PDA

View Full Version : Typhoon vs Tempest



mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 05:53 AM
Looking at these simple aircraft data sheets it is amazing the difference aerodynamic changes can have on a airframe.

Both aircraft use the same engine rated to the same HP, they even use the same cooling system and basic fuselage/tail plane and weigh pretty much exactly the same.

Yet the Tempest's redesigned wing and slight refinements allow for a 30/40 mph increase in max speed and cruise speed, an increase in rate of climb and a reduction in take off run while extending the range slightly although carryuing less internal fuel. It reminds me of the Yak 3's improvement over earlier Yaks and the La7 over the La5. Yet these two examplees were also excercises in weight reduction over the basic airframe compared to the Tempest/Typhoon static weight and HP in this comparison.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIa.jpg

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 05:53 AM
Looking at these simple aircraft data sheets it is amazing the difference aerodynamic changes can have on a airframe.

Both aircraft use the same engine rated to the same HP, they even use the same cooling system and basic fuselage/tail plane and weigh pretty much exactly the same.

Yet the Tempest's redesigned wing and slight refinements allow for a 30/40 mph increase in max speed and cruise speed, an increase in rate of climb and a reduction in take off run while extending the range slightly although carryuing less internal fuel. It reminds me of the Yak 3's improvement over earlier Yaks and the La7 over the La5. Yet these two examplees were also excercises in weight reduction over the basic airframe compared to the Tempest/Typhoon static weight and HP in this comparison.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIa.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-21-2007, 08:28 AM
I wish this game had a Typhoon.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 09:01 AM
Lol, not OT.

But me too, UKD server is currently trying to fit the Tempest with rocket rails locked on, in to the Typhoons role. If it works come across and try it some time it'll be the closest you get to the Typhoon in IL2.

XyZspineZyX
05-21-2007, 09:29 AM
Our squadron uses the Tempest in the Typhoon's role. It takes on this role very well, but you know, the Tiffie just has more of a working man's machine look to it. Just looks meaner. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
05-21-2007, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Skunk241981:
I wish this game had a Typhoon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I sure hope we see it in the next sim, along with the Mustang I.
42'-43' Channel Front would be great.

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 10:15 AM
Ach, you can't simulate the Western Front in 1942 without a Typhoon - it's the only RAF aircraft in the Tactical Fighter role!

Interesting aircraft anyway. Intended as an interceptor, utterly useless for that role, but turned out to be a good tactical strike fighter. Fortunate coincidence?

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 10:23 AM
You forgot the Hurricane II, it was used even in 1944 as a tactical fighter.

The Typhoon actually scored a few kills it wasnt all that bad at low to medium altitudes it was just that the air war was turning towards higher altitudes that rendered it pants. For instance had the Tyhpoon been around during BoB the altitude of the fighting wasnt too high for it to have performed well, likewise the Fw 190.

JtD
05-21-2007, 10:25 AM
Typhoon with bomb racks, Tempest without, higher critical alt - that contributes a lot.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Typhoon with bomb racks, Tempest without, higher critical alt - that contributes a lot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both aircraft had the same critical alt as they have the same engine - it says so in the placards posted. It also gives the Tyhpoons speed data as without bombs although does not mention racks. The Tempest also had bomb racks although these were removable and presumably not used in its comparison either.

What is even more interesting for me is that the 11lb Sabre IIB Tempest gains an extra 20 mph i cruise performance again over the 9lb Tempest.

faustnik
05-21-2007, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Intended as an interceptor, utterly useless for that role </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typhoons scored some kills on Jabo Fw190s. They were fast for their time.

JtD
05-21-2007, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Both aircraft had the same critical alt as they have the same engine - it says so in the placards posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

500 extra feet for the Tempest. Might be the air intake, but is certainly by the higher speed itself. 500 feet might not sound much, but it does have an effect.

No doubt the Tempest was aerodynamically a lot better, though.

XyZspineZyX
05-21-2007, 10:40 AM
Look up Typhoon pilots Clarence Lyle Shaver and Hugh Fraser. They each shot down an Me-262 on February 14th, 1945.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/typhoon-CLShaverSmall_blue.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/Typhoon-HFraserSmall_blue.jpg

...my own profiles of these gentlemen's aircraft.

BillyTheKid_22
05-21-2007, 11:14 AM
http://www.smer.cz/vyrobky/detail/848.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 11:29 AM
Ah, when I said 'interceptor', I meant 'aircraft for intercepting high-altitude bomber streams a la Blitz'. At low alt - different story!

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 11:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Both aircraft had the same critical alt as they have the same engine - it says so in the placards posted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

500 extra feet for the Tempest. Might be the air intake, but is certainly by the higher speed itself. 500 feet might not sound much, but it does have an effect.

No doubt the Tempest was aerodynamically a lot better, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When i read the two aircraft data charts I linked I see that the S gear height for both aircraft is the same 11,500 ft. Are we talking about the same thing?

