Westland Whirlwind revisited

[Edgar Brooks]

But not when designed or prototyped.

You asked for capabilities, not design specifications.

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.

Do you have any evidence that the Mk.II Peregrine could have operated at 30,000'? All that is ever mentioned is the work needed to make it capable of using 100 octane 100% of the time.

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?

To fit Merlins would have needed modified/strengthened wings, so it seems doubtful that the Whirlwind could have carried a pair of 1000lb bombs.

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.

 

[Shortround6]

You asked for capabilities, not design specifications.

and here is a big point of contention. The Whirlwind was stuck at pretty much is original design specification. It was not allowed to be developed. Perhaps it was already at it's limit, I don't know and neither do most other people.

We do know that many other aircraft were modified after their initial design specifications to increase their capabilities.

Allison powered Mustangs could NOT carry 1000lb bombs. Early P-47s could NOT carry under wing loads.
The Typhoon was NOT rated to carry 1000lb bombs until after it had some modifications, although they were minor.
Early Typhoons (both IAs and IBs) went into service with Sabre I engines, shortly replaced with Sabre IIas and by the time Typhoons were carrying 1000lb bombs the new machines were being fitted with Sabre IIB engines and many aircraft in service were refitted with the IIB engines. Many of the bomb carriers also got 4 bladed props.

By the time you get to the end of 1944/ beginning of 1945 the Typhoon has got a new canopy, new tail wheel (Bigger, solid rubber, grooved "anti-shimmy"), new brakes, more armor, is on it's 3rd MK of engine, has switched propellers and has a bigger tailplane. But hey, those had nothing to do with it's capabilities in late 1944 compared to it's capabilities in 1941 let alone as designed or specified, right?

And, by the way, you want to tell us just how many of those bomb carrying 109s at 30,000ft were shot down by Typhoons? Or any other high flying type of German intruders?

I believe that was supposed to part of the Typhoons JOB as per the original design specifications.

SO we have the Whirlwind, which is a terrible plane because with little or no development it couldn't perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications.
And we have the Typoon, which is the greatest thing since draft beer, despite being unable to perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications despite several years worth of development/new engine models.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

and here is a big point of contention. The Whirlwind was stuck at pretty much is original design specification. It was not allowed to be developed. Perhaps it was already at it's limit, I don't know and neither do most other people.

They do, if they're prepared to listen to the reasoning of those in charge of aircraft production at the time.

Allison powered Mustangs could NOT carry 1000lb bombs. Early P-47s could NOT carry under wing loads.
The Typhoon was NOT rated to carry 1000lb bombs until after it had some modifications, although they were minor.

Irrelevant, since the need wasn't foreseen, when they were first conceived, but the airframes proved their versatility by coping.

Early Typhoons (both IAs and IBs) went into service with Sabre I engines, shortly replaced with Sabre IIas and by the time Typhoons were carrying 1000lb bombs the new machines were being fitted with Sabre IIB engines and many aircraft in service were refitted with the IIB engines. Many of the bomb carriers also got 4 bladed props.

And early Spitfires and Hurricanes had different engines from later Marks, so why the complaints?

By the time you get to the end of 1944/ beginning of 1945 the Typhoon has got a new canopy, new tail wheel (Bigger, solid rubber, grooved "anti-shimmy"), new brakes, more armor, is on it's 3rd MK of engine, has switched propellers and has a bigger tailplane. But hey, those had nothing to do with it's capabilities in late 1944 compared to it's capabilities in 1941 let alone as designed or specified, right?

Wrong (and you're beginning to sound slightly hysterical.) The basic (1941) airframe did not need strengthening, in order to carry ordnance for which it had not been designed, while it's a dead certainty that the Whirlwind would.

And, by the way, you want to tell us just how many of those bomb carrying 109s at 30,000ft were shot down by Typhoons? Or any other high flying type of German intruders?

At the end of 1940? Do try to keep a sense of proportion, please. The Whirlwind was replaced, on the Westland production line, by the Spitfire, which was desperately needed to counter said high-flying German aircraft. The Typhoon was planned as a replacement for the Spitfire and Hurricane, but only succeeded in displacing the latter, which rather shows just how good the Spitfire design turned out to be.

