Tempest Mark V research

[EAF19_Marsh]

21 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I do not think you would want you right hand right on the top of the grip while flying - my view of that grip would be that the gun button would normally be used by the left hand thumb

 

The point of the British design was that it had enough room for a 2-handed movement which (given the lack of boosted controls) allowed greater force and less fatigue on the right [primary] arm. The gun button was always designed as a right thumb / fore-finger action - my uncle flew Vampires and he never considered hitting the button with his left hand. In fact - unless at very high speeds - the left hand probably rarely held the stick at all.

 

Thread needs a special colour for Clostermann points that means: 'Interesting but possibly wholly untrue'

[unreasonable]

We might as well make the entire forum the "Clostermann colour"  and leave people to guess where it does not apply.  On second thoughts, maybe not: there are all too many threads that are not even interesting, whether true or not.

 

 

 

[PainGod85]

I've always wondered about the...peculiar shape of British control columns, they just look dumb to me and completely ill-suited for the purpose of controlling a fighter airplane.

Edited October 8, 2018 by PainGod85

[Bremspropeller]

British cockpits in general aren't too inviting (the compass, anyone? "Rudder hard to port mateys, yarrrrrrr!"), but that's probably just a matter of getting used to.

British aircraft certainly have a distinct "british" quirky taste to them - kind of like british cars and british....beer.

 

*Ducks, puts on a french beret, lights a cigarette and retreats clasping a white flag - honhonhon*

[Sokol1]

On 10/7/2018 at 7:19 AM, ZachariasX said:

Besides, how are you supposed to hold that spate grip? Right hand on the spate to also operate the bicycle brake I guess. Then the gun trigger must be the large button on top to fire with the right hand thumb, while the switches on the side (guns/fire) are toggles for selecting the respective guns?

 

At right - labeled "guns fire" is just the trigger button cover, not a switch. When this cover is closed show the label "guns safe" and allow operate the camera switch only.

 

In this overhead picture is possible see this cover over rocker trigger.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/7e/3d/797e3d54888c50d9aa6148639f15f08e.jpg

 

The trigger rocker switch can be pressed on top and bottom, probable on top for guns and bottom for rockets/bombs.

 

And the half "clothespin" in front trigger box is mic PTT button.

 

This AH8400 grip was used too in Hawker Fury,  Vampire, Meteor IV, Spifire F22, F24, Spiteful.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Sokol1

[ZachariasX]

14 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

Vampire

I know of a Vampire cocpit that I can sit in. I‘ll try that. Thnx

 

[Bremspropeller]

The Vampire has always struck me as a kind of jet moped.

Is that just me?

[ZachariasX]

Just now, Bremspropeller said:

The Vampire has always struck me as a kind of jet moped.

Is that just me?

It feels smaller than a moped once you sit in. Besides, the body is is made from wood.

[Niagarafalls]

On 8/25/2018 at 8:58 PM, Quinte said:

It looks like a DH unit indeed. Keep in mind that Clostermann may have taken that photo post-war, and this may be the "Grand Charles" that he nosed over a few days before the midair during a victory flyover. AFAIK it's unclear whether he actually flew NV724 during the war.

 

That's what the book says. But Clostermann actually joined 274 squadron on the 4th of march, flew for the first time on the 5th and got his first tempest victory on that day. IIRC he only was posted to 3 squadron on April 8th.

NV994 was delivered to 3 squadron on the 15th, april 1945, as JF-E. It was the first "Grand Charles". The one photo I have seems to suggest it had a DH prop, too. I believe NV994 was the one he had to belly land only a few days later when he got shot by american AAA. Supposedly he goit shot down at some point (the "piece of cake" story), but I can't find any traces of that.

By the end of the war, he was flying SN222.

 

The story of "piece of cake" is well description on the new release of "The big Show" Named "Le Grand Cirque 2000"
A book with all the pages of the first book PLUS 200 pages, where many  more missions are written, including that where CloClo was nicely shot down by Dortermann
May be it's a pity for most of you, that this book is written only in french language

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Over60 said:

May be it's a pity for most of you, that this book is written only in french language

 

The updated version was translated into English.

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The updated version was translated into English.

 

Did they hire an editor this time?

[LukeFF]

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Did they hire an editor this time?

 

It's been about 10 years since I've read it, so I don't know how much was edited. 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's been about 10 years since I've read it, so I don't know how much was edited. 

Must be this on then:

https://www.amazon.de/Big-Show-Greatest-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366242

 

That is the new edition they made by including all of his diary plus his comments? 345 pages look more like the original 1947 version. But depends on the layout.

[LukeFF]

This is the edition I have: https://www.amazon.com/Pierre-Clostermann-Big-Show-Hardcover/dp/B00SB39KL8/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1539758285&sr=8-12&keywords=the+big+show+pierre+clostermann

 

And yes, it's 345 pages.

