Earlier Tempest/No Typhoon

[GregP]

A lot of nothing to-do over 116 airplanes that didn't serve very long, don't you think? That's too many posts to read about plane that contributed so little.

I realize you must oppose anything I say for some reason, but the Whirlwind, really didn't amount to much of a player in the war, though you may write books about it in this thread. It gave service to be sure.

The Peregrine never turned into anything except power for the little Whirlwind. At the power levels it was making, maybe they could have made a PT boat or tank engine out of it. Most PT boats and tanks don't need altitude performance. At least 900 - 1,000 HP was useful there.

Have a nice day, Short.

 

[Greyman]

Whirlwind was as fast or faster than some early Spitfires at low level.

Whirlwind I - +6¼ and +9 boost
Spitfire I - +6¼ and +12 boost
Spitfire V - +9 and +12 boost

Whirlwind +9 boost is my estimate from extrapolating boost and speed curves from A&AEE test.

 

[GregP]

Out of curiosity, I was looking over my German claims file. I can find claims for 16 Whirlwinds from Oct 40 through Apr 43, with all but 2 being in 41 – 42. I have 8 claims by 9 JG 2, two claims each for 11 JG 2 and 7 JG 2, and 1 claim each for 1. Erg. JG 2, 2 JG 51, 3 JG 2, and 8 JG 2.

I can find many pilots with victory credits who flew in units equipped with Whirlwinds, but no list of victories achieved with Whirlwinds, and most if not all of these pilots have a list of other units they were assigned to during their tenure that weren't flying Whirlwinds. I know there were some claims and I have seen reports of engagements with 2 – 3 Whirlwind claims. One place I looked says there were two Whirlwind pilots with 4 claims each, but didn't name the pilots or units. So far, the totals I have seen amount to something like 8 – 10 victory claims while flying Whirlwinds, but I'd welcome a post from anyone who knows better.

Right now it looks something like parity in claims versus losses … 16 German claims against some number of claimed victories that I add up to 10 – 12, but have no real record of. The British ace list I have does not say what planes were flown ... it gives total victories. If claims were inaccurate up to 50%, then we have virtual parity in claims versus combat losses, with no great number in either column.

I am now quite curious about the Whirly since it is supposed to have had very good flying characteristics and is supposed to have been a real threat to the Bf 109 down low ... but they retired them right when it would appear they needed them. There IS a story there above and beyond the black and white numbers.

I KNOW they were withdrawn quickly and didn't achieve a lot. I can't find any bad reports other than altitude performance, but they were withdrawn too quickly and with little fanfare. Units converted mostly to Typhoons. There has to be a primary reason they were abandoned. Most of my books say the Peregrine was the main reason but, other than that, I can find no real bad writeups about the plane other than it's obvious relative obscurity and lack of altitude performance.

Nobody ever said the armament was bad or that it lacked handling or anything else, but it certainly was gone quickly and with little celebrity status. With 7+ references citing the Peregrine as the main fault, I'm wondering why we have these posts in here defending the Peregrine.

Anybody have a clue? I already know Shortround likes the Peregrine and I don't have any issue with that at all. It just flies in the face of all my books that mention the Whirlwind at all. Every time I see it in print I also find mention of the Peregrine as the main cause of the airplane's demise. The most frequent comment seems to be that Peregrine development was dropped in favor of developing the Merlin.

So Roll Royce felt that the Peregrine was not worth the effort or else didn't have the staff to do both and the Merlin won out. Either way, the Peregrine didn't make it as a single block or as a multi-block Vulture.

I'm sure Rolls-Royce could have worked out the engine. The question in my mind was why they would given the engine's horsepower rating. If there was a need for 900 - 1,000 HP ... then yes. If there wasn't, then no. History seems to be saying there was no need for that category of engine or else it would not have been shelved or, at best, would have been revivied to fill the need later had it been indicated.

 

[Greyman]

There has to be a primary reason they were abandoned.

Engine rationalisation.

