PDA

View Full Version : Tempest performance data



HamishUK
06-16-2005, 09:26 AM
Let's roll this over to oleg!

Anyone got 1c's email addy?

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

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


INTRODUCTION

1. According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).


BRIEF DISCRIPTION

3. In its present form, the Tempest V is a low and medium altitude short-range fighter, armed with 4 x 20 m.m. cannon in the wings. It is fitted with a Napier Sabre II engine of approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB). As yet no provison has been made for the carrying of long range tanks, bombs, or R/P. In appearence it is very similar to the latest Typhoon IB except that it has a 4-bladed propeller, much thinner wings, and larger tail surfaces.


THE COCKPIT

4. The cockpit is very similar to the Typhoon. For this reaason, and because the Tempest is easier to fly, a Typhoon pilot will take to the Tempest from the moment he is airborne.

Fuel *****
5. In the Tempest the fuel ***** are different. There are three tanks - nose, main, and interspar, any of which may be selected. The main tank should be the last to be emptied, as the bottom of the tank is funnel shaped to enable the last drop to be consumed. At present there is no nose tank fitted.

Undercarriage Position Instrument
6. This is the same as that on the Typhoon, with the exception that the red lights do not go out until the undercarriage doors have locked shut, in addition to the wheel being locked up.


FLYING CHARCTERISTICS

7. The Typhoon belonging to this Unit had the "prison bar" type of cockpit. This made the Tempest seem much easier to land and take-off. In the air, the engine of the Tempest is very smooth, considerably increasing the pilots confidence. The effect of all the flying controls is far more positve, making the Tempest as delightful to fly as its smaller contemporaries, and much more pleasant than the Typhoon. It feels more solid and easier to control than most aircraft at speeds over 400 I.A.S.
(a) The rudder is more effective in preventing skid than that of the Typhoon, although it is still heavy. Less change of trim is necessary with change of speed, but considerable change of trim is still necessary with change of engine settings.

(b) The ailerons are heavier, but more positve and effective than the Typhoon, especially at high speeds. Later models of the Tempest are to have considerably lighter ailerons.

(c) The elevators are heavy also, but a great relief from the Typhoon, as they are quite positive and there is no tendency to "wind up" in a steep turn. With increase of speed there is a nose-up tendency, easily rectified with the trimming wheel.
Formation Flying.
8. Similar. There is no difficulty. The clear view increases confidence.

Low Flying
9. The Tempest is much easier to low-fly than the Typhoon and the Spitfire. It is thought that this is partly due to a better view, easier handing, and a sense of solidity.

Night Flying
10. The Tempest is very nice to handle and easy to fly at night. The exhausts cannont be seen from the cockpit and therefore cause no embarrassment. The stability of the Tempest makes it much more pleasant to fly than the Typhoon. The cockpit lighting is satisfactory, except the the undercarriage warning light is unblinkered. This can be remedied by replacing for day and night with bulb holders. The landing lamp is not very effective. For night fighting it might be necessary to fit glare-less exhaust shrouds, as the open exhaust stubs cause a glare that can be seen on a dark clear night from 1,000 feet.

Compressibility Speeds
11. Because the Tempest V increases speed so rapidly in the dive, it is not difficult to enter compressibility range at high altitudes (approaching speed of sound). This can only be done in a dive. The maximum permissible airspeeds at various heights are :-
I.A.S. Height
370 30,000
410 25,000
450 20,000
490 15,000
540 10,000


12. The following is a summary of the R.A.E's instuctions (Report No. Aero.1906) should the speeds at height be exceeded by any type of aircraft. In the dive, the nose may suddenly tend to drop. On no account must the trimming wheel be used to prevent it doing so, but only backward pressure on the stick. When the aircraft has reached a lower altitude where the speed of sound is greater, the aircraft will come out of the compressibility range and behave normally, being pulled out of the dive. Had the trimming wheel been used to prevent the nose dropping when in the compressibility range, there would have been a very sudden nose-up tendency on coming out of the compressibility range. The result of a such a sudden change of trim is liable to cause structural failure.


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TYPHOON IB

13. The comparison is fairly close and clear because the aircraft are fairly similar, differing chiefly in wing section only. The wing loadings are similar (37.4 lbs. Tempest, and 39.7 lbs. Typhoon)

Radius of Action
14. The Tempest, as it stands, (no nose tank or long range tanks) has approximately the same range as the Typhoon IB without long-range tanks. The fuel and oil capacities of the Tempest are 132 gallons and 14 gallons respectively, compared with 154 gallons and 16 gallons of the Typhoon. The fact that the Tempest cruises at 15-20 mph faster than the Typhoon at the same engine settings approximately cancels out the discrepancy in fuel load. A Tempest fitted with a nose tank (30 gallons) and the 45 gallon long-range tanks (252 gallons total) would have about 1 1/4 times the range of a Typhoon IB with maximum fule load (243 galls. total).

Speeds
15. According to the offical speed curves, the maximum speeds of the Tempest at all heights are 15-20 mph faster. This is also true for all intermediate settings.

Climbs
16. The Tempest climbs at a slightly steeper angle and at the same airspeed producing 200-300 ft. increase in maximum rate of climb. Because of its greater cleanliness, its zoom climb is much better.

Dive
17. For the same reasons as the zoom climb, the Tempest pulls ahead. As the speed is increased it does so more rapidly. The fact is it has the best acceleration in the dive yet seen at this Unit.

Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics.

Rate of Roll
19. The Tempest has the better rate of roll at all speeds

Conclusions
20. Taken all round, the Tempest V is a great improvment on the Typhoon IB.

Search View and Rear View
21. The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

Sighting View and Fire-Power
22. The aircraft is fitted with the Mark II sight. The installation should be modified in some cases to produce direct reflection on to the windshield. The sighting view is about the same as the Typhoon, being approximately 4 1/2 degrees. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

23. The Tempest is a steady gun platform. Air-to-ground the aircraft has the same slight tendency as the Typhoon to fly into the ground, being not so good as the Spitfire in this respect. The guns cannot be depressed any lower than parallel to the datum, so this defect cannot be overcome.

Armour
24. Of a similar design and installation as on the Typhoon aircraft, with the exception that the head-piece is a trifle larger in size.

Thickness of headpiece - 9 mm
Thickness of back pieces 6 m.m.

All fuel tanks are self-sealing. Bullit-proof windscreen is of "Dry-cell" type. Front side of outer gun ammunition tanks have a piece of 1/8" armour plate.

COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III

Range and Endurance
25. By comparison the Tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks, has no range. When the extra fuel is available it should have a little more than half that of the Mustang III fitted with two 62.5 gallon long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 gallon body tank.

Maximum Speed
26. The Tempest V is 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000 ft., there is then no choice to 24,000 ft, when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30 mph faster at 30,000 ft.

Climbs
27. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb.

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

Rate of Roll
29. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.

Conclusions
30. The Mustang III has superior range of action and general performance above 24,000 ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a much better rate of climb and speed below 10,000 feet.


COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV

Range and Endurance
31. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb/boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

31A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-
The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft.
From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S.
Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long-range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. long-range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
32. From 0 - 10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is little to choose until 22,000 ft. when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 ft.

Maximum Climb
33. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed throughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached, then, of course the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch and pull ahead.

Dive
34. The Tempest gains on the Spitfire XIV.

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

Rate of Roll
36. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350.00 mph.

Conclusions
37. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV above that height.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Maximum Speed
38. The Tempest is nearly 50 mph faster at all heights. It is estimated that the Tempest V may be very slightly faster than the new FW.190 (DB.603) up to 20,000 ft.

Climb
39. Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height.

Dive
40. The Tempest pulls away rapidly in a dive from all heights.

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

Rate of Roll
42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190.

Conclusions
43. Similar tactics should be used against the FW.190 as used by the Typhoon squadrons, advantage being taken of high speed. Such handling should prove most effective. The Tempest has an exceptional ground height performance even (estimated against the FW.190 (DB.603).


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Maximum Speed
44. The Tempest V is 40 - 50 mph faster up to 20,000 feet when the difference in speed rapidly diminishes.

Climb
45. The Tempest is behind the Me.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph.

Dive
46. Initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead.

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

Rate of Roll
48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

Conclusions
49. In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Me.109 except in slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defense may do anything except a climb at slow speed.


TECHNICAL

Gun Harmonisation
50. Harmonisation was carried out in accordance with the pattern issued by Headquarters, Fighter Command, No.FC/G.208 dated 15.11.43.

Gun Firing
51. Two air shoots have been carried out.

First shoot. Low altitude - 100%
Second shoot. 20,000 ft. - Stoppage on Starboard inner due to insufficient recoil All other guns 100%
Re-Arming
52. Gun loading platforms are issued and used during these trials. With two Armourers only, the time taken for re-arming was as follows:-
First test - 17 minutes
Second test - 12 minutes

Operational load Port & Starboard Inner - 150 rounds
Port & Starboard Outer 140 rounds

Cine-gun Installation and Harmonisation
53. Cine-gun fitted with extension lens and harmonized center. It is impossible with the installation to harmonize a quarter from the top. The camera is fitted on the starboard side of the engine. Considerable vibration has been experienced causing the door on the cine-gun to fly open. This has been remedied by putting a 'U' shaped clip over the top of the camera. No trouble has since been experienced in any condition of flight, incorporating this modification.

Radio
54. One V.H.F. set is fitted, the control box being on the left-hand side of the cockpit.

Oxygen
55. Normal British type Oxygen is fitted, the master **** in the cockpit being on the left-hand side of the seat, as is the Typoon.

Engine Temperatures
56. The glycol radiator flap is controlled by a lever on the left. When closed the engine runs hot, and overheats quickly in the climb, so that it is necessary to climb with the flap open, when the temperature increases very slowly to maximum.


STARTING HINTS

57. As the Typhoon, care must be taken to keep the booster coil button pressed. It is a good thing after doping to pump up the carburettor pressure before pressing starter buttons.


SERVING HINTS

58. Normal Typhoon equipment can be used with the exception of gun loading platforms.


GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

59. The Tempest V is superior to the Typhoon in all respects. It is faster than any other fighter up to medium altitude and has the best zoom-climb and dive charateristics yet seen by this Unit. The ailerons have less tendency to stiffen up especially at speeds oover 350 mph, where it will out-roll any Spitfire.

60. The modification to the sight bracket (para. 22) reduces the likelihood of injury to the pilot in the event of a forced landing, and improves the foward view considerably.

HamishUK
06-16-2005, 09:26 AM
Let's roll this over to oleg!

Anyone got 1c's email addy?

