A bubble canopy is not necessarily faster than a faired canopy. What is more questionable as to its surprisingly high reported speed is what looks like a strut supporting the horizontal stabilizer.just to show that, minus the lack of bubble cockpit, it looked the part
Some performance figures beg askance and those of the Bloch machine are among them. Phil K's remark about the strutted tailplane mirrors my sentiment which is why I drew a Dewoitine using the engine. The earlier Bloch series were not highly regarded, and I cannot fully believe effusive remaks about the last model's efficacy, based on prior performance and the limited knowledge about the standards used in the final evaluation. That an aircraft superior to everything in the Luftwaffe arsenal was destroyed seems fairly inefficient. That the numbers were skewed seems more than likely.
While a Gloster F5/34 powered by a Hercules isn't plausible, a new aircraft based on the aerodynamics of the original would be. When I did it, I kept the pitot tube as a symbol of it's origin. Everything else was changed, so as to include features such as visibility from the raised cockpit, moved aft to allow for increased fuel stowage, lengthened and enlarged tail group, etc. Drawing is easy, imagining is easy. Only building is hard.Firstly, I just don't think it plausible to have the Gloster G.38 powered by the Hercules. The mere fact that it weighs twice as much will have a lot to do with it. But then some how the 'Goshawk' is armed with cannon.
It is curious that OTL Gloster did not think the design was adaptable enough to amend it and submit for consideration for the F.37/35 Spec.
However, given that in the thread the 'Goshawk' does exist - then Folland doesn't leave Gloster, which means that to spec. F.6/42 the Glostoer design wins (OTL Fo.117) rather than the Fury.
Indeed it is quite likely that when in March '37 Sydney Camm wrote to the Ministry's director of Technical Development - to ask what he considered to be the most suitable new project on which his design staff should now concentrate; the reply included a new specification programme that mentioned a dive bomber at the top of the list and a single-seat fighter next - yet now it appears the Gloster Mk2 will cancel F.18/37!!? Or at least delay it.
I have to put in a big query regarding any reference to an Air Ministry specification for a dive bomber. Sir Wilfred Freeman didn't support any such thing that I know of, except for naval aircraft, which had no priority.