WI: Gloster's "Unnamed Fighter"

In an ATL I've been working on, I'm considering the potential repercussions of the Gloster Aircraft Company being taken over by Bristol instead of Hawker in 1934. Could the Gloster (/Bristol) F.5/34, also known as the "Unnamed Fighter" or the "British Zero", have entered service with the RAF ITTL? IOTL, Hawker effectively forced Gloster to abandon any further development of this fighter aircraft as soon as the Hawker Hurricane entered service with the RAF- but there's no such conflict of interest ITTL, and no real reason why it shouldn't be plausible for the RAF to order this aircraft (name suggestions would be very much appreciated) into production in 1938 along with the Hurricane and the Spitfire.

If so, how would this have affected the Battle of Britain? And with the Bristol Company investing more heavily into developing newer, more powerful radial engines for fighter aircraft, could we see a British equivalent to the R-2800 Double Wasp engine (the Bristol Double Mercury? Name suggestions appreciated here as well) being developed by the Bristol Aircraft Company for newer, more powerful radial fighter aircraft over the course of the war? And with the Gloster Aircraft Company otherwise occupied, who else does the Air Ministry issue their specification, for an aircraft to test one of Frank Whittle's turbojet designs in flight, to instead?

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/gloster_f5-34.php



WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 2449 kg 5399 lb
Empty weight 1900 kg 4189 lb

DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 11.63 m 38 ft 2 in
Length 9.76 m 32 ft 0 in
Height 3.09 m 10 ft 2 in
Wing area 21.36 m2 229.92 sq ft

PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 508 km/h 316 mph


There's also a number of interesting notes out on the Aviastar link

Driftless said:

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/gloster_f5-34.php

SpecificationWEIGHTSTake-off weight2449 kg5399 lbEmpty weight1900 kg4189 lbDIMENSIONSWingspan11.63 m38 ft 2 inLength9.76 m32 ft 0 inHeight3.09 m10 ft 2 inWing area21.36 m2229.92 sq ftPERFORMANCEMax. speed508 km/h316 mph

There's also a number of interesting notes out on the Aviastar link

Click to expand...

Yep. Also worth mentioning that those were the stats for the single prototype in its original flight tests, back in 1938. Plenty of room for development.

Gloster Griffin? Gloster Gyrfalcon? (Given Gloster's alliterative naming schemes...)

There could have been some developmental synergy between Bristol & Gloster.

*edit* Weren't the Napier engineed Gloster Schneider Cup floatplanes some "hot stuff" for their era?

Aircooled radial engine fighter; ideal for Fleet Air Arm!

Isn't this used as the main FAA fighter in "The Whale has Wings" as the Goshawk?

Driftless said:

Gloster Griffin? Gloster Gyrfalcon? (Given Gloster's alliterative naming schemes...)

There could have been some developmental synergy between Bristol & Gloster. Weren't the Gloster Schneider Cup floatplanes some "hot stuff" for their era?

Click to expand...

The Aircraft has often been touted as a Royal Navy 'Zero' fighter plane

TBH unless something un-towards happened to the Spitfire and Hurricane then I cannot see the RAF accepting a 3rd fighter plane

Perhaps it gets developed for the Navy, Finland and Norway and Dominion air forces use it in the Far East (perhaps in all cases instead of the Brewster Buffalo?)

I am however slightly dubious about the claims that it would be a 300 MPH + AC once you put 8 Machine guns, Ammo, Armour plate, radio and Self sealing fuel tanks in it and that it will be ready for service in 1940 / 41.

Overseas, export and naval fighter? Interesting.

Historically the Aussies were using Twin Wasp engines in
their aircraft from the very beginning of the war.
This would make a good upgrade for the fighter giving
it performance comparable to a Wildcat if The Whale Has
Wings is anything to go by. Perhaps with this upgrade it
replaces the hurricane in the fighter role in due course.

If britain adopts the Twin Wasp this could save the Albacore
and perhaps even the Reaper.

These fighters in Norway rather than the P36s that arrived
late? Could mean part of Norway holds.

Seeing as it was supposedly a development of the Gladiator,
how about the Gloster Gallant? Continuing the theme
like the Hawker Hurricane, Tornado, Typhoon and Tempest,
and keeps with the traditions of alliterative fighter names.

It could also lead to greater interest in developing radial
engines.

Centarus cylinder Twin (Century?) Wasp anyone?

