Bristol Hercules for FAA

MatthewB

Banned
Considering how frequent Bristol motors were used in FAA aircraft, from the Flycatcher to the Skua and Albacore it's noteworthy that the Hercules never saw much fleet service.

Let's change that. Starting with the Fulmar and Albacore specifications, let's have the FAA demand the Hercules for its aircraft. This will likely have the Swordfish in service longer until the Hercules is ready. And a Fulmar Hercules would be the only single engined fighter thus powered. This presents issues of fighter suitability, though the Beaufighter did fine as a twin.
 
Last edited:
A Hercules Fulmar would be even slower, due to increased drag and the redesign would delay its introduction into early 1941. (Fulmar is at heart a light bomber follow on to the Battle) It might make more sense to do a Skua Mk3 powered by the Hercules, though the best option would be to base the two seat fighter on the Hawker Henley. This would also open the door to a purpose built Sea Hurricane.
 

MatthewB

Banned
A Hercules Fulmar would be even slower, due to increased drag and the redesign would delay its introduction into early 1941. (Fulmar is at heart a light bomber follow on to the Battle)
I agree. Here's a Hercules-powered Battle and it looks slow.

Photo-08-Fairey-Battle-BS-Hercules-N2042.jpg


Maybe this will kill the Fulmar concept and get the FAA something more suitable to the Hercules, like the Henley as you suggest.

Here's a test bed Folland fitted with a Bristol Hercules radial. One of the few single engine applications I've found of the Hercules.

mev-10846126.jpg


There was also the Northrop Gamma with a test Hercules, https://www.skytamer.com/Northrop_1933(Gamma2L).html
 
Last edited:
????????
Not sure why you contend that a radial-engined Fulmar would be slower?????
Properly-cowled radials can fly as fast as inlines with similar horsepower. Look at how many Grumman Bearcats and Hawker Sea Furies are still serious competitors at the Reno Air Races.
 
Considering how frequent Bristol motors were used in FAA aircraft, from the Flycatcher to the SKA and Albacore it's noteworthy that the Hercules never saw much fleet service.

Let's change that. Starting with the Fulmar and Albacore specifications, let's have the FAA demand the Hercules for its aircraft. This will likely have the Swordfish in service longer until the Hercules is ready. And a Fulmar Hercules would be the only single engined fighter thus powered. This presents issues of fighter suitability, though the Beaufighter did fine as a twin.

The only problem I can see with the idea is the first Hercules were not built until 1939 and the Fulmar Mk 1 enters production in the same year.

There would be a delay in developing the Fulmar

Fulmar was not ordered because it was the best Carrier fighter available - it was ordered because it was the only then 'modern' fighter the Navy could get its hands on and one that could be built as quickly as it was.

Now the subsequent Mk II might be built with a Hercules II (1375 HP verses 1300 HP of the Merlin XXX) although the change in engine would likely delay the introduction of the MKII but as to what impact this would be I cannot say?

Where there may be a positive improvement is the Barracuda - it was going to use the RR X engine but this was cancelled (I blame the Germans) and it started life using the then Merlin which was not nearly as powerful then as it would later become and so the early Barracuda was seriously underpowered which delayed its introduction.

Perhaps with the Fulmar MK II and possibly even the Albacore using the MK II Herc the Barracuda is designed earlier to use the MKIV Herc (1,650 HP) and its power issues are overcome.

What I would say is that the Merlin/Griffon engine line benefitted from a great deal of man hours and 'treasure' being lavishly expended upon them.

But the Herc was a single stage Super charger and as the FAA aircraft are not intended to fight up in the 'Gods' like Spitfire was - it might mean that the FAA has more control over development and availability?
 
The problem would seem to be the excessive delay at getting the Hercules operational, then the time taken to get the power up.
Probably needs a bus to run over a lot of the Bristol board in the 1930's... :p
 
The problem would seem to be the excessive delay at getting the Hercules operational, then the time taken to get the power up.
Probably needs a bus to run over a lot of the Bristol board in the 1930's... :p

Wasn't it Bristol who eventually discovered that moving recently made and still cooling sleeve valves across cobbled roads between factory buildings was the main cause of later excessive engine failures in the earlier engines?
 
Wasn't it Bristol who eventually discovered that moving recently made and still cooling sleeve valves across cobbled roads between factory buildings was the main cause of later excessive engine failures in the earlier engines?

