for history of Gladiator in Malta
Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42
Hkans Aviation page - Gloster Gladiators and Fiat CR.42s over Malta 1940-42
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The gladiator was far newer than the P-7. It entered service only in 1937, same year as the Bf 109 and Hurricane
Both were early-30s warplanes, and already outdated when they were developed.
We have to remember that in those days, without Internet, no worldwide fast network of comunication system being used, concepts took a lot of time to travel around the globe.
Now, we have airplanes taking 10 years (sometimes longer) to be developed and introduced. Back in the first half of the XXth century, a plane could be created in just a few months (see P.51). It could be lucky enough to use the latest discoveries, or it could be hindered by it's design team not having heard of the latest concepts.
Pardon? The successes enjoyed by the Gladiator can not be used to castigate the PZL P-7 on the grounds of obsolescence. The P-7 entered service FIVE YEARS before the Gladiator, this is a fact. The P-7 was NOT outdated when it was developed. it was one of the most advanced fighters in existence, a very different story to the Gladiator and the botch job that was F.7/30 (an advanced and far sighted requirement that was badly mismanaged in the execution). What the hell has the internet got to do with any of it????
Polands problem was not that it did not have modern technology, it was as modern as anybody. Below are pictures of the P.37 bomber and P.50 fighter which show Polands capability by 1939.
The problem was one shared also by France in that they had modernised and expanded their air force a tad too early. This left them from 1937 onwards with hundreds of aircraft that were approaching obsolescence thanks to the rapid advanced made in aviation over the previous two short years. Having made the effort to expand and modernise previously, the further effort to then replace it all was just too much. Fortunately for Britain our own expansion coincided almost exactly with this time frame so most aircraft acquired by the RAF were still fairly modern when war broke out with even more even more advanced types like the Beaufort/Beaufighter, Mosquito, Halifax etc just round the corner.
As I recall, the only fault I pointed out to the P.7, was about range. And that, because it ahd to fight the germans planes still with range to spare. If you read what I said, I mention that the Gladiators had their adversaries short on fuel, as did the Hurricanes/Spitfires during the Battle of Britain, or more recently the Harriers in the Falklands.
That allowed them to get some leverage against faster, or more modern, aircraft.
On "Internet", I did not get the point through, and you say *EXACTLY* what I mean:
You have two airplanes developed during a 5 year period, which are BOTH obsolete by the time the war starts. And yet, with just half a dozen years they are BOTH brand new. The F.16 has been flying for what, three DECADES? And still a valid piece of hardware.
Airplanes got developed much faster, and were bought in greater quantities than today. They also got "old" much faster, and that's why the Gladiator was already outdated when it got into service.
The french, I disagree that they "had just" gotten new aircraft - they got careless, and only started working on it seriously AFTER the war started. And then had the bad luck that a few of the new models were not very good.
The british had some airplanes that were not any good, BUT the main difference is that you have a lot of manufacturers, all delivering aircraft with difference concepts, engines, since the 20s.
Poland had PZL,
Besides, they did some things very right: when they had a winner, they stuck to it! The engine that was going to be THE one to replace the Kestrel, was the Peregrine. The Merlin was just an after-thought.
But as soon as they saw the Merlin's advantages, they bet on it instead.
So, at the time you have a lot of different british models, being replaced gradually, and you have the french with outdated aircraft,
I don't make the rules, just take notice of them...
Just read something on the Gladiator the other day...wish I could remember where I saw it.
Anyway, according to that quip, it pre-dates the more modern designs by at least two years and at that time, the more modern designs were still basically "ideas" floating around in their inventors heads.
So at the time the Gladiator had been pretty much worked out on paper, that was the most modern fighter the Brits had yet to come up with.
Of course, by the time the Gladiator was ready for service, those more modern designs were already in the R&D stage, so the Glad ends up being accepted as a stop-gap measure until the modern designs could be formally inducted.
Hopefully, this gives you an indication of just how rapidly aircraft technology was moving at that time (they don't call it the "Golden Age" for nothing).
Remember, modern monoplane designs were actually still fairly "cutting edge", even as late as 1939.
Look at the P-26.
Boeing originally presented the Army with an all-metal monoplane design that featured a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear (and this was in 1932!), however the "brass" didn't like the idea of a front-line fighter exhibiting such "experimental" qualities and only accepted the design if it were altered to a two-piece wing and fixed landing gear, since those designs had been proven reliable back in WWI, and how a "proper" airplane should look.
Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, hadn't the P.7 already morphed into the P.24 by the time the Gladiator came into service?
Elvis
OK, but isn't that all as obvious as saying that planes fly, or fighters should carry guns? It was surely a superfluous point to make?
France began its programme in 1932, aircraft deliveries under this began in 1934, ( loong paragraph...) over in France Dewoitine has to finish its production order before moving on to the latest D.520, which delays the switch.
Because back section and tail of IAR 80 was from PZL P.24E builded in RumaniaIn fact the fuselage and entire back section was identical in size.
Uh... nope, I think we have to remember present-day "rules" do not apply.
Well, we agree on the french government and military politics getting in the way.
Where I disagree from you, is on the importance it had (finishing previous contracts before starting new orderes): France WANTED to make new orders, but as they were being finicky over details, they delayed the modernisation process.
Just another thing: the range problem I was mentioning was more on the PZL airplanes - the P.50 looked good, but had the same range the P.7 or P.11 did.
But yes, british planes also had that problem.
I agree, I just meant that it didn't need saying, or at least I was surprised that you felt it did. No-one with any interest in our subject with more than a couple of years reading at most would make that error, would they? Maybe I just took it personally (in a 'why would you think you need to tell me that?' sort of way), lets forget that part, agreed?
Agreed, but as a defending fighter against a neighbouring country range would not have been that crucial unless the Poles actually managed to turn the fight back on Germany, which of course they never did. Likewise, the short range of the Hurricane and Spitfire was not an issue at all during the Battle of Britain (the range of the Spitfire was deliberately reduced during initial development when smaller fuel tanks were requested than those which R J Mitchell had included) so the short range (of any fighter) would not come as a shock, but would be what was requested. If the ministry then gets the request wrong (and how often has that happened!) its not the plane or the designers fault, wouldn't you say?
Good post, I didn't think about the fuselage being stressed skin.Despite its outward appearance as a sort of 'Gladiator Monoplane', the F.5/34 was a completely different aeroplane and was Glosters first foray into stressed skin metal airframes (and was much more modern than the Hurricane). I think its a great shame that Gloster was sidelined between the Glad and the Meteor as both the F.5/34 and the twin engined F.9/37 would have been very useful aircraft. I am actually struck by the similarity of the Gloster with the PZL P.50, they are different aircraft, but the concept would seem identical.
Last thought before closing, take the radial off the front of the F.5/34, remove the cone from the rear fuselage and leave it open, fit a whittle engine, though you will have to make the fuselage slightly fatter, and what does it remind you of now?