This is an archive of past discussions about Hawker Typhoon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A web site called "The Fine Arts Collectors Club" has a web site with text very similar to that on the Wikipedia Hawker Typhoon article Hawker Typhoon print the page does not credit Wikipedia but checking the
history of this article shows that the Wikipedia article has a history previous to the text which appears on the FSCC website, so they ought to provide copyleft ("a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement"), it is not a Wikipedia copyright violation. --Philip Baird Shearer11:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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 Tempest article's similar section be placed in a sub-article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
Ditto my comments on the Tempest page. I do note that there's no mention against listing serial numbers, although I'm still looking. I can understand the objections to listing, for example Spitfire serial numbers, which would take up an entire page. Do others find this information in a Wikipedia article useful/interesting? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
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) 01:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
Heh heh... I like the filtered noises that are supposed to signify rockets taking off from under the Typhoon's wings. No points awarded the sound effects guy at the studio! Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If such a source exists, would it be worth adding to this article, as a means of noting that aspect of this Typhoon's legacy? --Nerroth (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I know I have read the link somewher - it may have been in an Air International article or on the official Eurofighter site. Good point Minorhistorian (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is this link, used as a reference in the Eurofighter Typhoon article - but I'm not sure if there's a more updated version around or not... --Nerroth (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The name "Typhoon" was chosen IIRC, because as with the earlier "Tornado", 'Typhoon' and 'Taifun' sound the same in both English and in German. I don't know whether the earlier Hawker Tornado influenced the choice of name for the MRCA, but if not then it is a curious confidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Operational service
I arrived on this page having seen a TV program that mentioned the Typhoon as a tank-destroyer in Normandy in 1944 and looking for information on the plane, but found the page confusing and difficult to read. I think the problem is that the Design and Development section extends chronologically long past the Introduction date and the Introduction section itself is lacking in detail - it takes up just a few paragraphs for a period of nearly two years. I have added an approximate date (Summer 1941) for the first introduction of the Typhoon to operational service, but have no access to sources to flesh out the aircraft's service in 1941 and 1942. Maybe someone could add dates of adoption by RAF squadrons, numbers of aircraft involved and combat results. I found the section entitled "The Plane" on http://www.197typhoon.org.uk/index.htm informative, but unfortunately that site deals only with the period post-November 1942.
Scartboy (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory" - Dwight D. Eisenhower
This has long been in the article..."A German counter-attack, starting on 7 August, at Mortain, in the Falaise pocket, threatened Patton's break-out from the beachhead. This was repulsed by 2nd TAF Typhoons, which destroyed or damaged some 81 vehicles. In the Vire area, where the British Army was under attack, Typhoons flew 294 sorties on one day, firing 2,088 rockets and dropping 80 tons (73 tonnes) of bombs. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, said of the Typhoons; "The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory."[28]" Falaise Gap: right next to photo of 198 Sqn Typhoons. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk03:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have read through many volumes on WW2 aircraft and Mason's Hawker Fighters since 1920. I have searched the web in vain for another reference to Camm expecting 466mph for the Typhoon. I can't find anything to support this contention. Since the referenced article is not available for inspection and since it is not a high quality source to begin with, the reference to 466mph should be deleted or removed from the article as a footnote only. Damwiki1 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, this amounts to an extraordinary claim, as 466mph would be an incredible speed from the expected engine output of the Typhoon prototypes, especially given this aircraft's size and weight.Damwiki1 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You may be right, Mason claims that the "target speed of over 400 mph" was part of the design goals. Amended. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC).
Just reading Thomas and Shores' The Typhoon & Tempest Story and no mention of Camm expecting 466 mph - if anyone is going to get the facts straight it would be Chris Thomas. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The figure of 466mph may be referring to the lone Tempest I prototype HM599. This would originally have been referred to as the Typhoon Mark II but the type was subsequently named 'Tempest', so that may be where the figure comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
ORS2
Added citation about ORS2 findings and added Copp to the bibliography using harv, as I've forgotten how to do the other referencing systems. Feel free to change if desired.Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
A bit of gnoming
Just been making a few edits, mostly stylistic. Will be wandering through the article over the next couple of days. I do like the Tiffy. It often featured in Commando (comics) of happy childhood memory :) Happy to discuss as always and reversions are no issue, if they are constructive. Cheers all! Irondome (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hawker Typhoon/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.
