Ahc:Westland Whirlwind in FAA service

I take it you mean the fighter, not the helicopter?

It's got short legs for a naval aircraft, and will reduce the number of aircraft able to be carried. It also has poor visibility forward and down leaving the pilot blind on final approach that would make landing on a carrier very difficult, and probably result in an unacceptable number of accidents.
 
I take it you mean the fighter, not the helicopter?

It's got short legs for a naval aircraft, and will reduce the number of aircraft able to be carried. It also has poor visibility forward and down leaving the pilot blind on final approach that would make landing on a carrier very difficult, and probably result in an unacceptable number of accidents.

Yeah the fighter. Would they be able to fly off the carriers e.g. pedestal
 
They should be able to fly off a carrier ok, but like I said I have my doubts about them being able to land back on. So they could be carried until in range of Malta, but not used to protect the convoy. There are better options for carrier fighters.
 
Very short legged and lacked folding wings making the number that could be carried very limited. Performance wise they would be a handful for most Axis aircraft and that battery of 20mm cannon would rip any bomber apart but ultimately I suspect they would be difficult to get aboard a carrier.
 
I don't think the Whirlwind was particularly short ranged in 1940-41; it had 134 gal, whereas the Mk II & V Spitfire had 90 gal, and flew missions to the outskirts of Paris indicating a longer range than these early Spitfires.

I think the biggest issue would be high takeoff and landing speeds, which wouldn't be fun with an axial deck.
 
I take it you mean the fighter, not the helicopter?

It's got short legs for a naval aircraft, and will reduce the number of aircraft able to be carried. It also has poor visibility forward and down leaving the pilot blind on final approach that would make landing on a carrier very difficult, and probably result in an unacceptable number of accidents.

F4U Corsair landed 5mph faster, and far worse forward vision
 
Is there a way for the Westland whirlwind to enter service with the FAA?

If RN/FAA wants it badly enough, then yes.
Modifications should, IMO, include fitting of a drop tank(s) facility, fuel cross-feeed, wings folding, and a bit bigger wing to improve wing loading. Also probably switch to 3 cannons, but belt-fed types so much more ammo can be carried, plus of course the regular stuff that was done for historical the A/C being navalized.
 
The large Fowler flap on the Whirlwind spanned from outboard of the engine nacelles as one piece across the airframe centre line. This IIRC prevented any meaningful load on a center line hard point. For the FAA where Multi role etc is a necessity this might require a redesign/modification.
 
The large Fowler flap on the Whirlwind spanned from outboard of the engine nacelles as one piece across the airframe centre line. This IIRC prevented any meaningful load on a center line hard point. For the FAA where Multi role etc is a necessity this might require a redesign/modification.

It probably might. IIRC there was no centreline hard point in the Whirly.
On the other hand, Whirlwinds were outfitted with outboard bomb racks, so the drop tanks on the same location are not far fetched.
 
Swapping the Peregrines for a couple of Mercuries or Perseus would free up the wing roots for extra tankage in lieu of radiators.
 
Is there a way for the Westland whirlwind to enter service with the FAA?
... Not without a complete overhaul of the design to make it suitable for carrier operations. By that time it's Rolls Royce Peregrine engines will be discontinued, so there will be extra reworking involved in finding a suitable replacement.... Operation readiness not before 1944... Actual full strength action readiness not before May of 1945....

In the end, the FAA will end up with the British equivalent of the Grumman F7F tigercat. With probably the same operational history... Plus a few months in Malaya anno 1948.
 

Driftless

Donor
Swapping the Peregrines for a couple of Mercuries or Perseus would free up the wing roots for extra tankage in lieu of radiators.

Wouldn't that change mess with the carefully considered aerodynamics of the Whirlwind we're familiar with?
 

Driftless

Donor
n the end, the FAA will end up with the British equivalent of the Grumman F7F tigercat.

Rather than the Whirlwind, have the FAA license the Tigercat's parent: the F5F Skyrocket. That's a plane that should have been produced, but Grumman had plenty of high priority projects on their plate in the late 30's. Farm out production to a British aircraft company and Anglicize the design(different engines, different weapons). Plenty of range, potentially plenty of horsepower, folding wings designed in, and built like a brick outhouse.
 
Rather than the Whirlwind, have the FAA license the Tigercat's parent: the F5F Skyrocket. That's a plane that should have been produced....
wasn't the Tigercat actually the old F5F after changes in technology during its super long development made it a completely different design?
 

Driftless

Donor
wasn't the Tigercat actually the old F5F after changes in technology during its super long development made it a completely different design?

There were several iterations of the XF5F/XP50, with a couple of different engine configurations, different fuselage, a switch from a tail dragger to tricycle landing gear, so yup. There was even a long-nosed taildragger. The concepts were good, but not good enough to break through the high priority the Navy had for Grumman to work on F4F/F6F's

If I recall correctly, Just Leo also configured up an Allison powered "doodle"
 
Swapping the Peregrines for a couple of Mercuries or Perseus would free up the wing roots for extra tankage in lieu of radiators.

Wouldn't that change mess with the carefully considered aerodynamics of the Whirlwind we're familiar with?

The Whirlwind with radial engines will not loose plenty of attributes the original A/C had: exellent canopy, capacity to carry heavy guns' armament, Fowler flaps & slats (unlike any other British A/C of ww2, bar the later Welkin), fully retractable & covered U/C. The wing profile was not that 'carefully considered' - yes, the profile was of the NACA 230 familiy, but thickness of 18% at root was quite big (or 19%??; Peter with Welkin pushed to outrageous 21% - yikes!).
Radial engines provide several benefits - UK has them in abundance, as cheap as possible when it is about front-line engines, USA can help out, both Mercury and Perseus will do 900 to 950 HP on 100 oct fuel reliably, installed weight will be much lower, and as noted a good portion of the wing is freed for fuel & oil tanks. Shortomings are somewhat greater drag and a a bit greater obstruction of the pilot's wiev.

Dizzifugu to the rescue: link
Also: link
 
OTL When RN FAA Pilots received F4U Corsairs, they used a curved approach that is still favoured by many modern Warbird pilots. FAA eventually taught this curved approach to USN pilots.

ATL Yes, navalizing the Whirlwind would take a while, but no bureaucrat would be permitted to drag out the process until 1945!
Hah!

Adding a nose wheel would suddenly give Whirlwind pilots the best view of the deck of any WW2 naval pilot! A nose wheel might displace one nose cannon, but still leave enough firepower to ruin any bombers’ day!
Keeping Peregrine engines would reduce pressure on Rolls Royce’s Merlin production line, so the RAF would not care.

While redesigning wings to fold, span or chord could be extended to reduce landing speeds. With low RN carrier hangars, wings would probably need to fold aft, like early Grumman monoplanes.
Drooped leading edges (1970s vintage) could tame stalls considerably and allow slightly slower approaches.
How about dive brakes (on the aft fuselage) or spoilers (on the top of the wing) to make approaches more precise?
 
Top