Tempest & Stang.

Often labelled best medium allied fighter, the Tempest was the fastest below 20.000 ft.

Certainly better armed than Stang, but what about maneuverability? compared to Stang? Roll,turn, responsiveness,of controls,( light? heavy? ), balanced harmony of controls etc.

Spring tab airelons for better roll than Typhoon. & similiar wing layout to Spit.

http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/Tempest5.htm

Here's a link with lots of comments about Tempest. Prefer actual pilots comments, but better than nothin.

P.S. this is a little better.

http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/typhoon/people.htm

 

Well I guess I'll contribute here....

Heres the scimatics per fighter:



Hawker Typhoon IA and IB
Origin: Hawker Aircraft Ltd. built by Gloster Aircraft Company.
Type: Single-seat fighter bomber.
Engine: (Production IB) one 2,180hp Napier Sabre II, 24 cylinder-flat-H sleeve-valve liquid-cooled.
Dimensions: Span: 41 ft., 7 in. (12.67m); Length: 31 ft., 11 in. (9.73m); Height: 15 ft., 3 1/2 in. (4.66m).
Weights: Empty: 8,800 lbs. (3,992kg); Loaded: 13,250 lbs. (6,010kg).
Performance: Maximum Speed: 412 mph (664km/h); Initial Climb: 3,000 ft (914m) /min; Service Ceiling: 35,200 ft. (10,730m); Range: (with bombs) 510 miles (821km),with drop tanks 980 miles (1577km).
Armament: (IA) 12 0.303 Brownings (none delivered); (IB) four 20mm Hispano cannon in outer wings, and racks for eight rockets or two 500 lb (227kg) (later 1,000, 454kg) bombs.
History: First flight (Tornado) October 1939; (Typhoon) 24 February 1940; (production Typhoon) 27 May 1941; final delivery November 1945.
Users: England(RAF), Canada(RCAF), and New Zealand(RNZAF).



North American NA-73, P-51/A-36 Mustang(P-51 to P-51L, A-36, F-6, Cavalier 750 to 2500, Piper Enforcer and F-82 Twin Mustang)
Origin: North American Aviation Inc., Inglewood and Dallas; built under license by Commonwealth Aircaft Corporation, Australia (and post-war by Cavalier and Piper).
Type: (P-51) Single-seat fighter; (A-36) attack bomber; (F-6) reconaissance; (post-war Cavalier and Piper models) Co-In. (F-82) night fighter.
Engine: (P-51, A, A-36, F-6A) one 1,150hp V-1710-F3R or 1,125 hp V-1710-81 vee-12 liquid-cooled; (P-51B, C, D, and K, F-6C) one Packard V-1650 (license-built R-R Merlin 61-series), originally 1,520hp V-1650-3 followed during P-51D run by 1,590hp V-1650-7; (Turbo-Mustang III) 1,740hp Rolls-Royce Dart 510 turboprop; (Enforcer) 2,535hp Lycoming T55-9 turboprop; (F-82F, G, H) two 2,300hp (wet rating) Allison V-1710-143/145.
Dimensions: Span: 37 ft., 1/2 in. (11.29m);(F-82) 51 ft., 3 in. (15.61m); Length: 32 ft., 2 1/2 in. (9.81m); (P-51H) 33 ft., 4 in.; (F-82E) 39 ft., 1 in. (11.88m); Height: (P-51, A, A-36, F-6) 12 ft., 2 in. (3.72m); (other P-51) 13ft., 8 in. (4.1m); (F-82) 13 ft., 10 in. (4.2m).
Weights: Empty: (P-51 early V-1710 models, typical) 6,300 lbs. (2,858kg); (P-51D) 7,125lbs. (3,230kg); (F-82E) 14,350lbs. (6,509kg); Maximum Loaded: (P-51 early) 8,600lbs. (3,901kg); (P-51D) 11,600lbs. (5,206kg); (F-82E) 24,864lbs. (11,276kg).
Performance: Maximum Speed: (early P-51) 390 mph (628km/h); (P-51D) 437 mph (703km/h); (F-82 typical) 465 mph (750km/h); Initial Climb: (early) 2,600 ft. (792m)/min.; (P-51D) 3.475 ft. (1,060m)/min., Service Ceiling: (early) 30,000 ft. (9,144m); (P-51D) 41,900 ft. (12,770m), Range: with maximum fuel (early) 450 miles (724km); (P-51D) combat range 950 miles, operational range 1,300 miles with drop tanks and absolute range to dry tanks of 2,080 miles; (F-82E) 2,504 miles.
Armament: (RAF Mustang I) four 0.303 in. in wings, two 0.5 in. in wings and two 0.5 in. in lower sides of nose; (Mustang IA and P-51) four 20mm Hispano in wings; (P-51A and B) four 0.5 in. in wings; (A-36A) six 0.5 in. in wings and wing racks for two 500 lb. (227kg) bombs; (all subsequent P-51 production models) six 0.5 in. Browning MG53-2 with 270 or 400 rounds each, and wing racks for tanks or two 1,000 lb. (454kg) bombs; (F-82, typical) six 0.5 in. in center wing, six or eight pylons for tanks, radars or up to 4,000 lbs. of weapons.
History: First flight (NA-73X) 26 October 1940; (production RAF Mustang I) 1 May 1941; Service delivery (RAF) October 1941; first flight(Merlin Conversion) 13 October 1942; (P-51B) December 1942; final delivery (P-51H) November 1945; first flight (XP-82A) 15 April 1945; final delivery (F-82G) April 1949.
Users: (Wartime) Australia(RAAF), Canada(RCAF), China(PRCAF)and (AVG), Netherlands(FDAF), New Zealand(RNZAF), Poland(FPAF), South Africa(RSAAF), Soviet Union(USSRAF), Sweden(SAF), England(RAF), US(USAAC).



