Westland Whirlwind revisited

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

A good list and in general agreement with Petter's own 'wishlist'.

  1. Peregrine Development
    100 octane full use and not just emergency use.
    Increase in power to 2,020 hp and increase in rated altitude to 20,000 feet.

  2. Prop Development
    Larger pitch range for props (35 degrees instead of 20 degrees).

  3. Morris Film Type Radiators
    Lower cooling drag and an expected gain of 'not less than 5 mph and possibly considerably more'.
    Increased area and efficiency (rectangular shape taking full advantage of area available in win duct.

  4. Increased Armament
    New 'gun nose' with four 20 mm (120 rpg) and three .303 in (400 rpg).

  5. More Fuel
    30-gallon petrol tank added in with new 'gun nose'.

  6. Various Airframe Improvements
    Estimated improvement of about 6 mph.
 
All that sounds reasonable SR, but it supposes that the Peregrine was kept in production.

This is unlikely since the Whirlwind was the only production aircraft using that engine, and it was considered not powerful enough for newer types.

The next logical engine that could be used is the Kestrel - but that is an older design with less power.

The Peregrine was close enough in size to the Merlin that the Merlin's supercharger could have been adapted straight across. It would probably use different gearing and/or throttling so as to not overpower the engine. The other alternative would be to raise the engine speed - the Peregrine was rated at 3,000rpm, the same as the Merlin, yet the Vulture, with the same 5.5" stroke as the Peregrine, was rated at 3,200rpm.

But I think, practically speaking, that had a Whirlwind Mk II gone ahead it would have had a pair of Merlins. Perhaps it would have resembled a shorter wing span Welkin.
 
Greyman said:
A good list and in general agreement with Petter's own 'wishlist'.


  1. 4.Increased Armament
    New 'gun nose' with four 20 mm (120 rpg) and three .303 in (400 rpg)
Click to expand...

Why stop there :twisted:.....

ww.JPG

From "Westland Whirlwind" 4+ Publications
 
wuzak said:
But I think, practically speaking, that had a Whirlwind Mk II gone ahead it would have had a pair of Merlins. Perhaps it would have resembled a shorter wing span Welkin.
Click to expand...

But we know that would have required an entirely redesigned engine nacelle and undercarriage. As it stood it would have been impossible to fit a Merlin whose entire updraught carburetor assembly would have interfered with the undercarriage attachment points, among other things. Fitting a smaller diametre, four bladed propeller, to retain the engines the same distance from the fuselage, was the only fix that Petter proposed, he never addressed the more serious issues when he went over the Ministry's head (not a good idea) and directly to Fighter Command with his Merlin Whirlwind proposal.

I think that the impact on the Whirlwind of Spitfire production at Castle Bromwich and the perceived need, as the war loomed, for Lysanders has been covered elsewhere. It has also been noted before that Hives at Rolls Royce was initially told in October 1939 that

"Peregrine production for Westland Whirlwind fighters should be stopped at the earliest practical point."

It is often overlooked that this suited Rolls Royce, which had made it clear that it felt a 'standard' engine should be produced by the company in order to maximise production. In March 1938 Hives had raised the potential problems with Sidegreaves, when he wrote,

"It looks as though it is certain we shall be producing Merlins and Vultures in parallel, and very possibly Merlins...to have three types running concurrently will introduce quite a lot of difficulties."

By June 1939 attitudes had hardened and Hives wrote to the Air Ministry,

"If there was a war, it would be obvious that the main production would be on the standardised and proved types of engines... Our proposal is that it should be a definite policy of the Air Ministry that the plant for producing the standard engine, which in our case is the Merlin, should not be broken down to produce another type."

So, not only do we have an aircraft which nobody particularly wants and which in the view of the Air Ministry has taken too long to develop (when told that deliveries might commence in June 1940 Shotlo-Douglas told Freemen that it seemed " ...an unnecessarily long time to produce an aircraft designed in early 1936."), but also an aircraft for which the engine manufacturer was not particularly keen to make the engines and was in fact arguing for a rationalisation of production, not diversification..