Korolov1986
05-21-2007, 11:52 AM
Somewhat related, could either the Typhoon or Tempest carry bombs in addition to rockets?

Feels kind of disappointing to take a Tempest and be forced to choose between rockets or bombs, but not both.

JtD
05-21-2007, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

When i read the two aircraft data charts I linked I see that the S gear height for both aircraft is the same 11,500 ft. Are we talking about the same thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check the speeds part. 500 feet advantage there for the Tempest (5500-6000 & 18000-18500). 11500 seems to be static.

JtD
05-21-2007, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Somewhat related, could either the Typhoon or Tempest carry bombs in addition to rockets?

Feels kind of disappointing to take a Tempest and be forced to choose between rockets or bombs, but not both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tempest actually never carried rockets. The Tiffy however carried up to 16 sometimes, but afaik never in combination with bombs. If I said a wrong thing, I am sure I'll be corrected.

mynameisroland
05-21-2007, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

When i read the two aircraft data charts I linked I see that the S gear height for both aircraft is the same 11,500 ft. Are we talking about the same thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check the speeds part. 500 feet advantage there for the Tempest (5500-6000 & 18000-18500). 11500 seems to be static. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get you, however it doesnt make much sense that the critical alt for the egine had changed, it was the same engine. Perhaps the Tempest's wing gave it a ceiling FTH extension? Even though that isnt very likely.

Look at this chart for how the FTH changes for the Sabre IIB

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-21-2007, 12:03 PM
You are correct JtD. Typhoons never carried a combo. Always either rockets or bombs. Some squadrons (the three 143 Wing squadrons come to mind) actually never used rockets in combat.

JtD
05-21-2007, 12:07 PM
Without looking at the new link, I'd say it is because the extra speed helps to built up extra ram effect. As you may know, the 190 raised it's critical alt by several hundred meters if used with external air intakes that actually benefited from the ram effect. You can also see that FTH are different for climb and level speed flight or between other fast and slow planes using the same engine, say P-51 and P-40 or P-51 and Spitfire or Bf 109 and Bf 110, etc., etc..

It's not solely an engine thing, it's also a plane and speed thing.

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Korolov1986:
Somewhat related, could either the Typhoon or Tempest carry bombs in addition to rockets?

Feels kind of disappointing to take a Tempest and be forced to choose between rockets or bombs, but not both. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tempest actually never carried rockets. The Tiffy however carried up to 16 sometimes, but afaik never in combination with bombs. If I said a wrong thing, I am sure I'll be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Tempest was certified to carry rockets, but never used them operationally. Also some Tempest squadrons never used bombs either - they'd just strafe targets with the Doom-Vending Cannons.

DIRTY-MAC
05-21-2007, 12:33 PM
The Tempest had a laminar flow wing wereas the Typhoon did not, thats the biggest reason why they performed different.

Korolov1986
05-21-2007, 12:35 PM
No bombs + rockets - seems kind of sour compared to P-47s, P-38s, F4Us, and F6Fs having the capability.

Is there any reason why or was there just no need for both?

ImpStarDuece
05-21-2007, 03:42 PM
The British approach was that bombing or rocketing in a single engined fighter was a specalist job, requiring large amounts of training to become proficient at the task.

The decision was taken that each squadron should be assigned a specialty when it came to ground attack: they would either be all bombers or all rocketeers.

While the rocket carrying Tyffies are the ones that grabbed the attention and headlines, and seem to be the ones veterans from the Normandy and Northern Germany campaigns most remember, the bombers were probably more effective at damaging the German Army.

Bombs were more likely to cause serious damage to targets, both hard and soft, and the bomb racks had significantly less drag than the rocket rails, enabling bomber Typhoon squadrons to better run away or defend themselves if confronted by the Luftwaffe.

Philipscdrw
05-21-2007, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The British approach was that bombing or rocketing in a single engined fighter was a specalist job, requiring large amounts of training to become proficient at the task.

The decision was taken that each squadron should be assigned a specialty when it came to ground attack: they would either be all bombers or all rocketeers.

While the rocket carrying Tyffies are the ones that grabbed the attention and headlines, and seem to be the ones veterans from the Normandy and Northern Germany campaigns most remember, the bombers were probably more effective at damaging the German Army.

Bombs were more likely to cause serious damage to targets, both hard and soft, and the bomb racks had significantly less drag than the rocket rails, enabling bomber Typhoon squadrons to better run away or defend themselves if confronted by the Luftwaffe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool - that's something I never knew!

Korolov1986
05-21-2007, 04:39 PM
Thanks, ImpStarDuece - that explains it perfectly.

Monty_Thrud
05-21-2007, 04:46 PM
I have a bit of a fetish for the Typhoon, if you're interested "Hawker Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury" by Kev Darling is a good book.

The Tempest has become one of my favourites, following in the footsteps of her sibling the Hurricane and in my opinion, the best model of this series, a real beauty.