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

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">INTRODUCTION

1. According to instructions from Air Ministry (D.A.T.) and from Headquarters, A.D.G.B., letter reference ADGB/S.29156/Air Tactics dated 29th February 1944 refers, tactical trials have been completed with the Tempest V. Aircraft No. JN.737 was delivered by the Hawker Aircraft Company on 8th January 1944 and was operationally loaded. The operational weight is 11,400 lbs.

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).


BRIEF DISCRIPTION

3. In its present form, the Tempest V is a low and medium altitude short-range fighter, armed with 4 x 20 m.m. cannon in the wings. It is fitted with a Napier Sabre II engine of approximately 2090 h.p. (same as Typhoon IB). As yet no provison has been made for the carrying of long range tanks, bombs, or R/P. In appearence it is very similar to the latest Typhoon IB except that it has a 4-bladed propeller, much thinner wings, and larger tail surfaces.


THE COCKPIT

4. The cockpit is very similar to the Typhoon. For this reaason, and because the Tempest is easier to fly, a Typhoon pilot will take to the Tempest from the moment he is airborne.

Fuel *****
5. In the Tempest the fuel ***** are different. There are three tanks - nose, main, and interspar, any of which may be selected. The main tank should be the last to be emptied, as the bottom of the tank is funnel shaped to enable the last drop to be consumed. At present there is no nose tank fitted.

Undercarriage Position Instrument
6. This is the same as that on the Typhoon, with the exception that the red lights do not go out until the undercarriage doors have locked shut, in addition to the wheel being locked up.


FLYING CHARCTERISTICS

7. The Typhoon belonging to this Unit had the "prison bar" type of cockpit. This made the Tempest seem much easier to land and take-off. In the air, the engine of the Tempest is very smooth, considerably increasing the pilots confidence. The effect of all the flying controls is far more positve, making the Tempest as delightful to fly as its smaller contemporaries, and much more pleasant than the Typhoon. It feels more solid and easier to control than most aircraft at speeds over 400 I.A.S.
(a) The rudder is more effective in preventing skid than that of the Typhoon, although it is still heavy. Less change of trim is necessary with change of speed, but considerable change of trim is still necessary with change of engine settings.

(b) The ailerons are heavier, but more positve and effective than the Typhoon, especially at high speeds. Later models of the Tempest are to have considerably lighter ailerons.

(c) The elevators are heavy also, but a great relief from the Typhoon, as they are quite positive and there is no tendency to "wind up" in a steep turn. With increase of speed there is a nose-up tendency, easily rectified with the trimming wheel.
Formation Flying.
8. Similar. There is no difficulty. The clear view increases confidence.

Low Flying
9. The Tempest is much easier to low-fly than the Typhoon and the Spitfire. It is thought that this is partly due to a better view, easier handing, and a sense of solidity.

Night Flying
10. The Tempest is very nice to handle and easy to fly at night. The exhausts cannont be seen from the cockpit and therefore cause no embarrassment. The stability of the Tempest makes it much more pleasant to fly than the Typhoon. The cockpit lighting is satisfactory, except the the undercarriage warning light is unblinkered. This can be remedied by replacing for day and night with bulb holders. The landing lamp is not very effective. For night fighting it might be necessary to fit glare-less exhaust shrouds, as the open exhaust stubs cause a glare that can be seen on a dark clear night from 1,000 feet.

Compressibility Speeds
11. Because the Tempest V increases speed so rapidly in the dive, it is not difficult to enter compressibility range at high altitudes (approaching speed of sound). This can only be done in a dive. The maximum permissible airspeeds at various heights are :-
I.A.S. Height
370 30,000
410 25,000
450 20,000
490 15,000
540 10,000


12. The following is a summary of the R.A.E's instuctions (Report No. Aero.1906) should the speeds at height be exceeded by any type of aircraft. In the dive, the nose may suddenly tend to drop. On no account must the trimming wheel be used to prevent it doing so, but only backward pressure on the stick. When the aircraft has reached a lower altitude where the speed of sound is greater, the aircraft will come out of the compressibility range and behave normally, being pulled out of the dive. Had the trimming wheel been used to prevent the nose dropping when in the compressibility range, there would have been a very sudden nose-up tendency on coming out of the compressibility range. The result of a such a sudden change of trim is liable to cause structural failure.


TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TYPHOON IB

13. The comparison is fairly close and clear because the aircraft are fairly similar, differing chiefly in wing section only. The wing loadings are similar (37.4 lbs. Tempest, and 39.7 lbs. Typhoon)

Radius of Action
14. The Tempest, as it stands, (no nose tank or long range tanks) has approximately the same range as the Typhoon IB without long-range tanks. The fuel and oil capacities of the Tempest are 132 gallons and 14 gallons respectively, compared with 154 gallons and 16 gallons of the Typhoon. The fact that the Tempest cruises at 15-20 mph faster than the Typhoon at the same engine settings approximately cancels out the discrepancy in fuel load. A Tempest fitted with a nose tank (30 gallons) and the 45 gallon long-range tanks (252 gallons total) would have about 1 1/4 times the range of a Typhoon IB with maximum fule load (243 galls. total).

Speeds
15. According to the offical speed curves, the maximum speeds of the Tempest at all heights are 15-20 mph faster. This is also true for all intermediate settings.

Climbs
16. The Tempest climbs at a slightly steeper angle and at the same airspeed producing 200-300 ft. increase in maximum rate of climb. Because of its greater cleanliness, its zoom climb is much better.

