Talk:Hawker Tempest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Picture

The photo we have is of a Tempest II. Can we try and find a picture of a Tempest I, far more representative of the name and line, than the II we have? Thanks. (USMA2010 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Units

Why are standard units used at all in this article? Obviously it's a British plane so using feet and miles per hour makes absolutely no sense. Ryan Salisbury 01:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. All instruments in British WW2 aircraft were in pounds, feet, and miles per hour. Imperial units first for British and American aircraft, metric first for everything else. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Really? Any particular reason they didn't use metric for that? Ryan Salisbury 13:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It was the 1940s and metrication didn't start until the 1960s GraemeLeggett 14:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speed records

Whoever wrote the section about the Tempest V and mentioned speeds doesn't understand the concept of true airspeed. Rare Bear's records are around a closed course (i.e. a loop) and at low altitude - no higher than 5,000 ft - while the figures quoted for the Tempest are likely at altitude. The higher you fly, the higher your true airspeed. Most of the fast piston-engined fighters could reach 25,000 or 30,000 ft easily, and maintain full power output the entire time. ericg ✈ 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Our over enthusiatic American is also plain wrong - as is the entry for Rare Bear, (which incidentally seems to be a plagarism of [1]). That Bearcat is not the fastest propeller propelled aircraft - standard airline configuration 1950s 541mph Tu114s stroll past it at 528 mph - though I note Rare Bear claims a top speed of 540mph at altitude), but the 575mph Tu95s trumps that, (okay, again they are at altitude, not quasi-ground effect racers, but while I'm at it, @#$%^& Howard Hughes was always slower than floatplanes :-P). As far as I can work out Rear Bear may be the fastest piston engined type, so have corrected it to read that, pending anyone getting a souped up De Havilland Hornet off the ground :-). Not sure that JF-E's claims about Tempest speed were't a little hopeful though - I remember reading some very enthusiastic comments, (?in Tempest Pilot, Sheddans autobio?) about MkVs with more advanced Sabres - but again from poor memory and without the book to hand, I think they were talking 470mphs not 500+. Winstonwolfe 04:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Realistically I am not sure that the claims about performance from either Rare Bear or Clostermann add much to the article. What do people think about removing them?

[edit] Clarity

I'd like to clarify the author's meaning in this sentence from the beginning of the article:

"While Hawker and the RAF were struggling to turn the Typhoon into a useful aircraft, Hawker's Sidney Camm and his team were rethinking the design at that time the Hawker P. 1012 or Typhoon II."

It doesn't make sense to me. Does anybody understand it well enough to reword it?

(And apologies to the author if it originally made sense, but no longer does. I've not gone through every historical instance of the page because there are quite a few.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, User:GraemeLeggett, it's perfectly clear now, thanks :) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Production numbers

The British Aircraft Directory entry production values tot up to only about 1,300. What's the source for 1,700? GraemeLeggett 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Best scource for production information is The Typhoon and Tempest Story listed under bibliography. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality rating

Did quality rating a couple of weeks ago and made suggestions, (under). it just occured to me no one would check the link and see them so have posted here - now disagree and make scathing comments :-) Winstonwolfe 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Good solid article, near top of B class. Excellent material on the protracted development and good illustrations. Improvements I'd suggest (and I'm not claiming my opinion is anything special), include -

-Rewrite for readability - prose is convoluted in places.

-Consider whether some parts of the text are easy enough for someone completely unfamilar with aircraft of World War II to follow.

-More details of war time service, post war and foreign service, possibly separated from the mark number (perhaps a heading service, then sub division into World War II British and New Zealand service, post War British, Indian and Pakistani).

-Continuing a gripe I made ages ago on the talk page - sorry - the Costerman dubious performance figures and the Rare Bear fan club comments seem unnecessary, and should perhaps be deleted.

-I think India and Pakistan count as major users. On the other hand the Royal Canadian Airforce is noted as a user, which I and at least 3 texts and the Tempest web page (under) seem unaware of. Did the RCAF have Tempests?

-possibly include a profile of survivors? (the already linked, excellent http://www.hawkertempest.se/ has fairly full detials).

-Edit for inconsistency which has arisen over time, e.g. in mark V "what happened to Marks II, III and IV" has been explained and so doesn't need to be explained again.

-minor quible, description of Mark V as a Typhoon with the the new wing leaves out fuselage lengthening and fuel tank changes.

-could possibly say something about the Sea Fury?

