WI: Gloster Gladiator Mk.II, the monoplane fighter

Driftless

Donor
Morane-Saulnier had a number of monoplanes in the WW1 era including the "N" fighter. They might have had greater success if: they had ailerons instead of wing warping (more difficult to fly well) , and synchronized machine guns(deflector guides on the props and no option for mounting on the top wing).
 
Last edited:
The late Bill Gunston maintained that the (monoplane) Bristol fighter was the best British fighter of WW1 and the that it was not exploited as it should have been due to a foolishly doctrinaire attitude of the RFC regarding biplanes.
 
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?
———————————————————————————-

Some older pilots, bureaucrats, etc. were never going to lose their love for biplanes.
The other problem was that not all new monoplanes could land slow enough to land safely on existing, rougher, shorter, grass airstrips.
Biplanes’ lighter wing-loadings have them the advantage of slower landing speeds, making them easier for junior pilots to fly from short, rough strips.
Lighter wing-loadings also made biplanes much easier to land on ships.
 
Last edited:
Hee!
Hee!
Why waste time on a monoplane version of the Gloster Gladiator when the basic biplane had the potential to gain another 30 to 50 miles per hour with aerodynamic improvements?

The existing engine is perfectly acceptable. The only room for improvement is a better supercharger for high altitude work.

Start by installing a 3-bladed, constant-speed propeller to improve top end.

Replacing that short-chord Townsend Ring cowling with a long-chord NACA cowling would add another 20 mph.

Improving internal airflow - within the cowling - would add another 10 mph.

Halving the number of exposed wires would further improve top speeds.

Some bright, young engineer could figure out a way to retract wheels into the fuselage, adding another 30 mph.

Later versions could sport a 20 mm cannon to deal with those pesky, armoured German bombers.

In conclusion, no need for a risky monoplane when the venerable biplane still has room for improvement.
Hee!
Hee!
 
The Hurricane was a logical extension of Camm's line of Hawker ighter aircraft and when first build had both canvas covered fuselage and wings, so was therefore was of a 'traditional' aircraft construction technique unlike the 'bleeding edge' Spitfire that had stressed mettle fuselage and wings.

————————————————————————————

Correct!
Hurricane got into production so quickly because it used existing tooling a skills to build a slightly-improved airframe. Factory workers only needed a few new jugs and minor retraining to build the next generation.

From WW1 to the end of WW2, Sopwith/Hawker only made a series of minor, incremental improvements.
Even the late-WW2 Hawker Tempest retained a metal, tubular center-fuselage, load-bearing structure that was conceptually the same as the wire-brace wooden sticks used during WW1 Soowith Baby, Pup, Camel, Snipe, Triplane, Dolphin, etc.

The post-WW2 Hawker Sea Fury was the first to use a sheet-aluminum, stressed-skin, center fuselage!

OTOH Supermarine’s radically new, stressed-skin, all aluminum Spitfire required radically new tooling and skills. Just learning how to form compound-curved leading edges delayed production by many months!
 
Hee!
Hee!
Why waste time on a monoplane version of the Gloster Gladiator when the basic biplane had the potential to gain another 30 to 50 miles per hour with aerodynamic improvements?

....

Hee!
Hee!

Joke, right?

————————————————————————————

Correct!
Hurricane got into production so quickly because it used existing tooling a skills to build a slightly-improved airframe. Factory workers only needed a few new jugs and minor retraining to build the next generation.

From WW1 to the end of WW2, Sopwith/Hawker only made a series of minor, incremental improvements.
Even the late-WW2 Hawker Tempest retained a metal, tubular center-fuselage, load-bearing structure that was conceptually the same as the wire-brace wooden sticks used during WW1 Soowith Baby, Pup, Camel, Snipe, Triplane, Dolphin, etc.

The post-WW2 Hawker Sea Fury was the first to use a sheet-aluminum, stressed-skin, center fuselage!

OTOH Supermarine’s radically new, stressed-skin, all aluminum Spitfire required radically new tooling and skills. Just learning how to form compound-curved leading edges delayed production by many months!

IIRC already the Typhoon used 'modern' materials and techniques.
Supermarine used mostly built-up ribs on Spitfire (link), that is what added many man-hours to production. Same was done eg. with Italian fighters, most notably with MC.200/202/205.
On the other hand, Typhoon/Tempest, P-36/40, Bf 109, Zero, P-39, P-47 used single-piece ribs.
 
Yes.
Built-up Hurricane and Spitfire ribs were frightfully labour-intensive compared with the pressed aluminum ribs of later Mustangs.
 
Let’s return to the OP by specifying the span and area of a monoplane wing bolted onto (an almost stock) Gladiator fuselage.
We can streamline the cowling, retract undercarriage, etc. on later variants.
 
Hee!
Hee!
Why waste time on a monoplane version of the Gloster Gladiator when the basic biplane had the potential to gain another 30 to 50 miles per hour with aerodynamic improvements?
The Italians actually did this with the Fiat CR 42. They managed to shoehorn in a DB601 and got 323mph out of it.

mIrIlZ3.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Italians actually did this with the Fiat CR 42. They managed to shoehorn in a DB601 and got 323mph out of it.
Although I think Gloster should have built more Hurricanes instead of the 200 Henleys and last 378 Gladiators built to Air Ministry contracts I'm intrigued by the idea of 578 Merlin powered Gladiators as analogues to the DB601 powered Fiat CR42.

It a Merlin powered Sea Gladiator could do 323mph it would be faster than the Fulmar and IIRC also faster than the Firefly Mk I and the Sea Hurricane. However, making the Gladiator go that fast seems too good to be true.
 
