Tempest Mark V research

[Kurfurst]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Honestly I cannot see what the fuss is about: it is clear to me that the most sensible interpretation of the data shown is that while we could have two Tempest engine variants with 9lbs and 11lbs,  given the time-frame of the BoBP game it would also make perfect sense to have only one, which would have to be IIB on 11lbs.

 

I am sure this unbiased principle will be equally applicable to Axis aircraft ratings by all of our unbiased users.

[Talon_]

This isn't a thread about balance, and thus isn't a thread about axis engines. This is a Tempest V research thread. Please consider treating it like a resource for collecting information for the Devs and not somewhere to discuss postwar Bf109 ratings on unavailable fuel. I will happily engage with you on that topic in the "Bf109 engine settings" thread should you choose to create it.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

Dancing around the question as always it seems.

 

So, any presentable hard evidence of Tempest Squadrons using higher than +9 lbs ratings between their move to the Continent (28th September) and Bodenplatte (1st January 1945)?

 

It seems that the only evidence there is that in this period the ratings were reduced to +9 lbs. 

[Talon_]

We've answered the above question here:

 

 

Paragraph 2+3 of this document shows that the RAF no longer needed to reduce boost when equipping the Tempest with 130 grade fuel:

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

No evidence for use of +11 lbs boost between 28th September 1944 and 1st January 1945 it is then.

[Talon_]

1 minute ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

No evidence for use of +11 lbs boost between 28th September 1944 and 1st January 1945 it is then.

 

You are the only person that believes this. The Tempest boost was simply never reduced.

7 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Sabre IIB modification ?

 

 

More evidence of Sabre IIB at +13lbs with Rotol props

 

Does anybody have this book? It would be great to get +13lbs as a modification. Need info on timeframe really.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Talon_

[unreasonable]

21 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

I am sure this unbiased principle will be equally applicable to Axis aircraft ratings by all of our unbiased users.

 

The document you like to refer to mentioning the intention to reduce to 9lbs has, right on the top, the words Tempest V/Sabre IIA.  The third paragraph mentions "the engine" - it is referring to the Sabre IIA. So this document says nothing whatsoever about the Sabre IIB, even if you believe that the "intention" mentioned in the third paragraph was actually implemented: an assumption for which there is no evidence.

 

We also know that the Sabre IIB was always cleared for 11lbs.  The fuel is irrelevant since 11lbs was achievable on 130 octane.   So the only two relevant issues, if you have to chose only one variant, are the mix of IIA vs IIB throughout the BoBP period, and whether the IIAs in the time scale were running at 11lb.    In Glen's conservative analysis of the rate of change to IIBs,  and working on the assumption that the IIAs were running on 9lb, he says   "My conclusion: For bodenplatte operation scenario,  9 lbs Tempest is the minority."

 

If, as others have said, the technical details suggest that the IIAs were not in fact downrated at all, then 9 lbs would not have been present at all.  Either way, the most representative Tempest engine setting would be 11lbs.

 

You "liked" that first post of Glen's, so I do not see why you do react to my statement of the consequences of it with this sarcasm.  

[Kurfurst]

That's all nice and well expect for the part that everything is pure speculation without evidence between the hard evidence of the boost rating having been decided to be decreased to +9 lbs on 18 September, including that for some miraculous reason, the decision made by SHAEF Headquarters was supposedly not carried through. For which there is absolutely no evidence of course.

 

Regarding that Sabre IIAs were converted to Sabre IIBs en mass - again there is absolutely no evidence. The first such document that suggests that such modification actually took place by maintenance units comes from January 1945 and concerns less than 20 aircraft. Again, it is speculated that for some unknown reason, they were supposed to be the last ones. 

 

Then it is speculated again that there was a gradual modification of all Tempest engines to IIB standard - again, no evidence that such decision was taken, or was scheduled in such way.

 

What we do know is that the first several batches of Tempests were delivered with Sabre IIA, originally rated at +7, later increased to +9 and then provisionally for the V-1 menace duration for +11, and that Sabre IIA ratings were reduced to +9 lbs by decision taken on 18 September.

We also know that this +9 lbs rating remained unchanged at least until early 1945, given the information in subsequent engine tables.

