PDA

View Full Version : Lets sort out the correct Tempest performance for PF!



DIRTY-MAC
11-14-2005, 03:04 PM
Hardball has ask for this but appearently havent got any good info on it,and the Maddox team doesnt seem to have any correct performance on it as the performance of the ingame Tempest at the moment is way off in most respects,
so lets sort this out, and give Oleg and hardball some real good info and proof of its performance.

There also seems to be a possibillity to maybe get a 44 and a 45 Tempest!?
lets gather everything here please.


for instance:

Sort out the Different OPERATIONAL Tempest series and their diffrencies
and how many deployed

Time of deployment for each of the MkV/VI "series"

Top speed at different alts

Climb at different alts
(also zoom climb)

Different engines and their performances

Props

Takeoff/combat/emergency Power at different alts
(and for how long it could maintain it)

Turbochargers
(automatic or manual and at what hight to change it)

Turn performance

Rollperformance

Dive performance

Handling characteristics

Stall characteristics

Weapons performance and
Ammo loadouts

Armour

Weight

Range

Etc

Lets discuss and gather it here and then send it to Oleg.

Anyone willing to start?



IceFire!
SHOOT!

VW-IceFire
11-14-2005, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post all of my sources. I should double check on that really. Most of what I have, however, is posted here:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

I have so far submitted to Oleg a few critical pieces of information regarding the armament on the Tempest V with regards to the guns.

Firstly, the Series I type Tempest was produced in a lot of about 100 aircraft. Of this lot, about the first 80 or so were fitted with Hispano Mark II cannons (unknown ammo capacity). These aircraft you can easily identify because the cannons stick out of the leading edges of the wing. Not like the Typhoon (as the Tempests wing is much longer) but they still appear.

You can see them in this photo: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/jn735.jpg

The model in-game is quite clearly a Series II aircraft. The cannons are faired into the leading edges of the wings which means they are Hispano Mark V 20mm cannons. The Mark V differs from the Mark II in that it has a hire rate of fire (to my memory its 750rpm as opposed to 600rpm) with a lower muzzle velocity (down 40m/s), lighter overall weight, the removal of the several unnecessary pieces of equipment for unjamming the guns (late war Mark II Hispanos and the new Mark V's were extremely reliable with low rate of stoppages under normal operation).

Additionally, as evidenced anecdotally by several sources and using one hard source as further proof Tempest V's were fitted with 200 rpg on all cannons for the duration of the war. Postwar Tempests (mostly Tempest Mark II's) used 155/165 rpg (inner/outer) as there was no need for more. My hard piece of evidence regarding this is Pierre Closterman's The Big Show. Page 332, Appendix E under Combat Report 122/3475/83/II T.A.F says the following with regards to weapons use:



- The video camera worked
- The four cannons respectively fired: 146, 185, 185, 150 20mm. shells

One can sumize then that Closterman's Series II Tempest was fitted with an equal or greater than 185 rpg. Since most sources indicate 200 rpg this would be the most reliable record.

The current AI model presently has 130rpg (which is not accurate in any way shape or form) and, judging by the fire times, is using a Hispano Mark II and not a Mark V.

So far the only data sheet I can find is also at SpitfirePerformance.com and it contradicts the above with a listing of 150 rpg.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/ads-tempestv-2.jpg

This is ultimately perplexing to me but I have no further information at the moment.

So far the best quote I can find is once again at the same source and is an excellent summary of all details regarding the Tempest V in its peak operating status:


In September the Newchurch Wing tranferred to 122 Wing at Grimbergen, Belgium. Nos. 80 and 274 of the Manston Wing moved to Antwerp in September and by October, after a stint at Grave with 125 Wing, joined with 122 Wing at Volkel, Holland to form a five squadron Tempest Wing under the control of the 2nd TAF. The Tempest's role was that of low and medium altitude air superiority figher, being nicely complimented by, and coordinating with, the medium and high altitude specialized Spitfire Mk XIVs of 125 and 126 Wings. In January 1945 33 and 222 Squadrons converted to Tempests, joining 135 Wing of 85 Group at Gilze-Rijen, Holland in February. 122 Tempest Wing was reinforced during February by the addition of 41 Squadron's Spitfire XIVs tasked with providing high cover for the Tempests. 274 Squadron transferred to 135 Wing in March to better balance the Tempest Wings. In April the Wings moved to keep up with the advancing Allied armies; 135 Wing to Kluis, Holland followed by a move to Quackenbr√ľck, Germany and 122 Wing to Hopsten, Germany. A total of 801 Tempest Vs were produced.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

I'd like to highlight that the Tempest V was operational in the 2nd TAF as a air superiority fighter. Anyone who has read The Big Show will also realize that the extent of the Tempests ground attack operations was largely in the strafing of any trucks, trains, or airbases that could be attacked. But the Tempest was, and should never be considered, a mediocre ground attack fighter that can sometimes compete with the opposition. The Typhoon is another matter and should not be confused.

Tempests did use bombs and were fully certified for rockets. I can make a historical allowance for the rockets on the AI model as we have no Typhoon and the Tempest is the closest equivalent...for offline campaigns the Tempest can be an "einzatz" (I think thats the term) Typhoon in a pinch. It was after all certified to use them and had more rockets been made available they would surely have carried them.

I'll probably post more...

I'll look into posting some more of what I've got but it seems to all have been replicated recently on the SpitfirePerformance.com website so there is no need for me to repost the very same report. I shall check the data and see if there is more. They do list data and information for Sabre IIB Tempests.

As the large majority of Tempests were equipped with a Saber IIB and, once again, as the vast majority of Tempests were serving from September 1944 to May 1945 over the continent battling the Luftwaffe I think the aircraft (or a couple of types) should be modeled to represent that timeframe.

Modeling a Series I aircraft would be sort of pointless as that was mostly trial run against V-1's with a very low number of operational fighter sweep sorties over Normandy and the rest of the continent during the April to August phase.

For a short period, Tempests were recalled and teh bugs were ironed out before they were sent to the 2nd TAF and employed in the frontline dirty work of the northern sector.

From October to May the Tempests of the 2nd TAF (based mostly in Holland) scored a large number of kills and had a large number of confrontations with the Luftwaffe. Although many Tempests were also lost, many of the loses were to flak.

Additionally, by this time the vast majority of issues (although not all as has been written in The Big Show and elsewhere) with the Sabre II engine had been worked out.

I would also argue against inclusion of a Mark VI as that would be largely a-historical for WWII inclusion and would require a model change. It was mentioned (I think) so I just thought I'd put it up. It'd be neat as a what if but nothing more. The first Mark II's and VI's appeared after the war...although the Mark II was within a month or two of operating with SEAC against the Japanese.

ImpStarDuece
11-14-2005, 10:33 PM
If we want an accurate, representative 1944 Tempest then performance should be based on a Sabre IIa engined variant.

It should have Hispano mk V (short barrel) cannon and spring tab alierons to improve roll performance.

The Sabre IIA should run at 2,180 hp at +9lbs boost and 2,380 hp at +11 lbs and 3700 rpm.

Speeds seem to be a little confused, based on what I can find at various web-sites and such.

The official may, 1944 aircraft data-sheet for a Sabre IIa engined Tempest V gives 405 mph at 6000 feet and 427 mph at 18,500 feet as top speeds.

However, the listed engine output for this data sheet is 2,180 b.h.p., suggesting that these speeds are for +9 lbs, instead of +1lbs. What this suggests is that this data sheet is for a Series I aircraft (i.e. the first 100 built) rated at +9lbs, not a +11 lbs aircraft. A +11lbs Tempest would have around 200 more hp at 4000 feet and around 400 hp more at 17,000 feet.

The Feburary 1945 data sheet for a Sabre IIb engined Tempest V gives 410 mph at 4,000 feet and 435 mph at 19,000 feet as top speeds. Engine ouput is listed as 2,420 hp.

The Sabre IIb put out a few more horses than the Sabre IIa, so this looks right for a Serise II (short barrleld cannons, spring tabbed alierons) Tempest V at +11lbs.

The January 8, 1944 Hawker tests for a Sabre IIa engined Tempest V at +9lbs give 380 mph at sea-level, 411 at 8000 feet and 435 mph at 18,000 feet. Best rate of climb is about 4200 feet/ minute.

So, at a very minimum the worst performing Tempest V i.e. a serise I aircraft with a Sabre IIa rated at +9lbs, should do 405 mph at 6,600 feet and 427 mph at 18,500 feet, based on RAE data. Based of Hawker data a Tempest V with a Sabre IIa at +9lbs should do 411 mph at 8,000 feet and 435 mph at 18,000 feet.

If we take +11lbs boost (with 150 octane) as standard, then the Tempest V with a Sabre IIa should do around 390 mph at sea level and 435 mph at 15,000 feet. A Sabre IIb engined variant would be just a tiny bit faster, with an extra 40 hp or so (or an extra 1.65% power) over the Sabre IIa.

lbhskier37
11-14-2005, 10:51 PM
Just want to say that I can't wait for this aircraft to fight in and against. At my university we have a cutaway model of a sleeve valve engine (same crazy technology as the sabre), and it has always interested me. Seems like an odd solution compared to overhead valves, but I guess back before multiport injection and 4+ valves per cylinder it was just another way to make more power. Is definitly a needed plane in the game and easily the coolest plane those brits ever came up with, they shouldve canned the spit earlier and pushed for way more Tempests same as germany shouldve axed the 109 in 1941 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

WOLFMondo
11-15-2005, 01:45 AM
The Tempest DVD points to a couple of things...its was cleared for Napalm but never used and 150 Octane and 11lbs boost was used on Series I's. According to an engine fitter from that period.

