Eduard 1/48 Hawker Tempest Mk.V Early

[pipthepilot]

This evening I have been experimenting making lenses for the lights. 

 

 

 

Also, I realised I hadn't posted any photo of the fuselage halves together. It didn't go together easily, it took a lot of fettling to get the radiator to fit properly.

 

 

 

If you look closely above you can see the additional braces I have added that were made from leftover pieces of PE boards in order to replicate the example in the photo below.

 

 

One thing that did occur to me is that I believe that the Cuckoo doors were added later in the war to address the issue with Normandy dust getting into the air intake. This being the case would the Tempest Mk.V series 1 (e.g. the Early version) have had Cuckoo doors? 

[pipthepilot]

Another part I have been researching are the wheels. When I was looking to upgrade parts I found few items for the Tempest but quite a lot for the Typhoon, the wheels I bought are Typhoon ones. I noticed the kit wheels had 5 spokes so when I found the Typhoon set of wheel with 5 spokes I was happy that they would have been the same, however, when looking at reference photos I noticed that the Tempest had only 4 spokes so I started to get concerned that maybe these were not the correct ones to use. I have since discovered that the Series 1 tempest did use the same wheels as the Typhoon with 5 spokes and the series 2 has 4 spokes.

 

 

Notice the 5 spokes. 

Edited April 24, 2018 by pipthepilot

[stefano59]

Hi Philip,

yes,  five spokes for MkV Series 1, but  4 for Series 2.

Are you sure the Tempest wheels were the same of Typhoon? I red that, because the thinner laminar wing of Tempest, also the wheels were thinner.

Beautiful work on lights and cuckoo doors: please, may You describe how did you build those black lampholders?

TIA,

Stefano 

[pipthepilot]

3 hours ago, stefano59 said:

Are you sure the Tempest wheels were the same of Typhoon? I red that, because the thinner laminar wing of Tempest, also the wheels were thinner.

1

 

Interesting question about the Wheels, do you remember where you read that? 

 

In order to be an accurate series 1, there are quite a few modifications to make to this kit including adding a small blister on the wing root fairings. The first 100 Tempests were the Series 1 and used the Typhoon frame, the pickup point casting for the rear wing spar was too high so a small blister was required to cover it, series 2 had a new casting that didn't foul the fairing. Quite an important visual issue to address is the series 1 still had the reinforcing "fishplates" that were used on the Typhoon to address the structural issue with the tail caused by elevator flutter but I have no idea yet how to recreate these. And finally, as I mentioned above I am not 100% that the Cuckoo doors were used on the series 1 either?    

 

4 hours ago, stefano59 said:

Beautiful work on lights and cuckoo doors: please, may You describe how did you build those black lampholders?

 

I used 2.4mm styrene tube and .75mm styrene rod. I cut thin slices of the tube and rod as seen below and carefully glued them in place.

I then used a 2mm drill bit to increase the inner diameter of the 2.4mm tube and create the rear bowl shape of the lamp.

To add a little more detail I used a very small 0.3mm drill bit and drilled holes into the .75mm rod slices.

Then I sanded it so all the pieces were the same height and the frame was the right thickness.

 

 

Next, I painted the whole thing interior green before brush painting the rear bowl using chrome and the frame in black. 

 

Lastly, I used drops of Tamiya X-25 and X-27 applied with a brush to create the lenses.

 

 

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, pipthepilot said:

Interesting question about the Wheels, do you remember where you read that? 

 

It's mentioned in Pierre Clostermann's 'The Big Show' IIRC,   but @Chris Thomas  would probably know for sure.    Worth noting that Tempest UC leg goes back,  and the Typhoon wheel stick out 

hhm, image search time

this is on the dreaded PB...

 

Note, I think this is the same plane as the pic quoted below,  note the unusual spinner, and 3 blade prop,   so it's a Typhoon.

13 hours ago, pipthepilot said:

If you look closely above you can see the additional braces I have added that were made from leftover pieces of PE boards in order to replicate the example in the photo below.

 

 

One thing that did occur to me is that I believe that the Cuckoo doors were added later in the war to address the issue with Normandy dust getting into the air intake. This being the case would the Tempest Mk.V series 1 (e.g. the Early version) have had Cuckoo doors?

