Westland Whirlwind revisited

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

Admiral Beez said:
60 rounds per gun at 600 rpm is six seconds of firing.
Click to expand...
Fixed it but you are right. It is too short which is why
Admiral Beez said:
from drums to a belt or other means to double or triple this to 120............
Click to expand...

This was posted back on page 10. Post # 183.
Upper left photo is a proposed mock up with 115-120rpg.

Unfortunately this was while people were arguing about what kind of belt feed to use, there were objections about a feed that pushed on the nose.
Somebody came up with a "continuous feed system" that worked on compressed air feeding the ammo from the boxes down into the guns.
The often used photo of the single gun (upper right) was not a 37mm-40mm gun but a single gun test rig for the "continuous feed system" that used up air much, much faster than calculated and the air supply would not keep up with the single gun let alone four guns.

The Whirlwind was canceled before they could agree on the belt feed to be used (which wound up pushing on the nose of the shell to get it out of the belt).
Nobody wanted to spend any money/time on the Whirlwinds that were left in the production queue after the cancelation notice.
They did try the mock up in the air (?)

Obviously there was enough room to fit 110-120 round boxes with belts on the fuselage over 4 rearranged guns.

Engine cooling was problem but again the solution was not hard.

Instead of using 3 standard No 10 radiators (or whatever number they were and the oil cooler on the inside) fit a rectangular radiator into the same space with much more area in the same volume.
 
totally agree about cooling - one combined oil and glycol radiator would have made a big difference so long as the inlet and outlet were adequate for the airflow needed.

Adding drop tanks would have required a new fuel valve and adding fuel crossfeed at the same time would have made sense.

From one site (cant remember where) the biggest problem with the Whirlwind was the propeller. They tried two props and one was markedly better but the other was available so that is what they used even though it was aerodynamically wrong and caused both cooling problems and reduced performance. The blade was too thick.
 
Agree on the ammo capacity. The other issues can be improved without major airframe modifications such as fuel cross feed, prop feather capability and more effective prop blade design, and improvements in the coolant radiators. More power could be had if RR was interested in further development. But they weren't.
 
Peregrine sourcing: Without engine, you don't have an aircraft. RR needs the manufacturing in England - both plant and personnel.

My solution is Cdn sourcing:
Cdn gov't didn't want to build Merlins - figured it was about to be replaced with Sabre. (or at least that's what I've read)
So, we "sell" them that successfully building Peregrines sets them up to build Vultures which is engine of future for RR. And its not too much of white lie - there is some interchange: pistons, rings, wrist pins, valves along with associated spring, keepers & seats. And you would set up the whole sub-contractor network from carbs to spark plugs to bolts to seals, etc. Foundries and machine tooling and training up personnel.
And the Peregrine can be used in advanced trainer, training ground crew for working on Bomber Command Merlins, etc.

Most everything else happens from there:
  • Endurance/range - fore/aft cockpit tanks - Petter already had plans for. Installing outer wing leading edge tanks (Handley Page slat were wired shut anyways). Plumb for centerline drop tank, fix fuel system valving while we're at it.
  • Propeller performance sorts itself out as manufacturers recognize the effects of compressibility at blade roots. As we increase power, Whirlwind gets Spitfire propellers where issue has be resolved.
  • Peregrine performance - implementing Merlin improvements - strengthening for 100 octane, two speed, etc. It might be revision behind, but it would keep Whirlwind competitive.
  • Throttle control - replace hydraulics with cables? Or just better hydraulics...
  • Cooling was 50% resolved by training to not retract flaps during taxing. Changing interlink is proper fix for that. Moving radiators to inner wing leading edge with rectangular radiators ala Mosquito is ultimate solution. Which also opens up wing roots for fuel. (Alternate is Me.110 solution - increase wing center section enough to add)
  • 20mm capacity already covered by others.
The 2, I don't have answers for:
  • Limited wing area and associated high take off/landing speed.
  • Fin/elevator "interference". Whirlwind is having compressibility issues because airflow is being accelerate in both vertical and horizontal planes... Acorn has reduced it, but Petter needs to redesign the tail for Whirlwind to be legit 400mph airplane.
 
don4331 said:
Would changing the roundel for a slippery Star have same effect?
Click to expand...
Sadly, no.

It seems the general consensus is that the British roundel was the worst offender (out of all Commonwealth roundels) and that a red star was just as bad.

The white star was, depending in who you talk to, either great or not so great.

But the Black Cross aparently invoked the supernatural power of St. Michael and allowed any machine bearing his emblem, invincibility.
 
I like it. I wonder where the RR Peregrine would be produced in Canada. Even during the height of Canadian Hurricane, Lancaster and Mosquito production there was no RR production in Canada, with all engines shipped in from either Britain or Packard in Detroit, USA. RR Canada wasn't founded until 1947.

