1/72 Hawker Tempest Mk. V by Airfix - release Autumn 2021

[stevehnz]

37 minutes ago, TEMPESTMK5 said:

Hi Steve

 I guess You are talking about this

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/freightdog-models-fdr72008-hawker-tempest-mkvi-conversion-set--185702

Hi Patrice, yes, that's the one. I have it & will be interested to see if it will fit the Airfix kit when it becomes available.

Steve.

[Andre B]

1 hour ago, TEMPESTMK5 said:

Hi Steve

 I guess You are talking about this

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/freightdog-models-fdr72008-hawker-tempest-mkvi-conversion-set--185702

 

And this is a  conversion set for MkII

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/heritage-aviation-models-tempest-mk-2-conversion--206375

 

Patrice

 

With some cleaver thinking (cut lines on the inside of the fuselage and wings?) and one more sprue with prop, nose and wingradiators it wouldn't be hard for Airfix to go the same road as Matchbox. 

 

They have done versitale kits before. Such as the Spitfire Mk. Ia with parts for an early Spitfire and the Mk. IIa  and Mk. Va...

Cheers / André 

[Giorgio N]

The thing with adding other variants is that this must be included from the start of the design process. See for example the wat the Blenheim is designed. With this one they would have to cater for inserts in the wing leading edges for the Mk.VI while for a Mk.II they would also have to split the fuselage at theNow the more important question at the moment is what series is this one ? Is it a Series 1 or a Series 2 ? The protruding gun barrel fairings are for the Series 1 but the rear fuselage does not show the reinforcement plates of this, instead being smooth as in the Series 2. Will the kit will include inserts for both long and short gun fairings ?

[Denford]

11 hours ago, stevehnz said:

@Colin @ Freightdog Models did/does a Mk VI conversion, which I'm pretty sure was based on the Academy kit, maybe now will be the time to remaster those bits that require it for this new kit from Airfix. Just saying  

Steve.

Or maybe the parts will fit ....

[sroubos]

Some really nice new kits from Airfix; both the Mosquito and Tempest need easily available kits as the competition is difficult or expensive to get a hold off.

[TEMPESTMK5]

40 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

The thing with adding other variants is that this must be included from the start of the design process. See for example the wat the Blenheim is designed. With this one they would have to cater for inserts in the wing leading edges for the Mk.VI while for a Mk.II they would also have to split the fuselage at theNow the more important question at the moment is what series is this one ? Is it a Series 1 or a Series 2 ? The protruding gun barrel fairings are for the Series 1 but the rear fuselage does not show the reinforcement plates of this, instead being smooth as in the Series 2. Will the kit will include inserts for both long and short gun fairings ?

Good afternoon Giorgio

 I hope that the Airfix team will take the info about the reinforcement plates into account ...

 

 

Best regards

Patrice

 

[Meatbox8]

3 hours ago, Andre B said:

 

With some cleaver thinking (cut lines on the inside of the fuselage and wings?) and one more sprue with prop, nose and wingradiators it wouldn't be hard for Airfix to go the same road as Matchbox. 

 

They have done versitale kits before. Such as the Spitfire Mk. Ia with parts for an early Spitfire and the Mk. IIa  and Mk. Va...

Cheers / André 

The Beaufighter and Blenheim also have parts for substantially different versions. 

[Meatbox8]

3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The thing with adding other variants is that this must be included from the start of the design process. See for example the wat the Blenheim is designed. With this one they would have to cater for inserts in the wing leading edges for the Mk.VI while for a Mk.II they would also have to split the fuselage at theNow the more important question at the moment is what series is this one ? Is it a Series 1 or a Series 2 ? The protruding gun barrel fairings are for the Series 1 but the rear fuselage does not show the reinforcement plates of this, instead being smooth as in the Series 2. Will the kit will include inserts for both long and short gun fairings ?

It looks like both aircraft illustrated were series I so the protruding barrels are correct (for most, but not all series Is I believe - happy to be corrected) so should have fishplates but, as you point out, they are not present on the CADs.  I have to confess I learnt something today because I wasn't aware of the fishplates on any Tempests, having believed that the structural issues on the Typhoon had been traced to elevator flutter and remedied and also the addition of internal strenghtening. They are difficult to spot on the Tempest, that's for sure.   As an aside, having had a quick scoot around Google there are some incredibly negative and innacurate assesments of the Typhoon, one such advocating that it was the worst fighter of WW2 which is clearly rediculous even if you don't include the Blackburn Roc, and mainly written by people advocating the P-47 it seems, when you consider what an important aircraft the Typhoon was.

