The pilot shown at 6:45, with his plane "Comrades in Arms", was my uncle, Eddie Musgrave, an RAF pilot with 137 Squadron. Flying his "whirlybomber"", he attacked the German auxiliary cruiser Togo (setting out on her maiden voyage after conversion, and about to be renamed Coronel), forcing the ship back to port in Boulogne and ending its cruiser career before it begun. He was later shot down over France, and is buried at Pihen-lès-Guînes.

A person that is willing to look at their previous work and say they were mistaken, let alone publish their corrections, is a benefit to all of us that strive to remember the past as accurately as possible. Well done Ed and thank you!

If we didn't make mistakes we wouldn't learn anything!....Great job mate!!!

One of the main squadrons to use it had a quite diversity of air that it used in WWII. RAF 263 started with Gloster Gladiators and was in Norway with them. On return they briefly flew Hurricanes until the Whirlwinds came to be. Typhoons were their next steeds. Finally (although a different unit taking over their squadron number) the Meteors. From biplane to jets in 6 years.

Probably one of my first Airfix kits I ever made, still have the 1977 Airfix catalog which the Whirlwind featured in and I always thought this was such a cool looking aircraft as a kid 👍

For all of the problems and failures, it was still the most beautiful airframe, like flying Art Deco.

The best thing about this video is that it makes sense. Still. That was one hot looking airplane

Thanks for The Westland Whirlwind an aircraft that intrigued me as as kid and through adulthood. [from Australia]

Apparently, the last flying Whirlwind was used as a private aircraft by Westland people in the late 1940's. What a shame they had to go and destroy it otherwise it would be sitting in a museum for us all to see today.

Another point , 4 cannon Beaufighter was becoming available , with observer / navigator / radar operator. Also 4 cannon Hurris were in development too

Well done, Ed! Oh, those props! Everyone talks about the airframe and/or engines but a prop plane only functions as well as its prop. The Rotol constant speed props, for example, did as much to hold the line as the Spit, the Hurricane, or even the Merlin! It took several aeronautical engineering courses for me to understand that and I hope I can pass some of that along here. Anyone who knows much of anything about the P-47 Thunderbolt has heard of the "paddle blade propellors" that transformed it from adequate to excellent but almost no one explains why. I'll try to keep this simple. A propeller, like any airfoil, produces lift and drag and both increase with speed until, at some point, they cancel out. A thin airfoil, like a paddle blade prop or Rotol prop or F-104 wing, will continue to produce more lift than drag up to a high speed. An airfoil more like a Fokker D.VII hits that point at a much lower speed. Simple? Not really but we're getting.

It's a wonderful-looking aircraft, I first saw its outline in a WWII comic book as a child, and I've always loved it despite its issues. What a cool looking plane!!

very lucky to have a photo of Harold Penrose flying a Whirlwind over Boscombe Down. My father did much development work with Harold on the Whirlwind and the Welkin. Harold was a truly wonderful test pilot

Great video, and your "pushing air out of the way" explanation was bang on. Doesn't oversimplify.... that's really what's happening.

It was pretty, got to give it that

Thank you for this very informative video. My great uncle (Allan Britton) flew and died in a Whirlwind fighter P6980 of 263 squadron. His plane crashed on a training gun run, on a set target in the Bristol Channel, about a mile off Burnham on Sea. 12th December 1940 aged 23. I'm really proud of him, he's mentioned on the Battle of Britain memorial in London. Any information about the Whirlwind and what part he played in WW2 I find fascinating and hope that my children will keep his story alive. Thanks again.

The Westland Whirlwind was - for my two pence - the perfect example of the very last of the first-half-of-the-war planes that simply couldn't be made any better than they were but were the ultimate expression of design and technology that had started with the Italian and Japanese (then German, British and Americans) c. 1934-35.

The De Havilland Hornet was effectively a Whirlwind with Merlins. It was said to be the finest propellor aircraft ever by Winkle Brown. The Whirlwind was definitely ahead of its time and full of innovations which later other companies borrowed and used in their designs. DH Mosquito being one.

I enjoyed building and playing with the first Airfix Whirlwind model kit when I was a child. Always liked the looks of the Whirlwind.

