PDA

View Full Version : Tempest - good as a fighter?



WildeSau1975
04-12-2007, 05:18 AM
Hi all,

I am really enjoying this game but I am not that a specialist when it comes to the pros and cons of the different planes.

Can someone tell me if the Hawker Tempest was a good fighter plane. As far as I know it was a superb fighter bomber but how did it perform as a pure fighter against Fw190A-9, D9, etc. and Bf109F,G,K?

I like the look of this plane and also it's armament but don't know how it should be used against pure LW fighers - if it's wise to use it at all.

thanks for any infos.

All the best,

Michael the WildeSau

ytareh
04-12-2007, 05:50 AM
Short answer?Yes!

ytareh
04-12-2007, 05:51 AM
By the way you should download IL2 Compare to (yes youve guessed it!) 'compare' aircraft in the sim.Not hard to find (Google it)

VW-IceFire
04-12-2007, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by WildeSau1975:
Hi all,

I am really enjoying this game but I am not that a specialist when it comes to the pros and cons of the different planes.

Can someone tell me if the Hawker Tempest was a good fighter plane. As far as I know it was a superb fighter bomber but how did it perform as a pure fighter against Fw190A-9, D9, etc. and Bf109F,G,K?

I like the look of this plane and also it's armament but don't know how it should be used against pure LW fighers - if it's wise to use it at all.

thanks for any infos.

All the best,

Michael the WildeSau
Actually you have the superb fighter-bomber thing backwards http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The Typhoon, its predecessor, was a superb fighter-bomber. The Typhoon was largely a failure as a fighter due to its low roll rate, engine issues early on in its career, poor high altitude performance, and problems with high speed dives ripping the tail off.

The Tempest on the other hand was rarely equipped with bombs and was never operationally equipped with rockets (we have them in-game, mostly because we don't have a Typhoon so it stands in well). The Tempests roll was tactical fighter...most sorties were flown from 1000 feet to 20,000 feet (the average was probably around 8 to 14,000 feet) and the objective was to attack anything in the air or on the ground worth attacking.

So the Tempest is truly a fighter. Its redesigned wings, tail section, improved Sabre II engine, better cannons, and bubble canopy make it an impressive fighter from sea level up to about 25,000 feet. Above 25,000 feet there are aircraft that are definitively better...but below that the Tempest is just as good as any other fighter. Its a solid match for the FW190D-9.

As for use...the Tempest is a boom and zoom energy fighter. You need to start with altitude, dive into the battle area, fire off a burst and then climb back for altitude. Because the Tempest is very clean aerodynamically (laminar flow wings like on the Mustang), has great weight, and has a high powered engine, the Tempest does this move well. But learn how to deal with rudder trim and elevator trim because it requires constant adjustment.

The Tempest has a really good high speed turn as well...but once the speed starts to drop off you need to cut it out. Its not a turn fighter like the Spitfire and you'll ultimately be disappointed with it if you try to make it one.

WildeSau1975
04-13-2007, 04:03 AM
Hi Ice Fire,

Many thanks for this detailed information.

Good to know that it can be used as a fighter - this plane pleases me much.

Hope to have some success in it!

All the best,

Michael

Phil_K
04-13-2007, 02:56 PM
If you believe engine guru LJK Setright, there was never anything wrong with the Sabre.

He maintains that "problems" with the Sabre were down to a whispering campaign within the Air Ministry by Rolls Royce to discredit the Sabre by blaming any Typhoon accidents (of which there were many that were not engine related) on the competition offered by smaller manufacturers such as Napier and Bristol.

The Tempest was a great fighter. The Typhoon was a great fighter-bomber. But issues of "reliability" are clouded in wartime politics that would take a brave and dedicated person to unravel.

VW-IceFire
04-13-2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Phil_K:
If you believe engine guru LJK Setright, there was never anything wrong with the Sabre.

He maintains that "problems" with the Sabre were down to a whispering campaign within the Air Ministry by Rolls Royce to discredit the Sabre by blaming any Typhoon accidents (of which there were many that were not engine related) on the competition offered by smaller manufacturers such as Napier and Bristol.

