When ripping Nazi armour to shreds the Tiffies used the 60 lb rockets. How many did they fire at any one time? All 8. A pair, one from each wing, or a pair from each wing? Or was it a crap shoot that the pilot controlled as the need arose? Did they fire all at once or ripple fire and if rippled off the wing, starting inboard or outboard? I have a great big Typhoon book and there isn't a scrap of detail in this reguard.
i got a video about WW2 aircraft in europe and by the looks of the images, ive seen that they fire 2 rockets at a time B)
I'm virtually certain that the pilot could set his armament panel to various positions, allowing him to fire one, two, four, or the whole volley at once. Usually you see them firing pairs, but not always. I've seen film of USMC F4Us over Okinawa unloading the whole wad at one time.
J
Just remember the RCAF never used rockets.
We used bombs, yeah!
:wub: :tornado: :cheers:
In regards to the numbers of rockets launched at a specific target, it would depend on the type of target that was being attacked.
Some targets would be engaged with the entire battery of rocket projectiles while others would be engaged with one or two rockets per pass.
If the target were a freight train, the priority would be to disable the locomotive with cannon and rocket fire as soon as possible, if this required an entire volley to destroy the target, then one of the aircraft in the flight would expend the entire battery of rockets to take out the target. This would free up the rest of the flight to engage at will the remaining rail cars and ensure complete destruction of the target.
If the target is an armored column, then the target could be engaged with single or pairs of rocket projectiles which would ensure that all of the targets within that location were "serviced" to either destroy or disable them to allow the ground forces to then engage them and finish them off or capture them.
The main thing to consider is that when you engage the target with the entire battery of rockets, you are then out of rockets and you have only the cannon to rely on for any other targets of opportunity before you reach bingo fuel and have to return to base to refuel and rearm.
regards,
Film clips I've seen would indicate that normal firing was in pairs, even when expending the whole load against one target I've not seen all 8 go in one shot, it's been 4 sets of 2 fired very quickly .
As for British rockets Typhoons could use both the 60lb and 25lb SAP and there was also a "solid" shot type for use against surfaced U Boats (it punctured the pressure hull)
Chris
I've definately seen Tiffies release pairs, and I've definately seen Mossies let rip with all 8, not sure about Tiffies with all 8 though...
Ollie, are you certain about the Canadians not using rockets. I've read loads of accounts and seen cartoons, paintings and the like that claim Canadians had. Now mind you, in saying that I'm not saying that this wasn't the Hollywood account, and I've never searched the sources.
Check all the RCAF books you can find that has our Typhoons in it and try to find a 438/439/440 Sqn. plane with rockets under the wings.
You'll see images of Typhies from other squadrons carrying the thing, but not RCAF ones.
;)
Found the reference.
In "Typhoon and Tempest - the canadian story" by Hugh Halliday, on page 138 :
Rocket projectiles (RPs), not used by 143 Wing, [...]
;)
As luck would have it, I was watching The World At War on THC last night and the episode was "Morning", so lots of footage of Typhoons firing rockets :wub:
They fired 2s then peeled away
They fired 4s, then peeled away
They fired 2,2,2,2, then peeled away.
But no 8 at once.
Okay, working on a Korean Whiff and got a couple of questions.
!st, were the interiors of lend lease aircraft painted British interior green or left in the US colors?
Next, did the Sea Furies carry over/under rocket launchers or just single shot on each station. Not having much luck with pics on the web. Most show modern warbirds or racers.
Thanks for any help.
As far as anyone has been able to determine WWII Lend-Lease aircraft were delivered with US standard interior paint and if ordered with cammo they were painted with US equivalents of British colours.
The technical data I have on the Sea Fury states up to twelve rockets(although it was tested with as many as sixteen while under develpment for the Navy) and the one pic I have showing the rocket stubs on the aircraft has three per wing...double-stacked that would make six per wing for the stated full load of twelve.
Cheers, Jon
Thanks Jon,
Will go with the US interior color.
I also counted 3 stubs per wing but not sure if they carried a full load of rockets during Korea. Hard to find period pics with any load other than 2 drop tanks.
Had a look at Crowood's Hawker, Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury and there are photo's and diagrams of the rocket mounting points. 3 zero length per wing which could be "duplex mounted". Also pics of Korean War aircraft carrying 2 500lb bombs
Sorry to hijack here, but what would you guys think it will take to turn a Sea Fury into a lighter, faster "Sandy" for the USAF?
{cynicism} A US production line and manufacturer to sell it to the USAF{/cynicism}
Quote{cynicism} A US production line and manufacturer to sell it to the USAF{/cynicism}
Cynic!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote{cynicism} A US production line and manufacturer to sell it to the USAF{/cynicism}
:lol: :lol:
{cynicsm} I rather suspect locating your construction facility in the District of an influential Representative and the state of an influential senator would also help.{/cynicism}
Anyone have links to Tempest or Typhoon floatplanes or indeed folded wing carrier versions that people have built? I currently have a Tempest floatplane and a folded wing Typhoon I am fiddling wing and I am trying to get some ideas.....
Any help appreciated.
Cheers
Tony
there is this one i found on the IPMS Brampton stand at the 2004 Horncurch Show.
Its based on the drawings for the real sea typhoon proposal.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FPicture007.jpg&hash=54557ccb05d40e5b9bb189e9a4241b35a7172adf)
I have a 3-view drawing of the proposed Sea Typhoon, got it from the Brooklands Museum sometime ago. The wing span was greatly increased by adding a large parallel section from the wing root to about where the normal u/c was mounted, then IIRC the regular wing was attached from there. And the wheel retraction was reversed so it folded outward as shown in Martin' pic. The new wing inner sections were to hold fuel tanks for the range required by the RN. The wing folded from just outside of the u/c leg and was similar to how Fireflys had their wings fold.
There was a discussion earlier this year about putting floats on a Typhoon/Tempest, I worked out that the floats would have to be quite large as the all up weight of a Typhoon is about the same as a Blenhiem, here's some pics of the Blenhiem to give you an idea:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FPL-140864.jpg&hash=fc71bcce18fbc6a13c0afcd6bd6dc14ff88af7aa)
here's my conversion, the floats I'm building follow a 3-view drawing I got of the Blenhiem from John Adams (Aeroclub)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FBristolBolingbrokeFloatplane001.jpg&hash=168d1de319d9470caf7e2f8021ab65c5844a0c21)
Robert
I had a bit of luck, just now rumaging through some of my model boxes I found my folder of drawings and there was the Sea Typhoon drawing:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FSeaTyphoon.jpg&hash=0144ce392b3b3900deff3cf5d100819da41c2488)
This has been scanned from Francis K. Mason's book on the Typhoon/Tempest.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi92.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl23%2Fchris7421%2FTyph.jpg&hash=8d27432342eff4b6018c740efeb81bd21bed41d4)
QuoteThis has been scanned from Francis K. Mason's book on the Typhoon/Tempest.
I think that's where the Brooklands Museum scanned my copy from too ^_^
QuoteThat would have been an impressive size but very likely a horrible performer, given that the Typhoon was sluggish at altitude and a larger wing at low level means it'll be sluggish. I wouldn't want to ditch it in the drink either with that big radiator scoop as you'd go under very quickly, if not cartwheel.
To top it off, the Sabre was a temperamental engine with very close tolerances, not the type of thing you want on a carrier, swapping out bits from wrecked aircraft to keep others flying.
Most likly why it never left the drawing board.
On the Floatplane front, there was this Hawker 'Monsoon' by Tory Mucaro:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scaleworkshop.com%2Fworkshop%2Fimages%2Fmonsoontm_e.jpg&hash=59229b83c6fc547bb17d983dd37365facb3f32a8)
See more here (http://www.scaleworkshop.com/workshop/monsoontm_1.htm).
As for carrier based Tempests, I agree with the idea of merging some bits from a Sea Fury onto a Tempest. The result should be interesting.
Regards,
Greg
Thanks guys, all valuable stuff. I have gone with a twin float setup on the Tempest using the cleaned up floats from a Kooperative issue of the (I assume) Frog Swordfish kit.
Biggest job was fitting and filling the undercarriage doors on the Academy kit I am using as they are not a great fit closed.
Incidentally I wanted to fit some larger underwing tanks for a bit of range extension and am using the ones from the Trumpeter Sea Fury. I am wondering Wooksta, they certainly look very large for a Sea Fury, are they indeed too big?
The flipside of converting the Tempest to a floatplane is the undercarriage becomes surplus and looks just right for replacing the undersized Trumpeter legs. The overall design and detail look right for the job.
The Typhoon I have done a Seafire style vertical fold on with downward folding tips and a stinger style arrestor hook.
Cheers
Tony
The comment about the oversized tanks is interesting because recently I got this accessory from the Hannants Second Hand bin, it was advertised as 1/72 Sea Fury Drop Tanks.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FSeaFuryTanks.jpg&hash=8fa9e8fce9b03f3a5f9a4ff611bc4a76a9577118)
On receiving them my first thought was 'Oh Sh#t it's 1/48th' but then looking at the drawing on the instruction card it looks like they are large tanks. They are definitely bigger than any of the tanks I have on my Sea Furys.
Any comments anyone? The scale is in mm's BTW
Robert
I thought they were made by Kitbits but looking at the bag it doesn't really say except the stock number AK001 so I'm not sure as I've something else made by Kitbits which had a stock code starting with KB---. I've written to Hannants to see if they can tell me who the manufacturer is but I don't think it's Final Touch.
The AK in the part number could be AirKit but I'm not sure, I'll wait to see if I get anything back from Hannants before I can definitely say.
Robert
I've just had a reply from Nigel at Hannants, the tanks are AirKit accessories, so considering Wooksta's compliments to Paul Lucas, maybe they have a little credence after all. I would have to say they are ferry tanks too.
Robert
Has anyone performed a check-fit of alternative engine cowlings to the Sea Fury? Reason for asking is due to the excitement created by the Centarus powered Tigercat WHIF and what to do with the leftover parts from the HobbyCraft and now Trumpeter Sea Fury kits. I recently disposed of an Accurate Miniatures B-25G conversion and before it was sent off I performed a check-fit of the engine cowlings on the HobbyCraft Sea Fury and was quite surpised to find that they fit with little interference. Sure the were a bit shorter than the original cowling but that could have been addressed to increase the length to represent a longer engine of similar size and proportion to the Centaurus.
Anyone else have a suggestion on what to use?
Bit late I know Jeff, but I been looking at a few different engine installations over the last couple of days.
