Jump to content

Tempest Mark V research


ShamrockOneFive
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Quinte said:

And this exists, but I can't access that myself.

 

 

My theory so far is that the spring tab design was modified between the 2nd and 3rd production batches rather than being simply removed. Perhaps travel was limited somehow. This document could be in reference to that modification... need access!

Edited by Talon_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst
14 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Tempest V pilot shoots down Me 262 in October 1944 and destroys a Bf 109 on the ground in November 1944.

 

http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/10-pilots/54-cole

 

Note the link below provides records of Tempest V victories over Europe from June 1944 onwards:

 

http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/piloter/victories

 

The Tempest V was operating over Europe from June 1944 onwards and shooting down Bf109, FW 190 and Me 262, etc.  Mixing it up with enemy aircraft on plenty of occasions through Sep, Oct, Nov and Dec 44, and on into 1945 and the end of the war.  I hope the dev's will recognise this for BP and that map makers and MP server providers will reflect this fact.

 

That's a nice collection of victory claims, thank you. It looks like the first claim was made in June 1944 (3 claims made), then its nothing until the end of September 1944 (5 claims made 29-30 September). 4 claims in October, 6 in November. Then action begins in earnest from December.

 

Thing is, in June 1944 they did not yet run on 150 grade (first trials in connection for the V-1 menace were done in August, all 3 Tempest engines failed btw), and by the end of September, they were no longer running on 150 grade and +11 (save for perhaps Sabre IIBs).

 

 

14 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

It is worth noting that when Tempest units were on anti-diver operations (V1 flying bomb), they were 'rostered' for such duties and rotated with other anti-diver units.  When not on anti-diver duty they were available for operations over the continent of Europe.  This means that they were flying over Europe with 150 Octane fuel and using its performance benefits over Europe in between anti-diver duties, as were other anti-diver units operating Spitfires and Mustangs.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

No.

 

 

HEADQUARTERS:
          AIR DEFENCE GREAT BRITAIN.
                  ROYAL AIR FORCE
                          BENTLEY PRIORY
                                  STANMORE
                                          MIDDLESEX
  18th September 1944.

 

 

Use of 150 Grade Fuel

Sir,

        I have the honor to refer to the above subject, and state that during the last 6 months a considerable amount of experience has been gained in A.D.G.B. with the use of 150 Grade Fuel in operational aircraft. The use of this fuel allowed higher boost pressures, which gave substantial increases in aircraft performance, and these increases were of great value when Squadrons of A.D.G.B. were employed against the flying bomb. Attached at Appendix “A” is a summary of the experience gained.

2.        Because the flying bomb menace no longer exists, and because under existing operational commitments, aircraft of A.D.G.B. will have to refuel at landing grounds in Belgium or Holland, it has been decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure. To continue to use 150 Grade Fuel in operational Squadrons is undesirable for the following reasons:-

(i) The free interchange of Squadrons with T.A.F would be complicated in that aircraft would have to be modified for the lower boost pressure on transfer.
(ii) To use 150 Grade Fuel when operating from U.K and to use 130 Grade Fuel when refueling on the Continent, would call for repeated adjustments of the maximum boost pressure obtainable.
(iii) The increased performance obtainable by the use of 150 Grade Fuel is not an essential operational requirement for the role, which A.D.G.B. Squadrons will be called to undertake in the near future.
(iv) The supply of 150 Grade Fuel is such that stocks can only be laid down a certain airfields. This imposes a degree of inflexibility, which is undesirable.
(v) The use of high boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft calls for the fitting of open exhausts as the night flying exhausts will not withstand the temperatures associated with the higher boost pressures. Therefore, to continue to use the higher boost pressures in Mosquito aircraft makes the aircraft unsuitable for normal Night Fighter operation.

The Air Officer Commanding-in – Chief,
Headquarters
Allied Expeditionary Air Force.

 

BB2FA5B7-6019-4BA3-B01E-7B9A863E2ED0.thumb.jpeg.1e278c2b22d7127eef849a34015af3e5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman

I have dug out a book by Arthur Reed and Roland Beamont  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Beamont) named 'Typhoon and Tempest at War', published in 1974, IBSN 0 7110 0542 7.

 

At the top of page 148 it says the following:

 

"At the end of their participation in the flying-bomb battle, many Tempests were withdrawn from service temporarily for major work to be carried out on their engines.  By that time, the aircraft was being adjudged by many as the best low/medium altitude fighter to reach squadron service during the war, and most RAF officers remained of this opinion when victory in Europe came in 1945."

 

This statement seems a far more sober assessment and less dramatic than has been posted above.

 

No where can I see a statement that any Tempest squadron was declared non operational due to the engine works programme or that the works programme adversely effected Tempest operations.  Nor can I see anything that indicates that the engine works programme was a problem in terms of logistics or engineering.  Tempest operations were maintained throughout and did not stop.  To keep squadrons operational it is likely that a reserves were used and squadron's were maintained at operational strength during the works programme.  Poor weather conditions for flying for both sides may have assisted this.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

 

BB2FA5B7-6019-4BA3-B01E-7B9A863E2ED0.thumb.jpeg.1e278c2b22d7127eef849a34015af3e5.jpeg

 

This document is a statement of intent only. You have previously dismissed the following document (a statement of clearance) based on the fact that there's supposedly no evidence of the works being carried out.

