If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

Kevin J · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
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.

The Fulmar had 8 x 0.303 later 4 x 0.50 mg, lots of ammo, twice the range of the F5/34. High top speed wasn't essential for it to shoot down torpedo bombers and patrol aircraft. You need the Sea Hurricanes to deal with the Me 110, the Seafire to deal with single seat fighters later on. My FAA floatplane MB2 would have been useful in Norway, a folding wing version ideal for Ark Royal and the Illustrious class carriers until supplemented by the Sea Hurricane and replaced by the Seafire.

Admiral Beez · May 19, 2020

Kevin J said:
My FAA floatplane MB2 would have been useful in Norway, a folding wing version ideal for Ark Royal and the Illustrious class carriers until supplemented by the Sea Hurricane and replaced by the Seafire.

Assuming it's not a Sea Hurricane or Seafire, whatever is replacing the Nimrod should cancel out the need for the Hurricane and Seafire.

Get rid of the Napier engine and your combined BP/MB sales team may have a chance for the MB2. Otherwise it's just too green a field. New, unproven aircraft firm fielding an unconventional design with an unproven engine. You'll get circle filed PDQ.

Kevin J · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
Assuming it's not a Sea Hurricane or Seafire, whatever is replacing the Nimrod should cancel out the need for the Hurricane and Seafire.

Get rid of the Napier engine and your combined BP/MB sales team may have a chance for the MB2. Otherwise it's just too green a field. New, unproven aircraft firm fielding an unconventional design with an unproven engine. You'll get circle filed PDQ.

Except it arrives too late to replace the Nimrod. You still need the Sea Hurricane and Seafire later. I'm not talking about big production runs either.

Admiral Beez · May 19, 2020

Kevin J said:
Except it arrives too late to replace the Nimrod. You still need the Sea Hurricane and Seafire later. I'm not talking about big production runs either.

If your MB idea arrives too late, then why mention it as a replacement for the Nimrod? Aren't you arguing against yourself?

If the Nimrod is replaced by a single seat, retractable undercarriage, eight gun, monoplane fighter with folding wings such as the F5/34 I don't see the need to replace it with a Hurricane - Seafire maybe, especially once the folding wing and Griffon-engine variants come on board. For that matter, if we wait until 1937 and don't pursue the Fulmar concept, the replacement for the Nimrod could very well be a folding wing Hurricane or Seafire.

Kevin J · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
If your MB idea arrives too late, then why mention it as a replacement for the Nimrod? Aren't you arguing against yourself?

If the Nimrod is replaced by a single seat, retractable undercarriage, eight gun, monoplane fighter with folding wings such as the F5/34 I don't see the need to replace it with a Hurricane - Seafire maybe, especially once the folding wing and Griffon-engine variants come on board. For that matter, if we wait until 1937 and don't pursue the Fulmar concept, the replacement for the Nimrod could very well be a folding wing Hurricane or Seafire.

My idea for a fixed undercarriage FAA MB 2 requires Martin Baker to deliver them in 1939. It's possible if they are asked to tender for the FAA navy fighter rather than the RAF colonial fighter.

tomo pauk · May 19, 2020

HARDLYDANK said:
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

It seems to me that F.5/35 retained only cockpit from Gladiator...

RW Mk. III · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
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.

View attachment 582090

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.

I love the diagrams! Yes I did wander right off into the 'what-if' bushes with that "square versus rectangular 990 sq. Ft. Elevators"notion!

I have so much to say about the QE2 Carriers/F35 cluster but this is not the time nor the place.

Admiral Beez · May 19, 2020

Kevin J said:
My idea for a fixed undercarriage FAA MB 2 requires Martin Baker to deliver them in 1939. It's possible if they are asked to tender for the FAA navy fighter rather than the RAF colonial fighter.

Ditch the Napier engine and you might have a shot. Otherwise Messrs. Martin, Baker, North (Boulton Paul) and Halford (Napier) will be hauled in front of the UK War Office to explain why their aircraft is broken down across the empire.

Kevin J said:
The Fulmar had 8 x 0.303 later 4 x 0.50 mg, lots of ammo, twice the range of the F5/34. High top speed wasn't essential for it to shoot down torpedo bombers and patrol aircraft.

No, but dependence on the Fulmar and non-folding Hurricanes in April 1942 almost cost Sommerville his fleet. If we replace the Nimrod before WW2 with a folding Hurricane, Seafire (or F5/34), we don't need the Fulmar's long range for fleet air defence, since the Hurricane can clear the skies of Italian and German strike aircraft and then with folding wings fill the hangars of Sommerville's carriers at Ceylon.

Shortround6 · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
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.

First Gloster F.5/34 (K5604) unarmed flies Dec 1937, 2nd Gloster F.5/34 (K8089) armed flies March of 1938,. Now you want to throw out the wing and landing gear (save the fuselage?) and redesign, build and test both, then put the resulting plane into production or order off the drawing board?