 

Again, a @Chris Thomas question.

He'll like the work you have done on the Eduard BTW.

 

 

 

 

ahh, bit small,  

 

, 

 

you can see that the wheel sits closer to the door.   How does the resin wheel compare with the kits ones?

Perhaps they 5 spoke series 1 are the Typhoon type, and the series 2 got the thinner ones?

 

1 hour ago, pipthepilot said:

Quite an important visual issue to address is the series 1 still had the reinforcing "fishplates" that were used on the Typhoon to address the structural issue with the tail caused by elevator flutter but I have no idea yet how to recreate these.

I think the only Tempests with fishplates were prototypes,  there are some clear shots of series 1 planes and they don't show up,  again, a @Chris Thomas question

 

 

hmm,  I think I can see some fishplates here though?

 

It is possible to make a crude punch set,  using two pieces of perspex,  and then make a fishplate type punch,  although perhaps s piece of brass tube formed to the shape,  sharpened, and used as 'cookie cuter'  on some thin lead sheet would create thin flexible plates, if that makes sense? 

 

the work on the under wing landing light is excellent,  superb bit of detail.  

 

don't forget to thin the edges of the wheel well, as it's pretty chunky (I'm sure you won't)

 

another treat of an update Pip,  and hope some of the above is of use.

 

cheers

T

[pipthepilot]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

How does the resin wheel compare with the kits ones?

Perhaps they 5 spoke series 1 are the Typhoon type, and the series 2 got the thinner ones?

 

The resin ones are the same thickness but slightly smaller diameter.

 

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

I think the only Tempests with fishplates were prototypes,  there are some clear shots of series 1 planes and they don't show up,  again, a @Chris Thomas question

 

 

hmm,  I think I can see some fishplates here though?

 

There are definitely fishplates visible. Also, if you look closely you can also just make out the small bump on the wing fillet fairing although it is not very obvious in the photo above, it can be seen more clearly in the photo below. 

Just noticed that the Fishplates are also clearly visible.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

don't forget to thin the edges of the wheel well, as it's pretty chunky (I'm sure you won't)

 

I hadn't forgotten :-) but I haven't decided yet whether to thin the edge from the inside or attempt to make a shaped tool to create the lip similar to Paul Budzik. 

 

http://paulbudzik.com/models/tempest-construction/tempest-construction-page3.html

 

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

another treat of an update Pip,  and hope some of the above is of use.

 

cheers

T

 

Thanks, really glad you like my build, and I really appreciate the information. 

 

 

[Chris Thomas]

Troy was right, Pip; I am impressed with what you've done so far!

 

As for dust filters (cuckoo doors etc) - not required for Tempest V Series 1.  

 

As for Series 1 differences, I have copied below some notes on my findings, which appeared in Britmodeller elsewhere but are applied with further information.  Hope they help.

 

Cracking work so far.  Personally I'm sitting it out until the revised Tempest V (revised) finally arrives!

 

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).

 

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.  

 

The main wheels certainly had Typhoon hubs to start with - 5-spoke 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; they were fitted with new smaller tyres.  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.

The 5-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "EX, HVY, code 1.EE.17" 11.25-12 tyres.

The 4-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "FE11" 30 x 9.00-15 tyres.

 

 

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.

 

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, 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^staircraft and RP fittings from the 351^st, i.e. bombs and RP were not available until the 51^stand 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^thaircraft which might well be changeover point?

 

[pipthepilot]

39 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

Troy was right, Pip; I am impressed with what you've done so far!

 

As for dust filters (cuckoo doors etc) - not required for Tempest V Series 1.  

 

As for Series 1 differences, I have copied below some notes on my findings, which appeared in Britmodeller elsewhere but are applied with further information.  Hope they help.

 

Cracking work so far.  Personally I'm sitting it out until the revised Tempest V (revised) finally arrives!

 

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).

 

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.  

 

The main wheels certainly had Typhoon hubs to start with - 5-spoke 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; they were fitted with new smaller tyres.  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.

The 5-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "EX, HVY, code 1.EE.17" 11.25-12 tyres.

