Westland Wirlwind reconnaissance possibility?

[upnorth]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I can't be bothered to dig back through the archives.

I was thinking about picking up a Bilek reissue of the old Airfix Whirlwind and making a photo recon bird from it.

I know its engines were never properly developed, but had they been, what kind of high altitude performance would it have had? Could it have operated high enough to make an effective recce platform?

My LHS has the kit and a Pavla resin set for photo Spitfires that comes with a decal sheet with very fetching SEAC markings and I was thinking of bringing the two together but I'd like to know the plausibility of the Whirlwind design in recce first.

Would it have had a long enough wing without extensions to get up to effective recce heights? What about endurance for the mission?

Any input and insights would be greatly appreciated.

[jcf]

The Peregrine engine used on the Whirlwind was the ultimate development of the R-R Kestrel, basically a Kestrel with some Merlin-like features.
Altitude performance really depends on the supercharger setup, as used on the Whirlwind the engines were setup for medium altitude, so there is no reason that you couldn't have a Peregrine setup for high altitude.

But, here's the thing, dimensionally speaking the Peregrine and Merlin are very similar in size, so why not go for Merlins as Westlands proposed for the Whirlwind II? The biggest difference is weight.

Peregrine I
Length: 73.6 in
Width: 27.1 in
Height: 41.0 in
Weight: 1,140 lbs

Merlin X                                                                                                                                     
Length: 71.0 in
Width: 29.8 in
Height: 43.0 in
Weight: 1,450 lbs

The Whirlwind's biggest operational problem was probably its limited fuel capacity and thus short-range.

Jon

[Maverick]

Duncan,

I have a number of Whirlwind profiles in my Gallery, including PR & Merlin engined ships.  That said, high-altitude recce isn't the only possibility for the type.  Low-altitude PR would be an option like some of the Spits.

Regards,

John

[Weaver]

For low level work, the view sideways from the nose, and possibly the rear fuselage, would be blocked by the engine pods. How about extending the rear of the engine pods to hold the cameras?

For high altitude, you could always extend the wing a bit, going some way towards a Welkin, I suppose.

[Mossie]

Yeah, I'd have going in the Welkin direction too, some kind of intermediate design?  I'm suprised a recce version of the Welkin was never developed either or that the airframes as built were never converted to the role.

As for side looking cameras, you could place these in the rear fuselage, with a forward looking one in the nose replacing the cannon?

[Maverick]

Wooksta,

Didn't Spit PRs fly those self-same long-range PR missions?  Obviously not as long-ranged as the Mossie, but strategic in nature either way?  I think a PR Welkin would be a fairly formidable type.  Possilbly longer legged than a Mosquito being a single seater but still twin engined?  Beyond nav issues & having someone to chat to, how would a second crewmember be beneficial?

Regards,

Mav

[kitnut617]

Well there's always the Welkin nightfighter version to convert, it was a two seater and also had two 200 gal drop tanks fitted (same as a Beaufighter' centerline tank actually)  It was tested by John Cunningham and his operator Rawsley according to the book Nightfighter.  Back to the Mossie though, even though there were two guys in the plane, the pilot did all the flying so I don't see the difference.

[Martin H]

Its possible that the proposed Mk II with drop tanks could have done berlin and back with a reasonable loiter time over the target. the biggest problem the Mk I had with its fuel system was the fact it couldnt transfer fuel from one side to the other. so loose one engine and u cant use the remaining fuel on the good one from the dead engines tanks. This was to have been sorted out in the Mk II. 

Any way PR bird...........  I did one a few years ago, along with several other whiff Whirlwinds.







I like the idea of a SEAC recci Whirlwind 

[kitnut617]

I might be wrong but I'm sure I've read that the PRU Pink camoed aircraft weren't high altitude aircraft, they were used primarily at dawn or dusk when a red sky was predicted and at relatively low level.

[Martin H]

it was easier to mix the pink at the time LOL

[kitnut617]

It's a very nice model Martin, the Whirlwind was one of my favorites too.

[Martin H]

I did a compleat whiff family tree for the whirlwind...its what im following with the various whirlwind builds ive done over the years, and still slowly working throu it.

[kitnut617]

Nice list, wasn't there a real Mk.II built, it was able to carry two bombs under the outer wings.  I built mine like this anyway, plus two RP rails next to the bombs.  I don't have a good photo of it other than this which shows it in the bottom left corner:

[jcf]

Nice list, wasn't there a real Mk.II built, it was able to carry two bombs under the outer wings.  I built mine like this anyway, plus two RP rails next to the bombs.  I don't have a good photo of it other than this which shows it in the bottom left corner:

Nope, that was the unofficially named Whirlibomber, simply the Whirlwind Mk.I fitted with a Mk.III universal carrier under each wing.

Of the 200 Whirlwinds ordered, 116 were built, 2 prototypes - the other 114 were production type and all saw squadron service (No.236 and No.137).

Jon

[kitnut617]

Thanks Jon,  I understood that the Whirlwind was very good at low altitude which was why it got the bomb racks.  It's a pity they didn't add a drop tank under the fuselage or something like that.