A Big Miss? The Gloster F.9/37

Buy my book: amzn.to/3preYyO
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash

[@bronsonperich9430]

Gloster went from biplanes to jet fighters in less than 10 years. Amazing.

[@samuelleal6149]

even better, being pioneers in jet aircraft

[@lancsladgaming7146]

so did most big airplane manufacturers of the era.......

[@allangibson8494]

Last Gloster Gladiator was delivered in April 1940. First Gloster E28/39 Jet April 1941. The first Gloster Jet was being built alongside the last Gloster Gladiator.

[@bronsonperich9430]

@@lancsladgaming7146 I'm not discounting that. I'm singling Gloster out because they produced the Meteor and it entered service first.

[@kiwidiesel]

Arvo went from the Lancaster to the Vulcan in a short time also.

[@johnstirling6597]

Its very Beaufighterish.

[@jimboAndersenReviews]

The Empire had a lot of twin engine fighters, or fighter-bombers to choose from. Never let an uncle, or brother in law tell you, that "The British got lucky, that they had the Mosquito". -Not lucky, they threw a lot at development. If one turned out to be a disappointment, then one of the others would be just the bee's knees.

[@wideyxyz2271]

Correct. British aircraft builders have always been savvy.

[@echodelta2172]

who says they're "lucky" for having the Mosquito? I've never heard that.

[@keiranallcott1515]

I love these forgotten aircraft series

[@hbpesse]

Me too.

[@marcbrasse747]

Another perfectly plugged hole in aircraft history. Thanks.

[@johndell3642]

Another good video Ed, on a sadly neglected aircraft. But you missed out on one important aspect of the Gloster F9/3. Once the initial turret had been discarded, the fixed armament tested on the aircraft were all fitted in an upward firing "no allowance shooting" configuration like the German Scräge Musik armament, but at a shallower angle (to better suit the higher velocity British 20mm Hispano rather than the low-velocity German MGFF cannon). If you look at the image of the second prototype 7 minutes into the video you'll see the two forward cannon are angled upwards at 12 degrees. This second prototype also carried another three cannon mounted in the roof of the fuselage, again pointing upward at 12 degrees (there's a photo of the installation on page 83 of Tony Buttler's "British Experimental Combat Aircraft of WW2"). Thus it had a formidable armament of five upward-firing 20mm cannons.

[@yakacm]

Gladiator to Meteor in just a few years, mental.

[@ZachariahJ]

Growing up in the 60's I was fully immersed in the legend of Faith, Hope, and Charity, the three Gloster Gladiators that kept the Luftwaffe at bay when Malta stood alone against the might of Italy and Germany. As a cynical old fart, I now suspect that there may have been an element of propaganda at play. ;-)

[@AbelMcTalisker]

There was but the fact that the Italian air force (the Luftwaffe didn`t really turn up until a year later) was repeatedly told that Malta didn`t have any fighters but at the same time, the bombers were clearly being intercepted by something did do a lot to undermine Italian morale during a critical two-week period. There were actually four Sea Gladiators to start with but one went unserviceable very quickly and the naming actually post-dates their actual use.

[@ZachariahJ]

@Talisker That's really interesting - thanks for the input! It is a lot closer to the myth than I had suspected. I think over the last half century, I'd just absorbed some statements to the effect; 'there was never a time when just three Gladiators defended Malta'. But your explanation is pretty darn close to the myth I used to read about in 'WW2 history for kids' -type books when I was growing up. And I'm sure I made a Gladiator Airfix kit - with a potted history on the back of the instructions!

[@neilfoster814]

The Sea Gladiator 'Faith' still exists (the fuselage at least) displayed in Fort St Elmo in Valletta, the capital of Malta. Last time I saw it, it was looking a bit tatty to say the least. I am not 100% certain as to whether the wings are still around and in storage, but the fuselage is on show in one of the tunnels, so too cramped to have the wings on anyway. If I recall right, there is also the remains of an Me 109 that was recovered by the Maltese sub aqua club from the sea bed just off Valletta.

