Westland Whirlwind Fighter

Opposite rotating props. Not with an idler gear, the whole engine rotated in the opposite direction. Rolls-Royce never did that again – it seems it wasn’t one of their better ideas.

The 130 series merlins used in the DH Hornet used an idler gear to reverse the direction of the propellor rotation. Both engine crank shafts rotated the same direction. One engine installation was actually longer on one side than on the other accordingly!

Actually doing the airframe with infusion molding is far easier and produces a far superior product with no nasty fumes. In short build wooden or foam molds (foam could be sent out and cnc cut straight from the computer and would produce a mold in days after the cad work was complete). Do a search for claymar floats on google to see the process in action. In Canada this wouldn’t be to hard as it would fit under the experimental aircraft class. There is even talk of increasing the weight limit for some of the new homebuilt jets which would allow even more multi-engine replicas.

Beurling

Opposite rotating props. Not with an idler gear, the whole engine rotated in the opposite direction. Rolls-Royce never did that again – it seems it wasn’t one of their better ideas.

could be interesting, though at the end of the day the whole idea of making a mould of the airframe and making it from carbon fibre wont be cheap will it? i dont really know but i would have thought that it would be more expensive in the long run wouldnt it? also thinking in terms of certification certainly in this country, maybe a problem?

That would be an awesome site to see one fly even as a replica. Don’t over complicate things though, if it is going to fly safety should be the most important thing. besides if it is the only one who is going to be able to pick it apart in 10years no one will be left who seen a real one. If you had outside dimensions you make a negative mold and make the thing out of carbon fibre, kevlar and glass and then infusion mold the whole thing. It would be stronger than a mossie and lighter and would require no chrome moly tube frame. For the main spar in the wing throw in some honeycomb. Most important thing though is use a decent 3D CAD program (not AutoCAD) to do the structural design because you will basically be re-engineering the airframe within those dimensions.

As for peregrine engines I think if I was going to do all that I would put 2 GE 2000lb thrust turbo props in it, would be loud as hell but would it ever haul. Basically same principal that the one US P51 replica uses with a composite airframe and a newer turbo prop power plant.

Did the Whirlwind have both engines spin the props in the same direction like the Mossie or did they correct that so it worked like the P38?

Would definitely be a fun project – long project though as I know building my spit it is not an overnight endeavour.

Cheers
Beurling

Jerry,

You are correct, there is a Whirlwind AP at Kew. I’ve been through it and it’s a very nice piece of reference work showing all subassemblies.

Cheers

Cees

Hi Cees,
Glad my memory was right, on the subject of Kew, and slightly O/T has anyone ever viewed

INF 3/916 Illustration: inside prisoner of war camp – whirlwind Artist’s signature: Phillip Bear 1939-1946

I have never got around to looking at it, but it always intrigued me as it is a name I didn’t associate with a whirlwind pilot, and the years of the file 39-46 is a bit odd.

Whilst on the subject of Kew,

Has anyone ever located the RAE test report for P6967, it was with RAE for trials in Jan/Feb/Mar 42, never found the reference at kew.

Or the trials RAE? of the P-38/mossie/whirlwind,I mean the comparism ? trials (when the three a/c photographed together lined up).

These are two loose ends for me at the moment, a bit harder for me to sort out now i have emigrated….
I wonder it the NA have thought of moving to vancouver…:D
Cheers
Jerry

Jerry,

You are correct, there is a Whirlwind AP at Kew. I’ve been through it and it’s a very nice piece of reference work showing all subassemblies.

Cheers

Cees

manuals

I’m waiting for a list of APs and drawings which still exist from various sources, and sadly large companies don’t work as fast as me… so wait I must….

Hi,
The PRO/NA at kew have I am sure a whirlwind AP, so it might be worth a visit with a digital camera.
As I recall they don’t have a peregrine manual, I think rolls has the only one.
But the manuals for the sub systems, I think were at the PRO/NA, Unfortunately I never found the time to do them,
I always got sidetracked with something else…
Please keep us updated here of your progress, No doubt board members can then help appropriately as we see this project progresses.
Cheers
Jerry

I think that for now, an airworthy one is out of the question. As it stands at the minute, a static airframe built to as close to airworthy standards as possible will be the way ahead. Quality will NOT deminish, but rather the completed example may prove to be a benchmark and a pattern for an airworthy one later. Expect this project to go quiet while the infrastructure is set up, but rest assured, it will not go away!

I’m waiting for a list of APs and drawings which still exist from various sources, and sadly large companies don’t work as fast as me… so wait I must….

R-R Derby for AP1709A. Vol.I Whirlwind and AP1761A. Vol. I Peregine I Aero Engine. Cost’s around £60…

The remaining AP’s from the R.A.F. Museum…

The biggest problem I found were getting hold of any decent drawings/Photo’s of the cockpit…

Hi
On the replica/rebuild, don’t forget to read the crash reports on P7008 & P7103 first, these indicate the weak points of the airframe, It might be worth considering a bit of re engineering for safety.
cheers
Jerry

I think that for now, an airworthy one is out of the question. As it stands at the minute, a static airframe built to as close to airworthy standards as possible will be the way ahead. Quality will NOT deminish, but rather the completed example may prove to be a benchmark and a pattern for an airworthy one later. Expect this project to go quiet while the infrastructure is set up, but rest assured, it will not go away!

I’m waiting for a list of APs and drawings which still exist from various sources, and sadly large companies don’t work as fast as me… so wait I must….

crash reports

Hi
On the replica/rebuild, don’t forget to read the crash reports on P7008 & P7103 first, these indicate the weak points of the airframe, It might be worth considering a bit of re engineering for safety.
cheers
Jerry

I have been in touch with Westlands at Yeovil and can categorically say that there is no Whirlwind at their site. It is true that their company hack was buried there having served as a fire rescue training aid (and was burnt considerably). During the 1970’s the airframe was exhumed from the north side of the airfield and removed by persons unknown for disposal. It was in danger of contaminating a nearby stream, and was removed along with a substantial quantity of soil. The records for the removal either do not exist, or are not in circulation, and Westlands have no idea of the company used for its disposal. The engines were scrapped as has been discussed elsewhere on this thread

Hmmm… I found it’s far better to never ask Managerial Staff about things of importance from years ago – or anything else for that matter, unless it’s about a pay rise… :rolleyes:
Your best bet is to put a letter in the weekly local Yeovil News asking for any site Engineering staff at the time for their help. They always know more about what went on in and around any factory site then official company spokes persons… 😉

Well said….

Yep agree with you Cees.Build it and they will come…Taking the first step is the hardest but after that you let your feet follow.You might stumble a bit and lose your sanity but hasn,t everyone on this forum who has been through this process already done that?:eek:

Surprisingly, I have received more support than criticism, so I can’t complain:D The lottery would be best approached for match funding, so find half and they with match it (as opposed to them providing a match and torching the whole thing….). There are several other sources of funds providing the company can be made into an educational resource (which is easy), and we can prove that we are serious (which is difficult). Hangar space off airfield is not a problem, especially for the first few years while components are collected and items made (ie. tail assembly). All things considered, a static replical would be reletively easy to to…(all things are reletive)

The hardest part would be setting up a company to include certain approvals (EASA pt. 145 will probably cover aircraft below 5000Kg by then)

No matter what people say, good or bad. go for it. You know you can do it and the only way to find is to actually do it. You have the support of this whole board.

Cheers

Cees

Surprisingly, I have received more support than criticism, so I can’t complain:D The lottery would be best approached for match funding, so find half and they with match it (as opposed to them providing a match and torching the whole thing….). There are several other sources of funds providing the company can be made into an educational resource (which is easy), and we can prove that we are serious (which is difficult). Hangar space off airfield is not a problem, especially for the first few years while components are collected and items made (ie. tail assembly). All things considered, a static replical would be reletively easy to to…(all things are reletive)

The hardest part would be setting up a company to include certain approvals (EASA pt. 145 will probably cover aircraft below 5000Kg by then)

Give the guy a break!

… If the man wants to build one, please everyone get behind him and help him out! 😀 Its no small undertaking bringing back these things from the dead, but if someone is willing, then why not.

engines?…. So far modded kestrels seem the best option. But that’s to worry about alot later on. I need two million quid and a hangar first….:D This is LONG term!…….

Why not apply to the National Lottery, as their most recent “aviation” project is due to fly some time this year, a hangar may be free as well 😉

David – they have indeed been asked the question on many occasions.

However, the problem is they have answered it in many different ways! The other versions I have heard were:
“The aircraft is under a hangar”
“The aircraft is under about 20 feet of earth excavated when a local swimming pool was built”

Mark – believe me Westlands have been asked this question on more than one occasion ! The reply is credible!

A sad fact of the Whirlwind was the large scale use of magnesium in their construction. Therefore anything in the groung wasn’t good for long!

When I did some research for the WIX-project (unfortunately stalled) at the National Archives at Kew it was stated in the manual that only the skinning of the rear fuselage was made of magnesium alloy. The rest using normal aluminium.
Oh and the rudder pedals are the same as used in the Lysander.

Cheers

Cees