Westland Whirlwind revisited
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #322
If you can magically come up with a new factory to make V12 engines, I'd have Merlins
On the other hand, having Napier making HS 12Ys instead of the Dagger will be a net gain to the UK war effort. Or the Armstrong-Siddeley to make it instead of the Tiger.
The HS 12Y-49 was making about the same power above 5000 m as the DB 601A, while being ~25% lighter.
The diameter would be 51.5-52 in for those engines. The R-1820, that was also used in at least half-decent and good fighters (like the French Hawk 75s), have had diameter of 55 in.
Unfortunately, the Gladiator was conceived as biplane, Blenheim was too big, and Fokker D.XXI have had fixed U/C (apart from two examples converted in Finland).
Kevin J
Banned
A Bristol Taurus may be the best alternative. The Gloster twin with either derated Taurus or Peregrine did 330 mph whereas with the fully rated Taurus did 360 mph.that should give a Whirlwind both space for extra fuel and a speed approaching 395 mph.
Here is a report on the aircraft from the leader of the Whirlwind Squadron. There was no date on it but it would be from late February 1941. (EDIT: fixed some typos)
(1) The following report is based on 7 months Squadron experience of the aircraft and two years foreknowledge of the type from an armament and general technical point of view; each aspect of the aircraft is dealt with under its appropriate heading.
(2) GENERAL HANDLING AND FLYING QUALITIES. In the hands of experienced pilots there is general agreement that the machine is the kind known as a "gentleman's aeroplane", further it has been the recent policy of the Squadron to allow pilots of no previous experience of twin engined aircraft and between 10 and 20 hours experience of Hurricanes at an operational training unit, to fly solo on the type without any form of preliminary dual. This policy has not resulted in any accidents attributable to the mishandling of twin-engined aircraft and one pilot after 6 hours flying successfully carried out a landing with one engine only, the other having seized. It has been noted that some very experienced pilots who have only flown about one hour on the machine are rather prejudiced against it and in every case it has been found that the presence of slots and the occasional ejection of glycol from the high pressure cooling system are the causes of this objection. In every case a further hour or two has overcome their misgivings.
In particular the following brief remarks are submitted:-
(3) COMFORT AND VIEW. The cockpit is roomy, well laid out and the heating and ventilation is efficient. The view forward is very good and with the tail down it is possible to see from a hundred yards in front over the nose. The view is therefore better than a Hurricane or Spitfire forward. The view back-wards is believed to be better, but only slightly owing to the armour plate. No positive opinion can be given on this point. As a gun platform the machine is very steady and the view is of considerable assistance in deflection shooting.
(4) MAINTENANCE. The serviceability has been high where normal wear and use has been experienced. The present low state of the Squadron has been in main attributable to accidental damage due to inexperience of pilots and bad patches on aerodromes. The fuselage is very robust and the teething troubles only detail and in the writers opinion exaggerated. The engines are very smooth and start very well but do not give their rated boost at rated altitude. The time required to change an engine is excessive that is, about three to four days.
(5) GENERAL. It is my opinion that the design of the Whirlwind is greatly in advance of any contemporary aircraft including the Typhoon and Spitfire III. The wing and its flaps and slots are excellent. The machine's performance with more suitable engines would probably be revolutionary. I am confident that it could be landed by myself and the pilots of No. 263 Squadron at 45 a wing loading a Square foot. The rated altitude of the machine under these circumstances would have to be very much greater in order that the requisite speed be attained at high altitude to maintain manoeuvrability. It is agreed that the production problem involving two engines per aircraft is a serious disadvantage.
-----
REPORT ON WHIRLWIND MK.I
(1) The following report is based on 7 months Squadron experience of the aircraft and two years foreknowledge of the type from an armament and general technical point of view; each aspect of the aircraft is dealt with under its appropriate heading.
(2) GENERAL HANDLING AND FLYING QUALITIES. In the hands of experienced pilots there is general agreement that the machine is the kind known as a "gentleman's aeroplane", further it has been the recent policy of the Squadron to allow pilots of no previous experience of twin engined aircraft and between 10 and 20 hours experience of Hurricanes at an operational training unit, to fly solo on the type without any form of preliminary dual. This policy has not resulted in any accidents attributable to the mishandling of twin-engined aircraft and one pilot after 6 hours flying successfully carried out a landing with one engine only, the other having seized. It has been noted that some very experienced pilots who have only flown about one hour on the machine are rather prejudiced against it and in every case it has been found that the presence of slots and the occasional ejection of glycol from the high pressure cooling system are the causes of this objection. In every case a further hour or two has overcome their misgivings.
In particular the following brief remarks are submitted:-
(a) Take-off. Good, acceleration very high, run similar to Spitfire, no tendency to swing in any abnormal manner.