First is the Sabre VII, this was trialled & would have powered the Fury F.1 had it entered RAF serviced. I've got a Typhoon that may provide the basics, but the scoop, underside & radiators would need scratching, as well as the exhaust stubs being a different type.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FHawkerFurySabreEngine.jpg&hash=bc0922eea2f07cf3ad384c8a867f7ca50df976d6)
Second is the Griffon. Again, this was trialled & you'd need to scratch most of it as the radiator set up is quite different to any other Griffon:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FHawkerFuryGriffonEngine.jpg&hash=7b06f9c0f0d44aa6f23043e162a753a334b8e6cf)
Last, I looked at putting the Wright R3350 from a Skyraider onto it. The fit is near perfect, although the cowl shapes are very similar & the difference wouldn't be very apparent. You could keep the cowl flaps for a slightly different look to the Centaurus.
I've used those photos and few others to start my Fury prototypes Simon, I modified a Shackleton nacelle front for the Griffin powered version and modified a Tempest Mk.I nose (Ventura) to do the Sabre VII version (3000 hp :o)
Here'a bit of trivia, the leading edge air intake/oil cooler on the Centaurus Fury are on the opposite wings to how the Sea Fury has it's intakes. Just why they were swapped over I've not been able to find out but all the photos of the different Furys show it.
Forgot to add, the Venture Tempest Mk.I leading edge radiators also go on the Sabre VII Fury, just reduced in width to suit the different u/c location.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 29, 2008, 07:45:22 AM
I think it was swapped for airflow reasons but I'm not sure.
Bob, those tanks are *definitely* ferry tanks, the Fury could carry either 45 gal or 90 gal drop tanks, according to a Tony Buttler article in Air Enthusiast (don't recall the no.) but the latter were very rarely used.
Good to know Lee, I think they will go on my Sabre VII Fury what-if, going to need the fuel won't they.
I've got the recent Airfix boxing of the PM Sea Fury. The only thing I've got to donate the Sabre is a an old Airfix Typhoon. It'll take a fair bit of putty, but should be doable? I'm hoping to get it done for Telford so I don't have time to get any more bits. Any tips?
Robert, those two Furies are looking good, will they get the prototypes markings or in-service paint jobs?
Quote from: Mossie on October 29, 2008, 08:27:12 AM
Robert, those two Furies are looking good, will they get the prototypes markings or in-service paint jobs?
I was going to do them as prototypes, as LA610 in a number of guises, but now they might just get the What-If treatment. Mind you I could do another pair as the what-ifs because I'm building these two Griffon Tempests as well, a MK.III and Mk.IV, where one was LA610 too, the so called 'light weight' Tempest. These I'm building from a description I was given by the Tempest Specialist at Air-Britain. The light weight Tempest was the first to get the reduced wingspan by moving the wheel bays into the fuselage area but I'm assuming that it had the round radiator cowling. The other one I'm building from a drawing I was given by the Specialist and I was going to use a modified Beaufighter cowling as you can see here, but more info that I recieved made me realise that the cowling on this version was very similar to the Firefly cowling, so it will eventually get the one I've spare from a Firefly Nightfighter conversion I'm doing too. The five blade prop is just an idea I had.
Nice little project you've got going there! I always wondered what the Griffon Tempests would have looked like. I'll probably put a five blade prop on my Sabre Fury too, although LA610 had four blades (although I might have seen a later pic with five :huh:) I think it would have ended up with five. There were plants to put a contraprop on it too but it wasn't needed, I'd add this if I had one!
With the increase in horsepower the Sabre VII had, 3000 as to 2400 of the earlier versions, I thought about a five blader too, but then I found Aeroclub have a replacement prop for a Beverly, these are not only bigger in diameter but have broader blades which to my mind would soak up the extra power. I'll eventually reprofile the blade tips to around 14 feet I think.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on October 29, 2008, 10:07:37 AM
Mossie, I've the relevant bits to hand (at least two or three gash Tempests, spare cowls plus leading edge intakes) so send me a PM with your address and I'll get them in the post sharpish.
Lee, your a star mate. PM on it's way.
Just a thought, has anyone got a three view of the Sabre Fury? I've got a few pics & a side view of the front end, but no top or front view.
Another thought, at the same time I bought the Sea Fury I got hold of a Revell Twin Otter. I found out that the two aircraft were very similar in weight, so if anyone wanted to built a Sea Fury Floatplane, use the floats from the Twotter & you can still build that with either the wheels or skis. Bonus! :thumbsup:
How about some Twin-Tiffies:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Ftwintiffietop2.gif&hash=e028c5a63c64bc79d91a73f802c8c5c7d82a418e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Ftwintiffietop.gif&hash=8af629665443b43e20e60c5e9f88fc7be9eada46)
Regards,
Greg
Nice one, though if it were up to me, I'd remove the outboard portions of the horizontal tailplanes.
Here are a few of my birds from Hawker. Always liked these airplanes in their various incarnations.
Wes W.
Here are a couple more.
Wes W.
tigercat--I am surprised your collection didn't include one of those "Baghdad Furies" the PM made with the double-bubble hoods. I really think they look cool.
Though I would have to admit the ARTWORK on the box looked cool, but it didn't translate to the model. I found out that the box artwork is "off"--the distance from the end of the second cockpit to the tail is greatly reduced on the actual model in relation to the boxtop artwork--the boxtop artwork looks better proportioned, methinks. Seems like someone "photoshopped" a Baghdad Fury by copying the actual cockpit-to-tail portion and pasting it just behind the actual cockpit, then drew it.
Staying with the mid-engining theme of the moment:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FFrontTypfoon.jpg&hash=3bd0566cdcd19d84a025223a788d49f873899ae2)
Regards,
Greg
Not unlike the Sea Hawk.
I'm actually surprised they didn't look at a mid-engine for the Typhoon/Tempest. Considering the weight of the Sabre, putting it in the middle would have been a huge advantage.
Quote from: rickshaw on November 16, 2009, 02:51:56 AM
I'm actually surprised they didn't look at a mid-engine for the Typhoon/Tempest. Considering the weight of the Sabre, putting it in the middle would have been a huge advantage.
Apart from the poor bleeders who would have had to maintain it! My Dad flew a Typhoon a few times, and his comments on the complexity of the Sabre and the work needed to keep it going were pretty unprintable. -_-
Quote from: GTX on November 15, 2009, 12:59:16 PM
Staying with the mid-engining theme of the moment:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FFrontTypfoon.jpg&hash=3bd0566cdcd19d84a025223a788d49f873899ae2)
Regards,
Greg
Look like that Antonov :thumbsup:
or an il 20?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-20_%281948%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-20_%281948%29)
Except the Il-20 isn't mid-engined.
Quote from: Caveman on November 16, 2009, 02:52:18 PM
or an il 10?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-20_%281948%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-20_%281948%29)
Regarding the mid-engine Typhoon, I wonder if you could move the chin radiator back, if that would, uh, make it look better? ;D
Quote from: Mossie on November 15, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
Not unlike the Sea Hawk.
You could stick a prop and Tempest wings on a Seahawk, remove the jet exhausts and then claim it's got a Sabre in the middle and make wing leading edge radiators for it, OR put NACA intakes and slot exhausts around the rear fuseleage and claim the radiator sits behind the the engine...
Quote from: Weaver on November 16, 2009, 07:18:56 PM
Quote from: Mossie on November 15, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
Not unlike the Sea Hawk.
You could stick a prop and Tempest wings on a Seahawk, remove the jet exhausts and then claim it's got a Sabre in the middle and make wing leading edge radiators for it, OR put NACA intakes and slot exhausts around the rear fuseleage and claim the radiator sits behind the the engine...
Going along with that Weaver, my favorite subject -- the exhaust turbine similar to what RR developed, the bifucated exhaust nozzles of the Sea Hawk fall right into this, like this below
Alternatively, have a flat-12 under the nose, with the cockpit above it, and another flat-12 with a drive-shaft, behind a big fuselage fuel tank. The engines drive independent contraprops Gannet-style.
Sure I've posted this once already, but it seems to have vanished into cyberspace...... :unsure:
Quote from: ysi_maniac on November 16, 2009, 12:26:37 PM
Look like that Antonov :thumbsup:
;D ;D ;D Il-20 ;D ;D ;D :banghead:
Quote from: apophenia on November 19, 2009, 10:51:13 PM
That'd work and probably balance well. Reminds me of the Arsenal VB-10 (and, oddly enough, the Arsenal VG-30 prototype was powered by a flat-12).
The idea comes from a Fairey design that was, via a convoluted path, an "ancestor" of the Gannet. It was a bit portly though, because it used Merlins, which got me thinking about an idealised flatter version. The design's in
British Secret Projects - WWII .
Quote
It occurs to me that your Tempest/Seahawk idea could also work with a radial (perhaps with some funky gearing or a raised cockpit).
There was a Piaggio design very much like that, the P.119:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/piaggio_p-119.php
Bottom one for me apophenia, that looks very nice. :thumbsup:
Nice concepts Apophenia! I like them.
IMHO that's the best yet!
Nice one Apo- they look really good. :thumbsup: Got me thinking now: I've got a started Novo Sea Fury missing it's canopy, a Novo Seahawk on it's way and two Airfix ones in the stash...... :wacko:
Damn nice!
Regards,
Greg
That top one in the last pic is the cat's meow Apo' --- I love it :wub: :thumbsup: I think I'm going to attempt making that one if it's alright with you. I think I would incorporate the Sea Hawk intakes and revise the trailing edge where the exhaust comes out into a long slot for the radiator air exit.
Regarding the Centaurus powered one, as the engine cowling would be quite a bit bigger (diameter wise) than the cockpit, what about something like a 'primitave' Harrier style cooling intakes just aft of the canopy, sort of like an Attacker arrangement. The Tempest Mk.II didn't use gills like how you show it, what about using the Tempest/Sea Fury style of vent door which was just behind the exhaust stubs.
More nice work Apo.! :thumbsup:
Re the engine diameter, you could always claim that it's an ultra-souped-up Hercules instead of a Centaurus, in fact, you could claim that it has Thunderbolt-style turbo-supercharging, exploiting the layout to avoid the Jug's 20ft backwards and forwards ducting arrangement.
If you kept the mid-wing position, would the Tiffie u/c need to be longer? If it did, could you also keep the Seahawk inner wing, modified as a cooling inlet/outlet, and extend the gear bays into it, thus allowing longer u/c?
Just done some test fitting with a Novo Sea Fury and an Airfix Seahawk. Interesting:
1. The Centaurus cowling will almost fit inside the Seahawk fuselage, in fact, if you stretch the latter very slightly, you can close it up with the Centaurus inside (with minor PSR).
2. The Sea Fury u/c legs look like they'd be long enough to support the nose far enough off the deck with the wing in the mid-position, however that would depend on the diameter of the prop (see below)
3. The Sea Fury wing roots have, unsuprisingly, a much longer chord than the Sea Hawk outer wing roots, so you couldn't just graft them on without extending the latter. However, the Sea Fury wing is moulded in two parts to allow it to be made up folded, and the outer part is a near perfect match to the Sea Hawk inners, giving a very aggressive swept-forward "lobster" look. The issue of the u/c would still need to be resolved, however.