Hawker Tempest V and VI
Origin: Hawker Aircraft Ltd. built by Gloster Aircraft Company.
Type: Single-seat fighter bomber.
Engine: (V) one 2,180hp Napier Sabre II 24 cylinder-flat-H sleeve-valve liquid-cooled; (VI) one 2,340hp Sabre V.
Dimensions: Span: 41 ft. (12.5m); Length: 33 ft., 8 in. (10.26m); Height: 16 ft., 1 in. (4.9m).
Weights: Empty: 9,100 lbs. (4,128kg); Loaded: 13,500 lbs. (6,130kg).
Performance: Maximum Speed: (V) 427 mph (6688km/h); (VI) 438 mph (704km/h); Initial Climb: 3,000 ft (914m) /min; Service Ceiling: 37,000 ft. (11,280m); Range: (bombs, not tanks) 740 miles (1,191km).
Armament: Four 20mm Hispano cannon in outer wings; underwing racks for eight rockets or up to 2,000 lbs. (907kg) bombs.
History: First flight (prototype Mk V) 2 September 1942; (Mk I) 24 February 1943; (production V) 21 June 1943; (Mk II) 28 June 1943; (prototype VI) 9 May 1944; (production II) 4 October 1944.
Users: England(RAF), and New Zealand(RNZAF).

I hope this helps everyone along within the discussion...

Regards,
MARNE

 

In a nut shell, speed goes to Tempest, maneuverability goes to Mustang.

However, climb likely goes to Tempest, so energy fighting, or yo yo has to be considered.

 

Nah, some how I don't think so....

Now I'm not discrediting the greatness of the English manufacturers of aircraft. The English can make some dang good aircraft, you got the Spitfire and the Hurricane just to name a couple. However, when it comes to the Mustang the English come close in all facets but, they just don't quite get there.

The Mustang has the speed, especially in a dive I have talked to guys who have claimed to have reached 700 mph in a dive only to having to bale out before they crashed. So, shes got gitty-up, she definitely ain't no slouch in that department. Between the Tempest and the Mustang 1 mph in level flight doesn't make much difference.