But I think you're suggesting that RR abandons the Peregrine and sells the toolings and drawings to an independent Canadian firm. I believe that all Canadian automotive engine producers were subsidiaries of US firms. We also have no domestic aeronautical engine production - so this presents an opportunity to start one. Perhaps the folks behind the massive Montreal Locomotive Works would get involved.
 
Admiral Beez said:
sells the toolings and drawings to an independent Canadian firm.
Click to expand...
There are two types of "tooling".

1 is the actual machines, lathes, drill presses, milling machines, grinders, etc. RR was is NOT going to sell any of that stuff, they are trying to buy (obtain, steal) anything they can.

2, is the jigs and fixtures the parts are held in being worked on in the above machines. This includes things like metal plates that have guide holes to be clamped in place over something like a cylinder head to help insure that all holes are drilled in the correct spots. often have replaceable bushings to allow for wear.
Also includes measuring tools like snap gauges.

Go/no go gauges or tools/gauges that only fit specific part. Useful to be sure but without the machine tools (power equipment, casting equipment, forging equipment) you are not going to get far.

Canada built hundreds of thousands of trucks/motor vehicles (over 800,000) during WW II and actually supplied a lot of the commonwealth.

My own idea is to have somebody take Lord Nuffield out behind the shed next to the pub and convince him (cricket bat to the knee caps or higher) to ditch the Liberty tank engine and adopt the Kestrel/Peregrine instead. Aircraft version goes in the Whirlwind. Maybe to Gloster (?). Tank versions help turn the Covenanter into something besides a training tank or if done early allows for a faster transition from the A-13s to the Crusader.
Also solves the U-Boat problem that saw the Beaufort stuck with Taurus engines instead of getting P&Ws.
 
S Shortround6 : I thought you were going to chastise me about the length of time it would take to set up the factory.

A Admiral Beez : My overall "plan" has Montreal building the Tribal class* destroyers and/or Dido class cruiser - the pork barrel politics which had destroyers built in Nova Scotia added over 2 years to commission date (delays in construction start as Halifax yards had never build anything as big/complex as DD, and delays during constructions when personnel were pulled off to repair damaged ships). Yarrow's yard in Montreal could and had build ships up to cruiser size.

In "Golden Horseshoe" (western end of lake Ontario), there were over 100 companies manufacturing engines and Ford has plants just down the road in Windsor. Those companies had the "power tooling" which S Shortround6 is talking about - OK, I admit not customized for RR Peregrine, but P&W built R-4360s using rows of lathe and drill presses until the specific tooling was ready.

You start with kits & drawings (both of the engine and the tooling to build it). Hopefully, by time you have kits assembled and shipped, you have the basics to build the engines - at least at rate to replace failures.

Note: Kestrels were already being used in trainers, so having plant build the 1,000s of Kestrels free up RR to concentrate on Griffon too. Use war-weary engines in tanks is interesting idea...

But I don't see how this replaced Taurus with P&W in Beaufort.

*I would actually like to see Tribal class replaced with Somers DDs (assuming surface firepower is priority) as American construction methods match Canadian most closely which would allow construction to start sooner/building would be faster. Swapping USN 5"/38 & 1.1"/75 for RN 4.7/45 & 2pdr pompom to simplify logistic are simple concession.
 
don4331 said:
But I don't see how this replaced Taurus with P&W in Beaufort.
Click to expand...
They were working on using the P&W R-1830 in the Beaufort to replace the less than successful Taurus but the first 200 engines were on a ship that got torpedoed by a U-Boat and the British decided they would stick with the Taurus instead of the possible interruptions in supply of engines from America. Who knows, perhaps the decision would have gone the other way if it was the 2nd shipment that was lost or if things were going a little bit less in the U-Boats favor at the time. I am sure there was strong lobbying by Bristol, only other market for the Taurus was the Albacore.
 
Beaufort, British production,

Mark I, Taurus, October 1939 to September 1941 (485), February 1942 to January 1944 (526), total 1,014
Mark II, Twin Wasp, September 1941 to July 1942 (165), T.II August 1943 to November 1944 (250)

Ideas about Twin Wasp engines replacing Taurus date from the original order from Australia in March 1939, with various preparations discussed. After the war began some wildly fluctuating estimates of Taurus availability saw Australian production of Twin Wasp authorised, initially for aircraft 51 (out of 180 then on order) onwards, the ultimately for all the order. The actual decision sequence goes just after the war began Britain says Taurus engine supply difficult or lacking, asks for Australia to build Twin Wasp, Australia says no, Britain says please reconsider, Australia says yes in a cable that crosses one from Britain saying do not bother plenty of Taurus going to be available, but by which stage the Australian public had been told of the engine building plans. (The single row was already being built for Wirraways). Bristol flew a Twin Wasp prototype in November 1940 for both the Australian and British versions, Australia flew its prototype in May 1941. The Bristol work reported delayed by the war situation. As far as I am aware no Taurus engines were shipped to Australia.

