Spain had also already lost between 500,000 and 2,000,000 lives during the Civil War (depending on whose numbers you believe), so I think they had already 'done their bit' in the war against Communism etc.
Westland Whirlwind revisited
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Spain had also already lost between 500,000 and 2,000,000 lives during the Civil War (depending on whose numbers you believe), so I think they had already 'done their bit' in the war against Communism etc.
baldrick
Recruit
Eric Brown did test the Whirlwind. In one of his books he stated that if were fitted with Merlins the C of G would be about three feet out in front of the nose.
Shortround6
Major General
Actually the pilots thought they were more likely to survive a forced landing in the Whirlwind than in some other types. fuel tanks were outboard of the engines and not in the fuselage, the engines and engine nacelles took the brunt of the force in a wheels up landing.
The Whirlwind was using up it's ammo in ground strafing missions before the bombs showed up, leaving very little to fight with. Whirlwinds usually operated at very low altitudes which means they were almost always attacked from above.
It is an odd plane with a very odd operational history. A lot of the the losses were due to AA guns.
The Whirlwind was using up it's ammo in ground strafing missions before the bombs showed up, leaving very little to fight with. Whirlwinds usually operated at very low altitudes which means they were almost always attacked from above.
It is an odd plane with a very odd operational history. A lot of the the losses were due to AA guns.
wuzak
Captain
Mainly because the airframe wasn't designed for them.
The Supermarine Type 327, as proposed, was smaller in physical size than the Whirlwind, though it would have been structurally strong and heavier.
Shortround6
Major General
I really do not understand this fascination with the Hispano engine. As built by the French (and many others) up until late 1939 and early 40 it really wasn't either a very good engine or have much development potential without major redesign.
The -49 version used in most D 520s, for example, was rated at 910hp for take-off and 910hp at 5250 meters. There was the later -50/51 engine but I am not sure it was made in large numbers before the French Surrender. Earlier versions were both lower in power and had lower full throttle heights.
If you can magically come up with a factory to make Hispano engines then you could also come up with a factory to make Peregrines while RR concentrated on Merlins.
Peregrines would have made good tank engines and perhaps even rescue launch engines instead of the Napier Sea Lion (it was too small for a MTB engine).
The -49 version used in most D 520s, for example, was rated at 910hp for take-off and 910hp at 5250 meters. There was the later -50/51 engine but I am not sure it was made in large numbers before the French Surrender. Earlier versions were both lower in power and had lower full throttle heights.
If you can magically come up with a factory to make Hispano engines then you could also come up with a factory to make Peregrines while RR concentrated on Merlins.
Peregrines would have made good tank engines and perhaps even rescue launch engines instead of the Napier Sea Lion (it was too small for a MTB engine).
I'm cool with Peregrines or 12Y, the main advantage of the latter seems to be that they were pretty easy to make and in general, pretty widely available. Though the horsepower doesn't look so bad compared to the Peregrine / Kestrell. I don't really get the animus against the 12Y or Hispano Suiza.
I would assume that the Peregrine, being (I think?) a later engine design, would have more potential ultimately but if RR doesn't want to make them, you have a host of sticky problems. Meanwhile the 12Y is basically 'public domain' by that point.
The 12Ys also take hub mounted prop-cannons, maybe Whirlwind Mk III has 6 x 20mm....
I would assume that the Peregrine, being (I think?) a later engine design, would have more potential ultimately but if RR doesn't want to make them, you have a host of sticky problems. Meanwhile the 12Y is basically 'public domain' by that point.
The 12Ys also take hub mounted prop-cannons, maybe Whirlwind Mk III has 6 x 20mm....
The truth is operational accidents were at a horrendously high rate for quite a few aircraft, certainly Allied aircraft in many Theaters in the early war. All monoplane fighters are 'hot rods' pretty much compared to trainers. And twin engined aircraft are a bit harder to operate, all other things being equal, than single engine aircraft. But I'm unaware of any particular vices of the Whirlwind.
