A brief Whirlwind History

[Matt308]

I also seem to recall from reading somewhere that the Whirlwind also suffered from inadequate structural support for the aft empanage. I want to say that I read that the Whirlwind suffered a few catastrophic failures early on in its development.

This true?

 

[Graeme]

I want to say that I read that the Whirlwind suffered a few catastrophic failures early on in its development.

Sure did Matt...

 

[mhuxt]

Map of operation, note Whirlies turning away near Doel.

Right-cllick, save as, use the windows standar picture viewer to zoom in.

I've a higher-resolution version of this scan, however as it's 4 meg, I ain't a-gonna post it. PM me if you want it, will do what I can to email but I don't guarantee your servers will accept large files. It also doesn't resolve all the issues on the scan as some are due to the original printing. I'll see if I can scan in some of the text accounts.

 

[mhuxt]

Attempt at text:

 

[mhuxt]

Meh, more later

 

[mhuxt]

 

[Marshall_Stack]

Attached is a link discussing (a person's viewpoint) on the need for a twin engined fighter in the RAF and FAA.

BRITISH WW2 MULTI

 

[kool kitty89]

Tony Williams article is an interesting one but there re a couple points that seem to have been overlooked.

He corectly points out that the the Whirlwind is too small, but I think he exaggerates by saying the G.39 is too big. He also chooses the Bristol Taurus as the engine, ut as he mentioned about the Perrigrine at Rolls Royce, Bristol was focusing their development efforts on the Hercules and thus the Taurus developed rather slowly. (additionally the Taurus was more problematic in general and less reliable)

The Hercules may have been a bit heavy, but I think it would have been an adequate choice and probably a good match to Glosters fighter. And also not that the Hercules' performance is much closer to that of the contemporary Merlin and that it was often used alternately with the merlin on many RAF bombers.

The Pratt and Whitney R-1830 (or R-2000) as discussed in that article while discussing Grumman's XP-50, would seem more or less the ideal choice. Being fairly light and compact (lighter than the Taurus and almost as small in diameter), quite reliable, with a decent power output (moreso in the case of the R-2000), and had good altitude performance. (with a 2-stage supercharger fitted)
Of course it wasn't a British engine, so it would have to be imported or lisence-built, or both.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Mark,

>Map of operation, note Whirlies turning away near Doel.

Outstanding, thanks a lot! Seems that they kept a larger reserve for combat than I had expected, or maybe I had overestimated their range.

How many Whirlwinds were employed? From the formation graph accompanying the map, it looks as if there were only 12 of them?

I suppose the "long range Spitfires" were Spitfire Mk II aircraft with a single fixed extra tank under one wing?

Thanks again!

Henning (HoHun)

 

[mhuxt]

Hi Henning:

Yes, so far as I read things, that's correct, just the 12 Whirlies. You'll note from the route markers that the squadrons are listed, along with the number of aircraft each provided.

There is an appendix which lists all aircraft (by serial number I believe!) involved in the operation, which should give a definitive answer re: how many Whirlwinds, and should also provide some clarity re" "long range Spitfires" about which I know (at this point) not a thing.

Will try to scan that up within the next couple of days.

Let me know if you want the high-res map.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[mhuxt]

How many Whirlwinds were employed? From the formation graph accompanying the map, it looks as if there were only 12 of them?

I suppose the "long range Spitfires" were Spitfire Mk II aircraft with a single fixed extra tank under one wing?

Hi Henning:

This should make things more precise: looks like the long-range return escort were Spitfire IIAs.

Will post remaining text some other time.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[brewerjerry]

Map of operation, note Whirlies turning away near Doel.

Right-cllick, save as, use the windows standar picture viewer to zoom in.

I've a higher-resolution version of this scan, however as it's 4 meg, I ain't a-gonna post it. PM me if you want it, will do what I can to email but I don't guarantee your servers will accept large files. It also doesn't resolve all the issues on the scan as some are due to the original printing. I'll see if I can scan in some of the text accounts.

Hi
Any chance of re posting the map ? the link doesn't seem to work, and I haven't seen a map of the op before.
cheers
Jerry

 

[pbfoot]

those big 10ft props would not feather also, i'll try to scan a small article I have called "flying the Whirlwind" by a guy who flew 33 different ones on ops

gotta scanner so here is pt 1of the article.

"We thought we were on our way to becoming Canadian fighter pilots on Spitfires or at least Hurricanes; but at the end of the course when our squadron listings were posted ten RCAF sergeant pilots were to be sent to 263 squadron."what was 263 squadron we asked. Where was it and what .
Did it fly?'' . Somebody thought that 263 flew Whirlwinds. What are Whirlwinds?'' we wanted to know. No one at the OTU, including the instructors seemed to know anything about the Whirlwind because it was on the secret list All kinds of rumours began circulating, strange stories about this odd machine, heard second- or third-hand. Fairy tales would have been a better description. Other than it having two engine's the originators had no real knowledge of this fine aeroplane. One claim was that it could not fly on one engine. Later I would fly one back to base on one engine. Twice! Another story had In the event of a nose over ,the 4 cannons which were mounted virtually in your lap. would break loose and separate the top half of your body from the bottom half. Not so! 1 would seriously bend Whirlwind P7108 by running off the runway into boggy ground, flipping the aircraft on its back. I ' was unhurt except for one toe. No sooner had the aircraft come to rest in- - and then a whole gang of airmen appeared and mightily lifted up the tail. l pulled the pin on my Sutton harness and landed square on my head. Crawling out from under, I vented my anger by giving the aircraft a mighty kick-breaking -my toe.
This kept me off flying for a couple of days. Of course, expecting Spitfires or Hurricanes, we knew that we wouldn't like the Whirlwind at all. The night before we were to have a formal interview with the CO, we new RCAF pilots decided enmasse to tell him we did not wish to fly twins and to demand a posting to a Canadian single-engine fighter unit. The next morning needless to say, Pugh, the CO, tore off great strips from our -hides and threatened us with dire penalties-court martial and other unpleasantness. We would all fly the Whirlwind, he firmly stated. He guaranteed that we would grow to love it. As we waited for transport to take us back to the field wondering what our fate was to be, Pugh's Whirlwind appeared. dove down on us, he pulled up into a series of upward rolls and treated us to a series of low-level aerobatics-the likes of which l would never see again. Maybe, we thought, it won't be too bad having to fly this strange aeroplane