[Graham Boak]

The problem was remedied, but caution ruled.  What is silly is that in the case of elevator flutter the fishplates would make no difference and the tail would come off anyway.  As in the occasional later case of failure caused by a drop in production standards/poor maintenance on small tailplane aircraft.  The Tempest had the bigger flutter-free tailplane anyway.

[Giorgio N]

25 minutes ago, Meatbox8 said:

 As an aside, having had a quick scoot around Google there are some incredibly negative and innacurate assesments of the Typhoon, one such advocating that it was the worst fighter of WW2 which is clearly rediculous even if you don't include the Blackburn Roc, and mainly written by people advocating the P-47 it seems, when you consider what an important aircraft the Typhoon was.

 

Worst fighter is sure excessive as there were types that were clearly worse, even without considering the Roc...

Said that it is not impossible for a piece of equipment to be bad and important at the same time. One example is the Sten SMG, that was one of the crudest guns of WW2 and yet plaid an important part. It was a poor design from most aspects but had one very useful point: was cheap and could be quickly made available in large numbers, and this is always better than a gun that is very good but hard to field in the required quantities.

The Typhoon sure had its share of problems but was available and filled a role succesfully. Was it as good as could be desired ? Not really, but this didn't prevent the RAF to make good use of the type. Could other types do better ? Possible but the Typhoon was in production and had already entered service so was available. That it wasn't an ideal aircraft is shown by the fact that Hawker designed the Tempest as its development and also by how quickly the type was retired at the end of the war but still the part the Typhoon played can't be denied

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The problem was remedied, but caution ruled.  What is silly is that in the case of elevator flutter the fishplates would make no difference and the tail would come off anyway.  As in the occasional later case of failure caused by a drop in production standards/poor maintenance on small tailplane aircraft.  The Tempest had the bigger flutter-free tailplane anyway.

I understand that elevator flutter was little a understood phenomena at the time, in Hawker's defence.  Poor standards of workmanship, on the other hand.... I believe that Tempest production was initially slow due to an industrial dispute at Hawkers, which seems bizarre during wartime.  I don't know of any similar cases with Vickers, Handley-Page, De Havilland et al.  

[Graham Boak]

Flutter was only understood in a way that it could be predicted in the early 1930s, after study of the failure of a Parnall prototype.  Hawkers did understand it, which is why the elevator had a mass balance to avoid it.  However the vibration from the Sabre caused metal fatigue (another new phenomenon) and when the balance broke off then the aircraft became vulnerable under certain conditions.  The larger tailplane removed the cause altogether, the rubber mountings for the engine reduced the vibration through the airframe, and a regular inspection routine checked on the state of the balance on small tailplane aircraft.    The fishplates were purely decorative PR, a sign that Something Was Being Done, although they did probably stem from very early unjustified suspicions about the strength of the fuselage joint.   Similarly inertia coupling was only understood after the crash of an F-100 prototype: however a full analysis done at the RAE by Pinsker(?) identified it as the reason for the in-flight structural failure of an He162.  Just as well that never say widespread service.

 

Failures in inspection standards were also responsible for a series of Mosquito wing failures, although this was initially confused by failures in the Far East blamed on tropical climate and the type of glue used.  I think you'll find that such shortcomings were more common than generally known, as a result of the massive increase in production with inexperienced workers and intense pressure to "get them out of the door".  I've just been reading Air Battles for the Baltic which is scathing about the early examples of the MiG 1/3.  Generally however such failings don't get publicised, especially in wartime, and then become lost in the detail of the past.

[alt-92]

2 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

I don't know of any similar cases with Vickers, Handley-Page, De Havilland et al.  

I'm sure that if you dig a little bit more, you'll find several references of actual strikes both in Britain, and the US.

[Work In Progress]

2 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

n industrial dispute at Hawkers, which seems bizarre during wartime

There were in fact a large number of strikes in armament industries in the UK and their strategic supply chains during both WW1 and WW2. 

[Denford]

3 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Worst fighter is sure excessive as there were types that were clearly worse, even without considering the Roc...

Said that it is not impossible for a piece of equipment to be bad and important at the same time. One example is the Sten SMG, that was one of the crudest guns of WW2 and yet plaid an important part. It was a poor design from most aspects but had one very useful point: was cheap and could be quickly made available in large numbers, and this is always better than a gun that is very good but hard to field in the required quantities.

