- Thread starter
-
- #761
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't see the Welkin as anywhere near the same kind of degree of change from a Whirlwind as a P-51 to an FJ-1. I don't think that is an honest comparison.
I mean, is a Spitfire Mk XXI the same thing as a Spitfire Mk I? How many changes were there? They put multiple different engines into a D4Y, or a Beaufighter, does that make them different planes?
I realize changing a wing is a bigger deal than changing an engine. How long does it take to make a slightly lower aspect ratio wing for the Whirlwind?
But the Welkin was a MUCH LARGER airframe. If you have a narrow firewall built just big enough to accommodate the engine bearers for an engine of a given width, then it takes a LOT of redesign to fit a wider engine into that space, either by odd geometry for the engine bearers or implementing a brand new firewall which means a redesign for the entire nacelle.
It's much easier to do if you start with a larger airframe that's actually designed to accept wider engines. It's much harder to do starting small and going larger.
much easier to do if you start with a larger airframe that's actually designed to accept wider engines. It's much harder to do starting small and going larger.
The only major difference between the two Beaufighter's is firewall forward - the wing fuselage and tail are all exactly the same. Other changes were limited to instrumentation and engine controls.I don't see the Welkin as anywhere near the same kind of degree of change from a Whirlwind as a P-51 to an FJ-1. I don't think that is an honest comparison.
I mean, is a Spitfire Mk XXI the same thing as a Spitfire Mk I? How many changes were there? They put multiple different engines into a D4Y, or a Beaufighter, does that make them different planes?
View attachment 710320
View attachment 710319
Somehow both of those are D4Ys.
View attachment 710321
That's a Beaufighter
and so is that
View attachment 710322
To me the designation is fairly irrelevant, The question is, could you make it work, in time. In the case of the D4Y, the answer is ... not really. For the Beaufighter, the answer is yes indeed.
I realize changing a wing is a bigger deal than changing an engine. How long does it take to make a slightly lower aspect ratio wing for the Whirlwind?
Many aircraft had lengthened fuselages.
I'd say an A-26 was indeed a modified A-20, it was just modified enough that they decided to give it a new designation.
That's good enough for me right there!
The only major difference between the two Beaufighter's is firewall forward - the wing fuselage and tail are all exactly the same. Other changes were limited to instrumentation and engine controls.
To put a Merlin in a Whirlwind you need a whole new wing and a whole new landing gear and a whole new cooling system and a whole new fuel system and to extend the rear fuselage which means a major redesign of the fuselage as additional structure must be added not only to extend the fuselage but probably to reflect the longer moment arms of the tail on the "original" fuselage.
I agree and I am out of this part of the discussion.I think you guys are being trolled.
Of the Bf 110. They just dropped the gunner and made the tail smaller because there was a deficit of materials.Myself, I like the Me 262 best - the jet-powered version of the Bf 109.
Anyway, I for one was not trolling. I think the issue of how much modification to an aircraft, particularly the wing it seems, is rather fraught, as is any discussion of any kind of "What If" scenario in WW2 aviation, because a lot of people get cross over the fact that "What If" is inevitably based on something that didn't in fact happen. I think that is why we created a separate category for "What If".
It's quite often the case that "What If" scenarios around fixing planes that seemed to have promise but never quite found their lane either at all, or after a certain point in the war, that the main issue has to do with the wing. The only way to have fixed the Hurricane for example, would have been a new wing. But I guess that makes it not a Hurricane? How long does it take to make a new wing? North American seemed to make a very good new wing rather quickly.
I'm not entirely clear what defines the difference between a new model vs. a new variant. It does seem arbitrary to me. Yak 7 and Yak 9, very similar, but different models. Spit 1 and Spit 21, not so similar, but the same model, just different variants. P-51A and B look very similar, but internally they are quite different. I would call them different aircraft. The A-36 is labeled as a different aircraft, due to dive brakes and a bomb cradle. Other than that, it's very similar to a P-51A isn't it? What are the criteria exactly? It's not a "troll" question.
And maybe I need better glasses. It really may be the case. My vision isn't what it used to be. But the Whirlwind and the Welkin look very similar to me. Not just "made by the same design firm" but real close. I don't know how to quantify that, but I'd be very surprised if it's true as Shortround6 claimed that there isn't a single part shared between the two aircraft. Aside from the super long wings on the Welkin, I would compare it to the difference when looking at a P-36 and a P-40F side by side.
I don't have a scale model of the Welkin but I do have a Whirlwind, and a bunch of others in the same scale to compare it to (which is part of why I made a bunch of planes from the same period in the same scale, because photos often don't give you the perspective of relative size). Whirlwind has small wings, no doubt about it, and it's a small aircraft. The only twin engined planes on my shelves which compare in size are the Breuget 693 and the Ki-46, but the Whirlwind has thinner wings in terms of aspect ratio than both of those.
P-38 and Mosquito look bigger but not vastly bigger, more like maybe about 20%. Beaufighter looks a lot bigger.
The engine nacelles on the Whirlwind don't actually look that small to me. Maybe the scale is off on my (Airfix) model but these nacelles look actually a bit bigger than the ones on the Pe-2 and not a whole lot smaller than the ones on my Mosquito Mk IV.
Finally, I wasn't trying to get into an argument about what amount of changes constitutes a new variant vs. a new model of aircraft. I was simply interested in whether Westland had the ability to make a fighter based on (or originating with) the Westland design which incorporated merlins, since the peregrine was a dead end, and they had plenty of merlins being used on other aircraft that weren't necessary.
I don't know how to quantify that, but I'd be very surprised if it's true as Shortround6 claimed that there isn't a single part shared between the two aircraft.
That is because the author of the wiki article either copied some of the Whirlwind data or copied a website that did.All key areas are hugely different (thought the Welkins similar weight came as a big surprise to me!)
But all said and done, I do kinda take your point. But looking at all of the photographs in combination with the above specs, I'd lay money on their not sharing any common components except perhaps cockpit fittings and instrumentation.