The Arsenal VG 33 fighter, the ghost of June 1940 (revised 19 / 09 / 2019 *)

{This post is the English translation of my post in my own blog "l'Aviation selon Drix".}

Origin

I discovered the Arsenal VG 33 in the early 1960’s, in a very short article in the French review Aviation Magazine. 

The VG 33 was a derivative of the former VG 30 of 1938, which was a flying mock-up of the VG 10 unconventional heavy fighter which became, in 1944, the all metal VB 10 (too) heavy fighter.

This aircraft was entirely designed by engineer Jean Galtier, of the Arsenal de l’Aéronautique, a government founded establishment dedicated to advanced technologies for the air industries but almost devoid of production capacities.

The chief of this establishment was Ingénieur Général Vernisse (the “V” of VG to designate the VG 33, the “G” being from Galtier).

If the first blue prints of the VG 30 were adapted for a lightweight fighter, her Potez 12 D air cooled engine delivered only 485 hp and the cowling being not well designed for a flat 12, induced the use of a Hispano-Suiza 12 X engine of 690 hp (a very reliable engine).

The maiden flight of the VG 30 was done in October 1938, quite simultaneously with the first flight of the Dewoitine 520.

The new fighter was no more a lightweight fighter but performed rather well. 

She demonstrated a top speed of 485 kph at 4,950 m and climbed to 5,000 m in 7’ 15”, performances clearly better than those of the Morane-Saulnier 406 standard fighter of the French Air Force with 860 hp, which was 30 kph slower and climbed at the same altitude in 10’ (these values - very different from the "official performances" - have been carefully measured on all their MS 406 by the Finnish pilots in 1942).

Today, some people wrote the VG performances were disappointing and implicated the "bad" air-screw.

Such a feeling was not relevant at all. 

However, the VG 30 had two main drawbacks: 

·     Her huge radiator was not well positioned, likely to be in same position than the homologous device in the VG 10, a position irrelevantly conserved in the VB 10: This radiator was put in the maximum drag inducing area and had a too large air intake (larger than the hot air exit!).

·     She did not use of backward discharging ejector exhaust pipes.

Together, these drawbacks were responsible from the loss of, at least, 30 kph.

 

Arsenal VG 30  - On the Arsenal VG 33 site of Franck Devillers - Compare the radiator air-intake (for the cooling of a 690 hp engine) to the one of a P 51 Mustang!

If these two points have been fixed, this fighter could achieve top speed between 500 and 520 kph.

In 1939, engineer Galtier was restricted to develop the VG single-engined fighters, and the VG 10 became an all-metal twin-engined fighter, the VB 10, of quite identical silhouette but of very larger dimensions (and weight!) developed by engineer Badie.

The Arsenal VG 33 fighter was the development of the VG 30 with the well-known Hispano-Suiza 12 Y 31 used in the Morane-Saulnier 406 fighter and some aerodynamics refinements.

Arsenal VG 33 on the rain, in Bordeaux – The prototype 01 is in the foreground before a series fighter with a much more sloped windshield.

This fighter appeared as the last and aerodynamically very refined development of the Bernard 20 fighter of the Jockey program (1928).

This older fighter was designed by the same Jean Galtier under the supervision of the famous chief-engineer Louis Béchereau (who designed the Deperdussin monocoque racer, winner of the Gordon Bennett cup in 1913 and designed also, 3 years later, the famous SPAD VII and XIII fighters).

Bernard 20 C1 – 320 kph at sea level with a not supercharged HS 12 Jb 400 hp

As her forerunner, the Arsenal VG 33 was a wooden monocoque. 

Such a choice was the consequence of the irrational fear of some French deciders that France may be short of aluminum.

{One must remind that France was the first producer of this metal up to 1937, only surpassed by Germany the 3 following years. }

Worst, the red spruce of high quality needed to construct the Arsenal fighter was obtained only from Canada, so it must be shipped to France. 

Obviously, once at war, the U-boat hazard would be very present… 

A fast aircraft

The 2 problems seen above on the VG 30 were fixed in the significantly heavier VG 33 of similar overall dimensions.

The wingspan was 10.80 m, the length was 8.55 m and the wing area was 14 m².