As for armament the Mustang loses. Even though it has .50 Cal. M2's x6 which still ain't bad but, the 20mm cannon x4 of the Tempest and Typhoon simply will do more damage quicker and bring down an aircraft quicker than a .50 cal. projectile, its been proven.

In horsepower, the Tempest and Typhoon win hands down.

Range, easy, that goes to the Mustang, hands down. Which means you can stay up and have more fun blowing things up, which is always a happy time.

Heres where the overall big difference comes in. Weight, horsepower and speed mean almost nothing without weight. The Mustang is a 1/3 lighter than the Tempest and a little under a 1/3 lighter than the Typhoon. Which adds she'll be faster than the Tempest and Typhoon in level flight and climb faster too.

Agility, the Mustang wins hands down too. She is lighter, making her faster more manuverable and her cleans lines make her than much more deadly..."if looks could kill." Those word epitimizes the P-51 Mustang, she is beautiful on the ground and in flight but, a nasty tart on the inside.

Plus we can't discredit the one all and most important feature of all three of these fine aircraft, the pilot. Only will the fighter succeed by the skill and experience of its pilot, that ultimately decides which of the three are the best. Which goes to the Mustang as it was a VERY forgiving aircraft and it was easy to train pilots in and get them acquainted to the controls and operation of the fighter.

MUSTANG!, MUSTANG!, MUSTANG!...

Regards,
MARNE

 

God Bless America!!

Add to your list of great British Aircraft:
Sopwith Camel
DH9
Beaufighter
As you said, the Spitfire, In production throughout the war and always at or near the top of its class.
Mosquito
Lancaster
Halifax
Fury/Sea Fury
Hornet
Hunter
Canberra
Lightning
TSR 2 (An early F111)
Tornado II
Eurofighter (Typhoon II)

Plus the engine of your beloved Mustang originated with Messers Rolls & Royce

But what are you trying to compare?

The greatest long range escort fighter with one of the supreme low-medium level (strike) fighter?

So many things the Mustang was great at related to its long range role, whereas the Tempest was just as great at other tasks.

700mph in a dive, no way.

The Tempest was an extremely manouverable fighter and regularly bested the bf109 & Fw190

Speedwise they , with Spitfire XII & XIV plus a few SOUPED UP Mustangs were the only aircraft capable of catching the V1 in level flight. (Of course you could dive on the at 700mph)

The Tempest could travel to Berlin with Drop tanks, but with plenty of P51 in the USAAF & RAF didnt have to so spent more time in Ground attack. They escorted RAF Lancasters & Halifaxes in late war raids. My book has a max range of 1530 miles

The Tempest had also proved itself in a series of mock battles carried out over the south of England in the summer of 1944 against American fighters flown by skilled USAAF pilots. the verdict was, flown skillfully it could see off the excellent P51 while it completly overshadowed the P47
Mosquito/Typhoon/Tempest by Chaz Bowyer, Arthur Reen & Roland Beaumont.

 

Sorry Ali - you're wrong . I have it on good authority that the Mustang used an Allison V-1710 engine.

Logically, there's no way the USA would have turned to the feeble British for the engine of their best fighter, is there ? National pride would have been forever dented....

 

Close Martin....your right they are V-1710 but, they were Merlin engines made under contract by Packard.

Regards,
MARNE

 

You mean this one ?

http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Miss%20US/Allison%20V1710%20Engine.htm

 

This one....

Packard V-1650 (license-built R-R Merlin 61-series), originally 1,520hp; V-1650-3 followed during P-51D run by 1,590hp.



(*This photo courtesy of John Callihan, and Airpower. Callihan. CC(It is not to be reproduced in any form for profit).

Ali,

I agree they were both equally great at their assigned tasks but, the Mustang wins the argument one by being produced in larger numbers. Another is its time in service, long range, and manuverability.

