Westland Whirlwind fighter for FAA

MatthewB

Banned
A 2 seater would cover a multitude of sins
We can make a two-seater for training if needed, but really not necessary. Once you're qualifying on the Whirlwind you've already completed your dual seat training.

And a two-seater really kills our Whirlwind's potential for fleet fighter, where we need to mix it up with Zeros, Claudes, Bf-109s, etc. We don't want a FAA version of the sluggish and noncompetitive two-seater Bf-110, Potez 630 or Kawasaki Ki-102. Adding a second crewman who doesn't nothing beyond reading maps, looking out the window and working the radio makes our Whirwind into a slug.

There's a reason the Sea Hornet went from two seats in the Sea Mosquito to one seat. So, skip the second man, and make the Whirlwind work with a solo man.
 
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.
Whilst the US Navy radio beacon system was line of sight one and located the vessel also the Royal Navy one was telegraphic and needed a dedicated operator. It had a far longer range and left the vessel's position secure. The USN one required (IIRC) the carrier to maintain a course given to the aircrew so that they could get close enough to pick up the transmission. The RN one allowed the carrier to manoeuvre freely once the aeroplanes had been launched. Deliberately to allow strike operations and long range reconnaissance at night or in bad weather. RN single seat Fleet Fighters did not stray far from the Fleet. Of course radar later changed the situation but the FAA built itself around their system long before radar could be relied upon for the task.

Crudely put, the carrier, at set time intervals on a singe chosen wavelength would transmit a very narrow rotating beam identifying the carrier. The time interval was the rotation speed. Transmissions were only at set times. The Operator would hear the note and note the direction. Another station would only hear a momentary note with no significance. It required the operator to be on the correct wavelength at the correct time to note the transmission. The duration of the note was also a guide to distance as was the clarity. Automating this at the time was beyond the ability of the day. At best one might have an autopilot that would allow the pilot time to fill in for an operator and make the necessary calculations. BTW this is why the second crewman was a Telegraphist Air Gunner (TAG) (Seaman) not a Navigator (Offcer). In an Albacore the TAG was in addition to a Navigator and Pilot.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Automating this at the time was beyond the ability of the day. At best one might have an autopilot that would allow the pilot time to fill in for an operator and make the necessary calculations.
Then that's the challenge the RN, FAA and AM will put to British electronics suppliers. At worst we'll launch the naval Whirlwind with that post-war RN's favourite set-up of sending out ships with designed in but not equipped features. So the Whirlwind's stay close to home until the solo systems are ready.
 
We can make a two-seater for training if needed, but really not necessary. Once you're qualifying on the Whirlwind you've already completed your dual seat training.

And a two-seater really kills our Whirlwind's potential for fleet fighter, where we need to mix it up with Zeros, Claudes, Bf-109s, etc. We don't want a FAA version of the sluggish and noncompetitive two-seater Bf-110, Potez 630 or Kawasaki Ki-102. Adding a second crewman who doesn't nothing beyond reading maps, looking out the window and working the radio makes our Whirwind into a slug.

There's a reason the Sea Hornet went from two seats in the Sea Mosquito to one seat. So, skip the second man, and make the Whirlwind work with a solo man.


Well that is my point - the RN used more Single seat fighters than they did two seaters!

Hawker Nimrod - 1932
Gloster Sea Gladiator - 1938
Brewster Buffalo - 1940
Grumman Wildcat - 1940
Hawker Sea Hurricane - 1941
Supermarine Seafire - 1942

So as you can see it was not a case of using just 2 seater fighters and those single seaters must have managed to navigate etc without a back seater early war?
 

MatthewB

Banned
I was in Seattle, WA last week and visited the https://www.museumofflight.org/ A fantastic museum BTW, I'd never before seen a replica Bf-109 (was made from Hispano Aviación HA-1112 with engine cowl of an Avia S-199) and to see it next to a Spitfire was amazing.

At the museum, while I looked at the P-38 Lightning (first flight Jan 1939) I thought to myself, there aren't many twin-engine, single-seat high performance piston-powered fighters in WW2, and most did not enter service. Some of these include the Grumman XF5F (first flight 1940, not used), McDonnell XP-67 (first flight 1944, not used), Fokker D.23 (first flight 1939, not used), Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS (first flight 1941, not used), Nakajima J5N (first flight 1944, not used), Dornier Do 335 and Kawasaki Ki-96. My thinking is the navalized Whirlwind could be among the best of this small family of aircraft. The closest to the Whirlwind I see is the IMAM Ro.57, showing what a Whirlwind with radials would look like.

12b30f175122f3d9233a23bf2abbc2b8.jpg


Is there a radial other than the Hercules (available later, and not in fighter spec) that we can stick on the Whirlwind without killing its performance?
 
Last edited:
Well that is my point - the RN used more Single seat fighters than they did two seaters!

Hawker Nimrod - 1932
Gloster Sea Gladiator - 1938
Brewster Buffalo - 1940
Grumman Wildcat - 1940
Hawker Sea Hurricane - 1941
Supermarine Seafire - 1942

So as you can see it was not a case of using just 2 seater fighters and those single seaters must have managed to navigate etc without a back seater early war?
Quite so, but their role was to defend the Fleet, not swan off hundreds of miles away to strike at targets in the middle of a winter night. Later in the war radar eased the return task allowing single seaters to stray further under carrier control but none of the above are strike aircraft in that sense even though you can hangs bombs off a Sea Hurricane or Seafire. For a local defence Fleet Fighter this is not an issue.
 