I believe that was supposed to part of the Typhoons JOB as per the original design specifications.

The fact that the Typhoon (which, for the umpteenth time, was not a replacement for the Whirlwind) didn't live up to expectations, does not make the Whirlwind any better in its designed role as a FIGHTER.

SO we have the Whirlwind, which is a terrible plane because with little or no development it couldn't perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications.
And we have the Typoon, which is the greatest thing since draft beer, despite being unable to perform the interceptor role as per the original design specifications despite several years worth of development/new engine models.

Good thing we had the Spitfire, isn't it?

 

[Shortround6]

I don't think I am the one getting hysterical.

1st Westland built Spitfire is flown 8 July 1941,

No. 56 Squadron started getting Typhoons in Sept 1941.

Last Whirlwind comes off the line in Dec 1941 or Jan 1942 depending on source.
Now this may have been just to clear out left over parts and real production stopped sooner but the Typhoon was being introduced into service the same month the 2nd squadron to use (aside from the No 25 squadron issue and turn in) the Whirlwind was being issued it's aircraft, Sept 1941.

I would also love to see the performance specs for a Bf 109E carrying a 550lb bomb at 30,000ft. The Hurricane II and the Spitfire II both lost 3,000ft or more of service ceiling when carrying external loads (Spitfire II the 40 gal tank) and most 109Es had a ceiling several thousand feet lower than MK II Hurricanes or Spitfires to begin with. Later 109s could loose 40kph with the 550lb bomb.

The fact that the Typhoon (which, for the umpteenth time, was not a replacement for the Whirlwind) didn't live up to expectations, does not make the Whirlwind any better in its designed role as a FIGHTER

.

While the Typhoon was not a replacement for the Whirlwind (depending on source, Dowding may have thought it was but he was not the Air Ministry ) , it was viewed, at times, as you say a replacement for the Spitfire.

BTW would you care to show how the list of modifications I gave for the Typhoon was wrong? are you saying it didn't get those modification? Or that the modifications (or most of them) didn't help in it's role as a bomber/ground attack plane?

 

[Edgar Brooks]

1st Westland built Spitfire is flown 8 July 1941,

Didn't they do well, when you consider that the first 50 Mk.Is were produced from kits of parts, supplied by Supermarine, whose factory had been completely destroyed in October 1940, so they'd had to disperse, and set up from scratch, in 29 different locations in and around Southampton.

No. 56 Squadron started getting Typhoons in Sept 1941.
Last Whirlwind comes off the line in Dec 1941 or Jan 1942 depending on source.
Now this may have been just to clear out left over parts and real production stopped sooner but the Typhoon was being introduced into service the same month the 2nd squadron to use (aside from the No 25 squadron issue and turn in) the Whirlwind was being issued it's aircraft, Sept 1941.

I really don't understand this obsessive desire to tie the Whirlwind to the Typhoon. The Whirlwind had shown that it was not up to the job in mid-1940; all of the Typhoon's shortcomings were yet to be discovered.

I would also love to see the performance specs for a Bf 109E carrying a 550lb bomb at 30,000ft. The Hurricane II and the Spitfire II both lost 3,000ft or more of service ceiling when carrying external loads (Spitfire II the 40 gal tank) and most 109Es had a ceiling several thousand feet lower than MK II Hurricanes or Spitfires to begin with. Later 109s could loose 40kph with the 550lb bomb.

That, unfortunately, is one of the areas in which we differ widely; I'm not interested in theoretical "what-if" paperwork, but prefer to read about what actually happened, and pilots reported, before the end of the Battle, that they were having to climb above 30,000' to get at the 109s (not forgetting, of course, that they preferred to attack from above.) If you feel that, in spite of all the reports to the contrary, the Whirlwind was capable of attaining that height, then further discussion is pointless.

BTW would you care to show how the list of modifications I gave for the Typhoon was wrong? are you saying it didn't get those modification? Or that the modifications (or most of them) didn't help in it's role as a bomber/ground attack plane?

