Typhoon anyone?

[HarvardIV]

Maybe they relegated it to ground attack, because of the short 25 hr TBO on the engine. At least they'd get shot down before you had to change out the engine. Not good for the pilots though.

[airnutz]

dhfan..you are right..I stand corrected. How I could read Beamont as
many times as I have over the past coupla days and misspell it
..I'll never know!

Same for your correction,as to the Typhoon being designed as a
fighter/interceptor. I misread "concieved" and was carried by the realities of Typhoons success a ground attack machine. I probably should have
started the paragraph with.."As I misunderstand it,....."

As for the production of Typhoon, 2 prototypes and 15 production are
attributed to Hawker proper. 3300 are attributed to Gloster ACC,
Hucclecote, for the totals to come to 3317 aircraft.

In reference to the Gloster and AV Roe plants, since these facilities were
components of the Hawker Siddeley Group, did I deduce incorrectly that
this made Typhoon the production of Hawker Aircraft? Whack me with the
"rod of knowledge" one more time!
Thanks dhfan!!

[dhfan]

It was years before I realised it was Beamont so I wouldn't worry about that.

Hawker-Siddeley Group more accurately, I suppose, although whether it was Hawkers or a government department that decided where they would be built I don't know. It's still a Hawker aircraft whoever built it as Glosters had, AFAIK, no design input.

[brewerjerry]

Hi,
whilst we are mentioning Beamont, a quote from one of co author books,

' failures occurred with no set pattern, at differing heights, and certainly not during the high powered manouvers which could have been expected to put a stain on the fuselage, some happened during a gentle cruise, others as an aircraft was approaching an airfield about to land,'

' We were flying along in a wing formation, about 24 typhoons, when all of a sudden, one of the chaps in front of me stopped being a typhoon and became a mass of little bits flying past'

Cheers
Jerry

[dhfan]

As I've already said twice, it was caused by elevator flutter.

A small bracket holding on the elevator mass-balance failed through fatigue, causing instant and severe flutter. I don't believe any airframe can take stresses like that.

[HarvardIV]

Hi dh fan:

Good eye for detail, so if what you said is correct, it would be perfectly feasible to fly a Typhoon in this day and age.

[dhfan]

Aside from the minor problem of finding one, yes. I guess spares for a
Sabre would be a bit tricky too.

The Hendon Typhoon was originally sent to the States for evaluation. I don't remember what sort of deal was done but we got it back 20-odd (?) years ago, with a fair bit missing. AFAIK, apart from that one there are just a very few cockpit sections around and not much more.

A little more on the problem.
When the bracket broke, the airframe failed at the weakest point which was the transport joint in front of the tail. They strengthened the bracket and the problem went away, but the Air Ministry still insisted on the fishplates being rivetted over the joint.

[Firebird]

The Hendon Typhoon was originally sent to the States for evaluation. I don't remember what sort of deal was done but we got it back 20-odd (?) years ago, with a fair bit missing. AFAIK, apart from that one there are just a very few cockpit sections around and not much more.

This machine was built under subcontract by the Gloster Air Company and was delivered to the RAF in March 1944, it was shipped to the USA a month later for flight evaluation trials. It was later transferred to the Smithsonian Institute National Air Museum and as the last surviving example was donated by them back to the RAF, returning to the UK for refurbishment at RAF Shawbury in 1968. It has been at Hendon since the Museum opened in 1972.

[brewerjerry]

As I've already said twice, it was caused by elevator flutter.

A small bracket holding on the elevator mass-balance failed through fatigue, causing instant and severe flutter. I don't believe any airframe can take stresses like that.

Hi,
'not saying this twice' but
If you check the history you will see the mass balance theory came about after killy survived his typhoon crash on in Feb '43, mods were made ,
but as the 'expert on typhoons' chris thomas , notes in his book,
the rate of accidents did slow but they still occured even in 1945,

of interest, typhoons started developing a new fault of undercarriage doors and legs falling off in flight, in early 45.

my parting remarks on the subject being a quote from chris thomas's book,
'the typhoon was rapidly leaving service and the accident file was closed without an entirely satisfactory solution to the enigma which cost at least 25 typhoons and the lives of 23 pilots '

cheers
Jerry

[dhfan]

For 20-odd read 37 years. Not even close.

As I understood it, they traced the fault to the mass-balance when Hawker test pilot Kenneth Seth-Smith was killed in a Typhoon.

[airnutz]

dhfan, Actually the spelling in the article previously referred to spelled it
as HawkerSiddeleyGroup. In other British publications..referring to the
same time period we're discussing..refers to the company(s) + or minus
hyphen, or run together or spaced apart. I'll leave that nuance to the
English to settle amongst themselves.

The Henley, shared only the outer wing panels, tailfeathers and some of
the forward fuselage structure with the Hurricane..as I've read elsewhere.
Although loosely parallel designs, the respective wing center sections were
restricted by very different parameters. One of the most noteworthy in my
opinion, was Sydney Camm's change of the wing-root profile in order to
"just accept" the low-pressure tires thicknesses within the structure of the
Hurricane.

brewerjerry, I've read some numbers for Typhoon "disintegration loss" as
25 for the period 1941 to early 1943. Is there some sort of listing for
further similar losses past the period of "transport joint" repairs? If there
are a further 25, I wonder if unseen battle damages could be a contributor
or carbfire problems. Regardless, 25 further aircraft losses out of over
3000 Typhoons in a 2 year period hardly seems like "an epidemic"..unless
of course I was in one of the 25 machines!! If you would provide the titles
of the aforementioned co-authored Beamont books..I would be in your
debt!

Despite the speculations though, the Typhoon was truly..a "more violent
Hurricane".

Last edited by airnutz on Sun May 15, 2005 7:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

[brewerjerry]

Hi
you are right I should have quoted sources
typhoon & tempest at war Reed & Beaumont
the typhoon & tempest story Chris thomas
Typhoon file chris thomas
Typhoon & tempest Mason

The figures true are small, but the figuresare only for those a/c crashes that have been investigated by crash officials, Those that crashed at sea , or over enemy territory, could never be investigated, and could only be guessed at.
I have somewhere deep in the attic a copy of the AIB report into structral failures, will try to dig it out.
In case I came over wrong I am a tiffie fan, I have researched local tiffies units since about 1970, and had the honour to meet some years ago the first tiffie pilot to survuve an in flight failure. But a great plane helped win the war, one pilot named his salome, he said for obvious reasons.
Cheers
Jerry

[airnutz]

brewerjerry, my question wasn't about being right..i just want to know
what your reading! I've got various periodicals, profiles, IPMS oldies, JW
Fozard's edit of the Sydney Camm bio, waning memory...& other schtuff.

No worries about the Tiffy..there are questions, as well as kudos!
To the Attic!