Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep it was.
...
Was it perfect, no it wasn't, was the Tempest a better aircraft, yes it was. Would it have been better with a low flow laminar wing, yes, but how many aircraft in the world were being designed using such a wing in 1939 and the answer is none. So to look back in hindsight and its easy to be critical but at the time in 1939 when the decisions were made and it was a good one.
...
For all the trouble, the Brits may have been better off license-building Vought F4U's and Pratt Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp's.
Or trying to ensure adequate production to fulfill their needs in the US.
I suppose with complete 20/20 hindsight it would look like this
IMHO a real beauty and very nice plane to fly, at least from F.2 onwards according to Eric Brown.
Juha
...Unfortunately, Hawker believed to the other folks (RAE folks?) that 19% wing is great...
Was tail failure really that big of a problem? Going thru the Typhoon lost list there is only a few and that was early.
from The Hawker Typhoon, Tempest, Sea Fury
Several test pilots were killed in the Typhoon. Of the first 142 delivered, only seven were not involved in serious non-combat accidents due to engine or airframe failures at one time or another.
The tail problems turned out to be due to elevator flutter and were cured by modifying elevator balance, but that didn't happen until very near to the end of the war.
sources were at the endThere doesn't seem to be any primary source material to back up this claim, so, as with many such internet sources, this can be taken with a large dose of salt. The best source of information on the Typhoon/Tempest family is Chris Thomas - if none of his books have been consulted chances are errors will have crept in.
This is very wrong; the elevator mass balance was modified starting September/October 1943, which largely eliminated the problem.
sources were at the end
THE HAWKER TYPHOON by Francis K. Mason, Profile Publications, 1966.
FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II by Charles W. Cain and Mike Jerram, Profile Publications, 1979.
FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II by David Donald, Metro Books, 1998. This document is basically an outline of the chapters on the Typhoon, Tempest, and Sea Fury in this book, with additions from the other sources.
BRITISH WAR PLANES OF WORLD WAR II, edited by Daniel Marsh, Airtime Publications, 1998.
I seem to remember reading that the tail problem also involved the rear wheel and engine/harmonic vibration not exclusively elevator flutter. The Typhoon had an annoying high pitched vibration which didnt go until they fitted a 4 blade prop which was towards the end of the war.
After tests conducted in 1943, it was determined that the Typhoon was capable of carrying a 1,000 lb (454 kg) bomb under each wing. With the increased load, it was decided that the extra take-off performance conferred by a four-bladed propeller was an advantage; this led to the adoption of a four-blade propeller unit (de Havilland or Rotol) from early 1944. Coinciding with the new propeller, it was also decided that the larger tailplanes of the Hawker Tempest were to be fitted when tests showed that larger tailplanes improved the handling characteristics of the Typhoon when carrying 1,000-lb (454 kg) bombs.[57][63] There were, however, problems experienced with oil seal leaks from the new propeller unit as a consequence of which a growing number of Typhoons were held in Maintenance Units (MUs) awaiting the arrival of new seals from the U.S. In addition, some 200 Typhoons were manufactured with the new Tempest tailplanes and the three bladed propeller. A modification programme was inaugurated but it took several months before a majority of operational Typhoons had both the four-bladed propeller and enlarged tailplane.[64][nb 13]
found this in wiki
Starting in September 1942, a steel strap was fitted internally across the rear fuselage transport joint, although this was soon superseded by Mod 286 (modification number 286), in which 20 alloy "fishplates" were riveted externally across the rear fuselage transport joint, while internally some of the rear fuselage frames were strengthened. This was a permanent measure designed to stop in-flight rear fuselage structural failures and was introduced on the production line from the 820th production aircraft; between December 1942 and March 1943, all Typhoons without Mod 286 were taken out of service and modified. Modified balance weight assemblies were fitted from May 1943. Finally the entire unit was completely replaced with a redesigned assembly from August 1944.[53]
Although these modifications reduced the numbers of Typhoons being lost due to tail assembly failure, towards the end of the Typhoon's life there were more tail failures, this time caused by a change to the undercarriage latch mechanism in late 1944; in high-speed flight the undercarriage fairings were pulled into the slipstream, creating an uneven airflow over the elevators and rudder resulting in tailplane and then rear fuselage structural failure.[53] In total 25 aircraft were lost and 23 pilots killed due to tail failures.[53] Thomas and Shores 1988, p. 20.
Exactly my point, no primary source documents used, so no way of x-checking whether the statistics quoted hold water.
Four-bladed propellers started being fitted in early 1944, although there were some hold-ups:
From Wiki:
I stand corrected; the new balance weights were fitted starting in May 1943, not September/October. The source used was Chris Thomas Christopher Shores The Typhoon and Tempest Story - still probably the best book available on the subject, although Chris Thomas has since written others.
Hey friend we are sharing information here not scoring brownie points over events when my father was a young man.
Sorry that you've taken it that way; I am simply pointing out to be wary of information that comes off the internet, plus I'm giving a more accurate timescale for the modifications that were carried out to correct the various problems you are highlighting. That's what's being discussed in this thread, or am I mistaken about that?