I think the most remarkable fact about the Whirlwind is that it was produced at all! That it 'equipped' two squadrons (though neither had a double figure number of operational aircraft with any regularity) is perhaps just as remarkable.

Cheers

Steve
 
stona said:
But we know that would have required an entirely redesigned engine nacelle and undercarriage. As it stood it would have been impossible to fit a Merlin whose entire updraught carburetor assembly would have interfered with the undercarriage attachment points, among other things. Fitting a smaller diametre, four bladed propeller, to retain the engines the same distance from the fuselage, was the only fix that Petter proposed, he never addressed the more serious issues when he went over the Ministry's head (not a good idea) and directly to Fighter Command with his Merlin Whirlwind proposal.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was thinking a Merlin Whirlwind would probably need a more major redesign.

Out of interest, do you know why the Whirlwind was designed around Peregrine engines? Was it a requirement from the Air Ministry?
 
The very earliest P.9 proposal was to use two Kestrel engines. It seems that as the Peregrine was developed at over exactly the same period as the P9/Whirlwind design, the two went hand in hand. Rolls Royce commenced work on the KV26 version of the Kestrel, which became the Peregrine in mid 1936. The name Eagle was first proposed in April 1937, but Peregrine was eventually chosen.
It is not just insignificant quantities of the Whirlwind aircraft that were produced, just 302 Peregrines (including 16 'development' engines) were built.

Most of the submissions for F.37/35 attempted to use the smallest and most compact engine installation possible, commensurate with the required performance. The Bristol Type 153 A (the 153 was a single engine proposal) was to use two Aquilas. Supermarine's twin Type 313 was to have a pair of Goshawks and the engines for Westland's P9 were two Kestrels, which progressed, with the development by Rolls Royce, to Peregrines.
There is nothing in the Specification which indicates any preference for a particular engine, or type of engine. The failing of the Whirlwind to perform at altitude is written into the Specification. The first item under the heading 'Performance' is.

"Speed. The maximum possible and not less than 330mph at 15,000 ft at maximum power with the highest speed possible between 5,000 and 15,000 ft."

That's pretty much what the Ministry got, though a bit quicker.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
A MK II, had it been built with Peregrines, would have been fairly easy.

The Merlin "option" would have been much harder. Perhaps not impossible but the changes needed and development time (always underestimated at this point in the war) would pretty much kill it off. The Airframe as it stood was simply too small to take the Merlin.

The new radiators were supposed to provide a little over 20% more cooling capacity. Works good for up rated Peregrine or early Merlins, not so good for later Merlins or Merlins running much over 1200hp.

Fuel was only 134imp gallons, even with 30-40 imp gallons of fuselage tanks that less fuel per engine than a Spitfire so while performance would be good endurance would really suck.

Really needs 4 bladed props due to restricted diameter.

Weight has climbed by hundreds of pounds (well over 1000lbs) which may mean beefed up landing gear (or at least tires)

Radiator and prop clearance might be solved by extending the inner wing but then we get into the loooonnng development. Remember the Whirlwind had less wing area than a Hurricane there is only so much "stuff" you can put in it.

In the interest of rationalizing production canceling the program was the right thing to do. Unfortunately the great hope of the RAF (the Typhoon) stumbled worse than soccer fan leaving the pub. It used the whole road, puked in the bushes on both sides and laid in the gutter at times. Had the Typhoon program even gone half as well as hoped then the Whirlwind might not have seen the service it did (replaced quicker) and the Whirlwind faded into obscurity.
Flying essential a 1940 aircraft in combat in 1943 is part of what makes the Whirlwind interesting and fuels the "what ifs".
What if it had seen even modest improvements? what could it have done in 1942-43 with those improvements?
 
stona said:
Most of the submissions for F.37/35 attempted to use the smallest and most compact engine installation possible, commensurate with the required performance. The Bristol Type 153 A (the 153 was a single engine proposal) was to use two Aquilas. Supermarine's twin Type 313 was to have a pair of Goshawks and the engines for Westland's P9 were two Kestrels, which progressed, with the development by Rolls Royce, to Peregrines.
There is nothing in the Specification which indicates any preference for a particular engine, or type of engine. The failing of the Whirlwind to perform at altitude is written into the Specification. The first item under the heading 'Performance' is.

