Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am puzzled by references to the Perseus etc. as large engines. Lighter than the Peregrine wet weight and not that much greater in frontal area with a height of 41 inches and adding in the frontal area of the radiators.
My apologies if this was mentioned earlier, but didn't Westland essentially upgrade the Whirlwind to become the Welkin? Other than the design for very high altitude combat you have the redesign for RR Merlin's, the guns are reconfigured for more ammo and service, and you have more fuel.
However, Allison powered aircraft were in their element at lower altitudes.... They had no way of knowing there was still a need for a good low-level fighter in 1941, 42, and 43. And no, I don't think the Allison Mustang filled that niche. Recon yes, fighter not so much.
However, Allison powered aircraft were in their element at lower altitudes.
My apologies if this was mentioned earlier, but didn't Westland essentially upgrade the Whirlwind to become the Welkin? Other than the design for very high altitude combat you have the redesign for RR Merlin's, the guns are reconfigured for more ammo and service, and you have more fuel. It's unfortunate that the need disappeared before it could contribute to the war.
View attachment 591383
Interesting...The Allison P-51 had other problems, apparently an issue with the Ailerons
The NA-91 (Mustang Mk.Ia/A-36) didn't seem to have that issue in USAAF service...My understanding is it wasn't fixed until the P-51B
I would guess that there was darn little left of the Whirlwind except for the general shape and even that took a a rather hard squint.
The NA-91 (Mustang Mk.Ia/A-36) didn't seem to have that issue in USAAF service...
Greetings Shortround6,Upgrade,
develop from
adaptation
simple words for plane that added 25ft of wing span, 210 sq ft of wing area, over 9 ft of length and and weighed empty (no guns/equipment) what the Whirlwind did loaded with a pair of bombs under the wings. When loaded it was 74% heavier.
I would guess that there was darn little left of the Whirlwind except for the general shape and even that took a a rather hard squint.
This is why....Of course we know that further development of the aircraft didn't happen so it's only a 'what if'. But if you think any speculation about it is useless why participate in the thread?
Greetings Shortround6,
I suggested we consider the Welkin as an example of what the evolution of the Whirlwind with better engines would begin to look like. The 45k service ceiling requirement really governed a number of design developments like the wing length. Other design changes like the fuselage length are probably a combination of counterbalancing the weight of the engines and better control at altitude. For comparison I built up this quick study comparing the size of the Whirlwind, Hornet, and Welkin. I then overlaid the Welkin and Hornet nacelles on the Whirlwind using the spar line for reference. It gives as idea of the impact the Merlin or similar sized engine would have had on the design. At the very least, reengineering the Whirlwind with Merlins would require a longer body for counterbalance and a larger wing. Dimensionally, it would begin to look a lot like the Hornet or a short wing Welkin.