The 4-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "FE11" 30 x 9.00-15 tyres.

 

 

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.

 

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, 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^staircraft and RP fittings from the 351^st, i.e. bombs and RP were not available until the 51^stand 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^thaircraft which might well be changeover point?

 

Hello Chris,

 

Thanks for the really detailed information. 

I wasn't aware Eduard were preparing a new tooled version of the Tempest until after I started this build but building this kit I have learnt so much more than I would have with a new kit as there are so many areas to correct, which has made this build incredibly fun.

 

Philip

Edited April 24, 2018 by pipthepilot

[stefano59]

Thank you Philip,

great scatchbuilding on lamps and on all the rest of the plane, and this work makes fascinating this old kit.

 

Stefano

[stefano59]

Hello Philip and All,  excuse me for the folliwing o.t..

Since Chris Thomas, the greatest expert on Tempest, partecipated in a very competent way in this discussion, I would ask him for a definitive opinion on the internal colors of the Tempest (cockpit, wheels' well, inside of air intake and so on).

In particular for the cockpit you can often read of the upper side wall in black (night) and internal green for the lower. 

Instead, after seeing several images,  I'd distinguish the internal side of the fuse and instrument panel (black,  night, what else?) from the tubular structure surrounding the seat.

What does Mr. Thomas think? And what about the seat?

Thanks in advance, 

Stefano 

[pipthepilot]

7 minutes ago, stefano59 said:

Hello Philip and All,  excuse me for the folliwing o.t..

Since Chris Thomas, the greatest expert on Tempest, partecipated in a very competent way in this discussion, I would ask him for a definitive opinion on the internal colors of the Tempest (cockpit, wheels' well, inside of air intake and so on).

In particular for the cockpit you can often read of the upper side wall in black (night) and internal green for the lower. 

Instead, after seeing several images,  I'd distinguish the internal side of the fuse and instrument panel (black,  night, what else?) from the tubular structure surrounding the seat.

What does Mr. Thomas think? And what about the seat?

Thanks in advance, 

Stefano 

Hello Stefano, 

 

Here are some photos I used for reference regarding the seat and cockpit frame. 

 

This photos from an unrestored Mk.II shows the seat and cockpit frame to be green with black instruments.

 

This is from a Mk.V again showing the frame to be green.

 

Another unrestored seat, again painted in green.

 

 

[pipthepilot]

23 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

The main wheels certainly had Typhoon hubs to start with - 5-spoke 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; they were fitted with new smaller tyres.  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.

The 5-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "EX, HVY, code 1.EE.17" 11.25-12 tyres.

The 4-spoke were fitted with Dunlop "FE11" 30 x 9.00-15 tyres.

 

 

1

 

I check the width of the resin wheels today, 11.25 inch wide equals 5.95mm in 48th scale which is close enough for me.

 

[pipthepilot]

Rather than putting things on I spend last night taking more bits off. Firstly I decided to remove the closed cowl flap and replace it with an open one, rather than using the piece I cut out I made a replacement with the internal frame.

 

Next, I decided I wanted to improve the rudder. First, using a razor saw I cut the rudder away from the fuselage, then I glued a piece of styrene to strengthen the rudder and allow me to shape it to fit back inside the tail. After a lot of sanding, I had shaped the connecting edge of the rudder. I noticed on reference photos that rather than the concave moulding of the original rudder, the actual rudder is very flat with rib tape and stitching so I glued strips in place and then sanded them until they were thin enough.

[stefano59]

Hi Philip, thank You. 

Your second image of the mkV EJ693 seems to confirm my first opinion: black side walls and internal green tubular structure.

How does the rudder edge fit in the fin?

Stefano 

 

[pipthepilot]

1 hour ago, stefano59 said:

Hi Philip, thank You. 

Your second image of the mkV EJ693 seems to confirm my first opinion: black side walls and internal green tubular structure.

How does the rudder edge fit in the fin?

Stefano 

 

Because the added piece is rounded it fits inside the hollow tail, I filed inside the tail section to allow it to fit in better. It actually fits really well, better than the photo below as I couldn't get the masking tape to hold it in place properly but there will be no gap once it is glued. Notice also the additions to the fuselage including the "Fishplates" and the wing spar pickup point blister on the wing fairing.