We know that later batches of Tempest were delivered with Sabre IIB (with increased ratings of noted in January-February 1945 documents), however that most of the victory claims were made by aircraft originally delivered with Sabre IIA.

 

It is, beyond the realms of speculation, unclear when the Sabre IIB was cleared in operations for +11 in late 1944 (might as well as late as early 1945), or how many were there in the mix of Sabre IIAs and IIBs.

 

Given the aforementioned facts, your assumption that the 'most representative' Tempest engine setting would be 11 lbs is, in its entirety, rests on speculation and not evidence. 

[Talon_]

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

and that Sabre IIA ratings were reduced to +9 lbs by decision taken on 18 September.

 

Please post this document because right now the previously posted document only proves that:

 

11 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

the decision made by SHAEF Headquarters was supposedly not carried through.

 

The document refers to Sabre IIAs because only the Sabre IIA exists. It's very simple to understand this. The Sabre IIB is only named that to show that the modifications that are already flying in all the IIAs are included from the factory.

 

The IIA cannot take +11lbs for anti-diver operations without modification, so the modification was developed, the IIA was upgraded and called the IIB in the factory. After that modification, the plane performs the same on 130 as it did on 150, showing that the fuel is irrelevant.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

[Talon_]

You keep reposting this document that supports my argument - I assumed you must have something more. This document is talking about the modified IIA engine that is named the IIB in the factory, and how it runs fine at +11lbs of boost on 130 grade. This document is actually superseding, on 14th September, prior orders to lower the boost level.

 

EDIT: I think it's fair to say the issue of this letter has been thoroughly put to bed now, so if you could please refrain from posting about this until you have further information that would be appreciated. This is supposed to be a resource thread, not for argument. Please post additional resources.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Talon_

[Kurfurst]

Indeed its time to put the speculation to rest. No evidence could be provided for use of +11 lbs boost between 28th September 1944 and 1st January 1945.

 

When you have something, please do post it. Until then, stop speculating.

[Silverback]

The Tempest and the 190D should be an interesting fight

[Talon_]

16 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Indeed its time to put the speculation to rest. No evidence could be provided for use of +11 lbs boost between 28th September 1944 and 1st January 1945.

 

When you have something, please do post it. Until then, stop speculating.

 

Constantly correcting you is adding a lot of extraneous material to this thread. I appreciate English isn't your first language however you have to come to terms with the fact your document does not show Tempests being reverted to +9lbs, only a recommendation for keeping them at +11lbs against prior plans. 

[Kurfurst]

I am sure that ‘reduction of max allowable pressure to + 9 LB/ sq. inch’ has many possible interpretations.

 

War is Peace,

Freedom is Slavery,

Ignorance is Strength,

Reduction is Increase.

 

 

[Talon_]

It's the paragraph before that which is important.

Looks like we should be able to carry more than 200 RPG. This is not the only account I have seen expending over 1000rnds 20mm. Seems like almost 300rpg was common on ground strikes.

[Talisman]

10 hours 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. 

Kurfurst, 

As far as combat operations were concerned here is an operations record book account of anti-diver (V-1 flying bomb) operations and armed recce over the continent in the same month of August 44 (I have previously posted example from Sep 44).  You will see 25th Aug starting with anti-diver patrols and then an armed recce into France at Cassel, Nr St Omer.  Anti diver patrols are then resumed on 26th Aug.  Then on 27th Aug another armed recce near St Omer.  Then on 28th Aug an attack on a radar station in France at Cassel, near St Omer.  Seems they made a hell of a mess of it!

 

So you see that 150 Octane anti-diver squadrons were also on operations over Europe in between anti-diver operations during Aug as well as September as per my previous post.

I trust that you don't think that they kept changing the type of fuel they were using from one hour to the next.  They used 150 Octane because they were one of the many anti-diver squadrons that were also used for operations over Europe from time to time.  I hope that is clear enough for you.  This is evidence of what actually happened.

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by 56RAF_Talisman

[MiloMorai]

Nine (9) Tempests from 3 Sqd went to Brussels on Aug 28.

