Tempest MW376 for sale

By: DazDaMan - 27th January 2009 at 10:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The fundamental problem with the Tempest - either version is the engine.

As the other thread on Sabre survivors shows, there arent many, and very few that would be good enough to restore to flight status.

With the Centaurus, the Tempest uses a very early version of the engine, which again is a difficult problem to overcome. Not insurmountable - just expensive.

At the end of the day, the Fury/Sea Fury series represent a better and cheaper aeroplane, which I think is why these Tempest survivors have been sidelined.

I'd give it a home, but at what price?

Bruce

I take it there'd be no simple solution in fitting a later-model Centaurus (as fitted to the Sea Fury) to a Tempest in order to achieve a more reliable combination? :confused:

By: Bruce - 27th January 2009 at 10:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I dont know - but they arent that simple a solution either - look at the RNHF at the moment - two aeroplanes both with broken engines.

Bruce

By: VX927 - 27th January 2009 at 10:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Which Tempest is at Wickenby and how far away from flying is it?

As Bruce says, the problem with the Tempest is the Engine. To answer the question as to how far away it is from flying... Its as far away as the engine is! By that I mean that once the engine is Back, it shouldn't take too long to return her to the air, but at the moment they are still waiting for the engine.

By: TempestV - 27th January 2009 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The fundamental problem with the Tempest - either version is the engine.

As the other thread on Sabre survivors shows, there arent many, and very few that would be good enough to restore to flight status.

With the Centaurus, the Tempest uses a very early version of the engine, which again is a difficult problem to overcome. Not insurmountable - just expensive.

At the end of the day, the Fury/Sea Fury series represent a better and cheaper aeroplane, which I think is why these Tempest survivors have been sidelined.

I'd give it a home, but at what price?

Bruce

In the grand scheme of things, yes the Sea Fury is a better type, but the Tempest can still be looked at as a late WW2 "type" even though this particular "mark" didn't enter service until post war. The Tempest II was one of the main types in the immediate post war TAF based in Germany. It would be great to see one in the air again.

By: Bruce - 27th January 2009 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Whats it worth - 1 Spitfire? Half a Spitfire?

Who knows, and I think that is part of the problem.

Bruce

By: David Burke - 27th January 2009 at 12:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Sea Fury unit isn't compatible with the Tempest. It would be far easier to take one to the U.S and fit an American radial instead. As for value - hard to quantify but the number that have lept into the air in the last thirty years is a good indication of the level of interest

By: MarkG - 27th January 2009 at 12:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

When would have the last Tempest flown? Late 50's, early 60's?

Mid-50's as target tugs? Last user was 233 OCU I believe (see my avatar!:))

By: TempestV - 27th January 2009 at 12:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

The Sea Fury unit isn't compatible with the Tempest. It would be far easier to take one to the U.S and fit an American radial instead. As for value - hard to quantify but the number that have lept into the air in the last thirty years is a good indication of the level of interest

Without drifting this thread into "re-fitting" another radial into this airframe type thread, if an aircraft were to have an alternative type of powerplant fitted, in the UK would this effectively become a new type, and would it need type approval accordingly? Is there a process that exists that would cover this here?

For example in the world of light avaition, a particular airframe can support various types/makes of engines. If an an engine has similar torque + power output, revvs, adaptable systems, and is compatible with the sort of flight envelope originally intended for a type, can this also be substituted for another?

By: Nashio966 - 27th January 2009 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

i always thought that this was the reason that we dont see loads of the american converted furys over here with american radial conversions :confused: as im sure someone had said that it would be a pain to get it certified here?

By: Wyvernfan - 27th January 2009 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Can't help thinking that if the Tempest/Centaurus airframe represented a potentially reliable and cost effective restoration project, that Stephen Grey/The Fighter Collection would have been one of the first to put one back into the air.

But as they seem to be swaying more and more towards Spiffires and american types is it perhaps more of a lack of spares for more obscure aircraft types that has put them off in the past - or maybe a potentially low residual resale value - or both.?

By: BSG-75 - 27th January 2009 at 13:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

being totally lacking in hands on knowledge of what it needs to restore such an aircraft (other than time and money) I may be speaking from where I sit - but I thought that the engine was a beast in terms of complexity, the aircraft itself not that "well known" to the non aviation minded, so perhaps not so commercially viable?

Then again, the brochure does just say "needs painting" and "needs restoration" ....:diablo:

I'd love to see and hear a Tempest (MK V or VI) but even harder to restore I think as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

By: Junk Collector - 27th January 2009 at 13:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

being totally lacking in hands on knowledge of what it needs to restore such an aircraft (other than time and money) I may be speaking from where I sit - but I thought that the engine was a beast in terms of complexity, the aircraft itself not that "well known" to the non aviation minded, so perhaps not so commercially viable?

Then again, the brochure does just say "needs painting" and "needs restoration" ....:diablo:

I'd love to see and hear a Tempest (MK V or VI) but even harder to restore I think as has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

I think the track record of Centaurus engined aircraft has not been particularly good to date, in fact a few have crashed due to engine failure seems one minute its rebuilt and purring next minute its junk and you are running out of sky !!

Merlins have a better reliability and appeal, and support, hence the number of Spitfires etc

By: Lord Roxeth - 27th January 2009 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

At the risk of upsetting people...

I have heard it said that the real reason U.S. owners re-engine their Sea Furies and fly them with four bladed propellors is that they can neither count to 5 or spell 'Centaurus'!

Of course, i would never say that myself...