"Speed. The maximum possible and not less than 330mph at 15,000 ft at maximum power with the highest speed possible between 5,000 and 15,000 ft."

That's pretty much what the Ministry got, though a bit quicker.

Cheers

Steve
Click to expand...

A lot of British procurement was governed by the almighty check book at this point in time. Not what was the best or best potential.
What would give the highest number of units for the least money.
Almost 1700 5 ton tanks for instance between 1936 and 1940.
For aircraft it was what would be the cheapest airplane that would meet the specification, not the airplane that had the most development potential. Or exceed the specification by the biggest margin.
Smaller engines were cheaper than larger ones. Lighter airplanes are cheaper.
 
Shortround6 said:
A lot of British procurement was governed by the almighty check book at this point in time. Not what was the best or best potential.
What would give the highest number of units for the least money.
Almost 1700 5 ton tanks for instance between 1936 and 1940.
For aircraft it was what would be the cheapest airplane that would meet the specification, not the airplane that had the most development potential. Or exceed the specification by the biggest margin.
Smaller engines were cheaper than larger ones. Lighter airplanes are cheaper.
Click to expand...

Yes, but F.37/35 was just an update of the (then) suspended F.1035 with the added requirement to carry four cannon. The final specification was for

"...a sufficient number of forward-firing 20 or 23 mm calibre guns to effect a decisive result in a short space of time and from longer ranges than is possible with machine guns."

The Air Ministry didn't care what the aircraft looked like or how many engines it had. This was a quest for firepower. The four cannon stipulation was because the British had discounted the singe centrally mounted cannon, appearing on some foreign aircraft (particularly French) as inadequate because in a short burst it fired too few rounds to be likely to hit a vital part of the target.
In fact the contenders for F.37/35 were more expensive than the Air Ministry hoped. This almost led to the Whirlwind not being developed at all. Initially there would have been an order of two prototypes from Boulton Paul, two from Supermarine and just one from Westland. Supermarine said that its experimental department was so busy that it would build just one prototype, but provide a comprehensive package of spares in lieu of a second aircraft. As a result it was agreed that just one Supermarine prototype would be ordered but the Westland order would be increased to two.
The prices were, £38,000 for two Boulton Paul prototype P.88Bs, £45,500 for the two Westland P.9s and £23,361 for one Supermarine Type 313 with its spares. The total cost was £105,000, more than five times the £20,000 set aside for the F.10/35 programme in which the revised F.37/35 programme had its origins. The Air Ministry had to seek Treasury approval for the increased expenditure and this it received on 7th December 1936. Westland had given the most expensive option and consequently, the Westland prototypes were NOT initially ordered. The Westland P.9/Whirlwind was only reprieved (the first reprieve of several) because Supermarine announced that it was unable to produce the B.12/36 prototype bomber, which was preferred over the other contenders, unless it suspended work on the prototype to F.37/35 and the flying boat to R.1/36. The Air Ministry agreed to cancel the Supermarine F.37/35 contract on 28th January. The Westland P.9 prototypes were ordered, maintaining a field of two (with Boulton Paul) in the F.37/35 competition. This decision cost the Ministry, initially, at least £22,000, plus any monies already disbursed to Supermarine.
Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
stona said:
The two tankers had been spotted by Donaldson, three miles of Cherbourg, as he returned from the second raid that day against the airfield at Maupertus. On the first raid Coghlan, Rudland and Brackley, led by Mason failed to find the target.
Four Whirlwinds, escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here) were sent to find and attack the tankers. The Spitfires didn't 'turn up'. Despite the claims of both the Whirlwind and Spitfire pilots just one Bf 109 (of Erg.JG2) was shot down.
Following the action the four Whirlwinds did not all return safely to base, neither were they unscathed.
P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine, damaging the aircraft further when he hit an 'airfield obstruction'.
The other three landed at Ibsley but P7001 (Donaldson) and P7002 (Brackley) were flown back to Westland for repair to combat damage.
So, one did not manage to make it back to Ibsley, and of the three that did, only one was unscathed and operational. In other words, following this action, 75% of the attacking Whirlwinds were U/S, though at least all the pilots survived. Nonetheless, the squadron at the time, and proponents of the Whirlwind today, often cite this day as one of the type's successes.

