One of my favourite planes along side the Mosquito, for the mid to late 1930s it had a lot of innovations as you said including the Bubble Canopy which became standard later.
Westlands a company founded in 1935 and still produces aircraft today, albeit owned by another company it still sports the name Westlands helicopters on the main gate. It's my towns largest employer. I can look out my bedroom window and see Westlands airstrip. Great Video.
That aircraft had potential and was pointed in the right direction. Heavy armament, single crew, visibility for the pilot that was superior to any other contemporary British fighter or fighter-bomber. Imagine! An aircraft designer realizing that it might be a good idea to be able to see just who might be preparing to ruin your day! It had the potential to be the British equivalent of the American lightning. It needed refinement, more reliable and powerful engines, and simply better tactics. It got none.
neither this plane or the p-38 worked out for britain and the beaufighter and mosquito ended up taking over which were two of the best planes britain ever made so it worked out in the end.
I lived and worked at Charmy Down back in the late seventies. All the RAF buildings were intact, we used them as feed stores. Some still had the bomb trolleys outside. One building had parts of an aircraft's landing gear half buried in one corner. I was told that Charmy Down was a satellite airfield to Colerne, and had Hurricanes stationed there. That landing gear definitely didn't come off a Hurryup though, that's for sure.. Very nice vid. Thanks and blessings.
I thought the same thing also. It looks remarkably similar! Perhaps a little industrial espionage? That airframe could fly much much faster than the propellers could push it.
When people say "Why didn't they just use a Merlin?" they are forgetting a few important details. At the time, the only variant available was the Merlin II or III, developing only 880 hp. On paper, the Peregrine was capable of delivering roughly the same horsepower, but weighed 500lbs less! It's not until the introduction of 100 Octane fuel and the two-stage supercharger that the Merlin output goes past 1,200hp. The Merlin is also 15 inches longer than the Peregrine, throwing off the planes' center of gravity, or requiring a complete redesign of the nacelles and/or elimination of the Fowler flaps. If you're a designer in 1938, and you're offered a choice between a reliable Merlin, or a temperamental Peregrine around two thirds of the weight but with roughly the same power, and your overriding objective is speed, you'd be a fool not to design around the lighter engine, and hope Rolls Royce can work out the reliability issues. Who could have foreseen that Merlins would go from 880hp of the Mk III, to over 2,000 hp by the time of the Mk 130?
@@achitophel5852 That's very true. The Canadian built P-40F Kittyhawk mounting the Packard licensed V-1650-1 (Merlin XX) was a big improvement, at altitude, over the P-40E Warhawk with its' Allison V-1710-39 in June 1941. Yes, you read that right. Over a year BEFORE the Mustang switched from the Allison V-1710-39 to the Packard V-1650-3 (Merlin 61/65) it was already known that Merlins were better at altitude. The trouble is, when the Mustang was being designed in 1940, they COULD have built it with high altitude performance right from the beginning, but that would have risked the turbocharger/supercharger technology later used on the V-1710 powered P-38 Lightning falling into German hands.
The Alison was an excellent engine at lower altitudes. Quite strange that it wasn't improved by installing suitable superchargers or turbos to improve high altitude performance. Maybe it was unnecessary at the time.
Thank you for this very interesting video. In 1959, my father bought me the Airfix Kit of the Whirlwind and I've been trying to find out more about it ever since. All my father would tell me, was that it was a plane he saw frequently, whilst living in Portsmouth, where he worked in the Dockyard at Priddy's Hard, Gosport. As with the Hawker Hurricane, it was never as highly regarded as the Mosquito, or Spitfire. The World is full of 'What Ifs', regarding ideas that were great, but had failed because of poor design, or lack of appropriate technology. Just a shame that the designer couldn't see his failings and redesign it with the Merlin engine.
Excellent vid. Sadly it wouldn't have made sense to re-design the Whirlwind for the Merlin engine because one of the main selling points of it was that it didn't use the Merlin. Sadly the prop issue was something no one had any idea about at the time, the Peregrine needed further development, the Whirlwind itself was expensive to produce, and difficult to service. Had there been other more experienced designers working alongside Petter I think some of this would've been caught in time, but it was still a cracking plane. A pity none were preserved.
There were plans for an improved Peregrine which was shelved by RR so that was the end of that. A Merlin engined version was also proposed by Petter but the Air ministry had lost interest by then although there were were shades of the Whirlwind in the later Welkin.
They did upgrade the Whirlwind design with Merlins, but obviously Westland didn’t have the right connections in the RAF. As the RAF demanded it had to be a special high altitude fighter with really long wings & decided they only needed less than 200 of them.
@@howardchambers9679 Yeah, that was also evident when he designed the Gnat (refused to give it bigger wheels for rough field operations because it would mean a bulged gear bay door). The man was a genius, but...difficult to get on with...
Fascinating to receive some actual info on a plane I knew only as an interesting-looking plastic kit 60 years ago. Very valid comment that a similarly-effective design which needs one engine is preferable to one which needs two, since there are then engines for twice as many aircraft! Sometimes difficult to accept that much of what defeated Germany and Japan was not only skill and bravery but - perhaps even more - hardware: tanks, jeeps, trucks and... fuel.
