Westland Whirlwind revisited

[Shortround6]

A few thoughts.

The Lysander, while an interesting aircraft was an out of date concept and disaster as a warplane. It was pretty much useless in it's original intended roles. It did see a bit of use in very small numbers in minor areas or for short periods of time.


The whole idea of FAA P-40 is ridiculous, the British may have done some bone headed things (so did everyone) but trying to use P-40s off carriers was not one of them. Just look in a P-40 manual for the take-off and landing distances and/or approach speeds. P-40s did take off from carrier decks but it was usually with little or no ammo and just enough fuel to reach the shore base they were being ferried to. That is a lot different than being an actual operational carrier fighter.
Heck, they even flew P-47s off carriers on a few occasions, sure doesn't mean the P-47 had any potential as a carrier fighter.

The Defiant is another over rated or hyped airplane. An awful lot of it's reputation is based off of wartime propaganda and/or wishful thinking. Or very selective time frames. the Defiant may have shot down about 1/4 of the German bombers during the night Blitz. Now how many other fighters flew missions at night and how many scored any victories? Divide up the number of victories by the number of different types of fighters that flew night missions and the Defiant might come out on top, however that total number is skewed. British night fighters as a whole shot down more German bombers in April and the first two weeks of May than they had shot down from Sept of 1940 to the end of March 1941. No service Defiant carried radar until the fall of 1941. Most of it's other roles could have been performed by any other airframe that was handy.

The Battle gets a bit of a bum rap. Nobody had a bomber that would have done much better in France in 1940 flying in penny packets and for the most part unescorted. However, it's true contribution to the British war effort was the training of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of bomber crewmen. If you don't build the Battle you need to build some other bomber crew trainer. Battles could also have performed some of the roles that Defiants or even Lysanders did. if they were not available.

 

[wuzak]

As for the rather lovely Whirlwind it was ny most accounts RRs refusal to countenance any further development, support or production of the (equally lovely) Peregrine that was the major driver for cancellation. Read Lord Hives' biography.

...it had to be Merlin Merlin Merlin 'at that time'

I wonder why that would be?

Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any extra performance that Rolls-Royce could coax out of it.

Remember also that development was paused in 1940 before being cancelled in 1941. It was the same for the Vulture and Exe.

Griffon and Crecy development was paused in 1940 as well, but resumed later, despite Hives wanting to stop work on the Crecy.

 

[wuzak]

I'm not pretending that they did, but they did have a LOT more information to base their decisions on than we have today.

According to the RAF a Hurricane II with Merlin XX had a top speed of 340 mph at 21,000 feet.

View attachment 558033

What about the "cleaned up" Sea Hurricane IIc?

It's performance must show that a 355mph Hurricane II was possible?

 

[stona]

I wonder why that would be?

Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any.

A fundamental problem for engine manufacturers is that during wartime aero-engines assume primary importance, the industry would produce to capacity and the supply of engines would exert a decisive influence on the number of aircraft delivered. During the rearmament period there were no engine shortages and the Air Ministry focussed on the airframe sector. Orders for all aero-engines fluctuated, it was the slow development of airframe production that led to Merlin orders for 1938 being progressively reduced from 2220 to 1470, an output which did not absorb R-R's maximum current production capacity, while at the same time the company was being asked to expand this capacity! Although shadow schemes had been introduced and were running after a fashion there was a reluctance of the companies to over commit in terms of capital expenditure. We know that R-R sought definite assurances from the Air Ministry about future orders, the company archive has survived largely intact, we can only assume that the other major player, Bristol, did the same. At R-R the substantial reorganisation brought on by the 'Hives reforms' was also in full swing throughout this period.

During the rearmament years R-R was involved in various development projects (Merlin, Exe, Peregrine and Vulture spring immediately to mind). Though the company concentrated on the Merlin in 1938 it was aware that it might be asked to produce several types simultaneously. In March 1938 Hives informed Sidegreaves

"We could not at the present time take on a production order for Exe engines. It looks as though it is certain we shall be producing Merlins and Vultures in parallel, and very possibly Peregrines..."

