Tempest V question

[StephenMG]

I wonder if anyone can comment on some confusion over the markings on Flt. Sgt. A. M. L. 'Mac' Kennaugh's various Tempests please?

Flt. Sgt. Kennaugh had a number of 'personal' aircraft, two of which were Tempest V Series II EJ743 and, later, Tempest V Series I JN867; both coded US-H. Various illustrations and decal sets show EJ743 with partial, under-fuselage invasion stripes only and the personalised name as "Thelma II". However, the document supplied with the Almark decal set dedicated to Kennaugh's aircraft shows EJ743 with full invasion stripes and named as "Thelma I". It then shows JN867 as "Thelma II" and with the partial stripes. The full instruction sheet can be seen here.

The illustrations of EJ743 always seem to give the date as December 1944, yet other sources say the aircraft was struck off charge (due to overstressed wings and skin wrinkling) in November 44.

I have to say the Almark sheet looks superb and sounds very authoritative as it appears to be based on research conducted using Mac Kennaugh's own log books and family-supplied material. So is this a classic case of a mistake having been made in an illustration once (in which the serial EJ743 was applied to Thelma II instead of JN867) and then endlessly repeated by other illustrators and decal designers (including the SMER Tempest V kit), or has the Almark set got it wrong? I strongly suspect the former but would be grateful for anyone else's thoughts.

Chris Thomas, are you there?!

Cheers,

Mark

[Chris Thomas]

I have to say the Almark sheet looks superb and sounds very authoritative as it appears to be based on research conducted using Mac Kennaugh's own log books and family-supplied material. So is this a classic case of a mistake having been made in an illustration once (in which the serial EJ743 was applied to Thelma II instead of JN867) and then endlessly repeated by other illustrators and decal designers (including the SMER Tempest V kit), or has the Almark set got it wrong? I strongly suspect the former but would be grateful for anyone else's thoughts.

Hi Mark, pleased to see this one crop up again. I think you have put your finger right on it. EJ743 'Thelma II' was definitely wrong. I recall having a conversation with Les Whitehouse when this sheet was being put together and I there was a big question mark over EJ743 being correct at all. I believe it relied on 'Mac's recollection of the serial but the Form 78 movement card for this aircraft shows it was not delivered until September 1944 and was allocated to 3 Sqn. I'll have a dig in 56's ORB (which I did at the time so don't expect a definitive answer) and get back to you.

Pilot's memories are a dodgy area! I once sat next to Mac at an IPMS dinner at Stoneleigh (mid-80's?) and the conversation turned to the Tempest. He had recently viewed a pilot programme for the BBC - I think it was to be 'Men and Machines' with the Typhoon and/or Tempest as the first subject. Mac told them they had the film reversed as in one shot a pilot was seen getting into his aircraft from the starboard side. I said I had recently been in MN235 at Hendon and entered the cockpit on the starboard side (where the only steps and handholds are) ... but that was dismissed with a grunt and a glare!

Chris

[Work In Progress]

As is the door on a car door model! It is one of the great mysteries why the Typhoon is boarded from the "wrong" side.

[ben_m]

As is the door on a car door model! It is one of the great mysteries why the Typhoon is boarded from the "wrong" side.

I might be wrong, but I thought there were opening doors on both sides of the 'car-door'/'coffin lid' Typhoons? But as the top part of the canopy is hinged on the port side, entry via the starboard side is much easier (along with having the hand/foot holds on that side too).

[Chris Thomas]

I wonder if anyone can comment on some confusion over the markings on Flt. Sgt. A. M. L. 'Mac' Kennaugh's various Tempests please?

Flt. Sgt. Kennaugh had a number of 'personal' aircraft, two of which were Tempest V Series II EJ743 and, later, Tempest V Series I JN867; both coded US-H. Various illustrations and decal sets show EJ743 with partial, under-fuselage invasion stripes only and the personalised name as "Thelma II". However, the document supplied with the Almark decal set dedicated to Kennaugh's aircraft shows EJ743 with full invasion stripes and named as "Thelma I". It then shows JN867 as "Thelma II" and with the partial stripes. The full instruction sheet can be seen here.

The illustrations of EJ743 always seem to give the date as December 1944, yet other sources say the aircraft was struck off charge (due to overstressed wings and skin wrinkling) in November 44.

