Westland Whirlwind revisited

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shorty, I'm an aircraft engineer. I received specialist training. That doesn't mean I can just walk into any hangar and work on any aircraft without extra training. It takes time and effort to learn different techniques. We have guys who do composite repairs on the composite bits of the airframes we work on. Us airframers don't do that kind of repair. I worked in a skin bay for a while - not my cup of tea. I can do it, but not as well as specialised skin guys. Sheet metal fabrication is something that can be learned, but you are either good at it or you're not. We have guys on Line Maintenance, which is what I do, who cannot do skin work and would rather not. I don't mind because I've done it before, but we also have guys who are really skilled at it. It's not just something that can be picked up by anyone and everyone, not if its done properly.
 
Admiral Beez said:
CivilIan racers aside, can't we say the same of Supermarine? Outside of the Spitfire, Supermarine was the maker of the Walrus and Stranraer.
Click to expand...

Gawd. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm saying it takes time to transition from one method of construction to another! You can't use the same tooling that you used to build a metal tubed fabric covered biplane as you use to build an all metal monocoque fuselage. In Britain in 1939 there are probably more companies working with sheet metal than not, but Westland was one of the ones that was not.
 
nuuumannn said:
In Britain in 1939 there are probably more companies working with sheet metal than not, but Westland was one of the ones that was not.
Click to expand...
Then we need to pull Petter out of Westland and make the Whirlwind elsewhere. And perhaps to remove any engine-related delays and lack of attention at RR, replace the Peregines with the smaller, lighter and more universally available Hispano-Suiza 12Y. The Whirlwind is already using Hispano-Suiza's cannons, so why not their engines?

Fairey made the 12Y look sharp in the Fantome of 1935, shown below, but it's still canvas and dope. However Fairey has experience with all metal designs, like the Hendon of 1930 and Battle of 1936. Fairey has the all metal skillset and the alternative to the Peregrine we need to get the Whirlwind into earlier service with inline V-12s.

 
Last edited:

The Westland tail is presumably a reference to the Westland designed elevator. This was to cure the tendency of the Spitfire (Mk V in this case) to tighten up in dive recoveries and tight turns. It was tested at Boscombe Down in December 1942 and considered 'satisfactory for these two conditions', but pilots complained of a lack of feel with flaps lowered.
 
Schweik said:
Westland should have just licence built the Gloster F9
Click to expand...
IDK if Gloster was up to the task of making the Whirlwind any faster than Westland, but Ia agree, let's get the F9 into service.
kiwimac said:
I really like the Whirlwind.
Click to expand...
I agree, it just needs to be in service earlier and with competitive high altitude performance. I suppose that's what this thread is all about.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean switch manufacturers, I mean have Westland make the F9 instead. They wanted Gloster to work on jets. I love the Whirlwind but the F9 seems so promising. Wing loading 30, power to mass 0.17. That is outstanding.

Anyone know the range of the F9?
 
I know. Best thing of the F9 is we can have a 360 mph twin fighter early - I'll take six squadrons for Malaya. But I hate a threadjacking, so let's take this tangential discussion away from the Whirlwind. Here's the F.9 thread. Gloster F.9/37
 
Last edited:
I have always liked the Whirlwind and if the aircraft was so flawed, why did they keep it on operations for so long? It must have been effective enough to put up with the hassles of operating a aircraft with few spares and factory support. What surprises me is why a twin engine fighter was designed with out a cross-feed fuel system and feathering props in the first place.
 


You have hit on part of the mystique of the Whirlwind with your first sentence.
for your 2nd sentence I can only say that many "twin" engine aircraft (not just fighters) of the late 30s and early part of WW II had non-crossfeed fuel systems, did not have fully feathering props and did not have redundant (duplicate) accessories (two generators or two hydraulic pumps for example) so the Whirlwind was not out of line with the design practice of the time even though it looks (and was) stupid in retrospect.
 
warbird51 said:
I have always liked the Whirlwind and if the aircraft was so flawed, why did they keep it on operations for so long? .
Click to expand...

