Westland P.9 Whirlwind (1 Viewer)

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

You're all concentrating on the wrong end of the production line; one of the deciding factors against the Whirlwind was the inability of the company to build more than one per week. If "wastage" exceeded that rate, Squadrons would become non-operational in no time. It really doesn't matter what plans the company put forward regarding engines; with no airframes it was a non-starter.
Add to that, the Peregrine was cleared for 12lb boost and 100 octane for emergency use, only, and the Ministry said that full 100 octane rating would need a new Mark of Peregrine altogether.
One Whirlwind with Merlin XX = two Spitfire II or Hurricane II without, and Rolls-Royce's capacity would not stretch any further.
Edgar
 
Seeing that, from winter 1940/41, Merlin was mounted in many planes that were requiring 2-4 each, the availability of Merlins looks like non-issue from that point? By 1942 US production was up running anyway, and UK itself was out-producing Germany, Japan Italy combined, already in 1941 (total planes produced).

The continued production of Hurricanes (from 1942 on) doesn't seem like such a bright idea, too.
 
Talk of 1942 is pointless; Wilfrid Freeman killed the Whirlwind in May, 1940. By July, 1941, Westland were producing the Spitfire I; by December 1941 it was the Spitfire V.
Mocking the Hurricane, in hindsight, is very easy, but a single Merlin XX, in the IIc, carried exactly the same firepower as two would have done on the Whirlwind, and Hawker, Gloster, and the Canadian Car Foundry could produce more than one per week; Luftwaffe pilots might have been contemptuous of the Hurricane, but I doubt that the Wehrmacht, Italian, and Japanese armies enjoyed being on the receiving end of four cannon and a battery of rockets, to say nothing of the 40mm cannon on the IId.
Edgar
 
Let me see if I have this right.

Westland can only build ONE Whirlwind per week.

Westland built 1373 Lysanders ? starting in 1938?

Westland built over 2000 Spitfires and Seafires.

Westland built center sections for the Ablemarle production scheme.

Westland built 18 Barracudas before getting out of the production scheme due to other work.

Westland did large amounts of Spitfire and Seafire repair work.

Westland Did a large amount of the work done in England on the Curtiss Hawk, Tomahawk and Warhawk in regards to armor and armament.

Westland was working on the Welkin from 1940 on.
 
Here is an interesting quote regarding the Peregrine and the Whirlwind from the RRHT book "Rolls-Royce - The pursuit of excellence" by Alec Harvey-Baillie and Michael Evans...

"While it lacked high altitude performance it proved to be a formidable FGA aircraft when the Peregrines were rated at 880 hp on 100 octane fuel. Contrary to popular view the Peregrine was not unreliable. Its two main problems were rapidly tackled. Main engine joint failures were overcome by deleting the joint washers and using jointing compound, while bowstring failures of end cylinder holding down studs were cured by reduced anti-vibration collar clearances.

Some of the stories of unreliability spring from difficulty in managing the operation of the radiator shutters during taxiing, take-off and initial climb. Westland had linked the radiator shutter operation with that of the flaps to keep the radiator shutters open, when flaps were not needed for flight. In early operations a number of engines were overheated because the system was not fully understood, and evidence of this is in the pilot's notes which were extensively amended."

In "British Secret Projects Fighters and bombers 1935 - 1950", Tony Butttttler suggests that the Whirlwind was verging on obsolescence "...at least in official eyes". It is also interesting to consider that another twin engined fighter prototype the Gloster G.39 was not progressed with beyond the prototype stage despite its potential. I suspect part of the issue was rationalising the industry as a whole; the introduction of Beaverbrook as Minister of Aircraft production was controversial, but emphasised the need for expediency and for a concentration of types that were required in large numbers at that time, thus the emergency production programme of only three bomber and two fighter types introduced in mid-1940.

Another potential reason behind Whirlwind production and development not being continued with is the obvious success of both the Beaufighter and Mosquito as multi-role aircraft. The Whirlwind did not offer the same development potential as a twin-engined machine. Much redevelopment would have been required for it to become a more useful design, especially since Rolls discontinued the Peregrine.

A possibility as to why the Whirlwind was not continued as a bomber escort is because the British never really concentrated any effort on developing one. Britain most certainly had airframes that could have been redesigned to do the job, but Bomber Command switched to night raids, which meant the role was not explored further.

