Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, and Sea Fury

Weaver · November 27, 2009, 09:35:50 AM

Got the FROG/NOVO/CAMONET Sea Hawk today, and it's actually less useful for this project than the Airfix one, due to the fact that it's inner wings are moulded in one piece with the fuselage. On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one. This makes the FROG one more suitable for my long-standing stretch + Skyhawk wings project, which in turn means that the Airfix one is free........

GTX · December 20, 2009, 02:00:37 PM

A subtle whiff - the Sea Tempest:

Regards,

Greg

Barry Krell · December 20, 2009, 02:31:50 PM

Quote from: Weaver on November 27, 2009, 09:35:50 AM
On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one.

Except that all the swept wing projects based on the P.1040 airframe have their intakes brought forward. Compare the drawings in the Barry Hygate book and you'll see what I mean.

Can't see the Navy going for the Sea Tempest for several reasons. The chin scoop would be nasty for a ditching and likely to drag the aircraft and the pilot down. The view over the nose is as bad as the Sabre Firebrand, not helpful for carrier landings (the Sea Fury has the cockpit section raised). Finally, the Sabre was a notoriously temperamental engine which I don't think would take too well to being at sea. not to mention the fact that the engine had very close tolerances and you couldn't swap bits out of one to patch up another. You could swap it for the Centaurus, but then it's pretty much a Sea Fury. Which is a better aircraft anyway.

Now, a Sea Fury with a Tempest wing would be a more handy aircraft, given that it now has a centreline free for either fuel or other lethality.

ChernayaAkula · December 20, 2009, 03:51:21 PM

Quote from: GTX on December 20, 2009, 02:00:37 PM
A subtle whiff - the Sea Tempest: <...>

Would look very appropriate on an escort carrier hunting subs in the Atlantic.

kitbasher · December 21, 2009, 02:42:46 PM

Quote from: Barry Krell on December 20, 2009, 02:31:50 PM
Now, a Sea Fury with a Tempest wing would be a more handy aircraft, given that it now has a centreline free for either fuel or other lethality.

So, a navalised Tempest II, then?

Barry Krell · December 21, 2009, 05:18:59 PM

No, the Tempest wing on a Sea Fury fuselage. The same problems re pilot position with the Tempest V also affect the Tempest II. The Sea Fury has the raised position, so better view over the nose on landing. Blackburn did the same thing when they totally revised the Firebrand into the Firecrest.

Given that the Sea Fury wing is a Tempest wing minus the section between the u/c bays, I'd assume that they had the same pick up points built in. Can't see fitting the former onto the latter would be a problem, apart from switching round the oil coolers.

GTX · December 27, 2009, 11:04:23 AM

Interestingly enough, I read the other day that a carrier based Tempest was considered by the RN (will try to find the reference again shortly).

Regards,

Greg

kitnut617 · December 27, 2009, 12:22:57 PM

Quote from: GTX on December 27, 2009, 11:04:23 AM
Interestingly enough, I read the other day that a carrier based Tempest was considered by the RN (will try to find the reference again shortly).

Regards,

Greg

I'd be interested in that too Greg, just been checking the Francis Mason book Hawker Aircraft and he makes no mention of it.

GTX · December 27, 2009, 12:49:17 PM

The reference was in Tony Buttler's "British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950" - specifically on page 175, where it states "A 'hooked' Typhoon or Tempest for carrier operation was considered again in November 1942". It goes on to explain that although the Seafire was in service, it had disadvantages. The CinC Home Fleet suggested "that a Typhoon or Tempest should be obtained for Admiralty use as soon as possible and hooked for trials".

Regards,

Greg

Weaver · December 28, 2009, 02:15:18 AM

Quote from: Barry Krell on December 20, 2009, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: Weaver on November 27, 2009, 09:35:50 AM
On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one.

Except that all the swept wing projects based on the P.1040 airframe have their intakes brought forward. Compare the drawings in the Barry Hygate book and you'll see what I mean.

True, but even if you move the intakes forward, you still have the problem of the kink in the leading edge. Anyhow, what I'm planning for one Seahawk has nothing to do with reality......

Quote
Can't see the Navy going for the Sea Tempest for several reasons. The chin scoop would be nasty for a ditching and likely to drag the aircraft and the pilot down. The view over the nose is as bad as the Sabre Firebrand, not helpful for carrier landings (the Sea Fury has the cockpit section raised). Finally, the Sabre was a notoriously temperamental engine which I don't think would take too well to being at sea. not to mention the fact that the engine had very close tolerances and you couldn't swap bits out of one to patch up another. You could swap it for the Centaurus, but then it's pretty much a Sea Fury. Which is a better aircraft anyway.

Didn't the original Sabre-Tempest have wing leading-edge radiators? Could they have gone back to that to solve the ditching problem?

Was the view over the nose of a Tempest II any worse than that of a Corsair, which the FAA operated (with some difficulty)?

Barry Krell · December 28, 2009, 03:19:05 AM

A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.

The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.

Weaver · December 28, 2009, 03:50:02 AM

Quote from: Barry Krell on December 28, 2009, 03:19:05 AM
A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.

The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.

You could have a Tempest II airframe with the Hercules-18 I proposed earlier in the thread, whose development scale would be significantly ahead of the Centaurus (not far different from the RW Herc-14, actually). The Herc-18 would have a smaller diameter than the Centaurus due to it's shorter stroke: you could either fudge that (how much difference does it really make?) or extend a Perseus cowling. The smaller diameter might also help a bit with the view over the nose.

famvburg · December 28, 2009, 06:00:23 AM

I've always wondered. If the Tempest II & Sea Fury both used the Centaurus, why is the Tempest II's cowling so much bigger in diameter than the Sea Fury's?

Quote from: Weaver on December 28, 2009, 03:50:02 AM
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 28, 2009, 03:19:05 AM
A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.

The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.

You could have a Tempest II airframe with the Hercules-18 I proposed earlier in the thread, whose development scale would be significantly ahead of the Centaurus (not far different from the RW Herc-14, actually). The Herc-18 would have a smaller diameter than the Centaurus due to it's shorter stroke: you could either fudge that (how much difference does it really make?) or extend a Perseus cowling. The smaller diameter might also help a bit with the view over the nose.

kitnut617 · December 28, 2009, 07:13:42 AM

Quote from: famvburg on December 28, 2009, 06:00:23 AM

I've always wondered. If the Tempest II & Sea Fury both used the Centaurus, why is the Tempest II's cowling so much bigger in diameter than the Sea Fury's?

It actually isn't, I've used both in my conversions and there's no difference (at least with the kits I've used anyway). Also you'll find the diameter of the cowling matches the diameter of the Shackleton Griffon 'power-eggs' (or the Merlin 85 installation) which I think was more by design than accident. A Centuarus powered Shackleton would be neat.

My 'fav' is the Fury with the Sabre VII (3000+hp), the fastest Hawker piston engined fighter.

Barry Krell · December 28, 2009, 08:58:43 AM

I think it's an optical illusion. The Tempest is a BIG aircraft for a single seater so the engine looks beefy. Plus the installation isn't quite as neat as that of the Sea Fury. Plus the Matchbox Tempest cowling is a little too square at the front, which makes it look bigger when compared to a Sea Fury engine in the same scale.