Dive
17. For the same reasons as the zoom climb, the Tempest pulls ahead. As the speed is increased it does so more rapidly. The fact is it has the best acceleration in the dive yet seen at this Unit.

Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics.

Rate of Roll
19. The Tempest has the better rate of roll at all speeds

Conclusions
20. Taken all round, the Tempest V is a great improvment on the Typhoon IB.

Search View and Rear View
21. The all-round view from the pilot's cockpit is excellent, especially the rear view. This has been made possible by the "tear drop" hood which gives the pilot a better all-round unobstucted view than any other aircraft- Hun or friendly. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

Sighting View and Fire-Power
22. The aircraft is fitted with the Mark II sight. The installation should be modified in some cases to produce direct reflection on to the windshield. The sighting view is about the same as the Typhoon, being approximately 4 1/2 degrees. It is also fitted to some Typhoons.

23. The Tempest is a steady gun platform. Air-to-ground the aircraft has the same slight tendency as the Typhoon to fly into the ground, being not so good as the Spitfire in this respect. The guns cannot be depressed any lower than parallel to the datum, so this defect cannot be overcome.

Armour
24. Of a similar design and installation as on the Typhoon aircraft, with the exception that the head-piece is a trifle larger in size.

Thickness of headpiece - 9 mm
Thickness of back pieces 6 m.m.

All fuel tanks are self-sealing. Bullit-proof windscreen is of "Dry-cell" type. Front side of outer gun ammunition tanks have a piece of 1/8" armour plate.

COMPARISON WITH MUSTANG III

Range and Endurance
25. By comparison the Tempest without nose tank or long-range tanks, has no range. When the extra fuel is available it should have a little more than half that of the Mustang III fitted with two 62.5 gallon long-range tanks, but without the extra 71 gallon body tank.

Maximum Speed
26. The Tempest V is 15-20 mph faster up to 15,000 ft., there is then no choice to 24,000 ft, when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30 mph faster at 30,000 ft.

Climbs
27. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb.

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

Rate of Roll
29. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute may be improved upon later aircraft with re-designed ailerons.

Conclusions
30. The Mustang III has superior range of action and general performance above 24,000 ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a much better rate of climb and speed below 10,000 feet.


COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV

Range and Endurance
31. Rough comparisons have been made at the maximum continuous cruising conditions of each aircraft (3150 revs. +4 1/2 lb/boost Tempest, 2400 revs. +7 lb. boost Spitfire XIV).

31A. The best heights of each aircraft are very different, producing the following results:-
The Tempest is faster and goes further up to 10,000 ft.
From 10,000 - 20,000 ft. both aircraft cruise at about 300 I.A.S.
Above 20,000 ft. the Tempest cannot maintain its high cruising speed and no comparisons can be made with the Spitfire XIV which increases its ground speed and range up to 29,000 ft.
These comparisons remain the same with the full fuel loads at present available (2 x 45 gall. long-range tank Tempest, 1 x 90 gall. long-range tank Spitfire).

Maximum Speed
32. From 0 - 10,000 ft. the Tempest is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV. There is little to choose until 22,000 ft. when the Spitfire XIV becomes 30-40 mph faster, the Tempest's operational ceiling being about 30,000 ft. as opposed to the Spitfire XIV's 40,000 ft.

Maximum Climb
33. The Tempest is not in the same class as the Spitfire XIV. The Tempest V however, has a considerably better zoom climb, holding a higher speed throughout the manoeuvre. If the climb is prolonged until climbing speed is reached, then, of course the Spitfire XIV will begin to catch and pull ahead.

Dive
34. The Tempest gains on the Spitfire XIV.

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

Rate of Roll
36. The Spitfire XIV rolls faster at speeds below 300 mph, but definitely more slowly at speeds greater than 350.00 mph.

Conclusions
37. The tactical attributes of the two aircraft being completely different, they require a separate handling technique in combat. For this reason, Typhoon squadrons should convert to Tempests, and Spitfire squadrons to Spitfire XIV's, and definitely never vice-versa, or each aircraft's particular advantages would not be appreciated. Regarding performance, if correctly handled, the Tempest is better below about 20,000 feet and the Spitfire XIV above that height.


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST FW.190 (BMW.801D)

Maximum Speed
38. The Tempest is nearly 50 mph faster at all heights. It is estimated that the Tempest V may be very slightly faster than the new FW.190 (DB.603) up to 20,000 ft.

Climb
39. Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height.

Dive
40. The Tempest pulls away rapidly in a dive from all heights.

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

Rate of Roll
42. The Tempest V cannot compare with the FW 190.

Conclusions
43. Similar tactics should be used against the FW.190 as used by the Typhoon squadrons, advantage being taken of high speed. Such handling should prove most effective. The Tempest has an exceptional ground height performance even (estimated against the FW.190 (DB.603).


COMBAT TRIALS AGAINST Me.109G

Maximum Speed
44. The Tempest V is 40 - 50 mph faster up to 20,000 feet when the difference in speed rapidly diminishes.

Climb
45. The Tempest is behind the Me.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph.

Dive
46. Initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead.

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

Rate of Roll
48. At normal speeds there is nothing in it, but at speeds over 350 mph the Tempest could get away from the Me.109G by making a quick change of bank and direction.