4. The Sea Fury spinner is the size of the entire Sea Hawk nose forward of the windscreen! This means that you can't just graft it on, unless you want the gearbox to be in the pilot's lap. Options would seem to me to be:
a. Move the cockpit further back,
b. Extend the nose with a tubular section, which would be "entertainingly ugly" rather than elegant,
c. Extend the nose elegantly, and fit a contra-prop of much smaller diameter, which would also help with the u/c issue,
d. Deepen the Sea Hawk's nose, so that the spinner goes on the front of the existing nose, with it's upper edge level with it, and a tubular fairing that blends it into the lower fuselage. This is probably the most practical option since it makes more room for the shaft, but note that it makes the undercarriage problem worse by lowering the prop axis.
More thoughts:
I too like the idea of vent doors rather than gills for the cooling air exits: you could have four of them around the rear fuselage and claim that it's the exhaust pipes which exit from the wing root trailing edge.
Further to that, if you wern't using the Sea Hawk inner wings with the intakes, you could have four similar flush or semi-flush (NACA?) intakes around the forward fuselage for cooling air intake.
If you did want a radial slot intake, gill exhausts and a fatter fuselage, you could simply wrap two half-tubes of plasticard around it. The curvature of the fuselage itself would then produce intake and exhaust slots: all you'd need to do is slot the trailing edge to make the gills.
Just had another look through BSP 1935-50 again. There are two other projects relevent to this discussion:
Fairey N.7/43 Design "C" (Page 177). This had a centre-mounted Griffon, a rear-mounted radiator with ventral scoop and flush dorsal exhaust, and a very Sea Hawk-like fuselage.
Westland Strike Fighter (page 185). This was a Wyvern ancestor with a RR Eagle in the centre fuselage and contra-props.
Quote from: Weaver on November 22, 2009, 02:26:32 PM
Westland Strike Fighter (page 185). This was a Wyvern ancestor with a RR Eagle in the centre fuselage and contra-props.
This is another on my 'to-do' list, I've even got a CMK Wyvern TF.1 kit to use. 'Course I also got another to make a Clyde powered version too as well as another to make the 'standard' version
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 22, 2009, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Weaver on November 22, 2009, 02:26:32 PM
Westland Strike Fighter (page 185). This was a Wyvern ancestor with a RR Eagle in the centre fuselage and contra-props.
This is another on my 'to-do' list, I've even got a CMK Wyvern TF.1 kit to use. 'Course I also got another to make a Clyde powered version too as well as another to make the 'standard' version
If the contraprop from my FROG/NOVO one gets nicked for something else, I intend to stretch the nose and make it the RR AJ.65-engined W.36 version..... :wacko:
Here's another suggestion for an engine for the Sea Furyhawk: a turbo-supercharged Hercules-18.
WTF is a Hercules-18? Well a while back, on another forum, I came up with a rationalised production plan for Bristol Engines, the essentials of which were to dump the small-cylinder Aquila/Taurus line, develop the Perseus faster and further, and make the Hercules a full 18-cylinder "twin-Perseus". With reasonable development, this should get them to the end of WWII without needing the Centaurus at all, allowing a faster move into jets.
Since the Herc-18 would have the same Mercury-sized cylinders as the real Herc-14, it should, logically, have a smaller diameter than the Centaurus with it's Jupiter-sized ones, and would thus fit into a Seahawk-diameter fuselage without controversy. Then, as I posted earlier, the reason for adopting the mid-engine layout might be to use turbo-supercharging without having the same extensive ducting as the P-47.
Quote from: apophenia on November 24, 2009, 01:53:09 PM
Nice. I like the Herc-18 idea. In this alt history, would both Herc-14 and Herc-18 be produced?
Cheers! No they wouldn't: the fully developed Perseus would take the lower end of the Herc-14's territory and the early Herc-18 would take the upper end. Some aircraft designs would have to be changed to accomodate larger-diameter engines, but that's not the end of the world, plus they'd gain in development potential. Imagine a Blenheim with 1000bhp+ Perseii, or a Beaufort with Herc-18s......
Got the FROG/NOVO/CAMONET Sea Hawk today, and it's actually less useful for this project than the Airfix one, due to the fact that it's inner wings are moulded in one piece with the fuselage. On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one. This makes the FROG one more suitable for my long-standing stretch + Skyhawk wings project, which in turn means that the Airfix one is free........ :wacko:
A subtle whiff - the Sea Tempest:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FSeaTempest.jpg&hash=e3eec632304441885888ff4b6e1f91bf1141680b)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: Weaver on November 27, 2009, 09:35:50 AM
On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one.
Except that all the swept wing projects based on the P.1040 airframe have their intakes brought forward. Compare the drawings in the Barry Hygate book and you'll see what I mean.
Can't see the Navy going for the Sea Tempest for several reasons. The chin scoop would be nasty for a ditching and likely to drag the aircraft and the pilot down. The view over the nose is as bad as the Sabre Firebrand, not helpful for carrier landings (the Sea Fury has the cockpit section raised). Finally, the Sabre was a notoriously temperamental engine which I don't think would take too well to being at sea. not to mention the fact that the engine had very close tolerances and you couldn't swap bits out of one to patch up another. You could swap it for the Centaurus, but then it's pretty much a Sea Fury. Which is a better aircraft anyway.
Now, a Sea Fury with a Tempest wing would be a more handy aircraft, given that it now has a centreline free for either fuel or other lethality.
Quote from: GTX on December 20, 2009, 02:00:37 PM
A subtle whiff - the Sea Tempest: <...>
Would look very appropriate on an escort carrier hunting subs in the Atlantic. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 20, 2009, 02:31:50 PM
Now, a Sea Fury with a Tempest wing would be a more handy aircraft, given that it now has a centreline free for either fuel or other lethality.
So, a navalised Tempest II, then?
;D ;D
No, the Tempest wing on a Sea Fury fuselage. The same problems re pilot position with the Tempest V also affect the Tempest II. The Sea Fury has the raised position, so better view over the nose on landing. Blackburn did the same thing when they totally revised the Firebrand into the Firecrest.
Given that the Sea Fury wing is a Tempest wing minus the section between the u/c bays, I'd assume that they had the same pick up points built in. Can't see fitting the former onto the latter would be a problem, apart from switching round the oil coolers.
Interestingly enough, I read the other day that a carrier based Tempest was considered by the RN (will try to find the reference again shortly).
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on December 27, 2009, 11:04:23 AM
Interestingly enough, I read the other day that a carrier based Tempest was considered by the RN (will try to find the reference again shortly).
Regards,
Greg
I'd be interested in that too Greg, just been checking the Francis Mason book Hawker Aircraft and he makes no mention of it.
The reference was in Tony Buttler's "British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950" - specifically on page 175, where it states "A 'hooked' Typhoon or Tempest for carrier operation was considered again in November 1942". It goes on to explain that although the Seafire was in service, it had disadvantages. The CinC Home Fleet suggested "that a Typhoon or Tempest should be obtained for Admiralty use as soon as possible and hooked for trials".
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 20, 2009, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: Weaver on November 27, 2009, 09:35:50 AM
On the upside, it lacks the accurate but infuriating leading edge kink outboard of the intake but inboard of the wing fold/split that makes it hard to just tack swept wings onto the Airfix one.
Except that all the swept wing projects based on the P.1040 airframe have their intakes brought forward. Compare the drawings in the Barry Hygate book and you'll see what I mean.
True, but even if you move the intakes forward, you still have the problem of the kink in the leading edge. Anyhow, what I'm planning for one Seahawk has
nothing to do with reality...... :wacko:
Quote
Can't see the Navy going for the Sea Tempest for several reasons. The chin scoop would be nasty for a ditching and likely to drag the aircraft and the pilot down. The view over the nose is as bad as the Sabre Firebrand, not helpful for carrier landings (the Sea Fury has the cockpit section raised). Finally, the Sabre was a notoriously temperamental engine which I don't think would take too well to being at sea. not to mention the fact that the engine had very close tolerances and you couldn't swap bits out of one to patch up another. You could swap it for the Centaurus, but then it's pretty much a Sea Fury. Which is a better aircraft anyway.
Didn't the original Sabre-Tempest have wing leading-edge radiators? Could they have gone back to that to solve the ditching problem?
Was the view over the nose of a Tempest II any worse than that of a Corsair, which the FAA operated (with some difficulty)?
A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.
The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 28, 2009, 03:19:05 AM
A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.
The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.
You could have a Tempest II airframe with the Hercules-18 I proposed earlier in the thread, whose development scale would be significantly ahead of the Centaurus (not far different from the RW Herc-14, actually). The Herc-18 would have a smaller diameter than the Centaurus due to it's shorter stroke: you could either fudge that (how much difference does it really make?) or extend a Perseus cowling. The smaller diameter might also help a bit with the view over the nose.
I've always wondered. If the Tempest II & Sea Fury both used the Centaurus, why is the Tempest II's cowling so much bigger in diameter than the Sea Fury's?
Quote from: Weaver on December 28, 2009, 03:50:02 AM
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 28, 2009, 03:19:05 AM
A Tempest II used for naval trials would be the best bet but the development of the Centaurus took too long. By the time a navalised Tempest II would be available, you'd have the Sea Fury coming out, which was the better aircraft all round.
The Tempest with the leading edge intakes was a beauty and it was a crying shame that it was abandoned.
You could have a Tempest II airframe with the Hercules-18 I proposed earlier in the thread, whose development scale would be significantly ahead of the Centaurus (not far different from the RW Herc-14, actually). The Herc-18 would have a smaller diameter than the Centaurus due to it's shorter stroke: you could either fudge that (how much difference does it really make?) or extend a Perseus cowling. The smaller diameter might also help a bit with the view over the nose.
Quote from: famvburg on December 28, 2009, 06:00:23 AM
I've always wondered. If the Tempest II & Sea Fury both used the Centaurus, why is the Tempest II's cowling so much bigger in diameter than the Sea Fury's?
It actually isn't, I've used both in my conversions and there's no difference (at least with the kits I've used anyway). Also you'll find the diameter of the cowling matches the diameter of the Shackleton Griffon 'power-eggs' (or the Merlin 85 installation) which I think was more by design than accident. A Centuarus powered Shackleton would be neat.
My 'fav' is the Fury with the Sabre VII (3000+hp), the fastest Hawker piston engined fighter.