[@MrHws5mp]

My understanding is that the Faith, Hope and Charity names were coined by a Maltese newspaper after the critical period had passed. An echo of this continues into the present day with 1435 Flight, which has defended the Falkland Islands since 1982 with first Phantoms, then Tornado F.3s, and now Typhoons. They call three of their four aircraft "Faith", "Hope" and "Charity" in honour of the Maltese Gladiators, while the fourth, with dark humour, is christened "Desperation"...😂

[@RB-tz8kj]

They were used only for a few weeks, against the Italians, since it's all they had when war broke out. If am not mistaken they were originally being shipped to Egypt, when the war reached Malta.

[@martindice5424]

Great vid mate. I knew shamefully little of this beauty. Front end is rathe Beaufighteresque don’t you think? 👍👍

[@ericgrace9995]

Thanks....informative. It's a crying shame that we couldn't get an aircraft into combat called " The Reaper "....

[@NM-wd7kx]

It's not very British sounding, much more on the American style. Though I suppose 'demon' wasn't either

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

09:26 - First aircraft that a Frank Whittle engine finally fround itself in an aircraft, even though it had been more or less ready to be since circa 1936...

[@duncanhamilton5841]

The way Whittle was treated and the whole fiasco around his engine pre war was and is a disgrace

[@Anmeteor9663]

​@@duncanhamilton5841 the war would have looked very different if Britain had had jet fighters and bombers in 1939

[@wideyxyz2271]

Yes Uncle frank was stiffed by some goon/competitor at the air ministry a fact often overlooked.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

​@yz2271 From memory the officer at the ministry responsible for engine developments was working on his own jet design (which wouldn't have worked) and so kept Whittle's design (which did work) off the table for almost 4 years. Material science developments accelerated massively during the war, especially in metallurgy, which enabled jet engines to become viable at scale, so early war would have still be props. But the lead Britain had by war's end on jet propulsion could have been so much more. Mind you, we still gave the lead we did have to the Americans for free and sold it to the Russians... But that's another national disgrace

[@jefftuckercfii]

@@duncanhamilton5841 - Sold it to the Russkies and then didn't get paid, according to what I've read. Stalinist-era Soviet policy was that way, though. Soviets never made good to the US on all the Lend-Lease materiel we provided them.

[@leonardosimm3536]

Only just found your channel. Thank you for featuring only relevant images with the commentary! Some channels (*cough* Dark Skies) persist with stock footage of unrelated footage over the commentary, and your channel is a refreshing change!

[@PaulieLDP]

I had never heard of this Gloster, great video as always Ed.

[@petesheppard1709]

The Twin Wasp is better known to many as the R-1830. So many great aircraft that just weren't quite great enough.

[@trooperdgb9722]

The number of promising aircraft designs doomed to obscurity by promising, but failed, engine designs seems to be legion!

[@petesheppard1709]

@@trooperdgb9722 Good point.

[@stevenborham1584]

A Bill Gunston book on WWII combat aircraft that I have had since a toddler has one solitary photo image of the F.9/37 (8:23). To this day I have assumed the image to be of a blenhiem or beaufighter prototype as the text makes little mention of it. Had no idea it was almost a replacement for both. Thanks for this enlightening episode.

[@ChrisHipkiss]

I used to live by the old Hucclecote airfield which was still in occasional use by Simon Engineering. The watchtower and a couple of hangers were still there, and part of the assembly shed was incorporated into the nylon/kevlar spinning factory to the left of the runway. The engine test bays were still standing. Most of the site is now housing with a tesco store and an industrial estate.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thanks Mr. Ed Nash.... Old F-4 Shoe🇺🇸

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

When they say heavy landing accidents then, it was always due to the same thing, wind shear. Britain is a very windy country, coming straight off the Atlantic, or the North Sea. Often very tricky.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

*_Grass_* means landing into wind on a big field, no cross-wind forces on the landing gear. It looks like it had ample wing area for reasonable landing speeds.

[@aussie807]

Similar lines to the Beaufighter. Love your videos 👍

[@johndavey72]

Thanks Ed.

[@marcusott2973]

Much awaited, much appreciated excellent insights as always from you.

[@thomasrotweiler]

Should have designed it to use Merlins. Would have been a better use for them than putting them on Fairey Battles.

[@Ralphieboy]

Great! I had never ever heard of this aircraft. Keep up the good work!!!

