WI: Gloster's "Unnamed Fighter"

[sonofpegasus]

The F5/34 has been used a a 'what if' more often than most aircraft! using Bristol buying Gloster aircraft rather than Hawker's so doing has some intersting possible butterfly's. But why would Bristol Buy Gloster's? If they did do this, would they just use the factory to expand their production capabilty? If this happens then Folland probably still leaves at the begging of 1937. Now if the Cousins at Bristol have bought the company partly because they want Folland and the Design Team, then that is a very different proposition. Idealy this is the case and sometime after the purchase Folland is instructed to press on with the F5/34 but using the Taurus rather than the Mercuary engine ( this was a planned developement OTL) the possiblereason for this is the increase in the production of the Blenhiem hogging all of the Mercuary engine production. Now if you realy want to get the F5/34 a boost get Bristols to offer the navy the aircraft to the FAA on a one to one bases instead of the Sea Gladiator using the engines reserved for thier production, 9Being tight fidted i cannot personaly see the Bristol Cousens doing this except in our dreams)
This gives the navy a chance to see what the aircraft can do whilst the more powerful version with the Taurus is developed. Then if you are really kind from 1939'ish Folland works on the Hercules powered succesor to the F5/34 (Gardian is the name I have used for the F5/34 when writing about it before). With Bristols taking over Glosters, unfortunetly unless the Taurus id realy sorted by then, the Becomes a Gloster project!

 

[yulzari]

The RAF was well served with the Hurricane and Spitfire so the only role for the Gloster is with the FAA who already knew they were short of an effective fleet fighter. The Sea Gladiator was ordered as a stop gap until the Fulmar came in and they also knew the Fulmar was marginal for the role (falling 6 months behind planned production too) and were seeking a Sea Spitfire pre war and Sea Hurricanes later.

Equally the limit on the Gloster was the Mercury. It was the only feasible choice at the time but was never going to give more than 950bhp whatever improvements one might throw at it.

So the sales pitch has to be an interim Mercury Gloster MkI with a significant redesign to allow a heavier engine in a MkII later on, maybe with 20mm cannons, constant speed propellor and a fully folding wing in 1941.

No foreign engine is going to be chosen pre war and the Mercurys weight can only be matched with a Perseus which is no great change. The Taurus was going to be in FAA service with the Albacore so the MkII would be a Taurus powered job (with the possibility of Merlins as used in Fulmars IOTL).

I am not sure of the fleet carriers deck lift dimensions but the Gloster is not far off Sea Gladiator wingspan if only the tips are folded so possibly a Sea Gloster need only minor changes to the original. Range may be an issue and drop tanks are not a period option so extra internal tankage may be necessary. We must also factor in the weight of self sealing tanks (unless they were on the original) installing armour, hook and minor naval kit.

So what would they get. A fleet fighter which is better than both the Gladiator and Fulmar in the MkI and up to Sea Hurricane in the MkII.

From the MoD point of view you lose Gloster built Hurricanes so the RAF has fewer Hurricanes and the Gloster design staff are doing the MkII at the same time as their jet designs.

I can't see the FAA getting a better deal at the time but who would take up the slack in Hurricane production?

 

[SinghKing]

The RAF was well served with the Hurricane and Spitfire so the only role for the Gloster is with the FAA who already knew they were short of an effective fleet fighter. The Sea Gladiator was ordered as a stop gap until the Fulmar came in and they also knew the Fulmar was marginal for the role (falling 6 months behind planned production too) and were seeking a Sea Spitfire pre war and Sea Hurricanes later.

Equally the limit on the Gloster was the Mercury. It was the only feasible choice at the time but was never going to give more than 950bhp whatever improvements one might throw at it.

So the sales pitch has to be an interim Mercury Gloster MkI with a significant redesign to allow a heavier engine in a MkII later on, maybe with 20mm cannons, constant speed propellor and a fully folding wing in 1941.

No foreign engine is going to be chosen pre war and the Mercurys weight can only be matched with a Perseus which is no great change. The Taurus was going to be in FAA service with the Albacore so the MkII would be a Taurus powered job (with the possibility of Merlins as used in Fulmars IOTL).

