Jump to content
ShamrockOneFive

Tempest Mark V research

Recommended Posts

Back when Maddox Games was putting the Tempest V into the original series I did a whole bunch of research on the aircraft which ultimately had some influence on the modeling (or so I'd like to think) of the aircraft. There's some contradictory information that came out over the years and so I thought I'd revisit the details and start posting some sources of information.

 

I'm going to assume that the aircraft we'll be getting is a December 1944/January 1945 time period aircraft. This would be a Tempest Mark V (Series 2) aircraft which differed from the first 100 aircraft produced (Series 1) primarily by the fitting of the short-barreled Hispano Mark V cannons. The shorter barrels allowed for a flush fitting of the cannons inside the wing (on Series 1 the cannons protruded slightly).

 

I'm also assuming it will be an aircraft fitted with a Sabre IIA engine probably running at 9lbs of boost.

 

From the following page I'm going to assume too that the aircraft would probably perform around the level of JN.798.

 

 

JN.798 was equipped with Mark V cannon, its top speed being 378 mph at sea level and 436 mph at 18,400 feet

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

 

Two items that have caused some confusion in the past is roll rate and ammo count.

 

First, ammo count. Various sources state that the ammo count for the Tempest V is 150 rounds per gun. Standard for the Tempest II was 165 rpg in the outer cannons and 155 rpg in the inner cannons. I have a contradictory piece of info, however, that suggests that wartime Tempests were fitted with 200 rpg.

 

Pierre Closterman's The Big Show. Page 332, Appendix E under Combat Report 122/3475/83/II T.A.F says the following:
 

- The video camera worked
- The four cannons respectively fired: 146, 185, 185, 150 20mm. shells

 

 

 

I'd love to know if anyone has any added data on this or information proving conclusively that the full load is 200rpg or 165/155 or 150 or whatever. I suspect 150 is incorrect, 165/155 is typical of a post war armed Tempest, and 200rpg may be the official amount. Given that two of Closterman's cannons were reported as firing 185 rounds... the minimum spec would have to be 185 at least.

 

As for roll rate I've only ever found anecdotal comparisons from the Air Ministry in the ADFU report (from 1944): http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html

 

The other piece of information is a roll chart which I cannot find online right now which shows roll performance for a spring tab aileron fitted Tempest. Should the Tempests of the December 1944/January 1945 time frame be fitted with spring tab ailerons. I'm not sure. Again, if anyone has any data or evidence either way I'd love to see it.

 

Clearly, the Tempest is one of my favs and I've researched an awful lot about it. It's a high performer in its element, a powerful beast of a fighter, and I'm excited to see it represented in the new IL-2 series. It should be a real joy to fly no matter what!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the roll rate chart I was looking for. It doesn't appear to be online anywhere but I kept it in a document archive from years back. As I understand it... this is the rate of roll of a Tempest V with spring tab ailerons. But I'm not completely sure of that. I've never been able to find a similar chart with data on Tempests without the spring tabs.

 

The Typhoon historically was a very slow roller (one of the slowest) but the Tempest is a different beast and according to the anecdotal information, the Tempest rolls somewhat faster even without the spring tabs.

 

h-tempest-5.jpg

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Maddox Games put the Hawker Tempest V into the original series it was a great shame that they got the rear view from the cockpit all wrong (some might say 'porked').  This was much later corrected by mods (not Maddox Games).  I hope Jason and the team don't make the same mistake. 

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Maddox Games put the Hawker Tempest V into the original series it was a great shame that they got the rear view from the cockpit all wrong (some might say 'porked').  This was much later corrected by mods (not Maddox Games).  I hope Jason and the team don't make the same mistake. 

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

 

That was actually a mix-up of miscommunications by the third party artist who created the Tempest (it was a fan project for him) and Maddox Games implementation. It had mostly to do with the height at which the pilot sat in the cockpit. This is from before the days of the 6DOF cockpits.

