Westland Whirlwind revisited

[Schweik]

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.

I think a Gauntlent or a Fury gives you a much better chance than a Lysander against a Cr 32. In fact there were some interesting encounters with those planes. Later on engagements between Gladiators and CR.42s got positively hairy, with some battles going heavily for the British and some for the Italians, usually with a lot of casualties for the losing side and sometimes for both sides.

 

[Schweik]

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.

I've noticed this pattern with some other similar types - Storch, Piper Cub / L-4 seemed to have a surprisingly good surviveability ratio in the spotter / short range recon / light CAS role. Similar for the HS-123 and the Polikarpov R-5 and R-Z, and even the I-5/ I-153 and CR-42, and Fw 189. There was a certain niche for very agile, slow, light spotter planes with STOL capability that seemed to continue right to the end of the war. Some of them fit the niche really well, some only partly. I don't fully understand how planes like the Taylorcraft could survive in the deadly late war battlefield environment but it seems that they did.

And it continued postwar of course with planes like the OV-10 et al.

The Lysander did not seem to fit this niche very well, perhaps because it was so big and heavy. A piper J-3 was 1,220 lbs loaded, the Lysander was 6,330 lbs. I still like the Lysander for it's versatility and it's odd design features, but I agree they made way too many of them (more on that in another post).

S

 

[Kevin J]

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.

So that comment referred to me, eh?

 

[Schweik]

So that comment referred to me, eh?

Well we all get carried away sometimes don't we? I was referring to a new poster who seemed to interpret something in a more harsh sense than it was probably meant. Nothing more than that. It's also possible I misinterpreted his post.

 

[michael rauls]

Tomo, no matter how you choose to spin it you will only ever count one engine on a Typhoon, just as the AM/MAP did

The Typhoon was eventually a much better aeroplane than the Whirlwind and we have the benefit of hindsight not granted to those making the decisions in 1940. The Hawker fighter was expected sooner than it actually arrived.

The men at the MAP actually under estimated the extra materiel required to build the Whirlwind compared to the Spitfire. I don't have the figures to hand at the moment as I'm in Metz and they are in Birmingham!

When a bean counter gets the idea that something can be done more economically and to at least as good effect he is very hard to convince otherwise. Some things never change

Nice picture Greg!
Though I don't think the Whirlwind ever had a future, with or without the Peregrine engine after the axe fell successively I do think it was a good looking aeroplane. It wasn't the fighter the AM/RAF were looking for in 1940/41.

Cheers

Steve

Amen on the bean counter thing.

 

[Shortround6]

I don't fully understand how planes like the Taylorcraft could survive in the deadly late war battlefield environment but it seems that they did.

In part due the speed disparity. These planes all fly very slow, and while a Lysander could fly slow it was in a high drag configuration (mostly) when doing so.

Read this modern flying report. Lysander Pilot Report > Vintage Wings of Canada

trying to "dog fight" in a Lysander does not sound easy if you are operating near stall.

 

[Schweik]

Well anyway, I just wanted to say regarding this thread, I'm glad someone revived it because I really enjoyed reading the whole thing. Thanks to everyone who posted in it thus far, it has been both an entertaining and informative read. I was waiting to really chime in on the major themes until I'd read through the whole thing, and I finally have.

So here is my two cents, FWIW:

First to restate the obvious, of course this is a "what-if" -we know what really happened, they didn't continue the design. Ultimately it doesn't matter what we think, they did what they did. This is just for fun and as a thought experiment. I know sometimes we all get kind of invested in this or that aircraft design on an emotional level. We all do it. We all have our favorites and our little underdogs we root for, it's not rational but it's part of the fun of being into WW2 aviation, right? And of course we have our national biases, but we should try to keep in mind that just because we are familiar with the rationalizations of why our own nation made this or that decision, doesn't mean we necessarily should buy into it.

All that said, I think Shortround6 is right about the Lysander. And the Defiant too. At least the Lysander (1,786 built) and the Defiant (1,064 built) still had a combat role, however limited or marginal, before being relegated to target tug duties. Others like the Henley (202 built) never did and designs like the Battle (2,200 built) and the Blackburn Botha (580 built) and Roc (136 built) should have been retired right away as soon as it was apparent how hopeless they were. The British were not alone in this by any mean. In the US, we had aircraft like the dreaded Brewster SB2A Buccaneer (with 771 built), and of absolutely no use to any air force anywhere, and the Curtiss SO3C Seamew (795 built), which had to be quickly withdrawn from service... just to mention two obvious cases. We also had quite a few marginal types which didn't do much good and even killed a lot of good pilots but I don't want to get into side arguments so I'll leave them unnamed.

