The Hawker Monsoon Story

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 1)

In Sept 1942, the Ministry of Aircraft Production decided to end development of the aerodynamically-compromised Hawker Typhoon fighter and its even more toublesome Napier Sabre powerplant. Production of the Typhoon at the Gloster Aircraft Company's Hucclecote, Gloucs, plant was ordered wound down with the final Typhoon Mk.I being delivered in early Nov 1942.

The end of Typhoon production presented an array of problems. The RAF would have no new fighter design until the advent of the aerodynamically-improved 'Thin-Wing' Typhoon II (to AM Specification F.10/41, eventually emerging as the Hawker Tempest). But the Air Ministry saw no readily-available engine suited to the Typhoon I.
Gloster was expected to produce that 'Thin-Wing' Typhoon II but had no immediate application for its Typhoon fuselages. And MAP foresaw idle factory space at Gloster's Hucclecote facility.

Back in Sept, the Air Ministry consulted with industry prior to issuing a specification for an interim fighter aircraft. AM Specification F.6/42 asked for an interim Hurricane
replacement fighter which made use of the Typhoon fuselage. The emphasis for F.6/42 was for operations in tropical conditions where there was a concern over the longevity of the fabric-covered portions of the Hurricane's structure. The preferred powerplant was the air-cooled Bristol Hercules VI 14-cylinder radial engine.

Seven firms were encouraged to submit designs to meet AM Spec F.6/42 on a short deadline. These companies were: Boulton Paul Aircraft, Fairey Aviation, Folland Aircraft, Gloster Aircraft, Hawker Aircraft, Martin-Baker Aircraft, and Phillips & Powis Aircraft (aka Miles). Another bid came unsolicited from D. Napier & Son Limited, the makers of the Sabre engine.

[To be continued]
____________________

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 2)

Potential contenders for Air Ministry Specification F.6/42 came thick and fast. All were reviewed by the AM's Directorate of Research and Technical Development but the unsolicited submission from Napier was quickly eliminated from the contest.

Napier had proposed a new engine for the Typhoon. This was to be the E.108AC, an air-cooled derivative of the Sabre. Sleeve valve problems were to be resolved by adopting the entire cylinder head of the Bristol Taurus radial.* Adequate cooling was to be ensured through the use of a cooling fan (inspired by technical reports on the fan-cooling of a Fw 190A-3 mistakenly landed at RAF Pembrey).

In its submission, Napier made no suggestion as to how to address Typhoon airframe problems. Based on Napier's earlier air-cooled Dagger engine, it also seemed probable that the finned cylinders would need to be more widely spaced than on the Sabre. This would dictate a longer crankshaft be adopted, virtually eliminating any commonality with the Sabre itself. Nor did the Director of Technical Development have much faith that the proposed E.108AC powerplant could be made ready within the tight timeframe desired.

Boulton Paul proposed adapting the Defiant wing (in its P.94 form) and a similar forward fuselage mated to the Typhoon rear monocoque section. The Hercules VI engine had twin exhaust pipes directed below the wing, with a supercharger intake on the port side and a Beaufighter-style oil cooler to starboard. Armament was not specified but was intended to per as per the P.94.

Mindful to the aircraft's intended use in underdeveloped tropical regions, Boulton Paul had paid particular attention to ease of airframe assembly in austere conditions. The forward fuselage monocoque was to mate with the Typhoon monocoque via a quick-detach section of welded steel-tubing. Likewise, only six easy to access bolts would connect the Defiant/P.94 wing to the fuselage centre section. In later production (as illustrated), it was intended that the tailplane section would also be easily separated (Boulton Paul also proposed that later production vertical fins be reduced in area).

The DTD's report on the Boulton Paul concept was generally favourable but there were specific criticisms. The importance of assembly in the field had been over-emphasized while the Beaufighter-derived engine installation was judged somewhat crude and unnecessarily drag-inducing. The use of a new side-draught carburettor was not seen as conducive to rapid prototyping. And there were also doubts as to whether the Defiant undercarriage would provide sufficient ground-clearance for a heavily-loaded fighter operating on rough airstrips.

Folland put forward a very advanced study, the Fo 117Ty. For this fighter, the wing and main gear from Folland's Fo 117 concept was to be matched to the Hawker rear fuselage along with a new centre fuselage complete with the Fo 117's sliding 'bubble' canopy. The closely-cowled Hercules also followed the Fo 117 pattern down to its proposed contra-rotating propellers.