[@callenclarke371]

Excellent content, Ed. Keep 'em coming!

[@towgod7985]

In 1939 the primary RAF fighter WAS NOT the Gloster Gladiator, it was the Hawker Hurricane. The Gladiator had already started to be phased out of front line squadrons, transferred to training units or frontier bases that were unlikely to see combat.

[@mathewkelly9968]

In an airforce where the Beaufighter and Mosquito are about to emerge , not really needed

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

No doubt Bristol and politics interfered with the introduction of the Mosquito. It would have been a year earlier otherwise. Bristol no doubt was bit of a nemesis to De Havilland.

[@robertpatrick3350]

The Gloster aircraft museum is well worth a visit.

[@chpet1655]

I get that the biplane was a safe choice as nobody was totally sold on the monoplane. Everyone assumed this was the direction we’d all be heading but still the generals weren’t totally onboard. So biplanes were included as back up technology just in case. I guess we had to be there

[@babboon5764]

My confidence in my knowledge of 'all things aricraft 1938 - 1946' keeps getting a kick in the 🩳 from *the most fascinatingly obscure but often wonderful things* ........... which Ed keeps digging out of musty archives.

[@randlerobbertson8792]

A most interesting article and commentary.

[@davidparry1982]

Lovely -lane - looking forward to the Gloster jet vid👍

[@SGMproducitons]

Great vid

[@vipertwenty249]

Shame they didn't try the Bristol Hercules in it.

[@richardarcher7177]

Possibly because it couldn't have been done without a massive redesign - just as they couldn't upgrade the Whilwind to the Merlin. A pity in both cases.

[@garethjones9371]

Brilliant Brilliant Video tonight. Always loved this aircraft and a crying shame it wasnt introduced to squadron serviced. Luved it..Very Interesting indeed. Great Stuff.

[@stevelewis7263]

I wonder what it would have looked like with a Mosquito canopy

[@wideyxyz2271]

Bloody awesome

[@jlvfr]

Imagine this instead of the Bristol Blenheim...

[@Ushio01]

The Bristol Blenheim was ordered as a light bomber not a fighter and it had been in service for 2 years by the time this plane had it's first flight. The Bristol Beaufighter was testing at the same time but was built as a two seater nightfighter for a reason the second crew member controlled the early radar.

[@jlvfr]

@@Ushio01 This would easily have been turned into a light bomber. And no, I don't see it as replacing the Beau.

[@TheGrant65]

​​@@jlvfrWith an extended rear fuselage, the Reaper could have ended up a reasonable light bomber, something like the Do 17. But, with the added weight of bombs, performance would have dropped off dramatically = no significant advantages over types already in service with the RAF ... like the Blenheim. (The RAF was probably focused at the time on medium day bombers. They ended up filling that with US designs until the Mosquito B.IV was in service, in mid-1942.)

[@unclenogbad1509]

It's not a beauty queen, but has a very rugged look to it. Another gem of a 'might have been / should have been'. Thanks.

[@antiochman8222]

The cardinal rule - new airframe or new engines - not both at the same time! The other factors that might have made a difference would have been flight time and ammunition. A capable heavy fighter would have been able to linger on station, then still have the endurance to engage with heavy armaments multiple times. You also make a good point about emergency exit - being able to get out quickly and not with a burning engine in front would have been appreciated by the pilots. It is unfortunate that there wasn’t a heavy twin engined fighter to complement the singles in the BoB. It would have been able to take the fight all the way back to France long after the bomber escorts had been seen off and had greater survivability to get back on one engine if damaged.

[@patrickwentz8413]

Ah the death of many a good aircraft. Poor engines.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

👍Thanks for another excellent video. Although, the F.9/37 seems to have been a promising design that may have been developed into a useful heavy fighter, I suspect that using the availbable capacity to prioritise single Merlin engined Hurricanes and Spitfires was the sensible choice. Even if the F.9/37 had been developed to use Merlins, each aircraft built would have meant two Hurricanes or Spitfires not being produced.

[@kirkmooneyham]

So many British "forgotten aircraft" are songs of the same refrain: great designs let down by bad engines.

[@luvr381]

Another great one, Ed!

