Talk:Hawker Tempest/Archive 1

Archive 1

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))

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)

IIRC, the RAF changed from measuring air speed in mph to using knots in around 1946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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?

The standard (unmodified) F8F Bearcat was slower than a standard contemporary Hawker Sea Fury so Rare Bear's record, although meaningful in absolute terms, is no gauge of late-war fighter performance. Neither is it a true comparison of the Radial engine-versus-Inline engine controversy, as although the Sea Fury also had a radial engine like the Bearcat, the inline Griffon and Sabre versions of the Fury were considerably faster than the radial Centaurus-powered Sea Fury.

Generally, what's important for a combat aeroplane is performance in everyday use, i.e., whether it can meet it's opponents on at least equal terms, if not (preferably), with an advantage. This is governed by many factors, including age of aircraft, wear, both on engine(s) and airframe, etc. So as a rule, a ten mph difference in speed between WW II opponents wouldn't have been significant, the difference being dissipated by the state for the aircraft and a skill and training of the pilot - most pilots of average skill would not be able to use such a small advantage over their opponent. On the other hand, a twenty mph speed disparity probably would affect the outcome. This disregards other factors, such as maneuverability, tactics, etc. Combat aeroplanes tend to get 'thrashed' for obvious reasons, and it would not have been uncommon to find on an RAF Squadron two, say identical Spitfires, one new, the other tired ('clapped-out'), with the tired one having a noticeable decrease in performance over the new machine. In combat aircraft and engines tended to wear out (not surprisingly) fairly quickly.

Speed is not the only important factor, for a fighter maneuverability is also important, especially in the dog fights that marked the Battle of Britain for example, and generally the idea was to produce an aircraft with a reasonable balance between both speed and maneuverability, it being relatively easy to design an aeroplane that will be fast in a straight line, you just give it as much power as possible, however getting a design that can also 'mix it' with its opponents is another matter. A fighter needed a usable advantage over its opponents, and, at least in the early part of WW II, that was why the Hurricane was usable against the contemporary Bf 109E, as it could out-turn the German fighter, although it was somewhat slower. The American-built Tomahawk and Airacobra, while faster than the Hurricane, where slower than the Bf 109, and what's more, could not out-maneuvre the German fighter at the altitudes then common in air combats over Europe (c 20,000ft and higher), which was the main reason the RAF relegated them to the Middle East, where the combats generally took place at much lower altitudes, c 10,000ft and below.

Generally, if you want an ex-fighter aircraft to break a speed record, you remove all the operational equipment to lighten it, guns, ammunition, armour, radio (heavy in the old thermionic valve days), seal as many of the drag-producing apertures, loose-fitting cowling panels, etc, as you can, and then over-boost the engine as much as you dare, using a special fuel 'cocktail' such as was used on the Rolls-Royce R Schneider Trophy engines. It helps if you are starting off with a particularly fast aeroplane in the first place, and a standard Bearcat wasn't that fast for a late-war fighter, however it was probably the only type available to the record breakers, most of the other candidates having long-since been scrapped, and I can't remember what speed Dreadnought, the Wright-engined Sea Fury racer did around Reno, but I don't think it was anything like 500mph. I would probably have gone for a Sabre-powered Fury, using one of the final Sabre versions that developed around 5000hp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.132 (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)"

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)

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)

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)

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)

early Typhoon bulkhead to spar boom fitting - the first few Tempests used a converted Typhoon spar boom fitting, whereas that later ones used a new forging specifically designed for the aircraft. The Typhoon fitting gave a cranked attitude to the Tempest rear wing attachment bolt lugs, necessitating the blisters - the Typhoon wing was considerably thicker than the Tempest one and so the Typhoon upper attachment lugs were too high for the new wing. The new forging did away with this need. The Series I aircraft were just the aircraft produced using some Typhoon parts before the bespoke Tempest components became available from the suppliers, such as the larger wheels/larger inside-diameter tyres. If an aircraft had the fish-plates then it was probably built using a converted Typhoon rear fuselage.

