PDA

View Full Version : Is Anyone Working On A Typhoon???



ohs88t
12-16-2005, 01:45 PM
Just wondered is anyone working on the Hawker Typhoon for this sim? As it was one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war.

NekoReaperman
12-16-2005, 02:50 PM
I think it will be in the upcoming addon coming around christmas, give or take a month :-)

VW-IceFire
12-16-2005, 02:50 PM
Two years ago yes...but it was dropped, picked up, dropped again, and finally killed because the 3D model was not upto par for being implemented in the engine (note: this was not an artistic consideration, it was a 3D model problem).

Believe me...I wanted to see a Typhoon too!

BUT...the bright side of things is that we get its successor the Hawker Tempest which was faster, more manueverable, even better armed, and in all ways better. No its not the same thing and having both would be ideal...but at least we've got another British made aircraft in the stable.

VW-IceFire
12-16-2005, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
I think it will be in the upcoming addon coming around christmas, give or take a month :-)
Nope...thats a Tempest. A Typhoon is an earlier variation of the design. The Tempest rectifies several problems and errors in the Typhoon design while also being faster and slightly better armed.

lairdperkins
12-16-2005, 05:32 PM
Yes, but do they model the Tempest in a Teacup?

goshikisen
12-16-2005, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by ohs88t:
Just wondered is anyone working on the Hawker Typhoon for this sim? As it was one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war.

I trot these images out whenever the topic of the Typhoon comes up... It's too bad the model wasn't built to standard. A Tiffie would have been mighty fine.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/pf16.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/pf21.jpg

HotelBushranger
12-16-2005, 07:55 PM
What's the difference between a Typhoon and a Tempest? I've never been able to work that one out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2005, 09:04 PM
All the Typhoon/Tempest info you'll need to differentiate:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avcfury.html

Skycat_2
12-17-2005, 01:16 AM
WikiPedia Tempest article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Tempest) explains how it was an improvement on the Typhoon design.

I've read that the Typhoon design had a problem with shedding its tail in a dive and this was one of the reasons it was a poor interceptor design. In some pictures and profiles you can see evidence of reinforcing staples near the tail of Typhoons which may have been a field mod; the Tempest V design cured this shedding problem. The Tempest's redesigned wing is the major difference though; it allowed the four cannons to be set further back than in the Typhoon 1B and so the barrel openings were flush with the wing's leading edge. From what I understand Tempest Vs didn't use rockets in combat although they were made capable of carrying them; in the diagrams I've seen for Tempests the rocket rails are short compared to Typhoon 1B's rails which extend beyond the wing's leading edge. Finally, the instrument panels of the two designs were different.

Although the Tempest V was a faster, improved design I have an odd preference for the Typhoon 1B. Maybe its the awkward ugliness of its extending cannons and rocket rails that makes it look mean that I like. But if Tempest V can be used as a ground attack plane (IE, rocket loadout) then I won't complain too much about having to substitute it at Falaise Gap. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ohs88t
12-17-2005, 03:52 AM
The Typhoon had a poor rate of climb and low performance at altitude for an interceptor but high speed at low level that why it was used as a ground attack plane. The Tempest will be great to play in the game but its a great shame the Typhoon wont be in it.

Longitude
12-17-2005, 04:42 AM
No Typhoon or Tempest here.

But I have had a mean chilli and washed it down with a pint or 2 of lager, so there's probably a wicked SBD coming soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(sorry...couldn't resist)

Grey_Mouser67
12-17-2005, 08:28 AM
Early on, the Typhoon had issues with engine reliability and tail separation...it is likely the tail separation was due to flutter and/or compressibility. The tail section was strengthened and was no longer an issue into 43.

The achilles heel of the Typhoon was its thick wings. It is in its wings where it lost its potential high altitude performance. It also had a low rate of roll compared to its contemporary enemies. It was fast in a straight line and very good at low altitude. It was never going to escort bombers so it was relagated to knocking off Fw Jabo's over the channel and eventually the RAF figured out that it was an exceptional ground attack aircraft and the rest is history...

It is interesting that the Tempest got the new wings...but it was still designed with a fairly low critical altitude...likely due to the superior high altitude performance of the Spitfires of the era. Tempest is much faster, much better rate of role, laminar wings and superb diving aircraft that was structurally very strong. One of the best low and medium altitude aircraft of its day. They Typhoon was not.

We still need a Typhoon, Mustang Mk IA and IV w/ boost, P-38F,G,H, flyable Avenger, -4 Corsair, Spit MkXIV, B-25Gunship, Ki44,45,48....

