Gloster F5/34, the Hurricane and the Spitfire

[PMN1]

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.

My question is, could Britain have developed the Spitfire, Hurricane and the F5/34 at the same time?

Also, could a Hercules have been fitted, it is a larger aircraft than the later Bristol Type 153 with its Hercules engine?

[GregP]

The F.5/34 was a good aircraft that COULD have been developed. I suspect that the main reason behind not selecting it was a simple matter of resources. If they had made three fighters instead of two, there would have to be 50% more spare parts and 50% more training on a new type. This might have been possible if the RAF had been "up to date" in the mid-to-late thirties, but they weren't. The RAF almost didn't have enough Spitfires in 1940 when the Ballte of Britain took place, and almost didn't have enough pilots.

I think they COULD have developed the F.5/34, but were simply trying to maximize their procurements before the anticipated war turned into a shooting war.

I may be wrong, but its only one opinion.

[PMN1]

This is something that puzzles me, in vitually every design after, we have two designs chosen with multiple engine choice.

With the F5/34 spec we have two designs but dependant on one engine type - now if the Merlin had been a failiure.............I would dearly like to see documents from this time that stated the reasons for gambling everything on one engine type.

Planes weren't the problem in the BoB, pilots were and given Spitfire production was originally scheduled to end at 310...........

Intrestingly, according to the books, this was the only prototype that flew with the full 8 guns in the wings on its first flight.

[ChrisMcD]

You should also bear in mind that the Bristol Mercury was given priority as the engine for the Bristol Blenheim.

Daft as it may sound now, but the RAF was determined to build up it's bomber force and the Blenheim/Mercury combination was the best that they could do. There was also the need to get them into Wellingtons.

A lot of aircraft (ie the Skua) were handicapped by the unavailability of Mercury engines and Bristol's problems in getting other radials into volume production before about 1940.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

You should also bear in mind that the Bristol Mercury was given priority as the engine for the Bristol Blenheim.

Daft as it may sound now, but the RAF was determined to build up it's bomber force and the Blenheim/Mercury combination was the best that they could do. There was also the need to get them into Wellingtons.

A lot of aircraft (ie the Skua) were handicapped by the unavailability of Mercury engines and Bristol's problems in getting other radials into volume production before about 1940.


The Gloster Fighter was better than the Hurricane and Spitfire in that it had shorter take-off, better initial climb, more responsive and manoeuvrable with ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed. The cockpit visibility was far better. Survivability given more thought.
On these points at that time it must have been better than the Me109 as well.
We can also say that it would have been more than a match for the Zero.
All this on 87 octane, with 100 octane even better.

[Nick Sumner]

The British did develop 3 fighter types - one was the Defiant.

The amount of design and engineering effort devoted to heavy bombers was truly stupendous, not just spec B.12/36 and P.13/36 that produced the Stirling, Halifax and Manchester/Lancaster but B.1/39 which produced nothing, B.8/41 which produced the Windsor and the 75 and 100 ton bomber specs all soaked up a vast amount of draufting and engineering time. Cut back on just a bit of this and there is alot of spare design/development capacity.

[Romantic Technofreak]

The German economism to enter a war with only one first-line fighter type isn´t to be taken as standard.

Italy entered the war with three first-line fighter types.

If you consider a number of 40 samples and more, France entered the war with 9(!!) fighter types and even still more with a lesser number of samples (don´t blame me please if some went to service not before in the first months of 1940).

Considering what Nick said, Britain used 4 first-line fighter types at around June 1940. #4 was the Gladiator! (A possible #5 would have been the Martlet).

I could imagine that it would have been possible to remove engines from Gladiators and screw them to F5/34 airframes, for to avoid the engine bottleneck Chris reported.

Contrary to the performances Groggy reported, in my eyes the F5/34 resembles more a P-35 than a "fast-beautiful" radial-engined fighter like the Zero, the FW 190 or the Hawker Fury.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD

You should also bear in mind that the Bristol Mercury was given priority as the engine for the Bristol Blenheim.

