Gloster's Forgotten Rival To The Hurricane | Gloster F.5/34 [Aircraft Overview #57]

Today we're looking at the Gloster F.5/34, a fighter design that was never given its own proper name owing to its short development life. It was built for specification F.5/34, along with numerous others, though it would lose out to the Hawker Hurricane.
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - / rexshangar
***
Producing these videos is a hobby of mine - and apparently its now a full-time job too! I have a passion for history, and personally own a large collection of books, journals and other texts, and endeavor to do as much research as possible. However if there are any mistakes, please don't hesitate to reach out and correct anything :)
Sources:
James.D.N (1971), Gloster Aircraft Since 1917.
Goulding.J (1986), Interceptor: RAF Single-Seat Multi-Gun Fighters
Mason.F.K (1992), The British Fighter Since 1912

[@RexsHangar]

F.A.Q Section Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both. Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos? A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :) Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators? A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible. Feel free to leave you questions below - I may not be able to answer all of them, but I will keep my eyes open :)

[@steveshoemaker6347]

This is a great channel.....Thanks from an old Navy flying Shoe🇺🇸 👍‍

[@bigblue6917]

Not a request for an aircraft more about the design feature used by a number of aircraft during the interwar period as well as WW2. This was the use of the inverted gull wing. I have noticed that a number of aircraft designs either used it, such as the Stuka, or proposed it use of the inverted gull wing, such as the original design for the Spitfire. What was the thinking behind this and and what advantage, if any, was there to it. I know for the Vought F4U Corsair the inverted gull wing gave ground clearance for its propeller, but was there any other reason for using it.

[@danielnoble8546]

TSR-2 ?

[@callum-monitoredbydad-4180]

will you please do a video about the supermarine spitfire

[@jpgabobo]

An overview of all the aircraft in a specification like F.5/34, the winner, losers & the how & why of it all. Also X-planes of all types would be nice. Keep up the excellent work!

[@UnicornGamingRX03]

If these prototypes survived, the UK could have used these as mock A6M 'Zero' for early war films in the 50's and 60's.

[@swagnut9864]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought it looked like a "Zero"

[@oltyret]

In an alternative timeline, the Heinkel 112 battled Gloster F.5/34s over Britain and we are watching Rex's Hangar videos about the failed and forgotten rivals, the Messerschmidt Bf 109 and the Hawker Hurricane.

[@geoffreyherrick298]

It's interesting to note that Gloster went from making biplanes to jets in less than a decade!

[@fiize681]

Heinkel: Am I a joke to you

[@korbell1089]

What I have found even more interesting is that Britain was building Swordfishes and Meteors at the same time.

[@donlove3741]

And

[@georgemartin4963]

They all did.

[@retrocollector1999]

This plane honestly looks like a Mitsubishi Zero and Nakajima Oscar had offspring! Continue the great work Rex ✈️ Can you possibly do a video about the Mitsubishi G4M Betty Bomber, aka “The One Shot Lighter”? Feel that nickname would be great for a KZbin title 😂

[@lafeelabriel]

It certainly is a very fine looking plane for 1934. Also, in case it's not obvious, it pre dates both the Zero and Oscar.

[@retrocollector1999]

@@lafeelabriel yeah I know it predates both. It still looks like the two planes combined lol

[@lafeelabriel]

@@retrocollector1999 Pretty sure there exist more examples of planes that look on first glance like two others have some explaining to do. ;)

[@projectemerdon]

I was thinking the same thing!

[@carbo73]

I was going to say the same: at first look: " a British Zero!"

[@DudokX]

I am already looking forward to all the wacky 30s aircraft that you will surely cover in the future!

[@Sc0tt_e]

I second this

[@olgagaming5544]

And 20's!

[@Chilly_Billy]

Designs from "between the wars" are extremely interesting subjects.