And the list goes on...so many possibilities

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
What's the difference between a Typhoon and a Tempest? I've never been able to work that one out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Well the most obvious changes are to the wings and to the tail section.

Here's a Typhoon Mark IB
http://www.2iemeguerre.com/avions/images/image240.jpg

The Typhoon concept was originated in the very late 1930's. Hawker and their chief designer Sydney Cam were working on a replacement for the Hurricane. They experimented with a few types of engines and design methods and eventually came up with a design that featured a fairly heavy and large fighter. Essentially all metal construction (the Hurricane was still partly fabric) with large wings and a Sabre 2000hp engine (VERY powerful for its day). When the Typhoon reached the frontlines it was plagued with problems. The tail on occasion would fall off in a high speed dive, the plane would reach a high dive speed extremely quickly, and the wings prevented high altitude performance from being as good as the Spitfires. So the RAF nearly cancelled the fighter project until they were convinced that it could be adapted for the low altitude ground attack role.

By 1944 there were large numbers of Typhoons firing rockets and dropping bombs on the German army in Normandy. The Typhoon is largely regarded as the Allies best tank buster (the P-47 is a close second).

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/frenchaces/avions/raf/img/tempest_ph.jpg

The Tempest was a redesign of the Typhoon. Long story short...the engine ended up being essentially the same Sabre II 2000hp engine that was in the Typhoon (to save time and get the new fighter out on the frontlines). The changes were structural...the fuselage was lightly redesigned and lengthened, the tail section was increased in size, a bubble canopy (which was also fitted to the Typhoon) was fitted as standard, and the wings were completely redesigned. They used the same sort of laminar flow concept as present on the Mustang. They were also shaped to be semi-ellipitical. A variety of reasons accounted for this including keeping the entire cannon barrel in the wings (of which the special Hispano Mark V was fitted in place of the longer Mark II).

The Tempest was a true fighter...while the Typhoon was not quite as good.

The Tempest was faster, rolled significantly better (the Typhoon was horrendous for its roll rate), had a very effective rudder and control surfaces at high speeds, was tough (the Typhoon was as well), and at low altitude the Tempest was pound for pound faster than virtually every other Allied or Axis fighter. The Mustang Mark III with the +25lb boost was faster at some low altitudes but they were close. The FW190D-9 goes back and forth with the various Tempest modifications...their speeds beeing essentially identical.

The Tempest was first used, in an early form, from April-September 1944 as a anti-V1 aircraft. Following that, the Series II aircraft were built (about 700-800 of them), and saw extensive service on the continent with the 2nd TAF from about October to the end of the war in May 1945. Although a somewhat limited production run, the Tempest was the premier, go everywhere, do anything fighter of the 2nd TAF so it saw alot of contact with Luftwaffe fighters and accounted for very large numbers of Luftwaffe fighters shot down. Most Tempests were lost to flak but quite a few were also brought down by the Luftwaffe's remaining experienced fighter crews. It gave a very good accounting of itself even when outnumbered.

A fighter to be reckoned with and built in the same style as the Focke Wulf. The Typhoon and the Tempest is basically what the RAF ended up with as an answer to the Focke Wulf. The Typhoon didn't quite live upto that reputation in all respects but it was faster. The Tempest was pound for pound a good match for anything the Luftwaffe was flying late in the war.

ohs88t
12-17-2005, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:

We still need a Typhoon, Mustang Mk IA and IV w/ boost, P-38F,G,H, flyable Avenger, -4 Corsair, Spit MkXIV, B-25Gunship, Ki44,45,48....

And the list goes on...so many possibilities

Yes P61 Blackwidow, Whestland Whirlwind etc etc, but the b25 gunship should be a possibilty now I am not programmer I cant even use the map editor in Pacific fighters but can the existing b25 not have a solid nose grafted on and the bomb aimer position deleted quite easily????

actionhank1786
12-17-2005, 12:12 PM
"I am not programmer I cant even use the map editor in Pacific fighters but can the existing b25 not have a solid nose grafted on and the bomb aimer position deleted quite easily????"

I think the idea's come up, but it would still require some working on the interior model, and Oleg is a stickler for historical accuracy.

WOLFMondo
12-17-2005, 12:36 PM
There were other internal changes to the Tempest. The cockpit is further back, the hydraulics and electrics are different.

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
There were other internal changes to the Tempest. The cockpit is further back, the hydraulics and electrics are different.
Tis true...the fuselage is actually refined as well. Some internal changes to the structure. But I'm not aware of what they actually changed.

WOLFMondo
12-17-2005, 04:08 PM
Not sure of precise changes to the fuselage other than the rear fuselage was totally different, not just the tail section. The tail section on all but the first batch was detachable too. Got no idea why. It was pretty much a new plane apart from the cockpit and nose/engine/radiator.

