Westland Whirlwind revisited

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

To add to the above, Chameleon Patrols were intelligence based operations.
Intelligence reports suggested that on moonlit nights when the Luftwaffe attacked South Wales or South West England, E-Boats would leave Cherbourg, rendezvous fifty miles south of the English coast then lay up about ten miles off Dartmouth acting as Air-Sea Rescue launches for any crews forced down into the sea. It was proposed to attack these E-boats with three Whirlwinds, but due to the specific nature of the intelligence, the operation had to be disguised as a routine patrol. The obvious inference is that this was to protect ULTRA. The aircraft were to climb to 15,000 feet over Dartmouth, head out over the Channel on a bearing of 117 degrees and gradually loose height to 3,000 feet at a point fifty miles out to sea, then return to Exeter. They were forbidden to orbit as though searching, the idea being that they should appear to happen upon the E-boats by chance. If the visibility was below five miles or the clouds were below 3,000 feet the operation was not to be flown. In addition, at least one of the aircraft was to carry a loaded cine camera gun and R/T silence was to be maintained at all times. S/L Munro, F/L Pugh and F/L Crooks were ordered to stand by daily between 1530 and 1700, and the first Chameleon Patrol took place on 9 January 1941. Despite the meticulous planning however, nothing was seen. Two further patrols on 13 and 15 January also failed to find their quarry.

It is fair to say that the Chameleon Patrols were not an outstanding success and were abandoned thereafter.

Some broadly similar missions were flown against E-boats later in the war, but simply as armed reconnaissance, with no special mission name.
 
I've just had an idea. Since we licence build Hispano-Suiza cannon, why don't we licence build the Hispano-Suiza 12Y and use that instead of the Peregrine, that would bring in more cash for Franco's Spain.
 
How heavy was the 12Y? I thought it was on par with the Merlin / DB 601 etc.
 
So now all we need are the losses to get a hint of an assessment of the Whirlwind in air to air combat.

What we can see already though is that the aircraft was capable of engaging three of the toughest opponents the RAF faced at that time - Bf 109 fighters, Fw 190s fighters, and Ju 88 bombers.

We know the 109 was one of the top fighters in the world, the Fw 190 had caused a major problem for the RAF in Channel operations for a while. There were few Allied fighters that could contend with the Fw 190 in particular with a reasonable chance of a positive outcome in 1941 or 1942.

The Ju 88 was not spectacular in the BoB but in the MTO, for example at Malta and in convoy fights, it performed very well and was apparently difficult for Hurricanes, Fulmars, and Gladiators to intercept. It was an unusually deadly bomber by the standards of the day and also posed a threat as what you might call a maritime fighter (long range heavy fighter operating over the sea). As one of the few Luftwaffe aircraft with reasonably good range (about ,1100 miles give or take, and with speed and altitude performance that made it hard to catch for Hurricanes etc., it was quite a threat.

Whirlwinds were also able to engage these enemy planes, suffer damage including lost engines, and make it back to base with living pilots. Another major plus.

Given it's capabilities against these aircraft I would also assume the Whirlwind could have been helpful in the Pacific or places like Burma. Range would be a limitation obviously but it was also a limitation with the much slower Hurricane. Whirlwind should have had the speed to be able to disengage from Ki 43, A6M etc. which would allow a positive attrition ratio.

So I think this already is an indication that the Whirlwind was an unusually good design for it's era, albeit with some obvious limitations, and it had merits both as a bomber and a low to mid altitude fighter, even in it's almost prototype (unimproved) form. With a few probably easy improvements like plumbing for external fuel tanks, cross-feeding of fuel, and more ammunition, it could have been quite an asset.
 
In looking at that relatively modest list of victories, we have to keep in mind that usually only a couple of squadrons of Whirlwinds were operational with often seemingly as few as 4 or 5 aircraft flying sorties at any one time. As a comparatively unique type that never really made it to large scale production it was somewhat hard to maintain so serviceability wasn't that high, due to rarity of spares and so on. Given those small numbers and the type of opponents that 'kill list' looks pretty impressive to me.

For comparison, I don't think early Tomahawks or (Allison Engined) Mustang Is claimed that many victories performing (I think?) similar types of missions in the Channel and over Northern France. And as good as they were I don't think Beaufighters got very many 109s let alone Fw 190s. They did shoot down a fair number of Ju 88s at low altitude.

Beaufighter was a great aircraft, and it had a huge range / operational radius advantage over the Whirlwind, but that 30-40 mph speed difference was a fairly big deal, not to mention the Whirlwind even with the single speed Peregrines had a 3,000m higher ceiling than the Beau.

The Mosquito of course was yet another fantastic long range fighter bomber, and it had the speed, but it wasn't a 109 killer or a Fw 190 killer, IMO. The difference here is mainly agility / maneuverability. The much smaller Whirlwind seems to have been able to turn with single-engine types, unless I'm misinterpreting the data.
 
