Westland Whirlwind fighter for FAA

MatthewB

Banned
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.
Now that I’m seeing 1/72 scale mockups of the Whirlwind with Merlins, I’d say was can replace the Peregrines with short four bladed Merlins.
 
@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.
Without the need for ultra high altitude capability the extra long wings of the Welkin could be reduced to a more normal length closer to that of the Whirlwind.
 
HMS Glorious had Two 46-by-48-foot lifts installed fore and aft in the flight deck, so should have no problem operating a squadron or two of Sea Whirlwinds.
 
Okay so challenging this problem head on - assuming that the landing on speed can be significantly reduced using the tech of the day.....

A simplest fix is folding wings outboard of the fuel tanks which are 'outboard' of the engine nacelles - can anyone work out how wide that would make the Aircraft?

Other than a major redesign of the wings I cannot see the Aircraft being capable of folding to a smaller size than this

Given the aircraft first flew in 1938 - to Air Ministry Specification F.37/35 (issued in 1935) we could make "the tail wag the dog" and dictate Lift and hanger capacity (length Width Height) as part of Admiral Henderson's - (who was effectively DNC at the time the Actual DNC being ill) - on the strength of known and expected Aircraft designs.

If an Air Ministry Specification is issued early enough to leverage the F.37/35 Specifications for the Navy before the final Design for the Armored Box hanger carriers is set in stone and total tonnages agreed at the 2LNT - then we might see a larger design proposed with longer higher and possibly wider hangers as well as slightly larger lifts to incorporate the wider aircraft as it is no good having only the older 'experimental' carriers capable of operating them when it is the Armored fleet carriers that are expected to carry the burden.
 

MatthewB

Banned
@cryhavoc101

Looking at this model drawing and using the provided scale, it appears to be 24 feet from outer propellor edge to edge. So if we fold at the outside edge of the Fowler flaps we should be able to fit on any carrier lift that is 25 feet wide. That means 3xIllustrious, Ark Royal and Hermes are out, but 3xOutrageous class, plus Indomitable, 2xImplacables, Unicorn, Eagle and seven wartime Colossus class should be fine. Lift compatibility aside, Eagle may be too short and slow for Whirlwind ops.

c6326819097735.562d4e9cd7e24.jpg
 
Last edited:
@cryhavoc101

Looking at this model drawing and using the provided scale, it appears to be 24 feet from outer propellor edge to edge. So if we fold at position O on the wing we should be able to fit on any carrier lift that is 25 feet wide. That means Illustrious, Ark Royal and Hermes are out, but all three Outrageous class, plus Indomitable, two Implacables and Eagle should be fine. Lift compatibility aside, Eagle may be too short and slow.

c6326819097735.562d4e9cd7e24.jpg

So this is what I am saying by the tail wagging the dog

When Henderson was having the Illustrious class designed he did reach out the then main naval aircraft manufacturers and ask them for advice on future aircraft designs and the Lift dimensions as well as hanger height etc were dictated by that.

So if he was aware that a future Sea Whirlwind/Navalised F.37.35 was going to be 25 ft across folded then the Lifts would have been designed accordingly to support that aircraft design.

Ark Royal had three rectangular lifts, two of 45ft by 22ft and one of 45ft by 25ft.

So it is possible that the larger lift might serve?

So with early enough knowledge regarding aircraft development all of the Illustrious class, Unicorn and any light fleets would have lifts large enough to support it at the design phase and beyond

Other things I would do is have an earlier purchase of the HS404 20 Cannon along with the then Belt feed mechaisms being worked on in France and an understanding that the Long barrel was only required due to the initial intent of the weapon being a motor Cannon and to allow it to fire through the gearbox/ hub as shown below

3036_116_307-dewoitine-501.jpg


The later MK V Hispano cannon had a much shorter Barrel saving weight and drag - this might allow for a shorter 'nose' giving the Pilot better visibility

I would raise the Pilots seat to give a better view forwards as well and this combined with an earlier MKV gun system may counter some of the aircrafts visibility issues - the Cannon might be able to be mounted slightly underneath the cockpit in this case further shortening the nose

Additional range might be achieved with a 90 gal conformal tank under the Cockpit as well

Lastly if it could get off the deck with a 1,670 lb (760 kg) Fish or up to 1500 ib (700 kg) of bombs/mine then it could replace the Swordfish, Skua and Fulmar in one airframe

Heck of an ask I know.

