Airfix Hawker Tempest Mk.V (A02109) 1:72

[Mike]

Hawker Tempest Mk.V (A02109)

1:72 Airfix

 

 

The Hawker Tempest was a development of the Typhoon, originally called the Typhoon II, it was envisioned to solve all of the issues that bothered its designer Sidney Camm.  The main difference was a much thinner wing which reduced drag and improved aerodynamics of the laminar airflow.  The wings could accommodate 20mm Hispano cannons that packed an enormous punch, and lent itself to the low-level attack role that it was designed for.  The engines intended to power the aircraft were the Centaurus, Griffon and Sabre IV, and initially the Rolls-Royce Vulture, which was terminated early in the design phase, leaving the three options going forward and necessitating substantially different cowlings to accommodate their differing shapes.

 

The Mark V was split into two series, with the Series 1 having the Sabre II that had a similar chin intake to the Typhoon and many Typhoon parts, while the later Series 2 used fewer Typhoon parts and had their cannon barrels shortened so they fitted flush with the leading edge on the wings.  A few of the early Mk.Vs were used as test beds, while other marks were developed alongside it, such as the Mk.IIs with Centaurus engines and a cylindrical cowl; Mk.VIs which had a very short production run; the Mk.III and Mk.IV that used two types of Griffon engine and didn't see service, and later the TT.Mk.5, which is where a lot of Mk.Vs ended their days towing targets.

 

 

The Kit

This is a new tooling from Airfix in what I jokingly call “the one poo scale” to irritate my fellow Moderator, Julien who calls it “the one true scale”.  In reality I have no issues with any scale, but prefer my models in 1:48 for aircraft.  Truthishly, I’ve been more impressed with each passing release and the detail being squeezed into this scale, so you can be assured of my equanimity during this review.  The kit arrives in a standard red-themed top-opening box, and inside are four sprues in Airfix’s usual light grey styrene, a small sprue of clear parts, decal sheet and a folded instruction booklet with spot colour printing.  The sprues are filled with well-detailed parts and some clever engineering, which should please anyone in the market for a 1:72 Tempest V or anyone that appreciates a nicely crafted kit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction begins with the seat, which has a slightly soft quilted rear cushion and is attached to the head armour, with lateral tubular mouldings, which sets the tone for the cockpit being made in sub-assemblies.  In order to close up the fuselage however, there are a number of other sections that need completing first.  The simple two-part L-shaped tail-wheel bay is first; The instrument panel with clear gunsight/compass and instrument decal; then the three-part intake grille is made up with its circular centre.  Two 0.6mm holes are made in the fuselage halves before all four assemblies are added to the starboard fuselage half after painting the cockpit walls, so the fuselage can be closed up.  The cockpit sill insert is inserted into the oversize aperture later on.

 

 

 

The lower wings are full-span, and are stiffened by adding the spar/wheel bay walls and the cannon barrels, plus the closed-up main bay doors if you’re going for a gear-up model.  Clear landing lights slot into the holes, and another is added into the belly, and a few more holes are drilled.  Surprisingly, the upper wings are full-span too, and have the cockpit floor moulded in with the foot trays ready for the rudder pedals and control column to be added once the wings are closed up.  Rudder pedals at 1:72 is good to see, although only until you close up the fuselage and consign them to darkness, most likely.  The completed wing assembly is then joined to the fuselage by inserting the leading edge into the back of the chin bulge, and dropping the trailing edge into place, gluing it all closed once done.  The elevators are each single parts with P & S on their tabs, but you get a separate rudder to add to the tail fin, which you can offset for a more candid look.  Beneath the tail you can close up the tail-wheel bay for in-flight, or pop a two-part tail wheel into the bay with a pair of doors installed at an angle on either side.  The main gear is a single strut with retraction mechanism and captive door, and a short ancillary door that is fixed to the outer edge of the bay before inserting the main legs.  A retraction jack and triangular inner bay door is then inserted into the two inner edges and the 5-spoke wheels are placed on the axles, with another 4-spoke set left on the sprues.  Both sets have some sag engineered into the bottom of the tyres to give the impression of weight.

 

Behind the chin take is an outlet ramp with a cooling flap that is added while the underside is completed by fitting L-shaped pitot; crew step and aerial, the latter having scrap diagrams to show their correct orientation.  The six exhaust stubs are each made from two parts that interlink to create the stacks for each side, so they can be slotted into the sides of the engine cowling, then the single-part prop is given a choice of different shaped two-part spinners, before it is placed against a tubular insert that has the axle pushed through to join the prop carefully with as little glue as necessary.  Once the glue is dry the tubular insert is pushed into the front of the fuselage and cemented in place, leaving you with a spinning prop if you’re careful.  There’s a pilot figure included on the sprues, with a detailed painting guide if you wish to use him, and you also have a choice of open or closed canopies, fixing the windscreen first, and either butting the canopy up to the screen or leaving it open as far back as the head armour.  An aerial is fixed to the fuselage spine at an angle, and another pair of scrap diagrams help with orientation.

