|
|
AIRFIX 1:72 WESTLAND WHIRLWIND MK.I
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (kevin.ronayne@nuigalway.ie)
Kit Review submitted:
1 June 2002
From the mid-1930's to the mid 1950's, the British aircraft industry produced some of the most attractive designs in the history of aviation - just think of the Spitfire, Mosquito, Hornet, Meteor, Javelin, Hunter and Vulcan. To that list I would add the Westland Whirlwind, despite its reputation of being a failure. In fact, that seems to be the main attribute associated with the aircraft in the minds of many people. In reality, the Whirlwind deserves more respect than that. It was designed to meet the demanding (and forward-looking) Air Ministry specification F37/35, which was issued in early 1936. Among other things, the specification called for an armament of four 20 mm cannon, which could be regarded as being years ahead of it's time. Westland beat off a variety of single- and twin-engined designs from Bristol, Supermarine, Hawker and Boulton-Paul, which was no mean feat in itself.
Apart from the armament, the Whirlwind brought innovation in other areas - the blown bubble canopy was an obvious feature. The aircraft was powered by two Rolls-Royce Peregrine inline engines. The Peregrine was the design's achilles heel: it was unreliable, and its power dropped off very markedly at altitude. Up to 15,000 ft, the Whirlwind was a very good fighter, but it's effectiveness tailed off markedly at higher altitudes. The problem was that Rolls-Royce were focused almost completely on developing the Merlin at that time, and the lack of a future for the Peregrine helped to seal the fate of the design. Despite large orders, only 114 production aircraft were actually built - some sources say 112.
Despite the limited production run, and plenty of adverse comment from within the RAF and elsewhere, the Whirlwind did have a reasonably productive career. All production aircraft actually saw service with either of two squadrons that used the type, which was noteworthy in itself. After a delay caused by slow production and unfamiliarity with such a radical fighter layout, the Whirlwind only began to see serious action in early 1941. Because of its performance characteristics, it was ideal for use in low-level fighter sweeps across the English Channel. Apart from fighter duties, it was also employed in such specific roles as train-buster because of its firepower. Starting in late 1942, Whirlwinds could carry a 250 lb bomb (later 500 lb) under each wing. In this mode, they gained some notable successes against targets such as armed trawlers and E-boats. Eventually, Whirlwinds were replaced by Hawker Typhoons and the aircraft was declared obsolescent on January 1, 1994.
The 'two-up, two down' arrangement of the Hispano-Suiza cannon was a distinctive feature of the Whirlwind. However, other a number of other gun configurations were either proposed or tested. As the above configuration only allowed for 60 rounds (drum-fed) per gun, a near-horizontal line of belt-fed cannon with 120 shells per gun was assessed, but never put into production. A single 37 mm cannon was also proposed for the anti-shipping role, but this also failed to reach the production stage. Also rejected during the initial design and development stage was a battery of 12 .303 in. (7.7 mm) machine guns. Among other things, the perceived difficulty in servicing and arming such a complicated installation meant that this also was rejected.
Apart from the engine problems and the novelty of being a twin-engined fighter, the Whirlwind was probably a victim of the exacting specification that it was designed to meet. There was very little scope for improvement compared to (say) the Spitfire. For example, the Whirlwind had quite a high wing loading to begin with. This normally only happens during the later stages of an aircraft's development life cycle, when a design is pushed to the limit, with more structural, engine, fuel and ordnance weight being added.
Sadly - and perhaps unsurprisingly - the last airworthy Whirlwind was broken up in 1947.
When I first built this kit in the early 1980's, it was a bit of a mystery. It was a series 2 kit, with a serial number that suggested it was only a few years old. However, it came with a one of the old Series 1 leaflets - older modellers will remember these single-sheet leaflets, which were printed on one side only. Very probably, they were designed to print on the back of those 'bubble' packages. Ah, the nostalgia! At any rate, I always had a nagging feeling that the kit was quite old, even though the mold was very clean and neat. It was only recently that I discovered the true lineage of the kit, thanks to Mark Braithy's review, and some comments that he passed on from a SMAKR reader. Unfortunately, I don't have the persons' name, but here are some of the comments that they sent to Mark (commenst from Bob Perry with thanks - Ed):
"I built my first Whirlwind about 1958. The kit was originally moulded in a sort of dark blue-green plastic, tough to paint - but nobody seemed to paint anything in those days. In fact, this was an entirely different kit; although it was re-released several times Airfix did eventually start from scratch and the second kit is the one you have reviewed. The first kit was quite crude by comparison, suffering outline problems and providing almost no detail parts. The original props were a nightmare - single piece with odd kinks in the blade roots to accommodate the moulding process, or perhaps the tool maker's clumsiness! Oddly enough, the canopies were remarkably similar - for reasons unknown."
