Navalised Typhoon
Jacko,
I admit to being a tad pedantic here, but I think that you will find the Sea Fury was a navalised Fury not a Tempest, there is a small clue in the name..................................
I admit to being a tad pedantic here, but I think that you will find the Sea Fury was a navalised Fury not a Tempest, there is a small clue in the name..................................
JN,
Anorak on,
The Fury was an aeroplane sufficiently different from the Tempest to be given a different name, just as the Tempest itself was sufficiently different from the Typhoon.
Hawker Typhoon
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Fury
Hawker SEA Fury.
Anorak off.
(Stuck in office overnight as I have to be somewhere important at 0830 tomorrow morning in Central London)
Anorak on,
The Fury was an aeroplane sufficiently different from the Tempest to be given a different name, just as the Tempest itself was sufficiently different from the Typhoon.
Hawker Typhoon
Hawker Tempest
Hawker Fury
Hawker SEA Fury.
Anorak off.
(Stuck in office overnight as I have to be somewhere important at 0830 tomorrow morning in Central London)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fresh Ppruner and I've caused a verbal punch up between pr00ne and Jackonicko. Sorry fellas, my fault for dragging the thread off track.
However, here are a couple off links that do back up the idea that the Fury/Sea Fury did come from a stable of a different lineage to the Tempest/Typhoon, that of the FW190. You learn something new every day.
http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Hawker-Sea-Fury.html
http://www.war-eagles-air-museum.com/hawker_1.html
To muddy the water though, the Tempest Reunion (about 70 ex-Tempest pilots gather each year at West Wittering near Portsmouth) got the RN Historic Flight Sea Fury to fly past on the way to the Dunsfold Airshow as it's the nearest thing still flying to the Tempest. The growl of 18 Centaurus cylinders firing does stir the blood.
However, here are a couple off links that do back up the idea that the Fury/Sea Fury did come from a stable of a different lineage to the Tempest/Typhoon, that of the FW190. You learn something new every day.
http://www.aviationshoppe.com/Hawker-Sea-Fury.html
http://www.war-eagles-air-museum.com/hawker_1.html
To muddy the water though, the Tempest Reunion (about 70 ex-Tempest pilots gather each year at West Wittering near Portsmouth) got the RN Historic Flight Sea Fury to fly past on the way to the Dunsfold Airshow as it's the nearest thing still flying to the Tempest. The growl of 18 Centaurus cylinders firing does stir the blood.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about the Sea Fury, pr00ne and others will surely remember the German-owned one that used to police the FRG low flying system in the early 70s. Apparently it was flown by a woman and could just about keep up with F-4s, etc.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: wherever I lay my headset
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of getting emroiled in a "spotter's paradise"... I though the Buccaneer was designed as a Naval aircraft from the outset (and only taken up by the RAF in MkII version to fill the gap left by the cancellation of TSR2 / F1-11 projects).... also the original design spec for the Harrier was as a joint RAF/RN aircraft, including a two seat, supersonic variant for the Senior Service... but I am sure you'll correct me?
Incidentally, the WWII Chance-Voigt Corsair was taken onboard by the RN, after the USN rejected it as unsuitable for deck landing (due to lack of vision around the long nose on finals... giving it to the USMC for shorebased operations instead)... the RN, out of desparation, adopted a hairy, constantly curving approach to the deck (See "Carrier Pilot" a first hand account by Norman Henson)... Not too sure todays Fleet Air Arm would want to take the similar risks just to get the Typhoon to sea?
Incidentally, the WWII Chance-Voigt Corsair was taken onboard by the RN, after the USN rejected it as unsuitable for deck landing (due to lack of vision around the long nose on finals... giving it to the USMC for shorebased operations instead)... the RN, out of desparation, adopted a hairy, constantly curving approach to the deck (See "Carrier Pilot" a first hand account by Norman Henson)... Not too sure todays Fleet Air Arm would want to take the similar risks just to get the Typhoon to sea?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
also the original design spec for the Harrier was as a joint RAF/RN aircraft, including a two seat, supersonic variant for the Senior Service... but I am sure you'll correct me?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The best part of Somerset
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to drag this thread towards the actual subject-I was involved in some of the rig (sim) trials on the navalised Typhoon (or Eurofighter as it was then)in the late 90s. As I recall some of the problems encountered included, but were not limited to the following:
-The alpha required to give a suitable approach speed and to put the ac near the backside of the curve led to the obscuration of the landing area -hence the periscope "idea"
-At these alpha levels the roll response diminished markedly
-A decent boarding rate was only possible using an almost dead-beat auto-throttle emulation-it is very doubtful that this could actually be engineered for real-given the very low drag of the ac.
