Did We Really Think It Was A Good Idea?

[michaelmaltby]

Colin, Waynos - thanks for this - it definately opens up my appreciation of a little-known aircraft a lot. Was the RR Peregrine "potentially" a great engine? What was it designed for that the Merlin couldn't/didn't (evolve) to deliver?

As you explain the Whirlwind to me (as always, haha) I come back to the Bell P-39. Lockeed, Bell, Westland all were trying for cannons in the nose - concentrated firepower. The P-38 and the Whirlwind both book one approach - 2 engines - Larry Bell took the other approach - (also Willy M in the 109), canon thro the spinner

Just like the Whirlwind, the Airacobra was unfulfilled by its engine/component train. Of the two designs - the Airacobra has to be the more muccessful of the two, even if the RAF couldn't use them.

As for the P-38 - I think the P-38 is the most over-rated Allied fighter of the European Theatre. In the Pacific, another story - the Bong Raid and all.

I ask: if the P-38 was so good, why did the USAAF use Mosquitos instead of P-38's? (The USAAF tried bombing with the P-38 - "on my mark" type stategic bombing but discontinued it) The Allisons were just not a great engine and the P-38's were damn cold at altitude. If the USAAF had alotted turbos for P-39's in 1939-40 instead of caching them for P-38's it would be a different story

Some tangents to the thread here -- for the gumbo.

MM

 

[BombTaxi]

I think it was discussed elsewhere very recently, but the Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine - putting any other engines on it would effectively have meant designing a new a/c.

If there was to have been any alternative to the Beau, it should have been the Gloster F.9/37 Reaper. The type was in fact favoured over the Beaufighter by the Air Ministry, unfortunately it was axed, IIRC, due to Gloster's workload with jet technology.

EDIT: Realised after posting this that I hadn't read the second page Apologies if I have re-hashed anything or thrown the conversation off-kilter!

 

[michaelmaltby]

My only Defiant story: [sorry, I can't resist and it reinforces a point]

In 1954 I was in 7th Grade and my teacher was an ex-Army spit and polish type (who never served overseas). A good teacher but a bit of a blusterer.

He told us in rapture how Defiants defended the Dunkirk beaches and surprised "the Hun" again and again with the 4x303 turret. Fly along side them and obliterate the crew. When I got older I learned that the Defiant wasn't quite the super-weapon that he believed. BUT .. did it perform well over Dunkirk? or would any aircover been welcome.

MM

 

[HoHun]

Hi Colin,

>Extract:

Thanks, that's highly interesting!

I'd add emphasis on one important shortcoming (which has already been mentioned above): The Whirlwind did not have much growth potential.

However, all twin-engined aircraft in WW2 were subject to critical comparison to single-engined types with regard to resource efficiency, and it's worth noting that the Luftwaffe's Whirlwind counterpart, the Focke-Wulf Fw 187, did never enter production despite considerable growth potential ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[tomo pauk]

If I may...

Peregrine was designed upon the premise that both 750 and 1000 HP engines would be needed for planes of near future. So Peregrine would cover the 750HP range, and P.V. 12 (=Merlin) the 1000HP range. The benefits Peregrine had against Merlin was that it was smaler lighter, but the shortcomings weighted more.

As for P-38, it was under rated in ETO IMO. USAF used P-38 for one task mainly, and Mossie in another ones, so the two neatly complemented one another.

I agree about the P-39; it 'deserved' the proper turbos. But not at P-38s expense, since it was an important player helping USAF to rule the Pacific and Mediterranean skies.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Tomo - please - more about why the P-38 was UNDER estimated in the ETO.
Was it that great a performer? I'd say that the P-47 was far more under estimated - and it had the highest survivability of any USAAF fighter.

Compare the Mosquito with the P-38 - I'd be curious about your assessment.

Meanwhile - another design which - while not deserving of "strangulation at birth" - adds to the trend of planes doomed by their power plants/performance trains.

I give you: the Henschel HS-129.

Those (like me) who are tempted by Eastern Front Porn -- and it's hard not to be tempted because the Eastern Front is of such scale and ferocity -- see battles like Kursk as ultimate deployment events (Six Day and Yon Kippper wars are both examples of "ultimate deployment events").

The HS 129 moved into the glam spot that the JU-87 cannon-Stukas had held.
But - underpowered - with 2 x 700ishHP French radials - was it really any better than a Stuka ..? Couldn't defend itself and not too manoeverable.