@achitophel5852 not just fuel, rubber, steel, aluminum, manufacturing companies, every country needs those 2 keep going, my parents grew up in Holland during ww2 grand father had a farm Germans took everything down 2 the last grain left them with nothing not even fire wood 2 cook or keep warm with.
My grandfathers cousin Geoffrey Warnes DSO DFC flew with 263 squadron. First RAF pilot to wear contact lenses. He was sadly lost over the channel in 1944 after his Typhoon had engine failure.
It was an aircraft about which I knew far too little, though I always thought -- when the topic came up -- that it had a lot of features which looked just right. In fact, I was surprised, watching this, to discover just how early the design was, and that it was running Peregrines rather than Merlins. Thanks for the information!
Surely Dowdings comment about not wanting to use 2 engines on an aircraft where single engined variants could do the job at least as well made good sense. Also seems that this aircraft employed several overly complex systems, not good at any time but particularly so in something which is expected to suffer damage.
If they could have worked out the small air intakes on the Peregrine and used a thinner propellor, who knows what it could have accomplished? I also think Air Marshall Dowding was saving the Whirlwinds for ground attack if the Germans invaded. Imagine what carnage those nose cannons would have wrought on German landing craft!
Apparently, there were reports of the cannon mounting system being a bit too flexible causing some problems with gun function and aimpoint stability as well. I imagine this problem woud have been solved rather easily if the Whirlwind had been built in greater numbers.
Interesting that both whirlwind squadrons were not far from their manufacturer Westland in Yeovil Somerset, it’s as if even the air ministry weren’t a hundred percent sure in the aircraft. On a personal note my grandfather and father and various relatives were involved in the whirlwind’s manufacture having been there since it was known as Petters.
If RR had cracked the problems with the Peregrine engine, it might have transformed the Battle of Britain, shredding bomber formations with its cannons. And Teddy Petter designed the Canberra, he might have got there because of his Dad, he stayed there because of his designs.
Whilst the appointment of Teddy Petter almost certainly owed a lot to nepotism, there is no questioning his ability. After leaving Westland, he designed the Canberra and Lightning for English Electric and the Gnat for Folland. Henry Folland had been intending to retire and recruited Petter as chief engineer and deputy managing director. When Folland did retire, less than a year later, Petter became the managing director. Sadly, orders for the Gnat were conditional on Folland being merged with Hawker Siddeley and the effective demotion this would have caused, along with his wife's declining health, prompted Petter to resign.
@@Aircraft_Files He certainly seems to have a reputation that way. Perhaps being promoted to such a senior position at a young age didn't help him in that way.
Possibly the greatest missed opportunity for the RAF. The Whirlwinds problem was its engines, were not good enough. Its huge advantage were its weapons, cannons as opposed to the .303 machine guns of the Spitfire and Hurricanes. Had this aircraft been equipped with Merlin engines from the start and added to its weaponry this would have been a fantastically effective bomber destroyer during the Battle of Britain.
About a quarter of them were paid for from South America, particularly Argentina. The British community in Buenos Airs set up a fund raising organisation called the Fellowship of the Bellows (so called because bellows make more air power!). It spread over South America and was widely subscribed by pro-Allied Latin Americans. Other types were also funded this way, particularly Spitfires.
@Aircraft_Files different aircraft, but the Mosquito had its doubters, yet it became arguably the best aircraft in WW2. History is all about timing and circumstances. That's why we love it.
The fuel system was flawed in that there was no cross feed system between wings. In the event of an engine failure the fuel on the affected side was trapped and usable.
@@Aircraft_Files Yea, this was a pretty big leap forward in design for Westland. Speaks to their limited experience with more advanced systems. That said, it was a beautiful aerodynamically sound aircraft and one of only two single-seat, twin engine fighters to see production and operational service during the war years. The other being the Lockheed P-38. I think all of us airplane geeks are in agreement regarding the "what ifs". A bit larger, greater range, more ammo, and designed around the twin RR Merlins - this thing would have been a world beater.
Unfortunately they were not allowed to due to the powers in control of the equipment procurement were worried that Merlin's would be in short supply, a situation that didn't happen. The design was far in advance of anything else around at the time
@@mothmagic1 It's not so much that they were not *allowed* to, but the re-design required would have made it a completely different aircraft and required a lot of resources. Since cannon-armed single-engine fighters were already in the pipeline, the reasons for it's existence had become much less relevant.
It would have needed a complete redesign which it got and came out as the Welkin, a high altitude fighter for which there was no use by the time it was delivered.
Nice video on a truely great what if fighter. You state that it was intended as a long range fighter. Its range and armament however shows that it was intended to knock bombers out of the sky. It was devised at the same time as the Fokker G1 prototype that had counter rotating props that the later P38 Lightning had. If indeed having the wlhat if Whirwind with Merlins the correct counter rotating props even with two in stead of four 20 mm in the nose with more ammo besides directly going for the "folly" of Mosquito's, providing top cover.......... 17:48
I saw one source saying the speed requirement was geared to be 30 mph faster than a bomber. But only one so i didn't include. Also I think the belt fed autocannon was not yet around.
