Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Exe was barely more than a project while the Dagger was in production. Yes it was noisier (less so with projected ejector exhausts) but the cooling issues were ones manageable with pilot training and better pilot notes. Mind you, groundcrews (RAuxAF and Irish) hated maintaining them. It was a doable project in a feasible time frame. If the Whirwind had gone Napier from the beginning RR could have made more Merlins and Fairey could have their preferred twin engined Battle: even with Defiant turrets and Defiants as conventional fighters. Win win all round; with 20/20 hindsight.
Twin engined Battle? Hmmm, if it were employed as a day bomber it's fate would not have been any different, methinks. Look at the Bristol Blenheim; a willing work horse, but in performance and capability, it was overshadowed by more advanced types, not to mention a less than stirling combat career in its day bomber role over France. Many of the Blenheim units were re-equipped with American supplied Douglas Bostons and Mitchells, and Mosquitoes - 105 Sqn, the first Mossie unit operated Blenheims previously. As a twin engined fighter, as I've mentioned in an earlier thread, one possible reason why the Whirlwind didn't continue in production was that the Beaufighter and Mosquito were both excelling as multi role aircraft.
Wonder what would happen if Fairey developed a plane with two engines, with wing area span akin to Battle, featuring 4 belly cannons (second crew member replacing the empty drums) - a RAF's BF-110 for 1940? And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?
A Defiant without a turret? BP's P.88 cannon armed fighter designed to Specification F.37/35, to which the Westland Whirlwind was designed.
In reality the Whirlwind could not become the aircraft that we all would have liked it to have become, simply because of its design; it was too small and lightly constructed. The Beaufighter and Mosquito could do what its designers hoped a Whirlwind with a different powerplant and redesign would have done.
Perhaps Westland was better to propose the single-engined, cannon-armed fighter, later to be adopted by FAA 'stead of Sea Hurricane Seafire?
Wonder what would happen if Fairey developed a plane with two engines, with wing area span akin to Battle, featuring 4 belly cannons (second crew member replacing the empty drums) - a RAF's BF-110 for 1940? And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?
And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?
Perhaps Westland was better to propose the single-engined, cannon-armed fighter, later to be adopted by FAA 'stead of Sea Hurricane Seafire?
Hi Tomo,
....
Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.
It is not just wing area but the airfoil. just like the Hurricanes thicker wing and the Typhoons thick wing limited performance. The Thick wing gave good lift at low speed, great for short take offs and landings (and needed for a single engine bomber) but wasn't so good for making a fighter. Once you need a new wing and a new nose/cockpit area and a bigger tail to counter act the larger area forward and the extra power there is darn little of the "Battle" left.
With something like 300 Peregrines built killing it off sooner barely makes a blip in Merlin Production figures.
Fairly fuselage may not have been quite as small as you think.
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...taways/images/10579/fairey-battle-cutaway.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4478979676_1811cffe1c.jpg
Granted with double the power it would have better performance than as a single but it was never going to be a high perormance fighter without a new wing.
Hi Tomo,
It seems that the suggestion of a twin Fairey Battle 'look-a-like' might have come to fruition, had Fairey been awarded a contract to specification S.6/43 for a shore based torpedo bomber. The Fairey design superficially resembles the Battle, as most of Marcel Lobelle's aircraft bore a distinctive appearance. Several incarnations were planned to meet the specification, based on surviving drawings. This doesn't suggest that it was a derivative of the Battle, however, and I have to agree with shortround6's post about a twin-engined Battle being a dog.
I don't understand why these types would need to be 'freed from night fighter duties'. This was a vital role throughout the war, as the British never built a purpose built night fighter, so these two aircraft in that role were essential, since throughout the war the Germans were carrying out night raids against the UK.
Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.
To these specifications, the Blackburn Firebrand was selected as the naval fighter and the Firefly to the turret fighter proposal, but obviously missing something! Actually both these specs were reissued as N.5/40 to which both types were built.
Hi,
Is it possible to post a drawing or a reference to these as the ideas interest me very much, or even a web link.
I once read that westland tried to sell the whirlwind to the RN/FAA but met with no success, I never found info on the N.8/39 project.
cheers
Jerry
40mm looks so appealing for a twin-engined plane
Hi Jerry, I got my info straight from Tony Butttttler's excellent resource "British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950. (ISBN 1 85780 179 2) The book has illustrations that show single seat designs as sketches, rather than in layout. Certainly not derivatives of the Whirlwind. You might want to try contacting Agusta Westland, or the FAA Museum, who might have further information.
Try also these guys:
Secret Projects Forum - Index