Last edited:
I think Whirlwind would have also been useful in the MTO - where the low altitude speed, bombing accuracy, heavy armament would be helpful and the (relatively) short range wouldn't have been as much of a problem.
  • Fighter - as a short range fighter capable of contending with the 109 and the 190, it would have definitely helped win Air Superiority.
  • Interceptor - with the very good climb rate and heavy guns (especially with an ammunition increase), it would have been a useful interceptor capable of killing enemy bombers in raids.
  • Tac R - The Hurricanes usually used for Tac R in the Med seemed to almost always get shot down. A Whirlwind with either 2 guns or no guns would probably be very fast. Plus an extra engine. Seems like it would have had a better chance of survival than a Hurri in that role.
  • Precision bomber - high angle of attack dive bombing means higher accuracy. Combine that with high speed and good combat performance, and a spare engine, you have an effective bomber with (probably) a relatively low attrition rate.
  • Maritime patrol and bomber escort - If you plumb for extra fuel tanks on these presumably the range improves. Apparently Whirlwinds carried 134 gallons internally but if it could carry 500 lb bombs they could very likely carry standard 52 gallon fuel tanks (as used by US P-40s) on the wings. That would be an extra 104 gallons, or bringing fuel up to 238 gallons.. If you plumbed the fuel systems to share, perhaps this means range goes up roughly 50% from 800 miles to ~ 1,200. That makes for a much more useful overall airplane.
On the subject of fuel, apparently the Whirlwind carried internal ballast to handle the center of gravity. Evidently Westland proposed replacing that with an extra 35 gallon rear fuselage tank. I am not sure what that means for stability once that fuel runs out, but it does potentially increase fuel another 15% or so and gives pilots a bit more extra margin when making it back to base after a mission.
 
I've just had an idea. Since we licence build Hispano-Suiza cannon, why don't we licence build the Hispano-Suiza 12Y and use that instead of the Peregrine, that would bring in more cash for Franco's Spain.

Why would license building Hispano Suiza guns and engines bring in more cash for Franco.
 
I don't think that 13 aircraft shot down over a two year period by the two Whirlwind squadrons (well, one until October '41) is particularly impressive.

The squadrons did operate in areas where either targets were sparse or they were reacting to the Luftwaffe's defence where their primary aim was to get away.
 
God forbid they make them without the license lol. I think the plans were out and about by 1940...

Why would a licence for the HS engines bring any income to Franco?
 
I didn't say it would, but Hispano Suiza, granted an international company with several branches, was headquartered in Catalonia which was within Francos domain.
 
I don't think that 13 aircraft shot down over a two year period by the two Whirlwind squadrons (well, one until October '41) is particularly impressive.

The squadrons did operate in areas where either targets were sparse or they were reacting to the Luftwaffe's defence where their primary aim was to get away.

That and the type of aircraft defeated. As I pointed out this was usually just 4 or 5 aircraft on a lot of these missions. Whether or not it is impressive to me depends somewhat on the loss ratio. But if you can shoot down Bf 109s and Fw 190s with them that is already a sign of a potentially useful design IMO. Legends to the contrary I don't believe Avro Ansons or Lysanders actually ever did. A Hurricane pilot was pretty hard-pressed to shoot down a Fw 190, and by later 1941 they weren't getting very many 109s either.
 
I didn't say it would, but Hispano Suiza, granted an international company with several branches, was headquartered in Catalonia which was within Francos domain.

Form Wikipedia:

In 1937, the French government took control of the French subsidiary of Hispano-Suiza with a 51 per cent share of the capital for the provision of war materiel, renaming the company La Société d'exploitation des matériels Hispano-Suiza.

If any money from licence fees will eventually came to Spain, it will be pennies by the time Franco has some of it.
 
Whether or not it is impressive to me depends somewhat on the loss ratio.

Off 116 Whirlwinds built 28 were lost in action and another 7 went missing in action. That's not a great loss ratio. 35/13 is near enough 2.7:1 against.

Of the rest, another 5 crashed in the UK with battle damage, but if we include them the loss ratio becomes even less flattering.

19 were eventually struck off command, 2 became instructional air frames and 2 survived the war.

The really worrying figure is the 53 lost in accidents, that's a whopping 46% of all those produced. A look at pilot losses shows a lot of these were fatal accidents.
 
Last edited:
Off 116 Whirlwinds built 28 were lost in action and another 7 went missing in action. That's not a great loss ratio. 35/13 is near enough 2.7:1 against. Of the rest, another 5 crashed in the UK with battle damage, but if we include them the loss ratio becomes even less flattering.

Well, not really - are all losses air to air? Or were some lost to flak? That ratio would be relevant. How many missions with losses were bomber missions vs. sweeps and so on.

So you can for example compare that to the Mustang I...

19 were eventually struck off command, 2 became instructional air frames and 2 survived the war.

The really worrying figure is the 53 lost in accidents, that's a whopping 46% of all those produced. A look at pilot losses shows a lot of these were fatal accidents.

That is more concerning.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back