Plus if you take into account that the Typhoons had catastrophic structural failures early on vs. the mustang with simply a speed and ceiling issue. The Mustangs a bit safer on that note.

Now as for the 700 mph dive quotes...I don't know but, they were the veterans, they were there, they know what they saw and I'm not going to discount a veteran that would be wrong to do. So, I guess for the sake of argument for now.... I'm going to believe them until I am or they are proven wrong.

Besides you have me here at somewhat of a disadvantage.....

I'M NOT A MUSTANG MAN! Granted they are beautiful, they have a unique sound all their own but, I only back it because I'm an American and its one the VERY few things that still exist that has stamped on it "MADE IN THE U.S.A.".

Besides... I'm a Hawker Hurricane MK. I &II man myself.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Um, the thread was best medium alt fighter, & Tempest, not Typhoon was the other kite. I have read 4700 ft per min as climb rate for Tempest, leaves Mustang in the dust if true.

Stang D was dangerous beyond 505-525 mph in the dive. Compressibility issues.

Clostermann said Temp could not outurn 109 in his book.

& I think 1 3rd heavier is a bit of a stretch, besides, extra horsies can offset that.

Tempest,
Weights: Empty: 9,100 lbs. (4,128kg); Loaded: 13,500 lbs. (6,130kg).

(P-51D) 7,125lbs. Loaded, (P-51D) 11,600lbs.

Looks like roughly 2000 lb difference, & again Temp had more horses.

 

However, had you looked at the early models up to the P-51B the weight was 6,300 lbs. Empty. So its not that much of a stretch.

As for the speed issue I will not contest this issue with anyone, the guys flying it that "supposedly" did dive it and reach 700 mph as far as I am concerned did it until otherwise proven the opposite. The 500 - 525 mph was simply a ratings test these guys did things with these aircraft they clearly weren't suppose too.

As for the Typhoon option look at the lower URL in your first post and you'll see why I put the Typhoon in the mix.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Just a few points on this:

On the basis of weight and wing loading the Mustang will out turn the Tempest at equal G and speed. This is simply a matter of physics. As US aircraft construction standards at the time called for a higher level of stress acceptance, the Mustang would also have a higher maximum rate of turn as well as it could push more G's. Of course, the limit for this period is the upright seated pilot wearing a partial G suit (late war Allied only) at about 5 to 6 G's.

On roll rate: This one is harder to pin down. Neither aircraft has powered controls both have trim tabs. I would venture the Mustang has a slight advantage in roll but not a significant one.

On range: The Mustang has it on two counts here. Internal fuel and specific fuel consumption which is higher for the Sabre engine. Both could carry drop tanks so any comparison with those toted is not really a "fair" measure.

Climb: The Tempest has a better sustained climb rate. That is it climbs at some combination of angle and speed that is better than that of the Mustang. On the other hand, the Mustang almost certainly has a lower overall drag and is lighter so it will have a better energy (zoom) climb so would be the better energy fighter. Of course, during WW 2 there were really no aircraft that were true energy fighters. Vertical maneuvering was still limited to one or two maneuvers before the aircraft was drained of excess energy.

Dive rate: I suspect that the Tempest is still slower in terminal dive rate due to a wider wing (not thicker) form. I don't have a comparitive set of cross sections but, the Mustang does have a laminar flow section while the Tempest does not. It likely comes down to ultimate mach numbers which, again, I suspect are around .9 at most. The late model Spitfire surprisingly could dive to about .93 - .94 and that was considered quite high for the time.
I would say that dive acceleration is more important than ultimate dive speed. In this measure I can't say which might perform better.

 

Range is where the P-51 was good. I don't recall any Tempest's going to Berlin and back with the bombers.

Martin is correct on the early P-51 models. Allison engines built by General Motors. Rolls Royce licenced Allison to built the Merlin on later model P-51's but RR Merlins were of better quality according to most.