 

I suspect that 1CGS won't make the mistake and we're already able to adjust our viewpoint in this sim without trouble anyways.

Very nice research there!

 

Cheers! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, ammo count. Various sources state that the ammo count for the Tempest V is 150 rounds per gun.

This is the official figure on the aircraft information cards, both for the V and the II. (for instance: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg).

 

The other piece of information is a roll chart which I cannot find online right now which shows roll performance for a spring tab aileron fitted Tempest.

Still available here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg

 

I wish we'd be getting a Typhoon, haven't seen that one in ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a newbie question. Was the 50 lb (~23 kg) the standard applied force to measure roll rates in most aircraft? Or did different countries have different standards? I also wonder how they could measure how much force was being applied to the stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. 50lb can often be found, but there is no standard in the modern sense.

 

There were plenty of methods to measure the force, a simple one would be a scale type device read by the pilot. Don't laugh, that's how simple it sometimes was. Attached a picture of a German force measuring instrument, made by Fieseler. Mentioned in the the Fw190 manuals for determining controls forces and adjusting trim after work on the aircraft..

post-627-0-09554200-1515271891_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military_ World War II Fighters_ Hawker Tempest

 

Edited by Pail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the official figure on the aircraft information cards, both for the V and the II. (for instance: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg).

 

 

Still available here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temproll.jpg

 

I wish we'd be getting a Typhoon, haven't seen that one in ages.

 

I've seen that official figure before and its contradicted by things like Closterman's after action combat report which makes things interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another set of values is here in the ADFU data:

 

 

Re-Arming
52. Gun loading platforms are issued and used during these trials. With two Armourers only, the time taken for re-arming was as follows:-
First test - 17 minutes
Second test - 12 minutes

Operational load Port & Starboard Inner - 150 rounds
Port & Starboard Outer 140 rounds

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT the cards, the figures you find there are also often the figures found in loading plans and manuals. I don't have one for the Tempest, but for other aircraft it agrees. So I consider them fairly reliable.

 

It should also be noted that with belt fed guns, official loads aren't necessarily the maximum technically possible. Individuals might load ammo in excess of official figures, until the ammo bay is full.

 

It's interesting that a Tempest V servicing manual isn't easy to find on the web, as I just noticed. Got PN, but that's it. Do you have any more manuals?

Edited by JtD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Clostermann says in „Le grand Cirque 2000“ (the amended reprint) on p.370 that it had 800 rounds for the four guns, 20 seconds of fire.

 

Unfortunately, this new edition also has a couple of transcription errors, usually when specific about things like engine performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT the cards, the figures you find there are also often the figures found in loading plans and manuals. I don't have one for the Tempest, but for other aircraft it agrees. So I consider them fairly reliable.

 

It should also be noted that with belt fed guns, official loads aren't necessarily the maximum technically possible. Individuals might load ammo in excess of official figures, until the ammo bay is full.

 

It's interesting that a Tempest V servicing manual isn't easy to find on the web, as I just noticed. Got PN, but that's it. Do you have any more manuals?

 

I've been looking too! No luck so far.

 

Interesting. Clostermann says in „Le grand Cirque 2000“ (the amended reprint) on p.370 that it had 800 rounds for the four guns, 20 seconds of fire.

 

Unfortunately, this new edition also has a couple of transcription errors, usually when specific about things like engine performance.

 

There are some errors but that's an awfully specific error to transcribe. The 20 seconds of fire and 800 rounds correspond nicely to a Hispano Mark V equipped aircraft. Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. 50lb can often be found, but there is no standard in the modern sense.

 

There were plenty of methods to measure the force, a simple one would be a scale type device read by the pilot. Don't laugh, that's how simple it sometimes was. Attached a picture of a German force measuring instrument, made by Fieseler. Mentioned in the the Fw190 manuals for determining controls forces and adjusting trim after work on the aircraft..

That's a clever way to do it! not bad :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some errors but that's an awfully specific error to transcribe. The 20 seconds of fire and 800 rounds correspond nicely to a Hispano Mark V equipped aircraft. Interesting...