A fitter (now deceased) who was a member of our club, Scarborough Historical Aircraft Club, was based at Hucknall which was Rolls-Royce's test airfield. He worked on the whirlwind and described the cooling system as, 'A dogs dinner'. He told us when they had sorted the cooling system out on the one they had the engines performed reliably.

Great job Ed, no need to be so humble. Anyone who admits their mistakes is a mensch.

Excellent review of this fighter. Much better than many I have seen. There is real need for more videos like this of lesser know aircraft. Do we really NEED another video on the Spitfire or Hurricane? Keep up the great work.

Excellent analysis. You are correct, it's often not a case of why didn't they use so and so engine on this plane, it's a case of we want this plane *because* it uses another engine. People don't understand production.

First saw this aircraft in a War Picture Library comic in the 70's. Always wondered why it wasnt as ubiquitous as the other great British twin engined strike aircraft such as the Mosquito and Beaufighter. Bill Gunston's book on British fighters cast the source of the problem as being the engines, but now I am seeing its much more than that. Another myth busting episode from Ed!

So glad I came across this clip , because the Westland whirlwind was my first air fix model as a child and I had forgotten I had built one until I came across this clip, thank you for bring back a very distant memory

I made the Airfix kit around 50 years ago. Today I have the 1/48 and recently took delivery of the new 1/32 version. A beautiful plane and so very similar to the post-war Hornet.

I very much enjoy this channnel and this video underscores one of the reasons why. You share new information when you get it, regardless that it might contradict an earler vid, which shows your honest dedication. Well done, IMHO.

I got to know the Whirlwind through a Commando cartoon magazine story in the 80s. Watching this video I just realised with it's development date that it must have been one of the first aircraft to feature the perspex tear-drop bubble canopy in 1940. That is far ahead of most other WWII fighters. I seem to remember that it also had hydraulic assisted control surfaces. I found this video interesting in that problems were not so much the engines but rather the propellers and constant speed hubs. The Whirlwind also fits into the same category as the Me 110 in the pre-war category of Heavy Fighter. The 110 was not without it's problems but found it's niche as a night fighter at great cost to Bomber Command.

No matter how hard you try, you just can't beat the good old Mozzy!

Same problem with Brit Air ministry as German RLM. Stuff (fuel, materials) was earmarked for existing designs before new designs. Mosquito was approved because it didn't use strategic Aluminum. Whirlwind used existing low demand engines. Problem with this and Me110 was that fighters require turning radius to turn with target when dogfighting. The weight of the engines extended out on the wings made banking, required for turns, slower than single engine aircraft without heavy wing weights. Only twins with competitive bank rate was Do335 and P-38 (not sure why ailerons were that effective).

When I was a child I loved building model aircraft kits. My favourite was the Whirlwind. As for fitting the the Merlin, I don't believe it was possible to do without a major redesign. The Merlin was a lot longer and 50% heavier. That would move the centre of gravity well forward. To be counter that would have required a much longer fuselage and / organisation moving to the wings forward. Then the wing area would have to be increased to compensate for the extra 1/2 ton of engines. By the time you do that it would virtually be a new aircraft.

Interesting and thorough perspective. I would be interested in a Greg's Airplanes viewpoint on the matter.

Top 10 Military history channels on youtube.

Nice to hear that Rotol blades were a success in the prototype. Becoming an apprentice at Dowty in 1978, blades were still a big part of their business, and they are still going. Always loved the look of the Whirlwind, it really did look the part with the cannons all mounted in the nose, it looked deadly. Two engines and the thin wing made it look like a race aircraft, and it should have been very fast. One of the early Airfix kits my Dad ever made when I was a kid.

Well done for this. Shows class mate! Being able to calmly reassess. Nice one.

The Whirlwind was troubled by mismatched props and engine issues, but it was a wonderful aircraft.

It is worth noting that in the Whirlwind the layout of the Peregine allowed for an excellent level of cowl streamlining. Not realy equalled with the Merlin until the 'streamline' 130 & 131 versions that had repositioned ancilliaries as used in the DH Hornet but by then the Merlin was a very highly developed engine.

A great video.I went on to read the articles linked in the description. Talk about " so near, yet so far". This could have been a truly great aeroplane.

