PDA

View Full Version : Question about the Hawker Typhoon



XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:28 AM
I was checking out the Hawker Typhoon model and saw its stats. For a 24 cylinder engine pushing 2180HP, 414MPH is not impressive to me. Is this correct? I know a few other aircraft were going faster with less HP. The P-51's top speed was 437 at 25,000ft (Quick internet search so I dont claim it 100% accurate) with 1,695hp and the P-51 was just a little lighter? The only thing I can see is that the Typhoon's wings are rather thick. Does this account for its poor top speed with such a large engine?

P.S. I am not trying to start a flame with British AC fans. I dont know much about British aircraft other then the Spit, and I just want to learn a bit.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:28 AM
I was checking out the Hawker Typhoon model and saw its stats. For a 24 cylinder engine pushing 2180HP, 414MPH is not impressive to me. Is this correct? I know a few other aircraft were going faster with less HP. The P-51's top speed was 437 at 25,000ft (Quick internet search so I dont claim it 100% accurate) with 1,695hp and the P-51 was just a little lighter? The only thing I can see is that the Typhoon's wings are rather thick. Does this account for its poor top speed with such a large engine?

P.S. I am not trying to start a flame with British AC fans. I dont know much about British aircraft other then the Spit, and I just want to learn a bit.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:37 AM
This is a real feel response, but if you compare photos in proportion its definitely larger than the Mustang.

Also all the ones I've flown in the CFS2/3 sims felt even heavier than P-47s. These were largely 1% a/c.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:48 AM
Well if you compair the P-51 performance, you should probably be comparing the Tempest rather than the Typhoon. The Tempest has similarly designed laminar (sp?) flow wings which makes the Tempest alot faster at both low and high altitudes than the Typhoon.

What I do know is that the Typhoon was the only plane available when the FW 190 was first introduced that was capable of catching the 190 in level flight as evidenced by the raids by FW 190's on England during 1941 and I believe later into the war.

The Typhoon suffered from poor altitude performance. And I think that had to do with the wings rather than the engine.

There's also the issues of early model versions having the tail fall off inexplicably during dives (largely fixed in later models although never totally solved).

The Tempest V (since were not comparing the largely post war Tempest II) was much better overall and used the engines massive amount of power to better use.

I think the saving grace for the Typhoon was that it was a tough bird and that it was a fast fighter on the level making it competitive with the earlier FW models where the Spitfire mark at that time could not compete.

Not to mention that four Hispano Mk 2 20mm cannons are decidedly deadly to almost anything.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 04:49 AM
I'm far from being an expert but here are some of my thoughts.
The Hawker Typhoon is a fighter/bomber.
I think the engine and airframe were designed for carrying weight rather than producing speed.
Compared to the P-51:
3 blade prop verses 4 makes a difference, it was approx. 2000 lb heavier. Plus the big scoop at the front causes some drag. Larger wing span = more stability but less speed.
I'm sure there's other reasons but that's all I can think of.

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-P-4704_SIG%20copy06.jpg

"Any information that we receive concerning the real world is carefully controlled"

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:07 AM
OK. Now I can see it. The Typhoon was more like a P-47, not a clean fighter. As for weight, the weight that I saw had the Tempest only 300lb heavier then the P-51. Like i said, I did a quick search so its not 100% accurate. Thanks for the info guys.

P.S. I tripped accross the P-51H performance. 490MPH on 2000HP, and a P-51L was planned with 2266HP!!! Wow. On a friggen 12 cylinder.

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:22 AM
IIRC the Typhoon performed best at low level. That is to say it sucked at higher alts due to a sudden drop off in performance of that big V24 at higher alts.

Add to that the valid arguments about laminar flow wing and power/weight ratios...although I wouldn't bet that the scoop of the cooler was less aerodynamic than the radial P-47.


<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:28 AM
Gibbage1 wrote:
As for weight, the weight that I saw had the Tempest only 300lb heavier then the P-51.

According to a book I have the P-51B weighed 11,200 lb, the Hawker Typhoon Mk IB weight in at 13,250 lb.

