I've been reading about the British aircraft industry, including a couple PhD theses, lately. They argue that widely held beliefs are rubbish, and their beliefs are documented fact. Kelly argued that someone stated that a German designed the Lockheed Vega blah blah, and added, "while this is true". It isn't true, and cast a pall of doubt over the whole piece. Another piece argues that the British aircraft industry is actually the English aircraft industry. Something I did not know, or care about, frankly. Mostly, they argue that the specifications to which aircraft were ordered were wisely chosen, or misguided but well-intended. Everyone had opinions, but they were all different, but opinions changed every three or four years anyway.
Spec. F.7/30 was issued in October 1931, which shows that the Air Ministry had problems getting things done on time. As an aside, the Gloster Gauntlet was one of the entries for F.7/30, under the SS19 guise. The Gauntlet had been offered to meet F.9/26, but no winner was chosen. It was offered for F.20/27, and failed . It seems to have been offered for F.7/30, but nothing happened. A production order was issued, called 24/33, and the Gauntlet became the fastest fighter in the RAF from 1935 to Feb 1937. This was all due to the Mercury engine development.
The F.7/30 was supposed to be a zone fighter, meaning it flew at night as well as day, and required a landing speed around 62 mph, which it has been argued, means a top speed of 215 mph, based on a made-up formula. Many sources quote 250 mph as a specified minimum, maybe right or wrong. Westland were going to offer a monoplane, because that was supposed to be the intention of the spec, but they changed it to a biplane to meet the landing speed. And what an odd biplane it was. It had no trouble with the Goshawk engine, but flew like junk. The Goshawk engine was not specified in the contract, or was it?
The well known Supermarine 224 had the worst time with the engine, since the condensate didn't scavenge properly, and huge bursts of steam spewed from the wings signalling that 15000 feet had been reached and it was time to cool off the engine. Scratch the son of S-6B.
The Hawker PV3 was a Goshawk Fury, which didn't have a point, since the Fury was deemed an intercepter, whatever the difference.
The Blackburn F.3 failed the taxi test before any taking off. The fuselage also failed the taxi test, and the a/c was scrapped, first by the test, and later completely.
The Bristol 123 was a bi-plane with a Goshawk and no stability. At least it wasn't ugly.
The Bristol 133 was arguably the most modern aircraft of the batch so far, with cantilever monoplane, partial retractable gear and monocoque fuselage. If it was better looking, I would have regretted that it spun into the ground, but it seems to have been the one aircraft that fit what the Air Ministry was looking for. A bit of aerodynamic legerdemain, some hocus pocus, and it could have been a contender, albeit, aesthetically challenged.
Okay, I'll get to the point, which I've made before. Henry Folland drew up the Gladiator, which first flew Sept 12, 1934. A production order was issued, F.14/35. It entered service Feb. 1937. It was a warmed-over Gauntlet with cantilever gear legs and enclosed canopy. What if he drew up what will forever be known as F.5/34 instead? Like the Bristol 133, it had what the Specification "really" called for, or at least, according to some.
Spec. F.7/30 was issued in October 1931, which shows that the Air Ministry had problems getting things done on time. As an aside, the Gloster Gauntlet was one of the entries for F.7/30, under the SS19 guise. The Gauntlet had been offered to meet F.9/26, but no winner was chosen. It was offered for F.20/27, and failed . It seems to have been offered for F.7/30, but nothing happened. A production order was issued, called 24/33, and the Gauntlet became the fastest fighter in the RAF from 1935 to Feb 1937. This was all due to the Mercury engine development.
The F.7/30 was supposed to be a zone fighter, meaning it flew at night as well as day, and required a landing speed around 62 mph, which it has been argued, means a top speed of 215 mph, based on a made-up formula. Many sources quote 250 mph as a specified minimum, maybe right or wrong. Westland were going to offer a monoplane, because that was supposed to be the intention of the spec, but they changed it to a biplane to meet the landing speed. And what an odd biplane it was. It had no trouble with the Goshawk engine, but flew like junk. The Goshawk engine was not specified in the contract, or was it?
The well known Supermarine 224 had the worst time with the engine, since the condensate didn't scavenge properly, and huge bursts of steam spewed from the wings signalling that 15000 feet had been reached and it was time to cool off the engine. Scratch the son of S-6B.
The Hawker PV3 was a Goshawk Fury, which didn't have a point, since the Fury was deemed an intercepter, whatever the difference.
The Blackburn F.3 failed the taxi test before any taking off. The fuselage also failed the taxi test, and the a/c was scrapped, first by the test, and later completely.
The Bristol 123 was a bi-plane with a Goshawk and no stability. At least it wasn't ugly.
The Bristol 133 was arguably the most modern aircraft of the batch so far, with cantilever monoplane, partial retractable gear and monocoque fuselage. If it was better looking, I would have regretted that it spun into the ground, but it seems to have been the one aircraft that fit what the Air Ministry was looking for. A bit of aerodynamic legerdemain, some hocus pocus, and it could have been a contender, albeit, aesthetically challenged.
Okay, I'll get to the point, which I've made before. Henry Folland drew up the Gladiator, which first flew Sept 12, 1934. A production order was issued, F.14/35. It entered service Feb. 1937. It was a warmed-over Gauntlet with cantilever gear legs and enclosed canopy. What if he drew up what will forever be known as F.5/34 instead? Like the Bristol 133, it had what the Specification "really" called for, or at least, according to some.