List of Issues with the Tempest

[=FEW=N3cRoo]

1. Turning circle like a spitfire
2. Highspeed response make structural breakup of the wings very prominent despite lack of evidence for such a problem
3. Available ammocounts are missing aswell and not the standard ammocount for fightersweeps

 

 

1.

 

On the first topic: 

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

 

Turning Circles FW.190 BMW.801D
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.

Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III.

Turning Circle
35. The Spitfire XVI easily out-turns the Tempest.

 

I'd expect it being close to equal with a D-9, yet a temepest in the vertical just runs loops inside the D-9 all day and sustains tighter turns better ingame,

yet it should be easily outaccelerated by those big pedals of a Dora or FW.

https://books.google.de/books?id=ZM6hDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=tempest+D-9+dogfight&source=bl&ots=LP6KwfJQYf&sig=ACfU3U3qlg4PNKh4S6fzNBPEkHXvOlfsbA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTo6Gw-7DlAhXQ-qQKHbGtDhoQ6AEwDXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=tempest%20D-9%20dogfight&f=false

 

swapping planes, I'm flying spitfire @4:25 slotting in, spitfire on tempest @ 7:00 slotting in, tempest on spitfire @ 11:10

 

As a minor point which may indicate a too high CL (missing PEC?) is that VNEs are unreachable next to a 10km 90° vertical dive and only then at below 2km.

They may have been predicted speeds, I havent spend the time fiinding testflights on it

 

2.

 

Ask anybody about the first few fight in the tempest, you can even rip the wings from flying level applying a bit quicker of a stiiickmove, I havent seen refences to wingfailures. It should also handle high speed stalls see point 45(II) https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/tempestv-pilotnotes-pdf.34006/

 

3.

 

We certainly have room for 870 plus the one unkown box not specified in this source other sources indicate that this is bigger than the 145 box

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SMuTDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=%22hawker+Tempest%22+%22ammunition+box%22&source=bl&ots=WBSruGU8ui&sig=ACfU3U0borp8nv_e42HBxhRUUUS1yt2IFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY2tWyzZvlAhXMSBUIHRBeA0oQ6AEwC3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230625718092955649/633255999847006237/Screenshot_20180822-180021.thumb.png.b805f7b8c6f451f1d962d48c5af93163.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/230625718092955649/633255999847006238/Screenshot_20190814-224949.png

 

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by =FEW=N3croo
Swapped the video for the correct one, added timestamps

[56RAF_Roblex]

Regarding point 2,   High Speed stalls just cannot happen because they have modelled the wings coming off before that happens ?

[Legioneod]

The Tempest does have a surprisingly tight turn from my short time in-game with it. Based off what I've seen/read I was expecting the Tempest to be closer to the 190/P-47 in regards to turn performance.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

One question I have is how turning circle relates to turn time, could there be two planes with similar turning circles but one of them having a quicker turn time? We also don't know at which altitude were the comparisons done, which would lean towards an advantage for particular types depending on the altitude (supercharger performance). Judging by the statement "It is fitted with a Napier Sabre II engine of approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB)"  it seems this Tempest in particular was used with an earlier Sabre engine at +7 boost, with significantly less power than our current configuration at +11 boost for 2400 HP.

[Chief_Mouser]

While I too believe that there should be up to 200 rounds per gun available - 16 seconds of ammo rather than 12 - your first link is for a Tempest II so will probably be discounted for our Tempest V. The official facts about it are very hard to find, but the pilots' accounts quite often indicate more than 150rpg / 12 seconds-worth.

Edited October 23, 2019 by Red_Cat

[Quinte]

39 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

One question I have is how turning circle relates to turn time, could there be two planes with similar turning circles but one of them having a quicker turn time? .

I've always assumed "turning circle" in AFDU tests stood for "turning radius". In which case, obviously, yes, you could have a similar turning radius but a higher turn rate, by pulling more Gs. But that's limited at some point by the pilot and/or the airframe.

I honestly give very little value to that part of the tactical comparisons since it doesn't explain what is really compared, or how. Basically turning performance is down to 4 parameters: Airspeed, Gz pulled, turn radius, and turn rate. From that you could also derive corner speed. Fixing some of those parameters would allow a useful comparison.

40 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

We also don't know at which altitude were the comparisons done, which would lean towards an advantage for particular types depending on the altitude (supercharger performance).

That's one more parameter that is not fixed. So yeah, those turn comparisons are pretty much meaningless.

I'd assume they were not entirely stupid back then, though, so there must be some form of a protocol/procedure, but I don't know where that could be found. It may also simply be two aircrafts turning against each other til one gets on the other's six, who knows.

 

 

45 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Judging by the statement "It is fitted with a Napier Sabre II engine of approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB)"  it seems this Tempest in particular was used with an earlier Sabre engine at +7 boost, with significantly less power than our current configuration at +11 boost for 2400 HP.

JN731 was the ninth production Tempests, a Series I aircraft. So it was using a Sabre IIa engine. The Saber IIa was restricted to +7lbs of boost unless they had Mod. 158, 297, 276. It's likely it was running +7lbs, then, at this point in time (early 44).

