\ said:
I guess as neither of us was around when the Whirlwind was in service, we can only draw conclusions from what we have read about it.
And what the RAF/Air Ministry/Westlands/Squadrons/the men who flew it wrote and said about it
This what Dowding thought of the Whirlwind, in a letter written to Lord Beaverbrook, the head of the newly established Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) on 1st July 1940.
"The pilots like them (although this may be largely due to their relief in getting away from the Blenheim); and they may be worth their weight in gold in the near future as being almost the only fighter aircraft capable of attacking tanks from the air. Against them is their very high approach and landing speeds. Pilots tell me that they have to bring them in at 110 mph and, even then, the controls are 'sloppy'. This means that they can probably never be used at night. Then again, if the Lysander is any criterion, we must expect an infinity of trouble with cowlings, fittings etc., unless the firm has learned wisdom from past experience. Further, I think that it is a very extravagant design By this I mean that it takes two engines to lift four cannon guns, whereas the new Hawker fighter [he's referring to what would become the Typhoon] should be able to lift six with one engine and give a similar performance with a lower landing speed. Altogether, I feel that we may be very glad indeed to have as many Whirlwinds as we can get in the near future both as anti tank weapons and in order to attack bombers as they become less and less vulnerable to rifle calibre machine gun fire, but we shall be glad enough to drop them when the Hawker fighter comes into heavy production."
Shortly after this Dowding ruled that the Whirlwinds, which had been undergoing service trials with 25 Squadron, should go to 263 Squadron. The first were delivered on 3rd July. Dowding soon got his predicted 'infinity of troubles'.
In that month alone rivets failed in the outer slat shells.Slats were jumping of their sprockets. Welds were failing on the carburettor intake ducts. Wingtip fairings were cracking after as little as ten hours flying, this seriously alarmed the pilots who feared that a wing tip failure might jam an aileron with almost certain fatal consequences. Tail wheel oleos collapsed, sometimes cracking the rear bulkhead. The oleos also needed re-pressurising weekly.
As a result of this FO Bertram Grant (263's engineering officer) in consultation with Sqn Ldr William Disbrey (13 Group's Engineer Officer) grounded the Whirlwind until Westland could supply improved parts, particularly the wing tips.
At a Fighter Command conference at around this time Dowding ordered that the Whirlwinds
'should not be thrown into air combat' since in the event of enemy tanks landing in Britain they would be invaluable in an anti tank role. Once modified wing tips were fitted 263 Squadron concentrated on making the cannon installation work reliably (yet another problem) and on practicing ground attacks.
This was limited by repetition of the July problems. In fact, during most of August, none of the Whirlwinds were serviceable. In September they managed 55% serviceability but problems with the cannon persisted. Shell ejection problems caused regular jams and there was also damage to the aircraft's nose cone. The squadron bodged up some reinforcement and Westland eventually produced a 'quick release' reinforced cowling.
The slat problem persisted with sprockets being stripped, eventually they were simply fixed closed.Other problems included fractured hydraulic pipes, put down to poor workmanship at Westland. Fuel tank sealant came loose and blocked fuel filters causing in flight engine failures, also blamed on Westland. The canopy Perspex cracked along the top seam and a new design was developed by the manufacturer. The cooling system was found to be prone to corrosion.
I could go on, but suffice to say that by the end of October Dowding wrote to Beaverbrook, bearing in mind that any invasion threat complete with German tanks on the beaches was gone, concluding.
'It therefore becomes necessary to give careful consideration to the question of whether it is worth while persevering with the type at all'.
For a 1936 design it was a remarkable aeroplane, it's always been one of my favourites but to imagine it to be comparable with the Spitfire, Hurricane or later cannon armed Typhoon would be unwise
. Despite the long gestation period it was rushed into service seriously 'underdone' and never really recovered.
Cheers
Steve