Also theres only 2 flap settings according to the hydraulics training video and the pilot take off and landing video. Thats up and down.

Does anyone have precise roll and acceleration data?

luftluuver
11-15-2005, 04:19 AM
Two books worth reading.

The Typhoon & Tempest Story
C. Shores, C. Thomas
ISBN 0-85368-878-8

The Hawker Typhoon and Tempest
F.K. Mason
ISBN 0-9946627-19-3

In Thomas/Shore book, a NZ pilot, F/O R. Dennis (56 Sqd) mentions 13lb boost but a Rotol prop replaced the deHavilland prop. The Sabre turned 3850rpm which was 150rpm more than at 11lb boost. This was during the V-1 crisis time.

MEGILE
11-15-2005, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by lbhskier37:
they shouldve canned the spit earlier and pushed for way more Tempests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Considering the Spitfire's stellar performance at 25,000FT + , and the Tempest's lack of performance at said alitutde I disagree 100% about canning it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Uther
11-15-2005, 10:38 AM
the tempest was a bag of nails and any decent 190 pilot would murder it.

snafu73
11-15-2005, 10:46 AM
I really hope the Tempest will be accurately represented, because at the moment the AI Tempests are worryingly easy to defeat.

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

ImpStarDuece
11-15-2005, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
the tempest was a bag of nails and any decent 190 pilot would murder it.

Considering that a Tempest V was faster at low to medium altitude, turned, climbed and dove better, do you have anything to back that claim up?

Mate, it was 50 mph faster than the entire Luftwaffe!

Vipez-
11-15-2005, 02:42 PM
Well Turn is rather relative I would say, FW190 in the western front version (as pure fighter) with outer wing cannons removed with no bombrack (like FW190 A-5/ A-6 / A-8) running at 1.65Ata should behave very similary to Tempest in turning circles.. Dora was on par with the Tempest with the better pilot coming on top in the turn fight.. Tempest, however, has about 30-40 kmh speed advantage at sealevel compared to these planes..

ME262 still owns the Tempest, so its not faster than teh LW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seriosly, looking forward for the Tempest.. Probably when it arrives it will probably own 190s so badly it again brings up the issue of FW190 having crappy forward view in the game ( IMHO ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Overall all, it will be very similar to FW190 except it probably does not have *ucked up forward view, and has bloody murderous Hispanos http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
11-15-2005, 02:54 PM
Salute

If we go by killstats, then the Tempest is clearly superior to the 190D. However, the fact is that the Germans were fielding a lot of very inexperienced pilots in the period Jan. `45 to May `45, when the Tempests saw most of their combat. Meanwhile the RAF Squadrons were filled with pilots were all at the peak of their experience levels.

From what I can understand, the 190D will be a closer match than some may think.

Indications are, that the Tempest would have a better turnrate at higher speeds, but at lower ones, the 190D had an edge. Strange situation for a 190 pilot to be in, but versus a Tempest, it may be better to stall fight... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Remember the Tempest has a laminar flow aerofoil like the Mustang, better lift at high speeds and low Angles of attack, not so good at low speeds and high AOA.

The 190`s would definitely have a better rollrate at low and medium speeds, slightly inferior at higher speeds.

Climbrate would go to the Tempest under 10,000 ft, between 10,000 and 20,000 very similar and over 20,000, the 190D had the advantage.

Speeds were in favour of the Tempest at low altitudes, but to the 190D`s advantage at 20,000 ft or over.

From the pilot reports, it seems the 190`s feared to be caught by the Tempests under 10,000 ft, but over 20,000 they felt quite confident.

Both of these aircraft were very good late war planes, with the pilot who plays to his aircraft`s advantage, likely coming out on top.

luftluuver
11-15-2005, 02:58 PM
In Hermann's Dora book there is described a mock fight between a Tempest and a D-9. The D-9 came out on top. Max altitude allowed for the combat was 3000m.

The Dora was flown by Dr. Heinz Lange, commander of JG51, and a Canadian pilot in the Tempest.

Vipez-
11-15-2005, 03:35 PM
IF we had two experienced pilots with low level dog fight My money would be on the Dora, Dora after all should have powerloading advantage, and edge in acceleration, which can prove to be decisive .. And there are reports of some Doras reaching 640 kmh at sealevel with MW-50, this would make it very comparable to Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Tempest outclimbing Dora ? Hmm.. Antons yes.. I would imagine climb rates to be very similar, with no advantage to either plane.. offcourse all is speculation, we don't really have unbiased comparision with the two planes from real life..

VW-IceFire
11-15-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
If we want an accurate, representative 1944 Tempest then performance should be based on a Sabre IIa engined variant.

It should have Hispano mk V (short barrel) cannon and spring tab alierons to improve roll performance.

The Sabre IIA should run at 2,180 hp at +9lbs boost and 2,380 hp at +11 lbs and 3700 rpm.

Speeds seem to be a little confused, based on what I can find at various web-sites and such.

The official may, 1944 aircraft data-sheet for a Sabre IIa engined Tempest V gives 405 mph at 6000 feet and 427 mph at 18,500 feet as top speeds.

However, the listed engine output for this data sheet is 2,180 b.h.p., suggesting that these speeds are for +9 lbs, instead of +1lbs. What this suggests is that this data sheet is for a Series I aircraft (i.e. the first 100 built) rated at +9lbs, not a +11 lbs aircraft. A +11lbs Tempest would have around 200 more hp at 4000 feet and around 400 hp more at 17,000 feet.

The Feburary 1945 data sheet for a Sabre IIb engined Tempest V gives 410 mph at 4,000 feet and 435 mph at 19,000 feet as top speeds. Engine ouput is listed as 2,420 hp.

The Sabre IIb put out a few more horses than the Sabre IIa, so this looks right for a Serise II (short barrleld cannons, spring tabbed alierons) Tempest V at +11lbs.

The January 8, 1944 Hawker tests for a Sabre IIa engined Tempest V at +9lbs give 380 mph at sea-level, 411 at 8000 feet and 435 mph at 18,000 feet. Best rate of climb is about 4200 feet/ minute.

So, at a very minimum the worst performing Tempest V i.e. a serise I aircraft with a Sabre IIa rated at +9lbs, should do 405 mph at 6,600 feet and 427 mph at 18,500 feet, based on RAE data. Based of Hawker data a Tempest V with a Sabre IIa at +9lbs should do 411 mph at 8,000 feet and 435 mph at 18,000 feet.

If we take +11lbs boost (with 150 octane) as standard, then the Tempest V with a Sabre IIa should do around 390 mph at sea level and 435 mph at 15,000 feet. A Sabre IIb engined variant would be just a tiny bit faster, with an extra 40 hp or so (or an extra 1.65% power) over the Sabre IIa.
Good stuff...fills in some details I didn't have from off the top of my head.

I should make one note...I did go into a large amount of research on the spring tab ailerons...I cannot find a single reference, picture, or anything of them actually being installed beyond one test example.

Even post war Tempest II's and VI's appeared to lack the spring tab's. I don't know why as the information about them paints a very solid picture of how beneficial they were...

If you know more than I do...please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lrrp22
11-15-2005, 04:05 PM
Vipez,

I think the Tempest V Series II at +11 lbs boost would have a slight powerloading advantage over a Dora with MW-50 at Sonder-Notleistung.

EDIT: Tempest weight of 10,700 lbs may be too low- tested weights seem to be between 11,200 and 11,400 lbs. Power loading is very close.

Tempest: 10,700 lbs/2420 HP - 4.42 lbs/HP
Tempest: 11,200 lbs/2420 HP - 4.63 lbs/HP
Tempest: 11,400 lbs/2420 HP - 4.71 lbs/HP


Fw 190D-9: 9,480 lbs/2070 HP (2100 PS)- 4.58 lbs/HP

Fw 190D-9: 9,590 lbs/2070 HP (2100 PS)- 4.63 lbs/HP

Should be a good fight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Also, the 640 kph@SL Dora is most likely an estimated speed for a version with a modifed low-altitude supercharger.

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 04:30 PM
supose i should post my bit on the sabre i guess

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 04:47 PM
take a big breath http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8307.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8308.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8309.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8310.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8311.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8312.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8313.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG8345.jpg

its from a book called "the power to fly" i think, which is rather good btw. i dont have any better info about the engines, and i have several books about napier. ones a picture book pretty much, the other is a biography, but the guy didnt do much on the sabre. fixed the oil issues tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Vipez-
11-15-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:


Also, the 640 kph@SL Dora is most likely an estimated speed for a version with a modifed low-altitude supercharger.

640 kmh on sealevel Doras existed, but unlikely LA5FN and LA7 (in 1944 no LA5fn or La7 archieved 580 kmh or 620 kmh in combat conditions like they do now), Oleg simply haved picked these values for best possible combat values, like he did for the Lavochins.. im not complaining though, Dora reaching 640 kmh simply would own other planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry for poor english.. im kinda tired

DIRTY-MAC
11-15-2005, 05:01 PM
Please do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

another thing:

Thanks to its 2,400 h.p. engine it had a considerable margin of excess power and its acceleration was phenomenal. It was pretty tricky to fly, but its performance more than made up for it: at 3,000 feet, at economical cruising on one third power (950 h.p.) with two 45-gallon auxiliary tanks, 310 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of 320 m.p.h.; at fast cruising speed, at half power (1,425 h.p.) without auxiliary tanks, 350 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of nearly 400 m.p.h.; Maximum speed straight and level with + 13 boost and 3,850 revs.: 430 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true airspeed of 440 m.p.h.
<span class="ev_code_RED">In emergencies you could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000 h.p. and 4,000 revs</span>., and the speed went up to 460 m.p.h. In a dive the Tempest was the only aircraft to reach, without interfering with its handling qualities to any marked extent, subsonic speeds, i.e. 550-600 m.p.h.

