Westland Whirlwind in Battle of Britain (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez

Captain
8,544
9,619
Oct 21, 2019
Toronto, Canada
W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia

"Petter was frustrated by its lack of operational status in the RAF. In November 1940, he wrote a memo to Sholto Douglas stating "The Whirlwind is probably the most radically new aeroplane which has ever gone into service... New ideas I am afraid, even with the greatest care, always mean a certain amount of teething trouble... I really do not think these troubles have been any worse than they were on, say, the Spitfire... " In reply Sholto Douglas wrote, "... it seems to me that your firm is concentrating on producing large numbers of Lysanders, which no body wants... instead of concentrating on producing Whirlwinds which are wanted badly." Shortly after this exchange 263 squadron became operational, but Petter always regretted that the Whirlwind was not available for the Battle of Britain and blamed Eric Mensforth for the delay in production."

Let's have someone listen to Petter and get several squadrons of the Whirlwind into service by June 1940. How would you deploy the Whirlwinds? How will they do in the Battle?
 
Interesting. The problem wasn't just allocating production, it was getting enough people and facilities to build the Whirlwind within the time period specified. Petter was right, it was an advanced aircraft, but Westland had neither the capacity nor the experience in manufacturing advanced aircraft to do what Petter wanted.

What impact would it have had on the BoB? It had average altitude performance but it was fast. Fighter Command needed aeroplanes, any aeroplanes, so as long as Westland didn't disrupt production of existing fighters, then it would have been welcome. I can guarantee though, that had Dowding had a choice he would have said more Hurricanes and Spitfires, please. FC already had Blenheims, Gladiators and Defiants occupying fighter squadrons that were there just to make up numbers.
 
How would you get any significant numbers by June 1940?
The prototype flew in October 1938 and deliveries to RAF squadrons began in Sept 1940. We need to shave off about four months through either starting earlier or expediting production - one issue (according to Wikipedia) was RR Peregrine engines were not delivered to Westland until Jan 1940, leaving aircraft on the line waiting for powerplants.

The A-to-Z of Yeovil's History - by Bob Osborn

"Production orders were contingent on the success of the test programme; delays caused by over 250 modifications to the two prototypes led to an initial production order for 200 aircraft being held up until January 1939, followed by a second order for a similar number, deliveries to fighter squadrons being scheduled to begin in September 1940. Earlier, due to the lower expected production at Westland, there had been suggestions that production should be by other firms and an early 1939 plan to build 600 of them at the Castle Bromwich factory was dropped in favour of Spitfire production."

Clearly to get even two squadrons of Whirlwinds into service for the BoB production needs to expand beyond Westland. This post shows the limited scale of the production operation. Certainly we don't want to reduce Spitfire or Hurricane production, so they'll need to made elsewhere. There's also the risk of additional Peregines slowing down Merlin deliveries, so the former may need to be licensed to another manufacturer. It's not going to be easy, and in hindsight we can all agree the Air Ministry made the right decisions on prioritizing on the Spitfire, Hurricane and Merlin.
 
A lot of people focus on the over engineering of the prototypes, Petter's reluctance to promptly address the (many) problems that were revealed, Air Ministry infighting over cannon armed fighters and even the Whirlwind's disappointing performance at the altitudes at which the BoB would be fought, but it is all, frankly, irrelevant.

When the first production Peregrine was delivered in February 1940 the decision had already been made to cease production after 290 units. To all intents, the Whirlwind was doomed from that point on, and there was nothing which would save it, or make it a viable proposition for the summer and autumn of 1940.
 
A comparison between the Whirlwind and Spitfire/Hurricane is less useful than with the Typhoon, to which it was similar in weights and dimensions. The Typhoon had both of it's engines bolted together driving one propellor. The other period 4 cannon production was the Beaufighter of not far off double the weight.

I could make a far longer list of delays and mechanical airframe and engine issues that were present in the early Typhoon than for the Whirlwind.

Given that Westlands were churning out Lysanders ('that nobody wanted'- Sholto Douglas) those Bristol Perseus could have gone on the Whirlwind giving it 1,800 bhp and free up the inner wing for extra fuel and thus range. BoB is a touch too early for the 150 round belt fed Westland nose instead of the OTL 60 round drums but the x12 .303" nose needed no new developments and was able, per an old Westland acquaintance, to 'saw off a wing or fuselage' as an alternative to the cannon.

The development and production issues could have been sorted earlier and the Whirlwind in service by the start of the war. Especially with diverted Lysander engines, or diverted battle engines for the Merlin Whirlwind fans. Of course we have full vision hindsight but it was within their grasp had they known.

