Westland Whirlwind revisited

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

And much like the Whirlybomber the "Bombphoons" were pretty much an after the fact modification. They were also an ongoing modification. Well over 500 Typhoons being delivered (let alone ordered) before they start hanging bombs on them (Oct 1942). Later new tail wheels were fitted, bigger tires and brakes. At some point in 1943 they figure they can go to 1000lb bombs. Some planes get larger tailplanes from the Tempest. Switch to 4 bladed prop is delayed. It took over a year and half to go from initial ground attack missions to the Fighter bomber units used Normandy.

And none of this answers the question as to what the actual cost of the Typhoon and Sabre program was. Between R&D and manufacturing costs was the Sabre worth what was put into it in comparison to other engines?

Did a Sabre cost 2-4 times what Merlin cost? More?
 

So what? In the end the Typhoon made a superb fighter bomber and ground attack aircraft. As for on going modifications, all aircraft receive various upgrades and alterations, either at the factory or, for those already in service, on return to maintenance units or other suitable facilities. Only relatively minor mods might be made at the squadron by service personnel or manufacturers' work parties.
Your point about modification to the Typhoon after production started could be made for any aircraft that entered service with the RAF. Take a look at the long list of modifications to one of the great WW2 fighters like the Spitfire I (and I mean the Mark 1 alone).
Cheers
Steve
 
stona said:
So what?
Click to expand...

The point is that many people criticize the Whirlwind for initial faults. It took time to sort out most aircraft in squadron service. If they applied the same standards to some other aircraft that they apply to the Whirlwind quite a few major aircraft of WWII would never have made it past the first one or two squadrons. American SB2C Helldiver was a real piece of work (disaster) for example.

It was frozen in time and never got a MK II or even a MK Ia version( or much of one aside from the bomb racks) and yet it survived in combat use until 1943. Granted heavily escorted at times but nobody was using Hurricane MK Is Or Spitfire MK Is over enemy territory in 1943. The Germans were not using FW 190A-0s in 1943, or Br 110C s on hit and run raids. The Americans were not using P-40B/Cs in 1943 (heck, the Americans didn't even want to use P-40Ns in their own units in late 1943).

They were not being used as target tugs, or air-sea rescue planes or squadron hacks or meteorological flights. The Whirlwind may have been the oldest type/Mark of aircraft being used over occupied territory in NW Europe in 1943. That says something even if it was not as a first line fighter.

The decision to cancel it was probably right and RR should NOT have spent much more time on the Peregrine but lets not pretend that the Typhoon and Sabre were all sweetness and light or a bed of roses either. They survived because success always seemed right around the corner (one more modification away) and the Air Ministry had gotten themselves in a position that there was no good fall back airplane (Ground attack Spitfires with 500+ lbs of armor?) or engine (Vulture already canceled and Centaurus running way late and Fedden out of Bristol.

Depending on source 132-135 Typhoons had their tails come off in flight let alone on landing and engine failures were of epidemic proportion.

It turned into a good ground attack plane eventually but was pretty much a failure at it's original intended mission yet it is forgiven while the Whirlwind is castigated for failing to be an all-round fighter. And the Typhoon went through several different Marks of engine. Counting letters as Marks as they did have different power ratings and may have had a different rpm rating between first and last versions.
 
The fundamental difference (ignoring the engine question, which doomed the Whirlwind in any case) is that the Typhoon became an aircraft that the RAF needed. The Whirlwind wasn't one and never became one.

Cheers

Steve
 
Lets see:

Plane...........................Whirlwind......................Typhoon.

wing area.........................250sqft.....................279 sq.ft
Empty weight ..................8,310 lb.....................8,840 lb
Loaded W/O bombs..........10,356 lb ...................11,400 lb
guns ............................4 20mm Hispano.........4 20mm Hispano Or twelve .303s
Fuel.................................136 gal......................168 gals (?)
Take off power.................1550hp........................1995hp
HP at 15,000ft .................1770hp........................1880hp

Yep, I can see how the Whirlwind was just useless to the RAF and the Typhoon was exactly what was wanted/needed. Especially considering it was a least a year behind in timing and had a two speed supercharger for its engine/s (two flat twelves geared together ?) giving much better power low down.

Power figures are for the Sabre IIA engine/Lumsden
 
The Typhoon could carry twice the bomb load of the Whirlwind, actually four times the usual operational Whirlwind load of 2 x 250lb bombs. This is probably the single most important factor for a fighter bomber.