The Hurricane is an interesting case regarding an "obsolescent" design soldiering on, and perhaps practicality plays a part in its case. In 1940 it was a lot easier to build than the Spitfire, not only that, it was a lot easier to repair and there were MUs (Maintenance Units) across the UK that dedicated their efforts to repair and overhaul of battle-damaged Hurris. It was a rugged design able to withstand considerable punishment and could be easily maintained in the field; it also offered reasonable performance while fitted with formidable armament. Ceasing production for a more modern type would have introduced delays, particularly as the war wore on.

This partially explains why the Halifax continued in production, when it was a dog from the beginning. This, and official heel digging - Harris was dead set against the Halifax (and Stirling) in favour of Lancaster production by both Shorts and HP and let his feelings known in no uncertain terms on a frequent basis to Portal and whomever was in earshot. Pertal opening his mail in the morning; "Oh balls, it's another rant from Harris..." Phone rings, "No... we are not going to stop building the Halifax in favour of Lancs... yes, I got your last 2 letters..."

There was even a suggestion that production of heavy bombers should stop altogether and that the Mosquito become the mainstay of Bomber Command's offensive against Germany; but I digress...
 
2157 Spitfires/Seafires (Vickers' figures,) in 5.5 years = 7.5 per week; 1427 Lysanders in 4(?) years = almost 7 per week. All this at a time when factories were working day/night 12-hour shifts, or 60+ hours each week per worker.
As a comparison, in roughly the same timescale Castle Bromwich produced 11,781 Spitfires/Seafires, or more than 40 per week. Westland were a small company, so production was not fast; the promise of 1 Whirlwind per week was made by three Westland representatives (including the M.D. Mr.Petter) directly to Dowding.
 
Initial Spitfire production was so rapid that Westland was given a contract for 250 in 1939 I believe? It wasn't carried through at the time but in 1939/40 many British companies were small. Castle Bromwich was specially built (as the largest aircraft factory in England at the time) to make Spitfires and initial management so mucked things up that they were about a year behind schedule. Non-delivery of Spitfires almost caused the Spitfire program to be shut down in the late 30s.

As far as the Hurricane goes, it was a very useful aircraft in 1942 even if no longer a first rate fighter in any theater. By 1944 it was an anachronism, much like the P-40. Useful for giving to allies to fulfill aid agreements.
 
Westland's first Spitfire contract (B124305/40) was dated August, 1940, after the decision to finish with the Whirlwind. The first 50 were the Mk.I, and there's a suspicion that (like Castle Bromwich's first "production") these were from kits of parts, supplied by Supermarine.
Hurricane production finished, in the U.K., in 1943, but the "anachronism" was still supporting the British Fourteenth Army, in Burma "cab-rank" sorties, in 1945.
 
Last edited:
Talk of 1942 is pointless; Wilfrid Freeman killed the Whirlwind in May, 1940. By July, 1941, Westland were producing the Spitfire I; by December 1941 it was the Spitfire V.

Then I reckon it's pointless to talk about Merlin XX, too ;)

Mocking the Hurricane, in hindsight, is very easy, but a single Merlin XX, in the IIc, carried exactly the same firepower as two would have done on the Whirlwind,

In my posts it's mostly the praise for Hurricane, actually.
Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.

and Hawker, Gloster, and the Canadian Car Foundry could produce more than one per week; Luftwaffe pilots might have been contemptuous of the Hurricane, but I doubt that the Wehrmacht, Italian, and Japanese armies enjoyed being on the receiving end of four cannon and a battery of rockets, to say nothing of the 40mm cannon on the IId.
Edgar

Even during the dark days of 1940, RAF was not short of planes, but pilots. A trained pilot sitting in an under-performed is just a waste, a way for Axis aces to rack up the kills.
I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare.

....
Hurricane production finished, in the U.K., in 1942, but the "anachronism" was still supporting the British Fourteenth Army, in Burma "cab-rank" sorties, in 1945.

Wasn't the production of the Hurricane IV started in spring 1943?
 
Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.
I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare.
The Hurricane had to remain in production, due to the prolonged delays with the Tornado Typhoon.
Performance, yes, but not range; the Whirlwind may have carried 134 gallons, but that was 67 per engine, while the Hurricane II carried 94 usable gallons, for a single engine. The Whirlwind II would have carried 194 gallons, still less, per engine, than the Hurricane.
 
That sounds for me that pilots were flying an under-performer just in order to have Hawker build something, in thousands that is.

(assuming Whirly II was to have Peregrines still)
By choosing 'power egg' engine configuration, the inner wing is free for a fuel tank - doubling the 134 imp gals of Whirly I. That would require some rehash of the on-board equipment (relocating radio further back, for example) - nothing new with planes receiving different/updated engines.
Or install them like Spitfire's, so the CoG is not affected.
 