BTW, there wouldn't necessarily be any need for Hawker's to refer to Series I or Series II aircraft, as these were Air Ministry designations for minor changes to the airframe. These changes would likely only effect maintenance, so the differences between the two would be needed to be known by airframe fitters, etc. From a pilot's point of view, the only distinction between the two would probably have amounted to a brief para in the relevant Pilot's Notes referring to 'early aircraft' and 'later aircraft' .Therefore it's quite possible that Hawker's themselves made no differentiation between the two, the latter replacing the former when the parts became available.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the Target Tug 'conversion' was a bit of a misnomer. All it was was a streamlined pod fitted with a cable reel, a wind-driven winch, and a drogue. It fitted on to the normal drop tank/bomb attachment point under the wing, and used the normal release mechanism to operate it. The aircraft itself IIRC was unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The winch controls on the TT conversion were located on an auxiliary panel that replaced the removed gunsight. The Malcolm G-Type Winch Mk. II pod itself was made by R. Malcolm & Company, the same company that made the 'Malcolm Hood'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

"The wing thickness-to-chord-ratio (T/C) is the ratio of the average front-to-rear distance of the wing from leading to trailing edge divided by the wing's average depth between the top and bottom wing surfaces.

A wing of low thickness-chord-ratio will appear long and thin when viewed in section, ie., looked at from the tip towards the root. Conversely a wing of high thickness-chord-ratio will appear shorter and fatter.

Generally, wings with high T/C are better suited to load carrying, while wings with a low T/C are better suited to high speeds."

The above is very rough but may be enough to start a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Operational History Other Than With the RAF

The Hawker Tempest saw operational use other than with the RAF. The article notes that India and Pakistan both flew them, and the page for No. 3 Squadron Indian Air Force says that they flew them in Operation Polo, the Indian police action against Hyderabad in 1948. This article should address that, rather than being limited to the RAF use. I'm not qualified to write it (not even close!) otherwise I would do it myself. But I'm sure some clever Wikipedian out there can do it. Darkstar8799 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be "clever" do that, rhater just have the time, inclination, and will to dig through obscure sources for hard-to-find info. Compared to RAF usage, it would still be quite minor. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

By "clever" I only meant "knows more about this topic than I do", which still leaves many of you. I'm hoping somebody knows enough about the non-RAF use to be able to write it without having to do extensive research. I agree it would probably be minor, but it would address a problem I've seen in many Wikipedia articles on military aircraft, where a nation is listed in the infobox as a user, but there is nothing about that country's use of the aircraft in the text. While we're at it, could someone expand the treatment about the Tempest's retirement from service? There is a rather detailed treatment of the aircraft's entry into service, down to naming individual squadrons, dates, and what aircraft the Tempest replaced. But aside from saying that it was the RAF's last piston-engined fighter, there is almost nothing about its retirement. Darkstar8799 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the IAF used the Tempest II and in fact there were still some of these aircraft abandoned in pretty sad states of disrepair at IAF Poona back in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The late British warbird collector Doug Arnold supposedly recovered seven of the Poona Tempests, in whole or in part, in 1979. Other sources suggest there was only one Tempest and the other aircraft were different types. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OAWpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=tempest+ii+poona&source=bl&ots=FFvdVS8WJD&sig=ACfU3U3_3yDdlQkUitlQJ_iLRFsRP93vPw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZs9-zlajiAhWxRxUIHdp-BTEQ6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=tempest%20ii%20poona&f=false Anyhow, in 2013 Chris Miller of Texas acquired Tempest II MW404 from Doug Arnold's son and heir David, who lives in Monaco, and shipped it to the US. The Tempest had been sitting in the open at Hemswell and was not in good nick. Unfortunately, Miller is proposing to put a Wright 3350 engine into it, because it's easier than restoring and maintaining a Centaurus, and that pretty much negates the entire point. http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/rare-hawker-tempest-ii-states-restoration.html Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. IIRC, Aeroplane Monthly had an article about the Poona Tempests in around the mid-1970's and there were pictures of several Tempest II's in various states of disrepair. Most owners re-engine Sea Fury aircraft because the Centaurus is comparatively rare and spares are almost unobtainable, whereas the R3350 is cheap and easily supported in the US, the last source of Centaurus spares likely being the RAF's Blackburn Beverley's that were retired and scrapped in 1967.