 

Well, he writes "près de 800 obus...", see higlighted section, "almost" or "up to". It is from the Kindle edition of the amended new edition. (That one doesn't have some of the transcription errors that the print edition I have features, but it is missing all the images. :huh:)

 

Untitled-1.jpg

 

I copied the section where he is talking about the power of the aircraft. It is of note that Clostermann flew different types from January through April 1945. He must be refering to his "Grand Charles", a Tempest that he picked up on his birthday on Feb. 28th.

 

"... J'ai un des nouveaux moteurs de 2950 CV et une hélice Rotol à larges pales – ça déménage !"

Clostermann, Pierre. Le Grand Cirque: Mémoires d'un pilote de chasse FFL dans la RAF (Documents (Rso)) (French Edition) (Kindle-Positionen5373-5374). Flammarion. Kindle-Version.

 

The power output of 2950 hp would resemble a Sabre VII, but as detailed Clostermann is, he never mentioned Water/Methanol injection. So it still may be a Sabre V.

 

I'd be interested to see engine documentations that could match his numbers, rpm and power. Especially with reagards to the different propellers used. And if we can match the speeds he states at given power settings in game. I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt.

 

 

What is also interesting is his comment on fuel type, an inevtable discussion:

 

"... Le moteur Sabre n'absorbait qu'en protestant l'essence à 130 d'octane."

Clostermann, Pierre. Le Grand Cirque: Mémoires d'un pilote de chasse FFL dans la RAF (Documents (Rso)) (French Edition) (Kindle-Positionen4493-4494). Flammarion. Kindle-Version.

 

This after the conversion from V1 hunting in England to used by 2TAF on the continent. AFAIR in home defense, they used 150 octane stinky fuel. On the continent however he says they used 130 octane.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you take the attachment. Should be no copyright issue, it's freely available on the web. Pilot's notes for Tempest V with Sabre IIA, July 1944.

7_Tempest_V.pdf

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for notes, JtD - I think the Tempest is a plane that would probably need a bit of preparation before jumping in and flying. Looks a bit scary for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a no-brainer ... thanks!

 

Or you take the attachment. Should be no copyright issue, it's freely available on the web. Pilot's notes for Tempest V with Sabre IIA, July 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he writes "près de 800 obus...", see higlighted section, "almost" or "up to". It is from the Kindle edition of the amended new edition. (That one doesn't have some of the transcription errors that the print edition I have features, but it is missing all the images. :huh:)

 

Untitled-1.jpg

 

I copied the section where he is talking about the power of the aircraft. It is of note that Clostermann flew different types from January through April 1945. He must be refering to his "Grand Charles", a Tempest that he picked up on his birthday on Feb. 28th.

 

"... J'ai un des nouveaux moteurs de 2950 CV et une hélice Rotol à larges pales – ça déménage !"

Clostermann, Pierre. Le Grand Cirque: Mémoires d'un pilote de chasse FFL dans la RAF (Documents (Rso)) (French Edition) (Kindle-Positionen5373-5374). Flammarion. Kindle-Version.

 

The power output of 2950 hp would resemble a Sabre VII, but as detailed Clostermann is, he never mentioned Water/Methanol injection. So it still may be a Sabre V.

 

I'd be interested to see engine documentations that could match his numbers, rpm and power. Especially with reagards to the different propellers used. And if we can match the speeds he states at given power settings in game. I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt.

 

 

What is also interesting is his comment on fuel type, an inevtable discussion:

 

"... Le moteur Sabre n'absorbait qu'en protestant l'essence à 130 d'octane."

Clostermann, Pierre. Le Grand Cirque: Mémoires d'un pilote de chasse FFL dans la RAF (Documents (Rso)) (French Edition) (Kindle-Positionen4493-4494). Flammarion. Kindle-Version.

