Westland Whirlwind revisited (1 Viewer)

[Shortround6]

The Lysander might have been a damed good liaison aircraft, but it wasn't a war winner in any sense of the word. Is was a covert aircraft, not a combat aircraft.

Sarcasm as noted earlier they were shot in droves in the Battle for France. However in 1939/Early 1940 it was viewed as THE army close support aircraft.

There were 1786 built but only one squadron used them on covert missions into occupied Europe and even then that squadron was not exclusively equipped with Lyanders.

Large numbers wound up as target tugs.

 

[GregP]

I like the Lysander, and was not intending to malign it at all. Missed the sarcasm ... but, I have to say, Shortround, that is a good pic I have not seen before.

 

[Glider]

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.

There was spare capacity in the UK. Resources for the development and production of the Tarus for example an engine that wasted a lot of effort. Production could have been passed on to Bristol with little disruption.

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 Griffon was originally planned for the Spitfire IV, in December 1939, and was undergoing flight trials, in a Henley, in 1940, so any delay would not have been well received. The first Griffon-powered Spitfire flew 27-11-41.

The engine didn't need any alterations to use 100 octane. It did need changes to make use of the extra potential offered by 100 octane and the use of 87 octane in fighter command wasn't a problem anyway as ALL RAF stations had 87 octane available as well as 100 octane.

Four cannon + 240 rounds against four cannon + 370 rounds is better armed?

Westland had a design to increase the ammunition supply but were not allowed to proceed with it. Besides having the guns in the nose had a number of advantages, concentration of fire and increased range being the other. I notice that you didn't comment on my observation that the Whirlwind have a higher performance, that when the Luftwaffe arrived in the desert the Hurricane was outclassed and that the JAAF had a clear advantage over the Hurricane.

Is that why they asked for three Squadrons of IID in the desert?

And regretted it as it was too specialised. See attached letter

Leave out the "made," and you've got it right; there was no extra capacity in Westland, so output could not be 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 mentioned before there were a number of designs that were continued with that would have provided the extra resources.

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.

Simply wrong. Fighter command were desperate to get the Whirlwind into combat during the BOB and the squadron leader refused as it hadn't reached the right level of reliability.

 

[stona]

lets pursue with Whirlwind even after we get a number of Typhoon/Tornado fighters, since those will replace the Hurricanes 1st? As far as bean counters - the aircraft are piloted by pilots. Putting a pilot in a lesser plane will not just have that pilot will more likely get killed, but it will not accomplish the mission.
The bean counters have had no problems ordering paying for US-produced fighters, that in 1940-41 did not have anything above the Whirly, bar the combat radius for the P-40.

The 'Hawker fighter' was explicitly expected by Dowding, among others, to replace the Whirlwind. He only wanted to maintain Whirlwind production whilst it was the only cannon armed fighter the RAF had and at a time when he was expecting it to deal with German tanks on English beaches.

The MAP comparison was between the Whirlwind and a Spirfire, the latter being a much superior aircraft. This is an important point. At one time it was envisaged that Whirlwind production might start at Castle Bromwich. The idea was dropped when the detrimental effect on Spitfire production was realised.

Bean counters probably had far more influence on British aircraft production than their US counterparts given Britain's limited resources, even more so in 1940 when these decisions were being made. Ultimately it the resources were managed by Beaverbrook and the MAP, neither of whom shared your qualms about 'inferior' aircraft. They pushed on with the Halifax for example in the face of strident and continuous protests from Bomber Command.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Edgar Brooks]

There was spare capacity in the UK. Resources for the development and production of the Tarus for example an engine that wasted a lot of effort. Production could have been passed on to Bristol with little disruption.

Hindsight, again, and do you really believe that R-R would have acquiesced with a competitor being asked to build an engine they saw as useless?

The engine didn't need any alterations to use 100 octane. It did need changes to make use of the extra potential offered by 100 octane and the use of 87 octane in fighter command wasn't a problem anyway as ALL RAF stations had 87 octane available as well as 100 octane.

That flies in the face of what R-R said; do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that they lied?