It was cleans sleek, and relatively small for a twin-engined aircraft, with a forty-five-foot wingspan and a length of thirty-one feet, six inches. The fuselage was mainly of magnesium, which made it a little different from contemporary aircraft. A low-wing monoplane, it had very smooth surfaces and of was built in three major sections. The engines were mounted on the wing centre section. Leading edged slats were installed initially, but these were permantly locked as a result of a fatal accident. One of the slats broke loose ; during a high-speed stall, causing the aircraft to crash.
The engines were Rolls-Royce V12 Peregrines rated at 885 hp at 3,000 rpm, driving ten-foot diameter variable-speed propellers, which could not be feathered, There was a 67-gallon fuel tank in each wing feeding the adjacent engine. but there was no crossover from one tank to the other. The lack of feathering and crossover feed were two very unsatisfactory features. The throttle, pitch, fuel, and mixture controls were hydraulically operated by the exactor system. Armament was four 20-mm Hispano cannon mounted in y the nose, immediately in front of the cockpit-right in your lap-with sixty rounds per drum-fed gun. The Whirlwind was the first Allied monoplane allied fighter to be designed around cannon armament.
The cockpit was roomy and well organized for its time. The seat was amply protected by armour plate. and the windshield was bulletproof. There was a substantial crash pylon right behind the pilot's head in case of a bit of unexpected (but extreme) nose-down tail-up attitude. Access to the cockpit was by a three-foot retractable ladder, stowed in the fuselage during flight.
…....... What was it like to fly the Whirlwind? I can say that it was scary for those first few flights. There was no two-seat version for dual instruction, no way of learning how to manage an aircraft with two engines how to taxi it,"

 

[pbfoot]

pt 2

become familiar with any odd characteristics. Much later we did get an Oxford, but only for twin-engined ground handling. Even the Whirlwind's ' landing speed-in excess of 25 mph beyond that of the Hurrie or Spit-was ' daunting-We didn't even have a manual for the aeroplane.visibility from the . cockpit was excellent and in my view even better than the MkVl Mossie that 'I later flew. The bubble canopy, which wound back on a single crank system i for normal opening, was great. l don't think that there was an emergency canopy jettisoning system, because of the high fin and raised tailplane. The Pilot's Notes I picked up several years ago in the United Kingdom at the : Shuttleworth Collection's bookshop make no mention of one. We were allocated one of the experienced sergeant pilots on the squadron who became our tutor with a show and tell'' approach. From him we were ' expected to learn bow to fly the Whirlwind. We also learned other useful .
: things by going over to the maintenance hangar and inspecting the emergency systems, armament, and such things.
. on 12 october- three days after beginning this course, the flight commander asked my tutor if I was ready to fly the aeroplane assured that I was he told me to get my parachute and sign out whirlwind 7003 1 sat in the cockpit for what seemed like an hour-actually -about ten minutes- being vigorously grilled by the flight commander. Suddenly he slapped me on the '. A pat on the shoulder and told me to get it into the air. Since this was the first time I had even sat in the aeroplane, luck had to be the rule.
As l sat in that cockpit on 12 October, 1 knew very little about this curiously unconventional aeroplane. All I could think of was how in hell do l get - the damn thing up, and more important, how do I get it down again? My mind was tilled with all the half-believed rumours about it being a hard aeroplane to fly. a killer that couldn't fly on one engine. It was also said that if that you lost an engine on takeoff, the plane would proceed to roll upside down, or: on the other hand, it might climb out of sight. 'There was no short- age of pukka gen. RAF slang for accurate information, a term originating years earlier in the Far East.)
My tutor had primed me with all of the procedures necessary to get out of scrapes, but I only half-believed him when he said it was a great machine to fly. My immediate concern had to do with the 'Whirlwind's fast acceleration. Unlike the Spit and the Hurricane, which had monstrous cooling radiators hanging down below the wings or fuselage, the Whirlwind had its rads set right into the leading edges of the wings, inboard of the engines, While it was very clean-looking, this feature made the engines prone to overheating 5On the ground.
so a quick takeoff - as soon as you started the engines was essential I had a long way to taxi. There were two engines to deal with,.and I wasn't completely familiar with the RAF's new system of hand brakes. .
I had to taxi this two-engined, marginally cooled thing with a scant supply of air pressure. it was a daunting picture.

But this was it .What to do? Don't forget to prime the exactors (hydraulic lines
rather than the rods and pinions that normally went to the throttle), pitch, fuel, and mixture controls of the engine. Remember the speed numbers' Use plus-nine boost on take off and full fine pitch. Don't let the rads boil.
. . . .1 Remember, It will fly on one engine at 140mph -no better make it 150!.
I was a little worried, but I told myself that l's already coped with 194 hours of flying so i should be able to put up at least one more.
When I looked around to see if everything was clear, my two ground crew
-bless their souls- who obviously knew that this was my first flight in the Whirlwind, gave me great big grins and vigorous thumbs-up sign . I started the engines . Quickly now , hydraulic pressure OK, check flaps down

 

[johnbr]

If you what a good read on the Whirlwind there is a story on it in Oct 08 issue of Flypast by Tony Buttler.