# Westland P.9 Whirlwind



## Hobilar (Nov 7, 2007)

The Westland P.9 Whirlwind was designed in 1936 by W.E.W. Petters (see note 1) to the requirements of Air Ministry specification F.37/35 for a high-performance fighter, armed with four cannon. It would become the Royal Air Force's first twin-engined single-seat fighter and the first such aircraft to be used in numbers by any of the belligerent powers. Of orthodox all metal stressed-skin construction, the Whirlwind introduced several design innovations later to be widely adopted. It had an extremely slim fuselage (the cross section of which was less than that of the engine nacelles), and the four Hispano cannon were closely grouped in the fuselage nose to give a dense concentration of fire. The all-round vision cockpit was an advanced feature, and the coolant radiators were ducted within the centre section of the wing, In addition the Whirlwind incorporated Fowler-type flaps which extended from aileron to aileron.

A contract for two prototypes (_L6844 and L6845_) was placed in February 1937, with the first of these flying on the 11th October 1938. An initial production order for 200 machines was placed in January 1939 (followed by a second order for a similar number), with deliveries to fighter squadrons being scheduled to commence during the following September. Unfortunately deliveries the first Peregrine engines (in essence a modernised version of the classic Kestrel) did not reach Westland until January 1940, and, in consequence, the first Whirlwinds did not enter service until June, 1940.

Teething and delivery problems with the Peregrine engines (See Note 2) coupled with a number of flying accidents and a high landing-speed which restricted the number of airfields from which it could operate, resulted in production being terminated in January 1942 after the completion of just 112 production aircraft. These aircraft equipped just two squadrons of the RAF (No.263 Squadron from June 1940, and No.137 Squadron from November 1941. Both would re-equip with Typhoons in November 1943.

*Notes:*


W.E.W. Petters would later be the chief designer of the post-war English Electric Canberra.
Rolls-Royce being, at that time, more concerned with improving and maximising production of the important Merlin engine.

*Bibliography*: 


Aircraft of World War II (Chris Chant, Dempsey-Parr, 1999)
The Complete Book of Fighters (William Green and Gordan Swansborough, Salamandar, 1997).
Warplanes of the Second World War-Fighters Volume 2 (William Green,MacDonald,1961).
World Aircraft Information Files (Aerospace Publishing Periodical).


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 7, 2007)

No.263 Squadron R.A.F. undertook a number of light day bomber escort duties with their Whirlwind fighters. The best known of the operations undertaken being the escort of six Blenheim squadrons as far as Antwerp on August 12, 1941. In the summer of 1942, the Whirlwinds of both squadrons were fitted with racks for two 250-lb or 500-lb bombs (redesignated Whirlwind IA), These subsequently undertook low-level cross-channel attacks on locomotives, bridges, shipping, harbour installatons, and other targets until 1943 when both Squadrons re-equipped with Typhoons.


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 7, 2007)

One Whirlwind(_P6972_) underwent night fighting trials in 1940 with No.25 Squadron and at one period the first prototype (_L6844_) was fitted with twelve 0.303-in Browning guns. Another Whirlwind was fitted experimentally with a single 37-mm cannon.


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 7, 2007)

For a twin-engined aircraft the Whirlwind was highly manouvrable and its handling characteristics were frequently referred to as delightful. Also its performance at low altitude was superior to that of many contemporary single engined fighters. Unfortunately, rather poor maintenance characteristics and continuous teething troubles suffered by its Peregrine geared and supercharged engines (which powered no other service type), coupled with serious delays in engine deliveries conspired to restrict the Whirlwinds career to only two R.A.F. squadrons.


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 7, 2007)

Good post, you could have probably combined all those into your first post though. I never really heard much about this bird but I liked its look. And _12_ .303's? Good god! How many bullets/second does that work out to?


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 7, 2007)




----------



## Graeme (Nov 7, 2007)

Petter's original design layout.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 8, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> and at one period the first prototype (_L6844_) was fitted with twelve 0.303-in Browning guns.



Another source says that the 12 Browning gun arrangement was produced in mock up form only, by Martin-Baker, but never fitted. It was an 'insurance policy' in case the 4 cannon arrangement proved too difficult. It wasn't.







> Another Whirlwind was fitted experimentally with a single 37-mm cannon.



37mm cannon experimentally fitted to L6844.





The four cannon arrangement finally adopted.


----------



## Airborne (Nov 8, 2007)

For 1940 it sure was futuristic.
The Whirlwind was the only product from Westland Aviation to reach front line status in WW2.

Hi Hobilar, Good to see you again. PM me if you'd like to.


----------



## Trautloft (Nov 8, 2007)

great post,thanks The Whirlwind is one of my fav.ww2 a/c at all.

im interested in the total losses/claims. 
i found on luftwaffe.cz a german ace who claimed 2 whirlwinds, how many of the 112 been lost finally? how was its sortie/loss ratio, and how many crashes been caused by the teething Peregrine engine?


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 8, 2007)

*Westland P.9 Whirlwind *

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Type: Single-seat Escort fighter and fighter-bomber

Powerplant: Two 885 hp Rolls-Royce Peregrine 1 liquid cooled V-12 engines

Span: 45 ft (13.72 m)
Length: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Height: 10 ft 6n (3.20 m)
Wing Area: 250 sq ft (23.22 m²)

Weight: Empty 8,310 lb (3,969 kg)
Maximum takeoff (with bombs) 11,388 lb (5,166 kg)

Speed: 360 mph (579 km/h)
Service Ceiling : 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Range: 800 miles (1,287 km)

Crew: 1

Armament: Four 20mm Hispano Mk.I cannon plus two 250-lb (115 kg) or 500-lb (230 kg) bombs


----------



## SteveH (Nov 8, 2007)

I've always wondered how much more successful it would have been with Merlins. Can you imagine?

Steve


----------



## merlin (Nov 9, 2007)

SteveH said:


> I've always wondered how much more successful it would have been with Merlins. Can you imagine?
> 
> Steve



Not very successful at all, probably the wings would fall off,or else the props would slice through the fuselage. 
The aircraft was designed for the small Peregrine engine. Anything larger just would not fit!!


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2007)

That is why I would have gone with the RR exe.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 12, 2007)

merlin said:


> Not very successful at all, probably the wings would fall off,or else the props would slice through the fuselage.
> The aircraft was designed for the small Peregrine engine. Anything larger just would not fit!!



Westland DID make designs for a Merlin powered Whirlwind, but the Air ministry did not proceed. It sure would have been fast! But they decided to concentrate on the Beaufighter instead


----------



## merlin (Nov 12, 2007)

freebird said:


> Westland DID make designs for a Merlin powered Whirlwind, but the Air ministry did not proceed. It sure would have been fast! But they decided to concentrate on the Beaufighter instead



?
From British Secret Projects: Fighters Bombers '35 - '50, P. 38

"Early in the war Rolls-Royce decided to abandon development of the Peregrine and concentrate its efforts on the Merlin, a move that curtailed the Whirlwinds career since the engine was not required for any other production aircraft type and its teething problems, though not severe, would never be fully addressed.
Some alternative powerplants were suggested. Roy Fedden at Bristol pressed strongly for the installation of two radial engines but Westland knew that fitting larger powerplants was impossible. The original concept had been to build the smallest possible fighter compatible with two engines and so its structure was neither roomy enough nor strong enough to take anything larger. Thus the Whirlwind was to be denied the prolonged RAF career enjoyed by the Hurricane and Spitfire and when it entered service in autumn 1940 the demand for more speed and height made it appear, at least in official eyes, to be verging on obsolescence.

The biography of William Freeman by Anthony Furse P. 109

The cannon fighters.
The size of the Westland Whirlwind was restricted to the absolute minimum required to carry four 20-mm cannon in the nose of the fuselage. It then became possible to mount such cannon in the wings of single-engined fighters. Production of its Peregrine engines ceased and the Whirlwind airframe was too small for other engines and too specialised for other roles.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 13, 2007)

The only real reason the Whirlwind was pursued with the merlin engines was that there simply was no need for the aircraft at that stage. The RAF already had Mosquiots and Beaufighters...twin engine fighters which could perform a similar role.


I think the Whirlwind had the potential to be an excellent aircraft and it looks awesome!!!


----------



## Freebird (Nov 13, 2007)

Westland asked the air ministry to go ahead with the Mk II, so they obviously thought the modifications to the frame could be done. They did in fact go ahead with a "Merlin" powered aircraft, the Welkin, designed for high altitudes.


----------



## SPYINTHESKY (Jul 19, 2010)

freebird said:


> Westland DID make designs for a Merlin powered Whirlwind, but the Air ministry did not proceed. It sure would have been fast! But they decided to concentrate on the Beaufighter instead



Actually the size of the Peregrine compared to the Merlin was not that different, weight was obviously higher. However Petter wanted to use the Merlin in the original design and later proposed it again when Peregrine was cancelled so the option was not out of the question. The reason it was not used originally was because the Air Ministry were ironically concerned that the Merlin might suffer delays as a new design as opposed to the Kestral inspired Perigrine. They wanted an option should the Hurricane/Spitfire suffered as a result the opposite unfortunately of what did occur.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 19, 2010)

I've always considered the Whirlwind one of the most attractive and lethal-looking WW2 fighters ever.

The situation with the Whirlwind seems somewhat reminiscent to that of the Fw-187. Engines. In the case of the Whirlwind, the plane was abandoned after a small operational run because of problems with its Peregrine engine, which as was noted, powered no other type. Probably retooling it to take Merlins or something else would have hampered the supply of these engines for other fighters - and in any event the roles planned for the Whrlwind were going to be handled better by Typhoons and Tempests. A major reason the RLM supposedly gave for abandoning the Fw-187 (especially the single seat version) was "why use two engines on a single seat fighter" when one suffices. Thus they made Tank turn it into a two-seater with a useless second crewmember and then cancelled it anyway. As I understand it, neither the Whirwind nor Fw-187 were conceived as heavy twin engined fighters in the Bf-110/Beaufighter mold. From the beginning, they were intended to be fast and agile single seaters capable of mixing it up with single-engined fighters, in the same manner as the P-38 or later the DH Hornet and F7F.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 19, 2010)

I always considered it a shame too that this pleasing aircraft was cut short that quickly.

If my memory dosn't fail me, the whirlwind was wery dependant on pneumatics (and teething troubles abounded here)which, like the rest of the design, was tailored wery carefully with the whole of the aircraft, and every change in engine would result in extensive changes all around. As noted the isentive to develope the peregrine further was small compared to fx the Merlin, and the scope for further developement was thereby small.

Actually Westland did instead go ahead with a new merlinpowered design partly inspired by the wirlwind, the Welkin, which was concieved as an high attitude fighter, but though fascinating this aircraft was far from as pleasing in appearance. Nor did it reach actual productionstatus.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 19, 2010)

75 complete plus 26 engine-less airframes is an awful lots of prototypes.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 20, 2010)

Milosh said:


> 75 complete plus 26 engine-less airframes is an awful lots of prototypes.



 I'll grant you that.
At least it was fewer than the whirlwind...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2010)

I have wondered how a MK II Whirlwind would have done.

Belt feed guns instead of drums. A fuselage fuel tank and interconnections between the wing tanks and the fuselage. Both already being worked on.

For engines, just a MK II ( or if you will MK X) Peregrine. Just a 2 speed supercharger like the MK X Merlin and the ability to use 9-12lb of boost. It wouldn't do much for the altitude performance but at low level the thing would be a rocket.

I have also wondered about how much of the Story about the Peregrine being shoved aside for the Merlin was to cover up how much effort was being put into the Vulture

Granted every engine company tended to put aside their smaller engines to concentrate on the newer bigger ones.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 8, 2011)

At one time the Air Ministry saw the Whirlwind as the future and were not going to order more Spitfires. At that time 1,000 bhp was the maximum you could squeeze into a single engined fighter so 1,700 bhp+ was tempting and with 4x20mm cannon to boot. One can reasonably extrapolate Merlin type development to 1,300 bhp so a 2,600 bhp fighter with a loaded weighing the same as an empty P47, less frontal area and the fuel system improved and enlarged. As for the landing speed just add more runway. By the way; references to the Whirlwind keep on stating the Peregrine had problems but just what were the problems? It stayed in front line service for some years.


----------



## davebender (Sep 8, 2011)

The Peregrine engine wasn't all that small. Most aircraft have some growth potential. I suspect the Whirlwind could handle an additional 83kg per wing for the more powerful Merlin engine. In fact the two engines are so close together in weight that I wonder why RR developed the Peregrine engine at all.

517kg. Peregrine I V12 engine. Liquid cooled.
590kg. DB601A V12 engine. Liquid cooled.
600kg. Merlin I engine.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2011)

For me the key question is whether the Whirlwind could take on German daytime fighters. To give that concept some serious consideration one would have to allow for normal stretching of the design before large scale squadron introduction. Mosquitoes entered service with a top speed of 360 mph and ended the war with a top speed of around 420mph. Is it unreasonable to extrapolate the whirlwind to a similar extent?

Mosquitoes could take on LW SE fighters with at least some hope of success, but it was a tough ask, and use of the mosquito as a daytime escort fighter was well outside its capability. It was used and very capable as a daytime intruder and fighter bomber, but never (AFAIK) as a daytime escort fighter for heavy bombers. Just didnt have the ability to fulfil that role. Could the Whirlwind have done that function....was it manouverable enough, did it or could it have the climb and dive capabilities and most importantly the range capabilities to escort British heavy Bombers in daylight operations in say 1941-2. I realize losses would have been heavy, but towards the end of '41 BC suffered its worst moments, with loss rates exceeded 7% per month. If ther was a daytime escorted raids option, feturing the Whirlwind as the escort, would that not have forced a wholesale redeployment of LW assets from the East front to Home Defence, which was a major objective of the RAF at that time. basically, would whirlwind escorted daylight raids in late '41 have been less expensive than unescorted nightime raids


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2011)

It is not just the weight of the engines, it is the weight of the larger propellers, the larger radiators and oil coolers and other bits and pieces. 

Lots of companies made a variety of engine sizes in the 30's. A number of them were dropped. Why did P&W make the R-1535 and the R-1830 14 cylinder radials? or R-985 and R-1340 9 cylinder engines. Why did Bristol make the 24.9 liter Mercury and the 28.7 liter Pegasus. better question is why did they make the 24.9 liter 9 cylinder Perseus and the 25.4 liter 14 cylinder Taurus. At least the Hercules used Perseus used the same cylinders ( at least to start).

Jumo 210s and 211s? 

Hispano 12X engines and 12Y engines.

Something that receives little attention, some writers have described the Peregrine as a Merlinized Kestrel, I don't know how much of the Peregrine could be manufactured using Kestrel tooling, if any, but the Peregrine wasn't exactly all all new engine.


----------



## davebender (Sep 8, 2011)

134 gallons. Whirlwind internal fuel capacity.
194 gallons. Fuel capacity of proposed Whirlwind II. This version also had Merlin engines.

For comparison purposes...
1,100 liters. Fw-187 internal fuel.
1,270 liters. Me-110 internal fuel.
410 gallons. P-38 internal fuel.

I think the proposed Whirlwind II has enough internal fuel capacity for a medium range bomber escort. Should at least reach the Ruhr and Hamburg.


----------



## davebender (Sep 8, 2011)

The Jumo210 came first. Production of the Jumo210 ceased when the more powerful Jumo211 was ready for mass production.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 8, 2011)

davebender said:


> The Peregrine engine wasn't all that small. Most aircraft have some growth potential. I suspect the Whirlwind could handle an additional 83kg per wing for the more powerful Merlin engine. In fact the two engines are so close together in weight that I wonder why RR developed the Peregrine engine at all.
> 
> 517kg. Peregrine I V12 engine. Liquid cooled.
> 590kg. DB601A V12 engine. Liquid cooled.
> 600kg. Merlin I engine.


 
Dry weight for the more properly developed Merlin II/III crept up to 624 kg, so the weight advantage wasn't quite as small as you make out. The Merlin I was also only produced in very small numbers and wouldn't be a viable candidate for the Whirlwind.

As to why the Peregrine was developed:

The Peregrine was an outgrowth of the very successful Kestrel engine. In the mid-1930s, Rolls-Royce felt that the engine would be its major powerplant for fighters and in an X configuration as a bomber powerplant, along with another engine based on the 36 litre type R (which ended up as the Griffon) for bombers. It was a proven, reliable design that offered very good power to weight for the time.

The project the Merlin grew from was initiated later, when it was realised that there was a substantial gap between the power produced by the Peregrine (initially around 700-800 hp) and the planned 1500 hp type R derivative. 

It was also felt that PV-12 (the Merlin project) was a bit of a risk. The Peregrine was initially very promising - 885 hp from 21 liters is nothing to sniff at - but it turned out that the basic Kestrel design had been taken about as far as it could be. A higher power version promising 1010 hp at +12 lbs boost with 100 octane was in development, but the engine was really too small for and the Merlin was clearly more promising. By the time the Peregrine was hitting 1000 hp, the Merlin was pushing 1450 hp.

As to why the Whirly didn't get the Merlin, well its complicated, but Petter based the aircraft around a proposed 1000 hp improved Kestrel. The wing design allowed little weight growth (the improved Kestrel design was just 480 kg) and the heavier Peregrine was already pushing the design a bit. Also, the Peregrine was a downdraft engine, fitting an updraft engine such as the Merlin required a major wing redesign.

Redesigning the Whirly for the Merlin to produce the Welkin took 80% as many design hours as producing the original Whirlwind design. Admittedly, the high alt requirement ate up a lot of this, but it was still a major job to get the larger heavier Merlin into the design.

As an aside, most interesting was the proposal to re-engine the Whirlwind with jet engines. In 1941 it was estimated that a W2B powered Whirlwind would have a top speed of at least 420 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2011)

parsifal said:


> For me the key question is whether the Whirlwind could take on German daytime fighters. To give that concept some serious consideration one would have to allow for normal stretching of the design before large scale squadron introduction. Mosquitoes entered service with a top speed of 360 mph and ended the war with a top speed of around 420mph. Is it unreasonable to extrapolate the whirlwind to a similar extent?
> 
> Mosquitoes could take on LW SE fighters with at least some hope of success, but it was a tough ask, and ..... basically, would whirlwind escorted daylight raids in late '41 have been less expensive than unescorted nightime raids



The Mosquito was designed as a bomber, asking it to maneuver like a fighter (or climb like one) might be a bit much, even assuming the Mosquito was built to handle the same "G" loads as a single seat fighter. While the Whirlwind was designed to be a fighter it was designed to be an interceptor like the Spitfire. While extra fuel tanks were schemed for a proposed MK II version it was never going to be a long ranged fighter. While it had a large wing span (45 feet) the actual wing area was between the Spitfire and the Hurricane. With two engines to feed it was too small to carry the needed fuel. Loaded clean it was within 150lbs of P-51D with a full fuselage tank but no external stores.

Even allowing for "growth" ( two speed engines with higher boost, belt feed guns, fore and aft fuselage tanks, plus drop tanks, etc) it wasn't going to be a Germany destination escort. The MK carried 134 Imp gallons total. Even with an extra 60-70 imp gallons of internal fuel it would have been too short legged. Fuel consumption is given as 115 gallons an hour "cruising' and 151 gallons an hour all out at 15,000ft (360MPH). Range at 210mph is given as 630 miles.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 8, 2011)

davebender said:


> 134 gallons. Whirlwind internal fuel capacity.
> 194 gallons. Fuel capacity of proposed Whirlwind II. This version also had Merlin engines.



Do you have a source for the MK II with Merlins?

While the Merlins may have been proposed in passing the fitting of fore and aft fuselage tanks was more worked out and two different arrangements of 4 20mm melt feed guns were test flown. one nose section with 12 .303 guns was built (but not flown?) and another with four 20mm and three .303 guns was built.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2011)

Theres no way that the type could undertake LR escort on those figures. However does it use 110 gals per hour at all speeds. Assuing British bombers cruised at 250 Mph, and allowing say 20 mins loiter time, a raid to the Ruhr and back is going to take about 3 hours there and back, allowing for aiming, but not including form up time.


Taking a complete stab in the dark, if fuel consumption is reduced to an average of say 90 gals per hour, the Whirlwinds will not be able escort all the way to the target and back. you would need at least two echelons, and even so would not be able to escort all the way to the target.

Unless fuel consumption is reduced markedly at cruise speeds, there is no point to keeping the type in production, and the air ministry was more than justified to terminate it in favour of additional Spits and Hurricanes, which were cheaper and better at the SR fighter role


----------



## wuzak (Sep 8, 2011)

Jabberwocky said:


> As to why the Peregrine was developed:
> 
> The Peregrine was an outgrowth of the very successful Kestrel engine. In the mid-1930s, Rolls-Royce felt that the engine would be its major powerplant for fighters and in an X configuration as a bomber powerplant, along with another engine based on the 36 litre type R (which ended up as the Griffon) for bombers. It was a proven, reliable design that offered very good power to weight for the time.
> 
> The project the Merlin grew from was initiated later, when it was realised that there was a substantial gap between the power produced by the Peregrine (initially around 700-800 hp) and the planned 1500 hp type R derivative.



The Peregrine was a devloped Kestrel - modernized and strengthened. It was designed after the Merlin and Vulture. The Merlin predated the Vulture also.

The R derivative proposed as the Griffon predated the Merlin, but didn't go very far. I doubt it was thought of as a bomber engine, since the R it was based on was very much a sprint engine. The R was itself a developed version of the Buzzard, which was a 6/5 scale Kestrel and was intended for use in bombers.

The production Griffon had nothing in common with the R/Buzzard except for sharing the bore and stroke.

Also not sure that the X engine - the Vulture - was solely intended as a bomber engine. We know the Vulture II saw service in the Manchester, but there were two versions of the Vulture intended for fighter use - Mks IV and V. The V was fitted to the Tornado prototype.




Jabberwocky said:


> It was also felt that PV-12 (the Merlin project) was a bit of a risk. The Peregrine was initially very promising - 885 hp from 21 liters is nothing to sniff at - but it turned out that the basic Kestrel design had been taken about as far as it could be. A higher power version promising 1010 hp at +12 lbs boost with 100 octane was in development, but the engine was really too small for and the Merlin was clearly more promising. By the time the Peregrine was hitting 1000 hp, the Merlin was pushing 1450 hp.



The Peregrine was a redsign of the Kestrel which was stronger, and thus heavier, and was designed around supercharging from the begining. Some early Kestrel variants were unsupercharged.

The Peregrine was too small, and thus its power potential was limited. If they knew the extra boost that would become possible with improved fuels and thus extra power RR may have tried to keep it.

Rolls-Royce Peregrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Four Kestrel/Peregrine cylinder banks attached to a single crankcase and driving a single common crankshaft would produce the contemporary Rolls-Royce Vulture, a 1,700-horsepower (1,300 kW) X-24 which would be used for bombers.



That is incorrect. A) The Vulture preceded the Peregrine and b) the Vulture bore spacing was different.

Also remember that by the time of the cancellation of the Vulture and Peregrine (1941) the Merlin had yet to be fully sorted and the two piece block and heads had yet to go into production.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> For me the key question is whether the Whirlwind could take on German daytime fighters. To give that concept some serious consideration one would have to allow for normal stretching of the design before large scale squadron introduction. Mosquitoes entered service with a top speed of 360 mph and ended the war with a top speed of around 420mph. Is it unreasonable to extrapolate the whirlwind to a similar extent?
> 
> Victor Binghams book on the Whirlwind has several reports of the Whirlwind shooting down Me109's, oddly though there are also a number of reports of inconclusive combats with FW190, where both sides have disengaged?
> most people tend to use the channel dash debacle as indication that the Whirlwind was not up to the job of engaging enemy S?E fighters, but that ignores the Me109's shot down prior to this engagement, which was decided by the numbers of 109's involved!


----------



## parsifal (Sep 9, 2011)

so it at least has one of the necessary ingredients to be a successful escort fight....the ability to engage German SE Fighters with some reasonable prospect of success.

We have to go back and look at the range issue again. Once again I would ask, what were its range characteristics when using a drop tank and travelling at normal cruise speeds. Did it, or did it not have the potential to provide long range escort to bombers.

If it does, then the british managed to chew off one their own arms when they cancelled the Whirlwind. Was the RAF so committed to night bombing that it would not even consider any alternatives?????


----------



## Kryten (Sep 9, 2011)

I dont think it was just range that would have made it a dubious escort, from what I have read the aircraft performed well and handled beautifully at lower level, the engagements with enemy fighters seem to have all been at low level, so maybe it could be considered in the same light as the Typhoon, keep it down low and it was a respectable performer, but as the Typhoon was coming on line at the same time Whirlwinds were nearing the end of thier service, and I doubt anyone would consider the Whirlwind as superior to the Typhoon (apart from having a second engine for over water) then I suspect the Whirlwind simply had its time?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 9, 2011)

Whirlwind had had it's time because two squadrons used it, and were still using about two years after production had stopped on both the airframe and engine. They may have been running out of spare parts. I don't know of too many combat aircraft that were operating in the fall of 1943 using essentially 1940 engines with no changes to superchargers or other equipment. It would be like trying to use a MK I or II Spitfire in the summer/fall of 1943. A modest improvemet to the engine could have gotten the engines up to about 1000hp apiece at low level instead of the 770hp they were rated at which would have made it a real performer at low level.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 9, 2011)

they were running out of airframes and engines by 43, the surviving aircraft from 263 squadron who were being re-equiped were passed on to keep the 137 squadron going, (think thats the right way round)
to be realistic, without serious development of the engine (look at all the different marks of merlin) it was always going to have a short service career, and whilst a seriously fast plane with good armament in 41 it was surpassed by several designs by 43!

always considered it a travesty that none were preserved, but maybe thats the way combat aircraft should go, in service to the end!


----------



## yulzari (Sep 11, 2011)

It had been seen by some in the Air Ministry as the standard fighter, Spitfire orders being for filling in until Whirlwinds were in quantity production. The Hurricane being maintained as it had extensive production capacity hence the willingness to export them and licence foreign production.
As a standard fighter it was seen as a 4x20mm cannon bomber interceptor. Had it been seen as a long distance escort fighter it could have been designed with increased fuel capacity. At that time it would have been designed to escort bomber from bases in France so the basic design would have been able to escort and fight as far as Berlin.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 11, 2011)

Yesterday, I had a look in the government files, in our National Archives, and found the following. There was never a plan to fit Merlins to a Mk.II, because they simply would not fit; the Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine to be as small as possible. There was even talk of trying to find an American engine that would fit.
The biggest problem was the Peregrine; the original specification called for a maximum ceiling of (at least) 30,000', but the Whirlwind could barely reach 25,000', where its fighting qualities tailed off dramatically. The engine needed to be able to use 100 octane, but had only been designed for 87, so would need a lot of further development, and Rolls-Royce simply didn't have the capacity.
The work could not be diverted to Crewe or Glasgow, since they were 100% Merlin; Derby was having to build the Vulture, and working up on the Griffon, while helping with production of the Merlin X XX, so any work on the Peregrine would see 2 Merlins lost for each Peregrine, and the probable postponement of the Griffon as well.
When asked by Beaverbrook, on July 1st., Dowding had to point out that he still had only three, and they were giving continuous trouble, so he'd had to keep them well away from the area of heaviest fighting. He also was not happy with the high landing speed of 110m.p.h., which meant that it could never be used at night, since pilots had said, even at that speed, the controls were "sloppy." 
He also said that he thought it was "an extravagant design," needing two engines to lift 4 cannon, when the forthcoming Tornado/Typhoon would do it on a single engine, and he'd always been unimpressed by Westland's workmanship on the Lysander. He did envisage that it would be ideal for ground attack, since its cannon were perfect for anti-tank work.
On October 27th., he told Beaverbrook that Westland were only committing to 114 Whirlwinds, after which they were switching to 50 Mk.I Spitfires, followed by the Mk.III (turned into the Mk.V, and Seafires, of course.)
On February 3rd. the Joint Development Production Committee decided that there were only two courses of action, which were to increase production, to cope with anticipated wastage, or close it down, so that decision was taken, as being the only practicable solution.
Talk of an escort fighter is a little odd, since the Air Ministry never saw the Whirlwind as such, nor did they ever see the need for one; losses of unescorted Blenheims and Wellingtons, in 1939 early 1940, had already pushed them towards night bombing.
Edgar


----------



## parsifal (Sep 11, 2011)

You would have to say that with no specialist role for the type, a problematic engine, a design difficult to stretch, and what appears to be high production costs (2 engines to one in the 'main" types) that cancellation was entirely justified. 

As a two engine type, the whirlwind was not comparable to either the beau or the Mossie. Both these types were built for different purposes, and incorporated range and size to allow them to complete quite a range of different mission types. Daytime Escort LR fighter was not one of them, so the RAF continued to battle on wthout an adequate indigenous fighter to fit this spec. A great pity really


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2011)

While I don't doubt that that is all in the archives some of it rings a little hollow. The development needed to go from 87 octane to 100 octane should be minimal. The Merlin required a number of hours of testing before it was approved but actually needed no new parts (maybe a new spring in the pressure regulator?) Both Bristol Mercury and Pegasus engines could operate on on 100 octane fuel. Granted you don't get the full benefit without some redesign but the Merlin went from 1030hp to 1310hp with just an adjustment of the pressure regulator. perhaps there was something about the Peregrine that would break trying to put out 30% more power but some increase should have been possible without much work. Granted the switch to 100 octane does nothing for altitude performance. I can't fault the men in charge for making decisions based on the evidence they had but history shows that some of their choices turned out not so well. The Tornado/Typhoon turned out to have very little capability that a MK II Whirlwind ( with Peregrines) wouldn't have had and 110mph landing speeds while not normal were certainly in use (P-47s). later Whirlwind pilots claimed no problem flying at night but with only 3 planes to go on the experience wasn't there. 

The Spitfire was close to cancellation at times in 1938-39 for many of the same reasons ( slow production, bad workmanship, millions invested with no airplanes to show), fortunately the right decision was made in that case.

From a financial stand point I can understand RR wanting to get rid of the Peregrine, it was too small to ever be more than a niche engine. Bristol may have never made any money on the Taurus compared to the investment they put in.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> You would have to say that with no specialist role for the type, a problematic engine, a design difficult to stretch, and what appears to be high production costs (2 engines to one in the 'main" types) that cancellation was entirely justified.
> 
> As a two engine type, the whirlwind was not comparable to either the beau or the Mossie. Both these types were built for different purposes, and incorporated range and size to allow them to complete quite a range of different mission types. Daytime Escort LR fighter was not one of them, so the RAF continued to battle on wthout an adequate indigenous fighter to fit this spec. A great pity really



The obvious competitor, which was never built, was the Supermarin Type 324/327. The Type 324 was proposed to specification F.18/37 for the Spitfire replacement, which was won by the Hawker Tornado and Typhoon. The specification was later extended to include cannon instead of the previously nominated 12 x 0.303" mgs. Supermarine refined the Type 324 as the Type 327.

The Type 324 and Type 327 were rejected by the Air Ministry, in part, because of the amount of time Supermarine took building the prototype Spitfire and getting it into production.

Supermarine also suggested that the 327 could serve as a backup for the Whirlwind, as the Whirlwind was running late by that time too.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2011)




----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> While I don't doubt that that is all in the archives some of it rings a little hollow. The development needed to go from 87 octane to 100 octane should be minimal. The Merlin required a number of hours of testing before it was approved but actually needed no new parts (maybe a new spring in the pressure regulator?) Both Bristol Mercury and Pegasus engines could operate on on 100 octane fuel. Granted you don't get the full benefit without some redesign but the Merlin went from 1030hp to 1310hp with just an adjustment of the pressure regulator. perhaps there was something about the Peregrine that would break trying to put out 30% more power but some increase should have been possible without much work. Granted the switch to 100 octane does nothing for altitude performance. I can't fault the men in charge for making decisions based on the evidence they had but history shows that some of their choices turned out not so well. The Tornado/Typhoon turned out to have very little capability that a MK II Whirlwind ( with Peregrines) wouldn't have had and 110mph landing speeds while not normal were certainly in use (P-47s). later Whirlwind pilots claimed no problem flying at night but with only 3 planes to go on the experience wasn't there.
> 
> The Spitfire was close to cancellation at times in 1938-39 for many of the same reasons ( slow production, bad workmanship, millions invested with no airplanes to show), fortunately the right decision was made in that case.
> 
> From a financial stand point I can understand RR wanting to get rid of the Peregrine, it was too small to ever be more than a niche engine. Bristol may have never made any money on the Taurus compared to the investment they put in.



You are correct. The Merlin only needed adjustment to the boost regulator to use 100 octane fuel, but it did need some testing to be sure.

The effect of the higher octane fuels tended to reduce the full throttle heights of an engine.

Let's not forget that at the time - around 1940 - Rolls-Royce were still busily trying to debug the Merlin (which they would not completely do until the two piece blocks came into production in 1942) and the Vulture.

I think that the war situation demanded that the Spitfire remained in production. Its replacement was some time away from production at the time of the BoB, and in the end was shown to be incapable of replacing the Spit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2011)

parsifal said:


> You would have to say that with no specialist role for the type, a problematic engine, a design difficult to stretch, and what appears to be high production costs (2 engines to one in the 'main" types) that cancellation was entirely justified.



I have always wondered just how problematic the engine was, many engines show initial troubles, and the Peregrine, with just 301 (?) engines built continued in combat squadron service for about 3 years after production of the engine stopped. Granted for most of that time it was just two squadrons to use up that stock but if the engine had been the dog that the early Sabre was do you think they would have kept flying them? The Sabre and Typhoon program had the weight of thousands of each on order and no good alternative in sight in the short run. 

Maybe the authors of articles/books about the Whirlwind picked their quotes but finding a Whirlwind pilot in print who didn't like the plane seems difficult. 

I also wonder how the cost of two 12 cylinder Peregrines compare to the cost of one 24 cylinder Vulture or Sabre 

The Vulture may be cheaper but I have my doubts about the Sabre. 

A Peregrine is 78.5% the displacement of a Merlin. Even assuming that there is some problem that limits it's power to 70% of a Merlin a Peregrine "modified" to 70% of a Merlin 24 would have 1125hp for take off, About the same at 2250 ft, 1050Hp at 9250ft and 784hp at 18,500ft. Still no great shakes at 20,000ft and up but the Typhoon wasn't so hot up their either. With 2200hp to get the plane off the ground instead of the 1540hp of the MK I Whirlwind I imagine hauling a heavier war load wouldn't have been a problem. this if course is with 20/20 hindsight that knows that some of the alternatives didn't work out as promised.

Or for work at 20,000 to 25,000ft give it Peregrine versions of the Merlin 46. 990hp at 14,000ft instead of the MK Is 880hp at 15,000ft. same take off power though.

No inter-coolers, no two stage superchargers, no sleeve valves, no trying to stuff in Merlins. Just guns with 120rpm belt feeds (already trialed in two different installations) and more fuel in the fuselage. 

Still not going to be an escort fighter but They kept building Hurricanes until 1944 for ground attack and that plane didn't have the longest legs in the world either


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2011)

wuzak said:


> You are correct. The Merlin only needed adjustment to the boost regulator to use 100 octane fuel, but it did need some testing to be sure.
> 
> The effect of the higher octane fuels tended to reduce the full throttle heights of an engine.



It appears that way but the engines made just as much power as they ever did at the altitudes at and above the old full throttle height. Full throttle height being just what it says, the height at which the throttle can be fully opened with damaging the engine. The higher octane fuel allowed the throttle to be fully opened at a lower altitude without risk of detonation and so made more power at lower altitudes. The Merlin III's supercharger could supply 16lb of boost at 5500ft, 12lbs at 9000ft and 6lbs at 16,250ft. Changing fuel did nothing to affect the air supply. It just allowed the engine to use the extra air available at the lower altitudes.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2011)

Merlin 24 is a two speed engine. Peregrines had teh single speed supercharger.

Merlin 32 was rated, according to Rolls-Royce Merlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, at 1645hp at 2500ft. An equivalent Pergrine could have been used for a Whirlwind LF.II. If we use the 70% theory that would be 1152hp at 2500ft.

If we use BMEP for comparison, your Merlin 46 comparison goes from 990hp @ 14,000ft to 1112hp @ 14,000ft @ 3000rpm. If we have to restricte the rpm, as was done for the Vulture, to say 2850rpm then we are back to 1056hp.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 11, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It appears that way but the engines made just as much power as they ever did at the altitudes at and above the old full throttle height. Full throttle height being just what it says, the height at which the throttle can be fully opened with damaging the engine. The higher octane fuel allowed the throttle to be fully opened at a lower altitude without risk of detonation and so made more power at lower altitudes. The Merlin III's supercharger could supply 16lb of boost at 5500ft, 12lbs at 9000ft and 6lbs at 16,250ft. Changing fuel did nothing to affect the air supply. It just allowed the engine to use the extra air available at the lower altitudes.



True enough. All performance improvements of the engine with higher octane fuel are below the full throttle height with the lower fuel grade, gradually reducing to be the same at that full throttle height.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 11, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Merlin 24 is a two speed engine. Peregrines had teh single speed supercharger.
> 
> Merlin 32 was rated, according to Rolls-Royce Merlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, at 1645hp at 2500ft. An equivalent Pergrine could have been used for a Whirlwind LF.II. If we use the 70% theory that would be 1152hp at 2500ft.
> 
> If we use BMEP for comparison, your Merlin 46 comparison goes from 990hp @ 14,000ft to 1112hp @ 14,000ft @ 3000rpm. If we have to restricte the rpm, as was done for the Vulture, to say 2850rpm then we are back to 1056hp.



The Merlin X with a two speed supercharger was shown at the 1938 Paris air show, The two speed Merlin XX was in production (limited quantities ?) in July of 1940. The XX Merlin was the first with Hooker modified supercharger. A two speed drive to the supercharger was about 30-40lbs on a Merlin and Bristol and Armstrong Siddely were already using them. A-S being the first company anywhere to put the two speed supercharger into production. Allison not withstanding, it doesn't seem like that big a trick to use a two speed supercharger. 

I wanted to be conservative in my estimate to show that, unknown problems aside, The Peregrine could make enough power to compete against some of the big 24 cylinder engines. Single seat fighter, one Vulture or two Peregrines? cost and weight? Yes the Vulture will come out ahead but the Peregrine wasn't a 2 Peregrine=one Merlin situation given any development of the Peregrine at all.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 12, 2011)

I feel that, if Rolls-Royce said that the work couldn't be done, without some disruption (including delays to the Griffon,) and a great deal of time, you should do them the courtesy of believing them, after all, no company is going to turn away work, unless it has to.
Remember that the Germans were sending the 109F over the U.K., before the end of 1940, and reports anticipated that it could reach 38,000', which even the Spitfire struggled to reach, and neither the Hurricane, nor the Whirlwind, had a hope of getting there. The Merlin 45 was on its way (first flew in a Spitfire V in April,) which the RAF would need desperately.
There was always the expectation of a second Battle of Britain, in early 1941, and the Spitfire V was the only likely opponent for the new 109s. We were also still the only nation/commonwealth fighting the Germans at that time, with Russia viewed with deep suspicion, as an ally of Germany. Dowding had always said that he rated the Whirlwind as ideal for ground attack (as it proved,) so the lack of a decent maximum operational height would have been immaterial, and it would have been vital in the event of the (also anticipated) delayed invasion.
Added to all of the problems, Westland had forecast that they would only produce one Whirlwind, per week, while they, Supermarine, and Castle Bromwich could be turning out far more Spitfires in the same time.
Just to help make up the minds of the hierarchy, Supermarine had managed to fit the longer Merlin 45 into the same engine space as the Merlin III (something they hadn't been able to do with the XX, which, as with the Hurricane, made the Spitfire III fuselage 4" longer.)
Edgar


----------



## merlin (Sep 12, 2011)

I wonder what De Haviland thought about the Whirlwind, as it is almost a militarised Comet!


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> I feel that, if Rolls-Royce said that the work couldn't be done, without some disruption (including delays to the Griffon,) and a great deal of time, you should do them the courtesy of believing them, after all, no company is going to turn away work, unless it has to.



Companies will turn away work if they feel it is unprofitable or is a dead end. P&W actually returned money already paid in order to get out of contracts for liquid cooled sleeve valve engines so they could concentrate on the R-4360. 

With a bit of cynicism I believe that is what R-R did with the Peregrine. Even in 1940 they knew that the 'market' for 900-1100hp engines was not only going to be limited but declining just as P&W knew the market for the R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior (just 15 cu in smaller than a Taurus) was a dead end. You are right, R-R did not have the resources to develop 4 different engines. So from a marketing perspective they had the 900-1100hp Peregrine, the 1100-1500hp Merlin, the 1750-22250hp Vulture and last (in development) the 1500-1900hp Griffon. With Napier touting their 2000hp Sabre and Bristol already competing head to head with Merlin with the Hercules and getting a type rating for the 2000hp Centaurus spending even a shilling on developing the Peregrine was money wasted. Now is R-R going to admit that that ditching the Peregrine was a commercial decision? Especially if the Vulture turned out not to be rousing success? Luckily the Merlin proved more capable of stretch that most anybody could have dreamed of and the Griffon was allowed to come to maturity. 



Edgar Brooks said:


> Remember that the Germans were sending the 109F over the U.K., before the end of 1940, and reports anticipated that it could reach 38,000', which even the Spitfire struggled to reach, and neither the Hurricane, nor the Whirlwind, had a hope of getting there. The Merlin 45 was on its way (first flew in a Spitfire V in April,) which the RAF would need desperately.



A bit of failed intelligence there. While the 109F would be able to reach 38-39,000ft with the 601E it would not be for almost a year. Granted the Germans had development problems of their own which caused the delay but reaching 38,000 ft and fighting there are not quite the same thing. 

For example the service ceilings (climb 100ft/min) of the 109E (yes "E"), Hurricane I, Hurricane II and Spitfire I were 35,200ft---35,000ft ---37,600ft and 37,400ft. The operational ceiling (climb 500ft/min) for the four planes was 31,900ft---31,400ft---34,900ft and 34,000ft. Rate of climb at 30,000ft for the 4 planes was 740fpm---660fpm---1160fpm and 1020fpm. It does make one wonder what the Spitfire MK III with a the Merlin XX would have done. The Thinking at the time may have been that the Spitfire with the MK X11 or coming Merlin 45 would be good enough while a Hurricane WITHOUT a XX was hopeless and the game was still total number of aircraft. 



Edgar Brooks said:


> Just to help make up the minds of the hierarchy, Supermarine had managed to fit the longer Merlin 45 into the same engine space as the Merlin III (something they hadn't been able to do with the XX, which, as with the Hurricane, made the Spitfire III fuselage 4" longer.)
> Edgar



Color me confused on this one. You can't fit the longer (by 4in ?) Merlin MK XX into the Spitfire (inspite of doing it on the MK III) yet you can fit the longer (dimension not given) Merlin 45 without as much trouble? Merlin 45 is a Merlin XX without the 2 speed drive and a slightly lower drive ratio. 9.089:1 instead if 9.49:1. basically a Merlin XX with low gear left out although there may have been differences in the block that do not allow one to be changed to the other. All supercharger and carburetor parts were the same between the two engines.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 12, 2011)

The engines were not the same; the blower casing of the XX was a different design, completely. On the 45, the basic difference was that carburettor airflow was taken through an elbow, which directed it into the middle of the impeller; on the earlier Marks, the air/fuel mix was directed onto the edge of the fan blades This made the impeller more efficient, but the elbow lengthened the engine by a couple of inches (ish.) To work round this Rolls-Royce turned the carburettor controls through 180 degrees, thereby tucking them under the crankcase. This couldn't be done on the XX's blower casing, because the extension was at the front, just aft of the crankcase (note the larger gap between the carburettor and the crankcase.




One other item of interest might be that there were nowhere near enough Merlin XX to satisfy the Hurricane II the Spitfire III, so the latter was ditched; after all, the Hurricane was going to be needed for ground attack against the expected invasion. With regard to the "failed intelligence," you can blame Dowding for that, though, in October, pilots had reported the 109 flying 2,000' above them, but showing a marked disinclination to come down and fight, and they weren't interested in going up after them, so the formations just sailed past each other.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 12, 2011)

We seem to have a conflict in sources. In "The Merlin in Perspective-the combat years" by Alec Harvey-Bailey, No 2 in the Rolls-Royce Heritage trust series it states both in the text and in tables that the Merlin XX used the single central entry supercharger. In other books it says that the Merlin XX was the first Merlin to use that type supercharger or that the Merlin XX was the first to benefit from Hooker's work. Perhaps the two speed drive required the supercharger to be spaced away from the engine a few inches? 

I know that there not enough MK XX engines to go around. As I said, the Spitfire could get by without it and still be a creditable fighter in 1941, the Hurricane could not, and there weren't going to be enough Spitfires if you stopped production of the Hurricane. Heaven forbid that bomber command give up some of their allotment of MK XX engines though 

If the Hurricane was truly to be a ground attack machine in 1941 the problem could have been easily solved by giving the Merlin XXs to the Spitfires and using a single speed supercharger in ground attack Hurricane with super charger ratio picked for low altitude performance or the cropped impeller MK 30 used in the Fulmar MK II. 1300hp for take-off and 1360hp at 6000ft in Jan 1941.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 12, 2011)

The trouble with the XX, for the Spitfire III, was that it lengthened the nose by 4", which meant that all of the cowling parts had to be redrawn, and reshaped, and the u/c had to be raked forward 2", to stop any tendency to nose over. Raking the u/c forward meant that the wheel sat at a different angle in the well, so the pintle had to be changed, to make the leg hang lower, and that meant that the wheel cover had to be reshaped into a curved cross-section, rather than flat. Putting the XX into the Hurricane proved to be a lot less hassle, and the 45 into the Spitfire V even less. I have (years ago) crawled under a Mk.I Mk.V Spitfire, and can confirm that the V's carburettor intake is a couple of inches further back. Having been a modeller, for nearly 60 years, and having to contend with "experts" on the Spitfire, who've never been near one with a tape measure, means that a tape is permanently sitting in my camera bag. Incidentally, I'm not presumptuous enough to include you in that "expert" jibe.
Strangely enough, in the paperwork, regarding the Merlin production, it says that, to get the required number of XXs, some would have to taken from the bomber allocation, but that wouldn't matter, since airframe production always lagged behind the engines, anyway.
Our sources of information are not in conflict, in fact they're identical, since I got the Merlin drawings from the R-R Heritage Trust, and the information about the 45's carburettor came from a talk, on the 40th anniversary of K5054's first flight, given by Sir Stanley Hooker. (I wasn't lucky enough to attend, but I managed to get hold of a pamphlet.)
If you open the RRHT's book at pages 76 78, and compare the photos, you'll see that the XX has an extra "compartment" between the crankcase and the compressor stage (housing the two-speed gearing, which the 45 didn't have, I presume.)
You do realise, I trust, that we're liable to get a rollicking, from "management," for turning a Whirlwind thread into one on the Spitfire?
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2011)

I can see both points. I am certainly not a "hands on expert" and I do thank you for the reminder that just because one airframe can be easily modified in a certain way does not mean another airframe can be. 
The same with engines, just because Wright Cyclones could have have a 2 speed box added to an existing engine doesn't mean another engine could. Allison was famed for the ability to turn a basic block into a variety of versions. P&W on the other hand, had the licensees build one stage and two stage engines in separate factories. I don't know but would guess that there was something about the Merlin engine block that prevented one from turning a single speed engine into a two speed even if you had the parts, perhaps part (or all?) of the extras space needed for the two speeds was cast in one piece with block? This doesn't make it better or worse than a rival engine, just different. 

We also tend to forget just how desperate they were for numbers of aircraft at times during WW II. The US certainly made it's share of bad decisions (in hind sight) of continuing production of certain models of aircraft or refusing to modify an aircraft because of an interruption in production. 

what is strange (for many aircraft) is what is counted as a problem in one scheme or conversion seems to disappear or is easily accommodated just a few months later in a different scheme. Maybe my book is wrong but weren't the U/C legs raked forward on the MK V Spitfire (or at least some of them?) But what is counted as an unacceptable delay in certain conditions may not be that big a problem due to different circumstances just a few months later. 

I do believe the Whirlwind was a missed opportunity but it seems that many of the "problems" with were temporary or just mistaken (or out of time) impressions. For instance in 1940 the landing speed of the Whirlwind was frighteningly high to officers who had flown biplanes in their flying years. It 1943 it would almost be common place or in the same league with B-26s, A -20s and P-47s. It was too small to be turned into the "wonder" plane some people claim but given the same development (or patience) a few other planes got it could have been a decent substitute for the Typhoon, except without the Typhoon there might have been no Fury


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 13, 2011)

The Vc had the same 2" forward rake as the Mk.III, and this was continued on to the VII, VIII, IX XIV; I don't have the official reason, but suspect that it might have had something to do with having four 20mm barrels sticking out in front of the leading edge, which might have adversely affected ground handling.
It's easy to say,"Stick a big/bigger compressor at the back of the Peregrine, but if, like the Hurricane, the engine was already tight against the bulkhead, it would have to move forward, with all the implications for the CoG that entails.
Camm wanted to fit the Griffon into the Hurricane, and had all of the drawings ready, but it meant that the spars, in the centre-section, would have had to be raked forward, to bring the wings forward and the CoG with them. Camm was told to forget it, and concentrate on the Tornado/Typhoon.
Remember that the IX, with the 60-series engine, was the result of someone's brainwave; the 60s were planned for bomber production, until there was the spoken thought," What if we put it into the Spitfire?" The rest, as they say, is history.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2011)

The wish to avoid a major change is why I usually limit my proposals for changing the Peregrine to using the central intake on the supercharger and the two speed supercharger drive, minimal weight and only a few inches, basically bring it up to MK XX standards. It does mean limited altitude performance but it also means that the weight and length of the two stage set up is avoided along with the inter-cooler radiators. It also avoids needing larger propellers to handle a big increase in power at high altitudes. Maybe the existing props would be maxed out any way but I think I read somewhere that a Merlin 60 series offered twice the power at 30,000ft that a MK III Merlin did even though the "max" power was only a few hundred apart (before the large increases in boost that came later). The Whirlwind was not a good climber at low altitude and an extra 100-200hp per engine would have had a big effect. Any further changes would really require too much development work and too many changes to be worthwhile on both the engine and airframe. Considering that ONLY P&W, Allison and R-R put 2 stage superchargers into large scale production out of all the engine makers in world rather hints that it wasn't all that easy to do or at least do right. The Principal and theory was well known but practice may have been much more difficult. No service two stage Wrights, Napairs or Bristols. 

As far as the later Spitfires needing the raked forward landing gear for the cannon? I think it might have had something to do with heavier 2 stage engines and the larger, heavier propeller hanging off the nose.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Sep 13, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> As far as the later Spitfires needing the raked forward landing gear for the cannon? I think it might have had something to do with heavier 2 stage engines and the larger, heavier propeller hanging off the nose.


That wouldn't have applied to the Vc early Seafires, though.
There was discussion on a new prop, if a modified Whirlwind went ahead, but de Havilland Hydromatic would have been preferred to a Rotol type.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 13, 2011)

A full feathering propeller would certainly have been nice for engine out situations.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 14, 2011)

The ultimate Whirlwind/Peregrine practical 'what if' requires decisions years before the war. If it was the standard day fighter RR development would have been Peregrine/Vulture. The Vulture was tamed but too late. The equivalent power to Merlins in our time line and the capacity to change to twin jets whenever they could be produced. Meandering further; twin Vulture Mosquito, Peregrine Blenheim? Underwing bomb capacity of 2x500lb suggests the range extension by drop tanks and it was certainly capable of carrying x8 60lb rockets or 2x 40mm cannon (my preferred choice with thin case HE rounds for non heavy armour accuracy.)


----------



## wuzak (Sep 14, 2011)

de Havillands did do a proposal for a "super" Mosquito using 2 x Sabres. By that time the Vulture had gone, though, so the choice was Sabres or nothing. But the Sabres were experiencing their own problems and the project was dropped.

Handley Page's chief engineer wrote a paper about bomber design philosophy, arguing that an unarmed bomber would give better results than the slowe and heavier armed bombers. He schemed an unarmed bomber using 2 x Vultures along the same lines as P.13/36 - which led to the Manchester and Halifax.

No doubt that the Vulture and Peregrine suffered for not being used in more than one in-service type.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 20, 2011)

A What-if model of a Whirlwind powered by Merlins

Westland Whirlwind Mk. V.

And just for fn the turboprop Lightning
Lockheed A-38C Turbo Lightning


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2011)

Granted, our own readie will agree with me that this should've been built 'stead Whirlwinds w/ Merlins (ie. double Spit; here Spit V with clipped wings):


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2011)

To repeat myself, an Americanized Whirlwind would've been nice: two Twin Wasps (even single stage, for 1940-42), 5-6 x 0.50cals, produced abroad (Canada, Australia) + at Westland (plus at Boulton Paul, plus at Blackburn etc), fuel tanks inboard of engines (now that radiators are deleted) for twice as much fuel as before.
Cutaway, provided by skiswimcycle, member of this forum:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/schematics/58266d1205176736-westland-whirlwind-cutaway-whirlwind-2.gif


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 21, 2011)

Something to consider for the 'twin hulled" machines. while the frontal area is less than a conventional twin they a lot more surface area creating friction and drag and you have to build two fuselages instead of one fuselage and two engine nacelles. They may actually be heavier than a conventional twin or at best not any lighter. While you may have the tooling in place, if you can't build the single fuselage fighters fast enough building twin fuselage machines is only going to cut your total fighter production. It is debatable as to wither their rolling performance is better or worse than a conventional twin. If you are going to have twin cockpits (nice for night fighters and very long range escorts) the extra weight and volume will count against it compared to a true single seat twin engine fighter. 

The US had the Grumman F5F/XP-50. P&W engines would have been a bit better streamlined but a bit a heavier. With weights within a few hundred pounds of the Whirlwinds in questionable just how much fuel they carried.


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 21, 2011)

> ...while the frontal area is less than a conventional twin they a lot more surface area creating friction and drag and you have to build two fuselages instead of one fuselage and two engine nacelles.



In this particular case, total wing area is at 320-350 sq ft range - a few procents more than for P-38/47. We have almost 3000 HP to propel that, in 1941 
A high performance, conventional twin with decent range firepower was available for some airforces in 1st part of WW2, for some it was not. It was not available for RAF/RAAF/RCAF surely. Hence this proposal - a twin hulled Spitfire.



> They may actually be heavier than a conventional twin or at best not any lighter.



Spit was a pretty light aircraft to boot with, so the twin hulled plane would still be a pretty light one. 
Wiki says (I know...) 6500 lbs 'loaded' for Mk.Vb =13 000 lbs 'loaded' twin; lets make it 14K - at least equal to P-38s, while beating P-47s in power to weight category. Available a year or two earlier; of course, by late 1942/early 1943 we can make Mk.VIII/IX twins 



> While you may have the tooling in place, if you can't build the single fuselage fighters fast enough building twin fuselage machines is only going to cut your total fighter production.



It would make much more sense to tool up Westland to build Spits, both single twin, than to tool up for production of Whirlwind. 



> It is debatable as to wither their rolling performance is better or worse than a conventional twin.



Agreed, not the very brightest spot 



> If you are going to have twin cockpits (nice for night fighters and very long range escorts) the extra weight and volume will count against it compared to a true single seat twin engine fighter.



Twin hull has only 4 wing attachment points 2 'hulls', while conventional twin has 3 'hulls' 6 wing attachment points. No advantage for the conventional?
The extra pair of eyes can watch it's own 6 o'clock when pilot is focused onto target, plus the new pilot can learn hands-on about combat, while not jeopardizing itself plane.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 21, 2011)

I'd prefer Supermarine makes this cannon armed fighter than the twin Spit.

http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18160/13.jpg
http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18160/14.jpg
Supermarine type 327 image by Mark12 on Photobucket


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 22, 2011)

Rather optimistic Supermarine's expectations (460mph with 2 Merlins that are yet to be produced?), while the wing is as tick as Beufighter's for the most part, plus 6 cannons (none in 1937 for RAF in relaity?)?


----------



## wuzak (Sep 22, 2011)

Typhoon was also expected top top 460mph...

Engines were based on development engines of the time - RM.2SM IIRC. 1250hp each. By the time it would have entered service the Merlins would have been 1500hp engines.

This project came after the Whirlwind - so no problem with Cannon. 6 probably was overkill, and they may have had trouble fitting them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2011)

Or was it 6 cannon with a 60 round drum apiece or 4 cannon with 150 round belts?


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 22, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I'd prefer Supermarine makes this cannon armed fighter than the twin Spit.
> 
> http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18160/13.jpg
> http://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/18160/14.jpg
> Supermarine type 327 image by Mark12 on Photobucket


Those cannon are going to shorten the prop blades a bit unless there was some synchronization


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 22, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Those cannon are going to shorten the prop blades a bit unless there was some synchronization




Shhsh! never let reality interfere with a good concept


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 12, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Yesterday, I had a look in the government files, in our National Archives, and found the following. There was never a plan to fit Merlins to a Mk.II, because they simply would not fit; the Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine to be as small as possible. There was even talk of trying to find an American engine that would fit.
> The biggest problem was the Peregrine; the original specification called for a maximum ceiling of (at least) 30,000', but the Whirlwind could barely reach 25,000', where its fighting qualities tailed off dramatically. The engine needed to be able to use 100 octane, but had only been designed for 87, so would need a lot of further development, and Rolls-Royce simply didn't have the capacity.
> Edgar


 
Hi
Sorry to disagree but there were at least two plans to fit merlins to the whirlwind.
In fact one letter at least existed ( at least until the late 90's ) in the national archives at Kew.
I have corresponded with an ex westland employee in the USA who was on the design team in 1939/40 who designed the fitting of early merlins to the whirlwind.
Again in 1941 menesforth offered the whirlwind with merlin XX engines 'after sorting out undercarriage retraction issues'
So the manuafcturer at least believed the whirlwind airframe could take merlins..
Of interest there was also the suggestions of fitting Napier Dagger VIII , or bristol taurus engines,which both being air cooled would have released the radiator space in the whirlwind wings for extra fuel tanks.
I have still personally not convinced myself which american engine was used in the 1940 proposal, ( when the peregrine production was cancelled ).

100 octane was in use.
I have research from R-R mentioning use of 100 octane and the official pilots/ air publication notes for the whirlwind mentions ' take off with 100 octane, 3000 rpm at +9 lb/sq in.
I have not found a pilot notes copy earlier than april '41, 
but the R_R notes are from June 1940,( cut out mods being carried out and new spark plus sourced )

Unfortunately there are still a lot of misquotes about what the whirlwind airframe was actually capable of doing.

Cheers
Jerry


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 12, 2011)

Kryten said:


> they were running out of airframes and engines by 43, the surviving aircraft from 263 squadron who were being re-equiped were passed on to keep the 137 squadron going, (think thats the right way round)



Hi
Actually it is the other way around, 137 squadron re equipped and gave the whirlwind to 263 squadron who operated them until dec 43, not bad for a un-developed 1940 aircraft. it would be interesting to to see what loss rates a spitfire I or hurricane I would have had in the same use.
cheers
Jerry


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 16, 2011)

brewerjerry said:


> Hi
> SNIP
> 
> I have corresponded with an ex westland employee in the USA who was on the design team in 1939/40 who designed the fitting of early merlins to the whirlwind.
> ...



Allison V-1710 comes to mind, if the Merlin could be fitted then surely so could the Allison.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2011)

I am fairly sure that Westland would have been pitching "improved" Whirlwinds to the air ministry. The question is how much of the original Whirlwind would have been left. The Whirlwind was a small airplane. It's wing was in between the Spitfire and the Hurricane in size and about 10% bigger than a Mustangs. The Original only had 67 imp gallons of fuel for each engine and even with the proposed fuselage tanks it would have had about the same amount of fuel per engine as a Spitfire. Throw in the bigger props, radiators and other bits and pieces and it is hard to see hoe it was going to work without "stretching" the airframe a bit. 
It would be interesting to see when the "Merlin Whirlwind" turned into the Welkin? Like if there was an intermediate stage (on paper) for a Westland twin Merlin fighter that was a bit bigger bigger than a Whirlwind and yet smaller than the Welkin wound up? 
Design work on the Welkin started in 1941 didn't it?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 16, 2011)

You're all concentrating on the wrong end of the production line; one of the deciding factors against the Whirlwind was the inability of the company to build more than one per week. If "wastage" exceeded that rate, Squadrons would become non-operational in no time. It really doesn't matter what plans the company put forward regarding engines; with no airframes it was a non-starter.
Add to that, the Peregrine was cleared for 12lb boost and 100 octane for emergency use, only, and the Ministry said that full 100 octane rating would need a new Mark of Peregrine altogether.
One Whirlwind with Merlin XX = two Spitfire II or Hurricane II without, and Rolls-Royce's capacity would not stretch any further.
Edgar


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 16, 2011)

Seeing that, from winter 1940/41, Merlin was mounted in many planes that were requiring 2-4 each, the availability of Merlins looks like non-issue from that point? By 1942 US production was up running anyway, and UK itself was out-producing Germany, Japan Italy combined, already in 1941 (total planes produced).

The continued production of Hurricanes (from 1942 on) doesn't seem like such a bright idea, too.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 16, 2011)

Talk of 1942 is pointless; Wilfrid Freeman killed the Whirlwind in May, 1940. By July, 1941, Westland were producing the Spitfire I; by December 1941 it was the Spitfire V.
Mocking the Hurricane, in hindsight, is very easy, but a single Merlin XX, in the IIc, carried exactly the same firepower as two would have done on the Whirlwind, and Hawker, Gloster, and the Canadian Car Foundry could produce more than one per week; Luftwaffe pilots might have been contemptuous of the Hurricane, but I doubt that the Wehrmacht, Italian, and Japanese armies enjoyed being on the receiving end of four cannon and a battery of rockets, to say nothing of the 40mm cannon on the IId.
Edgar


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2011)

Let me see if I have this right.

Westland can only build ONE Whirlwind per week. 

Westland built 1373 Lysanders ? starting in 1938? 

Westland built over 2000 Spitfires and Seafires.

Westland built center sections for the Ablemarle production scheme.

Westland built 18 Barracudas before getting out of the production scheme due to other work.

Westland did large amounts of Spitfire and Seafire repair work. 

Westland Did a large amount of the work done in England on the Curtiss Hawk, Tomahawk and Warhawk in regards to armor and armament. 

Westland was working on the Welkin from 1940 on.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 16, 2011)

Here is an interesting quote regarding the Peregrine and the Whirlwind from the RRHT book "Rolls-Royce - The pursuit of excellence" by Alec Harvey-Baillie and Michael Evans...

"While it lacked high altitude performance it proved to be a formidable FGA aircraft when the Peregrines were rated at 880 hp on 100 octane fuel. Contrary to popular view the Peregrine was not unreliable. Its two main problems were rapidly tackled. Main engine joint failures were overcome by deleting the joint washers and using jointing compound, while bowstring failures of end cylinder holding down studs were cured by reduced anti-vibration collar clearances.

Some of the stories of unreliability spring from difficulty in managing the operation of the radiator shutters during taxiing, take-off and initial climb. Westland had linked the radiator shutter operation with that of the flaps to keep the radiator shutters open, when flaps were not needed for flight. In early operations a number of engines were overheated because the system was not fully understood, and evidence of this is in the pilot's notes which were extensively amended."

In "British Secret Projects Fighters and bombers 1935 - 1950", Tony Butttttler suggests that the Whirlwind was verging on obsolescence "...at least in official eyes". It is also interesting to consider that another twin engined fighter prototype the Gloster G.39 was not progressed with beyond the prototype stage despite its potential. I suspect part of the issue was rationalising the industry as a whole; the introduction of Beaverbrook as Minister of Aircraft production was controversial, but emphasised the need for expediency and for a concentration of types that were required in large numbers at that time, thus the emergency production programme of only three bomber and two fighter types introduced in mid-1940. 

Another potential reason behind Whirlwind production and development not being continued with is the obvious success of both the Beaufighter and Mosquito as multi-role aircraft. The Whirlwind did not offer the same development potential as a twin-engined machine. Much redevelopment would have been required for it to become a more useful design, especially since Rolls discontinued the Peregrine. 

A possibility as to why the Whirlwind was not continued as a bomber escort is because the British never really concentrated any effort on developing one. Britain most certainly had airframes that could have been redesigned to do the job, but Bomber Command switched to night raids, which meant the role was not explored further.

The Hurricane is an interesting case regarding an "obsolescent" design soldiering on, and perhaps practicality plays a part in its case. In 1940 it was a lot easier to build than the Spitfire, not only that, it was a lot easier to repair and there were MUs (Maintenance Units) across the UK that dedicated their efforts to repair and overhaul of battle-damaged Hurris. It was a rugged design able to withstand considerable punishment and could be easily maintained in the field; it also offered reasonable performance while fitted with formidable armament. Ceasing production for a more modern type would have introduced delays, particularly as the war wore on.

This partially explains why the Halifax continued in production, when it was a dog from the beginning. This, and official heel digging - Harris was dead set against the Halifax (and Stirling) in favour of Lancaster production by both Shorts and HP and let his feelings known in no uncertain terms on a frequent basis to Portal and whomever was in earshot. Pertal opening his mail in the morning; "Oh balls, it's another rant from Harris..." Phone rings, "No... we are not going to stop building the Halifax in favour of Lancs... yes, I got your last 2 letters..."

There was even a suggestion that production of heavy bombers should stop altogether and that the Mosquito become the mainstay of Bomber Command's offensive against Germany; but I digress...


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 16, 2011)

2157 Spitfires/Seafires (Vickers' figures,) in 5.5 years = 7.5 per week; 1427 Lysanders in 4(?) years = almost 7 per week. All this at a time when factories were working day/night 12-hour shifts, or 60+ hours each week per worker.
As a comparison, in roughly the same timescale Castle Bromwich produced 11,781 Spitfires/Seafires, or more than 40 per week. Westland were a small company, so production was not fast; the promise of 1 Whirlwind per week was made by three Westland representatives (including the M.D. Mr.Petter) directly to Dowding.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 16, 2011)

Initial Spitfire production was so rapid that Westland was given a contract for 250 in 1939 I believe? It wasn't carried through at the time but in 1939/40 many British companies were small. Castle Bromwich was specially built (as the largest aircraft factory in England at the time) to make Spitfires and initial management so mucked things up that they were about a year behind schedule. Non-delivery of Spitfires almost caused the Spitfire program to be shut down in the late 30s. 

As far as the Hurricane goes, it was a very useful aircraft in 1942 even if no longer a first rate fighter in any theater. By 1944 it was an anachronism, much like the P-40. Useful for giving to allies to fulfill aid agreements.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 17, 2011)

Westland's first Spitfire contract (B124305/40) was dated August, 1940, after the decision to finish with the Whirlwind. The first 50 were the Mk.I, and there's a suspicion that (like Castle Bromwich's first "production") these were from kits of parts, supplied by Supermarine.
Hurricane production finished, in the U.K., in 1943, but the "anachronism" was still supporting the British Fourteenth Army, in Burma "cab-rank" sorties, in 1945.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Talk of 1942 is pointless; Wilfrid Freeman killed the Whirlwind in May, 1940. By July, 1941, Westland were producing the Spitfire I; by December 1941 it was the Spitfire V.



Then I reckon it's pointless to talk about Merlin XX, too 



> Mocking the Hurricane, in hindsight, is very easy, but a single Merlin XX, in the IIc, carried exactly the same firepower as two would have done on the Whirlwind,



In my posts it's mostly the praise for Hurricane, actually.
Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.



> and Hawker, Gloster, and the Canadian Car Foundry could produce more than one per week; Luftwaffe pilots might have been contemptuous of the Hurricane, but I doubt that the Wehrmacht, Italian, and Japanese armies enjoyed being on the receiving end of four cannon and a battery of rockets, to say nothing of the 40mm cannon on the IId.
> Edgar



Even during the dark days of 1940, RAF was not short of planes, but pilots. A trained pilot sitting in an under-performed is just a waste, a way for Axis aces to rack up the kills.
I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare.



Edgar Brooks said:


> ....
> Hurricane production finished, in the U.K., in 1942, but the "anachronism" was still supporting the British Fourteenth Army, in Burma "cab-rank" sorties, in 1945.



Wasn't the production of the Hurricane IV started in spring 1943?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 17, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Wasn't the production of the Hurricane IV started in spring 1943?


Yes, sorry about that; my fat finger hit the wrong button.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 17, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.
> I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare.


The Hurricane had to remain in production, due to the prolonged delays with the Tornado Typhoon.
Performance, yes, but not range; the Whirlwind may have carried 134 gallons, but that was 67 per engine, while the Hurricane II carried 94 usable gallons, for a single engine. The Whirlwind II would have carried 194 gallons, still less, per engine, than the Hurricane.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 17, 2011)

That sounds for me that pilots were flying an under-performer just in order to have Hawker build something, in thousands that is. 

(assuming Whirly II was to have Peregrines still)
By choosing 'power egg' engine configuration, the inner wing is free for a fuel tank - doubling the 134 imp gals of Whirly I. That would require some rehash of the on-board equipment (relocating radio further back, for example) - nothing new with planes receiving different/updated engines.
Or install them like Spitfire's, so the CoG is not affected.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 17, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> That sounds for me that pilots were flying an under-performer just in order to have Hawker build something, in thousands that is.


Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle. The Maltese were delighted to see Gladiators, then Hurricanes, doing their best to defend them. The Typhoon had already started production, in fact the first Squadron was formed in September 1941, but had been found to be unsuitable for overseas use.


> By choosing 'power egg' engine configuration, the inner wing is free for a fuel tank - doubling the 134 imp gals of Whirly I.


 Power egg, or not, liquid-cooled engines still need radiators.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 17, 2011)

Whirlwind's wing was too short front to back (cord) to get the radiators in back of the Cg by much. Not without loosing flap area and the Whirlwinds landing speed was high enough already.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2011)

_Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce._

Not exactly true, though I do agree the hurricane was retained in production after it had passed obsolescence. In the med, the hurri was able to deal with most oppsition quite effectively. It generally enjoyed the upper hand over RA fighters until the second half of 1942. it was reckoned, on balance to be "about equal" to the primary italian fighter the Mc 202, because of that superior firepower. In the med, the primary frontline fighter for the LW was the me 109e, until April 1942, when it was supplanted by (f) and (g) sub types, finally. Against the "e" the Hurricane was adequate, if a little outclassed. Again, this is reflected in the loss figures for both sides, so I dont know where this notion that the hurricane was "decimated" in the med comes from. It wasnt. It actually dished out more than it received.

Evidence that the RAF was more than satisfied with Hurricane competitiveness in the air in sercondary TOs can be found in the fact that no Spitfires were deployed to the Med until either the end of '41, or April 42 (I forget, will check tonite). 

_Even during the dark days of 1940, RAF was not short of planes, but pilots. A trained pilot sitting in an under-performed is just a waste, a way for Axis aces to rack up the kills.
I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare._

There is no evidence that Hurricanes suffered a higher attrition rate than Spits in any of the4 battles that it fought. It had a hard time against the japanese, however its circumstances here need to be understood. In 1942, in the far east, the predominant type was the Hurri I, a completely obsolete type that had been sent to a "backwater". In 1943, the hurricane was no longer considered a fighter....it was a strike aircraft that happened to have a fighter lineage. Like the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter, though less so than aircraft like the Dauntless, Val or Ju87. 

If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production. Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF


----------



## wuzak (Oct 17, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Power egg, or not, liquid-cooled engines still need radiators.



I believe he was referring to the Rolls-Royce Merlin power egg that was first used on the Beaufighter, then in the Miles M20 and the Lancaster. As a power egg it contained all the required components - including radiator. 

Actually, I would not consider any QEC module a "power egg" if it did not contain all it needed for its operation.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 18, 2011)

Just a note OT. the alone 109 Emil units in medit were AFAIK 7/26 (ritired in 9/41), I/27 (converted to F in 12/41). the hurricane not get good result versus 109 Emil and neither versus the M.C. 202. The top of the CW fighter unit in the desert get the Curtiss fighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2011)

parsifal said:


> _Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.
> 
> Not exactly true, though I do agree the hurricane was retained in production after it had passed obsolescence. In the med, the hurri was able to deal with most oppsition quite effectively. It generally enjoyed the upper hand over RA fighters until the second half of 1942. it was reckoned, on balance to be "about equal" to the primary italian fighter the Mc 202, because of that superior firepower. In the med, the primary frontline fighter for the LW was the me 109e, until April 1942, when it was supplanted by (f) and (g) sub types, finally. Against the "e" the Hurricane was adequate, if a little outclassed. Again, this is reflected in the loss figures for both sides, so I dont know where this notion that the hurricane was "decimated" in the med comes from. It wasnt. It actually dished out more than it received._




Agreed. In the hands of a good pilot the Hurri could hold its own against a Bf 109F and Zero. The same could be said for the Brewster Buffalo against the Zero, for that matter, too. There is ample evidence that Buffalo pilots got the better of their Japanese antagonists on numerous occasions over Singapore. I offer the following reaons regarding the defeat of the Allied air forces in Singapore in December 1941;

1: A complete lack of airborne early warning
2: Larger numbers of Japanese aircraft
3: A lack of sufficient maintenance facilities and resupply
4: Most pilots were inexperienced in combat
5: Intelligence about the capabilities of the Japanese fighters was scarce to non-existent at the front line bases

The type of aircraft the RAF units in Singapore were equipped with is irrelevant; even if they had Spitfires, the result would have been no different. 



> _Like the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter._



That's arguable. Remember, the Hurri was more manoeuvreable than the Bf 109 and could withstand a great deal more punishment than both the '109 and the Zero. Also the Zero redlined at 300 kts and I've been reliably informed that to get one to that speed was virtually impossible. Almost all Allied fighters could out dive the Zero with ease and once its weaknessess had been analysed, this was a standard escape method. 



> _If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production. Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF._



Yep, I agree. I also refer you to my earlier post that states that the Hurri was a practicable aircraft that could withstand damage and was easily repaired in the field. One thing that has to be remembered is that the Brits were fighting a war across many fronts and did not have the resources to supply frontline fighters to every outpost. Keeping the Hurricane in production was a practical choice as well as for the reasons stated elsewhere here, since they were still useful as ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft up to 1943 - '44.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2011)

> Edgar Brooks said:
> 
> 
> > Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle. The Maltese were delighted to see Gladiators, then Hurricanes, doing their best to defend them.
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2011)

Vincenzo said:


> Just a note OT. the alone 109 Emil units in medit were AFAIK 7/26 (ritired in 9/41), I/27 (converted to F in 12/41). the hurricane not get good result versus 109 Emil and neither versus the M.C. 202. The top of the CW fighter unit in the desert get the Curtiss fighter.



Hi Vincenzo


My source does not identify the units that were receivin the various types, and it does cover the entire Med front. The source is "The Campaign For North Africa" James Dunnigan, Richard Berg and Al Nofi, new York 1979. 


According to this source, 50 109e were received in November, 18 in December, 12 in january '42, 36 in Feb, and finally 12 additional units in March. There were no further receipts after that date.


As for the claim that the Curtis was the top fighter in the Desert, in 1941, I would have to dispute that, though the Kittyhawks (as opposed to the Tomahawks) could lay claim to that title. 

What is true, is that generally in the latter half of 1941, more "Curtis" fighters were being received in theatre than any other type. In the months November through to March 1942, the receipts of Hurricanes/Curtis aircraft were as follows:

November: 62/82 
December: 92/135
January: 186/120
February: 88/42
March: 81/129

Moreover, if we break this down further, we can easily see why the Curtis was the better fighter

The main subtypes of Hurricanes delivered to theatre at this time were Hurri I, HurriIIa, Hurri IIb and Hurri IIC. The main subtypes of the Curtis Fighters were TomaHawk, Kittyhawk I, Kittyhawk II and Kittyhawk III. If we break down the above receipts according to those subtypes, we can straight away see thee Brits were tending to send older, more obsolescent marks of Hurris to the theatre as oppsed to sendingt the very latest versions available of the Curtiss types. 

November: hurri 40/22/--/--
Curtiss 20/62/--/--

December: hurri 61/32/--/--
Curtiss --/90/45/--

January: hurri 96/54/36/--
Curtiss --/56/45/15

February: hurri 15/36/21/16
Curtiss --/--/30/12

March: hurri 18/03/38/22
Curtiss --/30/48/30



The Curtis was the newer fighter for the TO, so it stands reason that it would do better. However, over Malta, it was the hurricane that held sway, and in this isolated front it did very well.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> > Gradually switching production of 3 from those 6 factories to produce Spits makes more sense IMO, than all of the 6 further producing Hurricanes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2011)

Hi, nuuman



> Agreed. In the hands of a good pilot the Hurri could hold its own against a Bf 109F and Zero. The same could be said for the Brewster Buffalo against the Zero, for that matter, too. There is ample evidence that Buffalo pilots got the better of their Japanese antagonists on numerous occasions over Singapore. I offer the following reaons regarding the defeat of the Allied air forces in Singapore in December 1941;
> 
> 1: A complete lack of airborne early warning
> 2: Larger numbers of Japanese aircraft
> ...



Hope I didn't put all the blame at Hurricane, esp. for initial defeat of RAF over Malya.
Now, saying that 'in a hands of good pilot...' and, then, 'most pilots were inexperienced' doesn't make the post a credible one. Furthermore, a novice pilot in an excellent plane stands some chance. Same pilot in an obsolete plane stands no chance.



> (parsifal Like the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter.
> 
> That's arguable. Remember, the Hurri was more manoeuvreable than the Bf 109 and could withstand a great deal more punishment than both the '109 and the Zero. Also the Zero redlined at 300 kts and I've been reliably informed that to get one to that speed was virtually impossible. Almost all Allied fighters could out dive the Zero with ease and once its weaknessess had been analysed, this was a standard escape method.



Hurricane that sweats to climb, in order to kill IJN/IJA bombers, only to dive away from an escort plane, is worth what? While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes. 
If Zero was, or a more likely opponent, the Oscar, redlined at 300 kts, then almost no Spits, F4Us, P-38s would've been killed in PTO/CBI theaters. 



> If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production.



Hurricane a dedicated GA aircraft? I strongly disagree with that, and even more with 'either Hurricane, or nothing' logic. And putting such a great weight to the all Typhoon program is really away from reality IMO, another fighter that got relegated to bomber/attack duties. The cost of re-tooling from Hurricane production (at least of half of production lines) to Typhoon production cost money, too, even more than re-tooling to produce Spitfires.



> Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF.



Disagreement here - a more advanced plane to replace one that's not.



> > Read my post above regarding the practicalities of keeping the Hurricane in production, not only that, but to tool up and produce a different structure altogether (the Spit was a semi monocoque and the Hurri was welded steel tube) was not something that was going to happen overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 18, 2011)

Hi Parsifal

the source is a game? idk we can use a game as source, and if the data are supposition and not from true sources?

True Malta stay on Hurricane until Spit V was available (the first deployement overseas of Spit), idk because . They not go very well versus Emil or 202. Versus the other italian fighters yes nut not only on Malta.


----------



## Kryten (Oct 18, 2011)

even then it's not that simple to analyse, the Hurricanes deployed to Malta were ex Desert Air Force and to put it mildly "knackered", in any other theater they would have been scrapped but as they were all they had they flew and fought them despite facing appaling odds due to servicability, put simply the LW and RA had huge numerical and mechanical superiority over the few working Hurricanes, and yet they still fought!!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2011)

Vincenzo said:


> Hi Parsifal
> 
> the source is a game? idk we can use a game as source, and if the data are supposition and not from true sources?
> 
> True Malta stay on Hurricane until Spit V was available (the first deployement overseas of Spit), idk because . They not go very well versus Emil or 202. Versus the other italian fighters yes nut not only on Malta.



No its not a game, though there was a simulation based on the material. The source is a book based on the research that went into the game.

The game is still used at Sandhurst and the RMC to train strategic studies to trainee officers


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 18, 2011)

-


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 18, 2011)

Hi, tomo, 



> Now, saying that 'in a hands of good pilot...' and, then, 'most pilots were inexperienced' doesn't make the post a credible one.



What?! Why not? each sentence was not used in the same context. In good hands the Hurri WAS more than a match for the Zero and Bf 109 AND in Singapore the pilots were very inexperienced! Add the other factors, including lack of _early warning_, no such thing as airborne EW back then 



> Furthermore, a novice pilot in an excellent plane stands some chance. Same pilot in an obsolete plane stands no chance.



Agreed, although an excellent design does not make up for a lack of tactical knowledge. Over Singapore the odds were against the Allies; regardless of the type, as I said, the result would not have been much different.



> While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes.



Rubbish! How do you explain Hurricane pilots becoming aces during the Battle of Britain, then? I also mentioned RAF Maintenance Units scouring the country for Hurricane wrecks and repairing them, which meant that, yes indeed, the type had enormous survivability; contrary to your statement. 



> If Zero was, or a more likely opponent, the Oscar, redlined at 300 kts, then almost no Spits, F4Us, P-38s would've been killed in PTO/CBI theaters.



That really doesn't make sense. What is that based on?



> Hurricane a dedicated GA aircraft? I strongly disagree with that,



So you should, no one was suggesting that. The Hurri was widely used as close support, tank buster, interceptor and anti-submarine patrols flying from carriers, MAC ships, CAM ships in the FAA, reconnaissance in the CBI, training back home etc...



> Private firms are still to build planes make money (Spits were produced by many firms, Swordfish was produced by Blackburn, Roc by BP etc) providing customer ordered them. If lobbying of Hawker can be 'stronger' than what Air Ministry orders, than something is really wrong with the Ministry.



Spits were produced by Vickers satellite factories. Blackburn built Swordfish, yes, but that's because Fairey were ordered to stop building the Stringbag and concentrate on the Firefly and Barracuda. Also Blackburn has a history of building naval aircraft of other firms; the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedoplane was built in larger numbers by Blackburn than any other firm, including Sopwith, who only built the prototype in 1917. BP building the Roc was a sore point in BP; they actually proposed a superior single seat naval fighter based on the aerodynamics of the Defiant without the turret, would have been a cracker.

The Ministry of Aircraft Production obviously saw the benefits of continuing Hurri production for the reasons I have suggested above; As I asked in my earlier thread; why not continue producing Hurricanes if it was still considered useful? You have yet to produce a convincing argument for them not continuing production of the type.

Once again tomo, been a pleasure


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 19, 2011)

Hi
Westlands production capacity of the whirlwind wasn't really an issue,some of the slowness of production of whirlwinds at westlands was partly due to no directive from the air min/map, giving any instruction to give whirlwinds priority over the lysander production.
Whirlwinds had been allocated to CBAF, (castle bromwich) which was originally to produce battles, which were switched to austins, the production at CBAF was to be whirlwinds, but eventually it was to be spitfire II.
cheers
Jerry


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 19, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It would be interesting to see when the "Merlin Whirlwind" turned into the Welkin? Like if there was an intermediate stage (on paper) for a Westland twin Merlin fighter that was a bit bigger bigger than a Whirlwind and yet smaller than the Welkin wound up?
> Design work on the Welkin started in 1941 didn't it?



Hi
Now i did see a sketch around about the late 70's of something, i will try to see if I can find it over the weekend.
cheers
Jerry


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> There's some very strange, simplistic, thinking going on here.
> 1/. The Typhoon could only be used in Europe, since the radiator was too vulnerable to sand damage.
> 2/. The Hurricane had to be pressed into ground attack, because the Spitfire could (initially, at least) only carry a single bomb, could not carry rockets, could not easily carry 4 x cannon, and could not carry the 40mm anti-tank cannon.
> 3/. It was not a case of the Hurricane or nothing; in the Middle and Far East Spitfires were available for top cover.
> 4/. Not all of Malta's Hurricanes were second-hand; some were brand-new, and sent direct, by convoy (just like the later Spitfires.)



1. Thanks for the info. 
2. That's why I've said 'lets convert 3 of 6 factories', not 'let's convert them all'  Plus, I don't see any problems for Whirly not to do what ever Hurricane was doing, but, it was not to be.
3. You've posted this in post #93:_Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle._. In the Middle East Spitfire was NOT available for top cover in numbers, till late 1942, and only then Spit V was sent there. The less we say about deliveries of Spitfire to the Far East, in the time of dire need, the better.
4. Thanks again.



> I didn't say they were; I was making the point that, as far as the Maltese were concerned, any defenders were better than no defenders at all. Early Spitfires didn't have the range to reach Malta without extra tanks; it was only the tropical Vs that could manage it.



Didn't said a single word about Hurricanes defending Malta. That means 1942 and earlier. It's the production of Hurricanes from 1942 on that I'm talking against. For 4th time in this thread 
As for Spits reaching not just Malta, but all of Med, along with Far East, reckon it's much more about the will of RAF's brass, than about the range capabilities of Spitfires.



> Some of those were also making Typhoons, which, at that time, were desperately needed as a counter to low-flying Me109s (later) Fw190s.



The desperation from a dire threat from low-flying 109s and 190s deserves it's own thread IMO.



> The Spitfire factories were already producing over 60 airframes per week, and there isn't much point in making more and more Spitfires, if there's no shortage of them, all you'll have is fields of spare dogfighting airframes, while the army has no help in waging its war.



In other words, Hurricane can get Merlins, but if we re-tool a factory to produce Spitfires, we don't get the Merlins?



nuuumannn said:


> Hi, tomo,
> 
> What?! Why not? each sentence was not used in the same context. In good hands the Hurri WAS more than a match for the Zero and Bf 109 AND in Singapore the pilots were very inexperienced! Add the other factors, including lack of _early warning_, no such thing as airborne EW back then
> Agreed, although an excellent design does not make up for a lack of tactical knowledge. Over Singapore the odds were against the Allies; regardless of the type, as I said, the result would not have been much different.



My point is that it's better for an air force to have 1 item at the benefit side, while having 5 on debt side, than to have all 6 items on the debt side - exactly as it happened at Far East. 



> Rubbish! How do you explain Hurricane pilots becoming aces during the Battle of Britain, then? I also mentioned RAF Maintenance Units scouring the country for Hurricane wrecks and repairing them, which meant that, yes indeed, the type had enormous survivability; contrary to your statement.



1. I don't post rubbish.
2. What BoB has to do with Hurricane IIC?? I've stated: _Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce._, and:_Hurricane that sweats to climb, in order to kill IJN/IJA bombers, only to dive away from an escort plane, is worth what? While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes._. In other words, while Hurricane I lacked perhaps 10-20mph vs, 109E, it lacked far more vs. 109F. Plus, fighter pilots can became aces when killing Stukas, too.
3. So Maintenance unit repair a wreck. That does not mean a plane will continue flying after it's struck by 10 cannon shells.



> That really doesn't make sense. What is that based on?



On common sense. If an IJA/IJN plane is redlined to 300kts, then any mid/late war Allied plane can just open the throttles and escape. But they wer not redlined at 300.



> So you should, no one was suggesting that. The Hurri was widely used as close support, tank buster, interceptor and anti-submarine patrols flying from carriers, MAC ships, CAM ships in the FAA, reconnaissance in the CBI, training back home etc...



Should we speak about roles Spitfire was taking? How many roles the abundant P-40 F4Fs can't take over? In how many of those 7-8 roles Hurricane II-IV excelled?



> Spits were produced by Vickers satellite factories. Blackburn built Swordfish, yes, but that's because Fairey were ordered to stop building the Stringbag and concentrate on the Firefly and Barracuda. Also Blackburn has a history of building naval aircraft of other firms; the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedoplane was built in larger numbers by Blackburn than any other firm, including Sopwith, who only built the prototype in 1917. BP building the Roc was a sore point in BP; they actually proposed a superior single seat naval fighter based on the aerodynamics of the Defiant without the turret, would have been a cracker.
> 
> The Ministry of Aircraft Production obviously saw the benefits of continuing Hurri production for the reasons I have suggested above; As I asked in my earlier thread; why not continue producing Hurricanes if it was still considered useful? You have yet to produce a convincing argument for them not continuing production of the type.



If one was asking MAP, I bet they would've suggested producing Hurricanes as fighters till 1947 - it was costing them less money than anything other of modern appearance, and, indeed, re-tooling costs money. If we ask the ones concerned - the users, answer would've been Spitfires. And if they were so useful, why indeed not produce them by VJ day at least?



> Once again tomo, been a pleasure



Any time


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 19, 2011)

The Welkin was designed to a 1940 specification, specifically to counter a perceived threat from the Ju-86P, and the first prototype flew in November 1942, with the first production aircraft flying in November 1943. The order was for about 100, of which around 67 were built, but, because the threat never materialised, they were never issued to a Squadron, just used for experimental work.
Edgar


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 19, 2011)

Why a personal attack?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 19, 2011)

-


----------



## parsifal (Oct 19, 2011)

guys, calm down, this has been an intersting and engaging debate, although we are a bit off topic. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 20, 2011)

Sorry, but when you know that this country was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had to borrow money from the Americans, which took us 60 years to pay off, and enabled them to pressurise us over things like Suez, clever remarks, about our top brass caring more about money than winning the war, are just a little hard to swallow.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 20, 2011)

There are big differences between what look like boneheaded decisions when viewed with 70 years worth of hindsight and boneheaded decisions that were made only with the knowledge available at the time. Any time traveler with any sense could go back to 1936/7 and tell them to just forget the Sabre engine. It took way too much time, effort and treasure for any benefit they ever got out of it. 

There is also a big difference between making Hurricanes (or P-40s) in 1942 and making them well into 1944. I don't know about the British but the Americans had decided at some point in 1943 ( in time to put it in the P-40 training manual) that no 'new' overseas combat squadrons would be equipped with P-40s. P-40 production in late 1943 and for 1944 was solely to equip advanced training units and to supply allied air forces ( Free French, Italian, and who ever else besides the Russians). 

While final victory was pretty much assured in 1944 the actual end date was still very much in question both in Europe and the Pacific for a good portion of 1944.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 20, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> ...
> 
> One of the dangers in postulating what might have happened is that most of us (me included) have no idea what was being planned, and discussed in the corridors of power. In a Typhoon file, I've found a few extracts from minutes of fortnightly meetings, which started at the beginning of 1942, between the M.A.P. and the Air ministry. 24-2-42 they agreed to produce another 1,250 Hurricanes, for the theoretical loss of 843 Typhoons, but there were no Sabre engines for them anyway.
> In 1941, there was a plan for Hawker to build a two-seat, twin-engined, high-speed bomber, but that, too, needed the Sabre; there was a plan for a "hotted-up" Mosquito, which, again, needed the non-existant Sabre.
> The M.A.P. emphasised the difficulty of turning over Hurricane and Typhoon capacity to build a non-Hawker type (this was 16-3-42,) and it was pointed out that "single seater fighters were required less than any class." The need was for torpedo bombers, twin-engined fighters, and target towers and advanced trainers (in that order.)



Perhaps the MAP was unaware of this (post by JoeB, surce: Bloody Shambles, at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hawker-hurricane-mk-iib-vs-grumman-f4f-4-wildcat-1550-10.html#post327028) :

_A couple of comparative OOB's in Burma:
Feb 3: 20 AVG P-40's, 11 Hurricanes, 4 Buffaloes; v 43 Type 97's
March 20: 8 P-40's, 25 Hurricanes; v 86 Type 97, 15 Type 1 (Oscar), 4 Type 2 (Tojo), though the other two AVG sdns in China were mainly facing the same Japanese units, for example sparring frequently with the Type 1's, of the 64th Sentai at Chiangmei in northern Thailand, counted as Burma front in that OOB._

I.E. Japanese were having an advantage of 3:1 vs. RAF, or better, in fighter types. And Allies will receive Spitfires in 1943 there, but no Spitfire VIIIs, the fighter with both good range performance? It's no wonder Japanese were scoring good (same poster, same thread):

_In Jan-April '42, when fighting greatly died down on British fronts v Japanese, the Hurricane results, as given in Bloody Shambles combat by combat as I count, fighter to fighter:
Zeroes: 2 combats over Ceylon, 27 Hurricanes lost for 3 Zeroes
Zeroes: 3 other combats with both sides known: 8 Hurricanes 3 Zeroes
Type 1's: 12 combats, 20 Hurricanes, 4 Type 1's
Type 97's: 9 combats, 8 Hurricanes, 5-6 Type 97's
1 Hurricane was lost in a combat with either Type 1's or Zeroes w/ no J loss, and 7 in combats where the Japanese side is not given. A few were Dutch Hurricanes, and a few combats were along with the AVG but only one has a real claim overlap, that's 5 v 6 Type 97's._

Type 1 - Ki-43 Oscar; Type 97 - Ki-27 Nate (yep, the one with non-retractable U/C).



> Allow me to educate you, since you obviously don't know the Spitfire; to fly the vast distances across the African continent and Mediterranean, the Spitfire needed an increased oil capacity, to go with the increased fuel capacity. The only airframes that could cope were the tropicalised Vb Vc, which had larger built-in oil tanks. Sarcastic comments about the RAF's top brass indicates a complete lack of understanding of what was going on.



1. That still doesn't cover the lack of Spitfires in CBI, nor above Australian sky, in 1942. Plus, RAF was fighting in N. Africa from mid 1940, yet it takes them 2 years to deploy a tropicalised Spitfire. It took what, 3 months for Germans to tropicalise 109Es?
2. While my comments may seem sarcastic, assuming that MAP RAF's top brass (applies for every country's top leaders) are above any criticism is away from reality.



> Your obsession with the idea that the Ministry was more concerned with money than winning the war, shows that you are stuck with modern political thinking, and have little idea of the way minds worked 70 years ago.



I've never stated anything about MAP's desire to win the war.

...



> It was reckoned that, in an average combat, one, or maybe two, shells would hit the target; it's why the Germans went over to the 30mm.
> Edgar



Perhaps it was two-five burst out of 100 fired?



Edgar Brooks said:


> If you take care to read what I said, I'm defending the Ministries against your attacks on them. I have not maligned your name, or personality, in any way, just some of the material which you have written.



I was not attacking the Ministries. My point was that they were much more looking at (for fighter branch) messing with LW over France in 1941-42, than to deliver enough of competitive planes in Med, CBI, or RAAF/RNZAF for that matter - while they made all effort to put Typhoon in service for ETO, at Burma even the Hurricanes were lacking in numbers. Then of course, the command/control, logistics, pilot allocations - again it's clearly shown who is in the GB, and who is away. 



Edgar Brooks said:


> Sorry, but when you know that this country was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had to borrow money from the Americans, which took us 60 years to pay off, and enabled them to pressurise us over things like Suez, clever remarks, about our top brass caring more about money than winning the war, are just a little hard to swallow.



Covered above.


----------



## Kryten (Oct 20, 2011)

(quote)1. That still doesn't cover the lack of Spitfires in CBI, nor above Australian sky, in 1942. Plus, RAF was fighting in N. Africa from mid 1940, yet it takes them 2 years to deploy a tropicalised Spitfire. It took what, 3 months for Germans to tropicalise 109Es?
2. While my comments may seem sarcastic, assuming that MAP RAF's top brass (applies for every country's top leaders) are above any criticism is away from reality.(quote)

apples and pears im afraid, the reason the spit was not tropicalised and deployed untill March 42 was that Spits were being held for home defence,\hurricanes and P40 was considered sufficient untill late 41, if I recall correctly the first Spits to be released for operations away from the home front were those sent to Malta? 
so its not a case of "taking them 2 years", it was a policy decision that reflect the importance attached to each theater and the husbanding of stretched resources, read up on the Malta siege and you may be suprised how little importance was given to this vitally strategic island earlier in the war!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 20, 2011)

By the time the 109Es were tropicalised, they had already been superseded. The hurricane was in the same boat, and had already been tropicalised by the time the the 109E was given similar treatment. 


Both sides viewed the MTO as a secondary front, until after 1941, and sent what they considered to be "expendable" or second line equipment (in terms of fighter aircraft at least) to the TO as a result. 

There was not a great deal of difference in the respective equipment decisions really. Hurricane had proven adequate against the 109E in Europe, and would continue to do so in the MTO. Britiain main area of concern throughout 1940-41 was securing the home front, and projecting effort into western europe. It makes sense to reserve your best equipment for that purpose (though Hurricaners participated in the operations over france well into 1941). 

And I ask the question again, wher is the evidence that the hurricane was suffering a higher overall loss rate than Spitfires. It doesnt exist to be honest. Hurricanes had their strengths, just as the Me 109 and the Spitfires had theirs. Properly used, they could be an advantage, and as time and development progressed that manifested itself in the ground attack role. Hurribombers were superior to both the Spit and the 109 in that role


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 20, 2011)

-


----------



## yulzari (Oct 21, 2011)

To return to the subject of the thread.... I recall that the Napier Dagger was a contender for a Peregrine alternative as well as the Taurus. The MKVIII was a close match and it's weight of 100kg more dry matching the installed weight (ie with radiators, cooling fluid etc.) of the Peregrine. What do folk think of the merits of a Dagger Whirlwind? From what I can find about service use of the Dagger, it needed more maintenance and pilot training and served effectively in the well trained Auxiliary Air Force squadron Hectors but less well in wartime recruited Hereford squadrons.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 21, 2011)

(I do apologize for maintaining the thread off topic)


Edgar Brooks said:


> The Pacific war did not start until December 1941; the first Squadrons, with Spitfires, arrived in Australia in June 1942, which, considering that they had to go by sea, is not bad.



Thanks for clarification of the arrival date of the 1st Spitfires in Australia; it seems it took RAAF some 8 months to conduct 1st combat sorties (Feb 1943)?



> So a country, with the size of population of Germany, was able to do things faster than the U.K., (less than 1/4 its size, and with one of its main factories destroyed by bombing.)What a surprise.



If I've decyphered the 1st part right, the said country is the UK, the same country that out-produced 3 main Axis forces (in numbers of planes) for a better part of the war, 1941 included? 



> Also, you cannot deploy what you do not have; the Spitfire I II could not be tropicalised, and the III IV did not fulfil their promise. The first Vb arrived in mid-June 1941, and the first tropicalised Vb was delivered 13-12-41, with the Vc (with a completely redesigned wing)around that date as well.[/



Quoting a source about incapability of Spit I/II to be tropicalised, followed by quoting a source about Mk III not fulfilling it's promises would've be okay. Spits Vc arriving in CBI in Sept 1943 don't seem like something done in haste, too.



> I never said any such thing, but criticising, without knowing the facts, is pointless.
> 
> Your implication was that they were more interested in saving money, which is way wide of the mark.



I will not reply on this.



> So, now you're criticising them for not sending Hurricanes to the Pacific, while, a short time ago, you were criticising them for building more Hurricanes.



Nothing wrong with that - if brass thinks they have abundant number of fighters, how come they're not having a vast numerical advantage over it's enemies? If Hurricane was such a good fighter from late 1941 on, how come Nates Oscars (let alone MC 202s and Zeroes) are racking it's kills so easy? Someone say it's about pilots with low time - who needs to provide trained manpower? Somebody else will say it's lack of early warning - were Japanese known for their radar stations, directing their fighters?

Finally, 'sending' and 'building' are not the same words, not even synonyms.



> I think, too, that fighting, and dying, over France, is hardly "messing" with the Germans.



Finally, we boil it down to the trained manpower - the pilots in unnecessary jeopardy. Was it a bigger mistake to send them into hands of LW in 1941-42 over France Low countries, or to seat them into Hurricanes produced from 1942 on?



> As I've shown, deliveries were being sent to the Pacific, and the Middle East, in 1942, and perhaps you can indicate how it would have been so easy to deliver aircraft to Egypt, with so much territory, in Northen Africa, in enemy hands?



Deliveries were surely made. Two or three wings worth of airplanes pilots, sent within 3 months in one destination, are not same thing as two or three squadrons sent at the same place during the same time, and that was how it happened.
As for sending the planes to Egipt, my take is that Axis tanks were not parked at the surface of Atlantic, nor the Indian ocean - that can confirm the Spitfires delivered to Australia.



> I know that you are unaware of this, but the British government had promised the Australians that, should the Japanese threaten to invade, we would have completely withdrawn from the Mediterranean, and sent everything to their aid; doesn't exactly gel with an uncaring administration, does it?



I'm glad that you know about what I'm aware and what I'm not.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 21, 2011)

yulzari said:


> To return to the subject of the thread.... I recall that the Napier Dagger was a contender for a Peregrine alternative as well as the Taurus. The MKVIII was a close match and it's weight of 100kg more dry matching the installed weight (ie with radiators, cooling fluid etc.) of the Peregrine. What do folk think of the merits of a Dagger Whirlwind? From what I can find about service use of the Dagger, it needed more maintenance and pilot training and served effectively in the well trained Auxiliary Air Force squadron Hectors but less well in wartime recruited Hereford squadrons.



According to some sources the engines in the Hectors were Dagger IIIMs rated at 725HP at 2.25lbs of boost. The Engines in the Herefords were Dagger VIIIs rated at 995-1000hp at 6lbs boost and several hundred more RPM.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 21, 2011)

_Thanks for clarification of the arrival date of the 1st Spitfires in Australia; it seems it took RAAF some 8 months to conduct 1st combat sorties (Feb 1943)?_

Clarifying on spitfire deployment to australia, i would reccommend the following link plus the AWM archives, both of which contain a great deal of information on this issue. I cant locate the AWM links, but here is the link to the ADF serials site:

Welcome to ADF Serials


Spitfires were first shipped to Australia 27 sep '42, but were not handed over to the RAAF until the end of november. Modifications to make them suitable for tropical operations were needed (dont know what that entailed) and not all of the shipment arrived until mid to late october. The arrival of the spits to the SWPac TO was shrouded in great secrecy......at that time Allied aircraft of all types were being decimated by the japanese and great things were expected of the spits. the RAAF wanted to hit with maximum force and surprise, so they took their time in deploying the aircraft.

There were other limitations of the type that caused considerable concern at the time. There was an acute shortage of airfield space in the forward areas, and those that were availablle were all rough, dirt strips. Moreover at the time of their arrival, the threat of invasion was very real, so in effect all of australi was a war zone. The relatively fragile undercarriage and narrow tracks were a cause for concern.... 

On receival of this batch of 60 aircraft, the spitfires were first handed over to an OTU (no2 I think), before allocation to 1st Fighter Wing. 

In the air fighting over Darwin, the Spitfire was unable to get the better of the Japanese Zeroes or Oscars that fought against them. Tese aircraft of the 5th and 48th Air divisions plus the aircraft of the 201st (I think....working from memory) Naval Air Wing were very experienced pilots, and in my opinion, the Australians simply used the wrong tactics against them. Spitfires in Europe had found the best tactics against aircraft like the Me109 was to get into a turning battle. this was absolutely the wrong thing to do against the japanese, and I think it took the CW and British forces somewhat longer to work this out than the American units, who were issued specific orders in october not to engage in that way with the Japanese. 

Against other types the spits were quite successful, as were the hurricanes in the CBI, but the Spits also suffered heavy attrition from landing and t/o accidents and simply running out of fuel.


If I've decyphered the 1st part right, the said country is the UK, the same country that out-produced 3 main Axis forces (in numbers of planes) for a better part of the war, 1941 included? 

Allies were on the strategic defensive at this time, but in some Tos, like western Europe, were more or less forced to go on to the attack, to reduce the pressure on their allies (Soviets in particular). Was an expensive excercise. Similar issues in the Far east... 

_Nothing wrong with that - if brass thinks they have abundant number of fighters, how come they're not having a vast numerical advantage over it's enemies? If Hurricane was such a good fighter from late 1941 on, how come Nates Oscars (let alone MC 202s and Zeroes) are racking it's kills so easy? Someone say it's about pilots with low time - who needs to provide trained manpower? Somebody else will say it's lack of early warning - were Japanese known for their radar stations, directing their fighters?_
Dont think anyone said it was such a good fighter. However there is no evidence that it suffered a heavier attrition rate than anyone except perhaps in the CBI. The allies throughout 1940-41 were suffering heavy attrition for all types, in all TOs. Hurricanes, Spitfires, or any other allied type were not exempt from that problem. 


Finally, 'sending' and 'building' are not the same words, not even synonyms.



Finally, we boil it down to the trained manpower - the pilots in unnecessary jeopardy. Was it a bigger mistake to send them into hands of LW in 1941-42 over France Low countries, or to seat them into Hurricanes produced from 1942 on?



Deliveries were surely made. Two or three wings worth of airplanes pilots, sent within 3 months in one destination, are not same thing as two or three squadrons sent at the same place during the same time, and that was how it happened.
As for sending the planes to Egipt, my take is that Axis tanks were not parked at the surface of Atlantic, nor the Indian ocean - that can confirm the Spitfires delivered to Australia.



I'm glad that you know about what I'm aware and what I'm not.[/QUOTE]


----------



## parsifal (Oct 21, 2011)

_Thanks for clarification of the arrival date of the 1st Spitfires in Australia; it seems it took RAAF some 8 months to conduct 1st combat sorties (Feb 1943)?_

Clarifying on spitfire deployment to australia, i would reccommend the following link plus the AWM archives, both of which contain a great deal of information on this issue. I cant locate the AWM links, but here is the link to the ADF serials site:

Welcome to ADF Serials


Spitfires were first shipped to Australia 27 sep '42, but were not handed over to the RAAF until the end of november. Modifications to make them suitable for tropical operations were needed (dont know what that entailed) and not all of the shipment arrived until mid to late october. The arrival of the spits to the SWPac TO was shrouded in great secrecy......at that time Allied aircraft of all types were being decimated by the japanese and great things were expected of the spits. the RAAF wanted to hit with maximum force and surprise, so they took their time in deploying the aircraft.

There were other limitations of the type that caused considerable concern at the time. There was an acute shortage of airfield space in the forward areas, and those that were availablle were all rough, dirt strips. Moreover at the time of their arrival, the threat of invasion was very real, so in effect all of australi was a war zone. The relatively fragile undercarriage and narrow tracks were a cause for concern.... 

On receival of this batch of 60 aircraft, the spitfires were first handed over to an OTU (no2 I think), before allocation to 1st Fighter Wing. 

In the air fighting over Darwin, the Spitfire was unable to get the better of the Japanese Zeroes or Oscars that fought against them. Tese aircraft of the 5th and 48th Air divisions plus the aircraft of the 201st (I think....working from memory) Naval Air Wing were very experienced pilots, and in my opinion, the Australians simply used the wrong tactics against them. Spitfires in Europe had found the best tactics against aircraft like the Me109 was to get into a turning battle. this was absolutely the wrong thing to do against the japanese, and I think it took the CW and British forces somewhat longer to work this out than the American units, who were issued specific orders in october not to engage in that way with the Japanese. 

Against other types the spits were quite successful, as were the hurricanes in the CBI, but the Spits also suffered heavy attrition from landing and t/o accidents and simply running out of fuel.


If I've decyphered the 1st part right, the said country is the UK, the same country that out-produced 3 main Axis forces (in numbers of planes) for a better part of the war, 1941 included? 

Allies were on the strategic defensive at this time, but in some Tos, like western Europe, were more or less forced to go on to the attack, to reduce the pressure on their allies (Soviets in particular). Was an expensive excercise. Similar issues in the Far east... 

_Nothing wrong with that - if brass thinks they have abundant number of fighters, how come they're not having a vast numerical advantage over it's enemies? If Hurricane was such a good fighter from late 1941 on, how come Nates Oscars (let alone MC 202s and Zeroes) are racking it's kills so easy? Someone say it's about pilots with low time - who needs to provide trained manpower? Somebody else will say it's lack of early warning - were Japanese known for their radar stations, directing their fighters?_

Dont think anyone said it was such a good fighter. However there is no evidence that it suffered a heavier attrition rate than anyone except perhaps in the CBI. The allies throughout 1940-41 were suffering heavy attrition for all types, in all TOs. Hurricanes, Spitfires, or any other allied type were not exempt from that problem. 

Allied problems were multiple, and you have hit on some of them. But it simply is untrue that the Spits and hurricanes were suffering heavier attrition than other types at this time. 


_Finally, we boil it down to the trained manpower - the pilots in unnecessary jeopardy. Was it a bigger mistake to send them into hands of LW in 1941-42 over France Low countries, or to seat them into Hurricanes produced from 1942 on?_


I suggest you study military strategy a little more before attampting this kind of judgement. Have a look at Lees conduct in the seven days battles, and you will work out the reasoning for the RAFs success, in spite of its losses in 1941. Despite fighting a series of battles that individually were heavier in losses for them, it was overall successful in the objectives of those battles, particaullrly the tactical battles over france and the low countries in 1941-2. without that sacxifice the LW would have been in much better shape to fight in 1943-4 than it actually was. RA would have had time to rectify the numerous problems that its suffered from.


And finally, once again, we find sweeping, yet unsubstantiated claims about Hurricane loss rates being much higher than other aircraft. Statements made without a shred of supporting evidence..... 

_Deliveries were surely made. Two or three wings worth of airplanes pilots, sent within 3 months in one destination, are not same thing as two or three squadrons sent at the same place during the same time, and that was how it happened.
As for sending the planes to Egipt, my take is that Axis tanks were not parked at the surface of Atlantic, nor the Indian ocean - that can confirm the Spitfires delivered to Australia._Not at all sure what this means, but my guess is that you are tryiung to say why did they not send massive amounts of Spits overseas......well the main reason was logistical. Put simply, the Spit was a Highly specialised type made for one purpose really, and it did that very well. The hurricanes of 1941-2 were more durable, and more general purpose, plus they were not considered as essential to the main TO. Sending out two or three squadrons in 1941 to Egypt required an enormous effort in terms of shipping, something in very short supply. sending out specialised aircraft that cant do two or three things on the same airframe is a luxury unable to be afforded at that time, plus they were not considered necessary anyway, because the hurricanes and curiss aircraft were filling the roles quite adequately anyway.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2011)

> parsifal said:
> 
> 
> > Clarifying on spitfire deployment to australia, i would reccommend the following link plus the AWM archives, both of which contain a great deal of information on this issue. I cant locate the AWM links, but here is the link to the ADF serials site:
> ...


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 22, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> > > Thanks for the information. Hence it took 10 months to ship Spitfires from GB to down under.
> >
> >
> > Only if you say that, the moment Pearl Harbour was attacked, everyone knew that Australia was in danger, which is manifestly untrue. Three Squadrons left the U.K. at the beginning of June, and took three months, by sea, to arrive; they arrived without aircraft, because they'd been "borrowed," at Capetown, and sent up the the Med, so the Australians had to wait for a second delivery to arrive. They became operational at the end of November, and scored their first success on February 6th.
> > ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2011)

> Only if you say that, the moment Pearl Harbour was attacked, everyone knew that Australia was in danger, which is manifestly untrue.



I agree with that. OTOH, British forces have experienced the swift loss of Malaya Singapore, but it was not until September 1943 for Spits to fly 1st combat sorties in CBI.



> Three Squadrons left the U.K. at the beginning of June, and took three months, by sea, to arrive; they arrived without aircraft, because they'd been "borrowed," at Capetown, and sent up the the Med, so the Australians had to wait for a second delivery to arrive. They became operational at the end of November, and scored their first success on February 6th.



I see - after the 1st 'delivery', it was 3 additional months for another shipment to be sent. Something to applaud? 



> The VIII was never deployed in Europe (unless you count the invasion of Italy,) and did not enter service (first in the Med) until Spring 1943, with Australia getting their first on January 6th., 1944; April 1943 - January 1944 does not = 18 months, or didn't when I went to school.



I stand corrected.



> When you're trying to draw the enemy into combat, you don't stake out a sacrificial lamb for him to kill. Leigh-Mallory could never see the folly of sending fighter pilots to their deaths, in the useless "Rhubarbs." It took the likes of Johnson to get it stopped.
> Stalin was always complaining, but, when Rolls-Royce representatives went to see how their engines were coping, they found them tipped out into the mud, and the Russians using the crates to live in.



Seems we agree about useless 'Rhubarbs'.



> [about RAF/Allies having a better bet than Hurricane]
> In 1941/42, name it.



Spitfire.



> In hindsight, yes, but, at the time, what choice did they have, leave the whole battlefield to the enemy?



Johnson got it right, so I'll take his words for it.



> [about Spits in Egypt in 1941]
> We already have; they had to be tropicalised



That's pretty weak answer.



> Even Luftwaffe bombers were known to jettison their loads when attacked, so that argument leads nowhere. Hurricanes could carry 2 x 250lb bombs under the wings, with 1 x 500lb under the fuselage; I have no idea of the range, but the armies were quite close enough in the desert, and over the Imphal ridge, for range not to matter very much.



Even a fighter that carries bombs needs air superiority, or parity at least, to accomplish the bombing raid. Placement of one's own airstrip near to the front line doesn't seem like a good idea, if one is up against an enemy that posseses bigger assets, since the airfield can be attacked even with fighter planes. 
A bombing party that needs 1 trained pilot per 1000 lbs of bombs doesn't stand up well in comparison vs. a bombing party that needs 1 pilot for each 3000lbs of bombs carried (= proper bombers). A proper bomber can be flown from airstrips further away from battlefield; a converted fighter hardly can.
Last, but not least: where were Hurribomber's pilots leaving their radiators, while taking off with under-fuselage bomb?



> You know, this hijacking of the Whirlwind thread should really stop.



Agreed.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 23, 2011)

Anyone fancy a full size replica Westland Whirlwind? www.gateguardsuk.com 
(see news/updates)


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 23, 2011)

I realise, now, that nothing, that I say, will be believed, after getting one item wrong.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2011)

Yul asked and now I'm ordering: Get back on topic before this gets ugly. If you want to argue the merits of Hurricane deliveries to the rest of the world, please start another thread.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin agreed to deal with Germany first, so the air forces concentrated on Europe



Expecting of Stalin to turn vs. Japan in 1941-44 is non-starter anyway.
USAAC is deploying many units into SWP, from early 1942 (to say nothing about USN USMC).
The true will of the UK to go all-out vs. Germany is in collision with a declaration claiming UK will leave Med in case of a threat vs. Australia. Hurricanes are arriving into CBI, from January 1942.
So, while there really was a 'Germany first' grand strategy agreed, that hardly meant it was in 100% effect, along with an inability of one of members to do something else anyway.



> Two months, actually; I said that they became operational at the end of November, while the RAAF took delivery of them on the 8th. (meaning, of course, that they arrived in port before that date.) It would be interesting to see how you could get a second delivery of Spitfires dismantled, crated up, organise a convoy, and sufficient escorts (with the originals still on their way to Australia) in much less than the 2 months that it actually took (to arrive two months after the first convoy, the second must have been already on its way.)



Then we have a situation of left hand not knowing what right hand is doing - Spits allocated for Australia are sent to the NA (a month after they've left UK). Was that with the blessing from RAF/whomever? If it was, when were Aussies informed, plus, was the another batch being made ready for shipment as soon as the decision was taken to re-route the planes?



> Which couldn't carry bombs, remember?



1st, it could, remeber?
2nd, my remark about a 'better bet' was directed for parsifal's comment (not yours):

_The allies throughout 1940-41 were suffering heavy attrition for all types, in all TOs. Hurricanes, Spitfires, or any other allied type were not exempt from that problem._



> That's because I don't like having to repeat myself; Marks I II couldn't carry the extra fuel  oil needed to get into Egypt (or Malta,) and the only Spitfires with large oil tanks were the tropicalised Vb Vc, which also needed the filters to cope with the sand.



So, despite arriving in Egypt by the sea, they needed increased fuel oil to arrive there? 
Again, I was asking parsifal about the particularies of sening the Spits in 1941, in Egypt 



> [about planes needing air superiority, or at least parity in air to make a succesful bombing raid]
> No, it doesn't; it needs a determined, skillful (and, at times, lucky) pilot



The RAF bomber crews tried that in 1939-40, LW tried that in BoB, B-17s tried that in 1942-43, VVS in 1941-42. We all know how that ended. 
Now, there was instances when bombers 'got through', but relying on it every time is not something good for one's health in the war time.



> A bomb on a desert airfield just makes a (refillable) hole in acres of sand; even the Luftwaffe, with all their resources in 1940, only put one U.K. airfield completely out of action for one day



A bomb on a French airport (or a strafing run by a well-performing fighter unit) ruins a day for all those Amiots, LeOs, Potez etc - who cares about dirt or grass? . 
Fighter Command airports were not at the front line, and Luftwaffe was barely having parity in fighters in BoB. RAF was outnumbered in CBI in 1942.
RAF had radars in BoB, but close to none in CBI in 1942, so the attack on the airport can easily pay off.



> How many single-seat aircraft could carry a 3,000lb bomb-load?



Plenty of them, but I did not say 'single-seat aircraft' when saying a' proper bomber'.



> _Last, but not least: where were Hurribomber's pilots leaving their radiators, while taking off with under-fuselage bomb?_
> Behind the bomb, but, admittedly, they usually kept to the wing bombs.



That way the UC can't be retracted, even if we remove the inboard wheel covers in order to make space for a bomb:
http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/Hurricane%20GA1.jpg


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2011)

Njaco, sorry for posting the last post, I was typing it when you've make the order.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 23, 2011)

No worries. I thought that was the case. 

Its just I can see things starting to o downhill. You guys are making a good discussion but it really shouldn't be in this thread.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 24, 2011)

brewerjerry said:


> Hi
> Now i did see a sketch around about the late 70's of something, i will try to see if I can find it over the weekend.
> cheers
> Jerry


The Welkin was designed to Specification 4/40, issued in July 1940, which called for a pressurised high altitude fighter, armed with 6 x 20mm cannon, able to reach 450 mph at 25,000 ft and was preferably to be powered by Rolls-Royce RM.65Ms (later Merlin 60s) using two-stage, two-speed superchargers [Interesting to note that R-R was already developing the Merlin with this supercharger]. At first the P-14 closely resembled the Whirlwind, including using some parts, but the idea of using any Whirlwind parts was rejected and the P 14 which became the Welkin only bore a family resemblance. Design go-ahead was given on 19 January 1941 and the first prototype first flew 1 November 1942. (4+ Publication, Westland Welkin F.Mk I, N.F Mk. II, (2005) p. 1.)


----------



## NZTyphoon (Oct 24, 2011)

yulzari said:


> To return to the subject of the thread.... I recall that the Napier Dagger was a contender for a Peregrine alternative as well as the Taurus. The MKVIII was a close match and it's weight of 100kg more dry matching the installed weight (ie with radiators, cooling fluid etc.) of the Peregrine. What do folk think of the merits of a Dagger Whirlwind? From what I can find about service use of the Dagger, it needed more maintenance and pilot training and served effectively in the well trained Auxiliary Air Force squadron Hectors but less well in wartime recruited Hereford squadrons.



As far as I can see the Dagger was never considered by the Air Ministry when framing Specification F37/35 which led to development of the Whirwind: there was some thought given to redeveloping Rolls-Royce engines to incorporate a 'moteur-cannon', but this was rejected very quickly. The Dagger was fitted to the Martin-Baker MB 2, but only because it was offered to M-B by Napier, not because the Air Ministry wanted the engine to be used in a fighter.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 24, 2011)

I too doubt of the Air Ministry suggested Daggers but it has been mentioned somewhere that it was considered by Petter when looking for Peregrine alternatives. It was a production engine that gave similar power and would free up the inner wing radiators etc. for further fuel tankage. On 100 octane and reasonable boost 1,000bhp would not be unreachable. 

On a WI basis I could see an armoured cockpit where the cannons now are and twin 40mm cannon and ammunition in place of the pilot to balance the CofG to give an aircooled ground attack version with 2,000 bhp in 1941.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 24, 2011)

Apparently in Herefords the noise that Daggers made was almost unbearable! They also suffered from cooling problems, so pushing for 1000hp may have been a problem


----------



## wuzak (Oct 24, 2011)

I would say that before the war that the Exe may have been a better air cooled alternative. Certainly heavier than a Dagger (I think), but also more power potential. The Exe was 180lb heavier, but was 5l (320ci) larger in capacity and had a power rating of 1150hp.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 24, 2011)

The Exe was barely more than a project while the Dagger was in production. Yes it was noisier (less so with projected ejector exhausts) but the cooling issues were ones manageable with pilot training and better pilot notes. Mind you, groundcrews (RAuxAF and Irish) hated maintaining them. It was a doable project in a feasible time frame. If the Whirwind had gone Napier from the beginning RR could have made more Merlins and Fairey could have their preferred twin engined Battle: even with Defiant turrets and Defiants as conventional fighters. Win win all round; with 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 24, 2011)

Hi
On 12 june 1938 the chief of air staff, had discussions about re engining the whirlwind to release the peregrines for bomber use, the engines suggested were Dagger E.108 and Bristol Taurus, info from "interceptor fighters by MJF Bowyer.
Cheers
Jerry


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 24, 2011)

yulzari said:


> The Exe was barely more than a project while the Dagger was in production. Yes it was noisier (less so with projected ejector exhausts) but the cooling issues were ones manageable with pilot training and better pilot notes. Mind you, groundcrews (RAuxAF and Irish) hated maintaining them. It was a doable project in a feasible time frame. If the Whirwind had gone Napier from the beginning RR could have made more Merlins and Fairey could have their preferred twin engined Battle: even with Defiant turrets and Defiants as conventional fighters. Win win all round; with 20/20 hindsight.



Some of these points are arguable. It's a bit hard to swallow that the Dagger would have been an acceptable fighter powerplant, despite whether it was recommended officially for the Whirlwind or not. Its growth potential was limited for starters, hence why Halford went on to design the Sabre; an altogether bigger and more powerful engine (although no less complex) designed for high altitude fighter aircraft. I would imagine that as such a high running engine (4000 rpm) the Dagger would not respond well to rapid and frequent power changes that a fighter's engine would have to deal with. Like fitting the Jumo to the Bf 109 by the Czechs - it's not a fighter engine; it liked constant speed at altitude. In the Dagger VIII, 24 cylinders is a heck of a lot to produce 955 hp. I don't know whether it would have changed anything if it _had_ been fitted to the Whirlwind; perhaps made things worse for the twin-engined fighter?

Twin engined Battle? Hmmm, if it were employed as a day bomber it's fate would not have been any different, methinks. Look at the Bristol Blenheim; a willing work horse, but in performance and capability, it was overshadowed by more advanced types, not to mention a less than stirling combat career in its day bomber role over France. Many of the Blenheim units were re-equipped with American supplied Douglas Bostons and Mitchells, and Mosquitoes - 105 Sqn, the first Mossie unit operated Blenheims previously. As a twin engined fighter, as I've mentioned in an earlier thread, one possible reason why the Whirlwind didn't continue in production was that the Beaufighter and Mosquito were both excelling as multi role aircraft.

A Defiant without a turret? BP's P.88 cannon armed fighter designed to Specification F.37/35, to which the Westland Whirlwind was designed.

In reality the Whirlwind could not become the aircraft that we all would have liked it to have become, simply because of its design; it was too small and lightly constructed. The Beaufighter and Mosquito could do what its designers hoped a Whirlwind with a different powerplant and redesign would have done.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2011)

> nuuumannn said:
> 
> 
> > Twin engined Battle? Hmmm, if it were employed as a day bomber it's fate would not have been any different, methinks. Look at the Bristol Blenheim; a willing work horse, but in performance and capability, it was overshadowed by more advanced types, not to mention a less than stirling combat career in its day bomber role over France. Many of the Blenheim units were re-equipped with American supplied Douglas Bostons and Mitchells, and Mosquitoes - 105 Sqn, the first Mossie unit operated Blenheims previously. As a twin engined fighter, as I've mentioned in an earlier thread, one possible reason why the Whirlwind didn't continue in production was that the Beaufighter and Mosquito were both excelling as multi role aircraft.
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> Wonder what would happen if Fairey developed a plane with two engines, with wing area span akin to Battle, featuring 4 belly cannons (second crew member replacing the empty drums) - a RAF's BF-110 for 1940? And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?



If developed from the Battle it would have been a dog. Knowledge of aerodynamics was increasing almost by the month (OK a bit of an exaggeration) But Fairly would have to build an entirely new airplane. The Battle carried a pair of 250lb bombs INSIDE each wing root. It made a Hurricane's wing look thin. If you make the wing thinner you not only need new ribs for a new airfoil you need to redo the entire structure ( a thick wing is also stronger than a thin wing) meaning redoing the spars. A Airplane that looks something like a previous airplane doesn't really shorten up the design time. And you need to get the engines from somewhere. With more Merlins or Hercules engines going to this "new" Fairey it just means fewer engines for Beaufighters and Mosquitos for no net gain in available aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 26, 2011)

The engines must indeed come from somewhere. Considering that just Defiant and Battle themselves consumed some 3000, before end of 1940, it does not seem that there was a shortage of Merlins for RAF. Of course, with no production Peregrines needed, that engine gets shelved even faster, so RR can build more Merlins.

The Fairey twin engined plane, with wing sized as of Battle's, is no more a dog than it's Bf-110 or Beaufighter. The hull cross section has less area than Beau. Perhaps the Fulmar-sized plane (= DH Hornet sized plane), but with two engines, might've been a better peformer?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2011)

It is not just wing area but the airfoil. just like the Hurricanes thicker wing and the Typhoons thick wing limited performance. The Thick wing gave good lift at low speed, great for short take offs and landings (and needed for a single engine bomber) but wasn't so good for making a fighter. Once you need a new wing and a new nose/cockpit area and a bigger tail to counter act the larger area forward and the extra power there is darn little of the "Battle" left. With something like 300 Peregrines built killing it off sooner barely makes a blip in Merlin Production figures. 

Fairly fuselage may not have been quite as small as you think. 