Good solid article at the top end of the B class. Content is excellent and well balanced between different aspects. In my opinion the main area for improvement is the prose, which can be a bit prolix and indirect - a problem endemic in aircraft articles, including the ones I've written :-). Minor improvements include fixing some dead internal links, considering adding non-essential material covered in some other aircraft articles (popular culture, suriviors et C), and possibly adding another illustration or illustrations, (colour pics from the 1940s or of the survivor would be ideal. Winstonwolfe02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Last edited at 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hard to find credible images
For an aircraft as well known as the Hawker Typhoon, it's hard to find any good images of this aircraft. -Signaleer08:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, and i'm a great fan of the Typhoon, but there's a lot of Typhoon images on Wikipedia Commons. Eisenhower21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says the Typhoon was sometimes confused with the FW 190, leading to friendly fire incidents. It seems to me that two single-engined fighters could hardly look LESS like each other than these two. The Typhoon is thick and beefy, the FW slim and elegant. Wings and tail are different shapes, and the FW lacks the distinctive under-nose radiator. Are there any pictures from angles that illustrate a similarity? Manormadman (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In air to air combat pilots don't have the opportunity to compare the differences using photographs; often all that is seen is a silhouette, often from a long range, at an unusual angle and at high speeds. An aircraft travelling at high speed can look longer and slimmer than it is in real life. As a consequence an aircraft which, in theory, should be easily recognisable could often be confused for something else in the air. This is the reason why portfolios of black recognition silhouettes were used to train pilots and aircrew to recognise the different aircraft types, enemy and "friendly", they might encounter in flight. The bulky nose of the Typhoon, relative to the rear fuselage, could look very much like the radial engine of a 190 and the wings and tail unit could also look very similar. The only pictures which would show this properly would probably be found in combat footage and/or a selection of these silhouettes. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
RAF day fighters had a yellow strip painted along the outer wing leading edge (in addition to a sky-coloured band around the rear fuselage) to show that they were 'friendly' and prevent any allied aircraft opening fire on them. Despite this, on introduction the then-unfamiliar Typhoon and Tempest were frequently mistaken for German aircraft in the heat of the moment, as the square profile of the radiator fairing could resemble a radial engine from some angles, and this led to the black-and-white stripes being painted on early aircraft to prevent 'friendly fire' incidents. These stripes were later made mandatory for all allied aircraft in the opening days of Operation Overlord, where they became known as 'Invasion stripes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.52 (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The yellow strip along the wing leading edge and 'sky' band around rear fuselage shown in photo of Spitfire V here at right. Note: British and German aircraft were camouflaged, which made the outline of the aircraft indistinct when viewed against the ground, especially in poor light. In these conditions, the square nose profile of the Typhoon/Tempest when viewed from above/below could have been mistaken for a radial engine. At the time, the only camouflaged fighter likely to be met over Britain or Europe with a radial engine, on either side, was the Fw 190. A Spitfire VB of 222 Squadron in 1942.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the leading edge yellow stripe, as the location roughly corresponds to where the leading edge wing de-icing boots are. I have always assumed the rubber boots were painted yellow to allow easier visual inspection for damage.Loates Jr (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
No RAF fighter of the period had leading-edge de-icing boots. De-icing when needed was provided by applying 'Kilfrost' paste to the leading edge.
You are almost certainly correct. 'Presentation' aircraft paid for by civilian donations were usually marked with the name of the donor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawal date?
Unless I'm missing something, there's no information here as to when the various operators finally withdrew their last Typhoons. Please add this. 86.135.7.189 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point; there was no specific date that I can find, but the Typhoon was taken out of front-line service by mid-1946 at the latest. Information to that effect has been added to the article.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd researched this many years ago. THey were considered to be unairworthy by MoD. None of them were sold off and all were destroyed. The main vices were the engine fires and dangerous tail flutter. (The Tempest with the Bristol engine was far superior.) The only complete machine was allegedly found as a kit in a USAF warehouse in 1967.14.202.248.58 (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The 'engine fires' were due to over-priming the engine when starting. This was solved when pilots and ground crew became more familiar with the aircraft - they were actually fires in the induction system and carburettor and no fault of the engine itself. The 'tail flutter' only affected the early un-modified Typhoons - the Tempest was unaffected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, unlike the Spitfire and Hurricane, the Typhoon was considered 'too complicated and expensive' for private owners to operate and this is why few were ever offered for private sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.245 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Invasion stripes, and caption in photo
In the photo of the Typhoon where the caption dates it due to the invasion stripes, such a method of dating a photo is not that accurate. All we can say from the photo is that it would have been taken some time after June 6th 1944, not 'during' June 1944. Allied tactical aircraft carried their invasion stripes until they were either shot down, or returned to depot for full overhaul and possible repainting. Certainly I have never come across any reference to invasion stripes being painted out specifically because it was no longer D-Day or June 1944!Loates Jr (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The RAF ordered the invasion stripes removed from all RAF, RCAF, etc., aircraft within a couple of weeks of D-Day commencing, i.e., they only carried them for a few weeks after D-Day, as by then they had served their intended purpose.
Any photo showing invasion stripes on a front line RAF or Commonwealth air force aircraft in Europe was therefore almost certainly taken between 4th June 1944 and sometime no later than, say, 1st July 1944. The stripes were actually applied the evening before the 5th, the intended invasion day, but D-Day was postponed to the 6th due to the weather.
The invasion stripes BTW were added for the benefit of the crews of the invasion fleets, whom for many the only aircraft having previously been encountered being German and Italian ones trying to sink them, were likely to shoot first, and ask questions later. Within a couple of weeks subsequent to D-Day it was assumed they would have become sufficiently familiar with the majority of the aircraft they encountered being 'friendly' that the invasion stripes could be safely removed.
That is why when the stripes were removed/over-painted in mid- to late-June 1944 a small section of the stripes on the underside of the rear fuselage was sometimes allowed to remain, so that ships and ground forces could still see them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
'To avoid aircraft being compromised while on the ground at forward airfields in France, orders were received a month after D-Day to remove the stripes from the upper surfaces of aircraft. They were completely removed by the end of 1944.' ('D-Day Invasion Stripes', in D-Day RAF by Sqn Ldr Clive Rowley, Mortons Media 2014, p.19.) The point of the caption is that the Typhoon still has stripes on the upper as well as lower surfaces, so the picture was probably taken in June or early July. After that, as soon as the erks found a moment, the upper-surface stripes on AEAF fighters were painted out, with the lower stripes retained for the benefit of army ack-ack gunners. However, gliders, tugs and transport aircraft used for Market Garden in September were given full upper and lower striping. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe there were also fears that within a few weeks following D-Day the Luftwaffe might decided to copy the stripes, thus defeating their purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.245 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Tail assembly fatigue failure
The information here is unclear there is mention of the elevator mass balance but that seems at odds with the fish-plate remedy. Why would you strengthen this area for a mass balance failure? There is some speculation that tail failures were caused by stress cracks generated from the tail wheel retraction aperture. If this is true it would square with fish-plates because they would arrest this kind of cracks. Does anyone have know where the information to resolve this question might lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.69.221 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, the mass balance failure allowed elevator flutter, the vibration of-which caused the failure of the tail (empennage) attachment bolts. Hence the reinforcing fishtail plates. The elevator mass balance was of a remote kind, the weight itself was housed in the fore part of the tail section, and operated by a cable-and-pulley system from the elevator. The tail failures only occurred when pulling up from high speed dives. The failures are covered in Reed & Beamont's Typhoon & Tempest at War. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I see your point - a minor rewrite should (hopefully) clear this one up. From what I have read (Thomas and Shores, Tyhpoon and Tempest Story) tail assembly failures were still occurring right up to the end of the Typhoon's operational life, although not as frequently as had happened before the fishplates and new elevator mass balance weights were fitted.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The 'fishplates' were added not to strengthen the tail attachment per se, but rather to increase the stiffness of the tail attachment so that the resonant frequency of any mass balance flutter was no longer within a dangerous range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.41 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ground attack section effectiveness against tanks.
It looks like there might be selective quoting concerning the Typhoon's rocket effectiveness against armored targets. Horst Weber is quoted as saying all seven of the tanks he was with were destroyed by rocket firing Typhoons suggesting that the after battle surveys previously referenced in the section may not have been, in reality, accurate. On the other hand, I've seen quoted* elsewhere Otto Carius saying that he would ignore Typhoons with rockets as the only way they could hit you is by dumb luck. He added it could be difficult to convince inexperienced crews that the safest place for them during a rocket attack was, counter-intuitively, in the target vehicle and that they shouldn't bail out. It seems to me that using only one of these men's quotes would be pushing a particular opinion on the Typhoon's rocket effectiveness.
I believe the quote is from Carius' book "Tigers in the Mud" but I don't have that book so I can't verify that (which is why I'm not adding it to the article - lol). JetMec (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
