Westland Whirlwind fighter for FAA

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.

There was a Bristol project that looked almost identical to the Skyrocket - the Type 153A - drawn up around 1936.

1-bristol-beau-variant-page-001-jpg.220331


It was offered to the same spec as Whirlwind. IIRC, I've got the bits to do one in 72nd, starting with - ironically - a Whirlwind fuselage and a Fairey Battle wing.
 
That's an interesting point. However, what does it have to do with my post?

Did you reply by mistake? That is you meant to reply to one of @Cryhavoc101 or @steamboy's posts that mentioned the Corsair?
I was pointing out that the Corsair filled both the fighter and non-torp strike roles, as described by you, quite nicely. The FAA seemed to be interested in the bird and went out of their way to incorporate it, post haste, into their carrier air groups.
 
There's another aircraft that - with some minor modification - would fit three roles of fighter, strike and torpedo. The Sea Fury wing is essentially a Tempest wing with the centre section taken out. Put it back in, increase the span and keep the wingfold and you can sling a torpedo underneath, plus you have the wing hardpoints for other assorted lethality. You need to extend the tailwheel for increased clearance, but it's relatively simple and gives an aircraft with a lot of commonality with the Sea Fury and a lot more useful than the Firebrand or the stillborn Firecrest.
 
Last edited:
The Whirlwind with a stall speed of 95mph is often quoted as an excuse not to have an FAA variant, but reality showed no problem for the Mossie with a stall speed of 110mph, rendering that argument redundant. Their is no problem with storing them on the hanger even with their 45’ span, the only true argument against is the 45’X22’ elevators.
 
The Whirlwind with a stall speed of 95mph is often quoted as an excuse not to have an FAA variant, but reality showed no problem for the Mossie with a stall speed of 110mph, rendering that argument redundant. Their is no problem with storing them on the hanger even with their 45’ span, the only true argument against is the 45’X22’ elevators.
Landing a Mossie on a carrier was problematic and required a lot of modifications, according to Capt. Brown. He was the one who first did it. He also mentioned that landing a twin or multi-engine aircraft, on a carrier, can be quite dangerous if you lose on engine on approach. If I remember correctly, Eric Brown wrote that he had to hang the Mossie on the propellers, while landing, to get it down to 83 mph, the maximum speed the boffins said was allowed before the Mossie would break upon landing.
 

MatthewB

Banned
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!
That’s the RAF Whirlwind you’re referring to. Per the OP we’re adjusting the flaps, etc. to address low speed handing. If the Sea Hornet can land on an Illustrious/Implacable, so can the Whirlwind. And with landing gear ideally spaced and braced for carrier ops, the prang rate will be much less than the Seafire.

But I’m not looking for a discussion on the Seafire, nor trying to trigger contrarians to tell us all why the carrier Whirlwind is not feasible. As the delicate, short ranged and prang-prone Seafire demonstrates, if nearly any piston fighter can be made carrier capable, we can do it for the Whirlwind.
 
Last edited:
The Whirlwind with a stall speed of 95mph is often quoted as an excuse not to have an FAA variant, but reality showed no problem for the Mossie with a stall speed of 110mph, rendering that argument redundant. Their is no problem with storing them on the hanger even with their 45’ span, the only true argument against is the 45’X22’ elevators.

The Sea Mossie was much later in the war, there was a lot more experience by then with getting high performance aircraft aboard a carrier. Back in 1939/40 most carrier aircraft in FAA service had much lower landing speeds. By 1944 the FAA was regularly landing aircraft aboard with speeds which would have been unthinkable only a few years previously.
 

MatthewB

Banned
The Sea Mossie was much later in the war, there was a lot more experience by then with getting high performance aircraft aboard a carrier. Back in 1939/40 most carrier aircraft in FAA service had much lower landing speeds. By 1944 the FAA was regularly landing aircraft aboard with speeds which would have been unthinkable only a few years previously.
Then the Whirlwind becomes the pioneer. Someone has to go first. Keep in mind that we’re unlikely to see the naval Whirlwind until well into 1941 or later, replacing the Sea Hurricane and substituting the Fulmar.
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Probably, but you've got to think of it first and there are going to be a lot of accidents before then.
With the Corsair the FAA got the aircraft first, and then figured out how to slide sideways onto the deck. See 0:50 below.


The Whirlwind boys will figure it out. See 2:18 below, there seems to be some pilot visibility of the ground.


I know it’s a tricycle configuration, but the Tigercat’s cockpit is further aft like the Whirlwind's. See 0:56 for an easy landing.


Maybe the high landing speed gets someone to thinking of angled flight decks. More likely we’ll see the Whirlwind see greater use of the accelerators or catapults.
 
Last edited:
The Whirlwind with a stall speed of 95mph is often quoted as an excuse not to have an FAA variant, but reality showed no problem for the Mossie with a stall speed of 110mph, rendering that argument redundant. Their is no problem with storing them on the hanger even with their 45’ span, the only true argument against is the 45’X22’ elevators.

Just because Eric Brown could land it on a carrier with 'No Problem' (if hanging the damn thing off of it propellers constitutes no problem) that does not mean that mortal pilots cannot land with 'no problem'.

Note that the Navy decided against the mossie because of the results of Eric Browns Brilliant flying.
 

MatthewB

Banned
One change for the Sea Whirlwind could be moving the cockpit forward for Sea Hornet like visibility while moving the now expanded magazines to behind the pilot, while keeping the CoG.
 

MatthewB

Banned
@the-wooksta

Not bad, but I’m seeking a compact twin like the Whirlwind, using smaller engines than the Merlin. If we’re going to Welkin we might as well go to Sea Hornet. But I do like the Welkin’s forward cockpit as a model for the navalized Whirlwind.
 
Reworking the Whirlwind's fuselage shouldn't be a problem. Somehow you would need to convince Rolls Royce to continue to develop the Peregrine to make a Naval Whirlwind possible though and I'm not sure how much potential what is basically a Kestrel engine has by 1940.
 
I am kind of curious what the role of your compact twin fighter would be used for. If you are modifying the wings so that they fold, perhaps you could add some of the features from the Barracuda or Firefly which gave those aircraft very good low speed handling qualities. The FAA had a practice of multiple crew on their aircraft, perhaps a night fighter role would work too. You might be stuck putting Merlins in, for parts commonality and power.
 

MatthewB

Banned
I am kind of curious what the role of your compact twin fighter would be used for.
I know I’m going to trigger a lot of folks, but I’d like to see a single type CAG. The naval Whirlwind is adapted for torpedo strike (a LW torpedo capable of high speed drop will be needed), plus shallow dive bombing and fighter. Sort of like the Italian Re.2001.

r54y4y65.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top