The DTD found no faults in Folland's general concept. The criticisms voiced concerned the use of an as-yet-unproven wing and undercarriage as well as the need to develop a highly complex contra-rotating propeller system for the Hercules engine in a very short time. The latter concern was reinforced by the Ministry of Aircraft Production which could not continence any disruption of Hercules supplies for in-production heavy bombers or the Bristol Beaufighter.

[To be continued]
_________________

* The liquid-cooled Sabre and air-cooled Taurus shared the same 5-inch bore.

____________________

[Silver Fox]

I like the lower one. It has a British 'Jug' look to it.

[apophenia]

Cheers 'Fox!

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 3)

As expected, the submission for Air Ministry Specification F.6/42 from Fairey incorporated a number of features from the firm's new naval fighter, the Firefly Mk.I. This included the complete wing and main undercarriage as well as the cockpit canopy (in its revised, raised form). The surprise was the Fairey did not intend to power this hybrid fighter with the requested Hercules VI radial. Instead, Fairey proposed installing their own P.24 Monarch (or 'Prince 4') liquid-cooled H-24 powerplant.

The DTD's report on the Fairey 'Prince 4' submission was favourable on the airframe but not of the use of the P.24 Monarch engine. Not only was this powerplant unproven, the intended tropical use of the planned fighter also dictated an air-cooled engine. There was a secondary concern that Fairey had made no mention of how it would eliminate the Firefly's heavy wing-folding gear or, indeed, build both folding Firefly wings and non-folding F.6/42 panels on the same production line. MAP's objections related more to Fairey design work being invested in yet another project when the firm's Barracuda shipboard aircraft still needed 'putting right'.

Another F.6/42 submission which challenged the required Hercules radial came from Miles. Arguing that any resulting fighter would be underpowered compared with the Typhoon, Miles proposed using twin Bristol Taurus engines.* These smaller radials would be mounted on a new wing centre section following Miles' blended-wing principle. To this, standard Typhoon outer wing panels would be attached.

An entirely new forward fuselage placed the armament close to the centre of gravity while the cockpit was pushed forward to the nose. In this proposed Miles M.32, the pilot was to sit beneath a sliding 'bubble' canopy similar to that of the single-seat Miles M.20 fighter. The proposed armament was very heavy. Standard armament would be twin 40mm Vickers S guns mounted beneath the wing. In front of the Vickers guns would be twin .303" Brownings used for aiming purposes. Above the wing would be mounted 2 (or 4) 20mm British Hispano cannons (which could be replaced with ultra long-range fuel tanks, if required).

The DTD regarded the Miles M.32 as a thoroughly competant design. However, doubts were expressed as to whether a second twin-engined fighter was really needed (the Beaufighter then being about to enter service in the Burma campaign). The M.32's fixed armament was impressive but, again, there were doubts as to whether externally-mounted 40mm guns wouldn't offer more flexibility to an F.6/42 design.

[To be continued]
_________________

* Miles proposed the US Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp as an alternative powerplant.

____________________

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 4)

The simplest submision to meet Air Ministry Specification F.6/42 came from Hawker Aircraft. The basic Typhoon structure was to be retained. Overall wing thickness would be somewhat reduced by attaching the centre wing panels directly to each another. The forward fuselage steel-tube structure would be redesigned to eliminate the Typhoon's gap between wing panels as well as providing an additional forward fuselage bay to which the Hercules' mounts would attach. These changes would reduce weight and, Hawker believed, address compressibility and flutter problems at high speed.

Hawker proposed a revised exhaust system for the Hercules. Bristol's traditional collector nose ring would be eliminated in favour of individual exhaust pipes leading to the rear. Adjustable side vents would replace cowl gills. The underside of the cowling was taken up with a combined supercharger intake and dust filter arrangement. A four-bladed propeller was to be used. Hawker's Kingston Drawing Office referred to this design as the Typhoon Lightweight or 'Typhoon LW'.

The DTD's report on the Hawker submission was most unfavourable. The DTD did not believe that the shortened wings of the 'Typhoon LW' would solve the Typhoon's aerodynamic problems. Nor was a required reduction in armament* seen as desirable. MAP's concern related to Hawker's design office being drawn away from concentration on the 'Thin-Winged Typhoon II' concept.