I could easily pick raids which didn't go nearly as well as this one to make a counter argument, but selectively quoting details of individual raids is not really a way to assess an aircraft. It does help if the full details are quoted though :)

Cheers

Steve
Click to expand...
".....escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here)....." The Spitfires were not flying close escort, they joined the combat after the 263Sq pilots were engaged and had already shot down at least one of the 109s. The 118Sq's Squadron Leader was the one that confirmed seeing the 109 go into the sea as the Spitfires approached the fight.

"....P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine...." Brackley's engine failure was unrelated to combat damage. Engine failures outside combat were quite common for even the Merlin, and landing accidents were also very common, more so in single-engine tractor fighters which had a worse view forward over the nose.

"....but P7001 (Donaldson) and P7002 (Brackley) were flown back to Westland for repair to combat damage...75% of the attacking Whirlwinds were U/S...." So, one unrelated engine failure and a landing accident, and two a/c with such limited damage they could be flown to the factory, so not "U/S" at all. In all, it would seem a good example of how the Whirlwind was perfectly capable of dealing with the Bf109s at lower levels at least.

".....I could easily pick raids which didn't go nearly as well....." Hmmm, bomb-laden Whirlwinds, you mean? You may want to check on the large number of Spitfires and Typhoons that suffered a similar fate. You also failed to address the fact that the Whirlwind was still flying operationally in 1943, which would indicate to anyone with a clue that the Whirlwind was not the donkey you seem to want it to have been.
 
If you want to interpret facts differently, that's your privilege.
We can't dispute that only one Bf 109 was lost and that three out of four Whirlwinds were not available for further operations until they had been repaired. We can spin those basic facts anyway we choose.

I don't think that the Whirlwind was a donkey. In terms of the Specification to which it was designed and built it was, potentially, a very good aircraft. It did require a lot of development to overcome numerous and persistent failings, but it was by no means alone in this respect. Other types, I mentioned the Lysander yesterday, suffered the same fate. It fulfilled its specification very well, unfortunately, like the Whirlwind, it wasn't the aircraft the RAF wanted in 1940/41. Fighter Command certainly didn't really want the Whirlwind, keeping it well out of the way. Dowding wouldn't even allow 263 Squadron to move to 10 Group (nearer to Yeovil) where it would be easier to address the ongoing problems, telling Beaverbrook.
"I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world."
Dowding, admittedly no fan of Westland, predicted "an infinity of trouble" with the Whirlwind in June 1940, and got it a month later when they were grounded with well known issues. Problems with serviceability persisted, it was only 55% in September. At the end of October Dowding was writing to Beaverbrook that it was
"quite wrong to introduce at the present time a fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000ft."
Despite other, better, aspects of its performance it was not suitable as an interceptor, so another role had to be found. A few (very few) aircraft managed to carry that out with success into 1943.
Limited production was inevitable given the combination of doubts about the type's role in the RAF and Rolls Royce's expressed wish to concentrate production on one 'standard' engine, making it easy for the Peregrine to be cancelled. The Whirlwind received more reprieves (even touted as a potential night fighter) than a convicted murderer on Texas' death row!

Cheers

Steve
 
tomo pauk said:
Just skimming through the data, the Whirly should be besting the Oscar and early Zeros, and equal later Zeros, Ki 44s and Ki-61. That is without development, 1940 aircraft vs. second half of 1942 and on.