(b) Climb. Exceptional up to 10,000 feet, normally can be reached by a machine not in formation in 4 minutes. Very good up to 20,000 feet; 30,000 feet can be reached in some three or four minutes less than a Hurricane Mk.I.
(c) Speed. Straight & Level. Approximately equivalent to a Spitfire I, using override between 10,000 and 20,000 feet. Faster than a Spitfire below 10,000 feet, particularly as ground level is approached. Normal cruising below 15,000 feet at zero boost and weak mixture is between 250 and 260 indicated airspeed. Faster than a Hurricane at 30,000 feet.
(d) Diving. This machine gathers speed at a tremendous rate and the ultimate speed in a dive is undoubtedly high. Since fitting the larger tail acorn no cases of flutter have been experienced. The balance of the controls, both elevators, rudder and aileron is maintained although naturally loading increases. The manoeuvrability over 360 m.p.h. indicated airspeed is better than either the Spitfire I or Hurricane I.
(e) Manoeuvrability. The machine is not as manoeuvrable as a Hurricane I or Spitfire I, but by modifying tactics in a dog-fight, that is by using superior diving speed, maintaining higher speeds on the turn and with Hurricanes using the superior climb, the Whirlwind has at least an equal chance in a dog-fight. The slots contribute enormously to manoeuvrability but over 20,000 feet the resultant drag slows the machine down and decreases the rate of climb. This has been noticeable particularly because most machines delivered commence to open slots over the stipulated 145 m.p.h. indicated airspeed, and in some cases as high as 200 m.p.h. in level flight. This is being adjusted but is largely a matter of trial and error. Aerobatics are good and easy to perform.
(f) Landing, Approach and Taxying. The normal trimmed speed of approach is 120 m.p.h. hands off. On days of light airs 110 m.p.h. for the final straight glide is ample. Control is well maintained and the flaps cause no change in trim and are most effective. It is normal to touch wheels first and the tail then contacts the ground almost instantly.
The main undercarriage is excellent and the tail wheels have stood up well, failing under exceptional treatment only. In this connection however two of the latest deliveries have had weak fittings at the top of the tail oleo.
The brakes can be fully applied and there is no tendency to nose over. A successful wheels up landing was done up-hill by and inexperienced pilot who had lost his bearings. The landing run is between that of a Hurricane or a Spitfire.
Landing or taxying down-hill is not very good on runways as the heavy tail tends to overtake the machine, as it were, and cause a swing.
(g) Single Engined flying Characteristics are exceptionally good and only a slight rudder bias is required. Turns can be done in either direction irrespective of which engine is stopped.
(3) COMFORT AND VIEW. The cockpit is roomy, well laid out and the heating and ventilation is efficient. The view forward is very good and with the tail down it is possible to see from a hundred yards in front over the nose. The view is therefore better than a Hurricane or Spitfire forward. The view back-wards is believed to be better, but only slightly owing to the armour plate. No positive opinion can be given on this point. As a gun platform the machine is very steady and the view is of considerable assistance in deflection shooting.
(4) MAINTENANCE. The serviceability has been high where normal wear and use has been experienced. The present low state of the Squadron has been in main attributable to accidental damage due to inexperience of pilots and bad patches on aerodromes. The fuselage is very robust and the teething troubles only detail and in the writers opinion exaggerated. The engines are very smooth and start very well but do not give their rated boost at rated altitude. The time required to change an engine is excessive that is, about three to four days.
(5) GENERAL. It is my opinion that the design of the Whirlwind is greatly in advance of any contemporary aircraft including the Typhoon and Spitfire III. The wing and its flaps and slots are excellent. The machine's performance with more suitable engines would probably be revolutionary. I am confident that it could be landed by myself and the pilots of No. 263 Squadron at 45 a wing loading a Square foot. The rated altitude of the machine under these circumstances would have to be very much greater in order that the requisite speed be attained at high altitude to maintain manoeuvrability. It is agreed that the production problem involving two engines per aircraft is a serious disadvantage.
John Gray Munro
Squadron Leader
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Captain
I like it. And it removes pressure on the Rolls Royce production capacity, and bins the Peregrine.
This modeller kindly shows us what it might have looked like, click the top pick for info.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
And lands you in even more trouble than the Peregrine.
All of the service Taurus engines were "derated" and even then they had cooling problems at low altitude.
The derating included both operating at a lower power level and with a supercharger gear that cut FTH to around 5,000ft (or less) so dreams of a 395mph Whirlwind are pretty thin.
All of the service Taurus engines were "derated" and even then they had cooling problems at low altitude.