BTW, Kermit Weeks has both a Tempest V and a Tempest II he is restoring, and IIRC the MK II is an ex-Doug Arnold aircraft.

The nature of Article XV squadrons

Minorhistorian, before we get into an edit war, I suggest you re-read Article XV squadrons, especially the distinct difference in status between No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF and 485–489 (New Zealand) Squadrons.

The status of the WW2 New Zealand squadrons has, IMHO been obscured by several factors, but two things in particular: (1) the wartime NZ govt and RNZAF were less inclined, than their Australian or Canadian counterparts, to take issue with how the NZ Article XV squadrons and RNZAF personnel in Europe were utilised by the RAF and; {2) the common, popular names in NZ for NZ units in Europe, i.e. "___ (NZ) Squadron", which is radically different from the style in Australia or Canada.

In a nutshell: regardless of how the Article XV squadrons were named, staffed, controlled operationally or perceived by anyone at the time, from a technical and official perspective, it is clear they were squadrons of the three Dominion air forces. By way of analogy, the difference is the same as that between HMS Neptune (20) (somewhat akin to 75 Sqn) and HMNZS Achilles (70) (somewhat akin to an Article XV squadron).

Grant | Talk 10:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the difference in status between 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF - the aircraft and equipment were originally bought by the NZ government and the unit was manned by New Zealanders, and was recognised as such by the British government - and the Article XV Squadrons - read 485(NZ) Squadron "Interestingly, this carried over into the naming of the six New Zealand squadrons...It was impractical, for operational and administrative reasons to establish and maintain RNZAF squadrons in Britain. So, although the squadron badges carried the name Royal New Zealand Air Force, the squadrons were in fact receiving their pay cheques from the British government and official records such as the Operations Record Book acknowledged this. For example, 485 Squadron was referred to informally as 485 (New Zealand) or 485 (NZ) and never as 485 Squadron, RNZAF.(italics added)"

As for the logic of your argument, how on earth is it possible to say that "at the time" the Article XV units were regarded as RAF units and then turn that around and say that they belonged to the Dominions when you yourself point out they were " named, staffed, controlled operationally...[and]...perceived at the time" as being RAF units by the RAF and by the Dominion governments during the 1940s? What now gives you the right, retrospectively, to decide this is no longer the case? As you have also stated "the wartime NZ govt and RNZAF were less inclined, than their Australian or Canadian counterparts, to take issue with how the NZ Article XV squadrons and RNZAF personnel in Europe were utilised by the RAF" Why? Because the NZ government recognised that these were RAF units under the control of the British government via the RAF. The Australian government was able to persuade the British government to redeploy RAAF article XV units to Australia and the Pacific because Australia was under direct attack by the Japanese (Darwin air-raids for example). Another factor you have overlooked here is that the majority of New Zealanders in the NZ Article XV units were members of the RAF, not the RNZAF. You have, in effect, negated your own argument.

This argument has been well aired - see also Section 8 of this page. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think that past debate supports what you are saying. As pointed out there, it said "Royal New Zealand Air Force" on the squadron badges. That is the bottom line for me, because I don't think RAF was prone to giving credit where none was due :-)

Some of the things you say above still suggest that you have not taken on board the various kinds of squadrons that existed in the British Commonwealth air forces during WW2 and the reasons why there were different kinds of squadrons.

And it is "possible to say that the Article XV units were regarded as RAF units", because that misconception (which sits uncomfortable with things like the badges) clearly goes right back to their creation. The fact of a name being widely used does not make it technically correct or the best one for an encylopedia to use.

I am also very dubious about that quote from Morris re finances. What is his source? It seems likely to me that "receive their pay cheques" in this instance means that money obtained from NZ was distributed by the RAF pay system? Did the New Zealand soldiers in North Africa and Italy, who would have been far more expensive to maintain than six or seven air squadrons, also "receive their pay cheques from the British government"? (Even if they had, it still wouldn't make them members of the British Army.) Also, it seems odd that the NZ govt would have been prepared to finance No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF, but not the others, especially since 75 Sqn was not officially an RNZAF unit until after the war.

