….Wellington, Hornet, Manchester, Brigand, Whirlwind, Welkin….

Interesting debate.

Just to expand on one point though close to my heart though….

You are correct in saying that there are “plenty of Vampires” in the UK in museums, but we are only talking about the trainer variants. However, if you just look at the condition of the woodwork on many of them, especially if these are kept outside, they won’t be around much longer. Fortunately many of this type are in good hands, so the T.11’s future in many cases loos rosy.

If a slightly broader look is taken to include ex-RAF/RN single seat vampires and venoms the picture is much gloomier. Just how many ex-RAF fully preserved and painted single seat vampires can you actually see in uk museums?….. 2. Considering this was 50% of fighter command for a number of years, paired with the Meteor, this is a pitiful amount. Also, the FAAM has the only Sea Vampire F.20 in existence.

There are no complete ex-RAF single seat venoms fully preserved and painted in uk museums yet. Considering this type was the backbone of Nato’s ground attack force in RAF Germany, this is another current gap in the national collection.

Display standard complete single seat vampires on show in uk museums:
F.3 Hendon
F.1 Coventry
(Cosford has a Vampire FB.5 in store, but I have never seen it on display.)
(Bournmouth airport has an FB.9 in bits, ex-St.Athan, but this has not been on display since the 1980’s)
(NEAM have an FB.5, but this has not been fully assembled since it was sold in the early 90’s)
(I have a Vampire FB.5 cockpit in poor condition, in store)

Display standard complete single seat venoms on show in uk museums:
FB.1 = 0
FB.4 = 0
(Mosquito Museum has a dismantled FB.4, ex Hong Kong, but this needs a lot of restoration work.
(Aeroventure have a cockpit of an FB.1)

Maybe because of the woodwork involved, the single seat vampires and venoms have not faired well in numbers compared to it’s contemporary; the Meteor.

Eye on the sky

“would this method of support do any damage to the fuselage over a period of time?”

I don’t think so. The static load on the stern post trestled like this, would be minimal, compared to a dynamic landing load that it would be designed to withstand during landing.

Hi ZRX61

This is true. When we put together the DH Hornet/Sea Hornet re-union in 2005, the invite went out to everyone who had service contact with the type; Pilots, observers and groundcrew alike. Fortunately, we did get some, but considering the ratio of pilots to groundcrew in service, this really highlighted the difference.

I for one, really want to talk to the mechanics, fitters, carpenters, and electricians that server on these types, because being an engineer myself I find more common experience, or useful information can be shared.

… very nice lathe though! Have you tried the RAF Museum department of Records for any references of workshop equipment? Or maybe the Public Records Office for any War Department, or subsequent Ministry of Supply records?

Cheers,

Tempest projects

Hi David Burke

Just theorising here…. The value of a Tempest II would be somewhere between that of a Yak trainer/Harvard, and a Spitfire. It would probably have a ‘warbird’ desirability value of somewhere between the two as well.

It still amazes me however, that there are at least 8 substantially complete Tempest II projects worldwide that have so far, failed to make there way into a static restored condition in museums, let alone have one or two flying by now. Only Hendon has had one restored by TFC, and the Tempest Two restored example, is still awaiting an engine. Give me one of these anyday over a myriad of American types (no offence meant, It’s just sad to see so many unrestored examples of a rare type).

Compare it with the Mk.24 Spitfire for example that never saw action in WW2, and was a post war type, but because an earlier version was operational from 1939-45, the overall type falls under the same desirability. Why is it not so for the Tempest II as well, whose earlier mk.v version was a famed doodlebug chaser, for example?

Keeping them flying.

What radial engine do US operators of Sea Furies usually install instead of the Centaurus? Is there one particular one, or can several versions be packaged within the existing cowlings. I see the R3350 engine is used on some. Is this a conversion that has proved successful over the years? Is the power output of the US engines comparable, and would the existing airframe systems support its operation with out too much modification?

Bristol Centaurus spares and operation seem to be getting very difficult these days, and with at least two Centaurus powered aircraft in the UK waiting on their engines, could changing the engine for an American radial be a viable solution, or even possible in Europe?

Aircraft in question are:
– Tempest Two’s: Hawker Tempest II, MW763 (G-TEMT).
– TFC’s: Hawker Sea Fury FB.11, VX653.

Other aircraft operating (or soon to be) in Europe are:
– RNHF: Sea Fury FB.11, VR930.
– RNHF: Sea Fury T.20, VX281.
– John Bradshaw (former?): Sea Fury FB.10, G-CBEL.

Future projects that could progress with a US radial:
– Tempest Two’s: Hawker Tempest II, MW401.
– French owned: Hawker Tempest II, MW376.
– Kermit Weeks’: Hawker Tempest II, LA607.
– Nelson Ezell’s: Hawker Tempest II, MW810.
– UK stored: Hawker Tempest II, MW758.
– UK stored: Hawker Tempest II, MW404.
– Sweden under re-build: Sea Fury FB.11, WH588.
(This last list, is really a flight of fancy, but there are seven potentially restorable airframes here that could benefit from an engine with readily available spares, to turn them into viable restorations).

It would be interesting to hear peoples views.

Ford Racing Puma