A small what-if: Supermarine makes 'baby Tempest I' ...

[tomo pauk]

... instead of late marque Spitfires, Spiteful and Seafang. By 'baby Fury' I mean the classic Spitfire lines remain, but the cooling system is relocated to the leading edges, resembling now to the Hawker Tempest I, or perhaps the Fury monoplane. Engine offered to the costumers past VE day is either latest Merlin, or Griffon.
Any chances for it to snatch more sales between 1945 and 1950 that it was the case with latest Spitfires and Spitefuls?

 

[Howard Gibson]

tomo,

The Tempest I with the radiators embedded in the wing did 466mph at 24,500ft. That is a rather high altitude for a Sabre engine. I suspect that the reason they did not manufacture it was that the old chin radiator was fast enough. The Tempest V did 435 at 18,000ft. Note the much critical lower altitude. If you think about it, the Tempests and Furys are sort of Spitfireish, with the elliptical looking wings. The Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus don't look as sleek as the Griffon.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Tempest I with the radiators embedded in the wing did 466mph at 24,500ft. That is a rather high altitude for a Sabre engine. I suspect that the reason they did not manufacture it was that the old chin radiator was fast enough. The Tempest V did 435 at 18,000ft. Note the much critical lower altitude.

Tempest I was powered by the (theoretically) better Sabre than Tempest V. The Sabre IV was not made in series, however.

If you think about it, the Tempests and Furys are sort of Spitfireish, with the elliptical looking wings.

They do not offer anything to Supermarine; from opening post:
Any chances for it to snatch more sales between 1945 and 1950 that it was the case with latest Spitfires and Spitefuls?

The Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus don't look as sleek as the Griffon.

Sabre was probably as sleek as Griffon.

 

[ThomasP]

I think it would have to be a significantly larger airframe than the Spitfire - not necessarily because of the engine, but because of the post-war preference for multirole aircraft. A relatively small airframe like the Spitfire is limited in the ground attack role, plus the fuel load & ROA problem that has been addressed in other threads. Would an airframe size in between the Spifire MK XIV and the Tempest/Fury offer enough of a difference in cost and/or capability to justify buying?

 

[wuzak]

... instead of late marque Spitfires, Spiteful and Seafang. By 'baby Fury' I mean the classic Spitfire lines remain, but the cooling system is relocated to the leading edges, resembling now to the Hawker Tempest I, or perhaps the Fury monoplane. Engine offered to the costumers past VE day is either latest Merlin, or Griffon.
Any chances for it to snatch more sales between 1945 and 1950 that it was the case with latest Spitfires and Spitefuls?

What if they relocate the cooling system to the fuselage, a la P-51? Smith wanted to do it, but the powers-that-be said production was more important.

Hopefully without as pronounced a belly as the P-51.

 

[tomo pauk]

I think it would have to be a significantly larger airframe than the Spitfire - not necessarily because of the engine, but because of the post-war preference for multirole aircraft. A relatively small airframe like the Spitfire is limited in the ground attack role, plus the fuel load & ROA problem that has been addressed in other threads. Would an airframe size in between the Spifire MK XIV and the Tempest/Fury offer enough of a difference in cost and/or capability to justify buying?

Please note that I'm talking of a design process at about second half of 1944/1st half of 1945, with emphasis on service use being done ASAP, with as less of messing with current production lines as possible.

What if they relocate the cooling system to the fuselage, a la P-51? Smith wanted to do it, but the powers-that-be said production was more important.

The leading-edge radiators were in vogue in the UK in the 1st half of 1945, and, at least from what I can gather, were a good thing.

 

[ThomasP]

Understood, but my answer was relating to:

"Any chances for it to snatch more sales between 1945 and 1950 that it was the case with latest Spitfires and Spitefuls?"

 

[Zipper730]

Tempest I was powered by the (theoretically) better Sabre than Tempest V. The Sabre IV was not made in series, however.

Why? Also why didn't they pursue the Griffon 85 (Mk.III)?

