Westland Whirlwind alternative engines?

[tomo pauk]

Since the Whirlwind 'deserves' many threads, guess I'll dust off this one.
So maybe it would be better to re-engine the Whirly, some time in 1940/41, with single Sabre? Should be faster than Typhoon...
Maybe later strap on the Griffon for the needs of FAA, service use in 1943 and on? The Fowler flaps and slats could come in handy here.

How about Hercules, or R-2800? Of course, for all the proposals the cannons go into the wings.

 

[Shortround6]

You seem to have this strange fascination with keeping the outward appearance of some parts of airframe while totally redesigning the interior structure.

You don't actually save much. Keep fuselage from the cockpit back (if you are lucky) and the outer wing panels?

Regardless of what you do with the nose the wing from engine nacelle to engine nacelle will have to be redone. To fit the landing gear if nothing else. Changing the location of major weights changes stress loads even if total weights are the same.

For a couple of light plane single to twin conversions look at the Beechcraft Bonanza and Travel air and the Piper twin Comanche.

 

[tomo pauk]

You seem to have this strange fascination with keeping the outward appearance of some parts of airframe while totally redesigning the interior structure.

With Whirlwind, it's the combination of (almost) clear view canopy, Fowler flaps, slats and retractable tailwheel, all in a single plane - unparalleled in ww2? That's fascinating to me

You don't actually save much. Keep fuselage from the cockpit back (if you are lucky) and the outer wing panels?

I save more than when Typhoon was developed in Tempest, P-51D in -H, Fw-190 in Ta-152, Bf-109E into -F.... Even the P-36 grew steep in weight to become mid-war P-40, like K for example.
added: more frugal than turning the Hurricane production lines into Typhoon production lines

Regardless of what you do with the nose the wing from engine nacelle to engine nacelle will have to be redone. To fit the landing gear if nothing else. Changing the location of major weights changes stress loads even if total weights are the same.

Agreed.

For a couple of light plane single to twin conversions look at the Beechcraft Bonanza and Travel air and the Piper twin Comanche.

I'm trying to do the opposite - turn the twin into a single

 

[Shortround6]

With Whirlwind, it's the combination of (almost) clear view canopy, Fowler flaps, slats and retractable tailwheel, all in a single plane - unparalleled in ww2? That's fascinating to me

The need for the slats is dubious. Especially with the Fowler flaps. Slats do a lot more for keeping aileron control at really low speeds (like landing) than they do for turning. I am not sure if they were wired shut in operation of the Whirlwind, accounts may differ.

I save more than when Typhoon was developed in Tempest, P-51D in -H, Fw-190 in Ta-152, Bf-109E into -F.... Even the P-36 grew steep in weight to become mid-war P-40, like K for example.
added: more frugal than turning the Hurricane production lines into Typhoon production lines

True in some cases but they had a lot more invested is some of those production lines. And a question is how much some of them were changed, a lot for the P-51s or a little for the P-36/P-40, It gained a lot of weight and may have needed some parts beefed up but could you build a P-40 wing using many of the same jigs/fixtures as the P-36 wing? how much of the fuselage structure changed?

I'm trying to do the opposite - turn the twin into a single

The Travel Air replaced a 225-240hp six with pairs of 160-200hp fours, kept the same cabin/payload area. It Borrowed the main spar from a bigger twin and the landing gear from the T-34 trainer ( two seat trainer/narrow fuselage Bonanza). T-34 could land on carriers so the landing gear was heavier duty than the regular Bonaza landing gear. Beech already had some of the bits and pieces laying around. And they weren't trying to change the payload area (cabin) which for fighter planes is the gun location.

Given what we NOW KNOW about the Sabre they might have been better off keeping the Whirlwind and junking the Typhoon

 

[yulzari]

If I may give my summary of the Whirlwind saga.

It was intended as the future way, to have a 1600bhp power day fighters now (ie when the decision was made in 1935) and a 2,500bhp day fighter in the mid 1940's using known (ie Kestrel based) power units and a future proof armament. In the initial enthusiasm it was seen as the future standard and the Tornado/Typhoon as a back up, as was the Sabre. The Vulture was a bomber project that could be diverted into a fighter. The Spitfire was not, initially, intended as anything more than a better Hurricane supplement pending Whirlwind or Tornado production and there were doubts there would be another production contract after the first one.

Now, as we know, things didn't follow this early intention.

The Whirlwind airframe had minor faults, all easily dealt with some sort of MkII version (rejigging the tankage arrangement, belt feed cannon etc.) The Peregrine could have followed a Merlin type development and given 1,300 bhp by 1944 (insert your preferred power output) with 2 stage blowers and perform at higher altitudes.

The Whirwind could have been fitted with a number of alternative engines as Westlands themselves suggested (eg Taurus, Allison, Merlin) but the best would have been the developed original.

It could have been a very useable day fighter throughout the war but at a production cost. In hindsight the decision to abandon it was a very reasonable one. The decision to rely on the Tornado/Typhoon instead, in hindsight, was worse.

