WI: Gloster Gladiator Mk.II, the monoplane fighter

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?
 
I cobbled this together from Putnams Gloster aircraft book, The British Aircraft Specifications File and the Air Britain RAF Serials books.

Some of the contract numbers may not be correct. I don't know the exact order date for the Henley order, but it would have been in 1936. I don't know the date of the first Hurricane order, but guessing by the contract number it would have been in 1938. Similarly I don't know the dates of the last 2 Gladiator orders, but guessing by the contract numbers they would have been in 1937 and 1938 respectively.

Gladiator Production.png
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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:
527112/36 - 600 Hawker Hurricanes to be built by Hawker and to be delivered by 31st March 1939 to equip 14 squadrons
527113/36 - 310 Supermarine Spitfires to be built by Supermarine and to be delivered by 31st March 1939 to equip 7 squadrons
527115/36 - 389 Hawker Hotspurs to be built by Avro and delivered by 31st March 1939 to equip 9 squadrons
These orders were placed as part of Expansion Scheme F approved by the Cabinet on 25th February 1936, which would provide the Metropolitan RAF with 420 fighters in 30 squadrons of 14 by 31st March 1939. That is there were to be:
294 fighters in 21 squadrons of 14 for the Air Defence of Great Britain (14 Hurricane and 7 Spitfire squadrons)
126 fighters in 9 squadrons of 14 for the Air Component of the British Expeditionary Force (9 Hotspur squadrons)​

The reason why 1,299 fighters were ordered to maintain a front-line of 420 aircraft was that a large number of reserve aircraft were provided. This was so that the squadrons could be maintained at full strength while the aircraft industry was put on a war footing. The RAF Volunteer Reserve was also created under Scheme F so that there was a pool of trained aircrew to keep the squadrons up to strength while the RAF's training organisation was put on a war footing.

The Home Defence Committee's report on the Re-orientation of the Air Defence System of Great Britain dated 11th April 1935 recommended a force 300 fighters, which is why there were 294 fighters in 21 squadrons in Scheme F.

I don't know how the fighter requirements for the ACBEF were worked out. However, 3 of the 28 fighter squadrons in Scheme A were for the ACBEF; from Scheme C to Scheme L it was 9-10 squadrons with 12 to 16 aircraft each; but Scheme M reduced it to 4 squadrons of 16 aircraft.

None of the contracts were completed on schedule. The 310th Spitfire wasn't delivered until 7th September 1939 and the 600th Hurricane was delivered on 6th October 1939. The Hotspur contract was cancelled completely and replaced by its competitor to Spec. F.9/35 the Boulton Paul Defiant. The first contract for 87 Defiants was placed on 28th April 1937. The first production Defiant flew on 30th July 1939 and the 87 aircraft were delivered between August 1939 and May 1940.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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

The last Curtiss Biplane fighter, the Hawk IV of 1936 for export sales(that it failed to acquire), could do 248mph on a Wright R-1820 with 262 sq.ft. of wing, that I believe were wooden sparred, but aluminum clad.
curtiss_hawk4.jpg


A year before this, Curtiss had the Hawk 75 had it's first flight
Curtiss_Hawk_75_NX17Y_5.jpg


wing area 226.26 ft using the NACA 2215 tapering to 2209, the 2215 popularized by the DC-2, so new, but not that remarkable an airfoil. UK did seem overly fond of thicker airfoils like the Clark YH, though.

Used the Wright XR-1670-5 14 cylinder Twin Whirlwind rated at 900 hp, though unreliable, next prototype had the R-1820 of similar power
Maximum Speed: 281 mph
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

Agreed pretty much.

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).
 

Driftless

Donor
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).

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?
 
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?

Probably all of the listed above, plus the thing that it was much cheaper to make yet another design with 10 mph gain, using the known technology and production methods, than to invest into something that might jeopardize the future of company in the, economically, rough years of early 1930s. Many of the compaines being small, especially by American standard of the day, and not well adopted to possibly lucrative civil market to keep them afloat in case of a flop.
Soviets, for example, despite the breakthroughs with I-16 and SB-2, were of opinion that biplanes will be still very useful due to their excellent maneuverability.
 
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?

What drove the monoplanes was the speed and range.

Like the Military version of the 1930 Lockheed Altair
640px-Lockheed_C-23.jpg


was slightly faster and twice the range as a two seater than the current front line fighter, the P-6E Hawk, with less installed power.

less climb and maneuverability, though.

However, the Depression was ongoing, and the holding company that Lockheed was then part of, went into receivership, that delayed plans for an updated version to replace the P-26, since the P-30, as it was then known and built by Consolidated was still 40 mph faster, longer ranged with twice the climb rate, all while having a gunner in the back.

USAAC was looking to the next generation in the P-36 and P-36, the Consolidated example was a conversion, with a turbocharged Curtiss Conqueror V-12 that did well in airshows, having the speed record for a time, but crashed in testing, and the Army chose the P-35
 
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.

It was certainly felt almost universaly, but I will not agree that was a correct asumption by powers that were. PZL P.7 was a far better fighter than Gloster Gauntlet, on same engine power. Polish fighter also flew 2 years earlier. It will took Gladiator, with extra 200 HP, to barely beat the P.7c.
The I-153 and I-15 were inferior to the I-16.
Monoplane technology dated before ww1.
 
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.

In 1932 when the US Army had its competition for the next Fighter to replace the Biplane P-6 and P-12 the new Martin XB-10 bomber cast a dark shadow, being faster than all US biplane Fighters, following on the small order for the Boeing B-9 Monoplane bomber that was almost as fast as the P-12

There would be no more biplane fighters in the Army. The XP-26 was chosen as it seemed a safer bet than the other entrants, as most of those companies were under severe financial stress from business conditions as much as quickly evolving technology.

It seemed a safer bet, as had traditional fixed gear and wire braced wings, already passe with other companies already having retractable gear, cantilever wings with lift devices(slats&flaps) and enclosed cockpits.

USAAC was moving forward of other countries, but not as far as they could have
 
The case of Fokker D.VIII could've guided people in direction of monoplane. On mere 110 PS, it was fast (200+ km/h) and climbed well. Outperforming the Sopwith Camel with 20 HP more power, or the famed and loved Fokker D.VII with 50 PS more (almost 50% more!). Ditto vs. Spad VII.
The USN could've became an early adopter of post-ww1 monoplane fighters, had the Handley Page Type S been designed with decent undercarriage.
 
Another well ahead of its time was the Junkers D1 all metal cantilever monoplane fighter of 1918. If the Germans had had access to the same level of aero engine technology as the Entente then it would have been a marvel. As it was only a handful were built for the German navy. Imagine it with a 400hp motor like the liberty or lion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_D.I

Junkers_J_7_-_Ray_Wagner_Collection_Image_%2820818567523%29.jpg

1024px-Junkers_D.I_German_First_World_War_all-metal_fighter.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top