The Henschel people were assigned a Viche engine (after 1940). Using a radial for a ground attack ac was VERY SMART, but the engine didn't "go" - "evolve" anywhere.

 

[Waynos]

Colin, thanks for that, I found myself nodding in agreement as I read it. I used to be one of 'if only the Whirlwind could have had Merlins' believers, but when I actually looked into it rather than just imagining, I saw that the Whirlwind's structural tolerances were tailored specifically and exclusively to the Peregrine (a developed Kestrel with some Merlin tech incorporated) so that it could the smallest and lightest airframe it could possibly be, meaning no chance of re-engining later on. A mistake I would have thought no UK company would have made again after F.7/30

 

[tomo pauk]

Tomo - please - more about why the P-38 was UNDER estimated in the ETO.
Was it that great a performer? I'd say that the P-47 was far more under estimated - and it had the highest survivability of any USAAF fighter.

Basicaly, the Spit, P-47 and P-51 got all the laurels back in WWII days, while P-38 was regarded as a step child. I'd like to point you to the threads that cover P-38 compared with other fighters, since it's much better explained there than I could do it here.
I like the Jug too, I'ts my favourite fighter of WWII.

Compare the Mosquito with the P-38 - I'd be curious about your assessment.

One is a better fighter then the other. How bout that?

Meanwhile - another design which - while not deserving of "strangulation at birth" - adds to the trend of planes doomed by their power plants/performance trains.

I give you: the Henschel HS-129.

Those (like me) who are tempted by Eastern Front Porn -- and it's hard not to be tempted because the Eastern Front is of such scale and ferocity -- see battles like Kursk as ultimate deployment events (Six Day and Yon Kippper wars are both examples of "ultimate deployment events").

Yon Kipper = Yom Kippur?

The HS 129 moved into the glam spot that the JU-87 cannon-Stukas had held.

Hs-129 with the cannon precedes Ju-87Gs...

But - underpowered - with 2 x 700ishHP French radials - was it really any better than a Stuka ..? Couldn't defend itself and not too manoeverable.

The Henschel people were assigned a Viche engine (after 1940). Using a radial for a ground attack ac was VERY SMART, but the engine didn't "go" - "evolve" anywhere.

By 'Viche' I reckon it you mean 'Vichy', no?
Why would Germans evolve French engine?? Better bolt on their or Italian radials on it.

.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Negative,

>The theory behind the Defiant was fairly sound though, and I can see why someone did think it was a good idea. As you've mentioned, it was successful in WW1 and the plan was that it would be facing unescorted bombers.

I'd add that according to an old Flug Revue article, British gunnery trials also showed that the hit percentage achieved when firing from a powered, enclosed turret was much greater than it was for a WW1-style open position, which probably added greatly to the attraction of a turret fighter.

From "The Turret Fighters", it seems the concept was hotly debated even at the time of its inception, so I'm pretty sure that there were many people around who could truthfully claim after the Defiant's failure: "We told you this would happen". However, that does not mean that before the trial by fire, the turret fighter advocats didn't have good arguments too ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Flyboy2]

Not to diverge but...

A-40
While maybe a good idea on paper, why was testing continued after the Soviets realized it could only be dropped with no fuel or weapons

 

[michaelmaltby]

Actually Tomo, I meant Yon Kipper.

"Why would Germans evolve French engine?? Better bolt on their or Italian radials on it." -- why would the French be in the ac engine business if they weren't interested in developing their business?

Bad match I guess.

 

[Graeme]

why was testing continued

G'day Flyboy2, I didn't know that. I thought the Antonov was a one-off that executed a very bad landing (Gunston) and no production came from it. Were there other Antonov experiments?

Hafner, who gave us the Flying Jeep...



...also toyed with the idea of using the same concept with a Valentine tank, but at 35,000 lb there was no single aircraft capable of getting it airborne. So the idea was a Dakota tow a Halifax which then towed the Valentine. Once airborne the Dakota departed. The other plan was for two Halifaxes to tow the Valentine. The rotor blade was 152 ft in diameter and started by the tank's engine connected by a special auxiliary drive connected to the rotor head. Hafner was excited believing that this concept could "introduce new tactics to land warfare." The Ministry of Aircraft Production disagreed and it remained a project only...

 

[tomo pauk]

Actually Tomo, I meant Yon Kipper.

