Bristol Hercules for FAA

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.

And Folland who had been part of the design team (?) @ Gloster had just stood up his own factory on the Hamble near Southampton

Have him build it - after all it is not required in huge numbers a few dozen a month should serve
 
As I mention every time this lovely Gloster aircraft gets suggested as an FAA aircraft. It has a big structural problem in that the main wing spar is built as a monolithic unit from wing tip to wing tip. So unlike the Spitfire and the Hurricanes you cannot even remove the wings let alone fold them. Folland would have to redesign the complete wing for a viable FAA fighter variant which hopefully would include flush fitting under carriage.
 

MatthewB

Banned
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.
I agree. The F5/34 uses a Mercury engine that the FAA supply chain and mechanics will be well acquainted with, and having a nascent single-seat fighter at war's beginning or earlier would help to establish best practices and ongoing improvements, eventually getting to the Bristol Hercules.

My only demand is that the F5/34 enter FAA service with folding wings, otherwise we might as well go with the Hurricane. It won't be the first single-seat monoplane fighter with full folding wings (not A6M wing tip folds), as the Dewoitine D.376 (shown below) entered Aéronavale service in 1938, but maybe the Gloster can be the second, ahead of the folding Wildcat.

9fd9e7cc94e9750f97661fffb9ee1c18.jpg


The Mercury model will be slow, so the Hercules will need to be fast tracked.
 
As I mention every time this lovely Gloster aircraft gets suggested as an FAA aircraft. It has a big structural problem in that the main wing spar is built as a monolithic unit from wing tip to wing tip. So unlike the Spitfire and the Hurricanes you cannot even remove the wings let alone fold them. Folland would have to redesign the complete wing for a viable FAA fighter variant which hopefully would include flush fitting under carriage.
The Gloster is 3” shorter and it’s span 1’10” narrower than the hurricane, with which the FAA used in abundance.
The alternative is the F4 Martlet with the Hercules engine.
 

MatthewB

Banned
As I mention every time this lovely Gloster aircraft gets suggested as an FAA aircraft. It has a big structural problem in that the main wing spar is built as a monolithic unit from wing tip to wing tip.
What does this mean? I've tried to look it up.

Here is the Seafire's folding wing, showing the main spar as #3.

1416114379478


What is a monolithic wing spar, and why can't we cut it like the Seafire's spar above?
 
As I mention every time this lovely Gloster aircraft gets suggested as an FAA aircraft. It has a big structural problem in that the main wing spar is built as a monolithic unit from wing tip to wing tip. So unlike the Spitfire and the Hurricanes you cannot even remove the wings let alone fold them. Folland would have to redesign the complete wing for a viable FAA fighter variant which hopefully would include flush fitting under carriage.

It is similar to the A6m? The later folding wing variants that graced he hangers and decks of the IJNs flattops only folded the wing tips! Just enough to fit on the lifts.

Could the same be done for the very Similar Gloster F5?

ACS-Mitsubishi-Zero.jpg
 
a monolithic main spar is one which is engineered, designed and constructed in such a way that it forms a single structural member from one end to the other and relies on that single unbroken structure for it's load bearing capabilities. The Hurricane, Spitfire and most fighter aircraft have each wing built as a separate piece which is then attached (pins or bolts) to the fuselage. In a monolithic wing basically the fuselage is fitted to the wings rather than the other way around,
 

MatthewB

Banned
a monolithic main spar is one which is engineered, designed and constructed in such a way that it forms a single structural member from one end to the other and relies on that single unbroken structure for it's load bearing capabilities. The Hurricane, Spitfire and most fighter aircraft have each wing built as a separate piece which is then attached (pins or bolts) to the fuselage. In a monolithic wing basically the fuselage is fitted to the wings rather than the other way around,
Ah, like the Lockheed Constellation?

Wings.jpg
 

MatthewB

Banned
It is similar to the A6m? The later folding wing variants that graced he hangers and decks of the IJNs flattops only folded the wing tips! Just enough to fit on the lifts.

Could the same be done for the very Similar Gloster F5?
Ark Royal has three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The Illustrious class have two lifts, 45ft by 22ft. There's no way a A6M would fit.

However, the three Outrageous class, plus Eagle, Hermes and the later Implacable class would be ok.

019034-Implacable-1945.JPG


But if we're using the Hercules in the FAA, we must be making aircraft specific to FAA needs, so by nature, we'd want the type to be folding to a max of <22ft from the onset.
 
Last edited:
But if we're using the Hercules in the FAA, we must be making aircraft specific to FAA needs, so by nature, we'd want the type to be folding to a max of <22ft from the onset.

That would really bring us back to. Liscence built, Hercules powered Martlet.
 
Ark Royal has three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft. The Illustrious class have two lifts, 45ft by 22ft. There's no way a A6M would fit.

However, the three Outrageous class, plus Eagle, Hermes and the later Implacable class would be ok.

019034-Implacable-1945.JPG


But if we're using the Hercules in the FAA, we must be making aircraft specific to FAA needs, so by nature, we'd want the type to be folding from the onset.

The Gloster F5/34 first flew in 1937 - Illustrious was laid down in April of that year

So either the Dog wags the tail and the Gloster has a folding wing to fit

Or the Tail wags the Dog and the Lifts are modified to allow for non folding aircraft etc

However how much wing are we talking about here?