Out... Roxeth

By: DaveR - 27th January 2009 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I thought this one had made its way to the US...good to see that it is still in Europe (for long?). As for value...a number of years ago (in the 90's) there were a couple of the Tempests reportedly for sale for £40,000 each. A couple of years ago I was quoted $500,000 for the Tempest currently in the US (at the time I think the wings had been restored but nothing else). Neither sold for the price...could it be because of lack of knowledge about the type? expertise on the type?

I would love to take it off their hands...alas even without asking and even in todays climate I can imagine that the price is still high. Will be interesting to see if it is sold...

By: avion ancien - 27th January 2009 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

.................so who's got the bottle to ask the asking price?

By: Nashio966 - 27th January 2009 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

ill email the chap now

edit: email sent waiting on a reply :)

By: Nashio966 - 27th January 2009 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

here's the reply i got, made a shameful mistake and said it was a tempest lol

Mr. Nash -

Thanks for your inquiry. We actually have a Hawker TEMPEST II for sale, not a Sea Fury. While similar in many respects, the Sea Fury is a relatively common aircraft. The Tempest is a rare item and is probably best suited to a flying musuem or to someone who will restore it to flying condition and maintain it to the highest standards, as we believe it to be the most original, best preserved Hawker Tempest II in existence. Should you be looking for a Sea Fury, the Tempest will not be a comparable purchase. Should you have further interest in the Tempest, I'll include a bunch of information below.

This aircraft is almost certainly the fastest-to-flight Tempest available, although there is one in England, that after several years of work is reportedly close to completion. Whoever completes this project and brings the plane back to flying condition will have an exceptional nice and rare aircraft and one worth several times our asking price. If our circumstances improve, we will undertake the project ourselves but are offering it out currently. The plane is currently still in France (in the basement of a chateau of all places!) but we intend to bring it to the States in the next few months. It is in remarkably good condition: really well preserved, partially restored, no notable corrosion, essentially complete but without prop blades and without guns. We believe we know where to get and can get the prop blades. It is the nicest/cleanest/most well preserved WWII-era project I’ve ever been involved with. You can see more detailed photos of the aircraft at http://www.airborneattitude.com/12177.html ...this provides more than the single-page spec sheet you have probably already seen at http://www.airborneattitude.com/pdfs/12177.pdf .

This specific Tempest also has a nice WWII service history:

* First or second Tempest II made by Bristol Aeroplane Co. and put into RAF service, probably the first (see below).
* The only Tempest II to be sent to Handling Squadron. (Royal Air Force Aircraft MA100-MZ999, 1991, Air Britain, Ltd.)
o Handling Squadron was part of the Empire Central Flying School and was lead by Wing Commander G.V. Fryer from February 1944 - July 1946. "Handling [Squadron] was able to prepare the handling notes for each type very early on in its service career." From 1943 through "the remainder of the war, the Squadron continued to receive new types and marks of British and American aircraft, to fly them, assess their handling qualities...some sixty different types or marks of powered aircraft and gliders were flown and described." "It would be arranged that the first aircraft of each new type available to the RAF would go to Handling Squadron." ( http://handlingsqn.org/teams/history.htm )
* Toward the end of WWII or after the war, most Tempest IIs -- including MW376 -- were "tropicalized" with long-range tanks and desert air filtration for use in Africa and Asia.

Date

Event

Documentation/source

1944

Date of manufacture/Built at Bristol Aeroplane Co., Banwell (Contract ACFT/3210/C.23(a))

Delivered to RAF as the first or the second Tempest II delivered by Bristol

Registered as MW-376

http://www.baseportal.com/
RAF A.M. Form 78

http://www.hawkertempest.se

Feb 24, 1945

Moved to Handling Squadron at Hullavington where it served as the test aircraft for the Tempest II model/mark

RAF A.M. Form 78
http://handlingsqn.org/teams/history.htm

Jul 6, 1945

Moved to Maintenance Unit 13 (for refurbishing and fitting with long-range tanks)

RAF A.M. Form 78

Aug 8, 1945

Moved to Maintenance Unit 20

RAF A.M. Form 78

May 24, 1948

Transferred to Hawker for sale to Royal Indian Air Force where it served in No. 4 Squadron

RAF A.M. Form 78 http://www.baseportal.com/

Please let me know if you’d like more information.

All the best,

Morgan

*********

Why a Tempest?

* Extremely rare. Only 11 left out of over 1400 built and NONE are currently airworthy (or likely to become so). (
http://www.hawkertempest.se)

* The fastest piston-engine/prop aircraft of WWII. Fastest WWII Allied aircraft, period.

* By far the most successful aircraft used against the German V1 "Buzz Bomb". (
http://www.hawkertempest.se/v1.htm) (http://www.hawkertempest.se/mpg/v1kill.mpa)

* Best Allied aircraft to combat German Messerschmitt Me 262 turbojet aircraft: "The Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-maneuverable and heavily-armed." (Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)

Why this Tempest?

* Exceptionally well preserved. This aircraft has essentially no corrosion and is in far better condition than any other Tempest available.

* Nearly complete. No propeller blades and no 20MM cannons, but every other major assembly and most minor parts are included.

* Two spare Bristol Centaurus V engines. Included as part of this package!

* Can be made a flier more quickly/at lower cost than any other Tempest available.

* The ONLY Tempest NOT owned by RAF Museum, IAF Museum, Kermit Weeks, Nelson Ezell, or Tempest Two, Ltd.

By: Fournier Boy - 27th January 2009 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

No price then!

FB

By: Nashio966 - 27th January 2009 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

no, i suspect that given the manner in which its stressed how rare she is, i would have thought that the price will be astronomical...

By: avion ancien - 27th January 2009 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I suspect that it's one of those cases where..................if you need to ask the price, then you can't afford it!