 

501 Sqd flew its last 'Diver' night mission  27 March 1945. On April 1 returned to daylight duties.

[MiloMorai]

The Sabre IIBs were cleared for +11 lbs, 3,850 rpm, combat 5 minutes limit. Those Sabre IIA's having Mod. No. Sabre/158 or 297 ("strengthened propeller reduction gear assembly") were converted to IIB's by the incorporation of a new boost control cam (Mod. No. Sabre/433) and a new boost control capsule (Mod. No. Sabre/435).

[NZTyphoon]

13 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Dancing around the question as always it seems.

 

So, any presentable hard evidence of Tempest Squadrons using higher than +9 lbs ratings between their move to the Continent (28th September) and Bodenplatte (1st January 1945)?

 

It seems that the only evidence there is that in this period the ratings WERE reduced to +9 lbs. 

Any presentable "hard evidence" that Sabre IIAs were definitely derated? Of course not, it is just wishful thinking that "...their intention to..."  somehow reads as as "...M.A.P have stipulated that all Sabre IIAs will have their maximum boost pressures reduced to ...". 

Where is Kurfurst's "hard evidence" that this was carried out, as per intent? 

Has Kurfurst found, for example, any Squadron, or Wing records showing that their engines were operating at +9 lbs?

Has Kurfurst stumbled across a trove of technical documents proving that Sabre IIAs were limited to +9 lbs boost? 

All that can be gleaned from the document being repeatedly posted by Kurfurst is that there was an intention to derate Sabre IIAs - it can by no means be interpreted to prove that Tempest Vs didn't use +11 lbs boost between September '44 and January '45.

As it is, the only person who has to prove his proposition/belief that the Sabre IIAs definitely operated at +9 lbs boost, between September '44 and January 1 '45 is...Kurfurst.

[Talon_]

5 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

Has Kurfurst found, for example, any Squadron, or Wing records showing that their engines were operating at +9 lbs?

 

He won't.

 

Thanks to this thread I spent five hours poring over the ORBs from 3, 80, 56 and 274 squadrons from September to December 1944. That's how I came across the info above regarding possible ammo overload. I read every page of every ORB - no mention of boost adjustment is made at any point by any squadron.

 

No 80 Sqn ORB, 1944

 

No 3 Sqn ORB, 1944

 

No 56 Sqn ORB, 1944

 

No 274 Sqn ORB, 1944

[Quinte]

6 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

As it is, the only person who has to prove his proposition/belief that the Sabre IIAs definitely operated at +9 lbs boost, between September '44 and January 1 '45 is...Kurfurst.

Since Milo and Kurfurst, sadly, decided to join the party, reducing this thread to a bunch of nothing and useless, I guess choosing words carefully is very much necessary.

The Sabre IIa definitely operated at +9lbs at all times. At this time, any Sabre operating at +11lbs was de facto a Sabre IIb, Save for those few days between the +11lbs tests and the apparition of the IIb denomination in August.

Typhoons which were not modified for anti-divers operations and retained a Sabre IIa kept being limited at +9lbs.

 

The argument here is that only a very few, unserviceable, Tempests, wouldn't have been modified to run anti-divers ops at +11lbs, so they were in a large majority fitted with a IIb.

 

Note that the fuel used is irrelevant, since both Sabre IIa and IIb operated at the same boosts regardless of the fuel used.

 

This had obviously not been anticipated, as every other engine needed the new fuel to operate at higher boost. So obviously, as the M.A.P's plan was to revert to 130 octane, the plan was to modify all fighters back to lower boosts (or at the very least those which would be transferred to the continent afterwards)

And it was done. Except that Sabre powered aircrafts didn't need the modification, and could still fly at higher boost. Removing the modifications in the field could , maybe, have been done. Except the RAF was by that time accepting deliveries of Sabre IIb Tempests, and it would be beyond stupid to use manpower hours to remove those mods when the new aircrafts were coming with them on. In fact, the third batch was ordered with the IIB engine, showing the intent to keep the higher boost.

[MiloMorai]

I joined the party well before you did Quinte.The party went downhill with the attempt to castrate the Tempest as has been attempted in the past on untold number of times for another certain British aircraft.

[Quinte]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:19 PM, Talon_ said:

Does anybody have this book? It would be great to get +13lbs as a modification. Need info on timeframe really.