The point being that the Western Allies in general and the British specifically definitely had some aircraft in production that they had no reason to built. In fact those which ever even saw action were probably costing lives of those unlucky enough to get sent into combat in them.

Which makes a proven design like the Whirlwind a shame to have to shut down with such a short production run. I do understand the issue with the engine.

Personally, were I to show up in the halls power in England circa 1939, I wouldn't advocate a radical redesign of the Whirlwind, like to put Merlins in it or something. I would say stop the Lysander production line right now, transfer the contract to the Whirlwind and make a few minor tweaks for a Mk 1 variant. Now built 500 or 1,000 more of those ASAP. If necessary for manpower, money or any other resources please immediately stop production of the Defiant and the Botha and get Blackburn and Boulton Paul to help make Whirlwinds (if that is even possible).

The Whirlwind was a small plane, that is why it was so fast. It's too small for Merlin engines. It works well with the wings it has, so leave them be. Some people think a small plane is a problem, and I'm not sure if it was entirely apparent in 1938 or 39, but small planes were faster, all things being equal. The Spitfire was small and the even zippier Bf 109 was smaller still. Sure they both had short range but the need for improved versions of both types continued to the very end of the war. Especially in the era before 1,500+ hp engines, smaller was just better for a fighter in many ways. So in my opinion the Peregrine engine, far from being a dead end, was a really good idea. I don't know how rare it was or if other nations had equivalent designs, but to me it's a stroke of genius. A smaller engine that can power that 1940 era bird to 360 mph is something special. Especially since we know with a little work they got have gotten it much faster still. I bet if it had been developed for another year or two the Whirlwind could well have become a 400 mph airplane.

Designing a new fighter is always a roll of the dice. You never knew when a new design was going to pan out or if it ever would. Shortround6 pointed out the long painful saga of the Typhoon. The US had similar teething problems with the P-38, with the failed P-46 and P-60 and so forth. The Germans had the Me 210 and He 177 and so on. That is why a proven design that clearly only needed a little fine-tuning really shouldn't have been abandoned so lightly.

I basically agree with Shortround6 that a relatively 'lite' refit was all that was needed to make the Mk 1 version a fully viable combat aircraft. Cross feed the two fuel systems and plumb for external tanks, convert armament to 3 x 20mm with belt feed and more ammunition, improve radiators, put in bigger tyres, maybe replace the hydraulics if it's not too radical of a change, and generally tweak anything that was breaking on a routine basis. And bingo, you had a fighter which could do things few others available to Britan in 1940 could:

• It was a proven design capable of flying combat missions, with all the major design flaws worked out. It only needed some fine tuning.
• Pilots liked it. Same could not be said for the Typhoon or say, the P-39 (outside of Russia).
• It could top 360 mph, that is fast enough to contend with Bf 109s. It's kind of the red line for a good fighter in 1940-41. Anything over 350 mph is in the mix for Western fighters.
• In spite of being a twin, it was apparently quite agile.
• Though it was only a low altitude design (at least initially) there was a need for good low altitude fighters!
• It was versatile and looks like a good fighter, a good short range recon plane, and a good CAS / precision bomber.
• Apparently it could fly reasonably well on one engine. Not all two engined warplanes could do that.
• It was the most heavily armed operational Allied fighter of it's day, certainly in it's (over 350 mph) performance class.
• The Whirlwind could apparently tangle with Bf 109s and survive. How many fighters anywhere in the world in 1940 could do that? It's a fairly short list.
• I think it would have been a good Fw 190 killer.
• There was a long period where those capabilities remained in high demand. Not until the Spit IX was available was the 190 threat faced down. All that time Whirlwinds could have been shooting them down, flying with the Spit Vs as backup.
• It could dive-bomb at a steep angle and manage the pull out - with no dive brakes. While not unique that is not a common trait in WW2 aircraft.
• Apparently it could carry two 500 lb bombs which was a heavy bomb load for a fast fighter bomber in 1940 - 41.
• It was a good enough design that the 1.0 version was still able to fly successful combat missions 3 years later. Without any real improvements that I'm aware of.
• It clearly had room for further development. External fuel tanks and a little more internal gas, a few tweaks to engine cooling systems and exhaust, and you already have a much more capable airplane. From there the sky is the limit (especially if they ever developed a 2 speed peregrine)

All in all, it was clearly an unusually good design that already was past the hardest phases of the design cycle. It was in that happy place where you can start to fine tune the basic design and get things out of it you never realized were possible initially (like I bet, 380 or even 400 mph for the Whirlwind) and make all kinds of interesting and useful variants to do other things beyond the original design specs. It had many traits not found in other Anglo-American fighters for years to come and had the versatily to do several useful tasks pretty well.

