# Westland Whirlwind revisited



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2015)

An invitation to the discussion about the realistic limits of the design and plausible changes upgrades for it.


----------



## rogerwilko (Jan 23, 2015)

My favourite underdog plane. I don't mind revisiting. Apparently Merlins couldn't be fitted so that killed off performance improvements. I have never seen a clear concise reason why they couldn't be fitted though. Weight?


----------



## stona (Jan 23, 2015)

rogerwilko said:


> My favourite underdog plane. I don't mind revisiting. Apparently Merlins couldn't be fitted so that killed off performance improvements. I have never seen a clear concise reason why they couldn't be fitted though. Weight?



Just a very major alteration either to the engine or the nacelle and undercarriage of the Whirlwind. The up draught carburettor of the Merlin needed space at the lower back of the nacelles occupied by the main undercarriage attachments. It was never deemed worth the effort. 

Around the same time it was pointed out that the Whirlwind would require two engines to lift four 20mm cannon, the same as the proposed "Hawker fighter" (which would become the Typhoon) could using one. The delays in the Typhoon production were not anticipated. 

The MAP also came up with figures showing that the Whirlwind required more than 50% more materiel than a Spitfire in its production. Combined with the Whirlwind and Westland's production and reliability problems (poor quality control, slats, tail wheel, armament, intake ducts, cockpit &c) this all made the decision to cancel the Whirlwind, whilst using up parts already made and Peregrines already at least partly assembled, in a limited run, fairly easy.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## herman1rg (Jan 23, 2015)

I think the problem with adding RR Merlins to the Whirlwind would be you end up with what is pretty much the de Havilland Hornet


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2015)

Problem with adding Merlins is that Whirly was a rather small aircraft - wing area between Spitfire and Hurricane (granted, those were the biggest 1-engine fighters when introduced). If we end up with 'early Hornet', after substantial modifications are undertaken, that is not a problem, but contrary 



stona said:


> ...
> Around the same time it was pointed out that the Whirlwind would require two engines to lift four 20mm cannon, the same as the proposed "Hawker fighter" (which would become the Typhoon) could using one. The delays in the Typhoon production were not anticipated.



With a bit of imagination, the Typhoon/Tornado were using 'almost' 2 engines, namely one 24 cylinder engine per aircraft. 



> The MAP also came up with figures showing that the Whirlwind required more than 50% more materiel than a Spitfire in its production. Combined with the Whirlwind and Westland's production and reliability problems (poor quality control, slats, tail wheel, armament, intake ducts, cockpit &c) this all made the decision to cancel the Whirlwind, whilst using up parts already made and Peregrines already at least partly assembled, in a limited run, fairly easy.



Hmm - how much material it used, when compared with future 4-cannon fighter (Typhoon/Tornado)? 
While not without faults, the Whirly was a far better 4-cannon fighter than Hurricane, and 4-cannon Spitfire was never much loved.
Not trying to start a fight with you, Steve, just asking

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 23, 2015)

I wonder if the Merlin XX supercharger could have been adapted to the Peregrine, giving 2 speeds and, surely, a much higher FTH (in either gear).

With a bit of development the Peregrine should be able to rev faster than the Merlin - 3200rpm or so.


----------



## rogerwilko (Jan 23, 2015)

I wonder if Eric Brown tested one? Wonder what he thought of them?


----------



## GregP (Jan 23, 2015)

Here's a shot of Harald Penrose (chief pilot for Westland) climbing past a Lysander photo plane ...

Reactions: Like Like:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## rogerwilko (Jan 24, 2015)

Great!


----------



## stona (Jan 24, 2015)

Tomo, no matter how you choose to spin it you will only ever count one engine on a Typhoon, just as the AM/MAP did 

The Typhoon was eventually a much better aeroplane than the Whirlwind and we have the benefit of hindsight not granted to those making the decisions in 1940. The Hawker fighter was expected sooner than it actually arrived.

The men at the MAP actually under estimated the extra materiel required to build the Whirlwind compared to the Spitfire. I don't have the figures to hand at the moment as I'm in Metz and they are in Birmingham! 

When a bean counter gets the idea that something can be done more economically and to at least as good effect he is very hard to convince otherwise. Some things never change 

Nice picture Greg!
Though I don't think the Whirlwind ever had a future, with or without the Peregrine engine after the axe fell successively I do think it was a good looking aeroplane. It wasn't the fighter the AM/RAF were looking for in 1940/41.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2015)

The trouble with comparing a Whirlwind to a Typhoon is that you are comparing a plane pretty much frozen in 1940 to a 1942 airplane. A bit like comparing a MK I Spitfire to a MK V allowed to use 16lbs boost. (Lets forget about the two stage Merlin.)

And 1942 Typhoons had a number of small problems (for now lets ignore the troubles with Sabre and the tails falling off) that often held speed down to 380-390mph. 

As far as one engine vs two, I guess it depends on who you talk to, the AM/MAP or the fitters who had change the total of 48 spark plugs on each plane 
Granted there were twice the number of prop hubs and other things that needed attention. 

The Whirlwind never got a MK II version (or even a Ia) so some things never got corrected. Likewise there was never a Peregrine II or a Ia or????

Edit ( there may have been a MK II Peregrine but I don't know what the difference was, point is there was never an official uprating of the engine aside from perhaps a higher boost limit at low altitude) 

Typhoons went through Sabre IIs, IIAs and in 1944 IIBs and four bladed props. 

With hindsight one can say the perhaps the Sabre and Typhoon were a lot of wasted effort and that perhaps the Whirlwind should have been given a chance but in 1939/40 developing 21 liter engines was seen as a dead-end.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2015)

The AM/RAF were looking for a 4-cannon fighter for quite a time, starting with that idea pre-war and ending after Korean war  The Whirly was the 1st to offer that, among with Beaufighter of course. Hurricane IIC was a bit late in this (late 1941), and it was offering lower performance than Whirlwind. 
Too bad the AM/RAF were not thinking like this: lets pursue with Whirlwind even after we get a number of Typhoon/Tornado fighters, since those will replace the Hurricanes 1st? As far as bean counters - the aircraft are piloted by pilots. Putting a pilot in a lesser plane will not just have that pilot will more likely get killed, but it will not accomplish the mission. 
The bean counters have had no problems ordering paying for US-produced fighters, that in 1940-41 did not have anything above the Whirly, bar the combat radius for the P-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2015)

wuzak said:


> I wonder if the Merlin XX supercharger could have been adapted to the Peregrine, giving 2 speeds and, surely, a much higher FTH (in either gear).
> 
> With a bit of development the Peregrine should be able to rev faster than the Merlin - 3200rpm or so.



The supercharger from the Merlin 45 should've also worked, resulting at power vs. altitude not far away from Merlin III?


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2015)

What the Whirlwind could have filled the one glaring gap the RAF had and that was a decent GA aircraft. Development and production should have progressed in that area. Development did to a degree but production didn't and when I think of the resources wasted on aircraft developments that went nowhere and were never going to go anywhere, It was a tragic wasted opportunity.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 24, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The supercharger from the Merlin 45 should've also worked, resulting at power vs. altitude not far away from Merlin III?




I think that if you can increase the rpm then the power would probably be more than a III, somewhat closer to a 45.

And it should have a higher FTH than the 45.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2015)

If the RPM can reliably easlily go above 3000 rpm. I don't believe that Peregrine was that a bad engine, judging by it's long service, but neither was known as a rock-solid engine like Merlin. Granted, small pistons, with reasonably small stroke should allow for increase in RPM, like it was planed for the Vulture.



Glider said:


> What the Whirlwind could have filled the one glaring gap the RAF had and that was a decent GA aircraft. Development and production should have progressed in that area. Development did to a degree but production didn't and when I think of the resources wasted on aircraft developments that went nowhere and were never going to go anywhere, It was a tragic wasted opportunity.



Stick two radials and there it is? Two 2pdr canons in nose, plus some bombs/rockets.
Deletion of buried coolers allows for double fuel tankage. As would relocation of the radiators in the chin position, for versions that retain V-12 power.


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> If
> 
> Stick two radials and there it is? Two 2pdr canons in nose, plus some bombs/rockets.
> Deletion of buried coolers allows for double fuel tankage. As would relocation of the radiators in the chin position, for versions that retain V-12 power.


It didn't even need the changes, just more production. More fuel to add to the range and the GA requirement is filled. This would give the RAF time to sort out the Typhoon and reduce the requirement to use the Hurricane in the GA role. Think of the advantage of the Whirlwind in the Middle and far east. The JAAF would have found the Whirlwind a real handful, just as it is.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 24, 2015)

Just skimming through the data, the Whirly should be besting the Oscar and early Zeros, and equal later Zeros, Ki 44s and Ki-61. That is without development, 1940 aircraft vs. second half of 1942 and on.

Maybe someone could post some data how good/bad the Whirlwind fared vs. LW opposition?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2015)

Glider said:


> What the Whirlwind could have filled the one glaring gap the RAF had and that was a decent GA aircraft. Development and production should have progressed in that area. Development did to a degree but production didn't and when I think of the resources wasted on aircraft developments that went nowhere and were never going to go anywhere, It was a tragic wasted opportunity.



Westland's own Lysander for one. Aside from agent "dropping" which came late in it's life, it was a rather dismal failure in most of it's designed roles. Not that it was Westland's fault, most or all Air forces were over specifying the the short range recon, army "co-operation" aircraft at the time, German Hs 126, American O-47, a variety of french air-craft (including twins).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 24, 2015)

Channel Dash


No. 137 Squadron's worst losses were to be on 12 February 1942 during the Channel Dash, when they were sent to escort five British destroyers, unaware of the escaping German warships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Four Whirlwinds took off at 13:10 hours, and soon sighted warships through the clouds about 20 miles from the Belgian coast. They descended to investigate and were immediately jumped by about 20 Bf 109s of Jagdgeschwader 2. The Whirlwinds shot at anything they got in their sights, but the battle was against odds. While this was going on, at 13:40 two additional Whirlwinds were sent up to relieve the first four, two more Whirlwinds took off at 14:25. Four of the eight Whirlwinds failed to return.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The supercharger from the Merlin 45 should've also worked, resulting at power vs. altitude not far away from Merlin III?



Critical (FTH) height for the Peregrine was _supposed_ to be 15,000ft. Only 1250 ft less than the Merlin III. Not as good RAM? Exhaust thrust not developed as well (poor design of manifold and duct?)

Superchargers (centrifugal) have 3 different aspects of performance. 
1. airflow in pounds (or KG ) per minute
2. pressure ratio. Pressure of out going air vs incoming air. 
3. efficiency. How much power it takes to compress the needed volume or weight of air to the desired pressure. 

You can only trade a bit of air flow for pressure before efficiency goes to pot (gets bad) and since even good superchargers only used around 70-75% of the power going to the supercharger driveshaft to actually compress the air, the remaining % of power simply heated the air to no purpose, using oversized superchargers is not going to get you much in the way of improved altitude performance. 
It can also totally screw up cruise power settings as these superchargers have a _minimum_ airflow below which they surge or stall repeatedly in very short time intervals causing rumbling in the intake duct/s and other problems.







Using a Merlin 45 _style_ supercharger may get you what you want. Trouble with the Whirlwind is _just_ how tight is it? The early Merlin engines used superchargers with the inlet offset a bit from the axis of the impeller and used a rather tight bend from the carb to the impeller. Part of the carb was actually part of the supercharger housing. On the Merlin XX/45 the carb was separate and there was an elbow to turn the airflow the 90 degrees from the carb to the supercharger axis. However this arrangement took several inches more room. Peregrine may (or may not?) have had a good inlet to begin with?





Peregrine00-1.jpg Photo by Secudus | Photobucket

I don't know how much room a 2 speed drive takes (some companies two speed drives took no extra length).

It _might_ have been possible to get a two speed drive and a _comparable_ supercharger to the one used on Merlin XX/45 but that might be the limit for available space without a lot of rework (and even that might require some.) 

It also requires a bit of work to 'scale' the supercharger and build the new parts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2015)

michaelmaltby said:


> Channel Dash
> 
> 
> No. 137 Squadron's worst losses were to be on 12 February 1942 during the Channel Dash, when they were sent to escort five British destroyers, unaware of the escaping German warships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Four Whirlwinds took off at 13:10 hours, and soon sighted warships through the clouds about 20 miles from the Belgian coast. They descended to investigate and were immediately jumped by about 20 Bf 109s of Jagdgeschwader 2. The Whirlwinds shot at anything they got in their sights, but the battle was against odds. While this was going on, at 13:40 two additional Whirlwinds were sent up to relieve the first four, two more Whirlwinds took off at 14:25. Four of the eight Whirlwinds failed to return.



And that describes all too many of the Whirlwinds missions. 2/4 Whirlwinds (often used as a "strike" section/element tasked with shipping/ground attack) escorted or accompanied by Spitfires for both flak suppression and fighter escort, sometimes planes from 3 squadrons were used totaling around 20 planes but only 4 Whirlwinds.


----------



## rogerwilko (Jan 24, 2015)

Any aircraft being jumped is going to suffer?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2015)

I'd say so.



michaelmaltby said:


> Channel Dash...



Thanks for that, Michael.



Shortround6 said:


> Critical (FTH) height for the Peregrine was _supposed_ to be 15,000ft. Only 1250 ft less than the Merlin III. Not as good RAM? Exhaust thrust not developed as well (poor design of manifold and duct?)



AT 15000 ft, the Peregrine's S/C was making +6.75 psi of manifold boost, vs. +6.25 psi @ 16250 ft for the Merlin III. At that altitude, the Peregrine's S/C will make close to that boost?



> Superchargers (centrifugal) have 3 different aspects of performance.
> 1. airflow in pounds (or KG ) per minute
> 2. pressure ratio. Pressure of out going air vs incoming air.
> 3. efficiency. How much power it takes to compress the needed volume or weight of air to the desired pressure.
> ...



Thanks for that. 
A supercharger is indeed a trade-off, and Peregrine have had a more than decent one, compared with other engines of the same era.

View attachment 282859




> Using a Merlin 45 _style_ supercharger may get you what you want. Trouble with the Whirlwind is _just_ how tight is it? The early Merlin engines used superchargers with the inlet offset a bit from the axis of the impeller and used a rather tight bend from the carb to the impeller. Part of the carb was actually part of the supercharger housing. On the Merlin XX/45 the carb was separate and there was an elbow to turn the airflow the 90 degrees from the carb to the supercharger axis. However this arrangement took several inches more room. Peregrine may (or may not?) have had a good inlet to begin with?



Do we know the diameter of the Peregrine's S/C? Looking at the pictures, Peregrine also used the simple elbow, feeding the S/C with mixture from carb.



> I don't know how much room a 2 speed drive takes (some companies two speed drives took no extra length).
> 
> It _might_ have been possible to get a two speed drive and a _comparable_ supercharger to the one used on Merlin XX/45 but that might be the limit for available space without a lot of rework (and even that might require some.)
> It also requires a bit of work to 'scale' the supercharger and build the new parts.



Maybe installation of a 2-speed drive plus a new S/C would be too much of a hassle? Install a better/bigger S/C, rate the engine at +9 psi boost for take off (if/until it cannot handle full +12 psi) and performance goes up at all altitudes. The low compression ratio (6:1) should allow plenty of boost, and a more efficient S/C will heat the charge less.
Historically, max combat boost was +12 for the Peregrine?


----------



## Aozora (Jan 25, 2015)

Two problems that haven't yet been mentioned were the poor fuel system of the Whirlwind; there was no cross-over between the fuel tanks so fuel couldn't be transferred from one tank to another in the event of an engine being stopped. Effectively, the lack of cross-over meant that the extra fuel became dead weight, instead of being useful.

A second problem was the 'Exactor' hydraulic engine controls, which were a constant pain in service. Redesigning these systems would have made for a better design.

Other thoughts; redesign the exhaust system to use ejector stubs; the design of the carburettor air intake was bad - correcting this, as Sir Stanley Hooker found out with the Merlin, would have improved the engine's power and efficiency. Allow the use of +12 lbs boost - this was experimented with during bench tests in March 1940 and produced 1,000 hp - for some reason this was not followed up, even though the engines were later cleared to use 100 Octane fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2015)

Here is a post by our nuuumannn:



> This has been covered in another thread, but I can't be bothered looking, so I'll post from Rolls-Royce - The pursuit of excellence by Alec Harvey-Bailey and Michael Evans;
> 
> "Contrary to popular belief, 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 cylinders holding down studs were cured by reducing 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 aircraft flaps, so that there were times when the pilot had to use flaps to keep the radiator shutters open, when flaps were not needed in 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 extensivelt amended."


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 25, 2015)

It is astonishing how the mere mention of the Whirlwind brings out the rose-coloured spectacles.
The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic.
The Peregrine could only be produced in the Derby Rolls-Royce factory, and R-R calculated that each one would have meant the loss of 2 Merlins, and delay of the entry of the Griffon.
The decision to stop building the Whirlwind was first made by Freeman in May 1940, and endorsed by Beaverbrook in October, long before any need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft showed itself; Westland's output was turned over to Spitfires/Seafires in July 1941, and the RAF were delighted with the capability of the Hurricane in the desert, asking for as many IID as could be produced.
Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, never enough to equip any force of any size, and certainly not enough to cover "wastage." They produced 2157 Spitfires Seafires in six years; to produce that many Whirlwinds would have taken 20+ years. Would you also be happy to leave Malta, the Desert Air Force, Australia, and the Navy with no means to defend themselves, apart from American aircraft?
Production capacity, in this country, was finite, due to the available numbers of factories, and always open to attack, as seen in the destruction of the Supermarine Eastleigh factory; new buildings, machine tools, jigs and workers couldn't be whistled up out of thin air, and a six-day working week was already normal.
Always forgotten, or ignored, is that the Air Ministry had already turned down Vickers' proposal for the Type 327 (two Merlins + 6 x 20mm cannon,) so the Whirlwind was always on a knife-edge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## cimmex (Jan 25, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It is astonishing how the mere mention of the Whirlwind brings out the rose-coloured spectacles.
> The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic.
> The Peregrine could only be produced in the Derby Rolls-Royce factory, and R-R calculated that each one would have meant the loss of 2 Merlins, and delay of the entry of the Griffon.
> The decision to stop building the Whirlwind was first made by Freeman in May 1940, and endorsed by Beaverbrook in October, long before any need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft showed itself; Westland's output was turned over to Spitfires/Seafires in July 1941, and the RAF were delighted with the capability of the Hurricane in the desert, asking for as many IID as could be produced.
> ...



Don’t forget, whatif followers always have unlimited resources in their scenarios


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2015)

cimmex said:


> Don’t forget, whatif followers always have unlimited resources in their scenarios



True 

However.

1 "The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic."
The Merlin only used the _full 100 octane capability_ in *emergencies* for quite some time. As in anything over 6lbs of boost requiring notes in the log and maintenance procedures. It took _how long_ for even the Merlin XX and Merlin 45 to be cleared for 12lbs or above? 

2. "Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, never enough to equip any force of any size, and certainly not enough to cover "wastage." They produced 2157 Spitfires Seafires in six years; to produce that many Whirlwinds would have taken 20+ years."
And while they were producing 2 Whirlwinds per week _how many_ Lysanders were they building??? 5-7??? 
From AgustaWestland's site:
Spitfire Mk la, Vb Vc: 685 aircraft. 
Seafire MK llc, lll, XV XVll: 2,115 aircraft.
However "The first Westland built Spitfire flew in July 1941, and production continued as part of the company's main wartime activity." The Seafire XV XVll being built From 1944 and four squadrons were working up with Seafire XVs when the war terminated.
btw, even 2700 planes over 6 years (312 weeks) is only about 8.6 planes per week. Granted the 1945/46 production was probably at a slower pace than war time. 
Westland also built 18 Fairey Barracudas before that project was stopped. ( Really...18  How much time and effort was spent on tooling and arranging factory space for _that_. 
Westland was also responsible for of the modification all Mohawk, Tomahawk and Kittyhawk fighter provided to Britain to RAF standard.
Design work for the Welkin _started_ in 1940 with first prototype flying 1 November 1942. 

3. "Always forgotten, or ignored, is that the Air Ministry had already turned down Vickers' proposal for the Type 327 (two Merlins + 6 x 20mm cannon,) so the Whirlwind was always on a knife-edge."
True but a large part of the reason for the Air Ministry turning down _Vickers' proposal_ was that it was actually the *Supermarine Type 327* and while Supermarine was owned by Vickers the Air Ministry figured Supermarine had enough on their plate getting the Spitfire into production. 

The British did not always make the _best_ use of their production capability but then *NO* country did as requirements often changed faster than than production could (tooling and resource allocations often are made months (many months) before production examples are completed.)

edit.> I would also note that when the decision to end Whirlwind production was made in May of 1940, the Lysander was still viewed as a viable (and valuable) warplane. Even as the decision was made (or with in just a few weeks) this was shown to be _untrue_ in no uncertain terms. The Lysander was no more suitable for tactical duties than the Fairey Battle. Out of 10 squadrons of Battles in France just under 200 planes were lost from all causes before the last flew to England on June 15th. Out of 5 squadrons of Lysanders 118 were lost from all causes out of 175 deployed.
Favoring Lysander production over Whirlwind production (with hindsight) was a mistake unless there other things slowing Whirlwind production (delivery of engines? landing gear? magnesium alloy?).

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It is astonishing how the mere mention of the Whirlwind brings out the rose-coloured spectacles.
> The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic.


The Whirlwind operated for some time on standard RAF fuel be it 87 or 100 octane. Using 100 octane may not give you any additional power but equally is unlikely to do any damage and as a stopgap until the Typhoon had sorted its troubles out it would have been invaluable.


> The Peregrine could only be produced in the Derby Rolls-Royce factory, and R-R calculated that each one would have meant the loss of 2 Merlins, and delay of the entry of the Griffon.


I admit to not getting this argument. The engine production could have been moved to another factory, or production could have been increased in its current facility. The decision to stop production of the aircraft by default stopped any investment in the production of the engines. Remember no development was needed so I don't see how the development of the Griffon would be impacted as this was at that stage a research and development / prototype project.


> The decision to stop building the Whirlwind was first made by Freeman in May 1940, and endorsed by Beaverbrook in October, long before any need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft showed itself; Westland's output was turned over to Spitfires/Seafires in July 1941, and the RAF were delighted with the capability of the Hurricane in the desert, asking for as many IID as could be produced.


Beaverbrook stopped the development of almost all aircraft in May 1940to concentrate resources on key aircraft, it wasn't specific to the Whirlwind. A decision that was very controversial at the time and delayed the production of a number of valuable types. The RAF were far from delighted in the performance of the Hurricane in the desert. They had the measure of the Italians but when the Luftwaffe turned up it was a different story. The Whirlwind was a much better aircraft that the Hurricane in the GA role being faster, better armed with a slightly better range. As for the Hurricane IID they couldn't wait to get rid of them as they were too specialised and vulnerable.


> Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, never enough to equip any force of any size, and certainly not enough to cover "wastage." They produced 2157 Spitfires Seafires in six years; to produce that many Whirlwinds would have taken 20+ years. Would you also be happy to leave Malta, the Desert Air Force, Australia, and the Navy with no means to defend themselves, apart from American aircraft?


Had the resources been made available then production would have increased. As has been pointed out if the RAF had cancelled production of the Lysander then capacity was available. Had the development and production of types such as the Botha (an aircraft that was never going to achieve anything) and the Blenheim V been cancelled, capacity would have been available. Had the Battle been cancelled (a proven failure) capacity (and Merlins) would have been available.


> Production capacity, in this country, was finite, due to the available numbers of factories, and always open to attack, as seen in the destruction of the Supermarine Eastleigh factory; new buildings, machine tools, jigs and workers couldn't be whistled up out of thin air, and a six-day working week was already normal.


I think I have covered this point.


> Always forgotten, or ignored, is that the Air Ministry had already turned down Vickers' proposal for the Type 327 (two Merlins + 6 x 20mm cannon,) so the Whirlwind was always on a knife-edge.


Always forgotten or ignored is that fact that the Whirlwind was a proven asset by the end of March 1941. As to how well it did the following is worth considering. Standard RAF planning was that for a front line fighter in Europe a squadron needed 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months. Which is why aircraft such as the Whirlwind and the Spitfire XII were ordered in batches of about 100. The Whirlwind operated for at least two years on the front line. It was popular with the crews and the first real strike / GA aircraft in the RAF.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2015)

Sometimes decisions were made on _perceptions of capability_ rather than actual facts. Early use of the Whirlwind (before bomb racks) often had them assigned to over water patrols at further distances from land than Spitfires due their twin engine _safety_. This _capability_ was somewhat of an illusion due to the non-cross feed fuel system (dead engine tanks could not feed the good engine) and non feathering propellers. dead engine was always going to windmill somewhat even in course pitch even if the engine damage allowed the pitch to be changed. There may also be a question as to if both engines had a full set of "accessories" like generators and hydraulic pumps. 

The Whirlwind was unlikely to make to the end of the war no matter what but there were certainly a number of things that could have been fixed/altered on a MK II or III version without going to Merlins or Merlin superchargers or major redesigns of the airframe.

Better air intake for better use of Ram?
Better Exhaust system for more exhaust thrust?
Both may offer better performance at altitude without changing the basic engine.
Cross feed fuel system and fully feather props. better ability to return on one engine. 
Belt fed guns for more ammo capacity. 
Add 3rd external station under fuselage for either bomb or fuel tank. And/or plumb under wing racks for fuel. 

If it is to be a ground pounder aircraft change the gear ratio to the supercharger (even if left single speed) to lower the full throttle height and pick up take-off power and low altitude power keeping the same boost limits. 
Peregrine version of Merlin VIII? Merlin VIII picked up almost 200hp for take-off over a Merlin III using the same RPM and boost on 87 octane fuel. Peregrine might pick up 150-160hp? Merlin VIII gave 1275hp at 3000ft at 9lbs boost. Low altitude Peregrine might be good for 950-960hp at the same conditions? 

Fuselage fuel tanks sort of depend on the guns. If you leave two up and two down there might not be room for a forward fuselage tank. Without the forward tank how big a rear tank can you put in and keep the CG in balance? Four guns line down low may leave room of fuel tank (depends on the feeds).


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The Whirlwind was unlikely to make to the end of the war no matter what but there were certainly a number of things that could have been fixed/altered on a MK II or III version without going to Merlins or Merlin superchargers or major redesigns of the airframe.



Whether it will make it until the end of the war - depends how much effort is invested in the aircraft?



> Better air intake for better use of Ram?
> Better Exhaust system for more exhaust thrust?
> Both may offer better performance at altitude without changing the basic engine.
> Cross feed fuel system and fully feather props. better ability to return on one engine.
> ...



+1 on all of this.
As far as I can deduce from the schematics, the carburetor air entered 1st the wing-located 'hole', then was routed towards the nacelle, then routed down to the carb, then routed again into supercharger. A path similar to the F4U? That makes the air taking 3 times the 90 deg turn, and the 'harvesting' of the ram air surely was nothing to brag about. So - keep it simple: an intake tube at the top of nacelle, just behind the prop.



> Fuselage fuel tanks sort of depend on the guns. If you leave two up and two down there might not be room for a forward fuselage tank. Without the forward tank how big a rear tank can you put in and keep the CG in balance? Four guns line down low may leave room of fuel tank (depends on the feeds).



With beard radiators introduced, the inboard part of the wing is free to have extra fuel oil tankage. Alternatively, if a pair of cannons is relocated under belly, there the ammo belts can be located there, but with less extra fuel.
Such a location of radiators also simplifies the layout of the flaps.
Alternatively, install the radiators in front of the front spar, with the leading edge area of the wing enlarged accordingly.

The Wirlwind was not just looks, though it scored max points there. 
It featured a 360 deg canopy quite early on, choice of high-lift devices was impeccable, the Hispanos installed were not just powerful, but a rigid fuselage mount kept them trouble-free, U/C was fully retractable covered, the radiator system was partially copied many times on later aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 25, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> With beard radiators introduced, the inboard part of the wing is free to have extra fuel oil tankage.



I think the beard radiators will lose some performance compared to the leading edge radiators.

Just found this cutaway.

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AE/AE73-6/38-1.jpg

I think what you were saying about the radiators is if they went for a proper le radiator (Mosquito style) there wouuld be space in the wing for fuel.

Looks like there is no chance of a fuel tank ahead of the cockpit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 25, 2015)

Glider said:


> I admit to not getting this argument. The engine production could have been moved to another factory, or production could have been increased in its current facility.


Then why were Ford and Packard needed, for extra production? R-R maintained they had no capacity available, and nobody has ever produced concrete evidence that they lied.


> The decision to stop production of the aircraft by default stopped any investment in the production of the engines. Remember no development was needed so I don't see how the development of the Griffon would be impacted as this was at that stage a research and development / prototype project.


The need for improvements to the engine, to enable it to use 100 octane 100% of the time, was one of the reasons for the cancellation of the engine, which led to cancellation of the aircraft, not the other way round. R-R said to continue with the engine would have an impact on the Griffon; they were there, with a Ministry-appointed Local Technical Committee and Resident Technical Officer in situ, keeping careful watch, plus a Factory Overseer, usually a Wing Commander, appointed by the RAF, so any hint of them telling lies would have had serious repercussions, in a time of war.
The Griffon was originally planned for the Spitfire IV, in December 1939, and was undergoing flight trials, in a Henley, in 1940, so any delay would not have been well received. The first Griffon-powered Spitfire flew 27-11-41.


> The Whirlwind was a much better aircraft that the Hurricane in the GA role being faster, better armed


Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?


> As for the Hurricane IID they couldn't wait to get rid of them as they were too specialised and vulnerable.


Is that why they asked for three Squadrons of IID in the desert? 


> Had the resources been made available then production would have increased.


Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be increased.


> As has been pointed out if the RAF had cancelled production of the Lysander then capacity was available. Had the development and production of types such as the Botha (an aircraft that was never going to achieve anything) and the Blenheim V been cancelled, capacity would have been available. Had the Battle been cancelled (a proven failure) capacity (and Merlins) would have been available.


But they weren't (and it was up to the Air Ministry to cancel aircraft production, not the RAF,) so it wasn't, and using 20/20 hindsight is a pointless exercise.


> Always forgotten or ignored is that fact that the Whirlwind was a proven asset by the end of March 1941.


Not to Fighter Command, they weren't; they were kept well out of the way, during the Battle, with their use only being planned in the event of an invasion.


> As to how well it did the following is worth considering. Standard RAF planning was that for a front line fighter in Europe a squadron needed 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months. Which is why aircraft such as the Whirlwind and the Spitfire XII were ordered in batches of about 100. The Whirlwind operated for at least two years on the front line. It was popular with the crews and the first real strike / GA aircraft in the RAF


Fighter Command asked if the Whirlwind could carry bombs, in July 1942, a full year after the Hurricane had been successfully tested with them.
The initial order for the Whirlwind was for 200, not 100, aircraft, and deliveries ceased after 114 had been built. The Spitfire XII was ordered because of a shortage of low-altitude Merlins, so the Griffon had to be used; producing Whirlwind airframes, for which there were no engines, would have been utterly pointless.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 25, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Not to Fighter Command, they weren't; they were kept well out of the way, during the Battle, with their use only being planned in the event of an invasion.



It is my understanding that there weren't enough serviceable Whirlwinds to form a unit which could participate in the BoB anyway.


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2015)

Avro took the Manchaster and made it into the 4 engine Lancaster, with what might be modestly described as good results. The Whirlwind could have been fitted with a new wing able to handle Merlins. The new wing could also have been a better high-speed airfoil.

The trouble with reinventing a design like the eye-catching WHirlwind is figuring out how much trouble it would have been versus designing completely new aircraft. A large part of the design is the wing and engine stressing for a conventional twin layout.

Had Westland decided to go that way, they could have started with a Whirlwing fuselage as a stop-gap and then continued with a fresh, new fuselage design for the new wing and engines, had it been required.

I'm not sure I"ve ever seen it done that way, but there is nothing saying it couldn't have been done that way, and proceeding in that manner could have resulted in a potent fighter in a resonably short time ... and time was paramount in the late 1930's. It might have taken some fresh thinking, but that's what designers do ... look at the needs and come up with something to meet them.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?



This particular argument is getting old. You are comparing a 1940 fighter with drum fed cannon to a 1941 fighter that had belt fed cannon. Early 20mm Spitfires only had 60 rds per gun but were changed to 120rpg with belt feed in later models. First 400 Beaufighters had 60rd drums ( and a 2nd crew man to change them) but the 401st and all later ones got belt fed guns. There were 2 if not 3 different noses for the Whirlwind using pneumatic powered magazines with 110-120 rpg. (one mock up nose held 4 20mm guns and three .303s another nose held twelve .303 guns. At least one (if not two) were test fired on the ground even if not air tested (the air bottles feeding the pneumatic system were too small and ran out of air before the magazines ran out ammo). There doesn't seem to any reason at all why the Whirlwind could _not_ have used belt fed guns had they wanted to or been allocated them. Drum fed guns having to be placed on their sides in the single engine plane wings to avoid high drag. 




Edgar Brooks said:


> Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be increased.



True, there was no _extra capacity_ at Westland because they were turning out the _war winning LYSANDER_ at about 3 times the rate they were building Whirlwinds _at the air ministries request._






Planes on the left side of the wall????

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2015)

The Lysander might have been a damed good liaison aircraft, but it wasn't a war winner in any sense of the word. Is was a covert aircraft, not a combat aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> 
> Planes on the left side of the wall????



Superb picture, and on-topic.


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2015)

Planes on the left side look to me to be Lysanders.

1) raidal engine
2) 3-blade prop
3) Landing gear matches a Lysander
4) Taken at Westland

Hhmmm .... must be .... Lysanders.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 25, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Lysander might have been a damed good liaison aircraft, but it wasn't a war winner in any sense of the word. Is was a covert aircraft, not a combat aircraft.



Sarcasm  as noted earlier they were shot in droves in the Battle for France. However in 1939/Early 1940 it was viewed as *THE* army close support aircraft. 

There were 1786 built but only one squadron used them on covert missions into occupied Europe and even then that squadron was not exclusively equipped with Lyanders. 

Large numbers wound up as target tugs.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 25, 2015)

I like the Lysander, and was not intending to malign it at all. Missed the sarcasm ... but, I have to say, Shortround, that is a good pic I have not seen before.


----------



## Glider (Jan 26, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Then why were Ford and Packard needed, for extra production? R-R maintained they had no capacity available, and nobody has ever produced concrete evidence that they lied.


There was spare capacity in the UK. Resources for the development and production of the Tarus for example an engine that wasted a lot of effort. Production could have been passed on to Bristol with little disruption.



> The need for improvements to the engine, to enable it to use 100 octane 100% of the time, was one of the reasons for the cancellation of the engine, which led to cancellation of the aircraft, not the other way round. R-R said to continue with the engine would have an impact on the Griffon; they were there, with a Ministry-appointed Local Technical Committee and Resident Technical Officer in situ, keeping careful watch, plus a Factory Overseer, usually a Wing Commander, appointed by the RAF, so any hint of them telling lies would have had serious repercussions, in a time of war.
> The Griffon was originally planned for the Spitfire IV, in December 1939, and was undergoing flight trials, in a Henley, in 1940, so any delay would not have been well received. The first Griffon-powered Spitfire flew 27-11-41.


The engine didn't need any alterations to use 100 octane. It did need changes to make use of the extra potential offered by 100 octane and the use of 87 octane in fighter command wasn't a problem anyway as ALL RAF stations had 87 octane available as well as 100 octane.


> Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?


Westland had a design to increase the ammunition supply but were not allowed to proceed with it. Besides having the guns in the nose had a number of advantages, concentration of fire and increased range being the other. I notice that you didn't comment on my observation that the Whirlwind have a higher performance, that when the Luftwaffe arrived in the desert the Hurricane was outclassed and that the JAAF had a clear advantage over the Hurricane.


> Is that why they asked for three Squadrons of IID in the desert?


And regretted it as it was too specialised. See attached letter


> Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be increased.
> 
> But they weren't (and it was up to the Air Ministry to cancel aircraft production, not the RAF,) so it wasn't, and using 20/20 hindsight is a pointless exercise.


As mentioned before there were a number of designs that were continued with that would have provided the extra resources.


> Not to Fighter Command, they weren't; they were kept well out of the way, during the Battle, with their use only being planned in the event of an invasion.


Simply wrong. Fighter command were desperate to get the Whirlwind into combat during the BOB and the squadron leader refused as it hadn't reached the right level of reliability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 26, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> lets pursue with Whirlwind even after we get a number of Typhoon/Tornado fighters, since those will replace the Hurricanes 1st? As far as bean counters - the aircraft are piloted by pilots. Putting a pilot in a lesser plane will not just have that pilot will more likely get killed, but it will not accomplish the mission.
> The bean counters have had no problems ordering paying for US-produced fighters, that in 1940-41 did not have anything above the Whirly, bar the combat radius for the P-40.



The 'Hawker fighter' was _explicitly_ expected by Dowding, among others, to replace the Whirlwind. He only wanted to maintain Whirlwind production whilst it was the only cannon armed fighter the RAF had and at a time when he was expecting it to deal with German tanks on English beaches.

The MAP comparison was between the Whirlwind and a Spirfire, the latter being a much _superior _aircraft. This is an important point. At one time it was envisaged that Whirlwind production might start at Castle Bromwich. The idea was dropped when the detrimental effect on Spitfire production was realised.

Bean counters probably had far more influence on British aircraft production than their US counterparts given Britain's limited resources, even more so in 1940 when these decisions were being made. Ultimately it the resources were managed by Beaverbrook and the MAP, neither of whom shared your qualms about 'inferior' aircraft. They pushed on with the Halifax for example in the face of strident and continuous protests from Bomber Command.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 26, 2015)

Glider said:


> There was spare capacity in the UK. Resources for the development and production of the Tarus for example an engine that wasted a lot of effort. Production could have been passed on to Bristol with little disruption.


Hindsight, again, and do you really believe that R-R would have acquiesced with a competitor being asked to build an engine they saw as useless?


> The engine didn't need any alterations to use 100 octane. It did need changes to make use of the extra potential offered by 100 octane and the use of 87 octane in fighter command wasn't a problem anyway as ALL RAF stations had 87 octane available as well as 100 octane.


That flies in the face of what R-R said; do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that they lied?


> I notice that you didn't comment on my observation that the Whirlwind have a higher performance, that when the Luftwaffe arrived in the desert the Hurricane was outclassed and that the JAAF had a clear advantage over the Hurricane.


Mainly because I fail to see how events of 1941/42 have any relevance to decisions taken in 1940; you can apply 2015 knowledge to criticise what was done/not done in 1940, but the authorities didn't have that sort of information, and I don't believe that they had access to soothsayers.


> And regretted it as it was too specialised. See attached letter


I note that you omit to mention that the Hurricane IV had the "universal wing," which allowed it to carry the 40mm cannon as an extra option.


> As mentioned before there were a number of designs that were continued with that would have provided the extra resources.


Yet again, you're relying on hindsight; decisions could not be made in 1940, against information yet to be discovered. 


> Simply wrong. Fighter command were desperate to get the Whirlwind into combat during the BOB and the squadron leader refused as it hadn't reached the right level of reliability.


Doesn't sound as if F.C. were desperate to get the aircraft into service (last two sentences, first paragraph):-




27-10-40, Dowding wrote that he'd had a report from 263's C.O., which contained the following:-
"There is no tendency for the aircraft to spin in tight turns, but at heights above 26,000 feet the performance falls off rapidly and it is difficult to maintain height.
It must be emphasised, nevertheless, that the performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000 feet falls off rapidly, and it is considered that above 25,000 feet its fighting qualities are very poor. The maximum height so far attained is 27,000 feet but on every occasion that a height test has been carried out there has been a minor defect, either in airscrew revolutions or in lack of boost pressure. It appears possible, therefore, that the Whirlwind will in fact, under favourable conditions, attain a height of 30,000 feet, although the last four or five thousand feet of climb will take a very long time to carry out; the rate of climb dropping at this altitude to no more than 500 feet a minute."
To me, that does not sound like a ringing endorsement, and Dowding followed it with:-
"It therefore seems to me quite wrong to introduce at the present time a type of fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000 feet."
7-11-40, Petter reported on a visit he'd made to 263 Squadron at Drem, where he found that they still had only 8 aircraft (so were still non-operational,) of which only two were serviceable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 26, 2015)

Fighter Command were not desperate to get the Whirlwind into the BoB. Edgar is quite correct that Dowding gave orders for them to be kept out of the way, based in the South West.

By the time the Hurricane was being deployed in the desert the Whirlwind was already a dead duck.

I happen to think that decisions to axe the Whirlwind (albeit with a limited reprieve, effectively to use up parts already produced) is precisely the type of bold decision that distinguishes British aircraft production from that of the Germans who allowed marginal or downright appalling projects to run on interminably at vast expense in resources.

Simply, the RAF did not need the Whirlwind. If anything can be said about the situation with the Hurricane in theatres outside the ETO, it is that it needed more Spitfires. The idea that the Whirlwind should be redesigned to use the same number of Merlin engines as TWO Spitfires was going to be a very difficult sell to the MAP.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

On the 100 octane fuel issue we may have a difference between _using 100 octane fuel_ and *making full*_use of 100 octane fuel._

The Bristol Mercury and Pegasus were both able to _use_ 100 octane fuel but only had small increases in performance, the Pegasus a very small increase. Mercury got about 3lbs more boost and the Pegasus 1 or 1 1/2lbs (?) more boost. 
The Hercules VI went from 5lbs boost with 87 octane to 8.25lbs with 100 octane, some other Hercules engines may have less of a difference. 

In _theory_ 100 octane (100PN) would allow around 30% higher cylinder pressures than 87 octane (68.29 PN), for 30% more power (before taking out the power needed to drive the supercharger that much harder). British 100 octane during the BoB was actually 115-120PN under rich conditions and 100 PN lean. 
To make *full* use of 100 octane(PN) fuel (get that extra 40-45% power) might very well require a number of modifications. How long did it take for the Merlin to reach 1400-1450hp? How long did it take for the Hercules to show a 40% increase in power over the 87 octane versions? 
Rolls-Royce wasn't lying about making *full* use of 100 octane. 

Wither or not they answered the question about making_ part_ use is something else. Or if the question was asked in that way. 

Getting _somewhat_ more performance than 87 octane gave is a _lot_ easier. Since each engine is different it is hard to say what modifications are needed or what modification/s are needed for how much improvement.

Bristol was concentrating on the Hercules (and maybe the Taurus) and only did the bare minimum to the Mercury and Pegasus. This despite Roy Fedden being one of prime advocates of 100 octane fuel in Britain.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

stona said:


> The 'Hawker fighter' was _explicitly_ expected by Dowding, among others, to replace the Whirlwind. He only wanted to maintain Whirlwind production whilst it was the only cannon armed fighter the RAF had and at a time when he was expecting it to deal with German tanks on English beaches.
> 
> The MAP comparison was between the Whirlwind and a Spirfire, the latter being a much _superior _aircraft. This is an important point. At one time it was envisaged that Whirlwind production might start at Castle Bromwich. The idea was dropped when the detrimental effect on Spitfire production was realised.
> 
> ...



I was referring at Hurricane as a lesser fighter aircraft (at one-to-one basis) than Whirlwind, not the Spitfire. 
The Westland's own product, Lysander, was also a lesser aircraft than Whirlwind. Aircraft of Lysander's capability were also easier to produce in UK, or to buy abroad (USA, Commonwealth) than it was the case with aircraft of Whirlwind's capability. UK was trying to buy Lightnings from the USA in 1940-41, those will run late vs. Whirlwind, while also being more expensive. I'm not sure that early P-39 was any bit less expensive than Whirly, and it was inferior to the Whirly before late 1942, at least, especially above 15000 ft.
Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes. A pilot in a better aircraft will do it's mission and return safely in the base more often than a pilot that has a lesser mount. 
The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.
If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

It is a game site but there are some good pictures of the Whirlwind here, including one 'altered' one to get Tomo excited. 

Westland Whirlwind

also the record for No 263 Squadron from Sept 1942 to Nov 1943. Not too bad for a plane that stopped production in 1941. Even though a number of those flying in 1943 may have been held in storage for quite sometime before being issued to the squadron.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/laurieburley/jeff/pdfs/air271550summarywbombers.pdf


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.








20mm guns may kill 1940 Panzers (all Dowding was worried about), they are a lot less useful in 1941. A number of the Panzers in use in France had 14.5mm armor at the thickest points. 

Of course keeping the Lysander _alive_ to actually shoot the tanks is another question


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

stona said:


> Fighter Command were not desperate to get the Whirlwind into the BoB. Edgar is quite correct that Dowding gave orders for them to be kept out of the way, based in the South West.
> 
> By the time the Hurricane was being deployed in the desert the Whirlwind was already a dead duck.
> 
> ...



A note about the expressed need for more Hurricanes in the MTO in 1941: 
What else should the pilots commanders ask? They won't get Typhoon/Tornado, since those are barely to enter production. Situation with Whirlwind: the production is stopped. They can request for Spitfires all year long, they won't get it. Not until second half of 1942.
So it was either Hurricanes or nothing, as far as we speak about UK-produced fighters. 

As far as selling to the MAP a fighter using two 'major engines': seems like the Bristol with Beaufighter managed it. Not just as a night fighter, and despite not standing a chance vs. a decent 1-engined fighter of the era with it's 320-330 mph.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> It is a game site but there are some good pictures of the Whirlwind here, including one 'altered' one to get Tomo excited.
> 
> Westland Whirlwind



Thanks 
Do you mean the one with a photoshopped torpedo?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 26, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> I was referring at Hurricane as a lesser fighter aircraft (at one-to-one basis) than Whirlwind, not the Spitfire.


Westland were told to go over to Spitfire production, not the Hurricane.


> The Westland's own product, Lysander, was also a lesser aircraft than Whirlwind.


It was also a fabric-covered aircraft; how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect? Fitting Whirlwind fuselages and wings into Lysander jigs couldn't be done, and, though I've never tried, I suspect sewing Alclad isn't easy.


> Aircraft of Lysander's capability were also easier to produce in UK, or to buy abroad (USA, Commonwealth) than it was the case with aircraft of Whirlwind's capability.


Yes, still stuck in the Stone Age, weren't we? And there we were, thinking that the Spitfire was fairly capable.


> UK was trying to buy Lightnings from the USA in 1940-41, those will run late vs. Whirlwind, while also being more expensive. I'm not sure that early P-39 was any bit less expensive than Whirly, and it was inferior to the Whirly before late 1942, at least, especially above 15000 ft.


Neither aircraft lived up to their sales pitch, especially as we weren't allowed to have certain essential P-38 components, and the spitfire IX was around by the end of 1942.


> Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes. A pilot in a better aircraft will do it's mission and return safely in the base more often than a pilot that has a lesser mount.


Probably the reason for getting Westland to produce Spitfires and Seafires. 
The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.


> If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.


He wasn't, since the Hurricane IIC was already under way, together with cannon-armed Spitfires. It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

There is also the Beaufighter. 
Some 'estimates' were as high as 370mph, fat wing or engines used didn't meet expected power or both? 
Initial estimates were for 16,000lbs. 
Alternate engine to Hercules was supposed to be the Griffon. 
While first flight with Hercules was in July 1939 this prototype was unarmed. 
When trials with a plane with full operational equipment were done, the plane weighed 21,500lbs and with the limited power of the service Hercules III speed had dropped to 309mph at 15,000ft. (From new estimates of 335mph) 
Unfortunately this was all going on in the spring and summer of 1940. First two _pre_-production aircraft don't show up at service squadrons (without radar) until 2nd Sept 1940, one plane to each of two squadrons. 

What effect the Beaufighter had on Whirlwind production I don't know ( TWO twin engine 4 cannon fighters?) But the problems with the Hercules may not have been as well known in the winter of 1939/spring of 1940.

Another comment on the four 20mm cannon in a single engine fighter. It was what was _wanted_ but implementing it took some time as evidenced by the number of Hurricanes and Typhoons built with twelve .303 guns. Until they got the belt feed sorted out (and it went through several versions) the fall back for mounting the 20mm gun in the wings was to turn it on it's side to 'hide' the drum and that lead to numerous malfunctions. Spits kept four .303s. A Hurricane with either vertical drums (even less speed) or sideways guns (high likelihood of malfunctions) if mounting 4 canon. or a two cannon Hurricane with .303 back ups??? Hurricane doesn't get four cannon until almost a year after the Whirlwind was canceled, and no British aircraft got belt feed 20mm cannon until the Winter of 1940, early spring of 1941. Claiming the Whirlwind was canceled in May of 1940 because the Hurricane could carry four cannon _and_ more ammo doesn't sound right. They may have _hoped_ the Hurricane could carry more ammo with a future (not invented yet) belt feed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?



Lysander was replaced by the Auster in most of it's army roles.






Once the British were _stuck_ with hundreds of these things that were near useless for their designed role they found other things for them to do, like drop dinghies and tow targets. 










Must have used mighty good needles and threads to _stitch_ together those airframes. 



> how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect



see picture in earlier post. Lysanders were being built in the _same_ building divided by only a low wall from the Whirlwind area. Just walk a number of the Lysander "workers" 50-200ft over to the Whirlwind area and have them work under the Whirlwind workers for few days/weeks. It may not be _immediate_ (double production in under a week) but it isn't going to take months either. 

The _silly obsession_ is that you said there wasn't any spare capacity. There was and it was right in Westland's own factory _IF_ the air ministry had come to their senses and STOPPED Lysander production or at least reversed priorities. Granted outside contractors (like Rolls Royce) may have slowed things down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Westland were told to go over to Spitfire production, not the Hurricane.



The Hurricane was still produced in UK by the time Whirlwind was cancelled, and then some time.
It was easy to order the Westland that they foregone their product and produce other people's design, than to do same to Hawker group? Greater political leverage at Hawkers, than at costumer, let alone Westland?



> It was also a fabric-covered aircraft; how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect? Fitting Whirlwind fuselages and wings into Lysander jigs couldn't be done, and, though I've never tried, I suspect sewing Alclad isn't easy.



Westland got order for a full-metal Whirlwind, and then for a full-metal Spitfire. Seems they were able to do what it takes. 



> Yes, still stuck in the Stone Age, weren't we? And there we were, thinking that the Spitfire was fairly capable.



I've made no accusations that UK was/is in Stone Age. Apart from Spitfire, the Whirlwind, Mosquito and Lancasters are prime examples of the opposite for ww2, plus piston engines, let alone the jet program. 



> Neither aircraft lived up to their sales pitch, especially as we weren't allowed to have certain essential P-38 components, and the spitfire IX was around by the end of 1942.



If you think that turbos were not allowed, they actually were. Both for Lightnings and bombers, even prior the LL set in action, let alone Perl Harbour. When the order for Lightnings was done by UK and France, there was no flying example of a Lightning with turbos; when France fell, UK took the whole order and changed it to incorporate aircraft with turbos.

Until the late 1942 sets in, there is almost 2 years of war to be fought until BoB. The Spit V was the main variant of the Spitfires in service by the winter of 1943/44. 



> He wasn't, since the Hurricane IIC was already under way, together with cannon-armed Spitfires.



Neither was there for the expected invasion of 1941.



> It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?



I'm not obsessed with the Lysander. 
It's tasks were within the scope of many 'utility' aircraft, that could come from a firm not involved in a production of a front line fighter aircraft. Similar aircraft can be produced in Canada. Can be purchased in the USA.


----------



## stona (Jan 26, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes.
> The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.
> If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production,



The bean counters certainly did not factor pilot/crew survivability into their calculations or the Halifax would have been axed in 1942/3.

The cannon armed fighter was just becoming the mantra of the RAF in 1940. In the 1930s it was the eight gun fighter, as both the Spitfire and Hurricane demonstrate. There was always an idea that cannon would be required, but it was not deemed practical for a variety of reasons in the mid 1930s.

Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind. He wrote that the Whirlwind might prove useful as a tank killer in 1940 not 1941. The invasion was initially expected in 1940. He wouldn't have asked for increased Whirlwind production because by 1941 and the next possible invasion (we know, but he didn't, that this was never a possibility) he expected the Hawker fighter with its cannon to be available.
Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.

The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

stona said:


> ...
> The cannon armed fighter was just becoming the mantra of the RAF in 1940. In the 1930s it was the eight gun fighter, as both the Spitfire and Hurricane demonstrate. There was always an idea that cannon would be required, but it was not deemed practical for a variety of reasons in the mid 1930s.



I've mentioned the 'mantra' in terms of what was deemed as a desired, if not outright an ideal fighter armament. Eg. Spitfire was tested in July 1939 with two cannons aboard.

Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind. 



> He wrote that the Whirlwind might prove useful as a tank killer in 1940 not 1941. The invasion was initially expected in 1940. He wouldn't have asked for increased Whirlwind production because by 1941 and the next possible invasion (we know, but he didn't, that this was never a possibility) he expected the Hawker fighter with its cannon to be available.



Thanks for clearing the years Dowding was talking about. 



> Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.
> The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts



If someone missed the title of the thread, he might've thought you describe the Typhoon  
That one was also running late vs. Whirlwind, and was, during it's 1st service year, outright dangerous for it's pilots. No-one axed it, however.
Combat range was never the issue for the RAF, and it was easier amendable than in many fighters if desired. From drop tank installation further. The 'masked' exhaust stacks and a simpler intake can improve performance.
The Hurricane with 4 cannons was a far worse performer than the Whirly, it was a late aircraft, nobody axed it.



> and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.


and 


> Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind.



...yet Lysander carried on, while Westland got a contract for the Welkin?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 26, 2015)

With the Lysander unfit for front line use and using the same factory as the Whirlwind while the Whirlwind is hindered by the ending of the Peregrine I am happy with the Mercury and Perseus going across into low altitude Whirlwinds, swapping the wing radiators for extra tankage (with crossover capacity) and moving the anti tank ability of the 4 x 20mm Hispanos to 2 x 40mm S guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

stona said:


> The bean counters certainly did not factor pilot/crew survivability into their calculations or the Halifax would have been axed in 1942/3.



Bean counters were reluctant to install a 2nd generator and hydraulic pump on twin engine aircraft. Which rather throws survivabilty up to _which_ engine failed or got damaged. To be fair the P-38 didn't get dual accessories until the later models. 



> Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.
> The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.



And yet the Hercules powered aircraft (and the Hercules was _far_ from trouble free in 1940) all suffered from low altitude performance and and the Sabre was never noted as a high altitude engine. Granted in 1939/40/41 both companies may have been _promising_ high altitude performance and with the number of _designs_ which depended on the Hercules and Sabre (although the Sabre dependent aircraft faded fast) the British had little choice but to struggle on those engines. Hercules being _fixed_ much quicker than the Sabre. 
The Whirlwind and Peregrine get constantly beat up for being unreliable (with under dozen planes in service even in the fall of 1941 let alone May of 1940)and unsuited for service life. Yet they lasted in service several years after the last of each left the production lines, granted the squadrons that used them were able to pull "new" units from storage whenever needed to keep up numbers. They may have been one of the oldest "designs/models" still in front line service in 1943 by a major power. They sure weren't using Spitfire Is or IIs with bomb racks to attack shipping and coastal targets in the summer of 1943, How many Hurricanes were being used for ground attack on France and low countries in 1943? How many P-40Bs or Tomahawks? Bf-109Es in frontline service in 1943? 
Granted the altitude performance was increasing lacking but the Hurricane needed Merlin XX engines to stay in the game at all and even the P-39 and P-40 got slightly better superchargers and different gear ratios raise their FTH by about 4,000ft by 1943. Let alone the P-40 getting Merlin XX engines. 
BTW, service ceiling for a Typhoon under test in Nov of 1942 was 300ft _less_ than a MK I Hurricane with Rotol prop. (both ceilings estimated). I have no idea _what_ Napier and Hawker were _promising_ in 1940 or early 1941. Condition of the test Typhoon might be suspect. 
Anybody want to check the ceiling of a Defiant??? 

I am still trying to figure out the more resources bit of a tare weight 8,130lb fighter with two 1140lb 12 cylinder engines and tare weight 8800lb fighter with a single 2375-2500lb 24 cylinder engine 

I know the twin will need more accessories and instruments and that weights are only an _indicator_ but there sure doesn't seem to be the _great_ savings that was being made out.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

There are some things the Whirlwind was never going to do (at least without _lots_ of modification) 

Like two seat night fighter. 
Like _looong_ range fighter. Lets face it, 75 sq ft of wing at 40lbs per sq/st of wing loading allows for the FW 187 or P-38 to run 3000lbs heavier at the same wing loading. 
Same for stuffing Merlins in it. Upping each engine _installation_ by 300-400lbs and adding larger fuel tanks makes for a _very_ heavy fighter for a 250sq ft wing. 

You want twin Merlins? Look at a short wing Welkin. But the Welkin still didn't use a thin section wing and had problems at altitude. 

Stopping production of a 21 liter engine was the right thing to do, it was too limited in application, unfortunately whatever advantage this gave RR as a company was frittered away on a national scale by Napiers taking way too long to straighten out the Sabre and by Bristol Dumping Fedden and quite probably delaying the Centaurus. This left the Merlin, Griffon and Hercules as pretty much the default engines for any 'practical' designs for most of the war.


----------



## stona (Jan 26, 2015)

Dowding had no control over the Lysander which didn't feature in his command. However, his low opinion of Westland is at least partly based on his expressed view that the build quality of the Lysander was very poor.

Projects like the Welkin also fell outside his aegis. Dowding had no influence over development contracts issued by the Air Ministry, let alone private ventures, nor did he have any say in who built what. It's not how the British system worked.

He did make his opinions known about what sort of aircraft he wanted in_ his command _and they carried some weight. That didn't stop him getting lumbered with a load of Defiants though.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

True, the Lysander was the Army aircraft, the FC was a part of the RAF. 
The supposed low build quality of the Whirlwind is in collision with what was wanted from a future producer of Spitfires - if a production line cannot produce an own design as a quality product, why expect it will produce other people's design in a good quality?



> Projects like the Welkin also fell outside his aegis. Dowding had no influence over development contracts issued by the Air Ministry, let alone private ventures, nor did he have any say in who built what. It's not how the British system worked.



At any rate, Westland was not regarded, by all those that mattered, as an company incapable to came out with a proper fighter aircraft. Had it been introduced, the Welkin would come under FC's command.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 26, 2015)

The air ministry did not always pick the _best_ proposal/paper airplane but often went with the one they thought had a reasonable chance of being produced in a timely fashion. Most companies of time ( and in many countries) actually had rather small design staffs and could only work on a few projects at a time. Or at the same stage. If one project is at the prototype stage and going well with production not far off then a 2nd project _starting_ with drawings and a mock up (different parts of the design team and workshop involved ) is easy. Trying to run two simultaneous projects with each stage running in parallel (mocks ups finished the same month, etc) may mean delays in both projects. 
Most British companies were taking around two years to got from initial proposal to prototype flight with production _starting_ around a year later. Great proposal from a company already overloaded ( a lot of worry that the Supermarine, a flying boat builder, would have trouble mass producing fighter planes.) might get benched if the Ministry thought they could not deliver the airplanes, not that the airplane would fail to perform. Supermarine was also bidding on or proposing a number of other aircraft at the time. The Sea Otter, the Dumbo torpedo bomber (both designs flew but Dumbo not adopted) and several different fighter projects and a 4 engine bomber project (with different engines so there were two mock ups, both destroyed when the Supermarine works were bombed.)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2015)

Sometimes either the aircraft producers were too good salesmen, or the costumers (air ministries of the countries) tended to believe some of their promises too much, or both. Like Bell trumpeting 400 mph for the non-turbo armed P-39, while that was out of capability for turboed and unarmed XP 39. Or wanting the Lightning to do 400 mph without turbos, on engines to be discontinued, same rotation, bad exhaust intake system. Beaufighter was promised to make 370 mph, Typhoon 450 mph? - sure makes easier to cancel the Whirly and to skip the Gloster F.9/37. 

The Gloster twin should be a better airframe for Merlins and as night-fighter than Whirly (without major modifications), being bigger.

Germans expected great things from He 177, Ju 288, Me 210/410, that did not pan out. Soviets have had problems with serial produced examples emulating performance figures of prototypes - fault of factories, rather than design bureaus? Guess Soviet designers were rather careful what to propose, consequences for failure were not comforting

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jan 26, 2015)

aircraft performance i believe resulted in 2 famous sayings: "looked good on paper" and "back to the drawing board" ( repeat both several times in some cases )


----------



## pbehn (Jan 26, 2015)

If the whirlwind could have performed at altitude and been in service during the BoB it could have been significant. Just 50 whirlwinds in place of the big wing would have decimated bombers stripped of escorts. The fact is it wasn't, the Peregrine was never going to be more useful than the Merlin so it was ditched. A twin engine single seat A/C has limited uses. Making the Whirlwind a Merlin engined, two or more seated A/C is a completely new plane. I doubt if you could bodge a Whirlwind to be better than a Beaufighter and I am certain you could not get it to be better than a Mosquito, by the time the Whirlwind was going into service the Mosquito was already being ordered. A twin engined fighter can never manoeuvre like a single engined plane especially in roll rate and will always be more expensive and easier to hit.