 

[EwenS]

I've read that there were two possible reasons for not building the Tempest I:-
1- The Sabre IV had failed type testing 3 times by Dec 1942 and the Air Ministry considered it likely that that it would prove unreliable. Various changes to the orders were made along the way. So while there were 400 Sabre IV powered Mk.I ordered in 1942 they were not built as such and 300 Sabre V powered Mk.I ordered in May 1944 were to be built as Mk.VI, although eventually part of that order was cancelled.
2. Bee Beaumont was of the opinion that in 1942/43 the Air Ministry was averse to the idea of leading edge radiators as they believed them to be too vulnerable to flak damage. He however considered the Mk.I the better aircraft as it was some 40mph faster than the Mk.V all the way from sea level to 30,000ft.

Tempest Mk.III was to have the Griffon IIB (single stage, two speed supercharger) and the Mk.IV the Griffon 61 (two stage, two speed supercharger). In 1942 these aircraft were seen as possible replacements for the Hurricane in the ground attack role but the engines wouldn't be available in quantity until mid-1943. At that point production would have interfered with that of the Typhoon which proved entirely suitable for the role, so the Tempest III & IV were taken no further than paper studies. despite two serials being allocated to prototypes.

Eventually one of these serials, LA610, flew as the prototype Griffon 85 engined Hawker Fury prototype on 27 Nov 1944 with a six-bladed contra-prop.

LA610 was later re-engined with the Sabre VII and flew again as possibly one of the most beautiful piston engined types ever built. It is in this form that most photos of her appear as below.

 

[Zipper730]

1- The Sabre IV had failed type testing 3 times by Dec 1942 and the Air Ministry considered it likely that that it would prove unreliable. Various changes to the orders were made along the way. So while there were 400 Sabre IV powered Mk.I ordered in 1942 they were not built as such and 300 Sabre V powered Mk.I ordered in May 1944 were to be built as Mk.VI, although eventually part of that order was cancelled.

While this might sound stupid, I'm curious (purely from an intellectual standpoint) why it failed? I figure S Shortround6 , D Deleted member 68059 , W wuzak might also want to chime in on this.

2. Bee Beaumont was of the opinion that in 1942/43 the Air Ministry was averse to the idea of leading edge radiators as they believed them to be too vulnerable to flak damage. He however considered the Mk.I the better aircraft as it was some 40mph faster than the Mk.V all the way from sea level to 30,000ft.

I'm surprised they'd be bothered by that since the Mosquito had leading-edge radiators and (unless they took higher loss-rates than I was led to believe) seemed to do very well with variants operating both low and high.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm surprised they'd be bothered by that since the Mosquito had leading-edge radiators and (unless they took higher loss-rates than I was led to believe) seemed to do very well with variants operating both low and high.

Don't confuse the time line.
In 1942 and much of 1943 there were very few Mosquitos operating as bombers or fighter bombers.
I believe there were only 2 squadrons of bombers in all of 1942 and they were reassigned to pathfinding/night bomber duties in 1943?

It might have turned out there were not the losses from damaged radiators that they expected ( I don't know) but in 1942 and early 1943 there simply weren't enough Mosquitos operating under the same conditions to draw a useful conclusion.

 

[EwenS]

I'm surprised they'd be bothered by that since the Mosquito had leading-edge radiators and (unless they took higher loss-rates than I was led to believe) seemed to do very well with variants operating both low and high.

Well it was still a relatively new fangled idea. Whirlwind in service from mid-1940 and the Mosquito from July 1941 are the only types that come immediately to mind with that feature, so relatively little experience with them. Sometimes good old fashioned conservatism comes into play. But attitudes change and by 1945 we have other types entering or about to enter service with them. Firebrand, Hornet / Sea Hornet, Firefly IV come to mind. And more experience to prove the doubters wrong.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm surprised they'd be bothered by that since the Mosquito had leading-edge radiators and (unless they took higher loss-rates than I was led to believe) seemed to do very well with variants operating both low and high.

A state institution was wrong in it's opinion.
Not the 1st time, not the last time. There was no such thing as a monopoly on mistakes, either. For example, Soviets were sure that automatic loader mechanism that pulls the ammo from a carousel was a great thing on tanks.

