swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,993
- Jun 25, 2013
Was this before the major drug investigation in Blackburn's design office? Not only is that ugly, it's incontrovertibly and excessively weird.
If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Was this before the major drug investigation in Blackburn's design office? Not only is that ugly, it's incontrovertibly and excessively weird.
Shortround6
Major General
It's weird because they were trying to meet the official specification
Westlands entry into the competition
One of the grandfathers of the P-39
Between the landing or stalling speed of 50mph, the four gun armament, the desire to keep the exhaust glare out of the pilots view for night flying/fighting and some other "needs" unusual configurations were coming out of the woodwork depending on how much emphasis each designer put on some of the different requirements.
If you are looking for a better view from the cockpit than a biplane, with it's upper wing in the way, will give and you still want a landing speed of 50mph (either a biplane or very large monoplane wing) you are going to get some strange configurations.
Westlands entry into the competition
One of the grandfathers of the P-39
Between the landing or stalling speed of 50mph, the four gun armament, the desire to keep the exhaust glare out of the pilots view for night flying/fighting and some other "needs" unusual configurations were coming out of the woodwork depending on how much emphasis each designer put on some of the different requirements.
If you are looking for a better view from the cockpit than a biplane, with it's upper wing in the way, will give and you still want a landing speed of 50mph (either a biplane or very large monoplane wing) you are going to get some strange configurations.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
just to complete the set...It's weird because they were trying to meet the official specification
Westlands entry into the competition
View attachment 581957
One of the grandfathers of the P-39
Between the landing or stalling speed of 50mph, the four gun armament, the desire to keep the exhaust glare out of the pilots view for night flying/fighting and some other "needs" unusual configurations were coming out of the woodwork depending on how much emphasis each designer put on some of the different requirements.
If you are looking for a better view from the cockpit than a biplane, with it's upper wing in the way, will give and you still want a landing speed of 50mph (either a biplane or very large monoplane wing) you are going to get some strange configurations.
Attachments
Shortround6
Major General
The Supermarine 224 had a wing of 295 sq ft and failed to meet the landing speed requirement by 10 mph (20%).
I have no idea if any of the other planes actually met the landing speed requirement.
I would note that the Gloster Gladiator was one of the first British planes to use landing flaps in an effort to get close to the landing speed requirements of it's time (a number of years later) and was one of the first British aircraft (fighters at least) to use wheel brakes.
The American P-26 of the early/mid 30s landed at 80mph before they fitted flaps and at about 72mph after they fitted the flaps. One can imagine the excitement of landing a P-26 without flaps on a typical English fighter field of the early 30s.
Shortround6
Major General
Actually they weren't. Canadian car & Foundry was assembling Grumman FFs for export. In part to get around the US ban on exporting aircraft to the different sides in the Spanish civil war..
CC&F was being supplied Fuselages from Grumman, Wings from Brewster, Engines from Wright and landing gear and other parts from US companies. CC&F was acting as the assembly shop and exporter.
The Spanish (impersonating Turks and using forged documents) had ordered 50 aircraft and 34 made it to Spain by truck after landing in France. The final 16 were impounded by the Canadian government and sat crated for several years until the fall of 1940 when they assembled to be used as trainers/patrol aircraft.
So first Canadian use is well after any decision to buy such aircraft for the FAA would have to be made and the existence of a "Canadian" production line as opposed to assembly shop is debatable.
- Thread starter
- #46
Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed. Canadian-produced Grumman F3F would have been a good replacement for the Nimrod, though too wide for Ark Royal. The F3F will give the Fiat CR.42 Falcon a run for its money.
EDITED (for contrarian proofing). And continued ties with Grumman may see CC&F get a swing at making Martlets, with Canada making the Grumman series from the FF (Goblin), then the F3F (name suggestions?), followed in 1942 by the F4F (Martlet).
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
When? 1942? You want a plane that can substitute for the Sea Gladiator it sure isn't the Martlet unless you have a Tardis.
Kevin J
Banned
I still prefer my idea for a Martin Baker Boulton Paul tie up idea to make fighters for the FAA. So it flies in 1938, floats added 1939. Small production run of 50 followed by 85 more in 1940 with catapult spools; 1940, retractable undercarriage version, 1941, folding wing version. 1942 MB3 has folding wings, arrestor hook, catapult spools 1943, MB4 likewise, 1944, 1944, MB5, same again.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #49
Admiral Beez
Major
I don't think the FAA would have seriously considered a brand new, untested firm like MB, especially one hell bent on using unproven Napier engines, for their Nimrod replacement. But maybe, and it could have led MB to a successful relationship with the FAA.
Kevin J
Banned
Big companies like dealing with big companies.
- Thread starter
- #51
Admiral Beez
Major
That's my point. With the Nimrod first flying in 1931 and entering FAA service in 1933, the replacement would begin to be considered by 1937 after German rearmament and Japanese expansion in China. Boulton Paul Aircraft was founded in 1934 (the same year as Martin-Baker) from the bankrupt remnants of the large Boulton & Paul Ltd general manufacturing firm. Even though the original firm made aircraft back to the First World War, the FAA would be dealing with an entirely new entity with only two or three years of experience for its Nimrod replacement. I think Boulton Paul / Martin Baker would be moved to the bottom of the pile ..... unless their submission was superlative in performance and using a conventional engine familiar to the FAA, which the MB2 is not.