I think it's an optical illusion. The Tempest is a BIG aircraft for a single seater so the engine looks beefy. Plus the installation isn't quite as neat as that of the Sea Fury. Plus the Matchbox Tempest cowling is a little too square at the front, which makes it look bigger when compared to a Sea Fury engine in the same scale.
May be. All I've ever looked at is the M'box II & Frog Sea Fury, but the II's sure looks bigger! I'll have to check them side-by-side.
Quote from: Barry Krell on December 28, 2009, 08:58:43 AM
I think it's an optical illusion. The Tempest is a BIG aircraft for a single seater so the engine looks beefy. Plus the installation isn't quite as neat as that of the Sea Fury. Plus the Matchbox Tempest cowling is a little too square at the front, which makes it look bigger when compared to a Sea Fury engine in the same scale.
I knew the Sea Fury & Shack's cowls would match as I've got them stuck in a box for a Sea fury conversion. Which was the version with the Griffon & c/r props? Did you use a Firefly nose for this one in the pic?
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 28, 2009, 07:13:42 AM
Quote from: famvburg on December 28, 2009, 06:00:23 AM
I've always wondered. If the Tempest II & Sea Fury both used the Centaurus, why is the Tempest II's cowling so much bigger in diameter than the Sea Fury's?
It actually isn't, I've used both in my conversions and there's no difference (at least with the kits I've used anyway). Also you'll find the diameter of the cowling matches the diameter of the Shackleton Griffon 'power-eggs' (or the Merlin 85 installation) which I think was more by design than accident. A Centuarus powered Shackleton would be neat.
My 'fav' is the Fury with the Sabre VII (3000+hp), the fastest Hawker piston engined fighter.
Quote from: famvburg on December 28, 2009, 05:36:54 PM
I knew the Sea Fury & Shack's cowls would match as I've got them stuck in a box for a Sea fury conversion. Which was the version with the Griffon & c/r props? Did you use a Firefly nose for this one in the pic?
The Tempest Mk.IV was LA610 which was to have a Griffon engine, also it was supposed to be the 'Light Weight' Tempest with the shortened wingspan, this being done by moving the wings inwards so the two wheel bays almost touched. This was transfered to the Fury project as LA610 and it was equipped with a Griffon and the contra-prop. LA610 was then re-engined again with the Sabre VII and my plan is to build all three versions of LA610.
For my Sabre VII Fury version I've used the Ventura Tempest Mk.I conversion, you have to add a carb intake under the nose and the top profile needs to be sloped as you can see in the photo (warning though, in my photo the nose has come unattached from the sticky tape and dropped a bit so the slope looks too steep), you get the leading edge radiators in the conversion and these need to be made not as wide as how the Tempest Mk.I had them. Photos show that the last exhaust stub lines up with the front of the radiator.
FYI Ventura has a new name called Jay's Models which are available through High Planes Models
http://www.hiplanes.com/new/jays_models_pricelist.html
For my Furies I've used the PM Models Bagdad Fury Mk.61, although these are two seaters it has the correct underside to the rear fuselage and I thought it would be easier to change the cockpit area than mess around with under the fuselage, plus I had already planned on using all the Aeroclub accessories you can get for the Sea Fury.
Ok so maybe it's not really a contributing post but...dayum that looks badass :thumbsup:
I've seen a pic of someone's & they used a Firefly nose & prop. It looked right & that's what I plan to use.
Quote from: kitnut617 on December 29, 2009, 07:00:25 AM
Quote from: famvburg on December 28, 2009, 05:36:54 PM
I knew the Sea Fury & Shack's cowls would match as I've got them stuck in a box for a Sea fury conversion. Which was the version with the Griffon & c/r props? Did you use a Firefly nose for this one in the pic?
The Tempest Mk.IV was LA610 which was to have a Griffon engine, also it was supposed to be the 'Light Weight' Tempest with the shortened wingspan, this being done by moving the wings inwards so the two wheel bays almost touched. This was transfered to the Fury project as LA610 and it was equipped with a Griffon and the contra-prop. LA610 was then re-engined again with the Sabre VII and my plan is to build all three versions of LA610.
For my Sabre VII Fury version I've used the Ventura Tempest Mk.I conversion, you have to add a carb intake under the nose and the top profile needs to be sloped as you can see in the photo (warning though, in my photo the nose has come unattached from the sticky tape and dropped a bit so the slope looks too steep), you get the leading edge radiators in the conversion and these need to be made not as wide as how the Tempest Mk.I had them. Photos show that the last exhaust stub lines up with the front of the radiator.
FYI Ventura has a new name called Jay's Models which are available through High Planes Models
http://www.hiplanes.com/new/jays_models_pricelist.html
For my Furies I've used the PM Models Bagdad Fury Mk.61, although these are two seaters it has the correct underside to the rear fuselage and I thought it would be easier to change the cockpit area than mess around with under the fuselage, plus I had already planned on using all the Aeroclub accessories you can get for the Sea Fury.
Quote from: famvburg on December 29, 2009, 05:18:06 PM
I've seen a pic of someone's & they used a Firefly nose & prop. It looked right & that's what I plan to use.
I'm using a Firefly nose on my Tempest Mk.III, I was given a description of what it looked like by the Tempest, Typhoon Specialist at Air-Britain and originally used a Beaufighter Mk.II nacelle, but later my Dad gave me an old 'The Aeroplane' magazine, the type in A3 format (11"x17") which was issued about 1948 and has cut-away drawings of engines and aircraft in it. Well there's a cut-away of the Firefly Mk.I/II and it said the engine was a Griffon 'power-egg' and immediately I realised what the Tempest Mk.III had, it fits very well. I can see some resemblance if the Firefly Mk.IV nose was used though, I had done a comparison when I was doing my Sabre VII Fury and I thought it was a bit small so went with the Tempest Mk.I nose.
These pics are of when I was using the Beaufighter nacelles and I was trying to reshape them.
I just ordered the Monogram moulded 1/48 Typhoon for a couple reasons:
One will be a cloth winged version, the other for the USAF in Southeast Asia 1967-71 or so. Posts to follow throughout the winter and possibly into the spring/summer.
The raised panel lines of the kits will serve me better for this type of building. Ultracast and Quickboost bits to be affixed where they'd serve better.
:cheers: (Earl Grey tea, loose leaf filtered in gold, served with heavy cream and sugar)
Daryl J.
I love the Twin-Tiffies I discover here today, thanks.
Something interesting ...a Bristol Centaurus powered Tornado:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FALT%2520RAN%2520FAA%2FCentTornado.jpg&hash=6397052b28e13b99da19b05a76a349fbaa36c086)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on November 20, 2010, 12:15:58 AM
Something interesting ...a Bristol Centaurus powered Tornado:
Regards,
Greg
Now that's an interesting nose to emulate
Gondor
Not the prettiest aircraft on the block though........ :-\
I've got the Maintrack conversion to do that Tornado
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 20, 2010, 07:35:34 AM
I've got the Maintrack conversion to do that Tornado
What scale? You could possibly use it as a starting point to do a R2800 variant of the CA-15:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fca15%2Fca15comp.jpg%3Ft%3D1290278458&hash=ad8a926c152c2c2e0b1c65351e27a5e5d1f789c9)
or even the Bristol Centaurus powered version I had in Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20908.0):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FALT%2520RAN%2520FAA%2FCA-15Greg02.jpg&hash=8191ec9ddffd5e119c53c471df78af14e41605cd)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on November 20, 2010, 10:43:33 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 20, 2010, 07:35:34 AM
I've got the Maintrack conversion to do that Tornado
What scale? You could possibly use it as a starting point to do a R2800 variant of the CA-15:
Regards,
Greg
1/72 scale, and I've got a 1/72 resin kit of the CA-15 too.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 20, 2010, 12:11:52 PM
Quote from: GTX on November 20, 2010, 10:43:33 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 20, 2010, 07:35:34 AM
I've got the Maintrack conversion to do that Tornado
What scale? You could possibly use it as a starting point to do a R2800 variant of the CA-15:
Regards,
Greg
1/72 scale, and I've got a 1/72 resin kit of the CA-15 too.
Well, everything is saying, go for it ;)
Regards,
Greg
Drawing of Centaurus Tornado:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FALT%2520RAN%2520FAA%2Ftorncent.jpg&hash=f9f78688f2c000e7863bbc1dd55309ab3a85c10d)
Regards,
Greg
Good luck with that Maintrack Centaurus Tornado. It's garbage. I had one to build for a mate and promptly realised it was unbuildable. The rear fuselage is all to cock and the master was based on ye olde Airfix kit. Maintrack was hit and miss. Some of the stuff was nice but much of it was shoddy.
I think you'd be better off with the Frog car door Typhoon, the Aeroclub upgrade and a Matchbox Tempest II engine as a starting point. Less work and quite likely a better resulting model.
Just a reminder for you guys of the size of the real Sea Fury.
I worked on this beastie when I was in the RAN FAA in the early 80's (was posted to the FAA Museum for a while).
These aircraft were (are) BIG!
All the photo's I took of this aircraft appear to have been either destroyed or lost.
Plus a photo of what a Sea Fury looks like when things don't go quite right & a scaling shot, with pilots in front of aircraft.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on November 22, 2010, 03:17:33 PM
Good luck with that Maintrack Centaurus Tornado. It's garbage. I had one to build for a mate and promptly realised it was unbuildable. The rear fuselage is all to cock and the master was based on ye olde Airfix kit. Maintrack was hit and miss. Some of the stuff was nice but much of it was shoddy.
I think you'd be better off with the Frog car door Typhoon, the Aeroclub upgrade and a Matchbox Tempest II engine as a starting point. Less work and quite likely a better resulting model.
My plans were to cut the forward fuselage off because of the huge bend in the rear fuselage and use an Airfix Typhoon, but the Frog/Frogspawn one would probably be better.
Nice photos, Wombat - the Sea Fury is indeed a monster. I think half of the reason it's so imposing is the nose-high attitude it sits at, due to the tailwheel u/c. That Centaurus is held high up, and it's a big lump of metal. Same goes for the other Hawker fighters like the Tempest, and the big radial American machines as well.
The original Hawker Henley dive-bomber was a Hurricane-looking aircraft, only larger and two-seat. I updated it a little by adding "Tornado"/Typhoon/Tempest elements, as if the Henley evolved. It's the dive bomber what shoulda-oughta been in FAA inventory by the time the Bismarck sortied!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi681.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv173%2Fsequoiaranger%2FHenleyDone02-m.jpg&hash=b7da001a1b8c98568c2c278dbd17c29a98bcc5e7)
Just some proof that the Typhoon was a slightly bigger monster:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd165%2Fhws5mp%2Ftyphoonlarge-thumb-800x486-1.jpg&hash=2b71ba9114f63d28e95ed0be33acd3c8ae09de1d)
Apparently this is the number of mechanics they had to take with them to keep each Sabre running.... :wacko:
As I've been rebuked, by 44-45, Sabre reliability was on a par with that of the Merlin. Once the erks were ordered to stop tinkering to get better performance, reliability shot up.