[@yes_head]

I also wonder if the romance around double-engined fighters was slipping away by 1941, given how poorly Me-110's fared in the Battle of Britain and how the Whirlwind wasn't living up to its potential. Plus, as mentioned the Mosquito and Beaufighter had come along which were clearly capable of filling the role the F.9/37 had been designed for. If any one of those planes hadn't existed who knows -- perhaps the Air Ministry would have seen fit to continue its development, at least as an insurance policy.

[@shawnmiller4781]

One thing that shouldn’t be understated when discussing yea thing troubles with either aircraft or engines is the effect that civilian use had. Simply said some of these types had their development difficulties happen on the civilian market vs the military one so if the military adopted a type that was already in civilian production then they didn’t have to deal with those issues. For example The Doulas Sleeper Transport was already developed and it’s development issues where known and solved once the Military took the basic aircraft and came up with the C-47. Compare that the Curtiss C-46 that didn’t get that treatment and gained a reputation of being a difficult aircraft you didn’t want an engine fire on

[@hobbyfarmer62]

Intresting snub nosed machine never heard of it before

[@animalian01]

Just think,what could have been if this had been chosen instead of the Defiant

[@colinmartin2921]

Resembles a Beaufighter, except for the twin fins. Wonder what the performance would have been with Hercules fitted?

[@deaks25]

How many world-class designs have been screwed over by either crap engines, or engines that promised a lot a delivered nothing… It does mean Gloster basically went from the Gladiator biplane to jet aircraft in one step, which is pretty incredible.

[@patrickporter1864]

What about the f6.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

One basic "rule" of aircraft development I have often read about is that you should avoid designing a new aircraft that uses an unproven engine or vice-versa. The thinking being, just as you say, that a perfectly good airframe design might result in project failure due to poor engine performance.

[@Ashleigh50]

With the 'twin' Gloster, I think the AM should have asked Gloster to re-jig the Gloster turret aircraft for the 40 20mm cannon spec. Rejig with no turret, and armed with 2 x 20mm cannon & 4 x 0.303" MGs. Hence the prototype could have flown earlier, and would have been a much better option than the Blenheim 1f fighter!

[@PaulP999]

When I first came across it my immediate thought was missed opportunity for a long range escort.

[@jefftuckercfii]

This looks an awful lot like the Beaufighter, but without seeing them side-by-side for scale, it's hard to tell.

[@littlefluffybushbaby7256]

Does anyone know why early war or pre-war aircraft of metal construction but canvas control surfaces? Like this one, or early Spitfires. It seems quite common for 1939-1940 but I don't know why.

[@brucewilliams1892]

I often wonder about the competence of the Air Ministry at that time.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Was it tested fully enough to determine if it actually was ‘an excellent aircraft’? The delta leading edge vertical stabilisers look worryingly like those on the unsatisfactory Halifax I and II. They were notorious for undiscovered in pre-service testing failure to cope with asymmetric flight or asymmetric stalls or asymmetric incipient spins. Group Captain Leonard Cheshire raised the alarm when he realised that almost no Halifax I and II bombers returned from bombing missions with a failed engine. If this Bristol twin was twitchy with opened cooling fins upstream of the vertical stabilisers it suggests that directional/yaw stability _in both engines running_ powered flight could be marginal! Those little vertical stabilisers and rudders simply do not look as if they could go together with thousand horsepower plus engines in a (modern) twin.

[@trooperdgb9722]

Fascinating.

[@johnladuke6475]

Most of the video I was thinking "gee, they should have put Merlins in that thing" and then they went and did it. Kinda makes you wonder how many other engine-doomed forgotten aircraft would have been something special with that powerplant.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Where does it mention Merlins being fitted?

[@raypurchase801]

Air forces in the late 30s tended to assume that the concept of the single engined fighter was obsolete. Hence the Me 110. The Air ministry had intended to phase the Hurricane and Spitfire out of production, in favour of the Beaufighter. Few plans survive first contact with the enemy. Intentions changed very quickly.

[@Sacto1654]

This is why too bad the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 never made it to service. Fitted with two DB 601 engines it could have a top speed of around 385 mph and easily nad to range to fly to most of England from forward bases in France. The Fw 187 could have given major fits to the RAF because it was faster than even the Spitfire.

