Typhoon/Tempest spinners and props

[Chris Thomas]

Prompted by Jonners 'spinner challenge' in his ground-breaking Typhoon build thread, I'm sharing an enigma that has been puzzling me for a while, in the hope that sharp-eyed or well informed Britmodellers may have something to add. Preferably backed up with primary evidence!

Conventional wisdom has it (mainly due Arthur's plans I think)that the Typhoon was fitted with either a 3-bladed DH prop, alternatively a 4-bladed DH prop or a 4-bladed Rotol prop. There were also at least 3 spinner types, one for each type of prop and the the Rotol spinner was longer than the DH examples. This seemed to fit with the reported dimensions of the Typhoon which has it that the late production aircraft were 1.5 inches longer than the earlier examples. we'll come back to that ... but meanwhile the Sabre Tempests ..

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.

Back to the Typhoon. In all the documentary sources I have consulted I can find no mention of Rotol props on service Typhoons, other than trials aircraft. The AP1804A quotes 3 props as fitted to Typhoons, all DH, one 3-blade types and 2 4-bladers.

I have searched through 100s of Typhoon photos and have not been able to find any trace of a blade carrying Rotol's distinctive markings, nor any spinner which is different from the DH design. I conclude that (other than trials aircraft) Typhoons had DH props and spinners.

But what then of the extra 1.5 inches (sounds like an advert ...)? Arthur has two prop blade styles on his plans - one with 'developed' profile (ie. wider)and he thinks a longer spinner was developed to go with that as it was broader at the root. Seems reasonable to me but when was it introduced? Perhaps it was applicable to all 4-bladers? In which case all 4-bladers may have had the longer spinner?

The problem is that although many photos are available, the changes were subtle and slight changes in the angle of the photo or the rotation of the prop make comparison very difficult.

Chris

[Troy Smith]

Very interesting observations Chris.

Having a couple of the Hase Kit and several more of the Mono kit stashed away, this is useful to know.

For ease of reference here's Jonners build, spinner discussion is page 4, but many useful Tiffie tips to be noted in the whole thread.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234929066-hawker-typhoon-hasegawa-148th-with-ultracast-and-scratch-and-a-bloody-big-sharkmouth/

cheers

T

Edited April 10, 2013 by Troy Smith

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I had a trawl through Tiffie & Tempest pics last night. The interesting thing is, is that if you allow for the fact that the size and shape of the Napier sabre engine nacelle is the same on both aircraft, then the 4 blade spinner on the initial series i Tempests ( with the long cannon stubs) appears , or seems at any rate, to be shorter than that on the 4 blade Tiffie

Hmmmm

Jonners

[Spitfires Forever]

Interesting, I have been going through my copy of the Reed and Beaumont book on both aircraft and have found various pictures which show one or another of the spinners /peop configurations you described (from an esoteric viewpoint the stubby spinner looks odd and out of place, that is just IMHO) but with no distinctive markings on the prop blades themselves. Your search continues evidently.

Cheers

[John Aero]

Just an observation. As with Spitfires when they fitted Rotol props instead of DH types, the spinners were made longer to allow clearance for the bigger diameter piston boss of the Rotol. The DH prop is just a Hamilton Standard type with a relatively slim pitch change piston boss. So can we assume the shorter ones are DH and the longer type spinner is a Rotol or did you say this already.

John

[Chris Thomas]

So can we assume the shorter ones are DH and the longer type spinner is a Rotol or did you say this already.

John

Somewhere, yes!

Chris

[Chris Thomas]

Interesting, I have been going through my copy of the Reed and Beaumont book on both aircraft and have found various pictures which show one or another of the spinners /peop configurations you described (from an esoteric viewpoint the stubby spinner looks odd and out of place, that is just IMHO) but with no distinctive markings on the prop blades themselves. Your search continues evidently.

Cheers

I agree that the Rotol spinner does not look so elegant as the DH original. If you look at the camouflaged Mk.VI on page 167 (also spread over 2 pages as the chapter heading) you can see a Rotol disc on the blade root, just above the spinner.

Chris

PS. Its Beamont not Beaumont!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

So just to clarify here, for my sake

With 4 blade props we have a DH prop with a short spinner ( series i Tempests for example). We have a Rotol prop with longer blunter ended spinner ( Tempest VI for example), but we also have a DH prop with a slightly longer spinner ( but not as long or as blunt as the Rotol) : This prop may have had slightly wider blades too.

This third spinner / prop combo might have been the "standard" DH one used on most Tiffies & Tempests Vs, but we cant be sure?