Daft as it may sound now, but the RAF was determined to build up it's bomber force and the Blenheim/Mercury combination was the best that they could do. There was also the need to get them into Wellingtons.

A lot of aircraft (ie the Skua) were handicapped by the unavailability of Mercury engines and Bristol's problems in getting other radials into volume production before about 1940.


In Anthony Furzes 'Wilfred Freeman, the genius behind Allied survival and Air Supremecey 1939 to 1945' that 4 new shadow factories were set up in easter 1939 to make Hercules when it was perfected because Mercury and Pegasus production had to be kept going at existing factories because of the sleeve valve problems so if you are doing this in 1939 then if you know you are going to have more aircraft competing for a particular engine then why not extra shadow factories for that engine - I haven't read this anywhere else hence my question on Shadow Factories elsewhere.

[ChrisMcD]

Hi PMN1

I agree there is very little information on the Shadow Programme that I am aware of (there is bound to be an autobiography somewhere, but I do not know of it!).

You tend to come across references in books about related topics.

A number of things are clear. The British aircraft and engine manufacturers had a grim time during the 30's and were not keen on other companies making profits manufacturing their developements. Conversly a lot of the car manufacturers thought that they could do better at mass production than the 'craft' mentality of the aircraft companies.

Also a lot of items proved hard to ramp up to full scale manufacture (like sleeve valves and Spitfires!).

In many cases obsolete aircraft (ie Battles and Blenheims) were manufactured to keep factories going and to get organisations practised in making aircraft on the basis of anything being better than nothing.

Finally, being cynical I would suspect that Hawkers - having bought Gloster - were quite happy to see a competitive design being dropped. Remember the Gladiator, despite being simply a cleaned up Gauntlet, had beaten Hawkers to the 'Fury Replacement' market in the late 30's. It was soon after this that Gloster's design team were moved across to work on jet aircraft while their factory made Hawker designs until the Meteor.

[simon]

I don't think the British had Martlets (Wildcats) in 1939/40, in any case I don't believe we ever actually built them ourselves. We did have at least two (Probably 3) other front line fighter types if you are going to include the Fleet Air Arm.

There was the Skua, the FAA's Defiant - the Roc and the Fulmar was also in service by the Battle of Britain. By 1940 there was also for the RAF an improvised fighter conversion the Blenheim MkIF.

Making a total of 8 separate fighter types (Not including as a separate type the Sea-Gladiator).

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Simon,

You get the impression that the Air Ministry were prepared to try almost anything, including some ideas that failed to work out in practice (ie Defiant and Roc), but missed some obvious ones like long range fighters (lucky the Bristols 'sports model' Beaufort was so succesful) - which explains the Blenheim lash up.

Did you include the Martin Baker MB2 or Miles M20 in your list?

By the way - can you show me how to inert photos - or are they not encouraged?

[simon]

No I didn't, to be honest I'd sort of forgotten about them. I was including only production models in service (In one form or another) at the outbreak of war. I reckon allowing for conversion training and pilot familiarisation the M.20 wouldn't have been in service much earlier than late 1940 if it had been required.

As for the MB2, what would have been the sort of timescale to get that into production and squadron service?

[Nick Sumner]

Simon, I think a squadron of Martlets/Wildcats were based at Yeoville and operational during the BoB but they were FAA and not under Fighter Command control.

I think it would take a long time to get the MB2 ready for squadron service. MB had lots of development difficulties until they got it spectacularly right with the MB5, which sadly was born into the jet age and so never saw service.

[simon]

I stand corrected. However, in terms of British aircraft production you really can't count the Martlet/Wildcat since it wasn't a product either directly or indirectly of the British Aviation Industry. The Fulmar, Skua and Roc on the other hand were, and the Fulmar is included at least on some Battle of Britain sites as an operational type even if it is not a Fighter Command type (Neither of course is the Skua or Roc).