Not unexpectantly, Martin-Baker's proposal was more radical. The Martin-Baker MB 3 fighter project had also been killed off by the cancelling of the Napier Sabre engine. The wing and main gear from the MB 3 was to be mated to a new forward fuselage which matched the Typhoon monocoque section. The new forward fuselage structure was of typical Martin-Baker design (using tapered bolts in preference to Hawker's more traditional welded tube construction). This portion of the structure was to be entirely covered with removeable panels.

Martin-Baker took particular care with the cowling design. Like Hawker, Martin-Baker proposed a change to a single exhaust pipe per cylinder for the Hercules radial. The engine was to be closely-cowled with the gear housing cleanly faired to a propeller spinner. The Beaufighter's annular oil cooler was housed beneath the cowling.**

The DTD was particularly impressed with Martin-Baker's work on cowling the Hercules engine. Since the MB 3 prototype had been lost in a crash, the wing could not be said to be a fully proven design (although the wing design was certainly not the cause of the MB 3's crash). The use of detachable panels over the forward fuselage, although a standard Martin-Baker practice was regarded as highly innovative.


[To be continued]
_________________

* In eliminating the gap between the centre wing panels, the inboard 20mm guns fell within the propeller disc. Concerns over bending moments suggested against simply moving the cannons outwards to lie alongside the outboard guns. Instead, Hawker planned to mount .50" Browning machineguns in this outward-shifted inboard gun bay.

** This oil-cooler position echoed that of the first prototype Bristol Beaufighter.

____________________

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 5)

As a member of the Hawker Siddeley Group, it was assumed that Gloster would work in concert with Hawker. But, initially at least, that was not to be the case. Gloster had just recently finished producing Hurricane Mk.IIs. Glosters very simple suggestion was to partner the trouble-free Hurricane wing to the Typhoon fuselage and adapt to the Hercules radial.

For what Gloster called the 'Super Hurricane', structural techniques for the Typhoon fuselage would remain unchanged but the welded steel-tube portion would be completely redesigned. Compared to the Typhoon, the wing would be moved slight aft -- simplifying the connection of steel-tube fuselage members to the rear spar and shifting the c/g aft to allow for the much lighter engine. The forward fuselage tapered outward slightly to match the circular section of the Hercules cowling.

The Hercules VI radial sat in a standard Beaufighter cowling but was fitted with an updraught Claudel-Hobson carburettor. This allowed the supercharger intake to be moved beneath the engine to improve the pilot's view. The Beaufighter's oil cooler was built into the port leading edge of the Hurricane wing. The starboard side featured the long Beaufighter exhaust pipe.

As an optional powerplant alternative, Gloster proposed the Hurricane Mk.II's Merlin XX.* The Merlin engine was to be mounted using standard Hurricane engine bearers and cowling components (including a Vokes dust filter as fitted to Gloster's final-production Hurricane Mk.IIs). To improve aerodynamics, Gloster adapted Hawker's twin leading edge radiator concept as planned for the proposed P. 1012 'Typhoon II' development.

The DTD saw an undeniable simplicity in Gloster's approach to AM Specification F.6/42 but there were doubts as to whether sufficient advantage over the Hurricane would be gleaned. In its preferred Hercules-powered form, there were also serious doubts over ground-clearance. Gloster answered that criticism with an offer to revise the wing centre section to accommodate the longer and sturdier Typhoon undercarriage. That change, however, removed much of the appeal of adapting the Hurricane wing to the Typhoon fuselage.

[To be continued]

_________________

* Gloster argued that this powerplant was serving overseas Hurricane Mk.IIs perfectly well.

____________________

[Silver Fox]

That last Merlin version is gorgeous! Nicel done!

[apophenia]

Thanks 'Fox!

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 6)

In a surprise move, the Air Ministry refused to issue a single award for the Specification F.6/42 fighter. Instead, based on the recommendation of its Directorate of Research and Technical Development, the AM assigned Gloster the role of prime contractor with input from both Boulton Paul and Martin-Baker. Gloster and the Hawker design office were instructed to adapt the 'Super Hurricane' concept to the wings of the Boulton Paul Defiant/P.94 and the new Hercules cowling design from Martin-Baker. This chimera design would be named the Hawker Monsoon.

