Concerning Tempests

[fatalbert]

Evening fellow modellers,need some info about Hawker Tempests so I thought I would start this thread,maybe it can expand for any other queries about this aircraft.

To start the ball rolling,my question is about the MkV series 1 airframe.I have read that these aircraft had the reinforcing plates on the tail join in the same way as the Typhoon,I was wondering if all of this batch had them.As far as I am aware the series 1 airframes had the extended cannon fairings too,so if the fairings are present,do they have the reinforcing.Its hard to tell from photos,

Many thanks for looking

Neil

[theplasticsurgeon]

Oh - I wish this was posted last week.  I've just returned a very interesting copy of Typhoon and Tempest at War to the Jet Age members library.

I can look again for the points raised over the weekend.

I don't remember seeing the reinforcing plates, but did see Tempests with Typhoon underside stripes, and protruding cannons - neither were known to me previously.

Edited July 21, 2017 by theplasticsurgeon

[fatalbert]

Thankyou mate ,I would  appreciate that☺.

 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

In Typhoon & Tempest in Action from Squadron/Signal there is a photo of JN729 with something vaguely resembling those plates. On the other hand, there is a photo of Beamont's JN751 few pages further, which seems to be without them, although colour profile rendition of this plane sometimes show her with reinforcing plates in place. In Piekalkiewicz's book Invasion there is well-known two-page photo of III Sqn. Tempest from JN serial range, taken during summer 1944. The aircraft is clearly one of the early production machines (gun fairings protruding from the wing leading edge), but I cannot see reinforcing plates, not even with magnifying glasses. Neither can I see anything on the first two photos, depicting early Tempests, on the following web page:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html

The following photo seems to show something just in front of horizontal tail, however it looks more like heavy rivet line than reinforcing plates, so I am not convinced:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c8/46/19/c84619deea7ad2d7eb3aa9f40816ee0f.jpg

Would be happy to be proven either right or wrong, in both cases I learn something. Cheers

Jure

[fatalbert]

Thanks jure,it looks like maybe they were discontinued part way through the batch.

[Greenshirt]

According to Richard Franks' guide, only the prototypes had the fishplates on the join between the fuselage and empennage. So all production Tempests did not have the plates. No relationship to the longer barreled Hispano. 

 

The 100 Series I built were serials JN729-773, JN792-822, and JN854-877. But in Appendix IV he says some were finished as Series II, others retroactively converted, and JN750 built as a Series II. 

 

Tim

[fatalbert]

Awsome ,thanks Tim,😊

[fatalbert]

That's an interesting looking book there Tim.would you recommend it?

Neil

[Greenshirt]

Just now, fatalbert said:

That's an interesting looking book there Tim.would you recommend it?

Neil

Yes. I got mine with the Typhoon book at Telford, in 2014. Until then my only ref was the Squadron booklet mentioned above by @Jure Miljevic  I'm sure there are better, but for my needs it fits the bill perfectly. 

 

Tim

[Chris Thomas]

1 hour ago, Greenshirt said:

According to Richard Franks' guide, only the prototypes had the fishplates on the join between the fuselage and empennage. So all production Tempests did not have the plates. No relationship to the longer barreled Hispano. 

 

 

This is incorrect.  The fishplates were present on production Tempest at least up to JN862; they had gone by JN875. This is based on close examination of original photos. The plates are difficult to see because the larger Tempest tailplane pushed the 'Sky band' further forward than on the original Typhoons, which makes the plates more difficult to see on Tempests. On the Tempest the only the front tip of the plates just overlap the rear of the band. it is correct however that there was no direct relationship between the fishplates and the longer-barrelled cannon.

 

The difference between Series 1 and Series 2 Tempest Vs are more complex than usually presented. I will post a summary of what I know when I have more time, soon after the weekend.

 

Chris

 

 

[fatalbert]

Thankyou Chris ,I appreciate all your efforts chaps ☺

Neil

[Greenshirt]

1 hour ago, Chris Thomas said:

This is incorrect.