Note that it was also flying with the long-barrelled Hispano II cannons, which would affect handling.

 

 

All that doesn't change the fact that the in-game tempest seems to have a quite "optimistic" low speed FM. But I can't for the life of me find any document to get a more accurate PEC or stall speed.

[HR_Tumu]

im very interested on second point. 

 

Tempest have good bomb load.... all my first attempts end on death... if i dive at max speed, just after drop bomb and take level for no crash... one wing was gone.... at begining i think i was doing something wrong.... crash to tree.. house .. or ground.... but no.. cause was estructural damge for G . Something similar succes to p51 in old il2... but for this old il2... estructural damage was cause for relase of bomb... in the case of tempest, i understand reading this post, is not cause to drop bomb, u can lost wing in turn with high G no?

 

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, 666GIAP_Tumu said:

 

Tempest have good bomb load.... all my first attempts end on death... if i dive at max speed,

 

There you have the problem, so the solution....

 

2TAF fighter dive bombing technique (usually Spitfires) was to approach at about 220mph, (which is far below top speed), at 6,000ft, go into the dive throttling back if necessary, release at 3,000ft and recover at 2-3000ft, all well below top speed, then open throttle fully once in level flight to to exit the area.  Try that and see if the wings still come off.

[HawkerMkIII_]

This topic deserves more attention! I really agree with you, the Tempest turns way too good, even if it’s my favorite plane.

[Talisman]

  Combat trials on an early Tempest V, delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944, show favourable turning in comparison to opposition.  Extracts and original report as per below.   Happy landings,   56RAF_Talisman     COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)   Turning Circles
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.   COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G   Turning Circle
47. The Tempest is slightly better, the Me.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall.   http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html    

[QB.Shallot]

A lot of people seem to be nitpicking.

The bottom line is that the Tempest can easily turn with, and sometimes out turn a Spitfire MK IX. This doesn't depend on relative altitude, or the engine you have installed in the A/C. It seems like the Tempest is a teensy bit over-modeled. 

[Aurora_Stealth]

Just wanted to add two quick things, don't wish to detract too much from what people have already said though.

 

- Firstly wwii aircraft performance.com has some very useful info... (no question there) but some of the 'aircraft vs aircraft' articles in the past have shown very obvious and subjective bias which makes me very apprehensive about the website / author's intent. The fact that the author tried to doctor some graphs himself and then in other articles attempts to compare 30 min combat power vs WEP power of another aircraft sums up the behaviour nicely. Taking that website at face value without other supporting evidence is... highly misleading.

 

What doesn't help is the way the RAE (RAF) and RLM (Luftwaffe) tested aircraft which we're in some regards very different when you look at the details.

 

Just one example was the RLM tended to be more conservative and apply practical rather than theoretical figures e.g. using 1/3 water radiator settings rather than fully closed radiators to establish maximum speeds and climb rates.

 

- Second point, why is an aircraft that weighs 2 tons more than the Spitfire, much heavier wingloading roughly 40 vs 30 lb/sq.ft and has an inferior power-to-weight ratio.. even capable of approximating this type of manoeuvring. It doesn't even have any high lift-devices like slats. I mean... I'm oversimplifying and there is more to it than that, but really, its defying basic principles to me.

 

Great aircraft mind you, but really... out-turning lighter more nimble aircraft at low speeds where fighters like the Spitfire were practically designed and best optimised for (250 mph)? when the tactic of a Tempest was to go full out and then pull away at extreme speed while avoiding the danger of these types of fighters (?). Doesn't make much sense does it.

[unreasonable]

The CLmax is way higher than that for any other fighter because the devs are trying to hit the IAS stall speeds from manuals without knowing the true instrument error. Manual PEC's do not really help very much, they do not go down that far.   It is nothing like as wrong now as it was on release, but I expect that if they fixed the CLmax to the normal range for non-slatted wings and just sucked up the higher stall speed you would get much more plausible flight performance. 

Edited June 7, 2020 by unreasonable

[Aurora_Stealth]

14 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The CLmax is way higher than that for any other fighter because the devs are trying to hit the IAS stall speeds from manuals without knowing the true instrument error. Manual PEC's do not really help very much, they do not go down that far.   It is nothing like as wrong now as it was on release, but I expect that if they fixed the CLmax to the normal range for non-slatted wings and just sucked up the higher stall speed you would get much more plausible flight performance. 

 

I see... yeah tricky business (thanks for the heads up) this is the problem with trying to establish reliable information, its often a patchwork of some sound data plus some basic assumptions and then background context and personal accounts used to fill the gaps. Unfortunately even the written figures can't always be trusted and even individual airframes can vary significantly when tested.

[Talisman]

On 6/6/2020 at 4:17 PM, QB.Shallot said:

A lot of people seem to be nitpicking.