Cryhavoc101 said:

The Aircraft has often been touted as a Royal Navy 'Zero' fighter plane

TBH unless something un-towards happened to the Spitfire and Hurricane then I cannot see the RAF accepting a 3rd fighter plane

Perhaps it gets developed for the Navy, Finland and Norway and Dominion air forces use it in the Far East (perhaps in all cases instead of the Brewster Buffalo?)

I am however slightly dubious about the claims that it would be a 300 MPH + AC once you put 8 Machine guns, Ammo, Armour plate, radio and Self sealing fuel tanks in it and that it will be ready for service in 1940 / 41.

Click to expand...

The flight trials IOTL were conducted with the prototype carrying full armament and ammunition. The performance figures cited take this into account. Armour plate (how important is it to take this into consideration with a fighter aircraft of all-metal cantilever construction?) radio and self-sealing tanks, not sure. And the Air Ministry's Specification F.5/34 (for a fighter using an air-cooled engine armed with eight machine guns suitable for hot climate use) went out in 1934, with the Air Ministry conducting its assessment of the candidates for the specification at RAF Martlesham Heath in April 1938.

According to the test pilots, the Gloster prototype was the best of the F.5/34 candidates; it required a shorter takeoff, better initial climb, and was more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed. Handling was considered very good, and the all-round cockpit visibility was far better than the other designs. However, by this stage, Gloster's parent company Hawker had already ordered them to abandon further development of the fighter- the Hawker Hurricane had already entered service. Gloster was ordered by its parent company to devote their factory's efforts to manufacturing more of its own Hawker Hurricanes instead, and the vast majority of the people in Gloster's own design department were subsequently laid off.

How about the Gloster Gauntlet for the name? Really you'd need a big change not only at the Air Ministry but the RAF, as well as the manufacturers. I suppose you could offer the new Gloster as an aircraft to be built overseas for the Empire to replace the older aircraft as well as boosting the defences of the Empire etc.

There's the obvious 'give it to the navy' who would probably make grabby hands at anything you offered them (again you'd have to change doctrine and the evil infection of retard caused by the Air Ministry/RAF).

Driftless said:

Gloster Griffin? Gloster Gyrfalcon? (Given Gloster's alliterative naming schemes...)

Click to expand...

I've just finished a Father Ted marathon, and as soon as I read this Mrs Doyle popped into my head with the Gloster Go On!

sharlin said:

How about the Gloster Gauntlet for the name? Really you'd need a big change not only at the Air Ministry but the RAF, as well as the manufacturers. I suppose you could offer the new Gloster as an aircraft to be built overseas for the Empire to replace the older aircraft as well as boosting the defences of the Empire etc.

There's the obvious 'give it to the navy' who would probably make grabby hands at anything you offered them (again you'd have to change doctrine and the evil infection of retard caused by the Air Ministry/RAF).

Click to expand...

At the moment, IMO, the 'Gallant' and 'Griffin' names for the unnamed fighter sound like the best suggestions thus far ('Gauntlet' would've been better, but Gloster had already used that name for the Gloster Gladiator's predecessor). And given the mention of its short takeoff ability, the potential to adapt it for naval use (in the event of the RAF declining to order it into production) seems feasible. But I still think it could have a chance with the RAF. They seemed relatively impressed with it IOTL, and it seems like they only decided not to place any orders for the remaining candidate aircraft after Hawker withdrew Gloster's entry from the assessment process. If the RAF only place orders for a handful of aircraft, or if Gloster manage to find export buyers of the aircraft (Weren't the Polish Air Force in the market for just such an aircraft, using the same engine, at this specific point in time? Why bother with the PZL.50 Jastrząb program at all ITTL? Instead of merely purchasing the Mercury VIII radial engines from the Bristol Aircraft Company, wouldn't it make more sense to simply purchase completed fighter planes from Bristol's Gloster subsidiary?), then it'd be enough to get the production lines going and keep them open until the outset of WW2. And once WW2 starts, it'd be virtually guaranteed that the RAF would crank up production and place orders for more fighter aircraft- especially one which solves the problem of their otherwise total reliance on the Rolls Royce's Merlin engine production lines.

SinghKing said:

And once WW2 starts, it'd be virtually guaranteed that the RAF would crank up production and place orders for more fighter aircraft- especially one which solves the problem of their otherwise total reliance on the Rolls Royce's Merlin engine production lines.

Click to expand...

Thats really the clincher, with the bottleneck of Merlins and the RAF hollering for fighters this could be what helps the Gallant get into production. Maybe in 1936 when the UK realises that war's coming and starts to re-arm the obvious bottleneck with the Merlin gets recognised and an 'emergency fighter' is needed that does not rely on the Merlin. The Gallant fills that, it uses the same guns as the standard RAF machines of the time the .303 and if those are unavailable it could probably take a quartet of Vickers .50cal as an alternative so not to affect Spitfire/Hurricane construction.

