Westland Whirlwind revisited

[Kevin J]

That's true, but the altitude performance of the 110 availed it very little as a day time fighter after 1940. Or even probably by the second half of 1940. It was rapidly outclassed in North Africa, didn't do much in Russia either except as a fighter bomber.

I do understand the position of people like Dowding to not want a fighter that had limited high altitude performance, but I think (and have long argued) with the benefit of hindsight we can see that there was indeed a use for good low to medium altitude fighters, basically everywhere except the Channel front.

And perhaps more importantly, if the Peregrine wasn't cancelled right away, it seems likely they could develop a two speed supercharger for it (or adapt an existing one if that was possible).

As for the Allison, I don't see how that solves the altitude problem (maybe just due to sheer power?), and it isn't much smaller than a Merlin and only 100 lbs lighter more or less right?

Buying the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk gave us a good low to medium altitude fighter at lower cost than the Whirlwind.

 

[Schweik]

True but I think Whirlwind was faster, climbed better (depending on version), was a more accurate bomber (steeper dive angle) and had the benefit (as well as the drawbacks admittedly) of two engines. I think it also had better altitude performance, as Tomahawk performance fell off after about 16,000' and the early Kittyhawk I and Ia more like 13,000 ft. Per above the Whirlwind was good up to 20,000' which is similar to the P-40F.

 

[stona]

That's true, but the altitude performance of the 110 availed it very little as a day time fighter after 1940. Or even probably by the second half of 1940.

Except that the Bf 110 could enter British airspace at an altitude which the Whirlwind couldn't even reach.

 

[Kevin J]

True but I think Whirlwind was faster, climbed better (depending on version), was a more accurate bomber (steeper dive angle) and had the benefit (as well as the drawbacks admittedly) of two engines. I think it also had better altitude performance, as Tomahawk performance fell off after about 16,000' and the early Kittyhawk I and Ia more like 13,000 ft. Per above the Whirlwind was good up to 20,000' which is similar to the P-40F.

It was faster until over boosting came along in the second half of 1942.

 

[stona]

Yes but I think many Luftwaffe fighter pilots preferred the Franz to fight, not just to fly. Some didn't to be sure, but many did and said so both at the time and in post-war interviews.

You can think what you like. I can assure you that Prien has interviewed and spoken to more Luftwaffe veterans than you, me and possibly any one else since the war.

 

[Schweik]

You can think what you like. I can assure you that Prien has interviewed and spoken to more Luftwaffe veterans than you, me and possibly any one else since the war.

I don't doubt that - and Prien is entitled to his no doubt erudite opinion on the matter, but I know as well as you (and Jochin Prien) that German fighter pilots did / do not all speak with one voice, so it's not a binary question. And with all due respect to both yourself and Herr Prien I have read enough memoirs, autobiographies and interviews to know that many German fighter pilots who flew all three main types - E, F and G preferred the F. Some were quite outspoken on the matter. I can start transcribing and posting some excerpts, but you seem pretty well informed so I assume you are already aware of this. It's hardly a secret.

 

[Schweik]

It was faster until over boosting came along in the second half of 1942.

Again true, but if Whirlwind hadn't been cancelled presumably by 1942 you may have a faster version yet...

 

[Kevin J]

Again true, but if Whirlwind hadn't been cancelled presumably by 1942 you may have a faster version yet...

The only way I see the Whirlwind staying in production in 1942 is with Twin Taurus for the Far East, but if your radar isn't working well in a tropical climate the RAF is still fucked. Not only that, you've still not got a ground based Observer Corps to cover the gaps in your radar system.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The only way I see the Whirlwind staying in production in 1942 is with Twin Taurus for the Far East, but if your radar isn't working well in a tropical climate the RAF is still fucked.

If PoW's radar was working, could she have operated as a WW2-era Aegis, vectoring and coordinating fighter intercepts?

Given the abysmal or entirely lacking IJN/IJAAF and Malayan Command radar, I imagine PoW had the best radar set-up in the entire Indian Ocean and Western Pacific at the time. So, maybe that's what Phillips should have been doing, getting his radar techs to ensure the system is up and his plotters up to speed with coordinating with RAF.

 

[Kevin J]

If PoW's radar was working, could she have operated as a WW2-era Aegis, vectoring and coordinating fighter intercepts?

Given the abysmal or entirely lacking IJN/IJAAF and Malayan Command radar, I imagine PoW had the best radar set-up in the entire Indian Ocean and Western Pacific at the time. So, maybe that's what Phillips should have been doing, getting his radar techs to ensure the system is up and his plotters up to speed with coordinating with RAF.

Perhaps he should have just beached himself at Kota Bharu then done that.

 

[stona]

I don't doubt that - and Prien is entitled to his no doubt erudite opinion on the matter, but I know as well as you (and Jochin Prien) that German fighter pilots did / do not all speak with one voice, so it's not a binary question. And with all due respect to both yourself and Herr Prien I have read enough memoirs, autobiographies and interviews to know that many German fighter pilots who flew all three main types - E, F and G preferred the F. Some were quite outspoken on the matter. I can start transcribing and posting some excerpts, but you seem pretty well informed so I assume you are already aware of this. It's hardly a secret.