Conclusions
49. In the attack, the Tempest can always follow the Me.109 except in slow, steep climb. In the combat area the Tempest should maintain a high speed, and in defense may do anything except a climb at slow speed.


TECHNICAL

Gun Harmonisation
50. Harmonisation was carried out in accordance with the pattern issued by Headquarters, Fighter Command, No.FC/G.208 dated 15.11.43.

Gun Firing
51. Two air shoots have been carried out.

First shoot. Low altitude - 100%
Second shoot. 20,000 ft. - Stoppage on Starboard inner due to insufficient recoil All other guns 100%
Re-Arming
52. Gun loading platforms are issued and used during these trials. With two Armourers only, the time taken for re-arming was as follows:-
First test - 17 minutes
Second test - 12 minutes

Operational load Port & Starboard Inner - 150 rounds
Port & Starboard Outer 140 rounds

Cine-gun Installation and Harmonisation
53. Cine-gun fitted with extension lens and harmonized center. It is impossible with the installation to harmonize a quarter from the top. The camera is fitted on the starboard side of the engine. Considerable vibration has been experienced causing the door on the cine-gun to fly open. This has been remedied by putting a 'U' shaped clip over the top of the camera. No trouble has since been experienced in any condition of flight, incorporating this modification.

Radio
54. One V.H.F. set is fitted, the control box being on the left-hand side of the cockpit.

Oxygen
55. Normal British type Oxygen is fitted, the master **** in the cockpit being on the left-hand side of the seat, as is the Typoon.

Engine Temperatures
56. The glycol radiator flap is controlled by a lever on the left. When closed the engine runs hot, and overheats quickly in the climb, so that it is necessary to climb with the flap open, when the temperature increases very slowly to maximum.


STARTING HINTS

57. As the Typhoon, care must be taken to keep the booster coil button pressed. It is a good thing after doping to pump up the carburettor pressure before pressing starter buttons.


SERVING HINTS

58. Normal Typhoon equipment can be used with the exception of gun loading platforms.


GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

59. The Tempest V is superior to the Typhoon in all respects. It is faster than any other fighter up to medium altitude and has the best zoom-climb and dive charateristics yet seen by this Unit. The ailerons have less tendency to stiffen up especially at speeds oover 350 mph, where it will out-roll any Spitfire.

60. The modification to the sight bracket (para. 22) reduces the likelihood of injury to the pilot in the event of a forced landing, and improves the foward view considerably. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

skabbe
06-16-2005, 02:49 PM
jepp

MEGILE
06-16-2005, 03:06 PM
Good info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Any idea what Series/Boost Oleg will give us?

WOLFMondo
06-16-2005, 04:43 PM
afaik that trial is against a series 1 and not the series 2 which is the one modelled, externally anyways.

icefires test bares little similarity with even this tempest trial data http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

i guess we wait and see if its just a place holder fm for the minute.

Buzzsaw-
06-16-2005, 05:37 PM
Salute

That test is of an early model Tempest prototype with lower hp engine.

p1ngu666
06-16-2005, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

That test is of an early model Tempest prototype with lower hp engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed, with more power and flush cannons it should be better all round than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
06-17-2005, 12:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

That test is of an early model Tempest prototype with lower hp engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

its not the prototype, its one of the first production series 1's.

ICDP
06-17-2005, 01:59 AM
Smoe great info on the Tempest V thanks for posting it. I am really, really looking forward to flying the Tempest.

The only part I find dubious is the 109G turnrate test. I am not a 109 fan, I rarely fly the thing but it really seems the 109G was not pushed to its limits in the test. Even the most ardent 109 hater should find the following statement strange. I think the problem lies in the fact that the pilot(s) of the 109G in the RAF test were easing off in turns to stop the slats deploying.

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

From this statement it is obvious that the 109G was NOT flown to its limits. In the test the Tempest V, Fw190A and 109G had very close turnrates. This is contrary to German and Russian tests which showed the 109G had a superior turnrate to the 190A at most speeds.

tigertalon
06-17-2005, 03:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:

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

Turning Circles (compared with Fw190 BMW801D)
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

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

Interesting, don't you think?

Vipez-
06-17-2005, 04:06 AM
Looking forward to fly the Tempest (and against it)..

basicly its a FW-190, without hampered forward view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif So it's going to be the most lethal plane below 3000 m..

JG52Karaya-X
06-17-2005, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:

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

Turning Circles (compared with Fw190 BMW801D)
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest.

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

Interesting, don't you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, the Bf109G should own everyone out of the mentioned aircraft in a turn-fight... However the Brits do not mention that the 109G the Tempest was tested against had 20mm gundpods (something that happens in lots of british flight trials http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) - it was a 109G6/R6 which makes a big difference...(200+kg, increased drag, etc.)

Nubarus
06-17-2005, 09:01 AM
According to a self appointed LW expert we had here a long time ago stated that the Bf109G series had pretty much the same turning circle as the Tempest V series.

According to him the difference was so small that it could not provide a advantage during combat.

The Tempest was the one with the slight advantage so I see no reason to believe what you post Karaya-X, that the Bf109G should own the Tempest V and Mustang III in a turning circle.

wifc-sixer
06-17-2005, 10:16 AM
and we care Y? we cant fly it and the AI has no flight dynamic.