The take-off weight was 2,650 kg, quite identical to the one of the Dewoitine D 520 fighter which used a 45 kg heavier engine and a 2 m² larger wing area…

So, the wing loading was ~190 kg/m², 13% heavier than the D 520 and, 20 % heavier than the MS 406.

The first flight was done the April 25, 1939.

The performances of the prototype were good, taking into account the rather weak power delivered (860 hp) by the Hispano 12 Y engine identical to the one used in the Morane-Saulnier 406. 

(Sources: THE reference site - in French - on the Arsenal VG fighters http://arsenalvg33.free.fr/entrer.htm and the excellent series of Fanatique de l’Aviation, #197 and followings, April 1986).

The top speeds were:

·         442 kph at 0 m

·         463 kph at 1,000 m

·         485 kph at 2,000 m

·         508 kph at 3,000 m

·         530 kph at 4,000 m

·         556 kph at 5,000 m

o    Top speed was 558 kph at 5,200 m.

·         554 kph at 6,000 m

·         543 kph at 7,000 m

·         530 kph at 8,000 m.

The altitude where the top speed was obtained was 700 m higher than the one used for the best speed of the Morane 406 (4,500 m) which used exactly the same engine with the same supercharger (the HS 12 Y 47 differed from the HS 12 Y 31 only by the carburetors and the fuel pump).

So, the difference between the most efficient operational altitude to the critical altitude (2,000 m) - which is always very higher than the one observed in the laboratories owing the influence of the dynamic pressure induced by the speed of the aircraft – might result from the more efficient position of the supercharger air intake, of same fashion than in the Nieuport LN 161-03 of 1938 and the CAO 200. 

The climb times were:

o    1,000 m in   1’ 17”

o    2,000 m in   2’ 34”

o    3,000 m in   3’ 51”

o    4,000 m in   5’ 07”

o    5,000 m in   6’ 26”

o    6,000 m in   8’ 02”

o    7,000 m in 10’ 11”

o    8,000 m in 13’ 26"

The service ceiling was better than 9,500 m, the maximum permissible IAS (VNE) was 620 kph (= a true speed of 750 kph at 4,500 m).

You may found other values published in the C.J. Ehrengardt study (Aéro-Journal #46, December 2005) on this fighter:

o    455 kph at sea level

o    554 kph at 6,000 m

o    545 at 8,000 m.

Two climbing times were also published (as also an amazing service ceiling of 11,000 m):

o    5,500 m in 6’ 06”

o    8,000 m in 10’ 16”.

This author gave a take-off weight of 2,450 kg, which may explain partly the better performances.

Nevertheless, these more recent values are questionable because the speed at 6,000 m is exactly the same as the one published in 1986, a bit inconsistent. 

 Two orders totaling 700 fighters were quickly decided (and other followed).

The mass production was transferred to the CAMS factory, near Paris, which was a former flying boat company merged with the Potez one and, latter, was part of the nationalized SCAN.

Nevertheless, the VG 33 issued from mass production were a bit slower (540 kph), owing, probably, to the omission of the main landing gear hatches of the VG 33-01 prototype... 

The individual ejector exhaust pipes appeared as a new device, the pipes being very short and not completely backward.

The same device was fitted on the Loire-Nieuport 402 fighter-bomber prototype. Maybe, such device was cheap, perhaps not the most efficient!

  

Flying qualities

In accordance with the comments of Ingénieur-Général Louis Bonte (Histoire des Essais en Vol, Docavia #3), the flying qualities of this aircraft were superlative: Far better than those of all other French fighters.

However, this assessment was devoid of any precise description of the so-called qualities.

Luckily, Mathieu Comas (in: La Chasse Française Inconnue, hors série #7, Lela Presse, in French), published a more comprehensive picture of how the VG 33 behave.

The first positively acknowledged quality was the total absence of swing tendency during take-off.

Such a characteristics is of paramount importance for inexperienced pilots, but became less crucial for veterans.

The stall speed was 120 kph (aircraft clean) at full power and 130 kph with no power in the same configuration.

During the stall, the VG 33 had no tendency to begin a spin.

The optimal speed for climbing was 240 kph (to be enhanced by 30 kph in case of overheating).

Compared to the Dewoitine D.520, the minimum speed for aerobatics figures were a bit faster with the Arsenal fighter: For example, the vertical loop must be started at 400 kph for the Arsenal fighter against 380 kph for the Dewoitine D 520.