Finally subjectively, I am of the (not always reliable) school that a good fighter airplane should look beautiful: have sexy lines, appear to be fast and sleek and elegant. The Whirlwind checks all those boxes for me (in exactly the way the Skua doesn't). I know it's unscientific but the Whirlwind is a damn nice looking fighter. I made a model of it to compare with my other fighters of the early to mid-war, and it stands out for its elegance. That is a small racehorse but it's definitely a throroughbred.

Obviously the big problem was the engine. Sure Rolls Royce wanted to concentrate on their best design the Merlin, and other promising designs to come like the Griffin, but I also think the Peregrine (and the Kestrel) was a good idea in and of itself. The Peregrine seems to have been cancelled due to problems with the Vulture (made up of sticking peregrines together). Nobody seems to have been considering it for it's own merits. Small planes seemed like they were on their way out in 1940 probably because the military people and the company people knew there was a need for more of everything: more bombs, more fuel, more guns, more armor etc.

But how many planes got bloated too quickly, loaded down with too much weight and declined in usefulness as a result. The P-40 is a good earlyish example of that, sure I love it as a design but all that weight had a way of degrading the fighter. Only by stripping them down and overboosting to that elusive ~ 1400 - 1500 hp level did they get it to perform as needed to cope with the best Axis fighters. Another good example is the B-26 Marauder. The earlier Glenn Martin designs - 167 and 187, were sleek and fast, relatively small and light. More and more and more stuff got stuffed into the B-26 and they ended up making a "widow maker" that took a long time to make into a safe, good performing aircraft. It did some useful duty but it never lived up to the hopes of the design (and in my opinion, was never as good as the much simpler and smaller Baltimore). Some other designs ultimately worked out in spite of being too huge and heavy - the P-47 with it's massive engine and turbo could muscle through all that extra drag.

And yet meanwhile the small 32' wingspan Bf 109 kept being improved and kept pace with all the Anglo-American designs to the end of the war*. And the small Russian planes kept pace with the 109s. Turns out you don't need 3,000 horsepower to go 420 mph - you can also do it with a smaller cleaner body and short low-drag wings. To me that underlines the message: smaller is better, at least to some extent.

Of course small has it's downside too. The Whirlwind was never going to be a long range fighter or fighter-bomber.. Eventually you'd have the mosquito for the latter and the P-38 and later still P-51 for the former. But until that point, I think the Whirlwind could have been useful, a Mk I or Mk Ia version, nothing requiring a major investment. Just make about 500 more and I bet it would have helped, and that would have been enough to push for a Mk II.

Mk II or III is where you could talk about making more drastic changes like to the wing or a different engine. But I think they should have stuck with the Peregrine!

S

* we can argue which was better - Spit, P-51, P-47, Fw or 109, but we can probably all agree the 109 remained in contention for the top spot until the very end.

P.S. the Wiki says the No. 263 squadron had "considerable success" vs. Ju 88s, Do 217a, Bf 109s and Fw 190s. Does anyone have more data on that? The Wiki on 263 sqn doesn't mention any dogfights with 109s or Fw 190s, only one possible ju 88 kill. There is also a 6 August 1942 raid where the Wiki claims Whirlwinds shot down 3 x Bf 109s for no losses. Anybody look into that yet?

I don't know if Whirlwinds got any victories during the channel dash fight or not. The fact that all four aircraft made it back to base in spite of apparently fairly heavy damage to three of them actually speaks quite well of the design to me. This is in general one of the advantages of a twin-engined fighter but twin engined fighters also needed to be fast to survive. The Beaufighter was great in the maritime role and as an intruder etc., but it wasn't quite fast enough to be a day time fighter over land. Neither was the Me 110 ultimately. But the Whirlwind was.