Work on the Monsoon design progressed rapidly. Boulton Paul modified a set of Defiant wings (including a revised, taller, telescoping undercarriage the  main gear legs of which compressed upon retraction). Boulton Paul shipped a set of these wings from its factory at Pendeford, Wolverhampton. Establishing a pattern followed throughout Monsoon production, this wing set was barged along the River Severn from Wolverhampton to Gloucester, then shipped by road to Gloster's Hucclecote plant. In the meantime, James Martin refined his MB 4 cowling design for the new Monsoon fighter.

Hawker's Kingston design office redesigned the 'Super Hurricane' fuselage structure to mate with the Defiant wing. Meanwhile, the pattern Hercules cowling was completed and shipped to Hucclecote from Martin-Baker's Higher Denham facility. These components had been assembled and were ready for flight testing by the end of November 1942.

[To be continued]

_________________

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 7)

The first prototype Hawker F.6/42 Monsoon flew from Hucclecote Airfield on 27 Nov 1942.  Gloster's Chief Test Pilot, F/Lt PEG Sayer, pronounced the flying characteristics of the new fighter to be near flawless. A minor concern was that the Monsoon's undercarriage seemed rather spongy when taxiing over rough ground. That proved to be a portent of things to come.

On a later test flight, the prototype Monsoon's portside undercarriage legs compressed on landing. The test pilot, Michael Daunt, was unharmed but the Monsoon's propeller tore into the turf and the fighter ground-looped violently. At this point, the Air Ministry expressed concern over the design of the Monsoon's main gain. Boulton Paul was also finding that mounting four 20mm cannons in the Defiant wing was not a simple as it had been supposed. With wing components already being assembled at Pendeford, a quick decision was required.

The AM's choice was to cancel production of the Hispano-armed Monsoon F.Mk.I outright and to move on directly to a Monsoon armed with twin .303" Brownings and two 40mm Vickers S guns -- an installation already successfully trialled by BP on a Defiant Mk.II. As a result, the first production aircraft delivered to the RAF were the heavy cannon-armed Monsoon F.Mk.IAs.

An operational emergency resulted in these first close-support Monsoons being delivered to the Italian theatre rather than to Burma as intended. Equipping No 6 Squadron from May 1943, the Monsoon F.Mk.IAs in Italy primarily flew anti-armour operations. Some of these Balkan Air Force Monsoon F.Mk.IAs were surprisingly long-lived.

Illustrated is an ex No 6 Squadron Mk.IA tranfered to a Yugoslav partisan squadron, No 351 Squadron RAF (aka Second NOVJ).  A and B Flights 351 Sqn were flying Hurricane IICs in the summer of 1944. In Sept 1944, C Flight was formed to operate available ex-No 6 Sqn Monsoon F.Mk.IAs. Based on Vis, a small Croatian island in the Adriatic, C Flight flew mainly anti-shipping strikes against small craft off the Croatian coast.

A well-worn RB234 (formerly JV+A of No 6 Sqn) was over-painted with Yugoslav markings and dubbed Биљана (Biljana). This Monsoon was lost to defensive fire from an NDH patrol boat in Dec 1944.

[To be continued]

_________________

[apophenia]

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part

The weak spot in the Monsoon design continued to be the Defiant-based, telescoping main landing gear. Boulton Paul recommended adopting the longer-legged undercarriage from its P.96 concept. Hawker countered with the suggestion that the main gear from their Typhoon II/Tempest be adapted to the Monsoon. As the latter solution was based on a type about to enter production, it was accepted by the MAP.

As a result, the proposed Monsoon Mk.II was abandoned and the Mk.III appeared next on Gloster's Hucclecote assembly line. The Mk.III combined the various production line improvement introduced for the Mk.Is as well as the new main undercarriage. The latter consisted of the Typhoon II/Tempest undercarriage legs with smaller main wheels and appropriately re-sized covers.

The first F.Mk.IIIs were straightforward fighters armed with four 20mm Hispano cannons. But the demand from the Burma front was for faster tactical reconnaissance fighters.* The resulting Monsoon Tac R Mk.III carried a Type F.24 aerial camera in the rear fuselage as well as the standard cannon armament. In the field, many of these Tac R fighters had their outer 20mm guns removed to save weight.

[Top] A near-new Monsoon Tac R Mk.IIIA of No.28 Squadron RAF, South-East Asian Command, in early 1944. Note that the larger RAF A and A1 roundels associated with this aircraft's Temperate day fighter camouflage scheme have been painted over. Smaller SEAC roundels have been applied and a 2-colour fin flash has been painted over the standard red-white-blue flash. Note that No.60 used individual aircraft letters but did not apply squadron codes.