I don't actually know, but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
I believe that was actually a cobbled yard within Napier's rather Victorian and haphazard works and was a root cause of problems with the Sabre engine
 
The problem would seem to be the excessive delay at getting the Hercules operational, then the time taken to get the power up.
Probably needs a bus to run over a lot of the Bristol board in the 1930's... :p

If the RN has decided they want the proposed new engine as standard then the board should have the sense to tell Roy Fedden to pull out all the stops to get it ready before the Admiralty changes its mind and buys American.
 
If the RN has decided to standardise on the Hercules does the Albacore still be designed as a biplane? 1300hp would be seen as been wasted on such a design. Perhaps the Albacore will be the Battle Hercules test bed aircraft shown above?
 
If the RN has decided to standardise on the Hercules does the Albacore still be designed as a biplane? 1300hp would be seen as been wasted on such a design. Perhaps the Albacore will be the Battle Hercules test bed aircraft shown above?
Fairey proposed a monoplane version of the Albacore in OTL but the FAA wanted an aircraft in service quickly so went for the biplane version, thinking was that they could use the existing tooling and so build it faster. There were also concerns about the monoplane version being able to take off from the smaller old carriers and how long it would take Fairey to design a folding monoplane wing.

Dropping in a Hercules makes that plan harder, it's a larger engine so more changes are needed and as you say offers little advantage as the biplane can't make use of all that extra power.

What you need is something like the FAA raising the speed requirement for the specification, asking for say 225mph out of the aircraft, that would require the more powerful Hercules engine and a monoplane.
 
The Hawker Typhon which used the Sabre engine was employed to chase down FW190s. How about a slight change where Hawkers gets the Typhon right, more like a later war Tempest. Better wings, a reliable Sabre engine and a tail that does not fall off then they navalize it for the FAA. The FAA have a potent fighter bomber with decent range. Would this not be, at least in the short term, a better solution for the FAA fleet fighter and tactical bomber shortcomings?
 

MatthewB

Banned
The Hawker Typhon which used the Sabre engine was employed to chase down FW190s. How about a slight change where Hawkers gets the Typhon right, more like a later war Tempest. Better wings, a reliable Sabre engine and a tail that does not fall off then they navalize it for the FAA. The FAA have a potent fighter bomber with decent range. Would this not be, at least in the short term, a better solution for the FAA fleet fighter and tactical bomber shortcomings?
I don’t follow. How does that address the OP premise, that of getting the Hercules into FAA service? Are you in the right thread?
 

MatthewB

Banned
Fairey proposed a monoplane version of the Albacore in OTL but the FAA wanted an aircraft in service quickly so went for the biplane version, thinking was that they could use the existing tooling and so build it faster. There were also concerns about the monoplane version being able to take off from the smaller old carriers and how long it would take Fairey to design a folding monoplane wing.

Dropping in a Hercules makes that plan harder, it's a larger engine so more changes are needed and as you say offers little advantage as the biplane can't make use of all that extra power.

What you need is something like the FAA raising the speed requirement for the specification, asking for say 225mph out of the aircraft, that would require the more powerful Hercules engine and a monoplane.
Perhaps design the TSR with both the Hercules and an existing motor in mind. Sort of how the Barracuda launched with the Merlin even though it was intended for the Griffin.
 

MatthewB

Banned
View attachment 467887

The old suspect returns.
Every-ones favourite FAA fighter the Gloster F5
It does seem ideal.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/gloster-f-5-34.327139/

But Glosters first need to address the aerodynamics. What’s with the main and rail wheels sticking out? Might as well be carrying a pair of 250 lb. bombs under the wing. I bet redesigning the retracting mechanisms for all three wheels to a clean airflow will add another ten mph to top speed.

gloster_f5-34-2.jpg


Horikoshi’s A6M aside, it looks like someone at Caproni knew how to make this layout look good.

caproni-vizzola_f-5.jpg


http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/caproni-vizzola_f-5.php
 
It does seem ideal.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/gloster-f-5-34.327139/

But Glosters first need to address the aerodynamics. What’s with the main and rail wheels sticking out? Might as well be carrying a pair of 250 lb. bombs under the wing. I bet redesigning the retracting mechanisms for all three wheels to a clean airflow will add another ten mph to top speed.

gloster_f5-34-2.jpg

Very true, but far superior to the Sea Gladiator. WW2 is closing in fast. We need a new fighter, just build the thing, any faults found the MK2 will sort it out.
 
Top