In any case, I also think the "finances argument" overlooks the fact that there was not one Article XV for NZ and one for Australia and Canada. Other squadrons with "bracketed" names, e.g. No. 92 (East India) Squadron, No. 125 (Newfoundland) Squadron and No. 139 (Jamaica) Squadron RAF, were unambiguously RAF units and even though were Indians, Newfoundlanders and Jamaicans in the RAF, few if any served in those "bracketed" squadrons, because such squadrons did not have the staffing requirements set down by Article XV. Why did Article XV, merely one small part of the agreement that set up EATS/BCATP, even exist unless the idea was that the squadrons were explicitly and officially formed as RNZAF, RAAF, RCAF units, drawing from a common pool of personnel and resources? In many (perhaps most) cases, the RAF assigned EATS/BCATP graduates according to operational requirements (see, for example, the history of No. 466 Squadron RAAF). However, there was a formal requirement under Article XV and a general tendency, when it was practical, to concentrate RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF personnel in Article XV squadrons. The mere fact of Article XV's existence suggests a particular intent on the part of the three Dominion govts.

"The Australian government was able to persuade the British government to redeploy RAAF article XV units to Australia and the Pacific..." This suggests broader misconceptions on your part. No "persuasion" was necessary: 452 and 457 Sqns were always RAAF Spitfire units and No. 54 Sqn RAF came with them. (There were not, as far as I'm aware, disagreements like those that took place when two Australian Army divisions returned from the Middle East in 1942.) See also the history of No. 451 Squadron RAAF, which remained inactive for months in North Africa, because of a dispute between the Australian govt and RAF over its basic role (fighter v army co-operation). 54 Sqn and the other RAF units that were based in Australia in 1943–45, such as 548, 549 and 618 Squadrons, remained RAF units. This was even the case with RAF units that were formed and served for the entirety of their existence in Australia (No. 548 Squadron RAF and No. 549 Squadron RAF, even though the Australian government would have covered a significant proportion, if not most, of their expenses.

Grant | Talk 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Some of the things you say above still suggest that you have not taken on board the various kinds of squadrons that existed in the British Commonwealth air forces during WW2 and the reasons why there were different kinds of squadrons."I don't respond well to smug, condescending comments like this.

"I am also very dubious about that quote from Morris re finances. What is his source? It seems likely to me that "receive their pay cheques" in this instance means that money obtained from NZ was distributed by the RAF pay system?" Before you start querying properly researched books, where is the evidence that supports your supposition? For interest Morris had access to 485 Squadron record books, including accounts etc.

You still haven't answered my original question "how on earth is it possible to say that "at the time" the Article XV units were regarded as RAF units and then turn that around and say that they belonged to the Dominions when you yourself point out they were " named, staffed, controlled operationally...[and]...perceived at the time" as being RAF units by the RAF and by the Dominion governments during the 1940s?" You still maintain that everybody at the time, including RAF officials, was wrong and that you, in 2010 are right.

"In any case, I also think the "finances argument" overlooks the fact that there was not one Article XV for NZ and one for Australia and Canada." What exactly does this mean?

"Also, it seems odd that the NZ govt would have been prepared to finance No. 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF, but not the others, especially since 75 Sqn was not officially an RNZAF unit until after the war. 75 Squadron was not unique: Canada's 1(RCAF) Squadron was raised, financed and equipped by the Canadian government, as was 10(RAAF) Sqn. So it was hardly "odd" that the NZ government should help finance 75 Sqn. Where is your evidence that the NZ, Australian or Canadian governments financed or ran the Article XV units?

"Other squadrons with "bracketed" names, e.g. No. 92 (East India) Squadron, No. 125 (Newfoundland) Squadron and No. 139 (Jamaica) Squadron RAF, were unambiguously RAF units and even though were Indians, Newfoundlanders and Jamaicans in the RAF, few if any served in those "bracketed" squadrons, because such squadrons did not have the staffing requirements set down by Article XV." Yes, and?