Wing Span of the Gloster is 38' 2" so in order to fit on a 22" Lift a bit over 8 foot of wing needs to fold (possibly a bit less if angled on the lift)

If that as know in 1936/37 then I am sure that a folding wing could have been developed in a timely fashion

Also non folding aircraft have a greater footprint inside of an Aircraft carriers Hanger (considering that a Illustrious class was initially expected to carry 33 folding wing Swordfish - on ops she carried far more than this - but that was the expectation - and they were a postage stamp size aircraft when folded) so a non folding wing design is undesirable anyway!

For example here are Hurricanes on HMS Argus - note how much 'less' room they take when turned 45 deg compared to the one that isn't - and then note the Fulmar at the back taking up a fraction of the room with its smartly folded wings ;) -

hurricanes-on-hms-argus.jpg


So if the Wing is an issue and cannot be modified to fold down into a smaller package then I am afraid that this means its probably a non starter as a carrier aircraft.

For me a far better idea is to start far far earlier on a folding wing Sea Spitfire and/or a folding wing Hurricane from 1938!
 
a monolithic main spar is one which is engineered, designed and constructed in such a way that it forms a single structural member from one end to the other and relies on that single unbroken structure for it's load bearing capabilities. The Hurricane, Spitfire and most fighter aircraft have each wing built as a separate piece which is then attached (pins or bolts) to the fuselage. In a monolithic wing basically the fuselage is fitted to the wings rather than the other way around,
I've seen this a few times and it's never made much sense to me.

As I see it any folding wing has to make sure that once it's unfolded and locked in place the spar(s) inside act as a single structure. Even if the spar just spans from fuselage to end of the wing still has to act as one unit or it'll snap at the folding point under load. So a strong connection is required regardless of what the spar form inside the wing is.

I'm sure none of this is easy when you get to the details, but I cannot see why it is so much harder for a monospar than for two half spars.
 
I've seen this a few times and it's never made much sense to me.

As I see it any folding wing has to make sure that once it's unfolded and locked in place the spar(s) inside act as a single structure. Even if the spar just spans from fuselage to end of the wing still has to act as one unit or it'll snap at the folding point under load. So a strong connection is required regardless of what the spar form inside the wing is.

I'm sure none of this is easy when you get to the details, but I cannot see why it is so much harder for a monospar than for two half spars.

I asked this myself a few years back and no one could answer it.
 

MatthewB

Banned
The Gloster F5/34 first flew in 1937 - Illustrious was laid down in April of that year. So either the Dog wags the tail and the Gloster has a folding wing to fit
Yes, but Ark Royal has already set the RN lift width at 22ft. The FAA has specified for Hercules-powered single-engined fighter and strike aircraft. As none exist, new aircraft will need to be designed, and any Specification will demand compatibility with Ark Royal’s 22ft lift (same as the aircraft that IOTL followed the Swordfish: Albacore, Skua, Fulmar and Barracuda). Thus the Gloster F5/34 will not be chosen, but may serve as the template for what becomes the FAA fighter, much as the Fairey Battle led the way to the Fulmar.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Folland is capable of designing a set of folding wings for his fighter if the Navy asks for it. It would need redesigning anyway, both to take account of the more powerful engine, and to avoid having to pay a licence fee to Gloster as he designed it while working for them.

Good luck to any pilots with the British Pacific Fleet in 1945 if they have to get close to a US task force though.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Ah, yes. Not just US TF, British and Commonwealth AA gunners in the Asian theatre will be shoot first ask questions later. Many P-36 and Buffalos were shot down by friendly fire due to the assumption that anything with a radial must be Japanese. Perhaps invasion stripes?

I have to say, the Caproni Vizzola F.5 has to be the prettiest radial monoplane fighter out of pre-WW2 Europe.

fffff55555.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes a wing with connection points, in other words a segmented wing can and will be as strong as an monolithic wing. On the other hand it will almost certainly be heavier and in most cases tend to flex more it's monolithic counter part.
 
Yes a wing with connection points, in other words a segmented wing can and will be as strong as an monolithic wing. On the other hand it will almost certainly be heavier and in most cases tend to flex more it's monolithic counter part.
True enough, though if you have a strong enough connection between your segmented wing and the body then you should be able to minimise flexing. You theoretically might get more issues with fatigue, but I don't think most WW2 era aircraft lasted long enough in service for that to be an issue.

But that doesn't explain why there is apparently such a problem putting a fold in a monolithic wing. Design the folding mechanism such that, once locked in the connection can transfer all forces and surely it will still behave as a monolithic wing.

Gloster used a lattice spar web for the wing in the F.5/34, so you've got multiple points you can use to make a connection - getting a full moment connection between lattice girders was well understood and it appears to be the same principal. I still cannot see any engineering reason not to retain the original wing and just modify it to fold.
 
This is getting well above my engineering 'pay grade' but as I understand it if you have a wing skin which is using the stressed skin as a strength member, the fault line of the fold disrupts the load paths by concentrating them at the Joints. This requires increased material thickness to absorb the loads and hence significant weight increase and design complexity.
 
Top