Once again, I fail to see the relevance of this; by the time the Typhoon was 100% a ground attack aircraft (and they were still being used as escorts until just before D-day,) production of the Whirlwind had long ceased, and was never going to resume. Funnily enough, though, in all that list of mods, I didn't see any mention of the wings needing to be strengthened.

 

[stona]

I'm just re-reading Tom Neil's 'Gun Button to Fire'. Throughout the period following what we now call the Battle of Britain he constantly bemoans having to climb to altitudes of 25,000-30,000ft at which he nearly froze to death in his unheated Hurricane cockpit. Worse, the performance of the Hurricane at these altitudes was very poor, plagued by oil freezing problems and he describes Bf 109s, some carrying bombs, leaving con-trails several thousand feet above him. The Hurricanes could not reach the Bf 109s, let alone engage them. What chance a Whirlwind. The Bf 109s usually, though not always, declined combat.

One of the many examples he gives:

"We were sent off shortly before 2 p.m. and climbed away to the south until we were over our familiar stamping grounds in Kent at heights varying between 18 and 25,000 feet. It was blindingly bright , devastatingly cold, and a day made for Huns. Masses of them around, they chalked their presence above us in wide, icy curves while we sat impotently beneath and noted their every suspicious move. While they were contrailing everything was fine. It was when the trails stopped, which could be anywhere and at any height, that was when our problems were likely to arise."

Cheers

Steve

 

[Edgar Brooks]

I can add from "Blood, Sweat and Courage" (41 Squadron history) the words of Fl Lt Norman Ryder, flying the Spitfire I, "We were the first squadron to get VHF, and with the higher standard of communication we were assigned to the higher levels of operation, and therefore were pitted against the high flying cover of the 109s.......on several occasions I led 41 Sqn up to 36,000 feet - quite high with no body heating, so we all donned 3 or 4 pairs of gloves, still, frostbite was not uncommon."
Sgt. Plt. Leslie Carter (22-10-40,) "Up on a flap as rearguard at 35,000 feet with hood frozen partly open. Had to break away eventually landed in fog with no hands at Rochford. Terribly painful and cannot move fingers."

 

[stona]

Neil again. The chapter in his book following the BoB is actually entitled 'An October of 109s'.

'We had a long trip over the Channel the following morning, at 28,000 feet and freezing to death. I had seldom felt so cold, not so much my body as my hands and feet, which, after thirty minutes or so, ceased absolutely to function...
Back on the ground someone said that, due to the adiabatic lapse, the temperature at 30,000 feet was about minus thirty degrees centigrade, someone else adding that was outside the cockpit; inside it was a damn sight colder. Why must our aircraft be so wretchedly cold? We bet the Huns' weren't.'

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

Double Post

 

[Mad Dog]

The capabilities of the Westland Whirlwind can be judged by the combat reports from 263Sq for Warhead 6 on the 6th August 1941. Four Whirlwinds, led by S/Ldr Donaldson (one of the three famous Donaldson brothers) went looking for a tanker ship previously sighted near Cape de le Hague. They found instead a gaggle of ME109s, approximately twenty, and a furious dogfight commenced. Despite facing odds of 5-to-1, the Whirlwinds shot down two MEs and damaged a third before Spitfires turned up to even the odds. All four Whirlwinds returned safely to base. As late as 1943, when the Spitfire and Hurricane models of 1940 had been consigned to training schools, the Whirlwinds were still flying front-line missions over the Channel, and on the 28th January 1943, F/O Musgrave of 137Sq shot down an FW190A-4 of 8./JG26. That wasn't the only time Whirlies tangled with FW190s. In 1942, when the Spitfire Vs were avoiding combats with FW190s, the Whirlwinds were used for chasing FW190 intruders! In one of those encounters over Pegwell Bay, two Whirlies met a pair FW190s head-on and, in the resulting dogfight, managed to damage one without taking any hits themselves!

 

[stona]

The capabilities of the Westland Whirlwind can be judged by the combat reports from 263Sq for Warhead 6 on the 6th August 1941. Four Whirlwinds, led by S/Ldr Donaldson (one of the three famous Donaldson brothers) went looking for a tanker ship previously sighted near Cape de le Hague. They found instead a gaggle of ME109s, approximately twenty, and a furious dogfight commenced. Despite facing odds of 5-to-1, the Whirlwinds shot down two MEs and damaged a third before Spitfires turned up to even the odds. All four Whirlwinds returned safely to base.

The two tankers had been spotted by Donaldson, three miles of Cherbourg, as he returned from the second raid that day against the airfield at Maupertus. On the first raid Coghlan, Rudland and Brackley, led by Mason failed to find the target.
Four Whirlwinds, escorted by thirteen Spitfires of 118 Squadron (there's a clue here) were sent to find and attack the tankers. The Spitfires didn't 'turn up'. Despite the claims of both the Whirlwind and Spitfire pilots just one Bf 109 (of Erg.JG2) was shot down.
Following the action the four Whirlwinds did not all return safely to base, neither were they unscathed.
P6983 (Brackley) was forced to land at Hurn on one engine, damaging the aircraft further when he hit an 'airfield obstruction'.
The other three landed at Ibsley but P7001 (Donaldson) and P7002 (Brackley) were flown back to Westland for repair to combat damage.
So, one did not manage to make it back to Ibsley, and of the three that did, only one was unscathed and operational. In other words, following this action, 75% of the attacking Whirlwinds were U/S, though at least all the pilots survived. Nonetheless, the squadron at the time, and proponents of the Whirlwind today, often cite this day as one of the type's successes.

I could easily pick raids which didn't go nearly as well as this one to make a counter argument, but selectively quoting details of individual raids is not really a way to assess an aircraft. It does help if the full details are quoted though

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

As usually the truth probably falls somewhere in the middle of the two camps.
The Whirlwind usually operated at low altitudes (targets being at ground or sea level, in this case ships) so if you have a low flying "strike" element it only makes sense to have a higher flying top cover or escort. Especially if the strike element is composed of only four aircraft.
How well would four Spitfires have fared if attacked by a large number of 109s that had superior altitude?
It is quite possible that the whirlwinds never got a hit on the German planes. It may very well have been a Spitfire that scored the victory although we don't know the number of German planes damaged.
Damage to the Whirlwinds also seems a bit odd. 2 of them damaged to the point of being called non-operational but not so damaged they couldn't be flown to the factory? Granted a transfer flight would impose much less stress/problems on a plane than a combat mission.

I am a big fan of the Whirlwind but am willing to concede that it did have some flaws and not all combat reports are 100% accurate (same can be said for many other types). However it also seems that a lot of unjustified criticism was aimed at the Whirlwind in the early part of the war and repeated later (again, like some other aircraft). What doesn't help is that the Typhoon was such a dog for so long (in large part because of the engine) that it sometimes is difficult to sort through what might be political bickering/sniping between a few different camps.

 

[stona]

The Spitfire and Whirlwind pilots claimed four Bf 109s. I think that Brackley, flying a Whirlwind, was the most likely victor as he, in his combat report, claims to have seen the aircraft at which he shot dive into the sea.

"...the first enemy aircraft broke away across my nose, but it was gone before I could fire. As the second broke away, also across my nose, I fired a 2.5 second barrage and I saw it go straight into the sea."

The other Whirlwind claimant (Rudland) based his claim on the basis that having taken a more or less head on shot at a Bf 109 which was pursuing a Whirlwind, he subsequently sighted the Whirlwind but not the Bf 109, which is tenuous at best.

Westland seems to have been the principle repair organisation for Whirlwinds. Why that was I don't know. Maybe they were so few in number that no independent repair organisation for anything other than the most minimal unit repairs existed.

I saw in another thread a discussion of the Whirlwind's range, some of the numbers proposed were somewhat surprising. Revised radius of action restrictions were set by Fighter Command for all its aircraft in August 1941. For the Whirlwind this was set at 120 miles, the same as the Hurricane.
Anyone who thinks that is too low needs to borrow a Tardis and take it up with Fighter Command in 1941, not me

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

Why didnt the RAF build something like the FW187 I mean that could do 440mph at 40,000ft had a radius of 500miles and turn inside a Sopwith Camel.

 

[GregP]

Bactrian or Dromedary Camel?

 

[pbehn]

The dromedary is a camel with a powered turret.

 

[Shortround6]

Westland seems to have been the principle repair organisation for Whirlwinds. Why that was I don't know. Maybe they were so few in number that no independent repair organisation for anything other than the most minimal unit repairs existed.

I saw in another thread a discussion of the Whirlwind's range, some of the numbers proposed were somewhat surprising. Revised radius of action restrictions were set by Fighter Command for all its aircraft in August 1941. For the Whirlwind this was set at 120 miles, the same as the Hurricane.
Anyone who thinks that is too low needs to borrow a Tardis and take it up with Fighter Command in 1941, not me

Cheers

Steve

Given the small number of Whirlwinds built it may very well have been more efficient to repair them at the factory if possible rather than set up an independent warehouse and repair facility at another location.

I have no trouble with the 120 mile radius. While the Whirlwind carried more fuel than a Hurricane or Spitfire (internally) it was feeding two engines and there was no cross feed from one wing to the opposite engine. With one engine gone you had what was left in the fuel tank/s on that side of the plane to get home and the tanks on one side held less gas on take-off than the internal tanks on a Spit or Hurricane. Put that together with the poor pitch range on the propellers and the lack of feathering ability and while a Whirlwind would fly further on one engine than single engine plane would on no engine, it's ability to fly long distances on one engine was an illusion.
Maybe the Whirlwind could have been rated at 140-150 mile radius but why bother. I like it but with only 2 squadrons the extra 20-30 mile radius doesn't change the target area that much and just causes confusion. They had only two squadrons of Hurricanes doing the same sort of missions for a large part of the Whirlwinds service and if you are using Spitfires for top cover (escort) for both then trying to plan coordinated missions or substituting one squadron for another gets too complicated for the limited results.

A MK II Whirlwind would be a different story
But that is what it if vs what was.
BTW what was the radius of the Typhoon without drop tanks?

 

[stona]

I don't have Fighter Command's figure for the Typhoon. The figure given for its maximum range is usually 680 miles. It's combat radius would have been substantially less than half of that.
Cheers
Steve

 

[pbehn]

I think much of the discussion about the whirlwind is a fantasy based on having the dH Hornet in service in 1940, given unlimited resources and many changes in design the Whirlwind could have been a winner, but it wasnt and in reality could never have been.

 

[Shortround6]

My own fantasy Whirlwind is much more modest.
1. Belt feed cannon with 110-120rpg (since pneumatic powered magazines were trialed with that capacity during 1940-41 it doesn't seem that big a stretch)
2. Props with more pitch change and hopefully full feathering for better single engine performance. Something like the props on a Lockheed Electra Airliner in 1938
3. Better exhaust system worth 5-10mph. especially at altitude.
4. Small fuselage tank/s. more to make cross feeding easier than to really extend range much.
5. Better air intake. Might help performance at higher altitudes (say 15-20,000ft?)

Please note no Merlin engines above suggestions could be done using the existing engines.

6. Under fuselage hard point for bomb or drop tank (feeding fuselage tank), here is the extra range. May require 9lbs boost or more for take-off? depends on size of the airfields.
7. New engine controls. although harder to run/rig than the hydraulic ones. might not fit?
8. Rectangular radiators instead of 3 circular ones on each side. Roughly 20% more cooling capacity.

Still no Merlins

9. Decide it it is going to be a fighter or a ground pounder and develop the Peregrine accordingly. A single speed supercharger scaled from the Merlin 46 would be good for about 1100hp at 14,000ft. For ground pounding a Peregrine version of the Merlin 30/32 might have been very handy.
10. Give the bomber version/s streamlined bomb racks.

Please note fantasy engines are single speed, single stage engines. Not a big stretch and might not require new engine block castings like a 2 speed engine might. Doesn't require longer space to fit engine/s either.
You aren't going to get a DH Hornet in 1940/41 but you might get a much better substitute for the Typhoon in 1941-42-43.
Whatever problems the Peregrine had they pale to insignificance compared to the Sabre's troubles. However the Sabre's troubles were in the future when the Whirlwinds fate was decided.