However, the handling was easy at any speed.

I take the opportunity to destroy a legend which stay about all the French fighters: In several papers about them, you can read the spin was prohibited.

That was only a “fossil” of the “bureaucratic viscosity” developed in France.

This rule was decreed for all military aircrafts, likely just after WW I, when the aircrafts, worn by an intensive war usage, were frequently crashed, killing their pilots.

Obviously, this rule was never known by the pilots who were carefully trained to spin start and recovery, especially the fighter pilots!

But, because it appeared in the service book of all fighters, some authors recopy it.

The only known shortcoming of the Arsenal fighter was her too large air intake of the radiator, which, in summer, gathered an impressive amount of plant stalks, not very good for cooling the engine ;-).

A tremendously short operational career

The first Arsenal VG 33 fighters issued from the CAMS factory were delivered to the CEAM (center dedicated to military tests) in April 1940.

That was about one year after the maiden flight of her prototype (to be compared with the 4 years spent between the maiden flight of the Morane fighter and the delivery of the first series MS 406!).

Unfortunately, some of the following aircrafts were not fitted with their gun-sights (OPL 39 or Baille-Lemaire 40), so they were quite useless.

However, the operational pilots who saw these fighters loved her instantly.

For some unknown reason, the well experienced pilots of the Grp I/2 – in which was embedded the famous SPA 3 of Georges Guynemer – who were scheduled to obtain the first dozen of VG 33 fighters, were never equipped with.

They finished the Battle of France with their old, worn out, Morane 406...

Evacuation by inexperienced pilots

When Paris was on the point to be seized by the Wehrmacht, these VG 33 fighters were given to quite inexperienced fighter pilots to evacuate these aircrafts from Paris area in a hurry (as, also, a lot of other fighters: Morane-Saulnier 410, Bloch 152, and so on)!

Due to the emergency situation, most of them were just qualified as fighter pilots.

The most advanced fighter they could have flown previously was the Morane 406 or only Dewoitine 500 family fighters designed between 1929 and 1930...

They discovered this fighter without any serious briefing. 

When they flew this brand new fighter - very fast (100 to 200 kph faster!) by comparison with all the aircrafts they had flown previously – they were confronted also with her high wing loading.

So, some of these pilots said “she flew like an iron”… 

Similar negative opinions have been expressed each time a real evolution affected the French fighters (as also, in several Air Forces of other countries). 

It is likely that the opinions of experienced pilots would have been very different.

Anyway, these pilots were first gathered at Etampes (at 50 km SW of Paris).

A very good potential fighter 

The June, 13, they went to Orleans before they flew to Bordeaux with a heterogeneous collection of fighters (Morane 410, Bloch 152 / 155 and 6 Arsenal VG 33)!

During their journey to Bordeaux, two pilots of VG 33 strafed a Wehrmacht infantry column,  demonstrating the confidence they had in their Arsenal Fighter. 

They suffered no Flak damage nor German fighter attack, in a sky entirely controlled by the Luftwaffe, though, a confirmation of the high speed of the Arsenal fighter.

The June, 17, they became part of the newly constituted Grp I/55.

The pilots take part successfully to some combat against enemy air raids over Bordeaux, but we don’t know if they used of their Arsenal VG 33. 

The Bordeaux airfield was overcrowded by French military aircrafts without any flight control: What a mess!

Nevertheless, none among the pilots of VG 33 was injured and none of their fighters crashed in such an emergency situation.

It appears, for me, as a consistent proof of the very good handling qualities of the VG 33 fighter!

Three of the Arsenal fighters stayed in open air on the Bordeaux airfield until November 1942, after what they were scrapped by the Germans invading the so-called Vichy "free zone".

Evolution of the Arsenal VG 3x family

Something was awkward in the management of the finishing process of the Arsenal fighters. 

The ordering of the VG 33 was not following the classical way: The order was directly given to the SNCAN, a nationalized company technically managed by his former leader, Mr. Henry Potez.

So, the team of the engineers who conceived the VG 33 had no direct information about the perception of the pilots!

Instead, they were encouraged to develop as quickly as possible the VG 30’s family: During the full year following the maiden flight of the VG 33, four more powerful derivative prototypes were built:  VG 34, 35, 36, 39.