That decision, at the time, looked even more reasonable and was the correct one with the information they had at the time.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sensible post

The 2-stage Peregrine would've been in service in 1943?, however, that would've involved greater installed engine weight drag. The simple 2-speed Merlin should offer about the same power, for about same weight drag penalty, while being available earlier.
The Allied war effort was not dependent on Typhoon/Tornado, so, even if those weren't around, the Allies would've done pretty much the same.

The need for the slats is dubious. Especially with the Fowler flaps. Slats do a lot more for keeping aileron control at really low speeds (like landing) than they do for turning. I am not sure if they were wired shut in operation of the Whirlwind, accounts may differ.

Thanks for the input.
One of proposed applications of the single-engined Whirly is the fighter for FAA, where the slats can help.

True in some cases but they had a lot more invested is some of those production lines. And a question is how much some of them were changed, a lot for the P-51s or a little for the P-36/P-40, It gained a lot of weight and may have needed some parts beefed up but could you build a P-40 wing using many of the same jigs/fixtures as the P-36 wing? how much of the fuselage structure changed?

Westland started to build Spitfires, so we can asses what size of the investment that was?
Hmmm, Whirly with a single Merlin (45, XX?), with slightly clipped wings?

The Travel Air replaced a 225-240hp six with pairs of 160-200hp fours, kept the same cabin/payload area. It Borrowed the main spar from a bigger twin and the landing gear from the T-34 trainer ( two seat trainer/narrow fuselage Bonanza). T-34 could land on carriers so the landing gear was heavier duty than the regular Bonaza landing gear. Beech already had some of the bits and pieces laying around.

Thanks again.

And they weren't trying to change the payload area (cabin) which for fighter planes is the gun location.

The cannons would've gone into where once the nacelle was, the ammo into where once the inter-spar fuel tank was. New fuel oil tanks go where the ammo drums were, engine in front of it.

Given what we NOW KNOW about the Sabre they might have been better off keeping the Whirlwind and junking the Typhoon

Maybe Peter should've designed the Whirly around Merlins in the 1st place? Or maybe S. Camm should've designed Typhoon around thinner wing at 1st?

What about this: RR and Fairey form a design studio that would iron out the bugs from Vulture? Bristol and A-Siddeley do the same for Centaurus? Or, employ the design engineers from those two smaller firms into major ones?

 

[Shortround6]

The decision to use 1 engine instead of two 12 cylinder engines would stand up a lot better if the Single engine was a big 12 or 14 instead of a 24 cylinder (or double 12). While manufacturing and Maintenance may be a bit simpler on the 24 it is nowhere near as simple as a going from 2 engines to 1 implies.

 

[tomo pauk]

Agreed, the Sabre was a handful in most of the categories.

FWIW, 3 views of two sleek British fighters, Whirly and Tempest I (images found at warbirdsresourcegroup.org):

 

[yulzari]

Sensible post


The Allied war effort was not dependent on Typhoon/Tornado, so, even if those weren't around, the Allies would've done pretty much the same.

At the time the decisions needed to be made the Allies were UK and France. The USA was 4 years away from defending democracy. The RAF was intending to be dependent upon the Tornado/Typhoon. Continuing Hurricane production and Spitfire developments were to fill in the gap when that programme was failing.

 

[wuzak]

It was intended as the future way, to have a 1600bhp power day fighters now (ie when the decision was made in 1935) and a 2,500bhp day fighter in the mid 1940's using known (ie Kestrel based) power units and a future proof armament. In the initial enthusiasm it was seen as the future standard and the Tornado/Typhoon as a back up, as was the Sabre.

The Typhoon/Tornado were to be Hurricane/Spitfire replacements. Not a backup to the Whirlwind.

The Whirlwind was teh cannon fighter - RAF theory at the time being that it needed a twin to carry the armament.

The Spitfire was not, initially, intended as anything more than a better Hurricane supplement pending Whirlwind or Tornado production and there were doubts there would be another production contract after the first one.

You have a fascination that the Spitfire was a stop gap. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Whirwind was never intended to replace the Spitfire or Hurricane. It was a complementary airframe, a heavily armed destroyer.

The Spitfire was ordered into production before the process that led to the Typhoon/Tornado program. The Spitfire was not holding the line until they were developed. The Spitfire was the premier fighter. It was intended to replaced with newer, better airframes in the future, but that plan failed.

The prospect at cancellation of the Spitfire was not due to anything more suitable being available, buy the Air Ministry's exasperation with Supermarine and the time it was taking to get production up to speed.

 

[delcyros]

I guess, the Westland Whirlwind could be turned into a much superior interceptor (air defense), had Westland considered to install jet engines instead of the Peregrines. The Westland Welland W2/B comes to mind...

 

[CobberKane]

The Whirwind was never intended to replace the Spitfire or Hurricane. .