Well I would have said I knew a fair bit about the Westland Whirlwind BUT *That information about the Prop-swap I did not know* I wonder why they didn't try sticking smaller diameter (thus lower circumference & tip mach) 4 bladers on it?
Seems Petter fell into a blame game before any form of collaboration could happen, but the other players seemed to be happy to write the Whirlwind off and move on to prefered aircraft.
Economics for one thing. The Whirlwind used three times the amount of alloys that single seat fighters used. Also the range was short and the amount of ammunition was small. Other aircraft were on the horizon that had more potential.
You may like to consider doing an item on the Gloster F9/37 - twin radial single seater that was also a could have been, very fast and supposedly very agile.
Nice aircraft, but while i like the outliers not sure about the "also-rans" having said that there probably is a good yarn about Gloster going from Biplane to Jet. Not sure how to approach that without leaving my singular mission to do Aircraft files. One by one.
These T-tails are very dangerous in flying short corners, by losing complete control, because of wing turbulence. You have to make the whole stabilizer into an elevator.
I do agree! All along this vid, i kept thinking this plane is a great what if...all in all, what a wasted chance. With a little more range endurance, it could have been a great asset for the RAF!
The Westland Whirlwind has always been one of my personal favourite designs, in many ways I think she is even better looking than the Beafighter, or Mosquito or dare I say it, the Spitfire. She just looks right. I think had she been given a better engine/propellor match up and built in numbers, the Luftwaffer bombers of the Battle of Britain who of been swatted down in great numbers, and any Bf/Me 109 that got in front her guns would of been turned into scrap metal in a blink of an eye. Her ammo capacity would of needed to have been doubled somehow though, since her cannons could fire between 700 to 750 round per minute, carrying 60 round per gun only gave her just over 5 seconds of firing time, so maybe 5 to 10 squirts of measured and controlled fire during combat, then it was time to bugger the hell out of battle space.
Really a bird before its time in many ways. Including before belt fed 20mm cannons. I found one source who claimed they were really sent north as reserve incase a german landing was attempted, It would have shedded landing craft / anything that got on the beach. With only one source i couldn't really include it though.
Twin engined fighters were more expensive to produce. Expedience limited their production due to the need to allocate engines to the most effective aircraft. Quantity over quality. It's fairly simple.
@@randallprestidge Seriously? Your examples were developed under the outdated idea of "heavy fighters" or were developed as multiple role strike aircraft or light to medium bombers. Perhaps you should look at the development of aircraft of the era and recognize how many developed as twin engined dedicated fighters/interceptors actually made it into production as such. The writing on the wall showed that single engined fighter/interceptors were the most cost efficient for the time period.
@@JJ62 actually, young man, the BPD turned out moderately useful throughout the war in various roles including night fighter and for its ability to readily convert to a 2 seat trainer/test bed. It certainly wasn't the disaster that the Battle was.
They had to make choices about production resources. But it's a great shame it didn't get better engines. If it had the Battle of Britain - they wouldn't have just won - they'd have minced the Luftwaffe. But hey counterfactuals and hindsight...
What if? How about a pair of jet engines? Whittle had a prototype running by 1937. Would have been a world beater. As it was, a great design went to waste thanks to Rolls Royce and DeHavilland.
*Don't diss 'stuffy' Dowding* He (well, along with Park) was the bloke who tipped the balance in the Batle of Britain Leigh-Mallory & tin legs Bader who did for that duo were in truth a pair of egotistical self serving 💩💩 Other than that - Good vid
It needed better more powerful engines, it needed more development, it needed Merlins, it needed a stronger airframe, it needed larger control surfaces, it needed different props..... the list is endless..... unless of course you're an armchair aircraft designer - then it's simple. So much potential.... isn't that what Estate Agents deal in? Dowding was completely right to bin it for future production. After all, he could lose the war - not just a game on someone's PC.
@Aircraft_Files Earlier in the video it referred to the airframe being made of aluminium...I recalled from my very limited experience in the 70s working for a small company designing airframes that all used an alloy of aluminium...ie.duraluminium(excuse my spelling)👌
@@alexmarshall4331 most were, or wood / cloth :-) Not sure where i picked that up, i'll take a look, but maybe word spell checker got me... it has before.
@@Aircraft_Files Hey thanks for getting back...bit embarrassed to admit that my time in the 70s where I was involved in "aircraft" design was...wait for it > I was employed by "Wasp" to design and build hangliders...also taught how to...was involved in R&D of the "Nova" that may have had a "lift to drag ratio" of 10 to 1... HUGE for 1975👉☮️👈❗
Duralumin is slightly denser than pure aluminium, whereas low magnesium alloys are easier to work with and a little less dense. They don't need heat treatment and are easy to form so good for panels. The oversupply after the War resulted in them being used for cladding Land Rovers, the alloy used on our Land Rover being about 3% magnesium as per the XRF. Birmabright alloys are (perhaps surprisingly) more sea water resistant than Duralumin so good for aircraft that will be used in coastal areas. By WW2 magnesium/aluminium alloys were in wide use. Apart from Land Rovers they also found their way into some Rover and of course the VW Beetle. The Defender is cheapo steel.