ICDP
06-17-2005, 10:24 AM
Nubarus do want the Bf109 to behave historically in FB? Do you honestly believe that these RAF tests on 109's are vaild? Despite the fact they themselves admit (inadvertently) that they didn't allow the slats to deploy during manouvering? Do you believe that a gunpod equiped Bf109G is a a valid variant to use as an indication of how a Bf109 fighter should fly? Maybe we should only accept the flight data from tests on P51D's with 100% fuel loaded?

Oh and don't condradict yourslef in the same post! You use the term "self appointed LW expert" to describe a guy (hardly a positive description). You then say you accept his statement that the Bf109G and the TempestV turned equally well. So do you think the guys is "full of it" (as your description of him would imply) or do youe take his word as gospel?

Wether you love or hate the 109 it was a capable turn fighter, there is enough evidence from real life pilts both past and present to prove this.

VW-IceFire
06-17-2005, 10:34 AM
As far as the 109 turn test I suspect two things are coming into play here.

1) The turn test, as mentioned, was done with a G-6 equipped with gunpods.
2) The test was conducted at medium to high speeds and the 109 wasn't flown to its absolute maximum in a turn.

These elements coupled with the Tempests very large wing and excellent wing/powerloading (for an aircraft of its class and size) suggests that the Tempest may have had a slight lead advantage (like the FW190) at the higher speeds. In a sustained turn fight, the FW190 and Tempest would loose...but in a high speed slash attack or sustained high speed spiral turn the Tempest V or 190 could theoretically maintain position...at least for a few lethal seconds.

I have no illusions that the Tempest is a turn fighter...its very much not one.

Nubarus
06-17-2005, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Nubarus do want the Bf109 to behave historically in FB? Do you honestly believe that these RAF tests on 109's are vaild? Despite the fact they themselves admit (inadvertently) that they didn't allow the slats to deploy during manouvering? Do you believe that a gunpod equiped Bf109G is a a valid variant to use as an indication of how a Bf109 fighter should fly? Maybe we should only accept the flight data from tests on P51D's with 100% fuel loaded?

Oh and don't condradict yourslef in the same post! You use the term "self appointed LW expert" to describe a guy (hardly a positive description). You then say you accept his statement that the Bf109G and the TempestV turned equally well. So do you think the guys is "full of it" (as your description of him would imply) or do youe take his word as gospel?

Wether you love or hate the 109 it was a capable turn fighter, there is enough evidence from real life pilts both past and present to prove this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess you have no idea what this was all about since that whole discussion in the past was backed up with German turn charts for the Bf109G that showed a nearly simular turn rate as the Tempest V in a British trail test.

But this so called "Expert" was trying to boast the turn rate of the Ta152 and used the Tempest V as an example.

I replied back that using the Tempest V as a reference was not going to cut it since it was a poor turner compared to let's say the Spitfire IX and XIV.
It was during this discussion that the Bf109G series turn chart came up because he wanted to prove that the Bf109G series had close to simular turn performance as the Tempest V to convince me that the Tempest V was a pretty good turner.

This Ta152 discussion was the aftermath of a previous discussion where he claimed that the Bf109G could turn with mid/late war Spitfires.
When I replied with his earlier quotes regarding his claims about the Bf109G in regards towards the Spitfires and brought up the fact that during the British trails between the Tempest V and the Spitfire XIV the Spitfire XIV had no trouble out turning the Tempest V the discussion got rather ugly since he was pretty much cornered by his own words his only defence was that the British test pilots couldn't even master their own planes so these tests didn't mean anything.

So since he showed a German turn chart I do believe him on that particular note.
Other then that he was just another Bf109 fanboy that tried to convince everybody else and Oleg that it was a superplane that could do pretty much everything better then any Allied plane.

So in this case I am not talking about the captured British Bf109G with gunpods or any comparison between that plane and any British plane but a simple logical formula.

According to the German turn performance chart the turnrate of a Bf109G was pretty much identical to the Tempest V showing in a British performance chart and in another performance chart where the Tempest V was matched up against a Spitfire XIV the Tempest V could not keep up in regards to turn perfomance.

So this has absolutely nothing to do with that captured Bf109G with gunpods, as you try to induce here.

ICDP
06-17-2005, 02:18 PM
Well Nubarus, you are up there with the likes of HayateAce and Kurfurst for people whos opinions should be ignored IMHO (and problably a lot of others). You and blinkered fanboys like you will never be convinced that your "pet hate" fighter was actually any good or your "pet love" fighter had faults.

So I will sign off by saying, S! and good luck to you. I will be ignoring your posts in future, the same way I ignore ALL biased people.

skabbe
06-17-2005, 03:02 PM
AHH! I want to check it out my self but i cant, how did you make the new 4.1 AI-planes flyable? pleeezzz!

Nubarus
06-17-2005, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
Well Nubarus, you are up there with the likes of HayateAce and Kurfurst for people whos opinions should be ignored IMHO (and problably a lot of others). You and blinkered fanboys like you will never be convinced that your "pet hate" fighter was actually any good or your "pet love" fighter had faults.

So I will sign off by saying, S! and good luck to you. I will be ignoring your posts in future, the same way I ignore ALL biased people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, so I should just believe your words, because all you did so far (Just like Karaya-X) is post words without any real reference.

Pilot statements mean squat because they contradict themselves all the time.

So before you act like this "Holier then thou" BS you should backup your words with some real test charts instead.