Thanks, Chris. Happy to be corrected. 

 

Tim

[Chris Thomas]

50 minutes ago, Greenshirt said:

Thanks, Chris. Happy to be corrected. 

 

Tim

It's not you I'm correcting Tim - it's Richard Franks!

Chris

[Jure Miljevic]

Duly noted, Chris, thank you. I am looking forward to read more about differences between Series I and II Tempests. Cheers

Jure

[Greenshirt]

18 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

It's not you I'm correcting Tim - it's Richard Franks!

Chris

True enough, Chris, but if I perpetuate wrong info I'm just as much a part of the problem. I realize we learn new info all the time, now I just need to put some notes in my book and hopefully I'll not repeat my error. 

 

Tim

[Chris Thomas]

On 21/07/2017 at 7:24 PM, Jure Miljevic said:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c8/46/19/c84619deea7ad2d7eb3aa9f40816ee0f.jpg

 

Tempest V Series 1 and 2

 

First let me say that difference between Series 1 and Series 2 Tempests is not entirely clear to me. The terms seem only to appear in Hawker records; I have yet to find an RAF record that mentions them, let alone defines them. Records of individual airframe status no longer survive so photographs (frustratingly few) provide the most reliable record, supplemented by official correspondence which states intent rather than the actual event.

 

By definition ‘Series 1’ Tempest Vs were the first production aircraft and somewhere in the the first batch (100 aircraft JN729-773, JN792-822, JN854-877) the Series 2 appeared (or after the first 100 some would have us believe).  There were a number of changes in this period and I feel that the difference between Series 1 and Series 2 would have been defined by more than the replacement of long-barrelled cannon with the shorter variant (as usually cited).

 

The first 50 Tempest Vs (presumably JN729 to JN773 and JN792-796) were built using the centre-sections from a cancelled Typhoon contract. This is the box-like structure, made from steel tubes, that sits between the wings. The Typhoon centre-section was very similar to the Tempest version but because of the latter’s slimmer wings, the wing root fairing would not quite fit over the Typhoon version. This resulted in a small blister over the offending structure which is evident in photos, often with much of the paint rubbed off by fitters’ feet. One can be clearly seen in the photo of JF-L or J (which may be JN768) in June Miljevic's link.

I rather suspected that this feature might have been associated with the ‘fishplates’ discussed in the above posts. However I was a bit surprised that when I examined relevant photos closely and the fishplates were evident well beyond the first 50 Tempests, almost to the end of the JN-series. Latest airframe identified so far is JN862 (85^th).  First confirmed without the plates is JN875 (98^th).

 

The longer-barrelled cannon (Hispano Mk II) was replaced much earlier than sometimes claimed – some sources indicate all the JN series were Series 1 with the long cannon.  The latest airframe I’ve been able to identify with the protruding cannon is JN767 (39^th). There is a photo of JN801 (55^th) in full stripes at Newchurch in late June/early July 1944, which is the earliest found with the short-barrelled Hispano Mk V. Some sources state that the shorter cannon was retrofitted to some of the earlier airframes but I have not found any evidence to support this. 

 

Finally we have a set of internal changes that cannot be determined from photos, namely the fittings required for the carriage of long-range tanks (LRT), bombs or RP (unless the aircraft in question is actually carrying one of these devices).  Also in this category is the equipment with spring-tab ailerons. 

 

However, it is known from Air Staff correspondence that LR tank capability was expected from the 51st production aircraft (JN797) with bomb carriage fittings from the 151^st aircraft and RP fittings from the 351^st, i.e. bombs and RP were not available until the 51^st and 251^st EJ-serialled Tempest Vs entered service. This was no handicap as bombs were not used until April 1945 and RP not until the last quarter of 1945. There was no possibility of the LRT (and possibly the bomb/RP) mods being retrofitted owing to the limited access in the Tempest’s thin wing.

 

The arrival of the much-vaunted spring tab ailerons remains obscure (to me any way).