<center>http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-P-4704_SIG%20copy06.jpg

"Any information that we receive concerning the real world is carefully controlled"

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 05:45 AM
Cool. Thanks for correcting me.

Gib

helgstrand wrote:
- Gibbage1 wrote:
- As for weight, the weight that I saw had the Tempest
- only 300lb heavier then the P-51.
-
- According to a book I have the P-51B weighed 11,200
- lb, the Hawker Typhoon Mk IB weight in at 13,250 lb.
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-P-4704_S
- IG%20copy06.jpg">
-
- "Any information that we receive concerning the real
- world is carefully controlled"



No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:03 AM
So the Typhoon sounds like the RAF equivalent of the P-47. Sounds cool. I really like her lines......

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:21 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- So the Typhoon sounds like the RAF equivalent of the
- P-47. Sounds cool. I really like her lines......
-
- 47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-

Well, not really. It was an excellent low-level fighter, but the Western Allies didn't have a huge need for pure fighter at those altitudes, so it served as a fighter-bomber.

The P-47, however, was in its element at higher altitudes. When it was used as a fighter-bomber, it was due largely to:

1. The availability of a superior escort fighter, the P-51.

2. establishment of air superiority allowing the P-47 to operate unrestricted at low-level

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:21 AM
You should see the speed difference on the deck. Both top speed and acceleration clearly in favor of the Typhoon over P51.

In AH, Typhoon is formidable at low alts, although seriously hampered by its roll rate.

Temest, however, is hands down best prop plane in that sim, up to 10kft. And that sim has La7 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:33 AM
Rgr that,Davis. I stand corrected.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:36 AM
The Mustang was much cleaner aerodynamically, and the radiator causes ALOT of drag. I read somewhere that it caused 2/3rds of the total drag or something like that. Also, very thick wings as you said. Even the large horsepower can't compensate for this. In late '41 early '42 414 mph was still very fast and it performed very well at low altitudes. It was used to catch the 190 low-level raiders that were pestering England with good success as the Spit and Hurricane at the time simply could not catch the Focke-Wulf. The Typhoon/Tempest is my most wanted plane by far as you know Gibbage, I bugged you for awhile to do the Typhoon. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh, and the Typhoon/Tempest had a surprisingly good zoom climb and was good in a dive as well.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 10/16/0305:40AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:41 AM
Apperently if the RAF fighters could make it accross the channel, they would have been deadly! To bad hay. Im guessing that if the US fighters were designed with 60 gal and 1 hour flight time specs they would have been even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry for the cheap slam. But did the RAF make any long range fighters? Or did the US corner the market on aerodynamic flying fuel tanks?

Gib

No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 07:01 AM
Here's a link for all the Tempest\Typhoon fans:

http://cgi.tninet.se/~ytm843e/tempest.htm

On the same site, here is the direct link to some interesting tactical trials of the Tempest V vs the Typhoon 1b, Mustang P-51b, Spitfire XIV, Bf-109G and the Fw-190 (DB.603):

http://cgi.tninet.se/~ytm843e/versus.htm

Aviar


----------------------------------
AMD XP 2600+
EPoX EP-8K9AI Mobo
1536Mb DDR PC 2100 RAM
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Klipsch 5.1 THX Certified Speakers
CH FighterStick USB
CH Pro Throttle USB
CH Pro Pedals USB
Thrustmaster Tacticalboard

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:46 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- Apperently if the RAF fighters could make it accross
- the channel, they would have been deadly! To bad
- hay. Im guessing that if the US fighters were
- designed with 60 gal and 1 hour flight time specs
- they would have been even better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
-
- Sorry for the cheap slam. But did the RAF make any
- long range fighters? Or did the US corner the
- market on aerodynamic flying fuel tanks?
-
- Gib
-
- No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

What I can dig up on the P-51 suggests its combat range is 950 miles. The Tempests combat range was somewhere around 750 miles. Now I think the P-51 gets a massive boost with its drop tanks and the Tempest gets less of a boost (if anyone has some more solid numbers - I'm just doing some quick research on the fly here) but 200 miles, while a difference, isn't huge...considering that the P-51 is the escort fighter of choice.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 02:55 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:

- Sorry for the cheap slam. But did the RAF make any
- long range fighters? Or did the US corner the
- market on aerodynamic flying fuel tanks?