The Tempest was a great fighter. The Typhoon was a great fighter-bomber. But issues of "reliability" are clouded in wartime politics that would take a brave and dedicated person to unravel.
Yeah there is some trickyness to the whole thing. There was issues with the flight crews not being trained for use with the Sabre II so they did what they thought was normal for a Merlin with the Sabre and that didn't quite work out apparently. But there were a number of issues with run away props, the seals were often quite bad on the engines and they would leak fumes into the cockpit (I believe this killed several pilots).

I know that Rolls Royce played politics in a big way and had several MP's on their side the whole time. Oddly, Rolls pulled the plug on the Tornado project which was basically the same aircraft as the Typhoon but with a Rolls Royce Vulture (H block).

Phil_K
04-13-2007, 05:14 PM
Yes, I believe there were reported Carbon Monoxide leakage problems with the Typhoon, but I understand there were similar problems with the Barracuda, which was Merlin-powered.

With regard to seals, I have read (Setright again) that this was a problem with seal-face machining, rather than the seals themselves; and again it was an area that RR had influence, in that they had priority with allocation of machine-tools, contract machine-shops etc.

Please note that I'm not taking sides here, and am playing Devil's advocate to an extent. It could be that the generally-accepted wisdom is the closest to actual fact. Only that Setright is a world-acknowledged expert, and that the generalised truths we all take as second hand do not always withstand scrutiny.

Like I said before, it would take a brave and dedicated person.....

tools4foolsA
04-15-2007, 12:46 AM
Pierre Closterman reports on fights with 109's not to let speed drop below 300mph as at low speed 109 turns better.Plus good climb on 109.
Use better dive speed of Tempest, short zoom climb and dive again.
An he reports as well that 109's tried to get them up to 16'000 feet where their Tempests were heavy and sluggish.

190 D-9 is similar to Tempest as a plane, more a highspeed fighter and for low and medium altitudes. Better dive speed and acceleration for Tempest but faster roll and better climb for Fw 190 D-9 according to Closterman. All in all he regards combat performance virtually the same.

Brain32
04-16-2007, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Pierre Closterman reports on fights with 109's not to let speed drop below 300mph as at low speed 109 turns better.Plus good climb on 109.
Use better dive speed of Tempest, short zoom climb and dive again.
An he reports as well that 109's tried to get them up to 16'000 feet where their Tempests were heavy and sluggish.
Maybe IRL it really was like that, but most certainly NOT in this game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tools4foolsA
04-17-2007, 02:40 AM
Which part isn't like that?

wouldn't know as I don't fly late war monsters really...

*****

WOLFMondo
04-17-2007, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Phil_K:

The Tempest was a great fighter. The Typhoon was a great fighter-bomber. But issues of "reliability" are clouded in wartime politics that would take a brave and dedicated person to unravel.

I've read several different yet corresponding stories to why the Sabre got the bad rap it did. The main one was the engine fitters themselves, orignally parts of the supercharger and related boost control mechanisms were open and fitters could tinker with them. Once Napier/EE discovered this they locked up the units. basically early Sabres were running contantly at boost levels at there upper limit and the engines were wearing themselves out and conking out randomly.

The other factor was money as you mentioned, because of politics. Rolls Royce got the lions share of money for development because they had lots of lobbyists in Parliament with an interest in RR doing well and Napier/EE not doing so well. Napier/EE had almost no money to work with and all the best engineers worked for RR.

THen as mentioned, negative press, like people saying a fitter had to be present with a fire extinguisher when starting the engine. AFAIK there was always a person near by any engine starting with an extinguisher.

What gets mentioned rarely is Sabre II's and VA's were run on test beds constanly for 130 hours+ at 4000HP+ and in patterns imitating real use.

Phil_K
04-18-2007, 03:04 PM
Whether RR had the best engineers is again open to debate.

I have read that during joint meetings with the Air Ministry, the Napier engineers would take the p*ss out of the RR ones by helpfully suggesting ways to boost the power of the Griffon to match the Sabre.

VW-IceFire
04-18-2007, 05:03 PM
Problems or not...the Sabre is/was a beast of an engine and when it was working the power was incredible from any pilot reports I've read. I'm not sure if its the engine or the airframe but the Tempest in game is excellent for just powering its way through zoom climbs and break turns.