 

You cannot have it both ways - either these documents are both acceptable, or neither are. 

 

2taf150_112044.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

Well Talisman already provided you with the evidence of carrying out this 'intent'.

 

"At the end of their participation in the flying-bomb battle, many Tempests were withdrawn from service temporarily for major work to be carried out on their engines.'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman

Kurfurst,

 

Did you not read the squadron operations record book extract I posted above? 

It clearly shows 56 Sqn on anti-diver patrols on the 5th September and then operating over Europe the very next day on the 6th September.  This records what actually happened. 

On other threads that have also involved you, so I presume you read them, I have posted Spitfire operations record books that also show anti diver sorties carried out by a squadron, followed by routine non anti-diver operations, sometimes on the same or next day!

What you have just posted records a decision taken at a point in time, but not what actually happened in the end.  You have not shown that the decision was followed through! 

The squadron operations record books show what actually happened.  

On the other hand, you keep posting about intentions and decisions that were not followed through. 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

Dear Talisman,

 

The summarize your thesis, your assumption is that the Tempest kept using higher boost sanctioned only for V-1 operations after decision was made to revert to the prior standard rating of +9 boost in the period from mid-September 1944.

 

Given that the burden of proof is on you, I am afraid it is you that needs to support this thesis, however unlikely it is that it can be supported. 

 

Personally I think that the fact that no victories claims were made in the period while Tempest squadrons were authorized to use higher boost in connection with V-1 intercepts is very telling as to the relevance of special boosts between August-September 1944 as far as combat operations are concerned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman
48 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Dear Talisman,

 

The summarize your thesis, your assumption is that the Tempest kept using higher boost sanctioned only for V-1 operations after decision was made to revert to the prior standard rating of +9 boost in the period from mid-September 1944.

 

Given that the burden of proof is on you, I am afraid it is you that needs to support this thesis, however unlikely it is that it can be supported. 

 

Personally I think that the fact that no victories claims were made in the period while Tempest squadrons were authorized to use higher boost in connection with V-1 intercepts is very telling as to the relevance of special boosts between August-September 1944 as far as combat operations are concerned. 

Kurfurst,

 

It would appear that you are not reading squadron operations record books, because they show anti-diver (150 Octane) squadrons of various aircraft types, on operations over Europe.  Anti-diver squadrons were not wasted doing nothing when not on the roster for anti-diver duties, they were also used for other duties.  All anti-diver squadrons were not on anti-diver duty together the whole time.  There was a war on and resources had to be used to maximum effect. 

As for continued use of 150 Octane, continued consumption of 150 Octane points to continued use of 150 Octane.

Finally, please don't attempt to summarize what I say, the actual words written by me should speak for themselves.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VO101Kurfurst the burden of proof is currently on you to find any actual documentation of a Sabre II on +9lbs at really any point in our campaign. Pilot accounts, technical reports, books or modification documents. Anything at all really.

 

In fact that letter clearly is a confirmation that+11lbs works fine on 130 grade and that sticking with +9lbs is pointless.

 

Paragraph 2 states the engine is fine on 130 grade, paragraph 3 highlights how unnecessary reverting the boost level is.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Personally I think that the fact that no victories claims were made in the period while Tempest squadrons were authorized to use higher boost in connection with V-1 intercepts is very telling as to the relevance of special boosts between August-September 1944 as far as combat operations are concerned. 

 

Tempest couldn't shoot down luftwaffe when they couldn't find them in July & August 1944. When Tempest squadron bases moved to the continent?   Tempest,109 and 190 are short ranged aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

So we are left with that SHAEF HQ  'decided to revert to the use of 130 Grade Fuel and to adjust engines to their previous maximum boost pressure' on 18 September 1944 and that Talisman is on the opinion that this wasn't carried through.

3 minutes ago, No.41_Glen said:

 

Tempest couldn't shoot down luftwaffe when they couldn't find them in July & August 1944. When Tempest squadron bases moved to the continent?   Tempest,109 and 190 are short ranged aircraft.

 

I believe No. 56 Squadron and No 486 were the first to move to the continent on 28th September 1944. The next day they had made some airial victory claims. Others followed in October.

 

Note that this is ten days after it has been decided to revert to 130 grade and +9 lbs boost, and that the 2nd TAF on the Continent had 130 grade fuel at this time anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kurfurst your document is clearly stating that reverting to +9lbs is not necessary on 130 grade. 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. It's a letter of criticism of this idea.

Edited by Talon_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst
3 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Kurfurst your document is clearly stating that reverting to +9lbs is not necessary on 130 grade. 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. It's a letter of criticism of this idea.

 

'M.A.P. only cleared the engine for +11 lbs. boost operation while the Tempest aircraft were employed against the flying bomb and that it is their intention to reduce the maximum allowable boost pressure to +9 lbs / sq. inch now that the menace is over'

 

Crystal clear, isn't it.

