PDA

View Full Version : Could the Typhoon hold it's own?



XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:20 AM
I'm curious to see if you guys think the Typhoon could hold it's own in 1942, 1943 at low altitude. Regarding its performance I believe it was faster than the FW-190 and Bf-109 in those years at low altitude. It had rate of climb similar to the 190, but inferior to 109. It had strong armament with 4x20mm Hispano cannons. It had a strong airframe and was very steady gun platform, especially when diving (which it did very well). Not sure about its roll-rate and maneuverability. The main problems the Typhoon suffered were engine reliability problems, and high altitude performance. I guess this discussion concerns a clean Typhoon, without performance inhibiting rockets and rocket/bomb racks.

I think the Typhoon had about 240+ air victories, with many of them being against FW-190 as it was designed to counter their low altitude raids. The Tempest had almost identical numbers in a shorter service time and I'm sure it could hold its own. Many Typhoons were lost (500 after D-day), mainly due to AAA and the fact that they performed some of the most dangerous raids conducted, laden with ordinance and without fighter cover.

So my question is do you think the Typhoon could prove capable in low altitude air to air combat?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:20 AM
I'm curious to see if you guys think the Typhoon could hold it's own in 1942, 1943 at low altitude. Regarding its performance I believe it was faster than the FW-190 and Bf-109 in those years at low altitude. It had rate of climb similar to the 190, but inferior to 109. It had strong armament with 4x20mm Hispano cannons. It had a strong airframe and was very steady gun platform, especially when diving (which it did very well). Not sure about its roll-rate and maneuverability. The main problems the Typhoon suffered were engine reliability problems, and high altitude performance. I guess this discussion concerns a clean Typhoon, without performance inhibiting rockets and rocket/bomb racks.

I think the Typhoon had about 240+ air victories, with many of them being against FW-190 as it was designed to counter their low altitude raids. The Tempest had almost identical numbers in a shorter service time and I'm sure it could hold its own. Many Typhoons were lost (500 after D-day), mainly due to AAA and the fact that they performed some of the most dangerous raids conducted, laden with ordinance and without fighter cover.

So my question is do you think the Typhoon could prove capable in low altitude air to air combat?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:57 AM
my impression was it was lethal but a real monster to handle .. not a nimble T&B plane at all

be interested to hear more from someone with accurate information though

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:54 AM
Yes, the Tempest or Typhoon was definately a Bn'Z fighter/bomber . More or less suited for ground attack . Massive success at attacking railway targets . I kind of liken it to a British-made P-47 Thunderbolt . Had lots of speed and wasn't mushy at low altitudes but it couldn't turn like a Spit or Stang .
Typhoon would be a nice addition .
Maddox would be better off including a Spitfire to compliment the already planned Mustang . Then you would have the big three classic dogfighters of the European theater :

P-51 Mustang B ,C ,and D versions
Supermarine Spitfire
Bf-109

The classic big three fighter/bombers :

P-47 Thunderbolt
Hawker Tempest and Typhoon
Focke Wulf 190

A well rounded variety of flying death machines !

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 07:55 AM
That it would be used in the BnZ role would be obvious, its speed is its greatest asset. I believe Typhoon could be effective as a fighter as long as wingmen are present, if not you run and find one. The Tempest could handle any situation I believe. I'm just curious what others think. Thanks for the responses.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 07:57 AM
Make that a classic foursome in each case by adding the best Soviet plane in each category. Which would they be?

Late model IL2 for ground attack?
LA7 for air-to-air?

Tony S
(I reckon we get all the P51s and Spitfires we need in CFS1/2/3)

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:34 AM
Sturmtrooper wrote:
- Yes, the Tempest or Typhoon was definately a Bn'Z
- fighter/bomber . More or less suited for ground
- attack . Massive success at attacking railway
- targets . I kind of liken it to a British-made P-47
- Thunderbolt . Had lots of speed and wasn't mushy at
- low altitudes but it couldn't turn like a Spit or
- Stang .