 

EDIT: the inside of the dust jacket says this is the original, unabridged edition.

Edited October 17, 2018 by LukeFF

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

I've always wondered about the...peculiar shape of British control columns, they just look dumb to me and completely ill-suited for the purpose of controlling a fighter airplane.

 

In some respects they are quite sensible for their time:

- Enough space to get 2 hands on the controls without overlapping both your hands, this is an attribute not well reflected in sims but is important with manual controls as the speed builds

- Pivoted at mid-point rather than bottom, allowing greater stick movement for roll without banging elbows / knees

- Hand break lever removed toe brake action and allowed a double pedal arrangement, whereby the pilot used upper pedals in combat, bringing legs upwards and increasing g-resistance

 

Not that this is a perfect solution, but it has certain advantages that use of the modern stick at the time arrangement did not. The modern fighter stick design is more representative of boosted controls and dampeners than of 1940s technology.

 

Quote

It feels smaller than a moped once you sit in. Besides, the body is is made from wood.

 

De-Havilland tradition. By all accounts it was a lovely little thing to fly but too late entering service and hence super-ceded fairly early

 

Quote

Did they hire an editor this time?

 

I have it at home, as I recall it read very well though the extended version has him barely resisting opening fire as B-17s as they missed the target and hit French housing. Not the sort of thing the original English-language version wanted to include. Remains a cracking read (annoyingly, not on Kindle)

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[ZachariasX]

21 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

De-Havilland tradition. By all accounts it was a lovely little thing to fly but too late entering service and hence super-ceded fairly early

I remember one of my pilot instructors being full of praise about the „Spidercrab“, as it was initially known as. The only downside it had for soneone flying Mustangs prviously was that you couldn‘t make steep climbs with it. But once they adjusted to that, they were fond of it. I have to point out that this guy was about 1,65 meters „tall“. Sitting in that little cockpit myself and just for a second thinking of pulling the ejection seat handles gives me the creeps. There‘s no way elbows and knees would eject alongside with me...

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

There‘s no way elbows and knees would eject alongside with me...

 

"Welcome to the 20-minuters!" ?.

 

UK cockpits have always been a bit smallish compared to US, though I personally did not think it was that tiny (but then I have never flown the jet).

 

My uncle would sometimes fly practice interceptions on Canberras, which showed exactly how under-performing was the poor little Vampire.

[Diggun]

37 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

UK cockpits have always been a bit smallish compared to US

A buddy of mine's dad was a Vulcan and (English Electric) Lightning pilot throughout his RAF career. He maintained that if on ejected from the lightning and you were over 5'6, you'd leave your knees behind on the instrument panel. He was 5'9. He said it 'definitely encourages you to stay with the aircraft...'

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, Diggun said:

A buddy of mine's dad was a Vulcan and (English Electric) Lightning pilot throughout his RAF career. He maintained that if on ejected from the lightning and you were over 5'6, you'd leave your knees behind on the instrument panel. He was 5'9. He said it 'definitely encourages you to stay with the aircraft...'

 

Bit worrying!

 

The Vulcan always struck me as quite roomy (sitting in it on the ground, of course). But ejection is pretty rough and in the 60s I suppose getting clear was the main thing, not the state you were in afterwards.

[blockheadgreen_]

I've been thinking about the sound we can expect from the Sabre engine. A few months ago I took that one known recording, some contemporary accounts and made a new sound from scratch. Based on the "high pitched fatiguing drone" commonly reported:

 

 

A prize for anyone who can guess where I got the sample for the drone effect.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Lythronax

[Haza]

I have just ordered the book below and need to wait a couple of days for delivery!

However, I will let you know if there is anything of interest in it, if that information hasn't already been discussed somewhere within the forum.

 

Regards

 

H

 

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hawker-typhoon-and-tempest/philip-birtles/9781781556900 

[Tapi]

The book looks great. I am very interested in reading your short review.

[Sgt_Joch]

 

I made this for my own education, but thought it might be useful

 

The original chart is from Kurfurst's site. The thin line I added in red is (as I understand it) the performance we should see in game of the K4 with the DC engine running at 1.98 with c3 fuel and MW 50 peaking at 715 kmh at 6.2 km.

 

the line in green is the tempest V running at +9/+11 peaking at 700 kmh (435 mph) at 18, 000 feet (5.4 km). This is based on various flight tests on the WW2 aircraft performance site.

 

[Haza]

Ladies/Gents,

 

My new book has just arrived (about 20 mins ago) and I've had the usual quick flick through the book!  However, without reading it yet from cover to cover, the book fell open at the pilot's notes section and I noticed that it mentions about not taking off in a MK V with half full wing tanks and issues with main fuel tank and wing tank selection etc.  Therefore, are there any "experts" who can quickly explain the real issue(s) regarding the fuel system with handling and taking off, please?