The following month he was emphasising

"...to have three types running concurrently will introduce quite a lot of difficulties."

In a Policy Memorandum of June 1939, when war seemed almost inevitable, Hives would write

"If there was a war it should 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."

My bold.

The policy to concentrate on the Merlin originated with Rolls Royce, not the Air Ministry. It was as a direct consequence of this line of thinking that the company's development programmes were cut back. Both the Exe and the Peregrine were abandoned during the early months of the war in order to concentrate as much technical effort as possible and to maximise output of the Merlin.

It was also this policy which killed the Whirlwind. You could argue that ultimately it was Rolls Royce, not the Air Ministry, that did for it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Kevin J]

A few thoughts.

The Lysander, while an interesting aircraft was an out of date concept and disaster as a warplane. It was pretty much useless in it's original intended roles. It did see a bit of use in very small numbers in minor areas or for short periods of time.


The whole idea of FAA P-40 is ridiculous, the British may have done some bone headed things (so did everyone) but trying to use P-40s off carriers was not one of them. Just look in a P-40 manual for the take-off and landing distances and/or approach speeds. P-40s did take off from carrier decks but it was usually with little or no ammo and just enough fuel to reach the shore base they were being ferried to. That is a lot different than being an actual operational carrier fighter.
Heck, they even flew P-47s off carriers on a few occasions, sure doesn't mean the P-47 had any potential as a carrier fighter.

The Defiant is another over rated or hyped airplane. An awful lot of it's reputation is based off of wartime propaganda and/or wishful thinking. Or very selective time frames. the Defiant may have shot down about 1/4 of the German bombers during the night Blitz. Now how many other fighters flew missions at night and how many scored any victories? Divide up the number of victories by the number of different types of fighters that flew night missions and the Defiant might come out on top, however that total number is skewed. British night fighters as a whole shot down more German bombers in April and the first two weeks of May than they had shot down from Sept of 1940 to the end of March 1941. No service Defiant carried radar until the fall of 1941. Most of it's other roles could have been performed by any other airframe that was handy.

The Battle gets a bit of a bum rap. Nobody had a bomber that would have done much better in France in 1940 flying in penny packets and for the most part unescorted. However, it's true contribution to the British war effort was the training of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of bomber crewmen. If you don't build the Battle you need to build some other bomber crew trainer. Battles could also have performed some of the roles that Defiants or even Lysanders did. if they were not available.

There is no other plane in the Blitz that can sneak up underneath a German bomber, certainly not the Battle. It's a two seater and so has two sets of eyes. As for the Lysander for artillery spotting being a failure, correct but whatever you use will be shot out of the skies without adequate fighter cover.

 

[yulzari]

They were actually fighting Italian aircraft with Lysanders in the early days in North Africa., and also using them as (very) light bombers. Didn't do all that well though not terrible either- some of the early Italian planes were pretty durfy too. But you wouldn't want to be in a Lysander that got jumped by a CR 32 let alone a CR 42.

Lysander against Fiat CR32s? Ee, luxury. If you were in the East Africa campaign with use of Furys, Hartebeest/Hardys, Gauntlets, Vincents and even a Valentia.

 

[Kevin J]

Lysander against Fiat CR32s? Ee, luxury. If you were in the East Africa campaign with use of Furys, Hartebeest/Hardys, Gauntlets, Vincents and even a Valentia.

The RCAF used the Lysander for coastal patrol and as an emergency fighter.

 

[fubar57]

"For a brief period in 1940, every available Hawker Hurricane fighter in Canada had been sent overseas to fight in the Battle of Britain. This situation left the RCAF without a modern fighter aircraft at home in Canada. Two RCAF Lysander-equipped squadrons which were supposed to convert to fighter aircraft but had none to convert to, were re-designated as operational fighter squadrons. No. 111 Squadron, a Coastal Artillery Squadron which earlier had replaced its Avro trainers with Lysanders and been reclassified as an Army Co-operation Unit, was again reclassified as a fighter squadron – the only one on the Canadian west coast – in June 1940. Lysander-equipped No. 118 Squadron was also re-designated as a fighter squadron. The Lysander completely lacked the capability to operate in a fighter role, and neither squadron saw action as a fighter unit while equipped with Lysanders, but their designation as fighter squadrons did allow RCAF fighter pilots to work up at a critical time without having to wait for the arrival of true fighter aircraft."