Quote from: Weaver on January 17, 2011, 07:31:30 PM
Just some proof that the Typhoon was a slightly bigger monster:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd165%2Fhws5mp%2Ftyphoonlarge-thumb-800x486-1.jpg&hash=2b71ba9114f63d28e95ed0be33acd3c8ae09de1d)
Apparently this is the number of mechanics they had to take with them to keep each Sabre running.... :wacko:
Seating must have been a bit tight.... ;D
Quote from: The Wooksta! on January 18, 2011, 01:16:53 AM
As I've been rebuked, by 44-45, Sabre reliability was on a par with that of the Merlin. Once the erks were ordered to stop tinkering to get better performance, reliability shot up.
Not quite like that Lee, Napier were the ones that kept tinkering with the design trying to make a better engine instead of working out the bugs in the engines that were in production. When English Electric bought out Napier (in '42 I think), they ordered all development to stop and told the engineers to fix these bugs in the production engines. Which they obviously did considering the reputation the Tempest had ---
The timing also happens to be around the time De Havilland were told they weren't going to get the Sabre they wanted for the DH.101.
I've heard of "multi-place aircraft", but **56** (counted the figures on the Typhoon in that picture--boy, do I have way too much time on my hands or what?)?? :blink:
Can anyone tell me, or preferably show in picture or plan, the leading edge radiator arrangement for the Merlin 85 powered Fury as I am planning to build one and this piece of information is holding the build up.
Gondor
AFAIK, there wasn't one. It was an annular cowling similar to the Lincoln installation.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on July 03, 2011, 06:26:16 AM
AFAIK, there wasn't one. It was an annular cowling similar to the Lincoln installation.
And a very ugly looking machine LA610 was with it, but a handsome creature once it had a Sabre was fitted. See http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=60204.
;D ;D
>Can anyone tell me, or preferably show in picture or plan, the leading edge radiator arrangement for the Merlin 85 powered Fury <
There *is* a small, leading-edge "scoop" of some sort at the wing root on the left side, POSSIBLY mirrored with something similar on the right side (right profile of linked photo--60204--not clear on what is at the wing root). NOT the typical coolant radiator, but...Carb intake? Small oil cooler?
Quote from: Gondor on July 03, 2011, 12:29:41 AM
Can anyone tell me, or preferably show in picture or plan, the leading edge radiator arrangement for the Merlin 85 powered Fury as I am planning to build one and this piece of information is holding the build up.
Gondor
As said above, there wasn't a Merlin powered Fury planned, there were two Griffon engined Furys however. All the various engine installations on the Fury were in the 24-2500 hp range, the Fury with the Sabre VII was a bit over 3000 hp.
The picture from the Brit Modeller link was one I had seen, I also have found this build http://www.modelingmadness.com/reviews/allies/gb/hobbinsfury1.htm but I want to have confirmation of the starboard intake type and size before I commit to cutting plastic.
Gondor
It'll be the same style on both wings. The first prototype Fury had the intakes in the same position as the Tempest II but later machines swapped them round, I forget why. Can't see Camm having a new intake designed when flipping one would be easier.
The Tempest Mk.II and Mk.VI both had two air intakes (one in each wing root leading edge) and one oil cooler next to the starboard air intake. From what info I've been able to gather (Brooklands Museum and Chris Thomas [Air-Britain Typhoon/Tempest Specialist who incidently you can contact on Britmodeller]) the Tempest Mk.III and Mk.IV (both Griffon engined) had just the two air intakes. The Mk.IV was the 'Light-Weight' Tempest and was the original LA610 and the program evolved into the Fury program. From pics and info, the Griffon LA610 just had the two air intakes and early Centaurus Furys had the same air intake/ oil cooler arrangement as the Tempests but when the prototype Sea Fury flew (with non-folding wings) the oil cooler had been switched to the port wing. I have not been able to find out why this was done even after some enquiries to the above sources of info. In any event, all these Tempests and Furys had two air intakes.
I have a 3-View drawing of the Tempest Mk.III but only a written description of the Mk.IV. For my in-progress models of these two, I'm using a Firefly cowling on the Mk.III and gone with a similar annular radiator as Fury LA610 shows as I thought this was the more logical sequence of events (although I stress I've not been able to confirm what it actually had looked like). The Mk.III and Mk.IV would have had different versions of the Griffon engine too, which I can't remember the numbers for them right now. In the Fury program there were also different Griffon engines used and my thoughts are one might have looked like a Tempest Mk.III arrangement but again, because of no actually photos to verify this I'm only guessing.
My apologies for getting the engine type wrong. Griffon not Merlin, but then as the cowling looks like the Universal Power Plants which considering the time frame of the aircraft I would suspect would be the type, or similar, used. However with only one 3/4 view available it is difficult to tell for definite that it is what is being used.
Gondor
Interesting website for any Tempest fans: http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.htm
Regards,
Greg
With Allison V-1710 ... perhaps not
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FTempest_p40_2.jpg&hash=d96cda5b28ed4d2eba9fae531c5f51a46eb88ea5)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FTempest_p40_1.jpg&hash=37f60a0b9499ace1bd49bdd5834c2afb42c6680a)
found this while watching Disney's Planes ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi307.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fnn292%2FNilssteyaert%2Fmisc%2Fplanesseafury.jpg&hash=16a7027ae033335d97eab4bd4427c9a31c95f7e1)
;D ;D
Just been thinking how (hypothetically, given it's price) the 1/24th Airfix Typhoon could be whiffed. If you wanted to "do it justice" and avoid acusations of "wasting" the kit, any mod you'd make would need to be highly detailed, with interior detail if possible.
Here's an idea: what if the 3" RP hadn't been satisfactorily developed, so the 40mm Vickers K gun continued in service? Trumpeter make a 1/24th Hurricane Mk.IID with good internal detail, so you could, relatively simply, swap the parts onto the Typhoon.
What else could you do? Alternative markings are an obvious one. Alternative engines would be very difficult, since you'd have to design the details of the installation, not just "stick a new nose on it" as you might do in 1/72nd.
I'd need a World Bank Loan first of all, then ANOTHER loan to increase the size of my model room and a THIRD loan to build a heavy duty display shelf....
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 01, 2014, 03:36:47 PM
I'd need a World Bank Loan first of all, then ANOTHER loan to increase the size of my model room and a THIRD loan to build a heavy duty display shelf....
The a 4th loan to pay for your own funeral once your missus gets her hands on you after she finds out about loans 1,2 and 3
Nah - you'd end up under the patio, so there wouldn't be a funeral... ;D
How about a two-seater? That could be an interesting look. Similar canopy etc. as the two-seat Furies. The work would just be building a second cockpit - not too complex when compared to doing a whole new engine - and making a new canopy, which again could be done reasonably easily by someone used to vacuum/smash-forming canopies. Would make for an interesting and plausible model, too. All-yellow, or overall silver with stripes for a post-war high-performance trainer?
Comrade Harps and I were discussing the feasibility of a torpedo carrying Typhoon whilst at Expo last weekend.
Obviously slung at a downward pointing angle to clear the radiator.
Thoughts?
I like the sound of that......taller tailwheel like the FW190....? Would it be a shorter torpedo or a full size one like a Swordfish or Beaufighter would carry.....?
This Fiat (from Expo - what inspired the discussion) looks to be a full size one.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi70.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi82%2Fgavinmaillardet%2FModel%2520Expo%25202016%2FModel%2520Expo%25202016%252028_zpsl1sm4mn2.jpg&hash=c9cb5988286c6a44b4d809ae7cf78e4aab290d8e) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/gavinmaillardet/media/Model%20Expo%202016/Model%20Expo%202016%2028_zpsl1sm4mn2.jpg.html)
Quote from: zenrat on June 17, 2016, 03:42:44 AM
Comrade Harps and I were discussing the feasibility of a torpedo carrying Typhoon whilst at Expo last weekend.
Obviously slung at a downward pointing angle to clear the radiator.
Thoughts?
Why angle it down? :-\
I'd just snuggle it in behind the radiator to minimise drag. You wouldn't lose enough air flow through the radiator to worry about, especially with the reduced workload on the engine as opposed to with the torpedo hanging fully into the slip-stream.
The Tiffy is almost 32' long & the 18" Mk. XV is barely more than 17' long. So it's doable but you might need quite a long-ish tail wheel extension.
Quote from: Old Wombat on June 17, 2016, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: zenrat on June 17, 2016, 03:42:44 AM
Comrade Harps and I were discussing the feasibility of a torpedo carrying Typhoon whilst at Expo last weekend.
Obviously slung at a downward pointing angle to clear the radiator.
Thoughts?
Why angle it down? :-\
I'd just snuggle it in behind the radiator to minimise drag. You wouldn't lose enough air flow through the radiator to worry about, especially with the reduced workload on the engine as opposed to with the torpedo hanging fully into the slip-stream.
The Tiffy is almost 32' long & the 18" Mk. XV is barely more than 17' long. So it's doable but you might need quite a long-ish tail wheel extension.
You might have a clean release problem if the nose of the torpedo is tucked in behind the radiator housing.
Quote from: Old Wombat on June 17, 2016, 09:54:08 AM
Quote from: zenrat on June 17, 2016, 03:42:44 AM
Comrade Harps and I were discussing the feasibility of a torpedo carrying Typhoon whilst at Expo last weekend.
Obviously slung at a downward pointing angle to clear the radiator.
Thoughts?
Why angle it down? :-\
I'd just snuggle it in behind the radiator to minimise drag. You wouldn't lose enough air flow through the radiator to worry about, especially with the reduced workload on the engine as opposed to with the torpedo hanging fully into the slip-stream.
The Tiffy is almost 32' long & the 18" Mk. XV is barely more than 17' long. So it's doable but you might need quite a long-ish tail wheel extension.
Really all you need to do is give the Typhoon a Tempest Mk.I cowling and leading edge radiators ;) ;) ;)
A Sea Typhoon was designed (no idea if they'd have slung a torpedo under it however) would have had longer wings = was PR19 involved ?
Seen a couple of nice models of it as various shows
All good stuff and all being taken on board.
Thanks.
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 18, 2016, 05:05:19 AM
A Sea Typhoon was designed (no idea if they'd have slung a torpedo under it however) would have had longer wings = was PR19 involved ?
3-View of it I got from
the Brooklands Museum (EDIT: come to think of it, I think Phil Butler sent it to me)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FMisc%2520Photos%2FSeaTyphoon.jpg&hash=0144ce392b3b3900deff3cf5d100819da41c2488) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Misc%20Photos/SeaTyphoon.jpg.html)
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 18, 2016, 05:05:19 AM
A Sea Typhoon was designed (no idea if they'd have slung a torpedo under it however) would have had longer wings = was PR19 involved ?