If we take the substitution literally we have the alternative 'Typhoon' in production two years early and, if the Perseus is not adjusted for higher altitude work, then it fits the OTL early role of low level FW190 interception and later the ground attack role with equivalent bombs and rockets. With the extra fuel in place of the wing radiators and drop tanks it can escort daylight raids much further into Axis Europe. English Electric can get on with making more Perseus and/or Taurus (2,400 bhp Whirlwind) and Napiers exercise their engineering skills at improving that and backing up Bristol design resources.
 
See the thread 'Did the prop Doom the Whirlwind' regarding performance at altitude etc. Did The Prop Doom The Westland Whirlwind? An easy fix had it been recognised an remedied.

As I said, such debates are irrelevant, though Dowding certainly got the 'infinity of trouble' he predicted for the type. They are irrelevant because the engine around which the aircraft was designed was not ever going to be available in any numbers.

The Merlin powered version was proposed by Petter directly to Fighter Command (which did not in any case decide what fighters the RAF adopted) in January 1941, a bit late for the BoB, and was a non starter for any number of reasons.

I think Tizard's assessment of the Whirlwind is brutally true. It used two engines that had no other use and consumed 50% more material than a Spitfire to do the same job less efficiently. When you are fighting a war to survive, as the British were in 1940, such considerations are not taken lightly.
 
As I said, such debates are irrelevant, though Dowding certainly got the 'infinity of trouble' he predicted for the type. They are irrelevant because the engine around which the aircraft was designed was not ever going to be available in any numbers.

The Merlin powered version was proposed by Petter directly to Fighter Command (which did not in any case decide what fighters the RAF adopted) in January 1941, a bit late for the BoB, and was a non starter for any number of reasons.

I think Tizard's assessment of the Whirlwind is brutally true. It used two engines that had no other use and consumed 50% more material than a Spitfire to do the same job less efficiently. When you are fighting a war to survive, as the British were in 1940, such considerations are not taken lightly.


In the end it was the right decision, however the total hash of the planned successor to the Hurricane and Spitfire, the Typhoon, does make for some interesting use of the retrospectroscope.

Likewise some of the reasoning used at the time seems a bit suspect?
Like at the time of the cancellation of Whirlwind (fall or winter of 1939/40?) the Spitfire II, while in the works, was 4-6 months from production and a Spitfire II with Merlin XII engine was not a good candidate for four 20mm cannon. Hurricane II is even a few months further out and doesn't get four cannon wing order until Jan of 1941, first prototype with belt feed cannon flies in Feb 1941.

The Sabre engine was planned to used in all manner of aircraft but it's problems meant that all other projects save a double handful of Blackburn Firebrands were canceled.

I believe Westland was building about 2 Whirlwinds per week for most of the production run, however they were building 5-7 Lysanders a week for much of that time so the need for a 2nd source is much less than the need to actually prioritize needed aircraft (assuming RR can deliver the engines at more than 4-6 per week).

My opinion is that a Merlin powered Whirlwind would have so little in common with the normal Whirlwind that it would be much delayed and any performance estimates are pure conjecture.

Part of the reasoning for canceling the Whirlwind was the 360mph Beaufighter but we know how that turned out :)
 
A lot of people focus on the over engineering of the prototypes, Petter's reluctance to promptly address the (many) problems that were revealed, Air Ministry infighting over cannon armed fighters and even the Whirlwind's disappointing performance at the altitudes at which the BoB would be fought, but it is all, frankly, irrelevant.

When the first production Peregrine was delivered in February 1940 the decision had already been made to cease production after 290 units. To all intents, the Whirlwind was doomed from that point on, and there was nothing which would save it, or make it a viable proposition for the summer and autumn of 1940.
Then my vote is to send the two squadrons and their spares to RAF Seletar.

Aerial_view_of_RAF_Seletar_in_late_1945.jpg
 
Why?
Last Whirlwind comes of the line in Jan of 1942. A bit late.
Whirlwinds were often the "bait" for operations over coastal France and the low countries in 1941-42.
Much more survivable than Blenheims. They lasted into 1943 which is part of the mystique.

If operational readiness was difficult in England with the factory fairly close at hand then trying to keep 2 squadrons operational in Singapore would have been a nightmare.
 
Then my vote is to send the two squadrons and their spares to RAF Seletar.

That's a long way from Yeovil. Both squadrons spent most of their time either in the South West close to Yeovil, or at least the South of England, close to manufacturer support.

No. 263 did venture as far as Drem and Grangemouth, briefly, but all their other bases were in the South West (Exeter, St Eval, Portreath, Filton, Charmy Down, Warmwell, Colerne, Fairwood Common, Angle (across the Bristol Channel in Wales), Harrowbear and Zeals).

No. 137, apart from a week up at Drem in August 42, were slightly more adventurous, spending most of their time in East and South East England, so a couple of hundred miles or so from Yeovilton. They were based at Charmy Down, Coltishall, Matlaske, Drem, Snailwell and Southend.