Harold A. Skaarup Web page​

 

[fastmongrel]

The Battle gets a bit of a bum rap.

When introduced into service in mid 1937 it was of pretty cutting edge construction with performance superior to equivalent aircraft and there were not many fighters in service that were faster. By mid 1939 it was an obsolete flying coffin, fighter aircraft in service had gained 60mph and doubled weight of armament. I wonder if there are many aircraft that had such a short time at the top outside of a war

 

[Kevin J]

When introduced into service in mid 1937 it was of pretty cutting edge construction with performance superior to equivalent aircraft and there were not many fighters in service that were faster. By mid 1939 it was an obsolete flying coffin, fighter aircraft in service had gained 60mph and doubled weight of armament. I wonder if there are many aircraft that had such a short time at the top outside of a war

The Bristol Blenheim.

 

[nuuumannn]

Part of the problem with the Battle was in its use, as with the Defiant; Battles were flown straight and level at not very high speeds nor very high altitudes over heavily defended targets. The single engined day bomber concept just wasn't viable in a modern combat scenario. The Defiant was the same, it too was a nice aeroplane to fly but the concept of a turret fighter was left wanting in reality.

The Battle is also really big for a single engined aeroplane; compare with this Mosquito for size.

Europe 433

Europe 434

 

[stona]

The Bristol Blenheim.

That's not really fair.

The Battle came about as a result of a project for a 'High Speed 1000lb Bomber' which then became a debate between the relative merits of single and twin engine bombers, partly because the Air Member for Supply and Research (a certain Hugh Dowding) thought that a S/E type would work with what he thought would be the Griffon engine, and partly because a S/E type was considered better for reinforcing overseas commands, being easier to ship and erect in theatre. We should remember that it was a replacement for the bombers developed in the '20s. The 'High Performance Day Bomber' represented by the Hart and its derivatives equipped 25 squadrons at the end of 1936. A veil is best drawn over the 'Medium Performance Day Bomber', represented by a single squadron of Sidestrands.
Specification P.27/32 was also drawn up with an eye on restrictions imposed by the Geneva Conference. The three ton limit confused and delayed the development of medium day bombers.

The Blenheim was built to an entirely different and more modern specification, P.4/34 for a 'Light Day Bomber'. The specification was altered on several occasions, but it always bore more resemblance to the Hart concept of a light high performance day bomber than to the 'High Speed 100lb bomber' and P.27/32.

 

[Schweik]

I haven't found why there was such a leaning towards the Beaufighter, and it didn't last long into the war; as time goes on, interest gradually turns back to continuing Spitfire production, with extra orders finally being placed.
The backtracking started 17-11-39; an order for a further 500 was proposed 8-12-40, and 450 agreed 11-1-40. 22-3-40 it was increased to 900.

Maybe they were already thinking about the terrible risks of bombers, looking at Guernica etc. With 4 x 20mm cannon concentrated in the nose, plus .303 wing guns, a Beaufighter, if it could catch one, could presumably obliterate any WW2 bomber very quickly and a high rate per interception, compared to .303 mg armed fighters.

I hope I'll be forgiven for mentioning Dan Carlin again but he has a great podcast called "Logical Insanity" outlining the really scary concepts of using bombers against civilian contexts (in combination with chemical warfare) as part of "modern" Total War thinking in the 30's, in theoretical concepts shared by most of the luminaries of aviation at the time.

It was quite eye-opening to me and helped explain some of the Strategic decisions being made both in the early war as well as decisions made later on (de-housing, fire raids, nuclear attacks).

 

[Shortround6]

There is no other plane in the Blitz that can sneak up underneath a German bomber, certainly not the Battle. It's a two seater and so has two sets of eyes. As for the Lysander for artillery spotting being a failure, correct but whatever you use will be shot out of the skies without adequate fighter cover.

