Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Those are the hard facts and choices of production, the 301 Peregrine engines produced probably cost Rolls Royce 600-900 in lost Merlin production, so the RAF got two squadrons of Whirlwinds, lost the engines for at least 600 S/E fighters and Rolls Royce lost money on the whole thing. It is very difficult to rationalise production when you are making more than one product."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'.
.
Now, I'd cancel or redirect any necessary attention or resources to get the Mosquito to both North Africa and Malaya.............. faster than any Japanese fighter, armed to destroy any Japanese bomber.... but sigh, it's not to be.
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.
Those are the hard facts and choices of production, the 301 Peregrine engines produced probably cost Rolls Royce 600-900 in lost Merlin production, so the RAF got two squadrons of Whirlwinds, lost the engines for at least 600 S/E fighters and Rolls Royce lost money on the whole thing. It is very difficult to rationalise production when you are making more than one product.
It was a development on from the Kestrel, allowing more boost, the Vulture was also a development being 4 banks of Kestrel/Peregrine cylinders. Things moved on quickly, the Kestrel Peregrine type engine was just too small for designs that were emerging.So why did Rolls Royce make the Peregrine in the first place?
To avoid arguments about various means of splitting engines, you could point out that the Typhoons stable mate the Tornado had the Vulture engine that was basically two Peregrine engines running on a common crankshaft. The Vulture used 4 banks of 6 cylinders and the Peregrine used 2 banks of 6.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.
.
Imagine the Peregrine as a replacement in Kestrel-powered aircraft, like the Hawker Nimrod.It was a development on from the Kestrel,
I would think that the Peregrine Kestrel Merlin and others had the same tooling until war was declared. They were all made in the same factory. Production of Kestrels and Peregrines averaged about 2 per day from start to finish.I wonder if the Peregine's tooling would have been useful to making iron block truck or A/IFV engines. Like a smaller, earlier Meteor.
Rolls-Royce Meteor - Wikipedia
The Meteor was developed from the Merlin by W. A. Robotham and his chassis design and development division at Clan Foundry, Belper, as they were not involved in aero-engine work and his engineers were under-used. With the aid of engineers from Leyland, who were engaged in tank work, he considered RR's two V12s; the Kestrel, while having more power than the existing "Liberty" or Meadows engines, did not provide the desirable 20 bhp per ton required, so the 1,030 bhp (770 kW) Merlin III was chosen. Robotham was at pains to point out that Rolls-Royce could not manufacture the engines, so would not benefit commercially.
Clearly the Peregrine would go into lighter applications than the Meteor.
To avoid arguments about various means of splitting engines, you could point out that the Typhoons stable mate the Tornado had the Vulture engine that was basically two Peregrine engines running on a common crankshaft. The Vulture used 4 banks of 6 cylinders and the Peregrine used 2 banks of 6.
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 Westland Whirlwind had a better climb rate at low level than the Spitfire MkIa and Hurricane MkI, and was as fast as the Spitfire at 16,000ft, which was the typical height for Luftwaffe bomber raids in 1940. So the Whirlwind would have got up to the combat level faster and had the speed to chase down the enemy. It had much better visibility and offered the chance of a deadly punch with the four cannon. However, it would have required top cover from the Spitfires to protect it from high-flying 109s, just like the Hurricane. It would probably have been more effective than the Hurricane as long as the pilots could aim straight, otherwise the scatter-gun .303s of the Hurricane presented a better solution than the four cannon with only six seconds of firing time. As regards dogfighting with the ME109E-4, the Whirlwind tangled with late-model Es in 1941 and later with FW190s, so it should have done OK.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?
As I understand it the kestrel and Peregrine cylinders and heads wer the same, the difference being in strengthening of the bottom end, but the thread is about Whirlwinds.The only problem with that is the Vulture program started before the Peregrine program, The Vulture ran before the Peregrine and was in production earlier.
It that sense it may be more correct to describe the Peregrine as being, essentially, half a Vulture.
Yeah, Petter had a fixation with hydraulic systems, he even used Exactor hydraulics for the throttles instead of conventional cables. When they worked they worked, but it does seem a bit of over-engineering."...I really do not think these troubles have been any worse than they were on, say, the Spitfire."
Fracture of hydraulic pipes.