Tempests

The Centaurus was rebuilt somewhere in the USA from what was published in Flypast a couple of years ago.

The Centaurus VI and 18 are completely different engine designs so it will be nice to compare the sounds of both when G-TEMT gets air beneath her wheels 🙂

M

Thanks Ant,who is doing the Centaurus?The same q got asked ref TFC’s Sea Fury engine.I believe Ricardos did the engine for RNHF and had some dramas with ground running.The only other engine shop I know of is Mike Nixon’s.Having seen the internal working of one or two it is a pretty impressive piece of engineering.I realise the Tempest engine is a different model to the Fury but the principles should be the same.Either way it will be a fantastic thing to hear & see.Cheers,Pete

just out of interest,who is pencilled in to fly this on completion?

Hi Pete,
Work on MW763/G-TEMT is progressing slowly but surely,she may even fly this year.There have been some hold ups with the engine rebuild and ofcourse this is a pioneering restoration so there are bound to be other gremlins to iron out before she can fly,but on the whole things appear to be progresing nicely.
Tempest Two’s other Tempest,G-PEST is currently in storage and to my knowledge hasn’t been worked on since it left Autokraft a decade ago.

RE: Tempests

Why not make it fibreglass though from the ground most people wouldn’t know the difference.

RE: Tempests

>What is this fasination for
>drilling holes through spars(sheer vandilism if you ask me!)
>and rendering them near useless if there is any chance of
>making them airworthy in the future a few bolt holes puts
>pay to that.x(

Aircraft suspensions are carried out with a great deal more thought than that. I must point out straight away that I’ve not been involved in one personally, but I have seen some of the preparation that goes into them.

Firstly, before an aircraft is suspended, extensive weight, balance, loading calculations are carried out, and if there’s any chance that the building will have trouble supporting the weight of the aircraft, the project doesn’t go ahead.

Secondly, the location of the attachment points on the aircraft are of paramount importance, and the attachments themselves will always (if done properly) aim to spread the load away from any single point. Spars do not get drilled through! This would only serve to weaken the spar, and put the aircraft and the viewing public in danger.

Three years ago, Skysport designed and built the suspension rig for the Lockheed 10 currently suspended in the Science Museum in London. The aircraft was fully surveyed, and the loadings of various parts of the aircraft’s structure were analysed comprehensively. The main suspension fittings were designed and built as heavy duty sleeves which (if memory serves me correctly) were fitted around various parts of the engine mounting structures, before culminating in cable suspension points in the tops of the engine nacelles. These sleeves enclose the mountings, rather like a hand encloses the shaft of a tennis racket, I’m sure you get the idea.

In addition to the fittings, the upper skins of the engine nacelles were also replicated, with the replicas having the correct size, shape, and location for the hole where the fittings came out of the top. I believe the original skins are currently inside the aircraft, therefore ensuring that they can not be lost or damaged.

If the Science Museum ever decide to take her down, the work Skysport carried out ensures that the Lockheed 10 can be fully restored and is completely undamaged by the suspension work. I would suspect that the same can be said for the AAM’s B25 and C47 – they designed and made the fittings for these as well.

To return to the original thread about the Tempest, my view, for what it’s worth, is that ANY work which is geared towards ensuring that the aircraft is preserved for future generations is worthwile. Ideally, as someone else (David Burke?) mentioned, ALL the aircraft in the RAFM would be in their original schemes, or at least authentic and representative of that aircrafts contribution to the service. (The blue Beaufighter is my particular bugbear – anyone ever seen evidence of a TFX in that scheme…?)

The thing is, we can’t lose sight of the fact that museums just aren’t seen by the wider public as being ‘cool’. So consider this; if a small child walks into the new building, looks up to see a TT-schemed Tempest suspended from the roof towing a drogue, says ‘wow’ and is hooked for life, is that really a bad thing…?

RE: Tempests

I get a bit fed up with the idea of doing airframes up in the colours of the most famous ones ie Hurricane in Douglas Baders colours etc. I’d rather see it in a less well known scheme with awesome artwork.

RE: Tempests

I Quiet agree with you Neilly,I think the American museum is to crowded. The building is an architects dream but an aircraft enthusiasts nightmare you can’t see the Aircraft at there best. All the work the engineers and volunteers put into the B-25 and Grumman Avenger just to hang from the ceiling. I think there is a case for making fibre glass replicas (like the P-51D) they would be just as good less weight on the structure (who would know), and leave the genuine article in the Hangers with oilly drip trays where they belong at least you can push them outside in the summer for the punters to photograph. What is this fasination for drilling holes through spars(sheer vandilism if you ask me!) and rendering them near useless if there is any chance of making them airworthy in the future a few bolt holes puts pay to that.x(

RE: Tempests

Hell yeah, Bee was Mr Tempest. Be a nice touch to honour him in that way. Lets hope they see sense.

RE: Tempests

Hi All,

I think the Tempest should be put into Bee Beamonts colours. In recognition of not only a superb aeroplane, but a superb pilot, too!

Hanging it from a ceiling, words fail me!!! (At risk of getting shot down, I think the American Hanger at Duxford is a mess!).