Padser
12-18-2005, 08:33 AM
~S~

Can I recommend this as an excellent book on the Tiffie for those who are interested in its role as a ground atttack weapon (esp following the Normandy landings):

Golley, J (2000). The Day of the Typhoon: Flying with the RAF tankbusters in Normandy. Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing Ltd

The Battle of Mortain and the annihilation of German ground forces in the Falaise Gap are key Tiffie victories, both of which the author participated in.

A good read!

Pads

Phil_C
12-18-2005, 10:33 PM
Back in the day (like 486 days lol) there was a great game/sim i found, called operation overlord, and you got to fly that bird... definately made me a fan. its a shame it wont be included here.

WOLFMondo
12-19-2005, 04:06 AM
Its a real shame it won't ever be in this sim. A vital plane for the western front from 1941 onwards.

Rattler68
12-19-2005, 10:57 AM
Check out the sig. From a book I have on the Mossie, Tiffie, and Tempest from a pilot's perspective. I'll check through it and add some little details to the thread. BTW: the name Typhoon came about because of the previous Hawker model, the Hurricane: a typhoon is a "more violent Hurricane."

Rattler68
12-19-2005, 11:03 AM
Interestingly, the first Typhoon was completed on Sept. 3, 1939! Imagine if they had time to teeth it out and rush it into production!

Rattler68
12-19-2005, 11:38 AM
Some early notes on its toughness: "It certainly was a tough aircraft, and used to take a hell of a lot of punishment - the sort of punishment that would have finished off other fighters. One of our pilots pursued a 190 over France at very low level and came back with half a forest in his radiator. Another, returning from a sweep over Europe, was seen by the rest of the formation to break away and go into the sea. Back at the mess, the other pilots were having a drink when the police rang to ask what arrangements should be made to collect our man. 'His body?' the police were asked. 'No. He's OK.', they replied. It seemed that the Typhoon had been so tough that it had not broken up upon hitting the sea, but had sunk in one piece to the bottom, 50 feet down. The pilot had then released himself and floated to the surface in an air bubble, little the worse for his experience."

Sydney Hanson, retired Sergeant fitter B Flight, 609 Sqn RAF 1943

Dr...Watson
12-19-2005, 01:29 PM
"Day of the Typhoon"

Im reading that right now, hope to be finished for Xmas then pass it onto my Dad when I see him.

Get it dirt cheap at play.com if anyone os intereted. Great books there if anyone else is into reading on the pan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Opie-won
12-21-2005, 11:12 AM
Another issue that came up with the Typhoon was engine problems. The Napier Sabre was an extrenely complicated powerplant that did not have all of the bugs worked out of it before getting placed into production. Carbon Monoxide leakage was a serious problem with Typhoons as well and after losing several aircraft and pilots all Tiffie pilots were required to wear oxygen masks at all times. Even with the problems, the Tiffie was a superb Ground attack aircraft.

WOLFMondo
12-21-2005, 12:32 PM
Most of the Sabre problems were due to fitters tinkering with things they should like the boost levels, basically the Sabres were running themselves to death just cruising on full boost. When Napier discovered the root of the engine issue was not the engine design but how the engine was maintained they locked up the parts so they couldn't be toyed with, the Sabres reliability was proven. The issue with Carbon monoxide and the koffman starter were never really solved.

stathem
12-21-2005, 01:26 PM
So theoretical question;

If the Tiffie were in this sim, how do you think it would fare?

We know it was not terribly succesful in the A2A role - due to inferior high altitude performance ('cos of the thick wing) and poor rate of roll.

I think it would be a real killer in this sim thou' - especially in '43 scenarios when it was the fastest thing around at low level. Great visibilty and four hispanos. Flown in a hit and run capacity it would rack up the kills in a surprising manner.

WOLFMondo
12-21-2005, 02:40 PM
Its poor altitude performance was due to the engine not being geared for high altitude, the wing was just a poor old fashion design. The FW190 had worse high alt performance was considered one of the best fightershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I don't know how it would do online, it certainly extremely fast upto 20,000ft, probably as fast or if not faster than the P38L when very low but at most it could only carry 12 rockets but the 4 20mm would be very useful. In a group they could certainly defend themselves but if I met a 109 i'd run away rather than stand and fight.

VW-IceFire
12-21-2005, 02:54 PM
In theory in the game I would be the only person to try and fly it in a fighter role. Ok...there would be one or two others (WOLFMondo I volunteer you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

The advantage of the Typhoon is that its fast for a good long while before some other types overtake it in the low altitude speed range. Even in 1945 it was still amongst the fastest.