OTL Whirlibombers were off bombing France with a pair of 500 pounders!
 

MatthewB

Banned
@cryhavoc101

Now we’re getting somewhere! Good info on the cannon barrel length.

I agree that a universal 25x45 ft lift spec for all carriers from Ark Royal onwards is certainly feasible and wouldn’t be too onerous on any of the ship designs.

What about hangar height? The wing will fold up about 10 ft, plus the wing height from the ground. The planned lower hangar heights for the Implacables may not work. Though if Sea Hornet can fit in the hangar, so can Whirlwind.

https://www.flying-tigers.co.uk/wp-...gs-folded-after-landing-on-HMS-Implacable.jpg
 
Last edited:
It might be worth noting that the wingspan of the Hornet is pretty much the same as the Whirlwind and the length of the two is three foot less for the Whirlwind at 32ft. so I basic terms if the Hornet fits the Whirlwind fits. The big difference is in wing area, Hornet is 361 sqft and the Whirlwind is 250sft. as to wing loadings I do not have that information at hand but that could be a very interesting comparison.
 
@cryhavoc101

Now we’re getting somewhere! Good info on the cannon barrel length.

I agree that a universal 25x45 ft lift spec for all carriers from Ark Royal onwards is certainly feasible and wouldn’t be too onerous on any of the ship designs.

What about hangar height? The wing will fold up about 10 ft, plus the wing height from the ground. The planned lower hangar heights for the Implacables may not work. Though if Sea Hornet can fit in the hangar, so can Whirlwind.

https://www.flying-tigers.co.uk/wp-...gs-folded-after-landing-on-HMS-Implacable.jpg

Hanger height?

Again future aircraft development would drive this - all then current Fleet air arm planes either had a wing that folded back (Swordfish) or 'twisted' back to lay flat against the fuselage (Fulmar) rather than the hinged fold back across the wing we see on subsequent aircraft types.

hi655947czvx.png


The other way to 'cheat this' is to allow the hanger heights to allow for Amphibious aircraft to be operated. This was originally going to be a requirement but in the initial drawing up of the designs for the Armored Carriers this was one of the compromises that was dropped in order to achieve the 4.5" armored sides.

IIRC there was a suggestion that this side armor would be reduced to allow for higher hangers (17.5' over 16') or possibly even a double hanger or possibly even a rethink on the 23,000 tons limit at 2LNT?
 
If we can get a single type CAG perhaps we can omit the double hangar.

I'm not so sure as the 'Sea Wind' being wider will reduce the number of aircraft carried by at least 1/3 if not more.

So OTL Illustrious will go from a hanger capacity of 36 Swordfish/Fulmar/Skua to 24 'Sea Winds'

Now this is all well and good if the 'Sea Wind' can replace all 3 aircraft types with a universal type but otherwise it will have a negative impact on ops as you end up with fewer airframes overall.

But the upshot is if anything larger aircraft dictates a larger flat top or one with larger hangers
 
Awe! It is like a Baby Beaufighter. I have always had a soft spot for the Whirlwind. The information I have shows a maximum speed for the Whirlwind to be 360 mph. With the modifications, added weight and more power the new multi-role FAA plane should still fly at 300mph with a cruising speed in the 265 mph range.
 
I have been giving this process of developing the Whirlwind into a FAA Carrier 'universal' Fighter-Recce-Torpedo-bomber plane some more thought - mainly giving it more power earlier - in other words - give it a pair of Merlin's as well as the production allocation used on the BP Defiant and BP Roc

OTL very few Whirlwind airframes were built (116 Total) over a short production run which made it suitable for only limited development and only served in 2 Squadrons.

Now what if the parallel F9/35 turret fighter Specification (which resulted in the BP Defiant and Blackburn Roc turret fighters) was either never realized or merged into the F37/35 cannon fighter specification as a way of shooting down bombers and turret fighters abandoned early in that development cycle.

So with no turret fighter - more resources such as engine allocation for the Whirlwind is dictated earlier as being the RR Merlin instead of the RR Peregrine (both engines had issues - i.e. the Ramp Head issues on the Merlin but the Merlin was more successful) and the design experiences less delays and is introduced earlier.

