Westland Whirlwind fighter for FAA

I think that the AH conclusion might be that the OTL Whirlwind shows that a purpose built design as a fleet defence/strike/reconnaissance as a light twin engined aeroplane could have subsumed most of the roles that OTL required three types. However, the Blackburn Firebrand is an awful warning of how it can go horribly wrong.

I just looked up the Firebrand and dear lord. Its like a catalogue of how everything can go wrong. The UK really couldn't produce a truly decent naval aircraft in WW2. (See also the Spearfish which was also a steaming dogs egg.)
 
Sadly the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet were like British tanks, about a year too late for when they'd be useful. The Cromwell would have been amazing in 43, it rocked up and into service in 44, the Comet would have been great in 44, it barely squeaked into service in 45. The Sea Hurricane was adequate, the Swordfish was very good in its assigned roles but generally compared to what we could have bought with lend lease, things like the barracuda, Fulmar etc were a waste of time.

Because, dunno about you, if I was a FAA pilot in 44 or 45 and I was given the choice between a Hellcat, a Corsair or a Seafire who's legs have a worrying habit of falling off when you land, I'd take the Yanks in a heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
Sadly the Sea Fury and Sea Hornet were like British tanks, about a year too late for when they'd be useful. The Cromwell would have been amazing in 43, it rocked up and into service in 44, the Comet would have been great in 44, it barely squeaked into service in 45. The Sea Hurricane was adequate, the Swordfish was very good in its assigned roles but generally compared to what we could have bought with lend lease, things like the barracuda, Fulmar etc were a waste of time.

Because, dunno about you, if I was a FAA pilot in 44 or 45 and I was given the choice between a Hellcat, a Corsair or a Seafire who's legs have a worrying habit of falling off when you land, I'd take the Yanks in a heartbeat.

The only issue with that is the Hellcat and Corsair were not available until later in the war and were built for the 'the other war'

The seafire was introduced at a time when both US aircraft were not available, the F4-4F would not cut it as it was too slow to intercept the latest German twin Engine bombers in late 42 and 43 - would not have stood a chance against the FW 190 and of course airwar altitude in Europe was often fought at a more rarified level than in the Pacific - US Aircraft of the day would be wheezing like an asthmatic pig. Hence why the Seafire was rushed into service with far less development than either the Corsair or Hellcat

This of course was not an issue in the Pacific where combat happened at a much lower altitude

Still as you say - I would fill the British carriers with Corsairs and Avengers! But only from 1943!
 
Still as you say - I would fill the British carriers with Corsairs and Avengers! But only from 1943!

Aye, but there lies the Rub with the Sea Hurricane and SeaFire. Too late. In an idealised world the FAA's fighter at the outbreak of the War would have been the Sea Hurricane with the Fulmar acting as a recon/fighter that could also act as a lead aircraft for Sea Hurri's on longer strikes. Then by mid 40 early 41 you start getting the SeaFire.
But instead they turned up too late and were not available during the critical battles of the Med forcing the FAA to rely on the merely adequate Fulmar.
 
The Hawker Sea Fury began with an RAF request for a light weight Tempest. The prototype Fury flew on September 1 1944, but the RAF lost interest in new piston engine fighters. It was then suggested that it might make a reasonable naval fighter, the prototype Sea Fury flying on 21 February 1945. The Pakistan air Force flew 93 FB60 Furies and 5 T61 two seat Fury trainers. The Iraqi Airforce flew 55 Fury I's. Egypt also commandeered and flew a Fury demonstration aircraft during the 1948 Arab Israeli war.
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Making it a two seater makes it bigger though and its already big and would be cutting down on the number of planes aboard a RN Carrier even more so. And they already had dinky air wings.
Agreed. Folks, let’s skip talk of a two seater. That’s basically Sea Mosquito or Hornet territory, a much larger aircraft.
 
Aye, but there lies the Rub with the Sea Hurricane and SeaFire. Too late. In an idealised world the FAA's fighter at the outbreak of the War would have been the Sea Hurricane with the Fulmar acting as a recon/fighter that could also act as a lead aircraft for Sea Hurri's on longer strikes. Then by mid 40 early 41 you start getting the SeaFire.
But instead they turned up too late and were not available during the critical battles of the Med forcing the FAA to rely on the merely adequate Fulmar.

They could have had the Seafire earlier had the decision been made. Vickers were working on a folding wing at the start of the war. Admiral Dowding brother of Air Marshal Dowding was involved in the FAA during the late 30s and was well aware of the Spitfire and its potential from its early development and the navy wanted it.

The then HMG and later Churchill pushed back which is why the Navy ended up with the far more expensive and harder to build Fulmar.

Given 2 or more years more development over OTL then we might have seen near war end level seafire in 1942 and earlier versions of Seafire available in 41 and 42. Given how effective cannon armed Sea Hurricanes were when a handful of them were used in Op Pedestal a cannon armed Seafire would have been better!
 
That would make sense because the RN preferred multi-role aircraft to make up for the small capacity of its aircraft carriers. The problem was that multi-role aircraft were heavier than single-role types, which degraded their performance even further.

The OTL Skua was a FDB type (Fighter Dive Bomber) and the Roc was a FF type (Fleet Fighter).

The TTL "Twin Skua" with two Perseus engines would still be a FBD type. AFAIK the OTL "Single Skua" carried it's bombs externally, but the TTL aircraft probably has a wider fuselage, which would allow internal stowage reducing drag.

The TTL "Twin Roc" with two Perseus engines would be an FTB type (Fighter Torpedo Bomber). The OTL "Single Rocs" weren't built by Blackburn, they were built by Boulton Paul. So we may see the RAF buying it in place of the Defiant.

Corsair sounds "made to order" for FAA...
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Well one of the many things I learned here is that the FAA was the first to use them actually on carriers.
 

Driftless

Donor
Just to be the sandbur under the saddle.....

How about a Hercules or Merlin powered F5F Skyrocket for the FAA? It's in the right weight range (3600kg empty/4600kg loaded), pre-engineered for carrier stress - with folding wings to boot, and could have been adapted for attack use.
 

MatthewB

Banned
They could have had the Seafire earlier had the decision been made. Vickers were working on a folding wing at the start of the war. Admiral Dowding brother of Air Marshal Dowding was involved in the FAA during the late 30s and was well aware of the Spitfire and its potential from its early development and the navy wanted it.

The then HMG and later Churchill pushed back which is why the Navy ended up with the far more expensive and harder to build Fulmar.

Given 2 or more years more development over OTL then we might have seen near war end level seafire in 1942 and earlier versions of Seafire available in 41 and 42. Given how effective cannon armed Sea Hurricanes were when a handful of them were used in Op Pedestal a cannon armed Seafire would have been better!
But what's that got to do with the Whirlwind?
 
But what's that got to do with the Whirlwind?

It was a side discussion and response to Steamboys post

But as you asked

It's a better choice and the Whirlwind is a poor one as Carrier aircraft of the day go!

For starters it takes up far more room than a Seafire (assuming the wings can fold) and then its Stall speed is 95 MPH / 83 Kts - Seafire is 68 MPH / 59 Kts - this makes a heck of a difference when landing on!
 

Driftless

Donor
The Whirlwind is a plane that absolutely should have had a longer and more useful career than it did historically. Having said that, the changes needed (folding wings, heavier structural pieces) to make the plane suitable for carrier work be significant enough to likely nobble the performance of the plane. You'd have been better served with a near clean-sheet design for the FAA.
 
Top