Impact if Gloster radial fighter chosen over Hurricane?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Admiral Beez	Impact if Gloster radial fighter chosen over Hurricane?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4197 (28-Oct-2007 00:42:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	British Air Ministry requirement "F.5/34" led to the prototypes of the Hawker Hurricane and the Supermarine Spitfire, plus Gloster's nine-cylinder Mercury IX with 625 kW (840 HP) powered fighter. All the aircraft were to be armed with eight 7.7 millimeter (0.303 caliber) Browning machine guns. A good photo at http://avia.russian.ee/air/england/gloster_f5-34.php and http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/raf/f5-gloster.htm What is the impact of the Air Ministry choosing the Gloster design over the Hurricane? Who knows what motivates politicians and bureaucrats, but perhaps we could assume the Air Ministry wanted to hedge their bets in case supply/production or design issues plagued the Merlin of the Spitfire. How is the Battle of Britain impacted (i.e. could the Gloster be as quickly produced and as competitive to replace the Hurricanes)? What about earlier development of the Bristol Hercules and Centaurus? Does the Gloster fighter take the place of the Sea Hurrcanes and CAM-ship Hurricanes? Would the Gloster be a dead-end design, rendered obsolete by 1942, or could it be continiously upgraded through the war like the Spitfire? Without the Hurricane, with Syndey Camm be given the go-ahead to develop the Typhoon earlier (IIRC, production and upgrades to the Hurricane delayed the Typhoon)? Last Edited By: Admiral Beez 28-Oct-2007 00:48:05. Edited 3 times.
PMN1		#1	[-]
Posts: 3091 (28-Oct-2007 01:24:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	According to James Goulding's 'Interceptor', 'the Gloster F5/34 with its 840hp Mercury had a top speed of 316mph at 16,000ft making it as fast as the Hurricane prototype on 100hp less'. The Mercury was at the end of its development whereas the Merlin was just starting although its possible the Taurus could have been considered and at one time a Perseus was powering the aircraft. The aircraft was well liked by the test pilots and two Mercury prototypes were ordered by the Ministry, the first flown in December 1936. http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=852&SearchTerms=Gloster,F5/34 I have wondered a long time about this reliance on the Merlin working on something so vital given the attempt at having more than one engine possibility for other aircraft.
dunmunro1		#2	[-]
Posts: 1245 (28-Oct-2007 02:07:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The impact could well have been a disaster. The HH was powered by the RR Merlin, which, as we have seen, was producing over 1200hp by the time of the BoB. What was the likely output of a suitable radial engine in the same time frame? The UK aero engine industry was never able to produce enough radial engines to meet demand, and even radial engined bombers had to be redesigned to take the Merlin, at various points in time. The Hurricane was well suited to increases in TO weight, and was able to accept redesign to carry SS tanks and armour, and the MkII series, could carry 4 x 20mm guns and 2 x 500lb bombs, making it quite versatile. The Gloster design looks nice, but so did the Zero but then it proved to be very difficult to redesign to accept increases in engine power, armour, etc. The Hurricane was able to retire from frontline interceptor status, quite gracefully, by moving to a fighter-bomber role, where it did much useful work.
splott	Look at similare aircrafts	#3	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 23 (28-Oct-2007 11:27:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I would like to compare the F.5/34 with the Seversky P-35 that in the end lead to the P-47. So if the F.5/34 had been taken into service and had been developed over time perhaps it would have turned out to be a better fighter-bomber than the Hurricane But as it has been pointed out the Mercury was at the end of it's life. Question is how would the F.5/34 have turned out with the 100 kg heavier but more powerful Taurus engine? My guess is that it would have gotten a speed around 330-340 MPH making it faster than the Hurricane but slower than the Spitfire. But the wing load probably would have been closer to the Spitfire, something that, if I have understood things correctly, would give it a small turn radious. Even if the UK never where able to produce radial engines to meet the demand, It might be so that later developments of the F5/34 could have been equipt with US engines like the P&W Wasp series. having said that I think that the F.5/34 would have been a better choice that the Hurricane, if it had been given a better engine!