The bottom line is that the Tempest can easily turn with, and sometimes out turn a Spitfire MK IX. This doesn't depend on relative altitude, or the engine you have installed in the A/C. It seems like the Tempest is a teensy bit over-modeled. 

 

Sometimes, sometimes, but not always out turn a Spitfire I think.  Pilot skill factor can count for a lot.  Also initial energy states, etc, etc.  Also, a little flap, about 10 degrees, with the Hawker Tempest V, at the right time, can help in a turn, just like some Battle of Britain pilots historically used on the Hawker Hurricane.  Hawker produced nicely manoeuvrable aircraft.  Also, if the opposition get caught by the devastating 4 x 20 mm cannon then its likely to be all over in favour of the Tempest.  Just because one might be flying a Spitfire does not guarantee invincibility in a turn.  Also, the view over the aircraft nose and the gunsight view is far superior in the Tempest than the Spitfire and it is much easier to get your gunsight on an opponent and pull lead with the enemy aircraft in view in the turn when using the Tempest.  The superior gunsight view and powerful guns contribute to the Tempest being a killer in a turn manoeuvre with an opponent.  Might be a better pilot in the Tempest too

 

I am looking forward to the Spitfire Mk XIV

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[QB.Shallot]

@56RAF_Talisman Nitpicking again. I never brought up energy states, pilot skill, etc, because none of that matters. There’s no way in hell a Tempest could so easily turn with a Spit, the weight, wing loading, and P/W all go against that being a consistent occurrence. Let’s not kid ourselves with the application of flaps either. With the magic of flaps in IL2, I can out turn a 109F with a P-47. The IL2 Tempest is wildly over modeled in a turn. If you’re worried about your favorite bird being a bad plane if it’s turn performance ever gets remodeled, there’s no real reason. You said it yourself, 4x20mm, great gunsight, incredible speed and dive. Do you really need unhistorical turn on top of that?

[Talisman]

13 hours ago, QB.Shallot said:

@56RAF_Talisman Nitpicking again. I never brought up energy states, pilot skill, etc, because none of that matters. There’s no way in hell a Tempest could so easily turn with a Spit, the weight, wing loading, and P/W all go against that being a consistent occurrence. Let’s not kid ourselves with the application of flaps either. With the magic of flaps in IL2, I can out turn a 109F with a P-47. The IL2 Tempest is wildly over modeled in a turn. If you’re worried about your favorite bird being a bad plane if it’s turn performance ever gets remodeled, there’s no real reason. You said it yourself, 4x20mm, great gunsight, incredible speed and dive. Do you really need unhistorical turn on top of that?

 

Not sure why you have introduced this term 'nit picking' and now extended it further to "nit picking again", but I suppose you have your reasons.  Unlike you, I am making no claims about aircraft modelling, but have simply introduced some real life testing reports for folks to look at, if they are interested, and introduced a perspective on things like the gunsight, armament and use of flaps for folks to consider.  From your post, I read that you have now increased your rhetoric to "The IL2 Tempest is wildly over modeled in a turn".  

You have an interesting theory, but why so aggressive to me?

Why assume the Tempest is my "favourite bird"?  Or are you trying to somehow discredit me for some reason?  I might consider the Tempest to be the best (tongue in cheek), but that does not mean favourite.

Also, why infer that I would want or need an unhistorical turn in an aircraft?  Again, perhaps you are trying to somehow discredit me for some reason.

 

Reading the historical report the OP and I posted a link to in a previous post above, folks can see it says that the Spitfire XVI easily out turns the Tempest.

 

Finally, I think you will find that, to coin a phrase, pilots matter.  I don't think that the Tempest or Spitfire can turn their best against an opponent and shoot down opposition on their own.  Therefore, a pilots skill does matter as far as I am concerned.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[JG27*PapaFly]

It's lateral stability is too high. Hardly any rudder inputs necessary during maneuvering. I lost the rudder and vertical stabilizer in a collision lately, and the plane remained perfectly stable. I landed without a glitch and hardly missed the stabilizer at all. A 190 would have been out of control.

Edited June 11, 2020 by JG27_PapaFly

[HR_Tumu]

 

3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

A 190 would have been out of control.

 

are your sure? i fight against many Fokes without stabilizer , and no tail...   on fact, drag damage on Bfs and Fokes is practically unperceptible from attacker point of view... again feelings!

[Quinte]

No you don't. You can't fly a 190 without the vertical stab, and usually can't fly it much if you're simply missing the rudder..

 

The tempest has a much, much larger vertical stab, and a way longer puselage, it's much more directionally stable. Losing the rudder will make you unable to compensate slips or skids, but it's no surprise that you can still fly some.

[CountZero]

 

 

 

But only 109 got this fixed with undamagable tail, so it dosent lose whole tail fin as before it was flying like nothing happend, same like 190 and tempest in videos.

So why didnt 190 and tempest get that same fix ? same problem but only 109s got undamagable tail fin... and since then 109s eat led like heck when hit from dead 6, would like that on tempest plz

Edited June 11, 2020 by CountZero

[HR_Tumu]

Thx countZero.