I have to say the Almark sheet looks superb and sounds very authoritative as it appears to be based on research conducted using Mac Kennaugh's own log books and family-supplied material. So is this a classic case of a mistake having been made in an illustration once (in which the serial EJ743 was applied to Thelma II instead of JN867) and then endlessly repeated by other illustrators and decal designers (including the SMER Tempest V kit), or has the Almark set got it wrong? I strongly suspect the former but would be grateful for anyone else's thoughts.

Further to my earlier post I have examimed the 56 Sqn Operations Record Book and found the following re 'Mac' Kennaugh's Tempests.

He seems to have started operational flying with 56 Sqn on 26 July 44 and between then and 5 August flew 11 sorties in 5 different Tempests, none of them were coded 'H' (M,U,J,R & W). He started flying JN867/H on 6 August; he is not recorded flying the previous H, EJ532, at all.

JN867 lasted as H until 26 Dec 44, its replacement was NV640 from c.19 Jan 45 to 14 March 45, then NV980 from c.18 March to 5 April and SN127 from 7 April into the post war period. I don't have the benefit of Mac's log but it would seem much more likely to me that JN867 was Thelma I, NV640 Thelma II and NV980 Thelma III.

I'd also suggest that none of the aircraft had full D-Day stripes as depicted - they were removed from upper surfaces 7 July 44 onwards. I had no photographic proof of this on Tempests but by wierd coincidence a fellow enthusiast rang today to say he had located a shot of a 56 Sqn Tempest, dated July 44, which shows underside stripes only.

Furthermore, I am fairly sure JN867 was not a 'Series 1'. I must admit I have never established a formal specification for Series 1. The early Tempests had Typhoon centre sections (first 50), long barrelled cannons and no LR tank fittings all of which have been claimed as 'series 1' features. These items were rectified in stages, not all at once, but by JN867 none of the these features were evident.

Chris

[Overhaulin]

Mark

Yes the Almark sheet is very good. I did assume it was correct for EJ743

Chris

Thanks for the additional info. Pity I got mine wrong then.

[Work In Progress]

I might be wrong, but I thought there were opening doors on both sides of the 'car-door'/'coffin lid' Typhoons? But as the top part of the canopy is hinged on the port side, entry via the starboard side is much easier (along with having the hand/foot holds on that side too).

Interesting, that: you've just made me look it up.

Wikipedia, citing "The Typhoon & Tempest Story" by Shores & Thomas, says:

"The Typhoon was first produced with forward-opening side doors (complete with wind-down windows), with a transparent "roof" hinged to open to the left.

"The first problem encountered with the Typhoon after its entry into service was the seepage of carbon monoxide fumes into the cockpit. In an attempt to alleviate this, longer exhaust stubs were fitted in November 1941 ("Mod [modification] 239"), and at about the same time the port (left) cockpit doors were sealed.

So, post November '41, the port door structure was probably still physically there but sealed. As you say, it makes no sense to have a port side door given the way the top panel hinged. I have no idea why they didn't hinge the top panel to the right, and put the steps and handholds on the port side, so that the pilot could mount in the universal way for low wing aircraft with centre-line seating. But there you are, they decided that just this once the pilot should get in on the wrong side.

Looking at this pic - too large to post directly -

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/majo...oonColour02.jpg

... the panel lines are visible but there's no handle.

Pity there aren't any full size examples left to look at.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Work In Progress

[StephenMG]

Further to my earlier post I have examimed the 56 Sqn Operations Record Book and found the following re 'Mac' Kennaugh's Tempests.

He seems to have started operational flying with 56 Sqn on 26 July 44 and between then and 5 August flew 11 sorties in 5 different Tempests, none of them were coded 'H' (M,U,J,R & W). He started flying JN867/H on 6 August; he is not recorded flying the previous H, EJ532, at all.

JN867 lasted as H until 26 Dec 44, its replacement was NV640 from c.19 Jan 45 to 14 March 45, then NV980 from c.18 March to 5 April and SN127 from 7 April into the post war period. I don't have the benefit of Mac's log but it would seem much more likely to me that JN867 was Thelma I, NV640 Thelma II and NV980 Thelma III.

I'd also suggest that none of the aircraft had full D-Day stripes as depicted - they were removed from upper surfaces 7 July 44 onwards. I had no photographic proof of this on Tempests but by wierd coincidence a fellow enthusiast rang today to say he had located a shot of a 56 Sqn Tempest, dated July 44, which shows underside stripes only.