This aircraft, RB258, later had its outboard guns removed (and 'stub' covers fitted to the cannon housings). In November 1944, this fighter was transferred to No 2 Squadron IAF when No.28 re-equipped with new Monsoon Tac R Mk.VIIIs.

The Monsoon FB.IV was the first variant fitted with wing racks straight from the factory. Another improvement was a new, 'clear view' rear canopy fairing (originally planned for the Typhoon). In South-East Asia, these fighter-bombers usually carried two 250-lb GP bombs.

[Bottom] A No.60 Sqn Monsoon FB Mk.IV in full SEAC camouflage. No.60 was heavily involved in the Battle of Imphal, supporting the Indian XV Corps. This aircraft, RB309, was lost during a strafing run near the Chindwin River.

[To be continued]

_________________

[GTX_Admin]

Oooo…I do like that last one!

[apophenia]

Thanks Greg!  Here's another pair ...

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 9)

The 'clear view' rear canopy of the Monsoon FB.IV was a great improvement in visibility but did nothing to address another unpopular feature inherited from the Typhoon -- the 'car door' entry and hinged canopy. Boulton Paul had addressed this in their 'Sea Monsoon' naval fighter proposal by adopting a clear-blown, sliding canopy devised by R Malcolm & Co.

This 'Malcolm hood' was applied to the next production version of the Monsoon, the F.Mk.V.  The Monsoon F.Mk.V was also the first to adopt the 'Universal wing' with fittings for 60 lb RP rocket rails, wing racks, or slipper tanks.

[Top] A Hawker Monsoon F.Mk.V of No.261 Squadron, RAF with rockets underwing. By this stage, distinctive SEAC white recognition markings were being applied. This aircraft has white SEAC bands on its fin and cowling (although the spinner is still 'Sky'). Note the new, smaller squadron codes (now applied in white rather than light grey).

Flying from Kumbhirgram in September 1944, RB499 was shot down by JAAF anti-aircraft fire while attacking Rangoon Airport. In May 1945, the surviving No.261 Monsoons were replaced by new Centaurus-engined Tempests.

The Hawker Monsoon F.Mk.VI was fitted with the 'D' wing accommodating twin 40mm Vickers S guns (and two .303" Brownings for aiming purposes). Only a handful of F.Mk.VIs were delivered to South-East Asian squadrons (the more flexible 'Universal wing' aircraft being preferred). But some F.Mk.VIs were converted in India to Monsoon PR.Mk.VI standards. The recce Monsoons had their 40mm guns removed and F.24 cameras installed.

The Monsoon F.Mk.VII was identical to the F.Mk.V other than being fitted with a clear-blown, single-piece Perspex sliding hood. Giving an unimpeded view, this new 'bubble' hood was extremely popular with pilots.

[Bottom] A Hawker Monsoon F.Mk.VII of No 20 Squadron, RAF, flying from Monywa, Burma (on the River Chindwin) in February 1945. This near-new A Flight aircraft flew as top cover for B Flight Monsoon Vs flying 'cab rank' for the Irrawaddy crossings.

[To be continued]
______________

_________________

[Logan Hartke]

Those look great, apophenia!

Cheers,

Logan

[upnorth]

I very much like where you're going with this.

[apophenia]

Thanks folks!

Replacing the Cancelled Typhoon -- the Hawker Monsoon Story (Part 10)

Boulton Paul had designed an advanced lightweight naval fighter, the  P.103, to Specification N7/43 but, by 1943, BP was heavily involved within the Fairey Barracuda Group. In an attempt to find a less 'disruptive' answer to N7/43, Boulton Paul's Chief Design, JD North, turned to the Monsoon airframe.

John North first envisioned a simple Monsoon adaptation with BP-devised folding wings and other naval gear added. The FAA rejected this P.107D concept as being unlikely to improve upon the performance of their existing in-service ad hoc shipboard fighter, the Seafire.

JD North then turned to re-engining the Monsoon with the more powerful engines originally intended for the P.103 project. The re-worked 'Sea Monsoon' proposal would be powered by a Rolls-Royce Griffon RG5.SM (P.107E) or Bristol Centaurus CE 12 SM (P.107F). The latter was received with luke-warm interest (available Centaurus engines being ear-marked by the FAA for what would become the Sea Fury).