 

There are a pair of clear fuel tanks included on the clear sprue, but they aren’t needed for this boxing, and there are no stencils for the clear pylons.

 

 

Markings

There are two decal options on the sheet, as is common with Airfix kits, and you have a choice of one in D-Day stripes and one without.  From the box you can build one of the following:

 

• Wing Commander Roland Prosper “Bee” beamont, No.150 Wing, Newchurch, Kent, England, June 1944
• No.486 Sqn., Royal New Zealand Air Force, RAF Castle Camps, Cambs., England, April 1944

 

 

 

Decals are by Cartograf, which is a guarantee of good registration, sharpness and colour density, with a thin gloss carrier film cut close to the printed areas.

 

 

Conclusion

This is an excellent new tool from Airfix with plenty of detail baked-in.  There’s no doubt that there will be more boxings, as indicated by the unused drop-tanks and wheels, so keep a look out to expand your squadron.

 

Very highly recommended.

 

 

Review sample courtesy of

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Nice looking kit, I like the way they designed the wings as whole units. Interesting choice to use clear plastic for the wing tanks ? 

[Graham Boak]

Clear plastic because the attachment to the wing was transparent to ensure a good fit and that fuel was flowing.

[stevej60]

Thank's for the review Mike look's like another winner for Airfix and no doubt a 1/48 scale offering will follow using the research

for this one.

[Julien]

Looking at the pics in the rumour section JN766 had the recognition stripes at this time

 

 

[JamesP]

The instrument panel decal looks a huge improvement over recent ones (black with everything drawn in relatively thick white lines).

[JamesP]

The box shows RB with a yellow and pointier spinner? 

Edited March 7, 2022 by JamesP

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, JamesP said:

The box shows RB with a yellow and pointier spinner? 

There are two in the box of varying stabiness, but I can't take a pic to show the pointy-ness because @Julien stole it yesterday

[JamesP]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

There are two in the box of varying stabiness, but I can't take a pic to show the pointy-ness because @Julien stole it yesterday

I was comparing the box schemes with the side views you posted. 

[Julien]

2 hours ago, JamesP said:

I was comparing the box schemes with the side views you posted. 

I think someone from Airfix just used the same basic profile for both, they did not even remove the underwing invasion stripes from JN766, and from what I’ve read tanks were not fitted until JN797?

[Graham Boak]

Underwing stripes were retained for some time after the upper set was removed, so this may well be correct, depending upon the exact data.

[Julien]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Underwing stripes were retained for some time after the upper set was removed, so this may well be correct, depending upon the exact data.

They say April 1944 so not invasion stripes but would be identification stripes, but they would not be the same as the invasion stripes shown on the other profile from June 44. 

[stevehnz]

Wondering if @Julien can shed light on @Meatbox8 concerns in the Rumourmonger thread re the trailing edge thickness?

Re the underwing stripes, some deep recess in my brain has a memory/fantasy that between this period & the D-day stripe era, these Tempests & Typhoons lost the underwing ID stripes (worn since 1943 in the case of the latter), but I haven't been able to confirm this either way. maybe @Chris Thomas could comment on this? I just hope Airfix aren't expecting us to use the D-day stripes for these.  To be fair, the kit instructions that Tim @theplasticsurgeon posted in the rumourmonger thread show JN766 without any stripes at all, which is kind of as I recall but I can't confirm that now

Steve.

[IanC]

5 hours ago, stevehnz said:

 

Re the underwing stripes, some deep recess in my brain has a memory/fantasy that between this period & the D-day stripe era, these Tempests & Typhoons lost the underwing ID stripes (worn since 1943 in the case of the latter), but I haven't been able to confirm this either way. maybe @Chris Thomas could comment on this? I just hope Airfix aren't expecting us to use the D-day stripes for these.  

 

Maybe that's what was originally proposed, until further research revealed - maddeningly - that the stripes were slightly different and there wasn't any more room on the decal sheet anyway? 😉

 

But to be serious, your memory/fantasy may be right Steve. The Typhoon's ID markings were scrapped in Feb 1944 according to Typhoon Warpaint. However, being a new aircraft, unknown to most Allied forces at that time and with a wing shape different from the more familiar Typhoon, I can understand the need to retain those markings on the Tempest for longer. 

 

[Julien]

There are pics of that aircraft with the recognition stripes in April 1944, look at the tread in the rumour section.

[theplasticsurgeon]

6 hours ago, stevehnz said:

Wondering if @Julien can shed light on @Meatbox8 concerns in the Rumourmonger thread re the trailing edge thickness?