The main need for long-range day fighters is to escort long-range day bombers - but us Brits had long-range bombers that flew at night.

I believe that intruder Mosquitos were eventually used to accompany the night bombers and had some success against the Luftwaffe's night fighters.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:00 PM
spitfire fighter sweeps over france anyone?
typhoon was a fighterbomber, the brit il2 i belive
tempest had thiner wings amoung other things
and they did hop across channel sometimes, risks was felt to outweigh benifits most of the time though

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:45 PM
Typhoon was similar to the P-47 in its late-war role as a fighter/bomber. However, the P-47 was brilliant up high, where the Typhoon was miserable.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:49 PM
I wouldn't say that the Typhoon is like the Il-2. The Typhoon is indeed much more like the P-47 in that it was bred as a fighter, it has all the speed and the manuverability of a fighter and thus is highly mobile, but it was found to be an excellent ground attack plane because of its low altitude performance, heavy firepower, and sturdy construction.

The IL-2 is essentially all bomber despite being fighter sized. I wouldn't for instance take a IL-2 up specifically for fighting other fighters...you may be able to score a kill or two but its not really a competitive fighter...the Typhoon on the other hand I would just like the P-47.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 03:59 PM
hobnail wrote:
- IIRC the Typhoon performed best at low level. That
- is to say it sucked at higher alts due to a sudden
- drop off in performance of that big V24 at higher
- alts.
-
-

The Napier Sabre was an H-24 engine, not a V-24 engine.

http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/achievements/ricardo/images/FS-R42.jpg


The Typhoon and Tempest were restricted, like the Fws, to low and medium altitudes becuase of the engine.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:09 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I was checking out the Hawker Typhoon model and saw
- its stats. For a 24 cylinder engine pushing 2180HP,
- 414MPH is not impressive to me. Is this correct? I
- know a few other aircraft were going faster with
- less HP. The P-51's top speed was 437 at 25,000ft
- (Quick internet search so I dont claim it 100%
- accurate) with 1,695hp and the P-51 was just a
- little lighter? The only thing I can see is that
- the Typhoon's wings are rather thick. Does this
- account for its poor top speed with such a large
- engine?


It`s simple... keep in mind that an engine`s power output varies greatly with altitude. How much it can maintain power output depends on the quality of supercharger.. And, since running the SC also takes a lot of power, good high altitude engines (with powerful SCs) generally have poor(er) low altitude performance.

The values they give for HP are usually the maximum power at a single best altitude (British always give it this way). In other words : at all other altitudes you have less power !

In case of the Sabre IIs, you have a lot of power near-SL, but it drops VERY quickly in a few thousend feet above. The supercharger can`t support enough oxygene.

Ie., the K-4`s 605DC had 2000 HP at SL, ~2040 at 600m, 1800 at 4900m, 1600 at 6000m, and then it started to fall back quickly, being only ~950 at 10 000m. Same thing with Sabre vs. the P-51`s Merlin.. The latter was actually developing MORE horsepower at medium and high altitudes than the Sabre, plus, it should not be forgotten that the Sabre was larger with ~50% greater frontal area. That`s a lot of extra drag to make up for with more power!

