A person that is willing to look at their previous work and say they were mistaken, let alone publish their corrections, is a benefit to all of us that strive to remember the past as accurately as possible. Well done Ed and thank you!
Yes, the ability to revise and learn is the mark of an historian. There is definitely no such thing as the last word in the subject, we still seem to regularly change our minds about the Romans!
@@kimchipig My life experiences disagree. It's one thing to admit your mistakes and take responsibility for them when there will be no consequences, it's a different matter when admitting your mistakes will cost you something. If you're in the US, just observe the Legacy Media, there's hardly ever a break in the constant stream of lies and disinformation presented there. Mostly, the only thing at stake there is their pathetic egos.
@@kimchipig Well then, that means most Mainstream Media "Journalists" aren't adults then! And I most heatily agree, they are mewling infants that we'd best get rid off!
The pilot shown at 6:45, with his plane "Comrades in Arms", was my uncle, Eddie Musgrave, an RAF pilot with 137 Squadron. Flying his "whirlybomber"", he attacked the German auxiliary cruiser Togo (setting out on her maiden voyage after conversion, and about to be renamed Coronel), forcing the ship back to port in Boulogne and ending its cruiser career before it begun. He was later shot down over France, and is buried at Pihen-lès-Guînes.
Wow. Thanks for that. What a neat connection to history. Unfortunate demise, but in service to country & kin in defense of an evil regime's onslaught. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year to your family from Alabama.
@@aeelmore69 I am very lucky to be the proud owner of an original photo of Harold Penrose flying over Boscombe Down during a test flight. my father bless him was a design engineer for Westland's during the war and did much work with Harold on the Whirlwind and also a machine called the Welkin. On a number of occasions he travelled to London for meetings with Churchill. My father told me that Harold was the most amazing test pilot who was fearless in his professionalism. Father made a number of flights with Harold pulling wires etc on early fights.
i am very lucky to be the owner of a photograph of Harold Penrose in a Whirlwind over Boscombe Down. My father worked extensively with Harold during the war developing the Whirlwind and the Welkin. Harold was a truly wonderful test pilot and father had many escapades with him on early flights.
Thanks for sharing that wee tale, I always have time to hear about these men and the sacrifice that was made. I sometimes think people are forgetting the carnage that happened so the stories must never be forgotten.
Probably one of my first Airfix kits I ever made, still have the 1977 Airfix catalog which the Whirlwind featured in and I always thought this was such a cool looking aircraft as a kid 👍
I also had the airfix kit it came in that clear plastic case that so many of their 1/72 kits were in basically as cheap as you can package something. A Cardboard tag with colour picture of the plane and the clear plastic case showing you all the parts dangling below it LOL always made me laugh at how minimal Airfix was but it was actually a great idea as you could hang the all Airfix kits from rotating tree and it wouldn't take up much store space.
One of the main squadrons to use it had a quite diversity of air that it used in WWII. RAF 263 started with Gloster Gladiators and was in Norway with them. On return they briefly flew Hurricanes until the Whirlwinds came to be. Typhoons were their next steeds. Finally (although a different unit taking over their squadron number) the Meteors. From biplane to jets in 6 years.
I think the whirlwind was just another of the aircraft that werent needed for the war effort. they only needed to move foreward with design and thats what this aircraft did. moved innovation foreward.
Well done, Ed! Oh, those props! Everyone talks about the airframe and/or engines but a prop plane only functions as well as its prop. The Rotol constant speed props, for example, did as much to hold the line as the Spit, the Hurricane, or even the Merlin! It took several aeronautical engineering courses for me to understand that and I hope I can pass some of that along here. Anyone who knows much of anything about the P-47 Thunderbolt has heard of the "paddle blade propellors" that transformed it from adequate to excellent but almost no one explains why. I'll try to keep this simple. A propeller, like any airfoil, produces lift and drag and both increase with speed until, at some point, they cancel out. A thin airfoil, like a paddle blade prop or Rotol prop or F-104 wing, will continue to produce more lift than drag up to a high speed. An airfoil more like a Fokker D.VII hits that point at a much lower speed. Simple? Not really but we're getting.
very lucky to have a photo of Harold Penrose flying a Whirlwind over Boscombe Down. My father did much development work with Harold on the Whirlwind and the Welkin. Harold was a truly wonderful test pilot
Excellent review of this fighter. Much better than many I have seen. There is real need for more videos like this of lesser know aircraft. Do we really NEED another video on the Spitfire or Hurricane? Keep up the great work.
Excellent analysis. You are correct, it's often not a case of why didn't they use so and so engine on this plane, it's a case of we want this plane *because* it uses another engine. People don't understand production.
Apparently, the last flying Whirlwind was used as a private aircraft by Westland people in the late 1940's. What a shame they had to go and destroy it otherwise it would be sitting in a museum for us all to see today.
There's a picture of it here; www.google.com/search?q=westland+whirlwind&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix5rHLrLXyAhVk4XMBHf6OAT4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1424&bih=757 Here is a copy of it's Registration Certificate: cwsprduksumbraco.blob.core.windows.net/g-info/HistoricalLedger/G-AGOI.pdf
Omg I had a kit too ! Was one of my fav's because you could really see how sleek the plane was. I loved Airfix they were such a good company back in the 70's and 80's the kits were everwhere
Again a great extra video on a potentiay great aircraft. I never knew that mach 1 problems with props were a large problem. The greatest reason for the failure was a wrong specification. The concept should of been something between an expert escort fighter and a concept
I also had an Airfix Whirlwind as a kid, which somehow disappeared over the years. About four years ago I saw another kit for sale and bought that without hesitation. Also still have my original copy of the comic 'Whirlwind in the sky'. Always loved the design.
Me to. I bought one to because I didnt have enough for a Mosquito which I think was a series 3 and Whirlwind series 1 glad I didnt have enough that day.
First saw this aircraft in a War Picture Library comic in the 70's. Always wondered why it wasnt as ubiquitous as the other great British twin engined strike aircraft such as the Mosquito and Beaufighter. Bill Gunston's book on British fighters cast the source of the problem as being the engines, but now I am seeing its much more than that. Another myth busting episode from Ed!
So glad I came across this clip , because the Westland whirlwind was my first air fix model as a child and I had forgotten I had built one until I came across this clip, thank you for bring back a very distant memory
I very much enjoy this channnel and this video underscores one of the reasons why. You share new information when you get it, regardless that it might contradict an earler vid, which shows your honest dedication. Well done, IMHO.
Thank you for this very informative video. My great uncle (Allan Britton) flew and died in a Whirlwind fighter P6980 of 263 squadron. His plane crashed on a training gun run, on a set target in the Bristol Channel, about a mile off Burnham on Sea. 12th December 1940 aged 23. I'm really proud of him, he's mentioned on the Battle of Britain memorial in London. Any information about the Whirlwind and what part he played in WW2 I find fascinating and hope that my children will keep his story alive. Thanks again.
The De Havilland Hornet was effectively a Whirlwind with Merlins. It was said to be the finest propellor aircraft ever by Winkle Brown. The Whirlwind was definitely ahead of its time and full of innovations which later other companies borrowed and used in their designs. DH Mosquito being one.
My father was a De Haviland rigger/engineer for over 50 years from 1931 onwards. He would be turning in his grave because of your initial statement! The DH 98 and subsequent 103 were derived mainly from the 88's and 91's technologies which both pre-dated Westlands concepts. Although I would have agreed if you'd have said Westland Welkin, which were stationed just up the road from where I was. Although quite a few years earlier.