Mustang drivers did not have to wear their oxygen masks all the time like Tempest/Typhoon drivers.

The Napier Sabre II engine must have had problems also since later model Tempest's used a radial engine.

The botton line on all aircraft is the quality of pilot and tactics.

 

Yes, in the early models there was the Allison V-1710. However, it was Packard who manufactured the Rolls Royce Merlin V-1650 61-series(under license from R-R) for the later P-51 Mustangs.

Regards,
MARNE

 

"The 500 - 525 mph was simply a ratings test these guys did things with these aircraft they clearly weren't suppose too."


Nope, that was from Mustang pilot Robert C. Curtis.

"My flight chased 12 109s south of Vienna. They climbed and we followed, unable to close on them. At 38,000 feet I fired a long burst at one of them from at least a 1000 yards, and saw some strikes. It rolled over and dived and I followed but soon reached compressibility with severe buffeting of the tail and loss of elevator control. I slowed my plane and regained control, but the 109 got away.
On two other occasions ME 109s got away from me because the P 51d could not stay with them in a high-speed dive. At 525-550 mph the plane would start to porpoise uncontrollably and had to be slowed to regain control. The P 51 was redlined at 505 mph, meaning that this speed should not be exceeded. But when chasing 109s or 190s in a dive from 25-26,000 it often was exceeded, if you wanted to keep up with those enemy planes. The P 51b, and c, could stay with those planes in a dive. The P 51d had a thicker wing and a bubble canopy which changed the airflow and brought on compressibility at lower speeds."
- Robert C.Curtis, American P-51 pilot.

As for weights, yah early Stangs less, but mostly we're chattin Mustang D & Tempest. Mustang B & Typhoon more reasonable.

Here's a good link about all this. Wing loading lighter in Temp vs Mustang D it would seem.wing loading (37.4 lbs. Tempest,
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=70510606


On the US vs British Merlin, a couple articles I've ran across. here's one.




The Packard Motor Car Company undertook the latter and it was this version that was to power the legendary North American Mustang. However, unrecognized by many are the huge differences in the Packard built version. Packard manufactured some 57,000 Merlin engines, over a third of all Merlin production. From its earliest version the Merlin was clearly a precision, hand built work of engineering art constructed by some of the best British engineers. Even in its infancy the powerplant was built in small lots and had a string of design changes incorporated in an effort to squeeze performance and increase reliability in combat situations. The setback was this was not an engine designed for mass production, so in 1940, when the British Government turned to Packard for help with production of the Merlin some provisions had to be made.
In June 1940, Packard was requested to undertake the production of some 9000 Merlin XX engines. It took just three days for the company to respond positively but on that proviso that some modifications would be made to the powerplant to enable American accessories such as carburetors, fuel and vacuum pumps to be utilized. Packard then began the monumental task of organizing an engineering group to handle drawings and redesign for American production. In parallel Packard organized U.S. sources for carburetors, magnetos, spark plugs, and other accessories. Packard assigned some 200 personnel to the project and this included the draughtsmen who would undertake complete revisions of production drawings. At the outset the Packard engineers ran into problems, generally due to the fact that the engine was not designed for mass production. That the project was completed at all is testament to the determination and skill of those assigned the task.

[ 09. August 2006, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

 

And here. A good argument can be made, based on the data here, for the Packard Merlin as being the better of the 2. But I'll let the experts decide that.

However, it was Packard’s light measuring device, to check tooling to with-in 1,000,000 of an inch, and Packard’s procedure of freezing parts for an exact fit, that allowed the new supercharger to rase the Merlin’s operational ceiling more that 10,000 feet.

I'll see if I can find the links for these.

As for Napier Sabre having probs, actually I believe the thinking on having the radial was because it eliminated the huge chin scoop & therefore raised top speed. & without radiator, could take more damage.


Here's another link covering Mustang Acceleration, wing/power loading etc.

http://forums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=42910745

3) The Mustang had great acceleration.