Attachments

  • whirly cut.JPG
    whirly cut.JPG
    150.3 KB · Views: 84
That sounds for me that pilots were flying an under-performer just in order to have Hawker build something, in thousands that is.
Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle. The Maltese were delighted to see Gladiators, then Hurricanes, doing their best to defend them. The Typhoon had already started production, in fact the first Squadron was formed in September 1941, but had been found to be unsuitable for overseas use.
By choosing 'power egg' engine configuration, the inner wing is free for a fuel tank - doubling the 134 imp gals of Whirly I.
Power egg, or not, liquid-cooled engines still need radiators.
 
Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.

Not exactly true, though I do agree the hurricane was retained in production after it had passed obsolescence. In the med, the hurri was able to deal with most oppsition quite effectively. It generally enjoyed the upper hand over RA fighters until the second half of 1942. it was reckoned, on balance to be "about equal" to the primary italian fighter the Mc 202, because of that superior firepower. In the med, the primary frontline fighter for the LW was the me 109e, until April 1942, when it was supplanted by (f) and (g) sub types, finally. Against the "e" the Hurricane was adequate, if a little outclassed. Again, this is reflected in the loss figures for both sides, so I dont know where this notion that the hurricane was "decimated" in the med comes from. It wasnt. It actually dished out more than it received.

Evidence that the RAF was more than satisfied with Hurricane competitiveness in the air in sercondary TOs can be found in the fact that no Spitfires were deployed to the Med until either the end of '41, or April 42 (I forget, will check tonite).

Even during the dark days of 1940, RAF was not short of planes, but pilots. A trained pilot sitting in an under-performed is just a waste, a way for Axis aces to rack up the kills.
I don't see any reason that a Merlin-engined (2 engines per plane) couldn't mount anything Hurri managed, being one day a fighter plane, other a tank buster, then bomber etc. And have performance range to spare.


There is no evidence that Hurricanes suffered a higher attrition rate than Spits in any of the4 battles that it fought. It had a hard time against the japanese, however its circumstances here need to be understood. In 1942, in the far east, the predominant type was the Hurri I, a completely obsolete type that had been sent to a "backwater". In 1943, the hurricane was no longer considered a fighter....it was a strike aircraft that happened to have a fighter lineage. Like the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter, though less so than aircraft like the Dauntless, Val or Ju87.

If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production. Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF
 
Power egg, or not, liquid-cooled engines still need radiators.

I believe he was referring to the Rolls-Royce Merlin power egg that was first used on the Beaufighter, then in the Miles M20 and the Lancaster. As a power egg it contained all the required components - including radiator.

Actually, I would not consider any QEC module a "power egg" if it did not contain all it needed for its operation.
 
Just a note OT. the alone 109 Emil units in medit were AFAIK 7/26 (ritired in 9/41), I/27 (converted to F in 12/41). the hurricane not get good result versus 109 Emil and neither versus the M.C. 202. The top of the CW fighter unit in the desert get the Curtiss fighter.
 
Heavy firepower was, what, the only bright spot of the Hurri IIC. The plane (all -IIs) were decimated both by Germans Japanese up until 1943, complete with pilots - the greatest asset of any airforce.

Not exactly true, though I do agree the hurricane was retained in production after it had passed obsolescence. In the med, the hurri was able to deal with most oppsition quite effectively. It generally enjoyed the upper hand over RA fighters until the second half of 1942. it was reckoned, on balance to be "about equal" to the primary italian fighter the Mc 202, because of that superior firepower. In the med, the primary frontline fighter for the LW was the me 109e, until April 1942, when it was supplanted by (f) and (g) sub types, finally. Against the "e" the Hurricane was adequate, if a little outclassed. Again, this is reflected in the loss figures for both sides, so I dont know where this notion that the hurricane was "decimated" in the med comes from. It wasnt. It actually dished out more than it received.


Agreed. In the hands of a good pilot the Hurri could hold its own against a Bf 109F and Zero. The same could be said for the Brewster Buffalo against the Zero, for that matter, too. There is ample evidence that Buffalo pilots got the better of their Japanese antagonists on numerous occasions over Singapore. I offer the following reaons regarding the defeat of the Allied air forces in Singapore in December 1941;

1: A complete lack of airborne early warning
2: Larger numbers of Japanese aircraft
3: A lack of sufficient maintenance facilities and resupply
4: Most pilots were inexperienced in combat
5: Intelligence about the capabilities of the Japanese fighters was scarce to non-existent at the front line bases

The type of aircraft the RAF units in Singapore were equipped with is irrelevant; even if they had Spitfires, the result would have been no different.

