A better Armstrong Whitworth Whitley

[Admiral Beez]

Armstrong Whitworth Whitley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can we address these ills from the onset of the design:

• As John Lloyd, chief designer of Armstrong Whitworth was unfamiliar with the use of flaps on a large heavy monoplane, they were initially omitted from the design. To compensate, the mid-set wings were set at a high angle of incidence (8.5°) to confer good take-off and landing performance. Flaps were included late in the design stage, the wing remained unaltered; as a result, the Whitley flew with a pronounced nose-down attitude when at cruising speed, resulting in considerable drag.
• The wings used a novel structure, patented by Armstrong Whitworth, of a massive light alloy box-spar braced internally with steel tubes. This structure was extremely strong but required a thick wing section, increasing drag.
• The ventral turret was hydraulically-powered but proved to be hard to operate and added considerable drag.
• Early marks featured bomb bay doors that opened by the weight of the bombs as they fell on bungee cord, which led to highly inaccurate bombing. Later variants introduced hydraulic doors which greatly improved bombing accuracy.

While keeping some of the good parts of early and later variants:

• The Whitley is the first RAF aircraft with a semi-monocoque fuselage, with many surviving severe damage.
• The Whitley was re-engined with Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in 1938, with greatly improved performance.
• Two additional fuel tanks in the wing were added for greater endurance.
• The manually operated tail gun position was replaced by a powered tail turret equipped with four .303 in mgs.

In March 1936 the first prototype Whitley Mk I takes flight, the same month as the first Spitfire, and five months after Armstrong Whitworth's corporate overlords at Hawker Siddeley's first Hurricane. Meanwhile, Avro, another subsidiary of Hawker's, has nothing in this class flying until the Manchester of 1939.

Given the above, can we make a better Mk I or II Whitley? Is there the knowledge and expertise at A/W or Hawker Siddeley get it "more" right from the start? Let's make it worthy of those two Merlins.

 

[MiTasol]

Obviously if they had dropped the wing angle of attack that would have helped a lot. Ventral turrets were often removed from production aircraft so again hindsight says dump that.

The wing structure is one I have no idea about as I have never seen any diagrams of the Whitley wing.

As always, hind sight is 20/20.

 

[Shortround6]

Given the above, can we make a better Mk I or II Whitley? Is there the knowledge and expertise at A/W or Hawker Siddeley get it "more" right from the start? Let's make it worthy of those two Merlins.

It may require knowledge that was rather rare at the time. And if you get too tricky you may loose some of the things that Whitley got right or at least were acceptable given some of the other things they had to take into account.

Also note that the Merlins were not installed until Whitley IV and this was after about 160 of the early Whitley's were built. First Whitley's were in Squadron service over a year before the first Wellingtons. Maybe they shouldn't have been but that is the problem with trying to "fix" some of the early aircraft. Armstrong Siddeley had basically lied about their "improved" Tiger engine and none of the first 160 planes were suitable for over water use.
I have no idea if "fixing" the wing would have helped the MK V Whitley or not. The Whitley V was taking off at weights about 50% heavier than the early Tiger powered planes.
Maybe the tilted wing with the flaps allowed for the increase in weight on the short airfields?
The fat wing of the Whitley allowed it to carry more bombs and fuel than the Wellington. A MK V could take off almost 5000lbs heavier than Wellington IC (Hercules powered planes gained up 8,000lbs over the Pegasus powered planes).

The Early MK IV Whitley's got Merlin IV engines which were slightly modified Merlin IIIs, the last 7 IVs built got the 2 speed Merlin X engines like the later versions.
Doesn't matter much what you do with the Whitley airframe, the Merlin X engines don't exist for most of 1937 or very early 1938.

 

[yulzari]

As a night 'heavy' bomber the Whitley IV could carry more and further than it's RAF peers without needing longer runways. In Coastal Command with auxiliary tanks it could range even further. The Whitley could, and did, bomb northern Italian targets from the UK.

What really killed off the Whitley in Bomber Command was that Armstrong Whitworth had the tools and skill set to make Lancasters instead whilst Vickers was built around the geodesic construction method which was very different so made Wellingtons right up to the end of the war. Handley Page also had the same skill set as Armstrong Whitworth so switched to making their own Halifax.

The return on levelling up the wings of the Whitley was not worth the disruption to production when the Whitley was an adequate performer in it's day and a better return was the OTL decision to switch the factories to making Lancasters instead.

