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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Sabre IV didn't seem to have very good reliability and there seemed to be issues with oil-consumption (no idea why).

W wuzak , you have anything on this?
 
There were a few reasons why the Tempest I didn't get very far. One was that the Tempest V had a lot of parts commonality with the Typhoon, namely rear fuselage design and power unit (Sabre II series). You also have to remember that the Sabre II was still also having some durability issues in 1943 as well that Napier were working on. So that took away from development of the more temperamental Tempest version of the Sabre. The Air Ministry were also skeptical about if the leading edge radiators could be excessively prone to damage (though the DH Mosquito were using them by then, and they returned on the Fury 1). A later version of the Sabre was used on the Tempest VI, which differed from the V in the new power plant, and an enlarged radiator. The larger radiator resulted in the oil cooler being moved to the right wing root (like the Centaurus powered Tempest II) and the main supercharger intake being split and incorporated into the wing roots (again, like the Tempest II). There was also another filtered supercharger intake in a small fairing behind the radiator for tropical use).

However, I do find modifying the radiators to reduce drag on the Spitfire an interesting topic. I obviously know of Joe Smith wanting to use some type of ventral radiator on the Spitfire, but the Air Ministry objected. But leading edge radiators or Spiteful type radiators could be interesting. Ironically, that was a strong point maybe of the laminar flow wing being thicker than the Spitfire's original elliptical wing. Granted, as shown on the Spiteful, there was some compromises that got made (Spiteful was faster on the same engine power, but stall was relatively nasty compared to the Spitfire). But design upgrades could've fixed that. But then again, there were jet fighters (Gloster Meteor and DH Vampire) that were starting to be delivered by the time the Spiteful/Seafang were seriously getting tested.
 
The radiator issue notwithstanding, why did they use such a set-up for the Griffon engined variants? The Griffon seemed a much better engine, though the earlier versions didn't have the two-stage superchargers.
 
Not sure why Hawker never pursued such a layout with the Griffon powered versions of the Tempest or Fury. The one illustration I saw of the Tempest III still had the standard chin radiator (the Tempest IV never actually got built). The Fury III used the Griffon 85 with a radiator similar to the Avro Shackleton, before being re-engined to use the Sabre as the Fury I.
 
A year late, but I got back interested in this topic over the past few days. I did read that Hawker didn't take seriously the Griffon installation aside from showing it could be done, as well as it was Rolls-Royce who designed the radiator layout. Hawker, firstly, prioritized the Centaurus and Sabre powered versions, and secondly, were already working on jet fighters.
 
AFAIU RR designed the 'firewall forward' package used on the Lancaster and the Merlin powered Beaufighters as well. This was then developed into the "Universal Power Plant" (UPP) installation for both Merlin and Griffon, that was used in the Lincoln, Shackleton and some civilian aircraft as well.

So it was probably a quick job to fit an already developed firewall forward UPP package to the Tempest rather than Hawker designing it themselves.

AFAIU the Air Ministry was adamant to avoid a RR monopoly, so might be that a Griffon-powered Tempest was DOA anyway except as some kind of backup plan, hence Hawker didn't want to spend too much resources on it?
 
The problem seems to have come down to one of production priorities & capacity.

In March / April 1942 Camm appently felt that the Griffon Tempest had great possibilities, and Ernest Hives at RR had agreed to manufacture the powerplant as a "power egg" that Hawker could bolt onto the Tempest fuselage. It was then being viewed as a mass produced Hurricane replacement in the ground attack role. There were 2 versions being proposed:-

Tempest III with a Griffon IIB
Tempest IV with a Griffon 61

The latter was the clear favourite but in April 1942 it was thought that the supply of Griffons would become sufficient to allow production in 1943.

But R S Sorley, Asst Chief of the Air Staff (Technical) raised the issue of the time factor. It was expected that a Griffon Tempest would be ready for production in mid-1943 at a time when there were large numbers of Typhoons already on the production line. He saw the Typhoon as the first step in finding a Hurricane replacement with a Griffon Tempest following. But as it turned out the Typhoon proved a good replacement for the Hurricane in the ground attack role so the Griffon Tempest didn't go beyond the prototype stage.

From Tony Buttler's "Tempest Hawker's Outatanding Piston-Engined Fighter"
 
wuzak said:
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.
Click to expand...
Difficult to conceive. The mass flow rate of the air in climb dictated the scoop intake area. The upper lip must still be dropped 'far enough' to strip most of the low energy boundary layer but not so faras to increase profile drag.

The dimensions on the P-51H represent a very nice ballpark frontal/lower design.
 
tomo pauk said:
What-if: Supermarine makes 'baby Tempest I
Click to expand...
It is disappointing that Hawker never made an all-metal single seat fighter powered by a Merlin or Griffon. It must have occurred to him? Hawker's Gloster unit had the all-metal F5/34, but until the Typhoon everything Hawker was braced linen. Had the Sabre or Vuture been rejected, perhaps we might have seen something from Sir Sidney, though if it fulfils the exact same role and competes with the same resources as the Spitfire then we'd have to ask, why bother.

I suppose it would have looked like the Baby Tempest 1 you propose. Perhaps it goes to the FAA instead of the Seafire?

 
Last edited:
drgondog said:
Difficult to conceive. The mass flow rate of the air in climb dictated the scoop intake area. The upper lip must still be dropped 'far enough' to strip most of the low energy boundary layer but not so faras to increase profile drag.
Click to expand...
Forget the radiators and fix the sloppy panel fit, reshape and slimline the canopy and get rid of all the lumps and bumps aka Seafire MkIII and then you would see worthwhile achievable gains in speed.
 
That's pretty much it, but needed at a smaller scale. Let's see something earlier from Hawker that can run a Merlin and three or four blade prop rather than those experimental Griffon powered beasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What if the Bugatti 100p became a fighter?
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
GTX
1930 to 1950: small caliber ammo for the SMGs and pistols?
Replies
14
Views
504
MIflyer
M
Realistic limits of the small 12 cyl engines, 1935-45
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
Small Aircraft Carriers
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
14K
EwenS
E
A
If Italy is neutral what does its air force look like by Sept 1942
6 7 8
Replies
146
Views
16K
Elan Vital
E
Menu
Log in
Register