I notice that you didn't comment on my observation that the Whirlwind have a higher performance, that when the Luftwaffe arrived in the desert the Hurricane was outclassed and that the JAAF had a clear advantage over the Hurricane.

Mainly because I fail to see how events of 1941/42 have any relevance to decisions taken in 1940; you can apply 2015 knowledge to criticise what was done/not done in 1940, but the authorities didn't have that sort of information, and I don't believe that they had access to soothsayers.

And regretted it as it was too specialised. See attached letter

I note that you omit to mention that the Hurricane IV had the "universal wing," which allowed it to carry the 40mm cannon as an extra option.

As mentioned before there were a number of designs that were continued with that would have provided the extra resources.

Yet again, you're relying on hindsight; decisions could not be made in 1940, against information yet to be discovered.

Simply wrong. Fighter command were desperate to get the Whirlwind into combat during the BOB and the squadron leader refused as it hadn't reached the right level of reliability.

Doesn't sound as if F.C. were desperate to get the aircraft into service (last two sentences, first paragraph):-

27-10-40, Dowding wrote that he'd had a report from 263's C.O., which contained the following:-
"There is no tendency for the aircraft to spin in tight turns, but at heights above 26,000 feet the performance falls off rapidly and it is difficult to maintain height.
It must be emphasised, nevertheless, that the performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000 feet falls off rapidly, and it is considered that above 25,000 feet its fighting qualities are very poor. The maximum height so far attained is 27,000 feet but on every occasion that a height test has been carried out there has been a minor defect, either in airscrew revolutions or in lack of boost pressure. It appears possible, therefore, that the Whirlwind will in fact, under favourable conditions, attain a height of 30,000 feet, although the last four or five thousand feet of climb will take a very long time to carry out; the rate of climb dropping at this altitude to no more than 500 feet a minute."
To me, that does not sound like a ringing endorsement, and Dowding followed it with:-
"It therefore seems to me quite wrong to introduce at the present time a type of fighter whose effective ceiling is 25,000 feet."
7-11-40, Petter reported on a visit he'd made to 263 Squadron at Drem, where he found that they still had only 8 aircraft (so were still non-operational,) of which only two were serviceable.

 

[stona]

Fighter Command were not desperate to get the Whirlwind into the BoB. Edgar is quite correct that Dowding gave orders for them to be kept out of the way, based in the South West.

By the time the Hurricane was being deployed in the desert the Whirlwind was already a dead duck.

I happen to think that decisions to axe the Whirlwind (albeit with a limited reprieve, effectively to use up parts already produced) is precisely the type of bold decision that distinguishes British aircraft production from that of the Germans who allowed marginal or downright appalling projects to run on interminably at vast expense in resources.

Simply, the RAF did not need the Whirlwind. If anything can be said about the situation with the Hurricane in theatres outside the ETO, it is that it needed more Spitfires. The idea that the Whirlwind should be redesigned to use the same number of Merlin engines as TWO Spitfires was going to be a very difficult sell to the MAP.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

On the 100 octane fuel issue we may have a difference between using 100 octane fuel and making fulluse of 100 octane fuel.

The Bristol Mercury and Pegasus were both able to use 100 octane fuel but only had small increases in performance, the Pegasus a very small increase. Mercury got about 3lbs more boost and the Pegasus 1 or 1 1/2lbs (?) more boost.
The Hercules VI went from 5lbs boost with 87 octane to 8.25lbs with 100 octane, some other Hercules engines may have less of a difference.

In theory 100 octane (100PN) would allow around 30% higher cylinder pressures than 87 octane (68.29 PN), for 30% more power (before taking out the power needed to drive the supercharger that much harder). British 100 octane during the BoB was actually 115-120PN under rich conditions and 100 PN lean.
To make full use of 100 octane(PN) fuel (get that extra 40-45% power) might very well require a number of modifications. How long did it take for the Merlin to reach 1400-1450hp? How long did it take for the Hercules to show a 40% increase in power over the 87 octane versions?
Rolls-Royce wasn't lying about making full use of 100 octane.

Wither or not they answered the question about making part use is something else. Or if the question was asked in that way.

