Increase range and ammo of Whirlwind Fighter

If you want to suggest swapping out to Merlins, this is not the thread for you.

Looking at the below image, it seems ideal to:

1) Move the radiators from the wing edge to make space for more fuel.
2) Move the magazines from the nose to behind the pilot, making space for fuel in front of pilot, and significantly larger magazine capacity.

Neither of these should seriously screw up the centre of gravity. However, how do we cool those engines without wrecking the aerodynamics?

whirlwind2jm3.gif
 
(1) The Gloster alternative to the Whirly used a 1050 hp Taurus engine which was unreliable to achieve a similar speed, but it was unreliable. A 900 hp Taurus knocked off 30 mph off the top speed. The Peregrine alternative was next, fitted with a chin radiator which kept the speed about the same, meaning that the Whirly without the wing rads would lose 30 mph.

(2) Your suggestion would undeniably screw the CG. The next Westland, the Welkin, carried the Hispanos under the floor, which expands the frontal area at the expense of speed, and moved the cockpit forward, making room for gun breeches. Increasing the ammunition load for the HS404 Mk1 cannons is as simple as a trip to Chatellerault, perhaps we'll sent Captain Adams,to pick up a loader mechanism for belt-feeding the beast, and getting the Molins company to whip up a batch. This will allow an increase to double or over triple the original drum. There are a couple reasons for not using a fuel tank in the nose.
 
Those are zero drag radiators were critical to the performance of the aircraft, I doubt any change to them would be a positive one.

It carried 130+ gallons of fuel back when a Spitfire was carrying about 90 gallons and apparently there were plans to fit a fuel tank in the fuselage. This tends to upset the CoG, but standard practice is to use this fuel first in the warmup and climbout so by the time the plane is in the threat zone its CoG is good.

I don't know about the ammo, the 20mm Hispano became belt fed later in the war which would solve the problem but perhaps in the meantime some bespoke drums could be rigged up to carry a few more rounds.
 
Martin Baker did a belt feed for 4 Hispanos in the Whirlwind. They also did a x12 .303 Browning nose installation. I recall an ex M-B worker commenting that, whilst not able to penetrate like cannon, 12 .303 Brownings in a 2 foot diameter circle could pretty well cut an aeroplane in two.

If you lost the radiators by using radials then the wing roots would be free for extra fuel. The Peregrine was about the same power as the Mercury or Perseus. The Hercules was (simplistically) a double Perseus so if it could do 2,000bhp at the end then 1,000 bhp is feasible for a Perseus and (ignoring the ATL) using Centaurus cylinders as in the last Perseus would get you perhaps 1,300 bhp. For a Taurus then production low rated at 1,200 bhp and developable to 1,600 bhp and the extra forward weight might be partially compensated by using aluminium. The Gloster test aeroplane was using the first trial versions of the Taurus. The Taurus gets stick but it was used on Beauforts and Albacores in some numbers.
 
The Peregrine was about the same power as the Mercury or Perseus. The Hercules was (simplistically) a double Perseus so if it could do 2,000bhp at the end then 1,000 bhp is feasible for a Perseus and (ignoring the ATL) using Centaurus cylinders as in the last Perseus would get you perhaps 1,300 bhp. For a Taurus then production low rated at 1,200 bhp and developable to 1,600 bhp and the extra forward weight might be partially compensated by using aluminium. The Gloster test aeroplane was using the first trial versions of the Taurus. The Taurus gets stick but it was used on Beauforts and Albacores in some numbers.

The Hercules was a double row Perseus, but with 14 cylinders over Perseus' 9.
 
How about using slipper fuel tanks or even early drop tanks

Some of those slipper tanks carried up to 90 gallons - yes it slows the aircraft but its a simple fix and can be removed when not required

As for the ammo issue - that can only be resolved with an earlier loosening of purse stings and buying the proper plans for the belt fed weapon and very likely operational experience.

Eduard+Brassin+148th+scale+Spitfire+90gal+slipper+tank+(1).jpg
 
Drop tanks could have been fitted to the 500 lb bomb racks eventually fitted to each wing.