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2015)

I twin engine airplane does not have only limited uses. There are many example of twins with a good array of capabilities.

There is no reason why a Whirlwind could not be as good or better than a Mosuito ... but it would surely evolve into something other than the basic Whirlwind in the process. Designing a new wing that could handle the weight and HP of 2 Merlins would necessitate a fuselage "plug" to counterbalance the added forward weight together with a larger empenage to control the added weight of the larger aircraft. It might LOOK like a scaled-up Whirlwind, but the structure would have few common design pieces except maybe the canopy area.

There is nothing whatsoever "magic" about a Mosquito. They got it right with the right combination of power, airfoil, streamlining, etc.

There is nothing saying someone couldn't come up with another twin that was as good or better. The fact that nobody in the wartime UK did it doesn't preclude it from being possible. All it means is nobody got it done during WWII in time for the war. They were probably too busy making more Mosquitoes.

I'm pretty sure a Hornet would gave a Mosquito a run for it's money in most departments except those requiring a second crewman.

The P-38 was pretty close in most departments and superior in some. It surely shot down more enemy aircraft than the Mosquito did in any case. It wasn't exactly employed in the same roles, but that is a case of use, not capability.

For high speed recon, the Mitsubishi Ki-46 would give almsot any Allied twin a run for the money, and often did just that.

Had it been available sooner and in numbers, the Do.335 might well have fiven Allied fighters, evern late-war types, a real run for their money during a raid. The fact that it wasn't avilable sooner doesn't mean it wasn't possible. It means that's when it came along in the German priority list.


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2015)

The Whirlwind is not in any way comparable to the Mosquito, other than having two Rolls-Royce V-12 engines and carrying 4 20mm cannon in some versions (some of which also had 4 x 0..303" mgs).

The Whirlwind was designed as a single seat fighter.
The Mosquito was designed as an unarmed bomber.

The Mosquito is larger and has room for bombs carried internally, even when fitted with the 4 20mm cannons. 

The Mosquito was adapted as a photo reconnaissance aircraft. The Whirlwind coudl be adapted to do the same, but I doubt that it would have the range.
The Mosquito was adapted as a fighter, but it was not that good a day fighter. Then it was adapted as a night fighter - a role in which it excelled. I doubt the Whirlwind could have carried the necessary radar and equipment without serious detriment to its performance.
Both could do the fighter-bomber role. 
I doubt the 57mm auto-cannon could have been fitted to the Whirlwind for anti-shipping strikes.

Neither was the Hornet in the same category as the Mosquito. It was a dedicated single seat fighter (until later NF Sea Hornets).


----------



## GregP (Jan 26, 2015)

Wayne, I never SAID it was comparable. I really don't believe you are reading my posts beyond a sentence or two. You just start firing away. Go back and read it.

What I said was the Whirlwind could have been made into a good fighter, with Merlins ... or some other engine. All it would take is a new wing of suitable high speed airfoil/area and the fuselage plug and empenage, possibly of different airfoil and design, to handle it. Before you call foul on anything about changing the empenage, go look at the Spitire series and think about it. The empenage on something like an F.21 or other Griffon unit is nothing like a Spitfire Mk. V.

The Ta 152H was an Fw 190D with a ... NEW WING. Who says they could not have done it with the Whirlwind? We all know they didn't in real life, but because they didn't actually do something doesn't mean it can't be done.

I wasn't trying to dengrate the Mosquito; I was saying another plane could easily have performed as well, even a modified Whirlwind. It would take "fixing" the things that were wrong with the Whirlwind, sure. It was a task, buj not an impossible one. It would need a sponsor and the desire to get it done, neither of which seem to have been in hgih supply in the UK in 1940. Ergo, it wasn't ever accomplished or even started with anythiung like suitable funding. I habe NO IDEA whether or not Westlands ever tried to develop the Whirwind on their own, but I'd doubt it in the wartime UK given the fact that when you are being attacked with the intent to invade, long range planning comes in a poor second to immediate needs. Likely Westlands was doing whatever they were asked and paid to do rather than engaging in private development of a plane being dropped from production.

And I never said the Hornet was in the same category as the Mosquito and, in fact, didn't mention category at all. I said it performed as well, and it did. How could it help NOT performing as well? Basically the same layout with basically slightly more power, smaller airframe and just as streamlined if not better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 26, 2015)

Sorry Greg, not just directed at you.

No doubt given time and effort the Whirlwind could have become a useful aircraft. Alas that time was not available, beyond the time it had already taken.

There are some roles where there could be some cross-over. But the Mosquito could never really compete as a day fighter (F.II was a day fighter, but many of them were built before they became the NF.II), and teh Whirlwind could never compete as a bomber.

Westlands did develop the Welkin - I'm not sure if that was from an official requirement. It was powered by Merlins, and was intended to be a high altitude interceptor. It didn't really work, and the threat disappeared in any case.


----------



## GregP (Jan 27, 2015)

Actually, Wayne, I am reminded that Bell took the P-39 and scaled it up .. and came out with the P-63. Late model P-63's would give a P-51 all it wanted at any altitude while being just a tiny bit slower. The thing that killed the P-63 for the USA was the low stick force per g. It was easy to overstress it if you got athletic on the the stick.

If they can essentially scale up a P-39 and if they could make a Lancaster from a Manchester, then they probably COULD scale up a Whirlwind to use Merlins and change whatever needed to be changed to get faster. I'm just not really sure the result would be worth the effort .... but it MIGHT be a really good one. Hard to tell unless you actually DO it, and nobody did, as I well know.

It's another dreaded "what-if."

I am seriously reminded of the FMA I,Ae.30 Namcu. It REALLY looks like an all-metal de Havilland product and has absolutely great performance. It flew in 1950, but flew with decidely WWII technology. If they could do THAT, then the scaled up Whirlwind might have some possibilities if they did it right.

For those who haven't seen one, here is the world's one and only Namcu:







It had a top speed of 460 mph! ... and seriously looks very de Havilland-like to me, in all metal. Too bad the total population was one. It sported a pair of Merlin 604's.

Also, to me only, probably, it looks very Whirlwind-like. That's likely due to poor toilet training as a kid. But ... substitute 4 cannons for the pitot tube ... and what do you think?

Low wing, twin-engine, cruciform tail, single-seat, conventional gear ... it had all the characteristics and had the performance to boot, all on WWII technology ... albeit a bit after the war ended.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 27, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I know the twin will need more accessories and instruments and that weights are only an _indicator_ but there sure doesn't seem to be the _great_ savings that was being made out.


Rolls-Royce said that each Peregrine would cost two Merlins, and nobody has produced any evidence that they lied about it; powering four Spitfires in return for each cancelled Whirlwind actually seems quite reasonable. Remember, too, that Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, and, between mid-July 1941 and October 1946, they produced 2158 Spitfires Seafires, which equates to 7.8 airframes per week.
The Welkin resulted from Specification F.4/40, so was a very early concept; it was "fiddled with," by the Ministry, to the tune of three more specifications, F7/41, I/P1(41,) and F.9/43, so it's hardly surprising it was late, especially as the last one still only called for a couple of prototypes, of which only one was built.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 27, 2015)

Just a reminder that Westlands confirmed to the Air Ministry that they could fit Merlins to the Whirlwind and several other possible engines. My preference remains with shifting to Mercuries and/or Perseus from the Lysander adjacent line and optimising for the low level GA role.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 27, 2015)

yulzari said:


> Just a reminder that Westlands confirmed to the Air Ministry that they could fit Merlins to the Whirlwind and several other possible engines.



Got any evidence for that? 
Actually Westland went direct to fighter command with a suggestion for a Merlin powered variant. They did not approach the Air Ministry at all. They explained how they would fit a smaller diameter four blade propeller as the nacelles were too close to the fuselage for the normal three bladed propeller, but never how they would actually fit a Merlin. If they ever did drawings to show how they would completely redesign the nacelle and main landing gear on the Whirlwind to accommodate a Merlin they haven't survived. I don't believe they were ever made. Back channels were used in a rather desperate attempt to prevent the Air Ministry's axe falling.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 27, 2015)

I _think_ the key word there is variant as it leaves a lot open to modifications. 

From Blackburn









18in "splice" in the wing center section to fit torpedo, the new engine, much larger fin and rudder to counter act new engine and prop and other mods. Took 3 1/2 years to enter squadron service _after_ the Napier powered prototype first flew. 

Granted it was rather low priority.

One _might_ say that the Welkin was a heavily modified Whirlwind 

Nobody has ever said if the "Merlin" Whirlwind was going to get larger wings, larger fuel tanks, a longer tail or larger one. All _could_ be done. And some had to be done, Twin Merlins with 67 IMP gallons each????
Great performance but the endurance of a bottle rocket.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 27, 2015)

Going to chin radiators frees plenty of volume, both between the spars and in front of the front spar. Should double the fuel load. 
Merlinized Whirly won't be any good without a bigger wing, or using the the 'splice' on the existing wing, as it was done with the Firebrand of P-47N. Will also increase volume available for fuel tanks. The Italian IMAM Ro.58 (two DB 601A, 2-seat, 5 cannons + rear gun) gained a bigger wing vs. the Ro.57 (two Fiat A.74RC, 1-seat, 2 HMGs); they probably wanted too much with the Ro.58, though.
Heavier more powerful powerplants will dictate bigger tail surfaces indeed, along with probable relocation of two, if not all 4 cannons to under belly. 

Both changed layout of radiators, belly cannons and bigger wing partially offset the performance gain achieved by Merlins installed, but the resulting aircraft should be better than the Whirly. Even with bread'n'butter Merlin XII aboard, let alone with Merlin 45 or better.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 27, 2015)

stona said:


> Got any evidence for that?


There isn't any; this is an excerpt from a report on the Whirlwind, carried out, post-war, by the Air historical Branch:-


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2015)

This is what one What-If modeller came up with for a Merlin XX powered Whirlwind.

Westland Whirlwind FB.2 of RAF No. 157 Fighter Squadron; Predannack, early 1944

The engines look huge on that airframe!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 28, 2015)

Looks like a Tiger with 2 fans turning, has the glide ratio of a falling safe if they aren't, and will kill you in a heartbeat if only 1 fan is turning unless you handle it JUST RIGHT.

Kind of like a modern jet fighter, huh?

I doubt if it could turn much, but it would worry the hell out of a bomber stream unless they had fighter cover, assuming it had the range to GET to the bombers.

Probably not a good choice ...

So, Wayne, what do you think of the FMA Namcu a couple of pages back?


----------



## wuzak (Jan 28, 2015)

GregP said:


> So, Wayne, what do you think of the FMA Namcu a couple of pages back?



Looks quite neat, very much like the Hornet.

Of course it was too late to be built in large numbers - jet fighters saw to that.

Just noticed that the Hornet had the same wing span as the Whirlwind - but had about 45% more wing area.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 28, 2015)

I recommend Niall Coruroy's book on the Whirlwind Whirlwind: Westland's Enigmatic Fighter: Niall Corduroy: 9781781550373: Amazon.com: Books , particularly the first four chapters on its development. It confirms what Edgar is saying about the Whirlwind and Peregrine's development. There were also other design problems, apart from those already mentioned:

The marginal capacity of the cooling system to cater for the Peregrine as it already existed - an uprated Peregrine would have required a redesigned cooling system. To redesign the system would have meant more testing and (possibly) custom made radiators/ oil coolers (NB: the book doesn't say this, but it's difficult to know what other aircraft could use radiators made for the Whirlwind)

The propeller shaft of the Peregrine was smaller than that of the Merlin, requiring custom made propellers.

Essentially, had the Whirwind been better designed and developed prewar, and had the Peregrine been more developed before the war started, and been used for more than one aircraft type, the Whirlwind might have had a chance. But in wartime it was simply uneconomic and impractical to continue developing an airframe/engine combination that would probably have been obsolescent almost before it became a practical production aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 28, 2015)

Good call about similar spans, Wayne! It definitely COULD be done since de Havilland DID it later.

The Whirlwind apparently had it's own share of issues, but nothing that couldn't have been corrected ... except maybe in a wartime economy with an imminent threat of invasion ... which is what it faced. Personally I like the whirlwind concept with the centerline cannons. Some great planes never made the cut. Not saying the Whirlwind was one of them, but it seriously might have had a chance if not for hanging it's proverbial hat on Peregrine. The same company made both the Peregrine and the Merlin ... go figure. One was a bust and the other a legend.

Reminds me of a pair of U.S.A. twins that never made it, the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket and the Grumman XP-50. Similar concept except with radial engines. At least they led to the Tigercat that DID get built, even if only in small numbers. 

I bet the Westlands fans out there wish there were a few Whirlwinds around the warbird circuit today. I know I do, but engine parts would be the critical item! They only made 301 Peregrines and that's not enough for a flying plane today. They made 149,659 Merlins and parts are getting scarce!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 28, 2015)

If the Peregrine had been developed in line with Merlins development you could have had a 1100hp engine with good altitude performance. Had the Gloster F9/37 ever got into production with Peregrines and chin radiators it might have been enough to keep the Peregrine going.

F9/37 protoype with Peregrines

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2015)

Handsome looking aircraft. 

The F.9/37 with Peregrines was some 30 mph slower than the Whirly, though. With a 50% greater wing area, it would be a better airframe for the Merlins than the Whirlwind. The more voluminous fuselage (it was envisioned as a turret fighter at 1st) means easier addition of second crew member for night fighting duties.


----------



## blueskies (Jan 28, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> There isn't any;



There is some that has survived


Edit: now that I think about it, what other ww2 aircraft had t-tails and made it into service? I can only think of the whirlwind, but this might just mean that I need coffee.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jan 28, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> Had the Gloster F9/37 ever got into production with Peregrines and chin radiators it might have been enough to keep the Peregrine going.



I'm going to say it wouldn't.

If we suppose that Rolls-Royce could concentrate on two major engine projects, that is, the Merlin and another, I don't think the Peregrine would win out.

The competition is the Vulture and the Griffon. The Vulture had proved troublesome, but could be fixed - with a lot of resources.

The Peregrine could become a useful engine too, if given development time.

The Griffon was requested by the FAA. And very early on in the project it was suggested that it could be fitted to a Spitfire. A Peregrine could too, but what would be the point? The Vulture couldn't fit in the Spitfire airframe either.

So game over, the Griffon wins.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2015)

The order for just 200 Whirlwinds, later cut to 112 examples, meant that a mass production of Peregrines was out of question. No mass production means greater price per engine, ie. the economies of scale are not taken advantage of, so RR has a point here. A major point in any war.
An initial order in excess of 500 fighters would make it economically much more viable to establish a production line for the Peregrines, meaning 1000+ engines plus spares (25-30% of complete engines worth?) are needed.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 28, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> An initial order in excess of 500 fighters would make it economically much more viable to establish a production line for the Peregrines, meaning 1000+ engines plus spares (25-30% of complete engines worth?) are needed.


Once again you have it back-to-front; R-R made no mention of economics, they just said that continuing with the Peregrine would cost Merlins at a rate of 2:1. An order for 1000+ Peregrines = 2000+ fewer Merlins, which was never going to appeal to the Air Ministry.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2015)

Then will you please enlighten us about why one Peregrine produced will cost two Merlins being not produced?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 28, 2015)

Sorry, but you'll need to ask Rolls-Royce; they made the statement, not me, the Air Ministry's paperwork doesn't go into details, and I'm certainly not going to speculate.





If you Google "George" Bulman, you'll find what he did during the war, and "W.R.F" is/was Wilfrid Freeman, of the U.K. government.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2015)

It _may_ depend on the tooling in the factory making _both_ engines and the relative production.
It isn't going to take much difference in time to machine a Peregrine crankshaft compared to a Merlin Crankshaft. However the crankshafts did NOT go from a forging (or forged blank/billet) to a finished crankshaft in a smooth succession of operations all performed on a very few machines. Only few procedures/operations would be performed on a particular part like the crankshaft and then they would be inspected and then on to the next step or several steps on the same/different machinery (lathes, grinders etc) using in some cases different jigs/fixtures and then more inspections and so on. In some cases the very early machining steps are to establish locating points for the next set of fixtures to hold the part with. 
The time spent making Peregrine parts is going to be very close to the time spent making Merlin parts, _however_ the time spent switching the tooling/fixtures back and forth between the two engines is dead time when _no_ parts are being made. 

If the "dead" time is charged to the Peregrine then limited production of Peregrine could very easily "cost" the loss of _production_ of two Merlins. 

Large scale production doesn't change the time needed to "machine" the parts but it sure cuts down on change overs of jigs and fixtures (dead time). 

I worked at P W in the early 70s for a few years machining jet engine disks, Somedays my machine was working on compressor disks and some days it was turbine disks. Sometimes we finished a batch of parts in the middle of the day and and spent time swapping out the jigs/fixtures for the next "job" (batch of parts), At times the cutters were changed to ones of a specific radius to get the desired finished radius on inside corners. Production was low and there were spare machines which could sometimes be set up by special 'set up' men while the machine operators made the parts on the next machine in the line. 

In WWII in 1940 _any_ dead time spent swapping jigs and fixtures back and forth would not be looked at favorably. 

Even Merlin production _tended_ to be segregated. While Derby built the greatest variety of Merlins the shadow factories tended to specialize, Not an ironclad rule but Ford tended to build single stage two speed engines only. Glasgow built mostly single stage two speed engines although there were some two stage engines. Some low production number engines were only built in one factory. 

In the US "shadow" factories also tended to build one type of engine, Ford only built single stage R-2800s. Nash-Kelvinator only built two stage engines. 

Rolls-Royce _might_ have been able to (been persuaded to) sell/give the Kestrel/Peregrine "tooling" (jigs, fixtures, inspection tools, etc) to another company but the lathes, milling machines, grinders etc were needed for Merlin production. 


This loss of production is a very complicated question and having only a single, short sentence to go by leaves many questions unanswered. It is like reading a single sentence summery of a 10 page report. 

I would note that P W was dropping the R-1535 at about the same time as being too small to warrant further development, Around 600 Miles Master IIIs were built using R-1535s in 1940/41. 

I like the Whirlwind. I think it got a _bit_ of a bad deal considering some of the other stuff the British continued to make at the time and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can see that the "Hawker fighter" it was thrown over for arrived late, was more trouble prone than the Whirlwind and suffered from some of the same performance handicaps. 
However the Peregrine had limited development potential due to it's size (even if it could match a Merlin liter for liter it was going to give 75-78% of the power of the Merlin) so it was always going to be a special application engine. It was the right decision to stop it. 
It is just that some of the reasons given for stopping the Peregrine and Whirlwind seem to be after the fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jan 28, 2015)

Altogether a pretty good summation, Shortround.

I like the Whirlwind, too, mostly due to the fuselage cannon armament. If they had fitted a pair of 800 - 1100 HP radials, they might have had a very good attack plane for direct support of ground troops. But that also was not really needed in the 1940 - 1941 timeframe. 

As you said, it was very probably the right decision made at the right time. Sometimes the right dcision is not always the easy decision.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2015)

I'm not sure that the ground attack plane was not needed in 1940-41 time frame, for either country in the war it those years.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 28, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Handsome looking aircraft.
> 
> The F.9/37 with Peregrines was some 30 mph slower than the Whirly, though. With a 50% greater wing area, it would be a better airframe for the Merlins than the Whirlwind. The more voluminous fuselage (it was envisioned as a turret fighter at 1st) means easier addition of second crew member for night fighting duties.



I am surprised the F9/37 was as fast as it was with 2 x Taurus it had a very thick looking wing and very bluff nose. They must have been very good examples of the engine.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2015)

_Needed_ and _wanted_ are two different things. And different officers/officials wanted different things. _Some_ officers/officials wanted nothing to do with ground attack/army support planes as they though that such planes would take away from the "bomber campaign". Some officers/officials disagreed with them and some others may have flipped-flopped. Not wanting ground attack/army support planes in 1938/39 but wanting them in 1940 when the threat of German troops on British beaches was _thought_ to be high and then back to not wanting them ( or thinking that the job could be done by any old obsolete aircraft that were handy).

The Whirlwind got their big reprieve with the fitting of bomb racks in 1942 ( around a year after a squadron commander first suggested it) _because_ of a shortage of bomb capable Hurricanes _in Britain_. At the time Hurricanes were being sent overseas (North Africa and Far East) leaving only TWO squadrons of Hurri-bombers in England and without replacements one of them might have to be stood down. The conversion of the two Whirlwind squadrons _doubled_ the number of fighter bomber squadron _at the time._ These fighter bombers were being used as replacements for Blenheims in the "forward lean" policy. Germans were NOT coming up to fight 3-4 squadron strength sweeps of Spitfires so some sort of bomb carrying aircraft had to thrown into the mix. 2-6 bomb carrying aircraft were often escorted by 2-4 _squadrons_ of Spitfires in an attempt to force the Germans to fight. Whirlwinds had a rather better chance of "escaping" after bombing than Blenheims 

The Whirlwind vs Spitfire comparison isn't quite right either. I have no doubt it was made at the time but the _comparison_ should have been between the Whirlwind and the Hawker fighter (Tornaphoon/Typhado ?). They certainly _planned_ a four cannon Spitfire in 1940 and built _some_ four cannon MK Vs in the Spring/summer of 1941 but the numbers were few and apparently they were not well liked. The Spitfire does not become a _standard_ four cannon fighter until the end of the war with MK XXI and the 2nd generation (2 stage) Griffon engine. The Tornaphoon/Typhado being a much closer match in capability, weight and resources needed. The Hurricane could carry the guns but it no longer had the performance needed even with a engine one generation better than than the engines in the Whirlwind. 

The men at the time were trying to make the best decisions they could with the information they had at the time. Unfortunately they were getting some of their information from some rather overconfident salesmen and at times were comparing planes trying to enter squadron service with planes that would not be available for a year or more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2015)

The Bristol Taurus deserves a book about itself, even if just because it is such a controversial machine. The F.9/37 was using the 'Bristol Taurus T-S(a) of 1000 HP', per Wikipedia, but:
1st - we don't know anything else about the T-S(a). Is the quoted 1000 HP figure for take off, or it is international power, or maybe it is max power at what altitude? The nomenclature might be for a prototype engine. Then it was re-engined with 'Taurus T-S(a)-IIIs' of 900 HP, performance fell by how much? Again - 900 HP on what setting, what altitude? 
Lumsden mentions the Taurus III with 930 HP for take off, and 1060 HP at 14500 ft - a respectable performance for 1939-40. The Albacore and Beaufort would be using 'bomber versions' of the Taurus (II, IV, XII) that were providing more power at lower altitudes, 1060-1090 HP for take off and 1110-1140 HP at 4000 or 3500 ft. No aircraft used the Mk.III? 

The Douglas DB7 was pretty fast with 1000 HP (at altitude) Twin Wasps, the F.9/37 was at least smaller than those.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 28, 2015)

fastmongrel said:


> I am surprised the F9/37 was as fast as it was with 2 x Taurus it had a very thick looking wing and very bluff nose. They must have been very good examples of the engine.



They were prototype engines that had as the _closest_ service equivalent the MK III that offered 1060hp at 14,500ft. 
Unfortunately being single speed supercharged engines the high gear ratio used _cut_ take-off power by around 125 hp despite running 200rpm faster than any other service Taurus engine. 

Actual performance of the engines in the F9/37 seems to be scarce.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 28, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The men at the time were trying to make the best decisions they could with the information they had at the time. Unfortunately they were getting some of their information from some rather overconfident salesmen and at times were comparing planes trying to enter squadron service with planes that would not be available for a year or more.


well said!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 31, 2015)

blueskies said:


> There is some that has survived



That is the approach which I mentioned earlier, made to Fighter Command (the letter was addressed to Sholto-Douglas) in which Westland claimed they could fit a Merlin to the Whirlwind. 'Certain undercarriage retraction problems' glosses over the serious nature of the design work required and as far as I know it wasn't completed.
This is a 'back channel' communication. Sholto-Douglas and Fighter Command did not control what aircraft were produced in British factories. The letter represents an effort to get Sholto-Douglas on side in an effort to save the Whirlwind for Westland.
In January 1941 the Air Ministry axe had already fallen (twice actually, including a limited reprieve) on the Whirlwind. It was a dead duck for reasons that both I and several others have already mentioned.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 10, 2015)

FWIW - the manual for the Whirlwind, dated June 1940. The max boost was limited to +9 psi when 100 oct fuel was used, from take off upwards. So no +12 psi, as with Merlin III/XII. link


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 10, 2015)

> The men at the time were trying to make the best decisions they could with the information they had at the time. Unfortunately they were getting some of their information from some rather overconfident salesmen and at times were comparing planes trying to enter squadron service with planes that would not be available for a year or more.



A good summation of the Air Ministry's attitude toward the Whirlwind, also accurate about the state of Westland's approach, to be honest. Dennis Edkins, Petter's personal assistant summed up the aeroplane as thus; "Although it had great potential, there were three things against it: its engines never came up to expectations, the works management's inability to understand the amount of work needed to get an aircraft from development into production, and the embodiment of too many technical innovations."


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2015)

The Whirlwind was not an ideal aircraft, none of aircraft is/was. However - the technical innovations worked, the time between specification and production was not that bad (5 years), the engines worked for years despite alleged as troublesome. Wonder how the Westland management regarded the whole Whirlwind program when AM ordered 200 fighters (and cut down further), while the Botha went to 580 produced, the Lysander went to almost 1800 pcs, the Defiant to more than 1000; even the Roc (I know it was the RN bird) was produced in more examples. Small initial order = less of more 'mechanized' tooling acquired = slow pace of production = greater price per aircraft, with less income for the manufacturer.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 11, 2015)

I wonder how Vickers felt about being told that Spitfire production would cease at the end of 1940, after which Supermarine were to build Beaufighters, and it was early 1940 before the authorities changed their collective minds, and gave them a continuation order for 450, later increased to 900.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2015)

Would you be so kind to shed some light about the chronological orders for the Spitfire in the 'early years'? Is it evident, by the original reports, why Vickers will produce the Beaufighter instead?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 11, 2015)

I haven't found why there was such a leaning towards the Beaufighter, and it didn't last long into the war; as time goes on, interest gradually turns back to continuing Spitfire production, with extra orders finally being placed.
The backtracking started 17-11-39; an order for a further 500 was proposed 8-12-40, and 450 agreed 11-1-40. 22-3-40 it was increased to 900.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2015)

Many thanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 12, 2015)

Looking at how the AM was ordering a host of 2-engined fighters (prior the war: Whirlwind, Beaufighter; later the Lightning and Welkin, even later the Hornet, Meteor; FB versions of the Mossie thrown for a good measure) - if they thought two engines will do a better job than one, they went ahead with it. The Gloster almost managed.

Darn shame Peter/Westland did not design the Whirlwind as a bigger aircraft around Merlins, than so small around Peregrines.


----------



## Elmas (Feb 12, 2015)

Probably the leaning towards twins in general and the Beau in particular was due to the fact that, in 1939, AM was expecting over the British sky ordes of He 177, to deal with four cannons were rightly considered necessary. When AM Ministry understood that He 177 was very dangerous, but only to the German general aircraft production, the necessity for huge numbers of four cannnons fighters decreased dramatically.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 12, 2015)

I'm not sure that He 177 was the perceived target when Beau was considered, rather a substantial force of He 111s? 
The Beaufighter offered an increase of firing time through the observer changing empty drums, very much like the Bf 110. The secondary battery of '303s was also there. It was calculated that speed would be in order of 370 mph. But even with 320-340 mph it would be a formidable bomber destroyer, and role of Fighter Command was all about that before France fell. Even during the BoB the bombers were primary targets.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

> the technical innovations worked, the time between specification and production was not that bad (5 years)



Problem is, Westland had promised so much within a certain time frame and could not deliver; The work force was not capable of doing so. Five years is okay, but first got to fix the numerous problems with the airframe.

Also, the technical advances didn't all work; interconnecting the radiator shutters with the flaps was not the smartest idea in a fighter; max power and you have to drop your flaps every time, or risk overheating the engine? And on the Whirlwind they were relatively large. Also, ducting exhaust tubing through the fuel tanks!? When Harald Penrose complained to Petter about this feature, Petter stated something along the lines of "you pilots have got to accept _some_ risks..." It nearly cost Penrose his life, when flying the prototype, the starboard aileron suddenly flipped up and refused to move, causing the aircraft to roll uncontrollably; the exhaust shroud had failed and the excessive heat had melted the aileron push rod. After this, the Air Ministry insisted on more conventional system of exhaust. Another problem was the 10 ft long leading edge slats, which opened with such violence that during trials they ripped from the wing leading edges. In one case, this caused a fatal (for the pilot and aircraft) structural failure of the wing.

The problem also with Peregrines was that Rolls was not placing as much priority on their manufacture, so they came off the production line at a longer rate between engines than Merlins. There were also delays in getting the Hobson downdraught carburettors delivered.

I do suspect that some of you have a rose tinted view of what the Whirlwind was like; it was an extremely troublesome aircraft riddled with technical faults that took enormous amounts of time to rectify, and along the way cost lives. It was pretty, though.


----------



## Elmas (Feb 12, 2015)

Of course, as repeatedly and rigthly said in this post, AM did not have all the informations we have today, so, what if the Germans were able to shift the production numbers from He 111 to He 177? Fortunately they weren't, but the Intelligence informations gathered in 1939 probably were not too much reassuring.

And cannons in 1939 had a lot of trouble working in freezing temperatures, so they had to be collocated in a place were an heating was possible and an operator was needed to fix jams and change drums.

Also the recoil of cannons was considered too powerful by Air Technical Staffs for thin monoplane wings, as the analytical calculus of stressed skin wings was still in it's infancy and the ultimate limits of strenght were not yet clearly understood by aeronautical engineers and, rigthly, underestimated, so thick wings of Tornado an Typhoon.

How things went, we all now know.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> I do suspect that some of you have a rose tinted view of what the Whirlwind was like; it was an extremely troublesome aircraft riddled with technical faults that took enormous amounts of time to rectify, and along the way cost lives. It was pretty, though.



Trouble is, using the trusty retrospectoscope, we can also see that the the plane picked to replace the Whirlwind (and the Spitfire and the Hurricane), the Hawker Typhoon was also "an extremely troublesome aircraft riddled with technical faults that took enormous amounts of time to rectify, and along the way cost lives." It also wasn't quite as pretty as the Whirlwind. 

Petter was, apparently, not an easy man to work with and absolutely hated anybody messing with his designs. Some people claim _one_ of the reasons the Folland Gnat failed to become the NATO light fighter vs the Fiat G 91 was that Petter refused to put bulged landing gear doors on the Gnat to accommodate larger tires to meet the ground pressure requirement. 

The rose tinted view also comes from the fact that it stayed in combat service for several years unlike some other _masterpieces_ like the Botha and even the Lysander. Lysander faded real quick as soon as any real aerial opposition showed up and the famed spy dropping duties were carried out by a single squadron that was NOT fully equipped with Lysanders.

We can also image what the FW 190 reputation would be if it had stayed closer to it's prototype beginnings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

But eventually over 3,300 Hawker Typhoons were produced, and it's a good job we had it. It was operated by about 30 RAF squadrons, 3 Canadian and 2 Kiwi squadrons.

Just over 100 Whirlwinds were produced and it only ever equipped two squadrons, generally with a poor serviceability rate. It is in fact irrelevant in the context of WW2 aircraft production, nothing more than a footnote.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Elmas (Feb 12, 2015)

To be a little bit "autistic" seems to be a common trait between top airplane designers.
Mario Castoldi of MC 72, 200, 202, 205 etc. is said to have been an extremely amiable person when talking about his favourite hobby, rice and ricefields: but when talking airplanes he was a drake spitting flames......


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

The 114 Whirlwinds were produced in order to use up materials already ordered and partiality formed into finished goods (spars, ribs, landing gear parts, etc). No plane, no matter how good,(and the Whirlwind, as built, was not a wonder plane) that was built in such small numbers is going to be more than footnote. 

The Typhoon was similarly kept because they also had too much invested in it to cancel the whole thing outright. Hawker had been instructed to proceed with 1000 production aircraft before the 2nd prototype flew. It may have equipped 35 squadrons, the question is wither it should have. 
It took 1 1/2 to years from first _production_ aircraft to getting decent reliability and safety out of the Typhoon, The Sabre engine fell from being an engine of choice for many projects to sustaining just one (or 1 1/2 the Tempest being a follow up?) and that was by taking production away from the original company and giving it to another company. The Sabre having more than it's share of operational problems for quite some time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

I have to agree with Steve, SR. Comparing the Fw 190 and Whirlwind is folly; one was a well thought out design with much potential, whereas the other was overcooked and too clever by half. The issues with the '190 surrounded engine cooling; it didn't suffer from anywhere near the number of defects as the Whirlygig. Also, regarding hindsight, the Air Ministry were not altogether keen on Westland getting a production order from early on for good reason. It suffered numerous technical delays, and, yes, so did the Typhoon, but I bet the bods in the Ministry were pretty much ready to can it as well, if it weren't for the likes of Beamont and Freeman.



> The rose tinted view also comes from the fact that it stayed in combat service for several years unlike some other masterpieces like the Botha and even the Lysander. Lysander faded real quick as soon as any real aerial opposition showed up and the famed spy dropping duties were carried out by a single squadron that was NOT fully equipped with Lysanders.



Botha? It was considered entirely unsuited for service. Lysander? Aren't you forgetting that it was in operational service from 1938 until November 1945, albeit in small numbers? Much longer than the Whirly. Oh, go on, mention the Defiant 



> The Typhoon was similarly kept because they also had too much invested in it to cancel the whole thing outright. Hawker had been instructed to proceed with 1000 production aircraft before the 2nd prototype flew. It may have equipped 35 squadrons, the question is wither it should have. It took 1 1/2 to years from first production aircraft to getting decent reliability and safety out of the Typhoon, The Sabre engine fell from being an engine of choice for many projects to sustaining just one (or 1 1/2 the Tempest being a follow up?) and that was by taking production away from the original company and giving it to another company. The Sabre having more than it's share of operational problems for quite some time.



This is all very true, but when the Typhoon was going through its motions (so to speak) there was a war on. There wasn't when the Whirlwind's problems first reared their heads.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

> To be a little bit "autistic" seems to be a common trait between top airplane designers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> I have to agree with Steve, SR. Comparing the Fw 190 and Whirlwind is folly; one was a well thought out design with much potential, whereas the other was overcooked and too clever by half. The issues with the '190 surrounded engine cooling; it didn't suffer from anywhere near the number of defects as the Whirlygig.



Really???
First two 190 prototypes used a totally different engine than the later planes. After the engine change and with some additions of requirement weight rose by about 1400lbs and handling deteriorated. Two incomplete air frames were used as test rigs. 
after the 5th airframe was rebuilt with a much modified wing, the next few dozen aircraft had a mis-mash of larger wing, beefed up landing gear, larger horizontal tail surfaces and finally on the A-2 model a larger vertical fin (first talked about much earlier).
Please see, Modeller's Guide to Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Variants - Radial Engine Versions - Part I

The _initial_ FW 190 may have been too clever by half itself. The Germans used up more prototype FW 190s trying to sort it out than the British issued Whirlwinds to the first squadron to go into service. 



> Botha? It was considered entirely unsuited for service.



And yet they built over 500 of them. And they were "used", briefly as trainers and then as that catch all for planes that failed to live up to their promised combat potential. *target tug!* 



> Lysander? Aren't you forgetting that it was in operational service from 1938 until November 1945, albeit in small numbers? Much longer than the Whirly.



I would hope it was in service longer as a communications hack or some such. They only built about 1780 of them, only about 15 times as many as the Whirlwind. 

And then we have all the Variants of the Lysander.
The TT MK I (MK I Lysander converted to target tug). 
The TT MK II (MK II Lysander converted to target tug).
The TT MK III (MK I, II and III Lysander converted to target tugs).
The TT MK IIIA (100 Lysanders built as target tugs).
Lets not forget that 350 of the MK III Lysanders were delivered _after_ July of 1940 at which point they were known to be a total failure in their intended role. But some sort of aircraft was better than no aircraft. 




> Oh, go on, mention the Defiant



OK 

At least it could perform some sort of combat function (eyeball night fighter) in late 1940 and 1941. 





> This is all very true, but when the Typhoon was going through its motions (so to speak) there was a war on. There wasn't when the Whirlwind's problems first reared their heads.



True but then some of the Whirlwinds problems (like the stupid exhaust) had been sorted out before it got to squadron service. 

as for the cooling flap problem, I don't think I have ever seen a _good_ explanation of this.






There was a flap on the TOP of the wing that could open up. I don't know if it wasn't big enough. If it operated by linkage to the main flaps? If the main flaps disturbed the airflow in certain positions or what? 

As far as the leading edge slats go, a number of designers used them when they shouldn't have at the time. 






Granted Handley Page was the patent holder and wanted to promote them but some planes just didn't need them, like the first 50 Halifax four engine bombers. On the Whirlwinds they were fastened shut and made no difference to the handling of the airplane.

edit, BTW, first Mosquito prototype had leading edge slats.


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The Typhoon was similarly kept because they also had too much invested in it to cancel the whole thing outright. Hawker had been instructed to proceed with 1000 production aircraft before the 2nd prototype flew. It may have equipped 35 squadrons, the question is wither it should have.



Unless the British can come up with a better fighter bomber to spear head the RAF's Tactical Air Forces, notably 2nd TAF in NW Europe, then the answer to the question whether it should have equipped 35 squadrons with well over 3,000 produced is a no brainer.
It might have failed to live up to original expectations but fate and the changing role of air power in support of ground forces offered a role in which it could excel. The Typhoon was one of the best fighter bombers of the war.

Removing, or locking, the slats of the Whirlwind might not have made much difference to the handling of the Whirlwind, which was hardly agile, but it did nothing for the already high landing speed.
There would have been sound aerodynamic reasons for their inclusion. No designer adds high lift devices to his wings if he thinks they are unnecessary, the Whirlwinds just didn't work properly and wiring them shut was a compromise expedient, not the last time one such would be used either.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

And much like the Whirlybomber the "Bombphoons" were pretty much an after the fact modification. They were also an ongoing modification. Well over 500 Typhoons being _delivered_ (let alone ordered) before they start hanging bombs on them (Oct 1942). Later new tail wheels were fitted, bigger tires and brakes. At some point in 1943 they figure they can go to 1000lb bombs. Some planes get larger tailplanes from the Tempest. Switch to 4 bladed prop is delayed. It took over a year and half to go from initial ground attack missions to the Fighter bomber units used Normandy. 

And none of this answers the question as to what the actual cost of the Typhoon and Sabre program was. Between R&D and manufacturing costs was the Sabre worth what was put into it in comparison to other engines? 

Did a Sabre cost 2-4 times what Merlin cost? More?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> And much like the Whirlybomber the "Bombphoons" were pretty much an after the fact modification. They were also an ongoing modification. Well over 500 Typhoons being _delivered_ (let alone ordered) before they start hanging bombs on them (Oct 1942). Later new tail wheels were fitted, bigger tires and brakes. At some point in 1943 they figure they can go to 1000lb bombs. Some planes get larger tailplanes from the Tempest. Switch to 4 bladed prop is delayed. It took over a year and half to go from initial ground attack missions to the Fighter bomber units used Normandy.



So what? In the end the Typhoon made a superb fighter bomber and ground attack aircraft. As for on going modifications, all aircraft receive various upgrades and alterations, either at the factory or, for those already in service, on return to maintenance units or other suitable facilities. Only relatively minor mods might be made at the squadron by service personnel or manufacturers' work parties. 
Your point about modification to the Typhoon after production started could be made for any aircraft that entered service with the RAF. Take a look at the long list of modifications to one of the great WW2 fighters like the Spitfire I (and I mean the Mark 1 alone). 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

stona said:


> So what?



The point is that many people criticize the Whirlwind for _initial_ faults. It took time to sort out most aircraft in squadron service. If they applied the same standards to some other aircraft that they apply to the Whirlwind quite a few major aircraft of WWII would never have made it past the first one or two squadrons. American SB2C Helldiver was a real piece of work (disaster) for example. 

It was frozen in time and never got a MK II or even a MK Ia version( or much of one aside from the bomb racks) and yet it survived in combat use until 1943. Granted heavily escorted at times but nobody was using Hurricane MK Is Or Spitfire MK Is over enemy territory in 1943. The Germans were not using FW 190A-0s in 1943, or Br 110C s on hit and run raids. The Americans were not using P-40B/Cs in 1943 (heck, the Americans didn't even want to use P-40Ns in their _own_ units in late 1943). 

They were not being used as target tugs, or air-sea rescue planes or squadron hacks or meteorological flights. The Whirlwind may have been the oldest _type/Mark_ of aircraft being used over occupied territory in NW Europe in 1943. That says something even if it was not as a first line fighter. 

The decision to cancel it was probably right and RR should NOT have spent much more time on the Peregrine but lets not pretend that the Typhoon and Sabre were all sweetness and light or a bed of roses either. They survived because _success_ always seemed right around the corner (one more modification away) and the Air Ministry had gotten themselves in a position that there was no good fall back airplane (Ground attack Spitfires with 500+ lbs of armor?) or engine (Vulture already canceled and Centaurus running way late and Fedden out of Bristol. 

Depending on source 132-135 Typhoons had their tails come off in flight let alone on landing and engine failures were of epidemic proportion. 

It turned _into_ a good ground attack plane _eventually_ but was pretty much a failure at it's original intended mission yet it is forgiven while the Whirlwind is castigated for failing to be an all-round fighter. And the Typhoon went through several different Marks of engine. Counting letters as Marks as they did have different power ratings and may have had a different rpm rating between first and last versions.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

The fundamental difference (ignoring the engine question, which doomed the Whirlwind in any case) is that the Typhoon became an aircraft that the RAF needed. The Whirlwind wasn't one and never became one.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

Lets see:

Plane...........................Whirlwind......................Typhoon.

wing area.........................250sqft.....................279 sq.ft
Empty weight ..................8,310 lb.....................8,840 lb
Loaded W/O bombs..........10,356 lb ...................11,400 lb
guns ............................4 20mm Hispano.........4 20mm Hispano Or twelve .303s
Fuel.................................136 gal......................168 gals (?)
Take off power.................1550hp........................1995hp
HP at 15,000ft .................1770hp........................1880hp

Yep, I can see how the Whirlwind was just useless to the RAF and the Typhoon was exactly what was wanted/needed. Especially considering it was a least a year behind in timing and had a two speed supercharger for its engine/s (two flat twelves geared together ?) giving much better power low down. 

Power figures are for the Sabre IIA engine/Lumsden


----------



## stona (Feb 12, 2015)

The Typhoon could carry twice the bomb load of the Whirlwind, actually four times the usual operational Whirlwind load of 2 x 250lb bombs. This is probably the single most important factor for a fighter _bomber. _

I don't know if it would have been possible to fit eight rocket rails to a Whirlwind given the engine/propeller disc position and I don't know that it was tried. Late in the war Typhoons operated with 12 rockets, the inner two rails on each side doubled.

Range is also important, and whatever the figures suggest the RAF set the operational radius of the Whirlwind at 120 miles in 1942.

All the data regarding weights and engine performance is just the stuff that lifts the armament and ordnance. This the Typhoon did rather better than the Whirlwind. In other areas of performance the Typhoon was, unsurprisingly, a generation ahead of the Whirlwind. Much is made of the Typhoon's high altitude performance (or lack thereof) but this is by 1942/3 standards, not the 1939/40 standards on which the Whirlwind failed. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 12, 2015)

Typhoon lifted more "stuff" because it had a 1941/42 engine. The Whirlwind was stuck with those 1939/40 engines. See how good a bomber the Hurricane would have been with Merlin III.
It took a number of months before the Typhoon used the 1000lb bombs, Early missions mean it had the same bomb load (max) as the Whirlwind. Whirlwind never even got faired bomb racks. It also never got beefed up landing gear, larger tires, bigger brakes and other improvements to help handle bigger weights. There weren't enough of them left to make it worth while but comparing the stuck in 1940 Whirlwind to the _developed_ 1944 Typhoon doesn't really show the real merits of the planes. 

Actually the Typhoon was just a bit wanting in high altitude performance even in 1941. 
It was .45 minutes slower to 20,000ft than a MK II Spitfire and 1 full minute slower to 25,000ft and 2.4 minutes slower to 30,000ft. And lets face it, a MK II Spitfire was hardly the Bench mark in 1941. The MK V Spitfires could beat the MK IIs by a minute to a minute and half to 30,000ft. The Early Typhoon could beat a MK II Hurricane mostly but it's greatest advantage was to 25,000ft where it got there 1.1 minute faster. Unfortunately the Hurricane took only 5 minutes to climb the next 5000ft while the Typhoon took 5.7 min.

Granted the Typhoon beats the Whirlwind by a handy amount but then the Typhoon does beat the Hurricane I and Spitfire I. 
Things get a _bit_ better with the Sabre IIB engine with More RPM and higher boost (it _will_ work, just let us make *one* more improvement....... and one more.........and one more........and one more)

Whirlwind had a crap exhaust set up and quite possibly a crap intake for getting Ram Effect.


----------



## rogerwilko (Feb 12, 2015)

Poor ol' Whirly. Never had a real chance!


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 12, 2015)

> The initial FW 190 may have been too clever by half itself. The Germans used up more prototype FW 190s trying to sort it out than the British issued Whirlwinds to the first squadron to go into service.



That's because the Air Ministry wouldn't let them build any more until the issues were sorted with the prototypes. Despite the Fw 190s issues, and, yes, it was a very advanced aeroplane and therefore had teething troubles, it had far greater potential than the Whirlwind - and look what happened to it. It was a sure-fire winner, the same can't be said for the Whirly.



> The point is that many people criticize the Whirlwind for initial faults. It took time to sort out most aircraft in squadron service. If they applied the same standards to some other aircraft that they apply to the Whirlwind quite a few major aircraft of WWII would never have made it past the first one or two squadrons. American SB2C Helldiver was a real piece of work (disaster) for example.



Yep, indeed, but that does in no way justify any of those aeroplanes' misgivings and the fact they took lives in sorting out their issues. Yes, the Whirly was troubled initially, but had it been a technologically simpler machine incorporating fewer advanced features that was not going to overstretch Westland's resources, then perhaps it might have been able to achieve greater things, but built-in complexities that the Whirly had for a company like Westland to tackle was a bit too much; the firm bit off more than it could chew. As I've used in another thread, the Mosquito stands as an example here of exceptional performance, but using existing technology, yet applying similar low drag philosophies that Petter was doing so _and_ the firm that built it being able to manage the project without significant problems.

Also, choosing the Peregrine was arguably a mistake - yes, hindsight again, but Petter thought that its lower weight and size, combined with its reasonable power output and drag reduction measures applied to the airframe would be a winning combination. Sadly and unfortunately for the firm and the RAF, it wasn't. It _could_ have been a great aeroplane because in theory Petter had brilliant ideas; instead it was an also-ran, because he couldn't make them work as well as he'd hoped, and the Air Min knew he couldn't. What they really needed as the war wore on was high performance single engined single-seat fighters, which might go some way in explaining why the Typhoon was pressed on with during the war for as long as it was.



> Poor ol' Whirly. Never had a real chance!



Sadly, no. Petter was brilliant and his ideas were a cracker, some of then great, some not so and unfortunately the Whirlwind suffered as a result. The firm that produced it wasn't able to match Petter's creative brilliance in manufacturing capability. He was a bit big for Westland and it could be said that had he been employed with say, Handley Page, or Vickers or Hawker - one of the bigger firms with better resources, his sharper ideas might have been able to yield more successful results.


----------



## Glider (Feb 13, 2015)

The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long? Why did it suffer so few combat casualties despite being in the front line for so long? Much is made of its being escorted on fighter bomber missions, when often it wasn't escorted and other aircraft such as Hurricanes, Spitfires and even Typhoons were also escorted when needed. When it was often used in shipping strikes which was a very dangerous mission. It was supposed to be a poor fighter but it was often used in its early years as an escorting fighter.

Some of the claims made have been at best half complete. One example being the combat with the Me 109s when two 109's were claimed without loss. The full story is that there was an initial unescorted strike against a Luftwaffe airfield and as the Whirlwinds were returning to the UK they came across two freighters which they attacked with guns bringing them to a halt. The second mission escorted by the Spitfires was to attack the ships. This was the mission intercepted by a larger formation of 109's. However the Spitfire escort wasn't a close escort and for a while the four Whirlwinds were on their own against approx. twelve to sixteen 109's. It was in this period that the two claims were made without loss the second one confirmed by the S/L of the escorting Spitfires as they entered the battle.

A second claim was that in the GA tests in 1941 the Hurricane was deemed to be the better GA aircraft. That isn't what I read. What I find is that both the Hurricane and the Whirlwind were considered to be good GA aircraft and one observer considered the Hurricane to be the better, not quite the same. When you throw in other factors such as the Whirlwinds better low altitude performance and better survivability things look a little more even.

I agree the Whirlwind never had a real chance but its because it was never given a real chance. I think we can at least agree that an additional 580 Whirlwinds would have been a better investment for the RAF than the same number of Botha's.

Interestingly I agree that Rolls Royce didn't have the facilities to develop the Peregrine and that was the right decision 

The Whirlwind was the GA aircraft the RAF didn't have in the early years of the war. Its low level performance was very good and its payload of 2 x 250lb bombs may seem small but for the time it wasn't that bad.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 13, 2015)

> I would hope it was in service longer as a communications hack or some such. They only built about 1780 of them, only about 15 times as many as the Whirlwind. And then we have all the Variants of the Lysander.
> The TT MK I (MK I Lysander converted to target tug).
> The TT MK II (MK II Lysander converted to target tug).
> The TT MK III (MK I, II and III Lysander converted to target tugs).
> ...



Bit of a sweeping generalisation with bias to support a point of view, rather than an accurate assessment, to be honest, SR. It was certainly not a total failure in the army co-op role; it made an excellent recon and spotter platform, general liason aircraft etc. Never have I seen the Lysander being described as a total failure at anything it did. In fact, after the Battle of Britain, four more Lysander ACC squadrons were formed, although the Air Ministry began to realise that the performance of a fighter was required for ACC duties and Tomahawks and Mustang Is became front line equipment. Lysanders saw service in almost all theatres of war, from the Middle and Far East to Finland, North Africa, the Balkans and Western Europe. The last operational squadrons were as an SD aircraft. There were three SD squadrons, not just 161, but 148 and 357; the latter being the last to operate the type in a front line role, doing so until after the end of the war.



> The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long?



The concept was a good one, just not as well executed as had been hoped, but it still had excellent performance down low, so during the war since many aircraft types were needed, why not use it? The type had been committed to production, but only the numbers of aircraft supporting the number of Peregrines RR were going to build, were built - obviously. It did have a creditable combat outing as a ground attack aircraft, Ramrod raids against airfields and managing to sink an E-boat, 137 Sqn Whirlwinds also took part in efforts to combat the Channel Dash, although four were lost.

I don't necessarily think it was a poor fighter, it just didn't have good altitude performance, but it was plagued with overheating throughout its career as a result of the flap/cowl door problem. RR criticised this recurring issue, which has been erroneously and repeatedly blamed on the engine at the time and since, as pilots not following the Pilot's Notes, which stated that the aircraft should be taxied with flaps fully extended, which opened the cowl door and enabled cooling air to flow through the radiator, but of course piliots didn't do this, since it was bad form to taxy in with flaps down!

Just looking through an article I have on the type, Whirly's first confirmed kill was on 8 February 1941, an Arado Ar 196, whilst on anti-E-boat patrols. A Ju 88 was claimed as a probable on 12 January however. Three Bf 109s were claimed during Ramrods in June. The last operational sortie by 263 Sqn using Whirlys was on 29 November 1943 looking for Ju 52/3m minesweepers, but didn't find them. There were four Whirlys lost during the Channel dash, but it looks like no German fighters claimed (?any more on this?) There is an incident recorded where two Whirlys attacked a Blenheim, thinking it was a Ju 88 and one was shot down (! I think the Blenheim escaped), although a Ju 88 fell to a Whirly on 27 May 1942, this was 137's first Whirly kill, and a Do 217 not long after. A combat on 14 january 1943 saw Whirlys in a dog fight with two Fw 190s, but it was inconclusive. All but one of the 16 survivors of the production Whirlys were scrapped after the type was withdrawn from operations in November 1943. The last survived until May 1947 as a company hack registered G-AGOI. One Whirly was sent to the USA, but was presumed scrapped at Pensacola in 1944.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 13, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> Bit of a sweeping generalisation with bias to support a point of view, rather than an accurate assessment, to be honest, SR. It was certainly not a total failure in the army co-op role; it made an excellent recon and spotter platform, general liason aircraft etc. Never have I seen the Lysander being described as a total failure at anything it did. In fact, after the Battle of Britain, four more Lysander ACC squadrons were formed, although the Air Ministry began to realise that the performance of a fighter was required for ACC duties and Tomahawks and Mustang Is became front line equipment. Lysanders saw service in almost all theatres of war, from the Middle and Far East to Finland, North Africa, the Balkans and Western Europe.



From Wiki take for what you will. 

"Four regular squadrons equipped with Lysanders accompanied the British Expeditionary Force to France in October 1939, and were joined by a further squadron early in 1940. Following the German invasion of France and the low countries on 10 May 1940, the Lysanders were put into action as spotters and light bombers. In spite of occasional victories against German aircraft, they made very easy targets for the Luftwaffe even when escorted by Hurricanes.[4][5] Withdrawn from France during the Dunkirk evacuation, they continued to fly supply-dropping missions to Allied forces from bases in England; on one mission to drop supplies to troops trapped at Calais, 14 of 16 Lysanders and Hawker Hectors that set out were lost. 118 Lysanders were lost in or over France and Belgium in May and June 1940, of a total of 175 deployed"

Granted out of the 118 "only" 70 something were actually lost on combat missions, the rest were left behind on airfields during retreats. Combat losses were in proportion to the losses suffered by the Fairey Battles. 

"With the fall of France, it was clear that the type was unsuitable for the coastal patrol and army co-operation role, being described by Air Marshal Arthur Barratt, commander-in-chief of the British Air Forces in France as "quite unsuited to the task; a faster, less vulnerable aircraft was required."

Only one man's opinion but perhaps "total failure" isn't that far removed from "quite unsuited to the task". The Lysander was _supposed_ to be the Army's close support bomber/strafer and interdiction aircraft. It continued in use because so many were available. 

As far as the AOP roll and general liason: with 20/20 hindsight we have...." Pre-war tests identified the Taylorcraft Model D as the most suitable aircraft for the AOP role. Three more Ds were purchased from Taylorcraft and a trials unit, D Flight, under Major Charles Bazeley RA, formed at Old Sarum on 1 February 1940. The flight with three Austers and one Stinson Voyager, and three artillery and one RAF pilots moved to France where they trained with artillery and practised fighter avoidance with Hurricanes of Air Component before moving south to train with French artillery. The flight did not participate in the fighting and withdrew without loss to UK. However, the War Office then ordered 100 Stinson L-1 Vigilants. Formation of the RAF's Army Cooperation Command in December 1940 led to the RAF rejecting the notion of light AOP aircraft. Intercession by General Alan Brooke led to doctrinal rectification of the RAF. Nevertheless the first AOP pilot course for artillery officers took place in October 1940 and in 1941 the first AOP squadron, No 651, formed. The Stinson Vigilants eventually arrived in early 1942 but most were severely damaged during shipping, this led to the adoption of the Taylorcraft Auster 1 and an order for 100 aircraft placed. Some Stinsons were resurrected but found to be to big for the AOP role."

I would note that the engines used in the Austers Wither British DH Gypsy or American Lycomings ran on 70-73 octane fuel and if Army truck gas wasn't the exact the same it may have been close enough for occasional use. 87 octane av-gas being in rather short supply in the Army supply train. The Austers needed a ground run of about 70-75 yds for take-off using flaps. They had landing/stalling speeds of 28-30mph. They didn't need to perform stunts involving poles, lines and hooks.


----------



## stona (Feb 14, 2015)

Glider, the Whirlwind strikes on airfields in France were escorted. 10 Group's policy was based on the premise that the Whirlwind could not mix it with the Luftwaffe's fighters and had to be able to use it's low level performance to escape a target.

I can't look up the details of the freighter strikes now, but IIRC they were initially a target of opportunity to which the Whirlwinds returned (twice?).

The Whirlwind remained in service because it was considered a decent ground attack aircraft, and it was. What it never was from 1940 onwards was a competitive fighter. It's important to remember that though two squadrons operated the Whirlwind there were rarely double figures serviceable. Most of the strikes were hit and run using few (usually four or eight) aircraft.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 14, 2015)

I would add that many times the Whirlwinds were staged through other airfields than their 'home' airfields. Most likely due to short radius. On the other hand they seemed to have little trouble ( or no more than some other types) in operating (landing and taking off) from a variety of airfields despite early concerns about their high landing speed.


----------



## stona (Feb 14, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> they seemed to have little trouble ( or no more than some other types) in operating (landing and taking off) from a variety of airfields despite early concerns about their high landing speed.



They even operated at night, something else they were originally deemed unsuitable for due to that landing speed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 14, 2015)

Glider said:


> The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long?.


The Whirlwind was never deemed "poor." The company (or its production rate of two per week) was considered inadequate, and Rolls-Royce said that up-rating the engine wasn't worth the (considerable) effort. Neither was the Whirlwind kept in its original configuration, which was "Single Seater Day and Night Fighter," according to Spec F.37/35, but became a ground-attack weapon. Dowding was particularly scathing about Westland, forecasting "a whole packet of trouble," but said that, in the event of an invasion, they might be very glad to have the Whirlwind.
It's somewhat ironic that, as well as tenders from Bristol, Boulton Paul and Fairey, versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire, with four Oerlikon cannon, were also rejected in favour of the Whirlwind.


----------



## thedab (Feb 14, 2015)

Pilot's notes can be download here Pilots Notes Whirlwind I Two Peregrine I

more stuff on the Whirlwind 4shared - View all images at My 4shared folder

Westland Whirlwind | Let Let Let - Warplanes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 14, 2015)

> Only one man's opinion but perhaps "total failure" isn't that far removed from "quite unsuited to the task". The Lysander was supposed to be the Army's close support bomber/strafer and interdiction aircraft. It continued in use because so many were available.



I think there were other mitigating factors against the Lysander in that scenario and yes, I do think 'total failure' is a harsh description (Geez, what do you expect under the circumstances?!). Show me something else that could have been used at that time in that scenario that wouldn't have had the same run of things?

Good info, Thedab. I have a copy of that Flypast magazine with the Whirly article. Aeroplane Monthly did a Database on the Whirly in the May 2006 issue.

Note the sections on flaps and radiator shutters in the Pilot's Notes kindly provided.


----------



## Glider (Feb 14, 2015)

Changing the tack slightly I have been doing some digging because I couldn't work out why both squadrons were almost replaced with the Vengeance, as I had never heard of any plans to use that aircraft in Europe. I have found that when used against shipping the Whirlwind normally applied the skip bombing technique, as in smooth water the bomb would skip approx. 100 yards and in rougher waters about 35 yards. The interesting thing is that when used against land targets they operated as dive bombers with an 80 degree dive bomb approach. The normal vulnerability in using such a tactic was reduced as they would dive at approx. 425 mph so at low altitude they had a good head of speed making the AA gunners life far more difficult. This might be why people considered the use of the Vengeance as a replacement.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 15, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Handsome looking aircraft.
> The F.9/37 with Peregrines was some 30 mph slower than the Whirly, though. With a 50% greater wing area, it would be a better airframe for the Merlins than the Whirlwind. The more voluminous fuselage (it was envisioned as a turret fighter at 1st) means easier addition of second crew member for night fighting duties.





tomo pauk said:


> Sometimes either the aircraft producers were too good salesmen, or the costumers (air ministries of the countries) tended to believe some of their promises too much, or both. Like Bell trumpeting 400 mph for the non-turbo armed P-39, while that was out of capability for turboed and unarmed XP 39. Or wanting the Lightning to do 400 mph without turbos, on engines to be discontinued, same rotation, bad exhaust intake system. Beaufighter was promised to make 370 mph, Typhoon 450 mph? - sure makes easier to cancel the Whirly and to skip the Gloster F.9/37.
> 
> The Gloster twin should be a better airframe for Merlins and as night-fighter than Whirly (without major modifications), being bigger.