 

So exactly which of these features heralded the change from Series 1 to Series 2 I don’t know for certain but the ‘pukka’ Tempest centre section, the short cannon and LRT capability all seem to arrive after the 50^th aircraft which might well be changeover point?

 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Chris

Thank you for these information. I had just finished reading the topic about SGM/Sky code letters on Tempest, so your post fits right into my stride. About that blister on karman: I presume you are talking about slightly darker area with something resembling a line near its end? Cheers

Jure

[tempestfan]

44 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

 

The first 50 Tempest Vs (presumably JN729 to JN773 and JN792-796) were built using the centre-sections from a cancelled Typhoon contract. This is the box-like structure, made from steel tubes, that sits between the wings. The Typhoon centre-section was very similar to the Tempest version but because of the latter’s slimmer wings, the wing root fairing would not quite fit over the Typhoon version. This resulted in a small blister over the offending structure which is evident in photos, often with much of the paint rubbed off by fitters’ feet. One can be clearly seen in the photo of JF-L or J (which may be JN768) in June Miljevic's link.

...

 

So exactly which of these features heralded the change from Series 1 to Series 2 I don’t know for certain but the ‘pukka’ Tempest centre section, the short cannon and LRT capability all seem to arrive after the 50^th aircraft which might well be changeover point?

 

 

IIRC either the introductory notes to Arthur Bentley's drawings or an Annotation on them themselves cited the Typhoon centre sections as the Primary reason for a Differentiation between Srs 1 and 2. Would have to look up the number he quoted. As the drawings were originally done 44 years ago, he may have had Access to Hawker documents that now no longer exist/are findable ? Really time to finally start the Mason book and pick up the Eduard Tempest again... and yes, I'm looking for yours all the time but it's fairly expensive. I don't mind paying a Price for a good book but even I have a Limit...

 

How about an updated 2nd Edition ?

[ben_m]

Thanks for the latest information on the series 1 and 2 Chris.

 

On the subject of 'Typhoon and Tempest Story' prices second hand, I bought mine from a seller on Abebooks several years ago: I paid about £30. In the inside it had a stamp from a library when it had been removed from stock, and the price they sold it for: 50p!

[Chris Thomas]

5 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

Hello, Chris

Thank you for these information. I had just finished reading the topic about SGM/Sky code letters on Tempest, so your post fits right into my stride. About that blister on karman: I presume you are talking about slightly darker area with something resembling a line near its end? Cheers

Jure

Hello Jure

Yes, I think you are looking at the right thing.  It does not show up too well but you may find it on other photos - for example on Beamont's R-B JN751. It shows up particularly well on Sqn Cdr Iremonger's SA-F JN762 (in my Osprey 'Tempest Sqns' p.17 or the IWM shot of 'Lefty' Whitman climbing out of JF-X JN735 (in Osprey Typhoon & Tempest Aces p.54)

5 hours ago, tempestfan said:

 

IIRC either the introductory notes to Arthur Bentley's drawings or an Annotation on them themselves cited the Typhoon centre sections as the Primary reason for a Differentiation between Srs 1 and 2. Would have to look up the number he quoted. As the drawings were originally done 44 years ago, he may have had Access to Hawker documents that now no longer exist/are findable ? Really time to finally start the Mason book and pick up the Eduard Tempest again... and yes, I'm looking for yours all the time but it's fairly expensive. I don't mind paying a Price for a good book but even I have a Limit...

 

How about an updated 2nd Edition ?

Just had a look at Arthur's plans and can't find a note there. Can't lay my hands on the introductory notes so that is probably where he mentioned the Typhoon centre sections. He certainly did have access to Hawker drawings which is why his plans are head and shoulders above the rest. He even has that small blip on the wing root fairing on his scrap side view of the V Series 1.

 

Mason's book came out about 6 weeks after mine. Bad timing for both of us! Mason's book is better on the development side as he had access to Hawker material.  Even so there are some weird errors - like the Typhoon NF with radar in the LR tank? Nooo... 16-rocket Typhoons on operations? Nooo...