Admiral Beez		#4	[-]
Posts: 4198 (28-Oct-2007 15:07:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Was the Hercules out of the question for later addition due to size or weight?
PMN1		#5	[-]
Posts: 3092 (28-Oct-2007 15:52:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How about both with Austin making the instead of Battles, though this may have an impact on the training programme.
PMN1		#6	[-]
Posts: 3093 (28-Oct-2007 15:56:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Admiral Beez wrote: Was the Hercules out of the question for later addition due to size or weight? The F5/34 with a wingspan of 38ft 2" and a length of 32ft was slightly bigger than the Bristol Type 153 (to the F37/35 (Whirlwind) spec) with a 37ft wingspan and a length of 25ft 3" which did have a Hercules which I believe gave it a top speed of 357mph at 12,500ft (F37/35 spec was for 350mph with 4 20mm cannon) so there shouldn't have been problems with size.
Admiral Beez		#7	[-]
Posts: 4200 (28-Oct-2007 22:10:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Excellent, then I see the F5/34 progressing to a bubble canopied, Hercules powered fighter alongside the Spitfire, sort of how the in-line Bf-109 and later radial FW-140 served alongside each other.
splott	Replace or complement the Hurricane?	#8	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 25 (28-Oct-2007 22:50:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	After reading up a little bit on the subject (quite interesting) my guess is that, if the Gladiator program had been cut short, the F5/34 could have either replaced the Hurricane or been a third British fighter type during BoB with perfomence between the two big names. After BoB I'm not sure that it could be developed enough to be competitive as a land based fighter. Probably it would have been developed into two tracks, one as fighter-bomber for RAF (no hurribombers) and one as carrier born fighter for RN. Perhaps some version had been sent to north africa or the far east. Sometime in around 43-44 it would have been gone from first line service!
Admiral Beez		#9	[-]
Posts: 4203 (29-Oct-2007 21:48:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	splott wrote: Sometime in around 43-44 it would have been gone from first line service! I don't know about that, if rebuilt to take the Bristol Centaurus it could be competitive through to war's end.
dunmunro1		#10	[-]
Posts: 1250 (30-Oct-2007 01:50:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	To replace the Hurricane you need to find a source for 14000 radial engines, which the UK never had enough of. By the end of 1940, the UK had already built about 3000 Hurricanes. Would there have been enough engines?
A G Williams		#11	[-]
Posts: 1584 (30-Oct-2007 08:49:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Just because the Gloster F5/34 had similar length and wingspan to the Bristol Type 153 does not mean that it could easily be re-engined to take the Hercules (let alone the Centaurus!). There's a lot more to it than that. For a start, there's the weight balance: hanging a much heavier lump of metal at one end would have played havoc with the Gloster's weight distribution and required substantial modifications to compensate. Second is structural strength: not only to support the extra weight of the engine, but also to support the higher airframe stresses which the greater power would lead to. That would also probably require a major redesign. Third is aerodynamics: the Gloster was designed for a relatively low-speed regime, and would not necessarily gain a lot in speed from a lot of extra power. The Hurricane didn't, for instance: the final version had 50% more power than the first, but wasn't a lot faster in top speed. One of the huge benefits of the Spitfire was that it was aerodynamically superb, so extra power brought extra speed. The Gloster doesn't look as if the same would apply. By the time you finish redesigning the plane to take the above factors into account, you end up with an entirely different plane. Tony Williams Homepage: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
No1catman		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 (26-Dec-2007 15:42:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If the Gloster design had been ordered, then it is likely that Glosters would not have been taken over by Hawkers! I personally think it should have been ordered, but not as the thread suggests instead of the Hurricane, as others have suggested - it would at least been an insurance against any problems with the Merlin. Perhaps, the problem was that the prototype didn't fly earlier enough compared with the Hurricane. Nevertheless, the objective should have been to ensue that the RAF went to war with monoplanes rather than have any biplanes left (Gladiators). And surely that could have been accomplished. Interesting what 'Tony' says about different engine installations - but didn't later Mercury engines get to 950 hp? And, apart from the Bristol design with the Hercules, there was also the Boulton Paul - where the canons were in the wings (the Bristol's were in underwing pods). Incidentally, if we are going to have this aircraft in service - any suggestions for a name? Bear in mind that it should begin with a 'G' - inline with Gloster practise. My suggest would be 'Guardian'. Votes please
PMN1		#13	[-]
Posts: 3407 (29-Mar-2008 20:37:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How much of the speed difference between the Gladiator and the Gloster F5/34 can be said to be due to the Gladiator being a biplane and having a fixed undercarriage? An earlier version of the F5/34 was based on a Gladiator fuselage with a monoplane wing with semi retractable undercarriage and a Perseus engine - any ideas on the speed of this?