I do. I believe this part in particular to be a mistake, though. This is in a part that deals specifically with the V1 chase ops, and while the switch to the Sabre IIb did come with an increase in max RPM from 3700 to 3850, the increase in bosst was necessarily from +9lbs.

 

This book doesn't say anything about the removal of spring-tabs either, but doesn't show any picture of them. What it does say is that the second batch had some Sabre IIb Aircrafts, which confirms the points made previously.

 

"British Piston Aero-engines and their aircrafts" does state that the Sabre IIc was fitted to both Tempests V and Typhoons. Since Typhoons were immediately either scrapped or put in storage at the end of the war, this suggests it was fitted to a Tempest V during the war.

The Sabre IIc is the only engine that fits the +13lbs and Clostermann's statement about +13lbs and then some more WEP, since it had a max boost of +17,5lbs, 3850RPM, 3055hp in M stage. I could never find any precise info on when that happened, though. If we're to believe Clostermann didn't exaggerate, that's in late march at least. So probably later.

[Talon_]

I haven't read any ORB from 1945, but in future I can. Sadly there are even more Tempest squadrons in 1945 so it might take me a while but I'll slog through all of them, sqn by sqn, starting with Clostermann's.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Talon_

[MiloMorai]

One could always try, at, http://enginehistory.org/index.php

[MiloMorai]

 

 

[Talon_]

Need to get some late Tempest pics (no Sky band, no sky spinner and with yellow border C1 roundels). I didn't find too much on the Imperial War Museum website.

Do we know if these barrel stubs (image 1 only) are transitionary? They don't seem to feature on most aircraft.

 

 

Edit: C1 roundels clearly visible on Clostermann's bird uppers

Edited August 24, 2018 by Talon_

[unreasonable]

That top picture looks like a RC model to me. (I wish there was some way in Google images of taking all the modelling crap out of the search).

 

From my books it looks like the barrel stubs were on the series I only. So we should not be getting them.

Edited August 25, 2018 by unreasonable

[NZTyphoon]

5 hours ago, Talon_ said:

Need to get some late Tempest pics (no Sky band, no sky spinner and with yellow border C1 roundels). I didn't find too much on the Imperial War Museum website.

Do we know if these barrel stubs (image 1 only) are transitionary? They don't seem to feature on most aircraft.

 

 

Edit: C1 roundels clearly visible on Clostermann's bird uppers

 

For interest, a few years ago I found an old 'Scale Models' magazine from waaay back in 1973, that had an excellent article on the Hawker Tempest written by A. L. Bentley. The main points about the differences between early production "Series 1" Tempest Vs (JNxxx serials) and "Series 2" (EJxxx, NVxxx, SNxxx) :

 

* Series 1 = most used long barrelled Hispano IIs; Series 2 = short barrelled Hispano V;

* Series 1 = wings weren't able to carry drop tanks, bombs or rockets; Series 2 = wings reinforced, plumbed and wired to carry drop tanks and ordnance;

*Series 1 = rear spar pick-up structure and fuselage structure from Typhoon, as described in attachment...

In addition, but something not noted by Bentley, the wheels on the Series 1s were ex-Typhoon 5 spoke, whereas those of the Series 2s were slightly narrower, 4 spoke.

 

Continuing with Bentley's article (hopefully, of some use to the developers?)

 

 

[NZTyphoon]

From Francis K. Mason Hawker Aircraft Since 1920

[Talon_]

I'll be honest from a purely gameplay perspective if we only get one Tempest it makes sense to go with an SN bird for the drop tanks. Alternatively some modified historicity would be okay with me in allowing drop tanks on whatever earlier model we get.

[HBPencil]

4 hours ago, No.41_Glen said:

Pay attention to these A/C In late 1944,  

EJ800-EJ846, EJ859-EJ896 （probably 11lbs boost)

NV639-NV682, NV695-NV735 (definitely 11lbs boost)

 

@Talon_ @56RAF_Talisman

For what it's worth, the aircraft appendix of 'The Wild Winds' (a history of 486sqn) shows only one aircraft arriving in the squadron within those serial number ranges in late '44:
EJ828 arrived from 83 GSU on 6/11/44.