Getting somewhat more performance than 87 octane gave is a lot easier. Since each engine is different it is hard to say what modifications are needed or what modification/s are needed for how much improvement.

Bristol was concentrating on the Hercules (and maybe the Taurus) and only did the bare minimum to the Mercury and Pegasus. This despite Roy Fedden being one of prime advocates of 100 octane fuel in Britain.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 'Hawker fighter' was explicitly expected by Dowding, among others, to replace the Whirlwind. He only wanted to maintain Whirlwind production whilst it was the only cannon armed fighter the RAF had and at a time when he was expecting it to deal with German tanks on English beaches.

The MAP comparison was between the Whirlwind and a Spirfire, the latter being a much superior aircraft. This is an important point. At one time it was envisaged that Whirlwind production might start at Castle Bromwich. The idea was dropped when the detrimental effect on Spitfire production was realised.

Bean counters probably had far more influence on British aircraft production than their US counterparts given Britain's limited resources, even more so in 1940 when these decisions were being made. Ultimately it the resources were managed by Beaverbrook and the MAP, neither of whom shared your qualms about 'inferior' aircraft. They pushed on with the Halifax for example in the face of strident and continuous protests from Bomber Command.

Cheers

Steve

I was referring at Hurricane as a lesser fighter aircraft (at one-to-one basis) than Whirlwind, not the Spitfire.
The Westland's own product, Lysander, was also a lesser aircraft than Whirlwind. Aircraft of Lysander's capability were also easier to produce in UK, or to buy abroad (USA, Commonwealth) than it was the case with aircraft of Whirlwind's capability. UK was trying to buy Lightnings from the USA in 1940-41, those will run late vs. Whirlwind, while also being more expensive. I'm not sure that early P-39 was any bit less expensive than Whirly, and it was inferior to the Whirly before late 1942, at least, especially above 15000 ft.
Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes. A pilot in a better aircraft will do it's mission and return safely in the base more often than a pilot that has a lesser mount.
The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.
If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.

 

[Shortround6]

It is a game site but there are some good pictures of the Whirlwind here, including one 'altered' one to get Tomo excited.

Westland Whirlwind

also the record for No 263 Squadron from Sept 1942 to Nov 1943. Not too bad for a plane that stopped production in 1941. Even though a number of those flying in 1943 may have been held in storage for quite sometime before being issued to the squadron.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/laurieburley/jeff/pdfs/air271550summarywbombers.pdf

 

[Shortround6]

If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.

20mm guns may kill 1940 Panzers (all Dowding was worried about), they are a lot less useful in 1941. A number of the Panzers in use in France had 14.5mm armor at the thickest points.

Of course keeping the Lysander alive to actually shoot the tanks is another question

 

[tomo pauk]

Fighter Command were not desperate to get the Whirlwind into the BoB. Edgar is quite correct that Dowding gave orders for them to be kept out of the way, based in the South West.

By the time the Hurricane was being deployed in the desert the Whirlwind was already a dead duck.

I happen to think that decisions to axe the Whirlwind (albeit with a limited reprieve, effectively to use up parts already produced) is precisely the type of bold decision that distinguishes British aircraft production from that of the Germans who allowed marginal or downright appalling projects to run on interminably at vast expense in resources.

Simply, the RAF did not need the Whirlwind. If anything can be said about the situation with the Hurricane in theatres outside the ETO, it is that it needed more Spitfires. The idea that the Whirlwind should be redesigned to use the same number of Merlin engines as TWO Spitfires was going to be a very difficult sell to the MAP.

Cheers

Steve

A note about the expressed need for more Hurricanes in the MTO in 1941:
What else should the pilots commanders ask? They won't get Typhoon/Tornado, since those are barely to enter production. Situation with Whirlwind: the production is stopped. They can request for Spitfires all year long, they won't get it. Not until second half of 1942.
So it was either Hurricanes or nothing, as far as we speak about UK-produced fighters.

As far as selling to the MAP a fighter using two 'major engines': seems like the Bristol with Beaufighter managed it. Not just as a night fighter, and despite not standing a chance vs. a decent 1-engined fighter of the era with it's 320-330 mph.