I doubt the Mosquito was influenced at all by the Whirlwind. A really big problem with Westland was their lack of expansion of production capability... I think the dialogue says the de Havilland propellor was on the prototype which gave good performance... that’s the opposite way around to what was subsequently suggested! Peregrine production was terminated... Hives at RR just had to rationalise. But fantastic aircraft potential just the whole programme was 6 months behind requirements... NB. This was a high aspect ratio wing so potentially with development an excellent high altitude interceptor.. but not a dog fighter match for FW190 though
@@TheHarryMann Have a look at the cooling system on the Whirlwind, the placement of the radiators and you'll see it was copied by the De Havilland on the Mosquito.
@@andymckee53 the rad cooling system followed the concept layed down by the Meredith effect (1935). Many aircraft used it in the wing leading edges, as that caused the least drag for radiators...You'll find that the de Havilland Albatross also had rad inlets in the wing leading edges (1937). Corsair was another example designed in the 30's. The Whirlwind did however have the first bubble canopy.
A fitter (now deceased) who was a member of our club, Scarborough Historical Aircraft Club, was based at Hucknall which was Rolls-Royce's test airfield. He worked on the whirlwind and described the cooling system as, 'A dogs dinner'. He told us when they had sorted the cooling system out on the one they had the engines performed reliably.
Like all Petter designs what was under the skin was mostly a Dogs dinner. Lightning was another aircraft in that category. Canberra would have been as well, bar the fact that most of the kit the RAF wanted to put in it didn't fit or could be got to work in time, so the equipment fit of a Mosquito bomber ended up going into it.
@@johnhagemeyer8578 Sounds like compressibility was a problem at least for the props. I doubt it ever had much issues with compressibility with the wings though, since it didn't have the performance at altitude for that to be a problem.
It certainly is and that's more than good enough for me to call it a great aircraft. If anybody says otherwise I'll either have to hunt them down like the dogs they are or ignore them.
Definitely a good-looking machine. Sadly, kind of like the knockout that's fun to be around for brief periods, but can't hold up a long conversation and turns out to be a limp noodle in bed! Yes, I know I'll get smacked for this.
I made the Airfix kit around 50 years ago. Today I have the 1/48 and recently took delivery of the new 1/32 version. A beautiful plane and so very similar to the post-war Hornet.
Nice to hear that Rotol blades were a success in the prototype. Becoming an apprentice at Dowty in 1978, blades were still a big part of their business, and they are still going. Always loved the look of the Whirlwind, it really did look the part with the cannons all mounted in the nose, it looked deadly. Two engines and the thin wing made it look like a race aircraft, and it should have been very fast. One of the early Airfix kits my Dad ever made when I was a kid.
When I was a child I loved building model aircraft kits. My favourite was the Whirlwind. As for fitting the the Merlin, I don't believe it was possible to do without a major redesign. The Merlin was a lot longer and 50% heavier. That would move the centre of gravity well forward. To be counter that would have required a much longer fuselage and / organisation moving to the wings forward. Then the wing area would have to be increased to compensate for the extra 1/2 ton of engines. By the time you do that it would virtually be a new aircraft.
@@alan-sk7ky Probably just a heavier and more sluggish fighter which would have failed its assessment at Boscombe Down. I suspect it would have turned like crap, sadly.
Really good video Ed, you never stop learning with history, that's what is so fascinating about it. Engine/airframe mismatches is a favourite topic of mine - the struggles of the Merlin powered Halifax is a prime example. Thanks for sharing and linking to the Whirlwind project too.
@@doglover31418 Yep, true, also Eric Brown claimed he liked the mk II Lanc, although he may have been referring only to the experimental powered controls he was testing at the time. Airframe/engine matching is a great topic, the Mk 1 Buccaneer and Victor showed that sometimes less is more, although with some of their charactieristics sometimes less is just plain less:-)
@@mark_delfino Thanks. Since posting I've remembered that the Beaufighter also went better with Hercules than Merlin. I'd love to see an analysis of Halifax/Lanc/Beau to explain all this.
@@doglover31418 The problems with the Merlin powered Beaufighter and Halifax were the Tailfin / Rudder area wasn't big enough to deal with an engine failure. Thus if an engine was lost, the aircraft went out of control as the pilot didn't have enough control authority to deal with asymmetric thrust (which was greater on the merlin powered versions due to the props being much more forward of the wing than those on the Hercules powered ones (which was marginal to start with on the Beaufighter anyway)).
Well that article made a lot of sense and certainly turned everything I thought I knew about this aircraft on its ear. As always, I really appreciate your work, and I guess in this case the work of your primary source as well.
A great video.I went on to read the articles linked in the description. Talk about " so near, yet so far". This could have been a truly great aeroplane.
The Westland Whirlwind was - for my two pence - the perfect example of the very last of the first-half-of-the-war planes that simply couldn't be made any better than they were but were the ultimate expression of design and technology that had started with the Italian and Japanese (then German, British and Americans) c. 1934-35.
It's a wonderful-looking aircraft, I first saw its outline in a WWII comic book as a child, and I've always loved it despite its issues. What a cool looking plane!!
I got to know the Whirlwind through a Commando cartoon magazine story in the 80s. Watching this video I just realised with it's development date that it must have been one of the first aircraft to feature the perspex tear-drop bubble canopy in 1940. That is far ahead of most other WWII fighters. I seem to remember that it also had hydraulic assisted control surfaces. I found this video interesting in that problems were not so much the engines but rather the propellers and constant speed hubs. The Whirlwind also fits into the same category as the Me 110 in the pre-war category of Heavy Fighter. The 110 was not without it's problems but found it's niche as a night fighter at great cost to Bomber Command.
Wow, wow, wow. Hold on a minute. The Kestrel engine was used in the prototype Messerschmidt Bf109. I wasn’t aware of that, now that, would make an excellent topic for a video! Keep up the great work Ed, I’ve been following your videos for a while now and the production has improved dramatically, your research is very thorough and the topics always interesting with just the right amount of quirky to catch my eye 👍
BF 109 production continued after WW2 in Czechoslovakia and Spain. I believe that a number of the Spanish built aircraft had Merlin engines. I also believe that today, if you see a Bf 109 flying, chances are it will have a Merlin.
Yes, I was familiar with the Merlins added to the Spanish variants after WWII, just not the Kestrel added to the German prototype before the war. Still think it would make for an interesting video…
Same problem with Brit Air ministry as German RLM. Stuff (fuel, materials) was earmarked for existing designs before new designs. Mosquito was approved because it didn't use strategic Aluminum. Whirlwind used existing low demand engines. Problem with this and Me110 was that fighters require turning radius to turn with target when dogfighting. The weight of the engines extended out on the wings made banking, required for turns, slower than single engine aircraft without heavy wing weights. Only twins with competitive bank rate was Do335 and P-38 (not sure why ailerons were that effective).
I've always loved the look of the Whirlwind and thought it could have been a world - beater given time for development. But there's the rub. Time is a luxury in a war and there already were aircraft quite capable of taking it to the enemy. The Whirlwind's strengths lay in the superb view afforded its pilots by the bubble canopy and its armament.
I am very lucky to have a photo of Harold Penrose flying one over Boscombe Down. my father worked extensively with him on the development of the Whirlwind and the Welkin.
Thanks Ed - Dinger's webpages look great, and his page on the Whirlwind was fab. As someone else has said, I wonder what Greg's Airplanes would make of this.... (probably an excellent 45 minute video with lots of NACA references and at least three graphs!)
It is worth noting that in the Whirlwind the layout of the Peregine allowed for an excellent level of cowl streamlining. Not realy equalled with the Merlin until the 'streamline' 130 & 131 versions that had repositioned ancilliaries as used in the DH Hornet but by then the Merlin was a very highly developed engine.