The Typhoon sure had its share of problems but was available and filled a role succesfully. Was it as good as could be desired ? Not really, but this didn't prevent the RAF to make good use of the type. Could other types do better ? Possible but the Typhoon was in production and had already entered service so was available. That it wasn't an ideal aircraft is shown by the fact that Hawker designed the Tempest as its development and also by how quickly the type was retired at the end of the war but still the part the Typhoon played can't be denied

I think another advantage of the Sten was that it could be dismantled into small-ish parts.

But to return to the Typhoon.  Many associate it with devastating German Armour in Normandy: not quite so, as the hit rate from unguided rockets was around 15%!  Terrifying to experience, but safest to stay put!  More I believe were lost\abandoned through fuel exhaustion.

One could call the P-47 a failure: all the complicated turbosupercharger equipment that was rarely 'needed' as it's forte was ground attack!

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, Denford said:

One could call the P-47 a failure: all the complicated turbosupercharger equipment that was rarely 'needed' as it's forte was ground attack!

More the fail that was the bomber mafia in USAAC/F blocked shipping & using drop tanks (they are explicitly forbidden in early notams) meaning even P-47s weren't able to escort bombers over heartland Germany - by the time drop tanks were allowed in theatre, P-51s had stolen the limelight somewhat.
 

Then again, you could buy three Mustangs for the price of two 'bolts. That's a bit of an expensive tool to use in ground attack...

[Meatbox8]

2 hours ago, Denford said:

I think another advantage of the Sten was that it could be dismantled into small-ish parts.

But to return to the Typhoon.  Many associate it with devastating German Armour in Normandy: not quite so, as the hit rate from unguided rockets was around 15%!  Terrifying to experience, but safest to stay put!  More I believe were lost\abandoned through fuel exhaustion.

One could call the P-47 a failure: all the complicated turbosupercharger equipment that was rarely 'needed' as it's forte was ground attack!

I seem to remember that George VI had a disassembled Sten under the seat of his limo in case he was attacked by Nazi paratroopers disgused as nuns.

[Meatbox8]

1 minute ago, Meatbox8 said:

I seem to remember that George VI had a disassembled Sten under the seat of his limo in case he was attacked by Nazi paratroopers disgused as nuns.

 

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Flutter was only understood in a way that it could be predicted in the early 1930s, after study of the failure of a Parnall prototype.  Hawkers did understand it, which is why the elevator had a mass balance to avoid it.  However the vibration from the Sabre caused metal fatigue (another new phenomenon) and when the balance broke off then the aircraft became vulnerable under certain conditions.  The larger tailplane removed the cause altogether, the rubber mountings for the engine reduced the vibration through the airframe, and a regular inspection routine checked on the state of the balance on small tailplane aircraft.    The fishplates were purely decorative PR, a sign that Something Was Being Done, although they did probably stem from very early unjustified suspicions about the strength of the fuselage joint.   Similarly inertia coupling was only understood after the crash of an F-100 prototype: however a full analysis done at the RAE by Pinsker(?) identified it as the reason for the in-flight structural failure of an He162.  Just as well that never say widespread service.

 

Failures in inspection standards were also responsible for a series of Mosquito wing failures, although this was initially confused by failures in the Far East blamed on tropical climate and the type of glue used.  I think you'll find that such shortcomings were more common than generally known, as a result of the massive increase in production with inexperienced workers and intense pressure to "get them out of the door".  I've just been reading Air Battles for the Baltic which is scathing about the early examples of the MiG 1/3.  Generally however such failings don't get publicised, especially in wartime, and then become lost in the detail of the past.

Such are the rigours of wartime, I suppose.

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

More the fail that was the bomber mafia in USAAC/F blocked shipping & using drop tanks (they are explicitly forbidden in early notams) meaning even P-47s weren't able to escort bombers over heartland Germany - by the time drop tanks were allowed in theatre, P-51s had stolen the limelight somewhat.
 

Then again, you could buy three Mustangs for the price of two 'bolts. That's a bit of an expensive tool to use in ground attack...

But why did they block them?  Was it some sort of dogmatic belief in the adage that 'the bomber would always get through'?