I like the Whitley and regard it as the best night bomber of the pre 4 engined types but it was a sound decision to switch to Lancasters rather than make substantial changes to the existing airframe such as completely replacing the wing with a thinner one and change the fuselage to accommodate a levelled wing. You would pretty much end up with a new aeroplane with a Whitley nose and tail.

 

[MiTasol]

Hi Yulzari
I ran your tag line through google translate

 

[EwenS]

The starting point for the Whitley design was the Armstrong Whitworth AW23 an aircraft designed in response to a Spec issued in 1932. That design lost out to the Bristol Bombay.

armstrong whitworth aw23 - Google Search

That was an era of relatively small airfields with grass runways (1938 before the RAF began to lay hard runways) so take of and landing speeds were much more important than in WW2. Low landing speeds were even more important for the Whitley designed from the outset to operate at night. Hampden & Wellington were intended as day bombers.

Armstrong Whitworth received contracts in 1939 for 300 Avro Manchesters. They were cancelled in 1941, being replaced by contracts for 300 Bristol Hercules engined Lancaster II (delivered 9/42-3/44) to be followed by more Lancaster contracts.

So in all probability, had the Manchester design been successful and delivered on schedule, there would have been no need for the follow on production contracts for more Whitley V issued issued in April & Sept 1940, the last of which were not delivered until mid-1943, at which point it was out of front line service.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hi Yulzari
I ran your tag line through google translate
View attachment 799754

I've had days like that.

 

[yulzari]

Hi Yulzari
I ran your tag line through google translate
View attachment 799754

Occitan for my hovercraft is full of eels. See Monty Python.
FWIW in Cornish (Kernowek) that would be Leun a sylli yw ow skath bargesi.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Armstrong Whitworth Whitley - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can we address these ills from the onset of the design:

• As John Lloyd, chief designer of Armstrong Whitworth was unfamiliar with the use of flaps on a large heavy monoplane, they were initially omitted from the design. To compensate, the mid-set wings were set at a high angle of incidence (8.5°) to confer good take-off and landing performance. Flaps were included late in the design stage, the wing remained unaltered; as a result, the Whitley flew with a pronounced nose-down attitude when at cruising speed, resulting in considerable drag.
• The wings used a novel structure, patented by Armstrong Whitworth, of a massive light alloy box-spar braced internally with steel tubes. This structure was extremely strong but required a thick wing section, increasing drag.
• The ventral turret was hydraulically-powered but proved to be hard to operate and added considerable drag.
• Early marks featured bomb bay doors that opened by the weight of the bombs as they fell on bungee cord, which led to highly inaccurate bombing. Later variants introduced hydraulic doors which greatly improved bombing accuracy.

While keeping some of the good parts of early and later variants:

• The Whitley is the first RAF aircraft with a semi-monocoque fuselage, with many surviving severe damage.
• The Whitley was re-engined with Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in 1938, with greatly improved performance.
• Two additional fuel tanks in the wing were added for greater endurance.
• The manually operated tail gun position was replaced by a powered tail turret equipped with four .303 in mgs.

In March 1936 the first prototype Whitley Mk I takes flight, the same month as the first Spitfire, and five months after Armstrong Whitworth's corporate overlords at Hawker Siddeley's first Hurricane. Meanwhile, Avro, another subsidiary of Hawker's, has nothing in this class flying until the Manchester of 1939.

Given the above, can we make a better Mk I or II Whitley? Is there the knowledge and expertise at A/W or Hawker Siddeley get it "more" right from the start? Let's make it worthy of those two Merlins.

According to Profile #153, the 8.5° angle of incidence reduced speed by five or six miles per hour.

The reason for thick wings in the twenties and thirties was structural strength and rigidity. The airfoil must be an efficient structural section. I am comparing the Whitley here with the sort of similar B-25s and B-26s.

	Wingspan	Length	Empty Weight	Top Speed	Bomb Load
Whitley	84ft	70ft 6in	19,300lb	230mph @ 16,400ft	7,000lb
B-25 Mitchell	67ft 7in	52ft 11in	20,300lb	284mph @ 15,000ft	3,200lb
B-26 Marauder	71ft	58ft 3in	24,000lb	282mph @ 15,000ft	4,000lb

The Whitley was bigger and it carried a bigger bomb load. The aircraft had much less power than the American medium bombers, and the airframe and engines weighed less. The Mitchell and Marauder had thinner wings, more solid structures, and bigger engines. If the Vulture, Sabre and/or Centaurus engines had been reliable and available, the Whitley could have been a more interesting aircraft.