I don't know if it would have been possible to fit eight rocket rails to a Whirlwind given the engine/propeller disc position and I don't know that it was tried. Late in the war Typhoons operated with 12 rockets, the inner two rails on each side doubled.

Range is also important, and whatever the figures suggest the RAF set the operational radius of the Whirlwind at 120 miles in 1942.

All the data regarding weights and engine performance is just the stuff that lifts the armament and ordnance. This the Typhoon did rather better than the Whirlwind. In other areas of performance the Typhoon was, unsurprisingly, a generation ahead of the Whirlwind. Much is made of the Typhoon's high altitude performance (or lack thereof) but this is by 1942/3 standards, not the 1939/40 standards on which the Whirlwind failed.

Cheers

Steve
 
Typhoon lifted more "stuff" because it had a 1941/42 engine. The Whirlwind was stuck with those 1939/40 engines. See how good a bomber the Hurricane would have been with Merlin III.
It took a number of months before the Typhoon used the 1000lb bombs, Early missions mean it had the same bomb load (max) as the Whirlwind. Whirlwind never even got faired bomb racks. It also never got beefed up landing gear, larger tires, bigger brakes and other improvements to help handle bigger weights. There weren't enough of them left to make it worth while but comparing the stuck in 1940 Whirlwind to the developed 1944 Typhoon doesn't really show the real merits of the planes.

Actually the Typhoon was just a bit wanting in high altitude performance even in 1941.
It was .45 minutes slower to 20,000ft than a MK II Spitfire and 1 full minute slower to 25,000ft and 2.4 minutes slower to 30,000ft. And lets face it, a MK II Spitfire was hardly the Bench mark in 1941. The MK V Spitfires could beat the MK IIs by a minute to a minute and half to 30,000ft. The Early Typhoon could beat a MK II Hurricane mostly but it's greatest advantage was to 25,000ft where it got there 1.1 minute faster. Unfortunately the Hurricane took only 5 minutes to climb the next 5000ft while the Typhoon took 5.7 min.

Granted the Typhoon beats the Whirlwind by a handy amount but then the Typhoon does beat the Hurricane I and Spitfire I.
Things get a bit better with the Sabre IIB engine with More RPM and higher boost (it will work, just let us make one more improvement....... and one more.........and one more........and one more)

Whirlwind had a crap exhaust set up and quite possibly a crap intake for getting Ram Effect.
 
The initial FW 190 may have been too clever by half itself. The Germans used up more prototype FW 190s trying to sort it out than the British issued Whirlwinds to the first squadron to go into service.
Click to expand...

That's because the Air Ministry wouldn't let them build any more until the issues were sorted with the prototypes. Despite the Fw 190s issues, and, yes, it was a very advanced aeroplane and therefore had teething troubles, it had far greater potential than the Whirlwind - and look what happened to it. It was a sure-fire winner, the same can't be said for the Whirly.


Yep, indeed, but that does in no way justify any of those aeroplanes' misgivings and the fact they took lives in sorting out their issues. Yes, the Whirly was troubled initially, but had it been a technologically simpler machine incorporating fewer advanced features that was not going to overstretch Westland's resources, then perhaps it might have been able to achieve greater things, but built-in complexities that the Whirly had for a company like Westland to tackle was a bit too much; the firm bit off more than it could chew. As I've used in another thread, the Mosquito stands as an example here of exceptional performance, but using existing technology, yet applying similar low drag philosophies that Petter was doing so and the firm that built it being able to manage the project without significant problems.

Also, choosing the Peregrine was arguably a mistake - yes, hindsight again, but Petter thought that its lower weight and size, combined with its reasonable power output and drag reduction measures applied to the airframe would be a winning combination. Sadly and unfortunately for the firm and the RAF, it wasn't. It could have been a great aeroplane because in theory Petter had brilliant ideas; instead it was an also-ran, because he couldn't make them work as well as he'd hoped, and the Air Min knew he couldn't. What they really needed as the war wore on was high performance single engined single-seat fighters, which might go some way in explaining why the Typhoon was pressed on with during the war for as long as it was.

Poor ol' Whirly. Never had a real chance!
Click to expand...

Sadly, no. Petter was brilliant and his ideas were a cracker, some of then great, some not so and unfortunately the Whirlwind suffered as a result. The firm that produced it wasn't able to match Petter's creative brilliance in manufacturing capability. He was a bit big for Westland and it could be said that had he been employed with say, Handley Page, or Vickers or Hawker - one of the bigger firms with better resources, his sharper ideas might have been able to yield more successful results.
 
Last edited:
The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long? Why did it suffer so few combat casualties despite being in the front line for so long? Much is made of its being escorted on fighter bomber missions, when often it wasn't escorted and other aircraft such as Hurricanes, Spitfires and even Typhoons were also escorted when needed. When it was often used in shipping strikes which was a very dangerous mission. It was supposed to be a poor fighter but it was often used in its early years as an escorting fighter.

Some of the claims made have been at best half complete. One example being the combat with the Me 109s when two 109's were claimed without loss. The full story is that there was an initial unescorted strike against a Luftwaffe airfield and as the Whirlwinds were returning to the UK they came across two freighters which they attacked with guns bringing them to a halt. The second mission escorted by the Spitfires was to attack the ships. This was the mission intercepted by a larger formation of 109's. However the Spitfire escort wasn't a close escort and for a while the four Whirlwinds were on their own against approx. twelve to sixteen 109's. It was in this period that the two claims were made without loss the second one confirmed by the S/L of the escorting Spitfires as they entered the battle.

A second claim was that in the GA tests in 1941 the Hurricane was deemed to be the better GA aircraft. That isn't what I read. What I find is that both the Hurricane and the Whirlwind were considered to be good GA aircraft and one observer considered the Hurricane to be the better, not quite the same. When you throw in other factors such as the Whirlwinds better low altitude performance and better survivability things look a little more even.

I agree the Whirlwind never had a real chance but its because it was never given a real chance. I think we can at least agree that an additional 580 Whirlwinds would have been a better investment for the RAF than the same number of Botha's.

Interestingly I agree that Rolls Royce didn't have the facilities to develop the Peregrine and that was the right decision

The Whirlwind was the GA aircraft the RAF didn't have in the early years of the war. Its low level performance was very good and its payload of 2 x 250lb bombs may seem small but for the time it wasn't that bad.
 

Bit of a sweeping generalisation with bias to support a point of view, rather than an accurate assessment, to be honest, SR. It was certainly not a total failure in the army co-op role; it made an excellent recon and spotter platform, general liason aircraft etc. Never have I seen the Lysander being described as a total failure at anything it did. In fact, after the Battle of Britain, four more Lysander ACC squadrons were formed, although the Air Ministry began to realise that the performance of a fighter was required for ACC duties and Tomahawks and Mustang Is became front line equipment. Lysanders saw service in almost all theatres of war, from the Middle and Far East to Finland, North Africa, the Balkans and Western Europe. The last operational squadrons were as an SD aircraft. There were three SD squadrons, not just 161, but 148 and 357; the latter being the last to operate the type in a front line role, doing so until after the end of the war.

The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long?
Click to expand...

The concept was a good one, just not as well executed as had been hoped, but it still had excellent performance down low, so during the war since many aircraft types were needed, why not use it? The type had been committed to production, but only the numbers of aircraft supporting the number of Peregrines RR were going to build, were built - obviously. It did have a creditable combat outing as a ground attack aircraft, Ramrod raids against airfields and managing to sink an E-boat, 137 Sqn Whirlwinds also took part in efforts to combat the Channel Dash, although four were lost.

I don't necessarily think it was a poor fighter, it just didn't have good altitude performance, but it was plagued with overheating throughout its career as a result of the flap/cowl door problem. RR criticised this recurring issue, which has been erroneously and repeatedly blamed on the engine at the time and since, as pilots not following the Pilot's Notes, which stated that the aircraft should be taxied with flaps fully extended, which opened the cowl door and enabled cooling air to flow through the radiator, but of course piliots didn't do this, since it was bad form to taxy in with flaps down!

Just looking through an article I have on the type, Whirly's first confirmed kill was on 8 February 1941, an Arado Ar 196, whilst on anti-E-boat patrols. A Ju 88 was claimed as a probable on 12 January however. Three Bf 109s were claimed during Ramrods in June. The last operational sortie by 263 Sqn using Whirlys was on 29 November 1943 looking for Ju 52/3m minesweepers, but didn't find them. There were four Whirlys lost during the Channel dash, but it looks like no German fighters claimed (?any more on this?) There is an incident recorded where two Whirlys attacked a Blenheim, thinking it was a Ju 88 and one was shot down (! I think the Blenheim escaped), although a Ju 88 fell to a Whirly on 27 May 1942, this was 137's first Whirly kill, and a Do 217 not long after. A combat on 14 january 1943 saw Whirlys in a dog fight with two Fw 190s, but it was inconclusive. All but one of the 16 survivors of the production Whirlys were scrapped after the type was withdrawn from operations in November 1943. The last survived until May 1947 as a company hack registered G-AGOI. One Whirly was sent to the USA, but was presumed scrapped at Pensacola in 1944.
 
Last edited:

From Wiki take for what you will.

"Four regular squadrons equipped with Lysanders accompanied the British Expeditionary Force to France in October 1939, and were joined by a further squadron early in 1940. Following the German invasion of France and the low countries on 10 May 1940, the Lysanders were put into action as spotters and light bombers. In spite of occasional victories against German aircraft, they made very easy targets for the Luftwaffe even when escorted by Hurricanes.[4][5] Withdrawn from France during the Dunkirk evacuation, they continued to fly supply-dropping missions to Allied forces from bases in England; on one mission to drop supplies to troops trapped at Calais, 14 of 16 Lysanders and Hawker Hectors that set out were lost. 118 Lysanders were lost in or over France and Belgium in May and June 1940, of a total of 175 deployed"

Granted out of the 118 "only" 70 something were actually lost on combat missions, the rest were left behind on airfields during retreats. Combat losses were in proportion to the losses suffered by the Fairey Battles.

"With the fall of France, it was clear that the type was unsuitable for the coastal patrol and army co-operation role, being described by Air Marshal Arthur Barratt, commander-in-chief of the British Air Forces in France as "quite unsuited to the task; a faster, less vulnerable aircraft was required."

Only one man's opinion but perhaps "total failure" isn't that far removed from "quite unsuited to the task". The Lysander was supposed to be the Army's close support bomber/strafer and interdiction aircraft. It continued in use because so many were available.

As far as the AOP roll and general liason: with 20/20 hindsight we have...." Pre-war tests identified the Taylorcraft Model D as the most suitable aircraft for the AOP role. Three more Ds were purchased from Taylorcraft and a trials unit, D Flight, under Major Charles Bazeley RA, formed at Old Sarum on 1 February 1940. The flight with three Austers and one Stinson Voyager, and three artillery and one RAF pilots moved to France where they trained with artillery and practised fighter avoidance with Hurricanes of Air Component before moving south to train with French artillery. The flight did not participate in the fighting and withdrew without loss to UK. However, the War Office then ordered 100 Stinson L-1 Vigilants. Formation of the RAF's Army Cooperation Command in December 1940 led to the RAF rejecting the notion of light AOP aircraft. Intercession by General Alan Brooke led to doctrinal rectification of the RAF. Nevertheless the first AOP pilot course for artillery officers took place in October 1940 and in 1941 the first AOP squadron, No 651, formed. The Stinson Vigilants eventually arrived in early 1942 but most were severely damaged during shipping, this led to the adoption of the Taylorcraft Auster 1 and an order for 100 aircraft placed. Some Stinsons were resurrected but found to be to big for the AOP role."

I would note that the engines used in the Austers Wither British DH Gypsy or American Lycomings ran on 70-73 octane fuel and if Army truck gas wasn't the exact the same it may have been close enough for occasional use. 87 octane av-gas being in rather short supply in the Army supply train. The Austers needed a ground run of about 70-75 yds for take-off using flaps. They had landing/stalling speeds of 28-30mph. They didn't need to perform stunts involving poles, lines and hooks.
 
Glider, the Whirlwind strikes on airfields in France were escorted. 10 Group's policy was based on the premise that the Whirlwind could not mix it with the Luftwaffe's fighters and had to be able to use it's low level performance to escape a target.

I can't look up the details of the freighter strikes now, but IIRC they were initially a target of opportunity to which the Whirlwinds returned (twice?).

The Whirlwind remained in service because it was considered a decent ground attack aircraft, and it was. What it never was from 1940 onwards was a competitive fighter. It's important to remember that though two squadrons operated the Whirlwind there were rarely double figures serviceable. Most of the strikes were hit and run using few (usually four or eight) aircraft.

Cheers

Steve
 
I would add that many times the Whirlwinds were staged through other airfields than their 'home' airfields. Most likely due to short radius. On the other hand they seemed to have little trouble ( or no more than some other types) in operating (landing and taking off) from a variety of airfields despite early concerns about their high landing speed.
 
Shortround6 said:
they seemed to have little trouble ( or no more than some other types) in operating (landing and taking off) from a variety of airfields despite early concerns about their high landing speed.
Click to expand...

They even operated at night, something else they were originally deemed unsuitable for due to that landing speed.

Cheers

Steve
 
Glider said:
The questions that no one has really answered is why if the Whirlwind was so poor why was it kept in the front line in its original configuration for so long?.
Click to expand...
The Whirlwind was never deemed "poor." The company (or its production rate of two per week) was considered inadequate, and Rolls-Royce said that up-rating the engine wasn't worth the (considerable) effort. Neither was the Whirlwind kept in its original configuration, which was "Single Seater Day and Night Fighter," according to Spec F.37/35, but became a ground-attack weapon. Dowding was particularly scathing about Westland, forecasting "a whole packet of trouble," but said that, in the event of an invasion, they might be very glad to have the Whirlwind.
It's somewhat ironic that, as well as tenders from Bristol, Boulton Paul and Fairey, versions of the Hurricane and Spitfire, with four Oerlikon cannon, were also rejected in favour of the Whirlwind.
 

I think there were other mitigating factors against the Lysander in that scenario and yes, I do think 'total failure' is a harsh description (Geez, what do you expect under the circumstances?!). Show me something else that could have been used at that time in that scenario that wouldn't have had the same run of things?

Good info, Thedab. I have a copy of that Flypast magazine with the Whirly article. Aeroplane Monthly did a Database on the Whirly in the May 2006 issue.

Note the sections on flaps and radiator shutters in the Pilot's Notes kindly provided.
 
Last edited:
Changing the tack slightly I have been doing some digging because I couldn't work out why both squadrons were almost replaced with the Vengeance, as I had never heard of any plans to use that aircraft in Europe. I have found that when used against shipping the Whirlwind normally applied the skip bombing technique, as in smooth water the bomb would skip approx. 100 yards and in rougher waters about 35 yards. The interesting thing is that when used against land targets they operated as dive bombers with an 80 degree dive bomb approach. The normal vulnerability in using such a tactic was reduced as they would dive at approx. 425 mph so at low altitude they had a good head of speed making the AA gunners life far more difficult. This might be why people considered the use of the Vengeance as a replacement.
 


These pretty much mesh with my thoughts. The Gloster design seems far less tight/limited than the Whirlwind, more adaptable and with more room for growth without massive redesigns. At the prototype stage it was already working with multiple engine choices in mind AND mounting them in a modular fashion (Perigrines mounted with chin radiators in a 'power egg' style module similar to Merlins on bombers). So not only should the Merlin have been easier to adapt, but potentially other radial engines as well. (in the short term, the Pegasus, Perseus, and Mercury might have been attractive, but a longer term development would make more sense to target the Hercules)

In terms of a better multi-role fighter all around, that Gloster design would seem to be a much better replacement for the Beaufighter while also being a much better air to air fighter aircraft, interceptor, etc. (the Gloster Reaper proposal itself would have been a lot more attractive had the older F.9/37 machine had been ordered into production in some form)
Twin engine fighters do make more sense for tank busting and anti-shipping cannons too, so at least in that role it could have been a good complement to the Mosquito and better alternative to the Hurricane IID. (and, again, Beaufighter)


Arguing for a better alternative/complement to the Typhoon and Hurribomber might also fit in there, but really that's a better argument for having another class of single-engine fighter-bomber entirely. Looking at existing designs, the Bulton Paul Defiant airframe might have been a decent replacement for the Hurricane. (or sort of like a British-built P-40 of sorts ... which itself was a decent enough fighter-bomber by the time of the D/E/F models)

Perhaps more so if it could have been adapted to use the Bristol Hercules. (there were some considerations for doing such on the Hurricane itself, but that doesn't mean it'd be all that practical ... or say easier to adapt than doing the same for a variant of the Typhoon -still might be too underpowered in the latter case, depending on the Hercules model ... certainly limited to low-alt FB/ground attack/support roles though)
 
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
10K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register