From the Australian War Memorial:Article XV "Each government wished to retain the capacity to influence the employment of their personnel and ensure they were not simply subsumed into the large British organisation.For its part, Britain was not prepared to let the large numbers of dominion personnel result in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments seeking to influence strategic air policy. The British retained control of command appointments to the Article XV squadrons and of the promotion of dominion personnel serving with the RAF. " Thus, while the Dominion governments thought they had control over Article XV squadrons and their personnel, the RAF and British government thought otherwise - the wrangle over 451(RAAF) Sqn's status was symptomatic of this, and it is interesting to note that squadron became a fighter unit rather than staying an Army co-op unit - the RAF maintained control over the deployment and role of the squadron NOT the Australian Air Board.

From Canadian Military Aircraft "Early experience with the first three RCAF squadrons that arrived in the UK in mid 1940 showed that there were several problems associated with trying to operate a small number of Canadian squadrons within the command and base structure of the RAF. These ranged from problems with aircraft modification status, to the need to integrate the squadrons into higher RAF command structures, to nomenclature and identification. An extreme example of the later was found at RAF Station Northolt in mid 1940, which was home to No. 1 Squadron, RAF, No. 1 Squadron, RCAF, and No. 1 Squadron of the Polish Air Force, all operating Hurricanes. Therefore, it was decided that future squadrons from Canada, or any other country, would be completely integrated into the RAF structure, and would have squadrons numbers in the 400 range. Canada was allocated squadron numbers 400 to 449." ie Article XV units were completely integrated into the RAF structure.

" No "persuasion" was necessary..." Evidence for this? Minorhistorian (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why it is incumbent on me to demonstrate that squadrons gazetted and badged as "RAAF", "RCAF" and "RNZAF" units really were RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF units, but I'll give it a go :-)

My source for my assertion about No. 1 Wing RAAF (54 Sqn RAF, 452 and 457 Sqns), IIRC, is David Horner's High Command, but I can't provide page numbers as I don't have access to the book at the moment. The real difficulty during 1942 was obtaining Spitfires, which the Australian govt was insisting on. BTW it is a common mistake, especially considering the significance of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, to portray the transfer of various Australian military units from Europe and the Mediterranean to Asia/the Pacific during 1941–43 as matter of the UK making concessions to Australia, when the opposite was true: from a legal point of view, all units/personnel served within British formations (whether it was Bomber Command, the Eighth Army, the Mediterranean Fleet etc) at the discretion of the Australian services and government. For instance see this 1943 cable from the Australian Prime Minster, John Curtin, to the Australian High Commissioner in London:

After full consideration of the views put forward by the Air Ministry concerning the proposed transfer to Australia of R.A.A.F. squadrons and R.A.A.F. personnel with R.A.F. squadrons, the following views are furnished:-

A. Further training of aircrew should be limited to the number required for the R.A.A.F. development for service in the South-West Pacific Area and for the maintenance of R.A.A.F. squadrons including Article XV squadrons serving overseas. It is estimated that this will require an output of 350 per month for R.A.A.F. in South-West Pacific Area and 360 per month for R.A.A.F. units serving overseas. Continuance at this rate will be dependent on the availability of recruits which is uncertain. The requirements of the R.A.A.F. in South-West Pacific Area to have priority over the supply of aircrew for R.A.A.F. squadrons overseas.

[.....]

The Government has now agreed to the development of the R.A.A.F. in Australia to 53 squadrons by December, 1944. This is exclusive of three R.A.F. Spitfire squadrons [i.e. 54, 548 and 549], and two Netherlands East Indies squadrons, for which we will be required to provide ground staffs.

Or, there is Churchill to Curtin in 1944:

8. The Air Ministry would however be prepared to go further and forego any Australian contribution above what is required to maintain the R.A.A.F. regular [squadrons in Europe/Mediterranean] and Article 15 squadrons. In effect this would mean a complete stoppage of despatch of Australian trainees to Canada for further training, except for those you wish to have trained for your own squadrons. This question is now for you to decide.

