brewerjerry

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
20 January 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
7
Hi All,
Tried the search function and didn't find anything,
Likewise tried searches on the net, zilch.. nada...

I am after a drawing of the gloster F9/37 with the peregrine engines fitted, anyone seen any, or know of a link ?

cheers
Jerry
 
Would that be of interest to you? ;)
 

Attachments

  • F.9-37_.jpg
    F.9-37_.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 680
  • gloster.f.9-37.l8002.jpg
    gloster.f.9-37.l8002.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 694
  • gloste10.jpg
    gloste10.jpg
    165.2 KB · Views: 741
Found the same drawing on my HD (unfortunately the source, I've noted is wrong.
Sloppy again :-[ ! ) and another one showing the weapons installation. All guns were
tilted upwards. On another 3-view, showing the taurus powered version, it is stated,
that the F9/37 was originally developed as a turret fighter. the prototype is said to have
carried ballast weights, which would have been replaced by the battery of three 20mm
hispano guns.
Stargazer, can you mention the source, so that I can rectify my files ?
 

Attachments

  • GlosterP_F9-37_03.gif
    GlosterP_F9-37_03.gif
    117.7 KB · Views: 701
'Interceptor' by Goulding and Moyes??
 
Nope, unfortunately. This was part of a batch of pics I got from someone else.
 
From
-Gloster Aircraft Since 1917,by James Derek N....Putnam
-Profile Volume 1 Nº12
-Unknown Source
 

Attachments

  • Escanear0004.jpg
    Escanear0004.jpg
    291.7 KB · Views: 264
  • Escanear0003.jpg
    Escanear0003.jpg
    188.1 KB · Views: 243
  • Escanear0001.jpg
    Escanear0001.jpg
    173.7 KB · Views: 622
With 5 20mm cannon and reasonable performance this looks like it could have been a very impressive bomber destroyer in the summer of 1940.................
 
Hi!

Two pictures from the UK-magazine "21st century profile"
There was an article, covering the story of F.9/37 and this are only two line drawings...

Cheers!

P.S.There were another pages in this article :cool:
 

Attachments

  • Vol.1_No.12_Page_07_Image_0001.jpg
    Vol.1_No.12_Page_07_Image_0001.jpg
    672.2 KB · Views: 373
  • Vol.1_No.12_Page_28_Image_0001.jpg
    Vol.1_No.12_Page_28_Image_0001.jpg
    809.1 KB · Views: 430
Great, thanks! Does anyone know whether the name "Reaper" that has been quoted for this aircraft was official at Gloster or a pilot's invention?
 
F.9/37 was not named Reaper, that was appended to the F.18/40 concept.
I wrote up a piece about the F.9/30 and developments over on the What-If site in 2008:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21240.0.html
 
joncarrfarrelly said:
F.9/37 was not named Reaper, that was appended to the F.18/40 concept.
I wrote up a piece about the F.9/30 and developments over on the What-If site in 2008:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21240.0.html

Thank you so much for this most informative piece of aviation history about one of my favorite pre-war British aircraft projects! This really puts in perspective the 34/35, 9/37 and 18/40 specs in perspective.
 
Hi
On the link it refers to the aircraft as a gloster gladius.
Was this the name used for the F.9/37
cheers
Jerry
 
brewerjerry said:
Hi
On the link it refers to the aircraft as a gloster gladius.
Was this the name used for the F.9/37
cheers
Jerry

The 'Gladius' referred to is the 'What-If' model that prompted my piece on the real aircraft.
Chris gave it that name for his What-if back-story.
 
Sorry to drag up an old thread! I got that the 'Gladius' was an ATL name rather than OTL, but what of 'Gunner' that was mentioned earlier?

Seems plausible though that rather wait till f.9/37, it could have been developed from f.34/35 as a 'back-up' to f.37/35 (cannon fighter). That is rather than 4 x 20 mm cannon, then maybe 2 x 20 mm cannon +4 x 0.303" machine guns.
 
Does anyone know whether the official performance test data is available for both the Taurus and Peregrine powered versions of this aircraft?
 