 

[Howard Gibson]

While this might sound stupid, I'm curious (purely from an intellectual standpoint) why it failed? I figure S Shortround6 , D Deleted member 68059 , W wuzak might also want to chime in on this.
I'm surprised they'd be bothered by that since the Mosquito had leading-edge radiators and (unless they took higher loss-rates than I was led to believe) seemed to do very well with variants operating both low and high.

I've read that there were two possible reasons for not building the Tempest I:-
1- The Sabre IV had failed type testing 3 times by Dec 1942 and the Air Ministry considered it likely that that it would prove unreliable. Various changes to the orders were made along the way. So while there were 400 Sabre IV powered Mk.I ordered in 1942 they were not built as such and 300 Sabre V powered Mk.I ordered in May 1944 were to be built as Mk.VI, although eventually part of that order was cancelled.
2. Bee Beaumont was of the opinion that in 1942/43 the Air Ministry was averse to the idea of leading edge radiators as they believed them to be too vulnerable to flak damage. He however considered the Mk.I the better aircraft as it was some 40mph faster than the Mk.V all the way from sea level to 30,000ft.

Tempest Mk.III was to have the Griffon IIB (single stage, two speed supercharger) and the Mk.IV the Griffon 61 (two stage, two speed supercharger). In 1942 these aircraft were seen as possible replacements for the Hurricane in the ground attack role but the engines wouldn't be available in quantity until mid-1943. At that point production would have interfered with that of the Typhoon which proved entirely suitable for the role, so the Tempest III & IV were taken no further than paper studies. despite two serials being allocated to prototypes.

Eventually one of these serials, LA610, flew as the prototype Griffon 85 engined Hawker Fury prototype on 27 Nov 1944 with a six-bladed contra-prop.

View attachment 667266

View attachment 667267


LA610 was later re-engined with the Sabre VII and flew again as possibly one of the most beautiful piston engined types ever built. It is in this form that most photos of her appear as below.

View attachment 667268

Are you sure the Tempest I was 40mph faster from sea level? The Tempest V's top speed is deceptive, as it was achieved at the fairly low altitude of 17,000ft. According to William Green, the Tempest I did 466mph at 24,500ft. I wonder if this is a typo. If the Sabre VI had a better supercharger, it would reach a higher altitude and thinner air. This would not help at lower altitudes.

Is anybody using 150 octane gas?

 

[Shortround6]

Not the 1st time, not the last time. There was no such thing as a monopoly on mistakes, either. For example, Soviets were sure that automatic loader mechanism that pulls the ammo from a carousel was a great thing on tanks.

well they had a problem.
They had run out of strong left handed midgets* to use as manual loaders. If you can't reload the gun the whole tank is pretty use less.

*Soviet tanks had much less space between the floor and the top of the turret which meant any loader much taller than 5'4"(about 1.6 meters?) was forced to stoop over (crouch) when loading the gun. Now since the Soviets put the gunner and the commander on the left side of the turret than means the loader has to guide the round into the breech using his let hand/arm while ramming the long heavy round into the breech with his left had/arm.
Nato tanks usually gave the loader a bit more room to work in (at the cost of a higher tank) and the turret crew was reversed. The NATO tank loader could guide the shell with his left hand/arm and ram the round with his left hand/arm. Since right handed men are usually a bit stronger using their right arm.................???

Soviet tanks, for several reasons, had a much lower rate of fire (or rate of engagement) than western tanks. This was bad enough in a one on one "duel" but in a 10 on 10 engagement the NATO tanks were going to fire a lot more rounds in even 30-45 seconds.

 

[Zipper730]

Don't confuse the time line. In 1942 and much of 1943 there were very few Mosquitos operating as bombers or fighter bombers.

That is a surprise actually. I know the Mosquito first came online in 1941, and was used predominantly as a reconnaissance aircraft with the (the night fighter variant also pressed into service after the reconnaissance variant) aircraft eventually pressed into the bomber role.

It's still a surprise that, after they pressed the plane into the bomber role that they would have reservations about this reliability, since the planes were sometimes used in day-time (something that was rare for the RAF to do).