[Graham Boak]

Not a story I've heard - origins?  Evidence that no P-47 units ever used drop tanks until after the P-51s had arrived?  Bearing in mind just how long it was the that P-47 (and P-38) were operating before the P-51s arrived.

[Meatbox8]

3 hours ago, alt-92 said:

I'm sure that if you dig a little bit more, you'll find several references of actual strikes both in Britain, and the US.

Now you mention it In the The Cruel Sea, by Nicholas Monsterrat, he has some choice words to say about dock workers in Liverpool when his ship went in for re-fit.  Although the book is fiction it is based on his own experinces so I would imagine there is more than a kernel of truth to it.   A fantastic book btw, but extremely grim in parts, even grimmer than the film adaptation, which is hardly a cake walk. 

2 hours ago, Denford said:

I think another advantage of the Sten was that it could be dismantled into small-ish parts.

But to return to the Typhoon.  Many associate it with devastating German Armour in Normandy: not quite so, as the hit rate from unguided rockets was around 15%!  Terrifying to experience, but safest to stay put!  More I believe were lost\abandoned through fuel exhaustion.

One could call the P-47 a failure: all the complicated turbosupercharger equipment that was rarely 'needed' as it's forte was ground attack!

Indeed, but the fuel exhaustion was caused by allied air interdiction of German transport, particularly from Typhoons, wasn't it?

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, Meatbox8 said:

But why did they block them?  Was it some sort of dogmatic belief in the adage that 'the bomber would always get through'?

More or less... difference in attitude, USAAC command believed that the defensive armament would be enough without the need for escort fighters.

At least that was the doctrine until 1941 (remember that the P-38 was not really embraced with open arms)

The YB-40 is a good example of thinking - even wikipedia proudly states that it was because there were no long range P-51s around.

(but there were P-47s, and with suitable droptanks they could have done the same).

 

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Not a story I've heard - origins?  Evidence that no P-47 units ever used drop tanks until after the P-51s had arrived?  Bearing in mind just how long it was the that P-47 (and P-38) were operating before the P-51s arrived.

P-51B/Cs in USAAF service as bomber escorts starting August 1943. At around the same time, the 2x 108 Gallon paper tanks were introduced (British! not US!)

There were of course drop tanks, but the smaller centerline ones initially (75G/150), larger ones - 200G - later. 

 

The 'no droptank rule' is recorded in MA-258, dated may 16th 1939.

"The Chief if the Air Corps directs that no tactical airplane will be equipped with droppable auxiliary fuel tanks"

Now, they didn't outright ban development by a/c companies, just that operational units couldn't carry them - but that limits the planning capabilities of fighter groups sufficiently to cause supply problems. 

 

[Meatbox8]

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

More or less... difference in attitude, USAAC command believed that the defensive armament would be enough without the need for escort fighters.

At least that was the doctrine until 1941 (remember that the P-38 was not really embraced with open arms)

The YB-40 is a good example of thinking - even wikipedia proudly states that it was because there were no long range P-51s around.

(but there were P-47s, and with suitable droptanks they could have done the same).

 

P-51B/Cs in USAAF service as bomber escorts starting August 1943. At around the same time, the 2x 108 Gallon paper tanks were introduced (British! not US!)

There were of course drop tanks, but the smaller centerline ones initially (75G/150), larger ones - 200G - later. 

 

The 'no droptank rule' is recorded in MA-258, dated may 16th 1939.

"The Chief if the Air Corps directs that no tactical airplane will be equipped with droppable auxiliary fuel tanks"

Now, they didn't outright ban development by a/c companies, just that operational units couldn't carry them - but that limits the planning capabilities of fighter groups sufficiently to cause supply problems. 

 

I thought the problem with the P-38 was that it was initially diverted to the North African theatre.

[k5054nz]

I'm not a mod, but perhaps we should keep this thread on topic?

 

I noticed the two colour profiles don't include the cannon fairings present in the CADs. A mistake?

[Magua87]

On 1/7/2021 at 11:41 PM, Rabbit Leader said:

The Academy fuselage is a little short, it’s wingtips too rounded and you can’t exactly use the kits miss-shaped propeller and call it accurate. I’m sure Airfix will right these wrongs and give us a great little kit that will sell very well. Now those two decal schemes are interesting, both are Mk.V Series 1’s so I wonder if there is provision to make a Series 2 version as well. 
Cheers and well played Airfix.. Dave 

The Academy kit also has anhedral on the inboard sections of the wings. Not a difficult fix, but a problem regardless.