Found a few pics on my old files.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0411.JPG
    IMG_0411.JPG
    33.9 KB · Views: 323
  • IMG_0410.JPG
    IMG_0410.JPG
    35.9 KB · Views: 310
  • IMG_0409.JPG
    IMG_0409.JPG
    36.5 KB · Views: 307
  • IMG_0408.JPG
    IMG_0408.JPG
    37.6 KB · Views: 326
I haven't seen any official data but I've seen the basic data compiled below. I've only seen climb data for the 1,050hp engine. I assume Tony Buttler took his figures from official data.

1,050hp Taurus T-Sa: 360mph (579km/h) at 15,000ft, service ceiling 30,000ft
900hp Taurus T-Sa III: 332mph (534km/h) at 15,200ft, service ceiling 30,000ft
885hp Peregrine I: 330mph (531km/h) at 15,000ft, service ceiling 28,700ft

Sources: British Aircraft of World War II by David Mondey, 1982 (1994 reprint), The Complete Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough, British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II by Tony Buttler [by far the best source]
 
Yes, those do seem to be the only figures readily available, and all, presumably, quoting from the same source. However it is the detailed test data that would be of particuler interest as it may serve to confirm/deny the theory regarding the Whirlwind suggested by Matt Beerman in The Aviation Historian and elsewhere.
 
Flitzer said:
Found a few pics on my old files.

The Reaper was actually designed to F.18/40 although derived from the original F.9/37 aircraft
 
Hi
Just for info,
not mentioned in the flypast article is that L7999 went to 02 det GRU based at raf exeter on the 10 june 1940,
the unit diary mentions that on the 7 aug 1940 it was sent by air to glosters for modifications

so it was at glosters well before the nov mentioned in the flypast article


slightly o/t but it at least gets rid of that rumour that 307sqn flew it at exeter



cheers
jerry
 
Hi,

I haven't seen any official data but I've seen the basic data compiled below. I've only seen climb data for the 1,050hp engine. I assume Tony Buttler took his figures from official data.

1,050hp Taurus T-Sa: 360mph (579km/h) at 15,000ft, service ceiling 30,000ft
900hp Taurus T-Sa III: 332mph (534km/h) at 15,200ft, service ceiling 30,000ft
885hp Peregrine I: 330mph (531km/h) at 15,000ft, service ceiling 28,700ft

Sources: British Aircraft of World War II by David Mondey, 1982 (1994 reprint), The Complete Book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough, British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II by Tony Buttler [by far the best source]

To record my comment in the appropriate thread: I find the figures for the Taurus engine a bit puzzling since I could only find Taurus engine data showing a full-throttle height of 3000 - 5000 ft. Of course it might be that the T-Sa - sometimes given as T-S(a) - was a special version with a different supercharger, but I would think that the power required to drive the supercharger would result in a lower rated power, so I'm confused.

The data for the Peregrine seems fine ... it could be for 3000 rpm/+9 lbs with good ram recovery from a forward-facing intake, and the three-views I've seen show such an intake on top of the engine cowling.

If anyone knows more about the Bristol Taurus, help/data would be appreciated! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi again,

I find the figures for the Taurus engine a bit puzzling since I could only find Taurus engine data showing a full-throttle height of 3000 - 5000 ft. Of course it might be that the T-Sa - sometimes given as T-S(a) - was a special version with a different supercharger, but I would think that the power required to drive the supercharger would result in a lower rated power, so I'm confused.

To illustrate the impact of the different full throttle height, I've prepared a largely hypthetical performance comparison of a Gloster F.9/37 engined with the Peregrine engine, and another one with a "standard" low-altitude supercharged Taurus II engine, based on the assumption that both aircraft have the same drag coefficient:

Gloster F9 37_Performance_Comparison.png

The interesting point is that the higher-powered radial engine due to its lower full throttle height delivers a markedly lower top speed (though it's actually a slightly faster at low altitude, where it's more powerful).

I guess that can be interpreted as a clue that the Taurus T-S(a) variants did indeed have a higher full throttle height, and it's not just a case of the altitude being misreported due to a typo or similar error.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I find it very odd that there is little or no information on the T-S(a) at all.

