14,880lbs. Payload over and above empty equipped was was 2520-4111lbs for crew, ammo, fuel and oil (and bombs?)
The Gloster went 8,828 lb empty and 11,615 loaded for the Taurus engine version but the 8,828lbs doesn't include the guns or radio,etc do it's empty 'equipped weight' could be 500-550lb more. 2287lbs (?) for crew, ammo, fuel and oil. Certainly doesn't seem like much different range than the Bf 110.
Sticking in Merlins adds hundreds of pounds to the weight (can you even use the same props?) just using Peregrines added about 400lbs to the empty weight.
Last edited:
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
The cannon question isn't really a problem. The early Beaufighters used 60 round drums, but were changed later to belt feeds with between 150 and 240 rounds per gun (and 283 overload), depending on Mk. A bit of fiddling might have been necessary, but Westland had a solution for their proposed Mk II Whirlwind, replacing the bulky 'snail shell' 60-round drum with a 120 round belt feed.
- Thread starter
- #37
Some interesting comments.
My thoughts versus the Me-110 - that the '110' would have a slight top speed advantage, but the Gloster would have better manoeuvrability, though it's acceleration from cruising may be better.
Yes, the cannon shell load is a tricky one, maybe room for another - but can't see there would be enough to be able to do any reloads. So I suppose the question that follows that is, given the Whirlwind in it's small space crammed four cannon in - is there space for more guns? Now I know there were plans to have another three in the rear firing forward over the pilot - personally I think its crazy!
But just as the '110' had 2 x 20mm cannon 4 x 7.9 mm mgs, can the Gloster carry 4 x 0.303" guns as well - and if so where, in the nose, inner wings, outer wings, or even rear fuselage as per shrage Musik ?
My thoughts versus the Me-110 - that the '110' would have a slight top speed advantage, but the Gloster would have better manoeuvrability, though it's acceleration from cruising may be better.
Yes, the cannon shell load is a tricky one, maybe room for another - but can't see there would be enough to be able to do any reloads. So I suppose the question that follows that is, given the Whirlwind in it's small space crammed four cannon in - is there space for more guns? Now I know there were plans to have another three in the rear firing forward over the pilot - personally I think its crazy!
But just as the '110' had 2 x 20mm cannon 4 x 7.9 mm mgs, can the Gloster carry 4 x 0.303" guns as well - and if so where, in the nose, inner wings, outer wings, or even rear fuselage as per shrage Musik ?
Shortround6
Major General
The British had a rather confused history with the Belt feed. Short story is that the belt feed doesn't become available until the spring of 1941. Whirlwind had a least 2 different mock up noses built with belt feeds and test flown ( don't know if they were fired or not), First 400 Beaufighters had drums ( air ministry rejected Bristol's first attempt at belt feed) and the single seat fighters don't get belt feed guns until the Spring of 1931.
Playing games with fitting multiple cannon and switching them off and on to increase firing times seems a bit much. I am sure that a few .303 Brownings could have been worked in someplace.
Playing games with fitting multiple cannon and switching them off and on to increase firing times seems a bit much. I am sure that a few .303 Brownings could have been worked in someplace.
Admiral Beez
Major
This older thread reminded me that Gloster-labeled fighters went from dope and canvas biplanes to jet fighters, completely skipping the monoplane, all-metal generation of piston-engined fighters. Of course Gloster's workforce and plant was busy making advanced all-metal fighters for other firms, but still, the company history section of Gloster's sales brochure would have appeared to be missing a chapter.
Last edited:
