• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Westland Whirlwind Variants and Projects

Avimimus

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
66
This nose had one or two 0.303s for sighting, correct?
 
J

joncarrfarrelly

Guest
Discussed here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5734.0.html
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi All,
found this in my notes, a plan & side view of the MKII nose,
note no nose bulges near the cockpit end, see photo example
hence the theory of the PR nose cone, mentioned earlier.
cheers
Jerry
 

Attachments

oz rb fan

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
i'm learning more about my favorite fighter daily ;D.
jerry is there any information on how close the mk2 was to becoming reality ?
also was the merlin powered mk3 (i assume thats what it would have been called) seriously cosidered by the airministry ?
paul
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi All,
Just an update to my previous comments, as petter & westlands were so against radials , I had aways followed the belief of others, and assumed the american engine to be an in line, however, i have just got a copy of interceptor fighter by mjf bowyer.
and it states in a letter from westlands ...the alternative project of fitment of american radial engines...
So now maybe engines from p-36 mohawks ?

also in '41 when the typhoon project looked like failing,
' the director of technical development..... had already mooted a taurus engine whirlwind '

I haven't fully read the book yet, appx 200 pages, but will post anything else of interest.
cheers
Jerry
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Just for info and those who like the merlin whirlwind idea.
Below is a link to website with a post from someone who worked in the design department on the merlin whirlwind project.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/west_whirlwind.php

quote
"Later I was promoted to the design department and worked on the installation of 2 Merlin in the production version.
This was not to order yet, so the funding was Westlands."


Leads a bit more weight to the fact it was possible to fit merlins, dispelling the old myth of airframe being too small,
and more importantly the time he mentions occurs before the welkin spec was issued by the air min, so a totally different project

And yes i am in the process of contacting the guy for further info, which will naturally be posted here.


cheers
Jerry
 

Abraham Gubler

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,558
Reaction score
128
brewerjerry said:
Leads a bit more weight to the fact it was possible to fit merlins, dispelling the old myth of airframe being too small,
and more importantly the time he mentions occurs before the welkin spec was issued by the air min, so a totally different project
No it doesn’t. And the “myth” is the many well researched articles on the Whirlwind including that by by Tony Butler “Reap the Whirlwind” based on extensive interviews with senior Westland personnel.

The issue of the Whirlwind was the wing had been designed to support the weight of the Perigine engine. Now you could add more weight to the wing – as in those Whirlwinds operating as bombers carrying 500 lbs on each wing – but you then reduce the G load the wing can handle. So you could fit Merlins to a Whirlwind but it wouldn’t be a fighter. To make a Merlin Whirlwind fighter would require an entirely new wing. Otherwise you would have a very fast plane that would be more than suitable for photo reconnaissance but that’s about it.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
pure number crunching ...
Fitting merlins adds only 235lbs per wing, as you say the whirlwind could carry 500lb bomb on each wing,so why redesign a wing, when it can take the weight.

The guy who posted the original info worked in the westland design department on the merlin engine project.

quote
"Later I was promoted to the design department and worked on the installation of 2 Merlin in the production version.
This was not to order yet, so the funding was Westlands."


So personally, as i am not an aircraft designer, i would be inclined to believe him.
For me this is more evidence that westland was serious about the merlin whirlwind

quote
'Otherwise you would have a very fast plane that would be more than suitable for photo reconnaissance but that’s about it'.

strangely that is what the first whirlwinds were going to be.

also
Jan 41 in a letter to Sholto Douglas
by Eric Mensforth Managing Director. Westlands.

....... We are now able, because of the solution of certain undercarriage retraction problems, to offer to install in the whirlwind twin merlin XX engines .....


I think menesforth also qualifies as senior westland personnel.

http://www.theiet.org/about/libarc/archives/biographies/mensforth.cfm

an interesting read.


cheers
jerry
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
568
Reaction score
106
Westland A/c Ltd.'s MD was seconded 1/43 to MAP as Chief Production Adviser. Roy Fedden, ex-Bristol Aero-Engines and Sir Richard Fairey had similar roles, which gave down-to-earth rugged realism to Whitehall and early access for industry to emerging Requirements. WAL responded, invited or not, to everything, 1943-45.

Whirlwind/Welkin continue to stimulate because they appear to be orphans, potential unrealised. By 1/41 Mosquito appeared to offer at low risk the same capability as a Merlin Whirlwind, so Mensforth's idea was declined. So, what went wrong between 2/37 (prototype contract)/late-1938 (when its production was assigned to Nuffield's in-build Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory) and 4/39 when instead Spitfire Mk.II was assigned to CBAF? There is a research exercise looking for a home here on the key kit which the WAL twins were to carry. Licences, BSA/Colt for Browning .303MG, and for Br.Hispano for its parent's 20mm; and then WAL's link with AiResearch for pressurisation (leading to post-War NormalAir-Garrett Ltd). Overload in RR's Installation Development team causing Peregrine to take a backseat was unhelpful, but MAP had the option of placing higher priority on the twins. Instead they put Yeovil into Spitfire wings, Seafire and early Marks Spitfire Design Authority. The reason will not be conspiracy, but perceived operational priorities.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi All,
I got a very speedy reply from the guy who worked in the design department at westland on the merlin whirlwind.
He recalls that the whirlwind merlin nacelle shape changed very little from that of the whirlwind peregrine nacelle and that extra fuel capacity was fitted, also some changes were made to compensate for the change in CofG.
I am awaiting any further info, that i will of course post here.
Cheers
Jerry
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi,

Any news?

The jet version Planemakers:2 Westland by David Mondey lists a early jet version that was proposed with
2x Whittle W 2.B turbojets. has any one got any information, specs for this proposal?

Was the W2.B turbojet lighter and more powerful than the Peregrine ?

In service by 1943? Just a thought.



brewerjerry said:
Hi All,
I got a very speedy reply from the guy who worked in the design department at westland on the merlin whirlwind.
He recalls that the whirlwind merlin nacelle shape changed very little from that of the whirlwind peregrine nacelle and that extra fuel capacity was fitted, also some changes were made to compensate for the change in CofG.
I am awaiting any further info, that i will of course post here.
Cheers
Jerry
 

Apophenia

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,502
Reaction score
762
Spark said:
Was the W2.B turbojet lighter and more powerful than the Peregrine ?
The W.2.B Wellend's dry weight was about 850 lbs (385 kg), 1500 lbs (770 kg) for the pair. The Peregrine's dry weight was 1140 lbs (517 kg), 2280 lbs (1034 kg) for the pair. So, you've saved 780 lbs with your engine swap.

On an aircraft as small and tightly-tailored as the Whirlwind, the real question is how does fuel consumption compare. At cruising speed, each Peregrine burned 75.5 gal/hour, the W.2.B around 180 gal/hour.

In other words, you need to find spare room in the Whirlwind airframe for an additional 2090 lbs of fuel per hour of endurance. Your saved 780 lbs gives you less than 15 minutes flying time.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Spark said:
Hi,

Any news?

brewerjerry said:
Hi All,
I got a very speedy reply from the guy who worked in the design department at westland on the merlin whirlwind.
He recalls that the whirlwind merlin nacelle shape changed very little from that of the whirlwind peregrine nacelle and that extra fuel capacity was fitted, also some changes were made to compensate for the change in CofG.
I am awaiting any further info, that i will of course post here.
Cheers
Jerry
Hi
No, unfortunately nothing new came from our correspondence.
But for me personally, it was another small piece of proof that went with other information that the whirlwind airframe was capable of taking merlins.
Maybe some day a drawing will turn up, or photo of a mock up.
A few people i have contacted over the years who worked at yeovil had kept small items,i.e. photos of whirlwinds,one even had a wind tunnel whirlwind model, so you never know.
cheers
Jerry
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi Jerry,
Thanks, I only now know a couple of key folk from the period and both live in the present and are not keen to go back even in thought.

Hi Apophenia,
Thanks for the information and thoughts. You have a good argument about range and you have made me think we could add some more mass saving
I do not know the specific values for the RR Peregrine but the Hamilton v.p. airscrew mass of the period is given as 360lb for a similar power rating.The coolant mass as 55lb for a engine with similar power output. In total we may have a possible mass saving of another 800lb for both engines.

I am guessing but with the different characteristics the jet powered aircraft would have about double the cruising speed hence range for a given time.
So still short winded but maybe a range similar to the Spitfire?


 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Just had a random thought ..........on the merlin XX project
But hypothetically if westland did literaly use the merlin XX power egg,as on the lanc and beau, with the engine mounted radiator,
It would free up the space in the wing taken up by the radiator and oil coolers used for the peregrines,this would give space for another fuel tank in each wing.
or maybe I should have posted on a wiff forum .....
cheers
Jerry
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
It rather strikes me that if one really wishes to pursue the notion of a developed Whirlwind then the most credible option is the MkII with the extended nose (4 x 20mm with 120 rounds per gun and an additional fuel tank) and developed Peregrines of roughly 1,000hp and some minor aerodynamic enhancements. However, to reinforce the point that Ken made earlier in the thread, as formidable an aircraft as it would have been the industrial logic is difficult to argue. Earlier in the thread a qoute was given of Rolls Royce's opinion stating that they believed that continued Peregrine production would cost two Merlin's for every Peregrine, if we take that argument at face value and extend it further into aircraft manufacture where it takes two peregrines to build a Whirlwind we find that what is actually being said is that from a power plant perspective one can have either four Spitfire/Seafires or an Avro Lancaster for one Whirlwind. It is not difficult to see why it exited the field.
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi Folks,
Petter wanted the Merlin for the Whirlwind before the start of the WW2. It could have reached squadron service by the time of the battle of Britain given the political will.
I guess that with the cannon it had three times the effective hitting power and Merlin powered 70mph speed advantage over the best Spitfire for that time.
One farther point one would guess that it would have bettered the Fw190 when it was such a problem. Better than squandering pilots by having them fly an inadequate Spitfire.Better surely one Whirlwind than half a dozen downed Spifires?



sealordlawrence said:
It rather strikes me that if one really wishes to pursue the notion of a developed Whirlwind then the most credible option is the MkII with the extended nose (4 x 20mm with 120 rounds per gun and an additional fuel tank) and developed Peregrines of roughly 1,000hp and some minor aerodynamic enhancements. However, to reinforce the point that Ken made earlier in the thread, as formidable an aircraft as it would have been the industrial logic is difficult to argue. Earlier in the thread a qoute was given of Rolls Royce's opinion stating that they believed that continued Peregrine production would cost two Merlin's for every Peregrine, if we take that argument at face value and extend it further into aircraft manufacture where it takes two peregrines to build a Whirlwind we find that what is actually being said is that from a power plant perspective one can have either four Spitfire/Seafires or an Avro Lancaster for one Whirlwind. It is not difficult to see why it exited the field.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
Well there is the story of a proposal to fit the Merlin XX to the Whirlwind to provide 410mph at 37,000ft floating round...
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
Whilst we are on the subject of Whirlwinds, I have had this on my hard drive for years: A Whirlwind with under-nacelle intakes.
 

Attachments

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,352
Reaction score
648
brewerjerry said:
HI
thanks for posting the photo
cheers
Jerry

Not a problem, for anyone who wants to imagine the MkII I would suggest combining that image with the nose you posted here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5734.msg84921.html#msg84921


I believe that nose configuration has both 4 x 20mm Hispano and a pair of .303s?
 

Kevin Renner

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
94
Reaction score
4
Lets say the Whirlwind had been powered by Merlins from the start. IMO it still would of been a minor type* simply because it would of placed that much more demand on Merlin production. For every Whirlwind you could power two Huricanes or Spitfires. Granted later in the war it would ot been such a factor. But in 1940...........

*The Whirlwind probably would of stayed in service longer if it had been powered by Merlins. I personally think it would of been used in the photo recon role
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi,

I would suggest that because of the Whirlwinds enhanced performance it would survive for a longer period and be the more competitive aircraft.
Fewer losses both for aircraft and more importantly pilots.
The bottom line is that it would always be better than the Merlin powered Spitfire and probably at least as good as a Griffon powered Spitfire.
Agreed about a Photo reconnaissance version very useful.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
HI
The first whirlwind production was originally going to be a photo recce version.
Cheers
Jerry
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi folks,
I think there was a book by “Bingham” on the Whirlwind?
Was there engine performance details? Graphs figures etc?
It is expensive to order books from the local library service (UK).
So it would be interesting to know.
It is estimated that since UK EU membership over a hundred million books have been removed from local libraries in the UK.


brewerjerry said:
HI
The first whirlwind production was originally going to be a photo recce version.
Cheers
Jerry
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,637
Reaction score
396
I think there was a book by “Bingham” on the Whirlwind?
'Whirlwind' by Victor Bingham, Airlife 1987, 157 pages. Page size 24cm x 18cm.
Was there engine performance details? Graphs figures etc?
Yes to both. Graphs describing rates of climb and maximum speeds at different altitudes. Good drawings of the aircraft for modeling purposes.
Half of the book deals with the operational use of the Whirlwind. Chapters deal with specification and design, a technical description of the aircraft, testing and investigation.
Appendices for brief histories of individual aircraft; technical data; engine data; 20mm cannon data; squadrons, stations, commanding officers, code letters, etc; people involved with design and development; comparison between three twin-engined single-seat fighters (Whirlwind, Gloster F39/7, DH103).

It's a good read.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Spark said:
It is estimated that since UK EU membership over a hundred million books have been removed from local libraries in the UK.
HI
Now that is a shame, but might explains the cheap old library books that turning up on e bay, etc...
Cheers
Jerry

P.s.
Thinking about it fellow whirlwind fans might wish to join here, excellent reference material.
http://www.whirlwindfighterproject.org/
cheers J
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi,

Many thanks have now borrowed a copy,

New question RHT at Derby have a model of the super Peregrine with updraught carbs?
From the book it appears that the Whirlwind has down draught carbs?
Any ideas for what aircaft the model engine might have been intended?
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
peregrine was updraft carb's.
merlin downdraft
presumably the super peregrine would be for the whirlwind and gloster F9/37 ?
cheers
Jerry
 

Apophenia

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,502
Reaction score
762
brewerjerry said:
Hi
peregrine was updraft carb's.
merlin downdraft ...
Jerry: Merlins prior to the Hornet's 130/131 used updraft SU or Bendix Stromberg carburettors.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1954/1954%20-%201297.html
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
Hi ,


Many thanks, but still updraught? A Heinkel flew with the Peregrine but that would have been with the down draught???


brewerjerry said:
Hi
Dooh, got my ups n downs mixed up
cheers Jerry
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Just been reading interceptor fighters by Bowyer and found a suggestion to fit napier dagger E.108 , R-R Exe and Bristol Taurus, as alternative engines, in the whirlwind.

Interestingly all these three engines were air cooled, so it would have released the space taken by the radiators in the wing and this space could have been used for fuel tanks.
what with the early merlin project and the merlin XX project, It only leaves the finding of the type of american engine that was suggested as an alternative.
cheers
Jerry
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Came across this on my backup drive, presumably the merlin XX whirlwind could have followed the same lines, but with less span and length.
This is based on the presumption that westlands having already designed a merlin xx whirlwind, would use the already produces design and just upgrade the project to produce a high alttitude version ?
quote from article..... "drawing from aviation news 1982,based on westland drawing 84132 6th dec 1940"
cheers
Jerry

P.S.
To avoid the confusion, I have added a welkin 3 view below the merlin XX drawing, to show the differences more clearly
 

Attachments

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,637
Reaction score
396
That's a Westland Welkin. Westland built it, but De Havilland came along with a Mosquito NF Mk 30 high-altitude variant which worked better. Exit Welkin.
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Not quite a Welkin,
Look carefully at a welkin drawing, and then at the drawing I posted and you will see the differences are quite a lot.
Canopy, tail plane height & size, rear of engine nacelles,fuselage thickness,length of fuselage,etc.
The drawing to me, is more like what a merlin XX whirlwind would look like if it ws adapted for a high alltitude fighter, and gives an insight.
imagine ...shorten the wings and tail, and it is maybe what the merlin XX whirlwind could have looked like
cheers
Jerry
 

brewerjerry

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
5
Hi
Thanks for the posts, I aim in the near future to scale the drawings out and compare to see what on the merlin XX high altitude is actually similar to the normal whirlwind.
It is interesting to see how the engines fitted, almost a mossie shape ?
To me it compares more visually to the whirlwind, but might actually be different, when compared by drawings.
A whirlkin or a welkwind ... tee hee..a nice what if maybe.
cheers
Jerry
 

airman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
58
Website
zeef.com
than Welkin could be a development of studies about Westland Whirlwind ?! :eek: :eek:
Nice ! :)
 
Top