Is that about right?

Jonners

[Chris Thomas]

I had a trawl through Tiffie & Tempest pics last night. The interesting thing is, is that if you allow for the fact that the size and shape of the Napier sabre engine nacelle is the same on both aircraft, then the 4 blade spinner on the initial series i Tempests ( with the long cannon stubs) appears , or seems at any rate, to be shorter than that on the 4 blade Tiffie

Hmmmm

Jonners

Yes I had noted that but was never quite sure that it wasn't an optical illusion due to the backplate being left in black. Sending you a comparison on email.

Chris

[Chris Thomas]

So just to clarify here, for my sake

With 4 blade props we have a DH prop with a short spinner ( series i Tempests for example). We have a Rotol prop with longer blunter ended spinner ( Tempest VI for example), but we also have a DH prop with a slightly longer spinner ( but not as long or as blunt as the Rotol) : This prop may have had slightly wider blades too.

This third spinner / prop combo might have been the "standard" DH one used on most Tiffies & Tempests Vs, but we cant be sure?

Jonners

Well I used to be uncertain but now I can't be sure ...

Seriously, I am coming to the conclusion that there was only one sort of DH spinner profile, fitted to both Typhoons and Tempests. Plus the Rotol combination on (some) Tempest Vs and Mk.VIs.

However, the Typhoon 'manual' states 2 types of DH 4-blader could be found on Typhoons. D3/446/1 with CSU BY 13 and D17/446/1 with CSU BY 14. The former was described as 'interim' the latter as 'production. So there is room for an early 4-blade spinner theory ...

Chris

[Max Headroom]

I can't hope to add to the above learned debate other than to point out that if using the RAFM Typhoon as a template for the spinner - don't. When returned to this country it was missing a spinner. When being prepped for exhibition it was discovered that a spinner from the HP Hastings fitted. I have no idea how it differs.

Whilst I'm at it, the Tiffie was also sans its upper cowling. That was fabricated from scratch and apparently is also wrong.

So when ZM do their 1/32 offering (well they did measure it up) be careful.

Just saying

Trevor

[Chris Thomas]

So when ZM do their 1/32 offering (well they did measure it up) be careful.

Just saying

Trevor

I'd heard ZM were doing a Tempest? Is it a Typhoon? Or both?

Chris

[Troy Smith]

Whilst I'm at it, the Tiffie was also sans its upper cowling. That was fabricated from scratch and apparently is also wrong.

Interesting, as on page 3 of Jonners build linked above in post 2, it was pointed out that Hasegawa got the upper engine cowl line wrong, perhaps this is the source of this error?

T

[pigsty]

This is a bit worrying. I have the MDC Tempest VI conversion for the 1/48 Eduard kit. It has a replacement backplate, but nothing else for the propeller. Will I need to do anything else with it?

[Max Headroom]

I'd heard ZM were doing a Tempest? Is it a Typhoon? Or both?

Chris

Good question! However since the engine cowling was the same for both (?) with only a fuel tank added between it and the cockpit then both would be the same and potentially wrong.

How would ZK have measured the Typhoon though as it is hanging down from the ceiling?

Trevor

[Enzo the Magnificent]

How would ZK have measured the Typhoon though as it is hanging down from the ceiling?

Very tall stepladders?

[gingerbob]

I knew the Tempest V (in TT markings) was hanging, but is the Typhoon now, also?

[Chris Thomas]

Good question! However since the engine cowling was the same for both (?) with only a fuel tank added between it and the cockpit then both would be the same and potentially wrong.

How would ZK have measured the Typhoon though as it is hanging down from the ceiling?

Trevor

The Tempest is hanging from the ceiling, the Typhoon on its wheels. The latter is due refurbishment; I hope it will include a new top cowling and spinner. There are other items too but the ones mentioned really alter the appearance of the aircraft.

Chris

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

This is a bit worrying. I have the MDC Tempest VI conversion for the 1/48 Eduard kit. It has a replacement backplate, but nothing else for the propeller. Will I need to do anything else with it?

Yes you'll need to sand it down so it matches the diameter of the Eduard spinner. From memory mine was too wide.

Jonners

[Chris Thomas]

This is a bit worrying. I have the MDC Tempest VI conversion for the 1/48 Eduard kit. It has a replacement backplate, but nothing else for the propeller. Will I need to do anything else with it?

Further to Johnners comment

... and fatten up the end of the spinner. That's easy isn't it? If its any consolation I've got an MDC conversion in the stash so I've got the same problem!