"Pierre Clostermann"



all we have seen yet here are the max combat HP outputs of the Sabre but not the Emergency output of the engine,
does anyone have anything on this?

lrrp22
11-15-2005, 05:16 PM
Vipez,

If any D-9 did actually reach 640 kph @ SL, it was only in prototype form with an experimental low-altitude engine. 640 kph in no way represents an actual production or staffel-service example.

610 kph at SL represents best estimated performance for Sonder-Notleistung, while tests showed 595 kph for a production example.




Originally posted by Vipez-:

640 kmh on sealevel Doras existed.. im not complaining though, Dora reaching 640 kmh simply would own other planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry for poor english.. im kinda tired

DIRTY-MAC
11-15-2005, 05:17 PM
Thanks P1ngu!

Great stuff!

All others dont forget we are talking TEMPEST here,
not comparing different fighters
so please no Trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 05:28 PM
its hard to find such info dirty mac http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

tempest is one of my favourite aircraft, my others, like yak,spit,bombers,p47,mig,190,il2, and japanease planes are really underwelming ingame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

i also adore teh mossie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. so basicaly "my" aircraft are faited. i dont care much about 109,la7 for example..

p1ngu666
11-15-2005, 05:29 PM
ps, nice cw-21 shot in your sig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DIRTY-MAC
11-15-2005, 06:05 PM
Thanks, those are my favouriter fighters.
the CW-21B,Tempest and also the
Westland Whirlwind.

It strange that there is so little info about the Tempests Emergency performance,
You cant find it anywere on the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
all top speed/climb we have gotten up to now is just the combat power,
and the thing about not using the Sabres full potential in operational use,
I wouldnt be surpriced if it was a Prop issue,
as they did infact change the prop so they could handle more of the Sabres power, as the old ones couldnt.

VW-IceFire
11-15-2005, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Thanks, those are my favouriter fighters.
the CW-21B,Tempest and also the
Westland Whirlwind.

It strange that there is so little info about the Tempests Emergency performance,
You cant find it anywere on the internet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
all top speed/climb we have gotten up to now is just the combat power,
and the thing about not using the Sabres full potential in operational use,
I wouldnt be surpriced if it was a Prop issue,
as they did infact change the prop so they could handle more of the Sabres power, as the old ones couldnt.
Yes the Rotol propeller with a Sabre IIB was a extremely impressive performer.

With the data that I've seen in this thread...I think a 1944 and a 1945 Tempest would definaely be in order.

I am planning a March or April 1945 campaign using the new map and it'd be nice to have the numbers to match. If we don't...we don't and it'll still fly the missions and still do what its meant to do...but it'd be nice to have all the ducks in a row. Everyone else gets to...so why not us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pourshot
11-15-2005, 11:10 PM
From the Hawker Tempest website


"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!"
("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)

Sounds nice and i think it will be a killer B&Z plane

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 12:22 AM
beamont was one of the leading typhoon pilots, iirec he did night intruder operations to prove the typhoons worth. he helped devlop the tempest, a very good pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stathem
11-16-2005, 03:12 AM
The issue of modelling the MkV cannons still worries me...

btw, can someone explain the difference between a Sabre IIa and IIb?

WOLFMondo
11-16-2005, 03:31 AM
Other than there HP output not sure, theres also the IIC which appeared in a few Tempests. Each one puts out about 80HP more than the last and probably has a few revisions. I suspect the IIB could be something as minor as the flight recording gear or locked down mecnhanisms in the pages pingu posted.

When I find the time I'm going to visit the IWM and Hendon to see if theres any info there in there archives. I wonder if BAE systems have anything, since thats what Hawker is now.


Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Please do! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

another thing:

Thanks to its 2,400 h.p. engine it had a considerable margin of excess power and its acceleration was phenomenal. It was pretty tricky to fly, but its performance more than made up for it: at 3,000 feet, at economical cruising on one third power (950 h.p.) with two 45-gallon auxiliary tanks, 310 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of 320 m.p.h.; at fast cruising speed, at half power (1,425 h.p.) without auxiliary tanks, 350 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of nearly 400 m.p.h.; Maximum speed straight and level with + 13 boost and 3,850 revs.: 430 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true airspeed of 440 m.p.h.
<span class="ev_code_RED">In emergencies you could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000 h.p. and 4,000 revs</span>., and the speed went up to 460 m.p.h. In a dive the Tempest was the only aircraft to reach, without interfering with its handling qualities to any marked extent, subsonic speeds, i.e. 550-600 m.p.h.

"Pierre Clostermann"



all we have seen yet here are the max combat HP outputs of the Sabre but not the Emergency output of the engine,
does anyone have anything on this?

Remember that Pierre Closterman for the most best part of his time in Tempests flew the Series II with a Sabre IIC which was more powerful than the more common IIB. He does however refer to overboosting several times but as he says in the front of his book, theres something things he might not have written correctly, recorded correctly or known at the time. He basically admits there could be margin for error.

luftluuver
11-16-2005, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
btw, can someone explain the difference between a Sabre IIa and IIb?

http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/

http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/501-600/walk589_Nap...-Chatwin/walk589.htm (http://s96920072.onlinehome.us/AWA1/501-600/walk589_NapierSabreEngine_Chetwynd-Chatwin/walk589.htm)

http://www.hawkertempest.se/engines.htm

hop2002
11-16-2005, 06:44 AM
The Sabre IIB ran at 11 lbs, 3850 rpm

The instructions for field modifying the Sabre IIa into IIb show a new cam being fitted to the control mechanism to move a pushrod further, a new boost capsule being fitted in the boost control unit, and the RPM control being adjusted to permit 3850 rpm.

The parts list was:

New cockpit data card
Cam for upper control shaft
Washer, tab
Washer, joint
Capsule, boost control, 18 lb

1 Master cam tool required per squadron

Sabre IIb conversions could only be done to engines that had the strengthened propeller reduction gear.

stathem
11-16-2005, 07:14 AM
Thanks all, thanks Hop, that makes sense to me, as someone that's dabbled a bit in engine tuning(pre-EPROMs).

Essentially a new cam profile to give an extra few horsepower and higher revs.

Do we know if the +11lb boost is a "through the gate" setting or normal full throttle boost?

Von_Rat
11-16-2005, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Vipez,

If any D-9 did actually reach 640 kph @ SL, it was only in prototype form with an experimental low-altitude engine. 640 kph in no way represents an actual production or staffel-service example.

610 kph at SL represents best estimated performance for Sonder-Notleistung, while tests showed 595 kph for a production example.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:

640 kmh on sealevel Doras existed.. im not complaining though, Dora reaching 640 kmh simply would own other planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry for poor english.. im kinda tired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


just like the top speeds for other planes in game in no way represents their rl frontline performence. but like viperz said las get the fantasy speeds why shouldnt dora, or for that matter tempest.

lrrp22
11-16-2005, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Vipez,

If any D-9 did actually reach 640 kph @ SL, it was only in prototype form with an experimental low-altitude engine. 640 kph in no way represents an actual production or staffel-service example.

610 kph at SL represents best estimated performance for Sonder-Notleistung, while tests showed 595 kph for a production example.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:

640 kmh on sealevel Doras existed.. im not complaining though, Dora reaching 640 kmh simply would own other planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry for poor english.. im kinda tired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


just like the top speeds for other planes in game in no way represents their rl frontline performence. but like viperz said las get the fantasy speeds why shouldnt dora, or for that matter tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Von_Rat,

You seem to think the 640 kph speed represents optimistic data- it doesn't. It represents an experimental engine that never saw service.

There is a huge difference between optimistic or factory-fresh speeds for production airplanes versus speeds for experimentals.

LRRP

DIRTY-MAC
11-16-2005, 11:55 AM
So with the model in game What series could we get out of it ti implement in the game as flyable exactly

Buzzsaw-
11-16-2005, 02:20 PM
Salute

If we included all the tests of modified aircraft, etc. then we have to include the test of a V1 interceptor Tempest with wing pylons removed, and cleaned up. It did 404 mph, (647 kph) at Sea level. And that was only at 3700 rpm and +11 boost. At 3850 rpm and +13 boost, it would have been considerably faster.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg

Vipez-
11-16-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Vipez,

If any D-9 did actually reach 640 kph @ SL, it was only in prototype form with an experimental low-altitude engine. 640 kph in no way represents an actual production or staffel-service example.

610 kph at SL represents best estimated performance for Sonder-Notleistung, while tests showed 595 kph for a production example.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:

640 kmh on sealevel Doras existed.. im not complaining though, Dora reaching 640 kmh simply would own other planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Sorry for poor english.. im kinda tired </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


just like the top speeds for other planes in game in no way represents their rl frontline performence. but like viperz said las get the fantasy speeds why shouldnt dora, or for that matter tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Von_Rat,

You seem to think the 640 kph speed represents optimistic data- it doesn't. It represents an experimental engine that never saw service.

There is a huge difference between optimistic or factory-fresh speeds for production airplanes versus speeds for experimentals.