[@andrewallen9993]

@@Sacto1654 Germany had far better idiots at their air ministry than the British empire had 😁

[@charlesjames1442]

Sounds very similar to the XF5F, which was also declined. The US Navy wanted more fighters for less money and got the Wildcat. The Skyrocket was much faster in level flight, climbed almost twice as fast and had longer range. But it’s questionable if US pilots would have had the tactical training needed to take advantage of it. Maybe it was for the best.

[@CAP198462]

Bristol aircraft: Gloster F9, what’s that never heard of it. Now here’s the Bristol Beaufighter which looks nothing like the Gloster F9 which we’ve never heard of.😅

[@user-rc1mg6bn1g]

Anyone else noticing the resemblance with German Henschel Hs 129 tank buster???🤔🤔🤔

[@jabonorte]

Interesting plane, but how many excellent twin-engined fighter designs do you need, especially when one of them will be the Meteor?

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

How did the heavy fighter concept work out?

[@michaelfrench3396]

I'm very curious as to why there are so many british fighters and bombers from this time period that have the same nose. The Bristol Blenheim has almost the same exact nose as this thing

[@Ushio01]

Why change what they know already works? especially as wind tunnel testing wasn't as available back then.

[@michaelfrench3396]

@@Ushio01 I was more wondering if there was an aerodynamic reason for it. I mean the same new shape goes between different companies. So unless they had the same designer that bounced around from company company it seems a little strange. And they had wind tunnel testing. The wright brothers actually were the first ones that built the wind tunnel. They designed their 1903 right flyer using a wind tunnel and a smoke generator

[@lancerevell5979]

Not the first fine aircraft designed severely let down by bad engines - before or since. 😢

[@chrishartley4553]

I'm seeing some Beaufighter comments. But I think if we cut down the rear fuselage, give it a bubble canopy and a couple of Merlins, I think we'd be looking at a proto-Hornet.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Look at the unsophisticated 1930s minimal taper fat wings, more of a Whitley than a Mosquito.

[@chrishartley4553]

​@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Cut them some slack. A lot was learned about aerofoil design during the course of WWII. Not before it. The relation to wing thickness and high speed effects like drag and compressability were poorly understood in the late 30's.

[@KevTheImpaler]

How fast would it have been with a couple of Bristol Hercules?

[@cb8944]

Hi Ed, another great video; thank you. I was wondering whether you might be interested in some wartime aircraft production Journals I have? Whilst they are concerned more with the production of the aircraft rather than the performance they might provide some interesting background information? Let me know if you might be interested. Thanks Chris

[@rovercoupe7104]

Fascinating. M

[@dude126]

No plan survives contact with the enemy.

[@MerrimanDevonshire]

So... a Hentshel 129 in profile?

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Nice looking plane, another what it.

[@michaelwright2986]

Hmm, chance rules. The Whirlwind was totally committed to its engine choice, whereas the F.9/37 could have used a variety of engines, But it didn't work out that way.

[@JGCR59]

I always thought this is by far the most sinister looking plane of WW2

[@neilfoster814]

Another 'what if?' aircraft. Gloster also designed a single seat fighter that was almost identical to the Japanese Mitsubishi Zero that became another 'what if?' aircraft. I am sure Ed has done a video on it already.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

LOL, yes, one of the first one I made! Gloster F.5.

[@jjromeoeod2765]

I still want to see a collaboration with, or response from, Greg's Airplanes in the Whirlwind engine/ propeller combination.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

He would be better off collaborating with Matt Bearman at the Whirlwind Project. He is the real expert on the WW.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Greg would know a ridiculous rubbish engine fighter if he saw one.

[@mark_wotney9972]

Wish they could have used the Twin Wasp

[@bobjoned3398]

Did they try the American PW engines?

[@alias1719]

That just looks cool.

[@stephengardiner9867]

The selfsame Gloster that a scant few years later was testing a jet engines aircraft and shortly after that fielding the Allies only WWII combat jet fighter. Imagine what many other aircraft companies could have come up with if unfettered by specifications insisted upon by donkeys who had no inkling of the actual operational requirements. WHAT? Ask the pilots and crew what they think? What do they know about anything!