Most F.9/37 histories blithely mention the Taurus T-S(a) and T-S(a) III but never say anything about them other than their power ratings - which seem to conform to the standard Taurus II and III respectively) - and that they drove a 10ft Rotol propeller.
Alec Lumsden in his tome on British piston engines mentions nothing about the T-S designation or other experimental versions and indeed lists the F.9/37 has having Taurus II.

Yet even if the T-S(a) was an early designation for the Taurus II it's odd that it doesn't surface elsewhere in connection with other installations - for example on the Type 148B engine testbed. And if the T-S(a) did have a different supercharger its inclusion on the engines for the Gloster prototype in two versions of the Taurus implies a batch of engines were built which would involve some effort and historical footprint.
 
Hi,

On another 3-view, showing the taurus powered version, it is stated,
that the F9/37 was originally developed as a turret fighter. the prototype is said to have
carried ballast weights, which would have been replaced by the battery of three 20mm
hispano guns.

Hm, the three dorsal guns as well as the two nose guns all fire upwards at an angle of about 12 degrees. That's really odd!

I also noticed that on one of the posted threeviews, there are two long and narrow hatches side by side in the lower wing root. Was that were the fuel tanks were located, or did the F.9/37 have small bomb bays there like some other light/medium twins had?

I couldn't find any filling point in the drawings, but I'd really expect the fuel tanks to be housed in the wing roots with this kind of design. Especially if the type was originally envisioned as a turret fighter, it would have made sense to keep the fuselage free of the tanks to have enough space for the turret and the associated equipment.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Air Ministry Specification F. 9/37 called for a twin-engine day/night fighter, with two nose mounted cannons and a retractable turret with four machine guns, capable of at least 300 mph and reaching 15,000 ft. in six minutes.

When the performances of the new German bombers were revealed the Specifications issued during the 1937/1938 period called for high-speed fighters with a much greater armament.

The Gloster turret design proved to be impossible and was replaced by five 20-mm Hispano Mk. I cannons inclined 12 degrees to the horizontal: two housed under the cockpit floor and three in a dorsal bay to compensate for the weight of the deleted turret.

The Hispano-Suiza Mk. I firepower was limited to a single drum of 60 rounds and to achieve the necessary destructive power, a greater number of guns were used.

This unusual armament configuration was based on the “no-allowance shooting” concept discovered in the early stages of the World War One.

The method is perfect to attack from below the heavy night bombers and it also allowed shooting from a great distance against the day fast bombers.

The increased speed of the targets meant the cannons angle was reduced from 45 degrees in 1917 to 12 degrees in 1938.

Special “non-deflection” gunsights were also designed.

Two F.9/37 prototypes were ordered, the first of these (L7999) was flown on April 3, 1939 powered by two Bristol Taurus T-5 engines, the second prototype (L8002) had been completed with two Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines and made its first flight on February 22, 1940.

During flight tests the L7999 achieved 360 mph showing excellent handling characteristics, but the heavier and underpowered Peregrine engines reduced the speed and rate of climb of the L8002.

The project F. 9/37 was cancelled on December 18, 1940, when production of Peregrines ceased and the Bristol engines were used to power the new Beaufighter.

Gloster intended to enlarge the design to accommodate a radar operator to meet the Specification F.18/40, calling for a two-seat day and night interceptor, but it was never built.

In July 1939 the first prototype was camouflaged in standard day fighter scheme Dark Earth (FS 30118) and Dark Green (FS 34079) upper surfaces, Black/White undersurfaces with serials in opposite tones and four positions Type B low visibility roundels in wings and fuselage sides.

In April 1940 the aircraft was powered by two Taurus T-S and the roundels were replaced by the Type A.

The second prototype paint scheme was Dark Green upper surfaces, Duck Egg Green (FS 14533) under surfaces and four positions Type A roundels.