Most things are possible if enough money is thrown at them-e.g. T-45 (another light, high performance, low drag, ac forced onto a boat) but the issues here are not insignificant. Oh and I used to fly F4s, the only benefit I recall from flying an ac designed for carrier ops-given the carrier was now razor blades- was that it weighed 38000 lbs empty/clean and you could bring the hook up after use! Good fun tho'.
Lastly, if we buy the carriers, where are we going to go in these boats and what are we going to do-and why?
Now back to that fascinating Sea Fury vs whatever debate....zzzzzzzzz
-The alpha required to give a suitable approach speed and to put the ac near the backside of the curve led to the obscuration of the landing area -hence the periscope "idea"
-At these alpha levels the roll response diminished markedly
-A decent boarding rate was only possible using an almost dead-beat auto-throttle emulation-it is very doubtful that this could actually be engineered for real-given the very low drag of the ac.
Most things are possible if enough money is thrown at them-e.g. T-45 (another light, high performance, low drag, ac forced onto a boat) but the issues here are not insignificant. Oh and I used to fly F4s, the only benefit I recall from flying an ac designed for carrier ops-given the carrier was now razor blades- was that it weighed 38000 lbs empty/clean and you could bring the hook up after use! Good fun tho'.
Lastly, if we buy the carriers, where are we going to go in these boats and what are we going to do-and why?
Now back to that fascinating Sea Fury vs whatever debate....zzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More background on the Tempest/(Sea) Fury debate here - stay awake Moe!:
The Sea Fury owes much of its design to a navigational error. In June 1942, Luftwaffe pilot Oberleutnant Arnim Faber landed his Focke-Wulf FW 190A 3 at RAF Pembrey, apparently thinking he was at a Luftwaffe coastal airfield. Quickly pouncing on this intact example of the bothersome German fighter, the British used their windfall to good advantage. Specification F.6/42, for a new high-performance fighter, was issued shortly thereafter, and incorporated lessons that the “boffins” learned from their examination of Faber’s aircraft.
At the time, Hawker Aircraft’s chief engineer Sydney Camm and his team were developing a lighter, smaller version of the venerable Tempest. In January 1943, Hawker management decided to revise this design to meet the requirements of Specification F.6/42. The project was then called the Tempest Light Fighter, or Centaurus. Two months later, the Government wrote specification F.2/43 specifically for the Hawker project. In April 1943, Camm realized that, with a few minor changes and an engine upgrade, the F.2/43 project aircraft could also meet Royal Navy Specification N.7/43 for a carrier-based interceptor. So the Royal Navy’s requirements were combined in Specification F.2/43. After Hawker decided to abandon the land-based version of the Tempest Light Fighter to concentrate on the Royal Navy’s requirements, the resulting aircraft was named Sea Fury.
The Sea Fury owes much of its design to a navigational error. In June 1942, Luftwaffe pilot Oberleutnant Arnim Faber landed his Focke-Wulf FW 190A 3 at RAF Pembrey, apparently thinking he was at a Luftwaffe coastal airfield. Quickly pouncing on this intact example of the bothersome German fighter, the British used their windfall to good advantage. Specification F.6/42, for a new high-performance fighter, was issued shortly thereafter, and incorporated lessons that the “boffins” learned from their examination of Faber’s aircraft.
At the time, Hawker Aircraft’s chief engineer Sydney Camm and his team were developing a lighter, smaller version of the venerable Tempest. In January 1943, Hawker management decided to revise this design to meet the requirements of Specification F.6/42. The project was then called the Tempest Light Fighter, or Centaurus. Two months later, the Government wrote specification F.2/43 specifically for the Hawker project. In April 1943, Camm realized that, with a few minor changes and an engine upgrade, the F.2/43 project aircraft could also meet Royal Navy Specification N.7/43 for a carrier-based interceptor. So the Royal Navy’s requirements were combined in Specification F.2/43. After Hawker decided to abandon the land-based version of the Tempest Light Fighter to concentrate on the Royal Navy’s requirements, the resulting aircraft was named Sea Fury.