 

This after the conversion from V1 hunting in England to used by 2TAF on the continent. AFAIR in home defense, they used 150 octane stinky fuel. On the continent however he says they used 130 octane.

 

Pretty sure Le Grande Charles is still just a Tempest V... maybe with a Sabre IIB? I remember something about the upgraded Rotol propeller. Maybe they really decked his plane out?

 

Or you take the attachment. Should be no copyright issue, it's freely available on the web. Pilot's notes for Tempest V with Sabre IIA, July 1944.

 

Good call. Really interesting read! I'm guessing its a Tempest V Series I but maybe its a Series II. I didn't see a section that would clue me in to which it was. Sabre IIA with +9lbs this right on par with my expectations for this sim though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Le Grande Charles is still just a Tempest V... maybe with a Sabre IIB? I remember something about the upgraded Rotol propeller. Maybe they really decked his plane out?

 

Good call. Really interesting read! I'm guessing its a Tempest V Series I but maybe its a Series II. I didn't see a section that would clue me in to which it was. Sabre IIA with +9lbs this right on par with my expectations for this sim though.

Clostermann wrote that the Tempests had progressively more powerful engines, AFAIR from 2200 hp to 3050 hp. What I notice is that he also mentiones 4000 rpm as the maximum, whereas the manuals only go up to 3700 rpm.

 

In one instance he describes pushing the throttle beyond the safety wire to „surpression“ in his later Grand Charles, commenting on the immediate boost of power. Could this have been a Sabre VII? Or is there also such a safety wire for the Sabre II series? This must have been around April 45

 

Maybe they were really were really squeezing out everything and we thus have to extrapolate official power figures. But there is no mentioning of engine failures other than the general misery of keeping that much of mechanics going during a bad winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure Le Grande Charles is still just a Tempest V... maybe with a Sabre IIB? I remember something about the upgraded Rotol propeller. Maybe they really decked his plane out?

 

 

Good call. Really interesting read! I'm guessing its a Tempest V Series I but maybe its a Series II. I didn't see a section that would clue me in to which it was. Sabre IIA with +9lbs this right on par with my expectations for this sim though.

The "go to" guy for research on the Typhoon and Tempest is Chris Thomas, who has studied these aircraft for years. According to Chris Thomas and Christopher Shores'  The Typhoon & Tempest Story the ammo capacity was 200 rpg: the Tempest V Series 1 used the long barrelled Hispano II, whereas the Series 2s were fitted with the Hispano Vs. Other improvements on the Series 2s were booster tabs on the ailerons and the wings were reinforced, plumbed and wired to accept drop tanks, bombs or rockets, albeit few Tempest Vs used bombs or rockets during WW 2. About 50 Series 1s were built, and quickly superseded in frontline units by the Series 2s.

The Tempest Vs used the Sabre IIA, that could be boosted to +9 lbs, but many IIAs were modified to IIBs that allowed the boost to be increased to +11 lbs.

Clostermann's "Le Grande Charles" SN222 was a Tempest V Series 2 with (more than likely) the Sabre IIB that produced a maximum of 2,420 hp (2,454 CV) @ +11 lbs boost: no Sabre IIs achieved anything like 2,950 CV (2909 hp) in operational service. The Sabre VII was never fitted to an operational Tempest V.

 

For interest, attached are Flight magazine articles on the Sabre II (1944)

Napier Sabre II 1944.pdf

and Sabre VII (1945

Napier Sabre VII Flight 1945 a.pdf

Edited by NZTyphoon
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. 50lb can often be found, but there is no standard in the modern sense.

 

There were plenty of methods to measure the force, a simple one would be a scale type device read by the pilot. Don't laugh, that's how simple it sometimes was. Attached a picture of a German force measuring instrument, made by Fieseler. Mentioned in the the Fw190 manuals for determining controls forces and adjusting trim after work on the aircraft..