IMO if Gloster's Gladiator is off the table in 1936-7 when the FAA is shopping for a single-seat fighter, the Nimrod replacement goes to either Fairey, Bristol, Blackburn (a Skua derivative), Supermarine or Hawker (Hurricane, first flight 1935). My vote is an early Sea Hurricane with folding wings, it's essentially a monoplane Nimrod.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
Should have just labelled them as "recreational vehicles" and argued the nuanc
I still like Gloster F5/34 for it... Could come online before Sea hurricane if only FAA variants are pursued as no competition with the junior service...
Main trouble is if they got into it with Zeros it would be a free for all! Superficially similar!
Shortround6
Major General
We can run the time line back to the F.7/30 specification. with a few additions.
The Gloster Gauntlet first flew 17th Dec 1934 it was not part of the F.7/30 "program"
The entire F.7/30 program was delayed because the Goshawk engine was taking longer to develop than it had been planned for.
The Westland entry didn't fly until March of 1934. It was slower than the Fury and had a number of problems.
The Bristol 133 displayed lateral instability and several attempts were made to fix it, when they got down to thinking it was wing tip flex at high speed they gave up.
Hawker had private venture based off the Fury but by the time they gave up on the steam cooled Goshawk engine and fitted a liquied cooled version is was May 1935 and the Gladiator had already won the contract.
The Blackburn entry had troubles in the taxi test including cracks and distortions of the rear fuselage and since this was after July of 1934 and repairs/modifications would take too long the project was canceled without the plane ever flying.
The Supermarine 224 flew Feb 1934 however perfroamce was down from intial estimates and Mitchell was already working on the straight wing retracting landing, enclosed cockpit Spitifire.
Bristol had their type 133 monoplane with retracting ladning gear but the plane was late, first flown June of 1934 but didn't complete manufacturers trials until March of 1935. Plane was lost in a spin test due in part to the pilot not retracting the landing gear. Bristol was already working on a different fighter for the F.5/34 specification.
England is in a bind, the entire F.7/30 class has flopped and the F.5/34 class won't even be ready for testing let alone service use until the end of 1935/ beginning of 1936, Service use won't be until late 1937 or early 1938. There are four fighter designs available in Britain at this time that were outside the normal development channels. Hawker, who had take over Gloster, proposed a modified Gauntlet that was the Gladiator. Based on this prototype which differed from the production aircraft in a number of ways 203 Gladiators were on order by Sept 1935.
Of the other three contenders there was the Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 35 Scimitar which did not fly until June 1935, four were sold to Norway. They used Armstrong Siddeley Panther 14 cylinder radials was were slow 221mph for the prototypes but 217mph at 14,000ft for the Norwegian machines.
Fairey completes the roster with the Fox Mk VII and the Fantome. Both were actually intended for use by Belgium and both used Hispano V-12 engines.
The Gladiator equipped 6 squadrons by the end of 1937 while one squadron had received 4 Hurricanes by Christmas. There was a lot of shuffling around over the next few years.
Gladiators never equipped more than 8 squadrons at a time but often a squadron only flew them for a number of months before re-equipping with the Hurricane (or Spitfire) and passing their Gladiators to a squadron flying something older.
That is the roster of possible candidates for replacing the Sea Gladiator as the Admiralty had asked the AIr Ministry for an Interim fighter in 1937. The Skau had flown in Feb 1937 and the Admiralty was looking for something to help tied them over until the planned Fulmar reached service use in 1940. Any prototype that flew in at the end of 1937 or in 1938 was unlikely to reach wide service use before the Fulmar. Fairey had gotten a contract for 127 Fulmars in mid 1938 and the contract was increased to 250 soon after.
If none of these options are suitable then the FAA goes into action flying Nimrods or Nimrods with newer engines.
The Gloster Gauntlet first flew 17th Dec 1934 it was not part of the F.7/30 "program"
The entire F.7/30 program was delayed because the Goshawk engine was taking longer to develop than it had been planned for.
The Westland entry didn't fly until March of 1934. It was slower than the Fury and had a number of problems.
The Bristol 133 displayed lateral instability and several attempts were made to fix it, when they got down to thinking it was wing tip flex at high speed they gave up.
Hawker had private venture based off the Fury but by the time they gave up on the steam cooled Goshawk engine and fitted a liquied cooled version is was May 1935 and the Gladiator had already won the contract.
The Blackburn entry had troubles in the taxi test including cracks and distortions of the rear fuselage and since this was after July of 1934 and repairs/modifications would take too long the project was canceled without the plane ever flying.
The Supermarine 224 flew Feb 1934 however perfroamce was down from intial estimates and Mitchell was already working on the straight wing retracting landing, enclosed cockpit Spitifire.
Bristol had their type 133 monoplane with retracting ladning gear but the plane was late, first flown June of 1934 but didn't complete manufacturers trials until March of 1935. Plane was lost in a spin test due in part to the pilot not retracting the landing gear. Bristol was already working on a different fighter for the F.5/34 specification.
