Westland P.9 Whirlwind (2 Viewers)

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

Gradually switching production of 3 from those 6 factories to produce Spits makes more sense IMO, than all of the 6 further producing Hurricanes.

Read my post above regarding the practicalities of keeping the Hurricane in production, not only that, but to tool up and produce a different structure altogether (the Spit was a semi monocoque and the Hurri was welded steel tube) was not something that was going to happen overnight. The Hurricane was still a useful type throughout much of the war, why not keep producing it?

Besides, politics played a part in these things too, private firms were striving for contracts; Hawkers and Vickers Supermarines were competitors in the same market. One's companies were not going to produce the other's machine; not without considerable justification and pressure from the ministry.
 
Hi, nuuman

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.

Hope I didn't put all the blame at Hurricane, esp. for initial defeat of RAF over Malya.
Now, saying that 'in a hands of good pilot...' and, then, 'most pilots were inexperienced' doesn't make the post a credible one. Furthermore, a novice pilot in an excellent plane stands some chance. Same pilot in an obsolete plane stands no chance.

(parsifal:) 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.

Hurricane that sweats to climb, in order to kill IJN/IJA bombers, only to dive away from an escort plane, is worth what? While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes.
If Zero was, or a more likely opponent, the Oscar, redlined at 300 kts, then almost no Spits, F4Us, P-38s would've been killed in PTO/CBI theaters.

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.

Hurricane a dedicated GA aircraft? I strongly disagree with that, and even more with 'either Hurricane, or nothing' logic. And putting such a great weight to the all Typhoon program is really away from reality IMO, another fighter that got relegated to bomber/attack duties. The cost of re-tooling from Hurricane production (at least of half of production lines) to Typhoon production cost money, too, even more than re-tooling to produce Spitfires.

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.

Disagreement here - a more advanced plane to replace one that's not.

Read my post above regarding the practicalities of keeping the Hurricane in production, not only that, but to tool up and produce a different structure altogether (the Spit was a semi monocoque and the Hurri was welded steel tube) was not something that was going to happen overnight.

Covered above - switching to the production of Typhoon carried all shortcomings, if not bigger ones.

The Hurricane was still a useful type throughout much of the war, why not keep producing it?

I can see logic here - people were still producing Blenheims after all. But it's not just the plane that makes an airforce, but the plane must be piloted by a trained pilot - and that's not as easy to come by as it is to produce another 100 or 1000 of planes.

Besides, politics played a part in these things too, private firms were striving for contracts; Hawkers and Vickers Supermarines were competitors in the same market. One's companies were not going to produce the other's machine; not without considerable justification and pressure from the ministry.

Private firms are still to build planes make money (Spits were produced by many firms, Swordfish was produced by Blackburn, Roc by BP etc) providing customer ordered them. If lobbying of Hawker can be 'stronger' than what Air Ministry orders, than something is really wrong with the Ministry.
 
Last edited:
Hi Parsifal

the source is a game? idk we can use a game as source, and if the data are supposition and not from true sources?

True Malta stay on Hurricane until Spit V was available (the first deployement overseas of Spit), idk because . They not go very well versus Emil or 202. Versus the other italian fighters yes nut not only on Malta.
 
Last edited:
even then it's not that simple to analyse, the Hurricanes deployed to Malta were ex Desert Air Force and to put it mildly "knackered", in any other theater they would have been scrapped but as they were all they had they flew and fought them despite facing appaling odds due to servicability, put simply the LW and RA had huge numerical and mechanical superiority over the few working Hurricanes, and yet they still fought!!
 
Hi Parsifal

the source is a game? idk we can use a game as source, and if the data are supposition and not from true sources?

True Malta stay on Hurricane until Spit V was available (the first deployement overseas of Spit), idk because . They not go very well versus Emil or 202. Versus the other italian fighters yes nut not only on Malta.

No its not a game, though there was a simulation based on the material. The source is a book based on the research that went into the game.

The game is still used at Sandhurst and the RMC to train strategic studies to trainee officers
 
Hi, tomo,

Now, saying that 'in a hands of good pilot...' and, then, 'most pilots were inexperienced' doesn't make the post a credible one.