A tad before my time I think, but I'm glad to see 'The True Stuff' was already under way even then. ;D ;)
Quote from: dogsbody on December 08, 2007, 10:52:12 AM
This has been scanned from Francis K. Mason's book on the Typhoon/Tempest.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi92.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl23%2Fchris7421%2FTyph.jpg&hash=8d27432342eff4b6018c740efeb81bd21bed41d4)
I posted this on Page 2 of this topic, back in 2007
Chris
Did anyone on here ever build a Sea Typhoon as shown above?
It's an interesting looking design, especially with the outward retracting main gear. It looks as if the longer wings ;D were more for making room for larger fuel tanks than for any aerodynamic advantage. A later bubble canopy version would look good too.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2016, 02:13:13 AM
Did anyone on here ever build a Sea Typhoon as shown above?
It's an interesting looking design, especially with the outward retracting main gear. It looks as if the longer wings ;D were more for making room for larger fuel tanks than for any aerodynamic advantage. A later bubble canopy version would look good too.
No idea Kit although its on my "to do" list
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on June 19, 2016, 02:29:08 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2016, 02:13:13 AM
Did anyone on here ever build a Sea Typhoon as shown above?
It's an interesting looking design, especially with the outward retracting main gear. It looks as if the longer wings ;D were more for making room for larger fuel tanks than for any aerodynamic advantage. A later bubble canopy version would look good too.
No idea Kit although its on my "to do" list
Gondor
Its been done once to my knowlege. A gent by the name of George Munroe from IPMS Brampton built it years ago. It did a few shows on his club stand, then disapeared from view. I have one photo of it in my files from the 2004 Hornechurch show.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FPicture%2520007_zpss4hjzkk9.jpg&hash=8bfc1b056d0d0ffdf930055674fc11bc56715473)
Quote from: Martin H on June 19, 2016, 05:52:21 AM
Its been done once to my knowlege. A gent by the name of George Munroe from IPMS Brampton built it years ago. It did a few shows on his club stand, then disapeared from view. I have one photo of it in my files from the 2004 Hornechurch show.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FPicture%2520007_zpss4hjzkk9.jpg&hash=8bfc1b056d0d0ffdf930055674fc11bc56715473)
Thanks OGL, that's pretty much how I figured it would look in bubble canopy form.
It's very impressive, in model form and in RW. It would have made a good replacement for the Firebrand perhaps, but maybe with a Centaurus instead of the Sabre. Somehow I can't see the FAA loving the complexities of the Sabre all that much.
That's the model I remember :thumbsup:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2016, 02:13:13 AM
Did anyone on here ever build a Sea Typhoon as shown above?
It's an interesting looking design, especially with the outward retracting main gear. It looks as if the longer wings ;D were more for making room for larger fuel tanks than for any aerodynamic advantage. A later bubble canopy version would look good too.
Back in the late 90's, I discovered a small hobbyshop in downtown Edmonton and on display inside was a 1/48 scale SeaTyphoon that someone had built. Unfortunately, a year or so later, on my next trip into the city, the shop was no longer there. As this was pre-cellphone, I didn't get a picture.
Chris
Anybody willing to have a go with the Airfix 1/24 scale Typhoon model? ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2016, 06:12:56 AM
Quote from: Martin H on June 19, 2016, 05:52:21 AM
Its been done once to my knowlege. A gent by the name of George Munroe from IPMS Brampton built it years ago. It did a few shows on his club stand, then disapeared from view. I have one photo of it in my files from the 2004 Hornechurch show.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy22%2Fmartinhiggs%2FPicture%2520007_zpss4hjzkk9.jpg&hash=8bfc1b056d0d0ffdf930055674fc11bc56715473)
Thanks OGL, that's pretty much how I figured it would look in bubble canopy form.
It's very impressive, in model form and in RW. It would have made a good replacement for the Firebrand perhaps, but maybe with a Centaurus instead of the Sabre. Somehow I can't see the FAA loving the complexities of the Sabre all that much.
Swap the nose from a Matchbox Tempest onto a Typhoon Kit?
Gondor
Tempest is longer - there's an additional section aft of the firewall and contains fuel. Maybe start with a Matchbox Tempest and add the wing from the Typhoon? IIRC, Paul Lloyd did a decent Typhoon by cross kitting the Heller Tempest with an Airfix Typhoon.
Hi guys, I'm new here, but I'm a long-time scale modeller, & Hawker enthusiast.
Reading through this thread, I figured I'd add a few things..
Here is an excellent article on the Fury prototypes flown with Napier Sabre power:
https://oldmachinepress.com/2014/10/14/hawker-fury-i-sabre-powered
Seems a real pity Hawker could not put VP 207 aside for keeps.
That every last Sabre-powered aircraft in Blighty was scrapped - is a shocker..
About the Sea Typhoon, sadly, there was virtually no chance of the FAA ever getting it..
..the RAF had dibs on Typhoons, & actual production was so awfully problematic..
To judge by this: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/Typhoon_AFDU_Tactical_Trials.pdf
a Sea Typhoon would have been a formidable aircraft carrier borne weapon.
Can any show a documented service test in 1941/42 - of a fighter - with a superior performance?
& to clear up the 'radiator scoop - as cause of fatal ditching' issue..
this is discussed & debunked in Sqd Ldr Jim Sheddan's book - Tempest Pilot.
Sheddan survived a Typhoon ditching, & remarks that a light-alloy radiator matrix & scoop
is not the reason for problematic Typhoon ditching, as wheels-up terra firma belly-ins showed..
The actual problem was the thick wing section, which tended to sit down in water & suddenly
stop dead, usually incapacitating the pilot from the massive G forces stunning him.
Sheddan goes on to show water tank-test photos of the Tempest being checked for that too,
& in spite of sharing that big chin scoop, its thin 'laminar flow' wing enabled a smooth ditching.
This 3000hp Tempest F6 : https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201455.html
with a Sabre on ADI -was good for 418 mph at sea-level & 455 mph at 17,000ft, - a good subject for a model.
Wellcome aboard. Some interesting snippets there :thumbsup:
Ta, so here's another couple of 'Flight' articles.
This one notes that Hawkers were still operating their Sabre Fury in 1948, ( 'damn their eyes' - for scrapping it).
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%200430.html
& here: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%201660.html
is a write up of the Tempests used by Napiers for testing, inc' annual radiators & that high-boost Tempest F.6.
The speeds of the 'standard' F.6 ( chin radiator) on ADI @ 17.25lb boost shown on the graph, are those in my 1st post.
& This 1946 'Flight' table of British military aircraft shows the last gasp of the piston engine powered fighters..
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%202270%20-%200012.html
Certainly the RAF had by then stated they wanted only new jets for the role, even if the FAA had to wait for them , as usual..
The irony being that the FAA got a nice Sea Hawk while the RAF waited so long for the Hunter, & 'withering on the vine' Meatbox-wise..
..that they had to score some Canadian-built Sabre jets to fly a proper swept-wing job..
..even Australia (partly) gave up British & built Sabres (with R-R Avon power, & twin 30mm Aden cannon, probably the best - if late - F-86 variant..
Anyhow, it shows how the final generation of prop-fighters in British service - shaped up in basic performance terms, versus the initial jets..
What if? Ideas on the thread topic..
The USAAF were fairly impressed by the Tempest, even with the early series ( low-boost Sabre) Tempest V they tested..
( see appraisal here: www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/Tempest-V_Eng-47-1658-C.pdf )
What if the Brits had actually built enough Tempests to be able to supply them on reverse L-L, so the USAAF could operate a wing of 'em?
Much like the way the 8th AF kept the 56th F.G. as their sole P-47 unit, flying the high performance P-47 M-variant?
A 'colorful' 8th AF Tempest could be a 'what if'' - in Al finish, plus color ID bands, & nose art, or much like the 56th's T-bolts - in novel camo schemes..
& as a further 'what if', - according to F.K. Mason, the prototype Tempest Mk VI was flying in May 1944, & when trials tested at Boscombe down,
"revealed a maximum speed of 462 mph at 19,800 feet..." - maybe a USAAF Tempest Mk VI?
Or reverse L-L USAAF Typhoons in the MTO, akin to the Spit Mk VIII's they flew, & painted in sand & spinach, like the RAF/RAAF desert trials Typhoons..
or, like the RAAF Spit VIII's - an Australian schemed 'tropical' Typhoon, or Tempest, ready to put a rocket - up the kyber - of Tojo's boys?
What of the Tempest V in Nazi hands - which Rechlin test pilot H-W Lerche -rated so highly?
What if the Soviets got it intact, & tested it too,but painted in a Russian livery scheme?
Could do a 'cold war' Tempest II - as seized by the VVS, after landing in the Eastern Sector, being lost on a reciprocal vector, like Arnim's 190,
or a Centaurus powered La 9, using parts from an 'impounded' Sea Fury.
I built a whole line up of What If Typhoons, USAAF, French, Australian, Italian (post war) Russian etc. Often considered a line up of Tempests V to go with them but never got around to it. However a USAAF Tempest II is definitely on the cards
Go Matchbox. The Special Hobby one is a horror to build. I loathed mine so much that it's rotting in a box unfinished.
Ok, yeah - the Sabre Fury is the best looking bird of the Typhoon/Tempest/Fury line, but given the various different radiator systems fitted across the range..
..from the regular 'chin' through the elegant Hawker leading edge type, the R-R offset semi-annular Griffon set-up to the Napier annular ( inc' the 'dick nose'),
has anyone seen a complete potential Fury engine line-up? (You could include the US radial transplants too, if you must)..
An interesting what if, - if the R-R Vulture had been ah, cured* - how about a Fury prototype with a Vulture, with its X 4 rows of stacks poking out?
* Cue shades of HAL 9000/Alex Delage, with "I 'm feeling much better now, Dave"/"I was 'cured' alright."
( To be fair, ironically the Vulture had hacked punting the Tornado around ok, it was the drudge duty in the Manchester which brutalised it into collapse).
Quote from: James W. on May 07, 2017, 05:03:18 PM
...what if...the R-R Vulture had been ah, cured* - how about a Fury prototype with a Vulture, with its X 4 rows of stacks poking out?...
You could build one James. You should be able to get hold of a Frog Fury fairly cheaply.
I've a pair of Tornadoes somewhere. One will eventually be an in service one, what with four blade prop, bubble hood and big tailplanes.
The idea of fitting a Vulture to a Tempest is a good one, except you have to move the wings. Tornado had a deeper fuselage that runs under the wing. It's actually very subtle and quite a few have missed it, thinking it's just the engine that differs Tornado and Typhoon.