So, couldn't Bristol have used their Hercules engine instead (originally type-tested in Jan 1936, flight-tested in 1937), or simply put their Centaurus engine into production at an earlier stage (which was originally type-tested in July 1938, but its production was placed on hold until 1942 IOTL, owing to the need to prioritise the Bristol Hercules as the primary powerplant for the RAF's Bomber Squadrons)? Or simply utilise both options, with the earliest Gloster MkI powered by the Hercules I engine, and other Mks of the Gloster fighter aircraft (or its newly designed successor), later on in the war, powered by the Centaurus engine instead?

I am not sure of the fleet carriers deck lift dimensions but the Gloster is not far off Sea Gladiator wingspan if only the tips are folded so possibly a Sea Gloster need only minor changes to the original. Range may be an issue and drop tanks are not a period option so extra internal tankage may be necessary. We must also factor in the weight of self sealing tanks (unless they were on the original) installing armour, hook and minor naval kit.

So what would they get. A fleet fighter which is better than both the Gladiator and Fulmar in the MkI and up to Sea Hurricane in the MkII.

From the MoD point of view you lose Gloster built Hurricanes so the RAF has fewer Hurricanes and the Gloster design staff are doing the MkII at the same time as their jet designs.

I can't see the FAA getting a better deal at the time but who would take up the slack in Hurricane production?

If they stick with the Mercury engine, then yeah, pretty much. If they went with the Hercules engine though, the MkI version of the Gloster fighter aircraft would probably be a fleet fighter (or land-based fighter-interceptor) on a par with, or superior to, Grumman's F4F Wildcat (/Martlet) or Republic's P-43 Lancer; but unlike these two aircraft, one which would be ready to enter production and active service in either 1938 or 1939, prior to the outset of WW2. Later Mks of the Hercules-powered Gloster fighter could probably attain similar levels of performance to Grumman's F6F Hellcat. And if they went with the Centaurus engine (or switched to using this engine for later Mks of this fighter aircraft during the war itself), you'd have a British fighter plane with comparable performance to the FW-190 A-8 (probably entering service at around the same time), and the potential to have an aircraft (Gloster's appointed successor to their F.5/34 fighter, fully-redesigned around the Centaurus engine, and entering service in the later stages of WW2) on a par with OTL's Hawker Fury/Sea Fury and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (or the Grumman F8F Bearcat, if we want to continue the direct analogy between these two fighter aircraft lineages).

Regarding the designs for the jet fighter program though- if they were already in full war production of their own line of fighters ITTL, I'm not sure that the Air Ministry would bother approaching Gloster with the contract. IOTL, the Air Ministry approached Gloster specifically because their design department wasn't working on anything else at the time, allowing them to invest all of their efforts in the Ministry's jet fighter program. ITTL, they'd have their hands full- they wouldn't have the time or design capacity to devote their efforts to the jet fighter program. So, who would the Air Ministry turn to instead? What about Martin-Baker Aircraft? After all, the Air Ministry's E.28/39 specification for their jet fighter went out at around the same time as their F.18/39 specification IOTL (which probably won't be given as high priority ITTL), and Martin-Baker's fighter design department wasn't working on anything else at the time.

 

[Driftless]

A bass-akwards question.....

OTL, the British eventually allowed the Merlin to be license built by Packard in the US, which helped fill the engine pipeline. Could a similar arrangement been made to work for one of the Bristol Radials? I know Pratt & Whitney and Wright already were making successful US radial designs, but they had demand of their own too.

 

[yulzari]

The Hercules is twice the weight of the Mercury at @880kg to 450kg. The Taurus at @600kg is possible in the same airframe with careful attention to the centre of gravity but the Hercules needs another airframe entirely.

A Hercules fleet fighter could be done and might be a good thing, but it would be another aeroplane entirely. A bit like bolting a Gannet engine onto a Martlet (Hellcat to Wildcat). Even the Griffon onto a Spitfire needed (almost literally) a shed load of inert ballast in the tail and that was closer to exchanging a Mercury for a Taurus.