The first 38 Sea Gladiators were converted RAF machines and started reaching the squadrons for shore training in 1938, which rather points out the problem in picking planes where the prototypes don't even fly until late 37 or early 38.

The next order for Sea Gladiators was for 60 planes with a more extensive conversion. They went to sea on the HMS Courageous in May of 1939.

That is it 98 Sea Gladiators. Trying to pick another plane to build instead becomes very expensive due to the short production run. The tricker you get (folding wings) the more expensive it gets.

Shortround6 · May 19, 2020

HARDLYDANK said:
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

tomo pauk said:
It seems to me that F.5/35 retained only cockpit from Gladiator...

F.5/34 used an all metal monocoque fuselage. It used an all metal wing with stressed skin covering.

Aside from the canopy ( ) the only thing in common was that they both used a Bristol Mercury engine. The F.5/34 did use a two pitch prop instead of the fixed pitch props (several varieties) on the Gladiator.

Admiral Beez · May 19, 2020

Shortround6 said:
That is it 98 Sea Gladiators. Trying to pick another plane to build instead becomes very expensive due to the short production run. The tricker you get (folding wings) the more expensive it gets.

My vote is to go from Nimrods to folding wing Hurricanes. Of if the FAA is hellbent on two seat fighters, it's Nimrods to Fulmars.

Shortround6 · May 19, 2020

Admiral Beez said:
My vote is to go from Nimrods to folding wing Hurricanes. Of if the FAA is hellbent on two seat fighters, it's Nimrods to Fulmars.

Chances of getting folding wing Hurricanes in 1939 and early 1940 are about zero. The RAF is going to suck up every Hurricane they can get their hands on and the problem is building enough Hurricanes, not redesign the wing again after going from fabric covered to all metal.
Please remember that the Fulmar itself was an interim fighter, meant to go into production quickly being based of the unsuccessful P.4/34 light bomber. By some point in 1938 the admiralty was looking at designs for the Griffon powered plane that would turn into the Firefly. This was early in the planning stages and the formal requirement (after looking at proposals from several companies) wouldn't be put out until the summer of 1940.

So in 1938 you have the 4-6 year old Nimrods that need replacement, the Interim Fulmar that won't reach squadrons until 1940 and the planned/hopped for fighter with the griffon engine (or two seater with Sabre?) that won't show up until 1941/42?? and what they are looking for is something to tide them over until the Fulmar show up, not replace the Fulmar or tide them over until the Fulmar replacement/s show up.

The Sea Gladiators don't actually delay any of the other programs, especially if the land Gladiators exist. You just tack a few more on the end of the production run/s and fit them with carrier bits and pieces and naval radios.

Kevin J · May 19, 2020

Shortround6 said:
Chances of getting folding wing Hurricanes in 1939 and early 1940 are about zero. The RAF is going to suck up every Hurricane they can get their hands on and the problem is building enough Hurricanes, not redesign the wing again after going from fabric covered to all metal.
Please remember that the Fulmar itself was an interim fighter, meant to go into production quickly being based of the unsuccessful P.4/34 light bomber. By some point in 1938 the admiralty was looking at designs for the Griffon powered plane that would turn into the Firefly. This was early in the planning stages and the formal requirement (after looking at proposals from several companies) wouldn't be put out until the summer of 1940.

So in 1938 you have the 4-6 year old Nimrods that need replacement, the Interim Fulmar that won't reach squadrons until 1940 and the planned/hopped for fighter with the griffon engine (or two seater with Sabre?) that won't show up until 1941/42?? and what they are looking for is something to tide them over until the Fulmar show up, not replace the Fulmar or tide them over until the Fulmar replacement/s show up.

The Sea Gladiators don't actually delay any of the other programs, especially if the land Gladiators exist. You just tack a few more on the end of the production run/s and fit them with carrier bits and pieces and naval radios.

Alternately, you take the radial engine fighters and look at them as contenders for the FAA single seat fighter requirement. The Bristol Type 146 is too late and too slow. The Vickers Venom lacks the wing area, so keep the wings and bolt them onto a new centre section; replace the Aquila with a Perseus, so there should be no problem meeting the 1938/39 deadline; problem is its lack of development potential and if you do this then wouldn't it be better to make a folding wing Spitfire. The Gloster F.5/34 first flies December 1936, so yes plenty of time to add hook and catapult spools ready for service in 1938/39 so build instead of Sea Gladiator and Henley; you're looking at 260 fighters in 1939 so looks good; maybe you even convert some RAF Gladiators in 1938 in the interim to serve as fighter trainers. The MB2, flies late, hand built by semi-skilled workers, it has potential so build it instead of the Blackburn Roc at Boulton Paul; you have say 50 built in 1939 available for the 1940 Norwegian Campaign as float planes; you build another 85 in 1940 with folding wings available for us on FCS and CAM ships; they'd be fully recoverable and re-usable so no need for Hurricats.

