PDA

View Full Version : The performance of the Westland Whirlwind



DIRTY-MAC
12-25-2008, 08:24 PM
I know it was a good fighter and loved by its pilots when it came into service, faster than a Spit down low, good climb performance and excellent manuvrebility, but how good?
How did it actually performe in its day comparing to Spits,Hurris and Bf109s

Is there any turnrate,climbrate comparition with other aircraft?

ARCHIE_CALVERT, or any of you other Whirly Whiners do you have any new info we might not have seen before?

Just would like se some more exact data on this fighter.

DIRTY-MAC
12-25-2008, 08:54 PM
Some info:

The Westland Whirlwind
by Philip J. R. Moyes

Seldom, if ever, can a British aeroplane have been surrounded by so much "red tape" as was the West- land Whirlwind twin-engined monoplane. Designed to an Air Ministry Specification of 1935 (F .37 /35), it flew in October, 1938, and entered service in 1940, being the R.A.F.'s (and Westland's) first twin- engined single-seat fighter and the first such machine to be used in numbers by any of the great powers. For some time after the outbreak of the Second World War its existence was supposed to be a closely- guarded secret, but it was apparently no secret in France and Germany as early as 1938, for in that year drawings of the aircraft appeared in a French tech- nical paper. Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Aircraft Production, mentioned the Whirlwind by name in public in December, 1940-the same year in which it appeared in a German aircraft recognition handbook-but it was not officially disclosed by the Air Ministry until August, 1941, and details were not released to the press in this country until February, 1942.
The basic feature of the Whirlwind was its con- centration of firepower: its four closely-grouped heavy cannon in the nose had a rate of fire of 600 Ib./ minute-which, until the introduction of the Beau- fighter (see Profile No. 137), placed it ahead of any other fighter in the world. Hand in hand with this dense fire-power went a first-rate speed and climb performance, excellent manoeuvrability and a fighting view hitherto unsurpassed. The Whirlwind was, in its day, faster than the Spitfire low down and, with lighter lateral control, was considered to be one of the nicest "twins" ever built.
The Whirlwind was designed by Mr. W. E. W. Petter-more recently of Canberra and Gnat fame- and his team to meet the requirements of Air Ministry Specification F .37 /35 for a single-seat day and night fighter. Design work began early in 1936, and although Bristol and Hawker also tendered, the Westland design was the one selected; it had the Westland-type number P.9 (P for Petter, incidentally) and an order for two prototypes was placed by the Air Ministty in February, 1937. The first prototype, L6844, first flew at Yeovil on 11th October, 1938, in the hands of Westland's chief test pilot, Harald Penrose. It proved to be faster than anything else, low down, hence its nickname "Crikey", inspired by a famous Shell advertisement of the day which



depicted a labourer with a swivel neck seeing some- thing flash past him at a high rate of knots and trying to look in two directions simultaneously, exclaiming: "Crikey, that's Shell, that was!" This nickname was, apparently, first bestowed upon the Whirlwind by a local garage proprietor.
The Whirlwind was designed round two fully- supercharged Rolls-Royce Peregrine twelve-cylinder 'vee'-ty~e engines, the deliberate concentration of fire-power and the desire to give the pilot the best possible view being mainly responsible for its twin- engine configuration. It was completely orthodox in layout and construction (all-metal stressed skin) yet in many ways it was ahead of its time. Leading edge cooling ducts (for radiators which were enclosed in the centre section), thin wing, high tailplane, extruded

spars, extensive use of elektron and castings, were typical features with which Westland's design team led the way. The "almost-bubble" one-piece canopy was another excellent innovation.
A peculiarity of the Whirlwind's control system was the fact that its two-piece rudder was concave or "hollow-ground" on both sides, the reason being that the original normally-contoured rudder was found to be very light and virtually ineffective over the first five degrees of travel either way. The adoption of a rudder with a re-entrant section overcame the problem. For reasons of control layout and nothing to do with aerodynamics, the rudder hinge was offset, and to compensate for this the rudder-section was made assymetrical port and starboard. On the upper part this was achieved by making just the starboard side hollow-ground. Another peculiarity was that part of the one-piece, high-lift Fowler trailing edge flap which stretched from aileron to aileron (it was hinged at the rear extremities of the engine nacelles which moved with it) also performed part of the function of radiator flaps, and in order to maintain a reasonably low coolant temperature, it was necessary 'to climb with it partly extended. If any serious delay was experienced before take-off, two fountains of



steam appeared, necessitating shutting down both engines to cool off before taxiing.
Mention has already been made of the positioning of the Whirlwind's coolant radiators in the leading edge of the wing; this not only resulted in a clean- looking and low-drag installation but, because of the radiator ducts' close proximity, it also enabled the Whirlwind's cockpit to be heated at all altitudes. Another unusual idea was the original one of running the engine exhaust pipes through the wing fuel tanks. A trial installation was made in one aircraft and during tests Harald Penrose encountered fire in the air for the third time during his career. Flames burned through the rear spar and severed the aileron controls. The ailerons were of the Frise type, and as the balance area forward of the hinge line got into the slipstream the loose aileron went hard up against the stops. To counteract this, Penrose put up the opposite aileron to the same angle and came home on rudder and engines only.
From the flying viewpoint, the Whirlwind was considered magnificent, its sole peculiarity being its tendency to develop tail shudder in really tight turns because its rudder too easily assumed rhythmic oscillations. Handley Page slats of large area were fitted to the Whirlwind's outer wings but eventually, on production aircraft, they were locked shut for structural reasons, since at least one accident was believed attributable to a slat failure. Even then, lateral behaviour at the stall was entirely adequate without their aid. The project design originally was planned to have twin fins and rudders, but in wind tunnel model tests it was found that the underslung engine nacelles caused turbulence troubles, and so the high tailplane layout was eventually adopted. There is interest in noting that consideration was given at one stage to "bending" the rear fuselage upwards, thus placing the tailplane even higher and in still calmer air.