What?! Why not? each sentence was not used in the same context. In good hands the Hurri WAS more than a match for the Zero and Bf 109 AND in Singapore the pilots were very inexperienced! Add the other factors, including lack of early warning, no such thing as airborne EW back then :oops:

Furthermore, a novice pilot in an excellent plane stands some chance. Same pilot in an obsolete plane stands no chance.

Agreed, although an excellent design does not make up for a lack of tactical knowledge. Over Singapore the odds were against the Allies; regardless of the type, as I said, the result would not have been much different.

While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes.

Rubbish! How do you explain Hurricane pilots becoming aces during the Battle of Britain, then? I also mentioned RAF Maintenance Units scouring the country for Hurricane wrecks and repairing them, which meant that, yes indeed, the type had enormous survivability; contrary to your statement.

If Zero was, or a more likely opponent, the Oscar, redlined at 300 kts, then almost no Spits, F4Us, P-38s would've been killed in PTO/CBI theaters.

That really doesn't make sense. What is that based on?

Hurricane a dedicated GA aircraft? I strongly disagree with that,

So you should, no one was suggesting that. The Hurri was widely used as close support, tank buster, interceptor and anti-submarine patrols flying from carriers, MAC ships, CAM ships in the FAA, reconnaissance in the CBI, training back home etc...

Private firms are still to build planes make money (Spits were produced by many firms, Swordfish was produced by Blackburn, Roc by BP etc) providing customer ordered them. If lobbying of Hawker can be 'stronger' than what Air Ministry orders, than something is really wrong with the Ministry.

Spits were produced by Vickers satellite factories. Blackburn built Swordfish, yes, but that's because Fairey were ordered to stop building the Stringbag and concentrate on the Firefly and Barracuda. Also Blackburn has a history of building naval aircraft of other firms; the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedoplane was built in larger numbers by Blackburn than any other firm, including Sopwith, who only built the prototype in 1917. BP building the Roc was a sore point in BP; they actually proposed a superior single seat naval fighter based on the aerodynamics of the Defiant without the turret, would have been a cracker.

The Ministry of Aircraft Production obviously saw the benefits of continuing Hurri production for the reasons I have suggested above; As I asked in my earlier thread; why not continue producing Hurricanes if it was still considered useful? You have yet to produce a convincing argument for them not continuing production of the type.

Once again tomo, been a pleasure ;)
 
Hi
Westlands production capacity of the whirlwind wasn't really an issue,some of the slowness of production of whirlwinds at westlands was partly due to no directive from the air min/map, giving any instruction to give whirlwinds priority over the lysander production.
Whirlwinds had been allocated to CBAF, (castle bromwich) which was originally to produce battles, which were switched to austins, the production at CBAF was to be whirlwinds, but eventually it was to be spitfire II.
cheers
Jerry
 
It would be interesting to see when the "Merlin Whirlwind" turned into the Welkin? Like if there was an intermediate stage (on paper) for a Westland twin Merlin fighter that was a bit bigger bigger than a Whirlwind and yet smaller than the Welkin wound up?
Design work on the Welkin started in 1941 didn't it?

Hi
Now i did see a sketch around about the late 70's of something, i will try to see if I can find it over the weekend.
cheers
Jerry
 
There's some very strange, simplistic, thinking going on here.
1/. The Typhoon could only be used in Europe, since the radiator was too vulnerable to sand damage.
2/. The Hurricane had to be pressed into ground attack, because the Spitfire could (initially, at least) only carry a single bomb, could not carry rockets, could not easily carry 4 x cannon, and could not carry the 40mm anti-tank cannon.
3/. It was not a case of the Hurricane or nothing; in the Middle and Far East Spitfires were available for top cover.
4/. Not all of Malta's Hurricanes were second-hand; some were brand-new, and sent direct, by convoy (just like the later Spitfires.)

1. Thanks for the info.
2. That's why I've said 'lets convert 3 of 6 factories', not 'let's convert them all' :) Plus, I don't see any problems for Whirly not to do what ever Hurricane was doing, but, it was not to be.
3. You've posted this in post #93:Hundreds, maybe, and better something with which to fight rather than 6 factories lying idle.. In the Middle East Spitfire was NOT available for top cover in numbers, till late 1942, and only then Spit V was sent there. The less we say about deliveries of Spitfire to the Far East, in the time of dire need, the better.
4. Thanks again.