Brilliant, this is an aircraft that has fascinated me since I was a kid, I'm glad you've removed some of the shadow hanging over a mean looking machine.
A great presentation, Ed. Thank you for bringing us up-to-date on the research about this 'kite. I'd also recommend you check out Greg Baughen's series of books on the RFC and RAF over the 1910-1945 period (not yet a completed series. Currently at approx 1942). While not specific to the Westland Whirlwind, his study of the RAF's interwar planning and procurement sheds additional light on why the Whirlwind's production was curtailed. As you point out, it had as much to do with economic and production considerations as with shortcomings in its design and performance. While one of my favorite aircraft of the period and certainly an aesthetically attractive machine, it sets the lie to the old adage "if it looks right..."
I remember seeing - that was in 1962 - in a 1944 (forgot the month) issue of the American FLYING Magazine an advertisement for scale models of warplanes of the time, including the Brewster Buffalo, Lockheed Hudson (with the tagline "Used with terrific results against Japs in the Solomons" !), the nazi Focke-Wulf FW-190, and the Westland Whirlwind. That's my 1st knowledge of this plane.
I've been building and flying RC models since 1971 and have owned several ultralight and a Aeronca Champ. Almost no one, including commercial pilots, seems to understand propellors! I did manage to educate a few by getting better performance from my engines but not many. Mostly though, they just go with the cheapest option and wonder why my Piper Cub is faster than their "speed models". Cheers!
I titled my recent artwork of this aeroplane 'under powered perfection' in contrast to the 'overpowered perfection' Brown described with the Hornet. I'm going to have to give that second thoughts now!
Remember building an Airfix model when about 12 and thinking this is my favourite! - So much for if it looks right it flies right - as the aircraft looks fantastic!
That was great thanks, like everyone I always looked at it as great plane bad engines...The whirlwind still comes across as missed opportunity but exactly as you describe also people can forget the context of Britain’s wartime realities, not persisting with too many projects but sticking to making a lot of what was known to work ( especially for an aircraft that didn’t seem to have a role)- did make practical sense. (In a direct contrast to so a lot of Germanys lack of sense in project management). Sad , as it would be awesome if these had made in enough numbers for some to still be around & flying today.
I think the biggest overall takeaway from this video for everyone should be: a reminder that "history" is a constant work in progress. (also, that reflecting on what you, as in anyone, already thinks, is a good thing to do too) I think most people know this, but it is said far too little.
Thanks Ed, an excellent and concise summary of Petter’s little masterpiece (if a little flawed..the aircraft that is). The history of Petter with his superb designs and his career from Lysander to Lightning is truly revelatory, a lonely genius. His ‘peice de resistance’ the Canberra is testimony to his talent.
I spoke with a geezer at a festival in Oxfordshire who said that his step father had flown WW’s and they had been trying to get the go ahead for ‘intruder missions’ (his term) during the B of B. They wanted to follow the bombers back to their aerodromes and hit them as they landed. However, the brass “fucked about too much” ( his words again) and by the time it was green lighted the battle had essentially ended. The only other thing I’d heard was the WWs were being looked at by the FAA. They wanted a navalised version but got bogged down with whether to have an extra crewman or not.
Did your research include a magazine called "Look and Learn"? Besides filling in gaps in my education in the 1960s, it had a feature about the Whirlwind, which attributed its demise to the interaction between the propellors and the engines. I was only a schoolboy then; I didn't become an engineer until the late 1970s. But I did remember the outline of the article.
OMG!!!!! MY FAVORITE WW2 FIGHTER GETS ITS OWN, ABOVE 5-MINUTE VIDEO!!! I remember when you did that original video and thought "holy crap! My favorite WW2 fighter gets its own video!" Thank you much for both! Sounds like the production was set to fail from the start due to its design compromises, prop changes, and bureaucracy.
Great video. Indeed puts all I thought I knew onthis may I state brilliant combat aircraft. Mach problems with props at the start of the war is a problem new to me. Yet seeing your great video Ed the reason this plane failed is the concept requirement of an interceptor in stead of longrange escort as primanal war.
Thanks for revisiting your original analysis of the Whirlwind, I haven’t seen your original episode but I am sure that your original video was based upon the available information available at the time, no matter what aircraft gets reviewed there will be conflicting opinions within the aircraft enthusiasts world, but in this case it seems that a consensus has been reached, at least for the whirlwind. In my humble opinion the Whirlwind was just the right aircraft but at the wrong time and place in history, and perhaps we should be thankful for that, maybe if it had been a good aircraft the RAF and other airforces would not have had the excellent aircraft we did, The Hurricane, Spitfire and Mosquito, and the big daddy of heavy bombers that was the Lancaster, all with the roar of the mighty Merlin, the most famous engine in the most famous aircraft of WWII. Thanks again for another excellent review or should that be re-review. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴
If you want a really good analysis of an aircraft type you have to look past accepted folklore and speak to someone like the late Captain Eric Brown. Someone with experience in a wide variety of aircraft will always be able to pick an aircrafts strong and weak points. I suspect many of the folks who wrote about the Whirlwind in the 1950's had little to no experience in the type, let alone test pilot experience. Glad to see this interesting aircraft given a second look.
So De Havilland scuppered the Whirlwind in order to make the Mosquito look good... The buggers!.. Having been born and raised in Yeovil I've always had a soft spot for Westland products. So many thanks, Ed, for shifting the responsibility for the failure of this gorgeous aircraft to a rival factory. (Joking)... A very interesting reassessment, as ever. 👍
@@billdyke9745 That's a stretch. The Mosquito was designed to a totally different purpose and specification than the Whirlwind, and one that came some time later, as well. There's zero evidence of any attempt by DeHavilland to saddle the Whirlwind with poor props. Rather, it was a problem that was evident on many aircraft of the period in Britain, as well as the US and Germany. The difficulty - and it wasn't limited solely to DeHavilland's propeller division - was that the trans-sonic aerodynamics of propellers were poorly understood at that time. The shame is that no one in the RAF, at Westlands in the MAP or at the A&AEE or RAE ever thought to ask why the performance of the second prototype Whirlwind was superior at altitude to the production examples. Given the economic and resource considerations already in play in the Air MInistry and the MAP in the late '30's however this understanding - had it come - would likely have been too late to save the Whirlwind in any event.
I think you're mixing up the Westland Whirlwind with the Westland Wyvern. I can't find any description of the crash you describe that matches any crash of a Whirlwind. However, it matches exactly the loss of the second Westland Wyvern prototype (VP113) on 31st October 1949. During a demonstration flight the engine failed and the pilot (Squadron Leader Michael A Graves) tried to make an emergency landing but overshot - Killing 5 year old Ann Wilkins and 40-year-old Edith Brown. 57-year-old Elsie Hockey died of her injuries shortly afterwards. Full details of the crash are on the Aviation safety website. aviation-safety.net/wikibase/74680
Teddy Petter's obsession was to create small, lightweight, low-drag aircraft, if they wished to put Merlin's on it, they would have had to redesign the whole aircraft to carry the extra weight and power/torque, and that aircraft would have been the Welkin. The air ministry was looking for an aircraft to act as a flying test bed for the Frank Whittle jet engine and the Whirlwind was looked at for this but it was realized that even those jets would have been too heavy for the aircraft which is why it was left to Gloster to build one from scratch. The horsepower created by the early Merlin was less than a thousand so not much more than the Peregrine for a much heavier engine, also as all these engines were only around 40% efficient, the engines were actually producing near to 3000 HP but most of this was wasted due to heat, noise, friction drag, regarding the drag of the thick propellers and their extra drag and supersonic drag, keep in that mind.
