Talk:Westland Whirlwind (fighter)

Photograph

The photograph that is supposed to show the first prototype L6844 actually shows the second prototyp L6845. L6844 was never painted silver, but dark grey. L6845 was not completed before the firts production batch, so the picture was NOT taken in 1938, but more likely in 1940. Both can be distinguised from the production samples by their mud-guards.Dirk P Broer 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I found out that after September 1939 L6844 was camouflaged (page 4 of the Czech book). The colour photograph on top of the article shows the last surviving Whirlwind, P7048, which after the war became G-AGOI until scrapped by Westland in 1947. The picture is very popular and is shown on at least three Whirlwind publications, The Czech 4+ series book, The Airlife-Bingham title and Hall Park Warpaint title about this plane.Dirk P Broer 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The image itself was probably downloaded from here, although the colour balance has been altered slightly, and of course the Warbirds resource group probably got it from somewhere else. There's another good picture here. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope on all three counts; I downloaded the photo from a World War 2 in Color website. FWIW Bzuk 16:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

I was talking about "the colour photograph on top of the article", which was uploaded by User:Maury Markowitz; you're talking about the shot of the silver-painted model here. It has clearly been colourised from black and white. It would be interesting to find out where the original comes from. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Maury had probably replaced my original photo which had been erased in an earlier deletion of all my World War 2 in Color downloads. It certainly does have a "colourized look". This is where it originated: <http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/British/abr> I think this may be one of the "cigarette cards" that were popular in prewar and wartime. FWIW Bzuk 17:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Actually - it could well be an original colour photo - 60 year old colour slides or negatives may have deteriorated considerably, giving it the slightly odd colour balanceNigel Ish 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Many WWII era colour photos show really strange colours and far from our imagination of DSG or DG. Remember that paint can fade in really strange way and many of these "colourized" photos are original colour photos. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Structure

I am slightly dismayed to see the assertion that the Whirlwind's fuselage was a magnesium tube, with a reference to page 37 of the Secret Projects book, but shortly thereafter the more likely statement is made that the whole structure was duraluminum. Since the two statements are in clear opposition (the fuselage was made of X, the whole structure of Y) and since magnesium is noted for being 1) very flammable 2) very light 3) not particularly strong, it seems like an unlikely choice. Worthy of note, if true, but unlikely, and internally contradicted in the article. I'll do some research- I have the Bingham and Kokobura books, and some more general works which discuss the Whirlwind. I try to keep an open mind but an all Magnesium fuselage would be a curious thing and quite unexpected. Not saying its not possible, but it seems unlikely.

Some years ago I noticed that the Vought F4U Corsair page had been edited to assert that its spot-welded fuselage was made of Magnesium... which is not true and I corrected it, at the time, with a reference. (Spot welding Magnesium would certainly be spectacular...) Now I'm going to have to go back and check the Corsair page, also.
←
On these two bits of evidence, I have a sick feeling someone may be editing Magnesium references in airplane articles for reasons other than clarity and accuracy. Now I have to go check. Does anyone know who made this change? Has anyone checked the reference given? I don't happen to have that reference myself, though I suppose I can try to exploit Amazon... I'd love to hear from someone who has the reference and can quote its assertion that the Whirlwind had a Magnesium fuselage... It would be oddly reassuring. Billabbott (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

•↓Out of place post (See here) moved below.↓ Red arrow ← above↑ indicates where it was. 220 of ^Borg 08:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

spot welding Magnesium isn't spectacular, one of my colleagues has done exactly this to produce test specimens. Also, magnesium wasn't an unusual material for aircraft airframes in the 1940's. Look at the wikipedia article for the Convair B-36 Peacemaker. Elektron (alloy) (~90% magnesium) was used in the structure of hydrogen filled ZeppelinsKreyszigB (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Derek James' Westland Aircraft since 1915, the Westland P.9 (which became the Whirlwind) had a rear fuselage with magnesium alloy stressed skin over aluminium frames and stringers. (p. 258-9).Nigel Ish (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit was mine in December 2010 working from my copy of Buttler. Perhaps "alloy" was elided when the book was edited. For reasons I'm not going to go into, I can't lay my hands on the book to check again for a day or so. If the source does say it, one could ask the publisher if there's been an errata. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Book now retrieved - Buttler says "its novel features included a magnesium monocoque fuselage (a particularly innovative feature because its better strength-to-weight ratio enabled the skin to be thicker for the same weight than aluminium)". GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Inability to mount RR Merlin to Whirlwind

The Westland Whirlwind was capable of being modified to mount RR Merlins with Westland proposing this in letter to Air Marshal W Sholto Douglas CiC Fighter Command

From Westland aircraft ltd. dated 21 Jan 41

....

we today have raised with the director general fighter position, wether it is wise to scrap during this year the proved whirlwind production capacity. We are now able, because of the solution of certain undercarriage retraction problems, to offer to install in the whirlwind twin merlin XXengines, thus overcoming the difficulty of continuing supply of the peregrine engines.This would give the aeroplane outstanding performance with a top speed of 410mph a service ceiling of 37,000ft, and a range of 800 miles,this would be coupled with the improved armament as you will remember, consists of four 20mm cannon, each with 120 rounds of ammunition, to this we can convieniently add two rifle calibre machine guns the whole accommadated in a very accessible manner on the rigid platform formed by the nose.

Yours Sincerely Eric Mensforth

This letter is in the PRO/NA air 16-326 page 82A

While this proposal was rejected Westland used the design work already performed for the Merlin modification to produce the Welkin. To quote from the wikipedia entry on the Welkin - Westland put forward their P.14, essentially an adaptation of Westland's Whirlwind fighter layout ... The compact but troublesome Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines of the Whirlwind were replaced by the more powerful Rolls Royce Merlin Mk.76/77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.6.144 (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the reference PRO/NA 16-326 refers to a record in the United Kindom National Archives. The URL of the reference is http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C506723 KreyszigB (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Article has been edited to remove reference to ability to carry the rr merlin despite the above evidence the airframe could, on top of which article contradicts itself claiming Westland proposed mounting the Merlin going onto say the airframe incapable of doing so!± — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.94.197 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point! the article carries the statement "Westland were aware that their design – which had been built around the Peregrine – was incapable of being re-engined with anything larger" referenced to p38 of "Buttler, Tony. British Secret Projects: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950. Earl Shilton, Leicester, UK: Midland, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-179-2." I shall see what Victor Bingham has to say on the matter. Does anyone have a copy of Buttler's book?

KreyszigB (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've got Buttler, I think it was me ("I"?) who added that line. Generally I think Buttler draws from the meetings between manufacturers and the Ministry, and company archives. Do you want Buttler's exact words in the book? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked Bingham's book. On page 42 he quotes the correspondence from Eric Mensford to Sholto Douglas quoted above, i.e. "... We are now able, because of the solution of certain undercarriage retraction problems, to offer to install in the Whirlwind twin merlin XX engines" Bingham later suggests that the concepts behind it probably helped in the designing of the Welkin (but that is Bingham's opinion)KreyszigB (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Only five on strength with 263 Squadron on 17 August 1940, with none serviceable

Despite the stated reference "Price Air International March 1995, p. 162." I now have a copy of the Fighter Command Aircraft State Returns covering a number of the months and these clearly show that a number of Whirlwinds were serviceable albeit in small numbers. Furthermore on 13th and 14th September 1940 three Whirlwinds were flown to Lossiemouth for duties with 21 Squadron. This is shown in the 21 Squadron Operational Record Book (ORB) as well as S/Ldr Harry Eeles logbook. JG Munro was one of the Pilots who flew to Lossiemouth with Harry Eeles on both occasions. This was confirmed Harry Eeles who additionally thought that the third Pilot was F/LT David Crooks. Peartree85 (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The entire article needs a major overhaul and some drastic copy-editing; I have some spare time for the next week or so, but any input would be very useful. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 01:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Whirlwind MK II???

The article states that Whirlwinds modified to carry bombs were redesignated as "Whirlwind Mk II". There is no reference for this. My copy of the Whirlwind pilots notes has a simple two-page addition about the carriage of bombs but there is no change in the aircraft designation. It was usual for the "mark" of WW2 British aircraft to be increased by the addition of the ability to carry bombs (Spitfire, Hurricane, Beaufighter etc). Where is the evidence for this in the documentation that was contemporary with the Whirlwind?