Westland P.9 Whirlwind (3 Viewers)

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

Hi
On 12 june 1938 the chief of air staff, had discussions about re engining the whirlwind to release the peregrines for bomber use, the engines suggested were Dagger E.108 and Bristol Taurus, info from "interceptor fighters by MJF Bowyer.
Cheers
Jerry
 
Last edited:
The Exe was barely more than a project while the Dagger was in production. Yes it was noisier (less so with projected ejector exhausts) but the cooling issues were ones manageable with pilot training and better pilot notes. Mind you, groundcrews (RAuxAF and Irish) hated maintaining them. It was a doable project in a feasible time frame. If the Whirwind had gone Napier from the beginning RR could have made more Merlins and Fairey could have their preferred twin engined Battle: even with Defiant turrets and Defiants as conventional fighters. Win win all round; with 20/20 hindsight.

Some of these points are arguable. It's a bit hard to swallow that the Dagger would have been an acceptable fighter powerplant, despite whether it was recommended officially for the Whirlwind or not. Its growth potential was limited for starters, hence why Halford went on to design the Sabre; an altogether bigger and more powerful engine (although no less complex) designed for high altitude fighter aircraft. I would imagine that as such a high running engine (4000 rpm) the Dagger would not respond well to rapid and frequent power changes that a fighter's engine would have to deal with. Like fitting the Jumo to the Bf 109 by the Czechs - it's not a fighter engine; it liked constant speed at altitude. In the Dagger VIII, 24 cylinders is a heck of a lot to produce 955 hp. I don't know whether it would have changed anything if it had been fitted to the Whirlwind; perhaps made things worse for the twin-engined fighter?

Twin engined Battle? Hmmm, if it were employed as a day bomber it's fate would not have been any different, methinks. Look at the Bristol Blenheim; a willing work horse, but in performance and capability, it was overshadowed by more advanced types, not to mention a less than stirling combat career in its day bomber role over France. Many of the Blenheim units were re-equipped with American supplied Douglas Bostons and Mitchells, and Mosquitoes - 105 Sqn, the first Mossie unit operated Blenheims previously. As a twin engined fighter, as I've mentioned in an earlier thread, one possible reason why the Whirlwind didn't continue in production was that the Beaufighter and Mosquito were both excelling as multi role aircraft.

A Defiant without a turret? BP's P.88 cannon armed fighter designed to Specification F.37/35, to which the Westland Whirlwind was designed.

In reality the Whirlwind could not become the aircraft that we all would have liked it to have become, simply because of its design; it was too small and lightly constructed. The Beaufighter and Mosquito could do what its designers hoped a Whirlwind with a different powerplant and redesign would have done.
 
Twin engined Battle? Hmmm, if it were employed as a day bomber it's fate would not have been any different, methinks. Look at the Bristol Blenheim; a willing work horse, but in performance and capability, it was overshadowed by more advanced types, not to mention a less than stirling combat career in its day bomber role over France. Many of the Blenheim units were re-equipped with American supplied Douglas Bostons and Mitchells, and Mosquitoes - 105 Sqn, the first Mossie unit operated Blenheims previously. As a twin engined fighter, as I've mentioned in an earlier thread, one possible reason why the Whirlwind didn't continue in production was that the Beaufighter and Mosquito were both excelling as multi role aircraft.

Wonder what would happen if Fairey developed a plane with two engines, with wing area span akin to Battle, featuring 4 belly cannons (second crew member replacing the empty drums) - a RAF's BF-110 for 1940? And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?

A Defiant without a turret? BP's P.88 cannon armed fighter designed to Specification F.37/35, to which the Westland Whirlwind was designed.

In reality the Whirlwind could not become the aircraft that we all would have liked it to have become, simply because of its design; it was too small and lightly constructed. The Beaufighter and Mosquito could do what its designers hoped a Whirlwind with a different powerplant and redesign would have done.

Perhaps Westland was better to propose the single-engined, cannon-armed fighter, later to be adopted by FAA 'stead of Sea Hurricane Seafire?
 
Wonder what would happen if Fairey developed a plane with two engines, with wing area span akin to Battle, featuring 4 belly cannons (second crew member replacing the empty drums) - a RAF's BF-110 for 1940? And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?

If developed from the Battle it would have been a dog. Knowledge of aerodynamics was increasing almost by the month (OK a bit of an exaggeration) But Fairly would have to build an entirely new airplane. The Battle carried a pair of 250lb bombs INSIDE each wing root. It made a Hurricane's wing look thin. If you make the wing thinner you not only need new ribs for a new airfoil you need to redo the entire structure ( a thick wing is also stronger than a thin wing) meaning redoing the spars. A Airplane that looks something like a previous airplane doesn't really shorten up the design time. And you need to get the engines from somewhere. With more Merlins or Hercules engines going to this "new" Fairey it just means fewer engines for Beaufighters and Mosquitos for no net gain in available aircraft.
 
The engines must indeed come from somewhere. Considering that just Defiant and Battle themselves consumed some 3000, before end of 1940, it does not seem that there was a shortage of Merlins for RAF. Of course, with no production Peregrines needed, that engine gets shelved even faster, so RR can build more Merlins.

The Fairey twin engined plane, with wing sized as of Battle's, is no more a dog than it's Bf-110 or Beaufighter. The hull cross section has less area than Beau. Perhaps the Fulmar-sized plane (= DH Hornet sized plane), but with two engines, might've been a better peformer?
 
It is not just wing area but the airfoil. just like the Hurricanes thicker wing and the Typhoons thick wing limited performance. The Thick wing gave good lift at low speed, great for short take offs and landings (and needed for a single engine bomber) but wasn't so good for making a fighter. Once you need a new wing and a new nose/cockpit area and a bigger tail to counter act the larger area forward and the extra power there is darn little of the "Battle" left. With something like 300 Peregrines built killing it off sooner barely makes a blip in Merlin Production figures.

Fairly fuselage may not have been quite as small as you think.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...taways/images/10579/fairey-battle-cutaway.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4478979676_1811cffe1c.jpg

Granted with double the power it would have better performance than as a single but it was never going to be a high perormance fighter without a new wing.
 
Hi Tomo,

It seems that the suggestion of a twin Fairey Battle 'look-a-like' might have come to fruition, had Fairey been awarded a contract to specification S.6/43 for a shore based torpedo bomber. The Fairey design superficially resembles the Battle, as most of Marcel Lobelle's aircraft bore a distinctive appearance. Several incarnations were planned to meet the specification, based on surviving drawings. This doesn't suggest that it was a derivative of the Battle, however, and I have to agree with shortround6's post about a twin-engined Battle being a dog. ;)

And a night fighter from there on, freeing Beaufighters Mossies from NF tasks?

I don't understand why these types would need to be 'freed from night fighter duties'. This was a vital role throughout the war, as the British never built a purpose built night fighter, so these two aircraft in that role were essential, since throughout the war the Germans were carrying out night raids against the UK.

Perhaps Westland was better to propose the single-engined, cannon-armed fighter, later to be adopted by FAA 'stead of Sea Hurricane Seafire?

Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.

To these specifications, the Blackburn Firebrand was selected as the naval fighter and the Firefly to the turret fighter proposal, but obviously missing something! Actually both these specs were reissued as N.5/40 to which both types were built.

:)
 
Last edited:
Hi Tomo,

....
Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.

Hi,
Is it possible to post a drawing or a reference to these as the ideas interest me very much, or even a web link.
I once read that westland tried to sell the whirlwind to the RN/FAA but met with no success, I never found info on the N.8/39 project.
cheers
Jerry
 
It is not just wing area but the airfoil. just like the Hurricanes thicker wing and the Typhoons thick wing limited performance. The Thick wing gave good lift at low speed, great for short take offs and landings (and needed for a single engine bomber) but wasn't so good for making a fighter. Once you need a new wing and a new nose/cockpit area and a bigger tail to counter act the larger area forward and the extra power there is darn little of the "Battle" left.

I've proposed a plane "with wing area span akin to Battle", just for a size comparison. But anyway, the Fulmar's wing hull have smaller cross section, so for a true fighter that makes more sense.

With something like 300 Peregrines built killing it off sooner barely makes a blip in Merlin Production figures.

With real Battle killed off after, say, 500th copy, thats 1500 Merlins for a twin engined plane Fairey can build (be it Battle- or Fulmar-sized), in dark days of 1939-40. Along with what's saved on non-production of Peregrines.

Fairly fuselage may not have been quite as small as you think.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspac...taways/images/10579/fairey-battle-cutaway.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4478979676_1811cffe1c.jpg

Granted with double the power it would have better performance than as a single but it was never going to be a high perormance fighter without a new wing.

A "Twin Battle" could be of size drag something between BF-110 Beaufighter, at least my sketch suggest so (attached); the Beaufighter's wing was pretty tick, too.

Hi Tomo,

It seems that the suggestion of a twin Fairey Battle 'look-a-like' might have come to fruition, had Fairey been awarded a contract to specification S.6/43 for a shore based torpedo bomber. The Fairey design superficially resembles the Battle, as most of Marcel Lobelle's aircraft bore a distinctive appearance. Several incarnations were planned to meet the specification, based on surviving drawings. This doesn't suggest that it was a derivative of the Battle, however, and I have to agree with shortround6's post about a twin-engined Battle being a dog. ;)

It depends about what other dog is our "Twin Battle' compared with. Would a Battle-sized, twin-Merlin plane, been any worse than a contemporary Ju-88?

I don't understand why these types would need to be 'freed from night fighter duties'. This was a vital role throughout the war, as the British never built a purpose built night fighter, so these two aircraft in that role were essential, since throughout the war the Germans were carrying out night raids against the UK.

The point in 'freeing' is that more Mossies can be used as bombers and PR, while Beaufighter can be devoted to it's ground/surface attack duties. That assumes RAF has a twin capable to carry 2-3 crew members and heavy armament from early 1939 (8 LMGS then), with AI radar when that becomes reality (summer 1940?), while offering substantially better performance than NF Blenheim of 1940. Of course, from late 1940 it could've used Merlin 20 series (shelving Defiant after 500 copies can speed up delivery of Merlins here), and 60 series from 1943.

Funny you should say that, because they did! To Specification N.8/39 for a single-seat naval fighter. Released simultaneously, N.9/39 was for a two-seat naval turret fighter, to which Westland also drew up a proposal. Interestingly, the Fairey design to the former was in appearance, a shorter Battle with two 20 mm Hispano cannon in each wing.

To these specifications, the Blackburn Firebrand was selected as the naval fighter and the Firefly to the turret fighter proposal, but obviously missing something! Actually both these specs were reissued as N.5/40 to which both types were built.

:)

Boy, from 1939 to Firebrand is such a long way :)
I was thinking about a non-folding wing 'Sea Whirly' single-engined (Merlin aboard) plane in service in mid 1941, and wing folding introduced in late 1942 - early 1943. Whirlwind was equipped with both Fowler flaps and slats - right now I can't remember any other plane having such a set of high-lift devices fitted simultaneously. Plus, a 360 deg field of view and retracting tail wheel from day one. A preliminary sketch is attached.
 

Attachments

  • batt beau 110 800.JPG
    batt beau 110 800.JPG
    29.2 KB · Views: 85
  • whirlyMerlin top 800.JPG
    whirlyMerlin top 800.JPG
    35.1 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
To slightly champion the Dagger. They existed in production so it could be done before the war. With an H24 each part is lighter, so there is no reason to think a Dagger should be worse at throttle response than a V12. The Sabre was 2,000+bhp. The Dagger ran on 87 octane. One can raise the boost on 100 octane so we would be looking at 1,000+ bhp giving us a 2,000+bhp fighter from 1939. Extra power needs extra fuel and the projected inner wing tanks would only maintain endurance. The knock on possibilities I mentioned are a pipe dream but a Dagger Whirlwind was feasible. Drop tanks were well within 1939 technology as was the 40mm Vicker S gun and two would have gone in the existing nose.
 
Mounting the fuel tanks at the places previously occupied by radiators doubles the fuel tankage, so a good air-cooled engine would've the best choice for Whirly IMO.
 
As far as a twin engined Battle is concerned, they were being made anyway so any improvement has to help. Effectively we are getting a Beaufighter (ie a Merlin/Hercules Beaufort) 2 years earlier: but we digress.

While I think of it, Handley Page used Daggers as Pegasus alternatives so they saw them as 1.000bhp alternatives.

Apologies for the 40mm cannon hobby horse but I am amazed by their accuracy for GA as described to me some years ago by a chap who used them with HE rounds in Burma in 1945.
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Is it possible to post a drawing or a reference to these as the ideas interest me very much, or even a web link.
I once read that westland tried to sell the whirlwind to the RN/FAA but met with no success, I never found info on the N.8/39 project.
cheers
Jerry

Hi Jerry, I got my info straight from Tony Butttttler's excellent resource "British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950. (ISBN 1 85780 179 2) The book has illustrations that show single seat designs as sketches, rather than in layout. Certainly not derivatives of the Whirlwind. You might want to try contacting Agusta Westland, or the FAA Museum, who might have further information.

Try also these guys:

Secret Projects Forum - Index

:)
 
Hi Jerry, I got my info straight from Tony Butttttler's excellent resource "British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935 - 1950. (ISBN 1 85780 179 2) The book has illustrations that show single seat designs as sketches, rather than in layout. Certainly not derivatives of the Whirlwind. You might want to try contacting Agusta Westland, or the FAA Museum, who might have further information.

Try also these guys:

Secret Projects Forum - Index

:)

Hi
many thanks I will look that book out.
cheers
Jerry
 
Thinking about Peregrine alternatives; the Merlin and Taurus are frequently considered and we have spoken of the Dagger. Casting about for a UK engine in production in period what about the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger?

An enlarged Jaguar of similar weight to the Dagger but twice the capacity with a 2 speed supercharger. Superceded by the Merlin for Whitleys but with a production line. An issue is reliability but Jaguars were used for years so it shouldn't be too hard to remedy that?
 
Tiger was a two-speed engine, so that makes it a good candidate for a fighter engine? The output on 100 octane should increase at least some 15% vs. on 87 oct, under full throttle heights, of course.
If someone can toss some info about the Tiger (other than what Wiki says), then please do so :)
 
The Tiger was a bit of a dog. First out in 1932 it was still troublesome 5-7 years latter. Any attempt to use higher boost with 100 octane fuel is likely to break the engine. Even with 87 octane it was rated at 2.5lbs boost for take-off and 0.5lbs at full throttle at 6750ft in low gear and 14,250ft in high gear. A Bristol Pegasus could use about 0.5lbs LESS than a Merlin on 87 octane. The BIG failing was it used a two main bearing crankshaft. NO main bearing between the two crank throws. This worked with the smaller, lower powered Panther and it worked (?) on the Gnome-Rhone 14 series ( and the Russian M-88 ) but look at their power outputs and how far they got "improving" them during WW II. The High powered G-R 14R engine was a total redesign with a a 3 main bearing crankshaft and crank case. Increasing the boost(pressure in the cylinders) will just lead to more crankshaft flex and earlier failure in the Tiger, assuming the cylinders could get rid of the increased heat. Air cooled engines didn't always show the same increase as liquid cooled ones with better fuel.
 
OK. We have tried the Merlin, Taurus, Dagger and Tiger. How about the Mercury? Peregrine power on 87 octane, reliable and in production. Wanted for Blenheims but this is becoming less important just as the Peregrine is being shut down. Lighter weight than the Peregrine and quite suitable for tropical service. Maybe the weight saved could go into increased armour for a GA role.

Essentially we are seeking a sound, available production engine in the 850 to 1,100 bhp class. Ideally air cooled to free up inner wing space for fuel.

Peregrine is going out of production.
Merlin is in too high a demand (we now know Petter was able to fit it.)
Taurus is otherwise wanted for Albacores and Beauforts.
Tiger is too unreliable.
Mercury can be available but at the end of it's development.
I have to go with the Dagger. Available, useable and with development potential.

Keeping within period practical constraints; I can see the Whirlwind re-roled as a ground attack type that can defend itself at low level. With upgraded armour and low level optimised Dagger engines. 4 x 20mm cannon replaced by twin 40mm using HE rounds and a pure tracer .303 aiming gun. I could be persuaded to drop one cannon for more ammunition if Martin Baker coud adapt them for belt feed.

Inner wing fuel tanks (with a proper fuel transfer system) and hard points for x2 250 or 500lb bombs or drop tanks give a useable range. Fit for use in North Africa or the Far East. The 40mm cannon would soon be out matched by German armour, (if not Japanese) but the true accuracy of thin case HE rounds would allow really close tactical support and decimate lines of communications with pilots trained and practiced for the role. In a sense we are looking at a 360 to 400 mph Henschel HS129 that does not need air superiority.

Why wait for 1943/4 to have real numbers of Typhoons when you can get the same from 1941 Whirlwinds and gradually wean shadow Hurricane factories onto Whirlwinds. By 1944 Daggers could well be providing 50% more power than 1939.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back