I am pretty sure the Typhoon can turn with a Mustang. The Mustang is certainly no turn fighter like the Spitfire.

I have read that the Typhoon had structural problems with it's tail section. I don't know if this was a problem at high speed, high g's or in different circumstances.

Imho the Typhoon could hold it's own against any fighter there was in the ETO until mid 1943, because it was fastest plane around (at certain altitudes). I wouldn't want to get into a true dogfight, but as most pilots never saw the plane that shot them down, I think the Typhoon is a good choice.

Anyway, it's my favorite British plane, so it's certainly good. :-)

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:35 AM
Lovely aeroplanes, and absolute beassts. I would like to see a Tempest more than a Typhoon tho. You may have seen this quote before, I just love it, the pilot obviously loved the aeroplane:

"Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held "RB" down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ? climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!"

Tempest's had a monster of an engine - Napier Sabre, look at these figures of a late Mk and just quietly weep.

MkVII Tempest 3055Hp at 3850rpm, 2250 ft
Hobson RAE single-point injection. Single-sided blower impeller. Almost 4000 hp developed on test. (1945)

/m

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/pirhana.jpg


Message Edited on 07/02/0308:36AM by mattduggan

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:50 AM
The Typhoon's problems with tails breaking loose of the fuesalge resulted from diving at high speeds and elevator flutter. The exact cause was never determined. The fix was mounting 20 metal "fishplates" (mod 286) to strengthen the mount but this didn't always work. It was strange, some planes never even had a hint of a problem even at 500mph while others had the tail break off with little stress. 26 Typhoons were known to be lost due to tail failure during the coarse of the war. Let's just hope this never gets modelled. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif A Typhoon in FB would be sweet, that's for sure, but then again I'm a little biased.

"When it functioned smoothly, the Sabre engine gave the Typhoon better performance than anything in RAF service, but more importantly, in Luftwaffe service."

The key word here is "when." Still, give me a Typhoon or Tempest any day .

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:17 PM
When the Hawker Tempest arrives it may well unseat the 3-cannon La-7 as the premier Allied fighter, especially at low altitudes.

The Tempest is basically what the Jug fanboys wish the P-47 was.

The Typhoon on the other hand...give it some bombs, and stick to mud-moving.


http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

====================================
"I hit you so hard there would be tiny little ME-109's flying in circles around your head" - USAFHelos
====================================

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:36 PM
After the "fish plate" fix, the elevator mass balance was redesigned which further reduced the flutter.

The replacement of the original tail with the larger Tempest tail also helped

It was found in an a/c that had experienced flutter in Sept. '43 that the elevator control rod holes had been elongated, further exagerating the flutter > sloppy, loose > lack of precise control.

An interesting side note was the high frequency vibration of the airframe in flight which was thought to cause sterility./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The 'bubble canopy' was first fitted on a Typhoon in Jan. '43 but did not go on production a/c until Nov. '43.


Two books for anyone interested in the Typhoon/Tempest are:

"The Typhoon and Tempest Story"
Chris Thomas, Christerpher Shores
ISBN 0-852-368-878-8

"The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest"
Francis Mason
ISBN 0-946627-19-3



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/white-dickeautos.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:53 PM
The fish plates "fix" was tried, but in the end it didn't help. THe external fish plates were retained to help pilot morale.

("Hey, look, there's fish plates on the tail. I'll be okay to fly it now...")

NewS.



Founder member (currently the only member!) of the Unofficial Hurricane Fan Club.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 02:58 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- I'm curious to see if you guys think the Typhoon
- could hold it's own in 1942, 1943 at low altitude.

IMHO it will hold well, as long as you stick to some basic rules. Manouvering fight is not recommended.



- Regarding its performance I believe it was faster
- than the FW-190 and Bf-109 in those years at low
- altitude.
- It had rate of climb similar to the 190,
- but inferior to 109.