However don't let these trivial improvements detract from the overall impression of a very good page Winstonwolfe 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Listing of serial numbers

This is an exhaustive list but goes against the norm for aircraft/aviation articles. Wikipedia is not intended to be a listing source and if you check any other article, there is no attempt to identify every aircraft built. I would recommend that this section and the Typhoon article's similar section be placed in a sub-article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Given the fairly small numbers of Tempests built I felt that a listing of serial numbers (which have been further broken down into Mark numbers) would add interest. If it's felt to be inappropriate for Wikipedia please let me know, I'm a "newbie" Any other thoughts? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(This is a repeat of the comment left on the Hawker Typhoon talk page.) It's not that the information is not useful or of value, it's that Wikipedia is not intended to be a listing of all information related to a topic. As you can appreciate, it would be difficult to provide a comprehensive serial number record for many aircraft types due to their large production totals. If you check any of the more "popular" Wiki aircraft articles such as the Hawker Hurricane, F-4 Phantom II, Boeing 747 and Mitsubishi Zero, you will note that there is an encyclopedic style that is followed but no attempt to completely document every aspect of the aircraft's history. For now, there is no reason to exclude or change the information presented, but bear in mind, another editor may have a different interpretation and remove the data or establish a sub-article. FWIW, read your talk page, I have left you a note there. Bzuk (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
I have removed the serial number data as by itself it is not notable, and also breaks the flow of a good article. I have added the totals built to the variants section which his normal practice with aircraft articles. The inclusion of serial numbers has been discussed before but has never really been supported as this is an encylopedia not a specialist aircraft website. Serial numbers can normally be found within the referenced sources. MilborneOne (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with this although it is several hours of hard work down the drain...however, if that's the general opinion, okay. Would it have been possible to work with Bzuk's suggestion about establishing a sub-article? Not everyone has access to the referenced sources. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would back such an article, but that is because i think I'm inclusionist, and I think many would try to delete it a serial number article non noteable. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winstonwolfe (talk • contribs) 00:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Tempest V in Combat section

Hopefully the edits and additions I've made will make the description of Tempest operations flow a little better without losing the main points of the section intended by the original author(s). The usual convention for writing RAF squadrons is either "80 Squadron or 80 Sqn." , for RAF Wings "122 Wing". Minorhistorian (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard convention used in Wikipedia is: No. 80 Squadron RAF and No. 122 Wing. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
I've thought about this; First, on the New Zealand Squadrons, 485, through to 490. Concerning the Wikipedia "convention" of naming these units No. --- Squadron RNZAF no official RAF or New Zealand document, from WW 2 on has ever used such a designation. Nor have any authors who know the subject. The proper designation is ---(NZ) Squadron or ---(NZ) Sqn. The New Zealand Squadrons formed under Article XV of EATS were an integral part of the RAF; they were not RNZAF squadrons, which were a different entity entirely.

