Westland Whirlwind revisited

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't; the specification, against which it was designed and built (1934 Operational Requirement OR.18,) required it to fulfil an" Artillery Spotting and Reconnaissance role." Only very light bombs could be carried under the stub wings, and the forward-firing guns (ludicrous as it seems now, but not in 1934) were for self-defence in combat. The fact that they were thrown into fights for which they were not designed, is indicative of how desperate things got in France.
Of course, the complacent attitude of "senior management" didn't help; when pilots expressed disquiet about the ability of the Lysander to cope with the 109, demonstrations were held, showing how it could not only manoeuvre against attacking Spitfires, but might even shoot them down. Unfortunately those sneaky Germans didn't attack in the same way as the RAF, and the rest is history.

Please tell me what the hell the Lysander has to do with the Whirlwind production.

I do NOT understand the continuing Lysander references.

Sure, teh Lysander took Westland production capacity, but it has NOTHING to do with the Whirlwind ... or am I wrong? The thread title is Whirlwiond, not Lysander.

It has two things (interrelated) to do with the Lysander.

One, as you said, was Westland's production capacity. Deliveries of components (engines for one) may have slowed Whirlwind production to the often mentioned 2 per week. However Westland was told on more than one occasion the Lysander production was to have priority over Whirlwind production.

Two is the rather confusing state of British close support capability, The Lysander was sort of the reason (or the visible symptom) of the CAS malaise. The Lysander was about the only army cooperation/support aircraft that was allowed to go into production/service in 1939/40 (the 200 Hawker Henleys being diverted to target tugs). With the Army going through a huge expansion a large number of Army cooperation planes were needed which helps explain the priority. Unfortunately, the British, like many other countries, got the requirements for an army cooperation plane wrong or failed to realize that all the requirements could NOT be meet by the same airplane. See German HS 126 or American O-47 and O-52 (and the Americans didn't include bombing in the duties) for just a few examples.

Dowding thought the Whirlwind, even if he did not want it as a fighter, might be useful as an anti-tank aircraft. This is a ground attack/close support mission even if specialized. This comment was made several months after the Lysander proved to be, shall we say less than what was wanted in the Close Support role. Unfortunately it is not quite as easy to change production schedules as easily as some people seem to be believe, and in any case the Whirlwind had already been dropped from future production plans (even if the current contract was unfinished). The Whirlwind wound up doing similar missions to what part of the Lysander's repertoire was supposed to be.

The Lysander's production priority over the Whirlwind is one of the many reasons the Whirlwind was not developed. What seems to be a bit unexplored is if there was any personal animosity involved. Petter being known as being rather hard to work with, or at least convince that he was wrong on certain points.

Westland, even without Petter, seemed to be trying to be a forward looking company and quite the 'stuck in the past' company that some people are trying to make out.

A few examples of some of their previous aircraft.

1926-Westland Wizard

1930 Westland F.29/27 C.O.W. Gun Fighter

1932 Westland Pterodactyl V
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/OS/OS-1/48-4.jpg
600hp engine and 'fully acrobatic?"

1934 Westland F.7/30

Engine behind pilot, and leading edge slats.

Westland was no stranger to advance ideas.

British were using Hurricanes in the Ground Attack/strike role in the summer/fall of 1941.
Continued use of obsolete aircraft, especially in secondary theaters, is much more an indication of aircraft shortages rather than satisfaction with the aircraft in question, see use of Vickers Vildebeest in the Defense of Singapore.

The Air Ministry had several very good reasons for canceling the Whirlwind when they did. Unfortunately there have been many reasons put out that are false or minor in nature and true for many aircraft early in their development cycle. Also unfortunate is that the heir apparent for British fighter planes (the Typhoon) turned out to have as many or more problems than the Whirlwind in it's first few years of development/service. This leading to a LOT of controversy using the 'retrospectroscope'.

Sorry to be so long winded.

Edgar Brooks said:

No, it wasn't; the specification, against which it was designed and built (1934 Operational Requirement OR.18,) required it to fulfil an" Artillery Spotting and Reconnaissance role." Only very light bombs could be carried under the stub wings, and the forward-firing guns (ludicrous as it seems now, but not in 1934) were for self-defence in combat. The fact that they were thrown into fights for which they were not designed, is indicative of how desperate things got in France.

Click to expand...

Something does not add up.

A. 250lb bombs are "light" compared to what?
A Lysander could carry a bigger bomb load than Hawker Hart bomber, Or Audax
A Lysander could carry a bigger bomb load roughly 4 times that of the contemporary HS 126.
A Lysander could carry the same bomb load as the Hawker Henley or Fairey P.4/34 tactical bomber prototypes.



"The stub wings were stressed to carry either a single 250lb bomb , or four 20lb bombs each, or two 112lb bombs."

The two .303 forward firing machineguns were double the defensive forward firing armament of the Fairey Battle, the Fairey P.4/34, the Bristol Blenheim or Handley Page Hampden.
It was also double what the Americans were mounting on their observation planes. It was double what the Germans put on the Hs 126.

It was the same as the Germans put on the Hs 123 dive bomber and the early JU 87 Stukas.

Gunner in the back got ONE Lewis gun originally which means the pilot controlled 4 times the fire power. Somebody had high hopes for the Lysander in Air to Air combat if the forward firing guns were NOT intended for strafing.

Nonetheless A.39/34 asked for a monoplane to OR.18 to fulfil an "artillery spotting and reconnaissance role over a wide speed range and a variety of duties."

Whatever the Lysander may have done later its intended role is quite clear. Two forward firing .303 machine guns should be compared to the minimum forward firing armament of British fighters of the same period and that was eight .303 machine guns

An 'anti-invasion' version designed for ground strafing was flown, in mock up/prototype form. The first prototype Lysander,K6127, was provided with an entirely new rear fuselage, shortened to terminate in a power operated four-gun Boulton Paul turret (only a mock-up was ever fitted) and supporting a tandem wing with large twin fins and rudders.



I'd take a Whirlwind over this any day. The British still hadn't got over an obsession with turrets at this time (1940)
Cheers

Steve

stona said:

Nonetheless A.39/34 asked for a monoplane to OR.18 to fulfil an "artillery spotting and reconnaissance role over a wide speed range and a variety of duties."

Whatever the Lysander may have done later its intended role is quite clear. Two forward firing .303 machine guns should be compared to the minimum forward firing armament of British fighters of the same period and that was eight .303 machine guns

Click to expand...

The key here (at least in my opinion) is the phrase "and a variety of duties" which covers a lot of ground.

The Lysander being a replacement for the Hawker Audax which also used the message hook trick (one of those variety of duties) and the Hart, Audax, Hind, Hector family certain including light bombing in their duties. They used lower powereed engines and may not have been able to combine all duties in a single aircraft. The Hawker Hector, an Audax with a Napair dagger engine instead of a Kestrel was rated for a pair of 112lb bombs. Strangely enough production Hectors were built by Westland.

I am not at all sure why the forward armament of "artillery spotting and reconnaissance" aircraft should be compared to proposed fighters and not to bombers, both strategic and tactical being proposed (specifications issued) at the same time.

Shortround6 said:

I am not at all sure why the forward armament of "artillery spotting and reconnaissance" aircraft should be compared to proposed fighters and not to bombers, both strategic and tactical being proposed (specifications issued) at the same time.

Click to expand...

I was just referring to your comment:

"Somebody had high hopes for the Lysander in Air to Air combat if the forward firing guns were NOT intended for strafing."

The armament was not designed for strafing, that of the turret fighter above was.

Cheers

Steve

Edgar Brooks said:

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.

Click to expand...

According to Butler - BSP "The idea of modifying either the Spitfire or Hurricane to take 20mm guns was rejected because their designer's drawing offices were too busy; it seemed quicker to order a totally new design from a less occupied company."

Prototype orders went out for the Supermarine 313,two from Boulton-Paul P.88a P.88b, and two Westland P.9s - the Treasury would only authorise funds for the Westland's!

The Lysander played a big part in the Whirlwind story as the Air Ministry thought that Westland's proposal was the better of those offered because of what Merlin stated above and because of its attractive advanced features, and as a result of those innovative aspects of the Lysander's design, but also because the Min believed its design board, under Davenport with Petter as design engineer, could pull it off. A few in the Min had their reservations over whether Westland could actually put it into production without delay with all these new features, however. Here's a quote by the Aissistant Chief of Air Staff "This fighter seemed a thoroughly practical and high performance aeroplane and I only wish the production capapacity of this firm were greater."

So a production order was held off until testing of the prototypes had been completed. Unusual at the time since aircraft were being ordered 'off the drawing board' - Blackburn Botha, what a mistake that was - so the Whirlwind wasn't because of these fears, which proved right in terms of the delay, nine months promised for the first production aircraft turned into 17 months - and because the company was producing Lysanders, which had already been ordered and which served as the technological standard by which the firm were known. The Whirly was the first truly 'modern' aeroplane Westland had built (all metal, sophisticated, advanced flight controls etc etc). The Air Ministry also complained that Westland was inducing delays in the Whirlwind program by concentrating a little too much on the Lysander at one stage.

This leading to a LOT of controversy using the 'retrospectroscope'.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's hard to fathom why some decisions were made and others were not, and I'm sure there were sound reasons for not supporting the Whirlwind. The problem was that the Air Ministry couldn't very well throw their arms in the air and admit that its pre-war thinking was a mistake and that they'd have to scrap everything and do it all again because things have changed now the Germans have reached Sedan or the Japanese have attacked Singapore. That the Typhoon programme turned out to be a delay hog was certainly not the doing of the Air Ministry and its decision making. There was a war on and what could Hawker (or Napier) do except try and work its way through the problems and keep building Hurricanes in the interim? The Air Ministry had faith in the firm in producing an excellent aircraft - it had put contracts for more Hurricanes than any other aircraft in British history prior to the war, so Hawker was a valued customer. The Min was hardly likely to tell them to scrap it, although from what I believe it came very close to that.

merlin said:

According to Butler - BSP

Click to expand...

It would be nice if there was less of this use of initials. What's "BSP?"

If I may - 'British secret projects', the book trilogy by Tony Butler.

Reading through this, and many similar threads, the Whirlwind had potential to be developed throughout the war were it worth throwing the resources into it. The only way that would happen would be if the Whirlwind and not the Tornado/Typhoon were the chosen next generation. Apart from anything else, production would be taken out of Westlands hands. I suspect that would need a decision to ditch the Vulture and Sabre and concentrate on Merlin, Peregrine (or Merlin Whirlwind), Griffon and the Bristol radials. So, given the same resources, what could the Typhoon do that the Whirlwind might not have managed?

The Lysander obviously could manoeuvre pretty well. Tom Neil recounted a tale of an exercise in which his Hurricane squadron made a practice interception of a squadron of Lysanders

"We intercepted about a dozen Lysanders over Salisbury Plain and they acquitted themselves well, whirling about in fine style. Rather sniffy about the Lizzie, I was surprised by the manner in which they dog-fought, although I would have hated to have to fly them. They were reputed to be very heavy on the controls. "

Cheers

Steve

yulzari said:

what could the Typhoon do that the Whirlwind might not have managed?

Click to expand...

Carry 8-12 rockets, or carry 2 x 1000lb bombs.

Typhoon could actually carry 16 rockets. I'm not sure to what extent this happened in action though.

The delays with the Typhoon notwithstanding, Petter proposed refined Whirlwinds, Mk.IIs to the Ministry, also powered by different engines, but the Air Ministry decided against it because of the delay that redesign and production would introduce - they'd been bitten before by Petter's promises and couldn't afford to do so again. You're also presuming the Typhoon was designed as a ground attack aircraft; it was to replace the Hurricane as a fighter and in 1940 when the decision was being made not to continue Whirlwind production, the Typhoon was exactly that and the issues that plagued it were not at the extent that they were to become, so there was no reason not to continue with it. Once the Typhoon was sought as a ground attack platform, the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been well and truly made. There was no going back.

nuuumannn said:

Once the Typhoon was sought as a ground attack platform, the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been well and truly made. There was no going back.

Click to expand...

True, the decision to use the Typhoon as a bomb carrier was made in the summer of 1942, about 2 years (or more) after the decision to stop building Whirlwinds had been made.

What is all this stuff about the Lysander doing in here?

Not arguing, but can't understand why it is in this thread ...

It's all part of a plan to show how Westland should have stopped producing Lysanders, (which were ordered and required by the armed forces, and for which Westland were being paid,) and carried on producing Whirlwinds, for which they had no orders, and would not have been paid.
Of course, it quietly passes over the fact that the Whirlwind was replaced by the Spitfire (and later the Seafire,) which was needed to counter the increasing incursions by bomb-carrying 109s at 30,000'+ (a height which the Whirlwind couldn't attain.)

Edgar Brooks said:

Carry 8-12 rockets, or carry 2 x 1000lb bombs.

Click to expand...

But not when designed or prototyped. The Tornado/Typhoon was to be the next generation all altitudes fighter. Now, with the resources put into the Whirlwind instead, the high altitude limitation upon Whirlwinds could have been dealt with. Is there any structural loading etc. limitation that would prevent a Whirlwind eventually carrying a Typhoon low level strike load equivalent to the OTL Typhoon?

Just as a personal take, I would see the low level role going to radial Whirwinds and the medium/high level one to developed Peregrine/Merlin Whirlwinds but that is not the point I was exploring.