 

[marathag]

If the Vulture, Sabre and/or Centaurus engines had been reliable and available, the Whitley could have been a more interesting aircraft.

Rolls Royce develops the 'R' to a production engine rather than OTLs delay, making the Griffon in 1933 rather than 1939

 

[tomo pauk]

IMO, Whitley with 4 (four) Mercury engines would've been okay.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Rolls Royce develops the 'R' to a production engine rather than OTLs delay, making the Griffon in 1933 rather than 1939

I am right now sitting here in the Toronto Reference Library, with a copy of Rolls Royce Merlin 1933-1950 (all engine models) Owner's Workshop Manual, by Ian Craighead, Haynes Publishing. I am learning for the first time that the Rolls Royce Griffon engine started development before the Merlin! The Merlin was pushed because there were applications for it. The Griffon was delayed further during the Battle of Britain because Merlin production and development were getting critical.

Rolls Royce's planned 2000HP engine was the Vulture. What could possibly go wrong?

Note how the Whitley was both bigger than the American mediums, and it was lighter. If you double the Whitley's power, you get a new top speed of around 290mph. Could the airframe take it?

 

[Admiral Beez]

I am right now sitting here in the Toronto Reference Library...

I haven't been there for years, even though I could walk there. Back in the late 1980s through to the mid 1990s I used to enjoy burying myself in the military history section of the Toronto Reference Library. For those not familiar, here is Toronto's premier public library.

The hyperbaric oxygen chambers are new to me.

While you're in there looking up aircraft info, the library can provide some appropriate ambiance.

Vintage aircraft sound effects.

Vintage aircraft sound effects., , Toronto Public Library

www.torontopubliclibrary.ca

 

[Howard Gibson]

I am on the third floor, and I had to go over and look.

The "hyperbaric oxygen chambers" are "study pods". The sign says they are not soundproof. They look cool, but I am not sure of the point.

 

[EwenS]

I am right now sitting here in the Toronto Reference Library, with a copy of Rolls Royce Merlin 1933-1950 (all engine models) Owner's Workshop Manual, by Ian Craighead, Haynes Publishing. I am learning for the first time that the Rolls Royce Griffon engine started development before the Merlin! The Merlin was pushed because there were applications for it. The Griffon was delayed further during the Battle of Britain because Merlin production and development were getting critical.

Rolls Royce's planned 2000HP engine was the Vulture. What could possibly go wrong?

Note how the Whitley was both bigger than the American mediums, and it was lighter. If you double the Whitley's power, you get a new top speed of around 290mph. Could the airframe take it?

But the thing is RR carried out a lot of redesign going from the R derived Griffon I of 1933 to the Griffon II and later versions from 1938 incorporating a lot of what they learned from developing the Merlin. Bit like the chicken & egg!

 

[Admiral Beez]

The "hyperbaric oxygen chambers" are "study pods". They look cool, but I am not sure of the point.

Protection from the nutbars and junkies that increasingly populate our downtown libraries come to mind.

Library workers punched, spat on as security incidents rise, data shows | CBC News

CBC News obtained data from a number of library systems across the country that shows security incidents in these spaces — such as aggressive behaviour, verbal threats and suspected overdoses — are on the rise. Library workers say they are not equipped to manage the influx of vulnerable patrons...

www.cbc.ca

 

[Howard Gibson]

Protection from the nutbars and junkies that increasingly populate our downtown libraries come to mind.

Library workers punched, spat on as security incidents rise, data shows | CBC News

CBC News obtained data from a number of library systems across the country that shows security incidents in these spaces — such as aggressive behaviour, verbal threats and suspected overdoses — are on the rise. Library workers say they are not equipped to manage the influx of vulnerable patrons...

www.cbc.ca

Only if the nutbars and junkies don't realize they can open the doors.

 

[wuzak]

But the thing is RR carried out a lot of redesign going from the R derived Griffon I of 1933 to the Griffon II and later versions from 1938 incorporating a lot of what they learned from developing the Merlin. Bit like the chicken & egg!

The Griffon II was a new engine design, owing very little, if anything, to the Buzzard/R.

 

[Shortround6]

The Griffon II was a new engine design, owing very little, if anything, to the Buzzard/R.

Oh, come on. It used the same bore & stroke and it was an upright V-12.
Everything else is just details

 

[marathag]

The Griffon II was a new engine design, owing very little, if anything, to the Buzzard/R.

R-R also had to forget a lot of the Ramp Head Merlin too. X Blocks always seemed to be troublesome.
Just a bigger V-12 would have been better for making 2000hp, reliably