England is in a bind, the entire F.7/30 class has flopped and the F.5/34 class won't even be ready for testing let alone service use until the end of 1935/ beginning of 1936, Service use won't be until late 1937 or early 1938. There are four fighter designs available in Britain at this time that were outside the normal development channels. Hawker, who had take over Gloster, proposed a modified Gauntlet that was the Gladiator. Based on this prototype which differed from the production aircraft in a number of ways 203 Gladiators were on order by Sept 1935.
Of the other three contenders there was the Armstrong Whitworth A.W. 35 Scimitar which did not fly until June 1935, four were sold to Norway. They used Armstrong Siddeley Panther 14 cylinder radials was were slow 221mph for the prototypes but 217mph at 14,000ft for the Norwegian machines.
Fairey completes the roster with the Fox Mk VII and the Fantome. Both were actually intended for use by Belgium and both used Hispano V-12 engines.
The Gladiator equipped 6 squadrons by the end of 1937 while one squadron had received 4 Hurricanes by Christmas. There was a lot of shuffling around over the next few years.
Gladiators never equipped more than 8 squadrons at a time but often a squadron only flew them for a number of months before re-equipping with the Hurricane (or Spitfire) and passing their Gladiators to a squadron flying something older.
That is the roster of possible candidates for replacing the Sea Gladiator as the Admiralty had asked the AIr Ministry for an Interim fighter in 1937. The Skau had flown in Feb 1937 and the Admiralty was looking for something to help tied them over until the planned Fulmar reached service use in 1940. Any prototype that flew in at the end of 1937 or in 1938 was unlikely to reach wide service use before the Fulmar. Fairey had gotten a contract for 127 Fulmars in mid 1938 and the contract was increased to 250 soon after.
If none of these options are suitable then the FAA goes into action flying Nimrods or Nimrods with newer engines.
- Thread starter
- #54
Admiral Beez
Major
Trouble with the Gloster F5/35 is its monolithic wing precluding any chances of folding. So an entirely new wing design is needed, at which point you might as well have Gloster make something entirely new - and besides we need a new wing to address the undercarriage folding and to achieve streamline lower wing surface.
But I like the idea of the F5/34 with its FAA friendly engine and lack of pressure on RAF demands for the Merlin (though the Fulmar got plenty). The FAA rejects Gloster's Gladiator as their Nimrod replacement but asks; "what else do you have that we could consider? Well sir," pipes up Gloster's quick thinking head of sales, "we have just the ticket...."
Definitely an issue. Something copyright/trademark lawyers might complain about too. Just don't tell SAAB.
Courtesy of The Unofficial Airfix Modellers' Forum • View topic - An Auk-ward Gloster
Invasion stripes or some other type of easily discernible colouring will be necessary.
RW Mk. III
Airman 1st Class
The long and thin FAA lift... If they'd had elevators of the same surface area, but square or close to it, you could handsomely fit these, unfolded, down the hole. While still fitting a folded swordfish using the same elevator. (They both have to line up diagonally on the lift tho)
assuming 22'x45' elevator =990'sq per armouredcarriers.com
I realize that you may not get as many aboard, but sea gladiator did not fold either.
What would be the source for this sentence, especially about the inability of the wing of that fighter to receive a folding wing?
- Thread starter
- #57
Admiral Beez
Major
F5/34 is almost 20% longer and wider than the Gladiator, though neither will fit onto the new carriers. Sea Hurricanes couldn't fit on the Illustrious class lifts when turned on a diagonal, so neither will the F5/34.
But again, the F5/34's undercarriage needs to be changed to a streamlined stowage, so make a new wing that cleanly stows the wheels and folds for carrier stowage. There's no choice, a new wing is needed regardless as Ark Royal's lifts are 45ft by 22ft and 45ft by 25ft, and the three Illustrious class 45 by 22 feet.
You make the aircraft to suit the ship, not the other way round, with the apparent exception of the current Queen Elizabeth class CVs. Lord help them if the F-35B turns into a dog and CATOBAR is needed.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #58
Admiral Beez
Major
If we go with the F5/34 for fleet fighter, presumably this cancels out the need for the Fulmar, since the Skua can do the two man observation role. In fact we can likely make the Skua purely a dive bomber and reconnaissance bid, skipping the fighter role and perhaps putting on a heavier bomb load. The F5/34 may turn the FAA in a whole new direction.
Hardlydank
Airman 1st Class
Clarification needed; the regular Gladiator still exists in this scenario, but not the Sea Gladiator, right? Because if not, then the F.5/34 would not exist or it would be much different since it was based on the Gladiator in the 1st place
- Thread starter
- #60
Admiral Beez
Major
Yes, the RAF's Gloster Gladiator exists. The only change is that the FAA doesn't get a version. Either the AM doesn't allow it or the FAA doesn't want it. I'd like to think the latter, that the FAA decided to hold out for something better than another fixed wheel biplane to replace the Nimrod. I like the Gloster F4/35 as it's earlier enough to cancel out the Fulmar.