[pipthepilot]

Finished adding the rivet detail to the underside of the wing and have glued the lights and wheel wells in place. I am going to attach the lower wing to the fuselage first and then attach the upper wings afterwards. I have test fit the wings and they fit well but the wing root to fairing is going to be a bit tricky, by attaching the upper surfaces last I can ensure there is less gap which gives me a surface to bond so I can line up the upper curve with the fairing.  

 

Added a little more detail to the area behind the cockpit.

 

Before I can attach the wings I need to make an adjustment to the cockpit. I test fitted the canopy and found the bulletproof shield behind the pilots head was too big so I will need to trim it down and repaint before I can glue the whole cockpit in place so that will be the next job.

[Frank083]

Very nice work on that Tempest!

persevere on it. it will be a fantastic model! 👌

 

Frank

Edited April 28, 2018 by Frank083

[Christer A]

I'm so impressed by your ability to keep it so tidy and neat. All that scratchbuilding would mean glue and paint all over the place for me.

Keep it up! It's going to be a splendid Tempest for sure!

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Christer A

[pipthepilot]

9 hours ago, Frank083 said:

Very nice work on that Tempest!

persevere on it air! 👌

 

Frank

Thanks Frank,

 

3 hours ago, Christer A said:

I'm so impressed by your ability to keep it so tidy and neat. All that scratchbuilding would mean glue and paint all over the place for me.

Keep it up! It's going to be a splendid Tempest for syre!

 

Thanks Christer,

I have found that "Mr Hobby Mr Cement S" is really good, partly because the brush is so fine but mostly because you need so little to get a good bond. I also use "BSI InstaCure - Extra Thick" CA glue for non-plastics, because it is thick it doesn't run and can be applied with a needle very easily.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

The Tempest is probably the least well-known of the Hawker wartime stable - certainly by me!  But I do know its descendant, the Sea Fury - originally the “lightweight Tempest” - very well, & it’s fascinating to see glimpses of the future; notably the wing, which is (superficially at least) pretty much identical.

 

And you’re making a lovely job of it, too.

[pipthepilot]

10 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The Tempest is probably the least well-known of the Hawker wartime stable - certainly by me!  But I do know its descendant, the Sea Fury - originally the “lightweight Tempest” - very well, & it’s fascinating to see glimpses of the future; notably the wing, which is (superficially at least) pretty much identical.

 

And you’re making a lovely job of it, too.

I must admit, I only knew it was an evolution of the typhoon when I started building this kit but I have learnt so much more about this aircraft over the last month. The evolution of Hawker aircraft, starting with the Hurricane through to the Sea Fury, is fascinating. During the BoB it was understood that the durable stable gun platform that was the Hurricane, complimented the agile Spitfire but the RAF needed something faster so Hawker started working on a very fast and heavily armoured replacement for the Hurricane. To achieve the speed Hawker started designing a new aircraft based around two very powerful engines, the RRs Vulture powered version was the Hawker Tornado and the Napier Sabre version was the Typhoon. The plan was to see which engine produced the better aircraft but then RRs was asked to drop development of the Vulture in order to focus on the development of the Merlin and Griffon engine which meant that the Hawker Typhoon became the defacto winner. However, almost straight away it was realised that the Typhoons wing was not allowing the aircraft to achieve the required performance so a new wing design was started. The new wing was designed to have laminar flow which created a lot less drag but as the wing was now considerably thinner, it lacked space to carry large enough fuel tanks so the fuselage was lengthened to allow an additional tank to be placed behind the engine. Originally, the new winged aircraft was to be a Typhoon Mk.II and the first prototype was a Typhoon with the new wing but eventually, it was decided to change the name to Tempest. Possibly to allow Hawker to distance itself from the Typhoon as this had gained a bad reputation due to its teething problems, not least suffering unreliable engines that would easily catch fire on startup and structural failures of the tail caused by elevator flutter.