[@frosty3693]

As you might have mentioned in other videos, the A6M Zero had the fin and rudder forward of the elevators for stall recovery. The Boeing B17 had the main landing gear with the wheels partially exposed when retracted so they could support the airframe during a "belly landing". The brakes were still functional when the gear was retracted.

[@HootOwl513]

Boeing 247, Douglas DC-2, DC-3, and Seversky P-35 all had the same semi-retracted LDG configuration.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@HootOwl513 correct and let me add that nobody complained about those semi retracted wheels!

[@jlothrop91]

True, but parasite drag from the wheels is less of an issue at high altitude, and on a bomber that doesn't need to be the fastest thing in the sky it may be an acceptable tradeoff.

[@kitbag9033]

@@paoloviti6156 True but the first three are staid transports; not fighters, and the Seversky was less than successful for all sorts of reasons but notably the later designs (P-43, P-47 etc) all went down the fully retractable route.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@kitbag9033 yes but regarding Seversky fighters he had a love affair with those voluminous fairings with a small part of the wheel protruding and most of them suffered ground looping. It was only after Kartveli took over that he produced the P-43 Lancer with decent landing gears....

[@bigblue6917]

To be fair to Gloster the Gladiator, alongside the Fiat CR.42 Falco, were the peak in the development of the biplane fighter. And Gloster did get to bring about the end of piston engined frontline aircraft.

[@khahinmetameta7826]

Fun fact the CR 42s and Italian bombers ettempted raid England during the battle of Britain it Went as much as you can imagine with hawker hurricanes. A flop

[@bigblue6917]

@@khahinmetameta7826 Thanks for reminding me. I did read that the Italians turned up with three squadrons and went home with enough aircraft for only one squadrons. One Italian pilot bailed out of his aircraft and parachuted down only to land on a statute which stabbed him though his body with its upraised arm.

[@sergeychmelev5270]

Grumman F3F and Polikarpov I-153 were biplane fighters with retractable landing gear. I'd say that's as close as you get to the peak in biplane fighter development.

[@bigblue6917]

@@sergeychmelev5270 I did not mean my remarks to exclude these two, Sergey, very good aircraft in they're own right. I was thinking along the lines of the Gladiator and the Cr 42 had actually faced each other in combat. Unless I've missed something somewhere.

[@shawnbeckmann1847]

That is one fine looking airplane I love it's classic lines

[@TheTrainChasingPoet1999]

It kinda looks like a Zero.

[@shawnbeckmann1847]

@@TheTrainChasingPoet1999 it does have a strong resemblance to the zero doesn't it especially in the tail

[@kosmokenny]

It's a shame the British were so allergic to naval fighters leading up to the war. With some further development, the widely spaced landing gear, air cooled engine, and good forward visibility of this plane would have made it a profoundly more effective fighter than the turreted junk they entered the war with, and much safer to operate from a carrier than the later Seafires. The single piece wing spar would have to go, but the landing gear design would be extremely easy to beef up if it needed it at all in the first place. Add some further bracing for a tail hook, and they could have had something as good as the Martlets they would eventually depend on.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

Not so much allergic. The Fleet Air Arm was part of the RAF until just before WW2 and thus they were at the back of the queue for new high performance equipment.

[@AnonNomad]

My thoughts exactly. It's a shame so much time and effort went into designing and producing world beating aircraft carriers yet so little went into thinking about the aircraft that would fly off of them. The American aircraft were fantastic but it does hurt my nationalistic ego to think 'what if...' when I see aircraft like the Gloster.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

I've said as much in another comment; the FAA likes its radial engines, this design could have been enhanced possibly to be as good as the Martlet/Wildcat fighters the RN used once the Roc design had been relegated to history. Possibly.

[@bostonrailfan2427]

when they got Martlets in 1941 they were as good as any Naval aviation force at defending but those upgrades would have made them better than the US and Japan in offense. sadly, they didn’t until the US fleet was back up to full strength and beyond.