Well it was still a relatively new fangled idea. Whirlwind in service from mid-1940 and the Mosquito from July 1941 are the only types that come immediately to mind with that feature, so relatively little experience with them. Sometimes good old fashioned conservatism comes into play.

If the Whirlwind was around that long, by some point in 1943 it'd been around about 2-1/2 years. I think by 1942, they were already working on its replacement, the Welkin which flew after the first of the Tempest variants (which entered service, albeit in small numbers).

BTW: The statement by Beamont: Was this an opinion or a statement of fact?

 

[EwenS]

That is a surprise actually. I know the Mosquito first came online in 1941, and was used predominantly as a reconnaissance aircraft with the (the night fighter variant also pressed into service after the reconnaissance variant) aircraft eventually pressed into the bomber role.

It's still a surprise that, after they pressed the plane into the bomber role that they would have reservations about this reliability, since the planes were sometimes used in day-time (something that was rare for the RAF to do).


If the Whirlwind was around that long, by some point in 1943 it'd been around about 2-1/2 years. I think by 1942, they were already working on its replacement, the Welkin which flew after the first of the Tempest variants (which entered service, albeit in small numbers).

BTW: The statement by Beamont: Was this an opinion or a statement of fact?

Mosquito
By 30 Nov 1942 only about 415 had been built with 23 totally destroyed, 39 missing on ops and 84 with various degrees of damage. Only 207 were with units. That was 21 with PR units (first delivery July 1941), 46 with bomber and related conversion units (first delivery Nov 1941), 117 with fighter units (where first deliveries had been in Jan 1942) and 23 intruder Mk.II with a single squadron, 23 squadron (first delivery July 1942).

By the end of 1943, U.K. production reached 1,685 with 1,355 in operational units.
Data from Sharp & Bowyer "Mosquito"

Whirlwind
The last of 114 production aircraft flew in Dec 1941. Only 2 squadrons flew them with the second, 137 squadron, only forming in Sept 1941. They were taken out of service in June (137 squadron) and Dec (263 squadron) 1943.

Welkin
This wasn't a replacement for the Whirlwind. It was an entirely separate, much larger (70ft wingspan) twin Merlin powered aircraft designed as a high altitude fighter to Spec F.4/40. It bore only a passing resemblance to the Whirlwind. The prototype only flew in Nov 1942 to be followed by another and then 75 production aircraft, plus 26 engineless airframes. The only service it saw was a couple of aircraft with the Fighter Interception Unit in 1944 for trials.

Leading edge radiators
So by the end of 1942 there was not a lot of practical experience with them.

Bee Beaumont on the Tempest I
He was speaking some 20 years after the war. Whether the comments are borne out by the stats I don't know. But he certainly loved the aircraft.

 

[Zipper730]

drgondog , E EwenS , S Shortround6 , W wuzak

Does anybody have any figures for the Tempest Mk.I in terms of either speed/altitude, or both speed/climb/altitude?

 

[Zipper730]

Bee Beaumont on the Tempest I
He was speaking some 20 years after the war. Whether the comments are borne out by the stats I don't know. But he certainly loved the aircraft.

I did find something here which seemed to indicate there were issues with the wing-radiators, but I don't know exactly what was wrong with them.

 

[Howard Gibson]

What if they relocate the cooling system to the fuselage, a la P-51? Smith wanted to do it, but the powers-that-be said production was more important.

Hopefully without as pronounced a belly as the P-51.

I am giving this some thought. You can search the internet and find Meredith's original article. His basic concept was that radiators for liquid cooled engines should be buried in the fuselage, and fed through ducts that expand in cross sectional area. This reduces air velocity, reducing drag and increasing the time spent in the radiator. The radiator can be made larger without increasing the frontal area of the aircraft. His article contains a lot of horrible math I have not sorted out yet. At the end, he notes almost in passing that heat rejected from the exhaust manifolds and from the radiator can be used to generate thrust.

The original Spitfire radiators were buried in the wing. However aerodynamic the Spitfire's wing was, it was thin and it did not bury much frontal area for radiators, especially as the engines got more powerful, and then bigger and more powerful.

Look closely at the Spiteful. The radiators were very much wider than on the Spitfires. This would have buried much more radiator frontal area inside the wing.