Sorry to hear that. I wrote the script and went for a generic 1970s BBC voice. Unfortunately my own voice is terrible and the times I tried to narrate I flubbed so much I had to give up
@@Aircraft_FilesYour narration was first class. I enjoyed this video more than any of the many other Whirlwind videos I've watched tonight. Your research is magnificent, your editing is superb, your construction of this wonderful essay is faultless, and your delivery is excellent. Pay no attention to cynical snipers who have nothing positive to bring to the party. "Haters gonna hate."
Okay dude your images that go along with your speech do not match at all you are showing yak 9 early jet fighters talking about cord with of propeller fighters on Mark 1 hurricane and spitfires you obviously don't know what the heck you are talking about and should stop now and leave it to the freaking professionals
@@Aircraft_Files thank you for responding kindly to my admittedly harsh comment. Respect. If you want somebody to overview videos beforehand so that continuity is accurate I'm more than willing to volunteer sometime to watch what you have
It is like an early version of a dehavilland hornet to me 6 years ahead of its time. Big mistake in not pursuing it's development and giving it the right engines. I think the perception of the ME110 failure probably gave the wrong perception to Dowding
One of my favourite planes along side the Mosquito, for the mid to late 1930s it had a lot of innovations as you said including the Bubble Canopy which became standard later.
I think you are absolutely right ! The Whirlwind was an unexplored wonder !!! Bravo for the video, one of a very few on the plane ...
Very glad you enjoyed it.
Westlands a company founded in 1935 and still produces aircraft today, albeit owned by another company it still sports the name Westlands helicopters on the main gate. It's my towns largest employer. I can look out my bedroom window and see Westlands airstrip. Great Video.
Thanks. :-)
That aircraft had potential and was pointed in the right direction. Heavy armament, single crew, visibility for the pilot that was superior to any other contemporary British fighter or fighter-bomber. Imagine! An aircraft designer realizing that it might be a good idea to be able to see just who might be preparing to ruin your day! It had the potential to be the British equivalent of the American lightning. It needed refinement, more reliable and powerful engines, and simply better tactics. It got none.
neither this plane or the p-38 worked out for britain and the beaufighter and mosquito ended up taking over which were two of the best planes britain ever made so it worked out in the end.
I think the Whirlwind is one of the best looking aircraft of ww2.
Definitely, it's one gorgeous looking wee aeroplane!😊
I lived and worked at Charmy Down back in the late seventies. All the RAF buildings were intact, we used them as feed stores. Some still had the bomb trolleys outside. One building had parts of an aircraft's landing gear half buried in one corner. I was told that Charmy Down was a satellite airfield to Colerne, and had Hurricanes stationed there. That landing gear definitely didn't come off a Hurryup though, that's for sure..
Very nice vid. Thanks and blessings.
Cheers. Glad you enjoyed it.
My dad was there in the war helping to set up the two Whirlwind squadrons. I worked at Colerne in the early 70s, a super station to serve at.
Imagine a Whirlwind with a reliable engine and higher production. They wouldn't have needed the Typhoon! Very cool vid!
Glad you enjoyed it.
This is a fine video. Good stuff. It was a good plane, certainly in its time, but as you highlighted, the props were a thorn in its side.
Glad you enjoyed it,
An ME 262 with props.
I thought the same thing also. It looks remarkably similar! Perhaps a little industrial espionage? That airframe could fly much much faster than the propellers could push it.
When people say "Why didn't they just use a Merlin?" they are forgetting a few important details. At the time, the only variant available was the Merlin II or III, developing only 880 hp. On paper, the Peregrine was capable of delivering roughly the same horsepower, but weighed 500lbs less! It's not until the introduction of 100 Octane fuel and the two-stage supercharger that the Merlin output goes past 1,200hp. The Merlin is also 15 inches longer than the Peregrine, throwing off the planes' center of gravity, or requiring a complete redesign of the nacelles and/or elimination of the Fowler flaps. If you're a designer in 1938, and you're offered a choice between a reliable Merlin, or a temperamental Peregrine around two thirds of the weight but with roughly the same power, and your overriding objective is speed, you'd be a fool not to design around the lighter engine, and hope Rolls Royce can work out the reliability issues. Who could have foreseen that Merlins would go from 880hp of the Mk III, to over 2,000 hp by the time of the Mk 130?
But the Merlin turned a mediocre US plane into a fighter that could go to Berlin and back.
@@achitophel5852 That's very true. The Canadian built P-40F Kittyhawk mounting the Packard licensed V-1650-1 (Merlin XX) was a big improvement, at altitude, over the P-40E Warhawk with its' Allison V-1710-39 in June 1941. Yes, you read that right. Over a year BEFORE the Mustang switched from the Allison V-1710-39 to the Packard V-1650-3 (Merlin 61/65) it was already known that Merlins were better at altitude. The trouble is, when the Mustang was being designed in 1940, they COULD have built it with high altitude performance right from the beginning, but that would have risked the turbocharger/supercharger technology later used on the V-1710 powered P-38 Lightning falling into German hands.