Re the underwing stripes, some deep recess in my brain has a memory/fantasy that between this period & the D-day stripe era, these Tempests & Typhoons lost the underwing ID stripes (worn since 1943 in the case of the latter), but I haven't been able to confirm this either way. maybe @Chris Thomas could comment on this? I just hope Airfix aren't expecting us to use the D-day stripes for these.  To be fair, the kit instructions that Tim @theplasticsurgeon posted in the rumourmonger thread show JN766 without any stripes at all, which is kind of as I recall but I can't confirm that now

Steve.

My kit now returned to the retailer, but hopefully will be replaced by the weekend.  I've also checked my recent Airfix purchases (Chipmunk, Jetstream and Trident) for similar issues.

Photos of JN766 have been found and posted with Typhoon recognition stripes. A definite omission from the kit - which I intended to apply.

According to Wiki (so it must be true) these stripes were officially abandoned 7 February 1944. 

How long they persisted, and whether they were fully removed . . . but would have been overpainted  with D-Day stripes. 

[stevehnz]

6 minutes ago, theplasticsurgeon said:

How long they persisted, and whether they were fully removed . . . but would have been overpainted  with D-Day stripes. 

Thanks Tim, therein lies the conundrum. Is there masking in my future or not?

Steve.

[Meatbox8]

4 hours ago, stevehnz said:

Thanks Tim, therein lies the conundrum. Is there masking in my future or not?

Steve.

Hello Steve.  I picked one up today at my local Toymaster and have dry-fitted the wings.  It does appear that the trailng edges, particulalrly where the flaps are, are about 4"-5" in scale thickness.  There's also a bit of an unsightly gap/step between upper and lower trailing edge parts.   All my references seem to show the trailing edges as razor sharp on the real thing.  I think what might have served Airfix (and us) better is if they had moulded the flaps and ailerons in to the top wing parts and, thus, have the joins where the aileron and flap hinges are.  That seems to be the road KP went down.  Some judicious sanding will probably solve the issue, I suppose.  On a more positive note the panel lines seem pretty good to me.  I think the built-up kit on the Airfix website overly highlighted the panel lines which make the model look more like a die cast.

[Paul H]

7 hours ago, Meatbox8 said:

 It does appear that the trailng edges, particulalrly where the flaps are, are about 4"-5" in scale thickness.  There's also a bit of an unsightly gap/step between upper and lower trailing edge parts.   All my references seem to show the trailing edges as razor sharp on the real thing.  I think what might have served Airfix (and us) better is if they had moulded the flaps and ailerons in to the top wing parts and, thus, have the joins where the aileron and flap hinges are.  That seems to be the road KP went down.  Some judicious sanding will probably solve the issue, I suppose.

 

Airfix are certainly aware of this method, as their 1:72 Spitfire Mk1a has the wings moulded that way.  I've nearly completed one (it will be my first finished aircraft since I expanded beyond car models), and to my untrained eye, it works very well with the parts are split on the panel gap for the moving panels, rather than just a panel join.  A pity that they don't seem to use this more often...

 

I'm still very tempted by this model, although wondering whether to wait for the later release for which the drop tanks are intended, as the clear mounting plinths looks like a very cool feature.

[LansVVS]

Shouldn't there be "fishplates" on the fuselage?

Edited June 5, 2022 by LansVVS

[stevehnz]

Depending on the subject possibly yes, but in 1/72, they are hardly worth it & to tool for them leaves later versions needing to have them removed, a real nuisance, so best left to some after market photo etch for those who can'r live without them. I don't include myself among those latter.   

Steve.

[LansVVS]

Yes, but it's easier to delete than to create. 🤔 

[stevehnz]

Agreed, as far as that goes, for my part I can do without them, I've seldom seen them obvious in photos, Typhoons included, though I'm sure there are photos out there that show them clearly if not prominently. I guess it comes down to the fact that mold makers will never keep everybody happy.

Steve.

[Troy Smith]

3 hours ago, LansVVS said:

Shouldn't there be "fishplates" on the fuselage?

The only Tempests with Fishplates were some very early ones. 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235024331-concerning-tempests/

 

in particular this, by @Chris Thomas, author of books on Typhoon/Temest/2nd TAF.  I have made bold the part on fishplates, in short. about the first 100 out of 800.

 

"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 (85th).  First confirmed without the plates is JN875 (98th).

 

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 (39th). There is a photo of JN801 (55th) 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 151st aircraft and RP fittings from the 351st, i.e. bombs and RP were not available until the 51st and 251st 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 50th aircraft which might well be changeover point?"

 

Airfix are not Eduard.  They do try, but have a cut off.  They also know that the amount of people who are really bothered is a small proportion of who buy their product.   

Also note, the fishplates are hard to see on period images unless really clear.  

this image of the Typhoon at Hendon gives a good idea of how visible they are

 

from

https://plasticfantastique.com/walk_arounds/walk-around-the-hawker-typhoon/

 

HTH

[Pete57]

Briefly resurrecting this thread...

 

Can the photoetched fishplates of Brengun's detail set BRL 72048, for the Typhoon Mk.Ib, be used on this kit?

 

Pete57