 

[wuzak]

So in my opinion the Peregrine engine, far from being a dead end, was a really good idea. I don't know how rare it was or if other nations had equivalent designs, but to me it's a stroke of genius. A smaller engine that can power that 1940 era bird to 360 mph is something special. Especially since we know with a little work they got have gotten it much faster still. I bet if it had been developed for another year or two the Whirlwind could well have become a 400 mph airplane.

<snip>

Obviously the big problem was the engine. Sure Rolls Royce wanted to concentrate on their best design the Merlin, and other promising designs to come like the Griffin, but I also think the Peregrine (and the Kestrel) was a good idea in and of itself. The Peregrine seems to have been cancelled due to problems with the Vulture (made up of sticking peregrines together). Nobody seems to have been considering it for it's own merits. Small planes seemed like they were on their way out in 1940 probably because the military people and the company people knew there was a need for more of everything: more bombs, more fuel, more guns, more armor etc.

The Peregrine had limited usefulness, as it was too small for many applications, such as in bombers and single-engine fighters.

The Peregrine and Vulture programs were separate, and actually shared very little between them. Maybe the pistons, rings, wrist pins, valves and valve rocker arms. The continuation of one program did not depend on the other. The Vulture's bore spacing was very nearly identical to the Merlin's. The Vulture was not two Peregrines joined together, as is often stated.

The Vulture's problems were unique to it, and did not effect the Peregrine at all, which has a few of its own issues.

The Vulture was also ahead of the Peregrine, by about a year. It was cleared for 3,200rpm (before it ran into big end bearing/con rod problems) compared to 3,000rpm for the Peregrine.

The Peregrine wasn't as "genius" as you think. It was modernisation of the Kestrel, which originated in the mid 1920s. Some say it was a "Merlinised" Kestrel.

Another Kestrel development was the Goshawk, which was used in the Supermarine Type 224 (the original Spitfire). The Goshawk used evaporative cooling, which was supposed to reduce cooling drag, but it didn't work too well, so the engine, and the aircraft that used it, were abandoned.

Back to the Whirlwind, there was concern as to the time it was taking Westland to get the aircraft into production, so a backup "cannon armed fighter" option was sought. Bristol's proposal was adopted, which would become the Beaufighter. Supermarine offered the Type 327 as a "cannon armed fighter" backup for the Whirlwind, but this was rejected.

The Type 327 was a twin Merlin fighter, based on the Type 324 that was in competition with the Tornado/Typhoon, with 6 x 20mm cannon.

 

[stona]

trying to "dog fight" in a Lysander does not sound easy if you are operating near stall.

In February 1941, still worried about a German invasion, the Air Fighting Development Unit of the RAF flew Hurricanes against gliders (Kirby Kites, towed by Tiger Moths). Once released from the tow the gliders proved almost impossible targets for the Hurricanes.

That did not make the gliders good fighters!

Here's a first hand account of the experiment from Lawrence Wright's 'The Wooden Sword'.

"In February the squadron had an interesting day out. A German airborne invasion still being expected, the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford was required to study the chances of shooting down gliders, towed and free, and to recommend tactics for both sides. In perfect visibility, five of our Tigers towing five Kites flew in formation to a rendezvous at Royston, to be met and attacked by fighters armed with camera-guns. My proposal to retaliate with Verey pistols from the tugs was rejected, but I was allowed to bring my Leica to bear. A Hurricane, with flaps down, came at the formation head-on, and doubtless scored hits on our leaders, but I got him fair and square with my first shot. The gliders then released, and proved almost hopeless targets when free. A fixed-gun fighter flying four times as fast as a glider cannot keep on its tail as it circles. lt has to break away after a short burst, and begin each attack afresh. But a free-gun fighter, turning outside the glider on the same centre, can keep constant deflection and take steady aim. This was proved after a second take-off, from Duxford, when Professor Melville-Jones picked gliders off at leisure from a Defiant."

It did reveal a promising role for a turret fighter

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

That did not make the gliders good fighters!

Quite true

Just avoiding being shot down does not make a good fighter, you have to able to shoot down enemy airplanes of some sort, even if not enemy fighters.

Much like the Russians and the I-16. They found it had the lowest loss rate per sortie at one point in the war but it also did the least damage to the Germans per sortie so it wasn't very effective despite the low losses.

modifying (sticking engine and guns in it) this

is going to be near impossible

 

[Admiral Beez]

Back to the Whirlwind, there was concern as to the time it was taking Westland to get the aircraft into production, so a backup "cannon armed fighter" option was sought. Bristol's proposal was adopted, which would become the Beaufighter.

