Have sometimes wondered was it really impossible to mount Merlins to Whirlwind ??Tony Williams wrote:I can't resist this one!
Agreed. It was as fast as a Spitfire, very compact and with four 20mm in the nose had devastating firepower. Its main problem was that development took too long; if it had been ready in time for the Battle of Britain (as it should have been) it would probably be regarded as one of the classic planes of WW2, because it would have chewed up the Luftwaffe bombers far more than the Spitfires and Hurris could. Then it was unlucky to use the Peregrine engine, which was half of a Vulture. When the Vulture was cancelled, the Peregrine went too, so it effectively had no engine, in terms of any future development.Polynikes wrote: Not sure the Westland Whirlwind deserves a worst weapon label though.
Probably - the Merlins were big and heavy and the Whirlwind was very small.Mark V wrote:Have sometimes wondered was it really impossible to mount Merlins to Whirlwind ??
8)Mark V wrote:You sound afraid.ChristopherPerrien wrote:
Yes, "too" , it is a direction, like "North" "South" "West" "East".
"Too", a direction that we are not going to go toward.
Don't worry - i think Juha (and the others in Finn horde) will spare all of you this time....
Mark V
The only British sub armed with a heavy gun (12 inch) was the M2 in 1928, the trial was a failure and the gun was removed soon after.ChristopherPerrien wrote:How about the British subs with the 12" cannons.?
The Welkin while it was never used cannot be described as ineffective and deficent,Topspeed wrote:How about Westland Welkin ?
I love the looks of that 21.34 m spanned high altitude fighter.
Unfortunately none of them were used in combat..77 built.
Its not really fair to compare an aircraft which entered service in the early 30's against one which first entered service in 1940Definitely A Zero was a far more advanced aircombat machine than a I-16 "RATA".
?
Here is a link:redcoat wrote:The Welkin while it was never used cannot be described as ineffective and deficent,
The major reason it was never put into service was the fact that the Luftwaffe had stopped using high altitude aircraft by the time it was ready for service
Its not really fair to compare an aircraft which entered service in the early 30's against one which first entered service in 1940
Look at that Westland Welkin..it is awesome ! Really I mean it.Mark V wrote:It is funny that it just don't get into heads of our dear American friends. Brewster was very good airplane - in Marine and USN use it was just bit overburdened with too heavy equipment and fuel load.
Brewster really doesn't deserve the reputation it has in US and Britain.
When flown in lighter condition by competent aviators it ruled our sky uncontested where ever it was seen till the end of 1942 - and i am not talking about Ratas. Brewster was many ways superior against Hurricane (which FAF pilots found especially easy prey) and LaGG-3.
In 1943-44 enemy fighters with superior performance (Hey - what you expect ?? - more than double amount of horsepower than in war-weary R-1820 Cyclones !!) started causing troubles for Brewsters. But even then - La-5s and Yaks had every reason to take Brewster very seriously - like victory statistics prove.
What Brewsters of Fighter Squadron 24 did to I-153s and I-16s in summer-autumn 1941 i don't care to discuss further, as it was more slaughter than aerial combat.
Regards, Mark V
PS. But hey, i guess some explanation why inferior race orientals with poor eye-sightshot US and Brit pilots down by dozens must be found. And the easiest is the equipment.