These pretty much mesh with my thoughts. The Gloster design seems far less tight/limited than the Whirlwind, more adaptable and with more room for growth without massive redesigns. At the prototype stage it was already working with multiple engine choices in mind AND mounting them in a modular fashion (Perigrines mounted with chin radiators in a 'power egg' style module similar to Merlins on bombers). So not only should the Merlin have been easier to adapt, but potentially other radial engines as well. (in the short term, the Pegasus, Perseus, and Mercury might have been attractive, but a longer term development would make more sense to target the Hercules)

In terms of a better multi-role fighter all around, that Gloster design would seem to be a much better replacement for the Beaufighter while also being a much better air to air fighter aircraft, interceptor, etc. (the Gloster Reaper proposal itself would have been a lot more attractive had the older F.9/37 machine had been ordered into production in some form)
Twin engine fighters do make more sense for tank busting and anti-shipping cannons too, so at least in that role it could have been a good complement to the Mosquito and better alternative to the Hurricane IID. (and, again, Beaufighter)


Arguing for a better alternative/complement to the Typhoon and Hurribomber might also fit in there, but really that's a better argument for having another class of single-engine fighter-bomber entirely. Looking at existing designs, the Bulton Paul Defiant airframe might have been a decent replacement for the Hurricane. (or sort of like a British-built P-40 of sorts ... which itself was a decent enough fighter-bomber by the time of the D/E/F models)

Perhaps more so if it could have been adapted to use the Bristol Hercules. (there were some considerations for doing such on the Hurricane itself, but that doesn't mean it'd be all that practical ... or say easier to adapt than doing the same for a variant of the Typhoon -still might be too underpowered in the latter case, depending on the Hercules model ... certainly limited to low-alt FB/ground attack/support roles though)


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 15, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> Only one man's opinion but perhaps "total failure" isn't that far removed from "quite unsuited to the task". The Lysander was _supposed_ to be the Army's close support bomber/strafer and interdiction aircraft.


No, it wasn't; the specification, against which it was designed and built (1934 Operational Requirement OR.18,) required it to fulfil an" Artillery Spotting and Reconnaissance role." Only very light bombs could be carried under the stub wings, and the forward-firing guns (ludicrous as it seems now, but not in 1934) were for self-defence in combat. The fact that they were thrown into fights for which they were not designed, is indicative of how desperate things got in France.
Of course, the complacent attitude of "senior management" didn't help; when pilots expressed disquiet about the ability of the Lysander to cope with the 109, demonstrations were held, showing how it could not only manoeuvre against attacking Spitfires, but might even shoot them down. Unfortunately those sneaky Germans didn't attack in the same way as the RAF, and the rest is history.


----------



## GregP (Feb 15, 2015)

Please tell me what the hell the Lysander has to do with the Whirlwind production.

I do NOT understand the continuing Lysander references.

Sure, teh Lysander took Westland production capacity, but it has NOTHING to do with the Whirlwind ... or am I wrong? The thread title is Whirlwiond, not Lysander.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2015)

It has two things (interrelated) to do with the Lysander. 

One, as you said, was Westland's production capacity. Deliveries of components (engines for one) may have slowed Whirlwind production to the often mentioned 2 per week. However Westland was told on more than one occasion the Lysander production was to have _priority_ over Whirlwind production.

Two is the rather confusing state of British close support capability, The Lysander was _sort of_ the reason (or the visible symptom) of the CAS malaise. The Lysander was about the only army cooperation/support aircraft that was allowed to go into production/service in 1939/40 (the 200 Hawker Henleys being diverted to target tugs). With the Army going through a huge expansion a large number of Army cooperation planes were needed which helps explain the priority. Unfortunately, the British, like many other countries, got the requirements for an army cooperation plane wrong or failed to realize that _all_ the requirements could NOT be meet by the same airplane. See German HS 126 or American O-47 and O-52 (and the Americans didn't include bombing in the duties) for just a few examples. 

Dowding thought the Whirlwind, even if he did not want it as a fighter, might be useful as an anti-tank aircraft. This is a ground attack/close support mission even if specialized. This comment was made several months after the Lysander proved to be, shall we say _less than what was wanted_ in the Close Support role. Unfortunately it is not quite as easy to change production schedules as easily as some people seem to be believe, and in any case the Whirlwind had already been dropped from future production plans (even if the current contract was unfinished). The Whirlwind wound up doing similar missions to what _part_ of the Lysander's repertoire was supposed to be. 

The Lysander's production priority over the Whirlwind is one of the many reasons the Whirlwind was not developed. What seems to be a bit unexplored is if there was any personal animosity involved. Petter being known as being rather hard to work with, or at least convince that he was wrong on certain points. 

Westland, even without Petter, seemed to be trying to be a forward looking company and quite the 'stuck in the past' company that some people are trying to make out. 

A few examples of _some_ of their previous aircraft. 

1926-Westland Wizard





1930 Westland F.29/27 C.O.W. Gun Fighter 




1932 Westland Pterodactyl V 
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/OS/OS-1/48-4.jpg
600hp engine and 'fully acrobatic?"

1934 Westland F.7/30 




Engine behind pilot, and leading edge slats. 

Westland was no stranger to advance ideas. 

British were using Hurricanes in the Ground Attack/strike role in the summer/fall of 1941. 
Continued use of obsolete aircraft, especially in secondary theaters, is much more an indication of aircraft shortages rather than satisfaction with the aircraft in question, see use of Vickers Vildebeest in the Defense of Singapore.

The Air Ministry had several _very _ good reasons for canceling the Whirlwind when they did. Unfortunately there have been many reasons put out that are false or minor in nature and true for many aircraft early in their development cycle. Also unfortunate is that the _heir apparent_ for British fighter planes (the Typhoon) turned out to have as many or more problems than the Whirlwind in it's first few years of development/service. This leading to a LOT of controversy using the 'retrospectroscope'. 

Sorry to be so long winded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> No, it wasn't; the specification, against which it was designed and built (1934 Operational Requirement OR.18,) required it to fulfil an" Artillery Spotting and Reconnaissance role." Only very light bombs could be carried under the stub wings, and the forward-firing guns (ludicrous as it seems now, but not in 1934) were for self-defence in combat. The fact that they were thrown into fights for which they were not designed, is indicative of how desperate things got in France.



Something does not add up. 

A. 250lb bombs are "light" compared to what? 
A Lysander could carry a bigger bomb load than Hawker Hart bomber, Or Audax
A Lysander could carry a bigger bomb load roughly 4 times that of the contemporary HS 126. 
A Lysander _could_ carry the same bomb load as the Hawker Henley or Fairey P.4/34 tactical bomber prototypes. 






"The stub wings were stressed to carry either a single 250lb bomb , or four 20lb bombs each, or two 112lb bombs."

The two .303 forward firing machineguns were *double* the _defensive_ forward firing armament of the Fairey Battle, the Fairey P.4/34, the Bristol Blenheim or Handley Page Hampden.
It was also double what the Americans were mounting on their observation planes. It was double what the Germans put on the Hs 126.

It was the _same_ as the Germans put on the Hs 123 dive bomber and the early JU 87 Stukas. 

Gunner in the back got ONE Lewis gun originally which means the pilot controlled 4 times the fire power. Somebody had high hopes for the Lysander in Air to Air combat if the forward firing guns were NOT intended for strafing.


----------



## stona (Feb 15, 2015)

Nonetheless A.39/34 asked for a monoplane to OR.18 to fulfil an _"artillery spotting and reconnaissance role over a wide speed range and a variety of duties."_

Whatever the Lysander may have done later its intended role is quite clear. Two forward firing .303 machine guns should be compared to the minimum forward firing armament of British fighters of the same period and that was eight .303 machine guns

An 'anti-invasion' version designed for ground strafing was flown, in mock up/prototype form. The first prototype Lysander,K6127, was provided with an entirely new rear fuselage, shortened to terminate in a power operated four-gun Boulton Paul turret (only a mock-up was ever fitted) and supporting a tandem wing with large twin fins and rudders. 






I'd take a Whirlwind over this any day. The British still hadn't got over an obsession with turrets at this time (1940)
Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 15, 2015)

stona said:


> Nonetheless A.39/34 asked for a monoplane to OR.18 to fulfil an _"artillery spotting and reconnaissance role over a wide speed range and a variety of duties."_
> 
> Whatever the Lysander may have done later its intended role is quite clear. Two forward firing .303 machine guns should be compared to the minimum forward firing armament of British fighters of the same period and that was eight .303 machine guns



The key here (at least in my opinion) is the phrase "_and a variety of duties_" which covers a lot of ground. 

The Lysander being a replacement for the Hawker Audax which also used the message hook trick (one of those variety of duties) and the Hart, Audax, Hind, Hector family certain including light bombing in their duties. They used lower powereed engines and may not have been able to combine all duties in a single aircraft. The Hawker Hector, an Audax with a Napair dagger engine instead of a Kestrel was rated for a pair of 112lb bombs. Strangely enough production Hectors were built by Westland. 

I am not at all sure why the forward armament of "artillery spotting and reconnaissance" aircraft should be compared to proposed fighters and _not_ to bombers, both strategic and tactical being proposed (specifications issued) at the same time.


----------



## stona (Feb 15, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not at all sure why the forward armament of "artillery spotting and reconnaissance" aircraft should be compared to proposed fighters and _not_ to bombers, both strategic and tactical being proposed (specifications issued) at the same time.



I was just referring to your comment:

"Somebody had high hopes for the Lysander in Air to Air combat if the forward firing guns were NOT intended for strafing."

The armament was not designed for strafing, that of the turret fighter above was.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## merlin (Feb 15, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> The Whirlwind was never deemed "poor." The company (or its production rate of two per week) was considered inadequate, and Rolls-Royce said that up-rating the engine wasn't worth the (considerable) effort. Neither was the Whirlwind kept in its original configuration, which was "Single Seater Day and Night Fighter," according to Spec F.37/35, but became a ground-attack weapon. Dowding was particularly scathing about Westland, forecasting "a whole packet of trouble," but said that, in the event of an invasion, they might be very glad to have the Whirlwind.
> It's somewhat ironic that, as well as tenders from Bristol, Boulton Paul and Fairey, versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire, with four Oerlikon cannon, were also rejected in favour of the Whirlwind.



According to Butler - BSP "The idea of modifying either the Spitfire or Hurricane to take 20mm guns was rejected because their designer's drawing offices were too busy; it seemed quicker to order a totally new design from a less occupied company."

Prototype orders went out for the Supermarine 313,two from Boulton-Paul P.88a P.88b, and two Westland P.9s - the Treasury would only authorise funds for the Westland's!


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 15, 2015)

The Lysander played a big part in the Whirlwind story as the Air Ministry thought that Westland's proposal was the better of those offered because of what Merlin stated above and because of its attractive advanced features, and as a result of those innovative aspects of the Lysander's design, but also because the Min believed its design board, under Davenport with Petter as design engineer, could pull it off. A few in the Min had their reservations over whether Westland could actually put it into production without delay with all these new features, however. Here's a quote by the Aissistant Chief of Air Staff "This fighter seemed a thoroughly practical and high performance aeroplane and I only wish the production capapacity of this firm were greater."

So a production order was held off until testing of the prototypes had been completed. Unusual at the time since aircraft were being ordered 'off the drawing board' - Blackburn Botha, what a mistake that was - so the Whirlwind wasn't because of these fears, which proved right in terms of the delay, nine months promised for the first production aircraft turned into 17 months - and because the company was producing Lysanders, which had already been ordered and which served as the technological standard by which the firm were known. The Whirly was the first truly 'modern' aeroplane Westland had built (all metal, sophisticated, advanced flight controls etc etc). The Air Ministry also complained that Westland was inducing delays in the Whirlwind program by concentrating a little too much on the Lysander at one stage.



> This leading to a LOT of controversy using the 'retrospectroscope'.



Exactly. It's hard to fathom why some decisions were made and others were not, and I'm sure there were sound reasons for not supporting the Whirlwind. The problem was that the Air Ministry couldn't very well throw their arms in the air and admit that its pre-war thinking was a mistake and that they'd have to scrap everything and do it all again because things have changed now the Germans have reached Sedan or the Japanese have attacked Singapore. That the Typhoon programme turned out to be a delay hog was certainly not the doing of the Air Ministry and its decision making. There was a war on and what could Hawker (or Napier) do except try and work its way through the problems and keep building Hurricanes in the interim? The Air Ministry had faith in the firm in producing an excellent aircraft - it had put contracts for more Hurricanes than any other aircraft in British history prior to the war, so Hawker was a valued customer. The Min was hardly likely to tell them to scrap it, although from what I believe it came very close to that.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 16, 2015)

merlin said:


> According to Butler - BSP


It would be nice if there was less of this use of initials. What's "BSP?"


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 16, 2015)

If I may - 'British secret projects', the book trilogy by Tony Butler.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Feb 16, 2015)

Reading through this, and many similar threads, the Whirlwind had potential to be developed throughout the war were it worth throwing the resources into it. The only way that would happen would be if the Whirlwind and not the Tornado/Typhoon were the chosen next generation. Apart from anything else, production would be taken out of Westlands hands. I suspect that would need a decision to ditch the Vulture and Sabre and concentrate on Merlin, Peregrine (or Merlin Whirlwind), Griffon and the Bristol radials. So, given the same resources, what could the Typhoon do that the Whirlwind might not have managed?


----------



## stona (Feb 16, 2015)

The Lysander obviously could manoeuvre pretty well. Tom Neil recounted a tale of an exercise in which his Hurricane squadron made a practice interception of a squadron of Lysanders 

_"We intercepted about a dozen Lysanders over Salisbury Plain and they acquitted themselves well, whirling about in fine style. Rather sniffy about the Lizzie, I was surprised by the manner in which they dog-fought, although I would have hated to have to fly them. They were reputed to be very heavy on the controls. "_

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 16, 2015)

yulzari said:


> what could the Typhoon do that the Whirlwind might not have managed?


Carry 8-12 rockets, or carry 2 x 1000lb bombs.


----------



## Greyman (Feb 16, 2015)

Typhoon could actually carry 16 rockets. I'm not sure to what extent this happened in action though.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 16, 2015)

The delays with the Typhoon notwithstanding, Petter proposed refined Whirlwinds, Mk.IIs to the Ministry, also powered by different engines, but the Air Ministry decided against it because of the delay that redesign and production would introduce - they'd been bitten before by Petter's promises and couldn't afford to do so again. You're also presuming the Typhoon was designed as a ground attack aircraft; it was to replace the Hurricane as a fighter and in 1940 when the decision was being made not to continue Whirlwind production, the Typhoon was exactly that and the issues that plagued it were not at the extent that they were to become, so there was no reason not to continue with it. Once the Typhoon was sought as a ground attack platform, the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been well and truly made. There was no going back.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 16, 2015)

nuuumannn said:


> Once the Typhoon was sought as a ground attack platform, the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been well and truly made. There was no going back.



True, the decision to use the Typhoon as a bomb carrier was made in the summer of 1942, about 2 years (or more) after the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been made.


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2015)

What is all this stuff about the Lysander doing in here?

Not arguing, but can't understand why it is in this thread ...


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 17, 2015)

It's all part of a plan to show how Westland should have stopped producing Lysanders, (which were ordered and required by the armed forces, and for which Westland were being paid,) and carried on producing Whirlwinds, for which they had no orders, and would not have been paid.
Of course, it quietly passes over the fact that the Whirlwind was replaced by the Spitfire (and later the Seafire,) which was needed to counter the increasing incursions by bomb-carrying 109s at 30,000'+ (a height which the Whirlwind couldn't attain.)


----------



## yulzari (Feb 17, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Carry 8-12 rockets, or carry 2 x 1000lb bombs.



But not when designed or prototyped. The Tornado/Typhoon was to be the next generation all altitudes fighter. Now, with the resources put into the Whirlwind instead, the high altitude limitation upon Whirlwinds could have been dealt with. Is there any structural loading etc. limitation that would prevent a Whirlwind eventually carrying a Typhoon low level strike load equivalent to the OTL Typhoon?

Just as a personal take, I would see the low level role going to radial Whirwinds and the medium/high level one to developed Peregrine/Merlin Whirlwinds but that is not the point I was exploring.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 17, 2015)

yulzari said:


> But not when designed or prototyped.


You asked for capabilities, not design specifications.


> The Tornado/Typhoon was to be the next generation all altitudes fighter. Now, with the resources put into the Whirlwind instead, the high altitude limitation upon Whirlwinds could have been dealt with.


Do you have any evidence that the Mk.II Peregrine could have operated at 30,000'? All that is ever mentioned is the work needed to make it capable of using 100 octane 100% of the time.


> Is there any structural loading etc. limitation that would prevent a Whirlwind eventually carrying a Typhoon low level strike load equivalent to the OTL Typhoon?


To fit Merlins would have needed modified/strengthened wings, so it seems doubtful that the Whirlwind could have carried a pair of 1000lb bombs.

Just as a personal take, I would see the low level role going to radial Whirwinds and the medium/high level one to developed Peregrine/Merlin Whirlwinds but that is not the point I was exploring.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2015)

Edgar Brooks said:


> You asked for capabilities, not design specifications.



and here is a big point of contention. The Whirlwind was *stuck* at pretty much is original design specification. It was *not* allowed to be developed. Perhaps it was already at it's limit, I don't know and neither do most other people. 

We do _know_ that many other aircraft were modified *after* their _initial_ design specifications to *increase their capabilities. *

Allison powered Mustangs could NOT carry 1000lb bombs. Early P-47s could NOT carry under wing loads. 
The Typhoon was *NOT* rated to carry 1000lb bombs _until after_ it had some modifications, although they were minor. 
*Early* Typhoons (both IAs and IBs) went into service with Sabre I engines, shortly replaced with Sabre IIas and by the time Typhoons were carrying 1000lb bombs the new machines were being fitted with Sabre IIB engines and many aircraft in service were refitted with the IIB engines. Many of the bomb carriers also got 4 bladed props. 

By the time you get to the end of 1944/ beginning of 1945 the Typhoon has got a new canopy, new tail wheel (Bigger, solid rubber, grooved "anti-shimmy"), new brakes, more armor, is on it's *3rd MK* of engine, has switched propellers and has a bigger tailplane. But hey, those had _nothing_ to do with it's capabilities in late 1944 compared to it's capabilities in 1941 let alone as designed or specified, right?

And, by the way, you want to tell us just how many of those bomb carrying 109s at 30,000ft were shot down by Typhoons? Or any other high flying type of German intruders? 

I believe that was _supposed_ to part of the Typhoons _JOB_ as per the original design specifications.

SO we have the Whirlwind, which is a terrible plane because with little or no development it _couldn't perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications_.
And we have the Typoon, which is the greatest thing since draft beer, despite being_ unable to perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications _ despite several years worth of development/new engine models.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 17, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> and here is a big point of contention. The Whirlwind was *stuck* at pretty much is original design specification. It was *not* allowed to be developed. Perhaps it was already at it's limit, I don't know and neither do most other people.


They do, if they're prepared to listen to the reasoning of those in charge of aircraft production *at the time*.


> Allison powered Mustangs could NOT carry 1000lb bombs. Early P-47s could NOT carry under wing loads.
> The Typhoon was *NOT* rated to carry 1000lb bombs _until after_ it had some modifications, although they were minor.


Irrelevant, since the need wasn't foreseen, when they were first conceived, but the airframes proved their versatility by coping. 


> *Early* Typhoons (both IAs and IBs) went into service with Sabre I engines, shortly replaced with Sabre IIas and by the time Typhoons were carrying 1000lb bombs the new machines were being fitted with Sabre IIB engines and many aircraft in service were refitted with the IIB engines. Many of the bomb carriers also got 4 bladed props.


And early Spitfires and Hurricanes had different engines from later Marks, so why the complaints?


> By the time you get to the end of 1944/ beginning of 1945 the Typhoon has got a new canopy, new tail wheel (Bigger, solid rubber, grooved "anti-shimmy"), new brakes, more armor, is on it's *3rd MK* of engine, has switched propellers and has a bigger tailplane. But hey, those had _nothing_ to do with it's capabilities in late 1944 compared to it's capabilities in 1941 let alone as designed or specified, right?


Wrong (and you're beginning to sound slightly hysterical.) The basic (1941) airframe did not need strengthening, in order to carry ordnance for which it had not been designed, while it's a dead certainty that the Whirlwind would.


> And, by the way, you want to tell us just how many of those bomb carrying 109s at 30,000ft were shot down by Typhoons? Or any other high flying type of German intruders?


At the end of 1940? Do try to keep a sense of proportion, please. The Whirlwind was replaced, *on the Westland production line*, by the Spitfire, which was desperately needed to counter said high-flying German aircraft. The Typhoon was planned as a replacement for the Spitfire and Hurricane, but only succeeded in displacing the latter, which rather shows just how good the Spitfire design turned out to be.


> I believe that was _supposed_ to part of the Typhoons _JOB_ as per the original design specifications.


The fact that the Typhoon (which, for the umpteenth time, was *not* a replacement for the Whirlwind) didn't live up to expectations, does not make the Whirlwind any better in its designed role as a FIGHTER.


> SO we have the Whirlwind, which is a terrible plane because with little or no development it _couldn't perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications_.
> And we have the Typoon, which is the greatest thing since draft beer, despite being_ unable to perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications _ despite several years worth of development/new engine models.


Good thing we had the Spitfire, isn't it?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 17, 2015)

I don't think I am the one getting hysterical. 

1st Westland built Spitfire is flown 8 July 1941, 

No. 56 Squadron started getting Typhoons in Sept 1941.

Last Whirlwind comes off the line in Dec 1941 or Jan 1942 depending on source.
Now this may have been just to clear out left over parts and real production stopped sooner but the Typhoon was being introduced into service the same month the 2nd squadron to use (aside from the No 25 squadron issue and turn in) the Whirlwind was being issued it's aircraft, Sept 1941. 

I would also _love_ to see the performance specs for a Bf 109E carrying a 550lb bomb at 30,000ft. The Hurricane II and the Spitfire II both lost 3,000ft or more of service ceiling when carrying external loads (Spitfire II the 40 gal tank) and most 109Es had a ceiling several thousand feet lower than MK II Hurricanes or Spitfires to begin with. Later 109s could loose 40kph with the 550lb bomb. 



> The fact that the Typhoon (which, for the umpteenth time, was not a replacement for the Whirlwind) didn't live up to expectations, does not make the Whirlwind any better in its designed role as a FIGHTER


.

While the Typhoon was not a replacement for the Whirlwind (depending on source, Dowding may have thought it was but he was not the Air Ministry ) , it was viewed, at times, as you say a replacement for the Spitfire. 

BTW would you care to show how the list of modifications I gave for the Typhoon was _wrong_? are you saying it didn't get those modification? Or that the modifications (or most of them) didn't help in it's role as a bomber/ground attack plane?


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 17, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> 1st Westland built Spitfire is flown 8 July 1941,


Didn't they do well, when you consider that the first 50 Mk.Is were produced from kits of parts, supplied by Supermarine, whose factory had been completely destroyed in October 1940, so they'd had to disperse, and set up from scratch, in 29 different locations in and around Southampton.


> No. 56 Squadron started getting Typhoons in Sept 1941.
> Last Whirlwind comes off the line in Dec 1941 or Jan 1942 depending on source.
> Now this may have been just to clear out left over parts and real production stopped sooner but the Typhoon was being introduced into service the same month the 2nd squadron to use (aside from the No 25 squadron issue and turn in) the Whirlwind was being issued it's aircraft, Sept 1941.


I really don't understand this obsessive desire to tie the Whirlwind to the Typhoon. The Whirlwind had shown that it was not up to the job in mid-1940; all of the Typhoon's shortcomings were yet to be discovered.


> I would also _love_ to see the performance specs for a Bf 109E carrying a 550lb bomb at 30,000ft. The Hurricane II and the Spitfire II both lost 3,000ft or more of service ceiling when carrying external loads (Spitfire II the 40 gal tank) and most 109Es had a ceiling several thousand feet lower than MK II Hurricanes or Spitfires to begin with. Later 109s could loose 40kph with the 550lb bomb.


That, unfortunately, is one of the areas in which we differ widely; I'm not interested in theoretical "what-if" paperwork, but prefer to read about what actually happened, and pilots reported, before the end of the Battle, that they were having to climb above 30,000' to get at the 109s (not forgetting, of course, that they preferred to attack from above.) If you feel that, in spite of all the reports to the contrary, the Whirlwind was capable of attaining that height, then further discussion is pointless.


> BTW would you care to show how the list of modifications I gave for the Typhoon was _wrong_? are you saying it didn't get those modification? Or that the modifications (or most of them) didn't help in it's role as a bomber/ground attack plane?


Once again, I fail to see the relevance of this; by the time the Typhoon was 100% a ground attack aircraft (and they were still being used as escorts until just before D-day,) production of the Whirlwind had long ceased, and was never going to resume. Funnily enough, though, in all that list of mods, I didn't see any mention of the wings needing to be strengthened.


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2015)

I'm just re-reading Tom Neil's 'Gun Button to Fire'. Throughout the period following what we now call the Battle of Britain he constantly bemoans having to climb to altitudes of 25,000-30,000ft at which he nearly froze to death in his unheated Hurricane cockpit. Worse, the performance of the Hurricane at these altitudes was very poor, plagued by oil freezing problems and he describes Bf 109s, some carrying bombs, leaving con-trails several thousand feet above him. The Hurricanes could not reach the Bf 109s, let alone engage them. What chance a Whirlwind. The Bf 109s usually, though not always, declined combat.

One of the many examples he gives:

_"We were sent off shortly before 2 p.m. and climbed away to the south until we were over our familiar stamping grounds in Kent at heights varying between 18 and 25,000 feet. It was blindingly bright , devastatingly cold, and a day made for Huns. Masses of them around, they chalked their presence above us in wide, icy curves while we sat impotently beneath and noted their every suspicious move. While they were contrailing everything was fine. It was when the trails stopped, which could be anywhere and at any height, that was when our problems were likely to arise." _

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Feb 18, 2015)

I can add from "Blood, Sweat and Courage" (41 Squadron history) the words of Fl Lt Norman Ryder, flying the Spitfire I, "We were the first squadron to get VHF, and with the higher standard of communication we were assigned to the higher levels of operation, and therefore were pitted against the high flying cover of the 109s.......on several occasions I led 41 Sqn up to 36,000 feet - quite high with no body heating, so we all donned 3 or 4 pairs of gloves, still, frostbite was not uncommon." 
Sgt. Plt. Leslie Carter (22-10-40,) "Up on a flap as rearguard at 35,000 feet with hood frozen partly open. Had to break away eventually landed in fog with no hands at Rochford. Terribly painful and cannot move fingers."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2015)

Neil again. The chapter in his book following the BoB is actually entitled 'An October of 109s'.

_'We had a long trip over the Channel the following morning, at 28,000 feet and freezing to death. I had seldom felt so cold, not so much my body as my hands and feet, which, after thirty minutes or so, ceased absolutely to function...
Back on the ground someone said that, due to the adiabatic lapse, the temperature at 30,000 feet was about minus thirty degrees centigrade, someone else adding that was outside the cockpit; inside it was a damn sight colder. Why must* our *aircraft be so wretchedly cold? We bet the Huns' weren't.' _

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Feb 18, 2015)

Double Post


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 1, 2016)

The capabilities of the Westland Whirlwind can be judged by the combat reports from 263Sq for Warhead 6 on the 6th August 1941. Four Whirlwinds, led by S/Ldr Donaldson (one of the three famous Donaldson brothers) went looking for a tanker ship previously sighted near Cape de le Hague. They found instead a gaggle of ME109s, approximately twenty, and a furious dogfight commenced. Despite facing odds of 5-to-1, the Whirlwinds shot down two MEs and damaged a third before Spitfires turned up to even the odds. All four Whirlwinds returned safely to base. As late as 1943, when the Spitfire and Hurricane models of 1940 had been consigned to training schools, the Whirlwinds were still flying front-line missions over the Channel, and on the 28th January 1943, F/O Musgrave of 137Sq shot down an FW190A-4 of 8./JG26. That wasn't the only time Whirlies tangled with FW190s. In 1942, when the Spitfire Vs were avoiding combats with FW190s, the Whirlwinds were used for chasing FW190 intruders! In one of those encounters over Pegwell Bay, two Whirlies met a pair FW190s head-on and, in the resulting dogfight, managed to damage one without taking any hits themselves!


----------



## stona (Oct 2, 2016)

Mad Dog said:


> The capabilities of the Westland Whirlwind can be judged by the combat reports from 263Sq for Warhead 6 on the 6th August 1941. Four Whirlwinds, led by S/Ldr Donaldson (one of the three famous Donaldson brothers) went looking for a tanker ship previously sighted near Cape de le Hague. They found instead a gaggle of ME109s, approximately twenty, and a furious dogfight commenced. Despite facing odds of 5-to-1, the Whirlwinds shot down two MEs and damaged a third before Spitfires turned up to even the odds. All four Whirlwinds returned safely to base.



The two tankers had been spotted by Donaldson, three miles of Cherbourg, as he returned from the second raid that day against the airfield at Maupertus. On the first raid Coghlan, Rudland and Brackley, led by Mason failed to find the target.
Four Whirlwinds, escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here) were sent to find and attack the tankers. The Spitfires didn't 'turn up'. Despite the claims of both the Whirlwind and Spitfire pilots just one Bf 109 (of Erg.JG2) was shot down.
Following the action the four Whirlwinds did not all return safely to base, neither were they unscathed.
P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine, damaging the aircraft further when he hit an 'airfield obstruction'.
The other three landed at Ibsley but P7001 (Donaldson) and P7002 (Brackley) were flown back to Westland for repair to combat damage.
So, one did not manage to make it back to Ibsley, and of the three that did, only one was unscathed and operational. In other words, following this action, 75% of the attacking Whirlwinds were U/S, though at least all the pilots survived. Nonetheless, the squadron at the time, and proponents of the Whirlwind today, often cite this day as one of the type's successes.

I could easily pick raids which didn't go nearly as well as this one to make a counter argument, but selectively quoting details of individual raids is not really a way to assess an aircraft. It does help if the full details are quoted though 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2016)

As usually the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle of the two camps.
The Whirlwind usually operated at low altitudes (targets being at ground or sea level, in this case ships) so if you have a low flying "strike" element it only makes sense to have a higher flying top cover or escort. Especially if the strike element is composed of only four aircraft.
How well would four Spitfires have fared if attacked by a large number of 109s that had superior altitude? 
It is quite possible that the whirlwinds never got a hit on the German planes. It may very well have been a Spitfire that scored the victory although we don't know the number of German planes damaged. 
Damage to the Whirlwinds also seems a bit odd. 2 of them damaged to the point of being called non-operational but not so damaged they couldn't be flown to the factory? Granted a transfer flight would impose much less stress/problems on a plane than a combat mission. 

I am a big fan of the Whirlwind but am willing to concede that it did have some flaws and not all combat reports are 100% accurate (same can be said for many other types). However it also seems that a lot of unjustified criticism was aimed at the Whirlwind in the early part of the war and repeated later (again, like some other aircraft). What doesn't help is that the Typhoon was such a dog for so long (in large part because of the engine) that it sometimes is difficult to sort through what might be political bickering/sniping between a few different camps.


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2016)

The Spitfire and Whirlwind pilots claimed four Bf 109s. I think that Brackley, flying a Whirlwind, was the most likely victor as he, in his combat report, claims to have seen the aircraft at which he shot dive into the sea.

_"...the first enemy aircraft broke away across my nose, but it was gone before I could fire. As the second broke away, also across my nose, I fired a 2.5 second barrage and I saw it go straight into the sea."_

The other Whirlwind claimant (Rudland) based his claim on the basis that having taken a more or less head on shot at a Bf 109 which was pursuing a Whirlwind, he subsequently sighted the Whirlwind but not the Bf 109, which is tenuous at best.

Westland seems to have been the principle repair organisation for Whirlwinds. Why that was I don't know. Maybe they were so few in number that no independent repair organisation for anything other than the most minimal unit repairs existed.

I saw in another thread a discussion of the Whirlwind's range, some of the numbers proposed were somewhat surprising. Revised radius of action restrictions were set by Fighter Command for all its aircraft in August 1941. For the Whirlwind this was set at 120 miles, the same as the Hurricane.
Anyone who thinks that is too low needs to borrow a Tardis and take it up with Fighter Command in 1941, not me 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 3, 2016)

Why didnt the RAF build something like the FW187 I mean that could do 440mph at 40,000ft had a radius of 500miles and turn inside a Sopwith Camel.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 3, 2016)

Bactrian or Dromedary Camel?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 3, 2016)

The dromedary is a camel with a powered turret.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2016)

stona said:


> Westland seems to have been the principle repair organisation for Whirlwinds. Why that was I don't know. Maybe they were so few in number that no independent repair organisation for anything other than the most minimal unit repairs existed.
> 
> I saw in another thread a discussion of the Whirlwind's range, some of the numbers proposed were somewhat surprising. Revised radius of action restrictions were set by Fighter Command for all its aircraft in August 1941. For the Whirlwind this was set at 120 miles, the same as the Hurricane.
> Anyone who thinks that is too low needs to borrow a Tardis and take it up with Fighter Command in 1941, not me
> ...



Given the small number of Whirlwinds built it may very well have been more efficient to repair them at the factory if possible rather than set up an independent warehouse and repair facility at another location. 

I have no trouble with the 120 mile radius. While the Whirlwind carried more fuel than a Hurricane or Spitfire (internally) it was feeding two engines and there was no cross feed from one wing to the opposite engine. With one engine gone you had what was left in the fuel tank/s on that side of the plane to get home and the tanks on one side held less gas on take-off than the internal tanks on a Spit or Hurricane. Put that together with the poor pitch range on the propellers and the lack of feathering ability and while a Whirlwind would fly further on one engine than single engine plane would on no engine, it's ability to fly long distances on one engine was an illusion. 
Maybe the Whirlwind could have been rated at 140-150 mile radius but why bother. I like it but with only 2 squadrons the extra 20-30 mile radius doesn't change the target area that much and just causes confusion. They had only two squadrons of Hurricanes doing the same sort of missions for a large part of the Whirlwinds service and if you are using Spitfires for top cover (escort) for both then trying to plan coordinated missions or substituting one squadron for another gets too complicated for the limited results. 

A MK II Whirlwind would be a different story 
But that is what it if vs what was. 
BTW what was the radius of the Typhoon without drop tanks?


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2016)

I don't have Fighter Command's figure for the Typhoon. The figure given for its maximum range is usually 680 miles. It's combat radius would have been substantially less than half of that.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Oct 3, 2016)

I think much of the discussion about the whirlwind is a fantasy based on having the dH Hornet in service in 1940, given unlimited resources and many changes in design the Whirlwind could have been a winner, but it wasnt and in reality could never have been.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2016)

My own fantasy Whirlwind is much more modest.
1. Belt feed cannon with 110-120rpg (since pneumatic powered magazines were trialed with that capacity during 1940-41 it doesn't seem that big a stretch)
2. Props with more pitch change and hopefully full feathering for better single engine performance. Something like the props on a Lockheed Electra Airliner in 1938
3. Better exhaust system worth 5-10mph. especially at altitude. 
4. Small fuselage tank/s. more to make cross feeding easier than to really extend range much. 
5. Better air intake. Might help performance at higher altitudes (say 15-20,000ft?) 

Please note no Merlin engines  above suggestions could be done using the existing engines.

6. Under fuselage hard point for bomb or drop tank (feeding fuselage tank), here is the extra range. May require 9lbs boost or more for take-off? depends on size of the airfields. 
7. New engine controls. although harder to run/rig than the hydraulic ones. might not fit?
8. Rectangular radiators instead of 3 circular ones on each side. Roughly 20% more cooling capacity.

Still no Merlins  

9. Decide it it is going to be a fighter or a ground pounder and develop the Peregrine accordingly. A single speed supercharger scaled from the Merlin 46 would be good for about 1100hp at 14,000ft. For ground pounding a Peregrine version of the Merlin 30/32 might have been very handy. 
10. Give the bomber version/s streamlined bomb racks. 

Please note fantasy engines are single speed, single stage engines. Not a big stretch and might not require new engine block castings like a 2 speed engine might. Doesn't require longer space to fit engine/s either. 
You aren't going to get a DH Hornet in 1940/41 but you might get a much better substitute for the Typhoon in 1941-42-43. 
Whatever problems the Peregrine had they pale to insignificance compared to the Sabre's troubles. However the Sabre's troubles were in the future when the Whirlwinds fate was decided.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Oct 3, 2016)

A good list and in general agreement with Petter's own 'wishlist'.


Peregrine Development
100 octane full use and not just emergency use.
Increase in power to 2,020 hp and increase in rated altitude to 20,000 feet.


Prop Development 
Larger pitch range for props (35 degrees instead of 20 degrees).


Morris Film Type Radiators
Lower cooling drag and an expected gain of 'not less than 5 mph and possibly considerably more'.
Increased area and efficiency (rectangular shape taking full advantage of area available in win duct.


Increased Armament
New 'gun nose' with four 20 mm (120 rpg) and three .303 in (400 rpg).


More Fuel
30-gallon petrol tank added in with new 'gun nose'.


Various Airframe Improvements
Estimated improvement of about 6 mph.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 3, 2016)

All that sounds reasonable SR, but it supposes that the Peregrine was kept in production.

This is unlikely since the Whirlwind was the only production aircraft using that engine, and it was considered not powerful enough for newer types. 

The next logical engine that could be used is the Kestrel - but that is an older design with less power.

The Peregrine was close enough in size to the Merlin that the Merlin's supercharger could have been adapted straight across. It would probably use different gearing and/or throttling so as to not overpower the engine. The other alternative would be to raise the engine speed - the Peregrine was rated at 3,000rpm, the same as the Merlin, yet the Vulture, with the same 5.5" stroke as the Peregrine, was rated at 3,200rpm.

But I think, practically speaking, that had a Whirlwind Mk II gone ahead it would have had a pair of Merlins. Perhaps it would have resembled a shorter wing span Welkin.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 3, 2016)

Greyman said:


> A good list and in general agreement with Petter's own 'wishlist'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why stop there .....






From "Westland Whirlwind" 4+ Publications

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 4, 2016)

wuzak said:


> But I think, practically speaking, that had a Whirlwind Mk II gone ahead it would have had a pair of Merlins. Perhaps it would have resembled a shorter wing span Welkin.



But we know that would have required an entirely redesigned engine nacelle and undercarriage. As it stood it would have been impossible to fit a Merlin whose entire updraught carburetor assembly would have interfered with the undercarriage attachment points, among other things. Fitting a smaller diametre, four bladed propeller, to retain the engines the same distance from the fuselage, was the only fix that Petter proposed, he never addressed the more serious issues when he went over the Ministry's head (not a good idea) and directly to Fighter Command with his Merlin Whirlwind proposal.

I think that the impact on the Whirlwind of Spitfire production at Castle Bromwich and the perceived need, as the war loomed, for Lysanders has been covered elsewhere. It has also been noted before that Hives at Rolls Royce was initially told in October 1939 that 

_"Peregrine production for Westland Whirlwind fighters should be stopped at the earliest practical point."_

It is often overlooked that this suited Rolls Royce, which had made it clear that it felt a 'standard' engine should be produced by the company in order to maximise production. In March 1938 Hives had raised the potential problems with Sidegreaves, when he wrote,

_"It looks as though it is certain we shall be producing Merlins and Vultures in parallel, and very possibly Merlins...to have three types running concurrently will introduce quite a lot of difficulties."_

By June 1939 attitudes had hardened and Hives wrote to the Air Ministry,

_"If there was a war, it would be obvious that the main production would be on the standardised and proved types of engines... Our proposal is that it should be a definite policy of the Air Ministry that the plant for producing the standard engine, which in our case is the Merlin, should not be broken down to produce another type."_

So, not only do we have an aircraft which nobody particularly wants and which in the view of the Air Ministry has taken too long to develop (when told that deliveries might commence in June 1940 Shotlo-Douglas told Freemen that it seemed _" ...an unnecessarily long time to produce an aircraft designed in early 1936."),_ but also an aircraft for which the engine manufacturer was not particularly keen to make the engines and was in fact arguing for a rationalisation of production, not diversification..

I think the most remarkable fact about the Whirlwind is that it was produced at all! That it 'equipped' two squadrons (though neither had a double figure number of operational aircraft with any regularity) is perhaps just as remarkable.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2016)

stona said:


> But we know that would have required an entirely redesigned engine nacelle and undercarriage. As it stood it would have been impossible to fit a Merlin whose entire updraught carburetor assembly would have interfered with the undercarriage attachment points, among other things. Fitting a smaller diametre, four bladed propeller, to retain the engines the same distance from the fuselage, was the only fix that Petter proposed, he never addressed the more serious issues when he went over the Ministry's head (not a good idea) and directly to Fighter Command with his Merlin Whirlwind proposal.



Agreed. I was thinking a Merlin Whirlwind would probably need a more major redesign.

Out of interest, do you know why the Whirlwind was designed around Peregrine engines? Was it a requirement from the Air Ministry?


----------



## stona (Oct 4, 2016)

The very earliest P.9 proposal was to use two Kestrel engines. It seems that as the Peregrine was developed at over exactly the same period as the P9/Whirlwind design, the two went hand in hand. Rolls Royce commenced work on the KV26 version of the Kestrel, which became the Peregrine in mid 1936. The name Eagle was first proposed in April 1937, but Peregrine was eventually chosen.
It is not just insignificant quantities of the Whirlwind aircraft that were produced, just 302 Peregrines (including 16 'development' engines) were built.

Most of the submissions for F.37/35 attempted to use the smallest and most compact engine installation possible, commensurate with the required performance. The Bristol Type 153 A (the 153 was a single engine proposal) was to use two Aquilas. Supermarine's twin Type 313 was to have a pair of Goshawks and the engines for Westland's P9 were two Kestrels, which progressed, with the development by Rolls Royce, to Peregrines.
There is nothing in the Specification which indicates any preference for a particular engine, or type of engine. The failing of the Whirlwind to perform at altitude is written into the Specification. The first item under the heading 'Performance' is.

_"Speed. The maximum possible and not less than 330mph at 15,000 ft at maximum power with the highest speed possible between 5,000 and 15,000 ft."_

That's pretty much what the Ministry got, though a bit quicker.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 4, 2016)

The Italians came out with a nifty aircraft, that has bearing on Peregrine Whirlwind -> Merlin Whirlwind theme. The IMAM Ro.57 was with two light & short Fiat radials, the Ro.58 was with two longer, heavier and more powerful DB 601A V-12 engines. The Ro.58 featured 5 cannons, plus an HMG served by a rear gunner. 

IMAM Ro.57 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IMAM Ro.58 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2016)

A MK II, had it been built with Peregrines, would have been fairly easy. 

The Merlin "option" would have been much harder. Perhaps not impossible but the changes needed and development time (always underestimated at this point in the war) would pretty much kill it off. The Airframe as it stood was simply too small to take the Merlin. 

The new radiators were supposed to provide a little over 20% more cooling capacity. Works good for up rated Peregrine or _early _Merlins, not so good for later Merlins or Merlins running much over 1200hp. 

Fuel was only 134imp gallons, even with 30-40 imp gallons of fuselage tanks that less fuel per engine than a Spitfire so while performance would be good endurance would really suck. 

Really needs 4 bladed props due to restricted diameter. 

Weight has climbed by hundreds of pounds (well over 1000lbs) which may mean beefed up landing gear (or at least tires) 

Radiator and prop clearance might be solved by extending the inner wing but then we get into the _loooonnng _development. Remember the Whirlwind had less wing area than a Hurricane there is only so much "stuff" you can put in it. 

In the interest of rationalizing production canceling the program was the right thing to do. Unfortunately the *great hope* of the RAF (the Typhoon) stumbled worse than soccer fan leaving the pub. It used the whole road, puked in the bushes on both sides and laid in the gutter at times. Had the Typhoon program even gone half as well as hoped then the Whirlwind might not have seen the service it did (replaced quicker) and the Whirlwind faded into obscurity. 
Flying essential a 1940 aircraft in *combat *in 1943 is part of what makes the Whirlwind interesting and fuels the "what ifs". 
What if it had seen even modest improvements? what could it have done in 1942-43 with those improvements?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2016)

stona said:


> Most of the submissions for F.37/35 attempted to use the smallest and most compact engine installation possible, commensurate with the required performance. The Bristol Type 153 A (the 153 was a single engine proposal) was to use two Aquilas. Supermarine's twin Type 313 was to have a pair of Goshawks and the engines for Westland's P9 were two Kestrels, which progressed, with the development by Rolls Royce, to Peregrines.
> There is nothing in the Specification which indicates any preference for a particular engine, or type of engine. The failing of the Whirlwind to perform at altitude is written into the Specification. The first item under the heading 'Performance' is.
> 
> _"Speed. The maximum possible and not less than 330mph at 15,000 ft at maximum power with the highest speed possible between 5,000 and 15,000 ft."_
> ...



A lot of British procurement was governed by the almighty _check book _at this point in time. Not what was the best or best potential. 
What would give the highest number of *units *for the *least money. *
Almost 1700 5 ton tanks for instance between 1936 and 1940. 
For aircraft it was what would be the cheapest airplane that would meet the specification, not the airplane that had the most development potential. Or exceed the specification by the biggest margin. 
Smaller engines were cheaper than larger ones. Lighter airplanes are cheaper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 4, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of British procurement was governed by the almighty _check book _at this point in time. Not what was the best or best potential.
> What would give the highest number of *units *for the *least money. *
> Almost 1700 5 ton tanks for instance between 1936 and 1940.
> For aircraft it was what would be the cheapest airplane that would meet the specification, not the airplane that had the most development potential. Or exceed the specification by the biggest margin.
> Smaller engines were cheaper than larger ones. Lighter airplanes are cheaper.



Yes, but F.37/35 was just an update of the (then) suspended F.1035 with the added requirement to carry four cannon. The final specification was for 

_"...a sufficient number of forward-firing 20 or 23 mm calibre guns to effect a decisive result in a short space of time and from longer ranges than is possible with machine guns."_

The Air Ministry didn't care what the aircraft looked like or how many engines it had. This was a quest for firepower. The four cannon stipulation was because the British had discounted the singe centrally mounted cannon, appearing on some foreign aircraft (particularly French) as inadequate because in a short burst it fired too few rounds to be likely to hit a vital part of the target.
In fact the contenders for F.37/35 were more expensive than the Air Ministry hoped. This almost led to the Whirlwind not being developed at all. Initially there would have been an order of two prototypes from Boulton Paul, two from Supermarine and just one from Westland. Supermarine said that its experimental department was so busy that it would build just one prototype, but provide a comprehensive package of spares in lieu of a second aircraft. As a result it was agreed that just one Supermarine prototype would be ordered but the Westland order would be increased to two.
The prices were, £38,000 for two Boulton Paul prototype P.88Bs, £45,500 for the two Westland P.9s and £23,361 for one Supermarine Type 313 with its spares. The total cost was £105,000, more than five times the £20,000 set aside for the F.10/35 programme in which the revised F.37/35 programme had its origins. The Air Ministry had to seek Treasury approval for the increased expenditure and this it received on 7th December 1936. Westland had given the most expensive option and consequently, the Westland prototypes were NOT initially ordered. The Westland P.9/Whirlwind was only reprieved (the first reprieve of several) because Supermarine announced that it was unable to produce the B.12/36 prototype bomber, which was preferred over the other contenders, unless it suspended work on the prototype to F.37/35 and the flying boat to R.1/36. The Air Ministry agreed to cancel the Supermarine F.37/35 contract on 28th January. The Westland P.9 prototypes were ordered, maintaining a field of two (with Boulton Paul) in the F.37/35 competition. This decision cost the Ministry, initially, at least £22,000, plus any monies already disbursed to Supermarine.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Mad Dog (Oct 6, 2016)

stona said:


> The two tankers had been spotted by Donaldson, three miles of Cherbourg, as he returned from the second raid that day against the airfield at Maupertus. On the first raid Coghlan, Rudland and Brackley, led by Mason failed to find the target.
> Four Whirlwinds, escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here) were sent to find and attack the tankers. The Spitfires didn't 'turn up'. Despite the claims of both the Whirlwind and Spitfire pilots just one Bf 109 (of Erg.JG2) was shot down.
> Following the action the four Whirlwinds did not all return safely to base, neither were they unscathed.
> P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine, damaging the aircraft further when he hit an 'airfield obstruction'.
> ...


".....escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here)....." The Spitfires were not flying close escort, they joined the combat after the 263Sq pilots were engaged and had already shot down at least one of the 109s. The 118Sq's Squadron Leader was the one that confirmed seeing the 109 go into the sea as the Spitfires approached the fight.

"....P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine...." Brackley's engine failure was unrelated to combat damage. Engine failures outside combat were quite common for even the Merlin, and landing accidents were also very common, more so in single-engine tractor fighters which had a worse view forward over the nose.

"....but P7001 (Donaldson) and P7002 (Brackley) were flown back to Westland for repair to combat damage...75% of the attacking Whirlwinds were U/S...." So, one unrelated engine failure and a landing accident, and two a/c with such limited damage they could be flown to the factory, so not "U/S" at all. In all, it would seem a good example of how the Whirlwind was perfectly capable of dealing with the Bf109s at lower levels at least. 

".....I could easily pick raids which didn't go nearly as well....." Hmmm, bomb-laden Whirlwinds, you mean? You may want to check on the large number of Spitfires and Typhoons that suffered a similar fate. You also failed to address the fact that the Whirlwind was still flying operationally in 1943, which would indicate to anyone with a clue that the Whirlwind was not the donkey you seem to want it to have been.


----------



## stona (Oct 7, 2016)

If you want to interpret facts differently, that's your privilege. 
We can't dispute that only one Bf 109 was lost and that three out of four Whirlwinds were not available for further operations until they had been repaired. We can spin those basic facts anyway we choose.

I don't think that the Whirlwind was a donkey. In terms of the Specification to which it was designed and built it was, potentially, a very good aircraft. It did require a lot of development to overcome numerous and persistent failings, but it was by no means alone in this respect. Other types, I mentioned the Lysander yesterday, suffered the same fate. It fulfilled its specification very well, unfortunately, like the Whirlwind, it wasn't the aircraft the RAF wanted in 1940/41. Fighter Command certainly didn't really want the Whirlwind, keeping it well out of the way. Dowding wouldn't even allow 263 Squadron to move to 10 Group (nearer to Yeovil) where it would be easier to address the ongoing problems, telling Beaverbrook.
_"I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world."_
Dowding, admittedly no fan of Westland, predicted _"an infinity of trouble" _with the Whirlwind in June 1940, and got it a month later when they were grounded with well known issues. Problems with serviceability persisted, it was only 55% in September. At the end of October Dowding was writing to Beaverbrook that it was
_"quite wrong to introduce at the present time a fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000ft."_
Despite other, better, aspects of its performance it was not suitable as an interceptor, so another role had to be found. A few (very few) aircraft managed to carry that out with success into 1943.
Limited production was inevitable given the combination of doubts about the type's role in the RAF and Rolls Royce's expressed wish to concentrate production on one 'standard' engine, making it easy for the Peregrine to be cancelled. The Whirlwind received more reprieves (even touted as a potential night fighter) than a convicted murderer on Texas' death row!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 21, 2019)

I’m new here and will start from the beginning of this thread. I’m a huge Westland Whirlwind fan. I wish both squadrons (plus another two newly formed) had been shipped to Malaya.


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’m new here and will start from the beginning of this thread. I’m a huge Westland Whirlwind fan. I wish both squadrons (plus another two newly formed) had been shipped to Malaya.



Welcome aboard!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I’m new here and will start from the beginning of this thread. I’m a huge Westland Whirlwind fan. I wish both squadrons (plus another two newly formed) had been shipped to Malaya.



Admiral Baez?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Just skimming through the data, the Whirly should be besting the Oscar and early Zeros, and equal later Zeros, Ki 44s and Ki-61. That is without development, 1940 aircraft vs. second half of 1942 and on.
> 
> Maybe someone could post some data how good/bad the Whirlwind fared vs. LW opposition?


Having just read Bloody Shambles, which I highly recommend, in order to operate the Whirlwind in Malaya the airfields need to be lengthened and perhaps hard surfaced. Get that sorted and the Whirlwind will do well against the IJAAF's Nakajima Ki-43 and decimate everything with two engines. Having just returned from KL and Singapore (visited the Welcome to the Battlebox and Fort Siloso: Front Page ) I can attest that the air is dense and humid, so I imagine the Whirlwind will do better at altitude in Malaya than it could over northern Europe. In my mind, here's the Whirlwind at RAF Selatar.




Whirlwind's issue will be ammunition, since with only 60 rounds per gun, you'd better shoot sparingly and with utmost accuracy. Would under wing .303 mg pods be a quick add-on? Like on this Potez POTEZ 63/11

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Oct 22, 2019)

I think the Whirlwind would have been better served by 8 or so 303 Brownings with a lot of ammo than with the 4 20mm with only 60 rpg. Most of the action reports I have read on the Whirlwind said something like “opened fire at XXX plane, got some hits, ran out of ammo. Enemy plane damaged”. 60 rpg just isn’t enough. I’m not a fan of rifle caliber machine guns in fighters, but 8 concentrated in the nose of a Whirlwind would be like a mini-gun, you either miss completely or obliterate your target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

pinsog said:


> I think the Whirlwind would have been better served by 8 or so 303 Brownings with a lot of ammo than with the 4 20mm with only 60 rpg.


Sounds reasonable. For Malaya where you're facing unarmoured and fragile IJAAF types, I'd go with four .50 caliber and stuff the nose with ammo.

I've read that belt magazines were not yet available, so it had to be drums. With belts you could have run them under the pilot's seat, put the radio in the nose, with a large ammunition supply behind the pilot. Really, if we can get more rounds into the Whirlwind and perhaps add a fuel transfer valve so it can run tanks dry on one engine, we're all set for Malaya. Send all 150 odd aircraft to Seletar before end of 1941.

We can't add Merlins without costly changes. But with the Peregrine giving issues, was a return to the Kestrel ever considered? Add a supercharger? Rolls-Royce Kestrel - Wikipedia


----------



## pinsog (Oct 22, 2019)

I actually love the 50 myself, although after time on this forum I do realize some of its limitations. What someone will point out, so I will go ahead and do it now, is that the British were setup with the 303 so ammo, guns, parts etc were all in good supply. (If the US had the Whirlwind I would also say 4 50’s) The Japanese planes weren’t armored and didn’t have self sealing tanks, but imagine 8 303’s firing 1,200 rpg per minute....I don’t think an ME109, FW190 or any of there twin engine bombers would handle that very well, armor or not.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Sounds reasonable. For Malaya where you're facing unarmoured and fragile IJAAF types, I'd go with four .50 caliber and stuff the nose with ammo.
> 
> I've read that belt magazines were not yet available, so it had to be drums. With belts you could have run them under the pilot's seat, put the radio in the nose, with a large ammunition supply behind the pilot. Really, if we can get more rounds into the Whirlwind and perhaps add a fuel transfer valve so it can run tanks dry on one engine, we're all set for Malaya. Send all 150 odd aircraft to Seletar before end of 1941.



Belt-fed Hispanos were just being introduced in the RAF inventory, so it is questioable whether the fighter that is going to what is not currently a war zone will get them. In case they are available, I'd have 3 cannons instead of 4, so the other 3 cannons can have at least double the ammo as it was the case with the 60rd drum.



> We can't add Merlins without costly changes. But with the Peregrine giving issues, was a return to the Kestrel ever considered? Add a supercharger? Rolls-Royce Kestrel - Wikipedia



Merlin is a no-go unless there is a wholesale redesign of the Whirly.
Add another superchager to the Peregrine or Kestrel - how and why?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 22, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> We can't add Merlins without costly changes. But with the Peregrine giving issues, was a return to the Kestrel ever considered? Add a supercharger? Rolls-Royce Kestrel - Wikipedia



The RR Peregrine was not giving issues (whatever that means) apart from the usual problems caused by a new engine. With practically zero development because of the understandable concentration on the RR Merlin the 305 Peregrines built lasted in service till late 1943. The only changes I know of were to allow 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 22, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> The RR Peregrine was not giving issues (whatever that means) apart from the usual problems caused by a new engine. With practically zero development because of the understandable concentration on the RR Merlin the 305 Peregrines built lasted in service till late 1943.



+1 on this.



> The only changes I know of were to allow 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost.



Peregrine was allowed to +9 psi boost with 100 oct fuel, both for combat and take off. 
Pilot's notes The Whirlwinnd I

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 22, 2019)

The Whirlwind could have taken belts of 110-120 per gun. There were two different nose set ups built (but only one flown?) with the larger ammo capacity. Unfortunately the set ups were pneumatic powered magazines and not belts and did not work as claimed. By this time the Whirlwind was canceled and further developments were a very low priority. 
No need for belts under the pilot. 

BTW, Kestrels came with and without superchargers but reverting to a Kestrel even with a supercharger means over 100 hp less per engine.


----------



## stona (Oct 22, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> The RR Peregrine was not giving issues (whatever that means) apart from the usual problems caused by a new engine. With practically zero development because of the understandable concentration on the RR Merlin the 305 Peregrines built lasted in service till late 1943. The only changes I know of were to allow 100 Octane fuel and +12lbs boost.



The problem for the Whirlwind was that when the first production Peregrine was delivered in February 1940 the decision had already been made to cease production after 290 units. To all intents, the Whirlwind was doomed from that point on.

Anything else is just wishful thinking.

I think that the intractable problem of fitting the Merlin, with its up draught carburettor, have already been covered. Machine guns are a bit of a non starter for an aircraft designed to lift cannon! That is not how the Air Ministry worked.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 22, 2019)

stona said:


> Anything else is just wishful thinking.


Time to double down on wishful thinking. Let's have a naval Whirlwind. We've got high landing speed, long take-off runs and short endurance issues to address, for starters. Ark Royal and Illustrious class lifts are likely too narrow, but wings need to fold to fit down Indomitable and Courageous types.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 23, 2019)

Whirlwind with radials would address availability issues of the Peregrine while not tying up Merlins needed for the Spitfire, Hurricanes, etc.

The closest to the Whirlwind I see is the IMAM Ro.57, showing what a Whirlwind with radials would look like.







With radials, you can omit the radiators and streamline the leading edge. Plus you can add fuel where the rads were, see below.






Put some Townend rings or NACA cowls over the radial engine and we’ll still have a streamlined bird.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 23, 2019)

Seems like a lot of work when you already have a Beaufighter.

Just saying


----------



## pinsog (Oct 23, 2019)

stona said:


> Seems like a lot of work when you already have a Beaufighter.
> 
> Just saying


Beaufighter was more of a light/medium bomber than ‘fighter’, it was much bigger than a P38. The radial engine Whirlwind would have been like an F5F Skyrocket. Same basic size as a single engine fighter.


----------



## stona (Oct 23, 2019)

pinsog said:


> Beaufighter was more of a light/medium bomber than ‘fighter’, it was much bigger than a P38. The radial engine Whirlwind would have been like an F5F Skyrocket. Same basic size as a single engine fighter.



Yes, and it fulfilled a lot of roles that a Whirlwind, whatever engines were bolted on to it, could not. The Whirlwind was far too small and a bit of a one trick pony, shades of the Fw 187 here.

The last thing the British needed was a T/E interceptor when they had the Spitfire and Hurricane and were expecting the Tornado. Twins were expensive and used a lot of valuable resources.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 23, 2019)

stona said:


> Seems like a lot of work when you already have a Beaufighter.
> 
> Just saying


Beaufighters in Malaya would have been something. Nearly as fast or faster than the IJAAF's two primary fighters the Ki-43 and Ki-27, the Beaufighter's heavy forward armament would have been ideal for attacking IJN troop convoys.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 23, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Peregrine was allowed to +9 psi boost with 100 oct fuel, both for combat and take off.
> Pilot's notes The Whirlwinnd I



Your right I dont know where I got +12psi from


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

I have better idea, cleanup the Hurricane so that a IIa does 355 mph at 22000 ft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I have better idea, cleanup the Hurricane so that a IIa does 355 mph at 22000 ft.


Better off building the Merlin-powered P-40F than trying to get more speed out of the Hurricane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Better off building the Merlin-powered P-40F than trying to get more speed out of the Hurricane.


That's what almost happened, except only the Sea Hurricane got cleaned up. As for the Whirlwind, discontinue production.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

Agreed, stop production of the Whirlwind. But send all 100+ produced to late 1941 to Malaya to bolster the Buffaloes. It won’t turn the coming loss to Japan, but it will give the Whirlwind a chance to shine.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Agreed, stop production of the Whirlwind. But send all 100+ produced to late 1941 to Malaya to bolster the Buffaloes. It won’t turn the coming loss to Japan, but it will give the Whirlwind a chance to shine.


The Whirlwind was shining defending the South West Approaches to the English Channel. If there was to be another fighter sent to Malaya and the Straits Settlements, my choice would be the Mohawk IV.


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

There were serious reliability and serviceability issues with the Whirlwind. It's one of the reasons it was sent to SW England, Westland was based at Yeovil.

Sending the type anywhere abroad, let alone to the Far East, would have been ridiculous.

I'm not sure how well the South West Approaches needed the Whirlwind. In May 1941 they flew 81 convoy patrols and 22 others, a total of 210 sorties without once meeting the enemy!
The Whirlwind did better in late 1941, and later, making low level attacks on Luftwaffe airfields and other targets.