As related earlier the first prototype Whirl- wind, L6844, first flew on 11th October, 1938. On the last day of that year it was delivered to the Royal Aircraft
Establishment, Farnborough, and apparently it performed so well in tests that before the end of January, 1939, the Air Ministry placed a production order for 200 Whirlwinds with the first delivery promised for the following September. Shortly before the outbreak of war an additional order for 200 Whirlwinds was placed.
In May, 1939, the new "hush-hush" fighter was demonstrated to a party of M.P.'s at Northolt and in the words of one magazine report:
"the 'fastest time of the day' was not put up by the Spitfire , but by a secret twin- engined machine which streaked over from the west".
For reasons which will be dealt with later, Whirlwind production fell badly behind schedule and it was not until May, 1940, that the "first off", P6966. was ready


to fly, the second prototype, L6845, being completed almost simultaneously. First deliveries-P6966 and P6967-were made on 3rd June, 1940, to No. 25(F) Squadron at North Weald, this unit (which was then flying Blenheim IFs) having had a pre-view of the Whirlwind two days previously when L6845 had been flight-demonstr8.ted at North Weald. This proved to be a false start, however, and owing to a change in re-equipment policy, the new machines were re- allocated to No. 263(F) Squadron which had recently won immortality while flying Gladiators in Norway (see Profile No. 98). The squadron was scheduled to re-form at Grangemouth, Stirlingshire, in June, but owing to teething troubles suffered by the ex-25 Squadron machines, it was July before No. 263 was re-formed-at Drem-and then with Hurricanes as
temporary equipment. The first of No. 263's Whirlwinds arrived at Drem on 6th July, flown by the C.O., Squadron Leader H. Eeles, and two more followed on the 19th. On 7th August came the first write-off after P6966 (Pilot Officer McDermott) had a tyre burst on take-off. The Whirlwind was a touchy aircraft on take-off at the best of times, and in this particular instance the pilot was lucky; for despite the fact that his aircraft swerved, the nose did not touch the ground and he was able to get it airborne. While trying to retract the wheels McDermott learned from flying control that the undercarriage was visibly damaged and was warned that a landing would be hazardous. He climbed and baled out. The Whirlwind went thirty feet deep into the ground north of Stirling and McDermott made a safe landing only to be made prisoner by the local Home Guard!
Deliveries of Whirlwinds to No. 263 Squadron were held up by a lack of engines and only eight Whirlwinds were in service by October, 1940. The squadron moved to Exeter at the beginning of December and became operational on Whirlwinds on


7th December, flying 30 sorties before the month ended. So deplorable was the condition of the airfield surface at Exeter, however, that early in the New Year an operational flight was detached to St. Eval. The squadron's first action came on 12th January, 1941, when Pilot Officer Stein and Sergeant Mason, on standby duty, were detailed to intercept a returning German bomber. Stein intercepted the "bandit" some forty miles south-west of the Scillies and following his attack, No. 263 was credited with 'one Ju 88 damaged'. In February the squadron gained its first confirmed victory with Whirlwind aircraft when Flying Officer Hughes and Pilot Officer Graham (who was missing after the en- counter and assumed to have been shot down) destroyed an Arado 196 south of Dodman Point. Westland sent the squadron a case of champagne with which to celebrate the victory.



Following an attack by the Luftwaffe on St. Eval in the middle of March when nine of No. 263's twelve Whirlwinds were damaged on the ground, the entire squadron moved to Portreath, but on 10th April it moved again, this time to Filton (Bristol). During the first four months of 1941 the squadron lost many pilots through flying accidents, and three in action.
Convoy patrols were undertaken by the Whirlwinds during May and on 14th June six aircraft took part in the first Warhead operation-code-name for low-level strikes against airfields in the Cherbourg Peninsula, the purpose of which was to destroy enemy aircraft on the ground. The Whirlwinds operated from Ibsley on this particular occasion, but owing to ground mist at the selected targets-Maupertuis and Quer- queville-the main strike was centred on tarpaulin- covered equipment. This operation marked the start of the Whirlwind's career as a ground-strafing aircraft. On 7th August No. 263 moved to Charmy Down and five days later it provided close escort, as far as Antwerp, for 54 Blenheims of No.2 Group making a daylight raid on power stations near Cologne. During the same month, the squadron flew many offensive sorties-mainly against airfields at Quer- queville, Maupertuis and Lannion-as a result of which three Ju 88's, at least eight Ju 87's and some Bf 109's were destroyed on the ground, one E-boat sunk and another damaged. On one occasion four Whirlwinds were intercepted by twenty Bf 109's while engaged on a Warhead sortie and a fierce dog fight ensued. Although outnumbered 5 to 1, the Whirlwinds gave a good account of themselves and destroyed two of the enemy. Two Whirlwinds were damaged and a third force-landed when returning to base. All this led the squadron diarist to record:
"The Whirlwind has at long last been com- pletely justified and vindicated, having shown that it is an admirable machine for ground strafing and also that it is a match for the Me.109s".
While this may have been true low down, it was not so at altitudes, where, through changing tactics, the majority of combats were taking place.



What the Whirlwind urgently needed was an improved ma~k of Peregrine, but Rolls-Royce were heavily committed to Merlin production and development at this time, and were disinclined to spare the effort to improve the Peregrine's performance. At some stage the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production apparently discussed the idea of re-engining the Whirlwind but rejected the idea of giving it a new lease of life in this way because they considered "its fuselage was too small and its entire layout unpromising".. Thus it was that the Whirlwind's lack of altitude performance reduced its effectiveness as a weapon of war and, in turn, restricted its opera- tional career. Another contributory cause, again mentioned in an official volumet is that
"at a time i.e. 1938, when nearly all types were being ordered 'off the drawing board', the Air Staff required the Whirlwind prototype to complete brief handling trials before the production order was given to the firm. Its development period was thereby con- siderably ******ed with the result that when it did come into service it had missed its operational oppor- tunity (as a heavy-armed interceptor) and was never able to catch up the time it had lost".
PRODUCTION CUT-BACK The second production order for 200 Whirlwinds which had been placed in mid-1939 was cancelled in 1940 and the initial order for a similar quantity was reduced to 114 aircraft. The last of these left the assembly line in January 1942.
At the end of 1941, No. 263 Squadron was at Colerne, having been based successively at Martle- sham Heath, Wattisham and Predannack. Meanwhile another Whirlwind squadron had formed on 20th September, 1941-No. 137 at Colerne, moving soon afterwards to Charmy Down, and No. 263 had assisted its formation by contributing pilots and other per- sonnel. On 12th February, 1942, No. 137 Squadron, by now based at Matlask (and having previously operated from Charmy Down, Predannack and Coltishall, in turn) took part in the famous "Channel dash" episode and in doing so lost four aircraft in a dog fight with twenty Bf 109's.
The ensuing months saw the Whirlwind squadrons engaged in convoy patrols and Rhubarbs (massive fighter sweeps over Northern France and the Low Countries), in which targets ranged from railway locomotives to oil refineries, and-over sea-from E-boats to minesweepers and even a lighthouse. Another activity was night-flying training. During this period the squadrons each saw several changes of location.
In the latter part of 1942 the Whirlwind was adapted as a bomber and subsequently joined the Hurribomber in attacking the enemy in occupied territory with cannon and bombs by both day and night. One 250 or 500 lb. bomb was carried beneath
each wing, and thus modified the Whirlwinds were unofficially known as "Whirlibombers". The fitting of bomb racks to the Whirlwind was advocated in September, 1941, by Squadron Leader T. Pugh, D.F.C., the C.O. of No. 263 Squadron, but it was not until 21st July, 1942, that the first of the squadron's Whirlwinds was modified to carry bombs. The first "Whirlibomber" operation-by No. 263 Squadron and only intended as a trial run-took place on
9th September, 1942, when two sections, escorted by Spitfires, attacked four armed trawlers steaming from Cap de la Hague, near Cherbourg, towards Alderney.



Success was immediate-two of the trawlers were sunk. No bomb sight was used in such oper- ations, and as the Whirlwinds invariably bombed from 50 feet or less, a delayed action generally fuse was chosen. When loaded with bombs the aircraft flew left wing low in a dive and at high speed aileron snatch was experienced. It was recommended that both bombs be dropped simultaneously during low-level attacks, but if pilots wished to make two bombing runs then they were advised to drop the port bomb first.
The two Whirlwind squadrons continued to terrorise the enemy with bombs and cannon until the Typhoon took over the job in 1943. No. 263's hunting grounds were the Brest and Cherbourg Peninsulas and the Western Approaches, while No. 137, operating from Manston, covered the Channel and Northern France. Railway lines showed up well in the moon- light, smoke proclaiming the approach of a train. When "working on the railway", the Whirlwind's

four 20 mm. Hispano cannon proved entirely satisfactory-in- deed one No. 137 Squadron pilot blew up four locos in a single sortie. In its first six months of fighter-bomber operations No. 137 Squadron destroyed or damaged thirty-seven goods trains, sixteen of them by night and the rest by day. By day only goods trains were attacked, but by night passenger trains were also con- sidered fair game, for only Germans were permitted to travel by night in occupied territory. Enemy airfields also
"~ were a favourite target for low-
level beat-ups by the "Whirli- bomber" boys.
Eleven Whirlwinds were subscribed for by war weapons funds, notably that organised by the wealthy British colony in South America and known as the Bellows Fellowship, whose object was to "raise the wind" for the purchase of aircraft for Britain. Each member had to contribute a centavo for every German aircraft shot down by the Fellowship's "own" aircraft, and membership grew to 70,000.
The Fellowship's Whirlwind gifts included P7094,
which carried the word "Bellows" by the cockpit with a pair of bellows painted beneath it within an oval surround; P7055, P7116-P7121 inclusive, "Bellows Argentina Nos. 1-7" respectively and P7122 "Bellows Uruguay No.1". Another presentation aircraft, P7056, subscribed for by the people of its West Country birthplace, was named "Pride of Yeovil".
Some interesting experimental armament installa- tions were made on the Whirlwind. The first proto- type, 6844, was fitted with twelve 0,303 in. Browning machine guns, while another Whirlwind mounted a single 37 mm. cannon.
A high altitude photo-reconnaissance version of e Whirlwind was projected but did not materialise.



SPECIFICATIONS
Wings: Low wing cantilever monoplane. All-metal structure with light alloy stressed skin covering. Metal-framed fabric- covered ailerons. Fowlertype trailing-edge flaps on centre section between ailerons and fuselage. Rear part of engine nacelles hinged to move with the flaps to which they were attached. Handley Page anti-stall slats fitted to leading edge of outer wing panels.

Fuselage:
Oval section metal monocoque structure with stressed- skin
covering. Tail Unit: All-metal structure with stressed-skin covered fixed surfaces and fabric-covered movable surfaces. Cantilever tailplane mounted high up fin with acorn-type fairing at intersection of two surfaces. Divided rudder and elevators.

Undercarriage:
Backwards-retracting type, main wheels being completely enclosed by hinged doors. when raised into engine nacelles. Fully-retractable tailwheel.

Powerplant:
Two Rolls-Royce Peregrine I 12 cylinder vee liquid-cooled geared and supercharged engines, each developing 885 h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. at 16,250 ft.; 860 h.p. at 2,850 r.p.m. at 13,500 ft., and 765 h.p. at 3,000 r.p.m. at sea-level with 87 octane fuel. Three-bladed
de Havilland D.H.4/4 variable pitch, constant speed airscrews of
10 ft. 0 in. diameter.

Armament: 'Four fixed 20mm. Hispano Mk. 1 cannon (Oerlikon design and Hispano licence) in nose, each with a magazine containing 60 rounds of ammunition and giving a rate of fire of 600 tb./minute.

Provision made in service for two Mk. III Universal bomb-carriers, one under each wing, for 2x250 or 2x500 lb. bombs.

Dimensions:
Span 45ft. 0 in. Length (overall) 32 ft. 3 in., (tail down) 321t in.' Height (tail down) 10 ft. 6 in. Track 12ft. 9 in. Wing area 250 sq. ft.

Weights:
Empty 8,310 lb. Loaded as fighter 10,356 lb.
Loaded as bomber, 10,8881b. with 2x250 lb. bombs,
11,388 lb. with 2x500 lb. bombs.

Performance:Max. speed (light): 315 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft.,
335 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.,
360 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft.,
350 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.
Max. speed (loaded): 304 m.p.h. at 1.5,000 ft. with full war load and racks,
278m.p.h. at 15,000 ft. with full war load and 2 X 250 lb. bombs, 270 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft. with full war load and 2 X 500 lb. bombs.

M_Gunz
12-25-2008, 10:47 PM
And still obsolete at the start of the war.

Friendly_flyer
12-26-2008, 03:20 AM
Yet so was the Hurricane, and it proved itself a very valuable plane to the RAF.

Mr_Zooly
12-26-2008, 03:25 AM
It was the engines that let it down, had there been enough merlins about then it have been a different story altogether.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-26-2008, 04:33 AM
The Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine engine. To fit merlins once the Whirlwind was in production would have involved a new design. The need for more merlins pushed peregrine production back to the point it was not produced in enough quantity to iron out its' shortcomings at higher altitude.