Furthermore, I am fairly sure JN867 was not a 'Series 1'. I must admit I have never established a formal specification for Series 1. The early Tempests had Typhoon centre sections (first 50), long barrelled cannons and no LR tank fittings all of which have been claimed as 'series 1' features. These items were rectified in stages, not all at once, but by JN867 none of the these features were evident.

Chris

Thanks for your comments Chris, they are very much appreciated. And apologies for my late reply!

It's pretty clear then that EJ743 is completely wrong for any of Mac's Tempests let alone Thelma II! I had another dig through my books last night and thought it amusing that the well-known pre-delivery photo (therefore without squadron codes) of EJ743 in one book is captioned as spending "its whole career with No.3 Squadron". Ironically, the very same author, then illustrates EJ743 as Thelma II of 56 Squadron in a magazine a year or so later! Maybe this was the illustration that sparked the confusion?

Anyway, reason for my initial enquiry is that I have been commissioned to produce some profiles and 4-views myself for a new Tempest book. One of the 4-views that was suggested by the editor is EJ743, flown by Mac Kennaugh of 56 Squadron. I suspect the reason for picking that aircraft is that it appeared to show an example of the partial, lower fuse-only, stripes - the aim being to illustrate each of the main variation in markings. This is clearly the wrong aircraft and I will have to alter the example to a 'proven' machine. I would like to stick with one of Mac Kennaugh's aircraft (if only to attempt to correct the error that's circulating with EJ743) but Chris' research makes it clear that there's a good deal of uncertainty surrounding this so now I'm not so sure!

My first idea was to switch to JN867 as Thelma II as represented by the Almark sheet. However, I too have doubts over that being a so-called Series I aircraft. A couple of very well-known early Tempests support the view that it wasn't. 'Bee' Beamont's JN751 was one of the first aircraft delivered and was therefore a Series I. Remy Van Lierde's JN862 was a Series II however. Following the 'JN' serial numbers in sequence, JN867 appears beyond Van Lierde aircraft and therefore is likely to be a Series II as well. Does that error, and the fact that they show EJ743 at all, throw doubt on other details of the Almark sheet as well I wonder? Have they made an assumption that JN867 was Thelma II when, in fact, it should be NV640 as suggested by Chris? Rather than looking authorititive as I first thought, the Almark sheet is looking rather suspect now.

Incidentally, just to inject a little extra bizarreness, I've even seen a suggestion that 'Thelma I' wasn't a Tempest at all, but a Spitfire IX !!!

On the 'Series I', 'Series II' issue, although seemingly not an official designation I gather that HAL did use it. As the cannon barrel length and drop-tanks fittings can't be used, could it be that an alternative reliable distinguisher between the two are the external strengthening 'fishplates' on the tail unit?

Thanks again,

Mark

[dambuster]

As is the door on a car door model! It is one of the great mysteries why the Typhoon is boarded from the "wrong" side.

In Great Britain, car doors for the driver are always on the right-hand side. Something to do with the fact that we drive on the left-hand side of the road......

Peter

[Chris Thomas]

Mark

Thanks for the additional info. Pity I got mine wrong then.

Mark, why let a few digits spoil your enjoyment of a well-made model? As for the stripes, my comments were merely an opinion - nobody can prove you wrong! (At the moment!).

Chris

[Chris Thomas]

Anyway, reason for my initial enquiry is that I have been commissioned to produce some profiles and 4-views myself for a new Tempest book. One of the 4-views that was suggested by the editor is EJ743, flown by Mac Kennaugh of 56 Squadron. I suspect the reason for picking that aircraft is that it appeared to show an example of the partial, lower fuse-only, stripes - the aim being to illustrate each of the main variation in markings. This is clearly the wrong aircraft and I will have to alter the example to a 'proven' machine. I would like to stick with one of Mac Kennaugh's aircraft (if only to attempt to correct the error that's circulating with EJ743) but Chris' research makes it clear that there's a good deal of uncertainty surrounding this so now I'm not so sure!

On the 'Series I', 'Series II' issue, although seemingly not an official designation I gather that HAL did use it. As the cannon barrel length and drop-tanks fittings can't be used, could it be that an alternative reliable distinguisher between the two are the external strengthening 'fishplates' on the tail unit?