@@WALTERBROADDUS ......in a world where we are considered unscientific if we don't believe people were monkeys once upon a time, that statement isn't such a stretch of the imagination
"The Whirlwind became a success eventually though when they replaced the engines with jets swept the wings aft and called it the Me-262." Sorry Dot, but I can't help chuckling at broad oversimplifications like this! ;)
I still think it was a crying shame that she wasn't developed. The Whelkin proved it could be done. Beautiful aircraft. Imagine if we had her in time for the battle of Britain?
It was certainly a futuristic design, and was an exceptionally clean looking aircraft. Maybe with further development it could have been a major player in WWII.
I wonder if the Whirlwind might have been effective as a submarine killer in the North Atlantic with its four 20 mm cannon. 🤔 Fascinating, excellent video! 💛🙏🏼
I always assumed that the Peregrine ,no matter its capabilities, were all that was keeping the Whirlwind flying at all. Given the desperate need for Merlins it just seemed that from everything I read on this subject that the Peregrin was available for this plane and had the Merlin been the primary engine it would have been totally cancelled before the Battle of Britain. Glad you confirmed my rather general theories and an excellent video indeed.
I recall reading an account by a Whirlwind pilot. He liked it, but he suggested that it needed three changes. 1. Switch to Merlin engines. 2. More ammunition. 3. The ability to move fuel between engines. Their squadron gave up the Whirlwinds and were given Hurricanes. They were not at all impressed.
So, in conclusion: yes? Whirlwind was potentially excellent; the Peregrines were problematic (due to prop design and end life crises); it would not have survived the axe when Spits and Hurries were priority targets for Merlin Production. If, however, Whirlwind was built with the Merlin XX we might've been looking at the ultimate single seat "twin". But was there a need for one? The RAF and FAA liked navigators on long range planes. This reduced potential performance, but gave the pilot an important aid. Beaufighters and Mossies had the extra man. For bomber escort or interception, however, a single seater is preferable. Had Germany possessed a four engine bomber arm those Whirlwinds would've found purpose as RAF risks less with a single pilot. A couple underwing tanks for loiter time, a Home RaDAR network with ground direction, and you've got a superior interceptor. I would like to see a Merlin powered Whirlwind compared with a mid production P38, an Me210 and 410, and a Mossie, for air combat worthiness.
Propeller Mach drag problems were more extensive than usually accredited. The prototype Mosquitos propeller blades were trimmed a few inches because of vibration due Mach compressibility between the blade tips n the fwd fuselage. Ditto the Beaufighter. The BAE Mosquito for many years was operated at less than 3000 rpm max to mimize stress n cracking of the engine prop reduction gearboxes.
@@johnp8131 British Aerospace the descendant/amalgamation of deHavilland n so many other iconic British aircraft manufacturers, operated the then last flying mosquito till it crashed in the '80s / early 90s. Since then at least 3 have been completely rebuilt/re-manufactured in New Zealand to Full airworthiness
Check out Matt Bearman's (cited by Ed) excellent series of articles in The Aviation Historian magazine. Although "modern" fighter designs were capable of reaching high transsonic speeds (in a dive) by the late 1930's, the shortcomings in the aviation industry's knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics had far-reaching and doleful effects on the performance of fighter designs, including the fabled P-38 Lightning. Those designs that did a bit better at higher Mach numbers - notably the Spitfire - did so more by accident of design than by intention.
@@lanse77lithgow Similar to the Sopwith Hunter and the Hawker Siddley Camel? BTW , I know the lineage, my father worked at DH at Stag Lane and Hatfield, from '31 for over 50 years but most don't! I could understand it with something like the HS146 though?
@@johnp8131 Chuckle! Theres a smorgasbord of pedigrees in there! Even the dH 125 jet dragon , which was first produced as the Hawker deHavilland 125 , or was it already Hawker Siddley by then ? Then aslo BAe 125... I started my apprenticeship with a foreman who started on Qantas 4 engine, biplane dH 86s !
Makes perfect sense. Another thing to consider. As a Peregrine powered Whirlwind meant two less Hurricanes, a Merlin powered Whirlwind meant two less Spitfires, the one aircraft giving Göering nightmares. The Hurricane was an excellent ground attack aircraft and the Spit was excellent at altitude and outclassed all German fighters until the arrival of the Fw 190. The Whirlwind seemed to suffer from similar problems to the Me-110 basically and without on board radar it wouldn't cut the night fighter role. To put the nail in the coffin, The De Havilland Mosquito arrived in 1941. Game Over. They must have done something right with the airframe in the way of stability under high powered engines as the airframe is very similar to the Gloster Meteor. I built a model of a Whirlwind as a kid, along with most other popular combat aircraft of the European and Pacific theatres, I recognised it instantly.
A person that is willing to look at their previous work and say they were mistaken, let alone publish their corrections, is a benefit to all of us that strive to remember the past as accurately as possible. Well done Ed and thank you!
Yes, the ability to revise and learn is the mark of an historian. There is definitely no such thing as the last word in the subject, we still seem to regularly change our minds about the Romans!
Well said.
Any honest person is capable of admitting their errors. It's a big part of being a mature adult. Most of us reach this at some point in our lives,
@@kimchipig My life experiences disagree. It's one thing to admit your mistakes and take responsibility for them when there will be no consequences, it's a different matter when admitting your mistakes will cost you something. If you're in the US, just observe the Legacy Media, there's hardly ever a break in the constant stream of lies and disinformation presented there. Mostly, the only thing at stake there is their pathetic egos.
@@kimchipig Well then, that means most Mainstream Media "Journalists" aren't adults then!
And I most heatily agree, they are mewling infants that we'd best get rid off!
The pilot shown at 6:45, with his plane "Comrades in Arms", was my uncle, Eddie Musgrave, an RAF pilot with 137 Squadron. Flying his "whirlybomber"", he attacked the German auxiliary cruiser Togo (setting out on her maiden voyage after conversion, and about to be renamed Coronel), forcing the ship back to port in Boulogne and ending its cruiser career before it begun. He was later shot down over France, and is buried at Pihen-lès-Guînes.
Wow. Thanks for that. What a neat connection to history. Unfortunate demise, but in service to country & kin in defense of an evil regime's onslaught. Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year to your family from Alabama.
@@aeelmore69 I am very lucky to be the proud owner of an original photo of Harold Penrose flying over Boscombe Down during a test flight. my father bless him was a design engineer for Westland's during the war and did much work with Harold on the Whirlwind and also a machine called the Welkin. On a number of occasions he travelled to London for meetings with Churchill. My father told me that Harold was the most amazing test pilot who was fearless in his professionalism. Father made a number of flights with Harold pulling wires etc on early fights.
i am very lucky to be the owner of a photograph of Harold Penrose in a Whirlwind over Boscombe Down. My father worked extensively with Harold during the war developing the Whirlwind and the Welkin. Harold was a truly wonderful test pilot and father had many escapades with him on early flights.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ from 🇺🇸👍🏻
Thanks for sharing that wee tale, I always have time to hear about these men and the sacrifice that was made. I sometimes think people are forgetting the carnage that happened so the stories must never be forgotten.
Probably one of my first Airfix kits I ever made, still have the 1977 Airfix catalog which the Whirlwind featured in and I always thought this was such a cool looking aircraft as a kid 👍
ditto!
Same here
As for me ; I bought a blister and built it with fever; 1974 as I can remember
I also had the airfix kit it came in that clear plastic case that so many of their 1/72 kits were in basically as cheap as you can package something. A Cardboard tag with colour picture of the plane and the clear plastic case showing you all the parts dangling below it LOL always made me laugh at how minimal Airfix was but it was actually a great idea as you could hang the all Airfix kits from rotating tree and it wouldn't take up much store space.