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Imagine what would have happened to these flocks of He111s if all these British twin engine heavy fighters actually were produced ! German pilots would ditch their bbs in the channel and fly to Sweden ! :D I would have!

[@jimsvideos7201]

Beaufighter meets Mosquito, things get steamy?

[@shaunmaree6493]

Looks like a Beaufighter with twin tails.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

Other than the tail it looks a bit like a Beaufighter.

[@300guy]

Looking very much like a dual fin early Blenheim.

[@MM22966]

I almost thought it was a Me-210 when I saw the thumbnail.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Apart from *_not_* being a significant wing sweep, two seat, inverted V-12 inline and single vertical stabiliser, forward internal bomb bay fighter bomber.

[@MM22966]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935Hey, it was a thumbnail!

[@simongroot7147]

Interesting to note the Peregrine engines fitted were opposed rotation side to side. Not sure but I think that would be unique for the time.

[@wideyxyz2271]

❤

[@MuseumsBloke]

I had never come across this type before, a common link with so many of the aircraft featured in this series. & I thought I was quite knowledgeable about WW2 aircraft. The question I’d really like an answer to is: How much this multitude of British WW2 “forgotten”prototypes all together cost to develop, and who paid that bill? Don’t get me wrong, I am loving finding out about them all through Ed, but at a time of such great national stress and austerity, the presumably huge (& wasted?) expenditure hardly seems justifiable. Or perhaps it’s hindsight and an abiding love of the sound of Merlin engines clouding my thinking.

[@malcolmtaylor518]

Good photographs, not seen these before.

[@tommytwotacos8106]

Had it not suffered from the curse of its engines, could this have been the answer to Britain's and America's need for an escort fighter early in the war?

[@rogerkay8603]

A big miss, it was better than the Beau apparently but we'll never really know now.

[@richmorg8196]

The MK2 Gladiator was a better fighter with a three blade prop and a sea version Faith Hope and Charity

[@kittyhawk9707]

If this had succeeded ..then maybe we would never had got the Mossie or the Beaufighter.. . . .Good thing or bad thing ..I dunno .. Beau and mossie where not actually fighters ..they where Fighter bombers .. This by the sounds of it was a pure fighter ... I doubt it could do what the Beau and Mossie eventually did ..

[@comentedonakeyboard]

I wonder if it brings bad luck to leave the thirtenth comment

[@douglascharnley8249]

Another British aircraft cursed with gutless engines. Also heard the dreaded words a fighter with a turret. Another dumb idea from someone in government. Although the Defiant proved useful as an EW aircraft.

[@blogsfred3187]

1st!

[@johnstirling6597]

Damn, too slow😏😏

[@bobroberts6155]

Did he type in frantic haste, or lie in wait with cut and paste, and would he feel forever cursed if he had not been the first? But now such fears are set aside as Fred can rightly bask in pride, knowing that of all who view, he is the one with least to do.

[@johnstirling6597]

@@bobroberts6155 Ed Nash's blog bard!

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

RAF were really slow doing jets. It was like horses and cars and red flags alike. Typical slow off the mark English establishment.

[@bronsonperich9430]

It's a bit more complicated than that!

[@4353HUNVRTNG]

The Meteor enetered full squadron service before the Me262 if that is what you are alluding too. Plus the Meteor was much better built and reliable as it turns out you can't build a complex machine such as the 262 with have starved slave labour who are scared for their lives and have no interest in the project.

[@towgod7985]

RAF slow to adopt jets? Britain was at the forefront of aircraft development. The Gloster Meteor entered full squadron service BEFORE the Me262! You might want to rethink where you get your history before you post a comment.

[@johnhudghton3535]

If any industrialised nations were slow on jets it was the Americans and the Japanese. The USA relied upon our technology at first. As already stated, RAF jet equipped squadrons were operational before the Germans. Now if you had said, if we had been quicker in our adoption of the jet, we could have been years ahead of the Germans, I would have agreed.

[@towgod7985]

@@johnhudghton3535 I just posted something similar 10min ago. Cheers.

[@skidplate4150]

Thanks Ed