The Alison was an excellent engine at lower altitudes. Quite strange that it wasn't improved by installing suitable superchargers or turbos to improve high altitude performance. Maybe it was unnecessary at the time.
Thank you for this very interesting video. In 1959, my father bought me the Airfix Kit of the Whirlwind and I've been trying to find out more about it ever since. All my father would tell me, was that it was a plane he saw frequently, whilst living in Portsmouth, where he worked in the Dockyard at Priddy's Hard, Gosport. As with the Hawker Hurricane, it was never as highly regarded as the Mosquito, or Spitfire. The World is full of 'What Ifs', regarding ideas that were great, but had failed because of poor design, or lack of appropriate technology. Just a shame that the designer couldn't see his failings and redesign it with the Merlin engine.
you are welcome
A fantastic aeroplane! Excellent presentation!
Thanks Martin, Im very glad you enjoyed it.
Excellent vid.
Sadly it wouldn't have made sense to re-design the Whirlwind for the Merlin engine because one of the main selling points of it was that it didn't use the Merlin. Sadly the prop issue was something no one had any idea about at the time, the Peregrine needed further development, the Whirlwind itself was expensive to produce, and difficult to service. Had there been other more experienced designers working alongside Petter I think some of this would've been caught in time, but it was still a cracking plane. A pity none were preserved.
Well put sir.
There were plans for an improved Peregrine which was shelved by RR so that was the end of that. A Merlin engined version was also proposed by Petter but the Air ministry had lost interest by then although there were were shades of the Whirlwind in the later Welkin.
Unfortunately Petter was renowned for not listening to people he thought beneath his intelligence. By that I mean everyone, he was also quite abrupt.
They did upgrade the Whirlwind design with Merlins, but obviously Westland didn’t have the right connections in the RAF. As the RAF demanded it had to be a special high altitude fighter with really long wings & decided they only needed less than 200 of them.
@@howardchambers9679 Yeah, that was also evident when he designed the Gnat (refused to give it bigger wheels for rough field operations because it would mean a bulged gear bay door). The man was a genius, but...difficult to get on with...
Fascinating to receive some actual info on a plane I knew only as an interesting-looking plastic kit 60 years ago. Very valid comment that a similarly-effective design which needs one engine is preferable to one which needs two, since there are then engines for twice as many aircraft! Sometimes difficult to accept that much of what defeated Germany and Japan was not only skill and bravery but - perhaps even more - hardware: tanks, jeeps, trucks and... fuel.
Is no doubt that the US being able to provide the "arsenal of democracy" saved Britain in terms of fighting equipment.
Starving Japan and Germany of fuel was of more significance than the fuel available to the Allies.
@martinwilson7246 yes logistic supply chain if u don't have that u lost everything.
@achitophel5852 not just fuel, rubber, steel, aluminum, manufacturing companies, every country needs those 2 keep going, my parents grew up in Holland during ww2 grand father had a farm Germans took everything down 2 the last grain left them with nothing not even fire wood 2 cook or keep warm with.
@Aircraft_Files Russia 2 at beginning of war, they got aircraft, tanks, and food.
Always loved it's look.
I often see it as a precursor to the DeHavilland Hornet , which appeared to take some inspiration from the Whirlwind.
That armament must have delivered a serious storm of hot metal , very impressive machine!
My grandfathers cousin Geoffrey Warnes DSO DFC flew with 263 squadron. First RAF pilot to wear contact lenses. He was sadly lost over the channel in 1944 after his Typhoon had engine failure.
Lest we forget.
What a great little aircraft.
Could not agree more. Just a shame its prop failed it.
Fantastic looking aircraft
This was fascinating. Thanks for posting it. A lot of data here I had not seen before.
So glad you enjoyed it. I love sharing my love for these aircraft. :-)
Interesting video, I've always liked the Whirlwind and knew about the engine problems but never knew about the props.
Glad you liked it!
It was an aircraft about which I knew far too little, though I always thought -- when the topic came up -- that it had a lot of features which looked just right. In fact, I was surprised, watching this, to discover just how early the design was, and that it was running Peregrines rather than Merlins.
Thanks for the information!
You are most welcome.
Surely Dowdings comment about not wanting to use 2 engines on an aircraft where single engined variants could do the job at least as well made good sense.
Also seems that this aircraft employed several overly complex systems, not good at any time but particularly so in something which is expected to suffer damage.
It did make sense. and i agree was too cutting edge on many fronts.
Similarity was of the essence with five and six sorties a day. No time for too complicated mantainance.
A very informative Video. Well done 👍
Thank you! 👍
Great video, interesting and informative! Thank you
Very glad you enjoyed it, I'm new at this and really appreciate the feedback.
A real beauty of a plane.
If they could have worked out the small air intakes on the Peregrine and used a thinner propellor, who knows what it could have accomplished? I also think Air Marshall Dowding was saving the Whirlwinds for ground attack if the Germans invaded. Imagine what carnage those nose cannons would have wrought on German landing craft!
re saving for landing, I read the same theory in one source but couldn't find a secondary.