Me, too! I loved its looks.
If we didn't make mistakes we wouldn't learn anything!....Great job mate!!!
One of the main squadrons to use it had a quite diversity of air that it used in WWII. RAF 263 started with Gloster Gladiators and was in Norway with them. On return they briefly flew Hurricanes until the Whirlwinds came to be. Typhoons were their next steeds. Finally (although a different unit taking over their squadron number) the Meteors. From biplane to jets in 6 years.
They had to be remarkable pilots to fly such a wife range of aircraft. Very impressive.
Really amazing!!!
Thanks for The Westland Whirlwind an aircraft that intrigued me as as kid and through adulthood. [from Australia]
Another point , 4 cannon Beaufighter was becoming available , with observer / navigator / radar operator.
Also 4 cannon Hurris were in development too
Good point and the Mosquito as well
I think the whirlwind was just another of the aircraft that werent needed for the war effort. they only needed to move foreward with design and thats what this aircraft did. moved innovation foreward.
Well done, Ed!
Oh, those props! Everyone talks about the airframe and/or engines but a prop plane only functions as well as its prop. The Rotol constant speed props, for example, did as much to hold the line as the Spit, the Hurricane, or even the Merlin!
It took several aeronautical engineering courses for me to understand that and I hope I can pass some of that along here.
Anyone who knows much of anything about the P-47 Thunderbolt has heard of the "paddle blade propellors" that transformed it from adequate to excellent but almost no one explains why. I'll try to keep this simple.
A propeller, like any airfoil, produces lift and drag and both increase with speed until, at some point, they cancel out.
A thin airfoil, like a paddle blade prop or Rotol prop or F-104 wing, will continue to produce more lift than drag up to a high speed. An airfoil more like a Fokker D.VII hits that point at a much lower speed. Simple? Not really but we're getting.
very lucky to have a photo of Harold Penrose flying a Whirlwind over Boscombe Down. My father did much development work with Harold on the Whirlwind and the Welkin. Harold was a truly wonderful test pilot
The best thing about this video is that it makes sense. Still. That was one hot looking airplane
For all of the problems and failures, it was still the most beautiful airframe, like flying Art Deco.
Many adjectives apply to it. It's really not beautiful.
Excellent review of this fighter. Much better than many I have seen. There is real need for more videos like this of lesser know aircraft. Do we really NEED another video on the Spitfire or Hurricane? Keep up the great work.
Excellent analysis. You are correct, it's often not a case of why didn't they use so and so engine on this plane, it's a case of we want this plane *because* it uses another engine. People don't understand production.
Apparently, the last flying Whirlwind was used as a private aircraft by Westland people in the late 1940's. What a shame they had to go and destroy it otherwise it would be sitting in a museum for us all to see today.
There's a picture of it here; www.google.com/search?q=westland+whirlwind&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix5rHLrLXyAhVk4XMBHf6OAT4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1424&bih=757 Here is a copy of it's Registration Certificate: cwsprduksumbraco.blob.core.windows.net/g-info/HistoricalLedger/G-AGOI.pdf
I'm sure they have replicas
I enjoyed building and playing with the first Airfix Whirlwind model kit when I was a child. Always liked the looks of the Whirlwind.
Omg I had a kit too ! Was one of my fav's because you could really see how sleek the plane was. I loved Airfix they were such a good company back in the 70's and 80's the kits were everwhere
Again a great extra video on a potentiay great aircraft.
I never knew that mach 1 problems with props were a large problem.
The greatest reason for the failure was a wrong specification.
The concept should of been something between an expert escort fighter and a concept
I also had an Airfix Whirlwind as a kid, which somehow disappeared over the years. About four years ago I saw another kit for sale and bought that without hesitation. Also still have my original copy of the comic 'Whirlwind in the sky'. Always loved the design.
I had that kit as well, loved it as a kid, beautiful looking aircraft, and up until now I always thought it had the Merlin engines
Me to. I bought one to because I didnt have enough for a Mosquito which I think was a series 3 and Whirlwind series 1 glad I didnt have enough that day.
First saw this aircraft in a War Picture Library comic in the 70's. Always wondered why it wasnt as ubiquitous as the other great British twin engined strike aircraft such as the Mosquito and Beaufighter. Bill Gunston's book on British fighters cast the source of the problem as being the engines, but now I am seeing its much more than that. Another myth busting episode from Ed!
So glad I came across this clip , because the Westland whirlwind was my first air fix model as a child and I had forgotten I had built one until I came across this clip, thank you for bring back a very distant memory
I very much enjoy this channnel and this video underscores one of the reasons why. You share new information when you get it, regardless that it might contradict an earler vid, which shows your honest dedication. Well done, IMHO.
Thank you for this very informative video. My great uncle (Allan Britton) flew and died in a Whirlwind fighter P6980 of 263 squadron. His plane crashed on a training gun run, on a set target in the Bristol Channel, about a mile off Burnham on Sea. 12th December 1940 aged 23. I'm really proud of him, he's mentioned on the Battle of Britain memorial in London. Any information about the Whirlwind and what part he played in WW2 I find fascinating and hope that my children will keep his story alive. Thanks again.
Great job Ed, no need to be so humble. Anyone who admits their mistakes is a mensch.
The De Havilland Hornet was effectively a Whirlwind with Merlins. It was said to be the finest propellor aircraft ever by Winkle Brown. The Whirlwind was definitely ahead of its time and full of innovations which later other companies borrowed and used in their designs. DH Mosquito being one.
My father was a De Haviland rigger/engineer for over 50 years from 1931 onwards. He would be turning in his grave because of your initial statement! The DH 98 and subsequent 103 were derived mainly from the 88's and 91's technologies which both pre-dated Westlands concepts. Although I would have agreed if you'd have said Westland Welkin, which were stationed just up the road from where I was. Although quite a few years earlier.
I doubt the Mosquito was influenced at all by the Whirlwind.
A really big problem with Westland was their lack of expansion of production capability... I think the dialogue says the de Havilland propellor was on the prototype which gave good performance... that’s the opposite way around to what was subsequently suggested!
Peregrine production was terminated... Hives at RR just had to rationalise.
But fantastic aircraft potential just the whole programme was 6 months behind requirements...
NB. This was a high aspect ratio wing so potentially with development an excellent high altitude interceptor.. but not a dog fighter match for FW190 though
@@TheHarryMann Have a look at the cooling system on the Whirlwind, the placement of the radiators and you'll see it was copied by the De Havilland on the Mosquito.
@@andymckee53 the rad cooling system followed the concept layed down by the Meredith effect (1935). Many aircraft used it in the wing leading edges, as that caused the least drag for radiators...You'll find that the de Havilland Albatross also had rad inlets in the wing leading edges (1937). Corsair was another example designed in the 30's.
The Whirlwind did however have the first bubble canopy.
@@bobsakamanos4469 the Albatross had air cooled engines. No radiators!
A fitter (now deceased) who was a member of our club, Scarborough Historical Aircraft Club, was based at Hucknall which was Rolls-Royce's test airfield. He worked on the whirlwind and described the cooling system as, 'A dogs dinner'. He told us when they had sorted the cooling system out on the one they had the engines performed reliably.
Like all Petter designs what was under the skin was mostly a Dogs dinner. Lightning was another aircraft in that category. Canberra would have been as well, bar the fact that most of the kit the RAF wanted to put in it didn't fit or could be got to work in time, so the equipment fit of a Mosquito bomber ended up going into it.
Interesting and thorough perspective. I would be interested in a Greg's Airplanes viewpoint on the matter.