 

I'm interested in this topic to understand these real issues and not trying to second guess a WiP BoBP Mk V FM, however, hopefully the book somewhere will explain all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

FYI again, the book that I've just received is:

 

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hawker-typhoon-and-tempest/philip-birtles/9781781556900

 

Regards

 

H

 

 

 

 

[NZTyphoon]

On 11/19/2018 at 7:58 PM, Haza said:

Ladies/Gents,

 

My new book has just arrived (about 20 mins ago) and I've had the usual quick flick through the book!  However, without reading it yet from cover to cover, the book fell open at the pilot's notes section and I noticed that it mentions about not taking off in a MK V with half full wing tanks and issues with main fuel tank and wing tank selection etc.  Therefore, are there any "experts" who can quickly explain the real issue(s) regarding the fuel system with handling and taking off, please?

 

I'm interested in this topic to understand these real issues and not trying to second guess a WiP BoBP Mk V FM, however, hopefully the book somewhere will explain all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

FYI again, the book that I've just received is:

 

https://www.waterstones.com/book/hawker-typhoon-and-tempest/philip-birtles/9781781556900

 

Regards

 

H

 

Just reading the Pilot's Notes, which state:

 

Quote

36. Management of the fuel system

(i) Without drop tanks

(a) When all tanks are full, the aircraft can be taken off on any combination of tanks, but it is recommended that take-off should be made with all tanks on. The main tank should be turned off when airborne and used as a reserve; otherwise this tank, having a gravity head, will drain first.

 

Using all tanks means that the fuel was drawn evenly from the tanks, avoiding an asymmetric loading during take-off: the aim was to drain the wing tanks during operational flying, using the main tank as a reserve.

 

Quote

(b) Under no circumstances may the take-off be made on all tanks, if one tank is less than half full. In this case the take-off must be made on the main tank only with the wing tanks isolated. Change over to the wing tanks when airborne.

 

Apart from creating an asymmetrical load during take-off, If one of the wing tanks was less than half full, the fuel in that tank could move away from the fuel line as the Tempest climbed and/or banked away from the airfield, thus creating an air lock in the fuel system, causing the engine to either falter or stop during take-off. (see the final Note, below).

 

 

Quote

(f) For landing, always turn on the main tank and isolate the wing tanks if they are nearly empty.

 

Note - Another reason why the main tank should be saved as a reserve is that this tank, having a deep sump,

will drain completely even in yaw and at steep approach angles without fear of air locking. This is not the case

with the shallow wing tanks which have no sumps and are very susceptible to yawing effects.

 

The main tank's fuel line was at the bottom of the tank, allowing the engine mounted fuel pump to draw from it without the likelyhood of air bubbles developing in the fuel lines. By contrast, the fuel lines from the wing tanks were on the sides of the tanks: this meant that an air lock/fuel starvation was far more likely, because the fuel moved away from the fuel lines as the Tempest banked during its landing approach, or came in at a steep approach.

 

Hopefully, this all answers your question. ?

Edited November 23, 2018 by NZTyphoon

[Panthera]

On 11/14/2018 at 10:56 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

 

I made this for my own education, but thought it might be useful

 

The original chart is from Kurfurst's site. The thin line I added in red is (as I understand it) the performance we should see in game of the K4 with the DC engine running at 1.98 with c3 fuel and MW 50 peaking at 715 kmh at 6.2 km.

 

the line in green is the tempest V running at +9/+11 peaking at 700 kmh (435 mph) at 18, 000 feet (5.4 km). This is based on various flight tests on the WW2 aircraft performance site.

 

 

You chose the wrong line for the K4 though  It's the thin one which represents the series K4:

[-332FG-Gordon200]

On 10/8/2018 at 6:18 AM, Bremspropeller said:

British aircraft certainly have a distinct "british" quirky taste to them - kind of like british cars and british....beer.

 

The Spitfires in this sim are missing this important ingredient.

 

[Bert_Foster]

National Archives in Kew have some great Tempest and Sabre data

 

[mumbojumbo]

Thank you for sharing

[CountZero]

So thats same time limits for engine mods like spit9 have it seams. Unlimited 1h and 5min.

P-47 dive seed they set at 500mph like in manual, but i see from manual that Tempest has 540mph there, so if they use manual dive speed +100kmh it will lose parts at 600mph maybe ?

[ITAF_Rani]

Marry Xstmas and happy Tempest developing..