I didn't say they were; I was making the point that, as far as the Maltese were concerned, any defenders were better than no defenders at all. Early Spitfires didn't have the range to reach Malta without extra tanks; it was only the tropical Vs that could manage it.

Didn't said a single word about Hurricanes defending Malta. That means 1942 and earlier. It's the production of Hurricanes from 1942 on that I'm talking against. For 4th time in this thread :)
As for Spits reaching not just Malta, but all of Med, along with Far East, reckon it's much more about the will of RAF's brass, than about the range capabilities of Spitfires.

Some of those were also making Typhoons, which, at that time, were desperately needed as a counter to low-flying Me109s (later) Fw190s.

The desperation from a dire threat from low-flying 109s and 190s deserves it's own thread IMO.

The Spitfire factories were already producing over 60 airframes per week, and there isn't much point in making more and more Spitfires, if there's no shortage of them, all you'll have is fields of spare dogfighting airframes, while the army has no help in waging its war.

In other words, Hurricane can get Merlins, but if we re-tool a factory to produce Spitfires, we don't get the Merlins?

Hi, tomo,

What?! Why not? each sentence was not used in the same context. In good hands the Hurri WAS more than a match for the Zero and Bf 109 AND in Singapore the pilots were very inexperienced! Add the other factors, including lack of early warning, no such thing as airborne EW back then :oops:
Agreed, although an excellent design does not make up for a lack of tactical knowledge. Over Singapore the odds were against the Allies; regardless of the type, as I said, the result would not have been much different.

My point is that it's better for an air force to have 1 item at the benefit side, while having 5 on debt side, than to have all 6 items on the debt side - exactly as it happened at Far East.

Rubbish! How do you explain Hurricane pilots becoming aces during the Battle of Britain, then? I also mentioned RAF Maintenance Units scouring the country for Hurricane wrecks and repairing them, which meant that, yes indeed, the type had enormous survivability; contrary to your statement.

1. I don't post rubbish.
2. What BoB has to do with Hurricane IIC?? I've stated: 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:Hurricane that sweats to climb, in order to kill IJN/IJA bombers, only to dive away from an escort plane, is worth what? While I'd agree that Hurri was a sturdy bird, a burst of cannon shells that hit home is not any Hurri would've survived. And Bf-109 drivers knew all to well how to attack maneuverable planes.. In other words, while Hurricane I lacked perhaps 10-20mph vs, 109E, it lacked far more vs. 109F. Plus, fighter pilots can became aces when killing Stukas, too.
3. So Maintenance unit repair a wreck. That does not mean a plane will continue flying after it's struck by 10 cannon shells.

That really doesn't make sense. What is that based on?

On common sense. If an IJA/IJN plane is redlined to 300kts, then any mid/late war Allied plane can just open the throttles and escape. But they wer not redlined at 300.

So you should, no one was suggesting that. The Hurri was widely used as close support, tank buster, interceptor and anti-submarine patrols flying from carriers, MAC ships, CAM ships in the FAA, reconnaissance in the CBI, training back home etc...

Should we speak about roles Spitfire was taking? How many roles the abundant P-40 F4Fs can't take over? In how many of those 7-8 roles Hurricane II-IV excelled?

Spits were produced by Vickers satellite factories. Blackburn built Swordfish, yes, but that's because Fairey were ordered to stop building the Stringbag and concentrate on the Firefly and Barracuda. Also Blackburn has a history of building naval aircraft of other firms; the Sopwith Cuckoo torpedoplane was built in larger numbers by Blackburn than any other firm, including Sopwith, who only built the prototype in 1917. BP building the Roc was a sore point in BP; they actually proposed a superior single seat naval fighter based on the aerodynamics of the Defiant without the turret, would have been a cracker.

The Ministry of Aircraft Production obviously saw the benefits of continuing Hurri production for the reasons I have suggested above; As I asked in my earlier thread; why not continue producing Hurricanes if it was still considered useful? You have yet to produce a convincing argument for them not continuing production of the type.