Maybe someone could post some data how good/bad the Whirlwind fared vs. LW opposition?
Click to expand...
Having just read Bloody Shambles, which I highly recommend, in order to operate the Whirlwind in Malaya the airfields need to be lengthened and perhaps hard surfaced. Get that sorted and the Whirlwind will do well against the IJAAF's Nakajima Ki-43 and decimate everything with two engines. Having just returned from KL and Singapore (visited the Welcome to the Battlebox and Fort Siloso: Front Page ) I can attest that the air is dense and humid, so I imagine the Whirlwind will do better at altitude in Malaya than it could over northern Europe. In my mind, here's the Whirlwind at RAF Selatar.




Whirlwind's issue will be ammunition, since with only 60 rounds per gun, you'd better shoot sparingly and with utmost accuracy. Would under wing .303 mg pods be a quick add-on? Like on this Potez POTEZ 63/11
 
Last edited:
I think the Whirlwind would have been better served by 8 or so 303 Brownings with a lot of ammo than with the 4 20mm with only 60 rpg. Most of the action reports I have read on the Whirlwind said something like "opened fire at XXX plane, got some hits, ran out of ammo. Enemy plane damaged". 60 rpg just isn't enough. I'm not a fan of rifle caliber machine guns in fighters, but 8 concentrated in the nose of a Whirlwind would be like a mini-gun, you either miss completely or obliterate your target.
 
pinsog said:
I think the Whirlwind would have been better served by 8 or so 303 Brownings with a lot of ammo than with the 4 20mm with only 60 rpg.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable. For Malaya where you're facing unarmoured and fragile IJAAF types, I'd go with four .50 caliber and stuff the nose with ammo.

I've read that belt magazines were not yet available, so it had to be drums. With belts you could have run them under the pilot's seat, put the radio in the nose, with a large ammunition supply behind the pilot. Really, if we can get more rounds into the Whirlwind and perhaps add a fuel transfer valve so it can run tanks dry on one engine, we're all set for Malaya. Send all 150 odd aircraft to Seletar before end of 1941.

We can't add Merlins without costly changes. But with the Peregrine giving issues, was a return to the Kestrel ever considered? Add a supercharger? Rolls-Royce Kestrel - Wikipedia
 
I actually love the 50 myself, although after time on this forum I do realize some of its limitations. What someone will point out, so I will go ahead and do it now, is that the British were setup with the 303 so ammo, guns, parts etc were all in good supply. (If the US had the Whirlwind I would also say 4 50's) The Japanese planes weren't armored and didn't have self sealing tanks, but imagine 8 303's firing 1,200 rpg per minute....I don't think an ME109, FW190 or any of there twin engine bombers would handle that very well, armor or not.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Sounds reasonable. For Malaya where you're facing unarmoured and fragile IJAAF types, I'd go with four .50 caliber and stuff the nose with ammo.

I've read that belt magazines were not yet available, so it had to be drums. With belts you could have run them under the pilot's seat, put the radio in the nose, with a large ammunition supply behind the pilot. Really, if we can get more rounds into the Whirlwind and perhaps add a fuel transfer valve so it can run tanks dry on one engine, we're all set for Malaya. Send all 150 odd aircraft to Seletar before end of 1941.
Click to expand...

Belt-fed Hispanos were just being introduced in the RAF inventory, so it is questioable whether the fighter that is going to what is not currently a war zone will get them. In case they are available, I'd have 3 cannons instead of 4, so the other 3 cannons can have at least double the ammo as it was the case with the 60rd drum.

We can't add Merlins without costly changes. But with the Peregrine giving issues, was a return to the Kestrel ever considered? Add a supercharger? Rolls-Royce Kestrel - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Merlin is a no-go unless there is a wholesale redesign of the Whirly.
Add another superchager to the Peregrine or Kestrel - how and why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

CD Baumann
Westland Lysander
Replies
9
Views
1K
HP52
H
B
WW II airframe G limits
Replies
7
Views
3K
Barrett
B
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Spectre311
Japanese torpedo bomber design
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
marathag
marathag
JoblinTheGoblin
Japanese Design Philosophy
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
9K
Shortround6
S
Back