So it is clearly not the case that "everybody at the time, including RAF officials, was wrong". Because Churchill and Curtin (at least) understood the legal status of the Article XV sqns as units controlled ultimately (if not on a day to day operational basis) by the Dominion govts, who could veto future use. Nor is it a flaky, revisionist theory to say that the Australian govt could simply have ordered Article XV Sqns (excluding any non-RAAF personnel and equipment) and individual RAAF personnel in RAF, RCAF and RNZAF (not to mention South African Air Force) units to return. It is simply a statement of fact, regarding the formal legal status of those personnel and units. (And it was obviously better from the perspective of most parties concerned that squadrons were transferred lock, stock and two smoking 20mm barrels.) The fact that disputes over this did not occur more often is still attributed by some commentators to recalcitrance/impotence on the Australian side or arrogance/paternalism on the UK side. Whereas it really demonstrates the strength of the relationship and sense of a common cause that existed in Australia and the UK at the time.

Re. your Canadian quote, you seem to be interpreting "completely integrated into the RAF structure" as meaning they were RAF squadrons, an interpretation that is not justified by the material you have quoted (or a Canadian govt publication quoted below).

You also quote the Australian War Memorial: "The British retained control of command appointments to the Article XV squadrons and of the promotion of dominion personnel serving with the RAF." And interpret this to mean "the Dominion governments thought they had control over Article XV squadrons and their personnel, the RAF and British government thought otherwise." Once again, an unjustified interpretation. I suggest that the acquiescence of the Australian and NZ govts and air forces regarding command appointments and promotions was a pragmatic recognition of the difficulties that would occur if they asserted their right to such things rather than requirements of Article XV. See, for instance, Churchill's recognition of the legal status of the "R.A.A.F. regular" (No. 3 Squadron RAAF and No. 10 Squadron RAAF), and Article 15 squadrons, mentioned above.

I mention the "bracketed" RAF squadrons because that was what 75 Sqn was. Some people seem to regard the Article XV units in the same light. But: if they were practically identical from an official point of view, why would the Air Ministry have bothered including "RAAF", "RCAF" and "RNZAF" in squadron names, when it could simply have referred to e.g. "401 (Canada) Squadron" [sic]?

The meaning of "there was not one Article XV for NZ and one for Australia and Canada" is as follows: clearly the implementation of Article XV changed over time; "micromanagement" of squadrons was problematic given the "tyranny of distance" and wartime communications and; interpretation of the squadrons' status seems to have been different in NZ (and the fact that it did not ratify the Statute of Westminster until 1947 is significant). Canada was different again, insisting on e.g. having a say in CO appts and the formation of a distinct group within Bomber Command, No. 6 Group RCAF. Such differences do not (at the very least) alter the original intent of Article XV, or the fact of the squadrons' names.

Your (mis)comparison of the financing of No. 1 Squadron RCAF to 75 (New Zealand) Squadron RAF is an illustration of many people’s confusion and misconceptions about such things. 1 Squadron RCAF was neither an Article XV or a "bracketed" squadron; it fell into a third category: regular, pre-war Dominion air force units attached to RAF formations, like (e.g) 3 and 10 Sqns RAAF. (Whereas there were no regular RNZAF units in the UK.) So it is quite logical that 1 Squadron RCAF and 10 Squadron RAAF would have been entirely financed and internally organised by the Dominion govts.

Regarding the issues of pay and finances, see this Canadian official publication from 1945, The R.C.A.F. Overseas: The Fifth Year, e.g.

The original intention of Article 15 was to man these squadrons with aircrew personnel from the Dominion concerned and gradually build up units which, though still a part of the R.A.F., would be named for the Dominion concerned in deference to their aircrew. But the ground crew would still be R.A.F. and the cost of equipment, etc., would still be a charge against the United Kingdom. [...] And from this decision to lend further assistance, the basis of service changed materially when Canada undertook

(a) Responsibility for pay and allowances to all R.C.A.F. personnel regardless of whether they were serving with the R.C.A.F. or R.A.F.;

(b) Responsibility not only for the initial equipment but also for the annual maintenance including aircraft, armament, etc. of all Canadian units;

(c) Responsibility for the advanced training in the U.K. and other countries of all R.C.A.F. aircrew in advanced flying and operational training units. [vol II, p5–6; emphasis added]

[....]