(Sorry for nitpicking)
There was a "Yom Kippur war"; "Yon Kipper war" Google search yields this thread in 7th place

"Why would Germans evolve French engine?? Better bolt on their or Italian radials on it." -- why would the French be in the ac engine business if they weren't interested in developing their business?

French were in AC business way before Germans occupied them. There was no much development until liberation.

Bad match I guess.

Do you mean that German and Italian engines were regarded as bad match for Hs 129?

.

 

[michaelmaltby]

No Tomo - I meant the match between the French and the Germans. If I'm not mistaken, weren't the French making a version of the Fw-190 by war's end - or did I pull that out of thin air?

Chairs,

Michael

 

[Freebird]

...just should've mount the Tauruses. With some 300 hp extra power aboard it would do 600 km/h, and would be trouble free (engine-wise).

It would have involved significant difficulty to switch to another in-line, but I don't think a radial would have worked, due to the aerodynamic design

Marcel Hun, yes, even though I added it to the thread* I do believe that the Defiants 'early success' is more 'urban legend' than historical fact.

*"never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

Negative Creep, as I mentioned, even the WW1 equivalents allowed the pilot the luxury of a fixed forward firing gun. I disagree that it was a sound idea in principle, the weight of the turret crippled the performance, I agree however that it *looked* like a good idea in the days when fighting area attacks were also thought to be a good idea.

My only Defiant story: [sorry, I can't resist and it reinforces a point]

In 1954 I was in 7th Grade and my teacher was an ex-Army spit and polish type (who never served overseas). A good teacher but a bit of a blusterer.

He told us in rapture how Defiants defended the Dunkirk beaches and surprised "the Hun" again and again with the 4x303 turret. Fly along side them and obliterate the crew. When I got older I learned that the Defiant wasn't quite the super-weapon that he believed. BUT .. did it perform well over Dunkirk? or would any aircover been welcome.

MM

The Defiant was not really designed to combat other fast fighters IIRC, it was planned to use this to intercept the bombers that were expected to dominate future wars. They thought that it could cruise underneath the bombers streams and shoot up.

The Defiant may have been effective at Dunkirk, the fighter battles often occured many miles from the beaches. The Defiant might have had some success in disrupting Stuka attacks, because unlike the fighters that would have to line up behind a diving Stuka, the Defiant could perhaps patrol at mid level, and have a 360' field of fire at the Stukas trying to zero in on the destroyers. I'm not really sure if this would work, perhaps some of the experts here can answer

Michael Maltby; the idea behind the Whirlwind was not to relieve the pressure on Merlin supply. At the time of its creation there was no pressure.

But it was perhaps a factor in the decision not to go ahead with the mk. II using Merlins. The company did want to develop a Merlin replacement, but by late '40 - early '41 the British were worried about Merlin supply {hence the plans for Merlin built by Packards} The fact that the the re-design would take time, at a point in the war when there was an immediate need for fighters to be built as quickly as possible, meant that the Whirlwind was dropped in favor of cranking out Spitfires

Colin, in what way would you say Westland were to blame?

Hi Wayne
There was more to point the finger at than the cessation of RR Peregrine production

On Westland's part, they
failed to produce on time
failed to accept the need for improvements and quickly

On the Customer's part, they
failed to issue control requirements
failed to give an early production order
failed to ensure mass production of the aircraft

On Rolls-Royce's part, they
failed to have a developed engine

On the RAF's part, they
failed to foresee the possibility of the design in the first place
failed to see the potential of the design, mainly due to 'single-engined fighter complex'


Extract:
The Whirlwind's advanced design was also the creator of any failures that it suffered, yet it had twin-engined safety, a greater range than either the standard Hurricane or Spitfire, it did not suffer from the structural failure rate of the Typhoon or Mosquito and was nicer and lighter on the controls than practically all fighter aircraft of that period.
Yet a mixture of wrong decisions and vacillation on the part of Service chiefs, plus the failure of Westland to quickly produce the aircraft and implement improvements, resulted in a delayed entry into RAF service.
For the RAF the Whirlwind was its first cannon-armed fighter and the aircraft suffered birth pangs because the Air Staff kept changing requirements, because of a Rolls-Royce engine that was incapable of the performance or development required and finally because of a late entry into service.