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Simon,

Did the Sku survive as a fighter until the BOB? 801 Squadron at Detling in June 1940 were the ones who proved the hard way that sleeve valve engines could carry on running with cyclinder heads shot off!

[simon]

As far as I know the only Fulmars in service by the BoB were operating from land bases. I know the Roc never reached carriers and the Sea Gladiator never completely equipped the FAA and the Sea-Hurricane didn't arrive till mid-late 1941, so that means that by the Battle of Britain the FAA must have been mostly equipped with Skuas still, especially as apparently the first Martlets were operating from land bases as well (And a lot of the Sea Gladiators were lost on HMS Glorious).

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by ChrisMcD



Finally, being cynical I would suspect that Hawkers - having bought Gloster - were quite happy to see a competitive design being dropped. Remember the Gladiator, despite being simply a cleaned up Gauntlet, had beaten Hawkers to the 'Fury Replacement' market in the late 30's. It was soon after this that Gloster's design team were moved across to work on jet aircraft while their factory made Hawker designs until the Meteor.


James Gouldings 'Interceptor' says two protoyypes were ordered with the first aircraft flying June 1937 and both continued experimental test flying with various governmnent establishments until 1941, after which they became ground instructional airframes. Pilots who flew it commented on the aircraft's docile handling and manoeuvrability with the pilots view being excellent all round.

I would dearly love to see the official write ups on why it was not chosen.

Here's a suggestion, Austin make Hurricanes or Gloster F5/34's rather than Battles - 1,029 from July 1938 to September 1940

You loose the training and target tug role the Battles eventually had but wasn't the aircraft a bit overqualified for training and target tug purposes.

And instead of Roc's, Boulton Paul make them as well, something to go on with when the Defiant goes tits up..

The extra fighter production may enable the Fleet Air Arm to have a decent figher earlier on.

I cant see much problem size wise as the Taurus was smaller while the Hercules was only about ½” bigger but there is a big difference in weight which would affect the aircraft’s stability – could this be corrected?

By comparison, according to James Goulding’s ‘Interceptor’, 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).

[ChrisMcD]

Hi PMN 1

I did a bit more research on the F5/34 and why it failed to get into production.

One book commented that Folland was preoccupied with getting the Gladiator sorted and the F5/34 did not fly till December 1937 - too late to compete with the Hurricane.

Real pity, but it does seem to have positioned Gloucester right to get lead position on the first generation of jet fighters.

But I still think that the RAF's preoccupation with bombers would have given the F5/34 engine problems - as you say "over 1,000 Battles" shows a certain single-mindedness!

[Nick Sumner]

One reason F5/34 wasn't liked was the one piece wing, it was felt that it would be hard to repair in the event of damage.

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

One reason F5/34 wasn't liked was the one piece wing, it was felt that it would be hard to repair in the event of damage.


Yes, i read that in Interceptor, how much effort would it have been though to make a conventional two piece wing?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

One reason F5/34 wasn't liked was the one piece wing, it was felt that it would be hard to repair in the event of damage.


Yes, i read that in Interceptor, how much effort would it have been though to make a conventional two piece wing?


You mean the Spitfire was easy to repair???
With limited resources and a similar engine to the Gladiator it would have been better to switch to the new design given the gain in performance.
IF the will had been there even one of the Alvis motors could have been used and with it a big gain in performance.
Just a thought but the Poles could have adopted it to great advantage. as an interim fighter.

The reasons given for not selecting a given piece of kit then as now were often fabricated to justify a decision made on other than rational grounds.

[PMN1]

This was Folland's last design for Gloster before leaving to start his own design company - what if someone with authority decided the design was suitable for Shadow Factory production, could Hawker have prevented it from being produced in shadow factories?