[@Parocha]

I agree in that this plane would have been better than the Roc and the Fulmar, BUT only at the beginning of the war. The Martlet would still have been a better investment in the long run, due to the limits on upgraded engines this one could take, whereas the Grumman, being chunkier, allowed for bigger, more powerful radials in the 1200HP range.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

To all those saying it looks like an A6M Zero, there's one very big difference. On the Zero the tailfin/rudder assembly is set aft of the tailplane, on the Gloster F5/34 it's in front.

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Nice looking plane, the canopy looks like it would have given good visibility

[@stevenlowe3026]

Having read Neville Shute's autobiographical book "Slide Rule", in the 30's he was involved in the design of a plane that also had a semi-retractable undercarriage, on the basis that retraction gear wasn't yet reliable enough.

[@delliardo583]

The Gloster Pigeon! There we go, that sounds like a great name.

[@salvagedb2470]

" It never really took off " , pun fully intended 😆😆😆, Rex just hits the button .

[@andrewadkins5567]

It was said that the Japanese copied this fighter for the zero. Many historians and researchers and myself don't believe that. The zero was home grown and original. The landing gear, nose spinner of the zero and other big and small details are just too different. It appears to be parallel evolution more than anything else.

[@BHuang92]

Indeed it is very bias and somewhat racist assumption that the Japanese could not create an superior aircraft then the West.

[@andrewadkins5567]

@@BHuang92 sadly that was the norm of the time.

[@athodyd]

Well-documented reports by European observers of the Zero's performance were dismissed out of hand by Western powers because they simply couldn't believe the Japanese were capable of designing and building what was easily the best carrier fighter at the beginning of the war and arguably one of the finest fighters of all time

[@tomhutchins7495]

I agree, the similarities are features that have a clear function. Radial engine - similarity emphasised as both use a spinner which turned out not to be common on radials. Flat dihedral wing - similar to Hurricane. Forward tail - unusual but sensible. High-mounted cockpit - likewise, just unusual for its time. While there is no reason to think Japanese designers would not have been interested given the Gloster's performance (and a surprising amount of openness in inter-war aircraft design), I have no trouble seeing this as form following function. The Zero after all was just one in a long line of racially-biased underestimations of Japanese capability.

[@andrewadkins5567]

@@tomhutchins7495 it is a really fantastic fighter design for its day. The rudder being placed forward of the elevator is different but practical. The corsair has the same thing. It basically gives the rudder a larger and stronger structure to bolt too. Really would be fun to fly as a GA poor man's "warbird" after the war. Sadly it just didn't get massed produced.

[@Carstuff111]

I almost mistook the plain for a Mitsubishi Zero, except the tail was wrong and this looks like a chunkier plane in more detail. But, I bet this had great handling. In the end though, I do think the British made the better choice with the Hurricane and the Spitfire. Those had much longer legs into the war, the Spitfire becoming an absolute monster from its graceful beginning. The Merlin engine pushing the Spitfire and Mustang to new heights and speeds, the Griffon pushing the Spitfire to insane power levels..... Sorry, I look at this era and constantly in awe of how quickly technology in internal combustion changed, as well as aerodynamics. The fact we are still using things learned from the early to mid 1900s, and they learned from theories much older....I just love all of it... I am an engineering nerd.... Edit: Had to fix a mistake....I swear I can type....lol.

[@duncangrainge]

Excellent vid Rex. Thank you.

[@adrianrutterford762]

Excellent! A new video from Rex

[@rogerpritchard]

The best gets better! Thanks for your videos. I do look forward to them.

[@straswa]

Great vid Rex, I love learning about the prototype designs that never made it.

[@mojora_]

I've seen a few of your videos in my recommend recently, so glad i clicked on them! Amazing channel!

[@davingilsdorf213]

Love these keep it up

[@somerandomguy___]

Oh wow! I didn't even know this existed so thank you for teaching me about it Come to think of it, there's loads of difrent ways we could've thought about the skies of certain periods of history that are, sometimes if not often, decided by singular and simple decisions.