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lrrp22, Why is it so hard for you to believe a German plane with 2100hp having so hard time to reach 640 kmh? LA-7 did it with less than 2000hp (in 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor .. "Lader" means "supercharger". "Bodenmotor" means that the engine was configured to provide maximum power at sea level, in this case by using the A-type supercharger. JV44 afaik had few of these planes in their inventory.. Yes, Doras with this "powereggs" probably were extremely rare when comparing to Doras with standard JUMO213 with complete MW50 system:, but they did exist. And after all, Oleg said he allways used the best possible perfomance values to model the planes - hence, we have LA5FN that reaches 580kmh and LA7 reaching >620kmh in 1944.. something that did not happen in 1944.. is it so wrong, if we would have this "special-Dora" ? Something to chew on... (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/d9speed2chart.jpg)

Anyway, i'm not really into seeing more of these late war √ľber planes (Tempest V maybe an exception), sorry for hijacking the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ..

lrrp22
11-16-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Vipez-:


lrrp22, Why is it so hard for you to believe a German plane with 2100hp having so hard time to reach 640 kmh? LA-7 did it with less than 2000hp (in 1945 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor .. "Lader" means "supercharger". "Bodenmotor" means that the engine was configured to provide maximum power at sea level, in this case by using the A-type supercharger. JV44 afaik had few of these planes in their inventory.. Yes, Doras with this "powereggs" probably were extremely rare when comparing to Doras with standard JUMO213 with complete MW50 system:, but they did exist. And after all, Oleg said he allways used the best possible perfomance values to model the planes - hence, we have LA5FN that reaches 580kmh and LA7 reaching >620kmh in 1944.. something that did not happen in 1944.. is it so wrong, if we would have this "special-Dora" ? Something to chew on... (http://www.vermin.net/fw190/d9speed2chart.jpg)

Anyway, i'm not really into seeing more of these late war √ľber planes (Tempest V maybe an exception), sorry for hijacking the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ..


Vipez,

We know what the Dora at 2100 PS was capable of and it's not 640 kph. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the 640 kph figure is based on a proposed special low altitude engine that produced substantially more than 2100 PS?

I know what the A-lader concept was, there is just no proof that it was ever built, let alone introduced to operational service. You state it as a matter of fact that A-lader Doras were produced and saw operational service- please, show me a single shred of evidence that the A-lader Dora was anything but a protoype or proposed variant.

JV44 having A-lader Doras is internet discussion board conjecture based soley on a comment by a JV44 pilot. Apparently, one of the protection flight's Doras (Red 13) was noticably faster than the others. That's it- and that's not proof.

Listen, I'm a big fan of the Fw 190D-9- it was an outstanding fighter both in RL and in this game. That doesn't mean every theoretical or prototype figure scrawled on graph paper should be introduced into this game.


LRRP

p1ngu666
11-16-2005, 02:59 PM
its LF, like a spit VB LF, theres just a single stage, and its been cropped or whatever for low alt, mainly it just reduces drag from the supercharger, so the engine produces the same power BUT power delivered to the prop is higher, hence its faster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

but yes, its based on on 1 dora being abit faster. maybe it was the one put together by paid workers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DIRTY-MAC
11-17-2005, 03:03 AM
Only Tempests please

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Only Tempests please

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif, icefire has haxed dirtymacs account http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WOLFMondo
11-17-2005, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

If we included all the tests of modified aircraft, etc. then we have to include the test of a V1 interceptor Tempest with wing pylons removed, and cleaned up. It did 404 mph, (647 kph) at Sea level. And that was only at 3700 rpm and +11 boost. At 3850 rpm and +13 boost, it would have been considerably faster.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg

The V1 chaser wasn't modified, it was just a standard series I using 150 octane fuel and 11lbs boost. The series II's had the pylons but I suspect they could be removed as they could also attach rocket pylons. The Series II wing was also cleaner due to the fully enclosed Hispano MkV.

Probably best to not post any series I data since the model we have is a series II.

The fastest Tempest was the prototype with the Sabre VA.

Vipez-
11-17-2005, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Listen, I'm a big fan of the Fw 190D-9-
LRRP

Now how come I have failed to see this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



http://personal.inet.fi/cool/tmu/kuvat/tempest_dora.jpg


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
11-17-2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

If we included all the tests of modified aircraft, etc. then we have to include the test of a V1 interceptor Tempest with wing pylons removed, and cleaned up. It did 404 mph, (647 kph) at Sea level. And that was only at 3700 rpm and +11 boost. At 3850 rpm and +13 boost, it would have been considerably faster.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14+25lbs.jpg

The V1 chaser wasn't modified, it was just a standard series I using 150 octane fuel and 11lbs boost. The series II's had the pylons but I suspect they could be removed as they could also attach rocket pylons. The Series II wing was also cleaner due to the fully enclosed Hispano MkV.

Probably best to not post any series I data since the model we have is a series II.

The fastest Tempest was the prototype with the Sabre VA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the bombs had racks, but the droptanks when dropped left the plane clean, there wasnt any racks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lrrp22
11-17-2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Listen, I'm a big fan of the Fw 190D-9-
LRRP

Now how come I have failed to see this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I'm a Dora hater because I don't agree that an experimental variant, which may heve been purely theoretical, should be included in PF? Or is it that I don't agree with your unsupported claim that the A-LAder (Jumo 213R?) D-9 saw operational service? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The fact is that the Dora versions that did see service were fantastic fighters fully the equal of any other late-war prop fighter. Hell, the D-13 variant definitely saw some operational service and it would be better than the A-Lader D-9 at all but the lowest altitudes.


BTW, Everybody knows that Superman would whoop Batman's A$$!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LRRP

DIRTY-MAC
11-17-2005, 01:34 PM
yeah, so leave "batman" out of this thread

Arm_slinger
11-17-2005, 01:54 PM
Knock yourselves out here


http://www.hawkertempest.se/

Pay particular attention to this page
http://www.hawkertempest.se/document.htm

WOLFMondo
11-17-2005, 03:22 PM
It only has info on the Sabre IIA and Tempest Series I. The version of the Sabre info needed is the IIB or IIC.

ivankuturkokoff
11-19-2005, 07:31 PM
Pingu can you give us some more details on the book "The Power to Fly" please.

Author,Publisher,ISBN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
11-19-2005, 09:43 PM
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0043380417/qid.../202-6284903-2240643 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0043380417/qid=1132461782/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/202-6284903-2240643)

Kurfurst__
11-20-2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
Vipez,

If any D-9 did actually reach 640 kph @ SL, it was only in prototype form with an experimental low-altitude engine. 640 kph in no way represents an actual production or staffel-service example.

610 kph at SL represents best estimated performance for Sonder-Notleistung, while tests showed 595 kph for a production example.



... and now the sources for this load of cowpoo, please. I don't really get why you have to act like a 6 year old who just can't bear the possibility that the 'enemy' had good stuff too, and tries to downplay the other site. What next, how superior Mustang wingracks were, ROFLOL (just to those who doesn't get this, there was a discussion on another board, about the drag of gondola weapons. LRRP2 came in and for some reason he felt a sudden need to tell everyone that the Mustang's wing racks were much superior aerodynamically to the gondolas... some can only associate only to one thing).

luftluuver
11-20-2005, 06:35 AM
Hermann in his Dora book, pg 122, says 572kph and 612kph with MW50.

Now this link will send you off the deep end no doubt, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html

The best speed at SL was ~600kph with MW50 and no ETC.

Kurfurst you really should get some really good professional help for your paranoia.

VW-IceFire
11-20-2005, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
So with the model in game What series could we get out of it ti implement in the game as flyable exactly
We could get two versions.

A 1944 version, early Series II with a Sabre IIA engine, Hispano Mark V cannons, and +9lbs of boost.

Then we could have a early 1945 version late Series II with Sabre IIB (but not the rotol propeller as that is not modeled visually), Hispano Mark V cannons, and +11lbs of boost.

I'm personally not too interested in having anything other than what is representative of frontline operational Tempests. The Tempest was a great performer and its performance only increased over time...but some versions were very rare and I'd rather see proper attention to detail on the ones that served in the greatest numbers.

If we're only going to see one modeled then I'd prefer the early 1945 version as that has more use historically...and in terms of the NW Germany map (which is meant to represent the area that Tempests operated in) that would make the most sense.

I would also hope to see the 1945 version have the D-Day stripes removed but retain the painted on roundels (because that is beautiful!).

luftluuver
11-20-2005, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I would also hope to see the 1945 version have the D-Day stripes removed but retain the painted on roundels (because that is beautiful!).

Even in June 1945 some Tempests still had full D-Day stripes. See JF*K, #JN765, #3 Sqd flown by F/O GE Kosh. Most still had partial D-Day stripes still applied. See JF*R, EJ719 of #3 Sqd at Volkel in Jan 45.

VW-IceFire
11-20-2005, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I would also hope to see the 1945 version have the D-Day stripes removed but retain the painted on roundels (because that is beautiful!).

Even in June 1945 some Tempests still had full D-Day stripes. See JF*K, #JN765, #3 Sqd flown by F/O GE Kosh. Most still had partial D-Day stripes still applied. See JF*R, EJ719 of #3 Sqd at Volkel in Jan 45. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Touche...I didn't realize. Interesting information! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DIRTY-MAC
11-21-2005, 06:12 AM
to get the rotol mode what exactly is it you would have to change, besides the props?
how different are the props?
and would it be hard to remodel the excisting
prop to a rotol one?

lrrp22
11-21-2005, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


... and now the sources for this load of cowpoo, please. I don't really get why you have to act like a 6 year old who just can't bear the possibility that the 'enemy' had good stuff too, and tries to downplay the other site. What next, how superior Mustang wingracks were, ROFLOL (just to those who doesn't get this, there was a discussion on another board, about the drag of gondola weapons. LRRP2 came in and for some reason he felt a sudden need to tell everyone that the Mustang's wing racks were much superior aerodynamically to the gondolas... some can only associate only to one thing).


Cuckoo, cuckoo... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
11-21-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
to get the rotol mode what exactly is it you would have to change, besides the props?
how different are the props?
and would it be hard to remodel the excisting
prop to a rotol one?
It wouldn't look all that visually different. There would be a difference but I'm not an expert on prop blades.

Aside from the prop very little changed on the Tempest Mark V Series II design. Most of the changes were internal.