Chris

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Right - model wise:

Hasegawa car door with kit 3 blade prop and spine ( NB 4 blade spinner shape is identical to this from what I can see comparing them)

Hasegawa bubble top ( top of cowling as per kit) with the Eduard "short" DH spinner and prop ( note the slight difference in diameter twixt spinner and nose front)

Eduard Tempest converted to MK VI with MDC set using MDC spinner backplate and the large prop hub from the Eduard kit

Current Hasegawa "Frankenphoon" with Eduard top nose cowl. Hasegawa spinner back plate and Eduard spinner ( shorter one I think as the boxing I have has only 1 spinner) and Ultracast prop blades

Does that help at all?

Jonners

[Spitfires Forever]

Beautiful models mate, but I have heard that the Eduard Tempest is a few cm's short in the fuselage (the curse of Hasegawa?) is that true, and by how much? The only thing I notice really is the thick leading edge of the tail plane. I have the kit but haven't really given it much thought (it is about number 30 in a long line of builds) it's just,nice to know what I am up against.

Cheers

[Troy Smith]

Beautiful models mate, but I have heard that the Eduard Tempest is a few cm's short in the fuselage (the curse of Hasegawa?) is that true, and by how much? The only thing I notice really is the thick leading edge of the tail plane. I have the kit but haven't really given it much thought (it is about number 30 in a long line of builds) it's just,nice to know what I am up against.

Cheers

Randy

discussed ad infinitum. 8 scale inches too short = 1/6th inch.

In fact....after some hunting, here's a thread started by you on this!

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/77475-jaguar-tempest-kit/

As you are in the USA I recommend hunting down the Jaguar upgrade set,mastered by Roy Sutherland. It has fuselage extensions, a rudder, radiator core, cockpit, really good wheels, exhaust and some other bits.

There is pic pic here - http://www.scalemates.com/products/img/6/1/7/154617-11863.jpg?nr=ja64813&company=jaguar&name=tempest%20detail%20set

in this thread

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1353761334/1353804335/1-48+Hawker+Tempest+replacement+parts.

Roy mentions it's due to be re-done this year.

Somebody will mention the Alleycat tail, it's a good alternative, but the wheels are no improvement over the Eduard ones, and does not have the added detail parts.

Fixing the fin is easy with some modelling skill, as it thinning down the wing roots, all detailed in the first link.

Cheers

T

[Spitfires Forever]

Randy

discussed ad infinitum. 8 scale inches too short = 1/6th inch.

In fact....after some hunting, here's a thread started by you on this!

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/77475-jaguar-tempest-kit/

As you are in the USA I recommend hunting down the Jaguar upgrade set,mastered by Roy Sutherland. It has fuselage extensions, a rudder, radiator core, cockpit, really good wheels, exhaust and some other bits.

There is pic pic here - http://www.scalemates.com/products/img/6/1/7/154617-11863.jpg?nr=ja64813&company=jaguar&name=tempest detail set

in this thread

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1353761334/1353804335/1-48+Hawker+Tempest+replacement+parts.

Roy mentions it's due to be re-done this year.

Somebody will mention the Alleycat tail, it's a good alternative, but the wheels are no improvement over the Eduard ones, and does not have the added detail parts.

Fixing the fin is easy with some modelling skill, as it thinning down the wing roots, all detailed in the first link.

Cheers

T

Troy, what would I do without you mate? Your memory is much better than mine, I have made so many posts that they have run into a bit of a blur. What I have been doing is just print out the threads and put the printed sheets in the kit itself. I just went through the forums to find a post of mine on the short comings of the old Tamiya Lancaster, and couldn't find a sausage, I'll bet you know where it is. Thanks again for coming to the rescue, I had thought I posted a question or two on the subject. Getting old sucks, by the way, anybody see where I left my car keys?

Cheers

[gingerbob]

Hi Chris, I just stumbled across this little fragment (while looking for Airacobra and Mustang bits), in case it is a useful "puzzle piece" for you:

AVIA 10/354 CRD's weekly meetings with Technical Directors

15/9/41

1. Typhoon: DTD satisfied with design of new wings, orders being placed for two sets. [This, I believe, refers to the wing for the "Typhoon II", though not too long before they'd been talking about the longer-span wing originally intended for 6 cannon vs. 4]

Rotol, DH 4 blade would be ready for installation within next 3 weeks, but no guarantee of production.

bob

Edited April 12, 2013 by gingerbob