You didn't need to "sneak" up under a German bomber if the plane had adequate firepower. The Defiant was in a near tie for worst firepower of the British night fighters.
The Blenheim (also weak in firepower) had two sets of eyes. And many of them had radar of a rather troublesome sort.
the "success" of the British night fighters during the blitz is rather questionable until March/April of 1941. From Sept to Feb they rarely shot down more than 10 planes in a month and in one month didn't shoot down any, weather and level of German activity were large factors.
Defensive night fighters and offensive night fighters (intruders) sometimes get blended together and sometimes separated out. Intruders were shooting down german bombers in small numbers during the Blitz but sometimes their contribution is overlooked or not counted. Douglas Bostons/Havocs were used for intruder duties and scored a few victories, however for defensive duties they were wasted on the turbinelite scheme at the end of the Blitz.

Strangely enough for artillery spotting, the smaller, much cheaper Taylorcrafts were not shot out of the skies even considering the fighter cover. The Lysander was too big and too expensive to do the small jobs wanted (carry army officers between different level headquarters/liaison, spotting, over front line recon,etc.) and yet not fast enough or well armed enough to the bigger job/s of close support/interdiction.

 

[Shortround6]

With 4 x 20mm cannon concentrated in the nose, plus .303 wing guns, a Beaufighter, if it could catch one, could presumably obliterate any WW2 bomber very quickly and a high rate per interception, compared to .303 mg armed fighters.

rather true except the wing .303 guns were an "add on". the first Beaufighters had 20mm guns only, and certainly so in the planning stages. The recoil of the cannon caused the nose to dip throwing the guns off target and the wing .303s were added as an "alternative" armament. One source claims the six .303 wing guns were added with the 51st production aircraft and after. Or it may have given the plane something to shoot with while the "man in back" was scurrying around trying to change drums on 4 cannon at once

 

[pbehn]

I wonder why that would be?

Could it have been because the Battle of Britain was being fought, or about to be fought, with hundreds of aircraft that were powered by Merlins, which could benefit from any extra performance that Rolls-Royce could coax out of it.

Remember also that development was paused in 1940 before being cancelled in 1941. It was the same for the Vulture and Exe.

Griffon and Crecy development was paused in 1940 as well, but resumed later, despite Hives wanting to stop work on the Crecy.

Because, simply, you cannot mass produce a lot of varieties engines, variety is the opposite of mass production.

 

[Shortround6]

The RCAF used the Lysander for coastal patrol and as an emergency fighter.

This is true but as shown by Fubar57, it was due to a lack of anything else, not any intrinsic quality of the Lysander. Flight reports on the Lysander say that while it can perform rather tight maneuvers, (even Hurricanes can't follow it in a turn) it had heavy controls and slow response. It also had just about the same wing area as a Hurricane and weighed just about as much as a MK I Hurricane.
A number of aircraft were pressed into use as "emergency" fighters (or other roles) but almost always it was because there was nothing else at at all, not because they were 2nd best.
Big difference between 2nd best out of many and nothing at all.

 

[stona]

A number of aircraft were pressed into use as "emergency" fighters (or other roles) but almost always it was because there was nothing else at at all, not because they were 2nd best.
Big difference between 2nd best out of many and nothing at all.

Exactly.

In the 1940s, to describe a 200 mph aircraft with a service ceiling just over 20,000 feet as a fighter is a leap of faith! It wouldn't matter if it could turn in its own length

 

[Schweik]

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

Really nice video there, I've never seen footage of Whirlwinds in flight, fantastic stuff.

 

[Schweik]

IMO, he's not asking you because he wants to know, but instead wants to shut you down.

Is there an Ignore function here? EDIT, yes there is. Bonus.

KevinJ gets a bit carried away now and then (he has 'Disliked' a few of my posts too that I didn't think were merited) but his ire rarely lasts. I believe he is a sincere fellow, is knowledgable and he has some useful insights. I wouldn't put him under the Ignore flag. Just my $.02.