Over 1000 Defiant were produced and 136 Rocs - so if instead 500 - 1000 more Whirlwinds are produced with the more powerful engine (which itself had a far superior development cycle than the Peregrine) over a longer period this gives much greater scope for development.

And if a success the production would be extended possibly resulting in many 1000s of airframes.

Now why is this important?

Well in WW2 due to sheer number of Hurricanes and Spitfires being produced plus the support and development lavished on them it was (eventually) a relatively easy process to leverage those airframes and supporting production as Carrier planes.

In fact very sensible.

Now if Whirlwind is being produced in far larger numbers earlier with greater development then it goes from an interesting footnote in the annals of WW2 fighter planes to a front runner - up their with the principle Allied fighter planes of the day.

In fact such an aircraft might have butterflied the later Typhoon and Tempests

And having been identified as a possible carrier aircraft earlier by the Navy and this driving changes to Carrier Lift and hanger dimensions to accommodate it I can see it becoming accepted as the 'Sea - Wind' and the British Aircraft industry capable of supporting it.

My last barrier still remains however how we slow it down enough.

But to that question I notice that the leading edge of the outer wings were 'Handley Page Anti Stall Slats' which according to the diagram above (post 66) 'were wired shut in service'

This sort of thing was not uncommon indeed I seem to recall that the BF109 had a similar system that was also generally not used (and also wired shut) - the principle reason being that they deployed 'with a bang' which was very disconcerting to the pilot and very distracting as it usually occurred during important maneuvers like landing or in an intense dog fight.

So I do wonder if that is the same reason why the 'Handley Page Anti Stall Slats' were wired shut?

At work but some limited Google fu seems to suggest that anti icing difficulties was an issue at this time but this was obviously overcome as it is used to this day.

The reason I mention it is the high landing speed of the Whirlwind might be significantly reduced by efficient leading edge slats that 'delay' the stall eliminating that issue
 
Last edited:
Another problem with auto-slats is the effect of asymmetric deployment. on a carrier aircraft on finals this could be fatal! So if you are going to have slats perhaps they need to be mechanically linked to the flaps and only deploy when flaps fully down are used for landing. I believe the Whirlwind had Fowler flaps perhaps a word with Faireys and a licence to use Fairey-Youngman flaps might be in order.
 
Another problem with auto-slats is the effect of asymmetric deployment. on a carrier aircraft on finals this could be fatal! So if you are going to have slats perhaps they need to be mechanically linked to the flaps and only deploy when flaps fully down are used for landing. I believe the Whirlwind had Fowler flaps perhaps a word with Faireys and a licence to use Fairey-Youngman flaps might be in order.

You are quite right this was the other reason as they deployed without any pilot involvement - perhaps a combination of the slats being deployed on command and the Fairey-Youngman system on the inner part of the wing?
 

MatthewB

Banned
We also need to address the need for single crewman RDF use. To be clear, I do not want a two seat Whirlwind. So we need the manufacturers of the RDF system to make it usable by the pilot.

In the pre-war USN, all aircraft, including single seat fighters were equipped with a radio beacon system called YE-ZB, http://aafradio.org/docs/YE-ZB.pdf. This was a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. This allowed the pilot to find his carrier, provided he knew where to look (it was line of sight only, so LA wouldn't work).

Perhaps an auto pilot would help too, but we're adding weight.
 
Last edited:
We also need to address the need for single crewman RDF use. To be clear, I do not want a two seat Whirlwind. So we need the manufacturers of the RDF system to make it usable by the pilot.

In the pre-war USN, all aircraft, including single seat fighters were equipped with a radio beacon system called YE-ZB, http://aafradio.org/docs/YE-ZB.pdf. This was a UHF (line of sight) transmitter which transmitted a Morse code letter denoting 15 degrees of a circle. This allowed the pilot to find his carrier, provided he knew where to look (it was line of sight only, so LA wouldn't work).

Perhaps an auto pilot would help too, but we're adding weight.

A 2 seater would cover a multitude of sins

Training, Recce, strike - all where a back seater would come in useful

But to your point - British built single seat aircraft were used throughout WW2 in the RN - Sea Gladiator, Sea Hurricane, Seafire etc - how did they manage?
 
Top