From what I've read there was at least some consideration of the Whirlwind as a spitfire replacement. In his pithily named book "Spitfire" Leo Mckinstry makes note of it, and from recollection notes Churchill was an enthusiast. it seems what sunk the Whirlwind was that it there always seemed to be a better alternative to go with; the Spitfire proved to have more stretch than anyone anticipated, and the Typhoon was looking good. Possibly the Whilwind might have been able to be developed into a fighter bomber like the Typhoon more quickly, but no-one knew the Napier sabre was going to prove problematic, they only knew the Kestrel was problematic now.
I believe the Whirlwind also had very high landing speeds, which may also have been a consideration.

 

[Dogwalker]

A licence produced Hispano Suiza 12Y (of the best version available for the licensed production in, let's say, 1937). A little shorter, lower, lighter, and a little wider than the Peregrine.

 

[Kryten]

[[I believe the Whirlwind also had very high landing speeds, which may also have been a consideration.]]

Higher than a Spit or Hurricane , Flaps,undercart down stall was 85mph compared to 64mph for spit mk1.

From V Binghams book pilots notes-
Approach.
When engine assisted the speed should be about 110/115mph, Throttles should not be closed until after flattening out.
With a Glide approach the speed should be kept at 125mph ASI

in other words not unduly high, it was also reported to require longer strips than fighter command possesed, yet flew out of fighter airfields on numerous ops!
Another fallacy was you couldn't open the canopy in flight, complete bunkum as there are pictures of just that on operational sqdn's.

There are a lot of plainly incorrect myths about this aircraft, and to be blunt, most originated from people who never flew one or had no wish to see it continue, politics played a very large part in it's demise, not helped at all by Petters attitude to the powers that be and Westlands dismal production rates!

Pilots and Sqdn Commanders interviewed by V Bingham all considered the aircraft to have excellent handling and maneuverability, superb visibility and firepower, yet nearly all commented on the lack of cross feed of the tanks and the boost drop off over 15k ft, not a perfect plane by far but plenty of development room had the will, and requirement been there!

 

[yulzari]

I think there may be some confusion between the original purpose of the, quite limited, original Spitfire contract and the early decision to expand it's production. Supermarine were making a pig's breakfast of making production Spitfires and there were doubts that they could cope with further large orders. At the same time the shadow factory concept was being born.

Westlands were no better at Whirlwinds, especially as they had large Lysander contracts in hand. The Spitfire was proving to be better than expected with further potential; even with the crude propellor it first received.

It was decided that the Spitfire was a better shadow production bet than a Whirlwind for a variety of reasons that have been touched on in this and other Whirlwind threads so then the Spitfire was chosen for large scale copying in shadow factories.

Once the Whirlwind missed out on shadow factory production it was dead in the water as a major type and production went on to both use up the parts already made and to get a 4x20mm cannon airframe out.

But, returning to the very original Spitfire order, it was not, at the time it was ordered, seen as a major ongoing day fighter standard. It soon proved itself and thus soon won it's place in the shadow factory scheme and future fame but, at the time of the first order, the Whirlwind (albeit to a different Requirement) was seen by some as the way forward.

We so easily forget that these things began in 1934 planning and 1935 requirements so there were 7 years between the first formal thinking of modern day fighters and the Battle of Britain and the period when the Spitfire was a stop gap was very short and very early.

 

[Lucky13]

I desperately try to find where I found that Merlins would fit and the airframe could take them, Westland stated in January '41 they could fit merlin XX's into the whirlwind if they wanted it

 

[stona]

I desperately try to find where I found that Merlins would fit and the airframe could take them, Westland stated in January '41 they could fit merlin XX's into the whirlwind if they wanted it

It was a letter sent by Westland to Leigh Mallory at Fighter Command. It by-passed the normal channels, meaning the Air Ministry, and was an attempt to gain the support of Leigh-Mallory in a last ditch attempt to save the Whirlwind. It came to nothing. It was the Air Ministry and then the Ministry of Aircraft Production that decided which aircraft would be built and how and where, not Fighter Command or even the RAF. The Ministry had already made its decision.
There is no evidence that Westland had in fact solved all the significant problems associated with fitting the Merlin to the Whirlwind, most notably the redesign of the nacelle and main landing gear attachments in order to accommodate the up draught carburettor system of the Merlin.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Not to mention larger radiators, large oil coolers, quite possibly larger fuel tanks, different props, change in center of gravity. How much closer the twin Merlin Whirlwind would have been to a short wing Welkin is an interesting subject

 

[stona]

Not to mention larger radiators, large oil coolers, quite possibly larger fuel tanks, different props, change in center of gravity. How much closer the twin Merlin Whirlwind would have been to a short wing Welkin is an interesting subject

Well, Petter did come up with a suggestion for a smaller diameter four bladed propeller, but as for the rest.....

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Well, there is your different prop

And getting even a small 4 blade prop to be as light as the 3 blade on the Peregrine would take some doing.