Shortround6 · May 19, 2020

In reverse, Float planes are not recoverable at sea (mid ocean) unless the sea state permits it. North Atlantic often had had seas that were too rough. Recovering ship also has to slow way down or almost come to a dead halt, not a good idea if submarines are in the area.
Float planes in Norway is not a good idea.
Spitfire V on floats with a Merlin 45 and running 14lbs boost(?) 1470hp (?) was rated at 251mph at sea level, 267mph at 5,000ft, 306mph at 15,500ft and 324mph at 19,500ft. time to 10,000ft 4.4 minutes and time to 25,000ft 12.3 minutes, Range at 200mph at 20,000ft was 336 miles.
Even with 100 octane fuel a Merlin III (or VIII) is not going to give you enough power to fight 109s if you are lugging around a set of floats.

as for the F.5/34, we have several sources/accounts saying it flew in Dec of 1936 and at least one saying it flew Dec of 1937 but all agree the 2nd prototype (with guns) flew March of 1938. Your choice, prototypes flew 3 months apart or 15 months apart. In any case, no armor and no self sealing tanks and no 1940 radio outfit. Total ammo was 2600 rounds?
No easy path for improved engine.
Replacing the Aquila engine with a Perseus is like replacing a R-975 Whirlwind with an R-1820 Cyclone G. If you want to make a plane out of bits and pieces look at the P-75

Kevin J · May 19, 2020

Shortround6 said:
In reverse, Float planes are not recoverable at sea (mid ocean) unless the sea state permits it. North Atlantic often had had seas that were too rough. Recovering ship also has to slow way down or almost come to a dead halt, not a good idea if submarines are in the area.
Float planes in Norway is not a good idea.
Spitfire V on floats with a Merlin 45 and running 14lbs boost(?) 1470hp (?) was rated at 251mph at sea level, 267mph at 5,000ft, 306mph at 15,500ft and 324mph at 19,500ft. time to 10,000ft 4.4 minutes and time to 25,000ft 12.3 minutes, Range at 200mph at 20,000ft was 336 miles.
Even with 100 octane fuel a Merlin III (or VIII) is not going to give you enough power to fight 109s if you are lugging around a set of floats.

as for the F.5/34, we have several sources/accounts saying it flew in Dec of 1936 and at least one saying it flew Dec of 1937 but all agree the 2nd prototype (with guns) flew March of 1938. Your choice, prototypes flew 3 months apart or 15 months apart. In any case, no armor and no self sealing tanks and no 1940 radio outfit. Total ammo was 2600 rounds?
No easy path for improved engine.
Replacing the Aquila engine with a Perseus is like replacing a R-975 Whirlwind with an R-1820 Cyclone G. If you want to make a plane out of bits and pieces look at the P-75

Looks like the Sea Gladiator wins.

Hardlydank · May 19, 2020

tomo pauk said:
It seems to me that F.5/35 retained only cockpit from Gladiator...

I meant that the process and experience of designing the Gladiator made the F.5/34 what it was- a sort of combination of old and new, and that if the Gladiator didn't exist then the F.5/34 would've been much different
A similar comparison can be drawn between the Hawker Fury and the Hurricane

MikeMeech · May 20, 2020

Shortround6 said:
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.

Hi

The Gladiator's predecessor, the Gauntlet, had Dunlop air-operated brakes. The earlier Bristol Bulldog IIa had Bendix cable-operated brakes (probably also retrofitted to other Bulldogs in service to some extent), the Hawker Fury and Demon had Palmer hydraulic brakes. All of these were operated by foot pedals on the rudder bar I believe.

Mike

tomo pauk · May 20, 2020

HARDLYDANK said:
I meant that the process and experience of designing the Gladiator made the F.5/34 what it was- a sort of combination of old and new, and that if the Gladiator didn't exist then the F.5/34 would've been much different
A similar comparison can be drawn between the Hawker Fury and the Hurricane

Fury and Hurricane have had much more in common construction-wise, their respective fuselages were constructed around the braced steel tube construction, that was wrapped with fabric. Gladiator was also made like that, while the fuselage F.5/35 was constructed as a stressed-skin construction, where duraluminium skin contributed to the rigidity. Add there new wing and empenage, and the end result is pretty much a brand new aircraft.
Granted, there was probaly no single piece that Hurricane shared with Fury either, apart from gauges and possibly bolts?

We could postulate a scenario where Gloster takes the complete fuselage of the Gladiator and them mates it with a cantilever wing - that might've sped up the whole business of designing a better fighter, and improve it's production figures...

buffnut453 · May 20, 2020

Surely if there's no Gladiator, we'd have ended up with a Sea Gauntlet?

Kevin J · May 20, 2020

buffnut453 said:
Surely if there's no Gladiator, we'd have ended up with a Sea Gauntlet?

No, the Sea Gladiator would have entered service in 1937 and there would have been lots more of them.

If no Sea Gladiator, what replaces the Hawker Nimrod?

Banned

Major

Banned

Major

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman 1st Class

Major

Major General

Major General

Major

Major General

Banned

Major General

Banned

Airman 1st Class

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Captain

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads