What's the difference between a Hawker Typhoon and Tempest

[cmatthewbacon]

Isn't the "look-alike" factor more a function of the very high rate at which aeronautics technology was evolving in the war years? Nobody had a ten-year development cycle for a complete "ground-up" new aircraft, so the Typhoon got a new engine and better visibility than the Hurricane, but witha Hurricane-era wing, while the Tempest didn't change the fuselage/power egg radically (except for the Tempest II), but had an entirely new wing. The RAF Fury (which was stillborn) and the Sea Fury (which wasn't) were the endpoints of that design line. Spitfires got a Griffon engine with all tha entailed, and then became Victorys/Spitefuls/Seafangs when they got a new wing with lessons learned from the Mustang. Even an Attacker is a Spiteful wing with a jet powered fuselage bolted in the middle. A Ta152H is part of an evolutionary line from an Fw190a,which left almost nothing intact. The Bearcat is a straightforward lineage from the Wildcat/Hellcat incorporating every incremental development that Grumman discovered along the way. It wa sever thus. If you have a smart design team, under intense pressure, they have their own new ideas and they borrow the best of what other people are doing that they have found out about, and incorporate them into new designs... look at Apple and Google and Samsung...

bestest,

M.

[colin ritchie]

The Typhoon is workman like and effective , and the Tempest is beautiful.. that is all!

[Stonar]

Not sure your point in the second paragraph- I was reacting to Jennings, not seconding his comment. The Tempest (Mk.V in particular) is a direct derivative of the Typhoon, so it goes far deeper than "superficial resemblance"!

bob

Re: Jennings comment, I wasn't referring to your post, I just added that on in agreement with Edgar's comment. Apologies for any confusion. It's one of the hazards of cyberspace I suppose.

The Tempest is indeed a direct derivative of the Typhoon, but it actually ended up being a lot more different than was originally intended. I understand why the original poster posed the question, particularly if he was looking at a late Typhoon and early Tempest. My point is that if you had the two aircraft side by side, or even got out a tape measure, they would reveal themselves to have substantial differences.

With regards to Colin's post above I'd say the Tempest had a presence, something beloved of designers in the automobile industry. I recently completed PCM's Tempest V and put it next to a P-47 of the same scale. Now I know that's not really a fair contest but the Tempest looked like an E Type Jag next to a Commer van

Cheers

Steve

[kwaterous]

Tempest was a fighter, and a V1 interceptor. Typhoon was a fighter bomber/ tank buster.

Tempest had a different wing (less fuel), different rear fuselage, most of em also had a different tail and a retractable landing gear

[Stonar]

Tempest was a fighter, and a V1 interceptor. Typhoon was a fighter bomber/ tank buster.

Tempest had a different wing (less fuel), different rear fuselage, most of em also had a different tail and a retractable landing gear

And an extended fuselage in front of the cockpit (as someone already mentioned) to incorporate a fuel tank. There are other, visible, smaller, external differences too.

The Typhoon may have ended up as a fighter-bomber, but it was designed as a fighter. The Tempest could and did carry out the fighter-bomber role too. Being a later aircraft it was actually better adapted and developed to carry bombs when it entered service than the Typhoon had been. Theoretically just about any fighter could become a fighter-bomber and most did.

Cheers

Steve

[Adam Maas]

I would suggest that the Bearcat's installation is superficially similar to a Fw 190 (in much the way a Typhoon is to a Tempest V or even Tempest II to a Sea Fury) but that close scrutiny reveals it to be substantially different. It has a lot more in common with the F6F (Hellcat) which coincidentally first flew at about the same date as Faber delivered his Fw 190 to the British and so could not possibly have influenced that design.

I've never seen anybody involved in the design the Bearcat admit to taking any inspiration from the Fw 190 but I stand to be corrected, US aircraft are not really my thing!

I agree with Edgar that the Typhoon and Tempest V are superficially very similar looking aeroplanes, particularly say a later Typhoon with the "bubble" canopy and a Series 1 Tempest with long barrelled cannons. I don't think that is in any way a surprising conclusion for anyone not very familiar with the two types to arrive at.

Cheers

Steve

Grumman did get a look at the Fw190A, but there's no indication it influenced the Bearcat's design beyond showing that a more close-cowled installation than the Corsair's was possible. It was mostly a case of convergent evolution, the attempt to stuff the most radial into the least airframe possible (and in the case of the Bearcat, to fix the mistake that Grumman had made with the F6F's fuselage design, which was rather draggy).

As to the Typhoon/Tempest, I agree also. The Series 1 Tempest V looks an awful lot like a late-production Typhoon, for very good reason. There are quite noticeable differences to the knowledgeable, but quite frankly a Tempest II looks less like a Tempest V than the Typhoon looks like a Tempest V.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Adam Maas

[Eric Mc]

And the Mitsubishi Zero influenced Kurt Tank.

In Europe, it had been received wisdom that high performance fighters needed streamlined, liquid cooled in line engines. The US Army Air Corps also held this belief (with the odd exception). The US Navy liked radials because of their relative simplicity.

The Zero showed that an air cooled radial engined fighter could have a high performance - provided the installation was properly cowled and it had sufficient cooling.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Eric Mc

[Andrew Jones]

You *seriously* need to get your eyes checked by a competent professional. Both are single engined, low wing, single seat monoplane fighters. Other than that they look *nothing* alike! That's like saying a P-40 and a Cessna 172 look exactly alike.

They were so different that Sir Sydney Camm originally called the Tempest the Typhoon II. And of course many US pilots couldn't tell the difference between the Typhoon and a FW190

Andtew

[Navy Bird]

The influence of the Fw 190 on the Bearcat has been discussed on BM before. The Ginter Naval Fighters volume on the Bearcat was co-written by Corky Meyer, who was one of the primary test pilots for Grumman at the time of the Bearcat design and development. Corky devotes several pages in the beginning of the book discussing the Fw 190 and its influence on the design of the Bearcat. He uses section titles like "A Trip to England Designs the F8F-1 Bearcat" and "The Design of the American Focke Wulf." If you have a chance to read this book, do so - it's a great record of the Bearcat and its service.

Corky was there at the time, and far be it from me to deny what he says. Although the F8F design had begun prior to Grumman's visit to the UK in September 1943 to view (and fly) captured Axis aircraft, it is clear that Leroy Grumman was fascinated with the Fw 190, and personally took charge of the final design of the Bearcat to incorporate many of its features. Bob Hall, the chief test pilot for the Bearcat, found many qualities in the 190 that should be incorporated into the new U.S. Navy fighter. "The Fw 190 was exactly what the Hellcat follow-on aircraft should be." The only two U.S. Navy requirements that the Fw 190 was felt to lack were vision angle over the nose for carrier approach, and a rugged aero-structure to withstand carrier operations. This led to the raised bubble canopy on the Bearcat, as well as its strong Grumman-style construction.

I think it's fair to say that the Fw 190 directly influenced the Bearcat's final design. It's not right to say that the Bearcat was a copy of the 190, as has been written elsewhere. But there was a strong influence, and we shouldn't deny that. The man who was there at the time says so, and I believe him.

Cheers,

Bill

[stevehnz]

For my happeth worth, there are angles from which an experienced eye is needed to tell the difference between a Typhoon & a Tempest V, such as front 3/4 when the wing planform & fuselage length are less obvious as are the Tempest tail feathers. Sure wing thickness, wheel width & armament are a giveaway but only if you "know" these things. As to the Fw190 bearcat thing, its long been my understanding that the captured Fw190s influenced the design of both British & US next generation radial fighters, in this case both the (Sea)Fury & Bearcat, their designers having been given a lesson in compactness & lightness. It is no co-incidence that the (Sea) Fury & Bearcat went on to be close contempories to my mind.

Steve.

[Edgar]

The Tempest could and did carry out the fighter-bomber role too. Being a later aircraft it was actually better adapted and developed to carry bombs when it entered service than the Typhoon had been.

That didn't happen during the war, of course; the Tempest remained a pure fighter until war's end.

Always bear in mind that the Typhoon was a 1937 design; often forgotten, with aircraft designs, it was conceived as an answer to an Air Ministry specification.

Edgar

[gingerbob]

There was no need to make the Tempest a fighter-bomber during the war- there were all those Typhoons to get through first! Furthermore, as with the Spit XIV, they were happy to have some high performance dedicated air fighters.

bob

[Chris Thomas]

That didn't happen during the war, of course; the Tempest remained a pure fighter until war's end.Always bear in mind that the Typhoon was a 1937 design; often forgotten, with aircraft designs, it was conceived as an answer to an Air Ministry specification.Edgar

There was no need to make the Tempest a fighter-bomber during the war- there were all those Typhoons to get through first! Furthermore, as with the Spit XIV, they were happy to have some high performance dedicated air fighters.

bob

Not quite true ... 33 Sqn trained in the fighter-bomber role and carried out one operation with 500 lb bombs just before the end of the war. At the same time 80 Sqn were in the UK at Warmwell APC learning the bombing techniques but did not return to Germany until VE Day.

Chris

[gingerbob]

I knew I was on thin ice...

bob

[grahamf]

The thing that has always puzzled me is that in the Mason book on the Typhoon and Tempest there is a picture of the first Tempest being built converting a Typhoon fuselage HM595 which if you think about it you would guess they just got a blank one from the production line and numbered it. But that fuselage doesn't look new so 'which' Typhoon was it originally?

[Adam Maas]

The thing that has always puzzled me is that in the Mason book on the Typhoon and Tempest there is a picture of the first Tempest being built converting a Typhoon fuselage HM595 which if you think about it you would guess they just got a blank one from the production line and numbered it. But that fuselage doesn't look new so 'which' Typhoon was it originally?

HM595, the Tempest V prototype, was rebuilt at least once, it's quite possible that the picture in question is its rebuild to the definitive Tempest V configuration. It initially flew as pretty much a car door Typhoon with the new wing and stretched nose, and early pictures of that configuration look new, where the fuselage of the definitive late configuration look somewhat worn (there's also a middle configuration, with the jury-rigged fin fillet but still with the car door canopy.

Note both HN595 and HN599 were ordered & built as Typhoon II prototypes

[Test Graham]

The Fw190 was designed before the Zero appeared, let alone was well known in Germany, so there's no chance of any influence on Tank. Indeed, the key points of the Fw190 design were not present on the Zero. The idea of bringing the exhaust aft and clustering the pipes was to let the exhaust flow fill in the gap behind the wide radial engine when combined with a slim fuselage. Otherwise there would have been considerable base drag. This feature was not present on the Zero or the F6F, both of which had fat fuselages to match their wide engines. Indeed the contrary influence was shown , when the Fw190 directly influenced Japanese designs - both the Judy and the Tony benefited from the engine installation when converting from inline engines to radials.

Many of the ideas in the Fw190 that impressed UK authorities were just not a matter of configuration and external shapes but details such as colour coding and close grouping of pipework, and the detail design of connections and ancilliaries.

[Stonar]

Well someone got there first. It is of course true that the first Tempests to reach the RAF were not cleared to use rockets or bombs, so it is fair to say they were not intended as fighter bombers. 4 x 20mm cannon still makes a formidable (and accurate) ground attack armament.

I remember that the first planned batches of Tempest IIs were to have been "pure" fighters, later ones being relevantly strengthened for a fighter-bomber role.

No. 33 Squadron used rockets, post war, in Malaya too.

HM595 was a Tempest prototype, formerly referred to as the Typhoon II. Is that where the confusion arises?

Cheers

Steve

[Chris Thomas]

The thing that has always puzzled me is that in the Mason book on the Typhoon and Tempest there is a picture of the first Tempest being built converting a Typhoon fuselage HM595 which if you think about it you would guess they just got a blank one from the production line and numbered it. But that fuselage doesn't look new so 'which' Typhoon was it originally?

I haven't found any evidence to suggest that a production Typhoon donated the fuselage to Tempest HM595. I would think it more likely that new components would be used for an important prototype and that your suggestion of a 'blank one' is correct.

That a Typhoon centre section (as well as the rear fuselage) was used is confirmed by he presence of the small blister evident on the wing root fairing on HM595. This was necessary as the Typhoon section was designed to accommodate a thicker wing and protruded into the slimmer Tempest wing fairing.

This same blister was evident on the first 50 production Tempest Vs, which employed redundant Typhoon centre sections before the redesigned Tempest sections were available. Not sure whether this was expediency or economy (some Typhoon contracts were cancelled or curtailed during 1942/43).

Chris

[Adam Maas]

I haven't found any evidence to suggest that a production Typhoon donated the fuselage to Tempest HM595. I would think it more likely that new components would be used for an important prototype and that your suggestion of a 'blank one' is correct.

That a Typhoon centre section (as well as the rear fuselage) was used is confirmed by he presence of the small blister evident on the wing root fairing on HM595. This was necessary as the Typhoon section was designed to accommodate a thicker wing and protruded into the slimmer Tempest wing fairing.

It's even more obvious than that if you look at any picture of HM595 in its original configuration. It's pretty clearly a car door Typhoon with a nose stretch and a new wing, not yet the Tempest V configuration that went to production, it was later altered into the production configuration after an intermediate step with a scabbed-on fin fillet.

[Adam Maas]

The Fw190 was designed before the Zero appeared, let alone was well known in Germany, so there's no chance of any influence on Tank. Indeed, the key points of the Fw190 design were not present on the Zero. The idea of bringing the exhaust aft and clustering the pipes was to let the exhaust flow fill in the gap behind the wide radial engine when combined with a slim fuselage. Otherwise there would have been considerable base drag. This feature was not present on the Zero or the F6F, both of which had fat fuselages to match their wide engines. Indeed the contrary influence was shown , when the Fw190 directly influenced Japanese designs - both the Judy and the Tony benefited from the engine installation when converting from inline engines to radials.

Many of the ideas in the Fw190 that impressed UK authorities were just not a matter of configuration and external shapes but details such as colour coding and close grouping of pipework, and the detail design of connections and ancilliaries.

A6M first flight April 1939, Fw190 first flight June 1939. There's no way there was any cross-pollination in the designs, although the real difference is in the wing, with the A6M have a larger, lightly loaded wing which led in part to its poor performance at high speeds but high manoeverability at low speeds, very much unlike the Fw190 (unlike the F6F, the A6M is not notably fat in the fuselage, although it's not as slim as the Fw190)

[Procopius]

They're both hideous, though, although the Germans had been making ugly aeroplanes since the D.VII, so the Japanese can hardly take credit for that, either.

[Chris Thomas]

It's even more obvious than that if you look at any picture of HM595 in its original configuration. It's pretty clearly a car door Typhoon with a nose stretch and a new wing, not yet the Tempest V configuration that went to production, it was later altered into the production configuration after an intermediate step with a scabbed-on fin fillet.

I try to avoid wasting people's time by stating the obvious.

[gingerbob]

There was no need to make the Tempest a fighter-bomber during the war- there were all those Typhoons to get through first! Furthermore, as with the Spit XIV, they were happy to have some high performance dedicated air fighters.

bob

Not quite true ... 33 Sqn trained in the fighter-bomber role and carried out one operation with 500 lb bombs just before the end of the war. At the same time 80 Sqn were in the UK at Warmwell APC learning the bombing techniques but did not return to Germany until VE Day.

Chris

In the course of wading through some files today, I came upon this:

Meeting re Day Fighter (and Army Support) situation 6/5/43:

"Tempest... Should be regarded as Typhoon replacements. Should not be regarded as a replacement for the light type of fighter such as Spit IX or XXI."

"Apart from provision for Typhoon, visualised that the Tempest types would eventually be employed for Army support and general low attack work." [which was, after all, one reason for the enthusiasm for the Centaurus]. But then, they also thought that the Typhoon would be out of production in Sept '44.

bob