AH Challenge: Sea Fury in 1942

data on bloch MB157

I got mine from this salamanders huge guide to fighters pictured bellow. The Bloch is interesting because of it's engine, and because it was a radial engined fighter designed for top speed

9781840652697.gif
 
just to show that, minus the lack of bubble cockpit, it looked the part
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.
 
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.

Dewoitine530.png
 
I do think that the image in AdA's coffee table book may represent the wrong Bloch. It appears to be an earlier model. Below is a photo the putative Bloch 157 in Nazi drag. It does appear to be more sophisticated and does not appear to have the strutted tailplane. Still, I am not certain that it would be capable of 0ver 700 kph.

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.

bloch_mb-157.jpg
 
I was reading British Secret Projects V. 3. It had this to say about the Sea Typhoon:

p. 174 notes that Hawker was too overwhelmed to do the work on a Sea Typhoon 1941
p. 175 notes Hawker could not get a prototype to another company to do the work before mid 1942. Further, only 25% of the parts of the land version would be used in a Sea Typhoon.

Consequently, the UK decided to go with the Firebrand....

(And, as we know, the Firebrand was not ready for service until 1945. Building this carrier stuff takes time. No wonder the FAA had to go with Wildcats, Corsairs, Hellcats, and Avengers.)

Other problems with the Typhoon as a carrier plane listed on p. 175 included the plane having poor stall characteristics and long take-off run, as well as its size.

We can see more reasons why Just Leo believes an early Sea Fury is not realistic. That is, we can see this if we are amenable to facts.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
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.

I wonder who at the air ministry would have suggested a dive bomber. It wasn't Freeman.
I would be very interested in knowing who at the Air Ministry would suggest Camm build a dive bomber. Freeman wasn't a fan.
Folland didn't leave Gloster because of the work. He left because he didn't want to work for T.O.M. Sopwith and the Hawker group. Between Gloster and Hawker, whoever gets a contract would be decided in the boardroom.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
With the dive bombing, you have the close support specification B20/40 which led to the BP, Fairey and Hawker designs.

According to BSP, this requested a high speed, plus dive bombing.
 
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.

He also quite rightly pointed out, the FAA laid down the specifications of the aircraft it got.

In TTL, the FAA seems to have quickly gone from making holes in the top to making holes underwater, at the time possibly justified given the power of the engines and what bomb size the aircraft could carry but it does show a lack of thinking by the ones that made the decisions in TTL.
 
Just Leo

According to BSP p.14:

On the 15th March 1937 Sydney Camm wrote to the Ministry's Deirector of Technical Development (DTD), Air Commodore R H Verney, 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. On 12th April design work commenced on a high-speed single-seat fighter with a Napier Sabre and twelve Browning machine guns.......

But it is curious about the timing of this, considering that the Henley first flew on the 10th March 1937 - and it was only ordered as a traget tug!!

Yet suppose the S/S fighter was further done the list, so it becomes plausible for Hawker to design a larger D/B - Sabre powered? Though whether the RAF order it, and now what to do with it is debatable!!
 
Top