 

[tomo pauk]

It is a game site but there are some good pictures of the Whirlwind here, including one 'altered' one to get Tomo excited.

Westland Whirlwind

Thanks
Do you mean the one with a photoshopped torpedo?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I was referring at Hurricane as a lesser fighter aircraft (at one-to-one basis) than Whirlwind, not the Spitfire.

Westland were told to go over to Spitfire production, not the Hurricane.

The Westland's own product, Lysander, was also a lesser aircraft than Whirlwind.

It was also a fabric-covered aircraft; how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect? Fitting Whirlwind fuselages and wings into Lysander jigs couldn't be done, and, though I've never tried, I suspect sewing Alclad isn't easy.

Aircraft of Lysander's capability were also easier to produce in UK, or to buy abroad (USA, Commonwealth) than it was the case with aircraft of Whirlwind's capability.

Yes, still stuck in the Stone Age, weren't we? And there we were, thinking that the Spitfire was fairly capable.

UK was trying to buy Lightnings from the USA in 1940-41, those will run late vs. Whirlwind, while also being more expensive. I'm not sure that early P-39 was any bit less expensive than Whirly, and it was inferior to the Whirly before late 1942, at least, especially above 15000 ft.

Neither aircraft lived up to their sales pitch, especially as we weren't allowed to have certain essential P-38 components, and the spitfire IX was around by the end of 1942.

Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes. A pilot in a better aircraft will do it's mission and return safely in the base more often than a pilot that has a lesser mount.

Probably the reason for getting Westland to produce Spitfires and Seafires.
The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.

If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production, rather than kill it? Lysanders won't cut it here.

He wasn't, since the Hurricane IIC was already under way, together with cannon-armed Spitfires. It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?

 

[Shortround6]

There is also the Beaufighter.
Some 'estimates' were as high as 370mph, fat wing or engines used didn't meet expected power or both?
Initial estimates were for 16,000lbs.
Alternate engine to Hercules was supposed to be the Griffon.
While first flight with Hercules was in July 1939 this prototype was unarmed.
When trials with a plane with full operational equipment were done, the plane weighed 21,500lbs and with the limited power of the service Hercules III speed had dropped to 309mph at 15,000ft. (From new estimates of 335mph)
Unfortunately this was all going on in the spring and summer of 1940. First two pre-production aircraft don't show up at service squadrons (without radar) until 2nd Sept 1940, one plane to each of two squadrons.

What effect the Beaufighter had on Whirlwind production I don't know ( TWO twin engine 4 cannon fighters?) But the problems with the Hercules may not have been as well known in the winter of 1939/spring of 1940.

Another comment on the four 20mm cannon in a single engine fighter. It was what was wanted but implementing it took some time as evidenced by the number of Hurricanes and Typhoons built with twelve .303 guns. Until they got the belt feed sorted out (and it went through several versions) the fall back for mounting the 20mm gun in the wings was to turn it on it's side to 'hide' the drum and that lead to numerous malfunctions. Spits kept four .303s. A Hurricane with either vertical drums (even less speed) or sideways guns (high likelihood of malfunctions) if mounting 4 canon. or a two cannon Hurricane with .303 back ups??? Hurricane doesn't get four cannon until almost a year after the Whirlwind was canceled, and no British aircraft got belt feed 20mm cannon until the Winter of 1940, early spring of 1941. Claiming the Whirlwind was canceled in May of 1940 because the Hurricane could carry four cannon and more ammo doesn't sound right. They may have hoped the Hurricane could carry more ammo with a future (not invented yet) belt feed.

 

[Shortround6]

It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?

Lysander was replaced by the Auster in most of it's army roles.

Once the British were stuck with hundreds of these things that were near useless for their designed role they found other things for them to do, like drop dinghies and tow targets.

Must have used mighty good needles and threads to stitch together those airframes.

how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect

see picture in earlier post. Lysanders were being built in the same building divided by only a low wall from the Whirlwind area. Just walk a number of the Lysander "workers" 50-200ft over to the Whirlwind area and have them work under the Whirlwind workers for few days/weeks. It may not be immediate (double production in under a week) but it isn't going to take months either.