The VG 34 was a VG 33 airframe fitted with the same Hispano-Suiza 12 Y 45 engine than the Dewoitine 520. 

She achieved 570 kph at 6,000 m and climbed to 5,000 min less than 6’.

The VG 36 was the most interesting fighter of this family, with a completely redesigned air intake of the radiator and a Hispano-Suiza 12 Y 51 engine delivering 1,100 hp for take-off and 1,000 hp at an altitude of 3,250 m. 

It was said that she flew at 590 kph at 7,000 m in May 1940.

Arsenal VG 36 

This variant will be introduced in mass production at the Fall of 1940.

The last derivative to fly was the VG 39, which was a test bed for the new engine: This aircraft was fitted with the new Hispano-Suiza 12 Z engine, with 4 valves for each cylinder, and designed to deliver 1,600 hp (but actually limited to 1,150 / 1,200 hp).

She flew the May 3 and, some days later, achieved 625 kph at altitude.

VG 39 at Bordeaux - A more streamlined nose and quite optimal ejector exhaust pipes

The definitive fighter was using the long nose of the VG 39 (induced by the elongated reduction gear box of the HS 12 Z), the fuselage of the VG 36 with her shallow radiator air intake and new wings of longer wingspan (11.6 m) and larger area (16.5 m²), in order to take into account the new take off weight of 2,800 to 3,000 kg. 

The fuel tank will carry 170 liters more than the previous one (400 liters) and the armament was supplemented by 2 machine guns.

The wood: Not a real problem!

You can read in the literature complaints about the fire hazard for a wooden fighter essentially. 

To these professional mourners, it may be useful to remind that the aluminum is used as solid fuel for some very powerful missiles carrying strategically thermonuclear head.

The pilots who tried to burn down one of the Arsenal fighters did not had success!

From the other hand, the wood had the advantage to be quite transparent to the actual radars.

The war experience of the Mosquito crews and of the Yak 3 pilots confirm that, yes, any war is dangerous, but not especially the wood (at speed staying well below the trans-sonic barrier).

The Westland Whirlwind, an outstanding fighter suffering from breach of faith from the RAF staff (revised 29 / 10 / 2017)

Wanted: A fighter with a real punch...

It is likely that, in 1934, after the successful trials of the French Dewoitine D 501 fighter fitted with the moteur-canon Hispano-Suiza 12 X Crs, the British deciders began to be worried with the possibility than a few fighters could be able to destroy easily the aircrafts of the Bomber Command.  

The actual Hawker Fury II fighters (of rather similar performances) were fitted only with 2 riffle caliber machine guns (muzzle velocity of 744 m/s & 250 rounds, each bullet weighting ~0.011 kg).

The first response of the British Air Staff was to increase the number of machine guns up to 8 as also to use of very better Browning M 2 MG of the same caliber (muzzle velocity of 850 m/s). So was the armament of the Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I.

But some undoubtedly very advanced twin-engined fighters (Potez 63 and Messerschmitt Bf 110) appeared in 1936 with 2 cannons in the nose. 

Appearing as a British answer, a program (F 37/35) was published in 1935 by the RAF staff, requiring a twin-engined fighter fitted with 4 efficient 20 mm cannons.

The very good work of Teddy Petter

The winner of the contest was the Westland Whirlwind designed by Teddy Petter. 

The layout of her airframe achieved a spectacular fineness and each detail revealed as thoroughly conceived: This aircraft was a very promising fighter issued from exceptional aerodynamics studies.

Several Whirlwind flying at low-medium altitude

This fighter was not much larger than a Hawker Hurricane (a lenght ofless than 10 m and a wingspan of a bit more than 13 m). 

The structure was totally metallic, with duraluminium stressed skin.

The narrow monocoque fuselage, made of magnesium, was rather cylindrical with a cockpit canopy rather similar to that of the French Nieuport 161 fighter in 1936.

The tail had the horizontal stabilizer mounted very high on the vertical tail.

The wings totaled 23.2 square meter, 0.7 m² less than the Hurricane Mk I (!) and was fitted with Fowler flaps.

The empty weight was 3,770 kg and the weight increased to 4,660 kg for take off (Whirlwind I, i.e. fighter only), so the wing loading was 200 kg/m².

The engines nacelles were very well streamlined and the engines were two Rolls-Royce Peregrine, last variant of the well known Kestrel. 

Each of these engines had a displacement of 21 liters and delivered 880 hp at 3,000 m (10,000 ft) using octane 100 fuel. The dry weight of one engine was 520 kg.

The chosen armament was one of the strongest of all the WW II fighters: Four Hispano-Suiza HS 404 20 mm cannons gathered in the nose. 

That was much more than twice the armament of the Messerschmitt Bf 110, which had only 2 MG FF Oerlikon cannons. 

The Hispano -Suiza 404 had a muzzle velocity of 880 m/s, 280 m/s faster than the MG FF, each shell weighting 130 gram. 

So, its ballistics was very better and its kinetic energy was at least, twice that of the Swiss cannon.

The first flight of the Whirlwind occurred on October 11, 1938.

The top speeds of the Westland fighter were:

• 500 kph at 1,500 m,

• 540 kph at 3,000 m,

• 580 kph at 4,500 m, some 20 kph better than the Spitfire Mk I at this altitude (one may also compute that, with 720 hp Kestrel engines, this top speed would drop to 525 kph). 

The climbing ability was good:

• 3,000 m in 4' 00",

• 6,000 m in 8' 30" (one minute faster than a Hurricane Mk I).

These climb times were similar to those of the Hawker Typhoon which was only 10 kph faster at 15,000 ft, but much more faster at both lower and higher levels.

The service ceiling was a bit more than 9,000 m, a rather disappointing performance, but the logical consequence of a weak supercharger.

The stall speed of the Whirlwind was on the high side (153 kph), nevertheless, her maneuverability was outstanding, especially because her ailerons were much more efficient and pleasant than those of the actual Spitfire Mk I at high speed.

Four hundreds of Whirlwind (two series of 200) were ordered in January 1939.

The first productions fighters were delivered in June 1940 to 25 Squadron, a night fighter unit, but they were removed and transferred in July 1940 to the 263 Squadron which was in total reformation after having lost 10 pilots (among them were the 3 officers commanding the unit!) in the sinking of the Glorious carrier, at the end of the Battle of Norway.

The Westland Wirlwind production was slow essentially because Rolls-Royce had not finished its Peregrine engine, and so, delivered them at very slow tempo.

In action...

If you expected to have an idea of the capacities of the Whirlwind against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain - because the first productions fighters were delivered in time - forget it: On October 17, 1940, Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding forbade any apparition in the Battle of the 263 Squadron, and, today, we don't know if his decision was motivated by problems linked to the fighter or to an insufficient formation of the pilots (or both..).

Latter, the 263 Squadron moved to Exeter and was, at last, operational the December 7, 1940. 

Most of her job was to destroy the German E-Boats used to rescue the crews of the bombers damaged by the RAF. 

The first aerial engagement occurred the January 12, 1941 and was against a Junkers 88 which was probably downed in the Western Approaches.

After this victory, the Whirlwind  obtained numerous others victories against Ju 88, Dornier 217, Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110, during Rhubarb missions over English Channel, Northern France and Belgium.

She was also used to escort 54 Blenheims gathered to destroy power stations near Cologne the August 12, 1941. 

Owing to their 500 km combat radius, the Whirlwind were forced to turn back at Antwerp. 

Ten bombers (less than 20%) were lost, such losses being negligible compared to those of Allied bombers (from 30 to 90%) during the Campaign of France in May-June 1940.

At low altitude, the Whirlwind was extremely efficient against the German fighters.

She was very efficient too against small ships and a lot of terrestrial targets, as locomotives, tanks and so on, demonstrating the heavy punch of her armament.

The 137 Squadron was the only other one to be Whirlwind equipped (since September 1941). It used the fighter to drop 125 or 225 kg bombs.

The 263 Squadron also used of the bomber variant, including in dive, as they had done from October 24 to November 26, 1943, against the German blockade runner Münsterland in dry dock at Cherbourg.

With 12 Whirlwind, they dove from an altitude of 3,600 m down to 1,500 m, facing a very strong Flak fire. 

The bomb impacts were quite all in a circle having a diameter of 150 m. 

Only one Whirlwind was lost. 

One may highlight that such a dive induced necessarily a strong acceleration but the pilots never complained about handling difficulties. 

One may underline the soundness of this fighter, very difficult to destroy for her enemies and very protective for her pilots.

The November 29, 1943, the RAF decided to equip the pilots of both squadrons with Hawker Typhoon.

I'm not sure that was a wise decision: The Hawker fighter was not better adapted to high altitude flying than the Whirlwind, she was less maneuverable and her Napier Sabre engine was even less reliable than the Rolls-Royce Peregrine...

Overwhelmed Rolls-Royce engineers ?

Knowing the great area of competence gathered in the Rolls-Royce company, the problems which plagued the Peregrine engine may be seen as amazing.

This engine was nothing more than a boosted Kestrel, differing by an adaptation to the 100 octane fuel and by its HM Hobson carburetors, fitted behind the engine to allow more space for the supercharger, and, theoretically, giving a more efficient mixture. May be, these devices have been chosen to profit from the automatic Hobson boost pressure regulator (source: Flightglobal / Archive). 

However the Peregrine lost quickly its power above 6,000 m and had overheating problems (due to formation of vapor bubble in the liquid cooling circuit when used too long at full power) and probably other ones. 

At that very moment, the Rolls-Royce company was, simultaneously, developing 4 other aeronautical engines: The Vulture (a twin Peregrine in X), the Exe (another X-24 engine), the Griffon (derived from the R of the Schneider Cup) and, obviously, the famous Merlin. A very heavy task!

Very early, the Rolls-Royce staff expressed the wish to abandon the Peregrine engine. 

May be, such a wish influenced the RAF deciders who decided to stop the construction of the Whirlwind. 

Was it the good decision? I'm not convinced at all, because: 
i) Most of the problems encountered were likely easy to solve (for example, the vapor bubbles could likely be eliminated by fitting degassers in the liquid cooling circuit). 
ii) The compressor problem would be solved by changing the actual device for another.
iii) Solving these problems could have good consequences on the Vulture finishing (amazingly, the Vulture was proposed for the Hawker Tornado before the Peregrine was, at least, completely reliable). It seems not to be a good method.

From the other hand, a lot of work was spent by the company to finish the Griffon. 
Nevertheless, this powerful engine was operational primarily in Spring 1943 with the Spitfire XII, and mainly, but too late, in mid-1944, with the Spitfire XIV, at the very moment the piston engines were losing their supremacy in favor to jet reactors and the Merlin appeared to achieve quite similar performances (Merlin 130/131 fitted on the De Havilland Hornet) without the same handling difficulties. 

True shortcomings

However, as any other aircraft, the Whirlwind was not perfect. 

A range problem?

It was written that the most impeding characteristics of the Wirlwind was her rather short autonomy, but this data is not easy to obtain. 

Green, in Fighters #2, gave only the information of an escort flight "as far as Antwerp..."

The same author, associated with Swanborough, in The Complete Book of Fighters, gave a total flight time of 1 hour and 15 minutes, translatable to 725 km at the top speed of 580 kph (not very consistent with the overheating at full speed) or 512 km at 410 kph (50 % of the power - an unrealistic value) . 

In the Wikipedia in English article on this fighter (October 15, 2014) you may found two other values: 

• In the text, the combat radius was given as ~480 km. 

• But, in the specifications, the total range is published as 1,288 km (an amazingly precise data!), but, at low level, the combat radius was 240 km, with normal reserves. 

These last data appear as the more likely, but underline how heavy was the fuel consumption at low level (twice the "normal" one).

So, the autonomy of the Whirlwind was of the same order of magnitude than those of Potez 631 and Messerschmitt 110 twin engined fighters.

OK, her range was half of those of the Bristol Blenheim Mk I F, but the Whirlwind was a true fighter, not the the Blenheim (the night fighting being a completely different task).

It seems that nobody want to fit some jettisonable tanks on the Westland Whirlwind. 

The idea of jettisonable tanks was invented by German for the Messerschmitt 109 E 7 in Fall 1940.

Such a device could have given a clearly better range, enabling the escort of the aircrafts of the Bomber Command to strike at daylight the German target with reduced losses, allowing them a much more military and economic impact.

Useless as a cannon fighter? 

The English Wikipedia article (October 17, 2014) on the Whirlwind is often excellent.

However, the authors wrote that, since the appearance of the Spitfire I B (with 2 Hispano-Suiza HS 404 cannons) during the Summer of 1940, the RAF did not have any more need of the Whirlwind. 

May be, these authors had completely forgotten the Spitfire story!  

The very thin wings of the Spitfire I were not conceived to withstand the strong efforts occasioned by the fire of such powerful weapons. So, they jammed quickly when fitted with HS 404 cannons.

Supermarine resolved the problem with the universal or "C" wing introduced operationally clearly later on the Spitfire V C, at the end of 1941, very, very later!


Another motivation may be the awaited delivery of the first Lockheed P 38 fighters (whose first flight was done the January 27, 1939). 

Lockheed, very optimistically - as usual with this company - claimed a top speed of 640 kph (400 mph), 60 kph faster than the Whirlwind. 

But the Lightning to be delivered did not fulfill her promises. 

• Deprived of her turbo-superchargers (by order of the US Congress), she was not so fast. 

• With her 2 engines running the same direction, the P 38 was very difficult to handle. 

• Owing to her weight of 6,140 kg, her maneuverability was, at least, very questionable.

Justifiably, the RAF refused these P 38.

Consequently, the RAF pushed for the service entry of the Typhoon, long before her teething troubles were eradicated (23 pilots lost their life after tail losses, a problem solved only at the end of 1944!). 



My (very) iconoclastic solution...

There was two parts of a true solution, easy to use since 1939.

The first part was to eliminate 2 canons (each HS 404 cannon weighting 48 kg + 25 kg for the drum with 60 shells), allowing space storage for ~200 litters of supplementary fuel.

The second part of the solution (unacceptable for English deciders ;-)) was to replace the Peregrine engines by French Hispano-Suiza 12 Y 29 engines of 810 hp for take off and 920 hp at 3,600 m. 

This engine had a dry weight of 475 kg (source: Danel & Cuny, Le Dewoitine 520, Docavia #4), allowing a total gain of 90 kg. 

Such a solution could allow a top speed of 590 kph at 5,000 m, an elongated combat radius and more diverse missions...

Some lessons...

The December 18, 1939, three squadrons of Vickers Wellington (22 bombers) were sent to bomb some the Wilhelmshaven facilities and shipping. 

The distance between Great Yarmouth in East-England and Wilhemshaven in Germany is a bit less than 450 km. 

No actual RAF fighter was able to escort these bombers. 

If someone wanted to use of Spitfire Mk I, they would need to land in the Netherlands for refueling!

So, 12 of these British bombers were downed and 3 others were badly damaged by a group of Messerschmitt Bf 110.

The British staff take this event into account and preferred to use his bomber for night bombing.

Nevertheless, such an escort duty was possible for the Whirlwind without any supplementary tank, allowing her ~15 minutes of combat. 

It is quite obvious the Westland fighter was superior to the Bf 110 because she was 40 kph faster, more nimble (~2,000 kg lighter) and she had a very stronger punch.

Neglected for such missions, the Whirlwind was used without neither strategic nor even tactical imagination, as if the RAF deciders have not read her handbook.

During the Battle of Britain, the same deciders used of their very poor Blenheim Mk I F or Mk IV F, with a top speed of 420 kph at ~3,700 m, a climbing time to 4,500 m of 15 minutes, a take off weight of ~6,500 kg, an armament of 5 forward firing riffle cal. machine guns. 
These characteristics explained perfectly the massacre (44 losses) they suffered during the Battle of Britain.

The only good news was a total range of 2,200 km and sufficient room to embark a radar.

OK, the appearance of the Beaufighter was a relief to the British night fighting. 

A top speed of 520 kp at 4,500 m, a service ceiling of ~8,600 m and 4 Hispano 20 mm cannons were obtained. 

But the take-off weight increased to 9,000 kg, only 450 kg less than the Boulton Paul Hampden bomber...  

The Whirlwind was, undoubtedly, a very better fighter. 

The first proof was simple: The last British piston-engined fighter, the gorgeous De Havilland Hornet, was a transposition of the radical ideas expressed in the Whirlwind, with a more sexy shape.

The second proof of the excellence of the concepts developed by Teddy Petter was the Whirlwind can fly over German occupied territories during 3 long years of war without any real modification.

She as all qualities to fulfill a lot of task and her survivability was one famous asset.

She needed only a better Air staff...