As part of the various power plant trials, the mark III was to have Merlin, the mark IV the never built Taurus XX, however earlier mark number proposals shifted around. In July 1940 the mark III was to have Twin Wasp engines, the mark I was for Beauforts with Taurus 2 engines, mark II for Taurus 3. In December 1941 the designations were mark II for RAF Beauforts fitted with S3C4G Twin Wasp engines and mark V for RAAF Beauforts fitted with SC3G Twin Wasps.

R-1830 Twin Wasp, being fitted to Maryland, B-24, C-47, PBY and F4F was an in demand engine in 1941/42. Vickers Chester built 220 Wellington IV December 1940 to February 1942.

Canada concentrated on airframe production in WWII making only limited engine production.
 
Can we also look at a naval and land version of the Peregrine? Something like a mini-Meteor for installation in the tanks made in Montreal. And a naval version for a Canadian-made MTGB or PT Boat made at Falconer Marine or another yard in Victoria, with the first squadron arriving in Malaya in summer 1941.
 
Last edited:

Mini-meteors require design and development work. The Valentines almost cry out for a 6 cylinder engine, not a V-12 or V-8. So you can use the head/cylinder block and piston/rods and the valve gear but you need a new crankcase and crankshaft and all the low end bits.
Turning V-12s into V-8s also gets a bit odd, Cut 4 cylinders off one end or 4 out of the middle? What is firing order? 60 degree angle or 90 degree angle?

The Valentine worked pretty good the way it was. Aside from slapping a sticker on the side saying "100% Canadian" what is the point?
Cutting a 450-500hp V-12 gas engine down to point you could stick it into a Valentine instead of the 165hp diesel seems a waste of effort.
With tanks there are two major considerations aside from fitting the engine into the engine compartment (box).
1. Will the transmission (and steering gear) handle a significate increase in power without increased breakdowns?
2. Will the Suspension handle increased speeds without increased breakdowns and/or beating up/ injuring the crew.

The Cromwell had to be re-geared to slow it down because of #2. It is real. And the Valentine suspension was NOT designed for speed. It's name tells you that.

The Kestrel/Peregrine isn't going to get you much more than Napier Lion would as a marine engine. Marine engines for high speed craft spend hours operating at higher levels of power than aircraft engines did on average. You can forget all the 5 minute and 30 minute rating stuff. You need power for several hours at the least and you need higher reliability. You can't be pulling engines every few cruises. The Kestrel/Peregrine engine was 21 liter (1300 cu in) engine. The Packards used in US and British boats was about 40 liters (2500 cu in) about 1/2 way between a Griffon and a DB 603. The Lion was 24 liters (1460 cu in).
You are going to need at least 4 per boat (for a not very fast boat) or six per boat. If you are OK with a slow boat just go down to US and buy some Hall-Scotts.
 
Last edited:
It is not that it can't be done. It is that isn't as easy as it seems at first glance.
It also means that sometimes you have to put up with things that are not ideal.
Both Ford and RR kept the 60 degree bank between the cylinders. This made the engine a bit narrower than a 90 degree V, easier to fit in a tank engine bay. It also means that the firing order is not even, unless you play games with the crankshaft. Now if they keep the RPM down it may not make any real difference. You are dealing with 60 degree and 120 degree spits in the firing order instead of a cylinder firing every 90 degrees. There is only so much you can do with counterweights.
These engines may have been running slow enough to dodge any weird vibration patterns. That or bolting them in 30 ton tanks masked the vibrations.

It took Ford until June of 1942 to get the M4A3 tank and engine into production, which is pretty quick, However something seemed to have happened or I am looking at bad sources.
The Ford engine was used in Ford produced M4A3s and in M-10A tank destroyers but didn't really catch on in US production until the late Winter/Spring of 1944.

Going back in History the Liberty V-12 was also made in V-8 and straight 6 and 4 cylinder versions. The last may have been something to see run, A 9 liter 4 cylinder engine, not the largest for sure but mounting it an aircraft that won't disassemble itself could be a trick. But that was early days.
 

And the Hudson used the twin wasp as well.

The Twin Wasp installation in the first 57 Australian Beauforts was 100% Hudson from the firewall forward except for the prop and they added a filler in the bottom of the dishpan where the oil cooler went on the Hudson and that bottom cowl was different.

The Hudson exhaust was also used on the first 57 aircraft with minimal changes made on the later exhausts.

The CAC designed cowl gills using most parts from the Boomerang cowl gills were used on the later aircraft.
 
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