What if the 'authority' asked Folland to redesign it slighly (two piece wing, different engine) to make it a 'Folland' aircraft rather than a 'Gloster' aircraft?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by PMN1

This was Folland's last design for Gloster before leaving to start his own design company - what if someone with authority decided the design was suitable for Shadow Factory production, could Hawker have prevented it from being produced in shadow factories?

What if the 'authority' asked Folland to redesign it slighly (two piece wing, different engine) to make it a 'Folland' aircraft rather than a 'Gloster' aircraft?

I am not sure that the one piece wing was such a problem. But a two piece + centre box could be possible. The engine choice is the interesting question with a later Mercury it should have than held its own against the Hurricane.
Keeping to air cooled British alternatives there are several possibilities.
There were a couple of Alvis designs of the period that would have been adequate to improving performance.
The Bristol option is limited to the Hercules but would have needed more work to make it fit, but most potential?
The most practical solution would have been Rolls Royce’s Exe, 50% more power and more pull than the Merlin when cruising would I suggest be an interesting proposition. What would the increase be above 316mph with 52%more power?
What none British alternatives could have been fitted to a licensed produced aircraft???

[stewartg]

quote:Originally posted by simon

I know the Roc never reached carriers


...oh yes it did. A few served on Ark Royal off Norway.

[simon]

Really? Those of my books that mention the Roc at all say that it never served on a Carrier, I will double check later.

[i16stealth]

My sources confirm stewartg's reply. Rocs served on carriers in 1939-1940, but with no results (i.e. kills) achieved. They were removed from ships soon.

[merlin]

Do we have a consensus her that it would have been a good idea if the RAF had ordered the Gloster monoplane fighter? Yes, it would have helped it Gloster's had got 'their finger out' and had it flying earlier, nevertheless - at the very least it should have meant that the RAF had only monoplanes.
Does anyone know whether the speed quoted, is with a two bladed prop or a three bladed one?
It is hard to know whether the aircraft could have accepted a Hercules engine, or indeed a Taurus, but surely it wouldn't have any problems with later more powerful Mercurys?
And are we all agreed that we have the potential for a variant of the aircraft for carrier use!?
Given that Gloster used a 'G' for naming their aircraft - Gamecock, Gauntlet, Gladiator, any suggestions to name this - my idea (and I have used this elsewher) is 'Guardian'.

[Nick Sumner]

quote:Originally posted by merlin

Do we have a consensus her that it would have been a good idea if the RAF had ordered the Gloster monoplane fighter? Yes, it would have helped it Gloster's had got 'their finger out' and had it flying earlier, nevertheless - at the very least it should have meant that the RAF had only monoplanes.
Does anyone know whether the speed quoted, is with a two bladed prop or a three bladed one?
It is hard to know whether the aircraft could have accepted a Hercules engine, or indeed a Taurus, but surely it wouldn't have any problems with later more powerful Mercurys?
And are we all agreed that we have the potential for a variant of the aircraft for carrier use!?
Given that Gloster used a 'G' for naming their aircraft - Gamecock, Gauntlet, Gladiator, any suggestions to name this - my idea (and I have used this elsewher) is 'Guardian'.


I think the best role for the Gloster F5/34 would be as a carrier fighter though I would want to see it extensively modified without a one piece wing and designed with either a Taurus or a Hercules as the power plant.

An aircraft rather like that turns up in an alternate history I'm writing, it is called the Gloster Gannet (RN fighters at the time were given the names of seabirds - though in real life the name Gannet was originally given to the RN variants of the F6F before reason prevailed). The Gannet in my story is Taurus powered and in service in 1940 in time for the Norwegian campaign.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

quote:Originally posted by merlin

Do we have a consensus her that it would have been a good idea if the RAF had ordered the Gloster monoplane fighter? Yes, it would have helped it Gloster's had got 'their finger out' and had it flying earlier, nevertheless - at the very least it should have meant that the RAF had only monoplanes.
Does anyone know whether the speed quoted, is with a two bladed prop or a three bladed one?
It is hard to know whether the aircraft could have accepted a Hercules engine, or indeed a Taurus, but surely it wouldn't have any problems with later more powerful Mercurys?
And are we all agreed that we have the potential for a variant of the aircraft for carrier use!?
Given that Gloster used a 'G' for naming their aircraft - Gamecock, Gauntlet, Gladiator, any suggestions to name this - my idea (and I have used this elsewher) is 'Guardian'.