It should be taken into account that the Whirlwind served unaltered (except for closing the leading edge slats and adding bomb racks) for a period of time that saw the Spitfire go through several marks and improvements. Had it been a dud, this would not have happened, however desperate the RAF was for front-line aircraft.

Here are the last two from a 20-page article by Jim Coyne DFC RCAF. I think he liked the old bird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Whirly/capture_09112008_143229.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Whirly/capture_09112008_143231.jpg

M_Gunz
12-26-2008, 08:34 AM
They made a lot of Hurricane II's.

DIRTY-MAC
12-26-2008, 09:46 AM
Ok M_gunz we get it, we know what you think of it. thats fine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

lets consentrate on if there is any performance charts anyone have, that they can post here.

Low_flyer_MkIX Do you have anything more interesting to post?

Im also wondering if it was possible to shoot with only two of the cannons at the same time?

M_Gunz
12-26-2008, 09:57 AM
I don't think that you can make a one-sided list and get the truth of anything, perhaps you don't get that.
Instead you think to label me, you don't know what I think or why.
If it had been so terrific there would have been Whirlwinds in daylight service at least till mid-war.
At least it's not the Fairey Battle.

Urufu_Shinjiro
12-26-2008, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't think that you can make a one-sided list and get the truth of anything, perhaps you don't get that.
Instead you think to label me, you don't know what I think or why.
If it had been so terrific there would have been Whirlwinds in daylight service at least till mid-war.
At least it's not the Fairey Battle.

No one asked if the whirly was a great plane or if it was the best the RAF had, the topic was to post performance data, if you have performance data that disputes the data posted then feel free to post that data, otherwise you are trolling the thread.

DIRTY-MAC
12-26-2008, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't think that you can make a one-sided list and get the truth of anything, perhaps you don't get that.
Instead you think to label me, you don't know what I think or why.
If it had been so terrific there would have been Whirlwinds in daylight service at least till mid-war.
At least it's not the Fairey Battle.

No one asked if the whirly was a great plane or if it was the best the RAF had, the topic was to post performance data, if you have performance data that disputes the data posted then feel free to post that data, otherwise you are trolling the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you go http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
thank you Urufu_Shinjiro http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-26-2008, 10:47 AM
The Whirlwind was in service with 263 Squadron until December 1943 flying day and night sorties. Don't try to lay no boogie woogie on the king of rock and roll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

DIRTY-MAC check pt's.

Waldo.Pepper
12-26-2008, 07:05 PM
Im also wondering if it was possible to shoot with only two of the cannons at the same time?

No. All or nothing.

From the pilot's notes page 16.


42. The cannon are cocked on the ground only. On early aeroplanes they are cocked by pulling a toggle and later by pressing a lever disclosed below a small panel on the starboard side of the armament unit cowling.

43. The four cannon are fired hydraulically on aeroplanes P.6966 to P.6969 and pneumatically on subsequent aeroplanes, the operation of each system being controlled by a pushbutton (36) on the control column spade grip.

I originally posted the entire chapter from Flying Under Fire years ago and can repost it if need be.

There is a terrific account of them in the chapter on a bombing raid in 1943. They were being escorted by Spitfires. Even while bombed up they out climbed and out paced their escorting Spitfires.

DIRTY-MAC
12-26-2008, 08:23 PM
please repost it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

bummer with the cannons, you really have to be sparse with the ammo then,
doesnt the Zero have the same amount of 20mm shells per gun.
that will give you a hum on how long it will last.
but it still enough to get you around two three kills, before turning home with that consentrated fire.

Waldo.Pepper
12-26-2008, 09:42 PM
but it still enough to get you around two three kills

Maybe in a game. Here is the chapter.

http://www.zshare.net/download/53333372804f71c0/

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 03:27 AM
I originally posted the entire chapter from Flying Under Fire years ago and can repost it if need be.

Posting entire chapters is beyond 'fair use' and I will be forced to delete it.

HellToupee
12-27-2008, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
The Whirlwind was designed around the Peregrine engine. To fit merlins once the Whirlwind was in production would have involved a new design.


not a new design just redesigned nacelles.

Westland did make the Welkin basically a high alt whirlwind that had merlins.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
12-27-2008, 03:58 AM
I originally posted the entire chapter from Flying Under Fire years ago and can repost it if need be.

There is a terrific account of them in the chapter on a bombing raid in 1943. They were being escorted by Spitfires. Even while bombed up they out climbed and out paced their escorting Spitfires.

Waldo, can you let me know the ISBN number of the book please, as I would like to get a copy for myself... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ah, is this the one...

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx...Under+Fire&x=43&y=14 (http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=10&kn=Flying+Under+Fire&sortby=3&sts=t&tn=Flying+Under+Fire&x=43&y=14)

arthursmedley
12-27-2008, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
I originally posted the entire chapter from Flying Under Fire years ago and can repost it if need be.

There is a terrific account of them in the chapter on a bombing raid in 1943. They were being escorted by Spitfires. Even while bombed up they out climbed and out paced their escorting Spitfires.

Waldo, can you let me know the ISBN number of the book please, as I would like to get a copy for myself... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ah, is this the one...

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx...Under+Fire&x=43&y=14 (http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bx=off&ds=10&kn=Flying+Under+Fire&sortby=3&sts=t&tn=Flying+Under+Fire&x=43&y=14)

+1. Now have about 100 worth of book tokens burning a hole in my back-pocket.
Let the ordering commence! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh yeah, looking forward to taking this little beauty for a spin around Skies of Valour soon.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 04:51 AM
not a new design just redesigned nacelles.


The mistake of the Whirlwind was to far too small a margin for weight increase of the engine as the structure was created to be as light as possible based on the Peregrines. To take Merlins in the Welkin required beefing up the wing structure and all the knock on effects meant a new aircraft even before considering the high altitude requirement. Welkin development was protracted but deleting the very high altitude requirement might have meant an early 1943 introduction. At least it did enter service unlike the Vickers equivalent.

The Welkin is an indication of what would have been possible, though.

One of the things that was unusual about the Whirlwind for a British multi-engine design of the time was that it was only proposed with one engine type. Gloster, Bristol, and Supermarine designs offered multiple options such as the Peregrine, Taurus or Dagger.

To some extent Petter backed himself into a similar corner with the Lightning which had space for the minimum fuel required for its original mission and so ended having to have bulged fuel tanks in service when the mission profile was slightly changed to require interception slightly further out. (As originally envisaged it was to enter service in around 1955 to bridge the gap until SAMs became mature in the later, SAMs having been in development during WW2).

The Whirly was a fantastic design, just too tied to that one engine option. If it had been done as a low altitude Welkin from the outset things might have been different and we'd probably never have had a Mosquito FB.VI, just the B and NF marks, and the Hornet would have been a super-Whirly. As a knock on we might have seen Vampires in service in WW2.

HellToupee
12-27-2008, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Whirly was a fantastic design, just too tied to that one engine option. If it had been done as a low altitude Welkin from the outset things might have been different and we'd probably never have had a Mosquito FB.VI, just the B and NF marks, and the Hornet would have been a super-Whirly. As a knock on we might have seen Vampires in service in WW2.

It would never have been able to fill the FB mosquitos roll it had the same range handicap as the single engine fighters. Reason it was scrapped it just didnt do anything single engine types couldn't.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 05:36 AM
Fair point.

Four cannon versions of Spitfire and Hurricane were also tendered to the specification that led to the Whirlwind, but Supermarine and Hawker were told to concentrate on the eight gun versions to ensure these would be in service before the anticipated war, rather than have no modern fighters at all.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
12-27-2008, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Whirly was a fantastic design, just too tied to that one engine option. If it had been done as a low altitude Welkin from the outset things might have been different and we'd probably never have had a Mosquito FB.VI, just the B and NF marks, and the Hornet would have been a super-Whirly. As a knock on we might have seen Vampires in service in WW2.

It would never have been able to fill the FB mosquitos roll it had the same range handicap as the single engine fighters. Reason it was scrapped it just didnt do anything single engine types couldn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The real reason's it was 'Scrapped' was;

1.) Both the Air Ministry & the RAF did'nt like Westlands...

2.) RAF were very negative about twin engined fighters at the begining of the War, but come the end had warmed to them...

3.) Two engined fighters were just one engine to many...

4.)Westlands were given the go-ahead because the tooling had been already been 90% done as had the tooling for the R-R Peregrines and it was deemed 'Wasteful' to not use them... Thats why there was only 114 Whirlwinds, cause there was only 240 'Peregrines' for them made...

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-27-2008, 07:07 AM
Book tokens, eh, Mr Smedley?

http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=7200009&qsort=p

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 07:27 AM
1.) Both the Air Ministry & the RAF did'nt like Westlands...

Given the adverse comments made about manufacturers I've seen I'm not sure the Air Ministry liked anyone much!

They did pick the Lysander, which Petter project managed. From the Lysander to the Lightning in 15 years is quite a jump!

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 07:30 AM
Westlands were given the go-ahead because the tooling had been already been 90% done as had the tooling for the R-R Peregrines and it was deemed 'Wasteful' to not use them... Thats why there was only 114 Whirlwinds, cause there was only 240 'Peregrines' for them made...

I wonder what the effect of a different engine of the same class would have been (Taurus or Dagger, although the Dagger wasn't very successful either). The Taurus would have higher frontal area but no need to the weight of radiators, cooling fluids, and a cleaner leading edge.

It's all a bit ironic given the Merlin was a 'fill in' engine.

Xiolablu3
12-27-2008, 08:48 AM
SLightly OT but interesting...

I believe the Spitfire rarely fitted 4 cannon because it could not carry ordanance if it had 4 cannon fitted, the wings could not take the weight of 4 cannon+ammo+ bombs.

Therefore it made sense to fit 2cannon+4 mgs and have it able to fullfil many more roles.


Over Malta in the purely defensive role it made sense to fit 4 cannon. (Spitfire Vc with 4 cannon) The SPitfires job in 1941-42 was purely to prevent Malta from falling, they were incredibly outnumbered and they were purely for defence. This was the only time 4 cannon were fitted officially IIRC.

In all other instances after 1941 the Spit was better off being able to fulfill more roles than just defense and so only 2 cannon were fitted so it could carry bombs or other things if needed.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 09:20 AM
M1919 - 10kg, ammunition 24g
M2 - 29kg, ammunition 183g
Hispano II - 240g

VC (2 HII (60rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 302kg
VC (4 HII (60rpg)) - 458 kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 331kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 2 M2 (250rpg)) - 407kg
IX (4 HII (120 rpg)) - 515kg.

So using four cannon in some VC added a little over 150kg. 2 250lb bombs excl shackles is about 226kg, so maybe 250kg with shackles.

If you look at effectiveness in terms of weight of fire (including explosive effects) for installed weight it hardly seems worth putting in the 303s at all, and many Malta VCs were flown with just 2 20mm cannon (saves 74kg over the standard fit or 230 kg over four cannon). The gun power of 2 Hispanos is about 400 for ten seconds, so total 4000, 2 Hispanos and 4 303s about 480 for 10 seconds, 80 for another 7.5 seconds or total 5400. So 2 cannon efficiency is 4000/228 = 17.5 (ditto 4 cannon), with mgs it is 5400/302 = 17.9, so pretty close on that basis.

M_Gunz
12-27-2008, 11:55 AM
A handful of 30 cal bullets has more value than simple weight.
Spend some time down at a rifle range, take a few bricks and see what just one hit at 200 yards can do.

In the vicinity of cockpit or nose, any hit has a good chance of doing effective damage. The tracers alone can change minds.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 12:16 PM
A handful of 30 cal bullets has more value than simple weight.

The calculation was about the weight that a Spitfire would have to carry, not the weight of the rounds. The power calculation takes into account explosive content too.

Even in WW1 it was felt that rifle calibre guns (at least in pairs in WW1, although some fighters were experimentally tested with up to four directly forward firing guns) were insufficiently effective against large bombers, it just took a long time to replace them. There were instances of 500 or so rounds being fired at 100 yards at/into Gothas with no particular effect.
Somewhat different to WW2 a/c, though, as the rounds could go through the fabric.

The RAF did a series of tests on various 50 calibre weapons in the late 1920s and came to the conclusion that even larger calibre weapons should be used with rifle calibre weapons as a stop gap until aircraft that could carry cannon in a fighter package could be developed. The problem with cannon being the problem of mounting them in wings in the early 1930s, hence the design of the Whirlwind as four cannon were felt to be required in the mid 1930s for a threat in 1940 and a single moteur-cannon as could be envisaged for single engined aicraft was considered too little. The later 1930s specification (e.g. the one the 'Twin Spitfire' aka Supermarine 323 was tendered too) asked for 6 20mm cannon!

Xiolablu3
12-27-2008, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
M1919 - 10kg, ammunition 24g
M2 - 29kg, ammunition 183g
Hispano II - 240g

VC (2 HII (60rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 302kg
VC (4 HII (60rpg)) - 458 kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 331kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 2 M2 (250rpg)) - 407kg
IX (4 HII (120 rpg)) - 515kg.

So using four cannon in some VC added a little over 150kg. 2 250lb bombs excl shackles is about 226kg, so maybe 250kg with shackles.

If you look at effectiveness in terms of weight of fire (including explosive effects) for installed weight it hardly seems worth putting in the 303s at all, and many Malta VCs were flown with just 2 20mm cannon (saves 74kg over the standard fit or 230 kg over four cannon). The gun power of 2 Hispanos is about 400 for ten seconds, so total 4000, 2 Hispanos and 4 303s about 480 for 10 seconds, 80 for another 7.5 seconds or total 5400. So 2 cannon efficiency is 4000/228 = 17.5 (ditto 4 cannon), with mgs it is 5400/302 = 17.9, so pretty close on that basis.


Hi mate,

Didn't the Vc(4) carry 120 rpg for the 4 cannon?

I believe it does in IL2 and also IRL.

It was the 1941 MkVb which carried 60rpg for the cannon.

Also remember that the 2 cannon in each wing are much closer togther, the two .303's are much more spread out, and therefore so is the weight.

I could be wrong about the weight of the 4 cannon being the reason that 4 cannon were not often carried, but I am pretty sure that was the reason I read that they were not often fitted, because they limited the roles of the Spitfire if they were.


I owuld say that the .303's were worth fitting as against anything which didnt have a lot of armour there were so many bullets flying about that they were likely to hit something vital. Its like a combination of destructive fire and spray of tiny projectiles. Even a .303 is going to puncture the canopy and smash components. from anything but dead 6.

I would agree that a spray of .303's has more value than simple weight. Esp. when combined with the destruction of 20mm cannon fire.

Waldo.Pepper
12-27-2008, 02:16 PM
Waldo, can you let me know the ISBN number of the book please, as I would like to get a copy for myself... Wink2

Ah, is this the one...

Yes Archie. An excellent series of two volumes. I got my copies rather inexpensively from a pair of local used books stores. Ten clams each I think I paid.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/DSCI0001b.jpg

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 03:25 PM
Didn't the Vc(4) carry 120 rpg for the 4 cannon?

You're probably right! So scratch those calculations!

HellToupee
12-27-2008, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
The real reason's it was 'Scrapped' was;

1.) Both the Air Ministry & the RAF did'nt like Westlands...

2.) RAF were very negative about twin engined fighters at the begining of the War, but come the end had warmed to them...

3.) Two engined fighters were just one engine to many...

4.)Westlands were given the go-ahead because the tooling had been already been 90% done as had the tooling for the R-R Peregrines and it was deemed 'Wasteful' to not use them... Thats why there was only 114 Whirlwinds, cause there was only 240 'Peregrines' for them made...

Yes all those reasons because it didn't do anything single engine types couldn't except use peregrines.

The whole point of a twin was long range, which it didn't have, while the beaufighter and mosquito etc went on to fill the twin rolls.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 06:23 PM
Yes all those reasons because it didn't do anything single engine types couldn't except use peregrines.

At the time of specification in 1935 it was felt the best chance of having a four cannon bomber interceptor was a twin, rather than trying to fit four cannon in to wings of a single-engined type. The Whirlwind was late into service and by the time it was the race was on again to try and put cannon in the wings of cheaper, single engined aircraft as Supermarine and Hawker had suggested in 1935. Even so it took until 1942 to get ones with four cannon and equivalent performance (Sptifire VC, Typhoon).

The Beaufighter and Mosquito didn't fill the interceptor role except at night (and the Whirlwind was intended only as a day fighter, or as cats-eyes at best). The Beaufighter was too slow and vulnerable to intercept by day, and against the later Dorniers too slow by night (hence replacement with the Mosquito). The Mosquito was not nimble enough to be a day interceptor.

Aaron_GT
12-27-2008, 06:33 PM
VC (2 HII (60rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 302kg
VC (4 HII (60rpg)) - 458 kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 4 303 (350rpg)) - 331kg
IX (2 HII (120rpg) 2 M2 (250rpg)) - 407kg
IX (4 HII (120 rpg)) - 515kg.

Ok - corrected VC with 4 HII and 120 rpg - 716kg
2 HII - 358kg
2 HII, 4 303 - 460 kg

So having the 4 303 instead of 2 HIIs saves 256kg, or enough for ~500lbs of bombs.

M_Gunz
12-27-2008, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A handful of 30 cal bullets has more value than simple weight.

The calculation was about the weight that a Spitfire would have to carry, not the weight of the rounds. The power calculation takes into account explosive content too.

Even in WW1 it was felt that rifle calibre guns (at least in pairs in WW1, although some fighters were experimentally tested with up to four directly forward firing guns) were insufficiently effective against large bombers, it just took a long time to replace them. There were instances of 500 or so rounds being fired at 100 yards at/into Gothas with no particular effect.
Somewhat different to WW2 a/c, though, as the rounds could go through the fabric.

The RAF did a series of tests on various 50 calibre weapons in the late 1920s and came to the conclusion that even larger calibre weapons should be used with rifle calibre weapons as a stop gap until aircraft that could carry cannon in a fighter package could be developed. The problem with cannon being the problem of mounting them in wings in the early 1930s, hence the design of the Whirlwind as four cannon were felt to be required in the mid 1930s for a threat in 1940 and a single moteur-cannon as could be envisaged for single engined aicraft was considered too little. The later 1930s specification (e.g. the one the 'Twin Spitfire' aka Supermarine 323 was tendered too) asked for 6 20mm cannon! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During WWI after some experiments were made with 20mm the use of them and explosive shells in aircraft was banned as barbaric.

30 cal is not the heavy destruction tool that heavy fire is, but don't let the comparison fool you into disrespecting the punch they do have.
A little practical experience might teach a lot to those who have only played with numbers.
I do seem to recall that a lot of planes equipped with 303's alone did knock down quite a few bombers and escorts in 1940.
When it's aircrew, instruments, engines or other less than armor working parts of a plane that's hit it doesn't matter all that much if it
gets hit by 303, 50 cal or 20mm as to whether it ceases to function very well. It becomes a matter of chance and trigger time for the weight.
All in all I'd rather carry the maximum guns to deconstruct enemy planes with but I don't discount the effectiveness of the "little stuff"
just like that. A .22 pistol can kill you just as dead as a 50 cal rifle. Not so easily done but that's not the point. Respect the gun.

HellToupee
12-27-2008, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The Beaufighter and Mosquito didn't fill the interceptor role except at night (and the Whirlwind was intended only as a day fighter, or as cats-eyes at best). The Beaufighter was too slow and vulnerable to intercept by day, and against the later Dorniers too slow by night (hence replacement with the Mosquito). The Mosquito was not nimble enough to be a day interceptor.

Exactly they didn't fall into rolls already filled by cheaper single engine types or be capable of filling the rolls of the heavier twins.

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 06:11 AM
During WWI after some experiments were made with 20mm the use of them and explosive shells in aircraft was banned as barbaric.

Not that it stopped tests throughout the interwar period! 37mm and 47mm were popular calibres, 12.7mm for non explosive, and the USSR deployed a single engined bomber destroyer in small numbers in the mid 1930s with twin recoilless 76.2mm guns!


A little practical experience might teach a lot to those who have only played with numbers.

The relevant practical experience is trying to shoot down planes with them, though. That is what led to the RAF calling four four 20mm cannon for the Whirlwind.

It also called for 20mm defensive guns.

In both cases the practicalities of WW2 meant that neither happened as planned.


When it's aircrew, instruments, engines or other less than armor working parts of a plane that's hit it doesn't matter all that much if it
gets hit by 303, 50 cal or 20mm as to whether it ceases to function very well.

The presumption was that time on target would be small and so the maximum destructive power in the shortest time was required and that 20mm cannon (and four or more of them) would be the most effective available in 1940 when the determination was made in 1935 and this was a pretty good decision.

I'm not saying the rifle calibre was totally ineffective just that tests by the RAF and others indicated that for a given weight of installation that for a short time on target heavier calibres were much more effective.

Daiichidoku
12-28-2008, 09:08 AM
dont intend to derail at all, but.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Despite the problems of air-to-air shooting, the French fighter ace Guynemer was interested in the possibility of installing an engine-mounted cannon between the cylinder banks of the geared Hispano V8 aero engine, firing through the hollow propeller hub, and he inspired such an installation in the SPAD 12Ca1. There were two different types of 37 mm cannon available; some confusion as to their origins exists but it appears that one was a conventional SAMC design with a rifled barrel, the other was a modified M1885 smoothbore firing canister shot, like a large shotgun. They are often referred to as "Puteaux" guns but this might just refer to the arsenal where they were made. A Vickers machine gun was also carried. The plane emerged in July 1917 and a number were built (although nothing like the 300 ordered), several pilots, including Guynemer, achieving some successes with it. These weapons were still manually loaded, however, and unpopular with most pilots because of their awkward loading and the propellant fumes which filled the cockpit on firing. Only eight were reported to be at the Front on 1 October 1918.

Forty SPAD 14 floatplanes, and some of the SPAD 24 landplane version, were also ordered with a 37 mm cannon, of which a few may have reached service. Attempts were made to develop automatic loading cannon, but these were too late for the war

the cannon was used in two role first with the fighter spad 12 or seaplane spad 24 as a single shoot weapon
Guynemer get 5 kill in this plane (with the exception of his last kill in 13 he scored the previous 5 in a 12 (I do not know how many with the cannon))
Fonk is said to have scored 7 kill in the 12 with at least 5 with the cannon (i am talking about the confirmed kill he claim 10 or 11 kill in the cannon)
Guynemer nicknamed the spad12 his magic plane but also the petadoux (sweet farter) (lol!)
the 37mm cannon were also used in voisin bomber and various frenchflying boat as a air to ground weapon (with the navy as anti ship and mainly anti submarine)
it must be nottice that for ground attack the 37mm was not widely used an a 47mm was much more often used
At least one kill was made by a cannon armed voisin (using the cannon)

ElAurens
12-28-2008, 10:42 AM
In essence the RAF came to the same conclusion on twin engined fighters (for the most part)that the USAAF did with the P38 years later.

By and large their advantages do not offset their increased costs, especially when there are single engined aircraft that are demonstratively more capable.

At the end of the war the USAAF dumped the P38 like a hot potato. It was simply too expensive a proposition. The majority in use in the Pacific were scrapped in place.

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 11:21 AM
The logic behind the development of the P-38 was similar too - the idea that to mount a large cannon (23mm as planned, with an option for 37mm, plus auxiliary guns) for bomber interception meant mounting it in the nose of a twin. The P-39 took a radical approach to fit it into a cheaper single engined design, although the twin boom of the P-38 was radical too.

One of the other perceived advantages of a nose mounting was that wing flex played havoc with flexible feeds for wing cannon meaning that they were initially restricted to drum feed, limiting ammunition capacity. With a nose cannon you could in theory use boxes as you could have a rigid structure, or at least bigger drums without a drag penalty. In the ebd the Whirlwind and first Beaufighters, etc. still used 60 round drums as the work on the box feeds had not been done.

Xiolablu3
12-28-2008, 02:51 PM
I think the emergeance of the Fw190, Typhoon and other heavily armed single engine types showed that there was no real need for twin engine 'destroyers'. Even the Spit and outdated Hurri could carry 4 cannon. - Single engined fighters on both sides in 1941-42 could carry very heavy armament, heavy enough to destroy bombers relatively easily.

Now the only real advantage the twins had was the possible range.

This range advantage disappeared in 1943 with the development of the Mustang. Now single engined fighters could do everything the proposed destroyers could do and also compete with other single engined fighters.

Did the Whirly have any real advantage over the Spitfire Vc(4) or Hurricane IID with 4 cannon?

Aaron_GT
12-28-2008, 03:02 PM
Over the Hurricane, speed. Not much to choose over the Spitfire in 1942.

Xiolablu3
12-29-2008, 01:40 PM
Heres a good question :-

How do you think squadrons of Whirlies would have performed in the BOB vs the Me110 and Me109?

arthursmedley
12-29-2008, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Heres a good question :-

How do you think squadrons of Whirlies would have performed in the BOB vs the Me110 and Me109?

Wermacht parading down Whitehall by Christmas 1940.

Aaron_GT
12-29-2008, 01:52 PM
How many were in strength? Wasn't it less than half-a-dozen? Did any actually see action? They were designed to attack bombers, though, rather than fighters, although you could say the same of the Hurricane and Spitfire too, I suppose, although those two were deemed to have the absolute bare minimum armament for the purpose.

Xiolablu3
12-29-2008, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by arthursmedley:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Heres a good question :-

How do you think squadrons of Whirlies would have performed in the BOB vs the Me110 and Me109?

Wermacht parading down Whitehall by Christmas 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was Whirly performance worse than that of the Hurricane used by the RAF in 1940?

I have no idea how it stacks up vs the Hurri.

I would guess it would be faster down low, but slower up high? The armament would be far better on the Whirly, and I think it was quite manouverable as it was small in size, unlike the large, 'heavy-in-comparison' Me110 with two crew?

I think it was the lack of range which really kille the project. 300 miles combat radius is pretty awefull for a twin engined aircraft and no better than even the shortest range model of Spitfire. FAr worse than the MkVII or MkVIII of 1943.

However back to 1940, surely the Whirly with its very low fuel load, small size and only one crew could easily compete with the Me110 in manouverability?

Just guesses btw, need you guys to give me the facts...

I found these rough figures :- BF110C - Empty weight : 4500 kg (9900 lb);

Loaded weight: 6700 kg (14800 lb)

Whirlwind :- Empty weight 3770 kg 8311 lb

Loaded weight: 4,697 kg (10,356) lb

Obviously the Bf110 had far better range and carried much more fuel and equipment. But as a defensive fighter in the BOB 1940 , fuel load for the RAF fighters did not matter at this time.

WTE_Galway
12-29-2008, 03:01 PM
I is always good to remember that the question at the time was not "which uber ride do I click on in the startup screen". It was very much how effective can we use our wartime production resources.

Hence the decision not to use Merlins in the p38. Packard Merlins were in short supply and high demand. Could a Merlin powered p38 be more effective than a mustang in a real life version of a PvP dogfight ? maybe ..I do not know. Its also not relevant as the real question was "could a Merlin P38 be more effective than the same pair of engines in TWO mustangs ??" Of course not.

It is important to remember every Whirlwind built meant two less Hurricanes or Spitfires.

arthursmedley
12-29-2008, 03:02 PM
I think the LW would just cruise on over at angels twenty and the snappers would pick off the Whirly's as they struggled for altitude.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
12-29-2008, 04:37 PM
We'll soon find out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

arthursmedley
12-29-2008, 05:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
12-29-2008, 06:24 PM
Whirlwind Performance?

I was told anything else was a bad thing....

DIRTY-MAC
12-29-2008, 09:14 PM
The wirlwind was said to be very manouvreble and will probably perform more like a single engine fighter than a twin, It seems like it will outperform the spit and Bf109 in speed and climb down low

The Whirly will probably do something around 360mp/h at 15000 feet
=580km/h at 4570m



Bf 109 E1/E3 DB 601A:
460 kph / 285 mph @ sea level
555 kph / 345 mph @ 4.2 km/ 13,800 feet

Bf 109 E3/E4 DB 601A-1a:
480 kph / 300 mph @ sea level
570 kph / 354 mph @ 4.5 km/ 14,500 feet

109 E4N/E7 DB 601N:
490 kph/ 305 mph @ sea level
575 kph/ 357 mph @ 5.2 km/ 16,800 feet

Early Spitfire I Merlin II/III:
455 kph/ 282 mph @ sea level
590 kph/ 367 mpg @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

Spitfire I Merlin II/III with 100 octane and +12.5 lbs boost:
500 kph/ 310 mph @ sea level
570 kph/ 355 mph @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet



http://www.kurfurst.org/#Emil

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/bf-109-vs-spitfire-3406.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html

http://ww2airfronts.org/Theaters/eto/AP156/pages/AP156-3.html

DIRTY-MAC
01-01-2009, 06:18 PM
So..
Westland Whirlwind
with 87 octane fuel at +6 lbs Boost


315+ on the deck
335 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft.,
360 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft.,
350 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft.

It also used 100 octane +9 lbs Boost
but I have no info on that, It should be faster but I dont know how much.
and I dont know if they ever got it up
to +12 lbs Boost,anyone?



Bf 109 E1/E3 DB 601A:
460 kph / 285 mph @ sea level
555 kph / 345 mph @ 4.2 km/ 13,800 feet

Bf 109 E3/E4 DB 601A-1a:
480 kph / 300 mph @ sea level
570 kph / 354 mph @ 4.5 km/ 14,500 feet

109 E4N/E7 DB 601N:
490 kph/ 305 mph @ sea level
575 kph/ 357 mph @ 5.2 km/ 16,800 feet

Early Spitfire I Merlin II/III:
455 kph/ 282 mph @ sea level
590 kph/ 367 mpg @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

Spitfire I Merlin II/III with 100 octane and +12.5 lbs boost:
500 kph/ 310 mph @ sea level
570 kph/ 355 mph @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

Does anyone have the climbrates for the Spit and Bf109s

Bartman.
01-02-2009, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
We'll soon find out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Soon! ? , know something the rest of us don't ? or are you dreaming ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bartmam .

Aaron_GT
01-02-2009, 02:40 AM
Early Spitfire I Merlin II/III:
455 kph/ 282 mph @ sea level
590 kph/ 367 mpg @ 6.1 km/ 20,000 feet

282 and 367 are the speeds of the prototype, not a production example but often get repeated as for a Spitfire I. The other Spitfire figure is the better of the two.

Aaron_GT
01-02-2009, 02:42 AM
It also used 100 octane +9 lbs Boost
but I have no info on that, It should be faster but I dont know how much.

I'd guess it would only boost speeds below about 10,000 ft.

Friendly_flyer
01-02-2009, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Bartman.:
Soon! ? , know something the rest of us don't ? or are you dreaming ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


You need to turn ... to the ... dark side, (incert heavy breating) young padawan.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
01-02-2009, 08:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

New update over there, chaps...looking good.

TinyTim
01-02-2009, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the emergeance of the Fw190, Typhoon and other heavily armed single engine types showed that there was no real need for twin engine 'destroyers'. Even the Spit and outdated Hurri could carry 4 cannon. - Single engined fighters on both sides in 1941-42 could carry very heavy armament, heavy enough to destroy bombers relatively easily.

Now the only real advantage the twins had was the possible range.

This range advantage disappeared in 1943 with the development of the Mustang. Now single engined fighters could do everything the proposed destroyers could do and also compete with other single engined fighters.

Did the Whirly have any real advantage over the Spitfire Vc(4) or Hurricane IID with 4 cannon?

Agreed completely. And even A6M in 1941 had greater range than P-51 in '44 (but lacked in nearly every other respect), so even a range is a vague argument.