Thanks again,

Mark

Mark

Reference the first para above, if I remember correctly, there were no photos available showing any of the US-H's on the sheet, nor of the 'Thema' markings. Therefore I would not attempt a profile! Since then (rather poor) photos of NV980/H and what I believe to be SN127/H have come to light but they are both in the 1945 style markings with no stripes whatsoever. Plenty of photos of other 'half-stripe' machines are out there.

You may well be correct about the 'fishplates. The first 50 Tempests were built using components from a cancelled Typhoon order - hence the fishplates. Trouble is, they are very difficult to see in photos as they were on the canouflage immediately aft of the Sky band - which had been moved forward to accommodate the larger Tempest tailplane. They can be seen on the well-known photos of SA-N JN766.

Chris

[Chris Thomas]

Interesting, that: you've just made me look it up.

Wikipedia, citing "The Typhoon & Tempest Story" by Shores & Thomas, says:

"The Typhoon was first produced with forward-opening side doors (complete with wind-down windows), with a transparent "roof" hinged to open to the left.

"The first problem encountered with the Typhoon after its entry into service was the seepage of carbon monoxide fumes into the cockpit. In an attempt to alleviate this, longer exhaust stubs were fitted in November 1941 ("Mod [modification] 239"), and at about the same time the port (left) cockpit doors were sealed.

I'd forgotten I wrote that ... well it was 23 years ago ..

I've just been examining photos of early Typhoons and on some close-ups, the shape of the port side door handle can be discerned below a skin of some kind (thin aluminium sheeting?); this seems to disappear on the later R-serialled aircraft. I have never found a photo of a Typhoon with the port door hinged open. They could be jettisoned in an emergency (the pilot crossed his arms and pulled the levers behind his shoulders - the position perhaps gave rise to the name 'coffin hood') or removed during maintenance.

Chris

[StephenMG]

Mark

Reference the first para above, if I remember correctly, there were no photos available showing any of the US-H's on the sheet, nor of the 'Thema' markings. Therefore I would not attempt a profile! Since then (rather poor) photos of NV980/H and what I believe to be SN127/H have come to light but they are both in the 1945 style markings with no stripes whatsoever. Plenty of photos of other 'half-stripe' machines are out there.

You may well be correct about the 'fishplates. The first 50 Tempests were built using components from a cancelled Typhoon order - hence the fishplates. Trouble is, they are very difficult to see in photos as they were on the canouflage immediately aft of the Sky band - which had been moved forward to accommodate the larger Tempest tailplane. They can be seen on the well-known photos of SA-N JN766.

Chris

Thank you again Chris. I think you are correct and, as far as this profile is concerned, discretion is the better part of valour and I'll pick another subject!

[perdu]

I was privileged to chat with Mac many times over the years and like Les heard several differing versions of which were his "own" planes.

Never know now sadly, but I think I can state categorically that Mac would deny that Thelma II was a Spitifire.

Well in Mac's own words "I had to fly in Tempests, there was bugger all room inside a Spitifire for me"

Mac was larger than life in many ways, including his girth which he claimed was with him even through the wartime years.

I miss that man, great guy.

Les's Almarks sheet looks magnificent

I dont suppose this helps much but Spitfire? No!

[Chris Thomas]

I was privileged to chat with Mac many times over the years and like Les heard several differing versions of which were his "own" planes.

Never know now sadly, but I think I can state categorically that Mac would deny that Thelma II was a Spitifire.

Well in Mac's own words "I had to fly in Tempests, there was bugger all room inside a Spitifire for me"

Mac was larger than life in many ways, including his girth which he claimed was with him even through the wartime years.

I miss that man, great guy.

Les's Almarks sheet looks magnificent

I dont suppose this helps much but Spitfire? No!

Just to nail this one. Mac does not appear in 56's ORB until the last week of July 44 but 56 Sqn's final Spitfire IX ops had been flown in the first week of July 44, after which they were completely superseded byTempests. And just for the record, 56's last Spit IX coded US-H was MK794 - not too much of a connection with EJ743 ...

Chris

[perdu]

Just to nail this one. Mac does not appear in 56's ORB until the last week of July 44 but 56 Sqn's final Spitfire IX ops had been flown in the first week of July 44, after which they were completely superseded byTempests. And just for the record, 56's last Spit IX coded US-H was MK794 - not too much of a connection with EJ743 ...

Chris

It is good to finish this rumour off, he was a real character.