Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The supercharger from the Merlin 45 should've also worked, resulting at power vs. altitude not far away from Merlin III?
Channel Dash
No. 137 Squadron's worst losses were to be on 12 February 1942 during the Channel Dash, when they were sent to escort five British destroyers, unaware of the escaping German warships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. Four Whirlwinds took off at 13:10 hours, and soon sighted warships through the clouds about 20 miles from the Belgian coast. They descended to investigate and were immediately jumped by about 20 Bf 109s of Jagdgeschwader 2. The Whirlwinds shot at anything they got in their sights, but the battle was against odds. While this was going on, at 13:40 two additional Whirlwinds were sent up to relieve the first four, two more Whirlwinds took off at 14:25. Four of the eight Whirlwinds failed to return.
Channel Dash...
Critical (FTH) height for the Peregrine was supposed to be 15,000ft. Only 1250 ft less than the Merlin III. Not as good RAM? Exhaust thrust not developed as well (poor design of manifold and duct?)
Superchargers (centrifugal) have 3 different aspects of performance.
1. airflow in pounds (or KG ) per minute
2. pressure ratio. Pressure of out going air vs incoming air.
3. efficiency. How much power it takes to compress the needed volume or weight of air to the desired pressure.
You can only trade a bit of air flow for pressure before efficiency goes to pot (gets bad) and since even good superchargers only used around 70-75% of the power going to the supercharger driveshaft to actually compress the air, the remaining % of power simply heated the air to no purpose, using oversized superchargers is not going to get you much in the way of improved altitude performance.
It can also totally screw up cruise power settings as these superchargers have a minimum airflow below which they surge or stall repeatedly in very short time intervals causing rumbling in the intake duct/s and other problems.
Using a Merlin 45 style supercharger may get you what you want. Trouble with the Whirlwind is just how tight is it? The early Merlin engines used superchargers with the inlet offset a bit from the axis of the impeller and used a rather tight bend from the carb to the impeller. Part of the carb was actually part of the supercharger housing. On the Merlin XX/45 the carb was separate and there was an elbow to turn the airflow the 90 degrees from the carb to the supercharger axis. However this arrangement took several inches more room. Peregrine may (or may not?) have had a good inlet to begin with?
I don't know how much room a 2 speed drive takes (some companies two speed drives took no extra length).
It might have been possible to get a two speed drive and a comparable supercharger to the one used on Merlin XX/45 but that might be the limit for available space without a lot of rework (and even that might require some.)
It also requires a bit of work to 'scale' the supercharger and build the new parts.
This has been covered in another thread, but I can't be bothered looking, so I'll post from Rolls-Royce - The pursuit of excellence by Alec Harvey-Bailey and Michael Evans;
"Contrary to popular belief, the Peregrine was not unreliable. Its two main problems were rapidly tackled. Main engine joint failures were overcome by deleting the joint washers and using jointing compound, while bowstring failures of end cylinders holding down studs were cured by reducing anti-vibration collar clearances. Some of the stories of unreliability spring from difficulty in managing the operation of the radiator shutters during taxiing, take-off and initial climb. Westland had linked the radiator shutter operation with that of the aircraft flaps, so that there were times when the pilot had to use flaps to keep the radiator shutters open, when flaps were not needed in flight. In early operations a number of engines were overheated because the system was not fully understood, and evidence of this is in the pilot's notes, which were extensivelt amended."
It is astonishing how the mere mention of the Whirlwind brings out the rose-coloured spectacles.
The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic.
The Peregrine could only be produced in the Derby Rolls-Royce factory, and R-R calculated that each one would have meant the loss of 2 Merlins, and delay of the entry of the Griffon.
The decision to stop building the Whirlwind was first made by Freeman in May 1940, and endorsed by Beaverbrook in October, long before any need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft showed itself; Westland's output was turned over to Spitfires/Seafires in July 1941, and the RAF were delighted with the capability of the Hurricane in the desert, asking for as many IID as could be produced.
Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, never enough to equip any force of any size, and certainly not enough to cover "wastage." They produced 2157 Spitfires Seafires in six years; to produce that many Whirlwinds would have taken 20+ years. Would you also be happy to leave Malta, the Desert Air Force, Australia, and the Navy with no means to defend themselves, apart from American aircraft?
Production capacity, in this country, was finite, due to the available numbers of factories, and always open to attack, as seen in the destruction of the Supermarine Eastleigh factory; new buildings, machine tools, jigs and workers couldn't be whistled up out of thin air, and a six-day working week was already normal.
Always forgotten, or ignored, is that the Air Ministry had already turned down Vickers' proposal for the Type 327 (two Merlins + 6 x 20mm cannon,) so the Whirlwind was always on a knife-edge.
Don't forget, whatif followers always have unlimited resources in their scenarios
The Whirlwind operated for some time on standard RAF fuel be it 87 or 100 octane. Using 100 octane may not give you any additional power but equally is unlikely to do any damage and as a stopgap until the Typhoon had sorted its troubles out it would have been invaluable.It is astonishing how the mere mention of the Whirlwind brings out the rose-coloured spectacles.
The Peregrine could only use 100 octane fuel in emergencies (whatever the Pilot's Notes say); to have modified it to full 100 octane capability would have meant many hours, and a new Mark of engine, so the possible use of the Merlin supercharger is academic.
I admit to not getting this argument. The engine production could have been moved to another factory, or production could have been increased in its current facility. The decision to stop production of the aircraft by default stopped any investment in the production of the engines. Remember no development was needed so I don't see how the development of the Griffon would be impacted as this was at that stage a research and development / prototype project.The Peregrine could only be produced in the Derby Rolls-Royce factory, and R-R calculated that each one would have meant the loss of 2 Merlins, and delay of the entry of the Griffon.
Beaverbrook stopped the development of almost all aircraft in May 1940to concentrate resources on key aircraft, it wasn't specific to the Whirlwind. A decision that was very controversial at the time and delayed the production of a number of valuable types. The RAF were far from delighted in the performance of the Hurricane in the desert. They had the measure of the Italians but when the Luftwaffe turned up it was a different story. The Whirlwind was a much better aircraft that the Hurricane in the GA role being faster, better armed with a slightly better range. As for the Hurricane IID they couldn't wait to get rid of them as they were too specialised and vulnerable.The decision to stop building the Whirlwind was first made by Freeman in May 1940, and endorsed by Beaverbrook in October, long before any need for a dedicated ground-attack aircraft showed itself; Westland's output was turned over to Spitfires/Seafires in July 1941, and the RAF were delighted with the capability of the Hurricane in the desert, asking for as many IID as could be produced.
Had the resources been made available then production would have increased. As has been pointed out if the RAF had cancelled production of the Lysander then capacity was available. Had the development and production of types such as the Botha (an aircraft that was never going to achieve anything) and the Blenheim V been cancelled, capacity would have been available. Had the Battle been cancelled (a proven failure) capacity (and Merlins) would have been available.Westland could only produce 2 Whirlwinds per week, never enough to equip any force of any size, and certainly not enough to cover "wastage." They produced 2157 Spitfires Seafires in six years; to produce that many Whirlwinds would have taken 20+ years. Would you also be happy to leave Malta, the Desert Air Force, Australia, and the Navy with no means to defend themselves, apart from American aircraft?
I think I have covered this point.Production capacity, in this country, was finite, due to the available numbers of factories, and always open to attack, as seen in the destruction of the Supermarine Eastleigh factory; new buildings, machine tools, jigs and workers couldn't be whistled up out of thin air, and a six-day working week was already normal.