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...taways/images/10579/fairey-battle-cutaway.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4478979676_1811cffe1c.jpg

Granted with double the power it would have better performance than as a single but it was never going to be a high perormance fighter without a new wing.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 27, 2011)

Hi Tomo,

It seems that the suggestion of a twin Fairey Battle 'look-a-like' might have come to fruition, had Fairey been awarded a contract to specification S.6/43 for a shore based torpedo bomber. The Fairey design superficially resembles the Battle, as most of Marcel Lobelle's aircraft bore a distinctive appearance. Several incarnations were planned to meet the specification, based on surviving drawings. This doesn't suggest that it was a derivative of the Battle, however, and I have to agree with shortround6's post about a twin-engined Battle being a dog. 



> And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?



I don't understand why these types would need to be 'freed from night fighter duties'. This was a vital role throughout the war, as the British never built a purpose built night fighter, so these two aircraft in that role were essential, since throughout the war the Germans were carrying out night raids against the UK. 



> Perhaps Westland was better to propose the single-engined, cannon-armed fighter, later to be adopted by FAA 'stead of Sea Hurricane Seafire?



Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.

To these specifications, the Blackburn Firebrand was selected as the naval fighter and the Firefly to the turret fighter proposal, but obviously missing something! Actually both these specs were reissued as N.5/40 to which both types were built.


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 27, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> ....
> Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.


 
Hi,
Is it possible to post a drawing or a reference to these as the ideas interest me very much, or even a web link.
I once read that westland tried to sell the whirlwind to the RN/FAA but met with no success, I never found info on the N.8/39 project.
cheers
Jerry


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not just wing area but the airfoil. just like the Hurricanes thicker wing and the Typhoons thick wing limited performance. The Thick wing gave good lift at low speed, great for short take offs and landings (and needed for a single engine bomber) but wasn't so good for making a fighter. Once you need a new wing and a new nose/cockpit area and a bigger tail to counter act the larger area forward and the extra power there is darn little of the "Battle" left.



I've proposed a plane "with wing area span akin to Battle", just for a size comparison. But anyway, the Fulmar's wing hull have smaller cross section, so for a true fighter that makes more sense.



> With something like 300 Peregrines built killing it off sooner barely makes a blip in Merlin Production figures.



With real Battle killed off after, say, 500th copy, thats 1500 Merlins for a twin engined plane Fairey can build (be it Battle- or Fulmar-sized), in dark days of 1939-40. Along with what's saved on non-production of Peregrines. 



> Fairly fuselage may not have been quite as small as you think.
> 
> http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...taways/images/10579/fairey-battle-cutaway.jpg
> 
> ...



A "Twin Battle" could be of size drag something between BF-110 Beaufighter, at least my sketch suggest so (attached); the Beaufighter's wing was pretty tick, too. 



nuuumannn said:


> Hi Tomo,
> 
> It seems that the suggestion of a twin Fairey Battle 'look-a-like' might have come to fruition, had Fairey been awarded a contract to specification S.6/43 for a shore based torpedo bomber. The Fairey design superficially resembles the Battle, as most of Marcel Lobelle's aircraft bore a distinctive appearance. Several incarnations were planned to meet the specification, based on surviving drawings. This doesn't suggest that it was a derivative of the Battle, however, and I have to agree with shortround6's post about a twin-engined Battle being a dog.



It depends about what other dog is our "Twin Battle' compared with. Would a Battle-sized, twin-Merlin plane, been any worse than a contemporary Ju-88? 



> I don't understand why these types would need to be 'freed from night fighter duties'. This was a vital role throughout the war, as the British never built a purpose built night fighter, so these two aircraft in that role were essential, since throughout the war the Germans were carrying out night raids against the UK.



The point in 'freeing' is that more Mossies can be used as bombers and PR, while Beaufighter can be devoted to it's ground/surface attack duties. That assumes RAF has a twin capable to carry 2-3 crew members and heavy armament from early 1939 (8 LMGS then), with AI radar when that becomes reality (summer 1940?), while offering substantially better performance than NF Blenheim of 1940. Of course, from late 1940 it could've used Merlin 20 series (shelving Defiant after 500 copies can speed up delivery of Merlins here), and 60 series from 1943. 



> Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.
> 
> To these specifications, the Blackburn Firebrand was selected as the naval fighter and the Firefly to the turret fighter proposal, but obviously missing something! Actually both these specs were reissued as N.5/40 to which both types were built.



Boy, from 1939 to Firebrand is such a long way 
I was thinking about a non-folding wing 'Sea Whirly' single-engined (Merlin aboard) plane in service in mid 1941, and wing folding introduced in late 1942 - early 1943. Whirlwind was equipped with both Fowler flaps and slats - right now I can't remember any other plane having such a set of high-lift devices fitted simultaneously. Plus, a 360 deg field of view and retracting tail wheel from day one. A preliminary sketch is attached.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 27, 2011)

To slightly champion the Dagger. They existed in production so it could be done before the war. With an H24 each part is lighter, so there is no reason to think a Dagger should be worse at throttle response than a V12. The Sabre was 2,000+bhp. The Dagger ran on 87 octane. One can raise the boost on 100 octane so we would be looking at 1,000+ bhp giving us a 2,000+bhp fighter from 1939. Extra power needs extra fuel and the projected inner wing tanks would only maintain endurance. The knock on possibilities I mentioned are a pipe dream but a Dagger Whirlwind was feasible. Drop tanks were well within 1939 technology as was the 40mm Vicker S gun and two would have gone in the existing nose.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2011)

Mounting the fuel tanks at the places previously occupied by radiators doubles the fuel tankage, so a good air-cooled engine would've the best choice for Whirly IMO.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 27, 2011)

As far as a twin engined Battle is concerned, they were being made anyway so any improvement has to help. Effectively we are getting a Beaufighter (ie a Merlin/Hercules Beaufort) 2 years earlier: but we digress.

While I think of it, Handley Page used Daggers as Pegasus alternatives so they saw them as 1.000bhp alternatives.

Apologies for the 40mm cannon hobby horse but I am amazed by their accuracy for GA as described to me some years ago by a chap who used them with HE rounds in Burma in 1945.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 27, 2011)

40mm looks so appealing for a twin-engined plane


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 27, 2011)

brewerjerry said:


> Hi,
> Is it possible to post a drawing or a reference to these as the ideas interest me very much, or even a web link.
> I once read that westland tried to sell the whirlwind to the RN/FAA but met with no success, I never found info on the N.8/39 project.
> cheers
> Jerry



Hi Jerry, I got my info straight from Tony Butttttler's excellent resource "British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950. (ISBN 1 85780 179 2) The book has illustrations that show single seat designs as sketches, rather than in layout. Certainly not derivatives of the Whirlwind. You might want to try contacting Agusta Westland, or the FAA Museum, who might have further information.

Try also these guys:

Secret Projects Forum - Index


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 27, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> 40mm looks so appealing for a twin-engined plane


 
Hi
There was a contract issued for a new nose for the whirlwind with 40mm cannon, but apparently shortly after the contract was placed it was cancelled.
cheers jerry


----------



## brewerjerry (Oct 27, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Hi Jerry, I got my info straight from Tony Butttttler's excellent resource "British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950. (ISBN 1 85780 179 2) The book has illustrations that show single seat designs as sketches, rather than in layout. Certainly not derivatives of the Whirlwind. You might want to try contacting Agusta Westland, or the FAA Museum, who might have further information.
> 
> Try also these guys:
> 
> Secret Projects Forum - Index



Hi 
many thanks I will look that book out.
cheers
Jerry


----------



## yulzari (Oct 31, 2011)

Thinking about Peregrine alternatives; the Merlin and Taurus are frequently considered and we have spoken of the Dagger. Casting about for a UK engine in production in period what about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger? 

An enlarged Jaguar of similar weight to the Dagger but twice the capacity with a 2 speed supercharger. Superceded by the Merlin for Whitleys but with a production line. An issue is reliability but Jaguars were used for years so it shouldn't be too hard to remedy that?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2011)

Tiger was a two-speed engine, so that makes it a good candidate for a fighter engine? The output on 100 octane should increase at least some 15% vs. on 87 oct, under full throttle heights, of course.
If someone can toss some info about the Tiger (other than what Wiki says), then please do so


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2011)

The Tiger was a bit of a dog. First out in 1932 it was still troublesome 5-7 years latter. Any attempt to use higher boost with 100 octane fuel is likely to break the engine. Even with 87 octane it was rated at 2.5lbs boost for take-off and 0.5lbs at full throttle at 6750ft in low gear and 14,250ft in high gear. A Bristol Pegasus could use about 0.5lbs LESS than a Merlin on 87 octane. The BIG failing was it used a two main bearing crankshaft. NO main bearing between the two crank throws. This worked with the smaller, lower powered Panther and it worked (?) on the Gnome-Rhone 14 series ( and the Russian M-88 ) but look at their power outputs and how far they got "improving" them during WW II. The High powered G-R 14R engine was a total redesign with a a 3 main bearing crankshaft and crank case. Increasing the boost(pressure in the cylinders) will just lead to more crankshaft flex and earlier failure in the Tiger, assuming the cylinders could get rid of the increased heat. Air cooled engines didn't always show the same increase as liquid cooled ones with better fuel.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 31, 2011)

OK. We have tried the Merlin, Taurus, Dagger and Tiger. How about the Mercury? Peregrine power on 87 octane, reliable and in production. Wanted for Blenheims but this is becoming less important just as the Peregrine is being shut down. Lighter weight than the Peregrine and quite suitable for tropical service. Maybe the weight saved could go into increased armour for a GA role.

Essentially we are seeking a sound, available production engine in the 850 to 1,100 bhp class. Ideally air cooled to free up inner wing space for fuel.

Peregrine is going out of production.
Merlin is in too high a demand (we now know Petter was able to fit it.)
Taurus is otherwise wanted for Albacores and Beauforts.
Tiger is too unreliable.
Mercury can be available but at the end of it's development.
I have to go with the Dagger. Available, useable and with development potential.

Keeping within period practical constraints; I can see the Whirlwind re-roled as a ground attack type that can defend itself at low level. With upgraded armour and low level optimised Dagger engines. 4 x 20mm cannon replaced by twin 40mm using HE rounds and a pure tracer .303 aiming gun. I could be persuaded to drop one cannon for more ammunition if Martin Baker coud adapt them for belt feed. 

Inner wing fuel tanks (with a proper fuel transfer system) and hard points for x2 250 or 500lb bombs or drop tanks give a useable range. Fit for use in North Africa or the Far East. The 40mm cannon would soon be out matched by German armour, (if not Japanese) but the true accuracy of thin case HE rounds would allow really close tactical support and decimate lines of communications with pilots trained and practiced for the role. In a sense we are looking at a 360 to 400 mph Henschel HS129 that does not need air superiority.

Why wait for 1943/4 to have real numbers of Typhoons when you can get the same from 1941 Whirlwinds and gradually wean shadow Hurricane factories onto Whirlwinds. By 1944 Daggers could well be providing 50% more power than 1939.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 31, 2011)

If you go to a radial you would need more power to maintain the performance.

A Tiger has substantially more frontal area than the Peregrine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2011)

frontal area of a Peregrine is 5.0 sq ft. Bristol Mercury is 14.5 sq ft and the Tiger is 14.1 sq. ft. The Tiger is a dead end with out a major redesign. The Mercury has a little stretch left in it but it's streamlining is for crap, Exhaust ports are 
on the front of the cylinders and low drag radial cowlings are several years away. 

The Dagger seems to bit a lacking also, it was only a 1027 cu in engine and while 1000hp was a notable achievement there may have been cooling and reliability problems with the MK VIII. getting another 50% power may be a pipe dream. The Big problem with aircooled engines was keeping them cool. Overhead cams take up valuable cooling fin space on the heads and more and better finning was needed everywhere on the radials that did show big increases in power with 100/130 fuel and higher. It also weighed as much or slightly more than an early Merlin but of course had no radiators. But radiators can be mounted on or just to the rear of the CG to help balance things. Increase side area of bigger nacelles forward may require bigger tail surfaces or extended fuselage to counteract. Possible but more work and more delay. 

Changing 96 spark plugs was also going to be a real joy.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 1, 2011)

The essence of Halford's philosophy for the Dagger was that there were better returns from running the engine twice as fast as having it twice as big. He also saw it as a complete unit; a power egg as the Merlin package became called. Development would have followed a different route to conventional types. Yes higher boost but also higher revs. Yes it would need more cooling (That is why the Spitfire MkIX has 2 radiators and MkV 1.) But more air is no heavier even if it incurs more drag. I acknowledge the oil cooling demand would also rise. 

My preference for the Dagger is that it could have been done at the time. It really was possible. A 100 octane Dagger is well capable of 1,000bhp but even an 850 bhp one matches the Peregrine. It would be better if it could be developed even further but we could still have a 2,000bhp fighter in 1941, even 1940 if decisions were taken early enough. 

If a Peregrine Whirlwind can (just) reach Antwerp then a Dagger one with drop tanks can reach into Germany (albeit not far). In 1939, when planning assumed RAF bases striking from France, this would be a daylight fighter escort that can reach past the Ruhr. Forget the leading motorised Panzer Divisions. 

The bulk of the German army was horse drawn for logistics and artillery. Low level Battles and Blenheims, with Whirlwind provided local air superiority, can isolate the blitzkreig divisions from their support. Let alone cannon/bomb Whirwinds performing their own GA missions. 

France did not fall with Dunkirk. The French army fought for weeks thereafter and British forces were still being pumped in through the North West together with French troops extracted from Dunkirk. Without rear support the German advanced would have stalled and a stable front develop and with that French morale and will to fight would have strengthened. Yes the BEF was a tiny portion of the Allied armies (even if the RAF was a far greater player in the air war) but the Germans could not have left their whole northern flank exposed if the Pas de Calais region were free to mount a counter attack.

However, reigning back the imagination, my point is that it was perfectly possible for the Whirlwind to have remained in production and been worth the resources. If Dagger production was limited then shadow produce Mercury Whirlwinds and Westland produce Dagger Whirlwinds. 

Dagger Whirlifighters and Mercury Whirlibombers? Who needs Battles and Spitfires? Ah, 20/20 hindsight vision!


----------



## Njaco (Nov 1, 2011)

yulzari said:


> OK. We have tried the Merlin, Taurus, Dagger and Tiger. How about the Mercury? Peregrine power on 87 octane, reliable and in production. Wanted for Blenheims but this is becoming less important just as the Peregrine is being shut down. Lighter weight than the Peregrine and quite suitable for tropical service. Maybe the weight saved could go into increased armour for a GA role.
> 
> Essentially we are seeking a sound, available production engine in the 850 to 1,100 bhp class. Ideally air cooled to free up inner wing space for fuel.
> 
> ...



This sounds like a Westland design committee meeting or exactly what they faced 70 years ago.

Based upon all theses questions and problems at the time and with the aircraft already in operation, was the Whirwind even needed?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2011)

RAF in ww2 never needed 4 cannon (day) fighter - and that was what the Specification called. Hence, Whirlwind was not needed.

What RAF might've used is 'British P-38', or, a 'pre- DH Hornet' - a fighter able to project power at great distance, while having a performance on par with single-engined fighters. So it's just too bad Peter didn't conceive Whirlwind to be slightly bigger, with Merlins aboard from day one.


----------



## brewerjerry (Nov 2, 2011)

Hi
Maybe they should have designed the P-38 around merlins.
Cheers
Jerry


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2011)

yulzari said:


> The essence of Halford's philosophy for the Dagger was that there were better returns from running the engine twice as fast as having it twice as big. He also saw it as a complete unit; a power egg as the Merlin package became called. Development would have followed a different route to conventional types. Yes higher boost but also higher revs. Yes it would need more cooling (That is why the Spitfire MkIX has 2 radiators and MkV 1.) But more air is no heavier even if it incurs more drag. I acknowledge the oil cooling demand would also rise.



Both Friction and stress in the reciprocating parts go up with the square of the speed. One of the reasons that the 1027cu in Dagger weighed close to the 1650 cu in Merlin. It wasn't going to rev much faster, it was already at 4200rpm and a piston speed of 2625fpm. While the piston speed looks low compared to the Merlin the "corrected piston speed" which tries to take into account the size of the pistons give the Merlin a Piston speed of 2846 fpm (instead of 3000fpm) and the Dagger 2681fpm instead of the 2625fpm. Equalling the Psiton speed of the Merlin means about 4450rpm which is only about a 6% increase in airflow (or power) while increasing friction and stress by over 12%.
With cooling marginal (at best) at 1000hp any major increase in power is going to call for a major redesign of the cooling arrangements which include both the finning on the cylinder barrels and the heads. I would note that ANY air cooled radial that showed significant increase in power used redesigned cylinder heads or cylinder barrels or both. The Hercules went through about 5 or more different Cylinder heads, each with improved finning, the Wright Cyclone went through a succession of heads and barrels. Often these new heads and barrels were heavier than the old ones. Radials had more room for the fins to "grow" than an inline engine. 
The Dagger had a full throttle altitude of 8750ft. Change the supercharger gear to one that gave a full throttle height of 15,000ft like the Peregrine and the full power will go down. Or put a low altitude gear into the Peregrine and watch the power go up at low altitude. The Dagger probably gives within a few % of the power of the Peregrine at 15,000ft. 



yulzari said:


> However, reigning back the imagination, my point is that it was perfectly possible for the Whirlwind to have remained in production and been worth the resources. If Dagger production was limited then shadow produce Mercury Whirlwinds and Westland produce Dagger Whirlwinds.
> 
> Dagger Whirlifighters and Mercury Whirlibombers? Who needs Battles and Spitfires? Ah, 20/20 hindsight vision!



Mercury Whirlwinds would be even slower. You want a tank buster with 40mm cannon with Mercury's? Just take the Blenheim, clip the wings a bit, ditch the turret and hang a pair of 40mms under the fuselage.


----------



## brewerjerry (Nov 5, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> ....
> Mercury Whirlwinds would be even slower. You want a tank buster with 40mm cannon with Mercury's?
> .....


 
Hi 
Sounds a bit like a HS 129,they were reasonably successful.
cheers
Jerry


----------

