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?
I'm not sure your explanation is valid. Aircraft designers had personalities and Board chairmen had personalities. Sometimes, they are oil and water. Teddy Petter was another of those design engineers with personalities and an aversion to things Sopwithian.
Of course. But my original POD for this scenario (this specific scenario- but I'm planning this as a story arc, to form part of a bigger TL with an earlier POD) was that Bristol rather than Hawker buys Gloster out and becomes their parent company (with Gloster effectively becoming Bristol's fighter aircraft department). Designers and chairmen both have personalities, and often it's impossible to get a working relationship going due to insurmountable personal differences between them. But Folland would be dealing with entirely different board chairmen ITTL, working together with different personalities, and getting more support and creative freedom to run his own fighter aircraft design department (along with the funding, rather than having to incur the considerable expenses of purchasing British Marine Aircraft Limited, write off its significant debts and personally finance his continued design efforts himself). Couldn't that have been workable?