Gloster F5/34

[Archibald]

Can't help thinking : why Gloster didn't proposed the FAA a naval variant of its F5/34 instead of Sea Gladiator circa 1938 ?
The Sea Gladiator entered service late 1938 when the F5/34 flew in december 1937. Seems compatible...
Consequences of such proposal could have been very interesting.

Let's have a list of FAA fighters of the 1938-1941 era

- Sea Gladiator
- Skua
- Roc
- Fulmar

- Sea Hurricane
- Grumman Martlet

I can't help thinking that, even in a naval variant, the F5/34 offred performances similar to a Sea Hurricane or a Martlet right from 1939.

I understand that the FAA was obsessed with two-seat long range fighters such as Skua, Fulmar and Firefly, but they quickly showed that they couldn't stand a chance against Luftwaffe fighers, or even Italian early monoplanes such as the Fiat G.50

Mind you, such fighter could have interested the Aeronavale (which bought Wildcats in 1939).

[r16]

ı was doing a series in Japanese markings as this is also known as the  British Zero.

[r16]

which then becomes

[Archibald]

Nice!    

[MAD]

Can't help thinking : why Gloster didn't proposed the FAA a naval variant of its F5/34 instead of Sea Gladiator circa 1938 ?
The Sea Gladiator entered service late 1938 when the F5/34 flew in december 1937. Seems compatible...
Consequences of such proposal could have been very interesting.

Let's have a list of FAA fighters of the 1938-1941 era

- Sea Gladiator
- Skua
- Roc
- Fulmar

- Sea Hurricane
- Grumman Martlet

I can't help thinking that, even in a naval variant, the F5/34 offred performances similar to a Sea Hurricane or a Martlet right from 1939.

I understand that the FAA was obsessed with two-seat long range fighters such as Skua, Fulmar and Firefly, but they quickly showed that they couldn't stand a chance against Luftwaffe fighers, or even Italian early monoplanes such as the Fiat G.50

Mind you, such fighter could have interested the Aeronavale (which bought Wildcats in 1939).

For the sake of the Royal Navy FAA pilots, it may have just as well that that Gloster design never entered service. For I would hate to think of how many misidentified downing it may have cost them, for Mitsubishi Zero's. Especially at the start of the Pacific campaign, when allied pilots thought every thing that had wings was a Japanese Zero.
Look at the blue-on-blues, which have cost so many British soldiers in the Iraqi Wars, when working with the Yanks. Just imagine how the Yank pilots in the Pacific would have plastered this poor aircraft!



M.A.D

[BillSlim]

And STOP kicking the Skua.  It was intended as a dive bomber with secondary fighter capability.  Read up on the type and you'll find that it perfomed better than you would think.

Hear, hear, Wooksta. The Skua was a far better aircraft than it is often given credit. It was innovative in many ways and had it been fitted with a more powerful engine might have seen longer service.

IIRC the Fulmar was the highest scoring FAA fighter in the early part of the war. It rendered pretty valuable service both in the fighter and recce role, though it was a might underpowered for its size.

The FAA had good reasons to believe that two manned aircraft were necessary. Nav aids at the time were primitive in the extreme and there was no reliable way for a single seat aircraft to home onto a carrier, hence the belief in the need for an observer.
Once nav aids and homing beacons improved then single seat carrier aircraft were possible. Sadly the FAA found itself slightly behind the curve for a number of reasons, including the fact that the RAF controlled the aircraft and procurement for most of the inter-war years and underfunding.

If the Air Branch had remained independent in 1918, or regained its independence earlier than it did, then naval aircraft procurement may have been very different.

[Archibald]

And STOP kicking the Skua.  It was intended as a dive bomber with secondary fighter capability.  Read up on the type and you'll find that it perfomed better than you would think.

Hear, hear, Wooksta. The Skua was a far better aircraft than it is often given credit. It was innovative in many ways and had it been fitted with a more powerful engine might have seen longer service.

IIRC the Fulmar was the highest scoring FAA fighter in the early part of the war. It rendered pretty valuable service both in the fighter and recce role, though it was a might underpowered for its size.

The FAA had good reasons to believe that two manned aircraft were necessary. Nav aids at the time were primitive in the extreme and there was no reliable way for a single seat aircraft to home onto a carrier, hence the belief in the need for an observer.
Once nav aids and homing beacons improved then single seat carrier aircraft were possible. Sadly the FAA found itself slightly behind the curve for a number of reasons, including the fact that the RAF controlled the aircraft and procurement for most of the inter-war years and underfunding.

If the Air Branch had remained independent in 1918, or regained its independence earlier than it did, then naval aircraft procurement may have been very different.

I didn't said the Skua was a bad aircraft, just it was not very good as fighter! Otherwise it was probably a good dive bomber, see the Konisberg attack...

If two-seat fighters were unavoidable, why did the FAA had Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricane, Martlets, and Seafire in the end ??!!!

[B777LR]

Sacre bleu! This aircraft is magnificent!

[B777LR]

[B777LR]

[B777LR]

[B777LR]

It has some kind of Typhoon look to it, perhaps i should make the next one with full bubble canopy and inline engine?

[Archibald]

That's simply marvellous!          I'm stunned!  

[BadersBusCompany]

Tres Bien mon amis, those profiles are brilliant, and what a nice change to see some two view drawings.    

[BillSlim]

And STOP kicking the Skua.  It was intended as a dive bomber with secondary fighter capability.  Read up on the type and you'll find that it perfomed better than you would think.

Hear, hear, Wooksta. The Skua was a far better aircraft than it is often given credit. It was innovative in many ways and had it been fitted with a more powerful engine might have seen longer service.

IIRC the Fulmar was the highest scoring FAA fighter in the early part of the war. It rendered pretty valuable service both in the fighter and recce role, though it was a might underpowered for its size.

The FAA had good reasons to believe that two manned aircraft were necessary. Nav aids at the time were primitive in the extreme and there was no reliable way for a single seat aircraft to home onto a carrier, hence the belief in the need for an observer.
Once nav aids and homing beacons improved then single seat carrier aircraft were possible. Sadly the FAA found itself slightly behind the curve for a number of reasons, including the fact that the RAF controlled the aircraft and procurement for most of the inter-war years and underfunding.

If the Air Branch had remained independent in 1918, or regained its independence earlier than it did, then naval aircraft procurement may have been very different.

I didn't said the Skua was a bad aircraft, just it was not very good as fighter! Otherwise it was probably a good dive bomber, see the Konisberg attack...

If two-seat fighters were unavoidable, why did the FAA had Sea Gladiators, Sea Hurricane, Martlets, and Seafire in the end ??!!!

Improvements to technology and a realisation that single-seat fighters were needed.