Specification F.7/30

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.

F730.jpg
 
Interesting history lesson, even if I know nothing that could help the discussion its interesting reading and looking at it thanks :D.

I will add are the PHDs available to read online ?
 
Interesting history lesson, even if I know nothing that could help the discussion its interesting reading and looking at it thanks :D.

I will add are the PHDs available to read online ?

I come across them doing research. Paul Kelly is available, and discusses an interesting meeting in 1935 between SBAC, ARC and NPL. Edgerton's may or may not. Sinnott's book was but isn't any more. The trouble with historians is they're not engineers. On the other hand, engineers aren't very good historians.
 
Are we keeping the name or giving it a different one to distinguish it from OTL's Gladiator. Goshawk like ThexWhale has Wings? Gallant? Grendel? Goblin?

Hawker will probably be investing in a Wind Tunnel to getvthecmost out of the Merlin engine at any rate.
 
Are we keeping the name or giving it a different one to distinguish it from OTL's Gladiator. Goshawk like ThexWhale has Wings? Gallant? Grendel? Goblin?

Hawker will probably be investing in a Wind Tunnel to getvthecmost out of the Merlin engine at any rate.

I was thinking of the name "F.V".

Hawker used the perfectly good wind tunnel provided by the NPL at Teddington, and received perfectly good garbage data out. In the design of the HS Hawk, nine wind tunnels were used to provide data. Times change. A wind tunnel is now a feature at Kingston University, but it is not located in the Hawker Wing.

Another unrelated tidbit. Sir Sydney's house was being torn down. He didn't move for 32 years until he passed away. His house had a name. Carradale. I once lived in a house with a name, Chateau Broadview. Now, I live in a house with the name, 71. My neighbors houses also have names, 69, and 73. Classy.
 
I am no expert but I think it is worth remind ourselves that the period we are discussing was one of very rapid technological development in aviation. what was leading edge in 1930 was positively Obsolescent by 1935 IMHO.
At this time the Air Ministry (of ill repute) at least had the common sense to invest in development of two Fighter aircraft built around the most powerful engine then available. One was the end of the line for the 'traditional' form of construction as used in all the previous biplane fighters (ie, metal or wood chassis with wooden aerodynamic formers and canvas skinning on wings and fuselage) which became the Hurricane. The other was a state of the art aluminium monocque construction fuselage with stressed alloy skinned wings, which became the Spitfire.
Both these aircraft were flying before the Gloster F5/34 and benefited from having about 20% more power from the start.
Further Glosters were part of the Hawker group and any aircraft designed by them was a direct competitor to Sydney Camms designs. Some have used that fact to explain why the Gloster F5/34 did not fly until December 1937 (when the Hurricane was already entering service) but this is an over simplification.
Whereas the Hurrican can be described as a monoplane Hawker Fury the Gloster F5/34 though clearly showing the design linage of Folland’s earlier G class biplanes is in fact closer technologically to the Spitfire than it is to the Hurricane. The F5/34 also has on fundamental problem as practical fighter aircraft and that is (if I have read the design spec correctly) that the wing spar was one monolithic construct from wing tip to wing tip. This means that any catastrophic structural damage to the wing spar on one side writes off the entire wing. Also breaking the aircraft down for transport becomes a major problem.
Unless you butterfly a 1000hp plus radial engine flying in 1935 and give Gloster’s (in others words Hawkers) huge kick up the backside and funding then the Gloster F5/34 will also be an also ran. In an ATL world give Glosters that kick and tell them to build the aircraft around the Alvis Pelides engine as an alternative to the RR Merlin or Bristol engines as a shadow project then just maybe!!!
 
I agree the Gloster Monoplane - needs to arrive on the scene earlier. I think part of the original spec was as a colonial fighter - hence the radial engine - but that should also mean that it's easily repairable e.g. wing sections bolt on to the fuselage.
Moreover, while the Mk 1 could be with the Mercury (readily available), the Mk II would require more power e.g. Pelides (the Alvis factory may take time to get production going).
But once the aircraft makes an appearance then there will be less demand for the Gladiator.
 
Isn't this scenario about the F5/34 being designed instead of the Gladiator?

Hmm, local competition against Bristol radial engines. This could be the boot up the collective jacksie the Board of Cousins needed.

The pliades only put out 50 less horsepower than the Taurus II despite being 200 lbs lighter. If this engine enter production, it would make an excellent alternative power plant for the Albacore and the Reaper.

If its still being pitched as an Imperial fighter then the Australians will probably be using the Twin Wasp in their version.
 
