Typhoon?

[MiloMorai]

42 minutes ago, Voyager said:

I recall from at least one dev interview that they did end up needing to choose between the Tempest and the Typhoon for The second British aircraft, and decided on the Tempest for this expansion because this was the only time they were going to be able to do the Tempest, while the Typhoon showed up in enough other theaters that they feel they'll be able to get it in later. 

Well as long as they keep doing ETO theatres as that is the only theatre it was used in.

[NZTyphoon]

4 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

My exact feeling as well

Typhoon has a very historical importance for this place and time. But it need air supremacy. 
That is why I think they ditched it

 

Another problem could be replicating the high frequency vibration that affected the Typhoon and its pilot: this was reduced with the 4 bladed prop and large tailplane. For a truly immersive flight experience, some sort of high frequency vibrating device would be needed.

 

 

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

Tempest just makes sense for end of war time frame.   It's the same reason we got a late war P38, Dora (only available from late 1944), 262, etc.  I'm sure there were plenty of earlier mark planes still in use but the planes we got are the core of WWII western front late 1944 to end of war.

[MiloMorai]

P-39 had the same reputation as the Typhoon with vibration.

[Blitzen]

Too easy: they could use the newish 1/24th Typhoon kit for modeling...It has about a thousand parts & features the same sort of distressed aluminunmskin the real plane had..

[Pict]

On 11/18/2019 at 12:22 PM, Haza said:

 

PG Tips, myself ??

 

Bushells for me when in Australia & Twinings when in UK & Mariage Freres when in France  

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Pict

[Megalax]

10 hours ago, Blitzen said:

Too easy: they could use the newish 1/24th Typhoon kit for modeling...It has about a thousand parts & features the same sort of distressed aluminunmskin the real plane had..

 

I wouldn't use a plastic model for modeling in 3D. I would go to some of the Typhoon preservation groups that are rebuilding them. They atleast would have some good documentation and drawings.

 

That being said, I'm sure the Airfix kit is well researched and could provide some insight about the Tiffie's innards.

 

If they made the Typhoon Ib Late it would be relatively easy (I'm assuming here) as it would have the same cockpit as the Tempest. The Ib Early would require some tweaking.

 

[Missionbug]

48 minutes ago, Megalax said:

 

I wouldn't use a plastic model for modeling in 3D. I would go to some of the Typhoon preservation groups that are rebuilding them. They atleast would have some good documentation and drawings.

 

 

Just ask Airfix/Humbrol for the 3d model they used to make the moulds then.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Blitzen]

I was half way kidding ...but the car door  Tiffy is among my favorite 'looking 'Planes & the Airfix kit is superb. I am however glad i never had to fly one intocombat.they lost a lot of pilots in training, in accidents & quite a few in low altitude combat ops.

Wing Leader Magazine has several good articles featuring pilots remembering the Tiffy...

https://issuu.com/wingleader/docs/wingleader_magazine_-_digital_editi_1b0cccadac86d3

[BlitzPig_EL]

Outstanding Bentley.

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

9 hours ago, Megalax said:

 

I wouldn't use a plastic model for modeling in 3D. I would go to some of the Typhoon preservation groups that are rebuilding them. They atleast would have some good documentation and drawings.

 

That being said, I'm sure the Airfix kit is well researched and could provide some insight about the Tiffie's innards.

 

If they made the Typhoon Ib Late it would be relatively easy (I'm assuming here) as it would have the same cockpit as the Tempest. The Ib Early would require some tweaking.

 

I think they could go the way of the late model Tiffy and re-using everything that is shareable from the Tempest. I think it could be quite efficient development putting all the knowledge gained from Tempest development into Typhoon and have it rolled out as a collector aircraft. I personally would have exchanged it for Hurricane without a blink of an eye

[Avimimus]

On 11/18/2019 at 4:38 PM, PatrickAWlson said:

Tempest just makes sense for end of war time frame.   It's the same reason we got a late war P38, Dora (only available from late 1944), 262, etc.  I'm sure there were plenty of earlier mark planes still in use but the planes we got are the core of WWII western front late 1944 to end of war.

 

That depends on whether you like flying ground attack (Sturmoviks?) and whether you care about numerically numerous ground-attack aircraft to dogfight with & shoot down... one could easily make the case that the Typhoon is more important for historical and gameplay purposes... it depends on one's orientation really... there may be no right answer!

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

So the Typhoon is coming !  I can't wait  

[Avimimus]

So how widespread was the 12xRP-3 loadout? A dozen aircraft? More?

 

Also, do you guys think that modelling the different fuses for the RP-3 (or at least having some random duds) is a good idea?

[Diggun]

Also super hyped for the tiffy! 

[Megalax]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

So how widespread was the 12xRP-3 loadout? A dozen aircraft? More?