The silly obsession is that you said there wasn't any spare capacity. There was and it was right in Westland's own factory IF the air ministry had come to their senses and STOPPED Lysander production or at least reversed priorities. Granted outside contractors (like Rolls Royce) may have slowed things down.

 

[tomo pauk]

Westland were told to go over to Spitfire production, not the Hurricane.

The Hurricane was still produced in UK by the time Whirlwind was cancelled, and then some time.
It was easy to order the Westland that they foregone their product and produce other people's design, than to do same to Hawker group? Greater political leverage at Hawkers, than at costumer, let alone Westland?

It was also a fabric-covered aircraft; how do you turn machinery (and a workforce) geared to a fabric-covered airframe, over to an all-metal item, with immediate effect? Fitting Whirlwind fuselages and wings into Lysander jigs couldn't be done, and, though I've never tried, I suspect sewing Alclad isn't easy.

Westland got order for a full-metal Whirlwind, and then for a full-metal Spitfire. Seems they were able to do what it takes.

Yes, still stuck in the Stone Age, weren't we? And there we were, thinking that the Spitfire was fairly capable.

I've made no accusations that UK was/is in Stone Age. Apart from Spitfire, the Whirlwind, Mosquito and Lancasters are prime examples of the opposite for ww2, plus piston engines, let alone the jet program.

Neither aircraft lived up to their sales pitch, especially as we weren't allowed to have certain essential P-38 components, and the spitfire IX was around by the end of 1942.

If you think that turbos were not allowed, they actually were. Both for Lightnings and bombers, even prior the LL set in action, let alone Perl Harbour. When the order for Lightnings was done by UK and France, there was no flying example of a Lightning with turbos; when France fell, UK took the whole order and changed it to incorporate aircraft with turbos.

Until the late 1942 sets in, there is almost 2 years of war to be fought until BoB. The Spit V was the main variant of the Spitfires in service by the winter of 1943/44.

He wasn't, since the Hurricane IIC was already under way, together with cannon-armed Spitfires.

Neither was there for the expected invasion of 1941.

It would be interesting to see how a Whirlwind would have managed to get in and out of small fields, while ferrying Army personnel, or picking up messages, or delivering dinghies to downed pilots, so maybe it's time to stop this silly obsession with the Lysander?

I'm not obsessed with the Lysander.
It's tasks were within the scope of many 'utility' aircraft, that could come from a firm not involved in a production of a front line fighter aircraft. Similar aircraft can be produced in Canada. Can be purchased in the USA.

 

[stona]

Bean counters might have missed the fact that a trained pilot is at least as important asset of an airforce as the planes.
The 4-cannon fighter was the mantra of the RAF, the Beaufighter was one of such early aircraft, with other following suit as early as possible. Hopefully the LW bombers were prime targets, rather than panzers.
If Downding was really afraid that Whirly would be the only weapon to kill panzers in 1941, then why not ramp up the production,

The bean counters certainly did not factor pilot/crew survivability into their calculations or the Halifax would have been axed in 1942/3.

The cannon armed fighter was just becoming the mantra of the RAF in 1940. In the 1930s it was the eight gun fighter, as both the Spitfire and Hurricane demonstrate. There was always an idea that cannon would be required, but it was not deemed practical for a variety of reasons in the mid 1930s.

Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind. He wrote that the Whirlwind might prove useful as a tank killer in 1940 not 1941. The invasion was initially expected in 1940. He wouldn't have asked for increased Whirlwind production because by 1941 and the next possible invasion (we know, but he didn't, that this was never a possibility) he expected the Hawker fighter with its cannon to be available.
Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.

The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The cannon armed fighter was just becoming the mantra of the RAF in 1940. In the 1930s it was the eight gun fighter, as both the Spitfire and Hurricane demonstrate. There was always an idea that cannon would be required, but it was not deemed practical for a variety of reasons in the mid 1930s.

I've mentioned the 'mantra' in terms of what was deemed as a desired, if not outright an ideal fighter armament. Eg. Spitfire was tested in July 1939 with two cannons aboard.

Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind.

