Your favorite Non-Spitfire British fighter?

freebird · 08-31-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Ok, but what made me think prototypes was your previous statement:

And according to wikipedia the first squadron didn't become operational until December:

I'm not sure if the Bf 109F was operational in late 1940, but I think it was.

My bad, poorly worded.

I just read that on Wiki too. Interestingly in the BoB game "Their Finest Hour" The Whirlwind squadron is shown as available in the summer. presumably the considered since it had 8 or 9 Whirl's it was mostly a Whirlwind squadron {They go by 12 aircraft, not 24}

What was the top speed of the 109F?

kool kitty89 · 08-31-2008, 10:24 PM

Depends which model, but we'd probably be comparing the F-1 or F-2 with the DB-601N, opposed to the more powerful 601E.

I'll go get some performance figures. (but I'm confident they're in the 370-380 mph range)

Of course I'm also leaving out the Bf 109E-7/Z with GM-1 high-altitude boost. (but I don't think this would be a fair comparison, considering the vastly different performance envelopes)

claidemore · 09-01-2008, 10:23 AM

Like KK alluded, the Whirlwind achieved it's best speeds at low level, not sure the 109F could beat it down low in max level speed, though certainly it could at higher alts.
Note that the Whirlwind was operational until 1943, with only 116/112? built, and that was with an 885 hp engine. If they had stuck some Merlins on it,(60 series twice the horsepower!) like Westland wanted to, just think what it could have done.

kool kitty89 · 09-01-2008, 05:48 PM

Yes, but the small size of the Whirlwind really limited further development potential.

I think Gloster's G.39 (F.9/37) twin-engine fighter had more potential for multi-role capability at similar speed performance to the Whirlwind.

Graeme · 09-01-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by claidemore

the Whirlwind achieved it's best speeds at low level

Hi Claidemore. The other way round?...

As the "Whirlibomber", maximum speed dropped to 270mph at 15000ft with two 500 pounders.

B-17engineer · 09-01-2008, 07:02 PM

Ya i would agree it would be the other way around...

freebird · 09-01-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

Hi Claidemore. The other way round?...

As the "Whirlibomber", maximum speed dropped to 270mph at 15000ft with two 500 pounders.

Although it would seem that the Whirlwind would be more effective down low would it not?

Vs. Bf109, the German could climb higher and dive down to attack with advantage, wheras at sea level the Whirlwind had a 20 mph advantage?

Also how would altitude affect the Whirl's manoueverability, which was supposedly very good compared to other twins?

kool kitty89 · 09-01-2008, 09:08 PM

The 384 mph @ 17,500 ft figure seems pretty high for the Emil. (for the E-7/Z with GM-1 it could make 380-390 mph at higher altitudes, but that's a bit different)

claidemore · 09-01-2008, 11:01 PM

I guess "low" is a relative term. I just meant that the Peregrine engines were optimized for low level performance.

I believe it's best speed of 360 mph was achieved at 15000 ft, while the 109s tended to achieve their best speed around 20,000 ft. A 109E3 for example would do about 330mph at 15000 ft.

I think we're comparing the two planes in a clean fighter configuration?
No surprise that adding outside ordnance slowed the Whirly down, there wasn't enough horspower to overcome that extra drag, it's speed in fighter config was due more to it's clean airframe than it's powerful engines.

Anybody know the speed at sea level of a 'clean' Whirlwind?

As far as size limiting it's developement, the fuel capacity issue would probably be the biggest thing there, but one wonders if giving it a Merlin would have the same effect as the mounting of that engine did on the Mustang?

Graeme · 09-01-2008, 11:46 PM

In a "light" configuration maximum speeds were...

315mph at 5,000ft.
335mph at 10,000ft.
360mph at 15,000ft.
350mph at 20,000ft.

In a "loaded" configuration maximum speeds were...

304mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and racks.
278mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and 2 X 250lb bombs.
270mph at 15,000ft with full "war load" and 2 X 500lb bombs.

(Bruce Robertson - Westland Whirlwind - 1971)

Trivia - Boscombe Down flight testing reports recommended not attempting to exceed 360mph, as above this speed the ailerons "twitched" and above 400mph (the maximum diving speed), "snatched".

It took 22 man hours to change one Perigrine engine, which was considered excessive. Regarded as a maintenance nightmare it required a crane and a "minimum" of six men to change one wheel.

kool kitty89 · 09-02-2008, 12:05 AM

The fuselage was still pretty small, as was the wing area (less than the Hurricane's) so that would limit internal stores (and weapon instalation/amunition capacity) and practical growth in weight.

The Whirlwind had been developed as a rather "tight design" with expanded develop fairly difficult without major modifications. (and made it difficult to maintain)

It probably wouldn't have been too dificult to modifiy the airframe to accept Merlin II/III's as they weren't too much larger or heavier. Fuel capacity could be increased to a degree where range was still good (possibly better than the Mk.I) with the larger engines. Wingloading would be getting a bit high, and landing speed would increase as well. You could keep doing this up through Merlin 45's fairly practically, after that you couldn't do too much. (and landing speed and take-off run would be quite a bit higher than the contemporary spitfires)

In the case of the G.39 it was larger with a larger wing area with much more carrying capacity, but with a gross weight of a litle less than the Whirlwind. More development potential, particularly as a multirole craft, would probably be much more maintenence friendly and tougher.

In terms of altitude performance, the Merlin I/II/III were a bit better than the Peregrines at altitude, with critical altitude for 1,030 hp +6.23 psi 3000 rpm was ~18,500 ft, compared to just under 16,000 ft for 885 hp on the Peregrines. (though critical altitude with increased boost obtained in WEP with 100 octane fuel was significantly lower at higher power)

freebird · 09-02-2008, 12:17 AM

Does anyone know what the war record of the Whirl was in 40/41? was it successful against the Me109?

Graeme · 09-02-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by claidemore

I guess "low" is a relative term. I just meant that the Peregrine engines were optimized for low level performance.

I'm with you now. Sorry, too quick with the scanner!

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird

Does anyone know what the war record of the Whirl was in 40/41? was it successful against the Me109?

Good question!

An Alfred Price article of '95 claims that the Whirlwind never fired its guns in anger until January 12 1941 ...having a crack at a Ju 88, but no victory.

First victory, February 8 1941...an Arado 196 near Start Point.

They finally tangled with Bf 109s on August 6 1941. Destroyed three and damaged one, without loss to themselves. That's all I've found, so far.

The Merlin Whirlwind...

(From 'Profile' Volume 2 No.14)

merlin · 09-02-2008, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

Okay, you did forget one very important WWII British fighter: the Hawker Sea Fury, one of the most beautiful aircraft of all time.

Only one snag - it wasn't a WW2 fighter. Although it was designed and built during the war, it didn't enter squadron service until after the war, much less see any combat; that came in the Korean War.

merlin · 09-02-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacArther

Quick question, anyone know off the top of their head what role the Gladiator played in the BoB? I know it featured heavily in the North Africa campain until the Hurricanes started showing up...

There was I believe a Flight (half 247 Squadron) of Gladiators at St Eval Cornwall. Though I don't know off-hand what the combat record was.

there was also the action in Norway that Gladiators were active in.