Always forgotten or ignored is that fact that the Whirlwind was a proven asset by the end of March 1941. As to how well it did the following is worth considering. Standard RAF planning was that for a front line fighter in Europe a squadron needed 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months. Which is why aircraft such as the Whirlwind and the Spitfire XII were ordered in batches of about 100. The Whirlwind operated for at least two years on the front line. It was popular with the crews and the first real strike / GA aircraft in the RAF.Always forgotten, or ignored, is that the Air Ministry had already turned down Vickers' proposal for the Type 327 (two Merlins + 6 x 20mm cannon,) so the Whirlwind was always on a knife-edge.
...
The Whirlwind was unlikely to make to the end of the war no matter what but there were certainly a number of things that could have been fixed/altered on a MK II or III version without going to Merlins or Merlin superchargers or major redesigns of the airframe.
Better air intake for better use of Ram?
Better Exhaust system for more exhaust thrust?
Both may offer better performance at altitude without changing the basic engine.
Cross feed fuel system and fully feather props. better ability to return on one engine.
Belt fed guns for more ammo capacity.
Add 3rd external station under fuselage for either bomb or fuel tank. And/or plumb under wing racks for fuel.
Fuselage fuel tanks sort of depend on the guns. If you leave two up and two down there might not be room for a forward fuselage tank. Without the forward tank how big a rear tank can you put in and keep the CG in balance? Four guns line down low may leave room of fuel tank (depends on the feeds).
With beard radiators introduced, the inboard part of the wing is free to have extra fuel oil tankage.
Then why were Ford and Packard needed, for extra production? R-R maintained they had no capacity available, and nobody has ever produced concrete evidence that they lied.I admit to not getting this argument. The engine production could have been moved to another factory, or production could have been increased in its current facility.
The need for improvements to the engine, to enable it to use 100 octane 100% of the time, was one of the reasons for the cancellation of the engine, which led to cancellation of the aircraft, not the other way round. R-R said to continue with the engine would have an impact on the Griffon; they were there, with a Ministry-appointed Local Technical Committee and Resident Technical Officer in situ, keeping careful watch, plus a Factory Overseer, usually a Wing Commander, appointed by the RAF, so any hint of them telling lies would have had serious repercussions, in a time of war.The decision to stop production of the aircraft by default stopped any investment in the production of the engines. Remember no development was needed so I don't see how the development of the Griffon would be impacted as this was at that stage a research and development / prototype project.
Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?The Whirlwind was a much better aircraft that the Hurricane in the GA role being faster, better armed
Is that why they asked for three Squadrons of IID in the desert?As for the Hurricane IID they couldn't wait to get rid of them as they were too specialised and vulnerable.
Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be increased.Had the resources been made available then production would have increased.
But they weren't (and it was up to the Air Ministry to cancel aircraft production, not the RAF,) so it wasn't, and using 20/20 hindsight is a pointless exercise.As has been pointed out if the RAF had cancelled production of the Lysander then capacity was available. Had the development and production of types such as the Botha (an aircraft that was never going to achieve anything) and the Blenheim V been cancelled, capacity would have been available. Had the Battle been cancelled (a proven failure) capacity (and Merlins) would have been available.
Not to Fighter Command, they weren't; they were kept well out of the way, during the Battle, with their use only being planned in the event of an invasion.Always forgotten or ignored is that fact that the Whirlwind was a proven asset by the end of March 1941.
Fighter Command asked if the Whirlwind could carry bombs, in July 1942, a full year after the Hurricane had been successfully tested with them.As to how well it did the following is worth considering. Standard RAF planning was that for a front line fighter in Europe a squadron needed 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months. Which is why aircraft such as the Whirlwind and the Spitfire XII were ordered in batches of about 100. The Whirlwind operated for at least two years on the front line. It was popular with the crews and the first real strike / GA aircraft in the RAF
Not to Fighter Command, they weren't; they were kept well out of the way, during the Battle, with their use only being planned in the event of an invasion.
Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?
Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be increased.
...
Planes on the left side of the wall????