Inside the Spitfire factory

[aeropilot]

Yertis said:

Obviously, that’s why they changed the name. Nevertheless the Tempest was developed directly from the Typhoon, and even you two zealots must recognise that apart from wing and fin shape you’d be pushed to tell them apart, in Sabre form anyway.

Well, that wasn't what was planned, it ended up being that way only because of the issues with some of the Sabre versions which meant that the preferred wing leading radiators instead of the Typhoon's chin radiator just didn't work as intended.....

And the other Hawker preferred option of using the RR Griffon as per the Tempest III and IV was then scuppered by the Air Ministry as they wanted all available Griffons for Spitifre's instead, leaving the V as the one that ended up being the production version.

Tempest III looked very un Typhoon like, and much closer to what the later Fury looked like (engine apart)

[Yertis]

I’m glad you’ve cleared something up for me there - I was sure I’d read of Griffon-engined Tempest prototypes, but could find no pics.

[Eric Mc]

As has been said, even though the Tempest started off as a tidied up and improved Typhoon, it ended up being a very different aeroplane. I would suggest that the only parts that bore any structural commonality to the Typhoon was the cockpit framework and interior. Fore and aft of that, it was completely new - as was the wing (one of the Typhoons biggest hindrances to performance).

The Fury was a lightweight and shortened Tempest II - but was unwanted by the RAF so ended up being navalised as the Sea Fury - and very good it was too.

[Dr Jekyll]

Eric Mc said:

..............................................................................................................................................................
The Fury was a lightweight and shortened Tempest II - but was unwanted by the RAF so ended up being navalised as the Sea Fury - and very good it was too.

And used in original Fury form by the Iraqis until well into the 1960s.

There was also the proposed jet powered Fury that eventually lost (almost?) all it's Fury bits and became the Sea Hawk.

So there's a direct line of descent from the Typhoon right through to the Hunter.

Edited by Dr Jekyll on Friday 23 October 06:41

[Eric Mc]

Indeed there is. Hawker was quite a conservative company and believed in evolution rather than revolution. In fact, I think traditional Hawker features made it all the way to the Hawk.

[CanAm]

Eric Mc said:

Indeed there is. Hawker was quite a conservative company and believed in evolution rather than revolution. In fact, I think traditional Hawker features made it all the way to the Hawk.

Certainly in the tailfin shape.

[Eric Mc]

For comparison purposes -

Hunter



Hawk

[Yertis]

They even got McDonnell Douglas in on the game:

|https://thumbsnap.com/MRiioxhj[/url]

Back to Spits, vis our conversation about Tempest and whether or not it was an evolution of the Typhoon, I wonder to what degree there is parts commonality between say a Spitfire Mark V and a Mark XIV? The XIV had different engine, nose section, rear fuselage and tail unit, different wings, different cooling system, weapons. To all intents and purposes a very different aircraft.

Edited by Yertis on Friday 23 October 10:05

Edited by Yertis on Friday 23 October 10:06

[yeager2004]

Really enjoying this series.

Any one know why they use air-powered drills (even for light work) rather than a battery drill?

[Eric Mc]

Yertis said:

They even got McDonnell Douglas in on the game:

|https://thumbsnap.com/MRiioxhj[/url]

Back to Spits, vis our conversation about Tempest and whether or not it was an evolution of the Typhoon, I wonder to what degree there is parts commonality between say a Spitfire Mark V and a Mark XIV? The XIV had different engine, nose section, rear fuselage and tail unit, different wings, different cooling system, weapons. To all intents and purposes a very different aircraft.

Edited by Yertis on Friday 23 October 10:05

Edited by Yertis on Friday 23 October 10:06

That is indeed true. But the Spitfire evolved much more gradually through 24 variants. The Typhoon emerged out of the Hurricane and the Tempest from the Typhoon - but each step was a significant move away from the previous type rather than a gradual evolution.

The problem was the Hurricane which was really incapable of being substantially evolved as an aircraft in itself. This is because of the construction methods used - which were really the same as had been used in Hawker's RAF and FAA biplanes Hart/Demon/Fury/Nimrod etc).

[magpie215]

yeager2004 said:

Really enjoying this series.

Any one know why they use air-powered drills (even for light work) rather than a battery drill?

I can speak from experience.....weight

You might be using that drill all day if your doing structural repairs or production work.

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

That is indeed true. But the Spitfire evolved much more gradually through 24 variants. The Typhoon emerged out of the Hurricane and the Tempest from the Typhoon - but each step was a significant move away from the previous type rather than a gradual evolution.

The problem was the Hurricane which was really incapable of being substantially evolved as an aircraft in itself. This is because of the construction methods used - which were really the same as had been used in Hawker's RAF and FAA biplanes Hart/Demon/Fury/Nimrod etc).