Gloster F.9/37 (L7999) technical data

Wingspan: 50 ft. (15.25 m), length: 37 ft. (11.29 m), height: 11.6 ft. (3.53 m), wing area: 384 sq. ft. (34.56 sq. m.), max weight: 11,653 lb. (5,279 kg), max speed: 360 mph (579 km/h), service ceiling: 30,000 ft. (9,146 m), power plant: two Bristol Taurus T-5 14-cylinder, radial, air cooled engines each rated at 1,050 hp. or two Bristol Taurus T-S(a)III engines each rated at 900 hp., proposed armament: five 20-mm Hispano Mk. I cannons inclined 12 degrees to the horizontal: two housed under the cockpit floor and three in a dorsal bay

Gloster F.9/37 (L8002) technical data

Wingspan: 50 ft. (15.25 m), length: 37.9 ft. (11.54 m), height: 11.6 ft. (3.53 m), wing area: 384 sq. ft. (34.56 sq. m.), max weight: 12,108 lb. (5,485 kg), max speed: 330 mph (531 km/h), service ceiling: 28,700 ft. (8,750 m), power plant: two Rolls-Royce Peregrine twelve cylinder, Vee, liquid cooled engines each rated at 1,050 hp. or two Bristol Taurus T-S(a)III engines each rated at 885 hp.
 

Attachments

  • 519.jpg
    519.jpg
    254.4 KB · Views: 102
  • 520.jpg
    520.jpg
    270.1 KB · Views: 99
  • 521.jpg
    521.jpg
    80.6 KB · Views: 117
Hi Justo,

This unusual armament configuration was based on the “no-allowance shooting” concept discovered in the early stages of the World War One.

The method is perfect to attack from below the heavy night bombers and it also allowed shooting from a great distance against the day fast bombers.

The increased speed of the targets meant the cannons angle was reduced from 45 degrees in 1917 to 12 degrees in 1938.

Special “non-deflection” gunsights were also designed.

Ah, thanks a lot! I had been wondering if this setup was meant for "no allowance shooting", but I thought 12 degrees was probably too little for it work. Seems it wasn't! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Justo,

This unusual armament configuration was based on the “no-allowance shooting” concept discovered in the early stages of the World War One.

The method is perfect to attack from below the heavy night bombers and it also allowed shooting from a great distance against the day fast bombers.

The increased speed of the targets meant the cannons angle was reduced from 45 degrees in 1917 to 12 degrees in 1938.

Special “non-deflection” gunsights were also designed.

Ah, thanks a lot! I had been wondering if this setup was meant for "no allowance shooting", but I thought 12 degrees was probably too little for it work. Seems it wasn't! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
In my opinion this combat tactic depends on the difference in speed between the fighter and the bomber.

The Gloster F9/37 daytime frontline fighter, was designed at a time when the RAF anticipated having to defend the homeland against formations of four engine slow bombers of the Dornier Do 19 type. These unescorted bombers were supposed to take off from German bases.
 
Hi Justo,

This unusual armament configuration was based on the “no-allowance shooting” concept discovered in the early stages of the World War One.

The method is perfect to attack from below the heavy night bombers and it also allowed shooting from a great distance against the day fast bombers.

The increased speed of the targets meant the cannons angle was reduced from 45 degrees in 1917 to 12 degrees in 1938.

Special “non-deflection” gunsights were also designed.

Ah, thanks a lot! I had been wondering if this setup was meant for "no allowance shooting", but I thought 12 degrees was probably too little for it work. Seems it wasn't! :)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
In my opinion this combat tactic depends on the difference in speed between the fighter and the bomber.

The Gloster F9/37 daytime frontline fighter, was designed at a time when the RAF anticipated having to defend the homeland against formations of four engine slow bombers of the Dornier Do 19 type. These unescorted bombers were supposed to take off from German bases.
And those bases were expected to be in northern Germany. Netherlands and Belgium were expected to be neutral so no overflight of their airspace was expected.

Oh how the events of May 1940 kicked so many of the assumptions of pre-war planning into the long grass!

1668931628552.jpeg
 
Hi,

I find it very odd that there is little or no information on the T-S(a) at all.

I just came across this WW2 German document:


(It's fully browsable, the preceding page has some more details on the Taurus.)