splott		#14	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 69 ( 5-Apr-2008 00:48:09) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I wonder, if the F5/34 had been ready earlier or the war had been a year later, could it have been something for UK to supply to Poland, either planes or as licens production (or a combination). The polish had been producing Mecury engines under license and was intended to be used for the first batch of PZL P.50. The same goes for Sweden, having ordered Gladiators and got the deliveries during 1938-1939. Gloster could have offered F5/34 instead just to get the Gladiator production stopped earlier. Sweden also did license build the Mercury engine even if it was the stronger My XXIV of 980Hp. It was some 49 kg heavier than the My IX but it may have been light enough to be installed without to much alternations. That could have boosted the speed up to 520-530 km/h (325-330 mph), even if the wing load would have past the Spits but still being lower than the Hurricanes.
No1catman		#15	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 28 ( 5-Apr-2008 11:56:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Re: Splott (is that where you are from - 'god'S plot'). Thanks for your post, some interesting ideas, I hadn't thought of - though while we're at with Mercury engine users - we could add Finland. The Finns did well with the Gladiator, how much better with the 'Guardian'? The Polish P.50 was underpowered with the Mercury engine (even a British built version) - it only managed a max. speed of 280 mph yet with a loaded weight of 5,550 lb., there were plans to put in more powerful engines - Gnome-Rhone, Pratt & Witney, or Hercules. Perhaps the 'Guardian' was a more aerodymanic design - less drag?
splott		#16	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 70 ( 5-Apr-2008 13:57:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Finland is not to forget, the 'Guardian' as you call it would have been superior to the Russian fighters at the time. As it had landing gears folding backwards like the Seversky P.35 and the later SAAB B17 it would have been possible to equip with skis, something both Sweden and Finland would have required. Norway is another Gladiator customer that may have been turned into a 'Guardian' customer if it had been in the air sooner. The Norwegians got there first Gladiators in 1937-38 but ordered and received 12 more in the second half of 1939. Perhaps Norway could have been talked into buying 12 'Guardians' instead. So with a small change in the time table it may have looked like this: Sweden: 18-52 'Guardian' (The lower number based on exchanging the orderd J8A with 'Guardian' while the higher number Norway: 12 is based on the number of Gladiators left to deliver in 1938) Finland: 30 Poland: ? It's not to unlikely if Gloster had offered to cancel the Gladiator orders in favor for 'Guardian' instead + perhaps offer licens production to Poland and perhaps Sweden.
splott		#17	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 71 ( 5-Apr-2008 16:04:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Correction the Norwegian second batch was only 6 Gladiators, the last 6 built. Still could the 'Guardian' have been available for delivery in 1938 it may have been an alternative.
No1catman		#18	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 33 ( 6-Apr-2008 15:11:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Because of the shorter nose (in comparison with the Sea Hurricane) for ease of carrier use, it's quite plausible to imagine a 'Sea Guardian' for the FAA, it would be interesting to compare performance with the Zero and FAA Martlet/Wildcat!? Re: the availability of radial engines - there were plenty of Mercurys I believe, indeed it stayed in production probably too long because of problems with the Taurus & Hercules.
NewGolconda		#19	[-]
Posts: 3245 ( 6-Apr-2008 19:28:57) Commonwealth Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	During re armerment - Mercuries were in short supply because of the high priority Blenhiem programme. The Skua was originaly to have had the mercury, but had to make do with the "civil" perseus.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Impact if Gloster radial fighter chosen over Hurricane?

Impact if Gloster radial fighter chosen over Hurricane?

Quick Reply