I have to wonder if the wings could have held up under the stresses of combat at anything close to that speed. Sure speed is good but having the wings collapse in a dogfight would be a very bad day. The Italians abandoned the idea after going to the effort of the conversion. There has to have been a reason.
 
I have to wonder if the wings could have held up under the stresses of combat at anything close to that speed. Sure speed is good but having the wings collapse in a dogfight would be a very bad day. The Italians abandoned the idea after going to the effort of the conversion. There has to have been a reason.

Wings can be as strong as you design them to be.
Wiley Post had Lockheed make a custom Vega for him in 1929

He wanted a strong wing for the loads his record breaking attempts would need
vega%20wing.jpg


4750 pounds of sandbags
 
Yes they can, however if you take a structure designed to operate within a set of parameters and then significantly increase one of those parameters without taking that increase into account a catastrophic failure is a real possibility. It was by no means uncommon for an aircraft to rip its wings of in dives and tight turns because the aircraft's structure hadn't kept pace with an increase in available power.
 
Let’s return to the OP by specifying the span and area of a monoplane wing bolted onto (an almost stock) Gladiator fuselage.
We can streamline the cowling, retract undercarriage, etc. on later variants.

Agreed on the suggestions laid in last sentence. I'd also suggest a better prop, like the one used on Blenheims or Bothas, while perhaps switching to Perseus X by 1939, for extra 10% HP above 15000 ft (= 880 HP at 15100 ft, for example).

As for the area of the wing - the Fiat G.50 was at around 200 sq ft (vs. ~240 sq ft on the CR.42), so was the MC.200, Ki-27, the A5M was at ~190 sq ft. Span - 34 to 36 ft. So I'd go with those values.

The Italians actually did this with the Fiat CR 42. They managed to shoehorn in a DB601 and got 323mph out of it.

The DD 601A was making perhaps 40% more power at 4.5 km than the indifferent Fiat A.74, and have had also better fuel distribution system, as well as better layout of exhaust stacks.
Merlinized Gladiator might be harder to buy than the version with Mercury for many overseas costumers (Norway, Greece, Belgium, perhaps Poland). But then, a monoplane Gladiator + Merlin ...
 
I'd suggest a wing similar to the Fokker D.XXI. of 174 sqft. In many respects the Fokker is very close to what a monoplane Gladiator would be. Close in weight and size, same basic construction, same engine and level of armament.
 
I'd suggest a wing similar to the Fokker D.XXI. of 174 sqft. In many respects the Fokker is very close to what a monoplane Gladiator would be. Close in weight and size, same basic construction, same engine and level of armament.

Me likes.
Now I'm thinkering about the improved Gladiator marks:
- Mk.III - has Perseus engine, 6 Browinings, 290 mph, introduced in 1939
- Mk.IV - has retractable U/C, 310 mph, introduced in 1940
- Mk. V - has Merlin 45, 2 cannons + 2 Brownings, drop tank facility, 380 mph, 1941
- Mk. X - Canadian production Mk.IV with Twin Wasp, 350 mph (Aussie version named Mk.XII), 1941
 
I don't see your Mk.V By then it's thoroughly obsolete. The Mk. X I can see, at least for Australia, It makes a decent home defence fighter and trainer for them and won't tax their limited aircraft industry to build. I'd expect it to be built at least a year earlier though.
 
OTL Gladiator Mark I had a wingspan of 32.25 feet, wing area of 323 square feet and a gross weight of 4,600 pounds. 925 hp yielded a top speed of 253 mph.
Those numbers yield a span loading of 142 pounds per foot (biplane span almost 64.5 so sl=71), wing loading of 14.2 pounds per square foot and power-loading of 5 pounds per horsepower for a top speed of 253 mph and 3,200 feet per minute climb.
That puts a ATL monoplane Gladiator Mark II in the same size and weight range as an OTL Curtiss-Wright 21 export fighter and close to the OTL Fokker D.XXI Finnish version.

CW-21 with retractable undercarriage climbed at 4,500 feet per minute and topped out at 314 mph while the fixed gear Fokker only reached 286 mph.
It would be educational to compare top speeds of CW-20 series airplanes with fixed and retractable landing gear.
 
Last edited:
Me likes.
Now I'm thinkering about the improved Gladiator marks:
- Mk.III - has Perseus engine, 6 Browinings, 290 mph, introduced in 1939
- Mk.IV - has retractable U/C, 310 mph, introduced in 1940
- Mk. V - has Merlin 45, 2 cannons + 2 Brownings, drop tank facility, 380 mph, 1941
- Mk. X - Canadian production Mk.IV with Twin Wasp, 350 mph (Aussie version named Mk.XII), 1941
I don't see the Canadian built Mk.X in 1941 either. This is because IOTL 76 Hurricanes were built in Canada in 1940 and another 511 in 1941.

Also I'm not keen on the Australian built Mk XII. The first Boomerang was completed in August 1942. I think that ITTL the Australians would have been better off bringing it forward a year or two. The first Wirraway that the Boomerang was based on was completed in July 1939.
 
I don't see your Mk.V By then it's thoroughly obsolete. The Mk. X I can see, at least for Australia, It makes a decent home defence fighter and trainer for them and won't tax their limited aircraft industry to build. I'd expect it to be built at least a year earlier though.

I like the Mk.V best :)

I don't see the Canadian built Mk.X in 1941 either. This is because IOTL 76 Hurricanes were built in Canada in 1940 and another 511 in 1941.

Also I'm not keen on the Australian built Mk XII. The first Boomerang was completed in August 1942. I think that ITTL the Australians would have been better off bringing it forward a year or two. The first Wirraway that the Boomerang was based on was completed in July 1939.

Too bad we disagree. I like them both.
 
Top