 

[merlin]

Just did a bit of research on previous posts and found this one:

12-27-2006, 09:21 PM #7
merlin

• View Profile
• View Forum Posts
• Private Message
• View Blog Entries
• http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=6754

Senior Member

Join Date Dec 2006 Location Cardiff Posts 431 Post Thanks / Like Thanks (Given) 0 es (Received)

Yes a small order for this Gloster single seater would have been an insurance policy against any problems with the Merlin.
The top speed of this aircraft wasn't that much less than the Hurricane prototype, and this would be improved with a better engine later mercury or Taurnas.
Name - I think 'Guardian' - need to start with a 'G'.
And also the Gloster twin should also have been ordered, would've been a better plane to have than the Blenheim fighter! Name for that - howabout the 'Gemini'?​

 

[PMN1]

A bass-akwards question.....

OTL, the British eventually allowed the Merlin to be license built by Packard in the US, which helped fill the engine pipeline. Could a similar arrangement been made to work for one of the Bristol Radials? I know Pratt & Whitney and Wright already were making successful US radial designs, but they had demand of their own too.

It would have to be Mercury or Pegasus as their were issues with letting the US engine manufacturers in on the sleeve valves that Bristol were developing....that the US companies were developing double row radials without needing sleeve valves doesn't seem to have figured in these concerns.

 

[Some Bloke]

There's always the R-1830 Twin Wasp option as an upgrade.

The Australians made extensive use of this engine, which is lighter than the Taurus and narrower than the original Bristol Mercury. The British had been considering this as an alternative to the Taurus and eventually started using them on the Sunderland patrol aircraft.

 

[yulzari]

The Twin Wasp was a fine engine but a foreign made engine was not going to be an option chosen pre war. Even in wartime reliance on a foreign made engine was problematical as is shown by the plan to use Twin Wasps on Beauforts but the engines ended up sunk in the Atlantic.

The UK options at the time are Merecury 450kg, Perseus 465kg, Dagger 616kg, Taurus 600kg, the wider Pegasus at 510kg, Tiger 585kg, Peregrine 520kg or Merlin at @650kg (depending on the version.

Macchi went from the 565kg A74 in the MC200 to the RC 41 at 600kg in the MC202 and then RC 58 at 750kg in the MC205 so that might be a model for Gloster ongoing development e.g. Mercury, Merlin, Griffon but there was far more to it than swapping engines but the steps from MC200 to 202 to 205 (and Regiane 2000, 2001, 2005 as well as Fiat G50 to G55) could give one some hope.

The weights I have quoted are dry weights and 'rivet counters' may quibble at the specific figures but the general comparisons still stand.

 

[Some Bloke]

Well if we go down the Persus route it might lead to an earlier development and introduction of the Perseus 100.

 

[TFSmith121]

Given the maritime use envisaged, how about the

Gloster Gull or Bristol Barracuda?

Even armed and armored, seems like a better bet for the FAA than the Sea Gladiator or Fulmar...

Definitely looks like a similar solution as the A6M - much less the H-1.

Best,

 

[Just Leo]

Does alliteration mean so much? The Previous naval fighter, the Gloster Gnatsnapper doesn't really fit, nor the later Gmeteor and Gjavelin.

The Hercules engine, at 850 to 900 kg seems quite heavy, with gobs more weight, but the right diameter. There would have to be changes, indeed. Perhaps Joe Smith could help. A 2 stage Griffon weighs 898 kg, and fit an aircraft which was designed for 630 kg. All engine options require modifications, some more than others. Wouldn't it be a drag to fit a Peregrine engine?

 

[sonofpegasus]

IIRC Folland planned for a version of his F5/34 to have a Taurus engine. If you butterfly the Taurus to work as advertised in 1938 then you have the potential for a potent radial engined fighter in service in 1939. This could then see developement of Follands Hercules engined fighter design that never got beyond the sketch stage in 1941/42.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

Does alliteration mean so much? The Previous naval fighter, the Gloster Gnatsnapper doesn't really fit, nor the later Gmeteor and Gjavelin.