 

These scales are simple, and also can be quite accurate if the operator is conscientious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "go to" guy for research on the Typhoon and Tempest is Chris Thomas, who has studied these aircraft for years. According to Chris Thomas and Christopher Shores'  The Typhoon & Tempest Story the ammo capacity was 200 rpg: the Tempest V Series 1 used the long barrelled Hispano II, whereas the Series 2s were fitted with the Hispano Vs. Other improvements on the Series 2s were booster tabs on the ailerons and the wings were reinforced, plumbed and wired to accept drop tanks, bombs or rockets, albeit few Tempest Vs used bombs or rockets during WW 2. About 50 Series 1s were built, and quickly superseded in frontline units by the Series 2s.

The Tempest Vs used the Sabre IIA, that could be boosted to +9 lbs, but many IIAs were modified to IIBs that allowed the boost to be increased to +11 lbs.

Clostermann's "Le Grande Charles" SN222 was a Tempest V Series 2 with (more than likely) the Sabre IIB that produced a maximum of 2,420 hp (2,454 CV) @ +11 lbs boost: no Sabre IIs achieved anything like 2,950 CV (2909 hp) in operational service. The Sabre VII was never fitted to an operational Tempest V.

 

For interest, attached are Flight magazine articles on the Sabre II (1944)

attachicon.gifNapier Sabre II 1944.pdf

and Sabre VII (1945

attachicon.gifNapier Sabre VII Flight 1945 a.pdf

 

Wonderful information there. Thanks for sharing! I don't have that particular book and now I really want to buy it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I never really understood is how the Tempest got rated worse in the turn compared with the P-51 during one of the British tactical trials. Now it's true that the Tempest featured a laminar flow airfoil which didn't really excel when it came to providing lift in turns, but so did the P-51, thus that can't be the explanation. Admittedly the P-51 was a light B type, however even so that would've best equalized the wing loading, and with the Tempests advantage in Ps it becomes an even greater mystery.

 

Only explanation I can come up with is that all these tests carried out during the British trials were done at high altitude, where 1) the P-51B enjoyed some of the best engine performance of any WW2 fighter and 2) the Tempest did not perform particularly well. Because at SL and up to at least 15,000 ft all my calculations puts the Tempest very much ahead of the P-51 when it comes to turn performance.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I never really understood is how the Tempest got rated worse in the turn compared with the P-51 during one of the British tactical trials. Now it's true that the Tempest featured a laminar flow airfoil which didn't really excel when it came to providing lift in turns, but so did the P-51, thus that can't be the explanation. Admittedly the P-51 was a light B type, however even so that would've best equalized the wing loading, and with the Tempests advantage in Ps it becomes an even greater mystery.

 

Only explanation I can come up with is that all these tests carried out during the British trials were done at high altitude, where 1) the P-51B enjoyed some of the best engine performance of any WW2 fighter and 2) the Tempest did not perform particularly well. Because at SL and up to at least 15,000 ft all my calculations puts the Tempest very much ahead of the P-51 when it comes to turn performance.

 

That would make sense. My estimation before was that the Tempest was half decent at turning and that was backed up by the way it handled in IL-2 when it did finally arrive. At low/medium altitudes where its big wing and powerful engine are all working well the Tempest turns relatively well. Perhaps its more of a pitch rate than a turn because its not a fighter you want to sustain a turn with. After a couple of rotations you'll be bleeding quite a bit of speed. But instantaneous turn in should be decent. That's what I figure anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense. My estimation before was that the Tempest was half decent at turning and that was backed up by the way it handled in IL-2 when it did finally arrive. At low/medium altitudes where its big wing and powerful engine are all working well the Tempest turns relatively well. Perhaps its more of a pitch rate than a turn because its not a fighter you want to sustain a turn with. After a couple of rotations you'll be bleeding quite a bit of speed. But instantaneous turn in should be decent. That's what I figure anyways.

Clostermann described standard tactics for engaging German prop fighters and being able to get home as start out with a zoom climb above them (they were cruising fast enough for that) then attack. After the attack, sucessful or not, you disengage in a fast downward spiral, picking up speed for the next zoom climb and restart the game.