The Griffon-powered 'Sea Monsoon' concept was more acceptable and JD North was encouraged to submit a brochure with more detailed design work. In this, the P.107E would be powered by a Griffon 61 engine. The revised Monsoon wings would fold outboard of the centre section join. The leading edge radiator design was supplied by Gloster (being an lengthened version of the coolant radiators originally proposed by Kingston for the 'Super Hurricane'). Although the 'Sea Monsoon' design showed promise, the FAA chose the simpler option of Griffon-powered Seafires as 'interim' shipboard fighters.

[Top] The 'Sea Monsoon' concept in its second (P.107E) incarnation.

Gloster had also continued to tweak the basic Monsoon design. But, as with the 'Sea Monsoon' concept, Gloster ran into engine shortage objections to its proposed Centaurus-powered Monsoon F.Mk.VIII. Instead, the next and -- as it turned out -- final Monsoon was the Hercules-powered F.Mk.IX. The Monsoon F.Mk.IX did carry over one feature from the aborted Monsoon F.Mk.VIII. To simplify production lines, the revised rear fuselage of the Tempest II was adapted to the Monsoon.

[Bottom] One of a small number of Monsoon F.Mk.IXs to arrived in Burma just as the war was ending. This aircraft, RB647, carries the 615 Sqn emblem' on its fin and the same six-pointed star on its spinner in roundel 'pale blue'.

Like most surviving Monsoon F.Mk.IXs, RB647 was turned over to the peacetime Indian Air Force. However, by the time of Indian independence, the Monsoons had all been replaced by the preferred Hawker Tempest II.

[Fin]
___________________

[Silver Fox]

Real nice work there!

Love the last pair, they look just like they belong in the historical record.

[Old Wombat]

Sweet designs, apophenia!

[TallEng]

What a wonderful illustrated History
I don't suppose that the Griffon might have been experimentally fitted to
The Monsoon IX?
That would be a contender for the most 'Handsomist' piston fighter IMHO

Regards
Keith

[Rickshaw]

Any chance of a three view drawing of the Mile M.32 twin engined concept?

[apophenia]

No 3-view but this crude top-view of the Miles M.32 proposal may get the idea across ...

[apophenia]

... I don't suppose that the Griffon might have been experimentally fitted to The Monsoon IX? ...

Slightly OT but, Keith, I hope you like this ...

Not a whif, but an almost-was -- the Griffon-powered Hawker Tempest Mk.III (P.1016).

In Tony Buttler's British Secret Projects 3: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950, a sketch of the Tempest Mk.III shows a wing armament of long-barrelled British Hispano Mk.I cannons. I've assumed that a prototype would, initially at least, be unarmed.

The Griffon-powered Tempest Mk.III was never built. Compared with a Tempest Mk.V, the Mk.III was to have had an additional fuselage bay and a somewhat smaller radiator (enclosed in a narrower radiator 'bath').

The Tempest Mk.III was cancelled outright and plans for a Griffon-powered Hawker fighter were transferred to a pair of Fury prototypes. The sole Griffon-powered Fury actually built, LA610, looked radically different from the Tempest Mk.III arrangement -- being fitted with a wide Gallay 'horse collar' radiator and contra-rotating propellers.

[TallEng]

That Tempest III would indeed make a very subtle whiff :)
I'm just wondering if it would have kept the Typhoon style fin?
Or more likely ended up with the 'normal' Tempest fin

Regards
Keith

[perttime]

Just eyeballing the Tempest Mk.III drawing it looks like its nose is a little longer than that of a Sabre engined version. Maybe to compensate for the lower weight of a Griffon?
Wouldn't that actually mean even more need for a larger tail?

[apophenia]

Just eyeballing the Tempest Mk.III drawing it looks like its nose is a little longer than that of a Sabre engined version. Maybe to compensate for the lower weight of a Griffon?
Wouldn't that actually mean even more need for a larger tail?

Yes, the nose is definitely longer  -- pushed forward by that added fuselage bay section. The Typhoon-style tailplane is from the drawing in the Buttler book (and generally similar in appearance to the Tempest Mk.I as first flown). http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/572/pics/9_49.jpg

As you and Keith suggest, any production Tempest Mk.III would almost certainly have needed (and had) the larger vertical and horizontal tail surfaces of the Tempest Mk.IV.