When, in April 1943, the Dominion assumed complete financial responsibility for all her air force personnel this network of liaison officers had to be reinforced with regional pay officers, as pay difficulties had always been a major source of irritation. [p10]

In other words, in 1943 the Canadian govt took over the entire cost of its Article XV squadrons, including the pay of RCAF personnel, whether they were in units belonging to RCAF, RAF or other Dominion air forces.

I don't have time to look into the Australian arrangements, but I will try to find out. I would like to know Morris's source/s, as I find the Article XV saga interesting. And even if it turns out that every single member of the RNZAF was always paid by the UK govt, that does not alter the intent of Article XV, or the official legal status of the sqns. Even if the govts rarely exercised their control of them.

Grant | Talk 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is also clear that the Canadian government played hardball in 1939 when the negotiations for EATS/BCATP took place. See, for instance, Robert Broughton Bryce, Canada and the Cost of World War II: the International Operations of Canada's Department of Finance, 1939-1947 (2005), pp47–51.

Not only was it agreed that the UK would pay the costs of Article XV squadrons, it was also clear that they would belong to the three Dominion air forces: "The Chancellor of the Exchequer was gloomy, pointing out to the War Cabinet that he had sent no congratulatory telegrams after the signing of the [air training] agreement. He had not agreed that Canada could insist on unlimited units of the RCAF being provided at the expense of the United Kingdom taxpayer." (p50) In other words, the second most powerful UK politician at the time, John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, also believed the Article XV squadrons belonged to the Dominion air forces.

Grant | Talk 04:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nag nag nag! Like all Australians, bolshy, argumentative and unwilling to give up. I surrender! :) Minorhistorian (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, very big of you...that's why Churchill loved (and hated) us so much. Grant | Talk 02:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether an airman was RAF, RCAF, RAAF, SAAF, or RNZAF, if shot down and captured the Germans called them all Tommies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting IWM documentary on the Tempest called Tempest at War here on YouTube: [8] - the first speaker sounds like either a Kiwi or an Aussie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Dominion forces were intended to be made up entirely of personnel from these countries and most started out that way but due to operational losses replacements were allocated from anywhere and so RAAF or RNZAF squadron could have other British, Polish, Czech, or Belgian or French personnel. RAF Bomber Command crews were most marked in this manner.

A 1944 British Pathe unedited sequence with no sound showing a No. 3 Sqn Tempest V up for an air test (losing side panel) and other Tempests on the continent (poss. at Volkel) with Roland Beamont appearing (on left) at 2:31 - 2;41: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

manoeuv(e)rable

I notice that my [sic?] tag has been removed, but the incorrect spelling "manoeuverable" has been left. The English spelling is "manoeuvrable" without the "e" near the end. This correct spelling occurs elsewhere in the article and can be confirmed here.

If the book uses the correct spelling, then the article should be corrected. If the book uses an incorrect spelling, then it should be marked with a [sic] tag so that readers are aware and the project's typo-fixes don't try to fix it again. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tempest II diagram opposite Tempest V specs ?

The specs are given for Mk V, but the accompanying diagrams appear to be of Mk II (radial engine, no chin radiator). Misleading ? Rcbutcher (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fuel capacity

"giving the Tempest a total internal fuel capacity of 162 gal (736 l).[4]

In service, Tempests also carried two specially designed, streamlined, drop tanks of 45 gal (204 l) giving a maximum of 360 gal (1,636 l)"

736 + 2 * 204 = 1,144 which is some 492 less than 1,636. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.169.157 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hawker Tempest/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

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 lengtheneing and fuel tank changes. -could possibly 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)

Last edited at 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hawker Tempest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080326214506/http://www.hawkertempest.se/detailmkiigear.htm to http://www.hawkertempest.se/detailmkiigear.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135339/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw4043 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw4043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112143957/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw8103 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw8103
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135331/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/ej6932 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/ej6932
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135254/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/la6072 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/la6072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135829/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw3762 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/mw3762
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135745/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/pr5363 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/pr5363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112135420/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/nv7783 to http://hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/nv7783
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508114609/http://www.albentley-drawings.com/tempest.htm to http://www.albentley-drawings.com/tempest.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109090252/http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.htm to http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)