The Hercules engine, at 850 to 900 kg seems quite heavy, with gobs more weight, but the right diameter. There would have to be changes, indeed. Perhaps Joe Smith could help. A 2 stage Griffon weighs 898 kg, and fit an aircraft which was designed for 630 kg. All engine options require modifications, some more than others. Wouldn't it be a drag to fit a Peregrine engine?

A simple solution is to lengthen the tail to restore balance after installing a heavier engine, 12 inches or so would probably do the trick. It worked with the FW-190.

Also with a air cooled engine, meaning no vulnerable cooling system, all around visibility and powerful armament 8x.303 (4x20mm by end of war?) it could possibly be a better ground attack aircraft than the Hurricane. In that capacity it could end up serving in that role long after it's career as a fighter ends, with the FAA over Korea in the 50s.

 

[Some Bloke]

IIRC Folland planned for a version of his F5/34 to have a Taurus engine. If you butterfly the Taurus to work as advertised in 1938 then you have the potential for a potent radial engined fighter in service in 1939. This could then see developement of Follands Hercules engined fighter design that never got beyond the sketch stage in 1941/42.

Are we talking about the Folland F.108 here? That was a test bed, not a fighter, although butterflies
could lead to it being adapted to a fighter role and replacing the Gallant. The question is, when? Because the Mercury's going to
be very long in the tooth for a fighter engine by the end of 1940.

If Poland buys the Gallant it would undoubtedly lengthen the phony war because the Luftwaffe needs longer to recoup
from the heavier losses in Poland. Question is, would this actually lengthen the campaign in Poland.
It will almost certainly butterfly away the Jastrzab fighter as well.

IOTL there was a follow on to this design, one of the proposed engines for which was a locally designed engine,
the Waren, which would have been a 1200 hp 9 cylinder engine. Perhaps the Poles focus on developing the engine
for their locally built production of the Gallant. However, the German invasion happens and all they have are the plans
and perhaps a working prototype. These are smuggled to England, leading to an earlier development of the Perseus 100.

 

[sonofpegasus]

I am away from my research libary at the moment but no it is not the Follond 'Frightful' as the flying testbed was nicknamed but a later design, when I can I look data up in Butlers book on British Prototypes and designs.

 

[Just Leo]

The later Folland design, neglected and buried by the Air Ministry and resurrected by Tony Butler, the FO.117, shows that Sir Henry still had dreams. The engine was to be Centaurus, with contra-props. The drawing was resurrected from the last No-Name thread.

 

[SinghKing]

The later Folland design, neglected and buried by the Air Ministry and resurrected by Tony Butler, the FO.117, shows that Sir Henry still had dreams. The engine was to be Centaurus, with contra-props. The drawing was resurrected from the last No-Name thread.

Well, that does look very interesting. Now that's the fully re-designed Centaurus-powered successor to Gloster's F.5/34 fighter that I was talking about, the analogue to OTL's Hawker Fury/Sea Fury (but with a chance of entering service at around the same time as the P-47).

 

[Some Bloke]

Question is what do we call the Folland fighter?

Fearless?
Fortune?

 

[SinghKing]

Question is what do we call the Folland fighter?

Fearless?
Fortune?

But why would Henry P. Folland break with Gloster and go elsewhere ITTL? IOTL, he did in 1937, after he failed to convince the Hawker Aircraft Company to pursue further development of the Gloster fighter, because he felt that Hawker's fighter aircraft designers were being favoured over him, and would be for the forseeable future. If he remains Gloster's chief designer ITTL, and he has Gloster's parent company supporting and developing his Gloster F.5/34 fighter aircraft design project throughout, why wouldn't Folland's later design be adopted, approved and produced by Gloster in the mid-war period (i.r.o 1942), as the appointed successor to overcome the limitations of their earlier F.5/34 fighter aircraft?

As for names: If it was designed and produced by the Folland Aircraft Company, then what about the Folland Fury/ Sea Fury? Given that it would've been filling roughly the same role in the RAF, and entering service far earlier than OTL's Sea Fury (which only received its name in 1944 IOTL), it's only logical that the Air Ministry's naming department would come up with something similar. And as a Gloster fighter aircraft, what about the Gloster Galahad or the Gloster Glory?