The Gallant's short take off and good handling also gets the RN interested who are desperately looking for something to replace the Sea Gladiator as well as being offered to Australia/New Zealand for construction abroad to strengthen the Dominions defences. So after being set down in say 1936 and starting rather low level production for home and abroad in 1938 (the Dominion factories have yet to come online and more orders placed overseas than within the UK save the RN taking what they can), 1939 rolls along and the Gallant then is pressed into full scale production as long as it does not interfere with the Spitfire/Hurricane production and thanks to its engine it really does not.

sharlin said:

as well as being offered to Australia/New Zealand for construction abroad to strengthen the Dominions defences.

Click to expand...

It's arguably more trouble than it's worth to set up a production line in NZ rather than just shipping out already built aircraft, NZ being at the very end of everybody's supply and logistics chain. The industrial capacity wasn't really there - IOTL the most sophisticated aircraft built in NZ during WWII was the Tiger Moth.

sharlin said:

Thats really the clincher, with the bottleneck of Merlins and the RAF hollering for fighters this could be what helps the Gallant get into production. Maybe in 1936 when the UK realises that war's coming and starts to re-arm the obvious bottleneck with the Merlin gets recognised and an 'emergency fighter' is needed that does not rely on the Merlin. The Gallant fills that, it uses the same guns as the standard RAF machines of the time the .303 and if those are unavailable it could probably take a quartet of Vickers .50cal as an alternative so not to affect Spitfire/Hurricane construction.

The Gallant's short take off and good handling also gets the RN interested who are desperately looking for something to replace the Sea Gladiator as well as being offered to Australia/New Zealand for construction abroad to strengthen the Dominions defences. So after being set down in say 1936 and starting rather low level production for home and abroad in 1938 (the Dominion factories have yet to come online and more orders placed overseas than within the UK save the RN taking what they can), 1939 rolls along and the Gallant then is pressed into full scale production as long as it does not interfere with the Spitfire/Hurricane production and thanks to its engine it really does not.

Click to expand...

Mumbles said:

It's arguably more trouble than it's worth to set up a production line in NZ rather than just shipping out already built aircraft, NZ being at the very end of everybody's supply and logistics chain. The industrial capacity wasn't really there - IOTL the most sophisticated aircraft built in NZ during WWII was the Tiger Moth.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be an incentive (at least from the NZ side) to upgrade their manufacturing infrastructure?

how about this......hawker has neither the inclination nor factory space to build the f5/34 but the RN is all hot and bothered about getting some......soooooo.........CCF is given the contract to finish the design and build sufficient to keep the navy happy...and a few extra for domestic use.CCF was owned by Hawker-Siddley.And just to make things interesting they could be powered by Bristol Taurus engines.......ok I know I know but....built under license by Pratt and whitney Canada.....running on 100 octane fuel and having pressurized carbs.....and miracle of miracle machined heads that stay cool......say 1200/1300 hp???

alfredtuomi said:

how about this......hawker has neither the inclination nor factory space to build the f5/34 but the RN is all hot and bothered about getting some......soooooo.........CCF is given the contract to finish the design and build sufficient to keep the navy happy...and a few extra for domestic use.CCF was owned by Hawker-Siddley.And just to make things interesting they could be powered by Bristol Taurus engines.......ok I know I know but....built under license by Pratt and whitney Canada.....running on 100 octane fuel and having pressurized carbs.....and miracle of miracle machined heads that stay cool......say 1200/1300 hp???

Click to expand...

Well, the POD I was thinking of using was back in 1934, with Gloster getting bought out by the Bristol Aircraft Company instead of the Hawker Aircraft Company ITTL. Hawker had neither the inclination nor factory space to permit Gloster to produce the F5/34 IOTL- they had their Hurricane entering production, and they wanted Gloster's Factory to build those instead. Bristol would have no such qualms- indeed, it would be in their best interests to support Gloster's efforts. Perhaps ITTL, Gloster could effectively become the branch of Bristol Aircraft Company dedicated to the development and construction of fighter aircraft.

sharlin said:

The Gallant's short take off and good handling also gets the RN interested who are desperately looking for something to replace the Sea Gladiator

Click to expand...

The Sea Gladiator didn't enter FAA service until March '37; they would have been desperate to get something to replace the Nimrod.

[/QUOTE]
Is that a tail hook I see lurking underneath??