Let's not forget that there were only ever two squadrons (Nos.263 and 137) operating the Whirlwind and that neither routinely had a double figure number of aircraft serviceable on any given day. I've read both squadron's ORBs.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> That's what almost happened, except only the Sea Hurricane got cleaned up.



Care to elaborate a bit about that?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> That's what almost happened, except only the Sea Hurricane got cleaned up.


A FAA P-40 with folding wings and Merlin engine would have been something.

Reactions: Like Like:

3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Oct 24, 2019)

Nah, the Admiralty would demand a 2nd crewman.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> A FAA P-40 with folding wings and Merlin engine would have been something.



What are you going to cancel to make the engines available?


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Whirlwind was shining defending the South West Approaches to the English Channel.





tomo pauk said:


> Care to elaborate a bit about that?


The Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph as per the hurricane IIa including arrester hook.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

stona said:


> What are you going to cancel to make the engines available?


Well, the Merlins that were going to the Sea Hurricanes will insead go into the P-40s.

And there are several aircraft that do not deserve their Merlins. 

1,064 x Boulton Paul Defiants produced from 1939-1942
2,201 x Fairey Battles produced from 1937 - 1940
202 x Hawker Henleys produced from 1938 - 1939

Kill Defiant production in late 1940 and that frees up some engines, if needed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Well, the Merlins that were going to the Sea Hurricanes will insead go into the P-40s.
> 
> And there are several aircraft that do not deserve their Merlins.
> 
> ...


We needs the Defiants as night fighters during the Blitz. Battle and Henley production is over by the time the P-40 comes along.


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

Capt. Vick said:


> Nah, the Admiralty would demand a 2nd crewman.


Which means the two seat P-40 is a Helldiver.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Well, the Merlins that were going to the Sea Hurricanes will insead go into the P-40s.
> And there are several aircraft that do not deserve their Merlins.
> 1,064 x Boulton Paul Defiants produced from 1939-1942
> 2,201 x Fairey Battles produced from 1937 - 1940
> ...



And a 1000+ worth of Battles, from late 1939 on.



Kevin J said:


> We needs the Defiants as night fighters during the Blitz. Battle and Henley production is over by the time the P-40 comes along.



How many kills were made by NF Defiants during the Blitz?


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> And a 1000+ worth of Battles, from late 1939 on.
> 
> 
> 
> How many kills were made by NF Defiants during the Blitz?



More than any other fighter. You'd need to research it.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> And a 1000+ worth of Battles, from late 1939 on.
> 
> How many kills were made by NF Defiants during the Blitz?


I included the Battle in the list, and any Defiant cancellations will be after the Blitz, as I wrote above. 

But really, we don't need to cancel anything to get the Merlins for any P-40 replacement for the FAA Hurricanes. It's a 1 for 1 swap.


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Well, the Merlins that were going to the Sea Hurricanes will insead go into the P-40s.
> 
> And there are several aircraft that do not deserve their Merlins.
> 
> 1,064 x Boulton Paul Defiants produced from 1939-1942



Anything before 1940 is not relevant.

What do you intend to use as a night fighter in 1940-41 after you have cancelled the Defiant?

The number one cause of shortfalls in production, throughout the war, was modifications in series production. It's why, for example, the Lancaster never got a bigger escape hatch. A major modification of the P-40 was NEVER going to happen. It would not have happened to the P-51 if the Americans had not been on board.

The Defiant was also used as an ASR aircraft, target tug and even in the radar jamming role. 515 Squadron operated at least nine Defiants fitted with ‘Moonshine’ or ‘Mandrel’ radar jamming equipment in support of USAAF 8th Air Force daylight bombing raids on Germany between May 1942 and July 1943. These might not be glamorous roles, but they are vitally important.

I love it when people try to out think the people there at the time, the people who won the war

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

stona said:


> I love it when people try to out think the people there at the time, the people who won the war


Why are you here if not to peel the onion on the aircraft and consider the decisions that make them? And some of the best aircraft were designed, funded and built by people who lost the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> More than any other fighter. You'd need to research it.



Do I? 30 seconds worth of googling yileds this, from here:

_Successful claimed interceptions took place, such as two He 111s being claimed on 15/16 September; the first confirmed kill by Defiant of the squadron was made on 22 December, of a single He 111.
_
So we have one confirmed kill in all 1940? How much confirmed kills were made by Blenheims and Beaufighters in 1940? Zero?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

stona said:


> I love it when people try to out think the people there at the time, the people who won the war



Let's not pretend that people that won the war get it right every time, nor that their actions are above critical assesment, nor that everyone on the Allied side out-smarted it's opposite number anyone on the Axis side, for any timeframe we choose to analyze stuff.



Kevin J said:


> The Sea Hurricane IIc did 342 mph as per the hurricane IIa including arrester hook.



Did it really made 342 mph? Or you want me to research it for you?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Do I?


IMO, he's not asking you because he wants to know, but instead wants to shut you down. 

Is there an Ignore function here? EDIT, yes there is. Bonus.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> IMO, he's not asking you because he wants to know, but instead wants to shut you down.
> ...



No worries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Let's not pretend that people that won the war get it right every time, nor that their actions are above critical assesment, nor that everyone on the Allied side out-smarted it's opposite number anyone on the Axis side, for any timeframe we choose to analyze stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it really made 342 mph? Or you want me to research it for you?



I'm not pretending that they did, but they did have a LOT more information to base their decisions on than we have today.

According to the RAF a Hurricane II with Merlin XX had a top speed of 340 mph at 21,000 feet.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 24, 2019)

stona said:


> I'm not pretending that they did, but they did have a LOT more information to base their decisions on than we have today.



I'm afraid that we have far more information about not just what worked and what did not, from wepons to battle plans, but also what the enemy was up to.



> According to the RAF a Hurricane II with Merlin XX had a top speed of 340 mph at 21,000 feet.



Thank you.


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm afraid that we have far more information about not just what worked and what did not, from wepons to battle plans, but also what the enemy was up to.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.



What we don't have, or only have an incomplete picture of, is all the things that influenced production decisions. RAF requirements were just one of many, and not always the primary factor. Although much government and RAF documentation has survived (and that can be difficult to find as anyone who has spent time in TNA will testify) an awful lot of company documentation has been lost forever. We tend to get a one sided view of things, from the top down and not the other way. 

It is very easy to say, 'Let's put a Merlin in a P-40' but the practicality of doing something like that, in the middle of a war, is something rather different.

Not every decision taken was the correct one, but the British in particular made a lot of correct decisions. Alec Cairncross' 'Planning in Wartime' gives an insight into how decisions were made at the MAP.


----------



## stona (Oct 24, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why are you here if not to peel the onion on the aircraft and consider the decisions that make them? And some of the best aircraft were designed, funded and built by people who lost the war.



I'm interested in history, not 'what iffery', which is basically opinion, not fact, and a waste of my time.

Everything I have written in this thread is a matter of record, historical fact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 24, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Sarcasm  as noted earlier they were shot in droves in the Battle for France. However in 1939/Early 1940 it was viewed as *THE* army close support aircraft.
> 
> There were 1786 built but only one squadron used them on covert missions into occupied Europe and even then that squadron was not exclusively equipped with Lyanders.
> 
> Large numbers wound up as target tugs.



They were actually fighting Italian aircraft with Lysanders in the early days in North Africa., and also using them as (very) light bombers. Didn't do all that well though not terrible either- some of the early Italian planes were pretty durfy too. But you wouldn't want to be in a Lysander that got jumped by a CR 32 let alone a CR 42.


----------



## HarryMann (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Sometimes either the aircraft producers were too good salesmen, or the costumers (air ministries of the countries) tended to believe some of their promises too much, or both. Like Bell trumpeting 400 mph for the non-turbo armed P-39, while that was out of capability for turboed and unarmed XP 39. Or wanting the Lightning to do 400 mph without turbos, on engines to be discontinued, same rotation, bad exhaust intake system. Beaufighter was promised to make 370 mph, Typhoon 450 mph? - sure makes easier to cancel the Whirly and to skip the Gloster F.9/37.
> 
> The Gloster twin should be a better airframe for Merlins and as night-fighter than Whirly (without major modifications), being bigger.
> 
> Germans expected great things from He 177, Ju 288, Me 210/410, that did not pan out. Soviets have had problems with serial produced examples emulating performance figures of prototypes - fault of factories, rather than design bureaus? Guess Soviet designers were rather careful what to propose, consequences for failure were not comforting



Whereas de Havilland produced the Mossie prototype in 11 months from scratch, it's first operation in RAF service 11 months later, and its max speed within 1 mph of Clarkson estimate..
But of course that was originally a private venture that the MoS kept insisting they didn't want .. till Boscombe Down told them it was indeed faster than the current Spitfire.

As for the rather lovely Whirlwind it was ny most accounts RRs refusal to countenance any further development, support or production of the (equally lovely) Peregrine that was the major driver for cancellation. Read Lord Hives' biography.

...it had to be Merlin Merlin Merlin 'at that time'

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 24, 2019)

A few thoughts.

The Lysander, while an interesting aircraft was an out of date concept and disaster as a warplane. It was pretty much useless in it's original intended roles. It did see a bit of use in very small numbers in minor areas or for short periods of time. 


The whole idea of FAA P-40 is ridiculous, the British may have done some bone headed things (so did everyone) but trying to use P-40s off carriers was not one of them. Just look in a P-40 manual for the take-off and landing distances and/or approach speeds. P-40s did take off from carrier decks but it was usually with little or no ammo and just enough fuel to reach the shore base they were being ferried to. That is a lot different than being an actual operational carrier fighter.
Heck, they even flew P-47s off carriers on a few occasions, sure doesn't mean the P-47 had any potential as a carrier fighter. 

The Defiant is another over rated or hyped airplane. An awful lot of it's reputation is based off of wartime propaganda and/or wishful thinking. Or very selective time frames. the Defiant may have shot down about 1/4 of the German bombers during the night Blitz. Now how many other fighters flew missions at night and how many scored any victories? Divide up the number of victories by the number of different types of fighters that flew night missions and the Defiant might come out on top, however that total number is skewed. British night fighters as a whole shot down more German bombers in April and the first two weeks of May than they had shot down from Sept of 1940 to the end of March 1941. No service Defiant carried radar until the fall of 1941. Most of it's other roles could have been performed by any other airframe that was handy. 

The Battle gets a bit of a bum rap. Nobody had a bomber that would have done much better in France in 1940 flying in penny packets and for the most part unescorted. However, it's true contribution to the British war effort was the training of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of bomber crewmen. If you don't build the Battle you need to build some other bomber crew trainer. Battles could also have performed some of the roles that Defiants or even Lysanders did. if they were not available.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2019)

HarryMann said:


> As for the rather lovely Whirlwind it was ny most accounts RRs refusal to countenance any further development, support or production of the (equally lovely) Peregrine that was the major driver for cancellation. Read Lord Hives' biography.
> 
> ...it had to be Merlin Merlin Merlin 'at that time'



I wonder why that would be?

Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any extra performance that Rolls-Royce could coax out of it.

Remember also that development was paused in 1940 before being cancelled in 1941. It was the same for the Vulture and Exe. 

Griffon and Crecy development was paused in 1940 as well, but resumed later, despite Hives wanting to stop work on the Crecy.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 25, 2019)

stona said:


> I'm not pretending that they did, but they did have a LOT more information to base their decisions on than we have today.
> 
> According to the RAF a Hurricane II with Merlin XX had a top speed of 340 mph at 21,000 feet.
> 
> View attachment 558033




What about the "cleaned up" Sea Hurricane IIc?

It's performance must show that a 355mph Hurricane II was possible?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I wonder why that would be?
> 
> Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any.



A fundamental problem for engine manufacturers is that during wartime aero-engines assume primary importance, the industry would produce to capacity and the supply of engines would exert a decisive influence on the number of aircraft delivered. During the rearmament period there were no engine shortages and the Air Ministry focussed on the airframe sector. Orders for all aero-engines fluctuated, it was the slow development of airframe production that led to Merlin orders for 1938 being progressively reduced from 2220 to 1470, an output which did not absorb R-R's maximum current production capacity, while at the same time the company was being asked to expand this capacity! Although shadow schemes had been introduced and were running after a fashion there was a reluctance of the companies to over commit in terms of capital expenditure. We know that R-R sought definite assurances from the Air Ministry about future orders, the company archive has survived largely intact, we can only assume that the other major player, Bristol, did the same. At R-R the substantial reorganisation brought on by the 'Hives reforms' was also in full swing throughout this period.

During the rearmament years R-R was involved in various development projects (Merlin, Exe, Peregrine and Vulture spring immediately to mind). Though the company concentrated on the Merlin in 1938 it was aware that it might be asked to produce several types simultaneously. In March 1938 Hives informed Sidegreaves

_"We could not at the present time take on a production order for Exe engines. It looks as though it is certain we shall be producing Merlins and Vultures in parallel, and very possibly Peregrines..."_

The following month he was emphasising

_"...to have three types running concurrently will introduce quite a lot of difficulties."_

In a Policy Memorandum of June 1939, when war seemed almost inevitable, Hives would write

_"If there was a war it should be obvious that the main production would be on the standardised and proved types of engines. *Our proposal *is that it should be a definite policy of the Air Ministry that the plant for producing the standard engine, which in our case is the Merlin, should not be broken down to produce another type."_

My bold.

The policy to concentrate on the Merlin originated with Rolls Royce, not the Air Ministry. It was as a direct consequence of this line of thinking that the company's development programmes were cut back. Both the Exe and the Peregrine were abandoned during the early months of the war in order to concentrate as much technical effort as possible and to maximise output of the Merlin.

It was also this policy which killed the Whirlwind. You could argue that ultimately it was Rolls Royce, not the Air Ministry, that did for it.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
7 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A few thoughts.
> 
> The Lysander, while an interesting aircraft was an out of date concept and disaster as a warplane. It was pretty much useless in it's original intended roles. It did see a bit of use in very small numbers in minor areas or for short periods of time.
> 
> ...



There is no other plane in the Blitz that can sneak up underneath a German bomber, certainly not the Battle. It's a two seater and so has two sets of eyes. As for the Lysander for artillery spotting being a failure, correct but whatever you use will be shot out of the skies without adequate fighter cover.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> They were actually fighting Italian aircraft with Lysanders in the early days in North Africa., and also using them as (very) light bombers. Didn't do all that well though not terrible either- some of the early Italian planes were pretty durfy too. But you wouldn't want to be in a Lysander that got jumped by a CR 32 let alone a CR 42.


Lysander against Fiat CR32s? Ee, luxury. If you were in the East Africa campaign with use of Furys, Hartebeest/Hardys, Gauntlets, Vincents and even a Valentia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 25, 2019)

yulzari said:


> Lysander against Fiat CR32s? Ee, luxury. If you were in the East Africa campaign with use of Furys, Hartebeest/Hardys, Gauntlets, Vincents and even a Valentia.


The RCAF used the Lysander for coastal patrol and as an emergency fighter.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 25, 2019)

"For a brief period in 1940, every available Hawker Hurricane fighter in Canada had been sent overseas to fight in the Battle of Britain. This situation left the RCAF without a modern fighter aircraft at home in Canada. Two RCAF Lysander-equipped squadrons which were supposed to convert to fighter aircraft but had none to convert to, were re-designated as operational fighter squadrons. No. 111 Squadron, a Coastal Artillery Squadron which earlier had replaced its Avro trainers with Lysanders and been reclassified as an Army Co-operation Unit, was again reclassified as a fighter squadron – the only one on the Canadian west coast – in June 1940. Lysander-equipped No. 118 Squadron was also re-designated as a fighter squadron. The Lysander completely lacked the capability to operate in a fighter role, and neither squadron saw action as a fighter unit while equipped with Lysanders, but their designation as fighter squadrons did allow RCAF fighter pilots to work up at a critical time without having to wait for the arrival of true fighter aircraft."

Harold A. Skaarup Web page​

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 25, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Battle gets a bit of a bum rap.



When introduced into service in mid 1937 it was of pretty cutting edge construction with performance superior to equivalent aircraft and there were not many fighters *in service* that were faster. By mid 1939 it was an obsolete flying coffin, fighter aircraft in service had gained 60mph and doubled weight of armament. I wonder if there are many aircraft that had such a short time at the top outside of a war

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 25, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> When introduced into service in mid 1937 it was of pretty cutting edge construction with performance superior to equivalent aircraft and there were not many fighters *in service* that were faster. By mid 1939 it was an obsolete flying coffin, fighter aircraft in service had gained 60mph and doubled weight of armament. I wonder if there are many aircraft that had such a short time at the top outside of a war


The Bristol Blenheim.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 25, 2019)

Part of the problem with the Battle was in its use, as with the Defiant; Battles were flown straight and level at not very high speeds nor very high altitudes over heavily defended targets. The single engined day bomber concept just wasn't viable in a modern combat scenario. The Defiant was the same, it too was a nice aeroplane to fly but the concept of a turret fighter was left wanting in reality.

The Battle is also really big for a single engined aeroplane; compare with this Mosquito for size.





Europe 433 




Europe 434

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The Bristol Blenheim.



That's not really fair. 

The Battle came about as a result of a project for a 'High Speed 1000lb Bomber' which then became a debate between the relative merits of single and twin engine bombers, partly because the Air Member for Supply and Research (a certain Hugh Dowding) thought that a S/E type would work with what he thought would be the Griffon engine, and partly because a S/E type was considered better for reinforcing overseas commands, being easier to ship and erect in theatre. We should remember that it was a replacement for the bombers developed in the '20s. The 'High Performance Day Bomber' represented by the Hart and its derivatives equipped 25 squadrons at the end of 1936. A veil is best drawn over the 'Medium Performance Day Bomber', represented by a single squadron of Sidestrands.
Specification P.27/32 was also drawn up with an eye on restrictions imposed by the Geneva Conference. The three ton limit confused and delayed the development of medium day bombers.

The Blenheim was built to an entirely different and more modern specification, P.4/34 for a 'Light Day Bomber'. The specification was altered on several occasions, but it always bore more resemblance to the Hart concept of a light high performance day bomber than to the 'High Speed 100lb bomber' and P.27/32.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 25, 2019)

Edgar Brooks said:


> I haven't found why there was such a leaning towards the Beaufighter, and it didn't last long into the war; as time goes on, interest gradually turns back to continuing Spitfire production, with extra orders finally being placed.
> The backtracking started 17-11-39; an order for a further 500 was proposed 8-12-40, and 450 agreed 11-1-40. 22-3-40 it was increased to 900.



Maybe they were already thinking about the terrible risks of bombers, looking at Guernica etc. With 4 x 20mm cannon concentrated in the nose, plus .303 wing guns, a Beaufighter, if it could catch one, could presumably obliterate any WW2 bomber very quickly and a high rate per interception, compared to .303 mg armed fighters.

I hope I'll be forgiven for mentioning Dan Carlin again but he has a great podcast called "Logical Insanity" outlining the really scary concepts of using bombers against civilian contexts (in combination with chemical warfare) as part of "modern" Total War thinking in the 30's, in theoretical concepts shared by most of the luminaries of aviation at the time.

It was quite eye-opening to me and helped explain some of the Strategic decisions being made both in the early war as well as decisions made later on (de-housing, fire raids, nuclear attacks).


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> There is no other plane in the Blitz that can sneak up underneath a German bomber, certainly not the Battle. It's a two seater and so has two sets of eyes. As for the Lysander for artillery spotting being a failure, correct but whatever you use will be shot out of the skies without adequate fighter cover.



You didn't need to "sneak" up under a German bomber if the plane had adequate firepower. The Defiant was in a near tie for worst firepower of the British night fighters. 
The Blenheim (also weak in firepower) had two sets of eyes. And many of them had radar of a rather troublesome sort. 
the "success" of the British night fighters during the blitz is rather questionable until March/April of 1941. From Sept to Feb they rarely shot down more than 10 planes in a month and in one month didn't shoot down any, weather and level of German activity were large factors. 
Defensive night fighters and offensive night fighters (intruders) sometimes get blended together and sometimes separated out. Intruders were shooting down german bombers in small numbers during the Blitz but sometimes their contribution is overlooked or not counted. Douglas Bostons/Havocs were used for intruder duties and scored a few victories, however for defensive duties they were wasted on the turbinelite scheme at the end of the Blitz. 

Strangely enough for artillery spotting, the smaller, much cheaper Taylorcrafts were not shot out of the skies even considering the fighter cover. The Lysander was too big and too expensive to do the small jobs wanted (carry army officers between different level headquarters/liaison, spotting, over front line recon,etc.) and yet not fast enough or well armed enough to the bigger job/s of close support/interdiction.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 25, 2019)

Schweik said:


> With 4 x 20mm cannon concentrated in the nose, plus .303 wing guns, a Beaufighter, if it could catch one, could presumably obliterate any WW2 bomber very quickly and a high rate per interception, compared to .303 mg armed fighters.




rather true except the wing .303 guns were an "add on". the first Beaufighters had 20mm guns only, and certainly so in the planning stages. The recoil of the cannon caused the nose to dip throwing the guns off target and the wing .303s were added as an "alternative" armament. One source claims the six .303 wing guns were added with the 51st production aircraft and after. Or it may have given the plane something to shoot with while the "man in back" was scurrying around trying to change drums on 4 cannon at once


----------



## pbehn (Oct 25, 2019)

wuzak said:


> I wonder why that would be?
> 
> Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any extra performance that Rolls-Royce could coax out of it.
> 
> ...


Because, simply, you cannot mass produce a lot of varieties engines, variety is the opposite of mass production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 26, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The RCAF used the Lysander for coastal patrol and as an emergency fighter.


 This is true but as shown by Fubar57, it was due to a lack of anything else, not any intrinsic quality of the Lysander. Flight reports on the Lysander say that while it can perform rather tight maneuvers, (even Hurricanes can't follow it in a turn) it had heavy controls and slow response. It also had just about the same wing area as a Hurricane and weighed just about as much as a MK I Hurricane. 
A number of aircraft were pressed into use as "emergency" fighters (or other roles) but almost always it was because there was nothing else at at all, not because they were 2nd best. 
Big difference between 2nd best out of many and nothing at all.


----------



## stona (Oct 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A number of aircraft were pressed into use as "emergency" fighters (or other roles) but almost always it was because there was nothing else at at all, not because they were 2nd best.
> Big difference between 2nd best out of many and nothing at all.



Exactly.

In the 1940s, to describe a 200 mph aircraft with a service ceiling just over 20,000 feet as a fighter is a leap of faith! It wouldn't matter if it could turn in its own length

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Having just read Bloody Shambles, which I highly recommend, in order to operate the Whirlwind in Malaya the airfields need to be lengthened and perhaps hard surfaced. Get that sorted and the Whirlwind will do well against the IJAAF's Nakajima Ki-43 and decimate everything with two engines. Having just returned from KL and Singapore (visited the Welcome to the Battlebox and Fort Siloso: Front Page ) I can attest that the air is dense and humid, so I imagine the Whirlwind will do better at altitude in Malaya than it could over northern Europe. In my mind, here's the Whirlwind at RAF Selatar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Really nice video there, I've never seen footage of Whirlwinds in flight, fantastic stuff.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> IMO, he's not asking you because he wants to know, but instead wants to shut you down.
> 
> Is there an Ignore function here? EDIT, yes there is. Bonus.



KevinJ gets a bit carried away now and then (he has 'Disliked' a few of my posts too that I didn't think were merited) but his ire rarely lasts. I believe he is a sincere fellow, is knowledgable and he has some useful insights. I wouldn't put him under the Ignore flag. Just my $.02.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2019)

yulzari said:


> Lysander against Fiat CR32s? Ee, luxury. If you were in the East Africa campaign with use of Furys, Hartebeest/Hardys, Gauntlets, Vincents and even a Valentia.



I think a Gauntlent or a Fury gives you a much better chance than a Lysander against a Cr 32. In fact there were some interesting encounters with those planes. Later on engagements between Gladiators and CR.42s got positively hairy, with some battles going heavily for the British and some for the Italians, usually with a lot of casualties for the losing side and sometimes for both sides.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Strangely enough for artillery spotting, the smaller, much cheaper Taylorcrafts were not shot out of the skies even considering the fighter cover. The Lysander was too big and too expensive to do the small jobs wanted (carry army officers between different level headquarters/liaison, spotting, over front line recon,etc.) and yet not fast enough or well armed enough to the bigger job/s of close support/interdiction.



I've noticed this pattern with some other similar types - Storch, Piper Cub / L-4 seemed to have a surprisingly good surviveability ratio in the spotter / short range recon / light CAS role. Similar for the HS-123 and the Polikarpov R-5 and R-Z, and even the I-5/ I-153 and CR-42, and Fw 189. There was a certain niche for very agile, slow, light spotter planes with STOL capability that seemed to continue right to the end of the war. Some of them fit the niche really well, some only partly. I don't fully understand how planes like the Taylorcraft could survive in the deadly late war battlefield environment but it seems that they did.

And it continued postwar of course with planes like the OV-10 et al.

The Lysander did not seem to fit this niche very well, perhaps because it was so big and heavy. A piper J-3 was 1,220 lbs loaded, the Lysander was 6,330 lbs. I still like the Lysander for it's versatility and it's odd design features, but I agree they made way too many of them (more on that in another post).

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> KevinJ gets a bit carried away now and then (he has 'Disliked' a few of my posts too that I didn't think were merited) but his ire rarely lasts. I believe he is a sincere fellow, is knowledgable and he has some useful insights. I wouldn't put him under the Ignore flag. Just my $.02.


So that comment referred to me, eh?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 27, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So that comment referred to me, eh?



Well we all get carried away sometimes don't we? I was referring to a new poster who seemed to interpret something in a more harsh sense than it was probably meant. Nothing more than that. It's also possible I misinterpreted his post.


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 27, 2019)

stona said:


> Tomo, no matter how you choose to spin it you will only ever count one engine on a Typhoon, just as the AM/MAP did
> 
> The Typhoon was eventually a much better aeroplane than the Whirlwind and we have the benefit of hindsight not granted to those making the decisions in 1940. The Hawker fighter was expected sooner than it actually arrived.
> 
> ...


Amen on the bean counter thing.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't fully understand how planes like the Taylorcraft could survive in the deadly late war battlefield environment but it seems that they did.



In part due the speed disparity. These planes all fly very slow, and while a Lysander _could_ fly slow it was in a high drag configuration (mostly) when doing so. 

Read this modern flying report. Lysander Pilot Report > Vintage Wings of Canada 

trying to "dog fight" in a Lysander does not sound easy if you are operating near stall.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 28, 2019)

Well anyway, I just wanted to say regarding this thread, I'm glad someone revived it because I really enjoyed reading the whole thing. Thanks to everyone who posted in it thus far, it has been both an entertaining and informative read. I was waiting to really chime in on the major themes until I'd read through the whole thing, and I finally have.

So here is my two cents, FWIW:

First to restate the obvious, of course this is a "what-if" -we know what really happened, they didn't continue the design. Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think, they did what they did. This is just for fun and as a thought experiment. I know sometimes we all get kind of invested in this or that aircraft design on an emotional level. We all do it. We all have our favorites and our little underdogs we root for, it's not rational but it's part of the fun of being into WW2 aviation, right? And of course we have our national biases, but we should try to keep in mind that just because we are familiar with the rationalizations of why our own nation made this or that decision, doesn't mean we necessarily should buy into it.

All that said, I think Shortround6 is right about the Lysander. And the Defiant too. At least the Lysander (1,786 built) and the Defiant (1,064 built) still had a combat role, however limited or marginal, before being relegated to target tug duties. Others like the Henley (202 built) never did and designs like the Battle (2,200 built) and the Blackburn Botha (580 built) and Roc (136 built) should have been retired right away as soon as it was apparent how hopeless they were. The British were not alone in this by any mean. In the US, we had aircraft like the dreaded Brewster SB2A Buccaneer (with 771 built), and of absolutely no use to any air force anywhere, and the Curtiss SO3C Seamew (795 built), which had to be quickly withdrawn from service... just to mention two obvious cases. We also had quite a few marginal types which didn't do much good and even killed a lot of good pilots but I don't want to get into side arguments so I'll leave them unnamed.

The point being that the Western Allies in general and the British specifically definitely had some aircraft in production that they had no reason to built. In fact those which ever even saw action were probably costing lives of those unlucky enough to get sent into combat in them.

Which makes a *proven design *like the Whirlwind a shame to have to shut down with such a short production run. I do understand the issue with the engine.

Personally, were I to show up in the halls power in England circa 1939, I wouldn't advocate a radical redesign of the Whirlwind, like to put Merlins in it or something. I would say stop the Lysander production line right now, transfer the contract to the Whirlwind and make a few minor tweaks for a Mk 1 variant. Now built 500 or 1,000 more of those ASAP. If necessary for manpower, money or any other resources please immediately stop production of the Defiant and the Botha and get Blackburn and Boulton Paul to help make Whirlwinds (if that is even possible).

The Whirlwind was a small plane, that is why it was so fast. It's too small for Merlin engines. It works well with the wings it has, so leave them be. Some people think a small plane is a problem, and I'm not sure if it was entirely apparent in 1938 or 39, but small planes were _faster_, all things being equal. The Spitfire was small and the even zippier Bf 109 was smaller still. Sure they both had short range but the need for improved versions of both types continued to the very end of the war. Especially in the era before 1,500+ hp engines, smaller was just _better_ for a fighter in many ways. So in my opinion the Peregrine engine, far from being a dead end, was a really good idea. I don't know how rare it was or if other nations had equivalent designs, but to me it's a stroke of genius. A smaller engine that can power that 1940 era bird to 360 mph is something special. Especially since we know with a little work they got have gotten it much faster still. I bet if it had been developed for another year or two the Whirlwind could well have become a 400 mph airplane.

Designing a new fighter is _always_ a roll of the dice. You never knew when a new design was going to pan out or if it ever would. Shortround6 pointed out the long painful saga of the Typhoon. The US had similar teething problems with the P-38, with the failed P-46 and P-60 and so forth. The Germans had the Me 210 and He 177 and so on. That is why a proven design that clearly only needed a little fine-tuning really shouldn't have been abandoned so lightly.

I basically agree with Shortround6 that a relatively 'lite' refit was all that was needed to make the Mk 1 version a fully viable combat aircraft. Cross feed the two fuel systems and plumb for external tanks, convert armament to 3 x 20mm with belt feed and more ammunition, improve radiators, put in bigger tyres, maybe replace the hydraulics if it's not too radical of a change, and generally tweak anything that was breaking on a routine basis. And bingo, you had a fighter which could do things few others available to Britan in 1940 could:

It was a proven design capable of flying combat missions, with all the _major_ design flaws worked out. It only needed some fine tuning.
Pilots liked it. Same could not be said for the Typhoon or say, the P-39 (outside of Russia).
It could top 360 mph, that is fast enough to contend with Bf 109s. It's kind of the red line for a good fighter in 1940-41. Anything over 350 mph is in the mix for Western fighters.
In spite of being a twin, it was apparently quite agile.
Though it was only a low altitude design (at least initially) there was a need for good low altitude fighters!
It was versatile and looks like a good fighter, a good short range recon plane, and a good CAS / precision bomber.
Apparently it could fly reasonably well on one engine. Not all two engined warplanes could do that.
It was the most heavily armed operational Allied fighter of it's day, certainly in it's (over 350 mph) performance class.
The Whirlwind could apparently tangle with Bf 109s and survive. How many fighters anywhere in the world in 1940 could do that? It's a fairly short list.
I think it would have been a good Fw 190 killer.
There was a long period where those capabilities remained in high demand. Not until the Spit IX was available was the 190 threat faced down. All that time Whirlwinds could have been shooting them down, flying with the Spit Vs as backup.
It could dive-bomb at a steep angle and manage the pull out - with no dive brakes. While not unique that is not a common trait in WW2 aircraft.
Apparently it could carry two 500 lb bombs which was a heavy bomb load for a fast fighter bomber in 1940 - 41.
It was a good enough design that the 1.0 version was still able to fly successful combat missions 3 years later. Without any real improvements that I'm aware of.
It clearly had room for further development. External fuel tanks and a little more internal gas, a few tweaks to engine cooling systems and exhaust, and you already have a much more capable airplane. From there the sky is the limit (especially if they ever developed a 2 speed peregrine)
All in all, it was clearly an unusually good design that already was past the hardest phases of the design cycle. It was in that happy place where you can start to fine tune the basic design and get things out of it you never realized were possible initially (like I bet, 380 or even 400 mph for the Whirlwind) and make all kinds of interesting and useful variants to do other things beyond the original design specs. It had many traits not found in other Anglo-American fighters for years to come and had the versatily to do several useful tasks pretty well.

Finally subjectively, I am of the (not always reliable) school that a good fighter airplane should look beautiful: have sexy lines, _appear_ to be fast and sleek and elegant. The Whirlwind checks all those boxes for me (in exactly the way the Skua doesn't). I know it's unscientific but the Whirlwind is a damn nice looking fighter. I made a model of it to compare with my other fighters of the early to mid-war, and it stands out for its elegance. That is a small racehorse but it's definitely a throroughbred.

Obviously the big problem was the engine. Sure Rolls Royce wanted to concentrate on their best design the Merlin, and other promising designs to come like the Griffin, but I also think the Peregrine (and the Kestrel) was a good idea in and of itself. The Peregrine seems to have been cancelled due to problems with the Vulture (made up of sticking peregrines together). Nobody seems to have been considering it for it's own merits. Small planes seemed like they were on their way out in 1940 probably because the military people and the company people knew there was a need for more of everything: more bombs, more fuel, more guns, more armor etc.

But how many planes got bloated too quickly, loaded down with too much weight and declined in usefulness as a result. The P-40 is a good earlyish example of that, sure I love it as a design but all that weight had a way of degrading the fighter. Only by stripping them down and overboosting to that elusive ~ 1400 - 1500 hp level did they get it to perform as needed to cope with the best Axis fighters. Another good example is the B-26 Marauder. The earlier Glenn Martin designs - 167 and 187, were sleek and fast, relatively small and light. More and more and more stuff got stuffed into the B-26 and they ended up making a "widow maker" that took a long time to make into a safe, good performing aircraft. It did some useful duty but it never lived up to the hopes of the design (and in my opinion, was never as good as the much simpler and smaller Baltimore). Some other designs ultimately worked out in spite of being too huge and heavy - the P-47 with it's massive engine and turbo could muscle through all that extra drag.

And yet meanwhile the small 32' wingspan Bf 109 kept being improved and kept pace with all the Anglo-American designs to the end of the war*. And the small Russian planes kept pace with the 109s. Turns out you don't need 3,000 horsepower to go 420 mph - you can also do it with a smaller cleaner body and short low-drag wings. To me that underlines the message: smaller is better, at least to some extent.

Of course small has it's downside too. The Whirlwind was never going to be a long range fighter or fighter-bomber.. Eventually you'd have the mosquito for the latter and the P-38 and later still P-51 for the former. But until that point, I think the Whirlwind could have been useful, a Mk I or Mk Ia version, nothing requiring a major investment. Just make about 500 more and I bet it would have helped, and that would have been enough to push for a Mk II.

Mk II or III is where you could talk about making more drastic changes like to the wing or a different engine. But I think they should have stuck with the Peregrine!

S

* we can argue which was better - Spit, P-51, P-47, Fw or 109, but we can probably all agree the 109 remained in contention for the top spot until the very end.

P.S. the Wiki says the No. 263 squadron had "considerable success" vs. Ju 88s, Do 217a, Bf 109s and Fw 190s. Does anyone have more data on that? The Wiki on 263 sqn doesn't mention any dogfights with 109s or Fw 190s, only one possible ju 88 kill. There is also a 6 August 1942 raid where the Wiki claims Whirlwinds shot down 3 x Bf 109s for no losses. Anybody look into that yet?

I don't know if Whirlwinds got any victories during the channel dash fight or not. The fact that all four aircraft made it back to base in spite of apparently fairly heavy damage to three of them actually speaks quite well of the design to me. This is in general one of the advantages of a twin-engined fighter but twin engined fighters also needed to be fast to survive. The Beaufighter was great in the maritime role and as an intruder etc., but it wasn't quite fast enough to be a day time fighter over land. Neither was the Me 110 ultimately. But the Whirlwind was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 28, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So in my opinion the Peregrine engine, far from being a dead end, was a really good idea. I don't know how rare it was or if other nations had equivalent designs, but to me it's a stroke of genius. A smaller engine that can power that 1940 era bird to 360 mph is something special. Especially since we know with a little work they got have gotten it much faster still. I bet if it had been developed for another year or two the Whirlwind could well have become a 400 mph airplane.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Obviously the big problem was the engine. Sure Rolls Royce wanted to concentrate on their best design the Merlin, and other promising designs to come like the Griffin, but I also think the Peregrine (and the Kestrel) was a good idea in and of itself. The Peregrine seems to have been cancelled due to problems with the Vulture (made up of sticking peregrines together). Nobody seems to have been considering it for it's own merits. Small planes seemed like they were on their way out in 1940 probably because the military people and the company people knew there was a need for more of everything: more bombs, more fuel, more guns, more armor etc.



The Peregrine had limited usefulness, as it was too small for many applications, such as in bombers and single-engine fighters.

The Peregrine and Vulture programs were separate, and actually shared very little between them. Maybe the pistons, rings, wrist pins, valves and valve rocker arms. The continuation of one program did not depend on the other. The Vulture's bore spacing was very nearly identical to the Merlin's. The Vulture was not two Peregrines joined together, as is often stated.

The Vulture's problems were unique to it, and did not effect the Peregrine at all, which has a few of its own issues.

The Vulture was also ahead of the Peregrine, by about a year. It was cleared for 3,200rpm (before it ran into big end bearing/con rod problems) compared to 3,000rpm for the Peregrine.

The Peregrine wasn't as "genius" as you think. It was modernisation of the Kestrel, which originated in the mid 1920s. Some say it was a "Merlinised" Kestrel.

Another Kestrel development was the Goshawk, which was used in the Supermarine Type 224 (the original Spitfire). The Goshawk used evaporative cooling, which was supposed to reduce cooling drag, but it didn't work too well, so the engine, and the aircraft that used it, were abandoned.

Back to the Whirlwind, there was concern as to the time it was taking Westland to get the aircraft into production, so a backup "cannon armed fighter" option was sought. Bristol's proposal was adopted, which would become the Beaufighter. Supermarine offered the Type 327 as a "cannon armed fighter" backup for the Whirlwind, but this was rejected.

The Type 327 was a twin Merlin fighter, based on the Type 324 that was in competition with the Tornado/Typhoon, with 6 x 20mm cannon.


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> trying to "dog fight" in a Lysander does not sound easy if you are operating near stall.



In February 1941, still worried about a German invasion, the Air Fighting Development Unit of the RAF flew Hurricanes against gliders (Kirby Kites, towed by Tiger Moths). Once released from the tow the gliders proved almost impossible targets for the Hurricanes.

That did not make the gliders good fighters!

Here's a first hand account of the experiment from Lawrence Wright's 'The Wooden Sword'.

"In February the squadron had an interesting day out. A German airborne invasion still being expected, the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford was required to study the chances of shooting down gliders, towed and free, and to recommend tactics for both sides. In perfect visibility, five of our Tigers towing five Kites flew in formation to a rendezvous at Royston, to be met and attacked by fighters armed with camera-guns. My proposal to retaliate with Verey pistols from the tugs was rejected, but I was allowed to bring my Leica to bear. A Hurricane, with flaps down, came at the formation head-on, and doubtless scored hits on our leaders, but I got him fair and square with my first shot. The gliders then released, and proved almost hopeless targets when free. A fixed-gun fighter flying four times as fast as a glider cannot keep on its tail as it circles. lt has to break away after a short burst, and begin each attack afresh. But a free-gun fighter, turning outside the glider on the same centre, can keep constant deflection and take steady aim. This was proved after a second take-off, from Duxford, when Professor Melville-Jones picked gliders off at leisure from a Defiant."

It did reveal a promising role for a turret fighter 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2019)

stona said:


> That did not make the gliders good fighters!




Quite true 

Just avoiding being shot down does not make a good fighter, you have to able to shoot down enemy airplanes of some sort, even if not enemy fighters.

Much like the Russians and the I-16. They found it had the lowest loss rate per sortie at one point in the war but it also did the least damage to the Germans per sortie so it wasn't very effective despite the low losses. 

modifying (sticking engine and guns in it) this 





is going to be near impossible

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 28, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Back to the Whirlwind, there was concern as to the time it was taking Westland to get the aircraft into production, so a backup "cannon armed fighter" option was sought. Bristol's proposal was adopted, which would become the Beaufighter.


It would have been beneficial to have the Beaufighter in earlier service and skip the Whirlwind. Replace the few Blenheims at Malaya with more Beaufighters, for example.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2019)

Thank you for your kind comments but I do have a few comments.


on the Whirlwind.


Schweik said:


> Cross feed the two fuel systems and plumb for external tanks, convert armament to 3 x 20mm with belt feed and more ammunition, improve radiators, put in bigger tyres, maybe replace the hydraulics



There is little need to cut the guns down to three, there were noses built (two different designs) with 4 20mm cannon and 110-115 rounds per gun with pneumatic powered magazines( which didn't work) so the volume and weight allowance was already there. Main problem with the "Hydraulics" was the the hydraulic engine controls, which had nothing to do with the rest of the hydraulic system. the throttle levers were connected to master cylinders which were connected to slave cylinders on the engine. The two systems were separate for each other. after a few hours of flight it was often necessary to move the throttle levers fully back and forth to get rid of any air bubbles in the system (Those of us old enough to remember bleeding our own brake lines) to get proper throttle response. 





Schweik said:


> Though it was only a low altitude design (at least initially) there was a need for good low altitude fighters!



Initially it was a high altitude design. Engines peaked at 15,000ft which is low compared to 1942 and later but for 1940 (or earlier) it was about as high as it got except for the Merlin (16,250 ft). Unfortunately this meant the take-off power  was around 765hp at 6-7lbs of boost. Going to 9lbs boost helped once in service. Had they truly wanted a low altitude fighter then swapping the supercharge gears to something equivalent to the Merlin VIII would have allowed wellover 800hp down low even on 87 octane fuel. 



Schweik said:


> Apparently it could carry two 500 lb bombs which was a heavy bomb load for a fast fighter bomber in 1940 - 41.


The 500lb bombs didn't show up until much later than the 250lb bombs. There may have been a s wing modification involved for either bomb size? 




Schweik said:


> The earlier Glenn Martin designs - 167 and 187, were sleek and fast, relatively small and light. More and more and more stuff got stuffed into the B-26 and they ended up making a "widow maker" that took a long time to make into a safe, good performing aircraft. It did some useful duty but it never lived up to the hopes of the design (and in my opinion, was never as good as the much simpler and smaller Baltimore).



The Much smaller Baltimore was a later design than the B-26. The Maryland was the Martin 167, the B-26 was the Martin 179 (at least to start) and the Baltimore was the Martin 187.
The Baltimore first flew almost 8 months after the first B-26. 
The Baltimore had a few problems of it's own. like the A-20 and a few other fast (or not so fast) bombers the fuselage was so narrow the crew could change places in flight, which means if the pilot is incapacitated in flight the plane is lost. Original requirements for the B-26 also called for flights of well over 8 hours, it may have been a stupid requirement but trying to get a single pilot to fly for 8 hours or more was not considered a good idea in 1939/40. 




Schweik said:


> And yet meanwhile the small 32' wingspan Bf 109 kept being improved and kept pace with all the Anglo-American designs to the end of the war



Not really, the 109 had _devolved_ to a point defense interceptor with questionable armament by late in the war. Since Germany could make good use of point defence interceptors it did pretty good work but it was no longer in the front ranks of of fighters. Without drop tank it's endurance was under one hour in the conditions over germany ( you couldn't cruise the 109s around at 200-220mph for max range/endurance without being sitting ducks) and it's armament was too light for the bomber interceptor job and barely adequate for taking down the big American fighters. There Is a difference between being useful, which the 109 was, and having kept pace with the Anglo-American designs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> It would have been beneficial to have the Beaufighter in earlier service and skip the Whirlwind. Replace the few Blenheims at Malaya with more Beaufighters, for example.



doesn't get you anything since the two planes only share the same cannon (and instruments in the panel) . Canceling the RR Peregrine engine even earlier does NOT get you Bristol Hercules engines any sooner. In Fact the Beaufighter MK II with Merlins was built to get around a shortage of Hercules engines. Likewise the Merlin powered Wellingtons. 

Stopping Whirlwind production and building more Beaufighters means tooling up the Westland factory for Beaufighters, not just changing numbers on paper.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 28, 2019)

This is all I could find with regards to Whirlwind claims...ORB

P6979- May 14 '43 - two Fw 190s damaged
P6985-Mar 11 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
P6989-Jan 28 '41 - Ar 196 destroyed
Feb 28 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 02 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 30 '41 - Do 215 damaged
P7057-Dec 14 '42 - Dogfight with two Fw 190s; no result

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 28, 2019)

Whirlwind victories from Robert Bowater, '263 and 137 Squadrons: The Whirlwind Years'. 

1941 
12 January Ju.88 of K.Gr.806 – Destroyed – David Stein P6972 
8 February Ar.196 of 5/Ku.Fl.Gr.196 – Destroyed – Kenneth Graham P6969 HE-V 
1 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Patrick Thornton-Brown P6989 HE-J 
5 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Herbert Kitchener DFM P6989 HE-J 
11 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Herbert Kitchener DFM P6989 HE-J 
1 April Do.215 – Damaged – Arthur Donaldson P6998 
6 April He.111 of I/KG.27 – Damaged – Bernard Howe P7002 HE-L 
16 April He.111 of I/KG.27 – Damaged – Albert Tooth P7004 2 
7 April Ju.88 of KG.54 – Damaged – Roy Ferdinand P6996 
6 August Me.109 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Robert Brackley P6983 HE-H 
6 August Me.109 of JG.2 – Damaged – Arthur Donaldson P7001 
6 August Me.109E-7 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Clifford Rudland P7002 HE-L 
6 August Me.109E-7 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Clifford Rudland P7002 HE-L 
4 September Me.109E of JG.2 White 15 – Damaged – David Stein P6990 
7 November Me.109E-7 of 1/JG.2 – Destroyed – Cecil King

1942 
15 May Ju.88 – Damaged – Robert Brennan P7055 SF-S 
27 May Ju.88 – Destroyed – Robert Brennan P7122 & Paul LaGette P70463 [SIC (?)]
20 June Do.217 of 3/KG.2 – Damaged – Joel Ashton P7012 SF-V & Charles Mercer P6972 
6 July Ju.88 – Damaged – Len Bartlett P7111 SF-E 
25 July Ju.88 8H+KL of 3(F)/122 – Destroyed – John McClure P7104 SF-V & Robert Smith P7012 
29 July Ju.88D-1 F6+EL of 3(F)/122 – Destroyed – Leo O’Neill P7005 SF-H & James Rebbetoy P7058 SF-G 
18 August Ju.88 Damaged – Leo O’Neill P7037 SF-J & John Luing P7055 SF-S 
19 August Do.217E-4 F8+BN of 5/KG40 – Destroyed – Mike Bryan P7121 & Des Roberts P7046 
19 August Ju.88 Damaged – Alfred Brown P6976 SF-X 20 August Ju.88 Damaged – John Barclay P6982 
14 December Fw.190 of 10/JG.2 – Damaged – Max Cotton P7052 
14 December Fw.190 of 10/JG.2 – Damaged – James Coyne P7057 SF-S 15 December Fw.190 – Damaged – Robert Smith P6976 SF-X 
19 December Fw.190 – Destroyed – John Bryan P7114 & James Rebbetoy P7005 SF-H 

TOTAL:
13 Destroyed (5 Ju88; 4 Me.109; 2 Fw190; 1 Do217; 1 Ar.196) 
18 Damaged (6 Ju.88; 6 Fw190; 2 He111; 2 Me.109; 1 Do215; 1 Do217) 
1, 2 & 4 – No claim made; 3 – was actually Blenheim V5568 of 1401 Met Flight, Horsham St Faith

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 28, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> This is all I could find with regards to Whirlwind claims...ORB
> 
> P6979- May 14 '43 - two Fw 190s damaged
> P6985-Mar 11 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
> ...


Well, that‘s not impressive. That single Ar196 could have just as easily been shot down with the Gloster Gladiators No. 263 Squadron operated before transitioning to the Whirlwind.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 28, 2019)

If you go to the link you will read that a lot of their flights were involved in maritime operations: convoy protection and anti-shipping

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2019)

Even before getting bombs a lot of the Missions over France were attacking trains, airfields and even distilleries. They were "bait" at times to try to lure the Luftwaffe up to where the Spitfires could attack the German fighters.


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 28, 2019)

Any idea what a "chameleon" mission was? I know about Ramrods, Rodeos and the like but never heard of chameleon


----------



## fubar57 (Oct 28, 2019)



Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Oct 29, 2019)

To add to the above, Chameleon Patrols were intelligence based operations.
Intelligence reports suggested that on moonlit nights when the Luftwaffe attacked South Wales or South West England, E-Boats would leave Cherbourg, rendezvous fifty miles south of the English coast then lay up about ten miles off Dartmouth acting as Air-Sea Rescue launches for any crews forced down into the sea. It was proposed to attack these E-boats with three Whirlwinds, but due to the specific nature of the intelligence, the operation had to be disguised as a routine patrol. The obvious inference is that this was to protect ULTRA. The aircraft were to climb to 15,000 feet over Dartmouth, head out over the Channel on a bearing of 117 degrees and gradually loose height to 3,000 feet at a point fifty miles out to sea, then return to Exeter. They were forbidden to orbit as though searching, the idea being that they should appear to happen upon the E-boats by chance. If the visibility was below five miles or the clouds were below 3,000 feet the operation was not to be flown. In addition, at least one of the aircraft was to carry a loaded cine camera gun and R/T silence was to be maintained at all times. S/L Munro, F/L Pugh and F/L Crooks were ordered to stand by daily between 1530 and 1700, and the first Chameleon Patrol took place on 9 January 1941. Despite the meticulous planning however, nothing was seen. Two further patrols on 13 and 15 January also failed to find their quarry.

It is fair to say that the Chameleon Patrols were not an outstanding success and were abandoned thereafter. 

Some broadly similar missions were flown against E-boats later in the war, but simply as armed reconnaissance, with no special mission name.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

Does anyone have Whirlwind losses to compare with the claims? Are those verified victories or just claims?


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 31, 2019)

I've just had an idea. Since we licence build Hispano-Suiza cannon, why don't we licence build the Hispano-Suiza 12Y and use that instead of the Peregrine, that would bring in more cash for Franco's Spain.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

How heavy was the 12Y? I thought it was on par with the Merlin / DB 601 etc.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Does anyone have Whirlwind losses to compare with the claims? Are those verified victories or just claims?



I believe those have been matched to German losses or damage reports. It includes some for which the Whirlwind pilots did not claim.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

So now all we need are the losses to get a hint of an assessment of the Whirlwind in air to air combat.

What we can see already though is that the aircraft was capable of engaging three of the toughest opponents the RAF faced at that time - Bf 109 fighters, Fw 190s fighters, and Ju 88 bombers.

We know the 109 was one of the top fighters in the world, the Fw 190 had caused a major problem for the RAF in Channel operations for a while. There were few Allied fighters that could contend with the Fw 190 in particular with a reasonable chance of a positive outcome in 1941 or 1942.

The Ju 88 was not spectacular in the BoB but in the MTO, for example at Malta and in convoy fights, it performed very well and was apparently difficult for Hurricanes, Fulmars, and Gladiators to intercept. It was an unusually deadly bomber by the standards of the day and also posed a threat as what you might call a maritime fighter (long range heavy fighter operating over the sea). As one of the few Luftwaffe aircraft with reasonably good range (about ,1100 miles give or take, and with speed and altitude performance that made it hard to catch for Hurricanes etc., it was quite a threat.

Whirlwinds were also able to engage these enemy planes, suffer damage including lost engines, and make it back to base with living pilots. Another major plus.

Given it's capabilities against these aircraft I would also assume the Whirlwind could have been helpful in the Pacific or places like Burma. Range would be a limitation obviously but it was also a limitation with the much slower Hurricane. Whirlwind should have had the speed to be able to disengage from Ki 43, A6M etc. which would allow a positive attrition ratio.

So I think this already is an indication that the Whirlwind was an unusually good design for it's era, albeit with some obvious limitations, and it had merits both as a bomber and a low to mid altitude fighter, even in it's almost prototype (unimproved) form. With a few probably easy improvements like plumbing for external fuel tanks, cross-feeding of fuel, and more ammunition, it could have been quite an asset.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

In looking at that relatively modest list of victories, we have to keep in mind that usually only a couple of squadrons of Whirlwinds were operational with often seemingly as few as 4 or 5 aircraft flying sorties at any one time. As a comparatively unique type that never really made it to large scale production it was somewhat hard to maintain so serviceability wasn't that high, due to rarity of spares and so on. Given those small numbers and the type of opponents that 'kill list' looks pretty impressive to me.

For comparison, I don't think early Tomahawks or (Allison Engined) Mustang Is claimed that many victories performing (I think?) similar types of missions in the Channel and over Northern France. And as good as they were I don't think Beaufighters got very many 109s let alone Fw 190s. They did shoot down a fair number of Ju 88s at low altitude.

Beaufighter was a great aircraft, and it had a huge range / operational radius advantage over the Whirlwind, but that 30-40 mph speed difference was a fairly big deal, not to mention the Whirlwind even with the single speed Peregrines had a 3,000m higher ceiling than the Beau.

The Mosquito of course was yet another fantastic long range fighter bomber, and it had the speed, but it wasn't a 109 killer or a Fw 190 killer, IMO. The difference here is mainly agility / maneuverability. The much smaller Whirlwind seems to have been able to turn with single-engine types, unless I'm misinterpreting the data.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

I think Whirlwind would have also been useful in the MTO - where the low altitude speed, bombing accuracy, heavy armament would be helpful and the (relatively) short range wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

Fighter - as a short range fighter capable of contending with the 109 and the 190, it would have definitely helped win Air Superiority.
Interceptor - with the very good climb rate and heavy guns (especially with an ammunition increase), it would have been a useful interceptor capable of killing enemy bombers in raids.
Tac R - The Hurricanes usually used for Tac R in the Med seemed to almost always get shot down. A Whirlwind with either 2 guns or no guns would probably be very fast. Plus an extra engine. Seems like it would have had a better chance of survival than a Hurri in that role.
Precision bomber - high angle of attack dive bombing means higher accuracy. Combine that with high speed and good combat performance, and a spare engine, you have an effective bomber with (probably) a relatively low attrition rate.
Maritime patrol and bomber escort - If you plumb for extra fuel tanks on these presumably the range improves. Apparently Whirlwinds carried 134 gallons internally but if it could carry 500 lb bombs they could very likely carry standard 52 gallon fuel tanks (as used by US P-40s) on the wings. That would be an extra 104 gallons, or bringing fuel up to 238 gallons.. If you plumbed the fuel systems to share, perhaps this means range goes up roughly 50% from 800 miles to ~ 1,200. That makes for a much more useful overall airplane.
On the subject of fuel, apparently the Whirlwind carried internal ballast to handle the center of gravity. Evidently Westland proposed replacing that with an extra 35 gallon rear fuselage tank. I am not sure what that means for stability once that fuel runs out, but it does potentially increase fuel another 15% or so and gives pilots a bit more extra margin when making it back to base after a mission.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 31, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> I've just had an idea. Since we licence build Hispano-Suiza cannon, why don't we licence build the Hispano-Suiza 12Y and use that instead of the Peregrine, that would bring in more cash for Franco's Spain.



Why would license building Hispano Suiza guns and engines bring in more cash for Franco.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

God forbid they make them without the license lol. I think the plans were out and about by 1940...


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2019)

I don't think that 13 aircraft shot down over a two year period by the two Whirlwind squadrons (well, one until October '41) is particularly impressive.

The squadrons did operate in areas where either targets were sparse or they were reacting to the Luftwaffe's defence where their primary aim was to get away.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> God forbid they make them without the license lol. I think the plans were out and about by 1940...



Why would a licence for the HS engines bring any income to Franco?


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

I didn't say it would, but Hispano Suiza, granted an international company with several branches, was headquartered in Catalonia which was within Francos domain.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

stona said:


> I don't think that 13 aircraft shot down over a two year period by the two Whirlwind squadrons (well, one until October '41) is particularly impressive.
> 
> The squadrons did operate in areas where either targets were sparse or they were reacting to the Luftwaffe's defence where their primary aim was to get away.



That and the type of aircraft defeated. As I pointed out this was usually just 4 or 5 aircraft on a lot of these missions. Whether or not it is impressive to me depends somewhat on the loss ratio. But if you can shoot down Bf 109s and Fw 190s with them that is already a sign of a potentially useful design IMO. Legends to the contrary I don't believe Avro Ansons or Lysanders actually ever did. A Hurricane pilot was pretty hard-pressed to shoot down a Fw 190, and by later 1941 they weren't getting very many 109s either.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I didn't say it would, but Hispano Suiza, granted an international company with several branches, was headquartered in Catalonia which was within Francos domain.



Form Wikipedia:

_In 1937, the French government took control of the French subsidiary of Hispano-Suiza with a 51 per cent share of the capital for the provision of war materiel, renaming the company La Société d’exploitation des matériels Hispano-Suiza. _

If any money from licence fees will eventually came to Spain, it will be pennies by the time Franco has some of it.


----------



## stona (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Whether or not it is impressive to me depends somewhat on the loss ratio.



Off 116 Whirlwinds built 28 were lost in action and another 7 went missing in action. That's not a great loss ratio. 35/13 is near enough 2.7:1 against.

Of the rest, another 5 crashed in the UK with battle damage, but if we include them the loss ratio becomes even less flattering.

19 were eventually struck off command, 2 became instructional air frames and 2 survived the war.

The *really* worrying figure is the 53 lost in accidents, that's a whopping 46% of all those produced. A look at pilot losses shows a lot of these were fatal accidents.


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> How heavy was the 12Y? I thought it was on par with the Merlin / DB 601 etc.


No, same dimensions weight as a Peregrine. 12X similar to Kestrel. Every moans about V-1710 engine but it's a 1929 engine.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> How heavy was the 12Y? I thought it was on par with the Merlin / DB 601 etc.



Very light fo the size (that is both shortcoming and advantage). Later versions were heavier than the early ones, but still under 500 kg dry. Useful table: link

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Oct 31, 2019)

fastmongrel said:


> Why would license building Hispano Suiza guns and engines bring in more cash for Franco.


Spain was cash strapped, the economy, agriculture was wrecked by the Civil War, that's why he never entered the war on the German side, plus Admiral Canaris's advice.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

stona said:


> Off 116 Whirlwinds built 28 were lost in action and another 7 went missing in action. That's not a great loss ratio. 35/13 is near enough 2.7:1 against. Of the rest, another 5 crashed in the UK with battle damage, but if we include them the loss ratio becomes even less flattering.



Well, not really - are all losses air to air? Or were some lost to flak? That ratio would be relevant. How many missions with losses were bomber missions vs. sweeps and so on.

So you can for example compare that to the Mustang I...



> 19 were eventually struck off command, 2 became instructional air frames and 2 survived the war.
> 
> The *really* worrying figure is the 53 lost in accidents, that's a whopping 46% of all those produced. A look at pilot losses shows a lot of these were fatal accidents.



That is more concerning.


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Spain was cash strapped, the economy, agriculture was wrecked by the Civil War, that's why he never entered the war on the German side, plus Admiral Canaris's advice.



Spain had also already lost between 500,000 and 2,000,000 lives during the Civil War (depending on whose numbers you believe), so I think they had already 'done their bit' in the war against Communism etc.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## baldrick (Oct 31, 2019)

rogerwilko said:


> I wonder if Eric Brown tested one? Wonder what he thought of them?


Eric Brown did test the Whirlwind. In one of his books he stated that if were fitted with Merlins the C of G would be about three feet out in front of the nose.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

The Whirlwind was only a bit bigger than a Hurricane. Two merlins would be a bit much for the airframe. Sounds like maybe two 12Y wouldn't be out of the question...

Did somebody already post Eric Browns assessment of the Whirlwind yet I can't remember


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2019)

Actually the pilots thought they were more likely to survive a forced landing in the Whirlwind than in some other types. fuel tanks were outboard of the engines and not in the fuselage, the engines and engine nacelles took the brunt of the force in a wheels up landing.

The Whirlwind was using up it's ammo in ground strafing missions before the bombs showed up, leaving very little to fight with. Whirlwinds usually operated at very low altitudes which means they were almost always attacked from above. 

It is an odd plane with a very odd operational history. A lot of the the losses were due to AA guns.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The Whirlwind was only a bit bigger than a Hurricane. *Two merlins would be a bit much for the airframe*. Sounds like maybe two 12Y wouldn't be out of the question...



Mainly because the airframe wasn't designed for them.

The Supermarine Type 327, as proposed, was smaller in physical size than the Whirlwind, though it would have been structurally strong and heavier.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2019)

I really do not understand this fascination with the Hispano engine. As built by the French (and many others) up until late 1939 and early 40 it really wasn't either a very good engine or have much development potential without major redesign. 
The -49 version used in most D 520s, for example, was rated at 910hp for take-off and 910hp at 5250 meters. There was the later -50/51 engine but I am not sure it was made in large numbers before the French Surrender. Earlier versions were both lower in power and had lower full throttle heights. 

If you can magically come up with a factory to make Hispano engines then you could also come up with a factory to make Peregrines while RR concentrated on Merlins. 
Peregrines would have made good tank engines and perhaps even rescue launch engines instead of the Napier Sea Lion (it was too small for a MTB engine).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

I'm cool with Peregrines or 12Y, the main advantage of the latter seems to be that they were pretty easy to make and in general, pretty widely available. Though the horsepower doesn't look so bad compared to the Peregrine / Kestrell. I don't really get the animus against the 12Y or Hispano Suiza.

I would assume that the Peregrine, being (I think?) a later engine design, would have more potential ultimately but if RR doesn't want to make them, you have a host of sticky problems. Meanwhile the 12Y is basically 'public domain' by that point.

The 12Ys also take hub mounted prop-cannons, maybe Whirlwind Mk III has 6 x 20mm....

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually the pilots thought they were more likely to survive a forced landing in the Whirlwind than in some other types. fuel tanks were outboard of the engines and not in the fuselage, the engines and engine nacelles took the brunt of the force in a wheels up landing.
> 
> The Whirlwind was using up it's ammo in ground strafing missions before the bombs showed up, leaving very little to fight with. Whirlwinds usually operated at very low altitudes which means they were almost always attacked from above.
> 
> It is an odd plane with a very odd operational history. A lot of the the losses were due to AA guns.



The truth is operational accidents were at a horrendously high rate for quite a few aircraft, certainly Allied aircraft in many Theaters in the early war. All monoplane fighters are 'hot rods' pretty much compared to trainers. And twin engined aircraft are a bit harder to operate, all other things being equal, than single engine aircraft. But I'm unaware of any particular vices of the Whirlwind.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 31, 2019)

With 20/20 hindsight. Instead of producing 380 Peregrines to get a 4 cannon fighter in the air I would produce 380 more Merlins to get twice as many belt fed 2 cannon armed Hurricanes made under license into service by 1940 (with pilots).


----------



## Schweik (Oct 31, 2019)

I'd way rather have the Whirlwinds.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I'd way rather have the Whirlwinds.


Why?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2019)

Schweik said:


> animus against the 12Y



The Animus comes from the facts that.
1 the basic design was old, it was a stretched V-12 version of the WW I V-8 engine.
2. good as it may have been in the late 20s, it was distinctly out of date in the late 30s and falling rapidly.
3, as part of the problems relating to 2 it had a lot of difficulty meeting a 100 hr test in 1933/34 when the Russians were negotiating their licence. 
4. there are a lot of different Hispano 12Ys. the 1939 list alone has engines with articulated rods (slave and master), without dampers, engines with concentric yoke rods and dampers and -50/51 engines with the 2500rpm limit vs the old 2400rpm limit. Make sure you are picking the right one for licence (latest-best may not be available for licence) and the Hispano 12Z engine was an altogether different engine keeping the bore and stroke for production reasons. 
5, what you see for performance is pretty much what you got. The construction of the engine was too light to take much additional boost even if you have better fuel available.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 31, 2019)

pbehn said:


> With 20/20 hindsight. Instead of producing 380 Peregrines to get a 4 cannon fighter in the air I would produce 380 more Merlins to get twice as many belt fed 2 cannon armed Hurricanes made under license into service by 1940 (with pilots).


 In 1940 you are going to get cannon with 60 round drums.


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, not really - are all losses air to air? Or were some lost to flak? .



Twelve of the losses were definitely air to air, including four during Operation Fuller alone. The losses of P7107, P7106, P7093 and P7095 exactly match claims by pilots of JG 2. Oberleutnant Egon Mayer, Unteroffizer Willi Reuschling, Feldwebel Hans Stolz, and Hauptman Hans ‘Assi’ Hahn claimed one Whirlwind each but who shot down who is impossible to ascertain.
Some of the MIAs are obviously for reasons unknown.

One Whirlwind, P6994, was sent to the US in 1942 arriving at Boston on 18th June. It was subsequently tested by the Americans at Pensacola but I've never seen what the Americans made of it. It would be interesting to find out.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 1, 2019)

So correct me if I'm wrong, so Whirlwinds shot down 13 enemy a/c over a 2 year period while losing 12 of their own in aerial combat, a similar sort of success rate to that achieved by Hurricanes in the BoB and Cobras in the South Pacific in 1942. That sounds acceptable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> So correct me if I'm wrong, so Whirlwinds shot down 13 enemy a/c over a 2 year period while losing 12 of their own in aerial combat, a similar sort of success rate to that achieved by Hurricanes in the BoB and Cobras in the South Pacific in 1942. That sounds acceptable.



Maybe, maybe not. It's hardly a representative sample, a dozen losses over a two year period. That's because Fighter Command considered the Whirlwind unsuitable as an interceptor because of its lack of altitude performance. The reason it was in the South West was because it was not considered capable of operating in 11 Group against the Luftwaffe.To compare it with Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain is entirely spurious. The Hurricanes were tasked with intercepting and shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft, Whirlwinds were supposed to avoid them, at least the fighters. Two Whirlwinds were shot down by return fire from Do215s. They were themselves often escorted by other fighters for their protection in cross Channel operations.

If you want an example of what happened when they were caught by German fighters unprotected you need look no further than the events of February 1942 and Operation Fuller. Two out of four aircraft were shot down and another damaged* in one combat and two out of two (a third had RTBed with engine trouble) in another.

*P7055 and Flight Sergeant Mercer managed to get back to Ipswich with the port tyre punctured and with bullet holes in the port nacelle, through a propeller blade, the starboard fuel tank and the wings.


----------



## yulzari (Nov 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> On the subject of fuel, apparently the Whirlwind carried internal ballast to handle the center of gravity. Evidently Westland proposed replacing that with an extra 35 gallon rear fuselage tank. I am not sure what that means for stability once that fuel runs out, but it does potentially increase fuel another 15% or so and gives pilots a bit more extra margin when making it back to base after a mission.


and if you use it at low level then a pair of Mercuries or Perseus would be within weight/power of the Peregrine and free up the wing radiator space for further extra fuel with no performance loss.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2019)

yulzari said:


> and if you use it at low level then a pair of Mercuries or Perseus would be within weight/power of the Peregrine and free up the wing radiator space for further extra fuel with no performance loss.



Actually there were be quite a bit of performance loss as the British radial engine installations of the time had considerable drag. The Mercury and Perseus engines were single row engines which is about the worst form of engine as far as power to frontal area goes. The Mercury and Perseus engines having about the same frontal area as a Hercules.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually there were be quite a bit of performance loss as the British radial engine installations of the time had considerable drag. The Mercury and Perseus engines were single row engines which is about the worst form of engine as far as power to frontal area goes. The Mercury and Perseus engines having about the same frontal area as a Hercules.


I agree they are flying wind blocks. If NACA cowlings are installed or something like the later FW-190 that might help.


----------



## Alex Smart (Nov 1, 2019)

Members may not be aware , but there is a small group of people who are in the early stages of trying to get a rebuild of a Westland Whirlwind up and running. They have being working on the project for a few years now. I have no idea how far they have progressed but iirc they have a webpage and again iirc a newsletter .

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

Alex Smart said:


> Members may not be aware , but there is a small group of people who are in the early stages of trying to get a rebuild of a Westland Whirlwind up and running. They have being working on the project for a few years now. I have no idea how far they have progressed but iirc they have a webpage and again iirc a newsletter .


Whirlwind Fighter Project | Recreating an Unrecognised Fighter of WW2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I really do not understand this fascination with the Hispano engine. As built by the French (and many others) up until late 1939 and early 40 it really wasn't either a very good engine or have much development potential without major redesign.
> The -49 version used in most D 520s, for example, was rated at 910hp for take-off and 910hp at 5250 meters. There was the later -50/51 engine but I am not sure it was made in large numbers before the French Surrender. Earlier versions were both lower in power and had lower full throttle heights.
> 
> If you can magically come up with a factory to make Hispano engines then you could also come up with a factory to make Peregrines while RR concentrated on Merlins.
> Peregrines would have made good tank engines and perhaps even rescue launch engines instead of the Napier Sea Lion (it was too small for a MTB engine).



If you can magically come up with a new factory to make V12 engines, I'd have Merlins 
On the other hand, having Napier making HS 12Ys instead of the Dagger will be a net gain to the UK war effort. Or the Armstrong-Siddeley to make it instead of the Tiger.
The HS 12Y-49 was making about the same power above 5000 m as the DB 601A, while being ~25% lighter.



Shortround6 said:


> Actually there were be quite a bit of performance loss as the British radial engine installations of the time had considerable drag. The Mercury and Perseus engines were single row engines which is about the worst form of engine as far as power to frontal area goes. The Mercury and Perseus engines having about the same frontal area as a Hercules.



The diameter would be 51.5-52 in for those engines. The R-1820, that was also used in at least half-decent and good fighters (like the French Hawk 75s), have had diameter of 55 in. 
Unfortunately, the Gladiator was conceived as biplane, Blenheim was too big, and Fokker D.XXI have had fixed U/C (apart from two examples converted in Finland).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree they are flying wind blocks. If NACA cowlings are installed or something like the later FW-190 that might help.


A Bristol Taurus may be the best alternative. The Gloster twin with either derated Taurus or Peregrine did 330 mph whereas with the fully rated Taurus did 360 mph.that should give a Whirlwind both space for extra fuel and a speed approaching 395 mph.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 1, 2019)

Here is a report on the aircraft from the leader of the Whirlwind Squadron. There was no date on it but it would be from late February 1941. _(*EDIT*: fixed some typos)_

-----​
REPORT ON WHIRLWIND MK.I​
(1) The following report is based on 7 months Squadron experience of the aircraft and two years foreknowledge of the type from an armament and general technical point of view; each aspect of the aircraft is dealt with under its appropriate heading.

(2) GENERAL HANDLING AND FLYING QUALITIES. In the hands of experienced pilots there is general agreement that the machine is the kind known as a “gentleman's aeroplane”, further it has been the recent policy of the Squadron to allow pilots of no previous experience of twin engined aircraft and between 10 and 20 hours experience of Hurricanes at an operational training unit, to fly solo on the type without any form of preliminary dual. This policy has not resulted in any accidents attributable to the mishandling of twin-engined aircraft and one pilot after 6 hours flying successfully carried out a landing with one engine only, the other having seized. It has been noted that some very experienced pilots who have only flown about one hour on the machine are rather prejudiced against it and in every case it has been found that the presence of slots and the occasional ejection of glycol from the high pressure cooling system are the causes of this objection. In every case a further hour or two has overcome their misgivings.

In particular the following brief remarks are submitted:-

(a) Take-off. Good, acceleration very high, run similar to Spitfire, no tendency to swing in any abnormal manner.​​(b) Climb. Exceptional up to 10,000 feet, normally can be reached by a machine not in formation in 4 minutes. Very good up to 20,000 feet; 30,000 feet can be reached in some three or four minutes less than a Hurricane Mk.I.​​(c) Speed. Straight & Level. Approximately equivalent to a Spitfire I, using override between 10,000 and 20,000 feet. Faster than a Spitfire below 10,000 feet, particularly as ground level is approached. Normal cruising below 15,000 feet at zero boost and weak mixture is between 250 and 260 indicated airspeed. Faster than a Hurricane at 30,000 feet.​​(d) Diving. This machine gathers speed at a tremendous rate and the ultimate speed in a dive is undoubtedly high. Since fitting the larger tail acorn no cases of flutter have been experienced. The balance of the controls, both elevators, rudder and aileron is maintained although naturally loading increases. The manoeuvrability over 360 m.p.h. indicated airspeed is better than either the Spitfire I or Hurricane I.​​(e) Manoeuvrability. The machine is not as manoeuvrable as a Hurricane I or Spitfire I, but by modifying tactics in a dog-fight, that is by using superior diving speed, maintaining higher speeds on the turn and with Hurricanes using the superior climb, the Whirlwind has at least an equal chance in a dog-fight. The slots contribute enormously to manoeuvrability but over 20,000 feet the resultant drag slows the machine down and decreases the rate of climb. This has been noticeable particularly because most machines delivered commence to open slots over the stipulated 145 m.p.h. indicated airspeed, and in some cases as high as 200 m.p.h. in level flight. This is being adjusted but is largely a matter of trial and error. Aerobatics are good and easy to perform.​​(f) Landing, Approach and Taxying. The normal trimmed speed of approach is 120 m.p.h. hands off. On days of light airs 110 m.p.h. for the final straight glide is ample. Control is well maintained and the flaps cause no change in trim and are most effective. It is normal to touch wheels first and the tail then contacts the ground almost instantly.​The main undercarriage is excellent and the tail wheels have stood up well, failing under exceptional treatment only. In this connection however two of the latest deliveries have had weak fittings at the top of the tail oleo.​The brakes can be fully applied and there is no tendency to nose over. A successful wheels up landing was done up-hill by and inexperienced pilot who had lost his bearings. The landing run is between that of a Hurricane or a Spitfire.​Landing or taxying down-hill is not very good on runways as the heavy tail tends to overtake the machine, as it were, and cause a swing.​​(g) Single Engined flying Characteristics are exceptionally good and only a slight rudder bias is required. Turns can be done in either direction irrespective of which engine is stopped.​
(3) COMFORT AND VIEW. The cockpit is roomy, well laid out and the heating and ventilation is efficient. The view forward is very good and with the tail down it is possible to see from a hundred yards in front over the nose. The view is therefore better than a Hurricane or Spitfire forward. The view back-wards is believed to be better, but only slightly owing to the armour plate. No positive opinion can be given on this point. As a gun platform the machine is very steady and the view is of considerable assistance in deflection shooting.

(4) MAINTENANCE. The serviceability has been high where normal wear and use has been experienced. The present low state of the Squadron has been in main attributable to accidental damage due to inexperience of pilots and bad patches on aerodromes. The fuselage is very robust and the teething troubles only detail and in the writers opinion exaggerated. The engines are very smooth and start very well but do not give their rated boost at rated altitude. The time required to change an engine is excessive that is, about three to four days.

(5) GENERAL. It is my opinion that the design of the Whirlwind is greatly in advance of any contemporary aircraft including the Typhoon and Spitfire III. The wing and its flaps and slots are excellent. The machine's performance with more suitable engines would probably be revolutionary. I am confident that it could be landed by myself and the pilots of No. 263 Squadron at 45 a wing loading a Square foot. The rated altitude of the machine under these circumstances would have to be very much greater in order that the requisite speed be attained at high altitude to maintain manoeuvrability. It is agreed that the production problem involving two engines per aircraft is a serious disadvantage.


John Gray Munro​Squadron Leader​

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> A Bristol Taurus may be the best alternative. The Gloster twin with either derated Taurus or Peregrine did 330 mph whereas with the fully rated Taurus did 360 mph.that should give a Whirlwind both space for extra fuel and a speed approaching 395 mph.


I like it. And it removes pressure on the Rolls Royce production capacity, and bins the Peregrine.

This modeller kindly shows us what it might have looked like, click the top pick for info.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2019)

And lands you in even more trouble than the Peregrine. 
All of the service Taurus engines were "derated" and even then they had cooling problems at low altitude. 
The derating included both operating at a lower power level and with a supercharger gear that cut FTH to around 5,000ft (or less) so dreams of a 395mph Whirlwind are pretty thin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Here is a report on the aircraft from the leader of the Whirlwind Squadron. There was no date on it but it would be from late February 1941. _(*EDIT*: fixed some typos)_
> 
> -----​
> REPORT ON WHIRLWIND MK.I​
> ...



Wow. Yeah I'm pretty convinced. They dropped the ball cancelling this bird.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And lands you in even more trouble than the Peregrine.
> All of the service Taurus engines were "derated" and even then they had cooling problems at low altitude.
> The derating included both operating at a lower power level and with a supercharger gear that cut FTH to around 5,000ft (or less) so dreams of a 395mph Whirlwind are pretty thin.


The Australians replaced the Taurus engines on their Beauforts with Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4-G Twin Wasp radials. Maybe the US Motor would fit the same mount as the Aussie Beaufort.

But why the Taurus? Bristol’s Mercury doesn’t have the horses, but is the more common Perseus too wide or low powered?


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Why?



Because I'm convinced that the Whirlwinds would fly more missions before getting shot down, would cause more damage per bombing sortie, and shoot down more enemy planes per air combat. So you'd get more bang for your buck.

I.e. if you built 200 engines and made 100 Hurricanes and 50 Whirlwinds (per the original comment that they ought to make merlins instead of peregrines) and put two squadrons of each into combat, I believe 6 months later you'd have more Whirlwinds left than Hurricanes and your Whirlwind units would have caused more damage to the enemy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Australians replaced the Taurus engines on their Beauforts with Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4-G Twin Wasp radials. Maybe the US Motor would fit the same mount as the Aussie Beaufort.
> 
> But why the Taurus? Is the more common Perseus too wide or low powered?


There were reliability issues with the Taurus initially, I think that's why the Australians replaced them with Twain Wasps.


----------



## Greyman (Nov 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> ... They dropped the ball cancelling this bird.



As an aircraft enthusiast, I agree. As someone who is in favour of having the Axis defeated as decisively as possible, I disagree.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The Australians replaced the Taurus engines on their Beauforts with Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4-G Twin Wasp radials. Maybe the US Motor would fit the same mount as the Aussie Beaufort.
> 
> But why the Taurus? Bristol’s Mercury doesn’t have the horses, but is the more common Perseus too wide or low powered?



Why not something like the *Gnome-Rhône 14M*. It's a small diameter radial used on some small planes like the Breuget 693, Hs 129 and Fw 189.

Not saying that exact engine since they wouldn't have access, but something in that size and weight range. I don't think standard sized engines would have worked for the Whirlwind.

I wonder what they are using for the new restoration? They don't actually have peregrines do they?


----------



## Schweik (Nov 1, 2019)

Greyman said:


> As an aircraft enthusiast, I agree. As someone who is in favour of having the Axis defeated as decisively as possible, I disagree.



Right because it made more sense to keep producing Hawkwer Henleys, Lysanders, Bothas and other war-winning designs.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Why not something like the *Gnome-Rhône 14M*. It's a small diameter radial used on some small planes like the Breuget 693, Hs 129 and Fw 189.


It does have amazingly widespread usage, with variants used in Japan, Italy and Germany. 

Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major - Wikipedia


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 1, 2019)

A lot has been said about limited use of the Whirlwind SW England, the proximity to Westland but in reality this is a clear weather fighter probably only suitable for use in SW England in clear weather conditions, but unsuitable for use elsewhere in the UK because of foul weather where the Beaufighter is better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> A lot has been said about limited use of the Whirlwind SW England, the proximity to Westland but in reality this is a clear weather fighter probably only suitable for use in SW England in clear weather conditions, but unsuitable for use elsewhere in the UK because of foul weather where the Beaufighter is better.


The problem with the Whirlwind is that it's twice the price of a Spitfire. It's clear weather, which limits it's usability. It's assets is it's longer range. Perhaps with twin Taurus deployed in the Far East in 1941, it's slow top dive speed, 399 mph wouldn't have mattered as this was in excess of what Japenese fighters could do. Also it had a high initial dive speed. So all these things combined, top speed 395 mph, range, dive acceleration could have made it a Zero killer. Also, by this time the Taurus is sorted out, no more unreliability problems. Then there's extra fuel in its wing leading edges replacing the radiators, so are we looking at 1050 miles range clean, perhaps twice that with 2 90 IG drop tanks, phenomenonal.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 1, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> It does have amazingly widespread usage, with variants used in Japan, Italy and Germany.
> 
> Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major - Wikipedia




Wrong engine, the Gnome-Rhone 14M was a very small 14 cylinder radial (19 liter/1159 cu in) that never made more than 700hp 

The Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major was a 14 cylinder radial of 38.7 liters (2360 cu in) that went through several generations. 
Both engines lacked a center main bearing until the 14R engine of 1939/40 but then you had an engine very close in size and weight to a Hercules (which actually used the same bore and stroke). the older Mistral major were hundreds of pounds lighter but without the center bearing were rather restricted in RPM and boost. 

The idea that old, obsolete and/or down right crappy engines would have turned the Whirlwind into a world beater (or any better than the Peregrine engine) needs to to be shoved in the dust bin.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 1, 2019)

So, if the Whirlwind is a dead end what else should its remarkable designer W. E. W. Petter be working on?

W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia

Petter’s work on the Spitfire made it better, for example. But he needs an aircraft of his own in WW2, beyond the Lysander.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The idea that old, obsolete and/or down right crappy engines would have turned the Whirlwind into a world beater (or any better than the Peregrine engine) needs to to be shoved in the dust bin.



To be clear, I don't think anyone was suggesting (or at any rate, I certainly wasn't) that an old engine would be _better_ than the Peregrine, it was a matter of considering possible alternatives if we had to accept the fact that RR wasn't going to build any more Peregrines and would resist licensing the technology to other British firms.

Gnome Rhone 14M could have been the basis for a better engine, just as the 12Y proved to be.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2019)

After all of this talk about alternative engines for the Whirly, I'd have it as a 1-engined A/C, with Merlin in the nose preferably.



Admiral Beez said:


> Petter’s work on the Spitfire made it better, for example.



Care to elaborate?



Schweik said:


> Gnome Rhone 14M could have been the basis for a better engine, just as the 12Y proved to be.



At 1150 cu in (19 liters), chances are very slim for the 14M to spawn something worthy. The HS 12Y have had almost twice the displacement.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

Greyman said:


> 5) GENERAL. It is my opinion that the design of the Whirlwind is greatly in advance of any contemporary aircraft including the Typhoon and Spitfire III. The wing and its flaps and slots are excellent. The machine's performance with more suitable engines would probably be revolutionary. I am confident that it could be landed by myself and the pilots of No. 263 Squadron at 45 a wing loading a Square foot. The rated altitude of the machine under these circumstances would have to be very much greater in order that the requisite speed be attained at high altitude to maintain manoeuvrability. It is agreed that the production problem involving two engines per aircraft is a serious disadvantage.
> 
> 
> John Gray Munro​Squadron Leader​



Munro would write that; he had made a significant personal and career investment in the type, similar to Beamont and the Typhoon. For example, Munro had designed the original armament specification for the aircraft.

For most of 1940 period the squadron was being kept well out of harm's way up in Scotland. The move south was instigated by serviceability levels, on the 4th August the ORB stated that,_ ‘Of fifteen aircraft built, the squadron had eight, but four were grounded with engine problems and two were unserviceable, leaving two for training.’ _

Five months after the first delivery, and twenty-six months since her maiden flight, the Whirlwind was declared operational. It was almost an act of frustration by Sholto-Douglas, who wrote to Westlands

_‘It is now five months since 263 Squadron was re-formed, allegedly on Whirlwinds. I am taking its Hurricanes away and making it operational on Whirlwinds at RAF Exeter. It is up to you to make the squadron’s initial strength up to sixteen at once.’_

On the 28th the squadron managed to get ten aircraft serviceable for the ferry flights south. Munro himself flew most of the way on one engine, the other having seized.

By February 1941 the Whirlwind had killed five pilots in accidents, which is remarkable given the extremely limited amount of flying being done on the type. There would be more. Of all pilot losses on the two Whirlwind squadrons, 9 were killed in action, 20 were missing in action, and 17 were killed in flying accidents, many due to failures of the aircraft.

I would take Munro's assessment with a good pinch of salt. It is not born out by the operational history of the Whirlwind, which had barely begun when he wrote it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Gnome Rhone 14M could have been the basis for a better engine, just as the 12Y proved to be.



Better than what was available in Britain?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> So, if the Whirlwind is a dead end what else should its remarkable designer W. E. W. Petter be working on?



He was working on the Welkin.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> If you can magically come up with a new factory to make V12 engines, I'd have Merlins
> On the other hand, having Napier making HS 12Ys instead of the Dagger will be a net gain to the UK war effort. Or the Armstrong-Siddeley to make it instead of the Tiger.



Not sure they made too many Daggers were built during or after 1940.

The Hawker Hart and the Fairey Battle were used as test beds for the Dagger and the Martin-Baker MB.2 was a single prototype fighter.

The main production use for the Dagger was for the Hawker Hector, a biplane of which less than 200 were built. They started being replaced in service by the Lysander in 1938.

And the other production aircraft to use it was the Handley-Page Hereford, Which had enough problems that most of the order was changed to Hampdens (same aircraft, different engines) and many of the ones that were completed were converted to Hampdens.

Dagger production facilities may have been used for the Sabre.


Also not sure how many Tigers were built.

160 of the 1,800 Whitleys had Tigers, 14 AW Ensigns, 7 Short Calcuttas and a few various prototypes.

Some of the 92 Blackburn Ripons may have used the Tiger too. These weren't in British use by 1940.

The other major user was the Blackburn Shark, 269 were built. These were replaced in FAA service with the Swordfish by 1937.

Armstrong-Siddeley were working on the Deerhound from 1935, building only prototypes. Since this was potentially a 2,000hp engine, if its issues could be solved, it would have been more useful than the HS12Y (or the Gnome-Rhône 14M).

Armstrong-Siddeley stopped development on teh Deerhound to concentrate on gas turbines (the ASX turbojet).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> <snip>



My point in A-S or Napier making HS 12Y under licence is that they will be producing an actually useful engine in late 1930s.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 2, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to elaborate?


 W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia

“Petter made a significant contribution to improving the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire”....


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia
> 
> “Petter made a significant contribution to improving the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire”....



Thank you.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

The elevator was designed to 'cure tendency to tighten up during dive recoveries and tight turns'.

The new elevator was adopted by Mod.743. of 20th October 1942. The Mark VB Trop. did not get it for some reason. When it began to be fitted on the production lines would have been some time later.

Boscombe Down tested the elevator with convex surfaces designed by Westlands on AB186. It was considered satisfactory for the two conditions which it was designed to ameliorate, but the test pilots complained of a lack of feel when flaps were lowered.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 2, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Thank you.


i think Petter's skills would have been best applied to designing a single seat, single engine fighter for the FAA. Leave the RAF's fighters to Mitchell/Smith and Sir Camm. Of course come back for the Lightning, Britain's only wholly home-built Mach 2 fighter, something Camm never accomplished.

Imagine a single engine fighter for the WW2 era FAA with the Whirlwind's streamlining and heavy armament.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Britain's only wholly home-built Mach 2 fighter, something Camm never accomplished.



The bloody Govt kept cancelling his supersonic designs. he had several good designs cancelled just before the prototypes were started or before they were finished.
Hawker P1103
Hawker P1121

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Imagine a single engine fighter for the WW2 era FAA with the Whirlwind's streamlining and heavy armament.



It would have been to an Admiralty specification, which means it would probably have ended up looking like a dog's dinner...and had at least two crew.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 2, 2019)

stona said:


> I would take Munro's assessment with a good pinch of salt. It is not born out by the operational history of the Whirlwind, which had barely begun when he wrote it.



Sholto did describe Munro's report as 'too rosy a picture'.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

Greyman said:


> Sholto did describe Munro's report as 'too rosy a picture'.



I'm not surprised !


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that the Whirlwind wouldn't have been a very useful replacement for the Typhoon for the first couple of years of that aircraft's career or that production resources were better spent building Defiants, Lysanders and Henleys. Or hell license the design to a firm in the US or Canada and let them make Whirlwinds instead of P-39s and Hurricanes.

To me it looks like an excellent design with a little bit of fine tuning needed. Clearly there were a couple of problems with the plane, but the truth is not many combat aircraft ever reached the point the Whirlwind did in their design cycle, i.e. useful and able to do damage to the enemy. To me that is the big glaring issue. Every new warplane design was a throw of the dice, you never knew if it would take 6 months or 4 years before the plane was really viable in combat. Whirlwind was already through the toughest stages of that cycle, it was going to be viable, it was just a matter of how much better it could be made. It is also clear that the Whirlwind had substantial room for improvement.

The amount of accidents may seem like a lot until you compare it with other fighters - particularly early in their history and especially with inexperienced pilots. P-40s had tons of accidents, look at the early days of it's use in Australia - just getting them to Darwin cost something like half of the available planes in accidents. P-39s had even more problems - killing quite a few aces and top pilots among US pilots as well as our Allies in Free French and Italian squadrons, and lets not even get started on P-38s. Shall we talk about the Typhoon? Even the P-51 and the wonderful de Havilland Mosquito were known to have a fair number of accidents, that didn't make either plane any less of a war-winning design. High performance combat aircraft were just challenging to fly and required good pilots to handle them. Many wartime pilots were insufficiently trained on high-performance plans and rarely got enough training on type. Until you knew all the quirks and 'gotchas' (including handling common mechanical problems and failures) you were taking big risks just flying these planes. Twin engine aircraft training specifically was also insufficient - and most fighters (including Whirlwind so far as I know) lacked two seat models for training. For new pilots there was a certain element of 'sink or swim' before they got through the learning curve. 

It seems like it's hard for some to acknowledge that the planners made any mistakes, certainly we can see more clearly than they did with hindsight. They didn't know for example how much trouble they were going to have with the Typhoon. But the Whirlwind looks like a successful design.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> After all of this talk about alternative engines for the Whirly, I'd have it as a 1-engined A/C, with Merlin in the nose preferably.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, just looking at my model shelf - comparing the Whirlwind to other planes, the Breuget 693 is similar in size, and the engines look about the same diameter. Maybe a two row engine of the same size. I'm sure the British had something comparable I'm just not familiar enough with all the British engines to say which one(s) would be ideal.

The 12Y looks small enough too comparing the D.520 or Yak-1 to the Whirlwind.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that the Whirlwind wouldn't have been a very useful replacement for the Typhoon for the first couple of years of that aircraft's career or that production resources were better spent building Defiants, Lysanders and Henleys. Or hell license the design to a firm in the US or Canada and let them make Whirlwinds instead of P-39s and Hurricanes.
> .



Okay, for the last time, *there were no engines for it.*

The aircraft was designed and built around the Rolls-Royce Peregrine, by late 1939, a shortage of machinery and manpower forced Rolls-Royce to rationalise production and several engines were dropped. Thus *when the first production Peregrine was delivered in February 1940 the decision had already been made to cease production after 290 units.* To all intents, the Whirlwind was doomed from that point on.

This was the real world of wartime production.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

I guess that's why all the alternative engines were being discussed, right? There is nothing stopping another engine being fitted to a Whirlwind, it was done with most of the other twin engine RAF fighters at one time or another. But I also assume the War Ministry could have decided to continue production of the Peregrine, license it out to another firm (probably the best idea) or set up a 'shadow factory' and etc.

There is nothing written in stone that the Whirlwind needed to be cancelled when it was any more than they should have kept developing Defiants for another two years.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I've still yet to see any convincing evidence that the Whirlwind wouldn't have been a very useful replacement for the Typhoon for the first couple of years of that aircraft's career or that production resources were better spent building Defiants, Lysanders and Henleys. Or hell license the design to a firm in the US or Canada and let them make Whirlwinds instead of P-39s and Hurricanes.
> 
> To me it looks like an excellent design with a little bit of fine tuning needed. Clearly there were a couple of problems with the plane, but the truth is not many combat aircraft ever reached the point the Whirlwind did in their design cycle, i.e. useful and able to do damage to the enemy. To me that is the big glaring issue. Every new warplane design was a throw of the dice, you never knew if it would take 6 months or 4 years before the plane was really viable in combat. Whirlwind was already through the toughest stages of that cycle, it was going to be viable, it was just a matter of how much better it could be made. It is also clear that the Whirlwind had substantial room for improvement.
> 
> ...



Problem with all the alternative engine installations is that they are for engines with either limited development potential or limited numbers of applications, although a twin Taurus version would have worked okay in the Far East and SW Pacific until the end of the war in August 1945 without further engine development maybe even in NW Europe until 1943 against the FW 190A giving Hawkers time to cancel the Typhoon, prototype the Tempest in 1941 and get it into service in 1943.


----------



## stona (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I guess that's why all the alternative engines were being discussed, right? There is nothing stopping another engine being fitted to a Whirlwind, it was done with most of the other twin engine RAF fighters at one time or another. But I also assume the War Ministry could have decided to continue production of the Peregrine, license it out to another firm (probably the best idea) or set up a 'shadow factory' and etc.
> 
> There is nothing written in stone that the Whirlwind needed to be cancelled when it was any more than they should have kept developing Defiants for another two years.



The Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine.

It derivative of the Whirlwind with another engine would be another aircraft. When Petter tried to by-pass the Air Ministry and go straight to Fighter Command with his Merlin powered version he called it a Whirlwind II, but it was no such thing. The problems of completely redesigning the nacelles and undercarriage to accommodate the Merlin's up draught carburettor were never solved, despite what some would have you believe.

Once the Peregrine was cancelled the Whirlwind was a dead duck, it's a miracle that as many were produced as were historically. At another time, either side of 1939/40, it would not have happened.

There was never the slightest chance of the Peregrine being licensed to another firm. The relationship between Rolls Royce and the Air Ministry insured this. Remember that the policy of concentrating on the Merlin and deleting the Peregrine and Exe originated with the company, not the Ministry, and was adopted by the Ministry.
All the Rolls Royce factories were devoted to the Merlin, with the arguable exception of the parent in Derby which was, in Hives' words, _'a huge development factory rather than a manufacturing plant'_. Crewe occupied an intermediate position and R-R Glasgow, Ford Manchester and Packard in the US churned out Merlins.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

Yeah I read that notion about limited usefulness of the Peregrine, I think in part this was due to the mentality that planes were going to have to get much bigger during the war, but as I pointed out upthread, it seems in hindsight that 'smaller is better' sometimes in aircraft design, so a small but (relatively) powerful engine did have it's uses.

The other thing is that the Peregrine seems, like the Whirlwind, to have come through the dicey / fraught parts of the design cycle. It was more or less a proven design which only needed some fine tuning, and had potential for further development. Even in it's 1939 / 1940 form however, it was useful for Whirlwinds.

I get the rationale in other words, I just don't buy it. If they were still making Merlin IIIs that were going into Henleys and Defiants, they could have made Peregrines somewhere for Whirlwinds. One Whirlwind was worth 4 Defiants.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

Also, while I agree putting a merlin on a Whirlwind is a bridge too far, a smaller and lighter engine probably would not have been, nor probably even that much effort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2019)

I am afraid that Stona is right, RR did not play well with others (licence RR engines to other people), I am not sure when it was said but one RR director said he would rather go to jail than see other companies make RR designed engines. This director had been around in WW I when sub contractors or licenced builders of Hispano V-8s and other engines made hundreds if not thousands of appallingly bad engines (some wouldn't even last 5 hours) and killed hundreds of RAF pilots and aircrew.
Only extraordinary circumstances forced the British and RR to allow Ford of England and Packard to make Merlins in 1940 (or earlier for Ford of England).

Most of the alternatives listed in this thread are not real alternatives. Either the manufacturing plant doesn't exist in England (and/or won't exist in the time line needed) or the engine has more problems than the Peregrine or is such power and drag that the resulting airplane would be near useless.

Now long time members know I like the Whirlwind, but the timeline was against it. it was canceled (or at least put on hold) before the first one ever reached a service squadron so most of the explanations as to why it was canceled don't hold water. 
However the notion that small is better is a false one, it only works in certain applications or when the small airplane (or engine) can use technology that the larger aircraft or engines are not using. 
P&W wanted nothing to do with the R-1535 radial for most of it's life, it was actually designed after the R-1830 for the navy, pretty much to improve the view over the nose. 
It had few if any real commercial success (everybody wanted airliners powered by R-1830s and R-1820s, not smaller airliners with less seats powered by R-1535s) 

There was list of French fighters posted earlier, over half were small light weight fighters as the French bought the light fighter concept hook line and sinker. 

The trouble is that small fighters really aren't enough cheaper to make up for the lack of capability. You can't shrink the pilots/cockpits, or the instrument panels or the radios or the guns to suit the engines, you can't use fixed pitch props instead of constant speed and so on. 

A 14 cylinder 19 liter G-R 14M engine is _not_ going to be that much cheaper to build than a 38 liter G-R 14N engine, same number of parts (pistons, cylinders, valves connecting rods, etc) just bigger. 

The Hispano 12 X engine was not that much cheaper to build than the 12Y. 

The Taurus was not a good engine, one source claims about 3400 were made, it had chronic overheating problems in the Beaufort operating around England. Fortunately Australia dodged that one and got R-1830s instead for the Beauforts.

The Mercury was great engine for a 24.9 liter 9 cylinder single row radial but you don't get 1941-42 FW 190 engine cowls in 1940 even if they would work on a Mercury (single row instead of two row, no fan, exhaust ports on the front of the cylinder not the rear. and so on).


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am afraid that Stona is right, RR did not play well with others (licence RR engines to other people), I am not sure when it was said but one RR director said he would rather go to jail than see other companies make RR designed engines. This director had been around in WW I when sub contractors or licenced builders of Hispano V-8s and other engines made hundreds if not thousands of appallingly bad engines (some wouldn't even last 5 hours) and killed hundreds of RAF pilots and aircrew.
> Only extraordinary circumstances forced the British and* RR to allow Ford of England and Packard to make Merlins in 1940 *(or earlier for Ford of England).



You just contradicted yourself very badly amigo.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 2, 2019)

As for the notion of small fighters, it depends what you mean by small. I'm not talking about point defense fighters like a CW-21 or Caudron C.714.

I'm talking small as in Bf 109, MC.202, D.520, or Yak-1. As in 32'-34' wingspan and 27-29' length, and a small body cross section.

*Airplane - wingspan - length - empty weight - engine HP - top speed*
Dewoitine D.520 - 33' 6" - 28' 3"- 4,680 lb - 950 hp - 350 mph
Bf 109E3 - 32' 4.5"- 28' 8" - 4,685 lbs- 1,175 hp - 354 mph
MC.202 - 34 9" - 29' - 5,180 lbs - 1,075 hp - 372 mph
Yak-1 - 32' 10" - 27' 10" - 5,106 lbs - 1,180 - 367 mph

Spitfire kind of threads the needle despite having a 36' wingspan, it's a small plane with a low drag design. Ki-43 and A6M were similarly small, slim airframes though with big wings.

Compare this group to the larger single engined fighters of the early war:
Brewster F2A - 35' wingspan but very fat body 1,200 hp for ~320 mph
F4F Wildcat - 38' wingspan, fat body, 1,200 hp for ~330 mph
Hawker Hurricane - 40' wingspan with 1,300 hp engine for ~340 mph
P-40E- 37' wingspan with 1,240 hp for ~ 350 mph
Typhoon - 41' 7" wingspan with 2,000 + hp, 400+ mph but not ready for fighter combat until 1943

Of the two lists above, the top is the more successful, arguably.

And then you have the larger twin engine fighters like the Beaufighter (57" span - 320 mph) Me -110C (53" span - ~330 mph) and P-38F (52' span, ~390 mph) - of the three only the P-38 became a fully viable daytime fighter capable of engaging the best Luftwaffe planes, but it took two years of debugging and improvements before it was truly ready for that role.

Until _reliable _1,500 + hp engines were out, the smaller fighter designs generally worked out best _as fighters_.

What makes Whirlwind so interesting is that it was a twin, but a _small_ twin, with roughly half the weight of a Beaufighter and 12' smaller wingspan (80% the span, 50% of the wing area), that managed to be in that higher category of speed, of over 350 mph, which was needed for a front line fighter.

Later when reliable P&W R-2600 and 2800, RR Merlin 60 series, RR Griffon, Bristol Centaurus and so on were available, _then_ the bigger planes became truly viable and started to pull ahead, so to speak, of the smaller planes - P-47, Hellcat, Corsair, Tempest and so on. Until then it was a tradeoff. If you wanted the longer range and payload it came with increased vulnerability. This is where the small well streamlined fighters had their day, in the early war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You just contradicted yourself very badly amigo.




Not really, RR was certainly not in favor of licensing their designs (al least pre war, post war is something else) and any plan to keep the Whirlwind and Peregrine going is going to need to made in late 1939 or very early 1940 at the latest. 
Ford of England was brought into the shadow scheme before the war broke out because when your major customer says they want more factories telling them no is difficult. 
Talks with Ford of America and Packard don't start until France has already fallen so circumstances took a radical change. 
England's manufacturing was getting maxed out, there was no empty factory space (it would have to be built) and there were no machine tools to put in it and there were few skilled workers who were not already doing something else. conjuring up a factory to make any type of aircraft engine in 1940 was not going to happen. Work on Crew and Glascow had started long before. 
RRs was not the only one to resist sharing, it took considerable pressure to get Bristol to "share" the secret/s of the Taurus sleeve valve with Napier, much later in the war. It then took the appropriation of 6 Sundstrand centerless grinders from P & W (delaying start of production at the Kansas city plant by 6 weeks) and a fast voyage (not in convoy) by the Queen Mary (?) to deliver the grinders. This was in 1943. Cooperation between companies in 1939 was ??????????
BTW this deal with the Grinders delayed the introduction of the C series engines used in the P-47M/N and other aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> As for the notion of small fighters, it depends what you mean by small. I'm not talking about point defense fighters like a CW-21 or Caudron C.714.
> 
> I'm talking small as in Bf 109, MC.202, D.520, or Yak-1. As in 32'-34' wingspan and 27-29' length, and a small body cross section.
> 
> ...



And you are mixing up apples and watermelons. 

The first four are land based fighters of not particularly great range, and only the D.520 and Yak 1 flew pretty close to the original design, the other 2 are much evolved.modified. 
Of the 2nd group the first two are carrier aircraft, the F4F in particular might be pudgy but it also had a 260 sq ft wing which slowed it down, however it was this wing that allowed to to take-off and land on carrier decks. 
The Hurricane (and Spitfire) were required to get in and out of small airfields with a fixed pitch prop, you might as well have tried to design a fighter to take-off out of a small airfield with several hundred pound anchor dragging in the grass behind it. The Merlin II and III was rated at 880hp at 3000rpm at 6lbs of boost for take-off but the fixed pitch prop required the engine to be limited to just over 2000rpm in order to get any bite on the air at all. 
I am don't even know where you got the power figure for the P-40E. The P-36 held about 160 gallons (605 liters) of internal fuel to meet US requirements, the 109 was originally designed to hold 235-255 liters of fuel, amazing how small you can make a plane if it doesn't have to have much range or carry much armament. 

BTW the Caudron 714 wasn't a point defence fighter, it was basically a piece of crap or at best a place holder while Caudron worked on a different version with something approaching a real engine. (something with over 700 hp). the Caudron 714 couldn't climb for used spit making it rather useless as an interceptor. A Hurricane I with fixed pitch prop could make it to 20,000ft in the time it took the 714 to get to 13,000ft.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 2, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Also, while I agree putting a merlin on a Whirlwind is a bridge too far, a smaller and lighter engine probably would not have been, nor probably even that much effort.



Or a Pratt and Whitney R-1690-S1C3G 1,050 hp (780 kW) which was in production at that time would have *possibly *been viable. The Brits had no spare engine capacity and fitted R-1830s to Beaufort's and Sunderland's. Possibly a major redesign to eliminate the liquid cooling system but a lighter well proven engine (built under licence in Germany by BMW and in Italy as the Fiat A.59) with significantly more power and the cooling system space could have been used for fuel storage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 2, 2019)

MiTasol said:


> Pratt and Whitney R-1690-S1C3G 1,050 hp


I am not sure such an engine existed. There is a P & W R-1830-S1C3G 

See. http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/P&W/R-1690/Hornet.pdf 

and try to find a 1050hp engine.


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 2, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not sure such an engine existed. There is a P & W R-1830-S1C3G
> 
> See. http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/P&W/R-1690/Hornet.pdf
> 
> and try to find a 1050hp engine.



You are right - I got my info from Wikipedia and we all know that is suspect so I should have checked other sources. Bugga or words to that effect.

That makes the Hornet 10 hp less so the performance would possibly be reduced as nothing to compensate for the larger frontal area other than the lighter, cleaner wing from having no cooling system and that may not have been enough. The fuel and range benefits would have helped but the redesign time would be against it.

I doubt the R-1830 would be practical - too much weight and too much power to be a "simple" replacement and the Americans had no other small radials in production that I can think of.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 2, 2019)

As a competitor to the Whirlwind, was an enlarged, military spec version of the 1934 de Havilland DH.88 Comet ever considered for the twin engined, single seat fighter role?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Nov 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> although a twin Taurus version would have worked okay in the Far East and SW Pacific



Bristol could not build the Taurus fast enough for Beauforts, let alone another airframe, and a twin at that.

Bristol's inability to provide the Taurus to Australia lead to the Australians fitting Hudson powerplants to the first 52 and an Australian derivative to the rest.

Bristol themselves then took the concept but did a different installation.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> And you are mixing up apples and watermelons.
> 
> The first four are land based fighters of not particularly great range, and only the D.520 and Yak 1 flew pretty close to the original design, the other 2 are much evolved.modified.
> Of the 2nd group the first two are carrier aircraft, the F4F in particular might be pudgy but it also had a 260 sq ft wing which slowed it down, however it was this wing that allowed to to take-off and land on carrier decks.
> ...



I never said the Caudron 714 was a good plane, we can debate the design philosophy of it in another thread (whether it's supposed to be for point defense or not) or another side argument to this one, but keep in mind I only brought it up as an example of what I was _not_ talking about. Now if you want to talk about another light fighter like the Arsenal VG.33 then we have yet another discussion on our hands.

Yes the first four aircraft - the small ones - had shortcomings (pun intended) especially in that they had short range and endurance. Quite a setback. Most also carried fairly light armament. And yet all four (even the D.520) remained in combat, albeit with some changes for a couple of them, well into 1944.

More generally speaking, this small interceptor type fighter - I would argue the first category of truly successful WW2 monoplane fighters, (flying initially with about ~1,000 hp engines), remained a major type basically for the whole war - granted with more and more powerful engines. That speed and performance advantage of the small size and short wingspan remained in demand. War planners and air force commanders (and pilots, in most cases) always wanted that edge in speed.

The big beefy fighters that started arriving on the battlefield in 1943 dispensed with the benefits and drawbacks of small size and used big powerful engines in the 1,800 - 2,000+ hp range (later up to almost 3,000 hp for short sprints) to give the needed performance to shove those big airframes around the sky. That is what I consider the second category of successful fighter designs in WW2 - the P-47, F4U, F6F, N1K1, Tempest and so on. I would also include the one really successful twin engined day fighter in that group - the P-38 (which in the definitive L variant was producing 3,200 hp). It was more streamlined but considerably larger in terms of wingspan than most of the others.

The very best all around fighter designs though, like the mid-to-later model Spitfire, the P-51, the Fw 190, and the 5 series Italian fighters, were in between these two. I call them the 1.5 category. They combined fairly slim and well streamlined bodies with large but relatively low drag wings. These kind of threaded the needle between the first and second type. They had the bigger wingspan - to a point, most were around 36 - 38 ft but not much more than that - but they had a low enough drag that they could still get excellent speed with smaller engines, basically improved versions of the original 1st generation engines, starting around 1,000 hp but now reliably up in the 1,500 hp range. With the greater lift of the bigger wings these aircraft could carry the much harder hitting armament of the big sized 2nd category of fighters. And they usually had better range (even the Spit got better than interceptor range with the Mk. VIII).

Effectively the Whirlwind is a design shortcut to this kind of plane. You want a 4 cannon fighter in 1940, but no suitable engines are available (not that really work yet anyway). So you take two ~800 hp engines and build a relatively small and very nicely streamlined body and a relatively short span, thin chord, low drag wing and make a 1,600 hp fighter than can carry 4 x 20mm cannon, two years before any reliable 1,600 hp engines are actually in the field.



By the way the horsepower rating on the P-40E was cribbed from what it says in the current incarnation of the Wikipedia page, as we both know the actual horsepower output of a V-1710-39 could vary quite widely depending on if it was using military, takeoff or WEP power. Apparently they got that number from Americas 100,000 along with a 334 mph top speed, which I think is rather a lowball figure but that aint worth wading into Wikipedia...


----------



## ThomasP (Nov 3, 2019)

Hey guys,

FWIW, I did a basic engineering study and some calculations for a Merlin 46 Whirlwind (I used the Merlin 46 since the low performance at altitude seemed to be the most serious drawback in the eyes of Fighter Command). It is somewhat general but this is what I came up with.

The minimum TOGW would be 11,350 lbs clean. This weight is with the same or similar armament and internal fuel load. The weight increase is composed of the Merlin 46 engines, 4-blade props, increased cooling systems, increased oil load, and detail strengthening for the fuselage, wings, engine mounts, landing gear, etc.

The performance difference would be around:

400 mph TAS at 22,000 ft vs 355 mph TAS at 15,000 ft, both at max sustained boost for 5 min (with Merlin 46 at +9 lb boost, Peregrine I at +6.75 lbs boost)
360 mph TAS at 20,000 ft vs 330 mph TAS combat cruise at 15,000 ft, both at max rich cruise
200 mph TAS vs 180 mph TAS best range cruise, both at 15,000 ft
540 mile vs 760 mile range on internal fuel (160 USgal) at best range cruise speeds and 15,000 ft
940 mile vs 1350 mile range with 2x 54 USgal DT at best range cruise speeds and 15,000 ft
3000 ft/min to 18,000 ft vs 2600 ft/min to 15,000 ft
38,000 ft vs 30,000 ft service ceiling

Although the performance increase is impressive, by the time it could have been implemented (my best estimate is mid-1942 at the earliest?) the Spit Mk IX and Typhoon are already available. So even if Merlins were available, much as I like the Whirlwind, I would have to say the modifications would be pointless in a strategic sense.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 3, 2019)

Why 4 blade propeller for the Merlin 45? They only used 3 blade propellers on the Spitfire.

By using the Merlin 45 you are sacrificing some of the performance at lower altitudes. A better bet would be the Merlin XX.


Better than that would be putting the Merlin XX into the Spitfire.

Fitting Merlin 45s to Whirlwinds would cost at least 2 Spitfire Vs to each Whirlwind made and, of course, any Merlin XX used in the Spitfire or Whirlwind takes away from the Hurricane and other types that really need that engine.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If they were still making Merlin IIIs that were going into Henleys and Defiants, they could have made Peregrines somewhere for Whirlwinds. One Whirlwind was worth 4 Defiants.



Not according to Rolls-Royce.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Why 4 blade propeller for the Merlin 45? They only used 3 blade propellers on the Spitfire.



It had to be a four blade propeller on any Merlin version of the Whirlwind because the proximity of the nacelles to the fuselage limit the maximum diameter of the propeller. To absorb the increase in power a four blade propeller was required. This is about the only issue that Petter did address with his 'Whirlwind II'.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> BTW the Caudron 714 wasn't a point defence fighter, it was basically a piece of crap or at best a place holder while Caudron worked on a different version with something approaching a real engine. (something with over 700 hp). the Caudron 714 couldn't climb for used spit making it rather useless as an interceptor. A Hurricane I with fixed pitch prop could make it to 20,000ft in the time it took the 714 to get to 13,000ft.



(way off topic)
Stick the G&R 14M on the Caudron 714 instead of the Reanult's engine?


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> (way off topic)
> Stick the G&R 14M on the Caudron 714 instead of the Reanult's engine?


Problem with French engines is they're metric no Imperial.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Problem with French engines is they're metric no Imperial.



People at Caudron won't mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Problem with French engines is they're metric no Imperial.


As a previous decade-long owner of a 1960s Triumph motorcycle with Whitworth and other CEI fasteners, plus an early 1980s Suzuki shafty, I must give kudos to those WW2 mechanics which may have to maintain a mixed force of European metric, American imperial and British aircraft. The Russians with all the Lend Lease types must have been kings at this.

Such as the DEI air force, with Martin bombers and Brewster fighters from USA, Dornier flying boats from Germany and in the end Hawker Hurricanes from Britain. Those Dutch mechanics must have had comprehensive tool boxes and knowledge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

We have a number of threads on the light fighter theory, here is one.

Lightweight fighter: how would've you done it? 

I would note that the Arsenal VG-33 often gets mentioned in discussions of "light fighters". It grossed 5850lbs which is light by later standards but it first flew in April of 1939. Spitfire I's were under 6000lbs at the time?
P-36C which is older had a normal gross weight (105 US gallons on board) of 5600lbs. 

using a 150 sq ft wing on a 5800lb airplane is hardly going to give you good maneuverability even if it helps speed.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> As a previous decade-long owner of a 1960s Triumph motorcycle with Whitworth and other CEI fasteners, plus an early 1980s Suzuki shafty, I must give kudos to those WW2 mechanics which may have to maintain a mixed force of European metric, American imperial and British aircraft. The Russians with all the Lend Lease types must have been kings at this.
> 
> Such as the DEI air force, with Martin bombers and Brewster fighters from USA, Dornier flying boats from Germany and in the end Hawker Hurricanes from Britain. Those Dutch mechanics must have had comprehensive tool boxes and knowledge.



It could be irritating sometimes working on mixed Imperial/Metric fasteners. Late 60s early 70s British motorbikes could be a nightmare it sometimes felt like the production line had a mixed bag of taps and Dies and the worker just picked up whatever happened to be nearest. 

Early Japanese motorbikes could also cause stress they were Metric but on some makes it was JIS (Japanese Industry Standard) Metric which normally matched ISO Metric but there were enough differences to catch the unwary apprentice mechanic (that was me). An ISO thread bolt could strip a JIS thread if the monkey on the other end of the tool went a bit too happy with the torque. Also Japanese X head screws were not the same as Phillips X head leading to many a butchered screw head when the screwdriver slipped, butchered brake master cylinder cap screws were a regular sight.

You soon got to recognise most standards it just meant your tool cabinet was bigger.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> As a competitor to the Whirlwind, was an enlarged, military spec version of the 1934 de Havilland DH.88 Comet ever considered for the twin engined, single seat fighter role?



No, but the DH 91 was a sort of distant ancestor of the Mosquito. Both the company and the Air Ministry were interested in a twin Merlin 'Albatross' to P.13/36. There was some interest in adapting the DH 95 'Flamingo'.

I think the DH 88 was too old, and the Whirlwind had first flown in 1938 almost a year before the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Nov 3, 2019)

It must be noted that to develope an engine is much more time and resources consuming than that of a medium sized airframe, let alone to mass produce it, in the pre-war years as it is today.
Let's remember the history of L-1011 and RB-211...
So the RR decision to drop Peregrine, an engine with no potential of development, was more than wise, BMPPOW.
Certainly can't be said that to adapt quite a different engine to an exixting airframe is always unfeasible or (P-51, Re-200 >RE 2001 etc: Germans succesfully adapted a DB 605 to a Spitfire airframe...) but, more often than not it is better to use a blank piece of paper and to design another "right" airframe with the "right" engine.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

The thing is, at least as often as not, the 'right' engine didn't work out, and instead languished in development hell for god knows how long, promising fantastic performance but remaining just out of reach by refusing to run reliably, (i.e. Naiper Sabre) resulting in a promising and potentially useful aircraft either showing up too late or being cancelled, and wasting countless man hours and resources trying to overcome fundamental design flaws. This happened over and over and over again in every Great Power involved in the war.

Once you have a proven engine that is free of major* design flaws and faults, it therefore makes sense not to abandon it too lightly. Sure if you aren't certain what to do with it put it on the back-burner, but if you have an engine powering a successful combat aircraft, I wouldn't cancel it outright. Of course, they didn't know Whirlwind would turn out so good or that other projects would have so many problems. This is why hindsight is more prescient obviously.

Some of the best aircraft of the war were created by merging a proven engine that performs as needed to an existing airframe stuck with a less than ideal engine, the classical example being the P-51. Another is the LaGG-3 and the La-5.

I think the War Ministry, RR etc. were operating on assumptions which we can now see from hindsight were not entirely correct. Not all of the future designs were going to be big birds, and small fighters remained on the front line to the end of the war. In fact I'm sure they could have found more uses for Peregrines, at the very least you could put them on a lot of lighter aircraft which were still widely used and give them a performance boost thereby. Avro Anson for example. Blackburn Skua might have gotten a new lease on life. Even the Lysander might have been more useful with a Peregrine, it would have probably been faster.

If you could boost power a little bit I could see a Peregrine being a useful powerplant for a Blenheim or a Hampden.


All that is just speculation of course. The bottom line historical fact which has been repeated over and over but still bears emphasizing - is that the British wasted resources on aircraft that ultimately proved to have virtually zero impact on the war effort and in many cases cost more lives than they saved. Defiant has it's fans around here I know, but not many people really wanted to pilot one into combat after the first few sorties. Blackburn Roc was even worse. Henley was a waste of time - there were plenty of old obsolete planes that could act as target tugs you didn't need to build 200 more. Lysander was marginal at best, certainly there was no need to produce so many (over 1,700). Did they really need to keep making (over 4,000) Blenheims into 1943? And so on.

RR obviously had their reasons to cancel the Peregrine, but that could have been overriden. It's not some unforgivable Sin because every country made mistakes like that. But cancelling the Whirlwind was indeed a mistake, in hindsight.

*Peregrine had some minor problems but so far as I'm aware it was a fundamentally sound design.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Elmas said:


> So the RR decision to drop Peregrine, an engine with no potential of development, was more than wise,



It might be better to say that the Peregrine, while it had potential for development, had no real market for sales. What was the market for a developed 1000-1100hp Peregrine when you take an off the shelf 1000-1100hp Merlin for just a bit more size and weight? And the Merlin _might_ last longer between overhauls being lower stressed. 

This is the reason that P&W dumped the R-1535. The number of people/customers/airplane makers that wanted a smaller, lighter R-1830 wouldn't support the R&D effort needed to "develop" it to higher powered versions. 

AS planes grew bigger and added more "stuff" the smaller engines fell by the wayside. Even post war P & W misjudged the market and tried to build a 14 cylinder R-2180 using about 1/2 of the R-4360 but the airlines either wanted twins powered by R-2800s (more seats) or were satisfied with war surplus planes using older engines (much cheaper). 

the idea that engine makers _needed_ to offer a wide range of engines and powers fell by the wayside and most airframe makers went for the most powerful engines they could get.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> the idea that engine makers _needed_ to offer a wide range of engines and powers fell by the wayside and most airframe makers went for the most powerful engines they could get.



If it was really that simple they would have put an R-2800 on a P-51 or a Spitfire, more power is always better right? Or a Jumo 213 on a Bf 109. But that would have defeated the purpose by cancelling out the benefits of the smaller airframes.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The thing is, at least as often as not, the 'right' engine didn't work out, and quite often it languished in development hell for god knows how long, resulting in a promising and potentially useful aircraft either showing up too late or being cancelled, and wasting countless man hours and resources trying to overcome fundamental design flaws. This happened over and over and over again.
> 
> Once you have a proven engine that is free of major* design flaws and faults, it therefore makes sense not to abandon it too lightly.
> 
> ...


Rolls Royce simply did as the Air Ministry told them.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

Well, that's what I would assume anyway in a wartime situation. Some suggestion in here that RR could do as they pleased.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Once you have a proven engine that is free of major* design flaws and faults, it therefore makes sense not to abandon it too lightly...



Nor does it make sense under war time contingency to keep an engine in production that will reduce the output of the most useful engine, what Hives refereed to as the 'standard engine'. That was the Merlin.



Schweik said:


> I think the War Ministry, RR etc. were operating on assumptions which we can now see from hindsight were not entirely correct. Not all of the future designs were going to be big birds, and small fighters remained on the front line to the end of the war.



Small fighters did indeed remain on the front line until the end of the war and guess what? The two best, Spitfire and P-51 used Merlins.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The thing is, at least as often as not, the 'right' engine doesn't work out, and quite often it languishes in development hell for god knows how long, resulting in a promising and potentially useful aircraft either showing up too late or being cancelled. This happened over and over and over again.
> 
> Once you have a proven engine that is free of major* design flaws and faults, it therefore makes sense not to abandon it too lightly.
> 
> ...




Most of those alternatives need to much engineering for too little result. 

the Anson for example was a modified light plane or feeder airliner (pilot and 6 passengers? or 2 crew and 4 passengers?) and did gain over 50% in power in it's life. going to triple power is simply going to burn up the payload (unless you change the structure) and overstress the airframe. 






pair of 290hp engines with fixed pitch props. 

Canadian Built examples of the Anson/Oxford had engines of up to 450hp installed (P&W R-995 Wasp Juniors) as did some of the British built planes. 

Nothing was going to save the Lysander, not even an R-2800  

Skua might have been saved by using the R-1830, You needed an engine comparable to the engine in the SPD, the Peregrine is too little and too late. 
For a viable combat plane you need two Peregrines. Which is a somewhat viable trade off vs the Sabre engine. It is not a viable alternative to higher powered Merlin's or Griffins. 

Perhaps if Bristol wasn't mucking about with the Taurus (and Perseus) they could have put a bit more work into the Mercury and Pegasus. 
The Pegasus used in the Hampden and Wellington used a two speed supercharger and could hit 1000hp when running on 100 octane fuel. 

They never got updated cooling fins like even the 1200hp Cyclones got (let alone later Cyclones).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

stona said:


> Nor does it make sense under war time contingency to keep an engine in production that will reduce the output of the most useful engine, what Hives refereed to as the 'standard engine'. That was the Merlin.



And yet so many Merlins were being wasted on bad or flawed airframes.



> Small fighters did indeed remain on the front line until the end of the war and guess what? The two best, Spitfire and P-51 used Merlins.



True but P-51s were of very limited use until Merlin 60's were put on them, and Spitfires were knocked back a peg by Fw 190s as we all know for a crucial period in the beginning (or lets say, end of the beginning) of the war before *it* got the two stage Merlins, and that is actually one of the places where I think Whirlwind could have been very helpful.

I'd also call P-51 and Spitfire 'medium' sized fighters though Spit is closer to a small one than the P-51 is. Certainly both are small next to a Tempest or a P-47.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> If it was really that simple they would have put an R-2800 on a P-51 or a Spitfire, more power is always better right? Or a Jumo 213 on a Bf 109. But that would have defeated the purpose by cancelling out the benefits of the smaller airframes.




It is not quite so simple. The R-2800 was great lump of an engine, even the engine in an early B-26 went 2270lbs with a two speed single stage supercharger. and it needs a huge propeller to turn that power into thrust. It just won't fit/balance in some of the smaller airframes. You have to throw out so much you might as well start over. 


The 109 had a number of problems which get glossed over. It was designed around a 700hp engine (roughly) the Jumo 210, many people forget that somewhere around 1000 109s were built with Jumo 210 before the DB 601 showed up. The timeline is a little too long for it to be quite believable that the 109 was designed around the DB 600 and all of these aircraft were 'fillers' just waiting for the DB engine to show up. The BF 110 first flew 50 weeks after the 109 and the idea that it was designed for the DB series engines is a bit more believable. 
The 109 also needed considerable modifications to fit the DB 601. Trying to change a 109D to an 109E in the field would have been nearly impossible. 

I am not sure where your definition of small, medium and large come from. Certainly the Spitfire has a skinner fuselage than the P-51 but the Spit actually has a slightly larger wing. The radiators, oil coolers and intercooler (on the two stage engines) is also hanging out under the wings (ok part of the cooling matrix is in the wing) vs the Mustang housing a large part of the cooling matrix inside the fuselage. The Mustang has the famous larger fuel capacity (forgetting the rear fuselage tank/s) increased weight but not bulk by much (thicker wing roots)

Part of the Problem the Spits had with the FW 190 is that no first line Spitfire fighter ever had a single stage two speed supercharger. Had they fitted the Merlin XX (and used appropriate boost, say 15lbs) then the FW 190s superiority would have been much less marked. 
But the Merlin XX was needed for Hurricanes and bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> And yet so many Merlins were being wasted on bad or flawed airframes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your comments about different Merlins. They were still Merlins and a direct result of the concentration of Rolls-Royce Derby on that engine and its development and the deletion the Exe, Peregrine and eventually Vulture. 
*It was quickly apparent after the beginning of the war that the improvement and development of the Merlin engine offered the most direct, economical and efficient (in terms of units produced) path to improved fighter performance. *That's why it was done.

If the Spitfire is a 'medium' sized fighter how would you characterise a T/E fighter like the Whirlwind? The Whirlwind had a wingspan about eight feet bigger than the Spitfire and nearly five feet bigger than a P-47.

The Spitfire, like the Bf 109, was the product of pre-war thinking that attempted to bolt the most powerful engine available onto the smallest practical airframe.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well, that's what I would assume anyway in a wartime situation. Some suggestion in here that RR could do as they pleased.


No, during the war, the government was their sole customer. Profits were defined by HMG too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Personally I tend to ignore wing span and go for wing area and weight when judging fighter "size". putting fighters into different size groups due to different aspect ratios seems to need too many exceptions and explanations. 

Using "my" rule the Whirlwind and the Typhoon wind up being close equivalents. The Whirlwind actually had less wing area than a Hurricane. 

It also helps planes like the P-38 (52ft wing span) avoid being compared to bombers

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> No, during the war, the government was their sole customer. Profits were defined by HMG too.



It was rather more complicated than that.

If I have time I will try and write something on this which doesn't expand into a book!

Edit:
A very brief overview, lifted verbatim from 'Industry and Air Power - The Expansion of British Aircraft Production, 1935-1941' by Sebastian Ritchie. 

'During the aircraft boom of the mid 1930s the nominal value of publicly issued capital in the aircraft industry increased from £3.7 million to more than £19 million, but as production began to outstrip the industry's own financial capacity the state's role in providing capital inevitably increased. Very large numbers of aircraft were built under agency agreements after 1938 but the government preferred to maintain operations on a commercial basis wherever possible, and state capital assistance schemes and bank lending provisions were therefore liberalised. When it became clear that the firms were also employing excess profits to finance production the government turned a blind eye. Yet this did not mean underwriting exorbitant production expenses. The pricing mechanism thrashed out between state and industry during the rearmament years rewarded firms for the improvements of efficiency which the government was so anxious to achieve and imposed effective long term controls over aircraft costs.'


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

RR could not do as they pleased during the war but they could certainly recommend certain paths or write up reports that steered the conversations the way RR wanted them to go. 

Many companies could slow down work (redirect/reallocate resources) to other projects rather than keep working full bore on a project the company thought was a loser. Some work has to keep going to avoid being in default of contract. 

RR claims that every Peregrine is going to cost two Merlin's as far as production output goes. This could very well be true if you count all dead time on the machines for change over from Merlin to Peregrine parts against the Peregrine. Of course this depends on how often you change over the machinery. Run off enough parts for 60 engines and then swap back to Merlin parts or only make 20 sets of Peregrine parts and swap tooling 3 times as often? a lot more time when nothing is being made and if you can blame it on the Peregrine it is easier to kill the Peregrine program. 

People also have to aware of the fuel situation which allowed certain engines (not all) to make much more power in just a few years than was thought possible. Please remember that the RR Vulture, the Sabre and the Centaurus were all started when 87 octane was fairly new, 100 octane (and that is 100/100) was know about but introduction was uncertain and such things as 100/130 let alone anything higher was science fiction. If you wanted big power you needed big (really big) engines and thus you needed big airplanes to carry them. 
As they realized the improved fuel would allow higher power from smaller, existing engines the need for larger or strange engines (in RR's case the Vulture or the Exe or Cressy) diminished considerably.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> Part of the Problem the Spits had with the FW 190 is that no first line Spitfire fighter ever had a single stage two speed supercharger. Had they fitted the Merlin XX (and used appropriate boost, say 15lbs) then the FW 190s superiority would have been much less marked.
> But the Merlin XX was needed for Hurricanes and bombers.



What kind of advantage the Merlin XX offers vs. Merlin 45 once we're above 12000 ft?


----------



## Elmas (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It might be better to say that the Peregrine, while it had potential for development, had no real market for sales. What was the market for a developed 1000-1100hp Peregrine when you take an off the shelf 1000-1100hp Merlin for just a bit more size and weight? And the Merlin _might_ last longer between overhauls being lower stressed.
> _omissis_



Yes, exactly.
What I wanted to say is that Peregrine was way too small for the airframes that were going to war, even squeezed to the limit... so, no practical reason reason to spend resources squeezing it. The "Market", as you rightly said, wanted different power outputs.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It is not quite so simple. The R-2800 was great lump of an engine, even the engine in an early B-26 went 2270lbs with a two speed single stage supercharger. and it needs a huge propeller to turn that power into thrust. It just won't fit/balance in some of the smaller airframes. You have to throw out so much you might as well start over.



Yeah, that was basically my point. 



> The 109 had a number of problems which get glossed over.



Not by me - I am well aware. Small aircraft in general had problems and represented a compromise, and the Bf 109 in particular had quite a few problems. But the persistence of the design in the front ranks of the war until the very end speaks to the value of speed and performance. I am not of the school that this is the only thing that matters - I am a fan of the Ki-43 and the A6M, and the Yak 1 and so forth. Even the Hurricane for the very early war. But clearly it mattered. It was one of the ways to achieve an effective fighter design - small and fast and high performing.

One of the other reasons Whirlwind was cancelled is that it didn't soar at 25,000 ft. Aside from big and small designs (and the theory circa 1938-1940 that bigger ones would eventually dominate the future) was high vs. medium vs. low altitude. Early on I think most war bureaucracies in every Great Power thought high altitude was the thing. Later, as I have often argued in many threads on here, Tactical environments in many Theaters showed the intense need for good low altitude performance, something that the War Ministry and both aircraft and engine designers eventually realized (hence the Merlin 32, 45, 50 66 and the cropped impellers and LF Spitfires etc.) but that came with experience* and the prevailing attitude was working against the Whirlwind in the early war.



> I am not sure where your definition of small, medium and large come from. Certainly the Spitfire has a skinner fuselage than the P-51 but the Spit actually has a slightly larger wing. The radiators, oil coolers and intercooler (on the two stage engines) is also hanging out under the wings (ok part of the cooling matrix is in the wing) vs the Mustang housing a large part of the cooling matrix inside the fuselage. The Mustang has the famous larger fuel capacity (forgetting the rear fuselage tank/s) increased weight but not bulk by much (thicker wing roots)



Just looking at them side by side, the Spit is a bit slimmer and more streamlined to me, the Mustang a bit wider and more squared off. They are close though, really both are in the medium category IMO, Spit on the small side of that threshold and Mustang on the slightly larger side of it, though we know the Mustang probably had less drag.



> Part of the Problem the Spits had with the FW 190 is that no first line Spitfire fighter ever had a single stage two speed supercharger. Had they fitted the Merlin XX (and used appropriate boost, say 15lbs) then the FW 190s superiority would have been much less marked.
> But the Merlin XX was needed for Hurricanes and bombers.



I didn't know that and it certainly seems like an odd decision, I had assumed that the Merlin 46 had two speeds and was somewhat similar to an XX. The Merlin 45 was an XX with a single speed XX essentially right? Seems like better altitude performance - and two speeds so you have both better low and high altitude performance, would have helped a lot with Spit Vs in the MTO.


* there was also the fetish that the Fleet Air Arm had for low altitude engines which may not have been entirely grounded in reality.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> What kind of advantage the Merlin XX offers vs. Merlin 45 once we're above 12000 ft?


Not much but the higher gear on the supercharger is good for a few thousand feet but then the FW 190 wasn't at it's best in the high teens either was it? 
The Merlin XX would have allowed around 100 more HP at the lower altitudes at any particular boost limit. Wouldn't have made the MK V into a 190 killer but the 19-s may have found it harder to get kills?


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

stona said:


> The Spitfire, like the Bf 109, was the product of pre-war thinking that attempted to bolt the most powerful engine available onto the smallest practical airframe.



Right, and I was emphasizing the perspicacity of that exact pre-war thinking. The merit of that design philosophy was basically speed and performance, the inherent limitation was range, armament and sometimes maneuverability. 

The part of that which was in demand in the late 30's was firepower. They wanted a four cannon fighter to knock down bombers more reliably right?

The Whirlwind, though larger than a Spitfire certainly, actually looks fairly diminutive next to a Hurricane despite having a wider wingspan and two engines. It's got a much slimmer fuselage and of course, thinner wings. In terms of design it is a reflection of that 'smallest airframed with the most powerful engine available' - in this case two small Peregrines with 1,700+ hp instead of one medium sized Merlin with ~1,200 hp, giving it the needed power to carry those heavy guns.

I don't know the exact drag coefficient but I suspect the Whirlwind had less drag than a Hurri and would be able to maintain a higher combat speed. It also had a power to weight ratio of about 0.17 compared to about 0.15 for a Hurricane II with a Merlin XX.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Not much but the higher gear on the supercharger is good for a few thousand feet but then the FW 190 wasn't at it's best in the high teens either was it?
> The Merlin XX would have allowed around 100 more HP at the lower altitudes at any particular boost limit. Wouldn't have made the MK V into a 190 killer but the 19-s may have found it harder to get kills?



Quirk might be that Spitfire V have had a lot of problems at altitudes we talk a lot for the ETO - 15000 ft and higher. At high teens, the Fw 190 was in it's element, so it was under 5000 ft (thus saving the whole Typhoon + Sabre program).
What Spitfire V (and other Merlin-powered RAF fighters) needed was adoption of less draggy exhausts (+7-8 mph), a proper carb (equals +10 mph + 1500 ft increase in ceiling) instead of whatever they installed on the Merlins before 1943, and a strict attention to fit and finish (another 10 mph, give or take). Internal BP glass - again more than 5 mph gain. End result is a Spitfire V that reliably does above 380 mph (instead of 360+ mph for run-on-the-mill Spitfire Vs), while climbing and cruising a tad better.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> As they realized the improved fuel would allow higher power from smaller, existing engines the need for larger or strange engines (in RR's case the Vulture or the Exe or Cressy) diminished considerably.



Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the RR Merlin had a smaller displacement (wiki says 1650 "³) than it's arch rival, the DB 600 series (wiki says 1800 "³ for the 601, 2,176 "³ for the 605) and yet was at least it's equal in performance. There is more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I didn't know that and it certainly seems like an odd decision, I had assumed that the Merlin 46 had two speeds and was somewhat similar to an XX.


The Merlin 46 was single speed and used an even bigger supercharger than the Merlin 45 which gave it several thousand feet more altitude but hurt it at low altitudes.



Schweik said:


> The Merlin 45 was an XX with a single speed XX essentially right?



Yes but the single speed sort of split the difference between the gears in the XX so it might have been better around 8-12,000ft but worse at low level and up near 20,000 ft. 



Schweik said:


> * there was also the fetish that the Fleet Air Arm had for low altitude engines which may not have been entirely grounded in reality.



Well, you are the one that says high altitude is somewhat over rated

As you say, it depends on tactical considerations, since it turns out that nobody could hit moving ships from high altitude with level bombers having high altitude fighters (or anti ship bombers) in the FAA wasn't going to change things much. Low altitude engines are good for fighting torpedo bombers and low level bombers. 
Plus the RN had to get it's aircraft off of those small (and sometimes slow) flight decks and the low altitude engines offered more power for take-off.

The Merlin III was good for 880hp for take-off at 6lbs boost on 87 octane fuel, the MK VIII Merlin in the Fulmar I was good for 1080hp for take off on 87 octane fuel. (1275hp on 100 octane?) 
Fulmars might have really benefited from a two speed supercharger. Actually be able to get off the flight deck and yet fight at higher altitude too. A lot depends on fuel available or what they thought would be available.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

I've read a lot of operational history of FAA fighters and bombers struggling due to the low alt rated engines. Including late war ones with very powerful engines. Two speed (or whatever the multi-speed hydromatic method was that Daimler Benz used) is definitely better most of the time IMO _if_ you have the option. Especially for something like Combat Air Patrol.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Quirk might be that Spitfire V have had a lot of problems at altitudes we talk a lot for the ETO - 15000 ft and higher. At high teens, the Fw 190 was in it's element, so it was under 5000 ft (thus saving the whole Typhoon + Sabre program).
> What Spitfire V (and other Merlin-powered RAF fighters) needed was adoption of less draggy exhausts (+7-8 mph), a proper carb (equals +10 mph + 1500 ft increase in ceiling) instead of whatever they installed on the Merlins before 1943, and a strict attention to fit and finish (another 10 mph, give or take). Internal BP glass - again more than 5 mph gain. End result is a Spitfire V that reliably does above 380 mph (instead of 360+ mph for run-on-the-mill Spitfire Vs), while climbing and cruising a tad better.



One of the things that surprised me about the MTO operational history is that the Spit V squadrons seemed to routinely get jumped from above by Bf 109s and MC.202s just like the Hurricanes and P-40s did and had to use similar tactics. Not always, or _as_ often because sometimes the Spits arrived at the battlefield at higher altitude (or some of them did, whichever ones which were designated for top cover) and were lucky enough to find Axis fighters below them, but "anecdotally" so to speak based on Shores it seemed pretty routine that they were bounced from above even when flying sweeps and CAP. Both German and British / Commonwealth pilots commented on this.

Some Spits also definitely seemed to perform better at high altitude than others. In part this seems to have just been variation of what came out of factory, in part and increasingly over time it was due to field modifications. Some Spits had one pair of cannon or two of machineguns removed, some had armored windscreen removed, some got the sanding and waxing and putty treatment on wings and fuselage like many of the Merlin P-40s did. Of course the biggest problem seemed to be the Vokes filter.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> Yes but the single speed sort of split the difference between the gears in the XX so it might have been better around 8-12,000ft but worse at low level and up near 20,000 ft.
> ...


Low gear on the Merlin 20s: 8.15:1 ratio; high gear: 9.49:1 
The only ratio of the Merlin 45 being 9.089:1
At the end of the day, both were making ~1200 HP at 18000 ft, and ~1500 HP at 11000 ft (that is with plenty of boost once cleared for, +16 psi), no ram. The Merlin 45 being about 150 lbs lighter, granted without the benefits of the low speed gear.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> The part of that which was in demand in the late 30's was firepower. They wanted a four cannon fighter to knock down bombers more reliably right?
> 
> .



The two things that drove British fighter design in the 1930s were the quest for speed and firepower. You are absolutely correct that endurance was sacrificed in the pursuit of these two. The fuel capacity of the Spitfire and bomb carrying ability were reduced or deleted when the decision was taken to increase the armament to eight machine guns.

Eight machine guns was very heavy armament in the mid/late 1930s. It was double the armament of the Bf 109 E-1, which was still being delivered to Luftwaffe units in France in September 1940 ( Of the 323 Bf 109s delivered to the units at the English Channel as late as September 1940, exactly 100 were E-1s). Most aircraft had two or four machine guns and some carried a single cannon. A single cannon in a fixed gun fighter was considered undesirable by the British, as the chances of actually scoring any hits were considered slight.

The British were looking for cannon armament, but in the mid 1930s it took two engines to lift more than one cannon. This soon changed with the Bf 109 and Spitfire, but a war will move things along remarkably quickly. The Tornado was supposed to be the first British S/E fighter to lift four cannon, but that turned into a bit of a debacle and eventually the Typhoon arrived much later than anticipated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

stona said:


> The British were looking for cannon armament, but in the mid 1930s it took two engines to lift more than one cannon. This soon changed with the Bf 109 and Spitfire, but a war will move things along remarkably quickly.



Spitfire was not among the 1st of the 1-engines fighters to carry more than one cannon. Before the Spit, there were versions of the I-16, Bf 109, P.24 and He 112 carried two cannons in the air.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> What kind of advantage the Merlin XX offers vs. Merlin 45 once we're above 12000 ft?


None.


----------



## stona (Nov 3, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Spitfire was not among the 1st of the 1-engines fighters to carry more than one cannon. Before the Spit, there were versions of the I-16, Bf 109, P.24 and He 112 carried two cannons in the air.



Yes, but I was referring to the BoB. The Spitfire and Bf 109 both got two cannon in this period, though the Spitfire's was somewhat 'experimental'.

The He 112 never entered service (did one fly in Spain?), but would you swap an eight gun Spitfire for a I-16 or P.24 ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 3, 2019)

stona said:


> Yes, but I was referring to the BoB. The Spitfire and Bf 109 both got two cannon in this period, though the Spitfire's was somewhat 'experimental'.



Doh. The Bf 109s in the BoB carried two cannons as a rule, unlike the Spitfires.



> The He 112 never entered service (did one fly in Spain?), but would you swap an eight gun Spitfire for a I-16 or P.24 ?



He 112 entered service in Spain and Romania. I've never questioned the Spitfire's qualities (there was a lot of them), but anyway we slice it it was not on forefront of having cannons installed (again, not a mistake of Supermarine's design team).


----------



## wuzak (Nov 3, 2019)

stona said:


> The Tornado was supposed to be the first British S/E fighter to lift four cannon, but that turned into a bit of a debacle and eventually the Typhoon arrived much later than anticipated.



The Tornado and Typhoon were both, initially, specified with 12 x 0.303".

At some stage development of the 4 cannon version began, but the initial production Typhoons still had the 12 mg.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> * there was also the fetish that the Fleet Air Arm had for low altitude engines which may not have been entirely grounded in reality.



That may have had something to do with getting the aircraft off the goddamn deck.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the RR Merlin had a smaller displacement (wiki says 1650 "³) than it's arch rival, the DB 600 series (wiki says 1800 "³ for the 601, 2,176 "³ for the 605) and yet was at least it's equal in performance. There is more than one way to skin a cat.



It did have the displacement you list but I don't know what your point is. 
The Peregrine was 1296 cu in (as was the Kestrel)
The Exe was 1,348 cu in 
the Merlin was 1650 cu in
the Griffin was 2240 cu in
the Vulture was 2592 cu in

The Sabre was 2238 cu in. 

The Exe used sleeve valves and 24 cylinders and ran at 4200rpm. 

to get a rough idea of an engines ability to make power you need to figure the air flow, displacement times 1/2 the rpm times the intake pressure will get you close. So if the engines ran at close to the same speed and used the same fuel power was dependent on displacement. 
if your fuel limits the pressure inside the cylinders it limits the amount of fuel that can be burned in the cylinder each time it fires and limits the power. 
The DB engines never ran at the same speed as the Merlin and never ran at the same intake pressures, by the time the Germans got to 1.42 Ata (very roughly 6lbs of boost) the British were well beyond it. 
There is certainly more than one way to skin a cat but the ability of the better fuels to support much higher pressures inside the cylinders ( result of higher manifold pressures) meant that smaller engines could do the work of larger ones that used lower PN fuel.

at any given moment in time the fuel limited the internal cylinder pressure for one countries engines. Not all engines had the same exact limit (air cooled engines generally had lower limits) and engines with really small cylinders had a bit of an advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 3, 2019)

My point was that when it comes to engine power size isn't everything, smaller (and usually higher revving) engines could perform just as well. 

In fact the fastest and longest ranged single-engine fighter in WW2 to see any kind of large scale combat was one of the smaller ones, the P-51B/C.

So bigger wasn't always better.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 3, 2019)

ah, you do realize that 100/130 fuel allows about 30% higher pressure in the cylinder acting on the pistons than 100/100 fuel and that 100/130 fuel allows about 90% higher pressure than 87 octane fuel?
the octane scale is not linear and the PN (Performance Number) is used for anything over 100 octane (100 octane is where the two scales crossover, 87 octane is actually 68.29 on the PN scale. 

A Merlin using 18lbs of boost (32.7lb total) is flowing about 58% more air than a Merlin using 6lbs (20.7lb total) of boost. It might be somewhat less dense to the higher amount of heat. Not all the extra power makes it to the prop shaft but I hope you get the idea. The better fuel allowed the smaller engine (the Merlin) to make close to the same power as the bigger engines had been planned to make on the older fuel with little change in size and only a small change in weight. A smaller engine like the Peregrine could also expect (with development) to make the same sort of increase in power but it was never going to catch the Merlin since it started at 78.5% of the Merlin's displacement and used the same max RPM. even if you could boost the rpm by about 10% to get the pistons speeds roughly equal that doesn't make up for the total difference in displacement. 

The Mustang could not do what it did using an engine running on 87 octane fuel, in fact it could not do what it did running on 100/100 fuel (British BoB fuel was 100/115-120) 

The Sabre used lots of small cylinders and lots of RPM to make it's power but even with 100/130 fuel it didn't come close to what the Merlin and Griffon used for intake pressure. 
This change in fuel took around 5-6 years, the fuel was available in 1942. It took a while to figure out which engines could use really high boost and which could not. 

RR may have seen (my opinion here) the Griffon as a lower cost, lower risk engine engine to get them the same power as the Vulture once they had the better fuel and been willing to dump the Vulture.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> A smaller engine like the Peregrine could also expect (with development) to make the same sort of increase in power but it was never going to catch the Merlin since it started at 78.5% of the Merlin's displacement and used the same max RPM. even if you could boost the rpm by about 10% to get the pistons speeds roughly equal that doesn't make up for the total difference in displacement.



Interestingly, the Vulture was initially rated at 3,200rpm compared to the Peregrine's 3,000rpm. Even at 3,200rpm the Peregrine would not match the piston speed of the Merlin.

If the Peregrine had the same piston speed and same BMEP it would have 14.3% less power.




Shortround6 said:


> RR may have seen (my opinion here) the Griffon as a lower cost, lower risk engine engine to get them the same power as the Vulture once they had the better fuel and been willing to dump the Vulture.



The Griffon was a request from the FAA, and then some bright spark at the MAP figured it could be used for the Spitfire. It was, therefore, a much more useful engine than the Vulture or Peregrine, each of which was being used in limited types.

If the resources that was spent on the Griffon was instead used on the Vulture I'm sure that the Vulture would be the more powerful of the two. Indeed, the Vulture had been test at 2,500hp before cancellation.

But they could not have both, so the more useful was the one that continued. And it probably didn't hurt that it was less technically challenging.


Someone upthread mentioned the Crecy. Rolls-Royce wanted to cancel that too, but were not allowed to by the MAP.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2019)

The Griffins eventually went to around 2500hp not counting some of the really weird ones.

A two stage two speed Griffin was about 375lbs lighter than a single stage two speed Vulture.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2019)

Right, 2,500hp post war for the Griffon. Min 100/130 fuel. +25psi boost.

The Vulture 2,500hp potential in 1940 (reliability didn't allow it practically). 100 octane fuel.

1,800hp +6psi boost (Vulture II) and 1,955hp +9psi boost (Vulture IV/V).

By 1945 a developed Vulture should easily exceed 3,000hp.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Doh. The Bf 109s in the BoB carried two cannons as a rule, unlike the Spitfires.



Not as a rule.

Of 740 serviceable Bf 109s on 31 August 1940, 307 were Bf 109 E-1s, 103 were E-3s, 304 were E-4s and 27 were E-7s.

Some of the E-1s might have been converted to cannon, that would be difficult to ascertain. They should have had the designation changed, but we know that did not always happen. Conversion from E-1 to E-3/4 standard was not a job that could be done in the field.

The 100 E-1s delivered up to the end of September were accepted and delivered as E-1s. I find it difficult to believe that these were cannon armed. They would not have been manufactured and accepted by the BAL under the specific designation E-1 if they were. Remember that the E-1 and E-3 were being produced concurrently, there is a reason for the different designations.

Bergstrom has calculated that roughly 40% of Bf 109s flying in the BoB were armed with just four machine guns.

Edit: I just checked. Exactly one He 112 flew in Spain, three in Hungary, at most twenty four in Romania. If that's 'entering service' so be it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

How about some engines from Power Jet?


stona said:


> Not as a rule.


That's interesting. As a lad first living in Britain and then growing up in the 1970s in Canada I was an avid reader of Battle and Warlord the two things drilled into my head were Spitfires were better than Hurricanes and the Me 109 (they never called it the Bf) had that 30mm cannon in the nose.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> RR may have seen (my opinion here) the Griffon as a lower cost, lower risk engine engine to get them the same power as the Vulture once they had the better fuel and been willing to dump the Vulture.



Definitely, but to compete with the Sabre, not their own Vulture.. 

R-R was concerned that Napiers were being revived by the Air Ministry with the Sabre contract(s) and the building of a factory in Liverpool with a projected capacity of 2,000 Sabres per year.
Though in 1939 R-R still saw the Vulture as the engine most likely to compete with the Sabre there seem to have been some doubts about it within the company. This is undoubtedly why R-R pursued what was to become the Griffon project from early 1939. The company argued that the necessary technology for the engine already existed, in February 1939 Hives was writing to Freeman,

_"The fact that the engine follows closely on the Rolls-Royce standard design, and the fact that we have an engine of such dimensions on which we shall shortly be running an endurance test, and also the fact that it is similar to the 'R' engine, means that we are taking the minimum risk; far less than when jigs and tools are ordered for new aircraft."_

R-R was hedging its bets. At the same time that it was professing the intention of concentrating on fewer models, a policy which would lead to the deletion of the Peregrine and sound the death knell of the Whirlwind, it was offering a new engine to the Air Ministry and manufacturers to head off competition from Napiers.

R-R hoped that the Griffon would give a longer production life to existing airframes and dispel the challenge of an alternative Sabre powered fighter. The company had a long standing relationship with Supermarine who were obviously keen to extend the production life of the Spitfire. Supermarine were scheduled to change over from the Spitfire to the Beaufighter in 1941. Both companies had a powerful ally in Freeman, who would write in late 1939,

_"In wartime when it is difficult to introduce new types of aircraft without a great falling off of production, it is essential that we improve the performance of the types which are already being produced."_

We tend to think of the Griffon Spitfire as a late war aircraft, which it was due to the huge improvements made with the Merlin. Supermarine and Roll-Royce had a scheme for installing the Griffon in the Spitfire shortly after the outbreak of the war, as evidenced by a Vickers-Armstrong (Southampton) works report of *23rd* *October 1939, *the second month of the war. It is a quirk of history that the arguments used to support the Griffon were in fact more applicable to the development of the Merlin, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Commercial considerations do not disappear during wartime. R-R in particular had an eye on the competition not just during the war but in potential post war markets when making decisions in 1938/9.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

Whirlwind's controls. Note only one fuel gauge with switch to go from Starboard to Port tanks. Did they actually have a float level in the tanks?


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> How about some engines from Power Jet?
> That's interesting. As a lad first living in Britain and then growing up in the 1970s in Canada I was an avid reader of Battle and Warlord the two things drilled into my head were Spitfires were better than Hurricanes and the Me 109 (they never called it the Bf) had that 30mm cannon in the nose.



No Bf 109 before the F series had a motorkanone (firing through the spinner). The two principle variants had an MG 151 15mm cannon (F-2) and an MG 151/20 20mm cannon (F-4). Both retained the two cowl mounted MG 17s of earlier versions. It's armament was thus two rifle calibre machine guns and one cannon, about which not everyone who flew it was thrilled. The F-series didn't really make it in time for the BoB. 

The E-1 came equipped with four MG 17 machine guns, two in the cowl mounted on top of the engine (firing through the propeller) and two in the wings.

The E-3 came with the two MG 17 cowl guns and two MG FF 20mm cannon in the wings.

The E-4 and E-7 also came with the two cowl mounted machine guns and two MG FF 'M' 20mm cannon in the wings.

The 30mm motorkanone came later still on G and K series Bf 109s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

Somebody mentioned a fairly low dive speed limitation for the Whirlwind of under 400 mph, is that correct? Do we know what the reason is?


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Somebody mentioned a fairly low dive speed limitation for the Whirlwind of under 400 mph, is that correct? Do we know what the reason is?



I've read several accounts in which Spitfires struggled to keep up with Whirlwinds making dive bomb attacks and one from 609 Sqn. in which the Typhoon pilots were surprised by the steep angle at which the Whirlwinds dived.
None of these mention the speed of the dive.
There were issues with aileron flutter in fast dives when carrying two 500lb bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

Ok well it sounds like no real problem with dive speed then if Spits struggle to keep up


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Well, the Spitfire didn't have great acceleration and could be out dived by a lot of aircraft. Nonetheless, it doesn't sound like the Whirlwinds were exactly hanging about when they dived


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

One other way to assess Whirlwind vis a vis the Battle of Britain* (or just afterward) is to compare it to the Me 110.

Me 110 wasn't ideal, but the Luftwaffe certainly got some use out of it. And yet the Whirlwind was considerably better in almost every measurable category:

Comparing Me 110C-1: (per Wikipedia)

Top speed - Whirlwind 360 mph vs 336 for Me 110 **
Range - Whirlwind 800 miles vs. ~520 miles for Me 110
Climb - Whirlwind ~3,000 fpm vs. 2,200 for Me 110
Dive - (probably) Whirlwind
Armament - Whirlwind - 4 x 20mm vs. 2 x 20mm with 4 x 7.92 mm
Power-mass - Whirlwind (roughly .17 for Whirlwind, .14 for Bf 110)
Fighter bomber - Whirlwind (Me 110 can carry more bombs but Whirlwind can basically function as a dive bomber making it much more accurate)
The only advantage Me 110 seems to have is in Wing Loading (around 33-35 lb / sq ft vs. closer to 40 for the Whirlwind)

Is there any data for roll rate for the Whirlwind? Turning circle?

I would assume Whirlwind would have a better roll since it's smaller and has a shorter wingspan, but one generally shouldn't assume with these things...


* I know Whirlwind wasn't used in the BoB but had more been produced it could have been.
** later variants of Me 110 were faster but Whirlwind could have been improved as well obviously.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 4, 2019)

stona said:


> The F-series didn't really make it in time for the BoB.



There were a few that were around in Oct, so yes didn`t really make it in time for the BoB.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

stona said:


> No Bf 109 before the F series had a motorkanone (firing through the spinner). The two principle variants had an MG 151 15mm cannon (F-2) and an MG 151/20 20mm cannon (F-4). Both retained the two cowl mounted MG 17s of earlier versions. It's armament was thus two rifle calibre machine guns and one cannon, about which not everyone who flew it was thrilled.



By the time F series arrived in the Western Desert the E were quickly relegated to Jabo / fighter-bomber duties. Most pilots there seemed to far prefer the F to the E, and quite a few preferred it to the later G series as well.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> One other way to assess Whirlwind vis a vis the Battle of Britain* (or just afterward) is to compare it to the Me 110.
> 
> Me 110 wasn't ideal, but the Luftwaffe certainly got some use out of it. And yet the Whirlwind was considerably better in almost every measurable category:
> 
> ...



You left out the one parameter that crippled the Whirlwind.

The DB 601 powered Bf 110 had a service ceiling close to 33,000 feet and by August 1940 it and the Bf 109 were regularly arriving over the English coast at 30,000 feet.

The Whirlwind lacked performance at altitude. S/Ldr. Eeles who commanded No. 263 Squadron from 6th July to 16th December 1040, and who had a personal investment (career wise) in the aircraft wrote a report in which he conceded

_"...the performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000 feet falls off quite rapidly, and it is considered that above 25,000 feet its fighting qualities are very poor."_

In the context of the altitudes at which combats were now taking place Dowding would write that it was,

_"quite wrong to introduce at the present time a fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000 feet."_

Referring to an earlier proposal to re-engine the Whirlwind with Allison engines (I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this real proposal) he wrote to Beaverbrook on 27th October 1940,

_"It is, of course, quite possible that the introduction of American engines might completely alter the performance and characteristics of the type; but, failing that, I recommend that we cut our losses and do not persevere with the Whirlwind as a service fighter type." _

With opposition like that, not just Dowding's then position as the officer commanding Fighter Command, but his role in the RAF/Air Ministry throughout the 1930s, it is surprising that the Whirlwind survived at all.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

That's true, but the altitude performance of the 110 availed it very little as a day time fighter after 1940. Or even probably by the second half of 1940. It was rapidly outclassed in North Africa, didn't do much in Russia either except as a fighter bomber.

I do understand the position of people like Dowding to not want a fighter that had limited high altitude performance, but I think (and have long argued) with the benefit of hindsight we can see that there was indeed a use for good low to medium altitude fighters, basically everywhere _except _the Channel front.

And perhaps more importantly, if the Peregrine wasn't cancelled right away, it seems likely they could develop a two speed supercharger for it (or adapt an existing one if that was possible).

As for the Allison, I don't see how that solves the altitude problem (maybe just due to sheer power?), and it isn't much smaller than a Merlin and only 100 lbs lighter more or less right?


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> By the time F series arrived in the Western Desert the E were quickly relegated to Jabo / fighter-bomber duties. Most pilots there seemed to far prefer the F to the E, and quite a few preferred it to the later G series as well.



To fly yes, many pilots considered the F-Series the best.

I was referring to the armament. 

As Jochen Prien noted in his book on the F,G and K (with Peter Rodeike).

_"In contrast to the preceding series the Bf 109 F was armed with only three weapons, one of which was an engine mounted cannon, which Messerschmitt had finally succeeded in introducing into series production. The rather light armament of the F-Series was the subject of considerable controversy from the time of its introduction."_

The controversy was several senior officers making their opinion that the type was under armed well known within the Luftwaffe.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

Yes but I think many Luftwaffe _fighter pilots_ preferred the Franz to _fight_, not just to fly. Some didn't to be sure, but many did and said so both at the time and in post-war interviews. If armament was all that mattered they'd be using the Bf 110 right? The value of a fighter in WW2 was a balance of performance, maneuverability, armament, toughness (structurally and things like armor, fuel tank protection) and versatility. Armament wasn't much use if you couldn't get into a 'shooting solution', conversely a lighter armament could be deadly (especially if it included at least one good cannon) if you had enough of a performance / maneuverability advantage that you could own the other aircraft and get right where you needed to be.

I believe the lightly armed, streamlined interceptor / fighter was probably the role to which the 109 was best suited. The need to more heavily arm the aircraft to shoot down B-17s and Il-2s basically led to overloading the airframe and limiting it's agility.

Speaking of protection did Whirlwind have protected fuel tanks and pilot armor?


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but I think many Luftwaffe _fighter pilots_ preferred the Franz to _fight_, not just to fly. Some didn't to be sure, but many did and said so both at the time and in post-war interviews. If armament was all that mattered they'd be using the Bf 110 right? The value of a fighter in WW2 was a balance of performance, maneuverability, armament, toughness (structurally and things like armor, fuel tank protection) and versatility. Armament wasn't much use if you couldn't get into a 'shooting solution', conversely a lighter armament could be deadly (especially if it included at least one good cannon) if you had enough of a performance / maneuverability advantage that you could own the other aircraft and get right where you needed to be.
> 
> I believe the lightly armed, streamlined interceptor / fighter was probably the role to which the 109 was best suited. The need to more heavily arm the aircraft to shoot down B-17s and Il-2s basically led to overloading the airframe and limiting it's agility.
> 
> Speaking of protection did Whirlwind have protected fuel tanks and pilot armor?


My understanding of combat between a Thunderbolt and Bf 109G-6 is that the later outperformed the former if clean, but with underwing guns the G-6 was outperformed by the Thunderbolt.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

That would also depend on things like type of prop on the P-47, altitude (P-47 was at it's best up high), boost systems (M/W water) on either plane, etc.

But basically yeah.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That's true, but the altitude performance of the 110 availed it very little as a day time fighter after 1940. Or even probably by the second half of 1940. It was rapidly outclassed in North Africa, didn't do much in Russia either except as a fighter bomber.
> 
> I do understand the position of people like Dowding to not want a fighter that had limited high altitude performance, but I think (and have long argued) with the benefit of hindsight we can see that there was indeed a use for good low to medium altitude fighters, basically everywhere _except _the Channel front.
> 
> ...


Buying the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk gave us a good low to medium altitude fighter at lower cost than the Whirlwind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

True but I think Whirlwind was faster, climbed better (depending on version), was a more accurate bomber (steeper dive angle) and had the benefit (as well as the drawbacks admittedly) of two engines. I think it also had better altitude performance, as Tomahawk performance fell off after about 16,000' and the early Kittyhawk I and Ia more like 13,000 ft. Per above the Whirlwind was good up to 20,000' which is similar to the P-40F.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> That's true, but the altitude performance of the 110 availed it very little as a day time fighter after 1940. Or even probably by the second half of 1940.



Except that the Bf 110 could enter British airspace at an altitude which the Whirlwind couldn't even reach.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> True but I think Whirlwind was faster, climbed better (depending on version), was a more accurate bomber (steeper dive angle) and had the benefit (as well as the drawbacks admittedly) of two engines. I think it also had better altitude performance, as Tomahawk performance fell off after about 16,000' and the early Kittyhawk I and Ia more like 13,000 ft. Per above the Whirlwind was good up to 20,000' which is similar to the P-40F.



It was faster until over boosting came along in the second half of 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Yes but I think many Luftwaffe _fighter pilots_ preferred the Franz to _fight_, not just to fly. Some didn't to be sure, but many did and said so both at the time and in post-war interviews.



You can think what you like. I can assure you that Prien has interviewed and spoken to more Luftwaffe veterans than you, me and possibly any one else since the war.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

stona said:


> You can think what you like. I can assure you that Prien has interviewed and spoken to more Luftwaffe veterans than you, me and possibly any one else since the war.



I don't doubt that - and Prien is entitled to his no doubt erudite opinion on the matter, but I know as well as you (and Jochin Prien) that German fighter pilots did / do not all speak with one voice, so it's not a binary question. And with all due respect to both yourself and Herr Prien I have read enough memoirs, autobiographies and interviews to know that many German fighter pilots who flew all three main types - E, F and G _preferred the F_. Some were quite outspoken on the matter. I can start transcribing and posting some excerpts, but you seem pretty well informed so I assume you are already aware of this. It's hardly a secret.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It was faster until over boosting came along in the second half of 1942.



Again true, but if Whirlwind hadn't been cancelled presumably by 1942 you may have a faster version yet...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Again true, but if Whirlwind hadn't been cancelled presumably by 1942 you may have a faster version yet...


The only way I see the Whirlwind staying in production in 1942 is with Twin Taurus for the Far East, but if your radar isn't working well in a tropical climate the RAF is still fucked. Not only that, you've still not got a ground based Observer Corps to cover the gaps in your radar system.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> The only way I see the Whirlwind staying in production in 1942 is with Twin Taurus for the Far East, but if your radar isn't working well in a tropical climate the RAF is still fucked.


If PoW's radar was working, could she have operated as a WW2-era Aegis, vectoring and coordinating fighter intercepts?

Given the abysmal or entirely lacking IJN/IJAAF and Malayan Command radar, I imagine PoW had the best radar set-up in the entire Indian Ocean and Western Pacific at the time. So, maybe that's what Phillips should have been doing, getting his radar techs to ensure the system is up and his plotters up to speed with coordinating with RAF.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> If PoW's radar was working, could she have operated as a WW2-era Aegis, vectoring and coordinating fighter intercepts?
> 
> Given the abysmal or entirely lacking IJN/IJAAF and Malayan Command radar, I imagine PoW had the best radar set-up in the entire Indian Ocean and Western Pacific at the time. So, maybe that's what Phillips should have been doing, getting his radar techs to ensure the system is up and his plotters up to speed with coordinating with RAF.


Perhaps he should have just beached himself at Kota Bharu then done that.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I don't doubt that - and Prien is entitled to his no doubt erudite opinion on the matter, but I know as well as you (and Jochin Prien) that German fighter pilots did / do not all speak with one voice, so it's not a binary question. And with all due respect to both yourself and Herr Prien I have read enough memoirs, autobiographies and interviews to know that many German fighter pilots who flew all three main types - E, F and G _preferred the F_. Some were quite outspoken on the matter. I can start transcribing and posting some excerpts, but you seem pretty well informed so I assume you are already aware of this. It's hardly a secret.



Of course pilots will express various opinions. The issue for the _Luftwaffe _was that whilst experienced and highly skilled pilots could exploit the advantages of a centre line cannon the reduced armament reduced the chances of the average pilot hitting anything at all.

Everyone agreed that removing cannon from the wings benefitted handling, but they soon came back in one form or another. That in itself tells a story.


----------



## stona (Nov 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> My understanding of combat between a Thunderbolt and Bf 109G-6 is that the later outperformed the former if clean, but with underwing guns the G-6 was outperformed by the Thunderbolt.



And those under wing 'gondolas' were a direct result of the ill advised deletion of the wing mounted cannon in the F-Series. It was an issue never properly solved, though obviously upgrading the cowl guns to heavy machine guns and fitting a larger motorkanone went some way to ameliorating the situation. The Bf 109 remained lightly armed in direct comparison to the Luftwaffe's other principal fighter, the Fw 190 and to later British two and four cannon fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Perhaps he should have just beached himself at Kota Bharu then done that.


Like HMS Canopus at Battle of Falklands. Taking on all comers from the beach.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 4, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Like HMS Canopus at Battle of Falklands. Taking on all comers from the beach.


Is was thinking of the Marat at Leningrad, sunk, refloated, used as heavy artillery.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2019)

stona said:


> Not as a rule.
> 
> Of 740 serviceable Bf 109s on 31 August 1940, 307 were Bf 109 E-1s, 103 were E-3s, 304 were E-4s and 27 were E-7s.
> 
> ...



Seems like 30 of the He 112s were delivered to Romania, 19 to Spain, per German-language Wikipedia.

As for the E-1, by Radinger ans Shick book about the early Bf 109s, FWIW:







Or, per Google translate, my remarks in brackets:

_In mid-1940, the troupe _[units]_ rejected the E-1 due to inferiority in use. Thus, from August 1940, a conversion of the still existing E-1 single-seat aircraft on _[a standard of]_ E-4 or E-7 (DB 601 N, reinforced armament) and the remaining 175 E-1 (lt.Lieferplan _[per delivery schedule]_) came as E-7 N for delivery._


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Armament wasn't much use if you couldn't get into a 'shooting solution', conversely a lighter armament could be deadly (especially if it included at least one good cannon) if you had enough of a performance / maneuverability advantage that you could own the other aircraft and get right where you needed to be.



This is quite true, however some of the large American fighters also added a quality that might be called combat durability or combat endurance/persistence. They carried enough ammo to engage multiple targets per flight. Granted most of their targets were smaller aircraft. Some Axis aircraft needed multiple interceptors making repeated runs on the same bomber in order to secure a victory. Ki 43s VS B-24s used this technique. There is always some ace somewhere who shot down multiple aircraft in one flight using a lightly armed plane but the US forces seemed to occasionally turn out pilots who did it on some of their first encounters with enemy aircraft (well trained but green?) 



Schweik said:


> I believe the lightly armed, streamlined interceptor / fighter was probably the role to which the 109 was best suited. The need to more heavily arm the aircraft to shoot down B-17s and Il-2s basically led to overloading the airframe and limiting it's agility.



And that is part of the 109s problem, it was available, it was cheap, but it sometimes could _not_ do the job required due to it's size. Or you needed a lot of them to do the job so it was a good thing it was cheap. 


Schweik said:


> Speaking of protection did Whirlwind have protected fuel tanks and pilot armor?


Yes, Protection was added to the few early production examples without it. The rest left the factory with it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Low gear on the Merlin 20s: 8.15:1 ratio; high gear: 9.49:1
> The only ratio of the Merlin 45 being 9.089:1



To add, supercharger gear ratios for other interesting 1-stage Merlins:
- Mk.III, 30 and 32 - 8.588:1
- Mk.XII - same as Merlin 45 and 50: 9.089:1
- Mk. VIII: 6.313:1


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2019)

Schweik said:


> * I know Whirlwind wasn't used in the BoB but had more been produced it could have been.



How exactly would that happen?

The first production examples dribbled off the production lines in early to mid 1940 and the schedule was for the first deliveries to occur in September 1940.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 4, 2019)

wuzak said:


> How exactly would that happen?


Earlier start and faster production, how else?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 4, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Earlier start and faster production, how else?



Using a time machine?

Westland's slow development is what prompted the Air Ministry to seek an alternative, which became the Beaufighter. It also revised the F.18/37 specification (which begat the Tornado/Typhoon) to include cannon armament, leading to the Supermarine Type 327 proposal, among others.


----------



## stona (Nov 5, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Seems like 30 of the He 112s were delivered to Romania, 19 to Spain, per German-language Wikipedia.
> 
> As for the E-1, by Radinger ans Shick book about the early Bf 109s, FWIW:
> 
> ...



What's his source? That's an old book. The BAL was accepting E-1s in September. That still doesn't account for all the other E-1s already with the units, they had to be released from their units for the conversion. Whether they would have to return to Germany I can't say without some investigation, but in 1940 I expect that they did. 

Incidentally, the delivery of the 601N was a debacle because the RLM kept changing its mind about which aircraft should get it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2019)

stona said:


> What's his source? That's an old book. The BAL was accepting E-1s in September. That still doesn't account for all the other E-1s already with the units, they had to be released from their units for the conversion. Whether they would have to return to Germany I can't say without some investigation, but in 1940 I expect that they did.



Unfortunately, source for the text is not sourced/footnoted. Book is issued in 1997.



> Incidentally, the delivery of the 601N was a debacle because the RLM kept changing its mind about which aircraft should get it.



Yes, the DB 601N was a PITA, both from the reliability and avialbilty points of view.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> It was faster until over boosting came along in the *second half of 1942*.




and this the problem with evaluating the Whirlwind today. 

We are comparing a 1940 aircraft to 1941 or 1942 aircraft. Yes the Whirlwind was used in 1942 and for a good part of 1943 but aside from allowing 9lbs of boost (correction welcome) and adding the bomb racks the plane was unchanged from 1940. 

Anybody want to guess at how well the Tomahawk would have done over Europe in the summer of 1943? 


as to how soon the Whirlwind could have been in squadron service (real squadron service, not 1st squadron with 3-4 planes figuring out how to write the pilots manual) that rather depends on RR and the Air Ministry. I have no idea when or how fast RR was delivering the Peregrine engines in the spring of 1940, a major consideration, Westland cannot build planes without engines. However Westland was delivering 5-7 Lysanders per week from the same building as the Whirlwind so there was definitely work force and factory space available had somebody decided _before_ the Battle of France that the Lysander was not the be all and end all of Army cooperation and close support planes. 

The Whirlwind was used as a strike aircraft for most of it's career even before the bomb racks showed up. Four 20mm guns were a rather formidable gun armament in 1941 even if pretty routine in 1943/44. Their effectiveness may have been a bit overrated by the _powers that be. _Few people in 1943 and after thought that four 20mm cannon alone were effective anti shipping or effective air field attack armament. But in 1941 the Whirlwinds were sent on many anti-shipping, airfield strafing and train wrecking missions with only the their 20mm guns.


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> and this the problem with evaluating the Whirlwind today.
> 
> We are comparing a 1940 aircraft to 1941 or 1942 aircraft. Yes the Whirlwind was used in 1942 and for a good part of 1943 but aside from allowing 9lbs of boost (correction welcome) and adding the bomb racks the plane was unchanged from 1940.
> 
> ...



To me, the Whirlwind represents over complexity for the task it has to perform. Two engines instead of one, twice the price of a Supermarine built Spitfire, performing a task that could be just as well performed by a cheaper aircraft, the Hurricane IIc, or a comparably priced aircraft, the Mustang Ia. It required Rolls-Royce to duplicate Merlin development on an engine only used in one airframe, it wouldn't make economic sense. Even if the engines are replaced with the Taurus and it's sent to the Far East, it's only as good as the CGI. RADAR wasn't really sorted out and working properly in India until 1943 IIRC. In Malaya there was no observer corps to cover the radar gaps.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> To me, the Whirlwind represents over complexity for the task it has to perform. Two engines instead of one, twice the price of a Supermarine built Spitfire, performing a task that could be just as well performed by a cheaper aircraft, the Hurricane IIc, or a comparably priced aircraft, the Mustang Ia. It required Rolls-Royce to duplicate Merlin development on an engine only used in one airframe, it wouldn't make economic sense. Even if the engines are replaced with the Taurus and it's sent to the Far East, it's only as good as the CGI. RADAR wasn't really sorted out and working properly in India until 1943 IIRC. In Malaya there was no observer corps to cover the radar gaps.


You are discussing the end use of it, not what it was commissioned for. It was initially designed and purchased to get a 4 cannon armed fighter in the air, at a time when aircraft had so little power that you needed two engines to get 4 cannon into the air. It only became possible to mount cannon in the wings of S/E aircraft in late 1940 and belt feed came later. Most fighters descended into the ground attack or fighter bomber role, it was rarely their primary role as designed.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> To me, the Whirlwind represents over complexity for the task it has to perform. Two engines instead of one, twice the price of a Supermarine built Spitfire, performing a task that could be just as well performed by a cheaper aircraft,


Your comment here reminded me of the SNCAC NC-600.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 5, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Your comment here reminded me of the SNCAC NC-600.


Never heard of that plane before.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Never heard of that plane before.


An attractive twin engine heavy fighter doing a job that a cheaper single engine fighter could do. Still sweet looking though....from some angles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> To me, the Whirlwind represents over complexity for the task it has to perform. Two engines instead of one, twice the price of a Supermarine built Spitfire, performing a task that could be just as well performed by a cheaper aircraft, the Hurricane IIc, or a comparably priced aircraft, the Mustang Ia. It required Rolls-Royce to duplicate Merlin development on an engine only used in one airframe, it wouldn't make economic sense. Even if the engines are replaced with the Taurus and it's sent to the Far East, it's only as good as the CGI. RADAR wasn't really sorted out and working properly in India until 1943 IIRC. In Malaya there was no observer corps to cover the radar gaps.





The Whirlwind was caught by time, It took, like many British aircraft, too long to get into quantity production and into service. The Mock up was inspected at the end of May 1937 and after many delays the prototype flew 11th Oct of 1938, about 4 months late. The Hurricane I with four cannon only became viable with the Merlin XX engine. 
Hooker only went to Work for RR in Jan of 1938 so there was very little time to develop the Merlin XX and 45 supercharger before Production contracts for the Whirlwind were placed. 
The first production Whirlwinds were leaving the factory before the NA-73 Mustang prototype ever flew and the last Whirlwind left the factory in Jan 1942 while the first P-51 with 20mm guns flew on May 29th 1942. 

You are correct in that the Peregrine really didn't make economic sense but then the whole Napier Sabre fiasco never made economic sense either. It's use dropped from a multitude of projects to just the Typhoon/Tempest line of aircraft, in part due to the protracted troubles and in part due the shortages of the engine, all available engines being needed for the Typhoon (in part due to atrocious engine life early in it's career).

Instead of comparing the Whirlwind to the Hurricane II C and the P-51 try comparing it to the Typhoon/Tornado. On 10th of July 1939 the air ministry had ordered 500 of each even though flight test engines would not be delivered until Dec of 1939 in each case. 

Again, what could be accomplished in 1937-39 on 87 octane fuel was just a fraction of what could be accomplished in 1941-42 with 100/130 fuel. 

BTW, the Taurus was a Lemon, another way, way too expensive engine for what it delivered. Service engines overheated and made the Peregrine look like a stratosphere engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> An attractive twin engine heavy fighter doing a job that a cheaper single engine fighter could do. Still sweet looking though....from some angles.
> 
> View attachment 559616


 Use two 700hp engines at a time when the French were very lucky they could get 1100h from a single engine. 
Details are sketchy (and don't always agree?) but it did carry the weapons of a Bloch 152 but was faster and longer ranged. 
Bloch may have had a better view from the cockpit though. This plane looks pretty dismal.


----------



## stona (Nov 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> You are correct in that the Peregrine really didn't make economic sense but then the whole Napier Sabre fiasco never made economic sense either. It's use dropped from a multitude of projects to just the Typhoon/Tempest line of aircraft, in part due to the protracted troubles and in part due the shortages of the engine, all available engines being needed for the Typhoon (in part due to atrocious engine life early in it's career).



With hindsight the Sabre fiasco seems like a mistake.
However, when the decision was taken to proceed with its development there was more at stake than the promise of the engine itself.
The Air Ministry always believed that quality could only be assured by competition between the different firms and the rapid contraction of the aero engine industry during the 1930s was the cause of much concern. As early as 1st July 1935 Sir Christopher Bullock, Permanent Under-Secretary at the British Air Ministry, was writing that it was,

_"essential that Messrs. Napiers should be kept alive as a separate entity, in order to prevent the engine industry being constituted on too restricted a basis."_

In February 1937 Freeman was alarmed that,

_"the loss of the experienced personnel making up the technical division_ [of Napier] _would be a serious loss to the RAF."_

It got worse. By May 1939 he was expressing his concern that both Napier and Armstrong Siddeley were on the verge of leaving the aero engine business altogether.

_"It was a most unhealthy position"_ he wrote _"for the Air Ministry to be substantially dependent upon two firms only."_

The development order for six Sabres was placed in 1937, coinciding with plans for a new Sabre engined fighter to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane (eventually the Typhoon). There were on going problems with the development of the next generation engines from the other two firms. The R-R Vulture suffered repeated failures during 1939. The Bristol Centaurus was still a very long way from being a production engine, and the production arrangements for the Hercules had been pushed through by the Air Ministry before it was certain that it would be a successful engine.

The decision to gamble on the Sabre was based on two factors. First, the Sabre would provide a third option should the Vuture and Centaurus fail. Second, It would keep Napier in the aero engine business, something that was considered essential by the Air Ministry at the time. On this basis it doesn't seem quite the disastrous mistake that the Sabre would make it seem. Nobody could know in 1937 that the Sabre would turn into one of the most difficult and costly of all pre-war development projects.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Nov 6, 2019)

stona said:


> With hindsight the Sabre fiasco seems like a mistake.
> However, when the decision was taken to proceed with its development there was more at stake than the promise of the engine itself.
> The Air Ministry always believed that quality could only be assured by competition between the different firms and the rapid contraction of the aero engine industry during the 1930s was the cause of much concern. As early as 1st July 1935 Sir Christopher Bullock, Permanent Under-Secretary at the British Air Ministry, was writing that it was,
> 
> ...


Also, without the Sabre, the RAF wouldn't have a fast low altitude fighter to counter the Fw 190A until the Spitfire XII in 1943.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 6, 2019)

stona said:


> _"It was a most unhealthy position"_ he wrote _"for the Air Ministry to be substantially dependent upon two firms only."_


It‘s a fair position, and one I’d wish the BrIrish government had taken with the postwar automobile industry instead of forcing mergers and nationalizations that reduced the industry to dust.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 6, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Also, without the Sabre, the RAF wouldn't have a fast low altitude fighter to counter the Fw 190A until the Spitfire XII in 1943.


If the Centaurus has been expedited it would have done the trick. What took so long with that motor?


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the Centaurus has been expedited it would have done the trick. What took so long with that motor?


*Sleeve valves *

A bit more seriously and it part answer to 



Admiral Beez said:


> It‘s a fair position, and one I’d wish the BrItish government had taken with the postwar automobile industry instead of forcing mergers and nationalizations that reduced the industry to dust.



Bristol (Roy Fedden) had not figured out how to make sleeve valves in large quantities at acceptable qualities in the late 1930s. They were developing the Centaurus before the Taurus and Hercules had made it into large scale production. It should have been easy in principle Just stick two Perseus engines together and lengthen the stroke (or add two cylinders to each row of a Hercules and lengthen the stroke (They all used the same bore). But the devil was always in the details and things were not a simple as they appeared. They weren't for a lot of engines at this time as both RPM and cylinder pressures were rising. Roy Fedden was not an easy man to work with and the Board of Directors of Bristol (Who managed a company with more than Bristol aircraft engines and Bristol airframes) had had enough and fired Fedden in 1942, Fedden had near bankrupted the entire company while developing the sleeve valve concept/early engines. But without Fedden's drive the Centaurus project slowed down (combined with the insatiable demand for Hercules engines).

A Certain amount of competition between companies is a good thing, too much and each design team is too small and too slow to get their ideas to market (a problem the British aero industry had in the 1930s) and in the 1950s the Labor Party was trying punish any company they thought had made big profits while trying to save as many jobs in small aout dated companies as possible. They not only wrecked the british car industry but the wrecked the aero industry as well. However it was reaching a point where the small companies of England could no longer compete in the world markets. It was said the Boeing had more engineers/draftsmen working in the landing gear dept than the 3 major British airplane makers in the early 50s had combined working on everything, perhaps not true but the british were tipped a bit too far to the small side. Unfortunately just jamming companies together with little regard for actual products and manufacturing capability didn't produce the claimed efficiencies. 

Back in the 30s the "official" position on keeping competition alive in the aero engine industry did not extend to either Fairly or Alvis ( licenced the French Gnome-Rhone engines).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 6, 2019)

Despite all that, the Centaurus first ran in July 1938 and was type tested in 1939 at 2,000hp. In October 1941 a Hawker Tornado powered by the CE.4S prototype flew at 421 mph. The 2 speed supercharged Centaurus (I presume the Mk V) wasn't cleared for production until late 1942.

If the delay was not technical then it can only have been due to the company's inability to get the engine into full scale production (it built more than 54,000 Hercules engines alone, which kept it busy) compounded by a lack of interest from the Air Ministry.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2019)

I am not sure about lack of interest at the Air Ministry. The 2nd Vickers Warwick bomber Flew on the 5th of APril 1940 with a pair of Centaurus engines. Production contract for MK Is with P & W R-2800s was placed in Jan 1941 as was a contract for MK II's with Centaurus engines. But it is not until mid 1943 that a prototype MK II was built. 
With the Vulture canceled and the Sabre in real difficulties the Centaurus should have been fairly high on the priority list?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 6, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> With the Vulture canceled and the Sabre in real difficulties the Centaurus should have been fairly high on the priority list?



The Hercules, in use in existing types, was an even higher priority.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 6, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> If the Centaurus has been expedited it would have done the trick. What took so long with that motor?



Bristol were busy sorting/improving the Hercules.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 6, 2019)

The Whirlwind had its own problems, not least of which was that Westland was a small firm that bit off more than it could chew in terms of production estimates - it just couldn't meet them. There was a plan to built them at Castle Bromwich - 800 of them! But this was sensibly changed to the Spitfire. Canning the Peregrine spelled the end for the Whirly, despite any promise it had, and alternatives were investigated; Fedden at bristol pushed for a Hercules powered variant but Petter knew that was impossible - it would require an entire redesign.