But I already know you are not going to do that because you are "unbiased" and therefore should be believed in whatever you say right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
LMAO, so I should just believe your words, because all you did so far (Just like Karaya-X) is post words without any real reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically after me and Ice-fire (who can hardly be accused of being biased) reported about test restrictions you hold onto your view that the Tempest and Mustang should turn tighter... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
About us (ICDP, Ice-fire and me) not posting any data to back our statements up - neither did you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pilot statements mean squat because they contradict themselves all the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics.

Rate of Roll
19. The Tempest has the better rate of roll at all speeds

Conclusions
20. Taken all round, the Tempest V is a great improvment on the Typhoon IB."

IMHO this is not much more than pilot statements. No hard data presented at all (absolute speeds, roll differences, turn times)

So what's your point? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ICDP
06-18-2005, 08:08 AM
He doen't have a point Karaya, he is simply trying to convince himself that the 109G was ****. As you have pointed out (and Nubarus ignores) the test was conducted against a gunpod equiped 109G6/R6. As Icefire has pointed out the speed isn't specified in the test and could have been conducted at higher speeds. The Tempest would have an advantage at higher speeds but at lower speeds the advantage should go to the 109G in turnrate.

Also it is obvious that Nubarus didn't even have the decency to read the links before posting his biased opinion. I read the Tempest pilot accounts from the links and some do indeed state the Tempest compares favourably in the turn against the 109. Unfortunately most of the accounts don't specify a speed but this statemnt from Pierre Clostermann does give a clear definition of speeds.

"I kept on reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300 m.p.h., for "109's" could turn better than we could at low speed, and you had to watch out for the 30 mm. cannon in their propeller - it didn't give you a second chance. The best technique was to do a spiral dive, work up to a speed of 450 m.p.h., do a straight climb and then start all over again. The "109's" on the other hand, knowing that we dived faster than they did, tried to get us up to 16,000 feet, where our Tempests were heavy and our engines sluggish."

I will take testimony of a noted RAF fighter ace over the opinion of a biased blinkered allied AC fanboy every single time.

Nubarus
06-18-2005, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
He doen't have a point Karaya, he is simply trying to convince himself that the 109G was ****. As you have pointed out (and Nubarus ignores) the test was conducted against a gunpod equiped 109G6/R6. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading your post after this since I wasn't even REMOTELY talking about the test between THAT particular Bf109G and the Tempest, but I guess your reading skills are not quite up to date.

Even Karaya-X is still talking about statements that where posted in the report but it seems it's too difficult for him as well to see that I was talking about a GERMAN test report regarding the Bf109G6 that was posted here a long time ago by someone and an ENGLISH test report regarding the Tempest.
These two test reports are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY seperate of each other and are by no means performed as a machup between the two.

It also seems that you both missed this bit: "I replied back that using the Tempest V as a reference was not going to cut it since it was a poor turner compared to let's say the Spitfire IX and XIV."

So far I can pretty much say that you two are too dense to actually see what I am talking about and as your only defense you cry biased. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG52Karaya-X
06-18-2005, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
I was talking about a GERMAN test report regarding the Bf109G6 that was posted here a long time ago by someone and an ENGLISH test report regarding the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I like the level of detail of your post - a test that has been posted by "someone" a "long time ago"... I hope your "test" has some more detail than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So far I can pretty much say that you two are too dense to actually see what I am talking about </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your correct in assuming that we don't know what the heck your are talking about but that is only because you write about some mysterious trial that you (because of unknown reasons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) couldn't post in here yet

skabbe
06-18-2005, 03:48 PM
BOOORING, help me insted...

p1ngu666
06-18-2005, 06:18 PM
skabbe, theres a thread in the mission makers forum, that should have the info u need http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
06-19-2005, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
According to the German turn performance chart the turnrate of a Bf109G was pretty much identical to the Tempest V showing in a British performance chart and in another performance chart where the Tempest V was matched up against a Spitfire XIV the Tempest V could not keep up in regards to turn perfomance.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, is this allegadly existant *GERMAN* turn chart available somewhere...?
I presume you lost it somehow, unfurtunately. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

skabbe
06-19-2005, 09:36 AM
p1ngu666

tank you, got it working now. but this is not the tempest i know of, way to slow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VW-IceFire
06-19-2005, 12:01 PM
As far as I know, there aren't any turn charts for the Tempest V. I haven't seen any. Just the comparative tactical trials.

So what I based my knowledge on is therefore the wing design and the wing and powerloading. Its not a complete picture but it gives a fairly decent look at how the plane turns. I would have to go dig up the numbers but they are out there if you do a google search too.

Basically, the Tempest has much better wingloading than the FW190 series. Offset by things like the chin radiator (which causes drag in turns I'm told) and the laminar flow wings which were obviously designed for speed rathe than turn performance. Also looking at the wing area (which is greater than the FW190). Basically you have a plane with a very good potential for high speed turns...not unlike the P-47 (which really isn't known for its turns either).

But RAF testers were more concerned with speed. The Tempest V was fast...the idea being that it'd be fast enough to catch jets and faster than other prop fighters at its combat altitude. Thats where most of the testing is...thats what we SHOULD be talking about. The Tempest was designed for straight lines first...firepower second...and turns, rolls, and other things like that third.