Quote from: zenrat on May 08, 2017, 03:40:53 AM
Quote from: James W. on May 07, 2017, 05:03:18 PM
...what if...the R-R Vulture had been ah, cured* - how about a Fury prototype with a Vulture, with its X 4 rows of stacks poking out?...
You could build one James. You should be able to get hold of a Frog Fury fairly cheaply.
Yeah ta Z, I've done few different ones already, but what about the Vulture?
Is there a Typhoon-to-Tornado conversion available, (similar to the one for the Tempest Mk I* ), that could donate the front-end?
Or any other Vulture source? Or is it a scratch-build prospect, AFAYK?
* Maybe that one could work, as a scratchy basis..
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 08, 2017, 03:45:02 AM
I've a pair of Tornadoes somewhere. One will eventually be an in service one, what with four blade prop, bubble hood and big tailplanes.
The idea of fitting a Vulture to a Tempest is a good one, except you have to move the wings. Tornado had a deeper fuselage that runs under the wing. It's actually very subtle and quite a few have missed it, thinking it's just the engine that differs Tornado and Typhoon.
Have a close look at the Napier annular jobs, they appear to have their Sabres mounted in a slightly shifted location too..
Of course, the Tempest had both a thinner wing & longer nose, which the Fury also inherited.. so the concern there is moot..
But I take your point about the original Tornado, the difference with the Typhoon was the Sabre could sit above the main spar, but not so the Vulture..
..this meant that Avro was left 'high & dry' by R-R's cancellation, with bulk production Tornado airframes to scrap - they were useless for the Typhoon..
I guess R-R did come to the party, by saving the Manchester from being a dud with its power-egg Merlin - originally slated for the Beaufighter..
..thus doing an 'ugly duckling' routine - to morph into the Lancaster..
There appear to be Lanc to Manc conversion kits available. One of them could donate a nacelle maybe.
Quote from: zenrat on May 08, 2017, 04:05:43 AM
There appear to be Lanc to Manc conversion kits available. One of the could donate a nacelle maybe.
Cheers, Z..
LF Models Tornado
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,37567.0.html (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,37567.0.html)
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 08, 2017, 06:12:27 AM
LF Models Tornado
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,37567.0.html (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,37567.0.html)
Yup! I've got one of those too. I've read though that the Vulture in the Tornado didn't give as much problems as what the Manchester had. It was actually flown for quite a long period after the Vulture was cancelled.
Also got one of the original prototype kits too, the one where the radiator tub is a'la Hurricane --
Quote from: James W. on May 08, 2017, 03:51:38 AM
Is there a Typhoon-to-Tornado conversion available, (similar to the one for the Tempest Mk I* ), that could donate the front-end?
Or any other Vulture source? Or is it a scratch-build prospect, AFAYK?
* Maybe that one could work, as a scratchy basis..
Maintrack did a load of resin body jobs of various Typhoon engine configurations, all intended to fit the Airfix typhoon. The old 1950s tool! All were a real pain to use. I was given a Tornado one but never did anything with it. It's pretty basic, very rough and has an inbuilt banana shaped rear fuselage...
I'd like someone to do the Centaurus Typhoon.
May be of some use:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Hawker_Tornado.svg
This looks interesting though
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi103.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm150%2F438cityofmontreal%2Ftyphoonproto.jpg&hash=218b835f026525d631b40df791f2a83c84c392ab)
Didn't someone do a vacform Tornado fuselage conversion at one time? I may have one, but I'm darned if I can remember where it is. :banghead:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 08, 2017, 10:13:36 AM
Didn't someone do a vacform Tornado fuselage conversion at one time? I may have one, but I'm darned if I can remember where it is. :banghead:
It may have been Maintrack Kit, before they switched to resin.
Maintrack did the Centaurus Tornado (got one and like Lee says, with built in banana fuselage). I don't think (at least I can't remember reading about it anywhere) that the Centaurus was ever installed in a Typhoon airframe. It needed the extra depth of the fuselage that the Tornado had to fit properly. The rear of the engine was above the front wing spar on both the Vulture and Centaurus engined Tornado. It's the reason there was a Tornado in the first place.
That annular radiator Typhoon does look interesting, one of the annular radiator Tempest conversions I have may accidently get dropped into rubber ---- ;)
TBH, I doubt you'd have to do that. Cowl from an Airfix Bristol freighter and some milliput/p38/plastic scrap and filler of choice should do it. Obviously start with a late mark Typhoon (Airfix?) and 2TAF markings for the finished product.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 08, 2017, 10:33:06 AM
TBH, I doubt you'd have to do that. Cowl from an Airfix Bristol freighter and some milliput/p38/plastic scrap and filler of choice should do it. Obviously start with a late mark Typhoon (Airfix?) and 2TAF markings for the finished product.
Hmm! you may have an easier solution there Lee, got a couple of spare Freighter cowlings in the spares box to, might even have the prop too
It'll work - just offered up the resin Magna Freighter cowl against an Academy Typhoon that was in the workroom. Shouldn't have to do too much filling and it's close enough in looks to get away with.
Some further Napier annular radiator info from 'Flight' here: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201441.html
Note: the photo showing the standard chin radiator & annular Tempests in flight - clearly gives an impression of the engine mounting/thrust line shift..
Adit: another 'Flight' photo shows the annular Typhoon front on: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945%20-%202285.html
& this one shows LA 610 with its satiny camo finish from a good angle: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201797.html
Anyone tried KORA?
(https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/6/7/7/188677-13409-10-pristine.jpg)
I've got the two annular conversions Kora does, just have to apply them to a model :o :rolleyes:
This is the other one;
https://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/prod/full/6/1/76742_0.jpg
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 08, 2017, 11:11:31 PM
I've got the two annular conversions Kora does, just have to apply them to a model :o :rolleyes:
This is the other one;
https://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/prod/full/6/1/76742_0.jpg
Cool K-nut, so that'll be the uncircumcised option..
Anyone done &/or seen a Fury with Sea Hawk straight taper outer wings & tail plane - grafted on?
A reality-based what if ( that is, it was paper only - but official, the Hawker drawings are still in existence - in the UK National Archive at Kew) Typhoon..
There were hopes that in USA, Chrysler would build the Sabre, & Bell the Typhoon, to be fitted with a G.E turbo, sited in the thick wing root..
In the event Chrysler farted about with their own V16, while mass-producing the Wright R-3350 for the B-29 program, & Stalin kept Bell busy with P-39s..
Quote from: James W. on May 09, 2017, 12:53:17 AM
Anyone done &/or seen a Fury with Sea Hawk straight taper outer wings & tail plane - grafted on?
Not yet, but give me time.
As for the Kora conversions. I have a pair of each but when I get round to doing them? Pass.
You could do both at once W, if time is of the essence..
Edit:& FYI, by "both" - I mean both sets of grafting, 'knob nose' & straight flying surfaces - on the one Fury..
By time, I meant when I get round to them - I don't think you realise just how many part started projects and complete but only primed airframes I have lying around. ;D Martin does, although he's a year or so out of date.
I'd use a PM kit but use the Frog/Novo Seahawk for the wings, largely because they're relatively clean. High altitude Fury? Then I thought about putting said outer wing onto a Tempest II...
I really fancy the Typhoon first, although I'll have to do some moulding.
Then W, I'd suggest you use the 'on hand' KORA Sabre Tempest nose as a template for the Typhoon, since the Herc' cowl is not truly dimensionally correct..
Quote from: James W. on May 09, 2017, 04:15:27 AM
Then W, I'd suggest you use the 'on hand' KORA Sabre Tempest nose as a template for the Typhoon, since the Herc' cowl is not truly dimensionally correct..
Having just dug out the relevant Tempest conversion, I compared it to the Magna Freighter engine and the latter is close enough. Besides, the Kora one is the prototype Tempest, not the Typhoon and who's to say any
production version would be identical? :mellow:
I mean, the Tempest II prototype has a car door canopy, not the bubble of the production. Any resulting annular Typhoon that I do will be based on the new Airfix kit, with the big tailplanes and loaded with bombs.
Ah, Napier would, rather than Bristol.. the Sabre was interchangeable between Typhoon & Tempest/Fury..
( in fact, the trick, specially hand-fettled Sabre that crashed in the Heston-racer then went into a service Typhoon, & I bet the Wingco Flying scored it!)
Surviving service Typhoons, along with the Tempest prototypes - were indeed, factory 'refurbished' - with the 4-blade prop/bubble canopy/thin tail planes..
Quote from: PR19_Kit on June 19, 2016, 06:12:56 AM
...but maybe with a Centaurus instead of the Sabre. Somehow I can't see the FAA loving the complexities of the Sabre all that much.
Actually PR, that "complexities" thing is a bit of a myth.. there are 'multiplicities' for sure, but that aint quite the same thing..
..in many ways the sleeve valve engines were less complex, & with fewer 'nuts 'n' bolts' to fettle..
& if the FAA could cope with the 'in your face' - 'horological' level of multiplicity of the Bristol engines, the Sabre would be no problem..
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbristol-hercules.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F12%2F17-dec-002.jpg&hash=abb1b8a095d642e36f09be19bd9cd48f528b85c1)
Napier Sabre Sea Fury
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FSeaFuryNapier.jpg&hash=408df0be93a0afec5ce432e16ec6d9eaa4b6a478) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SeaFuryNapier.jpg.html)
Interesting :thumbsup:
Hawker Sea Fury equiped with Hs293. Two different locations. Aft seat is for bomb operator. Not in constant scale however; bomb has been reduced to 75%. So a new reduced Hs293 equivalent must be developed.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2FHawker_Sea_Fury_Hs293.jpg&hash=195bd202572ccebe2849361dc55707875b5815a6) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Hawker_Sea_Fury_Hs293.jpg.html)
GTX,
QuoteWhat scale? You could possibly use it as a starting point to do a R2800 variant of the CA-15:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2Fca15%2Fca15comp.jpg%3Ft%3D1290278458&hash=ad8a926c152c2c2e0b1c65351e27a5e5d1f789c9)
Actually, the original plan did involve an R-2800 in the design...
Quoteeven the Bristol Centaurus powered version I had in Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20908.0):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FALT%2520RAN%2520FAA%2FCA-15Greg02.jpg&hash=8191ec9ddffd5e119c53c471df78af14e41605cd)
Oh, I like the Centaurus powered design
GTX no longer posts here. Try over at BTS.
Urgent question folks:
The Airfix 1/72nd Typhoon includes an optional piece that goes on the fuselage behind the radiator cowling, with no explanation of what it is. it's wedge-shaped, and appears to have louvre-vents along it's bottom/back edge. Does anyone know what it is and under what circumstances it was fitted? Thanks in advance.