Production difficulties added time to the requirement as Westland at Yeovil had no real mass production experience and this stymied development, adding delays. It was also a complex airframe and issues with things like the slats had to be countered - these were eventually permanently closed as they had a tendency to snap open violently and tear off the wing. It was found during trials at Farnborough that the airframe was too draggy as well, so work was done in streamlining it. It also was affected by compressibility effects, but these were not fully understood at the time. It also had a peculiar design innovation where the engine cowl flaps were interconnected with the flaps, so when these were opened the flaps had to be lowered!

Somewhat oddly, the Whirlwind was not officially disclosed by the Air Ministry until August 1941 despite the design appearing in Observer Corps recognition manuals before then - odd. Even by the end of 1940, a few months after it entered service, the Air Ministry considered its lack of altitude performance - it was faster than a Spit I at low level - a hindrace and bordering on obsolescence.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 6, 2019)

Our man Brown had this to say about the Whirly (again, not the last word, but where else can we find a good recounting of flying it):

"The Manoeuvrability of the Whirlwind was brought into question by the tendency to buffet badly in tight turns, and with a wing loading of 40lb/sq ft this was a crippling restriction. Also in dives from 25,000ft above 350 mph a longitudinal pitching set in, and if speed was allowed to increase there was a distinct loss of elevator effectiveness at 400mph at 15,000ft and a very strong pull-force was required for recovery. These characteristics made the Whirlwind a poor bet as a fighter, and so it was given a fighter bomber role in service and proved less than effective in that form."

"The aircraft was not easy to land because speed had to be kept up to provide suffient elevator control for hold-off, and this therefore gave a long run-out - not the best characteristics for all-weather operations..."

"Certainly I must confess to profound disappointment at its handling qualities in all but single-engine flying. it's just as well that it had the latter blessing, for the Peregrine engine had its fair share of problems."

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 6, 2019)

wuzak said:


> The Hercules, in use in existing types, was an even higher priority.



I am certainly not saying the Hercules wasn't higher priority, and the Hercules did need a lot of tinkering with. From prototypes in 1930s to last production engines post-war it went through 7 different (?) cylinder heads in a constant battle to improve cooling as one example.

The Centaurus benefited from much of the work being done on the Hercules, it did not spring into being as a 2300- 2500hp engine.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 6, 2019)

Am I right to understand that the issue with the Peregrine isn’t a lack of power, just at HA. Instead of putting in much heavier and larger Merlins, how hard is it to adjust the supercharger for HA?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 6, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Am I right to understand that the issue with the Peregrine isn’t a lack of power, just at HA. Instead of putting in much heavier and larger Merlins, how hard is it to adjust the supercharger for HA?



The easiest way is to change the supercharger drive gear ratio.

But then you sacrifice low end performance.

So you add a 2 speed drive. one with a lower ratio and one with a higher ratio. You improve slightly at high altitude and low altitude, and lose in the altitude around the gear change. 

Making a 2 speed drive would be a lot of extra work.

Another alternative, which probably wasn't feasible, would be to adapt the Merlin 2 speed supercharger to the Peregrine. That would be even more work than designing a 2 speed drive.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Am I right to understand that the issue with the Peregrine isn’t a lack of power, just at HA. Instead of putting in much heavier and larger Merlins, how hard is it to adjust the supercharger for HA?



There is a lot of 'low tech' ways to improve Peregrine's altitude capabilities, and with that Whirlwind's performance. 1st, don't mess big time with carb air intake, go KISS like it was done on the Gloster's twin. Less convoluted intake = better use of ram effect = better altitude power. Also use a better exhaust stacks layout, the inboard stacks need to clear the radiators. A better carb will also help. 
I don't know whether Peregrine used the cleaned-up intake as it was the case with Merlin XX vs. earlier Merlins.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 7, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> There is a lot of 'low tech' ways to improve Peregrine's altitude capabilities, and with that Whirlwind's performance. 1st, don't mess big time with carb air intake, go KISS like it was done on the Gloster's twin. Less convoluted intake = better use of ram effect = better altitude power. Also use a better exhaust stacks layout, the inboard stacks need to clear the radiators. A better carb will also help.
> I don't know whether Peregrine used the cleaned-up intake as it was the case with Merlin XX vs. earlier Merlins.



I've read somewhere that a better propeller would have increased altitude performance too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Am I right to understand that the issue with the Peregrine isn’t a lack of power, just at HA. Instead of putting in much heavier and larger Merlins, how hard is it to adjust the supercharger for HA?





wuzak said:


> The easiest way is to change the supercharger drive gear ratio.
> 
> But then you sacrifice low end performance.
> 
> ...



Wuzak is quite right with his post but some of the gain in high altitude performance rather depends on the gears the original supercharger was using and the design of the supercharger itself. If we assume for instance that the Peregrine supercharger was very similar in design to the original Merlin supercharger (MK III Merlin) the the supercharger is going to max out at around 17,500-18,000ft even with different gears as it did on the Merlin X engine. Changing gears on the Peregrine might have gained 2-3,000ft as Wuzak says at the cost of take-off and low altitude performance.
Hookers redesigned inlet (a more efficient supercharger) allowed for several thousand feet of altitude performance gain using the same gears over the original supercharger.

I don't know why but for RR the supercharger drive or at least the housing for it was part of the crankcase casting, you cannot add the two speed drive in the field and in fact some Merlin factories only built single speed engines while others built two speed engines (and two stage which also were two speed) which certainly indicates (but does not prove) that adding a two speed drive is considerable work. At least the way RR did it. Wright claimed you could retro fit certain R-1820s in the field with their 2 speed drive. I have no idea if it was ever done. 

_As is_ the Whirlwind/Peregrine combination had 2-3 things going against for high altitude work, in no particular order they are
1. A lousy air intake for the carb.Air was taken from the radiator/oil cooler inlets in the wing roots and ducted to the top of the engine nacelle and then into the downdraft carburetor, a lot of turns with pressure loss and a lot of joints to keep tight. Less RAM air boost than some other designs? especially in service?
2. Shrouded exhausts, great for night flying, but lousy for getting exhaust thrust from. due to the lower air pressure at higher altitudes the thrust from the exhaust gases is best at near critical altitude or a bit above. Highest mass of gas flow with the greatest pressure differential.
3. (?) one modern article says the airfoil used in the propeller blades on the Whirlwind lost efficiency at the higher altitudes which cost thrust. Take that one as you will. Many other planes went through a number of propeller experiments at this time. WWII AIrcraft Performance has tests of both British and American planes with up to five different prop blades being tested in one test. Propeller design was a much art as it was science in 1939/40.






Peregrines on the Gloster F.39/7
Is it just me or do those look like counter rotating propellers? 

None of these or even all three is going to turn the Whirlwind into a MK V Spit but the difference wouldn't have been as great. The new inlet on the Supercharger itself might have been much easier to do than a two speed drive.

Then figure out if you want the Whirlwind as a high altitude interceptor or a low altitude interceptor/ground pounder and fit the appropriate supercharger gear.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Peregrines on the Gloster F.39/7
> Is it just me or do those look like counter rotating propellers?



Seems they were counter-rotating indeed: link
Every day is a learning day.



> None of these or even all three is going to turn the Whirlwind into a MK V Spit but the difference wouldn't have been as great. The new inlet on the Supercharger itself might have been much easier to do than a two speed drive.
> 
> Then figure out if you want the Whirlwind as a high altitude interceptor or a low altitude interceptor/ground pounder and fit the appropriate supercharger gear.



Even if we get a 5 mile per each improvement (intake, exhausts, carb, change of gearing), there is a 380 mph fighter with 4 cannons.
On the other hand, a Spitfire V with a bit nip & tuck will be doing 380-390 mph, on just one engine...


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 559804
> 
> Peregrines on the Gloster F.39/7
> Is it just me or do those look like counter rotating propellers?





tomo pauk said:


> Seems they were counter-rotating indeed: link
> Every day is a learning day.



The first Whirlwind prototype also used counter rotating propellers.

The engines were handed, unlike the Merlin 131 on the Hornet which had an idler gear in the propeller reduction gear in order to reverse rotation.

I believe there was a comparison made between the handling qualities of the Whirlwind with handed engines and without which found little difference, resulting in production Whirlwinds getting the same engine on both sides.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 7, 2019)

Now that you mention I believe you are correct.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 11, 2019)

I was looking at my little model collection and noticed how similar in size the Whirlwind and the Ki-46 were. Both quite small for twin engined birds, probably something like half the size of say a B-25. Both very streamlined. Both fast for their era.

Ki-46 looks like it has small engines too so I looked those up. Interesting...

Mitsubishi Zuisei - Wikipedia

from the wiki: "_The *Mitsubishi Zuisei* (瑞星 Holy Star) was a 14-cylinder, supercharged, air-cooled, two-row radial engine used in a variety of early World War II Japanese aircraft.* It was one of the smallest 14-cyl. engines in the world and the smallest diameter Japanese engine*._ "

This Ki-46 perhaps looks like a template for a successful path for the Peregrine powered Whirlwind. Ki-46 was just a recon plane but in that role it was quite successful for quite a while, and I think the Whirlwind could have done even more. But it also (to me) demonstrates the validity of the "smaller is better" design ethos for early to mid-war military aircraft with a need for speed, i.e. before the big engines come out, and in fact in this example using a _small_ engine to solve that exact problem.

A low drag design with 2200 hp is potentially a very effective weapon.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2019)

While Wiki is very handy to copy and paste from (especially for the typing challenged like myself) it is always a good idea to double check Wiki with one or more sources before doing so.

Mitsubishi Zuisei engine = 1710 cu in (?) (1695 by my math but inches are rounded off from metric) 
Nakajima Sakae engine = 1700 cu in (?) (1686 by my math but inches are rounded off from metric) listed as 1 in greater in diameter. 
Bristol Taurus engine = 1550 cu in, diameter 2.2 in bigger than the Zuisei?
P & W R-1535 engine = 1535 cu in (surprise!) diameter 0.12 inches bigger? 
Gnome-Rhone 14M =1149 cu in with a diameter 6.6 in less than the Zuisei
Hispano-Suiza 14AB=1593 cu in with a diameter 4.2 in less than the Zuisei, not used very much. 

to be fair the last two are 700hp engines. the R-1535 is about an 825 hp engine but development stopped pre war using 97 octane fuel. 
The non-Japanese engines never got more than single speed, single stage superchargers. 

we can argue about what the total number of different 14 cylinder engines there were and where being the 5 or 6th smallest on the whole list puts the Zuisei but the wording does give a somewhat misleading impression.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 11, 2019)

Well it is small - for a 14 cylinder. Maybe not as tiny as a Gnome Rhone 14M but that is as you noted, almost too small. With a mere 44" diameter and a dry weight of 1200 lbs it is definitely _a lot_ smaller than an R-2600 (55" diameter, 2,600 cu in, 2,045 lbs) or a BMW 801 (2,560 cu in, 51" diameter, weight 2,231 lbs). And it's even smaller and 100 lbs lighter than a Bristol Taurus. Wikipedia looks wrong on their claim of smallest in the world, but I think that qualifies as a small engine. Considering they were able to get 1,100 hp and later put a two stage supercharger on it, that's pretty good for the size.

The Nakajima Sakae is small too but it is also 100 lbs heavier.

Weight is very similar to Peregrine (1,140 lbs) and the Peregrine at 41" x 27" is comparable in size, albeit slimmer as inline engines usually are. Merlin is also comparable in size but 200-400 lbs heavier depending on the type.

Importantly for a fighter like Whirlwind, aside from weight, the frontal diameter is what matters, not so much how many cylinder rows there are. The Zuisei was small and light enough to solve the problem for the zippy Ki-46 anyway. (It wasn't enough to save the Ki-45 but that plane was too big).

My point is that the Ki-46 was a successful small plane built around what I would certainly call a small engine, and thereby another good example of how smaller can be better, and how relatively small engines could have been worth producing.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 11, 2019)

Why was the Mitsubishi Ki-83 a twin seater? It wasn’t a night fighter needing a radar operator and didn’t have a rear gun. Strip out the weight of the second man and the Ki-83 looks like an ideal candidate for a Japanese Whirlwind, Hornet or P-38.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2019)

there could be at least 3 reasons, all are supposition on my part and there could be more or different reasons. 
Since it was designed as a long range and/or long endurance fighter
1. 2nd crewman was to assist in navigation.
2. 2nd crewman operated a radio of longer range and more complexity than they thought a pilot could operate while flying. 
3. They knew radar was coming, but they didn't know when. they allowed for extra crewman and space for extra equipment should it become available during the planes development.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2019)

Schweik said:


> My point is that the Ki-46 was a successful small plane built around what I would certainly call a small engine, and thereby another good example of how smaller can be better, and how relatively small engines could have been worth producing.



The Ki 46 was successful plane designed to do one mission and for the most part, employed on the mission it was designed for. This was not as common as we might expect with many aircraft forced into different roles than originally designed for. 

The Ki-46 was essentially an unarmed (or sketchley armed) flying fuel tank with a camera or two. A lot of things were sacrificed for low drag and high speed and that worked well for a reconnaissance plane. the Ki-46 II carried 365imp gallons internal and the Ki-46 III carried 417 imp gallons internal and 101.2 imp gallons in a drop tank. 
The Ki 46 didn't do High G maneuvers and didn't climb particularly well. no armor, no protection for the fuel, some early planes had a Lewis gun out the back, later ones got rid of it.

Low powered engines can work in some circumstances for a specialized aircraft, but even the Ki-46 IIs losses mounted when P-38s and Spitfire Vs showed up resulting in the Ki-46III which used 1500hp engines, the same engines used in the Ki-100 fighter, the last two Zero prototypes (A6M-8) the D4Y-3 Suisei and others, while not a large engine it was 1970 cu in and 48 in in diameter according to one source, so it wasn't small either.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 11, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Ki 46 was successful plane designed to do one mission and for the most part, employed on the mission it was designed for. This was not as common as we might expect with many aircraft forced into different roles than originally designed for.



You are missing the point. Even if it ended up as a one trick (short or long range recon) pony, if it was as successful as the Ki-46 it would have been of immense value to the RAF at least until the Mosquito became available in sufficient quantities. Do you know how many Tac-R Hurricanes got shot down in North Africa? F-4 (P-38s) didn't do much better. An untouchable recon aircraft would have been quite an asset.



> The Ki-46 was essentially an unarmed (or sketchley armed) flying fuel tank with a camera or two. A lot of things were sacrificed for low drag and high speed and that worked well



I know the history very well thank you. It _was _a 'flying fuel tank' because being based in the Pacific. To be a useful recon plane in that Theater it needed to be not only high speed and high altitude, it also needed fantastic range. So that plane had a 1,500 mile range. You could make a faster, more agile, armed version of the same plane with half as much fuel and it would still be useful to the RAF to fly recon trips over the Channel and the front line in Tunisia.



> Low powered engines can work in some circumstances for a specialized aircraft, but even the Ki-46 IIs losses mounted when P-38s and Spitfire Vs showed up resulting in the Ki-46III which used 1500hp engines, the same engines used in the Ki-100 fighter, the last two Zero prototypes (A6M-8) the D4Y-3 Suisei and others, while not a large engine it was 1970 cu in and 48 in in diameter according to one source, so it wasn't small either.



I already specified, by the mid war the really heavy duty engines started coming into their own. You had 1,500 - 1,800 hp inline engines and the 2,000-2,800 hp double row radials, you had MW /50 and NO2... all making it more practical for the medium sized and bigger planes to begin to realize their potential. The niche for the smaller planes was in the early war, when you really needed low drag to be able to get that high speed. Similar to how the Bf 109 was the speed demon until the Merlin 60 and the R-2800 started butting in.

But back in 1941 when it came into action, and all the way through 1942 I would say, the Ki-46 was a _damn _effective recon plane. A far sight more effective than the Blenheims and PBY's we were using for that role. And that is one of the most important missions the Air Forces do. The Ki-46 may have been limited into it's specialist niche if it was unmaneuverable, but that wouldn't have been the fault of the engines. The Whirlwind in fact _was_ a maneuverable aircraft by all accounts and we know was already capable of success as a fighter early on even with not fully developed engines..


----------



## stona (Nov 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> there could be at least 3 reasons, all are supposition on my part and there could be more or different reasons.
> Since it was designed as a long range and/or long endurance fighter
> 1. 2nd crewman was to assist in navigation.
> 2. 2nd crewman operated a radio of longer range and more complexity than they thought a pilot could operate while flying.
> 3. They knew radar was coming, but they didn't know when. they allowed for extra crewman and space for extra equipment should it become available during the planes development.



1 and 2 were pretty standard for a number of navies around the world. It seems probable that the Japanese Army would have adopted a similar principle for a long range reconnaissance aircraft.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 12, 2019)

stona said:


> 1 and 2 were pretty standard for a number of navies around the world. It seems probable that the Japanese Army would have adopted a similar principle for a long range reconnaissance aircraft.


Maybe. You can see the window in the fuselage for the rear crewman, plus his downward window for ground observation. Certainly the RAF used the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito for fast two man recon, but for the Japanese, facing an onslaught of heavy high altitude bombers, using a 440 mph, land-based heavy fighter for two-man reconnaissance seems wasteful. Given that it was first flown in Nov 1944 when inland reconnaissance is less a priority, I would have ditched the second man, reduced the weight and made the Ki-83 a HA interceptor.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> You are missing the point. Even if it ended up as a one trick (short or long range recon) pony, if it was as successful as the Ki-46 it would have been of immense value to the RAF at least until the Mosquito became available in sufficient quantities. Do you know how many Tac-R Hurricanes got shot down in North Africa? F-4 (P-38s) didn't do much better. An untouchable recon aircraft would have been quite an asset.



How many TAC-R Hurricanes got shot down is rather imaterial. You are also confusing missions. The Ki-46 was pretty much for high (or high considering the theater and time) strategic missions. Not low level tactical recon of front lines. Untouchable recon aircraft are always an asset but part of being untouchable depends on the opposition. 



Schweik said:


> I know the history very well thank you. It _was _a 'flying fuel tank' because being based in the Pacific. To be a useful recon plane in that Theater it needed to be not only high speed and high altitude, it also needed fantastic range. So that plane had a 1,500 mile range. You could make a faster, more agile, armed version of the same plane with half as much fuel and it would still be useful to the RAF to fly recon trips over the Channel and the front line in Tunisia.



I would note that the Mosquito flew it's first recon missions in Sept of 1941. In early 1942 a Mosquito recon plane had flown over Poland and one had done a round trip to Murmansk. 
as for " a faster, more agile, armed version of the same plane with half as much fuel and it would still be useful to the RAF to fly recon trips over the Channel"

Gee sounds like a Allison powered Mustang 
Unfortunately for your comparison, better planes for the jobs in the other theaters existed, the British just were not deploying them to those theaters. and trying to modify bombers or photo recon planes into fighters doesn't work well because they were never built to withstand high G maneuvers (even if the control authority allows it) and beefing up the structure to withstand High G maneuvers can add lot of weight. The P-38 carried about 3/4s of ton worth of armament and perhaps that is too much (500rpg of .50 cal ammo seems a bit excessive) but pulling around 940lbs of fuel out of the Ki-46 doesn't really give you enough weight for both guns/ammo and a slight bit of protection. 




Schweik said:


> I already specified, by the mid war the really heavy duty engines started coming into their own. You had 1,500 - 1,800 hp inline engines and the 2,000-2,800 hp double row radials, you had MW /50 and NO2... all making it more practical for the medium sized and bigger planes to begin to realize their potential. The niche for the smaller planes was in the early war, when you really needed low drag to be able to get that high speed. Similar to how the Bf 109 was the speed demon until the Merlin 60 and the R-2800 started butting in.



Well, the 109E was hardly a speed demon, that took the 109F. ANd the 109F had a few problems, like lack of range and lack of fire power. 



Schweik said:


> But back in 1941 when it came into action, and all the way through 1942 I would say, the Ki-46 was a _damn _effective recon plane. A far sight more effective than the Blenheims and PBY's we were using for that role. And that is one of the most important missions the Air Forces do. The Ki-46 may have been limited into it's specialist niche if it was unmaneuverable, but that wouldn't have been the fault of the engines. The Whirlwind in fact _was_ a maneuverable aircraft by all accounts and we know was already capable of success as a fighter early on even with not fully developed engines..



The QUestion on the Ki 46 is what would take to make in maneuverable? 
larger wing and tail control surfaces means more drag. More weight means already poor climb gets worse. ANd since you bleed off speed in maneuvers a low powered plane is at a disadvantage.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 12, 2019)

I think you are a bit at right angles to what I was trying to point out. I'll try to break it down in a more logical way than my past scattered posts.

I cited the Ki-46 as an example of what you could do with a Whirlwind, as a proof of concept of the small military aircraft in the sense that it was a successful design. In the case specifically of a successful small twin-engined warplane as a way to make a fast mover (by the standards of the early war) with limited engine power that was available at that time. 
The Ki-46, to be a useful recon plane for Japanese purposes in the Pacific, was made a very long ranged bird. This was something you saw as a flaw and described as a 'flying gas tank' but any truly long range aircraft is going to be a bit of that.
I'm sure there would be a way to make a Whirlwind into a long range aircraft but I suspect it would have been more useful and easier to get into action as a low altitude, short to medium ranged recon aircraft. Yes they had a Mustang I but those weren't the long range fighters of a later model Mustang, they also as you know had a serious problem with their ailerons which made them not particularly good at dogfighting. Hence their limited use.
Any successful mission role, IMO, would have warranted making and further developing both Whirlwind and the peregrine engine. If for no other reason than the (already repeatedly pointed out) waste of resources for aircraft types that either had no mission at all or had a mission that required a small percentage of the numbers being produced. Tactical Recon was a major problem for the Desert Air Force and a capable recon plane would have been very helpful.
The Whirlwind probably had at least two viable missions - dive bomber and short or medium range Tactical recon such as Tac-R missions, and probably a third as some kind of low altitude fighter.
You have a point about good planes like later model Spitfires and Mosquitos (and maybe Allison Mustangs?) being kept in Britain, but a cheaper aircraft like a Whirlwind would be a good one to send out to the secondary and tertiary Theaters. The mosquito by contrast proved problematic in Tropical environments due partly to the effects of humidity on it's laminated wood construction.
As for what made the Ki-46 "unmaneuverable", that is an unrelated issue to my point but I'm willing to go there. I have seen that comment but don't know what they mean by it precisely. It was obviously a low drag design so that may mean low drag wing shape which sometimes translates to lower lift. It may have just come down to reducing the fuel load or changing how the control surfaces were set up (as turned out to be the case with the P-51, a relatively minor change to the aileron seemed to fix it's maneuverability problems). Maybe bigger ailerons for roll or some maneuvering flaps for turn. I'd have to know more about what precisely was considered deficient. Wing loading doesn't look bad at all (32 lbs per square ft).


----------



## stona (Nov 12, 2019)

The problem with point 1 is that it uses two engines. The MAP was not at all happy about that, or the cost, both monetary and in materiel, of the Whirlwaind.

The problem with point 2 is the Spitfire. Cotton's Heston Flight was set up soon after the outbreak of the war. It was initially planned to use Blenheim's but they soon proved unsuitable. The answer was the Spitfire. This was a reflection of an August 1939 memorandum sent to the Air Ministry by Maurice Longbottom who had been involved in clandestine flights over Libya to photograph Italian fortifications.

_"...this type of reconnaissance must be done in such a manner as to avoid the enemy fighters and AA defences as completely as possible. The best method appears to be the use of a single small machine, relying solely on its speed, climb and ceiling to avoid detection."_

He was right, hence the PR Spitfire. There was interest in a PR Whirlwind. Westland gave some rather over optimistic estimations of such an aircraft's performance. When the A&AEE concluded that the service ceiling of a PR version would be as low as 28,000 feet this killed it off. Sholto-Douglas was informed

_"...It is therefore very disappointing indeed after what we had been told to learn that the Whirlwind has a ceiling of only 28,000 feet. I regret that this ceiling renders the aircraft unsuitable for the requirement and, in that event, the only thing to do is to renounce the 26 aircraft which I believe have been earmarked for this sort of work and to look around for something else..."_

Nice try, but it was tried at the time, and rejected.

Point 3 is moot because there was zero interest in doing any such thing.

Similarly point 4 because about a million posts ago I explained when and why the Peregrine engine was deleted. There was never any chance of it being developed.

Point 5 is largely what the Whirlwind did, but there was never a need for more of them. Eventually the Typhoon would do more, with one engine.

Point 6. The Whirlwind was not cheap. It was in fact very expensive, see my response to point 1.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 12, 2019)

stona said:


> The problem with point 1 is that it uses two engines. The MAP was not at all happy about that, or the cost, both monetary and in materiel, of the Whirlwaind.



There is more to expense than production cost. What's cheaper, two Hurricanes that get shot down on their first mission, or a Whirlwind that can last ten or twenty missions or more? (in both cases assuming the high loss rate of some kind of recon flights).

More to the point, a Henley or any of the other list of wasteful designs still being produced (and given valuable engines) had little to any use at all for _any_ kind of missions... you already had _plenty_ of old obsolete planes to use for target tugs.



> The problem with point 2 is the Spitfire. Cotton's Heston Flight was set up soon after the outbreak of the war. It was initially planned to use Blenheim's but they soon proved unsuitable. The



Spitfire PR was good, but as you noted, it was designed for that high altitude role, and many were proverbial "flying gas tanks" to use Shortrounds term. A low altitude fighting recon plane was also needed, in part due to the limitations of camera technology as well as the exigencies of weather. They did have some Spit Mk IV PR D types in the MTO I know, but they still used those poor Hurricane pilots for the TacR missions.

I already stipulated that the Whirlwind was going to be easier to make into a_ low_ alt recon plane than a high altitude - the high altitude role was reference to how the Ki-46 was historically used, which was necessary for a couple of different reasons in the Pacific.



> Nice try, but it was tried at the time, and rejected.



Oh it still could have been done, but it would have required a two stage or at least two speed engine, which would have meant a longer lasting development cycle for the Whirlwind. Something for the MK II or MK III Whirlwind.



> Point 3 is moot because there was zero interest in doing any such thing.



There absolutely _was_ interest which is why they used the Allison engined Mustang for so long, and why so many men died flying Hurricanes and Tomahawks and P-38s and Spitfires on recon missions. With two engines, and good single-engine performance, Whirlwind would have been good for the hairy tactical environment of the MTO and (with some increased fuel capacity and / or drop tanks) in longer flights over the Pacific or North / Baltic Sea.



> Similarly point 4 because about a million posts ago I explained when and why the Peregrine engine was deleted. There was never any chance of it being developed.



Well on the one hand we know they cancelled the Peregrine so in that sense you are right. What we are debating was whether that decision was correct and also (secondarily) whether another engine could have been used on the Whirlwind. It simply isn't the case that the Peregrine "_never had any chance of being developed"_ - it certainly could have been if the War ministry told RR to do so. Either through licensing or by using some of the capacity that was being diverted to Merlin engines for useless designs. The issue was that they couldn't see the reason to do so. We have the benefit of hindsight hence the entire point of the thread.



> Point 5 is largely what the Whirlwind did, but there was never a need for more of them. Eventually the Typhoon would do more, with one engine.



There was a _looong_ gap between the Whirlwinds first combat flight and the Typhoon actually becoming an effective and reliable combat aircraft. This is one of the points of developing the Whirlwind and one of the best reasons that the statement "_there was never any need for more of them_" is incorrect. What would have been better for England, 2,000 Whirlwinds chasing Stukas and Fw 190s around the coasts and the Channel, dive bombing ships and intruding over France, or the equivalent number of Defiants, Henleys, Lysanders, Bothas, Skuas, and Albacores? Which of the latter could have any hope of intercepting a Fw 190? Of surviving combat with a Bf 109? Of shooting down Bf 110s? Which would be a more efficient killer of Stukas and Ju 88s?



> Point 6. The Whirlwind was not cheap. It was in fact very expensive, see my response to point 1.



That may be a good point. However further development may have improved that issue as well, I am not qualified to say.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 12, 2019)

The need for an accurate dive bomber that had a reasonable chance of surviving an encounter with a first-line enemy fighter was very pressing, both in the Pacific and the MTO, and probably the CBI as well. The A-36 (Mustang) proved partly capable of that role (eventually) in the MTO and CBI, but was ultimately retired from it because it couldn't really take the strain of dive bombing pullouts.

The A-24 (Dauntless / Banshee) proved not really ready for Bf 109s in the MTO (basically not fast enough), same for the Albacore needless to say. Fighters could carry bombs but they bombed targets at a shallower angle than what was reported with the Whirlwind, and that means less accuracy. The Germans got a lot of mileage out of of their Ju 88 in the dive-bomber role and the Whirlwind could have been equivalent in many respects, and probably better against enemy fighters.

In the Pacific, until large numbers of Beaufighters arrived, I think the Whirlwind definitely had a useful potential niche.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

I agree with most everything you posted.

Except 


stona said:


> Point 5 is largely what the Whirlwind did, but there was never a need for more of them. Eventually the Typhoon would do more, *with one engine.*



It might be better said that the Typhoon did it with *one propeller* 

That Sabre engine might have been considerably more expensive than 2 Peregrines (assuming the Peregrines were built in quantity) 

The Typhoons reputation as fighter bomber was also achieved (mostly) using the Sabre IIA and II B engines and using the 4 bladed prop. 

An early (1942/early 1943) Typhoon may not have been a much better fighter bomber than the Whirlwind but it was already too late for the Whirlwind by several years.


----------



## Schweik (Nov 12, 2019)

Why is it too late for the Whirlwind? Weren't they still (amazingly) flying missions in 42-43? Imagine if you had some MK II and III ones available before that Sabre IIA with the 4 bladed prop was ready to go...


----------



## stona (Nov 12, 2019)

PR Spitfires were quite capable of doing low level PR work. I thought everyone had seen Tony Hill's images of the Bruneval site, taken from Spitfire R7044 on 5th December 1941, around about the time the Whirlwind was just supposedly becoming operational.







The Whirlwind was not fitted with bomb slips until October 1942. The first flight was made with racks fitted on the 21st. There were three operations in November. The decision to persevere with the Typhoon was taken in January 1943 (largely due to Beamont and 609 squadron's successes in France) and shortly after a dive bombing force was developed. 500lb bombs were released to the operational squadrons in early 1943, I'm not sure when the first operations were carried out. Maybe the gap between the Whirlibomber and the Bombphoon is not as large as you thought?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Well on the one hand we know they cancelled the Peregrine so in that sense you are right. What we are debating was whether that decision was correct and also (secondarily) whether another engine could have been used on the Whirlwind. It simply isn't the case that the Peregrine "_never had any chance of being developed"_ - it certainly could have been if the War ministry told RR to do so. Either through licensing or by using some of the capacity that was being diverted to Merlin engines for useless designs. The issue was that they couldn't see the reason to do so. We have the benefit of hindsight hence the entire point of the thread.



There are two issues here - development and production.

While production Merlins went into aircraft that were less than useful, the majority went into aircraft that were essential. Cancelling "useless" aircraft would free up Merlins for other use, but not production capacity for the engines. To build the Peregrine would require a new factory, or a changeover from a different engine.

Development is the bigger problem. 

While Rolls-Royce pushed very hard on the development of the Merlin they didn't have the resources to develop too much more. Developing the Peregrine would rob resources from other engines - the Merlin or the Griffon.

The Exe was cancelled around the same time as the Peregrine.
The Vulture development was paused during BoB, then cancelled in 1941.
Crecy development was continued, but essentially with a skeleton crew, hence its slow development.

So which would you sacrifice to pursue the Peregrine - the Merlin or the Griffon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Nov 12, 2019)

Cancel the vulture early that should free up enough to give you a few more Peregrines.

The point about the Henleys etc. was that they had some slack production of merlins if they could afford to put them on dedicated target tugs...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Nov 12, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Cancel the vulture early that should free up enough to give you a few more Peregrines.



Why would it? They are almost completely 2 different engines.




Schweik said:


> The point about the Henleys etc. was that they had some slack production of merlins if they could afford to put them on dedicated target tugs...



Sure the Merlins could have been used for more worthy aircraft, but that has no bearing on the possibility of making more Peregrines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

The Whirlwind, like a few other _small _twins, had some definite limitations.

A lot of people keep over estimating the Whirlwinds size. It was not a large airplane compared to many other western fighters, it had a smaller wing than Hurricane let alone a Typhoon (Or P-47 or F6F) and in fact only had 8 sq ft more than a normal Spitfire. There is only so much fuel you can put in it, it was never going to be a long range escort fighter (or even medium range one). but then neither was the Typhoon (154IMP gallons internal).

The Whirlwind was not going to be a long range recon plane, You could rip the guns out of the nose, you still weren't going to get enough fuel in the plane. 
It was never going to be a two seater (night fighter or???) except maybe a trainer, (rip out 2 or more guns add forward cockpit? 

The ability of the Whirlwind to get home on one engine is part illusion, some did, some did not.
This is not the fault of either the engine/s or the airframe but rather penny pinching that kept dual generators and duel hydraulic pumps from being fitted. However this flaw was rather wide spread and affected quite a number of multi engine planes. The early Halifax may have been one of the worst with 3 electric generators with no crossover, each generator ran all the electric in one part of the plane. If you lost an engine which gun turrets and other accessories still worked depended on which engine was lost. 
On the Whirlwind the propellers could not be feathered, just put into coarse pitch and a brake applied to keep the prop from turning. 
You also could not transfer fuel from one side of the airplane to the other. When you lost an engine the only fuel to get home with was the fuel in the wing next to the running engine. the fuel in the other wing was just so much dead weight. 
This could have been a easy fix on a later batch of aircraft. 

There were a number of things that could have done to improve the Whirlwind in a MK II (or III) version that do not require new or different engines. ANd the engines themselves did not need a lot of development. Just get them up to Merlin 45 standards and pick what altitude you want to fly and fit appropriate gear ratio and/or impeller. Do the development on the Merlin and let the improvements trickle down. Ground pounder Whirlwind? Peregrine equivalent to a Merlin 30 (or Merlin 45 with cropped impeller) more altitude? Peregrine version of Merlin 45 

The Whirlybomber only came into existence at a time when the only other active fighter bombers in England were two squadrons of Hurricanes. That was a lot of target area (NW Europe) for two squadrons of anything so fitting bomb racks to Whirlwinds doubled the number of fighter bomber squadrons crossing the channel at the time, rather pathetic but there you are. 

Without a 2nd or third use for the Peregrine I am afraid it's days were numbered ( would have made a nice tank engine without the supercharger to replace the Liberty as I have mentioned a few times before) Using it as a crash boat engine is stretching things but possible (it is too small for a MTB engine) but actual improvement over the Sea LIon may be small.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 12, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The Whirlwind, like a few other _small _twins, had some definite limitations.
> 
> A lot of people keep over estimating the Whirlwinds size. It was not a large airplane compared to many other western fighters, it had a smaller wing than Hurricane let alone a Typhoon (Or P-47 or F6F) and in fact only had 8 sq ft more than a normal Spitfire. There is only so much fuel you can put in it, it was never going to be a long range escort fighter (or even medium range one). but then neither was the Typhoon (154IMP gallons internal).
> 
> The Whirlwind was not going to be a long range recon plane, You could rip the guns out of the nose, you still weren't going to get enough fuel in the plane.



The most important reason to why Typhon nor Whirlwind were not long-range escort fighters was doctrine of the user at the time. Same goes for Hurricane, Spitfire and Tempest.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 12, 2019)

deleted


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> The most important reason to why Typhon nor Whirlwind were not long-range escort fighters was doctrine of the user at the time. Same goes for Hurricane, Spitfire and Tempest.



Everything is tied together. Part of the British "doctrine" in the late 30s was getting the planes out of and into small airfields, 

From the Thread on the Meteor vs 262.



nuuumannn said:


> Performance: The maximum speed at 30,000ft shall not be less than 430mph. When taking off from a* grass surface with full fuel and military load* the aircraft shall be capable of *crossing a 50ft screen within a distance of 600 yards in stillair*. On* landing* the aircraft should come to *rest in not more than 700 yards, with full fuel and military load*."



bolding by me. 

If in 1940 this was the requirement for a jet fighter one can imagine the reception a piston engine fighter would have gotten in 1938 if the maker had told the Air MInistry, hey it's got great range, it can fly 1000 miles but it needs 800yds to clear the 50ft screen on take-off" Just build bigger airfields to accept the plane. 
BTW a P-40E needed 750 yds to take-off from grass in zero wind to clear 50ft with no drop tank (8100lbs). At 8700lbs it needed just over 900 yds. 

By the time the jets flew this requirement was nonsense.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 12, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> How does the Curtiss YA-14 compare? Was a single seat version considered?


Why don't you google it and tell us your conclusion?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 13, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> Everything is tied together. Part of the British "doctrine" in the late 30s was getting the planes out of and into small airfields,
> ...
> If in 1940 this was the requirement for a jet fighter one can imagine the reception a piston engine fighter would have gotten in 1938 if the maker had told the Air MInistry, hey it's got great range, it can fly 1000 miles but it needs 800yds to clear the 50ft screen on take-off" Just build bigger airfields to accept the plane.



There is no need to make new & bigger airfields, LR fighter will use same airfield for take-off that Battle is to be using.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 13, 2019)

What makes you think the Battle used a large airfield?

422 sq ft of wing for a 10,800lb airplane means a wing loading of under 26lbs per sq ft.
that a thick, high lift airfoil may have done the job.





Lets remember that a MK I Blenheim Bomber at 12,500 lbs was supposed to have a take off run of 296 yds (not to 50ft?) and a landing run with brakes of 364yds. with a wing loading of about 26.6lbs. Landing speed was supposed to be 50mph? (figures from 1938 Jane's) could be a misprint I suppose? and/or landing speed was really stalling speed? some books from the 30s tend to interchange the terms. 

Blenheim V was supposed to have a stalling speed of 70mph, wheels and flaps down, at 16,000lbs. per the pilots manual. 

There is a reason the Whitley used an 1100sq ft wing on an under 24,000lb airplane (MK IV, the earlier Whitleys were lighter)
And the weird scheme of wanting to catapult launch the Manchester bomber (at least in the planing stages).
Not all British airfields were tiny but in the mid to late 30s there were not many large ones. Bombers were lucky to get two pitch props and the fixed pitch props on the early fighters just about crippled them.
Fortunately somebody figured that a fixed prop on a 1700-2000hp was not a good idea and the Typhoon series never got that handicap.


----------



## stona (Nov 14, 2019)

The Whirlwind had many problems, but a long landing distance was not one of them, despite the need to maintain power to maintain rudder and elevator authority. The A&AEE reported in 1938 that the landing was ‘not fast or excessively long’ at 635 yards. I assume that is the landing distance (over that imaginary fence) which is therefore not dissimilar to the Hurricane.

Post 1935 RAF aerodromes were supposed to have a landing run of 1,100 yards, though not all did.

Whirlwinds operated from RAF Warmwell, in Dorset, a pre-war airfield originally considered suitable only for biplanes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 14, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> What makes you think the Battle used a large airfield?
> 
> 422 sq ft of wing for a 10,800lb airplane means a wing loading of under 26lbs per sq ft.
> that a thick, high lift airfoil may have done the job.
> ...



I've never said that Battle used large airfields.
Hurricane was renown for thick airfoil and low wing loading every bit as Battle or Blenheim. 
The Hurricane prototype (K-5083, fixed-pitch prop) needed 265 yards for take off @5672 lbs. Landing speed was under 60 mph. At 6040 lbs (a more realistic service-worthy example) needed 370 yds. 
Later, Hurricane I weighting 6363 lbs and fitted with 2-pitch prop needed 280 yds, or 240 yds with Rotol prop and 6316 lbs (280 yds with flaps at 20 deg and 6700 lbs).
LR hurricane will need drop tanks (say, 2 x 45 imp gals) and extra fuel internally (20 imp gals?) 110 imp gals x 7.2 lbs/gal= 792 lbs; there is some weight for plumbing and tanks themselves - another 100 lbs? So we have LR Hurricane at 7000-7500 lbs. Wing loading between 27 and 29 lbs/sq ft.
If we add another 100 yds for the LR Hurricane take-off distance, there is still no need for big aerodromes.

P-40 can't compete if we want low wing loading - at 8100 (P-40E clean) it is 34.3 lbs/sq ft. British fighters that mattered early on (Hurricane, Spitfire) were much better in that regard.

Blenheim I needed 700 yds to clear 50 ft obstacle (at max weight of 12500 lbs). Hurricane I needed between 420 and 580, depending on weight and prop type.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 14, 2019)

stona said:


> The Whirlwind had many problems, but a long landing distance was not one of them,


Here's one landing on a grass strip. Doesn't seem overly long too me.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Nov 15, 2019)

Not difficult to see why they kept breaking their tail wheels!

Edit: I thought I'd take a closer look at the tailwheel issue. Here is a list of Whirlwinds which suffered tailwheel collapses.

P6996, P6970, P6979 (x2), P6968, P7035, P7096, P7041, P7051 (x2), P7002, P7110, P7056, P7046 (x2), P7048, P7005, P6987, P7058, P6993, P7011.

That's 21 tailwheel collapses. There were only just over 100 Whirlwinds built. Westland never solved the issue, the last collapse was in June 1943.

In addition there were other problems with the tailwheel.

P6973 failed to lower, P6998 failed to lock down, P7004 burst tyre, P7036 failed to lower, P7096 failed to lower, P7110 failed to lower and a stern frame failure, P7043 stern frame failure, P7092 failed to lock down.

Almost 1 in 5 Whirlwinds suffered tailwheel issues or collapses, imagine if that was the Hurricane or Spitfire; that would be thousands of collapses! No wonder Fighter Command didn't want them too far away from Yeovil.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 15, 2019)

Apologies if this is already here, I can't read all 25 pages from the office  But very interesting piece below on the aerodynamic thinking that went into the Whirlwind. 

Whirlwind Fighter Project: July 2015

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## hobbes154 (Feb 15, 2020)

stona said:


> During the rearmament period there were no engine shortages and the Air Ministry focussed on the airframe sector. Orders for all aero-engines fluctuated, it was the slow development of airframe production that led to Merlin orders for 1938 being progressively reduced from 2220 to 1470, an output which did not absorb R-R's maximum current production capacity, while at the same time the company was being asked to expand this capacity!



Fascinating. I always assumed the opposite - that Merlin production was a binding constraint on prewar rearmament.

Therefore my Whirlwind (or Gloster G.39) fantasy was producing it two years sooner with standard Kestrels/Mercuries, to increase the number of useful fighters at the outbreak of war without cutting into Hurricane or Spitfire production. 

But if there was more Merlin capacity than good airframes to put them in, designing a new airframe to use inferior engines seems a waste of time. 

(Sorry for late reply, but this thread was already necroed once, so what the hell.)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Feb 15, 2020)

hobbes154 said:


> Fascinating. I always assumed the opposite - that Merlin production was a binding constraint on prewar rearmament.
> 
> Therefore my Whirlwind (or Gloster G.39) fantasy was producing it two years sooner with standard Kestrels/Mercuries, to increase the number of useful fighters at the outbreak of war without cutting into Hurricane or Spitfire production.
> 
> ...


If I had spare Merlins, I would have but the in the Gloster twin. Lots more wing area to cope with higher weights.


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 5, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Whirlwind's issue will be ammunition, since with only 60 rounds per gun, you'd better shoot sparingly and with utmost accuracy. Would under wing .303 mg pods be a quick add-on? Like on this Potez POTEZ 63/11


There were circular cut-outs in the underside of the wing for the drum magazines POTEZ 63/11

You either need a much larger pod to accommodate the ammunition, or you need to figure out where you can cut into the wing and fit ammunition inside. Of course, the MACs on the Po63.11 were easy to reload: refill the drum and bolt the pod back on. If you're putting a belt feed into the wing, you need access hatches in the top of the wing to reload. More complexity, not necessarily impossible.

Remember that the belts can fold the belts back over themselves, but they have to lie directly spanwise from the feed. You can't twist them through 90 degrees to run back along the chord If the ammunition is in the pod, the pod is going to be so much larger that the drag will we intolerable, unless you can put the ammunition on top and also make a really big cutout in the wing so that the ammunition fits into it. At that point, you're back to a lot of the space problems I already mentioned.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

What if you make the guns longer-barreled and put the gun itself and the ammunition behind the cockpit, stagger them. Should be able to fit 120 round cans anyway.


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 5, 2020)

Schweik said:


> What if you make the guns longer-barreled and put the gun itself and the ammunition behind the cockpit, stagger them. Should be able to fit 120 round cans anyway.


You can see from the cutaway in this post that it won't work. The fuselage isn't tall enough. You can't just lengthen the barrels for a whole bunch of reasons, but you can use blast tubes, but I wouldn't want to be sitting on top of one of them ...

You can see that there's no place to put partially-internal gun pods. The radiators are in the inner wings and there are fuel tanks in the middle wings. You can't load the outer wings (not strong enough).

The nail in the coffin is that the props simply block the inner and middle wings (see below).

At least on the H.S.404s, the 60 round drums couldn't be fully-loaded without inevitable jams. Some units only loaded 30 rounds in the magazines. With a 120-round drum, the variation in spring pressure would be so large that I can't image maintaining any sort of reliability. That's why belt feeds were so desirable. (The Bf109Es were not immune to the problem, and I believe it was the Swiss Bf109s that had serious problems with jams.)

This post shows the actual projects to increase armament, which involved lengthening the nose, or using a weapon pod with 12(!) .30 MGs. Westland Whirlwind It managed 120rpg for the HS Mk.IIs. I doubt that the CG changes were much fun ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

How about two 20mm with 120 round belts in the fuselage, using blast tubes. Too much weight?


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 5, 2020)

Schweik said:


> How about two 20mm with 120 round belts in the fuselage, using blast tubes. Too much weight?


Sorry, I apparently left out the first link to a post of a cutaway. I don't think there's space to gun the barrels under the fuselage. The breaches would have to be behind the cockpit. The original question was about whether "a quick modification." This would be a major structural modification.

Is your plan to leave the two upper guns in the nose and move the lower guns back? That's taking a lot of weight out of the nose and moving it way behind the CL and CG. If you wanted to eliminate the nose guns completely and just have two cannon with 120rpg in the rear fuselage, you'd want to move the cockpit well forward, shorten the nose, bulge the lower fuselage, and end up with an undergunned Westland Welkin with shorter wings.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

I'm not convinced it would be quite that difficult to fit two guns in the nose somehow with 120 rounds. They did it on a lot of other planes. Looking at them side by side the nose and fuselage of the Bf 110 isn't much bigger diameter than the Whirlwind (it's a much bigger plane but it's fairly slim in the fuselage). And they managed to fit four .30 cal and two 20mm, which is plenty. I think two x 20mm with 120 rounds is better armament than four x 20mm with 60 rounds (or even less if the drums are unreliable at full capacity). 

Let's also keep in mind that the Whirlwind was in action / available for a fairly long time, from 1940 through almost the end of 1943. That is a pretty wide window in which to figure out how to improve the gun layout a little bit. I don't believe it's so hard to sort it out, similar changes were done to dozens of other aircraft in less time.

If you had a 2 cannon Whirlwind with a few other incremental improvements in say, 1942, I think that would have been very helpful for the DAF for example.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2020)

The cannon on the Bf 110 were not really in the nose. Under the cockpit, firing via blast tubes through the underside of the nose would be more accurate. The breeches were behind the pilot.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

I'm well aware. That is what I was just suggesting, right? I think you could fit a couple of LMG in the nose and two x 20 mm beneath or behind the pilot, belt fed. That would be plenty of firepower and better than four x 20mm with the 60 rd. drums.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2020)

This was nowhere near as hard as people are making it out to be. 

There were two different four 20mm cannon set ups with more ammo than the 60 drums. 
While looking for a solution to the 60 round drum problem and while waiting for the belt feed some unsung hero (and it is good that he/they remain anonymous) developed an air powered magazine system. When test fired _one_ gun exhausted the air supply (air bottle) well before the ammo was used up, let alone trying to power four guns. 

Some of the experimental set ups are shown back on page 10. 
Westland Whirlwind revisited 

They did full mock ups of magazines holding 110-120 rounds per gun plus three .303 guns. 
There was also an alternative cannon layout with all four guns in row with the outer guns further back than the inner guns. 

The room for more ammo existed. The engineering capacity almost existed. The will or manpower to actually manufacture the new nose sections and install them on existing aircraft (or make a MK II on the production line) did not. 

If it didn't there sure wasn't the manpower or will to go cutting holes in wings or trying to scab on .303 guns under the wing. 

Replace the air powered magazines with the same belt feeds used the Beaufighter or Hurricane IIs. 
Problem solved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

Well we know they didn't do it historically so that kind of puts a limit on how far is speculation can run. But that seems like within the realm of what would be a good idea at least in retrospect. I also think they could put in some more redundancy on a couple of systems without too much pain for added weight. and for that matter it's a cinch they could have gotten a little more power out of those peregrine's.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 5, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I'm not convinced it would be quite that difficult to fit two guns in the nose somehow with 120 rounds.


I agree. If the P-39 could run a drive shaft between the pilot’s legs I don’t see why an ammunition belt could be run from behind the pilot to the Whirlwind‘s guns in the nose. 






AIUI, the belts didn’t yet exist for the Whirlwind’s guns, so drums were settled for.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 5, 2020)

all I was saying was if you can't fit the guns in the nose with the ammunition then put the guns behind the pilot but it's probable that you could fit them in the nose. Especially if you dropped it from four cannon to less


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2020)

If you won't go back and look at the photos here they are again.




Upper left, four 20mm guns with 110-120 rounds apiece depending on source, this one says 120rpg. Plus three .303 guns. 
There is at least one photo of the Prototype P.9 fitted with the guns (or mock ups), I don't know if it was flown that way. 




Since the Hurricane only carried 90rpg and the Typhoon 140rpg a Whirlwind with 110-120rpg wouldn't have been that far off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2020)

Several armament installations were tested on L6844: four belt fed cannon in a row, four cannon and three Browning machine guns, a 37-mm cannon, and the Martin Baker Company produced a twelve gun nose pod. None of these versions went into production.

The cannon were cocked on the ground prior to take-off and fired hydraulically on aircraft up to P6969, and pneumatically on all subsequent aircraft.

It obviously wasn't 'easy' to adopt a different system, because the British tried and failed. It was also not practical to introduce a new system, even when it worked, at the end of a short production run.

The first attempt was the 121 round Hydran magazines. These were initially tried in a single gun installation and there were issues with negative 'g' and firing short bursts, both of which resulted in stoppages. Hydran modified the magazine and a full four gun installation was tested, revealing further problems, the ammunition boxes were too fragile and too heavy (the magazine weighed 35lbs empty and over 100lbs when full, very difficult to lift and fit in the nose of the Whirlwind). More seriously, the magazine consumed pneumatic pressure so quickly that after a single long burst it had dropped to a level lower than that required for it to function. The Whirlwind had no pneumatic pump, the only source of air was a fixed bottle in the nose. Clearly a plan B was needed.

The French had realised the limitations of drum fed Hispano and Manufacture National d'armes de Chatellerault (MAC) had developed a belt feed that looked far more promising than any of the British projects. A model of the feed and drawings were brought to England in May 1940. On 8 October 1940 it was decided to abandon the Hydran system and accelerate the development of the Chatellerault feed. Westland had already been instructed to develop a trial installation and was constructing a new nose for the aircraft. L6844 turned up at the A&AEE in September for trials. The belt feed installation was technically cleared, but it was decided not to introduce it into production because it would only be possible for the last few aircraft of the Whirlwind's limited production run. It was not considered worth retro-fitting the installation and new nose to aircraft already in service.

The Whirlwind soldiered on with its unreliable '60' round drums, and for very good reasons. No. 263 squadron, did look at the possibility of mounting the four cannon vertically (they were inclined slightly outwards to allow clearance for the magazines) but this was deemed impractical. The squadron was lucky to have S/L Munro, who was charged with the task of _‘persuading the cannon to fire without continual stoppages’_. The Hispanos had a habit of stopping after just a few rounds, and when they did fire, the blast wave buckled the nose cone. This fairing was initially made from aluminium sheet over duralumin formers, but thicker sheet and the addition of duralumin blast tubes quickly solved this problem. The stoppages took a little longer. S/L Munro was the ideal man for the job as he had written the original armament installation specification for the aircraft, and it was on his instructions that P6970 and subsequent aircraft fired their cannons pneumatically not hydraulically as originally designed. Munro eventually moved on and took command of the Air Gun Mounting Establishment (AGME) at Duxford.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 6, 2020)

Probably repeating myself from other posts; given the number of Perseus Westlands used up in pointless Lysanders, to me the obvious POD for a Whirlwind would have been to use Perseus instead of Peregrines. Lighter, allowing wing roots to hold fuel instead of radiators, and leaving an option to upgrade to the Taurus later. An alternative would be Mercuries. Someone will say 'but the Taurus was unreliable'. So it was, when pushed, but the OTL production Taurus went into over ocean flying Beauforts and Albacores. So OTL the Peregrine Whirlwind has 1,650 bhp, the Perseus 1,800bhp and the Taurus has just over 2,000 bhp. No new engines and all in production.

Someone will also say 'Twin Wasp' as was projected for the Beaufort. However they had a bad habit of dropping to the sea bed courtesy of the German Navy.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 7, 2020)

yulzari said:


> to me the obvious POD for a Whirlwind would have been to use Perseus instead of Peregrines. Lighter, allowing wing roots to hold fuel instead of radiators, and leaving an option to upgrade to the Taurus later. An alternative would be Mercuries.


I like it, and a Bristol radial will free up RR to make their Merlins. From certain angles it would look like the Iman Ro.57. This person modeled one, looking sharp, IMO.






Our resident contrarians will tell us why it shouldn’t, couldn’t or wouldn’t have happened, but a Bristol Whirlwind redesign also presents opportunities to swap in Curtiss and P&W engines if Whirlwinds we’re produced offshore, by CAC alongside their Beaufort line (shown below at Fishermen’s Bend, Melbourne, Australia in 1943), for example. P&W Australia were already making the R-1830 Twin Wasp for the Beauforts. 





Fishermans Bend Aerodrome


----------



## MiTasol (Aug 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> if Whirlwinds we’re produced offshore, by CAC alongside their Beaufort line (shown below at Fishermen’s Bend, Melbourne, Australia in 1943), for example. P&W Australia were already making the R-1830 Twin Wasp for the Beauforts.



That is the DAP factory which produced Beauforts, Beaufighters and Lincolns. CAC were on the same airfield and CAC built the Pratt R-1340 and R-1830 engines.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I agree. If the P-39 could run a drive shaft between the pilot’s legs I don’t see why an ammunition belt could be run from behind the pilot to the Whirlwind‘s guns in the nose.



Because you *can't* kink a .303 Browning belt through 90 degrees. The links can't flex nearly that far. Even if they could, that much kink is an invitation to jam, pop links free, and otherwise mess up the operation.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 7, 2020)

elbmc1969 said:


> Because you *can't* kink a .303 Browning belt through 90 degrees. The links can't flex nearly that far. Even if they could, that much kink is an invitation to jam, pop links free, and otherwise mess up the operation.


This is what I have in mind, like the Lancaster, with belts behind the pilot, turning through 90 degrees to the quad guns.






Lancaster Mk X, MR/MP Armament







Or like this, a 90 degree bend from the box to the gun.






Just put the Whirlwind’s ammo box behind the pilot. Something will need to be moved forward for CoG, maybe fuel or the radio?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 7, 2020)

Has anyone mocked up a Lancaster Turret on the front of a Whirlwind? I think it could work!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2020)

elbmc1969 said:


> Because you *can't* kink a .303 Browning belt through 90 degrees. The links can't flex nearly that far. Even if they could, that much kink is an invitation to jam, pop links free, and otherwise mess up the operation.


 See pictures of the mock ups. they were planning on turning the belt 90 degrees. Granted it is a mock up. it can be done, you just need a lot of room to do it. 
Gun pod under a wing is a whole lot different than the front fuselage of the Whirlwind let alone a bomber fuselage.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Just put the Whirlwind’s ammo box behind the pilot. Something will need to be moved forward for CoG, maybe fuel or the radio?


Why????????
If they had belt feeds they could fit about 120 rounds per gun in the forward fuselage. Most planes armed with 20mm guns had about 120-150 rounds per gun. The Mosquito only carried 150rpg so jumping through hoops to give the Whirlwind more than 120 rounds per gun seems like too much work for too little return.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Or like this, a 90 degree bend from the box to the gun.
> 
> View attachment 591282
> 
> ...


This worked because the aircraft were designed for low G-loads and for firing with right about 1G on. Imagine pulling 5G with those drooping belts and trying to fire them. That's vastly more resistance to the gun trying to pull the belt through.

On the Lanc: "Frequent checks of the ammunition ducts had to be made to ensure that correct alignment was maintained between the separate lengths of duct and between the ducts and the ammunition boxes."

Of course, the F-8 was notorious for ammo feed problems because of the complex feed pattern.


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 7, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> See pictures of the mock ups. they were planning on turning the belt 90 degrees. Granted it is a mock up. it can be done, you just need a lot of room to do it.
> Gun pod under a wing is a whole lot different than the front fuselage of the Whirlwind let alone a bomber fuselage.


I stand corrected!

The corkscrew feed is ... uh ...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 7, 2020)

All in all, I like the four drum-fed cannons on the Whirlwind as is. If we’re fixing anything it needs to be in service earlier, with improved HA performance and fuelling, both in endurance and with a tank transfer valve.

Adding underwing .303 pods in place of the two 250 lb. bombs might be useful, but they’ll slow her down. Like the Gloster Gladiator’s .303 conformal pods, or the Bell P-63 and its larger .50 cal pods. As mentioned earlier, space will need to be found in the wing to support the added armament.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I like it, and a Bristol radial will free up RR to make their Merlins. From certain angles it would look like the Iman Ro.57. This person modeled one, looking sharp, IMO.
> 
> View attachment 591275
> 
> ...



Nobody wants to talk about the absolutely bad performance such a plane would have???????? 

It seems I am one of the resident contrarians, 
The Italian plane managed 311mph at 16,404 ft using engines that gave 840hp at 12,500ft. Other sources may differ on power/altitude. 
The Fiat engine was only 46.8in in diameter with a frontal area of 11.9 sq ft. The plane carried a pair of 12.7mm machine guns. 

Suggested engines seem to be.
The Perseus X ? 750hp for take-off and 880 hp at 15,500ft , 52in in diameter, frontal area 14.7 sq ft. again sources differ on diameter.
The Mercury....725hp for take-off and 840hp at 14,000ft. 51.5in diameter, frontal area 14.5 sq ft. 
Taurus less said the better.
Cyclone 9? 1200hp for take-off, 1000hp at 14,000ft, 55.1in diameter and 16.6 sq ft of frontal area. 
Twin Wasp? 1200hp for take-off 1050hp at 13,100ft 48.1in diameter 12.6 sq ft frontal area. around 1460lbs for the two speed single stage engine. 
None of the these engines provide any exhaust thrust, at least not at this time or with existing cowlings. Not that the Peregrine in the Whirlwind got much in the way of exhaust thrust with the exhaust shrouds/manifolds it used. 

Using British radials gives you a total dog of an aircraft and swapping in the American engines comes in late in the game. 
The P-36 had about 22% more drag than an early P-40 all due to the radial engine (and loss of exhaust thrust?) and you guys want to hang TWO high drag radials on a small plane????


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 7, 2020)

As for fitting Gladiator-like .303 conformal underwing guns, there seems to be internal space outboard of the wing tanks. Though behind and below the pilot may be better, if CoG can be protected.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elbmc1969 (Aug 7, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It seems I am one of the resident contrarians,


Not a contrarian = fantasist.



Shortround6 said:


> Using British radials gives you a total dog of an aircraft and swapping in the American engines comes in late in the game.
> The P-36 had about 22% more drag than an early P-40 all due to the radial engine (and loss of exhaust thrust?) and you guys want to hang TWO high drag radials on a small plane????


And yet, the P-40E gained only 20mph over the P-36 ...

By late war, of course, the radials were getting thrust from the cooling air, along the lines of the famous Meredith effect.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2020)

Why????
You have four 20mm guns, which, in 1941 could easily have been fitted with belt feeds with double the ammo, a few ,303 guns are going to make very little difference to the target. 
If fourty 20mm shells a second doesn't wreck the target then a few .303 guns isn't really going to do much. 
You are also falling into the German trap, fitting guns with rather different times of flight/aiming points so if one set of guns is on target the other set is off target. 
Belly gun pod also slows the plane down. 
Belt fed guns might not have had the exposed recoil springs meaning less drag. Belt fed guns needed more recoil energy to operate the belt feed mechanism

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 7, 2020)

elbmc1969 said:


> Not a contrarian = fantasist.
> 
> 
> And yet, the P-40E gained only 20mph over the P-36 ...
> ...