Proper drawings and production and flight testing of the HS404 could have been sooner, and obtaining the Chatellerault feed mechanism as well. Chopping 12 inches off the barrel, which was only so long because it was designed to clear an Hispano engine block, sooner. Increasing the rate of fire, and copying the forward gun mount from the P-38, a bit sooner.

Producing handed engines, as per L6844, could have tamed torque swing, and better quality tires wouldn't hurt. Correcting defects in the slat installation would have been good. Lengthening and tapering the fuselage to alleviate tail problems would be nice.

But in the end, 114 were built, and Rolls Royce built just enough engines and didn't want to, and didn't build more, nor did they improve it for adequate altitude performance above 15000 ft.

We have to wait post-war, for the Hornet, with beautiful Merlin 130s, to battle the Malayan insurgents.
 
Just wanted to share this great pic of a Whirlwind cockpit. With two throttles, double the engine gauges to watch, it must have made for a heavy pilot work load.

1Q5ewb3.png
 
The 360 mph figure for the Gloster is suspicious IMO. The aircraft was the size of Me-210, with far less exhaust thrust and outfitted with radial engines (= more drag than half-decent V-12 installation).
With that said - beard installation on the Whirly frees enough of space for doubling the fuel. Adding the drop tank installation should be no brainer. Also the cross-feed.
Shortcoming of going with too much of fuel would be the take off capabilities.
Fast & cheap way to increase ammo load would be switch to 12 Brownings. Othewise, delete one cannon and re-hash the placement of the other three in order to fit the 100-rd boxes, until belt feed is available.
 
Just beware that increasing cannon ammunition and moving radiators to the front of the engine will move the centre of gravity forwards. I remain in favour of going over to radials with fuel in place of the wing radiators.
 
No more than any other twin engined fighter/light bomber of the day, surely?
Most have a second crew member to direct navigation and assist with other tasks.

I don't know how the Whirlwind's pilot load compared to other single-seat twins, such as the P-38, DH.103, etc.
 
Last edited:
The 360 mph figure for the Gloster is suspicious IMO. The aircraft was the size of Me-210, with far less exhaust thrust and outfitted with radial engines (= more drag than half-decent V-12 installation).
Snip --.

Err, no - Me-210 weighed in at (A-1) 17,857 lb, Span 53' 7.25", Length 40' 3", W/area 389.654 sq. ft.

Gloster F.9/37 Weights: empty 8,828 lb., loaded 11,615 lb., span 50', length 37', wing area 386 sq. ft.

So the only thing comparable is the wing area, the big difference is the weight (the A-2 version was another 7,500 lb. more).

As for the Gloster's speed - 360 mph was not an estimate - it happened first flew in April '39.
 
Just beware that increasing cannon ammunition and moving radiators to the front of the engine will move the centre of gravity forwards. I remain in favour of going over to radials with fuel in place of the wing radiators.

Indeed, all of this reshuffling need to be done with regard to the CoG. Deletion of one cannon helps, the ammo is all above the wing, so it is CoG-neutral anyway, as historically.
The radiators in style of Mosquito/Hornet (in fron of the front spar) also allow for between-spars fuel tank, while being a streamlined affair.

Most have a second crew member to direct navigation and assist with other tasks.

I don't know how the Whirlwind's pilot load compared to other single-seat twins, such as the P-38, DH.103, etc.

The cockpit layout of the P-38 was under severe criticysm, epecially the fuel system switches that were on the floor, 2 swithches for up to 8 (eight) fuel tanks total, plus cross feed.
Looks like Hornet was regarded as a 'pilot-friendly' aircraft, same as Beaufighter and Skyrocket?

Err, no - Me-210 weighed in at (A-1) 17,857 lb, Span 53' 7.25", Length 40' 3", W/area 389.654 sq. ft.

Gloster F.9/37 Weights: empty 8,828 lb., loaded 11,615 lb., span 50', length 37', wing area 386 sq. ft.

So the only thing comparable is the wing area, the big difference is the weight (the A-2 version was another 7,500 lb. more).

As for the Gloster's speed - 360 mph was not an estimate - it happened first flew in April '39.

I'll continue this discussion on the current thread about the Gloster.
 
Last edited:
Top