The derating included both operating at a lower power level and with a supercharger gear that cut FTH to around 5,000ft (or less) so dreams of a 395mph Whirlwind are pretty thin.
Wow. Yeah I'm pretty convinced. They dropped the ball cancelling this bird.
Admiral Beez
Captain
The Australians replaced the Taurus engines on their Beauforts with Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C4-G Twin Wasp radials. Maybe the US Motor would fit the same mount as the Aussie Beaufort.
But why the Taurus? Bristol's Mercury doesn't have the horses, but is the more common Perseus too wide or low powered?
Because I'm convinced that the Whirlwinds would fly more missions before getting shot down, would cause more damage per bombing sortie, and shoot down more enemy planes per air combat. So you'd get more bang for your buck.
I.e. if you built 200 engines and made 100 Hurricanes and 50 Whirlwinds (per the original comment that they ought to make merlins instead of peregrines) and put two squadrons of each into combat, I believe 6 months later you'd have more Whirlwinds left than Hurricanes and your Whirlwind units would have caused more damage to the enemy.
Kevin J
Banned
There were reliability issues with the Taurus initially, I think that's why the Australians replaced them with Twain Wasps.
As an aircraft enthusiast, I agree. As someone who is in favour of having the Axis defeated as decisively as possible, I disagree.
Why not something like the Gnome-Rhône 14M. It's a small diameter radial used on some small planes like the Breuget 693, Hs 129 and Fw 189.
Not saying that exact engine since they wouldn't have access, but something in that size and weight range. I don't think standard sized engines would have worked for the Whirlwind.
I wonder what they are using for the new restoration? They don't actually have peregrines do they?
Right because it made more sense to keep producing Hawkwer Henleys, Lysanders, Bothas and other war-winning designs.
Admiral Beez
Captain
It does have amazingly widespread usage, with variants used in Japan, Italy and Germany.
Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major - Wikipedia
Kevin J
Banned
A lot has been said about limited use of the Whirlwind SW England, the proximity to Westland but in reality this is a clear weather fighter probably only suitable for use in SW England in clear weather conditions, but unsuitable for use elsewhere in the UK because of foul weather where the Beaufighter is better.
Kevin J
Banned
The problem with the Whirlwind is that it's twice the price of a Spitfire. It's clear weather, which limits it's usability. It's assets is it's longer range. Perhaps with twin Taurus deployed in the Far East in 1941, it's slow top dive speed, 399 mph wouldn't have mattered as this was in excess of what Japenese fighters could do. Also it had a high initial dive speed. So all these things combined, top speed 395 mph, range, dive acceleration could have made it a Zero killer. Also, by this time the Taurus is sorted out, no more unreliability problems. Then there's extra fuel in its wing leading edges replacing the radiators, so are we looking at 1050 miles range clean, perhaps twice that with 2 90 IG drop tanks, phenomenonal.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Wrong engine, the Gnome-Rhone 14M was a very small 14 cylinder radial (19 liter/1159 cu in) that never made more than 700hp
The Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major was a 14 cylinder radial of 38.7 liters (2360 cu in) that went through several generations.
Both engines lacked a center main bearing until the 14R engine of 1939/40 but then you had an engine very close in size and weight to a Hercules (which actually used the same bore and stroke). the older Mistral major were hundreds of pounds lighter but without the center bearing were rather restricted in RPM and boost.
The idea that old, obsolete and/or down right crappy engines would have turned the Whirlwind into a world beater (or any better than the Peregrine engine) needs to to be shoved in the dust bin.
Admiral Beez
Captain
So, if the Whirlwind is a dead end what else should its remarkable designer W. E. W. Petter be working on?
W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia
Petter's work on the Spitfire made it better, for example. But he needs an aircraft of his own in WW2, beyond the Lysander.
W. E. W. Petter - Wikipedia
Petter's work on the Spitfire made it better, for example. But he needs an aircraft of his own in WW2, beyond the Lysander.
To be clear, I don't think anyone was suggesting (or at any rate, I certainly wasn't) that an old engine would be better than the Peregrine, it was a matter of considering possible alternatives if we had to accept the fact that RR wasn't going to build any more Peregrines and would resist licensing the technology to other British firms.
Gnome Rhone 14M could have been the basis for a better engine, just as the 12Y proved to be.
- Thread starter
- #340
After all of this talk about alternative engines for the Whirly, I'd have it as a 1-engined A/C, with Merlin in the nose preferably.
Care to elaborate?
At 1150 cu in (19 liters), chances are very slim for the 14M to spawn something worthy. The HS 12Y have had almost twice the displacement.
Care to elaborate?
At 1150 cu in (19 liters), chances are very slim for the 14M to spawn something worthy. The HS 12Y have had almost twice the displacement.