I think the best role for the Gloster F5/34 would be as a carrier fighter though I would want to see it extensively modified without a one piece wing and designed with either a Taurus or a Hercules as the power plant.

An aircraft rather like that turns up in an alternate history I'm writing, it is called the Gloster Gannet (RN fighters at the time were given the names of seabirds - though in real life the name Gannet was originally given to the RN variants of the F6F before reason prevailed). The Gannet in my story is Taurus powered and in service in 1940 in time for the Norwegian campaign.



Hi Folks, Nick,
The Gloster F5/34 is an excellent choice, the Norwegians could have brought it instead of the Gladiator, possible the Poles built it under license until some of there own designs came to fruition. Dare I suggest Fairey Monarch powered Fairey P.4/34 as well perfectly feasible in the time scale? Might have saved an aircraft carrier from destruction. Contribution to the BofB Significant?

[Montana]

Hi,

for exactly that purpose, we have been discussing the Vickers Venom lately, too:


http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_venom.php



http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/vickers_venomII-1.gif


Very promising design for carrier-use. A cheap seller to foreign air forces, too.


Cheers!

Montana

[conrad]

With recent posts on this subject I have been struck by the similarities between the F5/34 and the Vickers Venom. By all accounts both handled well and seemed more promising than the Hurricane. The trouble was both had weak radial engines, which would have reduced their effectivness. Should they have been designed to use Merlins? Was there another radial engine available which they could be fitted?

[HurricaneIIc]

I heartily agree that the Gloster should have been used as a naval fighter; I would have used it in place of the Fulmar which in my mind should have been used instead as an attack plane and dive bomber (Eric Brown 'Wings of the Navy' stated that the Fulmar was stressed for dive-bombing).
I do not get the impression that the Gloster would be nose-heavy, even with the Taurus engine of the Albacore, as was the Skua nose-heavy. And it does not have the ventral radiator of the Hurri/Defiant that would be a problem during ditching. I suppose having to redesign the wing to allow folding would be a deterrent; perhaps it would have been easier to modify the Hurri/Defiant wings to fold, so sadly either had drawbacks.
Fortunately the Wildcat/Martlet was available, but even if it wasn't the FAA could have been first-rate early in the war with the Gloster fighter, the Fulmar as an attack plane (and eventually as torpedo-bomber as well); they would just need folding wings due to the small elevators on Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Ark Royal.

[PMN1]

What would it have done for decisions if it had been the 14 cylinder Hercules that first ran in July 1932 rather than the 9 cylinder Perseus?

The actual Hercules first ran January 1936.

[merlin]

I heartily agree that the Gloster should have been used as a naval fighter; I would have used it in place of the Fulmar which in my mind should have been used instead as an attack plane and dive bomber (Eric Brown 'Wings of the Navy' stated that the Fulmar was stressed for dive-bombing).
Fortunately the Wildcat/Martlet was available, but even if it wasn't the FAA could have been first-rate early in the war with the Gloster fighter, the Fulmar as an attack plane (and eventually as torpedo-bomber as well); they would just need folding wings due to the small elevators on Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Ark Royal.

You still need a reason for the RN to want a single-seat fighter, rather than a two-seat aircraft - which they believed would be essential for navigation!
My alternative - is for the Sea Henley FDB to replace the Skua FDB. In this TL Hawker are making the Henley, the Austin factory is making the Hurricane, the Gloster factory is making both the single & twin-engined fighters! And Fairey, stilling making some Battles for Training Command, and working on a Swordfish replacement (Barracuda).
Within this, it is possible that the FAA quickly replaces the Sea Gladiator (in this TL the Gladiator is only in service with the SAAAF rather than the RAF by 1939), with the Gloster single-seater - which may mean no Martlets/Wildcat!?