Sending such unreliable aircraft to Singapore, on the other side of the world, seems like a good way of rapidly having two non-operational squadrons with unserviceable aircraft on strength.
 
That's a long way from Yeovil. Both squadrons spent most of their time either in the South West close to Yeovil, or at least the South of England, close to manufacturer support.

No. 263 did venture as far as Drem and Grangemouth, briefly, but all their other bases were in the South West (Exeter, St Eval, Portreath, Filton, Charmy Down, Warmwell, Colerne, Fairwood Common, Angle (across the Bristol Channel in Wales), Harrowbear and Zeals).

No. 137, apart from a week up at Drem in August 42, were slightly more adventurous, spending most of their time in East and South East England, so a couple of hundred miles or so from Yeovilton. They were based at Charmy Down, Coltishall, Matlaske, Drem, Snailwell and Southend.

Sending such unreliable aircraft to Singapore, on the other side of the world, seems like a good way of rapidly having two non-operational squadrons with unserviceable aircraft on strength.
You're right of course, I'm just seeking some theatre for the Whirlwind to shine in. Malaya ain't it.
 
It shined pretty well as it was.

No other fighter (or fighter bomber) from 1940 was still in use as late 29 November 1943 (Squadron No 263's last mission) in essentially unchanged form.
Maybe they had new radios/IFF ?
Aside from the bomb racks they used the same drum fed cannon, the same engines with the same boost limits, the same propellers and so on.
For a plane that went into combat well over a year before the Allison Mustang that is not a bad record. Especially in North West Europe.
 
"The Typhoon had both of it's engines bolted together driving one propellor. " Yes, the Sabre has 2 crankshafts, but it was not 2 engines bolted together. The engine block is one piece. :)
https://i1.wp.com/warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/RB396-Launch-R-Spreckley-01.jpeg

Not exactly.

There were two crankshaft halves - left and right.

And two cylinder blocks, which had 12 cylinders each. These were also left and right.

But the arrangement is not what you would see in a engine created by bolting two engines together.
 
Regardless of construction the objection that the Typhoon could do with one engine what the Whirlwind need two to accomplish was a more than a bit simplistic.

The Typhoon power plant (engine, prop, radiators/oil coolers, and other bits and pieces may well have been cheaper than two complete Peregrine power plants. I don't know and am willing to give benefit of the doubt. However it was by no means the two to one ratio implied by the statement.

The Typhoon was no lightweight fighter either, it couldn't be as the Sabre weighed over twice what a Peregrine did.
 
When looking at the Whirlwind, one can immediately see the distinct shape and relative size of the engines. For all practical purposes, this aircraft was designed around its engines. Being only 21 liter and weighing 1,150 lbs, the RR Peregrine developed about 880 hp. The Merlin II was 27 liter, weighed 1,300 lbs and developed 1,030 hp. To retrofit the heavier more powerful Merlin would have required a complete redesign of the whole airplane, basically designing a new one. The Brits were right - cancel the Whirlwind. Unfortunately they did a few d-tours until they got to the real diamond - the Mosquito, the best fighter of WW2!
 
The Typhoon power plant (engine, prop, radiators/oil coolers, and other bits and pieces may well have been cheaper than two complete Peregrine power plants. I don't know and am willing to give benefit of the doubt. However it was by no means the two to one ratio implied by the statement.
.

Tizard, though he made his comments as Chairman of the Joint Development and Production Committee in February 1941, was certainly not comparing the Whirlwind engines with the Sabre.

Rolls-Royce had made a similar statement in June 1940, when the possibility of a Whirlwind II with improved Peregrines (not Merlins) was raised. Bulman warned the Air Ministry of the impact on Rolls-Royce production of making significant modifications to the Peregrine or ordering further Whirlwinds.

"To produce further Whirlwinds even of the current type will necessitate a curtailment of some other Rolls Royce programme" and that more Peregrines could only be produced at Rolls-Royce's Derby factory "with more than a 2 to 1 reduction of Merlin, or by postponing the Griffon'.

My bold. Rolls-Royce did not want the cancelled Peregrine raised from the dead and it did not want to undertake a development programme for the type which was to be produced in such a limited number. I'm not sure that the company really wanted to complete the 290 engines for which it was contracted.

Tizard would be comparing the Whirlwind's two Peregrine's with a Spitfire or Hurricane's one Merlin, so the comparison is not at all spurious. The Whirlwind in fact utilised almost three times as much alloy as the Spitfire, so Tizard's comparison there is less unfavourable than it might have been.
 
Unfortunately they did a few d-tours until they got to the real diamond - the Mosquito, the best fighter of WW2!
Now, I'd cancel or redirect any necessary attention or resources to get the Mosquito to both North Africa and Malaya. Can you imagine the destruction of the IJAF if the fighter variant could be available..... faster than any Japanese fighter, armed to destroy any Japanese bomber.... but sigh, it's not to be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back