Indeed a very interesting video. I can remember as a child in the 1960’s building an Airfix model of of it, one of the first that I ever built.

I spoke with a geezer at a festival in Oxfordshire who said that his step father had flown WW’s and they had been trying to get the go ahead for ‘intruder missions’ (his term) during the B of B. They wanted to follow the bombers back to their aerodromes and hit them as they landed. However, the brass “fucked about too much” ( his words again) and by the time it was green lighted the battle had essentially ended. The only other thing I’d heard was the WWs were being looked at by the FAA. They wanted a navalised version but got bogged down with whether to have an extra crewman or not.

I think the biggest overall takeaway from this video for everyone should be: a reminder that "history" is a constant work in progress. (also, that reflecting on what you, as in anyone, already thinks, is a good thing to do too) I think most people know this, but it is said far too little.

WWII "heavy fighters" were almost invariably, crewed by at least two crew. As a twin-engined single seat fighter, this aircraft was in a rare category that included the American P-38 and the idea saw it's best incarnation as the DH Hornet, just post-war. It showed great potential and it is a shame that it was not refined and developed further.

I've always loved the look of the Whirlwind and thought it could have been a world - beater given time for development. But there's the rub. Time is a luxury in a war and there already were aircraft quite capable of taking it to the enemy. The Whirlwind's strengths lay in the superb view afforded its pilots by the bubble canopy and its armament.

Well that article made a lot of sense and certainly turned everything I thought I knew about this aircraft on its ear. As always, I really appreciate your work, and I guess in this case the work of your primary source as well.

I remember seeing - that was in 1962 - in a 1944 (forgot the month) issue of the American FLYING Magazine an advertisement for scale models of warplanes of the time, including the Brewster Buffalo, Lockheed Hudson (with the tagline "Used with terrific results against Japs in the Solomons" !), the nazi Focke-Wulf FW-190, and the Westland Whirlwind. That's my 1st knowledge of this plane.

Hey Ed, Yeah Everyone Should Ramble As Well As You! You're Definitely King Of The "What Ifs!" I Wonder How They Performed In Aerial Combat?

Excellent video, undoubtedly the greater aerodynamic knowledge available today regarding this aircraft and indeed others is changing our historical understanding. It would be interesting to review the impact of propellers on the vulture engine with the Manchester when the vulture worked perfectly well with the Tornado. The other problem for the Whirlwind, was the Beaufighter which was developed from the already developed Bristol Beaufort so could utilise existing machine tools, requiring a new fuselage. Effectively two aircraft’s for the price of one. A similar solution resulted in Lancaster from the Manchester the impact on manufacturing machine tools was minimal.Then off course there is the elephant in the room, mosquito, the Whirlwind was doomed trying to complete with the Beaufighter and Mosquito when both could carry centimetre radar and assortment of heavy weapons.

Really enjoyed your write up - Thank You! 👍👍👍

I hadn't known it was a Teddy Petter design. What a career that men had!

Like your style mate. Interesting and informative. You have my subscription.

I titled my recent artwork of this aeroplane 'under powered perfection' in contrast to the 'overpowered perfection' Brown described with the Hornet. I'm going to have to give that second thoughts now!

Excellent video! I must admit that I have alway had a soft spot for the rakish lines of the Whirlwind.

I still think this is one of the coolest looking British planes of ww2. This and the Mosquito are my favorite.

Excellent analysis Ed. THANKS!

Great video as always, Ed

As always a superb presentation ! Thank you so much for all of your videos - great stuff !

Really good job on the update. :-)

Makes perfect sense. Another thing to consider. As a Peregrine powered Whirlwind meant two less Hurricanes, a Merlin powered Whirlwind meant two less Spitfires, the one aircraft giving Göering nightmares. The Hurricane was an excellent ground attack aircraft and the Spit was excellent at altitude and outclassed all German fighters until the arrival of the Fw 190. The Whirlwind seemed to suffer from similar problems to the Me-110 basically and without on board radar it wouldn't cut the night fighter role. To put the nail in the coffin, The De Havilland Mosquito arrived in 1941. Game Over. They must have done something right with the airframe in the way of stability under high powered engines as the airframe is very similar to the Gloster Meteor. I built a model of a Whirlwind as a kid, along with most other popular combat aircraft of the European and Pacific theatres, I recognised it instantly.

Outstanding as always ED!

Great video, always liked the whirlwind, and got a few models to build... keep up the good work.

I still think it was a crying shame that she wasn't developed. The Whelkin proved it could be done. Beautiful aircraft. Imagine if we had her in time for the battle of Britain?

I am liking the Whirilwind even more.

Brilliant research and great video! Learned a lot!

Very informative, love these Videos, keep em coming Ed :)

Thanks for this video.

Great new info to think about. And, reconstruction of this pretty bird would be fantastic!

Teddy Petter's obsession was to create small, lightweight, low-drag aircraft, if they wished to put Merlin's on it, they would have had to redesign the whole aircraft to carry the extra weight and power/torque, and that aircraft would have been the Welkin. The air ministry was looking for an aircraft to act as a flying test bed for the Frank Whittle jet engine and the Whirlwind was looked at for this but it was realized that even those jets would have been too heavy for the aircraft which is why it was left to Gloster to build one from scratch. The horsepower created by the early Merlin was less than a thousand so not much more than the Peregrine for a much heavier engine, also as all these engines were only around 40% efficient, the engines were actually producing near to 3000 HP but most of this was wasted due to heat, noise, friction drag, regarding the drag of the thick propellers and their extra drag and supersonic drag, keep in that mind.

If you want a really good analysis of an aircraft type you have to look past accepted folklore and speak to someone like the late Captain Eric Brown. Someone with experience in a wide variety of aircraft will always be able to pick an aircrafts strong and weak points. I suspect many of the folks who wrote about the Whirlwind in the 1950's had little to no experience in the type, let alone test pilot experience. Glad to see this interesting aircraft given a second look.

Canadair developed in the fifties an aircraft called the dynavert. It had tilting wings to provide vertical lift. Look it up on KZfaq. But what very few know is that the whirlwind was designed so that it could do the exact same thing. THAT is why it was developed with an engine that could run in both directions. Teddy Petters uncle Percy was the big driving influence in developing STOL/VTOL. The genius lay in adapting an airframe that could be converted to the same. Combining a tilting wing with fowler flaps thrust vectoring gave classified variants the ability to do high speed channel crossings and still land on very short to non existent landing site's in occupied France in particular. These variants though few in number were flown by the most highly skilled pilot's who built what they flew and knew the aircraft litteraly inside and out. The conventional wing spar was replaced by a tubular sleeved spar. All classified variants were fitted with self destruct to avoid the technical specifications falling in to enemy hands.

Thanks Ed - Dinger's webpages look great, and his page on the Whirlwind was fab. As someone else has said, I wonder what Greg's Airplanes would make of this.... (probably an excellent 45 minute video with lots of NACA references and at least three graphs!)

RAMBLING? This is outstandingly informative sir. Thank you.

Really good video Ed, you never stop learning with history, that's what is so fascinating about it. Engine/airframe mismatches is a favourite topic of mine - the struggles of the Merlin powered Halifax is a prime example. Thanks for sharing and linking to the Whirlwind project too.

Thanks Ed, an excellent and concise summary of Petter’s little masterpiece (if a little flawed..the aircraft that is). The history of Petter with his superb designs and his career from Lysander to Lightning is truly revelatory, a lonely genius. His ‘peice de resistance’ the Canberra is testimony to his talent.

The Whirlwind became a success eventually though when they replace the engines with jets moved the wings more aft and called it the Meteor.

Excellent piece on a rare-ish aircraft, many thanks for posting.

Brilliant, this is an aircraft that has fascinated me since I was a kid, I'm glad you've removed some of the shadow hanging over a mean looking machine.

Although it never lived up to expectations that's one of my favorite aircraft I just love the way it looks

Remember building an Airfix model when about 12 and thinking this is my favourite! - So much for if it looks right it flies right - as the aircraft looks fantastic!

My great grandfather flew whirlwinds and said that they were a great airplane. Took a while to get used to, but a lot of the problems he had was his Internet connection made the whole game laggy

You need to tutor the guy that makes dark skies. You do everything better. Good pace, well researched. Well done!

A twin engine layout reduces roll rate but can carry more concentrated firepower. The P 38 Lightning was quite successful.

A great presentation, Ed. Thank you for bringing us up-to-date on the research about this 'kite. I'd also recommend you check out Greg Baughen's series of books on the RFC and RAF over the 1910-1945 period (not yet a completed series. Currently at approx 1942). While not specific to the Westland Whirlwind, his study of the RAF's interwar planning and procurement sheds additional light on why the Whirlwind's production was curtailed. As you point out, it had as much to do with economic and production considerations as with shortcomings in its design and performance. While one of my favorite aircraft of the period and certainly an aesthetically attractive machine, it sets the lie to the old adage "if it looks right..."

Excellent and interesting summary!

Wow, wow, wow. Hold on a minute. The Kestrel engine was used in the prototype Messerschmidt Bf109. I wasn’t aware of that, now that, would make an excellent topic for a video! Keep up the great work Ed, I’ve been following your videos for a while now and the production has improved dramatically, your research is very thorough and the topics always interesting with just the right amount of quirky to catch my eye 👍

Well put together video.

I recall reading an account by a Whirlwind pilot. He liked it, but he suggested that it needed three changes. 1. Switch to Merlin engines. 2. More ammunition. 3. The ability to move fuel between engines. Their squadron gave up the Whirlwinds and were given Hurricanes. They were not at all impressed.

It was certainly a futuristic design, and was an exceptionally clean looking aircraft. Maybe with further development it could have been a major player in WWII.

A great recap and address of what if's.

We did build a whirlwind with Merlin's, we called it the Mosquito. Joking aside if you read the history of the Spitfire you will see that the RAF considered the Whirlwind the answer to their problems when they thought neither the Spitfire or the Hurricanes could carry cannons. I think that the demonstration that both could be armed with cannon was as great a factor in its demise as the engine problems or its cost. And of course the Welkin suffered with compressibility problems which killed that project off

While the Peregrine is the key problem, there are a lot of other things you could fix that would enhance and extend the service of the Whirlwind. 1] Belt feed for the cannon; doubling ammo load. 2] Cross-piping of fuel tanks; increasing range & mitigating battle damage. 3] Replacement of air intake filters with larger, more efficient types; improving engine performance. 4] Extension and further streamlining of nose; easier access to armament & increase in speed. 5] Removal of leading-edge slats; reduce landing problems & save weight. It would have surpassed the Hurricane and kept up with the Typhoon to the start of 1944 probably, seeing another year in service. In fact, a Whirlwind Mk.II with improved Peregrines; 100 octane fuel, and the improvements listed above might have delayed/reduced the numbers of Typhoons produced, if not stymied the type altogether.

Love that plane!!!....nice to see a vid on it!!

Love these videos ... I get to see things I didn't know existed!

OMG!!!!! MY FAVORITE WW2 FIGHTER GETS ITS OWN, ABOVE 5-MINUTE VIDEO!!! I remember when you did that original video and thought "holy crap! My favorite WW2 fighter gets its own video!" Thank you much for both! Sounds like the production was set to fail from the start due to its design compromises, prop changes, and bureaucracy.

So De Havilland scuppered the Whirlwind in order to make the Mosquito look good... The buggers!.. Having been born and raised in Yeovil I've always had a soft spot for Westland products. So many thanks, Ed, for shifting the responsibility for the failure of this gorgeous aircraft to a rival factory. (Joking)... A very interesting reassessment, as ever. 👍

Very good video and well done on the narration.

I think a point that is largely lost is that any enemy bomber hit by the whirlwinds four 20mm canon would never have bombed again!

This aircraft which has various failures laid against it, served in its latter role of attack aircraft - flying Rhubarb missions over Europe. The low numbers of planes (114) that got into service - did not stop these units becoming a royal pain in the arse to the Germans. They caused far more effect given their number than one might think. They became a scourge for enemy shipping, and train engines. They were well known also for being a match for the ME109 down low, and no pushover.

Brilliant, as ever.

Awesome. Thank you for posting!

Did your research include a magazine called "Look and Learn"? Besides filling in gaps in my education in the 1960s, it had a feature about the Whirlwind, which attributed its demise to the interaction between the propellors and the engines. I was only a schoolboy then; I didn't become an engineer until the late 1970s. But I did remember the outline of the article.