Why?
Shortround6
Major General
The Animus comes from the facts that.
1 the basic design was old, it was a stretched V-12 version of the WW I V-8 engine.
2. good as it may have been in the late 20s, it was distinctly out of date in the late 30s and falling rapidly.
3, as part of the problems relating to 2 it had a lot of difficulty meeting a 100 hr test in 1933/34 when the Russians were negotiating their licence.
4. there are a lot of different Hispano 12Ys. the 1939 list alone has engines with articulated rods (slave and master), without dampers, engines with concentric yoke rods and dampers and -50/51 engines with the 2500rpm limit vs the old 2400rpm limit. Make sure you are picking the right one for licence (latest-best may not be available for licence) and the Hispano 12Z engine was an altogether different engine keeping the bore and stroke for production reasons.
5, what you see for performance is pretty much what you got. The construction of the engine was too light to take much additional boost even if you have better fuel available.
Shortround6
Major General
In 1940 you are going to get cannon with 60 round drums.
Twelve of the losses were definitely air to air, including four during Operation Fuller alone. The losses of P7107, P7106, P7093 and P7095 exactly match claims by pilots of JG 2. Oberleutnant Egon Mayer, Unteroffizer Willi Reuschling, Feldwebel Hans Stolz, and Hauptman Hans 'Assi' Hahn claimed one Whirlwind each but who shot down who is impossible to ascertain.
Some of the MIAs are obviously for reasons unknown.
One Whirlwind, P6994, was sent to the US in 1942 arriving at Boston on 18th June. It was subsequently tested by the Americans at Pensacola but I've never seen what the Americans made of it. It would be interesting to find out.
Kevin J
Banned
So correct me if I'm wrong, so Whirlwinds shot down 13 enemy a/c over a 2 year period while losing 12 of their own in aerial combat, a similar sort of success rate to that achieved by Hurricanes in the BoB and Cobras in the South Pacific in 1942. That sounds acceptable.
Maybe, maybe not. It's hardly a representative sample, a dozen losses over a two year period. That's because Fighter Command considered the Whirlwind unsuitable as an interceptor because of its lack of altitude performance. The reason it was in the South West was because it was not considered capable of operating in 11 Group against the Luftwaffe.To compare it with Hurricanes in the Battle of Britain is entirely spurious. The Hurricanes were tasked with intercepting and shooting down Luftwaffe aircraft, Whirlwinds were supposed to avoid them, at least the fighters. Two Whirlwinds were shot down by return fire from Do215s. They were themselves often escorted by other fighters for their protection in cross Channel operations.
If you want an example of what happened when they were caught by German fighters unprotected you need look no further than the events of February 1942 and Operation Fuller. Two out of four aircraft were shot down and another damaged* in one combat and two out of two (a third had RTBed with engine trouble) in another.
*P7055 and Flight Sergeant Mercer managed to get back to Ipswich with the port tyre punctured and with bullet holes in the port nacelle, through a propeller blade, the starboard fuel tank and the wings.
Last edited:
yulzari
Tech Sergeant
and if you use it at low level then a pair of Mercuries or Perseus would be within weight/power of the Peregrine and free up the wing radiator space for further extra fuel with no performance loss.
Shortround6
Major General
Actually there were be quite a bit of performance loss as the British radial engine installations of the time had considerable drag. The Mercury and Perseus engines were single row engines which is about the worst form of engine as far as power to frontal area goes. The Mercury and Perseus engines having about the same frontal area as a Hercules.
Admiral Beez
Major
I agree they are flying wind blocks. If NACA cowlings are installed or something like the later FW-190 that might help.
Alex Smart
Airman 1st Class
- 138
- Oct 25, 2018
Members may not be aware , but there is a small group of people who are in the early stages of trying to get a rebuild of a Westland Whirlwind up and running. They have being working on the project for a few years now. I have no idea how far they have progressed but iirc they have a webpage and again iirc a newsletter .