Like the Ju87, it was easy meat for any dedicated fighter.

That's arguable. Remember, the Hurri was more manoeuvreable than the Bf 109 and could withstand a great deal more punishment than both the '109 and the Zero. Also the Zero redlined at 300 kts and I've been reliably informed that to get one to that speed was virtually impossible. Almost all Allied fighters could out dive the Zero with ease and once its weaknessess had been analysed, this was a standard escape method.

If Hurricane production had been abandoned in 1941, after the boB, Britain would have been without a dedicated ground attack aircraft in any numbers for more than two years. Typhoons were still under development, and Spitfires were not as good at GA as the Hurri, plus inevitably a changeover from Hurricane to Spitfire would have cost money and lost production. Given that it would have been a retrograde step anyway, such a switch would have been a waste and a loss of capability for the RAF.

Yep, I agree. I also refer you to my earlier post that states that the Hurri was a practicable aircraft that could withstand damage and was easily repaired in the field. One thing that has to be remembered is that the Brits were fighting a war across many fronts and did not have the resources to supply frontline fighters to every outpost. Keeping the Hurricane in production was a practical choice as well as for the reasons stated elsewhere here, since they were still useful as ground attack and reconnaissance aircraft up to 1943 - '44.
 
Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle. The Maltese were delighted to see Gladiators, then Hurricanes, doing their best to defend them.
The Typhoon had already started production, in fact the first Squadron was formed in September 1941, but had been found to be unsuitable for overseas use.

The Hurricanes made in 1943 were not defending Malta.
Gradually switching production of 3 from those 6 factories to produce Spits makes more sense IMO, than all of the 6 further producing Hurricanes. That's from late 1941, perhaps?


Power egg, or not, liquid-cooled engines still need radiators.

Indeed, but here those are out of wing, where we claim space now and mount the fuel tanks.

Whirlwind's wing was too short front to back (cord) to get the radiators in back of the Cg by much. Not without loosing flap area and the Whirlwinds landing speed was high enough already.

By saying 'radiators as in Spit', I was referring to a general position; more precisely, I'd have them just under previous location.
 
Just a note OT. the alone 109 Emil units in medit were AFAIK 7/26 (ritired in 9/41), I/27 (converted to F in 12/41). the hurricane not get good result versus 109 Emil and neither versus the M.C. 202. The top of the CW fighter unit in the desert get the Curtiss fighter.

Hi Vincenzo


My source does not identify the units that were receivin the various types, and it does cover the entire Med front. The source is "The Campaign For North Africa" James Dunnigan, Richard Berg and Al Nofi, new York 1979.


According to this source, 50 109e were received in November, 18 in December, 12 in january '42, 36 in Feb, and finally 12 additional units in March. There were no further receipts after that date.


As for the claim that the Curtis was the top fighter in the Desert, in 1941, I would have to dispute that, though the Kittyhawks (as opposed to the Tomahawks) could lay claim to that title.

What is true, is that generally in the latter half of 1941, more "Curtis" fighters were being received in theatre than any other type. In the months November through to March 1942, the receipts of Hurricanes/Curtis aircraft were as follows:

November: 62/82
December: 92/135
January: 186/120
February: 88/42
March: 81/129

Moreover, if we break this down further, we can easily see why the Curtis was the better fighter

The main subtypes of Hurricanes delivered to theatre at this time were Hurri I, HurriIIa, Hurri IIb and Hurri IIC. The main subtypes of the Curtis Fighters were TomaHawk, Kittyhawk I, Kittyhawk II and Kittyhawk III. If we break down the above receipts according to those subtypes, we can straight away see thee Brits were tending to send older, more obsolescent marks of Hurris to the theatre as oppsed to sendingt the very latest versions available of the Curtiss types.

November: hurri 40/22/--/--
Curtiss 20/62/--/--

December: hurri 61/32/--/--
Curtiss --/90/45/--

January: hurri 96/54/36/--
Curtiss --/56/45/15

February: hurri 15/36/21/16
Curtiss --/--/30/12

March: hurri 18/03/38/22
Curtiss --/30/48/30



The Curtis was the newer fighter for the TO, so it stands reason that it would do better. However, over Malta, it was the hurricane that held sway, and in this isolated front it did very well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back