Alex_Voicu
11-23-2005, 12:46 PM
The Rotol prop had different blade tips. The DeHavilland Hydromatic propeller shows up in most images of mk V series II and even mk VI aircraft.
http://alexvoicu.domeniuweb.ro/prop.jpg

p1ngu666
11-23-2005, 04:28 PM
alex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
nice to see you here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
11-28-2005, 02:51 AM
I know this is an oldish thread but I found a quote which may be of interest and help with the modelling.

S/L Evan Mackie, DSO, DFC (RNZAF) of No. 80 Squadron described his encounter with Fw 190Ds that occurred on 7 March 1945.

'The Tempest could not compete with the Hun in a climb, but could outdive them with ease and compare favourably in the turn. One particular combat with a long-nosed FW 190, took place at 3,000 feet on a clear day, uninterrupted by either flak or other aircraft. Using + 11 boost and 3,750 rpm, the Tempest would almost get into a position to fire after about 3 complete turns, when the Hun would throttle back completely and disobey the golden rule of not changing bank, by stall turning the opposite way, thus almost meeting the Tempest head-on or at least at a big angle. Thus the Hun made a very elusive and formidable target, for executing this manoeuvre for the fourth time, he managed to take a big deflection shot at the Tempest as it went steaming past.

The Tempest makes a bigger orbit than the FW 190 but at about 220 mph it completes the actual turn quicker. After each of these stall turns, the chase would start afresh, the Hun making several unsuccessful attempts to dive away. After about 10 minutes of this, a pair of Tempests appeared on the scene and distracted the Hun's attention sufficiently for a short burst to be given which finished him off.'

DIRTY-MAC
11-30-2005, 03:08 AM
Alex
would it be possible to model the Rotol prop?
if its the only thing different between the +11 boosted Tempest and the +13 boosted one?

Alex_Voicu
11-30-2005, 05:25 AM
I can change the blade tips very quickly, but i doubt the Maddox team has time for this.
Anyway, I've never seen any real test flight results for a +13 boost Tempest. Estimated values won't be accepted as reliable performance data.

OldMan___
11-30-2005, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by lrrp22:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lrrp22:
Listen, I'm a big fan of the Fw 190D-9-
LRRP

Now how come I have failed to see this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I'm a Dora hater because I don't agree that an experimental variant, which may heve been purely theoretical, should be included in PF? Or is it that I don't agree with your unsupported claim that the A-LAder (Jumo 213R?) D-9 saw operational service? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The fact is that the Dora versions that did see service were fantastic fighters fully the equal of any other late-war prop fighter. Hell, the D-13 variant definitely saw some operational service and it would be better than the A-Lader D-9 at all but the lowest altitudes.


BTW, Everybody knows that Superman would whoop Batman's A$$!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LRRP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so Read Dark Kinights Return.. Batman kicks Superman A$$..!!!

DIRTY-MAC
11-30-2005, 01:20 PM
Alex could you do it?
I bet the community here can dig something up!
It could never hurt to model it and send it to Oleg? if it isnt that a big job?

luftluuver
11-30-2005, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
I can change the blade tips very quickly, but i doubt the Maddox team has time for this.
Anyway, I've never seen any real test flight results for a +13 boost Tempest. Estimated values won't be accepted as reliable performance data.

1C has done FMs with much less data.

Tempest performance graph ~12lb
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/hawker-12lbs.jpg

ImpStarDuece
11-30-2005, 02:01 PM
+13lbs is was a fairly rare boost setting. In fact, I have read it was only ever used on Tempests that had Sabre IIc engines, which were strenghtened
to allow the use of higher rpms.

Closterman's "Le Grande Charles" was fitted with a IIc engines, and Sabre IIcs were also fitted to overhauled and rebuilt airframes. However, it doesn't appear that the Sabre IIc was standard in any of the production runs.

DIRTY-MAC
12-06-2005, 02:48 AM
Bump!

WOLFMondo
12-06-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
I can change the blade tips very quickly, but i doubt the Maddox team has time for this.
Anyway, I've never seen any real test flight results for a +13 boost Tempest. Estimated values won't be accepted as reliable performance data.

1C has done FMs with much less data.

Tempest performance graph ~12lb
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/hawker-12lbs.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12lbs boost but on a Sabre IIA. From a series I aircraft, not a typical series II with a Sabre IIB. Interesting never the less.

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2006, 11:01 AM
So what boost will be modeled in the upcoming Tempest

Philipscdrw
01-30-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0043380417/qid.../202-6284903-2240643 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0043380417/qid=1132461782/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/202-6284903-2240643)

‚£210?!?!?! I'd love to read that book, it seems very readable for something so technical. But if I had ‚£210 then I'd buy a car with it and look at the engine in that.

(With a car that costs ‚£210 I'll have to spend a lot of time looking at the engine, I think! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

robban75
01-30-2006, 01:09 PM
Man, the Tempest is finally coming! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2006, 04:43 PM
I would really like to know what Boost it will have

lrrp22
01-30-2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
I would really like to know what Boost it will have

+11 lbs, if the v4.02 AI model is any indication.

lbhskier37
01-30-2006, 05:25 PM
I think this plane will be enough to get me to defect. Thing should be like a Dora with more guns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

zunzun
01-30-2006, 05:56 PM
To Icefire, regarding rpg in tempest; a quote from Evan Mackenzie, "Mackie" in the book "Spitfire Leader" talking about gun buttons in the tempest:

"Cannon selector buttons were tried for a time so that either inboard or outboard cannos could be uses independently. This, however, did not prove to be any decided advantage, as a short well-aimed burst will 4 cannons was prefered. As a rule each aircraft <span class="ev_code_GREEN">carrying 130 rounds</span> per gun was able to make 6 to 8 attacks"

Tooz_69GIAP
01-30-2006, 08:22 PM
So, has the AI Tempest been improved at all in the last patch? Or is there any indication that Oleg has been provided with sufficient data on the Tempest to give it an accurate flight model and performance?

ImpStarDuece
01-30-2006, 08:24 PM
The official RAF data sheets for the Tempest V list 150 rpg for the Hispanos.

VW-IceFire
01-30-2006, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by zunzun:
To Icefire, regarding rpg in tempest; a quote from Evan Mackenzie, "Mackie" in the book "Spitfire Leader" talking about gun buttons in the tempest:

"Cannon selector buttons were tried for a time so that either inboard or outboard cannos could be uses independently. This, however, did not prove to be any decided advantage, as a short well-aimed burst will 4 cannons was prefered. As a rule each aircraft <span class="ev_code_GREEN">carrying 130 rounds</span> per gun was able to make 6 to 8 attacks"
Interesting...that sounds like the ammo capacity of the Typhoon and not the Tempest.

Pierre Closterman mentions 200rpg and official RAF reports indicate that in at least one sortie he fired 182 and 183 cannon shells from his two inboard guns. Other official RAF armament reports indicate a standard fitting of 150. But 130 seems very low and more like a Typhoon. I wonder if the pilot got confused...this did happen quite a bit. Honestly they were more concerned with living and I don't blame them.

ImpStarDuece
01-30-2006, 10:21 PM
@ Icefire

A Typhoon should have around 140 rounds per gun, as stated in the RAF June, 1944 data sheet for it, at spitfireperformance.com

A couple of Typhoon sources I have state it had 145 or 150 rpg, but was typically underloaded to 140 rpg to prevent cannon jamming.

Maybe this is the same for the Tempest? While it may be indeed capable of carring 185-200 rpg, it is possible that it was only loaded to 150 rpg to cut down on potential cannon feed problems?

The other option is that the Serise I aircraft, with the slightly bulkier Hispano Mk II were limited to 150 rpg, while the Serise II aircraft expanded their ammunition capacity because of the Mk V Hispano they were fitted with.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 01:09 AM
Trouble with some Tempest information, its rather unclear if its talking about the series I or the series II. On the surface there very similar, underneath, there is a lot of differences.

Theres no testing data on 13lbs boost for one thing but it was clearly used, much like 200 rpg.

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2006, 05:24 AM
And every performance info you find is just
on max combat power of the engines, not on their emergency power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The-Pizza-Man
01-31-2006, 05:52 AM
Are we getting a series I or II aircraft?

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 06:01 AM
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

Its all there. Just be sure not to mix up Series I Tempests running a Sabre IIA and Series II Tempests running Sabre IIB's.

Its pretty clear about the Series II/Sabre IIB performance at 11lbs boost though

"The RAE estimated 398 mph at sea level for JN.763 at +11 lbs. RAE further concluded that had JN.763's poor paintwork on the wing leading edges been cleaned up, sea level speed would increase to 404 mph."

JN 763 had the Series I engine but the Series II guns meaning flush ports. So around 80HP and 150 revs less than a IIB but the same wing.

Then there is:
"Performance using +11 lbs. 3,850 rpm or the subsequently approved +13 lbs, 3,850 rpm is not reflected in the chart above. The Sabre IIB produced 2,420 bhp at SL using +11 lbs 3,850 rpm."

Its pretty clear using the various data to model a Tempest V Series II running a Sabre IIB at 11lbs boost. However, what ever we get will be incredibly fast, will out dive, out zoom climb and out run anything apart from a Jet below 20,000ft.

Its overboosting which is the odd issue as is 13lbs boost. If you can find data on the 13lbs boost its certainly backed up by pilot accounts that it was used on machines with Rotol props.

We always knew it would be the fastest but I'm more interested in its roll rate and how stable it is to fly. Either way, I'll trade in my Dora for at least a while to fly this.