Apparently, there were reports of the cannon mounting system being a bit too flexible causing some problems with gun function and aimpoint stability as well. I imagine this problem woud have been solved rather easily if the Whirlwind had been built in greater numbers.
Interesting that both whirlwind squadrons were not far from their manufacturer Westland in Yeovil Somerset, it’s as if even the air ministry weren’t a hundred percent sure in the aircraft. On a personal note my grandfather and father and various relatives were involved in the whirlwind’s manufacture having been there since it was known as Petters.
I built an Airfix plastic model of this one in my younger days. Still have it. Plus a lot of others.
If RR had cracked the problems with the Peregrine engine, it might have transformed the Battle of Britain, shredding bomber formations with its cannons. And Teddy Petter designed the Canberra, he might have got there because of his Dad, he stayed there because of his designs.
True and he certainty got the job at English Electric on merit and proven track record.
Whilst the appointment of Teddy Petter almost certainly owed a lot to nepotism, there is no questioning his ability. After leaving Westland, he designed the Canberra and Lightning for English Electric and the Gnat for Folland. Henry Folland had been intending to retire and recruited Petter as chief engineer and deputy managing director. When Folland did retire, less than a year later, Petter became the managing director. Sadly, orders for the Gnat were conditional on Folland being merged with Hawker Siddeley and the effective demotion this would have caused, along with his wife's declining health, prompted Petter to resign.
I should not be so mean, but Teddy Petter was notorious for being difficult.
@@Aircraft_Files He certainly seems to have a reputation that way. Perhaps being promoted to such a senior position at a young age didn't help him in that way.
Possibly the greatest missed opportunity for the RAF. The Whirlwinds problem was its engines, were not good enough. Its huge advantage were its weapons, cannons as opposed to the .303 machine guns of the Spitfire and Hurricanes. Had this aircraft been equipped with Merlin engines from the start and added to its weaponry this would have been a fantastically effective bomber destroyer during the Battle of Britain.
About a quarter of them were paid for from South America, particularly Argentina. The British community in Buenos Airs set up a fund raising organisation called the Fellowship of the Bellows (so called because bellows make more air power!). It spread over South America and was widely subscribed by pro-Allied Latin Americans. Other types were also funded this way, particularly Spitfires.
Very interesting - thanks for this information !
Very good video. I agree with your summary. It had great potential, and I'm disappointed it wasn't supported enough.
Thanks. Some have pointed out the extra engine would have been a resources drain.
@Aircraft_Files different aircraft, but the Mosquito had its doubters, yet it became arguably the best aircraft in WW2. History is all about timing and circumstances. That's why we love it.
@@stephenbrown1077 Very much so.
The fuel system was flawed in that there was no cross feed system between wings. In the event of an engine failure the fuel on the affected side was trapped and usable.
Oh i didn't see that one. Seems a poor design oversight, Thanks David,
@@Aircraft_Files Yea, this was a pretty big leap forward in design for Westland. Speaks to their limited experience with more advanced systems. That said, it was a beautiful aerodynamically sound aircraft and one of only two single-seat, twin engine fighters to see production and operational service during the war years. The other being the Lockheed P-38. I think all of us airplane geeks are in agreement regarding the "what ifs". A bit larger, greater range, more ammo, and designed around the twin RR Merlins - this thing would have been a world beater.
and delivered at a pivotal point of the war.
Westland should have re-engined it with Merlins.
Unfortunately they were not allowed to due to the powers in control of the equipment procurement were worried that Merlin's would be in short supply, a situation that didn't happen. The design was far in advance of anything else around at the time
@@mothmagic1 The same issue put a hold on mosquito development. The Whirlwind would have been a good test bed for a pair of W1X or Halford H1
@@mothmagic1 It's not so much that they were not *allowed* to, but the re-design required would have made it a completely different aircraft and required a lot of resources. Since cannon-armed single-engine fighters were already in the pipeline, the reasons for it's existence had become much less relevant.
It would have needed a complete redesign which it got and came out as the Welkin, a high altitude fighter for which there was no use by the time it was delivered.
@@ericadams3428 That is an accountants answer.
Nice video on a truely great what if fighter.
You state that it was intended as a long range fighter. Its range and armament however shows that it was intended to knock bombers out of the sky.
It was devised at the same time as the Fokker G1 prototype that had counter rotating props that the later P38 Lightning had.
If indeed having the wlhat if Whirwind with Merlins the correct counter rotating props even with two in stead of four 20 mm in the nose with more ammo besides directly going for the "folly" of Mosquito's, providing top cover.......... 17:48
I saw one source saying the speed requirement was geared to be 30 mph faster than a bomber. But only one so i didn't include. Also I think the belt fed autocannon was not yet around.
So did Rolls Royce arrange for the props to be installed in order to help kill off the aircraft, possibly with De Havilland?
That is a dark idea indeed.
@@Aircraft_Files well it'd make absolutely sure Merlins were available for their Mosquito.
This is a dark horse favorite of mine in war thunder.