Is there a radial other than the Hercules (available later, and not in fighter spec) that we can stick on the Whirlwind without killing its performance?
The radial equivalent to the Peregrine would be the Bristol Taurus. Both the Peregrine and Taurus were also used on the Gloster F.9/37 Reaper. Performance with the Taurus was improved on the Reaper. It gave a maximum speed of 360mph compared to 330mph with the Peregrine.


6001147148_3229375d1d_b.jpg
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Quite so, but their role was to defend the Fleet, not swan off hundreds of miles away to strike at targets in the middle of a winter night.
Which is why we need to address this need for the Whirlwind. How did the A6M, able to fly up to 500 nmi from its carrier find its way home? Surely Britain would buy or copy the homing system used by the USN's single seat fighters.

We're not undertaking ASB here. The AM's formal spec for the naval Whirlwind would require a homing beacon system. Westland will have to find one. If not immediately available, the estimated weight, wiring and size of the system could be incorporated into the initial design for future fitment, same as the Blue Circle "radar" fitted to the Panavia Tornado ADV.
 
Last edited:
Is there a radial other than the Hercules (available later, and not in fighter spec) that we can stick on the Whirlwind without killing its performance?
The Peregrine was @ 850bhp which is similar to the Mercury and Perseus. Both being lighter with the Mercury the lightest. the airframe can take more power. The Peregrine could have been developed further than either with a lot more power in time. Whirlwind thread fans will recall it was offered with Taurus, Allisons or, eventually, Merlins on the basic airframe. Even Derwents were looked at.
 
As I understood the original concept was a multi-role aircraft able to sling a torpedo underneath and equipped with radar. With Merlins or Taurus engines there is a gain of at least 200 hp more so with Hercules. Just to avoid overload a second crewman is justified. Any twin engined aircraft will have tough time in a dogfight but may be able to fly faster and dive quicker than most aircraft. Using it as a airborne flight controller would also be another role it could do. Paired up with a decent single engine, single pilot you have a winner, night-fighter, strike, bomber-buster. I do not think that in 1940 the electronics industry was up to the task of supplying what you would like.
 

MatthewB

Banned
With...Taurus engines there is a gain of at least 200 hp more so with Hercules.
But you can omit the radiators and streamline the leading edge. Plus you can add fuel where the rads were, see below.

320px-Whirlwind_07-3.jpg


Put some Townend rings or NACA cowls over the radial engine and we’ll still have a streamlined bird.

Though my preference is to either stick with Peregines or go to Merlins.
 
Last edited:

MatthewB

Banned
Any twin engined aircraft will have tough time in a dogfight
P-38 would like to contest that.

The Lightning is where I’m trying to take the Sea Whirlwind. If we can add torp capability that’s good too, but if we can get to a dedicated long range interceptor and fleet defence fighter that’s fine.
 
Which is why we need to address this need for the Whirlwind. How did the A6M, able to fly up to 500 nmi from its carrier find its way home? Surely Britain would buy or copy the homing system used by the USN's single seat fighters.

We're not undertaking ASB here. The AM's formal spec for the naval Whirlwind would require a homing beacon system. Westland will have to find one. If not immediately available, the estimated weight, wiring and size of the system could be incorporated into the initial design for future fitment, same as the Blue Circle "radar" fitted to the Panavia Tornado ADV.

The A6m would be either flying cap above its home deck or it would be escorting a strike of 2 or 3 crewman DBs and/or TBDs who I would imagine handle the navigation to and from the object back to the carrier. The Escorting fighters would just have to stay in touch.

So if the type is not going to be a universal carrier aircraft and simply going to be a fleet defender then it will be able to rely on the Swordfish and Skuas that it is escorting ...or....it is providing local air defence as Fleet cap

If it is going to be a multirole airframe early war then you either suck it up and make it 2 seater or have a mix of 2 seater Strike SeaWinds and single seat Fighter SeaWinds in a given air group?

Later on in the war we might see the type developed with emerging tech negating the need for a 2 seater but as ASV radar etc is developed then you need something to carry it and someone to operate it (and that cannot be the pilot)

No this could be mission creep and the Sea Wind not the correct airframe for that job???
 
If the Sea Wind is the fighter etc. one should in an ATL look at the TSR role to be in one airframe.

We know the Battle was offered in twin engined form. We know the Fulmar is a fighter F4/34 which was a lightweight slimmed Battle. We know the Fulmar has a wing area of 32 sq m as against the Whirlwind 23 sq m. Might the Fulmar be worked over with two engines to carry a torpedo or more than 2x250lb of bombs? Whilst not an interceptor a Fulmar can put up quite a good fight on it's own with either it's OTL 8x.303 or 4x0.5. A self escorting strike force and a fleet defence to match land based peers.

Perhaps the same engines as the Sea Wind? Me I would choose Perseus.

This would, at least, allow the Sea Wind not to have to allow for a bomb load so it will be easier to get off the decks.
 

MatthewB

Banned
IWe know the Fulmar has a wing area of 32 sq m as against the Whirlwind 23 sq m. Might the Fulmar be worked over with two engines to carry a torpedo or more than 2x250lb of bombs?
A different thread entirely, but just make the Fulmar into your torpedo bomber. If the Barracuda can do it with a single Merlin, so can the Fulmar.
 
You'd need to find somewhere else for the radiator to accommodate the torpedo.

Sigh. Everyone makes the mistake of thinking Fulmar was developed from a slimline Battle. It wasn't, P.4/34 was a completely fresh design.

Barracuda only got the Merlin because the engine it was intended to have was cancelled.
 
Top