[MiloMorai]

26 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

I'll be honest from a purely gameplay perspective if we only get one Tempest it makes sense to go with an SN bird for the drop tanks. Alternatively some modified historicity would be okay with me in allowing drop tanks on whatever earlier model we get.

 

SN series deliveries began deliveries 1.45 but didn't reach squadrons till 5.45.

 

NV639 didn't arrive at #274 til 2.45.

 

The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest / Mason

[Talon_]

In fact forget what I said, drop tanks could clearly be retrofitted or the book is inaccurate. These are 1944 colours

 

[MiloMorai]

pg 142 of the Mason book has a photo of  EJ555 (SD*Y) of  #501 dated Oct 1944 with drop tanks.

[Talon_]

 

Looks like modification from Series I to Series II was pretty quick - Series I seen here just after D-Day but the spring tab on the far left back corner of the starboard aileron is clearly visible

[ZachariasX]

59 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

These are 1944 colours

The image is supposedly from August 1944, No.501.

 

Regarding colors: This is Clostermann briefing his pilots for the mission, No.3 Squadron, probably April 1945:

 

Classic image, 274 Sqn. Tempests in April 1945 taking off from B.91 Kluis, most likely Rotol propellers I'd say:

 

 

An hour before he left the airfield and the RAF, a (last) photo of Clostermann and his last Tempest

It doesn't look like the Rotol propeller, or is it?

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by ZachariasX

[Talon_]

5 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Regarding colors: This is Clostermann briefing his pilots for the mission, No.3 Squadron, probably April 1945:

1

 

https://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/articles/the-history-of-invasion-stripes.php

 

 

In January 1945, 2TAF were ordered to change the colour scheme of their aircraft to black prop spinners, paint out the "sky" band around the waistline and repaint the upper wing roundels with the same "C1" roundel from the fuselage, seen here on Clostermann's aircraft:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_roundels

 

 

Clostermann didn't set foot on Volkel until the aircraft were repainted, that image can't be accurate.

 

Also, it's captioned as the following: "Squadron Leader A S Dredge, Officer Commanding No. 3 Squadron RAF, briefs his pilots for a sweep over the Caen area, on the elevator of a Hawker Tempest Mark V, 'JF-M' at Newchurch, Kent. IWM CH18814"

 

here: https://newchurchvillage.org/history/newchurch-ww2/squadron-photo-gallery/3-squadron/

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAWKER TEMPEST PHOTO DATING GUIDE:

 

D-Day 1944 - August 1944:

Invasion stripes on top and bottom surfaces, Sky band and Sky spinner:

 

 

Spoiler

 

September 1944 - December 1944:

Partial invasion stripes, Sky spinner, Sky band

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

January-May 1945:

Type C1 upper roundels, no invasion stripes. Painted-out Sky band, variable non-sky prop spinner (ordered black, squadrons took liberties).

 

Spoiler

 

WRONG SCHEMES THAT PROBABLY NEVER FLEW IN 2TAF:

 

Accurate, but only of A.D.G.B squadrons back in Britain without yellow roundel surroundings or postwar aircraft on the continent:

 

Spoiler

 

Clostermann didn't fly Tempests on D-Day

 

Spoiler

 

 

1944 roundels with no sky band and painted spinners. Totally wrong: 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Quinte]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

Looks like modification from Series I to Series II was pretty quick - Series I seen here just after D-Day but the spring tab on the far left back corner of the starboard aileron is clearly visible

That's not the spring tab - that's the fixed trim tab. Spring tabs are way larger, deeper, and located pretty much in the middle of the trailing edge of the aileron.

 

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

SN series deliveries began deliveries 1.45 but didn't reach squadrons till 5.45. 

Can't be true. A. Seager was flying SN130 when he claimed a 190 damaged on 22 March 45, for example.

 

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

In fact forget what I said, drop tanks could clearly be retrofitted or the book is inaccurate. These are 1944 colours

The drop tanks were first tested in june 44 on JN 730 (second production aircraft). They were for sure standard on all EJXXX aicrafts, and probably on all series II.

 

 

And at the risk of repeating myself, the serial numbers don't give you any info on what engine is used.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Quinte