Last edited:
Alvis were not in the 'ring' of engine manufacturers as far as the AM were concerned and the Pelides being an anglicized version of a French Gnome-Rhone Mistral Major was subject to NIH syndrome as well, despite it being based originally on a Bristol Jupiter engine! Later Models of this engine such as the 14-N had power equivalent to the Herules. This therefore lends credence for a development path for the Gloster F5/34 similar to the Bloch 152 which used the Gnome-Rhone 14-R engine. Have that flying by august 1940 and you have a very serious contender for the best fighter in the BoB!!! Somehow butterfly the 14N and cannons onto it as well, in that time scale, and you definitely have a very potent beast.:D
 
This proposal is based on the assertions in Paul Kelly's thesis that the Air Ministry was looking for an all-metal monoplane fighter with good performance, with the only restriction being a low landing speed based on the requirement on night flying. Airfield requirements didn't help bomber development either, leaving the Stirling ham-strung. If someone at the ministry hadn't thought of assisted take-off catapults, the Halifax and Lancaster never would have happened. It came as a shock to realize that nobody had developed, or even looked into developing such assisted take-off methods, that they noticed that it wouldn't have worked anyway.

The only candidate for F.7/30 which mirrored the suspected requirements was the Bristol 133, and it crashed. I suspect that Paul Kelly's assertions are flawed, in that the Air Ministry didn't consist of one opinion, but rather, many diverse ideas, all contradictory, and unrecorded discussions swayed constructors' responses to the spec. The F.V was the answer to what was written down, and yet the anachronistic Gladiator was the winner, OTL. Henry Folland gave them what they really wanted first, and then gave them what they really needed later. Did Gloster really have to be bought by Hawkers?
Alvis wasn't an accepted engine builder. Fairey too, was not on the list for a different reason. Napier was on the list, building the worthless Dagger, and soon to be swimming in funds and priorities with the over-complex Sabre. Armstrong-Whitworth built the Tiger, a champion of unreliability with a basic flaw uncorrected for a decade and a half. The world wonders. The Cousins take pride in not knowing their product, and decree that sleeve-valve engines of greater power need not be developed before the aircraft that need them. It is an enigma. There is one shining light in something called a PV.12. It is awaiting developments in several areas, one being a man named Hooker discovering a Swiss patent for a two-stage supercharger drive with potential application.

British aircraft were built of steel tube and rag from 1925. Hawker developed steel tube construction without welding, and Martin-Baker developed steel tube and replaceable aluminum panels. But he wasn't SBAC, the circle.

Does the F.V win the BoB? I don't know. Does Hawker have to buy Gloster? Does Henry Folland have to quit Gloster? It all comes full circle when Hawker buys Folland and builds the Hawk to replace the Gnat. They did use 9 wind tunnels.
 
Hawker used the perfectly good wind tunnel provided by the NPL at Teddington, and received perfectly good garbage data out. In the design of the HS Hawk, nine wind tunnels were used to provide data. Times change. A wind tunnel is now a feature at Kingston University, but it is not located in the Hawker Wing.
Is this what turned him against swept wings? I have memories of reading somewhere that getting burned by one of the official bodies, it might have been RAE or NPL, made him sceptical later on when people came calling with the idea even though Busemann had given public lectures on it since 1935 combined with a somewhat chauvinistic government attitude to captured German research after WWII. Was wondering how accurate that theory might be or if it was more a case of retroactive reasoning and he dismissed them for other reasons. The Hawker Sea Hawk with the swept wings of the P.1052, and in an ideal world also the swept tail from the P.1081, seems to me like one of the largest missed opportunities of British post-war aviation projects, but such is life.
 
Is this what turned him against swept wings? I have memories of reading somewhere that getting burned by one of the official bodies, it might have been RAE or NPL, made him sceptical later on when people came calling with the idea even though Busemann had given public lectures on it since 1935 combined with a somewhat chauvinistic government attitude to captured German research after WWII. Was wondering how accurate that theory might be or if it was more a case of retroactive reasoning and he dismissed them for other reasons. The Hawker Sea Hawk with the swept wings of the P.1052, and in an ideal world also the swept tail from the P.1081, seems to me like one of the largest missed opportunities of British post-war aviation projects, but such is life.

Scepticism and chauvinism can be fine in their place. In the wind tunnel instance, the ARC reports are all available on-line if you look, and the one about the wind tunnel screw-up, dated April 1942 or so, is in there. The swept wing instance comes from an unforgettable reading from a source I've forgotten, decades old, where Sir Sydney is in his office. Someone enters and gives him the news of the German swept wing data, and he replies that "We won the war. We don't need loser data." Treating boffins and aerodynamicists with contempt, and Germans with disregard and contempt is fine, but he could have checked the data anyway. Edgar Schmued had no disdain for Germans, nor did he disregard leading edge slots when he drew up the Sabre jet. Artem and Mikhail didn't mind German data either. There was also some Swiss data about trans-sonic airfoils that should have been a good study at the time.

