1941: top 3 Allied fighters

[Edgar Brooks]

OTOH, I don't buy that in 1941 such a great majority of combat was taking place at very high altitudes (20 kft and above).

Knowing now what happened then doesn't help with trying to understand the decisions that had to be made 75 years ago. The 109s were coming over here at 27-30,000' in 1940 before the end of the Battle, Assuming that this wouldn't continue when (as was expected) the Battle was rejoined in mid-1941, and supplying the defenders with a fighter incapable of reaching those heights, would have been the height of irresponsible, even lunatic, folly.
Even the Spitfires I II were at a disadvantage, which is why there was such an effort put into getting the Spitfire V.

The Fighter Command bombed up the Whirlwind in mid-1941 and sent it in harms way.

Not according to the RAF; simple strafing came first, with bombs a year later (probably when they realised that the Germans tended to ignore fighter-only incursions (they weren't too bothered about Dutch, Belgian, or French targets being hit, either.)

 

[stona]

Edgar is correct. The first suggestion for bombing up the Whirlwind was made in September 1941 by Sqn.Ldr. Tom Pugh of 263 Squadron but Fighter Command rejected the idea. All the ground attacks made in 1941 used the Whirlwind's cannon armament.

The change of heart evidenced in the document above, which took place in July 1942, was precisely because the Luftwaffe ignored fighter only sweeps. Fighter Command had also taken over responsibility for the 'Channel Stop', an effort to deny the central part of the Channel to enemy shipping. The only other available fighter bomber, the Hurricane bomber, was in short supply and the Whirlwind, which had already demonstrated a ground attack capability, therefore re-appeared on Fighter Command's radar as a potential additional fighter bomber.
It was on 3rd July 1942 that Fighter Command informed the Air Ministry and MAP that it would like Whirlwinds converted to fighter bombers. Westland had designed the modification (a tubular reinforcing structure in the wings) to take a standard Mk III Universal Carrier by August. It was never faired as on the Hurricane. Bomb selection and fusing switches were ordered to convert fifty aircraft.

Although there were few Whirlwinds available at the time and production had already finished, conversion of the two Whirlwind squadrons effectively doubled the number of fighter bombers within Fighter Command.

Nobody, least of all me, is denying the Whirlwinds low level performance. What it couldn't do was reach or compete at the altitudes at which first line fighters were operating in 1940/41.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for correcting me on the year when the bombed-up Whirlwinds came about.

 

[Greyman]

It almost defies belief that forum members imagine they see a role for the Whirlwind as a 'top three' fighter ...

What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?

 

[stona]

What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?

The British already had the Spitfire and Hurricane, both of which were considered better fighters. In simple terms any fighter that could not operate above 25,000 feet would not be considered by Fighter Command then and neither should it be by us now. It would not compete with it's German adversaries in the ETO.
In 1941 the Hurricane was also deemed to be a better ground attack aircraft. This means, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, that the Whirlwind was not needed. Various roles were tried, it was initially reprieved with the intention of making it a reconnaissance aircraft. It did okay in its ground attack and later fighter bomber role but it was never a top fighter and was soon superseded by the Typhoon in the other role.

There was a war to be fought and limited resources to fight it with. By 1942/3 vast amounts were being poured into the bombing offensive (Mason estimates that 1.15 million people were involved in building the Lancaster alone in 1943). There was simply not the means or will to develop yet another design.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

We often think limiting the time frame to a year gives us a 'snapshot' to compare aircraft. Unfortunately a year is often way too long. In 1941 the Spitfire went through the Va, Vb and Vc versions and there were changes in the max allowable boost.

 

[stona]

We often think limiting the time frame to a year gives us a 'snapshot' to compare aircraft. Unfortunately a year is often way too long. In 1941 the Spitfire went through the Va, Vb and Vc versions and there were changes in the max allowable boost.

Which illustrates my point. Neither the Whirlwind, nor its engines developed in the same way as the RAF's principle fighters. There was virtually no difference between a Whirlwind in January 1941 and January 1942. It was not an important aircraft to the RAF. Fighter Command didn't really want it after the BoB, but did at least find some limited roles for it. The 'Whirlybomber' was just the last of these.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

The British already had the Spitfire and Hurricane, both of which were considered better fighters. In simple terms any fighter that could not operate above 25,000 feet would not be considered by Fighter Command then and neither should it be by us now. It would not compete with it's German adversaries in the ETO.

In 1941 the Hurricane was also deemed to be a better ground attack aircraft. This means, and I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, that the Whirlwind was not needed. Various roles were tried, it was initially reprieved with the intention of making it a reconnaissance aircraft. It did okay in its ground attack and later fighter bomber role but it was never a top fighter and was soon superseded by the Typhoon in the other role.

The question of the thread, however, isn't 'What fighter could completely replace the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1941 Fighter Command?'

 

[stona]

The question of the thread, however, isn't 'What fighter could completely replace the Spitfire and Hurricane in 1941 Fighter Command?'

No, it was 'top three allied fighters'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior fighter to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Edgar Brooks]

What Allied aircraft are so far ahead of the Whirlwind that it is unable to be in contention?

Spitfire Va, Vb, Vc.

 

[Shortround6]

What is amazing to me, is that the Whirlwind continued in use, even in limited, escorted roles into 1943 without change from it's basic 1940 configuration. It wasn't being used as a target tug, or glider tug. It was flying combat missions over enemy held territory 3 years after they said it wasn't wanted. This is hardly out of harms way even if it was being escorted by large numbers of Spitfires.

I would note that the Mosquito gained 13-15mph when fitted with Multi-stub exhausts instead of ducted saxaphone exhausts.