Of course pilots will express various opinions. The issue for the Luftwaffe was that whilst experienced and highly skilled pilots could exploit the advantages of a centre line cannon the reduced armament reduced the chances of the average pilot hitting anything at all.

Everyone agreed that removing cannon from the wings benefitted handling, but they soon came back in one form or another. That in itself tells a story.

 

[stona]

My understanding of combat between a Thunderbolt and Bf 109G-6 is that the later outperformed the former if clean, but with underwing guns the G-6 was outperformed by the Thunderbolt.

And those under wing 'gondolas' were a direct result of the ill advised deletion of the wing mounted cannon in the F-Series. It was an issue never properly solved, though obviously upgrading the cowl guns to heavy machine guns and fitting a larger motorkanone went some way to ameliorating the situation. The Bf 109 remained lightly armed in direct comparison to the Luftwaffe's other principal fighter, the Fw 190 and to later British two and four cannon fighters.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Perhaps he should have just beached himself at Kota Bharu then done that.

Like HMS Canopus at Battle of Falklands. Taking on all comers from the beach.

 

[Kevin J]

Like HMS Canopus at Battle of Falklands. Taking on all comers from the beach.

Is was thinking of the Marat at Leningrad, sunk, refloated, used as heavy artillery.

 

[tomo pauk]

Not as a rule.

Of 740 serviceable Bf 109s on 31 August 1940, 307 were Bf 109 E-1s, 103 were E-3s, 304 were E-4s and 27 were E-7s.

Some of the E-1s might have been converted to cannon, that would be difficult to ascertain. They should have had the designation changed, but we know that did not always happen. Conversion from E-1 to E-3/4 standard was not a job that could be done in the field.

The 100 E-1s delivered up to the end of September were accepted and delivered as E-1s. I find it difficult to believe that these were cannon armed. They would not have been manufactured and accepted by the BAL under the specific designation E-1 if they were. Remember that the E-1 and E-3 were being produced concurrently, there is a reason for the different designations.

Bergstrom has calculated that roughly 40% of Bf 109s flying in the BoB were armed with just four machine guns.

Edit: I just checked. Exactly one He 112 flew in Spain, three in Hungary, at most twenty four in Romania. If that's 'entering service' so be it.

Seems like 30 of the He 112s were delivered to Romania, 19 to Spain, per German-language Wikipedia.

As for the E-1, by Radinger ans Shick book about the early Bf 109s, FWIW:

Or, per Google translate, my remarks in brackets:

In mid-1940, the troupe [units] rejected the E-1 due to inferiority in use. Thus, from August 1940, a conversion of the still existing E-1 single-seat aircraft on [a standard of] E-4 or E-7 (DB 601 N, reinforced armament) and the remaining 175 E-1 (lt.Lieferplan [per delivery schedule]) came as E-7 N for delivery.

 

[Shortround6]

Armament wasn't much use if you couldn't get into a 'shooting solution', conversely a lighter armament could be deadly (especially if it included at least one good cannon) if you had enough of a performance / maneuverability advantage that you could own the other aircraft and get right where you needed to be.

This is quite true, however some of the large American fighters also added a quality that might be called combat durability or combat endurance/persistence. They carried enough ammo to engage multiple targets per flight. Granted most of their targets were smaller aircraft. Some Axis aircraft needed multiple interceptors making repeated runs on the same bomber in order to secure a victory. Ki 43s VS B-24s used this technique. There is always some ace somewhere who shot down multiple aircraft in one flight using a lightly armed plane but the US forces seemed to occasionally turn out pilots who did it on some of their first encounters with enemy aircraft (well trained but green?)

I believe the lightly armed, streamlined interceptor / fighter was probably the role to which the 109 was best suited. The need to more heavily arm the aircraft to shoot down B-17s and Il-2s basically led to overloading the airframe and limiting it's agility.

And that is part of the 109s problem, it was available, it was cheap, but it sometimes could not do the job required due to it's size. Or you needed a lot of them to do the job so it was a good thing it was cheap.

Speaking of protection did Whirlwind have protected fuel tanks and pilot armor?

Yes, Protection was added to the few early production examples without it. The rest left the factory with it.

 

[tomo pauk]

Low gear on the Merlin 20s: 8.15:1 ratio; high gear: 9.49:1
The only ratio of the Merlin 45 being 9.089:1

To add, supercharger gear ratios for other interesting 1-stage Merlins:
- Mk.III, 30 and 32 - 8.588:1
- Mk.XII - same as Merlin 45 and 50: 9.089:1
- Mk. VIII: 6.313:1

 

[wuzak]

* I know Whirlwind wasn't used in the BoB but had more been produced it could have been.

How exactly would that happen?

The first production examples dribbled off the production lines in early to mid 1940 and the schedule was for the first deliveries to occur in September 1940.

 

[Admiral Beez]

How exactly would that happen?

Earlier start and faster production, how else?

 

[wuzak]

Earlier start and faster production, how else?

Using a time machine?

Westland's slow development is what prompted the Air Ministry to seek an alternative, which became the Beaufighter. It also revised the F.18/37 specification (which begat the Tornado/Typhoon) to include cannon armament, leading to the Supermarine Type 327 proposal, among others.