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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Spain was cash strapped, the economy, agriculture was wrecked by the Civil War, that's why he never entered the war on the German side, plus Admiral Canaris's advice.
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.I wonder if Eric Brown tested one? Wonder what he thought of them?
The Whirlwind was only a bit bigger than a Hurricane. Two merlins would be a bit much for the airframe. Sounds like maybe two 12Y wouldn't be out of the question...
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.
Why?I'd way rather have the Whirlwinds.
animus against the 12Y
In 1940 you are going to get cannon with 60 round drums.With 20/20 hindsight. Instead of producing 380 Peregrines to get a 4 cannon fighter in the air I would produce 380 more Merlins to get twice as many belt fed 2 cannon armed Hurricanes made under license into service by 1940 (with pilots).
Well, not really - are all losses air to air? Or were some lost to flak? .
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.
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.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.
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.
I agree they are flying wind blocks. If NACA cowlings are installed or something like the later FW-190 that might help.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.