It was all about production output. Kill the Peregrine/Whirlwind and gain five times as many Spitfires. I'm oversimplifying but that's the gist of it.

 

[GregP]

Seems like you have a reasonable supposition there, Greyman.

I find the Whirlwind slats were wired shut because they could pop open so hard they damaged the wing. Despite this, it seems to have been a good-handling aircraft albeit with long takeoff and landing distances relative to other RAF planes of the time or relative to available RAF airstrips of the time.

So everything I read points to exactly what I said, it wasn't a bad aircraft, just less than what was needed. Another thing to consider is that twins are never as cheap as singles are and it is also likely that the expense of a Whirlwind was not worth it since you could probably get something like 5 Hurricanes for the price of 3 Whirlwinds. Perhaps they were in need not only of good aircrft, but also MORE, and 5 Hurricanes were a better proposition for the RAF than 3 Whirlwinds or 3 anything else. The 5 and 3 are just numbers, but Hurricanes WERE cheaper than Whirlwinds ... no piston fighter twin is cheaper than a piston fighter single.

Either way, if the Peregrine had potential or potential immediate use as-is it would have been developed since it was already in production. Why invent a new 900 - 1,000 HP engine when you are making one already? It looks, at least on the surface, like they didn't need a 900 HP engine ... they needed a 1,500 HP engine and got it in the Merlin.

That says nothing overtly bad about the Whirlwind, just that it was retired in lieu of other options.

Shortround, your replies are entertaining. You should find a way to not get so worked up. You wouldn't want to get a stroke from working up a reply to a post about a forgotten 80-year old engine, would you? I'm not surprised we see things differently, but you seem to want to swing fists about it instead of discussing it like rational people.

The numbers for power above are correct for the engines in some version and I wasn't comparing a certain year anything against a certain year anythign else. You missed the point. The Germans made up for lower fuel performance with displacement and came in with competitive powerplants in the same ballpark as the British had for power and torque. The Peregrine wasn't ever going to be competitive with a 1,500+ HP engine, be it Merlin or DB6, and so wasn't what was needed and wasn't ever going to BE what was needed.

Seemed obvious to me, but no two people think alike. And if you've ever had to sell a company CEO on a big project, you'd KNOW you can't sell him or her with 20 pages of engineering jargon, even if you are an engineer. You need to state the project, the cost, the benefits, and returns in about 3/4 of a page or you lose the CEO's attention quickly. All CEO's want you to cut to the chase. The backup needs to be there, but in the background, available if needed.

It seemed obvious to me after reading maybe 7 - 9 books that mention the Whirlwind and the Peregrine that the Peregrine wasn't going to make competitive power and never did get reliable. That's enough to push it into a corner for any boss worth his or her pay. If it isn't, they won't be the boss for long.

I didn't come to that conclusion just to jerk Shortround's chain, it just falls out of the information. You want to get bogged down in the details and I want to look at the big picture. We need both types of approaches, and we don't need to fight about every one of them, do we? The people in power at the time dropped the Peregrine in all of it's itterations ... none of them made it. Isn't that enough justification to let it go?

 

[Greyman]

I find the Whirlwind slats were wired shut because they could pop open so hard they damaged the wing. Despite this, it seems to have been a good-handling aircraft albeit with long takeoff and landing distances relative to other RAF planes of the time or relative to available RAF airstrips of the time.

Relevant bits from the A&AEE:

Handling Trials with outboard slats locked
28th May, 1941
...
4. Conclusions and recommendations:
In general it was found that the aeroplane is more pleasant to fly at speeds at which the slots were previously open, and it shows no undesirable characteristics.

... as an immediate cure for those cases reported in which the slats have torn off in flight, it is recommended that the outboard slats be locked in the fully closed position.

Handling trials on a second aeroplane with outboard slats locked
2nd July 1941
...
4. Conclusions:
The aeroplane as received was satisfactory at the stall with flaps and undercarriage either up or down. There was no tendency to spin. With the control column fully aft, either wing would drop at varying rates. From this position a spin might possibly develop but considerable force is necessary to hold the control column back, and recovery is immediate on easing the control column forward.

Sealing all gaps around the slats brings about a considerable improvement in the stall characteristics, and it is, therefore, recommended that this action be taken on those aeroplanes having their slats locked.

 

[pbehn]

If they were as much trouble as some writers have claimed (not just on this forum) the wonder is that they used them as long as they did. Beaufighter might have had a bit more trouble with the overland low level strikes. Whirlwind was as fast or faster than some early Spitfires at low level. It also had good roll response which is an advantage in tree top flying. Not trying to take anything away from the Beaufighter but you are comparing a 10,000lb airplane to an over 20,000lb airplane and while the Beaufighter was certainly versatile and did a number of jobs well, low level strikes in contested air space may not have been the best place for it.

The Whirlwind was stopped because of its engine. I have absolutely no doubt that Rolls Royce could have sorted it eventually to produce a reliable 1,200BHP MAX but why would they? By the time the Peregrine and Whirlwind was stopped most NEW fighters and bombers were being based around big 2000BHP engines.

I would not propose a Beaufighter for low level overland strikes...but how much did the UK need to attack French trains and infrastructure? The UK did need a good night fighter and maritime attack aircraft. Post war history focuses on the best in the field and so the Beaufighter pales in comparison to the Mosquito. That doesnt mean the Beaufighter wasnt a great plane and what was needed at the time...just not the best. As twin engined planes go the Whirlwind couldnt carry RADAR and operator a torpedo or enough fuel to give it more than an interceptors range.

 

[Shortround6]

The Whirlwind was stopped because of its engine. I have absolutely no doubt that Rolls Royce could have sorted it eventually to produce a reliable 1,200BHP MAX but why would they? By the time the Peregrine and Whirlwind was stopped most NEW fighters and bombers were being based around big 2000BHP engines.

I would not propose a Beaufighter for low level overland strikes...but how much did the UK need to attack French trains and infrastructure? The UK did need a good night fighter and maritime attack aircraft. Post war history focuses on the best in the field and so the Beaufighter pales in comparison to the Mosquito. That doesnt mean the Beaufighter wasnt a great plane and what was needed at the time...just not the best. As twin engined planes go the Whirlwind couldnt carry RADAR and operator a torpedo or enough fuel to give it more than an interceptors range.

I keep saying it was the right decision for a production standpoint.

Maybe the British didn't need to attack French trains and infrastructure in 1941/42. But it was part of the "forward lean" policy of trying to get the Luftwaffe to come up and defend the area so the Spitfires could shoot down the Luftwaffe fighters in the air. The Whirlwind on a low level strike being a lot more survivable than using Blenheims. Whirlwinds also were tasked with shooting up Luftwaffe airfields. The Luftwaffe often declined to play the British game and send fighters after these 2-4 plane tip and run raids.

Whirlwind claims vrs actual results may be like many other aircraft claims, both in the air and on the ground, rather exaggerated. But I would venture to say that the 114 Whirlwinds did accomplish more than all the TA 152s built. All the Me 163s built and all the HE 162s built (what the heck, throw in the the HE 100s and Fw 187 too) put together. Look at the amount of ink, space, time and bandwidth devoted to those planes

A lot of what we "know" we find isn't so. How many books and websites say that BF 109Ks of certain models had 15mm MG 151s in the cowl or 30mm MK 103 cannon in the propeller hub.

 

[Piper106]

That said, would the H-24 configuration really be necessary? Could a vertically oriented mirrored double-V engine work while sharing near complete commonality with Peregrine parts? (mostly differing in crankcase, reduction gears, and lubrication system)

Likely, yes.
I suggested the vertical H arrangement since that seemed the most 'common' arrangement for 24 cylinder engines.
Before WW2, Hispano Suiza built an vertical H-24 version of their 12Y engine. During the war, there was the Fairey H-24 Monarch, there was the Lycoming XH-2470 'Hyper' engine, and Rolls Royce seems to have looked at a 24 cylinder 'H Merlin', and those are just the ones I remember. A flat 24 'double Peregrine' (like the Sabre) seems just as viable. The Allison V-3420 (two upright vees) seemed to be OK, but too wide (60 inches) for a single engine fighter.

