Bristol Hercules for FAA

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.

Then the F5/34 is a dead end.

I suggest a Hercules powered Hurricane with a simple fold up wing - this will allow it to benefit from development of its land based 'Crab Air' brethren

With a fighter 'in the wings' the Skua is not needed so can be replaced as soon as the 'Sea Hurricles' reaches service - also as the Swordfish and Albacore are very capable dive bombers you can double down on 2 types of airframe (Hurricles and Swordfish/Albacore) - I would argue that Fulmar is also not needed.

I would not bother with re-engining the swordfish but would certainly bang the Hercules on the 'applecore'
 
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?
I kind of got ahead of myself when the Sabre engine was mentioned and did not complete my thoughts. My apologies. Where I was going was that the Typhon or an improved version could use the Sabre in the short term then be used as a either a tested for the Hercules or a different model Typhon with the Hercules engine. Kind of like the Tempest V and Tempest II. I was thinking like a 1941 Seafury.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Where I was going was that the Typhon or an improved version could use the Sabre in the short term then be used as a either a tested for the Hercules or a different model Typhon with the Hercules engine. Kind of like the Tempest V and Tempest II. I was thinking like a 1941 Seafury.
I like it, and given its unreliability it’s logical for the FAA to want to avoid the Sabre. But is the Hercules powerful enough to pull the Typhoon? The Sabre was a 2,200 hp motor. We can’t skip right to the Centaurus.
 
Last edited:
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.
If you have to land wheels up you don't damage anything but the prop.
 
A few thoughts.

Earlier FAA interest could mean an earlier interest in sleeve valve engines in general.

As to planes.

An adapted Henley Scout/Fighter/Dive-bomber (The Harpy?).

The similarity to the Hurricane could spur an interest in improving the Hurricane itself.

IRRC there were proposals for a Napier Dagger engined Hurricane as an emergency fighter for the Battle if Britain. Here the engineers have some idea what a Hurricane derived design can do with a Hercules engine.

Thinner wing, cut down fuselage plus other improvements and you have a cheapish, rugged fighter with fairly decent performance, ideal for naval and overseas service. The Hawker Hooghly? Enters service 1941, replaced by Sea Fury from 1944?

I have some Miles and Bristol (not Mills and Boone) ideas that I'll address in separate posts. Cue Sid James laughing.
 
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.
True to a point, depends how you are using the stressed skin and if you want continuity of load path along the entire wing or just between stringers. Certainly putting a fold in will cause the wing to be more complex and heavier, likely it will also be less stiff (SeaFire Mk.III with folding wing had a ~10% less rigid wing than the non-folding models). But this is a problem regardless of spar construction type.

Found this on Pinterest; F4U Corsair on the production line. You can see the curved main section connecting the two wings so they behaved as a monospar, added bonus is that the Corsair had stressed skin on the wing leading edges. So in summary this is a continuous spar, stressed-skin, folding wing. And this was done with a complex and clever gull wing shape.

f68f6ac18ff0506b86736a10c4a6ca85.jpg


I'm increasingly convinced this entire "monolithic wing spar" issue around the F.5/34 is internet myth. Something that has been repeated many times but isn't actually true when you stop to investigate it.
 
When a Designer sets out from the start to design an aircraft with folding wings and undercarriage stressed for carrier operations, the stresses, weights and stiffness can be optimized for that purpose. Designers chose to built monolithic wings for a reason, one of the biggest of which is that a monolithic wing is normally both lighter and stiffer than a unit wing. Both the Japanese Zero and the F5/34 had monolithic wings because weight was a critical factor in their performance. The F5/34 was designed to use the Bristol Mercuary giving 800+ hp but achieved a performance on trials almost comparable to the Hurricane with a quarter more power! Start butchering that wing to fold it and performance will fall of. Give the aircraft a bigger engine and you can increase performance but you quickly hit the law of diminishing returns. So I am not sure about the Myth , however when lookin at ATL aircraft for the FAA when I ask Aeronautically savvy people about F5/34 it is the wing folding that always comes up. Get Follond to design a folding wing Hercules Powered Naval fighter based on his F5/34 starting from January 1937 and could have a winner for this OP.
 