In one of those classic dogfight servers the Typhoon would do far better than the P-51 would as the Typhoon is already in its element. With only a half decent turn rate it would be a favorite of the Yak-3/La-7 crowd but it would appeal to the same sort that take the FW190 out for a ride and do very well in.

The worst bit would be the roll rate. It didn't roll very fast at all...about the same as a A6M2 except with the peak roll being achieved about 100mph later (so its peak roll is more in the middle of the graph rather than right at the start as it is with the Zero). But the cannons would allow it to do fairly well no matter the target.

I think it'd be alright. As mentioned, in a group the Typhoon would do well versus fighters of similar performance. In a 1 vs 1 scenario it wouldn't do as well. In a BNZ scenario at medium and low altitudes it'd be ok.

ImpStarDuece
12-21-2005, 03:15 PM
I'd fly it as a low-level interceptor, where it worked suprisingly well. It actually climbed very well at low levels, was more competitive in the zoom than a Spitfire, and went like a scallded cat at low level. Pilot accounts assert that the acceleration and retention of speed were phenomenal, and only got better later on with the switch to +9lbs boost, more capable Sabres and 4 bladed props. The Tyffie had quite a successful period in 1943 chasing down low level raiders (mostly 190s) and shooting them down after a stern chase. However, it only scored something like 254 confirmed kills in its operational career.

Turn was reportedly just superior to a 190, but you really don't want to get into a turn fight in a fighter of that size weight and horsepower. Its like turnfighting with a P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WOLFMondo
12-21-2005, 04:42 PM
The fueled and armed P47 is 5000lbs heavier than a fueled and armed Tiffie and both engines produce 2000HP on take off, the tiffie gets a little more as time goes by. I know which one I'd pick for low alt combat.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
In theory in the game I would be the only person to try and fly it in a fighter role. Ok...there would be one or two others (WOLFMondo I volunteer you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).


ha! I'd try but it would end in tears...mine most likely!

Would definately want offline campaigns for it and would love to fly them in co-ops.

Will have to make do with the Tempest, what a shame http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Po-cat
12-21-2005, 06:36 PM
Hi Guys,
I've been a long time Typhoon fan, and am involved in the 'latest' Typhoon - the one with 2 engines.
As I understand it, the issues with the original were:
(1) Carbon Monoxide poisoning of the pilot, hence the need to wear the oxygen mask at all altitudes,
(2) Engine unreliability due to the sleeve-valve engine design, and the inability of the manufacturers to provide cylinder sleeves to the correct standard/quality. This was resolved as a quality control issue by involving contractors who had previous experience in the field.
(3)Tail flutter.
<steps on soapbox> I have yet to read a thorough assessment of this issue, and I'm still not convinced it's fully understood. Early Typhoons were known to break up without provocation, and many incidents were at low level, straight and level (as Roland Beamont's experiences quoted earlier in the thread). Upwards of 30 aircrew were lost before the cause was correctly identified. Initially, reinforcing plates were added to the tail/rear fuselage join, but this did not address the problem. Early Typhoons had an elevator mass balance located within the fuselage, mounted on a beam forwards of the elevator pivot. Did I mention vibration? The 3-blade propeller was ultimately replaced by a 4-blade unit, which greatly reduced vibration levels on later aircraft. Anyway, the vibration caused an accelerated fatigue failure of the elevator mass-balance, resulting in the tails self-destructing due to flutter of a (suddenly) non-balanced control surface.
Later Typhoons had the Tempest tailplanes with integral mass-balances, which, when coupled with the 4-blade propeller, fixed the problem.
The final (4) Typhoon problem, which has to be regarded as more serious because it was inherent is the design, was the thickness of the wing. This caused compressibility problems at high speed, and (as already pointed out) compromised altitude performance.
The aircraft weighed 7 tons, so any comparison should be against the P-47, and nothing else ;o)
I read somewhere that Sydney Camm had reservations about the Hurricane wing being too thick, and he then went on to design an even thicker wing on the Tiffie.
Wierd.
The Tempest did address all the above issues, and was a superb aircraft.
But it wasn't a Typhoon, though ;o)

Cheers,

Mr.Sleepy

AVG_WarHawk
12-21-2005, 09:03 PM
Good stuff Po-cat, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Siwarrior
12-21-2005, 10:58 PM
Soooooooooo the Tempest is like the allies version of the fockewulf?

WOLFMondo
12-22-2005, 01:01 AM
Essentially yes. An all out balls to the wall low and medium altitude fighter capable of taking on anything in its path and running away with enough speed nothing can catch it apart from a Jet.