Best Twin-engined fighter

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Stalling speed, power off, 18000lb
u/c and flaps up: 105kts
u/c and flaps down: 95-100kts
power on under normal approach conditions: 90-95kts

Do the math 95 knots times 1.3 = 123 knots

[AL Schlageter]

Just posting what the manual says.

[FLYBOYJ]

Understand - someone might of determined that the aircraft was stable enough on final to beyond the 1.3Vso rule.

[kool kitty89]

Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus? (though I think the taurus wasn't supercharged and was heavier, it was more compact though.)
Does anyone know the diameter of the taurus?

The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37 was also designed around the Peregrine, but its prototype used Taurus engines, so maby it would have worked.

As said previously, what the Whirlwind really needed for escort was the ability to cary drop-tanks on the wing racks. I dont think it would have been that difficult to modify the wings with the necessary plumbing, so I wonder why they didn't...

[kool kitty89]

I still think it would have been cool to see a Whirlwind powered by a couple Welland or Derwent I engines. It was a pretty clean a/c even by 1944 standards, and with the narrower/higher aspect ratio wings and the nacelle placement, I donn't think it would have had the compressibillity problems of the Meteor. (Nacelles about the same as the meteor's but with the different wing junction and more extended infront of the wing would have made the airflow transition smoother) Though it would have lacked the fuel space and development potential of the Meteor, ther were a decent quantity of retired Whirlwinds in decent condition by the advent of the Welland and since the engine was of similar size and weight as the Peregrine the airframe would just need a necelle redesign and refitting. Would have certainly been a good intrim measure for the meteor, instead of the Mk I or early F. III. (say it would be used for about 1-2 years untill the bugs in the Meteor had been worked out and Derwent II's or IV's could be fitted in the longer nacelles of the late model F. III in early 1945)

Though maby this is a better topic for the "what plane (any side) would you develop further" thread...

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

The Whirlwind's competitor the Gloster F.9/37..

Neither competed, for the same specification. Both were designed to different specifications. The Whirlwind won the tender for specification F.37/35, for "a single-seat, day-and-night fighter equiped with 4 20mm cannon." The competition consisted of the Supermarine 313, Bristol 153 and a Hawker project.

As it's name states, the Gloster design, after a convoluted history, competed for specification F.9/37 requesting a tender for an interceptor with "very heavy fixed armament". But by mid 1940 the Bristol Beaufighter had been selected for production. Gloster also failed once again, using the F.9/37 with Merlins, for specification F.18/40 requesting a "Merlin-engined day-and-night interceptor with fixed guns".

[Theo]

P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.

Adolf Galland

[kool kitty89]

Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Still is there any way lighweight radials would have workeb in the Whirlwind, even close-coweled and fan-cooled as I mentioned above?

Lightweight radial? That's almost an oxymoron...

[Kurfürst]

Not that much, radials and inline do not weight that much differently. The bare engines yes, but considering the numerous cooling stuff the inlines require as extra... they are almost the same weight.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Not that much, radials and inline do not weight that much differently. The bare engines yes, but considering the numerous cooling stuff the inlines require as extra... they are almost the same weight.

Look at the weights of radials that put out above 1200 hp. There's a curve and it goes up drastically with horsepower. Low HP radials are the ones for good weight to power ratios....

[kool kitty89]

I'll say it again: Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus?

Though the kestrels would have underpowered her a bit at 745 hp compared to the 885 hp Peregrine, at least it was available in numbers though, unlike the Peregrine. (yes, I know the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel)

The Mercury and Pegasus were no heavier than the Peregrine (okay the Pegasus was 40 lbs heavier, but the Merc was lighter though), and power output, was similar, in the Pegasus, higher.

The Miles Master originally used a kestrel but was redesigned to use a Mercury later. The Gloster F.9/37 was designed for Peregrines, but the Taurus worked for it in testing.

The taurus was a bit heavier than the Peregrine (about 160 lbs I think), but the power almost made up for it and it was still close enough in weight to not need structureal reenforsement. I think it was more compact than the Pegasus or Mercury, though.

Here's the weights I've got: Kestrel: 955 lb Peregrine: 1,140 lb Mercury: 1,065 lb Pegasus: 1180 lb Taurus: 1300 lb.

Power ratings (max): Kestrel: 745 hp (Kestrel XVI)(though one sourse said the XXX could make 1050 hp, another lower than the XVI at 715 hp)
Peregrine: 885 hp Mercury: 995 hp (100 octane), 840 (87 octane) Pegasus: 1065 hp (100 octane), 1000 hp (87 octane) Taurus: 1065 hp (87 octane)

The Pegasus is 55.3" in diameter, the Mercury is 51.5", and the Taurus: 50.5"
The Kestrel was 24.4" wide by 35" tall and 72.35" long.

Anyone know the the demensions for the Peregrine?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I'll say it again: Would it have been possible to use Kestrels on the Whirlwind? Or close coweled, fan cooled radials like the Mercury, Pegasus, or Taurus?

Though the kestrels would have underpowered her a bit, at least it was available in numbers, unlike the Peregrine. (yes, I know the Peregrine was a development of the Kestrel)

The Mercury and Pegasus were no heavier than the Peregrine (okay the Pegasus was 40 lbs heavier, but the Merc was lighter though), and power output, was similar, in the Pegasus, higher.

The taurus was a bit heavier than the Peregrine (about 160 lbs I think), but the power made up for it and it was still close enough in weight to not need structureal reenforsement. I think it was more compact than the Pegasus or Mercury, though.

Anione know the diameter of the Taurus, or the dementions for the Peregrine for that matter?

Kitty, understand this...

Although we saw a lot of engine swapping and different engine configurations on many WW2 aircraft, engine swap outs for the sake of better performance don't always work, especially on multi engine aircraft. Accountability has to be made for airframe construction, stress loading, fuel consumption and maintainability. I've seen engine mods that added 50 hp to an aircraft and in time started to destroy the airframe. Unless the engine is designed for a specific engine in mind, engine retrofits as an afterthought don't always work.

[Njaco]

Thanks all for propping up my contention that the Whirlwind coulda been a contender. From what I read (and you've all added much more) I still think its a sharp aircraft.

[kool kitty89]

Then use the Mercury or the Kestrel, they had less hp (only slightly for the Merc) and the kestrel was verry similar to the Peregrine, though a bit smaller and lighter. You could use the Pegasus and have it limited at low altitude to not overstress the airframe, and it would still improve altitude performance since it could be run higher at altitude to produce the same hp as the Peregrine's max. To be clearer, likit the engine so it doesn't exceed 850 hp in normal flight but allow higher power ratings for altitude (which deminishes power anyway) and WEP/boost.

But that said, if jets were put on it (in the pipedream I mentioned earlier), theres a good chance of overstressing it. Does anyone know how strong the Whirlwind's airframe was?