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:15 PM
Gibbage1 wrote:
- I was checking out the Hawker Typhoon model and saw
- its stats. For a 24 cylinder engine pushing 2180HP,
- 414MPH is not impressive to me. Is this correct? I
- know a few other aircraft were going faster with
- less HP. The P-51's top speed was 437 at 25,000ft

You are not looking at the part of the performance envelope which matters with the Typhoon. High altitude performance was inferior to the P51D but its low level performance was pretty stellar compared to its contemporaries.
As you may know, the Typhoon was rushed into service to counter FW190 jabo attacks on British coastal resorts in 1942. Even in its early versions, it was 40 mph faster at all heights than its contemporary, the Spitfire VB. It was also faster than the Mustang (P 51D) at sea level- which, with its Packard Merlin V1650-3 had a SL speed of only 345 mph.
The Typhoon IB, though a much larger aircraft than the P51, could hit 400 mph at sea level (with a Napier Sabre IIB producing 2400 hp at 7lbs boost).
The Focke Wulf 190 A, in most of its A versions, could make only around 355 mph (or less) at sea level. Hence we read the statement from one RAF pilot in his combat report that, at low level, the Typhoon "overhauled the FW190 like an express train".
Typhoon pilot James Kyle recalls in his memoirs ('Typhoon Tale') that, in addition, the Typhoon could 'just out- turn out- speed and out- manoeuvre a 190 in combat at low level- and these small advantages made all the difference.'
It was in low level combat with Typhoons over the English Channel that the RAF first noted the FW190's tendency to stall in tight turns and flick over in the opposite direction- leading to the death of many a German pilot. Kyle witnessed this on more than one occasion. The Typhoon on the other hand could pull extremely tight high- speed turns with 5 degrees of flap selected.
Kyle also records overtaking a 109F (heading for France) so quickly that he and his wingman had to reduce throttle, pull up and lower their flaps in order not to overshoot their foe- this resulted in the two Typhoons flying in line abreast formation with the 109- almost wingtip to wingtip. "This was the first time I had seen a German aircraft at VERY close range."

- (Quick internet search so I dont claim it 100%
- accurate) with 1,695hp and the P-51 was just a
- little lighter? The only thing I can see is that
- the Typhoon's wings are rather thick. Does this
- account for its poor top speed with such a large
- engine?

Yes. Compressibility set in as a limiting factor at around 420 mph. Hawker was aware of the need to move towards a thinner wing but could not spare the design staff necessary until 1941, by which time the Typhoon design had been frozen- the aircraft's speed at low level was deemed all important in countering the FW190 jabo attacks.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:16 PM
Thanks. I got nervious when I saw your name in here, but I am glad to see you kept it civil. Your post makes a lot of sense. Allison's were great down low also, but the Merlin had a lot better alt power. I have also heard of superchargers robbing power down low. Its hard for me to understand because I have been in a BMW V-12 with twin turbo-super chargers with intercoolers at sea level. I dont think its robbing HP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But again, two differant things.

Gib

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:


No fancy quote or cool photo.... YET

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 06:42 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- The Typhoon and Tempest were restricted, like the
- Fws, to low and medium altitudes becuase of the
- engine.

True for the Typhoon, rather less so for the Tempest V
(same engine), in terms of the restriction. The Tempest
V could manage about 425 to 440 at 22,000 feet (various
sources), which isn't too bad, although it drops off either side of this altitude. I think at sea level is
was 390-something. The Tempest II is 10 to 15 mph
faster.

V Series II range at cruise was 820 miles. Basically
the Tempest V's speed was pretty similar to that
of the P51D - a touch faster at sea level, the same
at medium altitudes, dropping off over about 20,000
feet relative to the P51. The P51 would be the
superior aircraft at altitude.

Climb was good, too for the Tempest - about 3000 fpm sustained (about twice that of the P51, a little less
than the P38), 4700 zoom.

The Tempest V was a fairly
clean airframe apart from the radiator, the I and II
much cleaner. I am not sure if RAF tests (see Neil
Stirling's posts a while ago) indicated that the Tempest
V or II outdived the Thunderbolt II.

XyZspineZyX
10-16-2003, 07:18 PM
It's all in the wings, the Typhoon had a really thick section wing, great for slow speed handling and stability, but really inefficient at higher speeds due to boudary layer separation and it's low critical mach number. The P51 had a laminar flow wing which retains bouddary layer contact at higher speeds and has a higher critical mach number.

"They Gave All Their Tommorrows So That We Can Have Our Todays"

"Whirlwind Whiner"
First Of The Few