If one was asking MAP, I bet they would've suggested producing Hurricanes as fighters till 1947 - it was costing them less money than anything other of modern appearance, and, indeed, re-tooling costs money. If we ask the ones concerned - the users, answer would've been Spitfires. And if they were so useful, why indeed not produce them by VJ day at least?

Once again tomo, been a pleasure ;)

Any time :)
 
The Welkin was designed to a 1940 specification, specifically to counter a perceived threat from the Ju-86P, and the first prototype flew in November 1942, with the first production aircraft flying in November 1943. The order was for about 100, of which around 67 were built, but, because the threat never materialised, they were never issued to a Squadron, just used for experimental work.
Edgar
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but when you know that this country was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had to borrow money from the Americans, which took us 60 years to pay off, and enabled them to pressurise us over things like Suez, clever remarks, about our top brass caring more about money than winning the war, are just a little hard to swallow.
 
There are big differences between what look like boneheaded decisions when viewed with 70 years worth of hindsight and boneheaded decisions that were made only with the knowledge available at the time. Any time traveler with any sense could go back to 1936/7 and tell them to just forget the Sabre engine. It took way too much time, effort and treasure for any benefit they ever got out of it.

There is also a big difference between making Hurricanes (or P-40s) in 1942 and making them well into 1944. I don't know about the British but the Americans had decided at some point in 1943 ( in time to put it in the P-40 training manual) that no 'new' overseas combat squadrons would be equipped with P-40s. P-40 production in late 1943 and for 1944 was solely to equip advanced training units and to supply allied air forces ( Free French, Italian, and who ever else besides the Russians).

While final victory was pretty much assured in 1944 the actual end date was still very much in question both in Europe and the Pacific for a good portion of 1944.
 
...

One of the dangers in postulating what might have happened is that most of us (me included) have no idea what was being planned, and discussed in the corridors of power. In a Typhoon file, I've found a few extracts from minutes of fortnightly meetings, which started at the beginning of 1942, between the M.A.P. and the Air ministry. 24-2-42 they agreed to produce another 1,250 Hurricanes, for the theoretical loss of 843 Typhoons, but there were no Sabre engines for them anyway.
In 1941, there was a plan for Hawker to build a two-seat, twin-engined, high-speed bomber, but that, too, needed the Sabre; there was a plan for a "hotted-up" Mosquito, which, again, needed the non-existant Sabre.
The M.A.P. emphasised the difficulty of turning over Hurricane and Typhoon capacity to build a non-Hawker type (this was 16-3-42,) and it was pointed out that "single seater fighters were required less than any class." The need was for torpedo bombers, twin-engined fighters, and target towers and advanced trainers (in that order.)

Perhaps the MAP was unaware of this (post by JoeB, surce: Bloody Shambles, at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hawker-hurricane-mk-iib-vs-grumman-f4f-4-wildcat-1550-10.html#post327028) :

A couple of comparative OOB's in Burma:
Feb 3: 20 AVG P-40's, 11 Hurricanes, 4 Buffaloes; v 43 Type 97's
March 20: 8 P-40's, 25 Hurricanes; v 86 Type 97, 15 Type 1 (Oscar), 4 Type 2 (Tojo), though the other two AVG sdns in China were mainly facing the same Japanese units, for example sparring frequently with the Type 1's, of the 64th Sentai at Chiangmei in northern Thailand, counted as Burma front in that OOB.


I.E. Japanese were having an advantage of 3:1 vs. RAF, or better, in fighter types. And Allies will receive Spitfires in 1943 there, but no Spitfire VIIIs, the fighter with both good range performance? It's no wonder Japanese were scoring good (same poster, same thread):

In Jan-April '42, when fighting greatly died down on British fronts v Japanese, the Hurricane results, as given in Bloody Shambles combat by combat as I count, fighter to fighter:
Zeroes: 2 combats over Ceylon, 27 Hurricanes lost for 3 Zeroes
Zeroes: 3 other combats with both sides known: 8 Hurricanes 3 Zeroes
Type 1's: 12 combats, 20 Hurricanes, 4 Type 1's
Type 97's: 9 combats, 8 Hurricanes, 5-6 Type 97's
1 Hurricane was lost in a combat with either Type 1's or Zeroes w/ no J loss, and 7 in combats where the Japanese side is not given. A few were Dutch Hurricanes, and a few combats were along with the AVG but only one has a real claim overlap, that's 5 v 6 Type 97's.


Type 1 - Ki-43 Oscar; Type 97 - Ki-27 Nate (yep, the one with non-retractable U/C).

Allow me to educate you, since you obviously don't know the Spitfire; to fly the vast distances across the African continent and Mediterranean, the Spitfire needed an increased oil capacity, to go with the increased fuel capacity. The only airframes that could cope were the tropicalised Vb Vc, which had larger built-in oil tanks. Sarcastic comments about the RAF's top brass indicates a complete lack of understanding of what was going on.

1. That still doesn't cover the lack of Spitfires in CBI, nor above Australian sky, in 1942. Plus, RAF was fighting in N. Africa from mid 1940, yet it takes them 2 years to deploy a tropicalised Spitfire. It took what, 3 months for Germans to tropicalise 109Es?
2. While my comments may seem sarcastic, assuming that MAP RAF's top brass (applies for every country's top leaders) are above any criticism is away from reality.

Your obsession with the idea that the Ministry was more concerned with money than winning the war, shows that you are stuck with modern political thinking, and have little idea of the way minds worked 70 years ago.

I've never stated anything about MAP's desire to win the war.

...

It was reckoned that, in an average combat, one, or maybe two, shells would hit the target; it's why the Germans went over to the 30mm.
Edgar

Perhaps it was two-five burst out of 100 fired?

If you take care to read what I said, I'm defending the Ministries against your attacks on them. I have not maligned your name, or personality, in any way, just some of the material which you have written.

I was not attacking the Ministries. My point was that they were much more looking at (for fighter branch) messing with LW over France in 1941-42, than to deliver enough of competitive planes in Med, CBI, or RAAF/RNZAF for that matter - while they made all effort to put Typhoon in service for ETO, at Burma even the Hurricanes were lacking in numbers. Then of course, the command/control, logistics, pilot allocations - again it's clearly shown who is in the GB, and who is away.

Sorry, but when you know that this country was bankrupt at the end of the war, and had to borrow money from the Americans, which took us 60 years to pay off, and enabled them to pressurise us over things like Suez, clever remarks, about our top brass caring more about money than winning the war, are just a little hard to swallow.

Covered above.
 
(quote)1. That still doesn't cover the lack of Spitfires in CBI, nor above Australian sky, in 1942. Plus, RAF was fighting in N. Africa from mid 1940, yet it takes them 2 years to deploy a tropicalised Spitfire. It took what, 3 months for Germans to tropicalise 109Es?
2. While my comments may seem sarcastic, assuming that MAP RAF's top brass (applies for every country's top leaders) are above any criticism is away from reality.(quote)

apples and pears im afraid, the reason the spit was not tropicalised and deployed untill March 42 was that Spits were being held for home defence,\hurricanes and P40 was considered sufficient untill late 41, if I recall correctly the first Spits to be released for operations away from the home front were those sent to Malta?
so its not a case of "taking them 2 years", it was a policy decision that reflect the importance attached to each theater and the husbanding of stretched resources, read up on the Malta siege and you may be suprised how little importance was given to this vitally strategic island earlier in the war!
 
By the time the 109Es were tropicalised, they had already been superseded. The hurricane was in the same boat, and had already been tropicalised by the time the the 109E was given similar treatment.


Both sides viewed the MTO as a secondary front, until after 1941, and sent what they considered to be "expendable" or second line equipment (in terms of fighter aircraft at least) to the TO as a result.

There was not a great deal of difference in the respective equipment decisions really. Hurricane had proven adequate against the 109E in Europe, and would continue to do so in the MTO. Britiain main area of concern throughout 1940-41 was securing the home front, and projecting effort into western europe. It makes sense to reserve your best equipment for that purpose (though Hurricaners participated in the operations over france well into 1941).

And I ask the question again, wher is the evidence that the hurricane was suffering a higher overall loss rate than Spitfires. It doesnt exist to be honest. Hurricanes had their strengths, just as the Me 109 and the Spitfires had theirs. Properly used, they could be an advantage, and as time and development progressed that manifested itself in the ground attack role. Hurribombers were superior to both the Spit and the 109 in that role
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back