It would have been beneficial to have the Beaufighter in earlier service and skip the Whirlwind. Replace the few Blenheims at Malaya with more Beaufighters, for example.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for your kind comments but I do have a few comments.


on the Whirlwind.

Cross feed the two fuel systems and plumb for external tanks, convert armament to 3 x 20mm with belt feed and more ammunition, improve radiators, put in bigger tyres, maybe replace the hydraulics

There is little need to cut the guns down to three, there were noses built (two different designs) with 4 20mm cannon and 110-115 rounds per gun with pneumatic powered magazines( which didn't work) so the volume and weight allowance was already there. Main problem with the "Hydraulics" was the the hydraulic engine controls, which had nothing to do with the rest of the hydraulic system. the throttle levers were connected to master cylinders which were connected to slave cylinders on the engine. The two systems were separate for each other. after a few hours of flight it was often necessary to move the throttle levers fully back and forth to get rid of any air bubbles in the system (Those of us old enough to remember bleeding our own brake lines) to get proper throttle response.

Though it was only a low altitude design (at least initially) there was a need for good low altitude fighters!

Initially it was a high altitude design. Engines peaked at 15,000ft which is low compared to 1942 and later but for 1940 (or earlier) it was about as high as it got except for the Merlin (16,250 ft). Unfortunately this meant the take-off power was around 765hp at 6-7lbs of boost. Going to 9lbs boost helped once in service. Had they truly wanted a low altitude fighter then swapping the supercharge gears to something equivalent to the Merlin VIII would have allowed wellover 800hp down low even on 87 octane fuel.

Apparently it could carry two 500 lb bombs which was a heavy bomb load for a fast fighter bomber in 1940 - 41.

The 500lb bombs didn't show up until much later than the 250lb bombs. There may have been a s wing modification involved for either bomb size?

The earlier Glenn Martin designs - 167 and 187, were sleek and fast, relatively small and light. More and more and more stuff got stuffed into the B-26 and they ended up making a "widow maker" that took a long time to make into a safe, good performing aircraft. It did some useful duty but it never lived up to the hopes of the design (and in my opinion, was never as good as the much simpler and smaller Baltimore).

The Much smaller Baltimore was a later design than the B-26. The Maryland was the Martin 167, the B-26 was the Martin 179 (at least to start) and the Baltimore was the Martin 187.
The Baltimore first flew almost 8 months after the first B-26.
The Baltimore had a few problems of it's own. like the A-20 and a few other fast (or not so fast) bombers the fuselage was so narrow the crew could change places in flight, which means if the pilot is incapacitated in flight the plane is lost. Original requirements for the B-26 also called for flights of well over 8 hours, it may have been a stupid requirement but trying to get a single pilot to fly for 8 hours or more was not considered a good idea in 1939/40.

And yet meanwhile the small 32' wingspan Bf 109 kept being improved and kept pace with all the Anglo-American designs to the end of the war

Not really, the 109 had devolved to a point defense interceptor with questionable armament by late in the war. Since Germany could make good use of point defence interceptors it did pretty good work but it was no longer in the front ranks of of fighters. Without drop tank it's endurance was under one hour in the conditions over germany ( you couldn't cruise the 109s around at 200-220mph for max range/endurance without being sitting ducks) and it's armament was too light for the bomber interceptor job and barely adequate for taking down the big American fighters. There Is a difference between being useful, which the 109 was, and having kept pace with the Anglo-American designs.

 

[Shortround6]

It would have been beneficial to have the Beaufighter in earlier service and skip the Whirlwind. Replace the few Blenheims at Malaya with more Beaufighters, for example.

doesn't get you anything since the two planes only share the same cannon (and instruments in the panel) . Canceling the RR Peregrine engine even earlier does NOT get you Bristol Hercules engines any sooner. In Fact the Beaufighter MK II with Merlins was built to get around a shortage of Hercules engines. Likewise the Merlin powered Wellingtons.

Stopping Whirlwind production and building more Beaufighters means tooling up the Westland factory for Beaufighters, not just changing numbers on paper.

 

[fubar57]

This is all I could find with regards to Whirlwind claims...ORB

P6979- May 14 '43 - two Fw 190s damaged
P6985-Mar 11 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
P6989-Jan 28 '41 - Ar 196 destroyed
Feb 28 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 02 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 30 '41 - Do 215 damaged
P7057-Dec 14 '42 - Dogfight with two Fw 190s; no result

 

[stona]

Whirlwind victories from Robert Bowater, '263 and 137 Squadrons: The Whirlwind Years'.