@@kiwidiesel it's a damn shame it costs too much to play
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it George. :-)
Well I would have said I knew a fair bit about the Westland Whirlwind BUT
*That information about the Prop-swap I did not know*
I wonder why they didn't try sticking smaller diameter (thus lower circumference & tip mach) 4 bladers on it?
A most erudite point
Seems Petter fell into a blame game before any form of collaboration could happen, but the other players seemed to be happy to write the Whirlwind off and move on to prefered aircraft.
Economics for one thing. The Whirlwind used three times the amount of alloys that single seat fighters used. Also the range was short and the amount of ammunition was small. Other aircraft were on the horizon that had more potential.
Proper development and project management should have seen it match the Mosquito. But quite difficult in times of conflict.
Great video
You may like to consider doing an item on the Gloster F9/37 - twin radial single seater that was also a could have been, very fast and supposedly very agile.
Nice aircraft, but while i like the outliers not sure about the "also-rans" having said that there probably is a good yarn about Gloster going from Biplane to Jet. Not sure how to approach that without leaving my singular mission to do Aircraft files. One by one.
These T-tails are very dangerous in flying short corners, by losing complete control, because of wing turbulence. You have to make the whole stabilizer into an elevator.
That pilot at 13:49 appears to be doing some serious sideslipping for the photo op. Look at the rudder.
A lot of the Whirlwind pilots were canadian, so I'm not sure what you are intimating ;-)
My favorite british fighter the whirlwind , and the typhoon!
I love to watch your videos
If Merlin had been chosen at the beginning, it might have received more support in the right quarters.
I do agree! All along this vid, i kept thinking this plane is a great what if...all in all, what a wasted chance. With a little more range endurance, it could have been a great asset for the RAF!
The Westland Whirlwind has always been one of my personal favourite designs, in many ways I think she is even better looking than the Beafighter, or Mosquito or dare I say it, the Spitfire. She just looks right.
I think had she been given a better engine/propellor match up and built in numbers, the Luftwaffer bombers of the Battle of Britain who of been swatted down in great numbers, and any Bf/Me 109 that got in front her guns would of been turned into scrap metal in a blink of an eye.
Her ammo capacity would of needed to have been doubled somehow though, since her cannons could fire between 700 to 750 round per minute, carrying 60 round per gun only gave her just over 5 seconds of firing time, so maybe 5 to 10 squirts of measured and controlled fire during combat, then it was time to bugger the hell out of battle space.
Really a bird before its time in many ways. Including before belt fed 20mm cannons. I found one source who claimed they were really sent north as reserve incase a german landing was attempted, It would have shedded landing craft / anything that got on the beach. With only one source i couldn't really include it though.
The first time a saw a photo it in a book I had one of those 'wow, that looks amazing' moments, if something looks right....
@@gumpyoldbugger6944 I cannot disagree with you on any point. Good job sir
Twin engined fighters were more expensive to produce. Expedience limited their production due to the need to allocate engines to the most effective aircraft. Quantity over quality. It's fairly simple.
Managed to find engines for thousands of mosquitos, beaufighters, a20/p70s...
@@randallprestidge Seriously? Your examples were developed under the outdated idea of "heavy fighters" or were developed as multiple role strike aircraft or light to medium bombers. Perhaps you should look at the development of aircraft of the era and recognize how many developed as twin engined dedicated fighters/interceptors actually made it into production as such. The writing on the wall showed that single engined fighter/interceptors were the most cost efficient for the time period.
Imagine the Whirlwind with contra-rotating Griffons ... ❤🔥💪😎 ^v^
A fovorite of mine, that we dont see much of!!!
Love that aircraft made heaps of models of it!!……shame it had its engine problems!
Possibly just a mismatched propeller. which is even more of a shame.
Hey guys! What if a Mossie and a Beaufighter had a devil child?
Well, the child would have been older than one of its' parents........🙂
they did , it was called the Hornet and it was over 100 mph faster than the Whirlwind.
My second favorite British plane of WWII after the F5 Tiger II.
Small frontal profile jet engines may have given this aeroplane the boost it needed
In some of the old, out of focus films shown, it looks rather like an Me262.
We can't make anymore because we need any spare RR engines for ... Fairey Battles.
Duh.
Or the Boulton-Paul Defiant….
@@JJ62 actually, young man, the BPD turned out moderately useful throughout the war in various roles including night fighter and for its ability to readily convert to a 2 seat trainer/test bed. It certainly wasn't the disaster that the Battle was.
Blenheims.
To just look at the whirlwind tells you everything that you need to know.
They had to make choices about production resources. But it's a great shame it didn't get better engines. If it had the Battle of Britain - they wouldn't have just won - they'd have minced the Luftwaffe. But hey counterfactuals and hindsight...
"counterfactuals and hindsight" indeed. But I tend to agree :-)
Some of the Designers had Triple-barrelled surnames!
Why is it that when a land battle is won the general gets the glory but with the battle of Britain Dowding barely gets a mention?
True. I guess people don't understand the tactics and strategies applied to aerial warfare.
Because of that scumbag Leigh-Mallory and his parasite Bader.
Another pearler. 👍
Very glad you liked it
The overall concept was vindicated by the DH Hornet; sadly just too late to participate in the conflict.
Eric (winkle) brown really rated it.
What if? How about a pair of jet engines? Whittle had a prototype running by 1937. Would have been a world beater. As it was, a great design went to waste thanks to Rolls Royce and DeHavilland.
I was going to say why didnt they just use Merlin engines
@Aircraft_Files >>> Great video...👍
Could have made a great tank buster in north africa?
Yes... with better engines and especially props this aircraft could have been a winner.
I wonder why Westland didn't change the engines to Merlin as they were constantly available;?
most likely due to the Supermarine Spitfire
*Don't diss 'stuffy' Dowding*
He (well, along with Park) was the bloke who tipped the balance in the Batle of Britain
Leigh-Mallory & tin legs Bader who did for that duo were in truth a pair of egotistical self serving 💩💩
Other than that - Good vid
Absolutely no disrespect intended, he made the right call. And had a point about resources.
My old Maths master was at school with Bader. He said Bader was an arrogant tw@t.
Looks a lot like a dH88, so funny it wasn’t a nightmare to fly
Nice plane but design fuselage should have 4ft shorter and tail planes should have been brought down 2 the fuselage like spitfire and hurricane
Military aviation history
Nice thumbnail.
would have been great for the royal navy
It needed better more powerful engines, it needed more development, it needed Merlins, it needed a stronger airframe, it needed larger control surfaces, it needed different props..... the list is endless..... unless of course you're an armchair aircraft designer - then it's simple. So much potential.... isn't that what Estate Agents deal in? Dowding was completely right to bin it for future production. After all, he could lose the war - not just a game on someone's PC.
To be fair, just a different prop would have made a huge difference.
It resembles the 262
Surely "duraluminium"?
The rear fuselage was a magnesium alloy.
@Aircraft_Files Earlier in the video it referred to the airframe being made of aluminium...I recalled from my very limited experience in the 70s working for a small company designing airframes that all used an alloy of aluminium...ie.duraluminium(excuse my spelling)👌
@@alexmarshall4331 most were, or wood / cloth :-) Not sure where i picked that up, i'll take a look, but maybe word spell checker got me... it has before.
@@Aircraft_Files Hey thanks for getting back...bit embarrassed to admit that my time in the 70s where I was involved in "aircraft" design was...wait for it > I was employed by "Wasp" to design and build hangliders...also taught how to...was involved in R&D of the "Nova" that may have had a "lift to drag ratio" of 10 to 1... HUGE for 1975👉☮️👈❗
Duralumin is slightly denser than pure aluminium, whereas low magnesium alloys are easier to work with and a little less dense. They don't need heat treatment and are easy to form so good for panels. The oversupply after the War resulted in them being used for cladding Land Rovers, the alloy used on our Land Rover being about 3% magnesium as per the XRF.
Birmabright alloys are (perhaps surprisingly) more sea water resistant than Duralumin so good for aircraft that will be used in coastal areas.
By WW2 magnesium/aluminium alloys were in wide use. Apart from Land Rovers they also found their way into some Rover and of course the VW Beetle. The Defender is cheapo steel.
An accidental A-10 Warthog !
Good ideas are often shot down by stupid brass.
Interesting subject matter, but that narration was dire. I had to give uo after a couple of minutes.
Sorry to hear that. I wrote the script and went for a generic 1970s BBC voice. Unfortunately my own voice is terrible and the times I tried to narrate I flubbed so much I had to give up
@@Aircraft_FilesYour narration was first class. I enjoyed this video more than any of the many other Whirlwind videos I've watched tonight. Your research is magnificent, your editing is superb, your construction of this wonderful essay is faultless, and your delivery is excellent.
Pay no attention to cynical snipers who have nothing positive to bring to the party. "Haters gonna hate."
Imagine if it had Merlin’s….
Check my next video. Sometimes the merlin is not the answer 😀
Prop driven me262
Unfortunately you have misidentified this air craft the Westland whirlwind was a helicopter
Of all the possible mistakes to make!!..
In plan form it appears disjointed, no grace in form.
Okay dude your images that go along with your speech do not match at all you are showing yak 9 early jet fighters talking about cord with of propeller fighters on Mark 1 hurricane and spitfires you obviously don't know what the heck you are talking about and should stop now and leave it to the freaking professionals
Yaks my earole
Happy to take on constructive criticism. Sometimes i miss things in my research and love it when i earn from the comments.
@@Aircraft_Files thank you for responding kindly to my admittedly harsh comment. Respect. If you want somebody to overview videos beforehand so that continuity is accurate I'm more than willing to volunteer sometime to watch what you have
@@kayallovertheplacedid you get out of the wrong side of bed? Your original comment isn't feedback or criticism. You were being an arse.
It is like an early version of a dehavilland hornet to me 6 years ahead of its time. Big mistake in not pursuing it's development and giving it the right engines. I think the perception of the ME110 failure probably gave the wrong perception to Dowding
On the contrary it was the right conception. As a fighter it was a dead loss.
If it had a Rolls-Royce MERLIN...
Great aircraft , wrong engines
kinda looks like a prop driven ME-262