He wrote that the Whirlwind might prove useful as a tank killer in 1940 not 1941. The invasion was initially expected in 1940. He wouldn't have asked for increased Whirlwind production because by 1941 and the next possible invasion (we know, but he didn't, that this was never a possibility) he expected the Hawker fighter with its cannon to be available.

Thanks for clearing the years Dowding was talking about.

Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.
The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts

If someone missed the title of the thread, he might've thought you describe the Typhoon
That one was also running late vs. Whirlwind, and was, during it's 1st service year, outright dangerous for it's pilots. No-one axed it, however.
Combat range was never the issue for the RAF, and it was easier amendable than in many fighters if desired. From drop tank installation further. The 'masked' exhaust stacks and a simpler intake can improve performance.
The Hurricane with 4 cannons was a far worse performer than the Whirly, it was a late aircraft, nobody axed it.

and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.

and

Dowding did not like Westland, the Lysander or the Whirlwind.

...yet Lysander carried on, while Westland got a contract for the Welkin?

 

[yulzari]

With the Lysander unfit for front line use and using the same factory as the Whirlwind while the Whirlwind is hindered by the ending of the Peregrine I am happy with the Mercury and Perseus going across into low altitude Whirlwinds, swapping the wing radiators for extra tankage (with crossover capacity) and moving the anti tank ability of the 4 x 20mm Hispanos to 2 x 40mm S guns.

 

[Shortround6]

The bean counters certainly did not factor pilot/crew survivability into their calculations or the Halifax would have been axed in 1942/3.

Bean counters were reluctant to install a 2nd generator and hydraulic pump on twin engine aircraft. Which rather throws survivabilty up to which engine failed or got damaged. To be fair the P-38 didn't get dual accessories until the later models.

Dowding's comments tacitly acknowledge the low level performance of the Whirlwind, though it was still an unreliable aeroplane unsuitable for the hurly-burly od service life. As a fighter it's altitude performance was simply not good enough. It's range was less than impressive too.
The Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production were right to axe an aircraft which was not a capable fighter at the ever increasing altitudes at which aerial combat was taking place, which was unreliable, which used more resources than its single engine counterparts and which the RAF, particularly Dowding, didn't want.

And yet the Hercules powered aircraft (and the Hercules was far from trouble free in 1940) all suffered from low altitude performance and and the Sabre was never noted as a high altitude engine. Granted in 1939/40/41 both companies may have been promising high altitude performance and with the number of designs which depended on the Hercules and Sabre (although the Sabre dependent aircraft faded fast) the British had little choice but to struggle on those engines. Hercules being fixed much quicker than the Sabre.
The Whirlwind and Peregrine get constantly beat up for being unreliable (with under dozen planes in service even in the fall of 1941 let alone May of 1940)and unsuited for service life. Yet they lasted in service several years after the last of each left the production lines, granted the squadrons that used them were able to pull "new" units from storage whenever needed to keep up numbers. They may have been one of the oldest "designs/models" still in front line service in 1943 by a major power. They sure weren't using Spitfire Is or IIs with bomb racks to attack shipping and coastal targets in the summer of 1943, How many Hurricanes were being used for ground attack on France and low countries in 1943? How many P-40Bs or Tomahawks? Bf-109Es in frontline service in 1943?
Granted the altitude performance was increasing lacking but the Hurricane needed Merlin XX engines to stay in the game at all and even the P-39 and P-40 got slightly better superchargers and different gear ratios raise their FTH by about 4,000ft by 1943. Let alone the P-40 getting Merlin XX engines.
BTW, service ceiling for a Typhoon under test in Nov of 1942 was 300ft less than a MK I Hurricane with Rotol prop. (both ceilings estimated). I have no idea what Napier and Hawker were promising in 1940 or early 1941. Condition of the test Typhoon might be suspect.
Anybody want to check the ceiling of a Defiant???

I am still trying to figure out the more resources bit of a tare weight 8,130lb fighter with two 1140lb 12 cylinder engines and tare weight 8800lb fighter with a single 2375-2500lb 24 cylinder engine

I know the twin will need more accessories and instruments and that weights are only an indicator but there sure doesn't seem to be the great savings that was being made out.