[@grahamariss2111]

It is interesting this as I did not know of this Gloster aircraft, but many years ago as a child building a model of the Gloster Gladiator I saw that with only its lower wing on that it looked like quite a good little fighter.

[@pimpompoom93726]

This design had potential, especially as a carrier borne fighter. It's unfortunate it wasn't developed further with a more powerful engine, fully retractable landing gear and Browning .50 caliber machine guns.

[@khahinmetameta7826]

50s were heavy so 303 would have been the standard. Yeah better than the fulmar

[@leneanderthalien]

@@khahinmetameta7826 nope:cal 50 machine guns was use on 1938 Curtiss Hawk and 1937 Brewster Buffalo... The british fighter was swich very early (1941) to 20mm Hispano Suiza HS404 canons (same as use on the french fighters but they use it integrated in the Hispano Y12 engine to fire trough the propeller shaft) to replace the 7,7mm machine guns who were found to be totaly ineffective against bombers: the 2 + 7,7 or 4x 20mm Hispano was only a bit heawyer than the 8x 7,7mm machine guns...The HS404 was use up to 1999 on F8 Crusader...

[@jasonz7788]

Thanks Rex great job

[@kristianfischer9814]

Ah yes, the British Zero. :D (come on, the look is there)

[@trance_trousers]

"The aeroplane" lol is quite a good looker, it reminds me a bit of the Mitsubishi Zero. I had no idea that Gloster became part of Hawker Aircraft!

[@paulstoddart7412]

The Gloster F.5/34 was a promising design with definite potential which unfortunately was never fulfilled. It was praised for its manoeuvrability, voiceless handling and all round visibility. While it's Bristol Mercury produced only 840hp, its top speed of 316 mph was within sight of the Hurricane Mk I with its 1,000hp R-R Merlin, a power advantage of 19%. A rough calculation suggests that fitting the 1,130hp Bristol Taurus (which was compatible in size) would have raised its speed to around 349 mph bringing it close to the Spitfire Mk I and II and the Bf 109E as well as equal to the Hurricane Mk II with its advantage of the two-speed Merlin XX. A two-speed Taurus, assuming equivalent advantage of the Merlin XX over the Merlin III, might have achieved 1,388hp so conferring a top speed of around 369mph. This is close to a Spitfire Mk V and notably faster than the Hurricane Mk II.

[@gregbolitho9775]

Nice goin m8, didn't know about this one!

[@neillh]

Thank you for sharing 👍

[@MyBlueZed]

An excellent channel!

[@gregbolitho9775]

Thanks!

[@Dr.K.Wette_BE]

The gear up landing idea finally found it's way into history with the A-10.

[@davidrivero7943]

As noted, the cockpit visibility was huge & looking more like todays AG planes. Could this be the Father of Cropdusters. ? Good stuff. I enjoy your work , Sir.

[@wideyxyz2271]

Nice

[@Inpreesme]

Thank you

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

Being stuck in the past today means cold war, like 40 years ago. 40 years before this plane here there were no planes. At all. It must have been a mad time for great discoveries and leaps ahead.. Cheers for the vid.

[@dayros2023]

This plane reminds me the Macchi Mc200.

[@ElsinoreRacer]

Corsair and Mosquito had the rudder ahead of the horizontal tail. Some people think they were okay airplanes. The former being the best naval fighter in the war, and the latter just plain being the best plane in the war.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

the "son of a bitch 2nd class" was defiantly not considered the best naval fighter of the war, least not by any poor bastard that had to try and operate it off an actual carrier flight deck.

[@left_ventricle]

The said design feature for vertical stabs also aids to structural rigidity. F4Us, Mosquitos, DH Hornet/Sea Hornet also used such features. Ki-44 and Ki-84 had it the other way around, where they were mounted further back compared to horizontal stabilizer. This is also mainly due to aerodynamic reasons.

[@PhantomLover007]

The three-quarter view from the rear makes it look like a Bolton Paul defiant.