Sources
WHIRLWIND The Westland Whirlwind Fighter
Victor Bingham
Airlife Publishing Ltd
ISBN: 1 85310 004 8

Do you really think that Westland can be held to blame for this? They designed it around the Peregrine, which was at that point it was one of RR's primary engine types, so it would not be unreasonable for Westland to assume that RR would continue it's development.

Wiki In the early 1930s, Rolls-Royce started planning for the future of its aero engine development programmes, and eventually settled on two basic designs. The 700 horsepower (500 kW) Rolls-Royce Peregrine was an updated, supercharged development of their existing V-12, 22 L Rolls-Royce Kestrel, which had been used with great success in a number of 1930s designs. Two Peregrines bolted together on a common crankshaft into an X-24 layout would create the 1,700 hp (1,300 kW) 44 L Rolls-Royce Vulture, for use in larger aircraft such as bombers.

 

[Freebird]

OK - the Whirlwind was a fantastic gun platform - great bomber interceptor that was unfulfilled because of the engine manufactuer, RR. Is this born out with any effectiveness during the BofB. How many Whirlwinds were deployed and how effective were they? Any Whirlwind aces ..?

Just asking ... politely.

M

No, none at all Michael. The Whirlwind was never deployed in its intended role because of the Peregrines teething troubles. They were not serious but RR were too busy with other things and it was easier to drop the Peregrine as the Whirlwind was its only platform.

One thing which might serve to bear out the concept though is the number of LW bombers that returned to base full of .303's. With explosive 20mm rounds things could have looked very different.

When it was found that Whirlwind outperformed everything else available low down it was used as a ground attack aircraft and was quite successful as far as it went, however with no more engines being produced it was only ever a temporary move, less than 200 whirlwinds ended up being built.

One of it's major air-to-air engagements was unfortunately the "Channel Dash", when 5 Whirlwinds were jumped by about 20 Me109's. None of the Whirlwinds made it back, but I don't know how many Me109's were destroyed.


More info about the WW.

At low level, the aircraft was a devastating fighter-bomber, armed with both cannons and bombs, and it could hold its own with the Bf 109 at low-level. The performance of the Peregrine engine fell off at altitude, so the Whirlwind was used almost exclusively at low level. Though the Peregrine is a much-maligned powerplant, in actuality it would prove more reliable than the troublesome Napier Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon, the Whirlwind's successor.

In the ground-attack role the Whirlwind excelled, proving to be both an excellent bombing platform, and highly durable. The presence of a second engine meant that many seriously damaged aircraft were able to return from dangerous bombing missions over occupied France and Belgium on one engine, something that the Whirlwind's successor, the Hawker Typhoon, could not do.

The Whirlwind's four 20mm cannon were to prove extremely effective. From 1941 until 1943 the aircraft would become a frequent unwelcome sight over German airfields, marshaling yards, and locomotives. The Whirlwind was used to particularly good effect as a gun platform for destroying German supply trains. Pilots were often credited with several trains damaged or destroyed in a single mission. The aircraft was also very successful in hunting and destroying German E-boats which operated in the Channel.

The Whirlwind became distinguished for its survivability during crash landings and ground accidents. The placement of the wings and engines ahead of the cockpit allowed the aircraft to absorb a great deal of damage while the cockpit area remained largely intact. As a result, many pilots were able to walk away unhurt from aircraft that were totally written-off, a rare occurrence in 1930's era aircraft.

Philip J.R. Moyes notes in Aircraft in Profile 191: The Westland Whirlwind:

P.S., I only have the Firefly as my Avatar because I couldn't find a good Whirlwind clip...

 

[pbfoot]

I put 2 parts om an article on the Whirlwind in this thread including checkout but no one read so I really didn't want to waste effort for the rest of the article. This was by a gent that flew about 1/2 of Whirlwinds made
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/brief-whirlwind-history-15005.html

 

[Colin1]

I put 2 parts of an article on the Whirlwind in this thread including checkout but no one read it so I really didn't want to waste effort for the rest of the article

The effort wouldn't be wasted
I didn't know it was there

 

[Colin1]

Though the Peregrine is a much-maligned powerplant, in actuality it would prove more reliable than the troublesome Napier Sabre...

A curious comparison

 

[tomo pauk]

It would have involved significant difficulty to switch to another in-line, but I don't think a radial would have worked, due to the aerodynamic design
...

Why do you think that "aerodinamic design" would've act prohibitevly against mounting radial engines (like the Taurus I propose)?