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 08:46 AM
it should be very stable, they doubled the size of the rudder compaired to the tiffies. also finding out what power the sabre kicked out is hard, aprently it was labeled as less than it was actully kicking out.

napier engines where odd, complex, mind bending, effiecent, and very powerful

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 08:56 AM
I just hope it won't be overmodelled because of the pressure of so many people on this forum coming from the same countries and lobbying real strongly , it's the first thing that struck me when i arrived here on this board .

Historically , Tempest were easy preys for German pilots on Western front , same as P-38 .

It's a very fast plane , yes , but i hope Oleg , will model it with the most historical accuracy as possible , it was very heavy , bad roll rate , pretty bad climb rate and not good for free-hunting except at high altitude from what i've read .

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:

Historically , Tempest were easy preys for German pilots on Western front , same as P-38 .


Dunno what history books your reading but almost all Tempest losses were due to flak and no enemy A/C. Check the actual loss rates yourself. You'll notice HBF next to almost all Tempest losses.


Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:

It's a very fast plane , yes , but i hope Oleg , will model it with the most historical accuracy as possible , it was very heavy , bad roll rate , pretty bad climb rate and not good for free-hunting except at high altitude from what i've read .

Its roll rate was geared for high speed, better than the Spitfires, not quite as good as the 190 but it gets better as it gets faster. It weighs 9000lbs empty, 11000lbs full. It was heavy compared with an early war fighter but not compared to its peers, especially considering its peers never had an engine that could pump out 2400HP.

Its climb was about the same as a P51D but its dive and zoom climb far exceeded anything in the allied inventory according to the combat tests and I don't know what you've been reading but please throw it away, it was not a high altitude plane, its power fades out around 20,000ft. Its the perfect hunter as it can disengage and re engage much easier than other aircraft.

luftluuver
01-31-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Historically , Tempest were easy preys for German pilots on Western front , same as P-38 .

It's a very fast plane , yes , but i hope Oleg , will model it with the most historical accuracy as possible , it was very heavy , bad roll rate , pretty bad climb rate and not good for free-hunting except at high altitude from what i've read .

Sure what ever you say but of the 241 Tempests lost only 20-25 were lost to LW a/c. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif This from a quick look through the Tempest loss list.

Btw, the Tempest was clazzed as a low/medium altitude fighter.

edit: because of Ubi does not like the letters a s s.

BigKahuna_GS
01-31-2006, 09:26 AM
S!



Marcel_Albert--Historically , Tempest were easy preys for German pilots on Western front , same as P-38 .



You couldn't be more wrong--concerning both planes.

The P38J-25/P38L had the best high speed roll rate of any WW2 prop fighter, manuevering flaps, dive recovery flaps and asymetrical engine operation that increased roll rate and turn ability. Because the P38 had no torque roll, application of full power from high AoA could be applied that would cause any other fighter to torque stall and spin. Ask Adolph Galland as a P38 shot him up and nearly killed him in a manuevering fight on the deck while he was flying a 190D9.

The Tempest had incredible speed, power and performance that surp***ed german prop fighter specs at low to mid altitudes.


__

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 09:26 AM
Then read Pierre Clostermann book ... he actually flew it , le "Grand Charles" , he was one of the top scorers of the RAF .

There's one time where he encounters the famous German ace Dortenmann , who murdered in front of his eyes two of his wingmen with his dora , They could do nothing , not enough accel , climb rate or not as good in vertical manoeuvres ...

Tempest was an easy prey at low alt for German FW-190 , had a poor climb rate against BF-109 , couldn't follow them in climb ...

His roll rate was bad , at low to normal speed ( = Combat speed ...) , of course in a dive Tempest had a good rollrate ...

His maximum speed was around 6000-8000 meters .... that's high altitude for me , everything above 6500 m is high alt actually .

Note that i don't question your books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 09:34 AM
I expect most people have read the Big Show. Its quite a famous book by any standard.

Go read about the Tempest trails and the combat trials before you start trolling away with disinformation. Might also help if you bothered to read 2nd TAF combat records too because you clearly don't have much of an idea of what your talking about.

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
You couldn't be more wrong--concerning both planes.

The P38J-25/P38L had the best high speed roll rate of any WW2 prop fighter

I Never said it had a bad roll rate at high speed , i said overall , it had a bad roll rate which is true , which means low to medium speed , actually it means Combat speed which is different from ideal horizontal flight maximum speed or dive speed ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

P-38 suffered high losses against german fighters , it was great in the Pacific , not a good plane in the ETO .

Galland was shot down by a P-47 D , not by a P-38 ...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In overwhelming numerical inferiority , just like most of the German pilots from 1944 ....



Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!
Tempest had incredible speed, power and performance that surp***ed german prop fighter specs at low to mid altitudes.
__

No , it didn't , sorry but i disagree with this , i fly VVS planes , so i don't care really , but what i've read contradict this , in combat speed Tempest were not superior to German FW or BF i late 44 , not in acceleration , not in climb , not in anything except ideal maximum speed which was rarely attained . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The same is true for example when you compare Airacobra with BF109 G :

Bf wasn't superior to Airacobra in combat speed , in the sim yes , for the Russian pilots , No , and i trust them , they survived like Golodnikov http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bf was superior (faster) in ideal conditions level flight speed at all altitudes , but you never fight at these speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
01-31-2006, 09:44 AM
What ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The Tempests claimed 240 LW a/c of which 80 were 109s, 115 were 190s, 7 were 262s and 3 were 234s.

Be sure, the Tempest was easy prey with a ratio of ~8:1 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in favour</span> of the Tempest.

for your education, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
What ever. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

The Tempests claimed 240 LW a/c of which 80 were 109s, 115 were 190s, 7 were 262s and 3 were 234s.

Be sure, the Tempest was easy prey with a ratio of ~8:1 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in favour</span> of the Tempest.

for your education, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

Atmosphere on this forum isn't really what we call friendly , anyway thanks for caring about my educationa and displaying your modesty ...

Now , do you believe these figures ? i don't , many of these victories were not confirmed .

Now do you know the Finish Air force ratio of Brewster ? 24/1 ...

Do you conclude that the brewster was a better plane than the Russian 1941 planes ? not at all .


German pilots in 1944 were for the majority not experienced ... some with less than 50 hours of flight ... When the USAAF can make 12.000 sorties from June 1944 , the Luftwaffe can make 900 ....

Now think about the numerical inferiority of the Germans , it was far more than 8/1 , sometimes it was 20/1 ...


Tempest is a great plane , very fast , but it had his drawbacks and weakpoints , like any plane , that's what i wanted to say , i hope Oleg model with realistic values and figures , and not upon ideal and myths surrounding it .

Regards ,

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 09:58 AM
Ideals and myths? Your making a few myths up yourself.

Its a freindly forum, as long as you start out freindly and don't post a whole heap of BS.


Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
No , it didn't , sorry but i disagree with this , i fly VVS planes , so i don't care really , but what i've read contradict this , in combat speed Tempest were not superior to German FW or BF i late 44 , not in acceleration , not in climb , not in anything except ideal maximum speed which was rarely attained . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


What did you read? Was it written by Kurfurst? :P

zunzun
01-31-2006, 10:07 AM
Albert, you clearly forgot to mention when Closterman catch and shot down a Dora after easily outrunning a group of his friends. Not that bad for a an easyprey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Another quote regarding rolling:

From Bob Beamont:
"In this near vertical dive we were already down through 7000ft and I was catching when I fired a short burst at my target from about 300yds. Hists and smoke from his wing roots were seen at once and the 190 nosed over to beyond the vertical. <span class="ev_code_RED">At well over 500mph indicated I rolled easily cleraring to the right</span> , and pulld up hard , as the fields and trees now seen through the scattered cloud rushing up from below........"

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Ideals and myths? Your making a few myths up yourself.

Its a freindly forum, as long as you start out freindly and don't post a whole heap of BS.

What did you read? Was it written by Kurfurst? :P

No by someone who actually flew the plane , and had no interest in saying the opposite .

Whos' Kurfurst ?

The word Bull**** is offensive , i wouldn't insult someone if he doesn't think like me ...

I won't lose more time discussing with you , fair enough we don't agree .... notice that i answered your arguments , you insulted me , my book , and answered only two words of my post .

I'm off this thread , next time i'll be less polite ...

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by zunzun:
Albert, you clearly forgot to mention when Closterman catch and shot down a Dora after easily outrunning a group of his friends. Not that bad for a an easyprey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Another quote regarding rolling:

From Bob Beamont:
"In this near vertical dive we were already down through 7000ft and I was catching when I fired a short burst at my target from about 300yds. Hists and smoke from his wing roots were seen at once and the 190 nosed over to beyond the vertical. <span class="ev_code_RED">At well over 500mph indicated I rolled easily cleraring to the right</span> , and pulld up hard , as the fields and trees now seen through the scattered cloud rushing up from below........"

Yes it's true mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

His friend even catched a V1 with his Tempest on night , he had the idea of catching them at night , because of the light that the V1 was emitting at night , it was easily spotted http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tempest was an extremely fast plane in level flight when you had the time to attain your maximum speed , to achieve this and destroy the V1 , he was in shallow dive as he said in the interview .

But in dogfighting and combat speed , i still think it wasn't superior to most of Allied or Axis top performers (Late P-51 , late Fw , Bf etc..) , anyway i think so , Tempest had its drawback like any plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Brain32
01-31-2006, 10:17 AM
Hehe, I will see will it be so popular when people finally figure out that it's not another deck - merry go around - turner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Yes it had it's draw backs but all in all it should be an equal match for the Doras, not worse, not better.
I just can't wait to fly it, I'll fly it even if it will suck(but in no way it should, except maybe for the turn-mad guys).

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 10:23 AM
it should be very potent.

heck theres lots of curious opinons about. one of my mates thinks the mossie was useless, and easy meat for any lw aircraft, and was "religated" to target marking.

tempest is opposite of russian planes in alot of ways, especialy the engine.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

heck theres lots of curious opinons about. one of my mates thinks the mossie was useless, and easy meat for any lw aircraft, and was "religated" to target marking.