Correct for 1942. The early 190s (i.e. like A-4 in game) were a good deal slower than the A-5 of 1943. The A-5s and later level speeds will be similiar to the Typhoon on most altitudes though. The trend with climb rates will be of similiar fashion: reasonable close to the 190A4, worser than the A-5 and later.


All non-MW50 109s will be slower than it at low altitudes, and better at high altitudes. However, one must keep in mind that the acceleration of the Typhoon was not so great, so initially when closing in/extending the range, it will seems to be slower than the adverseries because of this.


- It had strong armament with
- 4x20mm Hispano cannons. It had a strong airframe and
- was very steady gun platform, especially when diving
- (which it did very well).


You are spot on, 4 Hispanos will make short work of any plane, and there will be plenty of ammo for them. Sighting and visibility is good.

- Not sure about its
- roll-rate and maneuverability.

Those were not very good, especially roll rate was quite bad, at all speeds. Turning wasnt great either, being roughly similiar to the 190s. Handling to my knowladge was nice, with no ugly flying characterteristics, though controls were heavy at speeds, which restricts your tactical envelope somewhat.



- So my question is do you think the Typhoon could
- prove capable in low altitude air to air combat?
-
- Any feedback would be appreciated.


I bet those who currently fly the P-47s will appreciate the Typhoon very much. IMHO, when employed with similiar style of flying (high speed cruise and BandZ), it will prove to be more successfull.

IMHO, the basic rules of flying the Typhoon will be the following:

1, Keep speed up

2, Use boom and zoom tactics. Try to gain alt ASAP, then make diving attacks. Zoom up. Start again.

2b, Watch out for 109s who are busy doing the same, and are likely to be encountered at those altitudes you are making your dives from. Your best hope against them is spotting them before they spot you. Otherwise, engaging them on equal terms is a bad idea.

3, Dont enter manouvering fights. The very poor roll rate and unimpressive turn make this a very bad idea.

4, Go for the head on attacks
4b, You have weapons, and all are cannons! Use them accordingly, dont be shy with them!

5, You may rely on speed to disangage at low altitudes. Dont try this against 190A-5, Yak-3, LA-5FN or -7, or 1944 Messers. All the other cant catch you.

5b, Rememeber your low speed acceleration is poor, so there should be enough range/speed difference between the bandit to make up for that.

6, You are also big and though. Others know this as well. Behave accordingly (ie. you may expect him to chicken out from headons).

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:16 PM
both the Typhoon and especially the Tempest
was high speed turners, they could with no problems
turn with for example Bf 109s,
just ceep your speed over 500km/h

the had a brutal energy zoom climb

they could dive better than the enemy

their Hispano cannons
spitted more lead/min than most other fighters,

could it hold its own?

YES!

you have to learn how to use it
aginst the enemy,

if you want to shake a Bf109
dive in spirals an then go right for the sun in a
zoom climb.(this manouvre was used by the Ts against the germans.

and when the speed is over 500km/h your on equal terms
with the enemy.



<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:02 PM
One advantage of the Typhoon was that its Sabre engine reved at a higher limit than other engines. This meant the cruising revs were higher so the cruising speed was higher. This made it harder to bounce because the speed difference between the attacking aircraft and the Typoon was smaller, it was harder to catch.

'It is right to be taught, even by an enemy' OVID

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:17 PM
One13 wrote:
- One advantage of the Typhoon was that its Sabre
- engine reved at a higher limit than other engines.
- This meant the cruising revs were higher so the
- cruising speed was higher. This made it harder to
- bounce because the speed difference between the
- attacking aircraft and the Typoon was smaller, it
- was harder to catch.


Yes, and thats why the Ts were so succesful
against V1 rockets.


