Cryhavoc101
Donor
How about Folland after leaving Hawkers and starting his own factory on the Hamble is able to secure foreign sales for his own version of the Monoplane Gladiator / F5-34?
It doesn't quite work that way.Perhaps I haven't repeated it enough times - I don't suggest the brand new, featuring retractable U/C and all-metal F.5/34, but an old school, partially canvas-wrapped monoplane version of Gladiator, all together with fixed U/C. In other words, something that can enter production ASAP.
Incidentally the first production order for the Hurricane was placed on the same day as the first Spitfire order. The Air Ministry contract numbers actually follow on from each other. See below:According to Leo McKinstry the first firm contract discussion between Sir Cyril Newall and Tom Sopwith too place on 20th February 1936 in Hawkers offices at Kingston. This was for 600 aircraft with production starting in June 1937. om the 27th of February at a subsequent meeting Frank Spriggs Hawkers managing director confirmed that Hurricane production could commence in April 1937. this resulted in the order for 600 hurricanes being provisionally agreed in march 1936 (awaiting treasury approval). The formal contract for 600 Hurricanes was finally sent to Hawkers on the 3rd of June 1936.
It doesn't quite work that way.
The example of the F4F is worth considering. The original biplane version (XF4F-1) was abandoned by Grumman when it became obvious that the F2A was unquestionably superior to the company's design. The next version, the XF4F-2, was also something of a pig with the Buffalo being a far handier design (keep in mind that this version of the Buffalo lacked the armor and self-sealing tanks of the much reviled later version). After the fleet reject the -2 Grumman effectively redesigned the aircraft, with a different tail, different wins and a new R-1830 engine (raising horsepower by about a third over the F3F). The French, later taken over by the FAA, version of the aircraft had a lower output R-1820 without the more sophisticated two stage supercharger of the P&W, but even this engine had close to 50% more HP than the engine in the Gladiator.
Getting from the original XF4F-1 to the F4F-3/G-36 (the first production versions) took almost five years of trial and error by Grumman. Not exactly a quick or easy process, Grumman mainly did it because the corporate leadership REALLY wanted to be the Fleet's fighter source (USN fighters were basically what the Company was built on, the FF was the first full design Grumman ever sold), recapturing the role the company had held since the introduction of the FF in 1931 (and that the Company then retained with varying levels of exclusivity until 1960, with a final blaze of glory between the mid-70s and mid-90s with the Tomcat) was something of an obsession.
Gloster lacked both the time and resources to go on that sot of quest.
On 100 oct fuel for both engines, the Mercury XV was good for 955 HP, vs. Cyclone G205A of 1200 HP. At 14000 ft, it is 840 vs. 1000 HP (also available at 87 oct fuel for Mercury). So we talk about 20-25% advantage G205A vs Mercury XV, not 50%, the Cyclone being draggier due to greater frontal area. Then we have a 260 sq ft wing on Wildcat, vs. 170-200 sq ft used on Fokker, Ki-27 or A5M; even the brand new F.5/34 used 230 sq ft wing. Bigger wing will make more drag, unles it is a new fancy wing profile that neither of the above mentioned had. No carrier equipment on Gloster (until we navalize it), no fat belly, unlike on the Wildcat. That was barely beating 310 mph mark with Cyclone in 1941-42.
Yet, Gloster managed to manufacture a prototype of all-metal, retractable U/C fighter (= very different from canvas-clad, fixed U/C Gladiator) for specification F.5/34 by late 1937.
That Mercury had a 51" diameter for it's 1,519 ci displacement, the Wright 1820 was 54", so not that much difference as you would get with a twin row Wasp at 48", but some slight reduction of drag
Frontal area will be 650.25 sq in *Pi for the Mercury, vs. 729 sq in *Pi for the Cyclone, or around 12% more. Twin Wasp is/was a decent engine, but it is not in production in the UK, and the late 1930's version were not that powerful, barely more powerful at altitude than Mercury of same time. Talk 850 HP at 15000 ft for the -17.
Was more along the lines it's better to have had the less draggy Mercury, than the Wright that was still having teething issues for its higher power.
Powerplant wasn't really the issue, with what Gloster was doing aft of the firewall being the main problem.
By 1934, everyone knew that the biplane fighter market was not going to last
Italians, British, Soviets, Americans, Germans and Czechs were still keen to make biplanes (whether as a back-up in case monoplanes failed, or as preferred designs), and many monoplanes were not of 'modern' appearance (French, Polish, Yugoslav).
AFAIK in the case of the Italians it was the pilots. They preferred the manoeuvrability of the biplane and the superior view of an open cockpit to more guns and a higher maximum speed. Is anyone able to confirm that?Who was driving those decisions to keep investing in bi-planes: Older, more conservative decision makers in the chain of command, input from pilots, bureaucrats?
Who was driving those decisions to keep investing in bi-planes: Older, more conservative decision makers in the chain of command, input from pilots, bureaucrats?
AFAIK in the case of the Italians it was the pilots. They preferred the manoeuvrability of the biplane and the superior view of an open cockpit to more guns and a higher maximum speed. Is anyone able to confirm that?
Er, no not really. It was felt almost universally, and correctly that there was one more generation of fighter biplanes. Monoplane fighter technology was still very new and a lot of the problems still needed to be worked out.By 1934, everyone knew that the biplane fighter market was not going to last
Er, no not really. It was felt almost universally, and correctly that there was one more generation of fighter biplanes. Monoplane fighter technology was still very new and a lot of the problems still needed to be worked out.
Er, no not really. It was felt almost universally, and correctly that there was one more generation of fighter biplanes. Monoplane fighter technology was still very new and a lot of the problems still needed to be worked out.
Maybe he produces the wings as an upgrade kit for export customers.How about Folland after leaving Hawkers and starting his own factory on the Hamble is able to secure foreign sales for his own version of the Monoplane Gladiator / F5-34?