He has time as well, because the Sea Gladiator's performance is comparable to other carrier fighters of the late 1930's. You might be able to get away with non folding F5/34 carrier variant on the follies as a stop gap though, while the true carrier version is developed.

The way I see things going is that the FAA enters WWII with its OTL aircraft with the new Hercules powered generation beginning to enter service early in 1940 and first coming to the public's attention around the time of Taranto.
 
IIRC Fairey had proposed a monoplane response to the same specification that resulted in the Swordfish. If when the Albacore specification S.41/36 was issued the first Hercules prototype was running at Bristol's. So if Fairey's offered two designs, OTL's Taurus engined biplane and an ATL Hercules engined monoplane aircraft then by 1940 a Hercules engined TB/R aircraft could be in service. Stick a Hercules in a Naval Henley as your DB/F and Hurricane as pure fighter, then FAA have an air group with only one engine type! Oh how one can dream.
 
I'm not so sure. If you're using modified RAF types there's always a risk the RAF will claim they need them more and cut your supply.

Well that depends on the reason.

Sometimes its a good reason i.e. Battle of Britain - in which case - yep fair one.

And also I see this given as the reason not to go for something like the Spitfire as in the Seafire is started 3 years earlier or some such

I don't think anyone predicted the Battle of Britain scenario - in that France collapsed and German aircraft were operating from Northern France.

Bomber attacks yes but that such attacks suddenly were able to be supported with masses of single seat fighter escorts - no.

So what ever fighter the FAA were asking to be developed would in the Battle of Britain scenario become subservient to the needs of Fighter Command and rightly so.

Remember its not just airframes and engines. Its all the other bits of kit. Guns, Radios, gunsights, propellers, silk scarves etc the 'ENTER FAA FIGHTER NAME HERE' uses that could be used on a Hurricane, Spitfire, Beaufighter or BP Defiant

And the 'ENTER FAA FIGHTER NAME HERE' if in squadron Service in any sort of number itself might very well be pressed into service to cover say 13 group during the period of BoB threat.

The other alternative is that Castle Bromwich Assembly and the supporting factories pull their fingers out of their arses (or more accurately have them pulled) earlier and Spitfire Production from Jan 1940 is at the expected production rate of 60 aircraft a month (this was the promised April 1940 production rate - the factory actually built its first Spitfire in June of that year)

This would certainly allow for much greater reliance on the Spitfire and therefore much less demand on other airframe types including the Hurricane and therefore possibly reducing the chance of 'ENTER FAA FIGHTER NAME HERE' production being subservient to the needs of fighter command.
 
34925CFA-12EA-4A08-9711-BCEACE2167EB.jpeg

Battle/fulmar/firefly
With Hercules performance similar to fulmar, but could be capable, just; to carry a torpedo or descent wee bomb load.
 
The Hercules was a fantastic engine however it was only an engine and would not have made much of a difference without the corresponding aircraft . The F-5/34 would have had to be heavily modified as it saw service and would have changed the other aircraft being purchased however the Hercules was 400 kg heavier then the installed engine . This enables a larger structure , folding wings , better guns , more range etc . It is not impossible however it will result in a different aircraft . Landing gear would have to be longer to keep the larger Propeller off the deck .
 

MatthewB

Banned
True to a point, depends how you are using the stressed skin and if you want continuity of load path along the entire wing or just between stringers. Certainly putting a fold in will cause the wing to be more complex and heavier, likely it will also be less stiff (SeaFire Mk.III with folding wing had a ~10% less rigid wing than the non-folding models). But this is a problem regardless of spar construction type.

Found this on Pinterest; F4U Corsair on the production line. You can see the curved main section connecting the two wings so they behaved as a monospar, added bonus is that the Corsair had stressed skin on the wing leading edges. So in summary this is a continuous spar, stressed-skin, folding wing. And this was done with a complex and clever gull wing shape.

f68f6ac18ff0506b86736a10c4a6ca85.jpg


I'm increasingly convinced this entire "monolithic wing spar" issue around the F.5/34 is internet myth. Something that has been repeated many times but isn't actually true when you stop to investigate it.
Fighting accepted myth with facts will be trouble.
 
Top