The key point was to stay with just two cylinders be crankpin. For whatever reason, none of the liquid cooled multi-bank engines with four or more cylinders per crankpin seems to have succeeded (RR Vulture, Jumo 222, DB 604, Wright Tornado). The two best known projects both had problems with connecting rod /and/or rod bearings, either real (in the case of the Vulture) or whispered (Jumo 222).

You also still have one more problem: unless you hand off production to another firm, you cut in on Merlin production capacity and (more critically) efficiency.

Since I killed the Sabre, I could have Napier build the 24 cylinder 'double Peregrine' for aircraft, and continue its development. And while the V-12 Peregrine was too small for aircraft use, an un-supercharged version would have been a good fit for tanks. Rover UK or Ford USA (in place of their in-house designed GAA).

 

[kool kitty89]

Whirlwind I - +6¼ and +9 boost
Spitfire I - +6¼ and +12 boost
Spitfire V - +9 and +12 boost

Whirlwind +9 boost is my estimate from extrapolating boost and speed curves from A&AEE test.

Drifting topic a bit more, but I think it's still relevant, but I suspect the Spitfire Mk.III would give the Whirlwind more a run for its money at low altitude while having a slight edge in critical altitude over the Mk.V as well. (of course, this ignores a hypothetical Whirlwind Mk.II) This came up in comparing the Spitfire III to the 1941 Fw 190 and Typhoon before. (possible clipped wing Spit IIIs also came up)

This would be immediately relevant to my suggestion of nixing the Saber and Typhoon entirely in the extreme rational move to just have Napier build Merlins. More Merlin XXs available means more potential to actually build the Spitfire III (including potentially passing it off to Westland while Supermarine focuses on the simpler Mk.V).

Hell, with the low alt engine power boost, it'd even given the Mk.III more potential as fighter bomber on the Hurricane II's level. (I'd expext priority would be as a front line fighter/interceptor though)

A whirlwind Mk.II would still be a better Fw 190 beater (and Typhoon beater), but the Spit III seems the rational, economical option.

Engine rationalisation.

It was all about production output. Kill the Peregrine/Whirlwind and gain five times as many Spitfires. I'm oversimplifying but that's the gist of it.

5 merlins to 2 peregrines is a simplification, but a useful one, it's the 'Spitfires' bit that mucks things up more.

Merlins are going to a LOT more than just Spitfires and Spit production hitting its own weird bottlenecks ... to the extent one could argue that Whirlwind production COULD have been more useful under the right circumstances -but that's airframe wise, not engine, and in any case tooling up Westland for high volume spitfire production could/should have happened sooner and more smoothly. They could have even gone to Spitfire III tooling instead. (less trade-offs than Supermarine factories with existing Mk.II tooling more useful for Mk.Vs, just need enough Merlin XXs for Westland Spit IIIs and you're good)

The Whirlwind was stopped because of its engine. I have absolutely no doubt that Rolls Royce could have sorted it eventually to produce a reliable 1,200BHP MAX but why would they? By the time the Peregrine and Whirlwind was stopped most NEW fighters and bombers were being based around big 2000BHP engines.

Because all those 2000 HP engines were unproven while the Peregrine was not AND was better suited to a 'small' heavy fighter than the merlin was. It'd be like Canceling the F5F if the thing had been refined and service ready in 1940 AND the R-2800 was experiencing serious problems getting into mass production ... well a bit more like if the F5F had gotten the originally intended R-1535s. (and if the 1535 developed MUCH more smoothly than the R-2800)

If the British Engine development situation had been like the American one in 1940 (with the 1800-2000 hp class engines already reliable in mass production versions) it'd be another story entirely, but they weren't. (or they were but ... more like some of the troubled hyper engine projects that never ended up in service in the US -and the Centaurus being more in the R-3350's boat time-wise ... and performance and weight and size)