Sand filter I think.
Yep - just found it on my 2nd read through the Wiki page.... :rolleyes:
It's a tropical filter, fitted to Typhoons from roughly June 1944, due to the dust and debris encountered on rough fields in France post-D-Day. I thought it might be such a thing, but since only three Typhoons made it to the Middle East for trials, I didn't know under what circumstances it was fitted.
That's it :thumbsup:
Quite a common fit once they got to Normandy.
Random idea: Brengun do a Typhoon Mk.1A with car-door cockpit and 12 x .303 Brownings. Why not blank off some of the MG holes and fit it with 2 x Vickers 40mm K guns as per the anti-tank Hurricane? For a backstory, maybe the North African campaign went on a bit longer and/or the Typhoon was developed a bit faster, and it went into service as a replacement for the Hurricane IID?
Hmmm Hannants Have AZ's 40mm-armed Hurricane Mk.IV and Mk.V on sale at the moment... :wacko:
I have plans and the parts for one :thumbsup:
One of the last Tempest V's was fitted with 2 x 40mm P guns in very streamlined fairings. Trials only though.
A question. Were the Hawker Typhoon (wwii) wings surface made of wood?
Thanks.
No.
... and aft fuselage, with those staples?
None of the Typhoon was build out of wood, the staples you refer to Carlos are reinforcing plates (aluminum) that were added after they discovered that the tail was coming off at the tail assembly joint after a rash of un-explained crashes.
reinforcing.
<pedant mode off>
Sorry, can't help it. Don't take it personally.
Quote from: zenrat on August 11, 2018, 05:11:44 AM
reinforcing.
<pedant mode off>
Sorry, can't help it. Don't take it personally.
:-X ;D
Been musing on the Airfix 1/72 kit in the stash, or one of them anyway, and that got me wondering if it would be possible for a Tiffie to carry both bombs and rockets ? Perhaps a pair of 250lb bombs plus two rockets per wing outside of the bomb racks ? Might make an interesting looking combination and might end up in RAF service that way.
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 22, 2020, 06:15:46 AM
Been musing on the Airfix 1/72 kit in the stash, or one of them anyway, and that got me wondering if it would be possible for a Tiffie to carry both bombs and rockets ? Perhaps a pair of 250lb bombs plus two rockets per wing outside of the bomb racks ? Might make an interesting looking combination and might end up in RAF service that way.
Possible? Probably.
Practical? Not so much.
I was reading some Typhoon articles yesterday, and one thing that struck me was that they soon decided to let each SQUADRON focus on either rockets or bombs. Not both. Apparently, they got significantly better hits when the pilot could focus on one method of delivering the goods.
They did carry drop tanks and 2 rockets per wing when more range was needed.
Quote from: NARSES2 on May 22, 2020, 06:15:46 AM
Been musing on the Airfix 1/72 kit in the stash, or one of them anyway, and that got me wondering if it would be possible for a Tiffie to carry both bombs and rockets ? Perhaps a pair of 250lb bombs plus two rockets per wing outside of the bomb racks ? Might make an interesting looking combination and might end up in RAF service that way.
I did one of my Typhoons like that Chris, mainly because I had seen a photo of one showing just that. Now the 'little grey cells' tell me it might have been for training purposes ---- but when has that ever stopped us :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Now these photos that I came across might offer some credence to that ----
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2Fba5920a0-d7c7-4337-8061-5e4fdbda94ef.jpg&hash=afd2cc8ff0eb1dbb162e73936182560841269a1b)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2F8c9c117e-ffb3-40b5-b330-46ed0a7a5510.jpg&hash=ec4944f50fc0ca76af1d821262bcf9abcbd0b9f7)
If you look carefully at the Typhoon in this pic, you can see what I did. ;)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2Fba2dee6c-0dd3-4612-9882-fd4daefce0c0.jpg&hash=64a018f1177cd3b2dd496ce3bfac5ce75d52a2f3)
Quote from: perttime on May 22, 2020, 06:22:33 AM
I was reading some Typhoon articles yesterday, and one thing that struck me was that they soon decided to let each SQUADRON focus on either rockets or bombs. Not both. Apparently, they got significantly better hits when the pilot could focus on one method of delivering the goods.
Very much so, and they all started off with bombs in the first place when they shifted to the fighter bomber role, rockets came along quite a bit latter.
Quote from: perttime on May 22, 2020, 06:22:33 AM
They did carry drop tanks and 2 rockets per wing when more range was needed.
Yup I've seen photos of that, see Kitnut's above, and I've built a model of one with that configuration, just haven't seen the tanks replaced by bombs.
Quote from: kitnut617 on May 22, 2020, 06:25:27 AM
I did one of my Typhoons like that Chris, mainly because I had seen a photo of one showing just that. Now the 'little grey cells' tell me it might have been for training purposes ---- but when has that ever stopped us :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvillage.photos%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f%2F8c9c117e-ffb3-40b5-b330-46ed0a7a5510.jpg&hash=ec4944f50fc0ca76af1d821262bcf9abcbd0b9f7)
Cheers mate :thumbsup:
I do like the loadout on that one above
If what I read recently that a RP3 with a 60lb warhead had a total weight of 100lb is correct, that means that inner load is about the same as the bomb (400lb of RP's and maybe another 100lb for all the other gubbins).
I just remembered something about the doubled up RP's, they were fired together ---
Not seen any pictures with both bombs and rockets, I suppose there was nothing to stop them being loaded out like that if fuel tanks and rockets could be used. I can see one problem though, you would not want to fire your rockets and drop your bombs at the same time so unless the firing circit was selectable it would be all or nothing.
Gondor
Request for information, please.
Can anyone cast light on which [EDIT] RAF fighter squadrons were slated to be part of Tiger Force when initial establishment plans were being drawn up following the Quebec Conference?
I know Tempest IIs and dH Hornets were the intended equipment but which units?
Many thanks in advance.
I've only got an order of battle for 15th August Dave and I think that's purely the 3 planned bomber groups. I'll have another look, but most of my books are on the BPF.
Thanks Chris, much appreciated. The little I have on Tiger Force plus what's immediately available through't Tinterweb focuses on the more definitive bomber-centric force without mentioning the fighters.
What I have found in the dark recesses of Operation Downfall material is that 6 fighter squadrons were proposed following the second Quebec Conference (1944). IIRC 54 Sqn plus at least one other was working up on Tempest IIs at Chilbolton around VE Day - were all of the planned Tempest II units destined for Tiger Force?
The Hornet entered service with 64 and 19 Sqns in 1946. Had the Hornet's introduction not been affected by delays, could both units have been part of Tiger Force, rather than re-equip with Mustangs in 1945?
EDIT:
- My well-thumbed (1988) copy of Owen Thetford's 'Aircraft of the RAF Since 1918' states that 183 Sqn (later renumbered 54 Sqn) was first to receive Tempest IIs, then 247 Sqn. Wikipedia has 183 getting their Tempest IIs in Aug 45 and renumbered 54 Sqn in Nov 45, with 247 Sqn getting also getting theirs in Aug 45. 54 Sqn was based in Australia with Spitfire VIIIs up to disbandment in Nov 45 and 183's renumbering later that month.
- I don't see 54 being re-equipped and moved to join Tiger Force, rather European Theatre fighter squadrons redeployed/re-equipped (as were bomber squadrons) to form Tiger Force. Of course the fighter element was dropped before Aug 45, but what if it hadn't? Would 183 and 247 headed east, I wonder? I'm going to hazard a guess and say yes, but would welcome any insights/confirmation
Quote from: Gondor on May 22, 2020, 07:42:25 AM
Not seen any pictures with both bombs and rockets, I suppose there was nothing to stop them being loaded out like that if fuel tanks and rockets could be used. I can see one problem though, you would not want to fire your rockets and drop your bombs at the same time so unless the firing circit was selectable it would be all or nothing.
Gondor
From what I've read, they were never used together due to different methods of delivery to target. One flight with rockets, another with bombs.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52138506392_398143e10c_o.jpg)
Quote from: Zero-Sen on June 11, 2022, 06:56:02 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52138506392_398143e10c_o.jpg)
I remember seeing the Speed Typhoon before. It still looks "right" to me. :thumbsup:
It does look good, very much so.
But to be very JMN-ish, it couldn't use 'N.17' as its reggie as 'N' was allocated to Supermarine. I'm miles away from my book on these things so I can't say which code was Hawker's, sorry.
Hawker were allocated the letter I.
Thanks for that Jim, you're closer to your Class B reggie book than I am I guess. ;D
Schneider Speed Typhon floatplane, delete the chin radiator add surface radiators. ;)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52978944972_47ef5d9eb7_o.jpg)
Very good, but it needs turbos on the top of the booms and radiators on the sides (the chin inlets* being for an intercooler).
*Chinlets?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52979711759_4f3c001e83_o.jpg)
That would be an interesting conversion for the forthcoming GB :thumbsup: Thank you
Academy Typhoon plus a Hurricane radiator ?
Except it's the initial design for Typhoon - the radiator was in roughly the same position as that on the Hurricane. It had poor handling and was moved to underneath the chin. And the above is a cut and paste, the original was more streamlined. Somewhere, I have the LF kit of the original Typhoon.
I did something similar with a Tempest, using a spare P.1027 radiator.
img_2_1687081110492.jpg
img_1_1687081072298.jpg
Quote from: The Wooksta! on April 27, 2021, 05:34:13 AMQuote from: Gondor on May 22, 2020, 07:42:25 AMNot seen any pictures with both bombs and rockets, I suppose there was nothing to stop them being loaded out like that if fuel tanks and rockets could be used. I can see one problem though, you would not want to fire your rockets and drop your bombs at the same time so unless the firing circit was selectable it would be all or nothing.
Gondor
From what I've read, they were never used together due to different methods of delivery to target. One flight with rockets, another with bombs.
Ditto
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52994058896_04f211a561_o.jpg)
The Wyvoon looks fast!
Maybe a Wypest or Tempern could follow? Or Wury?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52994524398_8d1a9a1c2e_o.jpg)
I do like the Wyvoon :thumbsup:
Quote from: NARSES2 on June 23, 2023, 06:18:46 AMI do like the Wyvoon :thumbsup:
Ditto! :thumbsup:
It also has a cool name! :mellow: :mellow:
Quote from: Old Wombat on June 23, 2023, 06:42:47 AMQuote from: NARSES2 on June 23, 2023, 06:18:46 AMI do like the Wyvoon :thumbsup:
Ditto! :thumbsup:
It also has a cool name! :mellow: :mellow:
I can imagine walking into a pub in Dorset and ordering a nice pint of Wyvoon....finest Dorset bitter :cheers: ;D
The Speed Tempest REALLY looks the business. :thumbsup: