Maybe someone can explain....

[Goth]

Not looking for a flamefest or anything, serious question here (isn't it sad when you have to preface with a statement like this).

Anyway, the Tempest and the Typhoon. Why does the Tempest perform so much better than the Tiffie. I'm not talking about engine performance, mostly things like airframe and roll rate and such. If someone who has the knowledge could tell me I would appreciate it. I always thought the Tempest was basically just a souped up Typhoon, but apparently there have to be airframe differences that I am not aware of.

[Karnak]

The wings are completely different, not just refined.  The Typhoon has big, fat wings that while being very strong also produce a lot of drag and compression effects.

The Tempest has laminar flow wings, like the P-51 and Ki-84, that are much better at higher speeds than the thick wings of the Typhoon.

The changes to the fuselage and tail of the Tempest are very minor.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

"The Typhoon was noted for it's thinck wings. In 1940 Hawker schemed a new laminar flow wing with a root thickness 5 inches leass and an elliptic planform like the spitfire. This was used on the typhoon  II, ordered in Nov 1941 to specification F.10/41, but there were so many changes that the fighter was renamed Tempest. Fuel had to be moved from the finner wing to the fuselage, making the later longer, and a dorsal fin was added. The short barrel MkV were burried in the wings. Though the new airframe could take the promizing Centaurus engine it was the Sabre engined MKV that was produced first, ..."
Fighting Aircraft of WW2; Bill Gunston; ISBN 1-84065-092-3.

So i looks like a Typhoon but the wings have nothing to do like it.

[MiloMorai]

The P-51's airfoil was not a true laminar but a laminar like airfoil.

The Tempest had a root thickness of 14.5% with the max thickness at 37.5% of chord. The Typhoon's was a 18% thickness/chord with a NACA 22 series airfoil.