Because they had it.
They could more or less keep two squadrons operational, though rarely at full strength. The performance of the aircraft was more than adequate for the low(er) level operations in which it specialised.
It was not a bad aeroplane, but it had issues. It is perhaps telling that when No 263 Squadron moved from Warmwell to Ibsley on 5 December 1943 it could field just four serviceable Whirlwinds. Eventually six Whirlwinds were available to maintain night readiness during the moon period but no operations were ordered and on 19 December, the squadron became non-operational when the surviving aircraft were put up for disposal.
 
stona said:
It was not a bad aeroplane, but it had issues. It is perhaps telling that when No 263 Squadron moved from Warmwell to Ibsley on 5 December 1943 it could field just four serviceable Whirlwinds.
Click to expand...

Production ended in Jan 1942 and last Peregrine was delivered in Jan 1942.

perhaps it is telling that they were still using such old aircraft in combat (granted No 263 wasn't doing much in Dec of 1943 and granted they planes they were using may have been sitting in depot for quite some time before being issued.)
However part of the mystique is the fact that the plane was essentially unchanged from the summer of 1940.
Anybody using Hurricane IIA's at the end of 1943 in combat?
Anybody using Spitfire IIs at the end of 1943 in combat?

The Typhoon had been relegated to ground attack and 18 squadrons were being used for ground attack at the end of 1943.
If the Whirlwind was really not very good it could have been replaced sooner with very little impact to the RAFs capability.
 
263 converted from Whirlwinds to Typhoons.

At the end of June 1943 137 converted to the Hurricane, albeit Hurricane IVs, which did not go down well with the pilots. At one point they thought they were going to get the Vengeance! They flew their Hurricanes for about six months before finally converting to the Typhoon.
 
By Dec 7th 1943 there were about 1800 Typhoons delivered.

If the Whirlwinds were really underperforming (poor utilization/poor parts supply?) compared to other types it seems that some effort to replace them sooner would have occured.

Yes they were available and the British were trying to use quite a few planes that perhaps they shouldn't have (Botha Trainers?) and they may have had a surplus of target tugs (and the Whirlwind might not have been a very good one) so that job is taken
 
Shortround6 said:
By Dec 7th 1943 there were about 1800 Typhoons delivered.
Click to expand...

But they hadn't started to drop bombs (250lb) until January 1943.

The Typhoon was still considered an air defence fighter, not a fighter-bomber for most of 1942. Even after Dieppe and the disbandment of the Duxford Wing the Typhoon squadrons were still employed as low level interceptors against the Luftwaffe's 'sneak raiders'. They also trialled night operations. They were not competing with a few Whirlwinds.

The reason that the Whirlwind squadrons disbanded in June (with 137's aircraft going to 263 in an effort to keep its serviceable numbers up) and then December 1943 was precisely because Beamont's successful re-casting of the Typhoon as a ground attack and fighter-bomber aircraft, now dropping heavier ordnance, made the Whirlwind obsolete.
 
Thank you.
I am not saying the Whirlwind was trouble free or close to it. But it would be interesting to compare it's serviceability rate to some other aircraft. The Whirlwind may very well be on the low side. It should be below average for a fighter just because it is a twin. But by how much?

If I am reading you correctly they were using the Typhoon as a strike fighter for some months before No 137 squadron went to Hurricanes?
 
If you could make just one mod to the Whirlwind, which would it be:
  • Lower landing/stall speed?
  • Cannon design/reliability?
  • 20mm ammunition capacity?
  • Peregrine performance?
  • Endurance/range, including fuel consumption and greater fuel capacity, incl. external tanks?
  • Fuel system (lack of valve to link all fuel to either engine)?
  • External weapons - larger bombs, rockets, gun pods?
  • Cooling system, replacing wing root rads?
  • Something else?
For me it's the 20mm ammunition capacity. 60 rounds per gun at 700 rpm is five seconds of firing. Somehow switch its Hispano-Suiza HS.404s from drums to a belt or other means to double or triple this to 120-180 rounds per gun and we can work around the other issues.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Westland Lysander
Replies
9
Views
1K
HP52
H
B
WW II airframe G limits
Replies
7
Views
3K
Barrett
B
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Japanese torpedo bomber design
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
marathag
Japanese Design Philosophy
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
9K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register