He is great. He doesn't leave anything out.
Humm..propellers.
Cool. Do you know if it suffered from comparability issues? To me it kinda looks fast going downhill
I was JUST thinking this lol
“Greetings ... plane this ... plane that ...”. M.
@@johnhagemeyer8578 Sounds like compressibility was a problem at least for the props. I doubt it ever had much issues with compressibility with the wings though, since it didn't have the performance at altitude for that to be a problem.
my uncle Hilton Ashton flew Whirlwinds, flying many 'Rhubarbs' and much night flying.
great insight on the propellers !
It was pretty, got to give it that
It certainly is and that's more than good enough for me to call it a great aircraft. If anybody says otherwise I'll either have to hunt them down like the dogs they are or ignore them.
I always liked it.
Definitely a good-looking machine. Sadly, kind of like the knockout that's fun to be around for brief periods, but can't hold up a long conversation and turns out to be a limp noodle in bed!
Yes, I know I'll get smacked for this.
@@GBooth 😃
Like your humour.
Although it cannot have been that bad up close and personal, as the pilots who flew it seem to have been fond of it.
Well done for this. Shows class mate! Being able to calmly reassess. Nice one.
I made the Airfix kit around 50 years ago. Today I have the 1/48 and recently took delivery of the new 1/32 version. A beautiful plane and so very similar to the post-war Hornet.
Nice to hear that Rotol blades were a success in the prototype. Becoming an apprentice at Dowty in 1978, blades were still a big part of their business, and they are still going. Always loved the look of the Whirlwind, it really did look the part with the cannons all mounted in the nose, it looked deadly. Two engines and the thin wing made it look like a race aircraft, and it should have been very fast. One of the early Airfix kits my Dad ever made when I was a kid.
When I was a child I loved building model aircraft kits. My favourite was the Whirlwind.
As for fitting the the Merlin, I don't believe it was possible to do without a major redesign. The Merlin was a lot longer and 50% heavier. That would move the centre of gravity well forward. To be counter that would have required a much longer fuselage and / organisation moving to the wings forward. Then the wing area would have to be increased to compensate for the extra 1/2 ton of engines. By the time you do that it would virtually be a new aircraft.
So you would end up with a DH Hornet/Sea Hornet yes? ;-)
@@alan-sk7ky Probably just a heavier and more sluggish fighter which would have failed its assessment at Boscombe Down. I suspect it would have turned like crap, sadly.
Great video, and your "pushing air out of the way" explanation was bang on. Doesn't oversimplify.... that's really what's happening.
Really good video Ed, you never stop learning with history, that's what is so fascinating about it. Engine/airframe mismatches is a favourite topic of mine - the struggles of the Merlin powered Halifax is a prime example. Thanks for sharing and linking to the Whirlwind project too.
Everyone knows the the Halifax went better with Hercules, but stranger is that the Lancaster BII went worse with Hercules.
@@doglover31418 Yep, true, also Eric Brown claimed he liked the mk II Lanc, although he may have been referring only to the experimental powered controls he was testing at the time. Airframe/engine matching is a great topic, the Mk 1 Buccaneer and Victor showed that sometimes less is more, although with some of their charactieristics sometimes less is just plain less:-)
@@mark_delfino A great observation!
@@mark_delfino Thanks. Since posting I've remembered that the Beaufighter also went better with Hercules than Merlin. I'd love to see an analysis of Halifax/Lanc/Beau to explain all this.
@@doglover31418 The problems with the Merlin powered Beaufighter and Halifax were the Tailfin / Rudder area wasn't big enough to deal with an engine failure. Thus if an engine was lost, the aircraft went out of control as the pilot didn't have enough control authority to deal with asymmetric thrust (which was greater on the merlin powered versions due to the props being much more forward of the wing than those on the Hercules powered ones (which was marginal to start with on the Beaufighter anyway)).
Well that article made a lot of sense and certainly turned everything I thought I knew about this aircraft on its ear.
As always, I really appreciate your work, and I guess in this case the work of your primary source as well.
A great video.I went on to read the articles linked in the description. Talk about " so near, yet so far". This could have been a truly great aeroplane.
The Westland Whirlwind was - for my two pence - the perfect example of the very last of the first-half-of-the-war planes that simply couldn't be made any better than they were but were the ultimate expression of design and technology that had started with the Italian and Japanese (then German, British and Americans) c. 1934-35.
It's a wonderful-looking aircraft, I first saw its outline in a WWII comic book as a child, and I've always loved it despite its issues. What a cool looking plane!!
Indeed a very interesting video. I can remember as a child in the 1960’s building an Airfix model of of it, one of the first that I ever built.
Hey Ed, Yeah Everyone Should Ramble As Well As You! You're Definitely King Of The "What Ifs!" I Wonder How They Performed In Aerial Combat?
Excellent video! I must admit that I have alway had a soft spot for the rakish lines of the Whirlwind.
I got to know the Whirlwind through a Commando cartoon magazine story in the 80s. Watching this video I just realised with it's development date that it must have been one of the first aircraft to feature the perspex tear-drop bubble canopy in 1940. That is far ahead of most other WWII fighters. I seem to remember that it also had hydraulic assisted control surfaces. I found this video interesting in that problems were not so much the engines but rather the propellers and constant speed hubs. The Whirlwind also fits into the same category as the Me 110 in the pre-war category of Heavy Fighter. The 110 was not without it's problems but found it's niche as a night fighter at great cost to Bomber Command.
Wow, wow, wow. Hold on a minute. The Kestrel engine was used in the prototype Messerschmidt Bf109. I wasn’t aware of that, now that, would make an excellent topic for a video!
Keep up the great work Ed, I’ve been following your videos for a while now and the production has improved dramatically, your research is very thorough and the topics always interesting with just the right amount of quirky to catch my eye 👍
Thanks Carl
BF 109 production continued after WW2 in Czechoslovakia and Spain. I believe that a number of the Spanish built aircraft had Merlin engines. I also believe that today, if you see a Bf 109 flying, chances are it will have a Merlin.
Yeah the rolls Royce connecting to the me 109 is well known
Yes, I was familiar with the Merlins added to the Spanish variants after WWII, just not the Kestrel added to the German prototype before the war. Still think it would make for an interesting video…
The prototype Ju 87 also had a Kestrel -the German engine manufacturers were lagging behind at that point.
Same problem with Brit Air ministry as German RLM. Stuff (fuel, materials) was earmarked for existing designs before new designs. Mosquito was approved because it didn't use strategic Aluminum. Whirlwind used existing low demand engines. Problem with this and Me110 was that fighters require turning radius to turn with target when dogfighting. The weight of the engines extended out on the wings made banking, required for turns, slower than single engine aircraft without heavy wing weights. Only twins with competitive bank rate was Do335 and P-38 (not sure why ailerons were that effective).
I've always loved the look of the Whirlwind and thought it could have been a world - beater given time for development. But there's the rub. Time is a luxury in a war and there already were aircraft quite capable of taking it to the enemy. The Whirlwind's strengths lay in the superb view afforded its pilots by the bubble canopy and its armament.
I am very lucky to have a photo of Harold Penrose flying one over Boscombe Down. my father worked extensively with him on the development of the Whirlwind and the Welkin.
@@anthonysimpson8110 Treasure the photo, they were fascinating times.
As always a superb presentation ! Thank you so much for all of your videos - great stuff !
Top 10 Military history channels on youtube.
Thanks Ed - Dinger's webpages look great, and his page on the Whirlwind was fab. As someone else has said, I wonder what Greg's Airplanes would make of this.... (probably an excellent 45 minute video with lots of NACA references and at least three graphs!)
Although it never lived up to expectations that's one of my favorite aircraft I just love the way it looks
It is worth noting that in the Whirlwind the layout of the Peregine allowed for an excellent level of cowl streamlining. Not realy equalled with the Merlin until the 'streamline' 130 & 131 versions that had repositioned ancilliaries as used in the DH Hornet but by then the Merlin was a very highly developed engine.
Brilliant, this is an aircraft that has fascinated me since I was a kid, I'm glad you've removed some of the shadow hanging over a mean looking machine.
Thanks for this video.
Really good job on the update. :-)
I hadn't known it was a Teddy Petter design. What a career that men had!
Like your style mate. Interesting and informative. You have my subscription.
That's the beauty of new research findings; it can blow previously accepted wisdom out of the water- ! 😅
A great presentation, Ed. Thank you for bringing us up-to-date on the research about this 'kite. I'd also recommend you check out Greg Baughen's series of books on the RFC and RAF over the 1910-1945 period (not yet a completed series. Currently at approx 1942). While not specific to the Westland Whirlwind, his study of the RAF's interwar planning and procurement sheds additional light on why the Whirlwind's production was curtailed. As you point out, it had as much to do with economic and production considerations as with shortcomings in its design and performance.
While one of my favorite aircraft of the period and certainly an aesthetically attractive machine, it sets the lie to the old adage "if it looks right..."
Excellent piece on a rare-ish aircraft, many thanks for posting.
I remember seeing - that was in 1962 - in a 1944 (forgot the month) issue of the American FLYING Magazine
an advertisement for scale models of warplanes of the time, including the
Brewster Buffalo, Lockheed Hudson (with the tagline "Used with terrific results against Japs in the Solomons" !),
the nazi Focke-Wulf FW-190, and the Westland Whirlwind.
That's my 1st knowledge of this plane.
I've been building and flying RC models since 1971 and have owned several ultralight and a Aeronca Champ. Almost no one, including commercial pilots, seems to understand propellors! I did manage to educate a few by getting better performance from my engines but not many. Mostly though, they just go with the cheapest option and wonder why my Piper Cub is faster than their "speed models".
Cheers!
I titled my recent artwork of this aeroplane 'under powered perfection' in contrast to the 'overpowered perfection' Brown described with the Hornet. I'm going to have to give that second thoughts now!
Remember building an Airfix model when about 12 and thinking this is my favourite! - So much for if it looks right it flies right - as the aircraft looks fantastic!
That was great thanks, like everyone I always looked at it as great plane bad engines...The whirlwind still comes across as missed opportunity but exactly as you describe also people can forget the context of Britain’s wartime realities, not persisting with too many projects but sticking to making a lot of what was known to work ( especially for an aircraft that didn’t seem to have a role)- did make practical sense. (In a direct contrast to so a lot of Germanys lack of sense in project management). Sad , as it would be awesome if these had made in enough numbers for some to still be around & flying today.
I think the biggest overall takeaway from this video for everyone should be: a reminder that "history" is a constant work in progress. (also, that reflecting on what you, as in anyone, already thinks, is a good thing to do too)
I think most people know this, but it is said far too little.
As Faulkner noted, the past isn't dead - it's not even past.
And that engineering is hard.
Thanks Ed, an excellent and concise summary of Petter’s little masterpiece (if a little flawed..the aircraft that is).
The history of Petter with his superb designs and his career from Lysander to Lightning is truly revelatory, a lonely genius.
His ‘peice de resistance’ the Canberra is testimony to his talent.
I still think this is one of the coolest looking British planes of ww2. This and the Mosquito are my favorite.
Very informative, love these Videos, keep em coming Ed :)
Really enjoyed your write up - Thank You! 👍👍👍
I spoke with a geezer at a festival in Oxfordshire who said that his step father had flown WW’s and they had been trying to get the go ahead for ‘intruder missions’ (his term) during the B of B. They wanted to follow the bombers back to their aerodromes and hit them as they landed. However, the brass “fucked about too much” ( his words again) and by the time it was green lighted the battle had essentially ended.
The only other thing I’d heard was the WWs were being looked at by the FAA. They wanted a navalised version but got bogged down with whether to have an extra crewman or not.
Excellent analysis Ed. THANKS!
Did your research include a magazine called "Look and Learn"? Besides filling in gaps in my education in the 1960s, it had a feature about the Whirlwind, which attributed its demise to the interaction between the propellors and the engines. I was only a schoolboy then; I didn't become an engineer until the late 1970s. But I did remember the outline of the article.
OMG!!!!! MY FAVORITE WW2 FIGHTER GETS ITS OWN, ABOVE 5-MINUTE VIDEO!!!
I remember when you did that original video and thought "holy crap! My favorite WW2 fighter gets its own video!"
Thank you much for both!
Sounds like the production was set to fail from the start due to its design compromises, prop changes, and bureaucracy.
Great video. Indeed puts all I thought I knew onthis may I state brilliant combat aircraft.
Mach problems with props at the start of the war is a problem new to me.
Yet seeing your great video Ed the reason this plane failed is the concept requirement of an interceptor in stead of longrange escort as primanal war.
Thanks for revisiting your original analysis of the Whirlwind, I haven’t seen your original episode but I am sure that your original video was based upon the available information available at the time, no matter what aircraft gets reviewed there will be conflicting opinions within the aircraft enthusiasts world, but in this case it seems that a consensus has been reached, at least for the whirlwind. In my humble opinion the Whirlwind was just the right aircraft but at the wrong time and place in history, and perhaps we should be thankful for that, maybe if it had been a good aircraft the RAF and other airforces would not have had the excellent aircraft we did, The Hurricane, Spitfire and Mosquito, and the big daddy of heavy bombers that was the Lancaster, all with the roar of the mighty Merlin, the most famous engine in the most famous aircraft of WWII.
Thanks again for another excellent review or should that be re-review. 😀👍🇬🇧🏴
Love that plane!!!....nice to see a vid on it!!
Great new info to think about.
And, reconstruction of this pretty bird would be fantastic!
If you want a really good analysis of an aircraft type you have to look past accepted folklore and speak to someone like the late Captain Eric Brown. Someone with experience in a wide variety of aircraft will always be able to pick an aircrafts strong and weak points. I suspect many of the folks who wrote about the Whirlwind in the 1950's had little to no experience in the type, let alone test pilot experience. Glad to see this interesting aircraft given a second look.
Bit of a medium are you? 😂
A twin engine layout reduces roll rate but can carry more concentrated firepower. The P 38 Lightning was quite successful.
Great video, always liked the whirlwind, and got a few models to build... keep up the good work.
The Whirlwind was troubled by mismatched props and engine issues, but it was a wonderful aircraft.
Outstanding as always ED!
RAMBLING?
This is outstandingly informative sir.
Thank you.
So De Havilland scuppered the Whirlwind in order to make the Mosquito look good... The buggers!.. Having been born and raised in Yeovil I've always had a soft spot for Westland products. So many thanks, Ed, for shifting the responsibility for the failure of this gorgeous aircraft to a rival factory. (Joking)... A very interesting reassessment, as ever. 👍
I don;t recall that De Havilland was mentioned anywhere in the video. Where on earth did you come up with that?!?
@@GBooth the propeller that worked less well than the one on the prototype was made by De Havilland.
@@billdyke9745 That's a stretch. The Mosquito was designed to a totally different purpose and specification than the Whirlwind, and one that came some time later, as well. There's zero evidence of any attempt by DeHavilland to saddle the Whirlwind with poor props. Rather, it was a problem that was evident on many aircraft of the period in Britain, as well as the US and Germany. The difficulty - and it wasn't limited solely to DeHavilland's propeller division - was that the trans-sonic aerodynamics of propellers were poorly understood at that time. The shame is that no one in the RAF, at Westlands in the MAP or at the A&AEE or RAE ever thought to ask why the performance of the second prototype Whirlwind was superior at altitude to the production examples. Given the economic and resource considerations already in play in the Air MInistry and the MAP in the late '30's however this understanding - had it come - would likely have been too late to save the Whirlwind in any event.
@@GBooth I was, of course, joking...
I think you're mixing up the Westland Whirlwind with the Westland Wyvern. I can't find any description of the crash you describe that matches any crash of a Whirlwind. However, it matches exactly the loss of the second Westland Wyvern prototype (VP113) on 31st October 1949. During a demonstration flight the engine failed and the pilot (Squadron Leader Michael A Graves) tried to make an emergency landing but overshot - Killing 5 year old Ann Wilkins and 40-year-old Edith Brown. 57-year-old Elsie Hockey died of her injuries shortly afterwards. Full details of the crash are on the Aviation safety website. aviation-safety.net/wikibase/74680
Teddy Petter's obsession was to create small, lightweight, low-drag aircraft, if they wished to put Merlin's on it, they would have had to redesign the whole aircraft to carry the extra weight and power/torque, and that aircraft would have been the Welkin. The air ministry was looking for an aircraft to act as a flying test bed for the Frank Whittle jet engine and the Whirlwind was looked at for this but it was realized that even those jets would have been too heavy for the aircraft which is why it was left to Gloster to build one from scratch. The horsepower created by the early Merlin was less than a thousand so not much more than the Peregrine for a much heavier engine, also as all these engines were only around 40% efficient, the engines were actually producing near to 3000 HP but most of this was wasted due to heat, noise, friction drag, regarding the drag of the thick propellers and their extra drag and supersonic drag, keep in that mind.
Great video as always, Ed
A great recap and address of what if's.
The Whirlwind became a success eventually though when they replace the engines with jets moved the wings more aft and called it the Meteor.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion ! There is absolutely nothing similar about this and the Meteor ! Apart from they both flew !
@@WALTERBROADDUS ......in a world where we are considered unscientific if we don't believe people were monkeys once upon a time, that statement isn't such a stretch of the imagination
"The Whirlwind became a success eventually though when they replaced the engines with jets swept the wings aft and called it the Me-262."
Sorry Dot, but I can't help chuckling at broad oversimplifications like this! ;)
@@WALTERBROADDUS or could fly an aircraft!
@@davidleitch2298 The scientific suggestion is that there was a common ancestor. Not that humans were descended from current monkey species.
I still think it was a crying shame that she wasn't developed. The Whelkin proved it could be done. Beautiful aircraft. Imagine if we had her in time for the battle of Britain?
It was certainly a futuristic design, and was an exceptionally clean looking aircraft. Maybe with further development it could have been a major player in WWII.
Whirlwind is still my favorite British aircraft, simply beautiful.
I wonder if the Whirlwind might have been effective as a submarine killer in the North Atlantic with its four 20 mm cannon. 🤔
Fascinating, excellent video! 💛🙏🏼
Love these videos ... I get to see things I didn't know existed!
I always assumed that the Peregrine ,no matter its capabilities, were all that was keeping the Whirlwind flying at all. Given the desperate need for Merlins it just seemed that from everything I read on this subject that the Peregrin was available for this plane and had the Merlin been the primary engine it would have been totally cancelled before the Battle of Britain. Glad you confirmed my rather general theories and an excellent video indeed.
I recall reading an account by a Whirlwind pilot.
He liked it, but he suggested that it needed three changes.
1. Switch to Merlin engines.
2. More ammunition.
3. The ability to move fuel between engines.
Their squadron gave up the Whirlwinds and were given Hurricanes. They were not at all impressed.
I thought it was the engines also. Always more to it than you think. trplankowner hit the nail on the head.
I want to learn about the Welkin.
Great video!
Most interesting. I am, too, a secret Whirlwind fanboi. Nice to see it given a proper coverage.
So, in conclusion: yes?
Whirlwind was potentially excellent; the Peregrines were problematic (due to prop design and end life crises); it would not have survived the axe when Spits and Hurries were priority targets for Merlin Production.
If, however, Whirlwind was built with the Merlin XX we might've been looking at the ultimate single seat "twin". But was there a need for one?
The RAF and FAA liked navigators on long range planes. This reduced potential performance, but gave the pilot an important aid. Beaufighters and Mossies had the extra man. For bomber escort or interception, however, a single seater is preferable. Had Germany possessed a four engine bomber arm those Whirlwinds would've found purpose as RAF risks less with a single pilot. A couple underwing tanks for loiter time, a Home RaDAR network with ground direction, and you've got a superior interceptor.
I would like to see a Merlin powered Whirlwind compared with a mid production P38, an Me210 and 410, and a Mossie, for air combat worthiness.
Flaps were not only used for take-off and landing but also in high G turns.
Propeller Mach drag problems were more extensive than usually accredited.
The prototype Mosquitos propeller blades were trimmed a few inches because of vibration due Mach compressibility between the blade tips n the fwd fuselage. Ditto the Beaufighter.
The BAE Mosquito for many years was operated at less than 3000 rpm max to mimize stress n cracking of the engine prop reduction gearboxes.
BAE?
@@johnp8131 British Aerospace the descendant/amalgamation of deHavilland n so many other iconic British aircraft manufacturers, operated the then last flying mosquito till it crashed in the '80s / early 90s.
Since then at least 3 have been completely rebuilt/re-manufactured in New Zealand to Full airworthiness
Check out Matt Bearman's (cited by Ed) excellent series of articles in The Aviation Historian magazine. Although "modern" fighter designs were capable of reaching high transsonic speeds (in a dive) by the late 1930's, the shortcomings in the aviation industry's knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics had far-reaching and doleful effects on the performance of fighter designs, including the fabled P-38 Lightning. Those designs that did a bit better at higher Mach numbers - notably the Spitfire - did so more by accident of design than by intention.
@@lanse77lithgow Similar to the Sopwith Hunter and the Hawker Siddley Camel? BTW , I know the lineage, my father worked at DH at Stag Lane and Hatfield, from '31 for over 50 years but most don't!
I could understand it with something like the HS146 though?
@@johnp8131 Chuckle! Theres a smorgasbord of pedigrees in there!
Even the dH 125 jet dragon , which was first produced as the Hawker deHavilland 125 , or was it already Hawker Siddley by then ? Then aslo BAe 125...
I started my apprenticeship with a foreman who started on Qantas 4 engine, biplane dH 86s !
You need to tutor the guy that makes dark skies. You do everything better. Good pace, well researched. Well done!
Makes perfect sense. Another thing to consider. As a Peregrine powered Whirlwind meant two less Hurricanes, a Merlin powered Whirlwind meant two less Spitfires, the one aircraft giving Göering nightmares. The Hurricane was an excellent ground attack aircraft and the Spit was excellent at altitude and outclassed all German fighters until the arrival of the Fw 190. The Whirlwind seemed to suffer from similar problems to the Me-110 basically and without on board radar it wouldn't cut the night fighter role. To put the nail in the coffin, The De Havilland Mosquito arrived in 1941. Game Over. They must have done something right with the airframe in the way of stability under high powered engines as the airframe is very similar to the Gloster Meteor. I built a model of a Whirlwind as a kid, along with most other popular combat aircraft of the European and Pacific theatres, I recognised it instantly.
11:10 of course not forgetting the DH Hornet/Sea Hornet. 380+ built so not a failure either ;-)
Well put together video.