 

A new version of T&TS has been proposed several times but come to nought.  Publishing this sort of book is difficult in this internet age.

 

2 hours ago, ben_m said:

Thanks for the latest information on the series 1 and 2 Chris.

 

On the subject of 'Typhoon and Tempest Story' prices second hand, I bought mine from a seller on Abebooks several years ago: I paid about £30. In the inside it had a stamp from a library when it had been removed from stock, and the price they sold it for: 50p! 

 

The library has sold a copy of my book!! No wonder my Public Lending Rights payments have slumped.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Found it! I does show very clearly on the JN762 photo. Thanks again and cheers

Jure

[Troy Smith]

 

Thanks for all the  clarifications Chris.

 

A couple of details not mentioned so far.

early Tempests also have 5 spoke wheel hubs,  as visible in the above.  At some point there is switch to 4 spoke hubs.

They look the same as 5 spoke Typhoon hubs, but the Typhoon has a thicker wheel?

 

Is there  not also a changeover in propeller and spinners at some point?

there was a thread on this previously

On 10/04/2013 at 18:12, Chris Thomas said:

Initial production Tempest Vs were fitted with a DH 4-blader - (and spinner) apparently the same as the late production Typhoons. All the JN, EJ and NV-serialled aircraft had these but in the SN-serialled batch, which were delivered from March 1945, increasing numbers were fitted with a Rotol 4-blader which had a distinctly different spinner (it was blunter and had a vertical panel line just forward of the blades as well as a deeper baseplate; the DH spinner was one piece). In photos of these Rotol Tempests the distinctive Rotol disc markings, familiar from Spits, can be seen at the blade root.

All Tempest VIs had the Rotol prop; TT.5s could be seen with either DH or Rotol as they appear to have kept the prop applicable to the particular Mk.V airfame from which they were modified.

 

as a picture is worth a 1000 words....

JN730 with DH

 

Another early Tempest (shrouded exhaust are on note)

 

SN354,  Rotol, I can see the blade markings and blunter shape

 

Mk VI NX135 (I think)

 

 

 

some Tempest VI seem to have a longer spinner

 

 

HTH

T

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Troy Smith
add details and pics

[Jure Miljevic]

Could those longer spinners on F Mk.6 come from Centaurus powered Mk.IIs? Both marks had Rotol propeller so why not sharing the same spinner? Cheers

Jure

[Chris Thomas]

Ah yes Troy, the wheels ...

 

I'm afraid I do not have good information on these.  The main wheels certainly had Typhoon hubs to start with - 5-spoke but I believe they had special thinner tyres, necessary due the limited depth of the wheel bay in the Tempest's slim wing. The hubs were changed during the JN series for a new 4-spoke design which remained for the rest of Tempest production.  JN818 photographed at Langley just before delivery in mid-May 1944 had the 5-spoke, but JN875 at Newchurch in early July 1944 had 4-spoke.  I guess they would have been easy to retrofit, but no evidence of that.

 

Yes, there was a change of prop and spinner, from De Havilland to Rotol, but that was late in the Mk.V production run, so out of the reckoning in the Series 1/Series 2 issue.

 

The exhaust fairing visible in your second photo above was only present on the earliest production aircraft. The four Tempests delivered to 486 Sqn in February 1944 (and later reallocated to 3 Sqn) had them but they are the last that appear in any photos. Presumably they were withdrawn from use in the spring of 1944, as they were on Typhoons, due to cooling issues.

Chris

 

[AWFK10]

I was catching up on this thread and was about to say, before I reached Chris' post, that I remembered reading somewhere that special thin tyres were developed expressly for the Tempest. It turns out I was probably thinking of Pierre Clostermann's "The Big Show", which as we all know isn't the most reliable source but for what it's worth: "Special ultra-thin tyres - they had to fit into the wings themselves - were evolved by Dunlop's".

 

And there's this: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136569-Hawker-Tempest-tyre-size-and-Ply-rating