Level Flight Acceleration

Level acceleration can generally be approximated by looking at the powerloading of an aircraft, which is the normal loaded weight of an aircraft, compared to its engine's maximum horsepower. Acceleration is also significantly affected by the overall drag of an aircraft's airframe. (more later on that issue) A look at the powerloading of the Mustang when when fully loaded as compared to other aircraft of the same era indicates that it lags significantly behind. Fully loaded, with maximum fuel, combat weight of a P-51B is combat weight of a P-51D is 10,208 lbs. Maximum hp is 1720. That translates into a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per horsepower. A 109G10 with 1800 hp and a weight of approximately 7400 lbs, has a powerloading of approximately 4.1 lbs per horsepower. A Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a horsepower output of 1720 lbs has powerloading of 4.3 lbs per hp. A La-7 with a weight of approx. 7300 lbs and a horsepower output of 1700 has a powerloading of approx. 4.3 lbs per hp. The FW190A8 and D9 did not have as much of an advantage in raw powerloading, but were slightly superior.

It seems clear that in LEVEL flight, the Mustang's reputation for great acceleration is a myth.

But then, in this thread, the info here should be compared to Temp, not Spit, 190 etc. The Temp did have some bugs, that is true...

"Early Tempests suffered numerous engine problems mainly due to the 150 octane fuel being inadequate. There were also problems with the induction system, the lubricating system, and the carburettor air intake (a simple backfire could lead to an explosion)."

Temp did have laminar flow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Tempest
as far back as March 1940 a few engineers had been set aside to investigate the new laminar flow wing that the Americans had used in the P-51 Mustang.

The laminar flow wing had a maximum chord, or ratio of thickness to length of the wing cross section, of 14.5 %, in comparison to 18 % for the Typhoon.


Having said all that, it would seem Temp slightly better. Mustang C also had teething problems. Temp faster, better armed, better climb. Remember what Mannock & Richthofen said about being above. If the 2 met at similiar altitude, Temp would gain height advantage quickly, ( except at high altitude,yes I know ).

[ 09. August 2006, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: chromeboomerang ]

 

I read only one pilot flying a Tempest ever survived a ditching in the sea. All the others went straight to the bottom due to the huge scoop.

You are correct about the lack of high octane gas causing engine problems.

Do you have any facts and figures on how many German aircraft Tempests shot down vs Mustangs ?

 

That's a good question.I once read that Tempests actually took the lead in FW 190 shootdowns at one point. The thing about it was that perhaps the Dora could outrun a Mustang down low, but not a Tempest.

Tempest drivers often say it was the best below 20.000 ft, but often the kite a pilot flies is the greatest in his mind. Objectivity is sometimes influenced or skewed by favoritism.

The guys that flew both allied & Axis types are perhaps the better source. But even they can have national pride & such, or they can have only a few flights as opposed to several hundred say a pilot on the opposing side would have had.

 

Here ya go....

"8th, 9th & 15th AF P-51 groups claimed some 4,950 aircraft shot down (approx. 50% of all USAAF claims in the European theatre) and 4,131 destroyed on the ground. Losses were approx. 840 aircraft. Top scoring P-51 unit was the 9th AF's 354th FG, with 701 air claims and 255 ground claims."***

This quote found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang

***Take into account this doesn't account for all kills made by P-51 as there were those also serving in the Pacific Theatre.

Hawker Tempest:
"240 enemy aircraft destroyed in air combat, plus thirteen probably destroyed. "

This quote found at:
http://www.hawkertempest.se/action.htm

Regards,
MARNE

 

Marne your total losses figures for the 3 AF in the Western sphere are way off. the 8th AF 15 fighter groups lost around 2020 fighters alone not counting recon units and of course bombers, was the 800 sum from the 9th or 12th AF ?

yes correct the 9th AF 354th Pioneer Stang group was top scorer in the ETO with aerial kills.

by the way the Ta 152H could out-turn the Tempest, but don't tell anyone ........