Just one of a number small changes that might have been done to the Whirlwind had production continued. No new mark of engine.

By 1943 Hurricanes were using Merlins that were cleared for 14lb boost in low gear and 16lbs boost in high gear and the Hurricane IVs coming into use in 1943 had Merlin 27s cleared for 18lb of boost.

Hardly surprising that a plane using the equivalent of a Merlin III was taken out of service in 1943. The surprise is that it lasted that long.

 

[Greyman]

No, it was 'top three allied fighters'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior fighter to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.

I'll ask in a different way: what is your #3 pick that leaves the Whirlwind in the dust?

Spitfire Va, Vb, Vc.

Well if those are the rules - I agree

 

[Vincenzo]

VC start deliveries to fighter squadrons in april 1942

 

[stona]

I'll ask in a different way: what is your #3 pick that leaves the Whirlwind in the dust?

I'd choose the P-40 but a very good case has been made for several Soviet types on which I don't feel qualified to comment.

Excluding Spitfire sub-types ( because the Spitfire was head and shoulders above other allied fighters at the time) a Spitfire, Hurricane, Whirlwind top three allied fighters of 1941 makes nice reading for the Brits, but would be hard to justify given the Whirlwinds actual performance.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Edgar Brooks]

VC start deliveries to fighter squadrons in april 1942

The first Vc AA873 flew 25-10-41, so qualifies for this thread.

 

[Vincenzo]

i don't think so

 

[Glider]

No, it was 'top three allied fighters'. Earlier there was some debate as to whether even the Hurricane should make the top three. The Hurricane was a much superior fighter to the Whirlwind. If the Hurricane can't make it the Whirlwind is a long way from making it.

Cheers

Steve

As you may expect I disagree with the view that the Hurricane was a better fighter than the Whirlwind. The Whirlwind was a lot faster and had a good overall performance. In 1941 you are up against the Me109f and that all over the hurricane whenever they met in combat.
Granted the Whirlwind had problems at altitude but so did the Hurricane. On paper it was OK but it struggled and the pilots knew it. The Whirlwind was operating over Europe in daylight until 1943 long after the Hurricane was withdrawn from active combat over europe on a regular basis.

 

[stona]

The Whirlwind's performance dropped of radically above 20,000ft. 5.7 minutes to 15,000ft is respectable but that is way too low for the sort of combats occurring in the BoB. The rate of climb fell to less than 1,00oft/min at 24,000ft (still too low) and it took just over 25 minutes to reach 30,000ft.
None of this is surprising given the rated altitude of 13,500 ft for the Peregrines as fitted to the Whirlwind. There were plans to fit an improved Peregrine, running at higher boost and giving a rated altitude of 20,000ft, but this came to nothing when the Peregrine was itself axed.

A report from Sqn. Ldr. Eeles on the Whirlwind's altitude performance, at a time when the Luftwaffe were regularly mounting fighter sweeps at 30,000ft said:

"The performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000ft falls off quite rapidly and it is considered that above 25,000ft it fighting qualities are very poor."

The Whirlwind only ever operated over Europe in daylight when escorted by Spitfires or, earlier, Hurricanes. Shades of the Bf 110 there. Later they were used often for shipping strikes which is arguably operating over occupied Europe, contested air space certainly. They did also attack targets in France.

The advantage of being used in a fighter bomber rather than fighter role was that they could use their low level performance. As 10 Group noted:

"It's manoeuvrability compared with Spitfires and Hurricanes makes it unsuitable ....for operations when it will have to engage enemy fighters and cannot rely on its speed at low level to make a getaway..."

I've given a lot of reasons and provided a lot of evidence why I wouldn't put the Whirlwind in my top three. I'm not seeing much evidence provided to support the contention that it should be in it. I respect your view that the Whirlwind was a better fighter than a Hurricane but it was not shared by Fighter Command for tactical and operational reasons. It was not shared by the Air Ministry and Ministry for Aircraft Production for economic reasons. I'd be interested to hear why you disagree with them, and me.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Glider]

The thread is the top three fighters in 1941. In 1941 the Hurricane was being withdrawn from combat over Europe by the RAF as it was totally outclassed. The RAF knew it as did the pilots. The Whirlwind wasn't withdrawn from combat over Europe until 1943 when the Typhoon arrived in sufficient numbers and with adequate reliability. So presumably the RAF considered the Whirlwind capable enough to operate in what was the most challenging air combat environment of the day.

In 1941 the Hurricane was not good enough for altitude combat, the Whirlwind never was any good at altitude which is why it operated at Low to Medium altitude. So any difference in practical terms in their performance at altitude was academic, as neither were able to take on the opposition at altitude.

My basic point is that if the Hurricane was so much better than the Whirlwind, why was the Hurricane withdrawn over Europe in favour of the Typhoon before the Whirlwind?

 

[tomo pauk]

Oh, no, the FTH for the peregrine was not 13500 ft, but 15000 ft (for +6.75 psi boost). For comparison sake, FTH for the the Merlin III was at 16250 ft (for +6.25 psi), and for the DB 601A 13120 ft or 14760 ft (4 or 4.5 km) depending on S/C version.
What let down the Whirlwind's performance above 20000 ft was the convoluted intake tubing before the air entered supercharger - each bend tends to lower the usage of ram effect, and hence it lowers airplane's critical height. Simple intake, like Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109 or P-40 used, is way better. Westland was trying to be too smart with intake, like Focke Wulf with Fw 190A air intakes? Second thing was the 'masked' exhaust, that means less exhaust thrust, that again lowers airplane's performance.
It is unfortunate that RR did not made some strong recommendations about intakes and exhausts on the Whirlwind. edit: or, if they did, Westland was not listening?