 

 

 

590 duplex rockets were fired operationally, post September 1944. 16xRP-3's were trialed but it was deemed too taxing on performance.

[Avimimus]

1 minute ago, Megalax said:

 

590 duplex rockets were fired operationally, post September 1944. 16xRP-3's were trialed but it was deemed too taxing on performance.

 

Very interesting. The 12xRP-3 loadout I was talking about just involved adding four additional rails (two on each wing) for a total of 6 rails per wing - nothing as sophisticated as what you are talking about

 

[Megalax]

I have never seen photographs of a Typhoon with 6 rails. Only 4 rails per wing with 2 of the rockets being duplexed.

 

[Avimimus]

7 minutes ago, Megalax said:

I have never seen photographs of a Typhoon with 6 rails. Only 4 rails per wing with 2 of the rockets being duplexed.

 

Could definitely be me having faulty memory (based on reading about the 12x loadout and making assumptions or mistaking a rail or hispano for a rocket in a poorly reproduced photo etc.)

Edited November 26, 2019 by Avimimus

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Also super hyped for the tiffy! 

Me too. With that and the P-47 razorback Battle of Normandy is looking really good for me.

[Voyager]

2 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

Me too. With that and the P-47 razorback Battle of Normandy is looking really good for me.

I'm hoping they do a D-5 with mods for the fuels, props and WI additives for it too

[NZTyphoon]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

So how widespread was the 12xRP-3 loadout? A dozen aircraft? More?

 

Also, do you guys think that modelling the different fuses for the RP-3 (or at least having some random duds) is a good idea?

AFAIK, there was just one standard base fuse, adapted from artillery shells, that allowed the warhead to penetrate a target before exploding: There were several different types of warhead available:

Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shot A.P. 25 lb. Mk II
Shot S.A.P. 25 lb. Mk I
Shell H.E. 60 lb. S.A.P. No. 1 Mk I & No. 2 Mk I (high explosive charge to weight ratio)
Shell H.E. 60 lb. “F” (="Fragmentation") No. 1 Mk I (in use from early December 1944: lower charge-weight ratio [3 lb explosive] & thicker walls that gave a good fragmentation effect)
Head Rocket Flare Mk 1
Phosphorous R/P (target marking and fire raising)
Shell 25 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I
Shell 60 lb. Practice (Concrete) Mk I

 

The standard warheads used operationally by 2 TAF Typhoons were the 60 pounders and, later, the phosphorus 'Bomb 'U' five-inch'. The particulars of the 60 lb warheads were:

 

Rocket	60lb. F.	60lb S.A.P.
Length	22in (55.88cm)	21.8in (55.37cm)
Diameter	4.5in (11.43cm)	6in (15.24cm)
Total Weight	46.9lb (21.31kg)	60lb (27.27kg)
Fuzing	No. 899 Mk I	No. 865 Mk I	-	-
Filling	TNT or RDX/TNT 60/40	TNT or Amatol 60/40	-	-
Filling weight	3lb (1.36kg)	12lb (5.45kg)	-

 

Another loadout used by 2 TAF Typhoons was two R.Ps plus a 45 gallon drop tank under each wing

Edited November 26, 2019 by NZTyphoon
standard warheads

[Avimimus]

Interesting. I'd heard that there were different fuses (or fuse settings) for diving attacks and low-angle attacks? I'd also heard that there was a 25% dud rate (at least according to one report / point in time). Are either of these rumours correct?

 

P.S.

Rockets and fuel tanks placed close together always make me nervous - but that didn't stop MATRA from developing the JL-100 etc.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Avimimus

[NZTyphoon]

31 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Interesting. I'd heard that there were different fuses (or fuse settings) for diving attacks and low-angle attacks? I'd also heard that there was a 25% dud rate (at least according to one report / point in time). Are either of these rumours correct?

 

P.S.

Rockets and fuel tanks placed close together always make me nervous - but that didn't stop MATRA from developing the JL-100 etc.

There wouldn't be any point in complicating life on the front-line airfields by changing fuses for dive or low-level attacks, because it would be impossible to know in advance what mode of attack would be used on each set of targets, especially those that were mobile: about all that could or would be changed would be the time delay between the head hitting the target and the...KABOOM! 

 

[Avimimus]

I was under the impression that a lot of land targets were being hit by the Typhoons in dives... whereas other aircraft and coastal command aircraft were attacking at shallower angles... so it could be the case that an airfield might mainly have only one type of use or rocket... just speculating.

[Megalax]

 

[MiloMorai]

13 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I was under the impression that a lot of land targets were being hit by the Typhoons in dives... whereas other aircraft and coastal command aircraft were attacking at shallower angles... so it could be the case that an airfield might mainly have only one type of use or rocket... just speculating.

At what angle were these dives? Spits could dive up to 60 degrees.