One13 wrote:
- One advantage of the Typhoon was that its Sabre
- engine reved at a higher limit than other engines.
- This meant the cruising revs were higher so the
- cruising speed was higher. This made it harder to
- bounce because the speed difference between the
- attacking aircraft and the Typoon was smaller, it
- was harder to catch.
-
- 'It is right to be taught, even by an enemy' OVID



<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/SigFS.jpg?0.6257472972436022 </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:54 PM
Thanks for the responses, it seems like you feel the same way I do, use proper tactics and the Typhoon can be a winner. I know the Tempest could handle anything, I just hope Oleg doesn't give it an uber flight model or we will see 11 Tempests, 4 Yak-3's, and 2 P-51's fighting the usual host of all Bf-109 Blue team, and that would just suck.

http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/graham4.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:55 PM
Those four 20mm could blow any aircraft out of the sky with relative ease. Don't try any turning battles though, not very nimble. Because of this the Brits used them as jabos, they could handle armor up to panthers easy.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 10:29 AM
Thx for the info on the Typhoons tail problems.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 10:52 AM
Maybe an interesting note to Tiffy/Tempest fans about the claims of that a/c.

This "low" claims was rather restricted not so much in their technical limitanions but rather the circumstances both a/c were used.

Thyphoons claimed 246 A2A victories throughout WWII
Tempests claimed 239 A2A victories.


Tiffy aces:

G/C J.R. Baldwin 15 kills - 1 shared
S/L D.C.Fairbanks 11 kills - 1 shared
F/O C.F.J.Detal 6 kills - 1 shared


Tempest aces:

W/C W.E. Schrader 9 kills - 2 shared
S/L R. Van Lierde 6 kills (flew the Tiffy as well)
F/O J.J. Payton 6 kills

Tiffy/Tempest aces vs. the V1

S/L J.Berry 60 kills - 1 shared
S/L R. Van Lierde 44 kills - 9 shared
W/C R.P.Beamont 31 kills - 5 shared




http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 11:05 AM
Actually the Typhoon was a very nimble aircraft and a delight to fly.

I have often spoken to three chaps who used to frequent our Squadrons bar for after hours and their recounts of flying days in the Typhoon and Tempests.

The Tempest was especially agile and in their opinion you could keep the Spitfire. They would not swap the Tempest for all the tea in China!

From their tales the Tempest was as almost as agile as a Spitfire but did not have the initial acceleration. Although top end at certain heights it could outpace the Spit.

Either way both planes had their place in the theatre of battle. As did the FW and 109.

http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/BP_Ham%20Sig.gif



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 11:11 AM
but Harmish

the car door Tiffy looked the best./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


"Kimura, tu es une tªte carée comme un sale boche!"

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 11:36 AM
Typhoon pilots were advised not to use trim to recover from loss of control authority on the elevators, during high speed dives.

Apparently, the problem with the tail sructure presented serious problems during those situations - trimming the elevator up would help a Typhoon gain some pitch-up attitude when the elevator controls froze, just like any other fighter.

The problem was that once the pressure over the structure returned to normal levels, the plane would immediately start responding to trim settings, and the tail section, could not keep up with the additional pressure caused by sudden change of nose pitch - it would rip off.

Thus, Typhoons pilots were advised to chop throttle and gently pull the stick until the speed dropped down to safe levels. Ofcourse, during a high angle, high speed dive, this wasn't too easy an advice to abide by.

..

So much for trim on a slider for Tyffies, eh?







-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 12:46 PM
JtD wrote:
- I am pretty sure the Typhoon can turn with a
- Mustang.

Probably a little worse, and on a par with the 190.

- The Mustang is certainly no turn fighter
- like the Spitfire.

The Spitfire XIV could out turn the P51B, but
was hardly a turn fighter either.

- I have read that the Typhoon had structural problems
- with it's tail section.

Those were really with the Tornado, and the early
Typhoons, but was strengthened. (The Tornado
was the name of the project in 1939, coming from a
1937 Air Ministry specification of 1937 for a fighter
with at least 50% greater armament than the Hurricane -
the Hurricane was only just entering service trials,
but already a harder-hitting replacement was wanted!)

- I don't know if this was a
- problem at high speed,

Diving and pull outs from dives, apparently.