He is wrong and that needs a big capitalised BE SURE! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

tempest is opposite of russian planes in alot of ways, especialy the engine.

Exactly. Its completely foreign to the VVS. It has range, high speed controls, its made from metal, it looks cool, it doesn't break up at 400mph, it has plenty of ammunition, can carry decent rockets and big bombs.

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Exactly. Its completely foreign to the VVS. It has range, high speed controls, its made from metal, it looks cool, it doesn't break up at 400mph, it has plenty of ammunition, can carry decent rockets and big bombs.

Obviously , it's hard to compare it , the Russians didn'thave the same need as the RAF ,and VVS planes were beautiful , take the Yak-3/9/9U (9U was in metal ) , the Sturmovik (was in metal ) , the Lavochkins , they are beautiful planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The VVS had specialized planes , if they wanted they could build planes like P-47 , P-51 , Tempest etc...

Take the IL-10 for instance , this plane was amazing , you can't beat it for ground attack and it was very fast ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Moreover , VVS planes were easy to build , they could build approx three Yak when the British were building one Spitfire , it's useful in a war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's hard to compare Brit or US planes with the Russians , these countries didn't have the war on their soil or took part Mas.sively in it when it was virtually over (D Day) , they didn't have to rebuild their industry (war machine)during the conflict like the Russian had to nor weren't in the need to fight more than 80% of the German army on their soil and actually defeat them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For example in the end of the war , the famous Russian Ace Legend Kozhedub downed alone two P-51 Mustang that mistook him for a Fw-190 around Berlin , Russian planes were very competent , they just built planes for their immediate needs which excluded high altitude planes , Sturmovik had very good range, Yak-9D too, Lavochkins had 1000 km autonomy without fuel tanks , they didn't need more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

After the war , when the USSR could take a breath , they built superb planes , the Mig-15 in Korea for example , that outcla.ssed any Western plane including jets , it was the plane with the highest ceiling , climb, manoeuvrability , and could even carry more bombs than its competitors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry for Off topic though , but many people under-estimate Russian Aviation and planes ,it was a great Air force , very efficient http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
01-31-2006, 11:22 AM
Tempest should be flown similar to FW-190, low-mid alt, fast, good dive, crappy turn and not so impressive climb.

What will probably disappoint most clueless Tempest fans (if it's modelled correctly) is poor manuverability in horizontal. I believe it's zoom climb won't be anything special, no reason to be.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 12:54 PM
In that case Anarchy you need to read the performance trials too :P. Zoom climb was its speciality. Very aerodynamic, m***ive engine.

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2006, 01:31 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Then read Pierre Clostermann book ... he actually flew it , le "Grand Charles" , he was one of the top scorers of the RAF .

There's one time where he encounters the famous German ace Dortenmann , who murdered in front of his eyes two of his wingmen with his dora , They could do nothing , not enough accel , climb rate or not as good in vertical manoeuvres ...

I have the book, but not with this outake in it from above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif???

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 02:01 PM
This really happened Dirty Mac, it is documented , he says it in his interview as well .

He also had to belly land with his Tempest in April 1945 , being shot by the same Hans Dortenmann who was flying a Dora

Tooz_69GIAP
01-31-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Then read Pierre Clostermann book ... he actually flew it , le "Grand Charles" , he was one of the top scorers of the RAF .

There's one time where he encounters the famous German ace Dortenmann , who murdered in front of his eyes two of his wingmen with his dora , They could do nothing , not enough accel , climb rate or not as good in vertical manoeuvres ...

I have the book, but not with this outake in it from above http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif???

Depending on what publication you have, there have been many abbridged versions of The Big Show. In fact, the very first edition had to be edited and trimmed to save on paper!!!

There was a new publication in 2003 or 2004, with a new introduction by Mr Clostermann, and there was also included before unpublsihed material in the book. I would recommend getting the newer version, as the fuller story makes it even more readable.

And the story of Clostermann chasing and catching a 190, while out pacing around 4 or 5 other 190s trying to protect their squad mate, and then shooting him down, is in this newer edition.

VW-IceFire
01-31-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Tempest should be flown similar to FW-190, low-mid alt, fast, good dive, crappy turn and not so impressive climb.

What will probably disappoint most clueless Tempest fans (if it's modelled correctly) is poor manuverability in horizontal. I believe it's zoom climb won't be anything special, no reason to be.
I think what will bite most unsuspecting Tempest pilots is not that the horizontal manueverability is only average but that the initial turn is likely to be excellent and then the speed will bleed quickly after that. The bigger wings and lower wing loading than the FW190 mean that there is some turn advantage to be had with the Tempest...but it will run out and then you'll be slow and helpless.

You are right...to be used like a FW190. High speed slashing attacks leveraging high speed manueverability and firepower against a more manueverable fighter. Probably not going to replace La-7 or Yak-3 pilots...probably not even the average Spitfire fare. This will be more in the realm of the P-47, FW190, P-38, range.

Zoom climb in the Tempest was one of the best of the war. Combining very low drag with m***ive engine power and a fair amount of weight. The Tempest was far superior than the Spitfire in zoom climb. Definately in the FW190 range.

While climb in the Tempest was not exceptional dive and zoom climb were. Roll and turn were not fantastic but also not horrible either.

VW-IceFire
01-31-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
Then read Pierre Clostermann book ... he actually flew it , le "Grand Charles" , he was one of the top scorers of the RAF .

There's one time where he encounters the famous German ace Dortenmann , who murdered in front of his eyes two of his wingmen with his dora , They could do nothing , not enough accel , climb rate or not as good in vertical manoeuvres ...

Tempest was an easy prey at low alt for German FW-190 , had a poor climb rate against BF-109 , couldn't follow them in climb ...

His roll rate was bad , at low to normal speed ( = Combat speed ...) , of course in a dive Tempest had a good rollrate ...

His maximum speed was around 6000-8000 meters .... that's high altitude for me , everything above 6500 m is high alt actually .

Note that i don't question your books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I don't seem to remember this bit like you do. Could you find me the chapter or the page numbers where this happens? I have the new hardcover edition which is unabridged.

Closterman got into several tense fights but never did it appear that the Tempests performance prevented things from going his way. The situation was much more important...bounced by fighters from above...surprised by fighters...bad weather...flak, etc.

You could be in a FW190 and if you were bounced from above by a Gladiator you could be shot down too...in real air combat it seems that situation has alot to do with it and you may not be lucky every time...even if you are in a vastly superior fighter.

Marcel_Albert
01-31-2006, 03:40 PM
Yes you are right Icefire , they were above him when he describes the engagement where he lost two wingers in one pa.ss , he says it clearly in his interview that was showed on TV , with his friends of the RAF testifying .

In the book he talks about his encounter with Dortenmann ,he was in the Tempest , Hans Dortenmann had a Dora , Clostermann was defeated and had to belly-land .

But he also scored many victories in the Tempest with his squadron , and he had only but praises about this plane , made it live again to us through his books and accounts , it was his favourite plane of the war .

However and i'm entitled to my opinion , about the climb rate , a Dora should outclimb the Tempest , and it also should outaccelerate it because of a better weight/power ratio IMO .
The Tempest was really heavy , about 4200+ kg empty ..

I'm delighted that this plane will be in the sim , i just hope that it's not going to be like the Spitfire when it came out at first in IL-2FB , and that had to bo toned down afterwards cause it was too much overmodelled ,i just hope it will be a realistic Tempest , very fast plane , competitive , but not the ultimate stuff that would outrace , outroll , outdive , outturn , outclimb everyone , for realism's sake , as it was surely not the case in real life , that's all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2006, 04:29 PM
It will be nothing like a Spit, I think it will be like an allied Fw190A9 but with a lesser rollrate, but much faster....
shouldn‚¬īt the acceleration be like the 190Ds or even better
someone posted some stuff about it somewere here, but i cant find it now,
can anyone help me?
the one that compared the powerloading of 190D vs Tempest + it said something about the sabre and the Tempests cruising speed to, Im to tired to find it at the moment, got to go to bed...

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 04:45 PM
id haveto agree with marcel, but remmber, migs where pretty too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. well, sexy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the real cleverness in russian design isnt always obivous, its in the simplicity, the materials. making best use of whats avalible.

russia made the biggest industrial migration ever, then with less manufacture potential they where quickly outproducing the germans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

tempest has some weaknesses, but i think itll be "better" than the p51 MKIII because its got 4 cannon instead of 4 mg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

weaknesses make for good gaming too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 04:48 PM
the roll rate should be "suffiecent"

problem with making comparisons is what power do u use for the sabre? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-31-2006, 05:15 PM
+11 boost is the Tempest we probably will get
and the Sabre IIb?

ImpStarDuece
01-31-2006, 07:02 PM
Hopefully, we'll get the full 2,400 hp +11 lbs boost Sabre IIA/B version, as the Tempest V in game seems to be a Series II.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-31-2006, 08:12 PM
IceFire posted, back on page 1:

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post all of my sources.

What... the ... f*** is THAT??? You can't list the source of your data? Why??? WHO is telling you you can't? How can we tell you just didn't pull it out of your wazoo, then???

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

VW-IceFire
01-31-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
IceFire posted, back on page 1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post all of my sources.

What... the ... f*** is THAT??? You can't list the source of your data? Why??? WHO is telling you you can't? How can we tell you just didn't pull it out of your wazoo, then???

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Err....

I was sent some information in good confidence because I was a huge fan. I'm not sure if it was ok to post it or not and therefore I am airing on the side of caution rather than nilly willy posting everything.