[RedKestrel]

IIRC Typhoon squadrons tended to specialize in either rocket attacks or bombing attacks, even though the aircraft could carry both. In that way, pilots got accustomed to the type of ammunition used.

I know that, for me, I'm pretty useless with rockets but not too shabby with bombs for the most part. It helps that the fighter-bombers I'm flying mostly now have big bombs that require less accuracy.

[Lusekofte]

Rockets was mostly fired in salvos in a pretty steep dive from longer distances we can since we simply dont see them. 
They where not accurate but pretty effective against ships and convoys. I bet bombs where more lethal against tanks

[DD_Fenrir]

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

At what angle were these dives? Spits could dive up to 60 degrees.

 

To quote from Christopher Shores "2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume 4: Squadrons, Camouflage and Markings, Weapons  and Tactics":

 

Quote

In the early months of the campaign, the RP [Rocket projectile] force was relatively inexperienced and various styles of attack were employed. however, it was eventually determined that low-level and shallow (15 degree) attacks were both inaccurate and prone to high casualty rates and they were largely abandoned in favour of attacks made in a 30 degree dive. If the target was heavily defended this might be increased to 45 or even 60 degrees - which were safer but less accurate. The rockets were released at 1,500 to 2,000 feet followed by a violent breakaway on a pre-arranged course, climbing and weaving to evade flak. If Flak was particularly fierce a low level exit might be employed but usually the plan was to regain a safe altitude as quickly as possible.

 

 

[MiloMorai]

There was a lot of trajectory drop with rockets so a higher dive angle helped reduce this drop.

[Avimimus]

Another good source:

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol15/iss2/8/

 

It focuses on the tactic of dive attacks with rockets against flak batteries in order to distract from the low level bombing force. It would also explain why steep dives are preferred against better defended targets (it would allow firing and recovery at a longer range... thus reducing the likelihood of antiaircraft fire hitting)

 

11 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I bet bombs where more lethal against tanks

 

Official analyses showed a less than 5% effectiveness rate against armour in wartime conditions (I think - based on a 20/1 overclaiming?) - with an 0.5% chance of hitting a tank sized target with a single rocket in peacetime and a 7.75% chance of hit using all 8 rockets.

 

There is also a report done on the effectiveness of rockets against railway locomotives. The overall finding was that most of the crews were unaware of rocket attacks (as they would not hear the engines or see the smoke trails from the locomotive) and thus thought that they were bomb attacks. Strafing had the biggest effect on morale due to its tendency to wound or kill crews while leaving some survivors to witness the attacks. They found a few locomotives in the repair sheds which may have sustained direct hits from rockets but were being repaired... IMHO, the overall picture is unclear due to the limited data, the possibility of rocket attacks being confused with bomb hits, and the possibility that the damaged engines were hit by duds. I have a copy of the report somewhere that I can share though.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Avimimus

[sevenless]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Another good source:

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol15/iss2/8/

 

Absolutely. Laurier is a very good source. Tons of interesting military history papers on Normandy and NWE and also Tac Air.

 

https://scholars.wlu.ca/do/search/?q=typhoon&start=0&context=2252334&facet=

Edited November 27, 2019 by sevenless

[Legioneod]

Can’t wait for this one either. Way better looking than the Tempest imo and much better for ground attack.

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

58 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Can’t wait for this one either. Way better looking than the Tempest imo and much better for ground attack.

What makes it better? Just curious.  I agree it looks better, especially if it has the car door

 

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

the cardoors have MUCH MORE style !

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

What makes it better? Just curious.  I agree it looks better, especially if it has the car door

 

Isn’t the Typhoon the only one that carried rockets and bombs for most of the war?

I know the Tempest has some bombs in game I just figured the Typhoon has more to choose from regarding loadout.

 

Look wise I just like the overall look of the Typhoon more than the Tempest, (wings, cockpit, etc.)

Edited November 27, 2019 by Legioneod

[EAF19_Marsh]

Desmond Scott’s autobiography is great on this as he led 123 Wing over Normandy (and that is ‘led’ literally).

[gn728]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Way better looking than the Tempest imo

Totally agree...looks more brutal, less streamlined, giant staples on the tail...that's why I like the Pfalz D.XII...looks like a flying refrigerator...

[RedKestrel]

41 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Isn’t the Typhoon the only one that carried rockets and bombs for most of the war?

I know the Tempest has some bombs in game I just figured the Typhoon has more to choose from regarding loadout.

 

Look wise I just like the overall look of the Typhoon more than the Tempest, (wings, cockpit, etc.)

Tempest had bombs theoretically but they were only loaded like once in April of 1945 or something like that. They mostly just did patrols with the 20mm cannons looking for enemy fighters, trains, trucks, etc. It's performance made it kind of a waste in the ground attack role, while the Typhoons were numerous, able to carry heavy loads and were a little disappointing in terms of performance in a fighter role, so they were a much better candidate for attack aircraft.