One of the things the ARC complained about in the 1935 meeting with aircraft companies was the lack of technology sharing. One of the things the companies complained about was that the ARC didn't understand the aircraft business.
 
The swept wing instance comes from an unforgettable reading from a source I've forgotten, decades old, where Sir Sydney is in his office. Someone enters and gives him the news of the German swept wing data, and he replies that "We won the war. We don't need loser data." Treating boffins and aerodynamicists with contempt, and Germans with disregard and contempt is fine, but he could have checked the data anyway.
Damn, that's the trouble with great men sometimes - hubris. The only way I can see to solve the issue, aside from your idea about his checking the data, would have been with the developing of prospective turbojet powered aircraft for someone over at RAE or NPL to have been tasked to carry out a small project of running the numbers on Busemann's ideas and to verify what information was in the public domain during the war. That way at least they could have argued that it had been proven to be accurate or play it up as good clean British 'winner data' which might have made it more acceptable. We are however getting rather off the topic of the F.7/30 / F.V., so I shall thank you for your information and stop derailing your thread. :)
 
Damn, We are however getting rather off the topic of the F.7/30 / F.V., so I shall thank you for your information and stop derailing your thread. :)

This thread is about missed opportunities, and who, what, where, how and why they were missed. Also botched opportunities caused by personal foibles or incompetence, or just inattention to detail. The F.V is just one of many. It wasn't perfect, and certainly needed some modifications. There exists a paucity of information to determine, with some assurance, that these mods could have been made, and how, but I believe that they should have been made. There was a comment made that the wing was one piece, which would impair repair and transport. Had the wing been modified for naval ship-board service, the wing spar would be cut and joined at the folding point, just as the Seafire wing spar was cut and joined. It decreased the Seafire wing's strength a little, and added weight, a little, and the Seafire's wing spar/leading edge structure was far more super-critically complex than the humble Gloster's. And the Gloster's tail just screams out for a stinger-type tail hook. In 1934, assistant chief of royal naval staff, Rear Admiral Bailey said " The RN knows more about sailing carriers than anyone, but is slow to arm our fleet with aircraft and to complete the carrier complement of aircraft, and to become air-minded." He's the one.
 
I like your Gannet, With the Alvis Pelides giving around 1000hp on 87octane fuel in 1936/37, we can assume around 1100/1500hp on 100 octane fuel in 1939, with the prospect of more power with a two stage/two speed supercharger. With the larger 18 cylinder Alvis Alcides being only about 18 months behind the 14 cylinder Pelides how soon could we see a larger version of the Gannet (think wildcat to Hellcat) sporting that engine starting at 1500hp. Maybe early 1941:D
 
The field of applicable engines is indeed small, and plagued with acute inadequacy. Napier engines overheat with high output. Armstrong Whitworth 2-row engines were designed with a flaw such that unreliability and heavy vibration found in 1923 still plagued Whitley bombers in 1939. I can only presume that Alvis saw a need and intended to fill it. They were not in the "IN" crowd, though. Bristol was in that crowd. The Perseus engine was one of the first generation sleeve-valve engines, similar in size to the Mercury. After WWII, the Perseus engine was given Centaurus cylinders and a war's worth of other improvements, becoming a worthwhile engine. The Hercules was finally developed into a good engine in 1944, but it wasn't installed in Halifax bombers because it wasn't produced in sufficient numbers. The Centaurus engine became an engine of choice to power post-war fighters. It was as if Bristol was waiting for the war to be over before they got it right, and most of that was "inspired", under orders, by the BMW installation in the FW-190. If you use a 9/14 formula comparing the mid-war Hercules to the Perseus which used the same cylinders, you get 1050 to 1125 hp. If you use the formula on the developed Hercules used on the Noratlas transport, you get 1325 hp. The Blackburn Skua was designed and prototyped with a Mercury engine but production units were equipped with Perseus. Why? Because Gladiators and Blenheim bombers had priority for production. The Skua has been described as under-powered, as was the Botha. Pumper carbs and fuel injection, plus rear-facing exhaust weren't a mystery in the industry, but they were at Bristols. They did not act until told by their government and customer to copy the damn Germans.

Anyway, in 1934, Gloster Aircraft was bought by Blackburn, and the rest is history.

Blackburn-Company-1944-1.jpg
 
Top