 

Similar to the design of the Typhoon, Hawker based the Tempest around several engine types, each type was given a Mk number, the Mk.I was to use the Napier Sabre IV engine, Mk.II the Bristol Centaurus, Mk.III RR Griffon (Prototype), Mk.IV RR Griffon 61 (Prototype) and the Mk.V using the Napier II engine (same as the typhoon). Due to development delays with the Centaurus and newer Sabre engines, the Mk.V was the first to be produced, followed later by the Mk.II. This meant that only the Mk.V saw service during the War. The Sea Fury ultimately evolved from the Tempest Mk.II using the same Centaurus engine. The most noticeable differences with the Sea Fury is the tail has a different shape, the wings are the same but shorter because the centre section was removed and to improve visibility for landing on carriers, the cockpit was raised up.

 

During WWII the Tempests main job was destroying the V1 rockets or "Divers" over England which was an incredibly dangerous job, especially at night when it was incredibly difficult to judge distance. Many aircraft and pilots were lost when the divers exploded in front of them, or when aircraft collider with each other chasing the rockets down in the dark. Later tempests were assigned to 2nd TAF where they saw combat over Europe performing the Ground Attack role, again another very dangerous job. I have gained a massive respect for this aircraft and its pilots, I have loved Spitfires my entire life but if I was offered the chance to fly a Spit or a Tempest it would now be a really difficult choice.

[corsaircorp]

Hello Pip !

what a great job on your tempest !

I'll follow eagerly Thanks to Troy and Chris for the doc and the détails !

That will surely be a benefit for my own CA Tempest !

Keep up that nice job !

Be carefull to the plastic, a good sanding or micromeshing is necessary !

Or even the surfacer did'nt stick to the plastic !

Very good job !

sincerely

Corsaircorp

[pipthepilot]

6 hours ago, corsaircorp said:

Hello Pip !

what a great job on your tempest !

I'll follow eagerly Thanks to Troy and Chris for the doc and the détails !

That will surely be a benefit for my own CA Tempest !

Keep up that nice job !

Be carefull to the plastic, a good sanding or micromeshing is necessary !

Or even the surfacer did'nt stick to the plastic !

Very good job !

sincerely

Corsaircorp

Thanks Corsaircorp, 

If anything I'm a bit of over sander, so lack of sanding won't be an issue. 🙂

[pipthepilot]

Today I finished riveting the wings and was able to finally attach them to the fuselage. This turned out to be an epic battle but I finally was able to triumph! I will leave the glue to dry now before I start what looks to be a mammoth task of filling and sanding. 

 

The upper curve of the wing doesn't match the curve on the fairing so I will have to perform some surgery once the glue has completely dried, and then tidy it up with filler and sanding.

 

Nasty gap underneath where the centre wing section joins the fuselage. It is also not the same height so will have to build it up with milliput. 

[pipthepilot]

Over the last couple of weeks, I have started to think about paint. I mostly use Vallejo Model Air but some of their colours are just not right. I built a Mosquito earlier this year and used Vallejo Ocean Grey, Med.Sea grey and Dark Green but I really didn't like the results, the colours just didn't look right. Last week I managed to get a copy of "British Aviation Colours of World War Two" which has the RAF colour chips so I could compare. Interestingly, when the book arrived it had a different dust cover than I was expecting but very relevant as it has a Hawker Tempest Mk.V on it 🙂

 

 

When I tested the Vallejo colours I found that as I had suspected some were not a good match. In particular, the Dark green is too dark and has a yellowish tinge to it, their Ocean grey is too blue and Med. Sea grey and Sky Type S are both too dark. In fact, it is quite difficult to tell the difference between Ocean and Med. Sea Grey. 

 

Someone recommended me to try Hataka paints so I ordered their RAF Battle of Britain to D-Day set which includes the six colours Dark Earth, Dark Grey, Sky Type S, Interior Grey Green, Med. Sea Grey and Ocean Grey. Again, quite relevant the box has a Hawker Tempest Mk.V on it. This must be an omen 🙂

 

When I tested the Hataka paints I was really pleased with the results. They paint very nicely with the Airbrush and cover very well, but most importantly the colours look right. The photo below doesn't really do them justice, the Med. Sea Grey and the Int. Grey Green look too dark but in real life, they were all spot on. I look forward to using them to paint my Tempest in the near future.