[kool kitty89]

I don't think the Taurus would be a good idea, unreliable for most of its service (particularly early on) and with slow devleopment, especially in terms of power increase. (partially due to the focus on the Hurcules, but the Persius -Hurcules precurser- had also poven less troublesome than the Aquila -Taurus precurser)

The comment about "later Mercury's" having better performance doesn't have much bearing either as the Mercury VIII was about as good as it got if you wanted any decent performance above 10,000 ft. (though with 100 octane, the increased boost brought power up to ~950-990 hp, though only under ~10,000 ft, the 840 hp at ~14,000 ft)

The Perseus was almost identical in size to the Mercury (same bore and stroke as well) and did have a bit more power, with the best altitude performing models (ie Mk.X) having ~50 hp more at almost 2,000 ft higher than the Mercury VIII (on 87 octane). Though it was slightly heavier, and of course further development had been abandoned in favor of the Hercules, and even so (given the Hurcules' perfomance) I doubt it would have developed to more than ~1,100 hp by the early war period. (probably eventually topping out at ~1,300 hp)

The Hercules is a possibility but would likely require a fair amount of modification to mount it.


The simplest conversion to a more powerful British engine would be the Pegasus, which I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet. It was a bit larger in diameter, so a different cowling would be needed and drag would be a bit higher. The Pegasus XVIII with 2-speed supercharger would be a good choice (barring possible further development), with decent altitude performance and about 120 hp more than the Mercury VIII (depending on altitude) and better altitude performance with smoother power curves due to the 2-speed superchrger. Performance (particularly at alt) was similar to or better than most of the early Taurus models as well and being much lighter (though much wider) and certainly more reliable. (and for the operational aplications of the Taurus -Beufort,Albacore- the larger diameter would have mattered little, while the reliability would have been greatly apreciated)


Being a readily available engine (though, the bombers would still be getting prefrence) that was only a marginally heavier than the Mercury (~100 lbs, similar to the Perseus) . It probably could have been developed further as well, had it not been for the focus on the sleeve valve types. With increased supercharging (high octane), and further increased rpm it could have topped out at ~1,400 hp possibly more with water injection. (note it already had sodium cooled valves as well as an unusual 4 valve per cylinder configuration)

For comparison the R-1820 Cyclone 9 (with larger volume, but only the usual 2 vpc) managed over 1,500 hp in late models with water injection.


That said, I think the Mercury (which still had some room for development as well) was simply too small to be worth it.
I'd also say that it would probably have been better of Bristol to develop 2-row designs based on the Mercury/Pegasus -14 cylinder Mercury=Hercules 18 cylinder Pegasus=Centaurus. (the latter actually done in the Alfa Romeo 135) Something that's been discussed on another forum, but this is getting off topic. (though a 14 cylinder Mercury with stroke reduced to 5.5" -incedentally identical to the R-2000 Twin Wasp in bore/stroke/volume- would probably be ideal for a fighter engine)



As to the Propeller of the Gloster prototypes, they used 3-bladed 2-pitch De Havilland metal props. (note that the Gladiator Mk.II's 3-blade melal props were the same fixed-pitch types as used on the Swordfish) http://books.google.com/books?id=OT07eK-W1xgC&pg=PA264&lpg=PA264&dq=Gloster+f.5/34+pitch&source=bl&ots=c2XEYl1XRq&sig=xazL4GJQdDKyCswDIfKZtKTF5_I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA264,M1

[PMN1]

Some of the F7/30 designs that ultimatley led to the Gladiator were monoplanes and in the Bristol design, with a semi retractable undercarriage.