[@nigelsmith7366]

Very well done. As usual good presentation and delivery.... Just one small thing.... The plural of aircraft is aircraft, not aircrafts

[@iskandartaib]

The vertical/horizontal tail positions are reversed compared with the Mitsubishi Zero and the Ki-44 - there, the horizontal stabilizer (and the elevator hinge line) are set very far in front of the vertical stabilizer. If I recall correctly the reason for this was also supposedly to aid spin recovery.

[@Dr_Jebus]

Really reminds me of the Peashooter. Just with wing mounted guns instead.

[@XemawthEvo2]

The Unnamed Fighter bears in interesting resemblance to the Zero with that air-cooled layout, and strait leading edge wing. Neat to think about how similar they were in terms of development timing as well!

[@RedXlV]

And while nobody realized it at the time, it was also exactly what the Royal Navy needed for a carrier fighter. Vastly more suitable to that role than the Seafire, that's for sure.

[@gustiwidyanta5492]

Will you do a history on aircraft engines? I would like to see the Griffon,the Merlin's overshadowed brother,or the Napier Sabre.

[@mikepette4422]

another great pick ! oh boy that really is an oddly placed tail fin well forward of where we'd expect it to be..spin recovery ? hmmmm

[@malcolmlindsay6047]

very interesting i'd never heard of this until now. I should have realised Gloster would have had a go at a monplane fighter

[@pdwcave]

Interesting to see the indents in the exhaust ring at 8:12. Cowling borrowed from a Gladiator?

[@GARDENER42]

I just had the choice of five favourite channels putting up new videos. Congratulations matey - you won the decision. PS You missed the KZbin 10 minute algorithm by 16 seconds...

[@briangrant774]

rex so very much enjoy your content. if i might be so bold could i request a overview on the Bristol type 146? you always do so a thorough job on your vid thought it might be a nice companion to your gloster F5/34 one. thank you. cheers. respectfully, Brian

[@allandavis8201]

For a designer of Follands calibre it seems very strange that he put a possible damage reduction in front Aircraft performance and aerodynamics, after all a fighter, by the very nature of its purpose, needs to be fast and manoeuvrable, and even if the undercarriage protruding cost 5mph of speed that 5mph could potentially be the difference between making a “kill” and the pilot being “killed”, in addition the protruding wheel section could affect manoeuvrability and stability, both of which are a prerequisite for a fighter pilots chances of getting home unscathed. Thanks for another interesting and informative look back to the time we had an aircraft industry, you do a fantastic job of explaining the history of each aircraft type and the reasons behind its failure or success. Thanks again. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇦

[@russkinter3000]

Douglas Devastator also had partially retracted landing gear for the same reason.

[@Kingmick58]

Hey matey. The Wirraway. Australia's first home designed and manufactured here in Oz. Had some design features from the Zero i believe.

[@johnyoung1128]

The Wirraway was based on the North American NA 6, the aircraft that the T6 “Texan” (or “Harvard” in Commonwealth service) was also based on.

[@terminusest5902]

The landing wheel systems may also have been cheaper to make. The most common and modern example of this feature is the A-10. Where high kinetic performance was not as priority and survivability was.

[@PhroXenGold]

I do wonder if the F.5/34 could've been navalised to get the FAA a decent monoplane fighter in the early years of the war. Radial engines are often preferred for naval aricraft, and meant it wouldn't be competing with the RAFs fighters for Merlins. Of course, getting the Air Ministry to give the FAA anything back then was like getting blood from a stone, so it's probably just wishful thinking, but it's a kinda interesting what if?

[@johnathandavis3693]

Wow -It DOES look like a Zero. I wouldn't want to be operating one in the Pacific Theater, if the US Navy was around.

[@danieleyre8913]

The Mustang was easily mistaken for a Bf-109. But pilots soon recognised the difference.

