Best Brit Fighter of the war? Whirlwind.

Couple of write ups of many I’ve collected, some glowing, others less so Capt. Eric Browns comes to mind as one of the worst, although I think Peter Twiss liked her… 😉

Any Whoo I can see the old problems are being aired again as to why the Whirly was a also ran, but nearly all these myths have been found to be unfounded through research under taken by funnily enough, by chaps who frequent this very site, Nialls & Jerry to name two… 😀

Heres some scans:

Our virtual model uses the data from the A&AEE for its flight model, which makes it the nearest thing on the planet anyone will get to flying a real Whirly… She’s bloody fast low down, brilliant for escaping the Hun. Time to height (0 – 15.000ft) to die for. But be wary of tight turns, stall, get her in a spin and its over. So far I’ve never been able to survive, but that might just be because I’m a crap virtual pilot…

Jerry… Top notch defence from the Whirly corner…

Hi Ian

Is your address, Jersey-Guernsey? I had a chat with the curator of the Battle of Britain museum a couple of years ago, and he had been convinced that some U.S. dive team had come up with the wreckage of a Whirlwind off the coast there somewhere…..If this was a reliable source, can’t think of why it hasn’t made front page news…..

So considering all the extra weight it wasn’t that fast then when you consider that the Spitfire lands at about 70 as far as I can remember

When the slats were locked down the stalling speed increased to about 90 mph ASI with everything down.

Best wishes
Steve P

If the Whirlwind went into service in late 1940, did it get operational in time for the tail end of the Battle of Britain? Or did it just miss this?

So, as there were so few numbers made, I’m sure it won’t be too hard to work out how good it was as a fighter statistically. How many were shot down in combat, as opposed to how many enemy aircraft did the Whirlwind shoot down? Does anyone have the figures?

I think it is a gorgeous aircraft. I wish a flying replica would be constructed but I guess with such rare engines this will never happen, unless the Merlin version Jerry mentioned is recreated.

Look at the coloured air to air Whirlwind ‘photo’ on this site, gorgeous. I almost thought it was a flying replica for a second…

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/01Air/135Air.htm

If my memory serves me right, and it probably doesn’t, I don’t think any were lost in combat.

I don’t have it to hand, but I seem to recall it’s landing speed being around the 80 mph + mark.

So considering all the extra weight it wasn’t that fast then when you consider that the Spitfire lands at about 70 as far as I can remember

Cheers for the info.

Best wishes
Steve P

According to the Putnam Westland book, the 32nd production Whirlwnd was tested at Boscombe Down to investigate reports of slat problems. It was recommended they be locked or wired shut.

I guess that by the time the decision was reached it wasn’t worth changing the design for the few aircraft left to be built.

What’s the story concerning the outer slats on the Whirlwind? Most books and articles that I have read state that at some point they were locked and leave it at that. However, David Mondey in his book on the manufacturers Westland (Janes 1981) claims that only early Whirlwinds had slats, later aircraft being built without them. It would make sense in leaving them off if their use has been prohibited. Can anyone confirm this?

Best wishes
Steve P

starkey

Hi Dave,
Correct serial P6974 , always captioned by many as dieppe raid stripes, actually in this case marking for operation Strakey, a dummy/faint invasion in sept ’43.
It is only my personal thoughts but there might have been an OTU whirlwind , I have info on a whirlwind coded BT-Y mentioned earlier in the thread, codes were done by a FAA pilot, so I doubt he copied them down wrong !
I can only trace the BT code to 30 OTU, at present, but this seems to have only flown wellingtons, maybe it was for fighter affiliation excercise.

slightly o/t but a link to p-40’s with BT code, which might help prove the fighter affiliation theme , or is another unit that used the code BT

http://www.search.staffspasttrack.org.uk/engine/resource/default.asp?theme=392&originator=%2Fengine%2Ftheme%2Fdefault%2Easp&page=2&records=68&direction=1&pointer=1994&text=0&resource=2578

Linking 2 + 2 together and making maybe 1000, but the P-40 sharkmouth markings might explain the whirlwind with similar markings !!

Cheers
Jerry

Were Whirlwinds also used at OTU’s? The model of P6874 on this page has a white nose and stripy wings. Is that OTU markings? Like the stripy and white/yellow nosed OTU Spitfires?

http://www.finescale.com/fsm/community/forum/topic.asp?page=1&TOPIC_ID=34491

If the Whirlwind went into service in late 1940, did it get operational in time for the tail end of the Battle of Britain? Or did it just miss this?

So, as there were so few numbers made, I’m sure it won’t be too hard to work out how good it was as a fighter statistically. How many were shot down in combat, as opposed to how many enemy aircraft did the Whirlwind shoot down? Does anyone have the figures?

I think it is a gorgeous aircraft. I wish a flying replica would be constructed but I guess with such rare engines this will never happen, unless the Merlin version Jerry mentioned is recreated.

Look at the coloured air to air Whirlwind ‘photo’ on this site, gorgeous. I almost thought it was a flying replica for a second…

http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/04.PAAvtnArt/01Air/135Air.htm

tanks

Hi,
Pity they didn’t hang L.R. tanks instead,
There is a report about the whirlwind at the PRO that mentions LR tanks, but it seems that they were never fitted, Can’t find any evidence of any trials either.

Just pulled out my old whirlwind files from the attic, the
PRO report mentions:-

Special Long Range tanks can be fitted which provide duration of seven hours cruising with some sacrifice of maximum speed.

From rough calculations (I did at the time of finding the records), this implied a fuel load of about 390 galls instead of the usual 134 galls , and an all out duration of about just under 5 hours, instead of the usual about 1 & 3/4 hours .

Cheers
Jerry

Shame they went and hung bombs on it, spoiled the lines a very tidy airframe

I can just make out Hugh Coughlan in the photo on the left of 137 Sqn Whirlwinds, he survived the war and was the God father of a friend of mine.

just a bit more

Hi,
Just to add a bit more to the info from the westland site for discussion

quote

‘ the Whirlwind achieved limited production as a fighter-bomber ‘

A tadge hard to achieve limited production of the fighter bomber : –

The last whirlwinds left the line in late summer 1941
First fighter bombers were converted at Colerne where the bomb racks were fitted, in august 1942.
Most of the conversions were field level at 263Sq or 137sq bases , only those already undergoing repair at westlands were done there.
Cheers
Jerry

I like it

Martin

Still a meaningful looking aircraft, no matter what engines

Agreed. No matter what anyone says I’ve always thought it a good looking machine. OK so it was built as a war weapon but thatdoesn’t stop it from looking good. JDK – Thanks for posting that info as it has filled some gaps in my knowledge. I don’t know where I got the idea that the Peregrine was fully developed at the time.

photo

Hi
co-incidently a wartime print is for sale on e bay of P7110
currently £0.99, for a 8″ x 6 ” print ,
Not I might add for sale by me.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4727&item=6527796839

Cheers
Jerry

Still a meaningful looking aircraft, no matter what engines

info

Hi James,
Maybe it’s because the facts never quite add up when researching the story of the whirlwind , that makes it so interesting to me.
View it from westland / raf / air min / map , and it all has a slightly different story.
I so far have found the PRO files to be pretty good and un biased view, Mainly due to them containing letters written at the time between all the parties concerned, & reports written by pilots within days of flying the aircraft, There is even a narrative ( ? not sure if it’s the right title ) of the development/service and all the various reasons for the hold ups.

Might have been ‘1941 new types on the way ‘, but I tend to think the ‘alternative engines’ was a project/s, different to the MKII , which was first mentioned early 1940.
Maybe one day I will put all the research together.
Cheers
Jerry