Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Westland Whirlwind; The RAFs Heavy Hitter Fighter Bomber" video.

There actually was a single seat version of the Mosquito -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#Fighters I don't think a lot were ever produced, those variants are certainly less known about. The simple fact was you could make 100 V12 engines and have 100 Spitfires or 100 Hurricanes or 50 Whirlwinds - its pretty simple math. But on the flip side there were squadrons of Mosquitos that did these intruder missions that they basically went out and shot and bombed what ever they could find, trains, train yards, fuel depots,.... whatever. With a Mosquito those required 2 people trained (pilot & bombardier) with a Whirlwind it was only a pilot. When you look at the success of the P38 with long range bomber escort I think the Whirlwind missed a calling or at least an opportunity. It could easily have carried extra fuel instead of bombs and done long range bomber escort. Why they didn't look at that? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️?????
5
@yawningkitty457 Nice comment. I'm an aerospace engineer and when I see Spitfires & Lancasters I see incredible planes that I want to fly. I knew a Spitfire pilot years ago and he described what they were like to fly. Its one of the great tragedies of human history sometimes our best work is for all the wrong reasons
5
@franktaylor2649 No probs. In this day a few quaint historic distractions are a breath of fresh air. 👍👍
3
@franktaylor2649 This made for interesting viewing on a very similar aircraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8RMaEs6Npg I think both are cases of "what if?"
3
@yawningkitty457 There was such an aircraft it was called the de Havilland Hornet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8RMaEs6Npg It just came too late in too small of numbers. It and the Whirlwind are simply 2 of WW2s "what ifs" Don't forget they could only build so many engines and if each plane takes 2 then you only have half as many planes in the sky.
3
@yawningkitty457 Go watch the video I linked it has accounts from the Hornet test pilot, which are worth hearing.
2
@casinodelonge Considering the short range of the spitfire ad the losses bomber command suffered the questions simply is WHY wasn't it used an escort fighter? The only answer I have is in the video where they talk about the engine being better at low level. Escorts had to fly as high as the bombers. But that beggars the question why didn't they make a batch of these with Merlin engines? Night fighter is a more difficult question in WW2 as they didn't have radar in the planes until late in the war. Surprisingly the Boulton Paul Defiant was reported to do all right as a NF because the pilot only had to find the planes he didn't have to line up on them. I also think there might have been a Mosquito variant that was good at NF. I guess we can ask this 70 years after the fact and people will probably still be asking 170 years after the fact. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
2
@ivancho5854 Most likely your right. Think about the basic math. 2 Merlins in 2 single engine fighters means 2 planes fighting the Battle of Britain compared to 1. It also doubled the engine & prop maintenance keeping that one plane flying. Its probably what kept the Hornet out later in the war. Even these days single engine planes out number twins by orders of magnitude. For private owners it simply doubles the engine & prop maintenance costs. Its why airlines prefer 2 engine planes over 4. They have half the engine maintenance costs.
2
@yawningkitty457 If you look at it against the single seat versions of the mosquito and how successful they were in night fighter and ground attack roles if the hornet had have ben pushed earlier or the Westland Whirlwind had been given a better chance to prove the concept I think the Hornet would have starred in the long range bomber escort role. If you've ever seen the information on the casualty rates for bomber command and the 8th air force the hornet with long range drop tanks could have been a massive difference. In ground attack if you look at the kill to kill ratio for German Tiger tanks against Sherman's it was something like 7:1. So its ground attack could also have been significant.
1
Hoa Tattis Well that disagrees with many, many other people and that includes people who flew it in the PACIFIC where it was most used. 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️ It was fast, it had long range and had concentrated fire power. If you want to IGNORE where it was most used and was successful then don't complain when you get called ignorant.
1
Hoa Tattis If you don't like getting called out for being stupid then don't be stupid. The world hasn't got a shortage so we don't need you adding to it. 👉🤯
1