A pair of 1000 hp 2-stage supercharged R-1535s would be really neat on a twin engine fighter, and certainly something plausible. (similar volumetric performance to the 2-stage R-1830 of 1940 ... and like the Peregrine, the R-1535 was canceled due to rationalization, not any design faults or lack of potential) Hell, the XF5F might have even flown a good bit sooner if they hadn't had to redesign for the larger, heavier, 1200 hp Cyclone engines (R-1830s would have taken similar work). Admittedly, the XF5F is a bit closer in development timing and size to the F.9/37. (which, of course, DID rely on engines in the R-1535 class -early Taurus and Peregrines)

 

[Greyman]

Drifting topic a bit more, but I think it's still relevant, but I suspect the Spitfire Mk.III would give the Whirlwind more a run for its money at low altitude while having a slight edge in critical altitude over the Mk.V as well.

According to (what looks like) an RAE chart, a Spitfire III has about an 8mph advantage over a Spitfire V under 9,000 feet. The higher critical altitude is there, but the Spitfire V has a healthy advantage between 12,000 and 20,000 feet (28 mph at the Spit V critical alt at +12 boost).

Things would probably have changed at the end of 1942 - but keep in mind the Spitfire III could only use +12 boost in low gear (under 12,000 feet approx.), while the Spitfire V could start using it under 20,000 feet.

 

[kool kitty89]

As far as the Lysander goes, it was useless in it's intended role/s. No amount of use in other roles is going to change that. After being a total flop as a combat aircraft (or trying to exist in a combat zone) it saw a lot of use as a trainer, ASR, target tug and 'agent' dropper.

It probably would have been useful enough if produced in smaller numbers: cut down the Lysander orders and up the Whirlwind orders early on and production rate of the latter should have increased substantially.

IF that order had occurred prior to the Peregrine's discontinued production during the 1940 production rationalization, engine demand would have been higher earlier and production might have ramped up enough to put out a good deal more peregrines and possibly even address more of the problems sooner. (larger orders + more money + more interest tends to expedite things)

Part of the poor efficiency of peregrine production in combination with merlins may have been the low volume and overhead it would take to ramp-up production or maintain low volume production vs the merlin already ramping up and gaining efficiency. (In the unlikely event that demand was high enough to merit expanding Rolls Royce's manufacturing facilities sooner, it definitely would have changed the trade-offs for rationalization as total volume output would be higher than it historically was in 1940 and peregrine and merlin production could be kept in separate factories with specialization efficiency optimized for both)

They didn't have a problem producing both the Merlin and Griffon later on.

Of course the Peregrine was the lowest power, it was the smallest engine. Another "detail" that isn't important apparently. The Peregrine weighed 1106lbs for a power to weight ratio or 1.25lbs per HP. A Merlin X two speed engine running on 87 octane had a power to weight ratio of 1.26lb per HP. granted is the power to weight ratio of the complete aircraft that counts so the smaller engine is at a disadvantage there.

Actually, I may have misspoken earlier regarding the V-1710-33 (C-15). I know the F3R had a dry weight of 1310 lbs, but the -33 was lighter, I just don't know how much. (if it really was about the same weight as the Peregrine, it might have been a good swap to make, though the radiators would need to be enlarged or maximum power restricted -might also run into idle overheating like the P-40)

Napier building V-1710s is an interesting idea, but I suspect there might be production tolerance issues given the standards for typical (existing) Napier vs Allison/GM manufacturing. (I know Ford of Britain had tighter standards than Rolls Royce and made similar changed as Packard to facilitate production in their factories)

Hand-fitting Allison components was used on some of the AVG's P-40s using rejected engines salvaged using hand-machined/fitted components to work around the out of spec tolerances, so it might not have been a problem other than reducing efficiency compared to GM/Allison and making parts less universally interchangeable ... and maintenance more difficult. (no worse than existing Napier or early-war Rolls Royce engines)


Importing V-1710s to supplement Napier/Rolls/etc built Peregrines might make more sense as far as timing and cost given that Rolls and Napier collaborating/licensing seems more likely than Allison/GM and Napier. (or Ford of Britain, except the V-1710 might actually be faster to set up efficiently with Ford than the Merlin, though bureaucratic and trans-atlantic communication overhead would slow progress -and you need foresight to start things in motion early either way)

F-series production would mean an end of lighter engines to import, so Allison would be a dead-end in that respect.

Lots seem to go back to 'peregrine or bust' for the Whirlwind ... with one final exception for the V-1710-33:
it's powerful enough to be useful on the Spitfire while lighter and better streamlined than the Merlin and better adapted for 'tropical' conditions without using those awful external filters. And without changing the weight or structural integrity of the engine, Merlin XX/45 style refinements to the intake manifold and supercharger housing could improve altitude performance a fair extent and improve power at all altitudes due to improved efficiency (better mass flow, less heating, charge density) while staying within the conservative American ratings. (RAF style stressing and overboosting aside -which it would tolerate much less than the F series anyway, but maybe compete with the Merlin III, and possibly more aggressive 30 min, max climb, and max continuous) Maybe a good engine for Spit V trop? The weight and drag savings would probably be wasted on the Hurricane, especially with its finicky CoG.


In ANY of these cases there's one other key point: The Air Ministry needs to put higher priority on the Whirlwind sooner and significantly expand the number of aircraft ordered in 1939. (without that, Peregrine demand stays low, as does any interest in alternate engines)

BTW, I am still waiting for accounts of those Peregrine engine failures that were due to fundamental flaws in in the engine. Either design or quality control.

No one has called me out on it yet, but would my supposition on this matter be accurate given the information available:
The Taurus and Saber were both more fundamentally flawed in design and/or mass production methodology/quality control than the Peregrine was. Same goes for the vulture, while the Peregrine in 1939 didn't seem too far off from Merlin development/performance characteristics given the size.

That and, in terms of R&D resources, the peregrine would have shared a good deal with the Merlin and Griffon, just on a smaller scale. (unlike the greater differences in the Vulture design, or the interesting but very different Exe)

The bigger stretch might be an argument that, even in 1940, canceling the Vulture and moving on to a coupled/double-V or H-block engine more directly based on the Peregrine would be a safer bet for a reliable 2000+ class engine in a timely manner than the Saber or Centaurus. (and faster than trying to license any American engine technology in that power class)

If they were as much trouble as some writers have claimed (not just on this forum) the wonder is that they used them as long as they did. Beaufighter might have had a bit more trouble with the overland low level strikes. Whirlwind was as fast or faster than some early Spitfires at low level. It also had good roll response which is an advantage in tree top flying. Not trying to take anything away from the Beaufighter but you are comparing a 10,000lb airplane to an over 20,000lb airplane and while the Beaufighter was certainly versatile and did a number of jobs well, low level strikes in contested air space may not have been the best place for it.

The good roll response is also an outstanding feature to have on a twin engine fighter given the large wingspan and high outboard mass. (better indicating potential competitive nature vs single engined fighters)

As far as competing with the Beaufighter, it's a bit apples and oranges there (the Mosquito would be better suited to displace the Beaufighter in heavy fighter-bomber roles) but that said, the Whirlwind SHOULD have gained better heavy load and shorter take-off capabilities with those slats sorted out and a bit more engine power. The point would more be competing with the Typhoon and P-47 for fighter-bomber capabilities, or P-38 ... and easily outperforming the Hurricane and P-40 in that role. (I can't imagine a Whirlwind Mk.II wouldn't have heavier wing rack ratings AND drop tank capabilities AND fuel cross-feed -lots of detail changes to fix the shortcomings of the Mk.I, and changes far more realistic and practical than switching to engines several hundred pounds heavier)

 

[kool kitty89]

The Allison V-3420 (two upright vees) seemed to be OK, but too wide (60 inches) for a single engine fighter.

