Typhoon FR.Ib

[Antoine]

Hello,

Among numerous recce projects stand the typhoon FR.I (I'm still wondering about a PR).

There are more photo-tiffie pics available than Buffalo PR's, but still, not enough.

I understand that the only full FR tiffie squadron was 268, till it passed its aircrafts to 4 sqn to supplement spits PR. Other aircraft were given in one or twos to squadrons in typhoon wings, to act as BDA after strikes.

I also understand that typhoon FR's airframes are from early batchs, and I've seen pics showing some in Normandie, with early typhoon tailplane, and three bladed props.

I was wondering, and my question is, were those aircraft fitted latter with tempest tailplane, and four-bladed props?

I think that they served to the end of the war, and so that they were modified, but I'm not really sure.

Any opinion, or any pics/linky welcome.

PS: I KNOW that there was already a topic, found it once, but... Couldn't find it twice, sorry.

[Antoine]

...

[ben_m]

I've never heard anything about the FR Typhoons being upgraded to 4-blades or the larger tailplanes- as you mention, the photos that have been published are all 3 blades, original tailplanes. The 3 FR aircraft used by 146 wing in Feb/March 1945 (ex-268 squadron) still had 3 blades/original tailplanes.

[Antoine]

Thanks Ben.

The only pics I've seen so far are those on mr Shores history of the 2nd ATAF, and they show a couple of tiffies in Normandie, so in july or august 44.

I thought that they could have been refitted latter in late 44 / early 45, like most other tiffies.

[Chris Thomas]

Thanks Ben.

The only pics I've seen so far are those on mr Shores history of the 2nd ATAF, and they show a couple of tiffies in Normandie, so in july or august 44.

I thought that they could have been refitted latter in late 44 / early 45, like most other tiffies.

Hello Antoine

I agree with Ben. In addition ... it does seem that very few early (ie. those originally with 3-bladers and small tailplane) Typhoons were re-fitted with 4-blade propellers, even when they were rebuilt (after storage or damage) by Hawker or Gloster or one of the major repir contractors (Taylorcraft, Marshall). I have come across photos of only 2 of these earlier aircraft with 4-blade props - both in 2ndTAF service in Germany, summer 45. One had been rebuilt by Hawker, the other by Taylorcraft.

CT

[Test Graham]

Presumably it was only worth rebuilding to large tail standard if the original tail have been significantly damaged.

[gingerbob]

Wasn't the large tailplane associated with carrying bombs? Or was it just linked with the 4-blade airscrew? If the former, then I wouldn't expect the FR to carry bombs.

bob

[Antoine]

AFAIK, the new taiplane has more to do with the tendancy of early typhoon batches to moise their tail.

[Antoine]

Thanks, Chris.

I'm still in the process of reading your 2nd TAF books, finishing the third volume.

[Chris Thomas]

AFAIK, the new taiplane has more to do with the tendancy of early typhoon batches to moise their tail.

Thanks Graham, Bob and Antoine for those comments. I like Graham's theory re the rebuilding of Typhoons with damaged tail units. Unfortunately the 2 examples known don't seem to bear out the theory. R8694 had been the Typhoon used by Napier for trials of the annular radiator; it was rebuilt at Taylorcraft between 8 Nov 44 and 4 Jan 45. EK219 was delivered to 51 MU on 16 Mar 43 and two days later was allocated to Hawker for mods. It was with them for 18 months! After returning to 51 MU (the main Typhoon MU at Lichfield) it was allocated to 168, 438, 439 and 440 Sqn.

Bob it seems that bomber units had priority for 4-bladers as they benefitted from improved take-off performance, especially useful with 1,000 lb bombs, but the 4-blader was not introduced specifically for that purpose. It was introduced to reduce vibration that had plagued the Typhoon since its introduction and to increase take-off and was associated with the larger tailplane. The latter was not specifically to stop tail failures; it was necessary to provide acceptable handling with the 4-blader. The tail failures were brought under control by the introduction of modifications to the elevator mass balances.

Chris

[Antoine]

AFAIK, the new taiplane has more to do with the tendancy of early typhoon batches to moise their tail.

Typing on an Iphone with corrector on could be funny if you don't pay enough attention!!

:shithappens:

[Antoine]

Bob it seems that bomber units had priority for 4-bladers as they benefitted from improved take-off performance, especially useful with 1,000 lb bombs, but the 4-blader was not introduced specifically for that purpose. It was introduced to reduce vibration that had plagued the Typhoon since its introduction and to increase take-off and was associated with the larger tailplane. The latter was not specifically to stop tail failures; it was necessary to provide acceptable handling with the 4-blader. The tail failures were brought under control by the introduction of modifications to the elevator mass balances.

So when you have a tempest tailplaine, there should be a four-bladed prop?

[cmatthewbacon]

The current SAMI has a big article on converting an FR.1B from the Revell 1/32 kit, to build EK427, which served with 268 and then 4 Sqn. It has a three-blade prop and regular Typhoon tailplane. And Chris gets several name-checks!

bestest,

M.

[Test Graham]

So when you have a tempest tailplaine, there should be a four-bladed prop?

No, the other way around. Development aircraft apart, you do not get 4-blade propellors without the big tailplane, because this combination was not cleared for service. There was a short production run of aircraft with the big tailplane and the 3-blade prop.

[ColFord]

Apologies for not chipping in earlier, I have been travelling the past 5 weeks and out of internet contact.

The following previous threads have covered off some of the information sought on the Typhoon FR.1b

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...&hl=typhoon

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...&hl=typhoon

Hope these help in your project.

Regards,

[Antoine]

Hello Colin,

Sorry about being a bit late.

Those two topics you've found for me are very useful, and will greatly help me to settle on one specific airframe.

Thanks a lot.