Gladiator Mk II

[Dazza]

Just for fun I've been flying around in the Gladiator wondering how it stands up. Fab model and cockpit. I appreciate the improved head movement though with the upper wing, wires and frames it'd benefit even more having a similar range of head movement to a Hurricane for eg.

In comparison to the other CR42 and Tigermoth biplane types, the controls seem very twitchy. Far less stability in pitch and especially yaw, though that slightly improves at higher speed. Honestly I was expecting much more stable flight characteristics having recently watched this fab video with a Shuttleworth Collection pilot saying 'what an absolute joy it is to fly, with no wayward tendencies and a stable gun platform' - except very tricky ground handling and take-off / landing with it's forward COG and huge 'Pitts Special' over-powered engine - which at 250 mph would keep up with a Hurricane I. The RAF had featured Gladiator flight displays, most famously the 3 ship formation display flown entirely while tied together. I'm not feeling this describes our Gladiator.

https://youtu.be/6A74oK_jg3c?t=264

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/aircraft...-gladiator.htm

Gloster Gladiator Mk II
Engine(s): One air cooled, 9 cylinder radial, Bristol Mercury VIIIA or VIIIAS of 840 hp (636 kW) with manual boost override driving a Fairey Reed 3-bladed propeller of 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) diameter.
Performance: Maximum level speed 215 mph (346 kph) at sea level, 257 mph (414 kph) at 14,600 ft (4,449 m); Time to 10,000 ft (3,048 m) 4 min 30 sec; Service ceiling 33,500 ft (11,570 m); Range 444 mls (714 km); Endurance 2 hrs 6 min.

Using the Channel Map I'm managing 194 mph IAS at sea level and 184 mph (235 TAS) at 14,600 ft. Both 20+ mph below spec.
The Trop version reads max Boost at 5.4 instead of 5.7 resulting in being 4-5 mph slower.

Compared to the Flashcards Recommended Setting: Climb +5 lb Boost at 110 mph 2400 rpm. I can only achieve 2000+ rpm.

Not complaining, just wondering if the flight model and performance might be a bit off.
Maybe not so important as it's unlikely most will bother flying the Gladiator in combat, if at all. But for an aircraft that did account for itself quite well, though disadvantaged, it'd be nice to see it given a fair chance.

Meh. Or maybe it's just me !

Cheers
Daz

[Karaya]

Acc. to this flight test data (Pages 11 & 12)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ator-k7964.pdf

Topspeeds for the Gladiator are as follows:

202 mph at sea level at +3.5 lbs boost
208.5 mph at sea level at +4.9 lbs boost

245.5 mph at 14,200 ft at +3.5 lbs boost
245.5. mph at 12,400 ft at +4.9 lbs boost

Clipboard03.jpg

[Dazza]

Thanks for the relevant data. Lovely stuff. I gave it another go.

Using those settings at both high altitudes I'm 10+ mph slower
Using those sea level settings I'm 15+ mph slower
BCO to 5.7 lbs from sea level adds about 40 RPM and 5 mph

Just for the sake of it I made several altitude comparisons with Boost and RPM matching examples closely, but speeds were consistently 15mph + slower.
It's a little tricky to be precise attaining these listed boost levels. For eg 4.9 Boost is between 98 and 99 % where our 100% is 5.2 lbs.
I couldn't discern notable drag from the oil radiator open at 15-20% for temp stability.

Comparing these files with the Gladiator Flashcards recommended settings simply don't match at all.

I'm not being pedantic about speeds, just wondering if the overall flight modeling holds up. I realise the design and lack of rudder trim etc but compared to our other biplanes it's very twitchy and unstable, which goes directly against the pilot description and its use as a display aircraft by the RAF. To me it don't match up. I've no idea how this sim engine works, I just enjoy flying. Maybe I'm just crap at it hehe.

Thanks all
Daz

[Karaya]

Can confirm, I just tested the Gladiator Mk.II at sea level and full power (boost cutout on) on the channel map and could only get it up to 194 mph (312 kmh).
Meanwhile the CR.42 with full power (boost cutout on) can reach and hold 380kmh (ca. 236 mph) at sea level. However I have no performance figures for the Falco so cannot say if that is correct or not.

Another issue with the Gladiator is that the guns are shooting slightly below the gunsight center dot, regardless of convergence. This too needs fixing.

On the other hand, I did not find the Gladiator to be twitchy. It is a handful at slow speeds though because of the immense engine torque which has to be counteracted by generous usage of the rudder.

[Dazza]

Can confirm, I just tested the Gladiator Mk.II at sea level and full power (boost cutout on) on the channel map and could only get it up to 194 mph (312 kmh).
Meanwhile the CR.42 with full power (boost cutout on) can reach and hold 380kmh (ca. 236 mph) at sea level. However I have no performance figures for the Falco so cannot say if that is correct or not.

Another issue with the Gladiator is that the guns are shooting slightly below the gunsight center dot, regardless of convergence. This too needs fixing.

On the other hand, I did not find the Gladiator to be twitchy. It is a handful at slow speeds though because of the immense engine torque which has to be counteracted by generous usage of the rudder.

Fab. Yes I'd forgot about the low gunsight too.
I can understand the huge engine torque but don't feel such a sense of 'teetering' on a balance point comparing it to the CR42.

Daz

[Dazza]

After giving things a fresh go I find the 'teetering' instability I stated before settles down as speed increases. Being fixed pitch unlike the CR42, it just takes longer to get there. And as for sustaining it we already confirmed it's a little shy over-all on speed.

Daz

[ATAG_Noofy]

Meanwhile the CR.42 with full power (boost cutout on) can reach and hold 380kmh (ca. 236 mph) at sea level. However I have no performance figures for the Falco so cannot say if that is correct or not.

Bitteschön:

CR.42 performance.jpg

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Are you testing the aircraft in No Cockpit view?

You will not get accurate speed readings in the normal cockpit view.

[Karaya]

I'm always testing in NoCockpit view.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Also, the Tropical versions will be slower because of the air filter.

[Dazza]

Also tested with no cockpit, temperate version, Blitz map.
At sea level Trop version 5-6 mph slower.

Daz

[Dazza]

Another realisation from my own perspective is I use a MSFFB2 and literally 'feel' the difference in aircraft handling. So in the case of the Gladiator I simply don't feel control surface effects until higher speeds - which accounts for the 'teetering' comment I made earlier. Once at speeds over 130 mph for eg things feel more solid. However I don't perceive this same lack of control feel in other types, not even the Tiger Moth with it's small engine. I'm unsure how others without FFB sense control surfaces and whether they notice such differences.

Daz