Well, the Typhoon was really an evolution of the Hurricane in a lot more ways than people think, in fact a Typhoon is more closely related to a Hurricane than the Tempest, having the Hurricane like thick wing and similar landing gear design, the large underneath rad housing, but just moved forward to the chin, and the whole tube construction cockpit area which is very similar to the Hurricane. The only departure was the rear tube and fabric fuselage construction of teh Hurri was replaced with Hawker's first attempt at a stressed skin construction.....hence the issues with the tail's falling off in the early versions as this was the 'new design' unknown for Camm's team to deal with.

[eccles]

magpie215 said:

yeager2004 said:

Really enjoying this series.

Any one know why they use air-powered drills (even for light work) rather than a battery drill?

I can speak from experience.....weight

You might be using that drill all day if your doing structural repairs or production work.

I would have said size would also be one of the main reasons. Air tools are generally a lot smaller to get in those small spaces.
Electric tools were also banned for many years due to the the fire risk (open fuel tanks etc), but I've heard of places that allow battery powered tools for some applications these days.

[magpie215]

eccles said:

magpie215 said:

yeager2004 said:

Really enjoying this series.

Any one know why they use air-powered drills (even for light work) rather than a battery drill?

I can speak from experience.....weight

You might be using that drill all day if your doing structural repairs or production work.

I would have said size would also be one of the main reasons. Air tools are generally a lot smaller to get in those small spaces.
Electric tools were also banned for many years due to the the fire risk (open fuel tanks etc), but I've heard of places that allow battery powered tools for some applications these days.

Agreed size is a given.

Also the need for multiple types of drill and tools all on one power source.

On a typical repair I would probably have the following air driven tools.

A pistol drill
A 90 & 120° drill
A right angle die grinder
Rivet gun

[Eric Mc]

aeropilot said:

Well, the Typhoon was really an evolution of the Hurricane in a lot more ways than people think, in fact a Typhoon is more closely related to a Hurricane than the Tempest, having the Hurricane like thick wing and similar landing gear design, the large underneath rad housing, but just moved forward to the chin, and the whole tube construction cockpit area which is very similar to the Hurricane. The only departure was the rear tube and fabric fuselage construction of teh Hurri was replaced with Hawker's first attempt at a stressed skin construction.....hence the issues with the tail's falling off in the early versions as this was the 'new design' unknown for Camm's team to deal with.

I think the problem with the Typhoon tail sections failing turned out to be some sort of resonance issue with the bob weight which is part of the elevator actuation system. At one point they added "fish plate" strengtheners to the rear fuselage just ahead of the tail fin in an attempt to fix the problem.

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

aeropilot said:

Well, the Typhoon was really an evolution of the Hurricane in a lot more ways than people think, in fact a Typhoon is more closely related to a Hurricane than the Tempest, having the Hurricane like thick wing and similar landing gear design, the large underneath rad housing, but just moved forward to the chin, and the whole tube construction cockpit area which is very similar to the Hurricane. The only departure was the rear tube and fabric fuselage construction of teh Hurri was replaced with Hawker's first attempt at a stressed skin construction.....hence the issues with the tail's falling off in the early versions as this was the 'new design' unknown for Camm's team to deal with.

I think the problem with the Typhoon tail sections failing turned out to be some sort of resonance issue with the bob weight which is part of the elevator actuation system. At one point they added "fish plate" strengtheners to the rear fuselage just ahead of the tail fin in an attempt to fix the problem.

Correct, but Camm's team were in new territory with the stressed skin/frame construction for the cockpit back when first designed.
Its remarkable to think only 10 years seperated the first flight of the Typhoon and the Hunter.

[Eric Mc]

Well, they had plenty of "in the field" testing done by all those Typhoon pilots.

[eccles]

magpie215 said:

Agreed size is a given.

Also the need for multiple types of drill and tools all on one power source.

On a typical repair I would probably have the following air driven tools.

A pistol drill
A 90 & 120° drill
A right angle die grinder
Rivet gun

We've had an interesting development in work recently, due to a couple of failures of airlines they are proposing that when we swap tools we turn the air supply off, dump the pressure in the line, change tools, then turn the air on again.
So us sheet metal types will spend most of the turning air on and off again, or having to employ small children to to do it!

[Yertis]

aeropilot said:

Correct, but Camm's team were in new territory with the stressed skin/frame construction for the cockpit back when first designed.
Its remarkable to think only 10 years seperated the first flight of the Typhoon and the Hunter.

IIRC fiddling with the bob-weight Eric mentioned was part of the 'solution' but the root problem was aerodynamic, flutter or some such, and the Typhoon was really too fast for its own strength.

I always believed in there being a line of development from Hart through Hurricane to Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury, but was firmly told this was not the case by another prolific PHer, of Irish descent and whose knowledge I respect enormously, who was quite adamant that the Sea Fury was born of Hawker's wartime analysis of the FW190.

[magpie215]

eccles said:

We've had an interesting development in work recently, due to a couple of failures of airlines they are proposing that when we swap tools we turn the air supply off, dump the pressure in the line, change tools, then turn the air on again.
So us sheet metal types will spend most of the turning air on and off again, or having to employ small children to to do it!

I used to run a 6 outlet pig and 4 short lines.....non of that swapping tools for me :-)