[@neoandroid4203]

do you plan to video of the Blackburn skua? Great video btw

[@neilfoster814]

It's a nice looking plane to be fair. I'm sure that with a little more development and fitted with a Wright Cyclone type engine, it could have made a great home defence fighter, especially armed with 4x 20mm canons, or even 2x 20mm + 4x .50cal.

[@garryferrington811]

Very nice video, reminding us of how forward-looking Britain used to be, developing two superb fighters, and a third which was also excellent, just not quite what was wanted.

[@melissasmith5109]

Should have been given to the FAA

[@grahvis]

There was also the Miles M20, designed as an emergency fighter, quick to build with a fixed undercarriage. It was similar in performance to the Hurricane with the same firepower but could carry more ammunition. In the event, it wasn't needed so went nowhere.

[@ColonelFrontline1152]

Son: *"Mum can i get a A6M Zero!"* Mum: *"No son, we already have a A6M Zero at home."* *The A6M Zero at home:*

[@tomsemmens6275]

With a radial engine it would have made an excellent naval fighter for the FAA (along with folding wings). Certainly better than the Fulmar.

[@JohnyG29]

It wouldn't have had the range nor benefit of a navigator.

[@Otokichi786]

@@JohnyG29 The Grumman F4F Wildcat/Martlet also didn't, and the RN did just fine with it.

[@TheDkeeler]

Exactly . They could of had both.

[@garrymartin6474]

Yes reminds me of the Zero if you squint a bit !

[@pencilpauli9442]

​@@Otokichi786 The thinking was that a navigator was required for shipborne sorties over the ocean. All FAA fighters designed during the latter half of the 1930s were operated by a crew of 2. Can't think of any single seaters off the top of my head. By the time the Martlet entered service, Sea Hurricanes and Seafires were being used and the need for a navigator in FAA fighter aircraft had been dropped.

[@airmakay1961]

Yet another project brushed into the dustbin of history. One, like so many, that possessed the potential to be a superior airplane to those that went on to fame. I enjoy these brief glimpses into aviation's dusty corners. Thanks, Rex!

[@RedXlV]

It's entirely reasonable that the RAF saw no need for the Gloster F.5/34, since they already had the Hurricane entering service and the Spitfire on the way. What's not reasonable is the RAF's neglect of the Fleet Air Arm (which was still part of the RAF until May 1939). Gloster's "Unnamed Fighter" seems like it would've been a much better choice for carrier use than the Sea Gladiator (already obsolete when ordered in 1938). Which also would've removed the need for the Seafire, thus allowing all Spitfire production to be devoted to land use where they were actually suitable.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@RedXlV yeah, especially given that the Fleet Air Arm would be fighting Italians for most of the war, this thing would absolutely have had a glorious service record.

[@TRHARTAmericanArtist]

Believe that author Ronald Dahl flew one of these as well as Hurricanes. At 6'6" he had a difficult time fitting in the cockpit.

[@kitbag9033]

This is unlikely; Roald Dahl learnt to fly with the RAF in Habbinaya, Iraq in 1940, then was posted to 80 Sqn on Gloster Gladiators. The F5/34s didn't leave the UK and were scrapped in 1941

[@TRHARTAmericanArtist]

@@oxcart4172 spelling autocorrect.

[@oxcart4172]

@@TRHARTAmericanArtist Yeah, it was obvious what had happened. I regretted posting that smart arse comment straight away, but forgot to delete it.

[@OldManAndTheSeaOfTooManyCats]

I see others have noticed that the aircraft is reminiscent of a Mitsubishi A6M Zero.

[@TheJaymon1962]

Looks like an Oscar

[@Ciborium]

Folland resigned just before he had the opportunity to create the new jet fighter. D'oh!

[@patrickshaw8595]

Filed away in my head as "The British Quasi-Zero that Might Have Been". The P-40's Pappy the radial-engined P-36 and Severesky's similar P-35 also come to mind. I really like the well-balanced and trim P-36 it could have resulted in a really simple and versatile radial powered fighter if it had been equipped with the Grumman F4F's engine. Fun to play "might-have-been" 80 years later in an armchair ! (What if something along the lines of the F8F's simplicity and light weight could have been gotten together 8 years earlier?)