Secondly, I would argue that "convention" is no excuse for getting these things wrong in what is meant to be an encyclopedia; often Wikipedia is a first port of call for anyone doing research on an unfamiliar topic; why not do the job properly in the first place? If the RAF, to which these units belonged have a 60+ year old convention, shouldn't Wikipedia follow it, rather than setting up another,less logical convention? Minorhistorian 10:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not getting the article names "wrong" if we are following the article naming conventions which are for consistencty across the wikipedia. If the squadron was an RAF one then its a case of moving the article but it should stillb e named according to the convention.
However whatever the name of the article, this does not preclude wikilinking alternative ways of writing the name eg 485 (NZ) Squadron as redirects to the article or piping the link as in Second World War when they appear in articles. For the article itself the name and alternates should be in the first paragraph with the opening definition. "Sqn." is an abbreviation and should be spelt out at the first appearance in any text. GraemeLeggett 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I note also, and I'll cross post this note, that the RAF Heraldry Trust has a preopduction of 486's crest which says Royal New Zealand Air Force on it here.GraemeLeggett 13:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Going back to the old discussion as to naming of RAF squadrons, see: [2], [3] and [4] wherein all of these official RAF and RNZAF sites use the convention of No. 486 RAF. FWIW, Bzuk 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
Except that rafweb.org actually uses "486 RNZAF" [5] etc and "No 75 (New Zealand) Squadron" [6]; nztec titles a section "RNZAF attached and New Zealanders in RAF" and the RAF site old histories has a gap between 361 and 500 squadrons. At the same time 75 is a bit of a special case also because it was transferred and therefore did become "No. 75 RNZAF". GraemeLeggett 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the working titles for these units should stay as is, regardless of how erroneous they are; it would mess up too many connecting links. I can never forget that we are writing about real events and real people. I sincerely believe that for their sakes let's get their story down properly. Most of the veterans who are still alive are well into their eighties or nineties and ever year there are fewer around to tell their stories. That is why I ask that those of us who are writing these articles be careful in what we write. I don't mind being a pain in the neck (or nether regions); a couple of these old vets are relatives.Minorhistorian 00:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"The New Zealand Squadrons formed under Article XV of EATS were an integral part of the RAF; they were not RNZAF squadrons" <-- I disagree strongly. I think that is is the exact opposite of the intent of Article XV, and its import to/application by the RAAF and RCAF. If the NZ govt/RNZAF command in NZ did not assert their rights/control of the squadrons, that does not amount to them being RAF squadrons. (As already noted, 75 Sqn is an exception, as it was an RAF unit transferred to the RNZAF post-war.) By way of analogy, RNZN ships (post-1941) were not part of the RN and NZ Army units were not part of the British Army, although most NZ units were attached to British formations. Grant | Talk 06:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Australian War Memorial web page says "Article XV...made provision for the formation of distinct dominion squadrons within the Royal Air Force's order of battle. Thus, the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand airmen trained under the scheme would serve in Australian, Canadian and New Zealand squadrons."[7]. Which seems rather clear cut.GraemeLeggett 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gerard Morris in Spitfire the New Zealand Story. writes; The New Zealand squadrons, although technically units of the RNZAF (as recognised by the different badge frames), served under British operational control, and during their existence were by convention regarded as integral unit of the RAF organisation. endquote (page 77). So Grant was right to point that out. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to take the blame for this as I started the 75, 485-490 Squadron articles and put RNZAF in their titles, rather than (NZ) for reasons I can't remember. I stand by the fact that both at the time and since, people have called them RAF and RNZAF. I have a nasty feeling this could get as silly as the "Bf" vs "Me" debate. I don't think veterans do draw distinctions. Certainly I was talking to a (British) WWII pilot in the Ranfurly home the other day and he referred to them as RNZAF. I think the root of the problem is that the differentiating us-and-them surge of nationalism and patriotism largely came after the war, and people now like to concentrate anarchronasitically on the differences rather than the greater things the service(s) had in common. Spiritually, if not on paper, I suspect many of those concerned both in the the Dominion and the Motherland thought the RNZAF was pretty much the same thing as the RAF - certainly ranks, structure, uniform and so forth were essentially the same, and personnel moved freely between services, even at the highest levels. We are now trying to put sharp boundaries on a national concept which was at the time fuzzy to most involved. If someone wants to rename them all, they could, but we should definitely have links from "No. 486(NZ) squadron RAF", "No. 486 squadron RAF" and "No. 486 Squadron RNZAF". Winstonwolfe (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RAF Wings WW 2

Mention of RAF Wings in this article makes me wonder whether it would be worth starting a page explaining something of the organisation of RAF Wings during World War Two. There is a Wikipedia article on RAF Wings describing the present day organisation. Just a thought. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You could start here or you could start a new page. Good luck! Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tempest Myths

I recently had some correspondence from Chris Thomas who has been researching the Typhoon/Tempest family for 30 or more years. It would seem that the accepted idea that there were 100 "Series 1" Tempest Vs is more than likely wrong: photographic evidence shows that Tempests with serial numbers in the JN8xx range had the hallmarks of the main production batches of Tempests, with the Hispano V cannon and no wing-root blisters denoting the early Typhoon bulkhead to spar boom fitting. There is also no documentary evidence yet come to light showing Hawker's referring to Series 1 and Series 2 aircraft. The most likely scenario is that the first 50 or so Tempests (serials in the JN7xx range) were the initial production aircraft: Hispano II cannon, fishplated rear-fuselage transport join and without the reinforced wings and spring tab ailerons: none of these were used on the continent by 2nd TAF units. The next myth concerns TT. VIs. No such conversions existed, although two camouflaged Tempest VIs were used by a TT unit. I'm always intrigued by the way in which new information can still continue to be ferreted out after all these years.Minorhistorian (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thickness to chord ratio - any takers?

This is a page which is badly needed; at the moment there are some convoluted sentences appearing in Wikipedia aviation pages trying to explain the concept. I have rewritten the first couple of paragraphs to start the ball rolling. At the moment I don't have the time to start a new page. Would anyone else like to have a go?Minorhistorian (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)