 

Weather conditions did not always allow this, and sometimes (eespecially „fresh“ pilots) would try to turn with the 109 or the 190 at treetop level just under the low clouds. The German fighters caught up easily like that and it was usually the end of the Tempest. From this I would infer that in a substained turn, the Tempest gets below its optimal velocity for a turn. Its combat speed should be kept much higher where the 109 has a hard time following it in maneuvers. The 190D was feared much more because that one also remained very maneuvreable at high speeds. But neither of the two could follow a Tempest in a straight run. Much of this is more opinion is more hearsay than „metric fact“ (apart from top speeds) and one has to keep in mind that a lot of Tempest pilots were utterly affraid of their aircraft. I doubt that they were able to make most of their rides, even tough only pilots with a full tour of duty in their log could be transferred to Tempest squadrons.

 

You have to be a good pilot to make turns at optimal speeds. How much everything depends on with what you bring into a turn is nicely illustrated by all the „who could outturn who“ first hand accounts. Clostermann recalled 5(!) instances, where the endless circling (more than 5 full turns or so) happened, all of those while he was piloting a Spitfire. It appears that most of the time they entered a turn, pulled alpha and disengage, investing forward speed in added alpha. You can turn well with many aircraft that way. But establishing a „best turn configuration“ down on the deck was unattractive enough (at least for the „guests“) that such a situation would not happen often.

 

When asked what was the great features of the Tempest, Clostermann said „engine and ailerons“.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine that under pressure, with a Hun on their tail, pilots with limited Tempest experience would tend to revert to the habits that they had learned in their pre-Tempest tours. If those had been in Spitfires, which must have been typical, it would not be surprising if they tended to turn too tight and too slow.  As for being afraid of the aircraft, I can quite understand that.  Even without being a pilot, anyone who has driven sports cars or motorcycles must know the feeling of trying something much more powerful than the usual ride and thinking "Oh-oh: this could get away from me all too quickly".

 

I an frightened just looking at the thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A taildragger that has comparable speeds in the pattern as an F-4 Phantom II, and operating them in apalling conditions, that is not for the faint of heart.

 

That belly landings were usually fatal didn't help to build confidence. Clostermann however did this on three occasions.

 

One time he went to visit his friends Jaques Remligner at a neighboring airfield he and wanted to show off his Tempest in front of those Spitfire pilots. After some aerobatics he intended to land, just to discover that his hydaulic systems failed and he couldn't lower the landing gear. All maneuvering did not help and he decided to belly land rather than bail out in front of the whole crew assembled along the runway, watching his airshow. He made a nice belly landing in front of a cheering crowd, but neither he or even the aircraft got significant damage. Needless to say, he was very popular with the Spitfire pilots there and then.

 

Second time he had to do that was when he was shot by American AAA over the river Rhine. Just after he could wittness one of his pilots being burned alive on the runway after belly landing some days before. Hitting his head hard plus earning some american metal in the leg earned him some days off.

 

Third time was when he was shot down by a Fw-190D. He chased it for a while but he lost track of it when checking his 6. In the resultting confusion he stalled out his Tempest in the zoom climb and by the time he regained control, the 190 was behin him, hitting him at least 3 times near the cockpit and in the engine, making that one stop immediately. At that point he was below 300 m AGL with water on one side (the Dümmer) and forest on the other side. He by chance saw a narrow path that was cleared and he aimed there for landing. The 190 meanwhile pulled up next to him, but seeing the Tempest being incapatiated, turned away, not finishing him off. He was lucky to make another nice belly landing, the soft ground cushioning a lot of the impact. Exiting the aircraft, he almost broke his neck, as he jumped out with his face mask on. Regaining some posture again, he could wait for some very unfriendly American soldiers apporaching. Clostermann was said to have said "leave it to me, it's a piece of cake" on the radio before dashing after that fleeing 190. Clostermann then said the "famous last words" that made the story good enough to be imortalized:

 

[...] J'appelle mon autre ailier, mon Australien, Bay Adams, et je lui passe le commandement. « Couvre-moi, j'y vais, je vais me le faire, reste en altitude », et j'énonce cette phrase qui devait demeurer immortelle : « Leave it to me, it's a piece of cake » (« Laisse-le moi, ça va être du gâteau »). Je voudrais ajouter ici que la R.A.F. publiait chaque mois un bulletin confidentiel qui donnait des conseils, etc., et qui, surtout, épinglait nos plus grosses bêtises afin de les éviter dans l'avenir ou que ça nous serve d'exemple. Dans cet esprit, dans chaque numéro, l'un d'entre nous était décoré de l'Order of the Irremovable Finger, l'ordre du doigt inamovible, issu de cette phrase, célèbre parmi nous : « Enlève ton doigt de ton nez et occupe-toi un peu de ce qui se passe autour de toi. » Dans une autre rubrique étaient publiées « the famous last words of the month », les illustres dernières paroles du mois. J'y ai eu évidemment droit, je puis vous l'avouer – c'était le dernier bulletin de la guerre –, avec ce commentaire : « Our forcefull Frenchman… », notre sacré Français a fini la guerre en beauté avec « Leave it to me, it's a piece of cake. » [...]

Clostermann, Pierre. Une sacrée guerre: Daniel Costelle questionne et enregistre les réponses de l'auteur sur sa vie, sa guerre et ses aventures 1921-1945

 

 

What I also found interesting is the story of a Shell Company executive, an old man (35) and very myoptic as well as being the second frenchman to join Wing 122. His name was Vassier. He was wearing thick glasses. But he had a pilots rating and he wanted to fight as a pilot in the war. Of course, with his bad vision he was far from being eligible as a pilot, let alone a Tempest pilot. But, if you big at Shell, then your mail does get forwarded to Churchil, who, obviously to get rid of the issue, allowed by executive order for him to join the RAF and be transferred to a Tempest squadron. Clostermann didn't like that at all, although he respected him for his flying abilities abd even admitted that this guy actually flew very successful missions, but he didn't like him for his attitude. Also he had to make a belly landing with the Tempest after Flak left a lasting impression on his aircraft. On that occasion he got of his hand cut off on the whrist by the shattered glass of the canopy. He did get a wooden hand as a replacement for his left hand and kept on flying like that.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on the Tempest and other similar era planes getting a Gyro gunsight rather than the simple reflector we're used to? Reading up on the planes around this era it seems planes like the Tempest and others were being fitted with them, but I havn't heard anything from the Il2 team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to see the Gyro gunsights on the latest Allied types, and maybe also the Me262.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to see the Gyro gunsights on the latest Allied types, and maybe also the Me262.

Do you know if they were also added to the Fw-190 A8 or D9 variants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on the Tempest and other similar era planes getting a Gyro gunsight rather than the simple reflector we're used to? Reading up on the planes around this era it seems planes like the Tempest and others were being fitted with them, but I havn't heard anything from the Il2 team.

Most of them didn‘t have gyro sights, but it had the fixed one projected at the windscreen. You‘ll enjoy a much improved forward vision like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of them didn‘t have gyro sights, but it had the fixed one projected at the windscreen. You‘ll enjoy a much improved forward vision like that.

 

Ah yes, on further investigation they were fitted to MkII's and not until after the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if they were also added to the Fw-190 A8 or D9 variants?

They were fitted on some Doras and Ta-152's, I can't remember if some also made their way into Antons. IIRC most were put into Me262's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gyro gun sight was not fitted to the Tempest V during the war.

 

The EZ42 of the Germans was often locked.

 

Don't believe everything that Charles says in his book.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gyro gun sight was not fitted to the Tempest V during the war.

 

The EZ42 of the Germans was often locked.

 

Don't believe everything that Charles says in his book.

Charles who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...