 

BB2FA5B7-6019-4BA3-B01E-7B9A863E2ED0.thumb.jpeg.1e278c2b22d7127eef849a34015af3e5.jpeg

Edited by VO101Kurfurst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes those are the words, but context is important. In the context of the 2nd paragraph, the 3rd paragraph is clearly stating that M.A.P.'s intention is no longer necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... it is their intention to reduce...." is not the same as "shall be reduced" or "will be reduced".

 

Definition of intention for English Language Learners

  • : the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not required as we have consistent accounts on +11lbs and engine modifications to IIB standard with no +9lbs accounts in between.

 

Next you will be asking for evidence of +11lbs on every sortie :rolleyes:

Edited by Talon_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Care to post some of these 'consistent accounts' for late 1944.

 

Sorry, perhaps I did not make myself clear.

 

There are no accounts of Tempests on +9lbs after they are cleared for +11lbs on 150 octane (which is later modified to include 130 octane).

 

Your logic suggests I have to find evidence that the boost level was not dropped for every individual day of the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

Yes indeed you need to present evidence that Tempest kept using +11 after decision was made to reduce boost to +9 lbs on 18th September. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VO101Kurfurst said:

Yes indeed you need to present evidence that Tempest kept using +11 after decision was made to reduce boost to +9 lbs on 18th September. 

 

You do have trouble with English don't you. Intending to do something and doing something are not the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Yes indeed you need to present evidence that Tempest kept using +11 after decision was made to reduce boost to +9 lbs on 18th September. 

 

You have posted no evidence other than a document recommending against this policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not need to prove +11lbs was not removed from active aircraft for every sortie 😄 you cannot prove that any planes flew on +9lbs after September! All you have is a document that stops the previous plan of de-rating the engines. Your document, which states that the RAF do not think it's necessary to reduce boost on 130 grade fuel, is my evidence.

Edited by Talon_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

You have posted no evidence other than a document recommending against this policy.

Here's a document dated January 1945 clearly stating that the Sabre IIB, which was fitted to the majority of operational Tempest Vs in operational service was rated for + 11 lbs only

engines-cleared-for-150.jpg

Edited by NZTyphoon
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

Here's a document dated January 1945 clearly stating that the Sabre IIB, which was fitted to the majority of operational Tempest Vs in operational service was rated for + 11 lbs only

engines-cleared-for-150.jpg

 

I am arguing for +11lbs.

 

Before Kurfurst jumps on this document, the Sabre IIA is included because it equips a lot of Typhoons.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst
12 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

Your document, which states that the RAF do not think it's necessary to reduce boost on 130 grade fuel, is my evidence.

 

So the document that states that +11 boost was employed for V-1 intercept purposes only and it is now to be reduced to +9 lbs is supposed to be the your evidence to the exact opposite. 

 

Classic.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

So the document that states that +11 boost was employed for V-1 intercept purposes only and it is now to be reduced to +9 lbs is supposed to be the your evidence to the exact opposite. 

 

Classic.

 

Kurfurst the second paragraph is a clear and obvious criticism of the third paragraph.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

If that is supposed to be your evidence, it is very unconvincing.

 

Yet you are the only person of about 5 users here who are not convinced.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

It must be a coincidence that its always the same 5 users, and they always agree with and perfectly convince each other, even if nobody else. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we are able to critically analyse documents and source material without bias.

 

If I am so biased, why did I spend half this thread arguing against spring-tab ailerons? And suggest that Tempests might not feature at all for the early campaign? You would think if I wanted the Tempest in the best possible light I would be trying to cover up the possible removal of the spring tab ailerons.

 

My interest is in history represented as accurately as possible.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Talon_ said:

 

I am arguing for +11lbs.

 

Before Kurfurst jumps on this document, the Sabre IIA is included because it equips a lot of Typhoons.

By January '45 it's doubtful that any frontline Tempests used Sabre IIAs: as it is the reference to  reverting to +9 lbs  would refer only to those Tempests still equipped with IIAs at the end of the V-1 campaign, because, as was shown by RolfSeal way back in May, the IIB only used +11 lbs boost.

lUhGjmD.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG27golani79
1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

"... it is their intention to reduce...." is not the same as "shall be reduced" or "will be reduced".

 

Definition of intention for English Language Learners

  • : the thing that you plan to do or achieve : an aim or purpose

 

2nd paragraph:

 

[...]and it appears that the engine could be used at the higher boost pressure[...]

 

Also doesn´t sound as if it was definitely clear ..

Just sayin ..

 

Why would the write it like that if it was so sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VO101Kurfurst

Its quite clear the Sabre IIA limits remained at +9 lbs, wheter on 130 grade or 150 grade. See AVIA 15/2411 (or 2911) from January 1945 for confirmation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but only if your engine was not upgraded. Tempests were running the mods that allowed +11lbs but before the Sabre IIB existed - because these mods were serialised into production as the Sabre IIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • LukeFF pinned this topic

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...