Mighty slow P-40E???
P-40E was usually credited with a speed of 354mph at 15,000ft.
P-36 did 334MPH?
This is not a fair comparison as the P-40E engine made more power at higher altitude. so

at 5.000ft P-36A did 281mph using 1045hp from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36A_38-180_PHQ-M-19-1180-A.pdf

at 5,000ft P-40B did 319mph using 1085hp from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36A_38-180_PHQ-M-19-1180-A.pdf

Please note the P-40B could do 307mph at 5000ft using 950hp

other tests of later P-40s show low drag, like 276mph at 5300ft using 750hp (2280 rpm)
or P-40D doing 326mph at 5175ft using 1150 hp

There are a lot ot tests at Spitfire Performance that show cruising powers needed for speeds for both the P-36 and the P-40s. The P-40s always use much less power despite heavier weights.

Yes radial installations got better, in some cases much better, but that rather requires a time machine to get the radial Whirlwind to work, unless the goal is to have radial Whirlwinds in 1943/44 at which point they are really not needed.

The experimental two stage R-1830 installed in the 10th P-40 airframe by P & W is reckoned to have gotten the drag difference down to 8% (and/or made much better use of exhaust thrust than most other radials). ANd please note the R-1830 is the smallest diameter (least frontal area ) engine of the available engines, which means the others are just going to be worse.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 8, 2020)

Contrarian or someone who sticks to established facts and precedents.

Fact number 1. Once the Peregrine was abandoned the Whirlwind was a dead duck. Everything else is fantasy.

As for armament. The British did develop a successful belt feed for the cannon, they just decided it wasn't worth fitting to the last of the aircraft in the production run and certainly wasn't worth fitting to those already cluttering up airfields in unserviceable states. This relates to Fact number 1.
The British had more pressing things to do in 1941 than fit a new nose and armament package to an aircraft equipping two squadrons, on a good day, when enough of them could be cleared to fly.

I really can't see the point in fitting gun pods on the outboard wings, presumably outside the propeller arcs, even if it was practical. There were enough problems with slats coming off (until they wired them shut) and wing tips failing as it was. This really is fantasy.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 8, 2020)

But if one takes the POD back to the original design then there are advantages to the radial option. Weight and fuel capacity for instance. No special engine. The two small radials and development to the Taurus which was fit for use over the sea IOTL if not developed to push more power out of it. BY 1944 the Taurus Whirlwind could be on 2,600 bhp. with the late heads. The engines are not going to be abandoned and can lever off excess Lysander production.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2020)

I agree the Whirlwind was dead without the Peregrine. The other engines are just too big for that small aircraft. It's small size was it's selling point. Nor does it need more guns. Of course we know that further development of the aircraft didn't happen so it's only a 'what if'. But if you think any speculation about it is useless why participate in the thread? It's a "what if" thread. We are just exploring the feasibility, as in, "_could_ they have done it." So far we have established the following:

The British were manufacturing at least half a dozen basically useless aircraft, some of them getting very nice engines by the way, for another year or two after the Whirlwind was combat worthy.
RR was not at full capacity making Merlin's and probably _did_ have sufficient slack capacity to make more peregrines, again for at least a year or two.
Whirlwind was still being used in 1943 which is plenty of time to make an improved version.
It would not have been hard to change the guns to belt fed.
I would agree the most useful improvements, aside from changing the guns to belt fed & just fixing some of the early minor design issues like adding redundancy and so on, would be improving fuel capacity as much as was reasonable. A two speed engine would also be nice but I think there was a niche for a maneuverable low / medium altitude fighter with 360 mph speed on the deck. I am certain it would have been helpful both around Malta and in the Western Desert. I suspect it would have been quite helpful in the English channel and the waters along the coast of Norway and so on.

What made the Whirlwind so good so early on, was to a large extent it's small size. So I don't see putting bigger engines on it, especially radials which would increase low altitude drag a lot. And obviously due to the size there will be some inherent limitations as to range, though I think there was room for some more gas. A two speed engine probably wasn't out of the question but would have required time, effort, money and attention from RR or some other Strategically vital firm.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2020)

I think the main real reason it wasn't continued is just because they couldn't read the future. They had no way of knowing there was still a need for a good low-level fighter in 1941, 42, and 43. And no, I don't think the Allison Mustang filled that niche. Recon yes, fighter not so much.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 8, 2020)

I am puzzled by references to the Perseus etc. as large engines. Lighter than the Peregrine wet weight and not that much greater in frontal area with a height of 41 inches and adding in the frontal area of the radiators.


----------



## stona (Aug 8, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I agree the Whirlwind was dead without the Peregrine. The other engines are just too big for that small aircraft. It's small size was it's selling point. Nor does it need more guns. Of course we know that further development of the aircraft didn't happen so it's only a 'what if'. But if you think any speculation about it is useless why participate in the thread?



Simply providing a reality check to some of the more ridiculous suggestions.

Consider me out, I won't bother anymore.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2020)

Too much coffee this morning?


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 8, 2020)

Would the Allison have worked better than the radials? Availability might be a limiting factor.

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Schweik (Aug 8, 2020)

Too big


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2020)

yulzari said:


> I am puzzled by references to the Perseus etc. as large engines. Lighter than the Peregrine wet weight and not that much greater in frontal area with a height of 41 inches and adding in the frontal area of the radiators.




The Peregrine has a frontal area of 5 sq ft vs the Perseus frontal area of 14.7 sq ft. 
One source claims the Peregrine was 27.1 in wide. Granted the V -12 cowling cannot follow the shape of the engine as closely as the cowling of a radial. 

The Whirlwind put the radiators inside the wing meaning there was no increase in frontal area of the aircraft itself. There is the drag of the air going through the duct and the radiator cores. But then you have the drag of the cooling air going through the radial cowling. 

Unless you can come up with a cowling that is the equal or better than the one used on the FW 190 you are pretty much stuck with a rather high drag cowling. 
9 cylinder radials being worst engines in the power to frontal area sweepstakes. This was part of the rational for the Taurus. a 25.4 liter engine of 46.2in diameter/11.7 sq ft frontal area vrs the 24.9 liter Perseus. 
The other part/s of the rational was the higher rpm and that smaller cylinders are easier to cool. the last was not proved by the Taurus. The chronic cooling problems seem to be solved, in part, by using the engine at low altitudes in thick/dense air that gave better cooling. 

The Perseus was supposed to be about 0.2 in smaller in diameter than a P & W R-2800 so yes, I will call it a large engine in size/frontal area.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2020)

Perseus engine on a Botha.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 8, 2020)

My apologies if this was mentioned earlier, but didn’t Westland essentially upgrade the Whirlwind to become the Welkin? Other than the design for very high altitude combat you have the redesign for RR Merlin’s, the guns are reconfigured for more ammo and service, and you have more fuel. It’s unfortunate that the need disappeared before it could contribute to the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 8, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> My apologies if this was mentioned earlier, but didn’t Westland *essentially upgrade* the Whirlwind to become the Welkin? Other than the design for very high altitude combat you have the redesign for RR Merlin’s, the guns are reconfigured for more ammo and service, and you have more fuel.




_Upgrade_,
_develop from
adaptation_

simple words for plane that added 25ft of wing span, 210 sq ft of wing area, over 9 ft of length and and weighed empty (no guns/equipment) what the Whirlwind did loaded with a pair of bombs under the wings. When loaded it was 74% heavier.

I would guess that there was darn little left of the Whirlwind except for the general shape and even that took a a rather hard squint.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 8, 2020)

Schweik said:


> ... They had no way of knowing there was still *a need for a good low-level fighter in 1941, 42, and 43*. And no, I don't think the Allison Mustang filled that niche. Recon yes, fighter not so much.


However, Allison powered aircraft were in their element at lower altitudes.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> However, Allison powered aircraft were in their element at lower altitudes.



The Allison P-51 had other problems, apparently an issue with the Ailerons


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> My apologies if this was mentioned earlier, but didn’t Westland essentially upgrade the Whirlwind to become the Welkin? Other than the design for very high altitude combat you have the redesign for RR Merlin’s, the guns are reconfigured for more ammo and service, and you have more fuel. It’s unfortunate that the need disappeared before it could contribute to the war.
> 
> View attachment 591383



Actually, I think this is a really good point. The Welkin was a far more radical redesign than I was suggesting, with a 70' long, completely redesigned wing and a pressurized cockpit (requiring an extra supercharger) but it does give some idea what could be done. And it did for example put the gun pod in the center which had the added benefit of hiding the muzzle flash better. 

It kind of makes me rethink the possibility of using a Merlin or an Allison actually. Though I still have faith in the Peregrin. 

Welkin was a major project which took a while to sort out, but something about halfway as ambitious, or maybe a quarter, (as I think an incrementally improved Whirlwind would be) clearly was feasible. Probably a Whirlwind variant with two stage or at least two speed merlin's was feasible too.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Allison P-51 had other problems, apparently an issue with the Ailerons


Interesting...
Was it the NA-73/NA-83 (Mustang I) or NA-91 (Mustang Ia)?


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

My understanding is it wasn't fixed until the P-51B


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> My understanding is it wasn't fixed until the P-51B


The NA-91 (Mustang Mk.Ia/A-36) didn't seem to have that issue in USAAF service...


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I would guess that there was darn little left of the Whirlwind except for the general shape and even that took a a rather hard squint.



True, eventually, but Westlands originally told the Air Ministry that they would include many Whirlwind parts in what was to become the Welkin. Petter would promise just about anything in pursuit of a contract.
The company wrote that_ "We shall probably be able to use the Whirlwind outer wings, slots, ailerons, rear fuselage and tail unit with a number of the detail parts particularly those in the wing spar boom."_
I've seen a drawing of an intermediate proposal that looks more like the Whirlwind than the Welkin, but I can't find it, despite knowing it is on this computer!

The best twin fighter the British_ might _have developed was the Supermarine Type 313, which was the original Air Ministry favourite to F.37/35 and it too had its cannon armament mounted in the nose. It was cancelled for good reasons. It was designed around the Goshawk B, but given the close and longstanding relationship between Rolls-Royce and Supermarine, something Westlands did not have, I would be very surprised if it could not eventually have used the Merlin. That is a realistic 'what if'.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The NA-91 (Mustang Mk.Ia/A-36) didn't seem to have that issue in USAAF service...



Yes they did. We had a long discussion about this in another thread. All of the Allison engine mustang variants had a comparatively poor air-to-air combat record despiite a substantial speed advantage over all the other Allied types. IIRC there was only one US pilot who made Ace flying the Allison engined Mustang despite their extensive use in both the MTO and CBI.

Somebody posted an article which explained the issue, was the aileron's were either too tight or too small I can't remember which. It affected the roll rate. This was fixed in the P-51B.

I'll try to find the article later today and link it.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> _Upgrade_,
> _develop from
> adaptation_
> 
> ...


Greetings Shortround6,

I suggested we consider the Welkin as an example of what the evolution of the Whirlwind with better engines would begin to look like. The 45k service ceiling requirement really governed a number of design developments like the wing length. Other design changes like the fuselage length are probably a combination of counterbalancing the weight of the engines and better control at altitude. For comparison I built up this quick study comparing the size of the Whirlwind, Hornet, and Welkin. I then overlaid the Welkin and Hornet nacelles on the Whirlwind using the spar line for reference. It gives as idea of the impact the Merlin or similar sized engine would have had on the design. At the very least, reengineering the Whirlwind with Merlins would require a longer body for counterbalance and a larger wing. Dimensionally, it would begin to look a lot like the Hornet or a short wing Welkin.

Note: all images have been properly scaled for accurate reference.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Of course we know that further development of the aircraft didn't happen so it's only a 'what if'. But if you think any speculation about it is useless why participate in the thread?


This is why....






The nitpicker or contrarian does nothing but troll discussion forums for their perceived “ gotcha moment”, where they can tell us why something couldn’t, wouldn’t or shouldn’t have occurred. It’s a sad existence I imagine, sitting in a dark basement scouring the web for nits to pick.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

Well to some extent we're all nitpickers here because that's how you kind of keep it honest and we love the details, but there's a sweet spot we all have to strive for...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Shortround6,
> 
> I suggested we consider the Welkin as an example of what the evolution of the Whirlwind with better engines would begin to look like. The 45k service ceiling requirement really governed a number of design developments like the wing length. Other design changes like the fuselage length are probably a combination of counterbalancing the weight of the engines and better control at altitude. For comparison I built up this quick study comparing the size of the Whirlwind, Hornet, and Welkin. I then overlaid the Welkin and Hornet nacelles on the Whirlwind using the spar line for reference. It gives as idea of the impact the Merlin or similar sized engine would have had on the design. At the very least, reengineering the Whirlwind with Merlins would require a longer body for counterbalance and a larger wing. Dimensionally, it would begin to look a lot like the Hornet or a short wing Welkin.



Thank you for the scaled artwork.

They really put into perspective the differences between the aircraft and the problems with trying to modify the Whirlwind to equal many other twin engine aircraft, it really was a small airplane for a twin. 

The three words/sets,

_Upgrade_,
_develop from
adaptation_ 

were each from a different account of the Welkin and in my opinion, seriously undervalue the amount of work needed to go from the Whirlwind to the Welkin and make it seem a bit too direct. Words/phrases like that are often used in accounts of aircraft (F6F was a development of the F4F?) when reality may have been a lot harsher. Most companies did keep sort of a family resemblance but that does not mean one aircraft was really developed from an early one except in a very general sense, like "we have used a vertical fin and rudder of this general shape on several aircraft and had no real problems, lets just scale it up or down to suit the new airframe and see how it works, now on to the next item"

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 9, 2020)

The Welkin was certainly a major departure from the Whirlwind, and I would agree it was basically a new design, but it was also a much bigger change than the kind of incremental improvement we had previously discussed here. The Welkin was designed to operate at 45,000 ft, almost the top limit of a propeller powered aircraft in the WW2 era (or even now) and It had a pressurized cockpit with an entire extra supercharger just for that purpose! Almost the diametric opposite from the environment the Whirlwind was designed to fight in.

Something closer to the D.H. Hornet, but perhaps without such a radical redesign of the wing, seems a lot more feasible to me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> This is why....
> 
> View attachment 591447
> 
> ...


Conversely, in the world of historical academia, there will be scrutiny.
To be constantly on the defensive (to the point of exhaustively using the phrase "contrarian") is a shame, because there will always be an alternate viewpoint or facts that provide a different scenario.

This forum, of all the WWII sites out there, has a well versed member base that engages beyond strict "this is what happened, accept it or leave" lines.

But it's unreasonable to assume that everyone is going to agree with everything you post and interestingly enough, no one has labeled you for disagreeing with them.

Think about that...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> This is why....
> 
> View attachment 591447
> 
> ...



Anyone in particular you have in mind?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 10, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Conversely, in the world of historical academia, there will be scrutiny.


Absolutely, I agree, no one wants bobble head affirmation of any post. That's not a discussion forum at all. But if you look at most discussion boards you find them, those that just search for ideas to discredit. Read my posts in the what'if forum, and you'll almost never see me taking an absolute position against anyone's post (that's the contrarian) Instead I first write how something may not be feasible, but then I try to find reasonable workarounds to achieve the original poster's premise. IMO, that's what a true, person to person discussion is about.

If you and I were sitting across from each other and you suggested that Bristol radials on the Whirlwind were both possible and a good idea, and I thought they were not, I'm going to say why, and then I'd suggest we break out the source materials and figure out how we could make it happen. What pieces on the chessboard we must move, the opportunity cost of radial Whirlwinds, what unintended consequences may occur due to attention, money, time and resources being redirected, etc. and of course we'd want to discuss the potential performance (speed, rate of climb, endurance, etc) of the radial Whirlwind. This is good discussion IMO, as opposed to those that just go for the default reject button. Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 10, 2020)

yulzari said:


> and if you use it at low level then a pair of Mercuries or Perseus would be within weight/power of the Peregrine and free up the wing radiator space for further extra fuel with no performance loss.


I like the idea of the Perseus.

Rolls-Royce Peregrine - Wikipedia

*Type:* 12-cylinder supercharged liquid-cooled 60-degree Vee aircraft piston engine
*Displacement:* 1,296 in3 (21.2 L)
*Length:* 73.6 in (1,869 mm)
*Width:* 27.1 in (688 mm)
*Height:* 41.0 in (1,041 mm)
*Dry weight:* 1,140 lb (517 kg)
*Power output:* 885 hp (660 kW) at 3,000 rpm, +9 psi boost
*Specific power:* 0.68 hp/in3 (31.1 kW/L)
*Compression ratio:* 6:1
*Power-to-weight ratio:* 0.77 lb/hp
Bristol Perseus - Wikipedia

*Type:* Nine-cylinder single-row supercharged air-cooled radial engine
*Displacement:* 1,520 in³ (24.9 L)
*Length:* 49 in (1,245 mm)
*Diameter:* 55.3 in (1,405 mm)
*Dry weight:* 1,025 lb (465 kg)
*Power output: *905 hp (675 kW) at 2,750 rpm at 6,500 ft (1,980 m)
*Specific power:* 0.59 hp/in³ (26.75 kW/l)
*Compression ratio:* 6.75:1
*Power-to-weight ratio:* 0.88 hp/lb (1.45 kW/kg)
The 56" wide Perseus will be draggy of course, but offers more power than the Peregrine, and allows for the leading edge radiators (see below) to be removed, adding space for fuel.







But for this to be worthwhile it must come before the Beaufighter, etc. So, Westland needs to think the Peregrine is a non-starter and that the Merlin isn't available. Petter needs to start with a radial in mind, so that the Whirlwind enters service in time to be useful.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 10, 2020)

Peregrine was making 885 HP at 15500 ft an on +6.75 psi, where Perseus was good for 700 HP? On +9 psi boost and at ~10000 ft, Peregrine was good for 1000+ HP.

British engineers were not stupid, there was a lot of reasons why Perseus was not installed on a proper fighter.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 10, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you for the scaled artwork.
> 
> They really put into perspective the differences between the aircraft and the problems with trying to modify the Whirlwind to equal many other twin engine aircraft, it really was a small airplane for a twin.
> 
> ...


Greetings Shortround6,

Thank you for your thoughts. I had missed the intent of the three word sets. I completely agree with your point. To my mind, the Welkin is based on the same concept of what characteristics Westland believes would make a good twin engine fighter. It's the same planform but not the same plane.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 10, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Welkin was certainly a major departure from the Whirlwind, and I would agree it was basically a new design, but it was also a much bigger change than the kind of incremental improvement we had previously discussed here. The Welkin was designed to operate at 45,000 ft, almost the top limit of a propeller powered aircraft in the WW2 era (or even now) and It had a pressurized cockpit with an entire extra supercharger just for that purpose! Almost the diametric opposite from the environment the Whirlwind was designed to fight in.
> 
> Something closer to the D.H. Hornet, but perhaps without such a radical redesign of the wing, seems a lot more feasible to me.


Greetings Schweiz, 

I agree, the Welkin is a much greater departure in design that what has been discussed. That said, I do think that replacing the Peregrine with a Merlin (or Allison for that matter) would mandate a major redesign of the Whirlwind. That to me is where the Welkin provides some insight. At the very least the fuselage would need to get longer to achieve balance and you would require a new wing to carry the greater weight and fuel. At that point it begins to look more Welkin like. 

A low altitude Whirlwind with a Merlin/Allison power plant would add at least 5' in length (based on the Hornet) and a broader wing for load carrying and fuel volume. Depending on area the wing could be closer the 45' of the Hornet/Whirlwind.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2020)

The body stretch isn't that big a deal IMO, they stretched the P-40 a couple of feet and it didn't seem hard to do (no big delay in manufacturing) or to add much weight. Several other WW2 aircraft were similarly stretched for greater stability with higher HP engines.

The wings are potentially a big deal and may be necessary if you put in Merlins or Allisons, but I'm a fan of the Peregrine.

Small is big!

Could they put the air ducts outboard of the engines?


----------



## pbehn (Aug 10, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I like the idea of the Perseus.
> 
> Rolls-Royce Peregrine - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


It offers slightly more HP if at all and a massive increase in drag, a larger swept volume means it needs more fuel and just swapping engines gets the nacelles very close to the fuselage. It would have even lower performance and as well as poor roll performance compared to a S/E fighter it would have all the issues of the P-38 with compressibility in a dive.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Could they put the air ducts outboard of the engines?



Why?


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2020)

Because then you could put fuel tanks in the inner wings.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 10, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Because then you could put fuel tanks in the inner wings.



So, swap the fuel tanks from the outer wings to the inner wings and the radiators from the inner wings to the outer wings?





Westland Whirlwind cutaway

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 10, 2020)

There were basically two Perseus engines.
The fully supercharged version with a 12 in impeller and making 880-890hp at 14,500-15,500ft at 2750rpm and about 750hp for take-off 
and the versions with 10 or 9.25 in impellers which made 905hp at 6,500ft and about 830hp for take-off. 
The XA was about as good as it got with 950hp for take-off using 5lbs of boost and 100/130 fuel. 
Most of the Perseus engines were rated on 87 octane and were kept under 3lbs of boost. 

The Perseus seems to have had some real problems trying to run high boost pressures (assuming the supercharger could even supply the pressure).
It used pretty much Hercules cylinders and it took quite a while to sort out the Hercules to where it would tolerate much in the way of boost pressures. 

The Peregrine's supercharger could move enough air to let the engine make around 1400hp at sea level if the available fuel would have allowed it. 
The potential power of the Perseus was not even close. 
The idea should be to make a better Whirlwind, even if it is not a high altitude or long range fighter. Unfortunately with the Perseus engines it might be hard pressed to outperform the Hurricane II at which point it really becomes a_ why bother_. 

The drag of the two radials is just too much to overcome using standard british cowlings of the time. (first 1/2 of the war?)


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> So, swap the fuel tanks from the outer wings to the inner wings and the radiators from the inner wings to the outer wings?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why? If you’re keeping liquid cooled engines and you’re determined to have leading edge cooling, I’d say the rads are fine where they are.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Why? If you’re keeping liquid cooled engines and you’re determined to have leading edge cooling, I’d say the rads are fine where they are.



A question for Schweik.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 11, 2020)

As a piece of AH. At the same time as it is decided to ditch the Vullture on the Handley Page for 4 Merlins the same is done for the Manchester. Now the Vulture customer is the Warwick and the Tornado. The 2,000bhp alternatives are the Centaurus and Sabre. Some efficiency bean counter decides to save all the effort and goes for jets and boosting what we have already so no Centaurus or Sabre. The Vulture development carries across to the Peregrine so the research is still used. A 2,000+bhp 4 cannon single seat fighter is still needed and the Merlin in service use is not yet even looking at that sort of power. The answer is instead of gluing 2 twelve cylinder engines into a flat 24 or X24 let us ramp up the Peregrine and tweak the existing Whirlwind into 2 x V12 on 2,000+bhp.

Just to go separately even further AH reverse the pilot and gun positions and put 2 x 40mm S guns, belt fed, behind him and let someone like English Electric actually get production running properly. Westlands acting as the design and trials office.

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2020)

The 40mm S guns may have been good for tank busting and perhaps barge strafing but not much else. Think 40mm MK 108 but firing really, really slow. The Hispano fires 6 times faster so trading 2 Hispanos for one S gun means you are trading 12 20mm shells for each 40mm shell. Not too bad if you can hit but hitting is going to be a real problem between the low velocity and the abysmal rate of fire.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 11, 2020)

IIRC the Vickers S installation in the Hurricane IID was configured so that the guns didn't fire simultaneously. I'm guessing a pair of Vickers S guns in the Whirlwind may have had similar constraints.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 11, 2020)

yulzari said:


> The answer is instead of gluing 2 twelve cylinder engines into a flat 24 or X24 let us ramp up the Peregrine and tweak the existing Whirlwind into 2 x V12 on 2,000+bhp.


I like this, and if we can keep the Peregrine's dimensions and weight down, we might have an engine for a lightweight, smaller single-engined fighter. I'd want to offshore the engine production away from RR though (and likely the aircraft as well), as they clearly don't have the capacity to produce more than one engine type at a time. The Griffon came on board after years of expansion.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 11, 2020)

But really, the only thing I want to change on the Whirlwind is its entry into service date. So we need to make changes to its development path and timing. Do that, and we'll have a half dozen squadrons in service by the BoF.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I like this, and if we can keep the Peregrine's dimensions and weight down, we might have an engine for a lightweight, smaller single-engined fighter. I'd want to offshore the engine production away from RR though (and likely the aircraft as well), as they clearly don't have the capacity to produce more than one engine type at a time. The Griffon came on board after years of expansion.


The Peregrine developed 0.68hp/cuin. Projecting development to the best performing late war engines (.9hp/cuin) the Peregrine only develops 1100hp - 1200hp. Thats still fairly low for a mid war high performing fighter. In addition, you have increased fuel consumption without addressing the limited fuel capacity/short range. 

Going completely off timeline, I could imagine an argument where a turboprop replacement for the Peregrine would be a promising avenue.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Going completely off timeline, I could imagine an argument where a turboprop replacement for the Peregrine would be a promising avenue.


How about a pair of RR Derwents? Like the engine swap on the SAAB 21 from piston to jet in the SAAB 21R. 

At 33ft long, the Heinkel He 280 was about the same size as the >32ft long Whirlwind. The jet-powered Whirlwind's lack of radiators in the wings, plus the Whirlwinds greater wingspan (45 ft vs. >39 ft on the Heinkel) may allow for more internal fuel.










The Whirlwind's designer WE Petter did design many of Britain's best jet aircraft, including the Canberra, Lighting and Gnat. Let's see if he can beat Gloster to the punch.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2020)

wuzak said:


> So, swap the fuel tanks from the outer wings to the inner wings and the radiators from the inner wings to the outer wings?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I see your point. I was thinking a center wing-section fuel tank might allow for a single large tank which goes through the wing and the bottom of the fueselage, which would give more space for another 20% or so of fuel, like the wing tanks on the P-40. But I'm not sure from looking at that photo if there would be room for that.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> The Peregrine developed 0.68hp/cuin. Projecting development to the best performing late war engines (.9hp/cuin) the Peregrine only develops 1100hp - 1200hp. Thats still fairly low for a mid war high performing fighter. In addition, you have increased fuel consumption without addressing the limited fuel capacity/short range.
> 
> .


But there lies the issue, two peregrines have about the same output as a Griffon or very late Merlin. The first Griffon engine Spitfire flew in November 1941. The Whirlwind wanted to be a Hornet, which flew in July 1944 and was a beast.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> But really, the only thing I want to change on the Whirlwind is its entry into service date. So we need to make changes to its development path and timing. Do that, and we'll have a half dozen squadrons in service by the BoF.



If we stick with the Peregrine engines, they, along with all the other flight components, were provided to Westlands by May 1938. The wings of the first prototypes, complete with engines, fuel tanks, radiators etc., were completed in July.

In June 1938 the ACAS (Sholto-Douglas at the time) told Freeman that deliveries of the Whirlwind might start by June 1940, so just barely in time to begin its induction into service for the Battle of Britain. Douglas said at the time that this seemed _'...an unnecessarily long time to produce an aircraft designed early in 1936'_ and he may have had a point. The question is how could this timeline be speeded up?

We would need to reduce the delays that kept creeping in as the aircraft was developed. We could save some time by NOT adopting the Exactor throttle controls, there must have been a reason these replaced the original mechanical linkages but I do not know what they were and maybe we could do better.

The next delay was a failure in the casting of the inboard wall of one of the fuel tanks, this was finally rectified at the end of August, because the entire wing had to be dis-assembled, but we've still got more than a year until the war begins.

Etc. etc. and this is before we begin to deal with the problems I listed a while back that dogged the aircraft's entry into service.

There were arguments for involving another company in Whirlwind production. Westland was based at Yeovil, frankly, in the middle of nowhere. It had a limited recruitment area and that was largely agricultural.

Yeovil today:






There were few opportunities to sub-contract the manufacture of components to other companies. In August 1938 Westland had a productive work force of just 726, a fifth of Bristol's, and was sub-contracting only 13% of the man hours involved in Lysander production. Maybe some improvements could be made here? 

The issue is that the Air Ministry had suffered a serious loss of Spitfire production because Supermarine had made so many changes after sub-contracting began. The Ministry was keen to avoid such a failure and recommended that other companies should only be involved AFTER Westland could produce final production drawings, which meant after the company itself began producing the aircraft. 

On the bright side, there were changes in the ownership of Westland at the end of 1938, and this led, theoretically at least, to an increase in resources. Westland also acquired the old Petters engine factory after that business was sold, so they had more room too. 

Of course, these are just some of the issues affecting the entry into production of a new aircraft in the boring real world and I would be interested to know how we might have got the Whirlwind into several Fighter Command squadrons by the summer of 1940 in an alternate universe, assuming we can overcome the next hurdle...Dowding didn't want it, but maybe we could convince him by improving the service ceiling and altitude performance? That's something that needs to be done between late 1938 and mid 1940, so time is of the essence!

Anyway, answers and suggestions on a postcard to the usual address. Anyone suggesting a Merlin powered version will be sent to see the Headmaster

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Aug 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Nobody wants to talk about the absolutely bad performance such a plane would have????????
> 
> It seems I am one of the resident contrarians,
> The Italian plane managed 311mph at 16,404 ft using engines that gave 840hp at 12,500ft. Other sources may differ on power/altitude.
> ...


I have no idea how radial engines would have worked on the Whirlwind, but the initial response with using radials on a twin fighter, like the F5F Skyrocket is ‘too much drag’. Yet the Japanese Ki46 was essentially immune to interception until at least mid war, even P38’s and stripped down Spitfires had great difficulty catching it. The Ki46-II had 2 speed radials with 1080 hp at takeoff and 1055 hp at 9,200 feet, 44 inches in diameter and yet it was capable of 375 mph+ at 19,000 feet. As small as the Whirlwind is, if it could hold a pair of 2 speed 1830 P&W it should be very fast at any altitude for that time of the war. (I’m not at all sure it was big enough to handle them though)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2020)

That is a fair point... I think Shortround was pointing out some issues with the ducting and farings on early radial engines in the Anglo-American sphere (1940-42 ish)


----------



## pinsog (Aug 11, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That is a fair point... I think Shortround was pointing out some issues with the ducting and farings on early radial engines in the Anglo-American sphere (1940-42 ish)


And I agree with that as well, the Zero was one slick machine, had to be to perform like it did with a 950 hp engine. As I have pointed out, the P36 and P40 both could have used a good amount of time in a wind tunnel.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2020)

The P-40 did go into the wind tunnel for a bit after initial tests were showing too slow


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I have no idea how radial engines would have worked on the Whirlwind, but the initial response with using radials on a twin fighter, like the F5F Skyrocket is ‘too much drag’. Yet the Japanese Ki46 was essentially immune to interception until at least mid war,


Enough horsepower can overcome any drag.

I'd like to see a Bristol Blenheim fighter, stripped down, streamlined, and see what it could do with its twin Mercuries in 1938-39.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I have no idea how radial engines would have worked on the Whirlwind, but the initial response with using radials on a twin fighter, like the F5F Skyrocket is ‘too much drag’. Yet the Japanese Ki46 was essentially immune to interception until at least mid war, even P38’s and stripped down Spitfires had great difficulty catching it. The Ki46-II had 2 speed radials with 1080 hp at takeoff and 1055 hp at 9,200 feet, 44 inches in diameter and yet it was capable of 375 mph+ at 19,000 feet. As small as the Whirlwind is, if it could hold a pair of 2 speed 1830 P&W it should be very fast at any altitude for that time of the war. (I’m not at all sure it was big enough to handle them though)


Greetings Pinsog,

I had to go look at the Ki-46. Its remarkable that it had greater wingspan (+3'), length (+4'), and wing area (+100sf) than the Whirlwind and yet perform so similarly. My guess is that if the Ki-46 were more heavily constructed and armored some of that performance would tail off, but you make a fair point about radial engines being an option, provided enough time was spent perfecting the aerodynamics.

As an aside, reading the wiki post on the Ki-46 got me interested in the designer Tomio Kubo. After the war he didn't have much opportunity to work on aircraft, but he stuck with Mitsubishi (after the forced post war break up) and ultimately ended up in charge of Mitsubishi Motors. He was a talented designer and one wonders what would have happened had he been able to remain in his chosen field.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 11, 2020)

NevadaK said:


> Greetings Pinsog,
> 
> I had to go look at the Ki-46. Its remarkable that it had greater wingspan (+3'), length (+4'), and wing area (+100sf) than the Whirlwind and yet perform so similarly. My guess is that if the Ki-46 were more heavily constructed and armored some of that performance would tail off, but you make a fair point about radial engines being an option, provided enough time was spent perfecting the aerodynamics.
> 
> As an aside, reading the wiki post on the Ki-46 got me interested in the designer Tom Kubio. After the war he didn't have much opportunity to work on aircraft, but he stuck with Mitsubishi (after the forced post war break up) and ultimately ended up in charge of Mitsubishi Motors. He was a talented designer and one wonders what would have happened had he been able to remain in his chosen field.


I don’t know how much top speed would have dropped, weight doesn’t affect top speed like it does climb and turn. Think if he had access to 1830 P&W with turbochargers on the Ki46. Well over 400 mph???


----------



## MikeMeech (Aug 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I have no idea how radial engines would have worked on the Whirlwind, but the initial response with using radials on a twin fighter, like the F5F Skyrocket is ‘too much drag’. Yet the Japanese Ki46 was essentially immune to interception until at least mid war, even P38’s and stripped down Spitfires had great difficulty catching it. The Ki46-II had 2 speed radials with 1080 hp at takeoff and 1055 hp at 9,200 feet, 44 inches in diameter and yet it was capable of 375 mph+ at 19,000 feet. As small as the Whirlwind is, if it could hold a pair of 2 speed 1830 P&W it should be very fast at any altitude for that time of the war. (I’m not at all sure it was big enough to handle them though)


Hi

While the Ki 46 is a good aircraft and a difficult target it is clear from those that were shot down by Spitfires that they were done by non-stripped down Mk.Vc and Mk. VIIIs. There has been mention of Plt. Off A H Wittridge of 155 Sqn. flying a 'stripped down' Spitfire VIII (the four MGs removed plus the rear-view mirror and ballast) this is identified as LV678, DG-C on pp.281-282 of 'Air War For Burma' by Christopher Shores, and associated with a claim on 5 Nov. 1944 for a Ki 43 not Ki 46. Wittridge was associated with a claim for a Ki 46 on 25 Sept. 1944, along with Flt Sgt P G Lunnon-Wood flying aircraft 'G' and 'F' of 155 Sqn. (p.265 of previous source). It appears from this he was flying a different aircraft than the later 'stripped down' 'C'. There is no mention of 'G' being 'stripped down' in the source. If there is a source giving details that the Spitfires used to shoot down the Ki 46 please let us know.

Mike


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2020)

They shot down several of those ki-46's with p-40s


----------



## Schweik (Aug 11, 2020)

I think the ki-46 is a good point of comparison for the whirlwind and it does show that a small radial engine can indeed be a part of the package of a very fast plane. The ki 46 though didn't do much well except go in a straight line apparently.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 11, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> I'd like to see a Bristol Blenheim fighter, stripped down, streamlined, and see what it could do with its twin Mercuries in 1938-39.


Sidney Cotton tried just that with a stripped down special finish Blenheim for PR but it was still too short on speed to prevent interception so he turned to the Spitfire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2020)

Cotton got a Blenheim up to 290mph or a bit more (not 300mph) and that required quite a bit of hand finishing work. 
Also Cotton's Blenheim was not carrying a gun pack.

The Ki 46 is quite interesting. 
Now it you could just get Mitsubishi engines from mid 1941 in service in Britain at the same time or earlier you might have something. 

From Wiki; " The engines, two Mitsubishi Ha-26s, were housed in close fitting cowlings................... The first prototype aircraft, with the designation Ki-46, flew in November 1939...........Tests showed that the Ki-46 was underpowered, and slower than required, only reaching 540 km/h (336 mph) rather than the specified 600 km/h (373 mph). .........................To solve the performance problems, Mitsubishi fitted Ha-102 engines, which were Ha-26s fitted with a two-speed supercharger, while increasing fuel capacity and reducing empty weight. This version, designated Ki-46-II, first flew in March 1941. It met the speed requirements of the original specification, and was ordered into full-scale production, with deliveries starting in July." 



Schweik said:


> I think the ki-46 is a good point of comparison for the whirlwind and it does show that a small radial engine can indeed be a part of the package of a very fast plane.


The first engines used were 44in in diameter and 28 liters The Ki-46 III got larger engines of 48in diameter and 32 liters. The Perseus engines were 52in diameter according to some sources, others say more but 52in is fine for this discussion as the Perseus has almost 40% more frontal area and less power than the engines fitted to the Ki-46 prototype. 

That is the British problem with the radial Whirlwind scenario, The British do not have a small diameter radial available no matter how light the engine may be.
The American R-1830 is in the ballpark at 48in in diameter but the R-1830 is heavy (just under 1500lbs with two speed supercharger) and performance at altitude is not very good, even with a two speed supercharger, 1000hp at 14,500ft for the two speed engine in high gear.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> That is the British problem with the radial Whirlwind scenario, The British do not have a small diameter radial available no matter how light the engine may be.
> The American R-1830 is in the ballpark at 48in in diameter but the R-1830 is heavy (just under 1500lbs with two speed supercharger) and performance at altitude is not very good, even with a two speed supercharger, 1000hp at 14,500ft for the two speed engine in high gear.



I'm guessing the work required to fit R-1830s would be similar to that needed to fit Merlins. That is, a lot.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 11, 2020)

The R-1830 weighed about 350lbs more than a Peregrine. This is for the two speed version. Granted there is no radiator or coolant. What kind of games have to played to keep the CG in the proper place I don't know, The radiators being either on on nearly on the CG. 

The P & W R-1830 two speed offers about 13% more power at nearly the same altitude (I am not going to argue over 500ft out of 15,000) as the Peregrine. so either the installation causes less than a 13% increase in drag or performance at altitude falls. Please note that the 14,500ft rating is at 2700rpm and many charts limit most R-1830s to 2550rpm in high gear.


----------



## NevadaK (Aug 11, 2020)

pinsog said:


> I don’t know how much top speed would have dropped, weight doesn’t affect top speed like it does climb and turn. Think if he had access to 1830 P&W with turbochargers on the Ki46. Well over 400 mph???


Kubo’s follow up design, the Ki-83 gives you an idea what that would look like.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 12, 2020)

The Gloster G9/37 carried both Peregrine and Taurus installations so gives some idea of a contemporary installation in an Whirlwind.








The Taurus version was 50kph faster than the Peregrine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2020)

yulzari said:


> The Gloster G9/37 carried both Peregrine and Taurus installations so gives some idea of a contemporary installation in an Whirlwind.
> View attachment 591695
> View attachment 591696
> 
> The Taurus version was 50kph faster than the Peregrine.



And the 2nd prototype with Taurus engines (or the first airframe with a _new set_ of Taurus engines?) was about 50kph slower than the first tests. 
few, if any, Taurus engines built afterwards matched that level of power at that altitude and indeed, for several years Taurus engines were rather known for overheating. 
Not really sorted out until the spring of 1941. 
Not sure if the chin radiator on the F.9/37 was higher drag than the in wing radiators of the Whirlwind.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 12, 2020)

Always thought the Gloster G9/37 was a very pretty aeroplane.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Aug 12, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The R-1830 weighed about 350lbs more than a Peregrine. This is for the two speed version. Granted there is no radiator or coolant. What kind of games have to played to keep the CG in the proper place I don't know, The radiators being either on on nearly on the CG.
> 
> The P & W R-1830 two speed offers about 13% more power at nearly the same altitude (I am not going to argue over 500ft out of 15,000) as the Peregrine. so either the installation causes less than a 13% increase in drag or performance at altitude falls. Please note that the 14,500ft rating is at 2700rpm and many charts limit most R-1830s to 2550rpm in high gear.







this shows the 2 speed Japanese engine being inferior to the 1830 P&W at altitude. That model Ki46 would do 375 mph at 19,000 feet

(FWIW I don’t think the Whirlwind had enough wing to handle the 1830 P&W. Just pointing out that a twin radial can have great performance)

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 12, 2020)

I'd like to see what the Whirlwind could have done with high octane fuel and high compression. I bet well over 400 mph was possible. 

This would be only a theoretical exercise, since by the time high octane fuels were available the Spitfire and Tempest were regularly doing over 400 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2020)

pinsog said:


> this shows the 2 speed Japanese engine being inferior to the 1830 P&W at altitude. That model Ki46 would do 375 mph at 19,000 feet


This is NOT quite true _but_ the information on the Ha-102 engine may not be quite correct (or it is correct as far as it goes but does not go far enough). An R-1830 making 1000hp at 14,000ft would be good for a bit over 880hp at 19,000ft. Adjust as you see fit. 

The two speed Ha-102 was supposed to give 950hp at 5800 meters (19,030 ft ) which is pretty consistent with the top speed altitude. Engine giving peak power at 9.200 ft and plane hitting top speed at 19,000ft is pretty absurd. The 1055hp at 9,200ft may be FTH in the low supercharger speed. 

BTW the same engine/s were fitted to the Ki-45 Toryu two seat fighter which managed 335mph at 19,685ft. 

The engines in the *KI-46 III *Diana were HA-112s with 1500hp for take-off, 1350hp at 6,560ft and 1250hp at 19,030ft. 
At least according to some sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Aug 12, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This is NOT quite true _but_ the information on the Ha-102 engine may not be quite correct (or it is correct as far as it goes but does not go far enough). An R-1830 making 1000hp at 14,000ft would be good for a bit over 880hp at 19,000ft. Adjust as you see fit.
> 
> The two speed Ha-102 was supposed to give 950hp at 5800 meters (19,030 ft ) which is pretty consistent with the top speed altitude. Engine giving peak power at 9.200 ft and plane hitting top speed at 19,000ft is pretty absurd. The 1055hp at 9,200ft may be FTH in the low supercharger speed.
> 
> ...


Sounds much more reasonable than the info I had. Thank you.
How were the Japanese able to get more power, higher up with a slightly smaller engine and worse fuel than the USA?


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 12, 2020)

Possible answers are accepting shorter service life and/or differences in cooling. AIr cooled engines as a general rule of thumb would not tolerate as high a boost as liquid cooled engines but that was rather dependent on the how well the cylinders were cooled. 
It may also be somewhat dependent on the superchargers and some of the American superchargers on the early engines may not have been very good? Speculation on my part but during the mid to late 30s US superchargers (all supplied by General Electric) were so bad that both Wright and P & W decided to design their own. They might still have been a bit on the low performing side. 

for some undisclosed reason the R-1830 was rarely given a a "Military rating" at least by P & W. Despite being rated at 2700rpm in many models for take-off it seems to have been rated at 2550rpm at higher altitudes (high gear or with two stage supercharger?) in many versions?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 12, 2020)

I’d say a pre-Hercules radial-powered Whirlwind will be about the same speed as the sub-320 mph IMAM Ro.57. 

If we want to give the Whirlwind swifter legs, especially at altitude it has to be higher performance inline V-12s or Wellands/Derwents. Radials and X-crank inline engines and the like are but a distraction.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2020)

Let's think a bit about what modifications would need to be made to the Whirlwind by putting radials onto it and the impact it would have on its timeline. If it were to be fitted with radials, it would have to be designed from scratch with them and then there is no guarantee that it would have gotten into service any sooner. The problem was not just the powerplant, but the firm itself.

Now, I can be one of those contrarians Admiral mentioned, but, like Dave and Steve (Graugeist and Stona) state, examining the facts as they stand is not being deliberately contrarian, but advising of the realism behind a particular situation.

(With that out of the way...) Let's look at Westland as a company. In the late 20s to early 30s, Westland was busy, but compared to the likes of Bristol and Shorts and Vickers, for example, it was a small company with a small workforce, although its book orders were large for the time. It's primary bread and butter was the Wapiti, of which it produced a total of 558; the most was of the Wapiti IIa, of which 430 were built between 1929 and 1932.

Until the Whirlwind, the Lysander was the most modern aircraft Westland had built. The Wapiti was essentially Great War technology - it was an open cockpit, fixed gear externally braced biplane with a metal tube fuselage covered in fabric, although the Wapiti I was all-wooden structure. The Lysander didn't offer too many more challenges to the Westland production staff when the first order for 169 aircraft was placed in December 1936 - its first flight had taken place on 15 June from Boscombe Down rather than from Yeovil following taxiing trials. The first production Lysander was received by the RAF in May 1938 (16 Squadron at Old Sarum).

Technologically, the Lysander was very much 'steady as she goes' rather than pushing the boundaries. That's where the Whirlwind comes in. Westland had never built an all-metal high performance cantilever monoplane with retractable gear and enclosed cockpit in a semi-monocoque fuselage before. The workforce had to be trained how to do this, the workshops had to be equipped to undertake metal bashing and the production line had to be modernised.

The Whirlwind prototype completion was delayed by supply of engines and undercarriage, it had the fourth and seventh production Peregrines, it first flew on 11 October 1938, after instruction to proceed in February 1937. The first production order came in January 1939 for 200 aircraft, with a promise from Petter that the first deliveries would be in nine months time, but the first production aircraft first flew on 22 May 1940. By this time the 200 order had been cancelled and in December 1939 an order for 114 was given, by the Air Ministry. Delivery of the first Whirlwinds to the RAF took place in June 1940, to 25 Sqn.

In his book Westland Aircraft since 1915 (Putnam, 1991) Derek James states that five years had elapsed between issuing of F.37/35 and introduction into service and that many were surprised when the order was given to Westland, as Bristol, Boulton Paul, Hawker and Supermarine were among those who offered submissions to the specification.

Delays to production aircraft came from Rolls-Royce, who was experiencing issues in producing Peregrines; part of the delay came from the supply of Hobson downdraught carbs.

So, this gives an idea behind timelines and changing the powerplant isn't going to offer much less time on that taken in real life to get the Whirlwind into service sooner, despite not having the delays from getting Peregrines from RR if a different engine is used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Aug 13, 2020)

Reverting to the Whirlwind as a. ersatz Typhoon instead of Spitfire. The radials would fit the OTL role of the OTL Typhoon better for the low level job and the Taurus worked quite adequately for the FAA in the Albacore and the RAF in the Beaufort at these altitudes and are not impinging upon Rolls Royce design and development Merlin work. Not to mention being in production. One can rivet counter quibble about the margins of differential performance but you still get a 24 cylinder 2,000+bhp 4 cannon fighter without a new design nor a complex new engine.

Ideally, of course, one would prefer a Peregrine mirroring Merlin developments but that best is not too far away from the low level good of a pair of Taurus.

Just for fun: triple the Whirlwind power with a pair of Rolls Royce Crecy. Wooo...5,400 bhp.............


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2020)

yulzari said:


> Just for fun: triple the Whirlwind power with a pair of Rolls Royce Crecy. Wooo...5,400 bhp.............


It would have made RADAR obsolete.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> Technologically, the Lysander was very much 'steady as she goes' rather than pushing the boundaries. That's where the Whirlwind comes in. Westland had never built an all-metal high performance cantilever monoplane with retractable gear and enclosed cockpit in a semi-monocoque fuselage before. The workforce had to be trained how to do this, the workshops had to be equipped to undertake metal bashing and the production line had to be modernised.
> 
> .


Westland were no mugs in technology, they worked on the Spitfire and introduced improvements known as the "Westland tail" which were to do with balance of controls I believe. I read about it recently and cant find it again (does anyone have details).


----------



## wuzak (Aug 13, 2020)

yulzari said:


> Reverting to the Whirlwind as a. ersatz Typhoon instead of Spitfire. The radials would fit the OTL role of the OTL Typhoon better for the low level job and the Taurus worked quite adequately for the FAA in the Albacore and the RAF in the Beaufort at these altitudes and are not impinging upon Rolls Royce design and development Merlin work. Not to mention being in production. One can rivet counter quibble about the margins of differential performance but you still get a 24 cylinder 2,000+bhp 4 cannon fighter without a new design nor a complex new engine.



The problem is that the Typhoon's _intended _role was to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane. That it ended up as a low level fighter was a function of the state of development of the Sabre and the draggy airframe (due to the thick wings).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The problem is that the Typhoon's _intended _role was to replace the Spitfire and Hurricane. That it ended up as a low level fighter was a function of the state of development of the Sabre and the draggy airframe (due to the thick wings).


And the chin radiator.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Westland were no mugs in technology, they worked on the Spitfire and introduced improvements known as the "Westland tail" which were to do with balance of controls I believe.



That doesn't necessarily translate to an entire production line established for constructing all metal aircraft after _not_ having built them though. That's the point. Obviously the designers had the ideas and the skills to do it otherwise the Whirlwind simply would not have been designed or built. That it took so long is partially because the workforce, the guys at floor level had to learn new skills, new tooling had to be bought and taught to the workers how to use, etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 13, 2020)

yulzari said:


> Just for fun: triple the Whirlwind power with a pair of Rolls Royce Crecy. Wooo...5,400 bhp.............


Just reading about the Crecy and thinking about it, it was a type of jet/pulse jet/turboprop engine (depending on the revs and whether the power recovery was hooked up) no wonder RR kept it in development until 1945. It is the only engine I have read about where a comment was made on how loud it was, having run a two stroke twin for a few seconds with no exhausts I imagine the Crecy was deafening, all the engines at the time were LOUD.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 13, 2020)

The Peregrine was a compact unit, specs per Wikipedia:

*Length:* 73.6 in (1,869 mm)
*Width:* 27.1 in (688 mm)
*Height:* 41.0 in (1,041 mm)
*Dry weight:* 1,140 lb (517 kg)
Were there other compact V-12s of this size or weight that offered similar power to the Peregrine? Or were all the other V-12 aero engines of larger Merlin-sized proportions?

For example, the Hispano-Suiza 12Y is shorter and lighter than the Peregrine. It doesn’t offer any power advantage, but perhaps the 12Y addresses the Peregrine’s shortcomings in both availability (it was used or license-built by much of non-Germany Europe, including in the Fairey Fox and Fantôme) and high altitude performance?

*Length*: 1,722 mm (67.8 in)
*Width:* 764 mm (30.08 in)
*Height:* 935 mm (36.81 in)
*Dry weight*: 475 kg (1,047 lb)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> That doesn't necessarily translate to an entire production line established for constructing all metal aircraft after _not_ having built them though. That's the point. Obviously the designers had the ideas and the skills to do it otherwise the Whirlwind simply would not have been designed or built. That it took so long is partially because the workforce, the guys at floor level had to learn new skills, new tooling had to be bought and taught to the workers how to use, etc.



Go back to page 1 or 2, I am on a tablet and can't get the photo. Picture of Westland factory with Whirlwinds on one side of a low wall and Lysanders on the other side. Lysanders were being built at a rate roughly 3 times higher than Whirlwind during some of this period. 
Lysander was all metal except for the covering, it was not a slightly updated Sopwith Camal in terms of construction. No wood formers like the Hurricane. Full span slats inter-connected with flaps. Machine guns in the wheel fairings with the ammo supply in the leg fairings. Sprung wheels and brakes on the wheels. Every plane had bomb racks from the factory.
Aside from the "fixed" landing gear it had every "system" a fighter had and more. 
Westland workers couldn't be taught to put on metal skins?

Air ministry had screwed the pooch on which plane had priority and either there was a problem with subcontractors supplying parts or the there was a bit of cover up going on. Perhaps both. 

Petter may have done himself no favors and been difficult to work with but there were a lot of stories going around about how difficult the Whirlwind was to maintain and fly that were not true.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Lysander was all metal except for the covering, it was not a slightly updated Sopwith Camal in terms of construction. No wood formers like the Hurricane. Full span slats inter-connected with flaps. Machine guns in the wheel fairings with the ammo supply in the leg fairings. Sprung wheels and brakes on the wheels. Every plane had bomb racks from the factory.
> Aside from the "fixed" landing gear it had every "system" a fighter had and more.
> Westland workers couldn't be taught to put on metal skins?



There is a vast difference in construction techniques between metal tubing covered in fabric and all-metal monocoque, Shorty. Between the metal Wapitis and Wallaces and the Lysander there isn't such a great leap in technique, but transitioning onto metal fabrication doesn't just happen. The workforce needed training. Sure, it isn't impossible, as the Whirly wouldn't have been built, but you can't just go from working on the Lysander line onto the Whirlwind line without training. Just because they are in the same building, doesn't mean the Whirlwind guys didn't receive any training on sheet metalwork techniques.

A number of years ago I used to work in museums and a few of the guys I worked with were planewrights. They had spent the entirety of their career working on wooden aircraft. When they had to transition onto working on metal aircraft it was a big change for them. They could do it, but it required training, and the term 'Planewright' disappeared as a skillset.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2020)

Shorty, I'm an aircraft engineer. I received specialist training. That doesn't mean I can just walk into any hangar and work on any aircraft without extra training. It takes time and effort to learn different techniques. We have guys who do composite repairs on the composite bits of the airframes we work on. Us airframers don't do that kind of repair. I worked in a skin bay for a while - not my cup of tea. I can do it, but not as well as specialised skin guys. Sheet metal fabrication is something that can be learned, but you are either good at it or you're not. We have guys on Line Maintenance, which is what I do, who cannot do skin work and would rather not. I don't mind because I've done it before, but we also have guys who are really skilled at it. It's not just something that can be picked up by anyone and everyone, not if its done properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 13, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> .Until the Whirlwind, the Lysander was the most modern aircraft Westland had built.


CivilIan racers aside, can‘t we say the same of Supermarine? Outside of the Spitfire, Supermarine was the maker of the Walrus and Stranraer.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> CivilIan racers aside, can‘t we say the same of Supermarine? Outside of the Spitfire, Supermarine was the maker of the Walrus and Stranraer.



Gawd. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm saying it takes time to transition from one method of construction to another! You can't use the same tooling that you used to build a metal tubed fabric covered biplane as you use to build an all metal monocoque fuselage. In Britain in 1939 there are probably more companies working with sheet metal than not, but Westland was one of the ones that was not.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 13, 2020)

nuuumannn said:


> In Britain in 1939 there are probably more companies working with sheet metal than not, but Westland was one of the ones that was not.


Then we need to pull Petter out of Westland and make the Whirlwind elsewhere. And perhaps to remove any engine-related delays and lack of attention at RR, replace the Peregines with the smaller, lighter and more universally available Hispano-Suiza 12Y. The Whirlwind is already using Hispano-Suiza’s cannons, so why not their engines?

Fairey made the 12Y look sharp in the Fantome of 1935, shown below, but it’s still canvas and dope. However Fairey has experience with all metal designs, like the Hendon of 1930 and Battle of 1936. Fairey has the all metal skillset and the alternative to the Peregrine we need to get the Whirlwind into earlier service with inline V-12s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 13, 2020)

You mean the Universally less reliable, shorter lived Hispano and quite likely less powerful?

There is a reason that a V-12 with the displacement of Griffon was so light. It wasn't very strong.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2020)

Westland should have just licence built the Gloster F9


----------



## stona (Aug 14, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Westland were no mugs in technology, they worked on the Spitfire and introduced improvements known as the "Westland tail" which were to do with balance of controls I believe. I read about it recently and cant find it again (does anyone have details).



The Westland tail is presumably a reference to the Westland designed elevator. This was to cure the tendency of the Spitfire (Mk V in this case) to tighten up in dive recoveries and tight turns. It was tested at Boscombe Down in December 1942 and considered 'satisfactory for these two conditions', but pilots complained of a lack of feel with flaps lowered.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kiwimac (Aug 14, 2020)

I really like the Whirlwind.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Westland should have just licence built the Gloster F9


IDK if Gloster was up to the task of making the Whirlwind any faster than Westland, but Ia agree, let’s get the F9 into service.


kiwimac said:


> I really like the Whirlwind.


I agree, it just needs to be in service earlier and with competitive high altitude performance. I suppose that's what this thread is all about.


----------



## Schweik (Aug 14, 2020)

I don't mean switch manufacturers, I mean have Westland make the F9 instead. They wanted Gloster to work on jets. I love the Whirlwind but the F9 seems so promising. Wing loading 30, power to mass 0.17. That is outstanding.

Anyone know the range of the F9?


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't mean switch manufacturers, I mean have Westland make the F9 instead. They wanted Gloster to work on jets. I love the Whirlwind but the F9 seems so promising. Wing loading 30, power to mass 0.17. That is outstanding.
> 
> Anyone know the range of the F9?


I know. Best thing of the F9 is we can have a 360 mph twin fighter early - I’ll take six squadrons for Malaya. But I hate a threadjacking, so let’s take this tangential discussion away from the Whirlwind. Here’s the F.9 thread. Gloster F.9/37

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## warbird51 (Aug 25, 2020)

I have always liked the Whirlwind and if the aircraft was so flawed, why did they keep it on operations for so long? It must have been effective enough to put up with the hassles of operating a aircraft with few spares and factory support. What surprises me is why a twin engine fighter was designed with out a cross-feed fuel system and feathering props in the first place.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 25, 2020)

warbird51 said:


> I have always liked the Whirlwind and if the aircraft was so flawed, why did they keep it on operations for so long? It must have been effective enough to put up with the hassles of operating a aircraft with few spares and factory support. What surprises me is why a twin engine fighter was designed with out a cross-feed fuel system and feathering props in the first place.




You have hit on part of the mystique of the Whirlwind with your first sentence. 
for your 2nd sentence I can only say that many "twin" engine aircraft (not just fighters) of the late 30s and early part of WW II had non-crossfeed fuel systems, did not have fully feathering props and did not have redundant (duplicate) accessories (two generators or two hydraulic pumps for example) so the Whirlwind was not out of line with the design practice of the time even though it looks (and was) stupid in retrospect.


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2020)

warbird51 said:


> I have always liked the Whirlwind and if the aircraft was so flawed, why did they keep it on operations for so long? .



Because they had it.
They could more or less keep two squadrons operational, though rarely at full strength. The performance of the aircraft was more than adequate for the low(er) level operations in which it specialised.
It was not a bad aeroplane, but it had issues. It is perhaps telling that when No 263 Squadron moved from Warmwell to Ibsley on 5 December 1943 it could field just *four* serviceable Whirlwinds. Eventually six Whirlwinds were available to maintain night readiness during the moon period but no operations were ordered and on 19 December, the squadron became non-operational when the surviving aircraft were put up for disposal.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 26, 2020)

stona said:


> It was not a bad aeroplane, but it had issues. It is _perhaps telling _that when No 263 Squadron moved from Warmwell to Ibsley on 5 December 1943 it could field just *four* serviceable Whirlwinds.



Production ended in Jan 1942 and last Peregrine was delivered in Jan 1942. 

perhaps it is telling that they were still using such old aircraft in combat (granted No 263 wasn't doing much in Dec of 1943 and granted they planes they were using may have been sitting in depot for quite some time before being issued.) 
However part of the mystique is the fact that the plane was essentially unchanged from the summer of 1940. 
Anybody using Hurricane IIA's at the end of 1943 in combat?
Anybody using Spitfire IIs at the end of 1943 in combat? 

The Typhoon had been relegated to ground attack and 18 squadrons were being used for ground attack at the end of 1943. 
If the Whirlwind was really not very good it could have been replaced sooner with very little impact to the RAFs capability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 26, 2020)

263 converted from Whirlwinds to Typhoons.

At the end of June 1943 137 converted to the Hurricane, albeit Hurricane IVs, which did not go down well with the pilots. At one point they thought they were going to get the Vengeance! They flew their Hurricanes for about six months before finally converting to the Typhoon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2020)

By Dec 7th 1943 there were about 1800 Typhoons delivered. 

If the Whirlwinds were really underperforming (poor utilization/poor parts supply?) compared to other types it seems that some effort to replace them sooner would have occured. 

Yes they were available and the British were trying to use quite a few planes that perhaps they shouldn't have (Botha Trainers?) and they may have had a surplus of target tugs (and the Whirlwind might not have been a very good one) so that job is taken


----------



## stona (Aug 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> By Dec 7th 1943 there were about 1800 Typhoons delivered.



But they hadn't started to drop bombs (250lb) until January 1943. 

The Typhoon was still considered an air defence fighter, not a fighter-bomber for most of 1942. Even after Dieppe and the disbandment of the Duxford Wing the Typhoon squadrons were still employed as low level interceptors against the Luftwaffe's 'sneak raiders'. They also trialled night operations. They were not competing with a few Whirlwinds. 

The reason that the Whirlwind squadrons disbanded in June (with 137's aircraft going to 263 in an effort to keep its serviceable numbers up) and then December 1943 was precisely because Beamont's successful re-casting of the Typhoon as a ground attack and fighter-bomber aircraft, now dropping heavier ordnance, made the Whirlwind obsolete.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2020)

Thank you. 
I am not saying the Whirlwind was trouble free or close to it. But it would be interesting to compare it's serviceability rate to some other aircraft. The Whirlwind may very well be on the low side. It should be below average for a fighter just because it is a twin. But by how much?

If I am reading you correctly they were using the Typhoon as a strike fighter for some months before No 137 squadron went to Hurricanes?


----------