[Talisman]

5 Tempest V squadrons on the continent from September 1944 ( http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/action/worldwar2 ) :

 

On 28 September the Tempests squadrons were returned to the operational control of the 2nd TAF and took up residence on the continent (advance landing ground B.60 at Grimbergen in Belgium.) Nos 3 and 56 Squadrons were the first to deploy followed by Nos 80, 274 and 486. The renewed round of combat had cost fourteen aircraft, primarily to ground fire, although the squadrons did clash with Luftwaffe fighters on more than one occasion. Shortly after the five Tempest squadrons settled into Belgium, they were moved to Volkel, Holland under No 122 Wing. Nos 80 and 274 Squadrons were based at Grave temporarily, just long enough to come under attack by an Me262, before rejoining the rest of the Wing at Volkel.
Beamont was shot down and became POW on 12 October, with command of the Wing being passed to Wing Commander J.B. Wray. The Tempest Wing then embarked on a intensive period of air superiority missions, which was to last until the end of the war.

 

56 Sqn:

September-October 1944: B.60 Grimbergen
October 1944-April 1945: B.80 Volkel
April 1945: B.112 Rheine-Hopsten
April-May 1945: B.152 Fassberg

 

3 Sqn:

28 September-1 October 1944: B.60 Grimbergen
1 October 1944-2 April 1945: B.80 Volkel
2-17 April 1944: Warmwell
17-26 April 1945: B.112 Hopsten
26 April-21 June 1945: B.152: Fassberg

 

80 Sqn:

September-October 1944: Deurne
October 1944: B.82 Grave
October 1944-April 1945: B.80 Volkel
April 1945: B.112 Hopsten
April-May 1945: Warmwell
May-June 1945: Fassberg

 

274 Sqn:

September-October 1944: B.70 Deurne
October 1944: B.82 Grave
October 1944-March 1945: B.80 Volkel
March-April 1945: B.91 Kluis
April-June 1945: B.109 Quackenbruck
June-September 1945: B.155 Dedelstorf

 

486 Sqn:

 

I am finding it harder to find detailed information on 486 Sqn RNZAF, but I have found that they were at Grimbergen and Volkel.

They were part of the Newchurch Wing with 56 squadron, so it is likely that they went on to Hopsten and Fassberg as well. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by 56RAF_Talisman

[Trooper117]

On 11/30/2018 at 11:00 PM, Bert_Foster said:

National Archives in Kew have some great Tempest and Sabre data

 

 

Lovely stuff mate... I have the pilots notes on the Tempest.

It will be interesting to see what the developers come up with for this old girl!

[MiloMorai]

On 3/12/2019 at 10:29 AM, 56RAF_Talisman said:

486 Sqn:

 

I am finding it harder to find detailed information on 486 Sqn RNZAF, but I have found that they were at Grimbergen and Volkel.

They were part of the Newchurch Wing with 56 squadron, so it is likely that they went on to Hopsten and Fassberg as well. 

 

B.60 Grimbergen 9-44

B.80 Vokel 10-44

B.112 Hopsten 4-45

B.152 Fassburg  4-45

B.150 Celle 5-45

B.160 Kastrup 5-45

[Tapi]

I have just read this paragraph from the book: Airplane Stability and Control 2ed

If someone own the book, would he post the paragraph(s) from the Chapter 5 about spring tab ailerons of the Tempest?

Link to uncomplete google book: HERE

Edited March 29, 2019 by Tapi

[NZTyphoon]

On 3/30/2019 at 2:47 AM, Tapi said:

I have just read this paragraph from the book: Airplane Stability and Control 2ed

If someone own the book, would he post the paragraph(s) from the Chapter 5 about spring tab ailerons of the Tempest?

Link to uncomplete google book: HERE

The full reference to the development of spring tabs can be found here: unfortunately, the section on beveled edge control surfaces is limited to page 66

[Tapi]

THX NZTyphoon.

Unfortunatelly the link to the google book offers only very fragmentary info. I am seeking for some detail explanation ideally with a drawing or detail photo...

Edited April 16, 2019 by Tapi

[Talon_]

Tempest startup, taxi and idle as recorded by the BBC in 1945

 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wJnKgUOeoMrK65NSRzaMUrNTTIbd0yhj/view?usp=drivesdk

 

Typhoon (same engine) takeoff, same source

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WPxJqYKN6NZSyAwt-Ye07C5KGhaIpCTH/view?usp=drivesdk

[Talisman]

Some interesting Tempest V combat reports at the link below.  Including from Normandy 8th June 1944 and on into September, October, December, January, February, March and  April.

 

http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/piloter/combat-reports, 

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[MiloMorai]

Tempest claimed 79 Bf109s and 115 Fw190s out of 240 total claims. Squadrons 486 (Bf109 - 14, Fw190 - 33) and 56 (Bf109 - 18, Fw190 - 30) being the most successful.

 

Between 1 Oct `44 and end of March `45

 

Losses

Month: Bf109 -  Fw190

Oct: 0 - 3

Nov: 0 - 0

Dec: 18 -14

Jan: 20 - 22

Feb: 16 - 5

Mar: 13 - 15

Edited May 28, 2019 by MiloMorai