As for the turning with the 109G...as I said...its quite possible at high speeds. The Mustang seems to be able to do the same thing. But get slow...and the 109 has the advantage (leading edge slats for instance). But, a cautious pilot and a heavier model than the norm, and you get a slower less confident turn in that 109 it was tested against. Surprise surprise, the Tempest V is considered better by the tactical trial. It shouldn't be causing a flame war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Although anyone talking about the Tempest gets my nod http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

skabbe
06-19-2005, 04:03 PM
anyone else here think that Tempest is extremly slow? its slower by far then spitfire/BF109/FW190, you name it. i love the new patch, but when Tempest comes as flyable and its still this slow, then Oleg should get some little british spank.

VW-IceFire
06-19-2005, 04:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
anyone else here think that Tempest is extremly slow? its slower by far then spitfire/BF109/FW190, you name it. i love the new patch, but when Tempest comes as flyable and its still this slow, then Oleg should get some little british spank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not really sure...the AI never flies to potential and we can't really properly test for ourselves.

I suspect its probably slower than it should be...but I have no way to confirm that.

snafu73
06-19-2005, 05:11 PM
Maybe it just seems slower than it should be because the AI tries to turn fight in it, and I've always sort of suspected the AI drags it's feet a bit when something is chasing it.

P.S. I think I've found the perfect car for all us Tempest fanatics, I dont know why but when I see one of these on the road I always think TEMPEST!!! http://www.peugeot.triger.com.pl/modele/image/01_Peugeot407.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WOLFMondo
06-19-2005, 05:40 PM
not sure why anyone would want to turn fight in a tempest. all the references to turning by pilots i've read or watched say the tempest had virtually no stall warning in a turn and at low speeds is even considered dangerous to fly.

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

"I kept on reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300 m.p.h., for "109's" could turn better than we could at low speed, and you had to watch out for the 30 mm. cannon in their propeller - it didn't give you a second chance. The best technique was to do a spiral dive, work up to a speed of 450 m.p.h., do a straight climb and then start all over again. The "109's" on the other hand, knowing that we dived faster than they did, tried to get us up to 16,000 feet, where our Tempests were heavy and our engines sluggish."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bah, you edited that, its 20mm, not 30mm. i do wonder what closterman means there, the tempests best peforming altitude was 17,500ft.

skabbe
06-20-2005, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
anyone else here think that Tempest is extremly slow? its slower by far then spitfire/BF109/FW190, you name it. i love the new patch, but when Tempest comes as flyable and its still this slow, then Oleg should get some little british spank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not really sure...the AI never flies to potential and we can't really properly test for ourselves.

I suspect its probably slower than it should be...but I have no way to confirm that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


mm, lets all hope its gonna be fast, really fast. as it is now its slower then BF109 but climb better, and thats wrong...

JG52Karaya-X
06-20-2005, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
anyone else here think that Tempest is extremly slow? its slower by far then spitfire/BF109/FW190, you name it. i love the new patch, but when Tempest comes as flyable and its still this slow, then Oleg should get some little british spank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't tried it yet but what I was wondering about the most is the fact that it is extremly fragile in 4.00/4.01 - I hope it gets changed when we get the cockpit too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oh and by the way: The yaw-recoil of wing-mounted cannons/guns is FAR too great... FW190 shakes quite a lot, F4U-1C, HurriIIc and SpitVc are just sick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
06-20-2005, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
not sure why anyone would want to turn fight in a tempest. all the references to turning by pilots i've read or watched say the tempest had virtually no stall warning in a turn and at low speeds is even considered dangerous to fly.

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

"I kept on reminding my pilots to keep their speed above 300 m.p.h., for "109's" could turn better than we could at low speed, and you had to watch out for the 30 mm. cannon in their propeller - it didn't give you a second chance. The best technique was to do a spiral dive, work up to a speed of 450 m.p.h., do a straight climb and then start all over again. The "109's" on the other hand, knowing that we dived faster than they did, tried to get us up to 16,000 feet, where our Tempests were heavy and our engines sluggish."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

bah, you edited that, its 20mm, not 30mm. i do wonder what closterman means there, the tempests best peforming altitude was 17,500ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it was dropping horsepower as height goes up, with ram air itll be ok but u gotta be fast for that. yaks etc fly faster at alt but are sluggish up there, perform better at low alt. and its a comparision, 109 isnt a great low alt plane, but was good up high http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

skabbe
06-20-2005, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by skabbe:
anyone else here think that Tempest is extremly slow? its slower by far then spitfire/BF109/FW190, you name it. i love the new patch, but when Tempest comes as flyable and its still this slow, then Oleg should get some little british spank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't tried it yet but what I was wondering about the most is the fact that it is extremly fragile in 4.00/4.01 - I hope it gets changed when we get the cockpit too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Oh and by the way: The yaw-recoil of wing-mounted cannons/guns is FAR too great... FW190 shakes quite a lot, F4U-1C, HurriIIc and SpitVc are just sick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yes thats true, though sometimes it seems like IL2, you can wast a lot of ammo trying to bring tempest down, sometimes one shot kills her. seem to have one or two many softpoints, me think.

Jippo01
06-20-2005, 11:47 AM
Nubarus, do you believe Fw-190 A and Bf-109 G turn the same circle?

Test mentions the Tempest being slightly better than 109 and slightly better than 190, so that leads to conclusion that in British achieved similar turning circles with these two planes.

This means that most likely the 109 used was in fact one of the G6/R6 gunpod (possibly Werk Nr 412951) which were used in multitude of RAF flight tests.


-jippo