1941
12 January Ju.88 of K.Gr.806 – Destroyed – David Stein P6972
8 February Ar.196 of 5/Ku.Fl.Gr.196 – Destroyed – Kenneth Graham P6969 HE-V
1 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Patrick Thornton-Brown P6989 HE-J
5 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Herbert Kitchener DFM P6989 HE-J
11 March Ju.88 – Damaged – Herbert Kitchener DFM P6989 HE-J
1 April Do.215 – Damaged – Arthur Donaldson P6998
6 April He.111 of I/KG.27 – Damaged – Bernard Howe P7002 HE-L
16 April He.111 of I/KG.27 – Damaged – Albert Tooth P7004 2
7 April Ju.88 of KG.54 – Damaged – Roy Ferdinand P6996
6 August Me.109 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Robert Brackley P6983 HE-H
6 August Me.109 of JG.2 – Damaged – Arthur Donaldson P7001
6 August Me.109E-7 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Clifford Rudland P7002 HE-L
6 August Me.109E-7 of JG.2 – Destroyed – Clifford Rudland P7002 HE-L
4 September Me.109E of JG.2 White 15 – Damaged – David Stein P6990
7 November Me.109E-7 of 1/JG.2 – Destroyed – Cecil King

1942
15 May Ju.88 – Damaged – Robert Brennan P7055 SF-S
27 May Ju.88 – Destroyed – Robert Brennan P7122 & Paul LaGette P70463 [SIC (?)]
20 June Do.217 of 3/KG.2 – Damaged – Joel Ashton P7012 SF-V & Charles Mercer P6972
6 July Ju.88 – Damaged – Len Bartlett P7111 SF-E
25 July Ju.88 8H+KL of 3(F)/122 – Destroyed – John McClure P7104 SF-V & Robert Smith P7012
29 July Ju.88D-1 F6+EL of 3(F)/122 – Destroyed – Leo O'Neill P7005 SF-H & James Rebbetoy P7058 SF-G
18 August Ju.88 Damaged – Leo O'Neill P7037 SF-J & John Luing P7055 SF-S
19 August Do.217E-4 F8+BN of 5/KG40 – Destroyed – Mike Bryan P7121 & Des Roberts P7046
19 August Ju.88 Damaged – Alfred Brown P6976 SF-X 20 August Ju.88 Damaged – John Barclay P6982
14 December Fw.190 of 10/JG.2 – Damaged – Max Cotton P7052
14 December Fw.190 of 10/JG.2 – Damaged – James Coyne P7057 SF-S 15 December Fw.190 – Damaged – Robert Smith P6976 SF-X
19 December Fw.190 – Destroyed – John Bryan P7114 & James Rebbetoy P7005 SF-H

TOTAL:
13 Destroyed (5 Ju88; 4 Me.109; 2 Fw190; 1 Do217; 1 Ar.196)
18 Damaged (6 Ju.88; 6 Fw190; 2 He111; 2 Me.109; 1 Do215; 1 Do217)
1, 2 & 4 – No claim made; 3 – was actually Blenheim V5568 of 1401 Met Flight, Horsham St Faith

 

[Admiral Beez]

This is all I could find with regards to Whirlwind claims...ORB

P6979- May 14 '43 - two Fw 190s damaged
P6985-Mar 11 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
P6989-Jan 28 '41 - Ar 196 destroyed
Feb 28 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 02 '41 - Ju 88 damaged
Mar 30 '41 - Do 215 damaged
P7057-Dec 14 '42 - Dogfight with two Fw 190s; no result

Well, that's not impressive. That single Ar196 could have just as easily been shot down with the Gloster Gladiators No. 263 Squadron operated before transitioning to the Whirlwind.

 

[fubar57]

If you go to the link you will read that a lot of their flights were involved in maritime operations: convoy protection and anti-shipping

 

[Shortround6]

Even before getting bombs a lot of the Missions over France were attacking trains, airfields and even distilleries. They were "bait" at times to try to lure the Luftwaffe up to where the Spitfires could attack the German fighters.

 

[fubar57]

Any idea what a "chameleon" mission was? I know about Ramrods, Rodeos and the like but never heard of chameleon

 

[fubar57]