Well done Snapper, excellent little narrative.

Cheers,
Neilly

RE: Tempests

>Hi All,
>
>Try having a look at the Tempest web site, it’s very good.
>
>http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/tempest.htm
>
>Cheers,
>Neilly

I followed a link from this site to here –http://www.rojasbazan.com/index.htm – are these really models!!
I want some of them for Xmas!!!

RE: THAT scheme…

With the greatest of respect it’s going to be very difficult for the RAFM to have a credible exhibition on the Milestones of Flight.
After all if you have a stock of RAF types it does tend to miss
out a large amount of aviation. In many ways the Cessna 150 is more significant than a Tempest in the whole scheme of things but the Cessna isn’t relevant to the RAF’s history so I don’t really know what they can achieve with their limited range of types.
Milestones of the RAF would be a far more sensible idea – Bristol Fighter – Hawker Hind-Anson-Hurricane-Spitfire-Dakota-Meteor-Lancaster etc but this would be difficult to achieve – nice idea but ultimately flawed.

RE: THAT scheme…

This is what ‘Bee’ Beamont had to say when I spoke to him a few months before his death:

RE: Kermit Weeks Tempest V Restoration

I’ve been in touch with him and I expect that will reach a completed state. Whether it will fly again is questionable I think, because there isn’t a good supplier of Sabre engines. He’s got one fairly low life engine available, and he will complete the aeroplane, he is an extraordinary man and he does this to any aeroplane he gets hold of, he’ll have the work carried on for year after year until it’s done. I gather that with the Tempest, which is at Booker, the fuselage is in a fairly complete state and I think its all looking quite good. I would like to see it flying of course.

RE: The Typhoon/Tempest Against the Rest.

The thing of course about the Typhoon, and particularly the Tempest at the end of the war, was that the Tempest was a development of the Typhoon with all its bugs out. It was a very, very fine aeroplane indeed, but It arrived too late to get into service in large numbers, their were only two wings of them by the end of the war. But they had an incredible record out in Holland and Germany in the last few months, and joined Second Tactical Air Force in September, while the Spitfires had been in second TAF on the continent ever since May when the Normandy invasion started. But the Tempests, my wing that is, ended up equal top scorers with the Spitfire wing against enemy aircraft and at the same time they were the highest scorers of all against MT, transport, and locomotives. They were an extremely successful aircraft. You could out fly anything below twenty thousand feet, which was where that battle was being fought. From September 1944 through to the end of the war I think you could outperform P51’s, P47’s, and any mark of Spitfire. (Myself: It must have been quite a beast) It was, it was very good.

Thats verbatim. Note he doesn’t mention it’s quality as a target tug…..

RE: THAT scheme…

The problem I have with the RAFM’s plans for the Tempest is that I don’t see what a target tug Tempest has to do with the Milestone of Flight theme.True,the Tempest is/was an awesome beast,but does it really have a place within this building??
IMHO it would be a better idea to get the RAFM’s Hunter prototype and record breaking Meteor from Tangmere and swap them for the Tempest and/or something else that would be appropriate to Tangmere.Anything other than dangling the poor old Tempest from the cieling!!

RE: THAT scheme…

Tom- I guess their perception of it is that they have the Typhoon which is fairly similar to most visitors and they think it will make
a different comtrast to the other Hawker machines.
From the historical point of view I don’t see any problem with her being in her original scheme. If Hendon repainted many of her
machines in their original markings I think it would be a far more interesting place. Lastly I would love to see the RAF museum purchase
##### Melton’s Walrus and return the Seagul to her rightful home in Australia.

NV778

…but what was the Tempest famous for? not being a target tug that’s for certain, I’ve spoken to a few old boys who either worked on them or flew ’em and they’re not too chuffed about it being finished in such a scheme, the Typhoon in there doesn’t have any front line service history as far as I know but it is painted with Invasion stripes and quite a few other exhibits are wearing schemes not relative to the a/c history.

Tom 😉

RE: THAT scheme…

Sorry to be a party-pooper, but I happen to think the TT.5 scheme for the Tempest is a brilliant idea. This airframe has no wartime history and the target-tug scheme is 100% authentic for it. Let’s also remember that second-line units are every bit as important a part of RAF history as the glamorous fighter squadrons.

Excpet for hanging it from the ceiling, well done RAFM I say!

THAT scheme…

I haven’t heard one person who’se happy with the proposal to have ‘778 repainted in TT.5 colours, only RAFM personnel. I think they imagine that the scheme will catch the eye of youngsters but what I want to know is why spend god knows how long restoring the thing then hide it in the rafters? Their other ‘reason’ for the decision is that they have so many a/c already displayed in standard camo, the Tempest II being one.

Tom 😉

RE: Depressing or what?

In order of preference I’d like to see it

1) Flying in pink with blue wavy stripes or polkadots
2) Taxying in Dulux Magnolia Trade Emulsion
2) Static at ground level in cammo
3) As proposed, dangling from the ceiling as a worthy, but unexciting target tug

Moggy

RE: Depressing or what?

Yuor critical as well then Moggy? I’d rather see it with bombs or rockets.