[@stijnVDA1994]

Hey, Can you look into the hawker hunter, and one as it's own video: the only civil hunter with the tailcode: PH-NLH owned by the dutch aerospace research group.. it is a really interestingly painted version of the only twin seater hunter with camo before it went to dutch aerospace in the dutch airforce..

[@stijnVDA1994]

It does have a bit if a sad end, when in storage on an airfield with another rare hunter it has to have it's wing removed and put on the other Hunter wich still has it, the fate of the engine is unkown and only the cockpit section remains in from what i know a spanish collector. But in a stroke of irony the hunter used as a donor for PH-NLH was put on external display in the south uk in a business district in the dutch silver and orange band seen on most dutch hunters.. so it's a long and windy story..

[@chuck.reichert83]

The Japanese found the separate rudder/elevator setup helped impove airflow over the control surfaces, by limiting obstructions, thus allowing better angle of attack.

[@patrickchase5614]

The partially-retracting landing gear made an appearance in the A-10, for the same reason.

[@rgzas7071]

With Wright Cyclone 9 installed, this bird could have been a match for Zeroes and Oscars.

[@grafspee569]

Did you cover the ju88 already? if not I would suggest it for the aircraft list

[@guypehaim1080]

In the beginning of each of your videos we hear the start-up and running of an aircraft engine. What aircraft was used? It sounds like a WWI type.

[@mabpt]

A major difference between the UK and the USA at this time was how the former managed to create an export order for any rejected aircraft (i.e. CW 21), while the UK didn't appear inclined to do so or have the resources for it.

[@1slandB0y77]

As others have noted, my first thought on seeing this aircraft was: "Looks like a Zero". Because, well, it does! A small nit-pick: the word "aircraft" is an uncountable noun, and is very rarely pluralized, if ever. Therefore, "one aircraft, many aircraft". One no more has "aircrafts" than one has "sheeps". Oh, and instead of "irrespective", I think "regardless" would be a better word to use given the context. :-D

[@mikepekarek5895]

The F4U Corsair had a tail layout with the same idea. Though the F4U was more elegant. This looks like it got stung by bees.

[@daniel-m]

Thank you for the very informative video. This plane looks strangely like the Mitsubishi zero ! Is there possibly a connection ?

[@nelsonglover3963]

6:36 this brings up another question, were contemporary machine guns fitted to the fuselage/cowling able to be cleared from the cockpit? If not, why were they more reliable? Less tightly packaged than a wing mounted gun, mechanically operated vs electrically operated? I love how digestible the short videos are but they always give me more questions!

[@HootOwl513]

Yes, usually the charging handles were accessable to the pilot. Besides a lower rate of fire from the interrupter gear, and the weight of the mechanism, cowling guns were impractical in the Gloster F.5/34 because the Bristol Mercury engine's exhaust collector formed a ring around the outer leading edge of the cowling and barrel protrusions thru this collector would impede exhaust CFM. One advantage of cowling guns was greater range from rounds not needing to converge at a focal point. Actually, the Gloster Gladiator had a Mercury IX powerplant and had a pair of synchronised Vickers .303 MGs in bulges out of the fuselage sides. Perhaps wing guns were simpler. Early War wing guns were mechanically operated and set up on the ground. If tropical moisture condensed inside the wing, and then froze at altitude [ with much colder OATs], the wing guns were jammed until fixed -- back on the ground.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@HootOwl513 very interesting answer regarding the issue of installing the machine guns on the cowl! Perhaps by having the guns near the engine it kept it warm and almost entirely eliminating condensation...

[@davidjones332]

@@paoloviti6156 Condensation and rusting was a problem with early wing installations, but ducted engine heat solved that. The stoppage rate for RAF wing-mounted Brownings was once in 15,000 rounds, so there was no reliability issue.

