|
Post by nuuumannn on Mar 14, 2012 2:00:04 GMT 12
In structure the Tempest has more in common with the Hurricane apart from the rear fuse, obviously. In the Personal Plane services pics in Zac's post you can see the tubular structure that supports the outer panels and the lugs for the wing spars.
No matter; I'm sure the guys will do a fantastic job. There'll be a lot of people watching this project with interest from abroad.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 14, 2012 10:50:23 GMT 12
Of course they'll do a great job. They have restored numerous aircraft including the challenging Lavochkin LA-9, loads of P-40's, the Yak 3, Pilatus Porter and much more. They have the skills and experience to take an unusual type and get it flying again.
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Mar 14, 2012 11:22:37 GMT 12
And we can't wait for it to arrive and see the work begin :-)
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Mar 14, 2012 13:28:05 GMT 12
No one's suggesting they wouldn't. Do you think I'm implying something?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 14, 2012 13:50:39 GMT 12
Not at all. But some comments on other forums from people reading this thread have. Something to do with others who've attempted to rebuild this airframe and failed. They of little faith. Kiwis can do anything.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 14, 2012 14:19:55 GMT 12
Pioneer have shown that anything is possible. The Tempest will fly and it will be, as with all of their work, a masterpiece. I thumb my nose at the nay sayers.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Mar 14, 2012 17:53:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 14, 2012 17:54:49 GMT 12
Is that THE machine?
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Mar 14, 2012 17:59:31 GMT 12
It's not a Tempest II, looking at the tail. Looks like a very nice Typhoon reconstruction.
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 14, 2012 18:00:07 GMT 12
That was my first impression also.
|
|
|
Post by Brett on Mar 14, 2012 18:03:41 GMT 12
Yeah, original cockpit section with a recreated fuse tacked on.
Posted to support Bruce's comment about the structure.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 14, 2012 20:45:24 GMT 12
I'm going to win 19 million on lotto on sat nite, is there anything else I can buy or have all the good warbirds gone now
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Mar 14, 2012 21:01:19 GMT 12
Still a couple of CT4s around Beagle
|
|
|
Post by gunny on Mar 15, 2012 0:39:32 GMT 12
Last time i saw a Typhoon i thought they were upgraded to or from tempest and were very similar? Could 1 of the more knowlegable members please point out the differences?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 15, 2012 1:03:46 GMT 12
Basically the Sydney Camm-designed Hawker development lineage went: Hawker Hart family (Hart, Hind, Fury, Osprey, etc) >>> Hurricane >>> Henley>>> Hotspur >>> Tornado >>>> Typhoon >>> Tempest >>> Fury/Sea Fury
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Mar 15, 2012 3:11:51 GMT 12
From memory the Typhoons had an issue with tail section strength, so the join had to be reinforced (you can just make this out at the aft end of the sky band, after the 3 in the serial). The Tempests had a different dorsal fin profile as they had a fin fillet. I've got to get to work otherwise I'd post profile views of each showing the differences.
EDIT: also, i believe the Tempest had a much thinner wing and airfoil. I'm sure others can fill in the blanks.
Brett: where is that machine? It looks awesome.
|
|
|
Post by angelsonefive on Mar 15, 2012 6:02:13 GMT 12
I have always thought of the Tempest as a new design from the wheels upward ( possible exceptions being the Sabre-related items such as engine mounts and radiators.)
Including the wheels which required a tyre of a slim profile, and the latter were manufactured specially for the Tempest. Likewise the Hispano cannons which had their own version designed to fit the Tempest wing.
With regard to the Typhoon problem of the tail section " weakness ", it is true that a number of lives were lost as the result of failure of the rear fuselage structure just ahead of the tail unit. This was, it was thought, rectified by the addition of the ugly reinforcing plates visible on the mock-up in the picture..
Later a Typhoon snapped at the same area during a landing roll and examination proved that the crashes were not the result, as thought, of a design weakness in the rear fuse., but damage resulting from aerodynamic flutter of the elevators caused by faulty machining of a counterweight in the elevator control system.
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Mar 15, 2012 12:39:36 GMT 12
Dave, you know you shouldn't go reading 'other' forums, you just end up getting hot under the collar when you return to this one and vent on some poor wee chap who just wants to say his piece! I couldn't agree with you more; my post was merely to say that despite the Tempests difficulties in being a Brit machine, the guys at Pioneer will do a fantastic job and the restoration will be the envy of the world, because it was done well and that finally there will be a flying Tempest, but here, not there. That's probably what their beef is about. Dfference between Tempest and Tiffy; lots, same basic structure design is about all they had in common, although the Tempest was originally conceived as an improved Typhoon with an elliptical wing of thinner profile. The Tempest prototype (HM599) resembled a Typhoon, being fitted with the Tiffy's three piece canopy and empennage and was indeed called the Typhoon II, but later became the Tempest I. It was a sleek looking beastie but was not put into production. Even the Tempest V prototype (HM595, just to confuse), even though longer in the fuse, had Typhoon canopy and empennage, but the first production Tempest Vs are recognisable as their breed due to the standardisation of the fin fillet and blown canopy.
|
|
|
Post by ZacYates on Mar 15, 2012 17:25:45 GMT 12
Thanks nuuumannn! Much appreciated.
And to confuse things AGAIN, the Sea/Fury started out as the "Lightweight Tempest"...
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 15, 2012 17:36:16 GMT 12
I wasn't trying to vent at you Grant, apologies mate. I agree with you.
|
|