You also lose the exhaust thrust from the inboard stacks AND have to deal with longer/heavier exhaust ducting in that arrangement. (the flat upright+inverted V pair mated at the crank case seems better than what DB tried as well, and I'd think adapting an inverted V to run upright would be simpler than an upright to run inverted -it's getting inverted to work well continuously, and especially on start-up that's tricky, similar for radial engines being both upright and inverted ... and horizontally oriented ... radial and all)

Since I killed the Sabre, I could have Napier build the 24 cylinder 'double Peregrine' for aircraft, and continue its development. And while the V-12 Peregrine was too small for aircraft use, an un-supercharged version would have been a good fit for tanks. Rover UK or Ford USA (in place of their in-house designed GAA).

I'd still argue keeping the peregrine going for the Whirlwind would make sense in this case, especially as a direct competitor to the double-peregrine powered 'single engine' fighters. (ie if the Whirlwind Mk.II beats the Tornado/Typhoon in performance and reliability, it seems an obvious win for Westland) The double peregrine would at very least be good for the Warwick in place of the imported R-2800s, maybe a few other designs otherwise stunted by delays in the other 2000 hp class engines. (maybe even save the Manchester ... I wonder how fast a 2000 hp engined Manchester Mk.II might manage)

A cast iron block 'Meteor Jr.' of sorts would be an interesting idea for sure.

According to (what looks like) an RAE chart, a Spitfire III has about an 8mph advantage over a Spitfire V under 9,000 feet. The higher critical altitude is there, but the Spitfire V has a healthy advantage between 12,000 and 20,000 feet (28 mph at the Spit V critical alt at +12 boost).

Things would probably have changed at the end of 1942 - but keep in mind the Spitfire III could only use +12 boost in low gear (under 12,000 feet approx.), while the Spitfire V could start using it under 20,000 feet.

Things would change a bit if you get into the +14 and +16 lbs boost the Hurricane II was eventually rated for. Fw 190 pressures might have forced up-rated WEP sooner on the Spit III had it entered service.

 

[GregP]

Hi Greyman,

Can you post where you found those quotes. Seems like it would be an interesting read.

Thanks.

 

[Greyman]

For what it's worth Westland's projected (spring 1940) development of the Whirlwind included:

- uprated Peregrine engines
- Rotol airscrews
- new gun nose unit with continuous feed for the four Hispanos, three .303 Brownings and a 27-gal fuel tank
- additional 35 gallon tank in rear fuselage
​

Hi Greyman,
Can you post where you found those quotes. Seems like it would be an interesting read.

Thanks.

These are from copies made from a trip to the London national archives and unfortunately are not really in an easily shareable format at the moment (work slowly proceeds on rectifying this on many similar documents).

 

[GregP]

Thanks you for sharing! Great pics. Does your material tell anything about the "uprated" Peregrines? Maybe HP or critical altitude ... or some description?

 

[Greyman]

Just a nebulous mention of uprated with 'increased speed and performance', unfortunately.

 

[GregP]

Thanks for the info.

I find the Whirlwind to be a tough nut to crack. Had it been more successful, I'm sure it would be all over the web and my reference books about WWII. As a sort of obscure aircraft, the info is sketchy at best, but it appears to be a good design let down by the completely wrong choice of engines coupled with no development.

It is amusing the slats could have been so far off to cause damage to the wings. MANY planes have had good operating slats and maybe that was one reason they were skeptical. If they got the slats wrong, what ELSE was wrong? It's a typical management question anyway. Can't say for sure as it is LONG past, but bad slats could NOT have helped the situation. Modifying 100+ sets of wings would be expensive if you DID decide to "save" the Whirly, and it would probably have been at Westand's expense if they did.

 

[yulzari]

Play nicely please children.

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks for the info.

I find the Whirlwind to be a tough nut to crack. Had it been more successful, I'm sure it would be all over the web and my reference books about WWII. As a sort of obscure aircraft, the info is sketchy at best,

If if it had German crosses and swastikas we would be looking at books No 13 and 14 about it and at least 4 dedicated websites