Besides, this is all very much a moot point now as this site has recently posted the same and now even more than I have: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html

They now have a ton of official RAF documents, graphs, charts, and all that good stuff. Its the same and more than what I have. My stuff only really covers the early Sabre IIA stuff which operated for a short period in spring 1944 and really had no serious impact on anything in the war. What we should be modeling is a Tempest from the timeperiod of September 44 through March 45. Something in there would be good...so that we're not getting the prototype V-1 chasers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The-Pizza-Man
01-31-2006, 09:52 PM
I think you might be suprised by the Tempest, it isn't a bad turner despite it's size.

From comparitive trials with a Bf-109G-2

Turning Circle: It was found that in this aspect of maneuverability the Tempest was slightly superior to the Me 109.
Rate of Role: At speeds below 350 IAS [mph indicated , 564 km/h] there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft, but when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-maneuver the Me 109 by making a quick change of bank and direction.

The conclusion of the trials was that the Tempest can always follow the Me 109 except in a slow steep climb and in defence can do anything but attempt to climb at slow speed. Even though it is against a G-2 not a G-6, G-10 or K-4 the rate of roll and turning circles of the G-2 can be no worse if not better than later model messers.

pourshot
01-31-2006, 09:52 PM
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!"

("My part of the sky", Roland Beamont)


Sounds like it zoom climbs just fine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
01-31-2006, 10:31 PM
Sorry I broke out in a rash there, IceFire...

but data on WWII era planes isn't even cl***ified anymore, there is absolutely NO excuse or reason why it can't be shared and aired.

I have an allergic reaction to that kind of statement, because it's one of the handy-dandy excuses Oleg uses to "edit" his flight models. Hard to disagree with someone's data when YOU are the only one showing his cards.

pourshot
01-31-2006, 10:54 PM
After looking at the reports here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html) I think the Tempest will be very bad news for the Axis, no more being out dived and out run by run90's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think many 190 experts will defect to the Allied side soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hristo_
01-31-2006, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by pourshot:
After looking at the reports here (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/tempest/temptest.html) I think the Tempest will be very bad news for the Axis, no more being out dived and out run by run90's http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think many 190 experts will defect to the Allied side soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Or fly this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.chicagocentennialofflight.org/images/images_aircraft/Messerschmitt_Lufthansa.jpg

It was, afterall, one of Tempest's main adversaries.

crazyivan1970
02-01-2006, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

I have an allergic reaction to that kind of statement, because it's one of the handy-dandy excuses Oleg uses to "edit" his flight models. Hard to disagree with someone's data when YOU are the only one showing his cards.

If you have a allergic reaction see the doctor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Apparently you dont really know some of the rules on information exchange. BTW, how`s Targetware doing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
02-01-2006, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
I think you might be suprised by the Tempest, it isn't a bad turner despite it's size.

From comparitive trials with a Bf-109G-2
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turning Circle: It was found that in this aspect of maneuverability the Tempest was slightly superior to the Me 109.
Rate of Role: At speeds below 350 IAS [mph indicated , 564 km/h] there is practically nothing to choose between the two aircraft, but when this speed is exceeded the Tempest can out-maneuver the Me 109 by making a quick change of bank and direction.

The conclusion of the trials was that the Tempest can always follow the Me 109 except in a slow steep climb and in defence can do anything but attempt to climb at slow speed. Even though it is against a G-2 not a G-6, G-10 or K-4 the rate of roll and turning circles of the G-2 can be no worse if not better than later model messers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that trial the G2 had gun pods.

It can turn and can stall fight with 190's and 109's but it was inherantly dangerous because the Tempest was difficult to fly at low speeds. To fly it you needed one combat tour on Spitfires or Typhoons first. Not many other aircraft demanded a requirement like this. It also had NO stall warning. It was dangerous at low speeds because of this. When you read about someone turning in a Tempest remember these guys were the cream of the crop of RAF pilots, some with 4 or 5 years of combat experiance in a variety of aircraft.

luftluuver
02-01-2006, 03:32 AM
In that trial the G2 had gun pods.
You sure about that? I thought it was a G-6 with gondolas.

The-Pizza-Man
02-01-2006, 04:07 AM
I wouldn't be suprised if the 109 did have 20mm gondolas but it still shows that the Tempest was no slouch when it came to maneuverability.

Another thing I'd like to know is whether or not the Tempest we get will have early production or later production ailerons.

p1ngu666
02-01-2006, 04:18 AM
its hard to find stuff on napier now, they had merger after merger and basicaly disapeared.. funny enuff they make turbo chargers now.

i bought all the books i could find on napier, and there not much help with the sabre http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WOLFMondo
02-01-2006, 04:28 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that trial the G2 had gun pods.
You sure about that? I thought it was a G-6 with gondolas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was one or the other but either way it had pods/gondolas which does screw up the 109's turn a bit. That can't be ignored.

stathem
02-01-2006, 04:37 AM
I know this has been posted before, but, as a reminder, IIRC Clostermann said they could out-turn 109s above, what was it, 300mph?, but not to turn with them at slow speeds.

That makes sense, I wouldn't turn with a 109 at slow speeds in a Spitfire, currently.

DIRTY-MAC
02-01-2006, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
I know this has been posted before, but, as a reminder, IIRC Clostermann said they could out-turn 109s above, what was it, 300mph?, but not to turn with them at slow speeds.

That makes sense, I wouldn't turn with a 109 at slow speeds in a Spitfire, currently.

that should be correct, this is a high speed fighter thats for chure, getting in slow turning fight in this should get you killed

Stigler_9_JG52
02-01-2006, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:

I have an allergic reaction to that kind of statement, because it's one of the handy-dandy excuses Oleg uses to "edit" his flight models. Hard to disagree with someone's data when YOU are the only one showing his cards.

If you have a allergic reaction see the doctor. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Apparently you dont really know some of the rules on information exchange. BTW, how`s Targetware doing? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's doing well; quite well. Some British squad from Warbirds has defected over and is having a go at ultimately creating a Battle of Britain mod... I've just torn the wrappings off a Phillipines / Dutch East Indies mod which should appear very shortly, if I can get over a few little terrain glitches....it's all good!

As to the "rules" for info exchange, exactly what are they? The overwhelming majority of data in this field is declassified government records. Public domain. Freely exchangable. And, even if there is some kind of 'ownership' issue, one can at least cite their source. Otherwise, the info is meaningless. I can sit here and say "I've got proof that a 109E had rocket powered boost like a Me262, back in 1940!!" til I'm blue in the face, and say "I have a super-secret source I can't reveal", and that passes for gospel in here?

Small wonder the flight models are of such suspect quality.

Aaron_GT
02-01-2006, 09:07 AM
Some British squad from Warbirds has defected over and is having a go at ultimately creating a Battle of Britain mod.

Duxford wing, isn't it?

Aaron_GT
02-01-2006, 02:03 PM
So in 4.03 - do we get +9 (incorrect for service aircraft - effectively a Typhoon) or +11 boost and performance?

Stigler_9_JG52
02-01-2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some British squad from Warbirds has defected over and is having a go at ultimately creating a Battle of Britain mod.

Duxford wing, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right said, mate.

Buzzsaw-
02-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Salute

The test 109 used versus the Tempest was a 109G2 Trop, Werk. No. 10639, captured in North Africa. It had been slightly damaged in combat with P-40's, and then with the speed of the British advance, abandoned. It was captured at Gambut Airfield by Australians, and taken into the possession of the RAF. It was transferred to Lincolnshire in England under the control of ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT 1426, and renumbered as RN228.

It DID NOT have gunpods. It was a clean config model.

This same aircraft has survived and is now on static display in Britain as 'Black Six'.

Previous to being relegated to static display, it had flown regularly, until a crash in 1997. After the crash it was rebuilt.

Some shots of it in flight and on an airfield:

http://www.taphilo.com/photo/pictures/bf109/BF-109G2-flyby.jpg

http://www.taphilo.com/photo/pictures/bf109/BF-109-G2-Trop-01.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-01-2006, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Sorry I broke out in a rash there, IceFire...

but data on WWII era planes isn't even cl***ified anymore, there is absolutely NO excuse or reason why it can't be shared and aired.

I have an allergic reaction to that kind of statement, because it's one of the handy-dandy excuses Oleg uses to "edit" his flight models. Hard to disagree with someone's data when YOU are the only one showing his cards.
Its my training in the information industry and communications as well as my limited work in covering and doing work for gaming companies that have tailored my feelings over information exchange. In a perfect world it just wouldn't matter...but when someone gives me something in private confidence I don't like to just turn around, even if it is a few years later, and hand it out. My instinct is to ask...or wait...or sit on my hands till I know what I can do.

I understand your position. Secret FM documents of bygone eras do sort of bother me and if there is better information on Russian aircraft I'd love to see it myself as well...not that I'd understand much of it but it'd be interesting to hear about and see analyzed. That said...if Oleg got that information in good confidence then I understand. I don't agree...but I understand.

And again, as I've said...my points are all now completely moot as Spitfire performance has posted all and more than I ever had.

HarryMann
11-28-2007, 04:20 PM
Long time - no posts ?

No gamer, but an interest in the Napier Sabre

Question posted above, did any Tempest V's actually have spring tab ailerons?

Answer: Yes, as of January 1945, the first received in this configuration at Boscombe.

Result: Much improved roll-rates above 250mph

(Tempest pilots were often warned not to be caught cruising about in enemy territory below 300 mph; from then on aircarft acceleration was more than adequate, some pilots said phenomenal, depending on their perspective and experience I suppose)

The Sabre: The first type tested aero-engine above 2,000 HP - anywhere in the world. 1940.

Suffered from the calamities of war, as well as the culumnies of humans!