Could the Gladiator have been more like the Gloster F5./34 - either in its initial form or its final form?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/paul1/FollandsfirstF534project.jpg

[ChrisMcD]

Could the Gladiator have been more like the Gloster F5./34 - either in its initial form or its final form?

The Gladiator was essentialy a cleaned up Gauntlet and got the order because it was as fast as the monoplane contenders for F7/30 - like the Supermarine 224.

It was also a development of a plane already in production, so the RAF could get plenty of them quickly (and probably cheaply) at a time when the expansion scheme was starting to need aircraft to equip all the new squadrons.

Bear in mind that Hawker were working on the Hurricane and were probably happy that their new acquisition was busy with production and not working on their Hurricane competitor.

Looking at the Venom, I think there was a feeling that it had been developed about as far as it could go and that Bristol were too busy to sort out the Acquila. Also, both Vickers and Supermarine were/would be overstretched with orders for Wellingtons and Walruses (hence the fiasco of the Spitfire subcontracting saga).

Still, it is a pity that someone did not take up the Venom. It was designed to be very easy to make and would have been ideal for one of the 'shadow' factories to have got started on aircraft production.

Possibly the Acquila/Tarus could have been replaced with the Twin Wasp as was done on the Beaufort, but apparently there was a feeling that any other engine would have been hard to fit into such a small airframe

[merlin]

Though I can't quote, I seem to remember that the lack of orders for the Gloster fighter was a large factor in Folland leaving Gloster - and setting up his own design studio.
So just suppose this aircraft is order for the RAF, and as a result Folland stays, wouldn't a 'butterfly' effect of that mean that the Fo117 fighter - now known as the Gloster F.6/42, is ordered in preference to Hawker - so no Hawker (Sea) Fury!!
Portal at the time was very much, in favour of the Folland design - but that was all it was - a design, and perhaps more importantly little experience of large scale manufacturing.

[Groggy]

With recent posts on this subject I have been struck by the similarities between the F5/34 and the Vickers Venom. By all accounts both handled well and seemed more promising than the Hurricane. The trouble was both had weak radial engines, which would have reduced their effectivness. Should they have been designed to use Merlins? Was there another radial engine available which they could be fitted?

Did Alvis have a very compact reliable engine of French design origin?

[PMN1]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/paul1/FollandsfirstF534project.jpg

From Interceptor by James Goulding, this was Folland's first attempt at F5/34 - it was based on a Gladiator fuselage with a new eight-gun monoplane wing.

Wingspan 38ft, length 29ft 1in and powered by a Perseus engine (don't know the power level).

Has anyone seen any projected performance figures for it?

Could the original SS37 design that led to the Gladiator have been a monoplane with retractable undercarriage and if so, what kind of performance could you expect with 4 guns and a 840hp Mercury IX?

[merlin]

Instead of the Mercury, could the Gloster aircraft have accepted the Pegasas engine as an alternative. What would be the extra width in comparison? I note it powered the single-engined Wellesley, the Bristol Bombay, and even the Walrus - so it was a reliable engine.

[merlin]

At the risk of being criticised for rescuing a 'dead' topic ....

With Canada producing the Hurricane, suppose the Gloster fighter is built in Australia - apart from using a British engine, is there a suitable US alternative that the Aussies could use?
And for the purposes of the discussion I am assuming that the 1200 hp engine powering the Boomerang would be too big!

[Groggy]

Hi,

for exactly that purpose, we have been discussing the Vickers Venom lately, too:


http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_venom.php



http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n149/montanamotor/vickers_venomII-1.gif


Very promising design for carrier-use. A cheap seller to foreign air forces, too.


Cheers!

Montana

Hi Montana
The Aquila had a 46.0 inch diameter.
The Alvis Leonides had a 41inch or 43inch diameter depending on mark so could be fitted?
I assume the Gnome-Rhone K series the bases for the Alvis Pelides was a greater diameter engine?
Any one know the exact figure?