It mentions "Further variants: -III, -3SM, -3 S, -3 M, -4 S". My vague impression is that "M" and "S" in British use often referred to supercharger speeds, with "M" being "medium" or "moderate" or something. "S" might just mean "supercharged", but I guess it might be equivalent to "FS", which was "full speed" (or "fully supercharged"), so just stating "S" in my impression might possibly imply a high-altitiude supercharger.

All a bit vague, but I've never seen an explanation of these conventions anywhere, so I had a rely on a bit of guesswork.

The document also mentions an -II A variant, which from the data seems to be a slightly improved -II which runs a little faster and apparently has some detail changes that give it more extra power than it would get just from the speed increase.

So I would guess that an "S (a)" Taurus engine would be one with a long supercharger drive and similar improvements as seen in the low-altitude rated Taurus IIA. However, 5000 ft to 15000 ft is quite a leap!

(Overall, the Gloster F.9/37 is much larger in all dimensions than the Westland Whirlwind, I really wonder if it's realistically possible that it was just 20 mph slower than the Whirlwind on the same engine!)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Pics-2
 

Attachments

  • 545.jpg
    545.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 56
  • 547.jpg
    547.jpg
    3.8 MB · Views: 48
  • 548.jpg
    548.jpg
    545.9 KB · Views: 46
  • 549.jpg
    549.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 44
  • 550.jpg
    550.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 44
  • 551.jpg
    551.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 47
  • 552.jpg
    552.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 51
  • 553.jpg
    553.jpg
    528.4 KB · Views: 47
  • 554.jpg
    554.jpg
    1.9 MB · Views: 52
  • 555.jpg
    555.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 48
  • 558.jpg
    558.jpg
    953.2 KB · Views: 56
It mentions "Further variants: -III, -3SM, -3 S, -3 M, -4 S". My vague impression is that "M" and "S" in British use often referred to supercharger speeds, with "M" being "medium" or "moderate" or something. "S" might just mean "supercharged", but I guess it might be equivalent to "FS", which was "full speed" (or "fully supercharged"), so just stating "S" in my impression might possibly imply a high-altitiude supercharger.

I think what we are seeing in the T-S(a) designation is Taurus - 'S' high gear supercharger.
The standard Taurus II had a single-speed medium supercharger so would be 'MS'.

In an ideal two-speed supercharger you would have low MS gear for take-off and climb for better economy and high S gear for high altitude.
The Taurus having only single speed supercharger was limited in this regard - so while most of the production engines were optimised for economical MS gear, those fitted to the F.9/37 were modified with a high S gear. So at lower altitudes the F.9/37 was probably wasting power but boosting performance at altitude.

The Peregrine I was single speed MS. I wonder if Bristol elected to modify the Taurus for high S gear in order to compete better with the Peregrine. The Peregrine had +9lb boost, the standard Taurus II only +2.75lb.
 
I'd suggest to discuss the Gloster over in the Gloster thread, but the Taurus II is listed here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Taurus ... with a full-throttle height of 5000 ft at 3220 rpm. Wikipedia is not the greatest of sources, but at least in this case they state that they pulled all that data from a single, specified book. Based on the data Going from 3220 rpm to 3300 rpm is not going to make much of a difference with regard to full throttle height.

Just the greater rpm will not push the rated altitude from ~5 to ~15k ft, but together with higher step-up gearing it should. See the table here - Taurus either combined a big S/C that was turning slow (= 11.25 in impeller at 5.6 timest the crankshaft speed), or a small S/C that was turning a bit faster (= 8.75 in impeller turning at 7.5 times crankshaft speed). For a good power at high altitudes, the big S/C is better choice, with requierment that it also turns fast - that can be the 11.25 in impeller turing at 8.75:1, or some other gear ratio that is bigger than the 5.6:1.
Wvwn keeping the RPM at 3100-3200 will work.

Problem with all this math is that doing greater RPM and turning the big impeller as fast as it is needed rises the indicated power (IHP = BHP + losses), stressing the engine a great deal more than running it at lower rpm and with less demands by supercharger. While some engines dealt with this better, Taurus was problematic even in the later case.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom