Westland Whirlwind Fighter
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westland Whirlwind Fighter
Why was the Westland Whirlwind a failure?
Was is because the engines (RR Peregrines)were unreliable? The aircraft certainly looked right.
Was is because the engines (RR Peregrines)were unreliable? The aircraft certainly looked right.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have answered your own question Bus.
The Peregine was very unreliable and did not produce the power that RR said it would.. .RR decided to ditch it in favour of developing the Merlin and thus left the Whirlwind without an engine.
Great pity because, like you, I think it looked good. What a pity they didn't try putting the Merlin in it.
The Peregine was very unreliable and did not produce the power that RR said it would.. .RR decided to ditch it in favour of developing the Merlin and thus left the Whirlwind without an engine.
Great pity because, like you, I think it looked good. What a pity they didn't try putting the Merlin in it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was admiring both the Whirlwind and the Wessex at Duxford in the last few weeks. There is a litte stairs where you can climb up to the level of the Whirlwind cockpit and look in at the skipper's instruments and yoke - the original minimalist instrumentation. The Royal Navy Wessex looks fab too and very neat with the rotors all stowed away as if on deck. One query: why is there an Irish harp painted on the right side of the Wessex?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom, I havn't been to Duxford for some time but I suspect you are referring to a different Whirlwind.
The one that Bus was asking about is the circa 1938 design of a single seat twin engined fighter for the RAF.
The one that Bus was asking about is the circa 1938 design of a single seat twin engined fighter for the RAF.
Pilots' Pal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henry,. .I've always liked the look of the Whirlwind. There is a picture of one in this month's Aeroplane. The caption said it was only operated by two squadrons.. .Another asthetic winner has to be the Beaufighter, followed by the Northrop P61 (Black Widow).
Not Manchester
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Salford
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but don't forget the De Havilland Hornet. A classic example of form following function.
I was always fond of the A-26 Invader, myself, a very "muscular" and purposeful-looking beastie, especially the "up-gunned" version that flew in the Korean War. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I was always fond of the A-26 Invader, myself, a very "muscular" and purposeful-looking beastie, especially the "up-gunned" version that flew in the Korean War. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern UK
Age: 63
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus429
Check out Harald Penrose's Autobiography "Adventure with Fate" ISBN 0906393361 Whirlwind development testing is covered in Chapter 7. He hints that Merlins would have tranformed the aeroplane thereby extending their operational life.
Wunper <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Check out Harald Penrose's Autobiography "Adventure with Fate" ISBN 0906393361 Whirlwind development testing is covered in Chapter 7. He hints that Merlins would have tranformed the aeroplane thereby extending their operational life.
Wunper <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Westland P9 Whirlwind was designed to F.37/35, a requirement for a single seat fighter with 4 20mm cannon, 320+mph at 15,000'. It first flew in 11 October 1938 showed superior performance to a Spitfire I, however Peregrine production was reduced to allow production of more Merlins (ironically as the Peregrine was used in case the newer Merlin had production problems). Unfortunately its main role was seen as a night fighter, but by the time production models were ready (May 1940) the Blenheim had proved the effectiveness of airbourne radar - impossible in a single seater. The first two production a/c (after 2 prototypes) were tested by No 25 Squadron, 263 being the first operational squadron, however delays in Peregrine production meant they only had 8 by October 1940. They operated from Exeter and St Eval on offensive fighter and convoy escort, being joined by No 137 Squadron from September 1941. The Whirlwind was then converted to a Fighter-Bomber and could carry 2 500 or 250 lb bombs. It was very successful in offensive sweeps over France, but only 114 production a/c were produced by January 1942. Both squadrons were re-equipped in 1943 (137 in June, 263 in December). There was a subsequent development (the Welkin) with Merlin engines, pressurised cabin and long span wings as a high altitude interceptor but this never entered service due to engine problems and a low dive speed - plus the fact that German high altitude bombers did not see service.
Running the engine exhausts through the fuel tanks to keep them within the wing to decrease drag was also a really sharp idea <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
However, if memory serves me right, the man who did this was also responsible for the EE Canberra & Lightning. So he's forgiven then
However, if memory serves me right, the man who did this was also responsible for the EE Canberra & Lightning. So he's forgiven then
It was Petter that designed the Whirlwind, Canberra and Lightning wasn't it? Well not designed every bit, but you know what I mean. (Attempts to head off pedants at the pass)
Fitting the Whirlwind with Merlins would undoubtedly have 'transformed' it - the Peregrine was blessed with but 885 hp (when working), but even the Mk II Spitfire's Merlin XII produced 1150 hp. And therein lay the rub; when the nation needed as many fighters as it could get, the Whirlwind would have needed to be twice as good as anything else to merit twice as many precious Merlins. Which it wasn't. Shame though.
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>
[ 11 February 2002: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>
I have a vague recollection of reading an autobiography where the author was sent by Beaverbrook (?) to test fly the Whirlwind and report on its performance. He found it a good aircraft but thought it did not proceed due to the cost of production v that of the single engine fighters. Can anyone remember who the author would have been?
When I were a lad, I lived near RAF Merryfield - upon which Westlands had a works hangar. They did various things there such as work on the vectored thrust Meteor and work on USAF Sabres - but I definitely remeber being told that 'there was a Whirlwind behind the hangar'...that would have been in the early '50s, but it was not a helicopter. Was it really there - or was it a Welkin or something else? I don't think that it was a Wyvern although there were plenty of those around the aerodrome and at Yeovilton.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what is the rationale behind a 'twin-single' like the Whirlwind?
. .Compare to a 'single-single', the weight must go up (extra engine). .The fuel capacity must double to maintain parity of range/endurance with the single-single - which means more weight.. .The speed will increase but not double so there is only a slight advantage there.. .Airframe will not double in size or weight, but must increase to cope with extra engine, fuel, stronger undercarriage. . .Payload capacity will probably increase.. .Extra engine will mean single-engine redundancy.
I can't think of any other 'twin-single' except the P-38 and I don't know effective it was compared to the P-51 & P-47, in terms of kill ratio, as they were used in similar combat environments.
. .Compare to a 'single-single', the weight must go up (extra engine). .The fuel capacity must double to maintain parity of range/endurance with the single-single - which means more weight.. .The speed will increase but not double so there is only a slight advantage there.. .Airframe will not double in size or weight, but must increase to cope with extra engine, fuel, stronger undercarriage. . .Payload capacity will probably increase.. .Extra engine will mean single-engine redundancy.
I can't think of any other 'twin-single' except the P-38 and I don't know effective it was compared to the P-51 & P-47, in terms of kill ratio, as they were used in similar combat environments.
Who has control 4 x 20mm cannon in the snout must have been an incentive. Don't forget, the original design was started when designers were struggling to get .303" machine guns in the wings of the Spitfire.
As a general statement, I would imagine that the larger airframe would allow more than double the fuel capacity of a comparably engined single engined fighter (if you get my drift). However, very few twin fighters could live with a single even if they did have the range to get them to the fight! Me110 springs to mind here.
The P-38's were effective in the Far East but they cherry picked their targets, swooping down from altitude, a quick burst then run using their superior speed. In the European theatre where the Fw190's could catch them, they weren't very successful as fighters. Great fighter-bombers though.
As a general statement, I would imagine that the larger airframe would allow more than double the fuel capacity of a comparably engined single engined fighter (if you get my drift). However, very few twin fighters could live with a single even if they did have the range to get them to the fight! Me110 springs to mind here.
The P-38's were effective in the Far East but they cherry picked their targets, swooping down from altitude, a quick burst then run using their superior speed. In the European theatre where the Fw190's could catch them, they weren't very successful as fighters. Great fighter-bombers though.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bus, forget that twin-engined failure, pop round my place when you have a spare minute and have a look at my wallpaper, featuring the very successful RRSED Gnome powered VVIP transporter - the Westland Whirlwind HCC10. She was ugly, slow and could vibrate the teeth out of your head but we all loved the decrepit old beast. I've no idea which commie b*stard came up with the Whirly as an ideal VVIP carrier, but unbelievably thats how they saw out their days. Our Northolt machines had seen active service in Malaya with 103 and 110, XS763 is preserved in the USA although she's in a sorry state with a crap camoflage scheme that no operational Whirly ever wore. I'd buy her back and do her up properly if I had the cash. Anyone willing to donate a few dollars?
They don't make 'em like that any more. Sob, sob...
**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema
They don't make 'em like that any more. Sob, sob...
**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original P-38 design was to meet an Army Air Corps requirement fora point defense fighter to defend cities and other potential targets from bombers. The criteria was time to climb to intercept and putting enough weight of metal of guns in the right place to shoot down a bomber. As it was not thought many would be needed (maybe a couple hundred at most) the YP-38 was designed to be essentially hand built. The YP was flown from Burbank to set a cross country speed record (which it did) but landed on a golf course in New York and was totaled (pilot walked away). The Air Corps said "great" upped the order quantity to a whole whole bunch and set Lockheed production back a year or two.