[@paoloviti6156]

@@davidjones332 that I know very well as both Spitfires, Hurricanes and the P-51 as they all have the ducked engine heat has solved brilliantly the issue. It must be said that the Browning guns always had been very reliable...

[@Simon_Nonymous]

@@HootOwl513 looking at the Gladiator in this vid, and thinking about ones I have seen for real, am I right to think the two fuselage guns fire through the prop and inside the collector ring? NB, I know you shouldn't rely on flight sims too much, but some of the Soviet WWII planes seen in IL2 Great Battles did have manually operated charging handles in the cockpit for their nose guns.

[@birlyballop4704]

For context, the Spitfire prototype was K5054, Hurricane K5083.

[@Steve-GM0HUU]

👍Thanks for another interesting video. While it was a shame for Gloster, I do tend to think the Air Ministry made the right choice going with Hurricane which went on to give sterling service.

[@Hopeless_and_Forlorn]

Actually, the first point of ground contact during a gear-up landing with this design would not be the main tires, but, as usual, the propeller blades, with an engine change in the aftermath.

[@pythosdegothos6181]

If the blades were wooden, which was actually quite common on the hurricane and spit, the engine would not be harmed..

[@Skyfighter64]

I thought he said "Main point of contact" Rather than "first."

[@bostonrailfan2427]

easier to fix broken parts of an engine than an entire airframe…the metal propeller would have bent but that’s still a lot of energy to be dissipated onto the body which the wheels would absorb and divert saving the body and slowing them down

[@pythosdegothos6181]

The YAK 52 has much of the same philosophy when it comes to the gear not fully retracting. It is said that there was a hacksaw in the plane so the embarrassed student that left the gear up , could just saw off the splinters of the wooden propeller, and fly the plane back to base.

[@loiclaronche5675]

Looks like sthing between Ki-27 and Ki-43, with some Bloch 152 elements

[@callum-monitoredbydad-4180]

will you please do a video about the supermarine spitfire

[@carlgreisheimer8701]

I wonder if this plane would hsve been a good choice for carrier development.

[@thegodofhellfire]

I went to Japan and saw a plane, here I drew it on this napkin!

[@samuelsim7457]

It's a shame the Bristol Taurus was never fully developed.

[@QO-7]

He looks like Zero that had one tooo much cup of earl grey tea

[@kentbarnes1955]

An attractive aircraft.

[@danieleyre8913]

I could be wrong. But I always understood that this was to meet an air ministry requirement for a fighter for non-European theatres like Malaya or North Africa. And with possible production in the British Raj and/or Australia. Which was a different requirement to that which the Hurricane was designed to meet (which was the same as the Spitfire) for a home defence fighter. And that it wasn't produced because the RAF & air ministry in 1937-8 needed all production for Hurricanes (or Spitfires); to meet the massive German Bf-109 production. This probably would've been very useful against Italian or Japanese fighters, or a later development of it with a more powerful Bristol radial would've.

[@Guillermo90r]

What do you mean by retractable canopy?

[@CAP198462]

The plane’s similarities with other aircraft really brings home how designers at the time were all solving the same problems in similar ways. I see some Fw-190, others said A6M.

[@21stcenturybohemian]

The old adage "if it looks right it is right" worked for both the Hurri, and the Spit, but this... looks wrong in so many ways, and not just because of the wonky tail, but the shape of it in general, from all angles. However, you can certainly see the later E28 already in its design.

[@billmasen3923]

The F5 reminds me of the FW190

[@HamiltonStandard]

There was a Japanese ww2 torpedo bomber with that forward vertical stab, and it was also a major design factor in the success of the Vought F4U Corsair. Folland should probably take the credit.

[@thomasschreiber9559]

Seems like it would have made a good carrier fighter, good visibility for retrievals.

[@viorelush4187]

Can you cover the Romanian I.A.R. 80/I.A.R. 81 please?

[@RenChovy]

Before i readed the tittle i though it was a british captured a6m zero for a sec