So: 1958 or thereabouts - that would be around the same time as such kits as the Beaufighter, Tiger Moth, and original Mosquito FB VI. Some of those horrors are still being sold to unsuspecting novice modellers even today! Thankfully, the revised Whirlwind kit is much better. The newer kit is obviously a revised tooling, with no rivets, finely raised surface detail, largely enclosed sprues, and even the italicised part numbers on the sprues - very much a later Airfix tooling. The stamp on the inside of one of the main parts says 1978, which sounds just about right. Naturally, everything was sealed in a single plastic bag, including the one-piece canopy. There are only 34 pieces - this is a very straightforward kit.
The rest of the package is to the current Airfix standard: an 8-page booklet, with comprehensive construction and painting/decal guides. As usual, paint codes are given for Humbrol only. There are two subject options, one representing each of the two RAF squadrons that operated the type:
Lastly, the decals are a dramatic improvement over what was provided in the past - no shock there either.
This is going to be a very short construction review, partially because it's a simple kit, and partially because Mark Braithy has already said almost everything worth saying regarding the construction process itself. Furthermore, like him, I also took the easier 'wheels up' option, and also finished the aircraft in the earlier 263 Sqn. scheme. I toyed with the idea of adding some under wing bombs and racks from spare parts, but I decided against it on two counts. The first of these was historical accuracy: the aircraft I was reproducing was from December 1940, and would not have been carrying bombs. Even if it survived long enough, it may have been repainted in the later scheme long before it started to carry them. The second reason was the same reason why I chose to build it wheels up, which would not be my normal preference. That reason was aesthetics - it would have been a shame to ruin such a string profile with ungainly bombs and pylons. It's a cheap, easy to build and readily available kit, so I can always build another few in different configurations whenever I have the time and inclination.
Much older boxart - possibly a Series I cover with the original mold.
As I was knocking this kit together, a good friend of mine loaned me the latest issue of the journal Air Enthusiast (May/June 2002, issue 99). The first article in this issue is a detailed review of the Whirlwind's development and service, incorporating a very good selection of interesting pictures and diagrams. Talk about coincidence! This article is highly recommended for anyone who is looking for some decent background information on the type. Among other things, it solved a few mysteries for me. One of these was the purpose of the two fairings on the front underside of the fuselage. The larger fairing on the centreline was designed to collect spent shell cases, and it wasn't always fitted in service. In the kit, this is molded into the two fuselage halves, and could be easily removed before assembly if you wanted to make this modification. A second, smaller fairing was offset to starboard - this, I have now found out, is a gun camera installation. One of the few obvious faults in the kit is that this is located too far outboard. It should be inboard of the wing root, very close to the shell case fairing. On the kit, it's just outboard of the wing root - i.e., it's actually molded into the wing. I didn't have the heart to take the knife to a near-completed kit, although I might do so at some time in the future. It was probably the prospect of building the kit again in the future that stayed my hand - I'll remember to get it right next time.
My experience in building the kit very closely followed that described to Mark Braithy. Like him, I didn't test the propeller assembly against the nacelle wall before assembly. As a result, I made the same mistake by pushing the shaft as far as it would go into the spinner, not realising that there was insufficient distance between the back of the spinner and the retaining circle at the end of the shaft. The moral of the story is to read the reviews, and read them carefully - that's why we write them! I got around my dilemma by constructing new shafts that would hold in place due to the tightness of fit, without the need for a retaining unit. The instructions specify that the yellow propeller tip markings are 1.41 mm long - now that's precision. Like Mark, I also had problems with the upper/lower nacelle fit, both at the front and back - it was nothing that some filler and some sanding couldn't fix. Similar treatment was also required to get the undercarriage doors to fit. One of the reasons I didn't fit the undercarriage was that the wheel wells were completely bereft of detail. The various pictures included in the Air Enthusiast article didn't shed any light on what this area might look like. Not many aviation articles are written with the needs of the scale modeller in mind!
The general level of accuracy in this kit is quite impressive, given the age of even the revised mold. Not only are the dimensions pretty well spot on, but almost all other important features are correctly reproduced as well. For example, the nacelles point upwards slightly, resulting in propellers that point upwards, and a 'droop' effect at the rear of the nacelle. The outer portions of the wings (from the flap/aileron split) have a few degrees of dihedral. The Whirlwind had integral wing tanks located just outboard of the engines. The kit properly replicates the surface detail for these tanks, complete with fuel caps. Just outboard of the tanks on the underside of the wings, there was a light on each side - this is also there. Also present is the bulge over each flap on the inner wing section, which I assume is a radiator exhaust.
There are just a few very minor nitpicks. There is a narrow frame missing on the rear section of the canopy, and also missing are two small fairings at the rear of each flap section. On item I couldn't make up my mind on was whether or not the power units were 'handed'. The Whirlwind suffered from asymmetric tendencies when carrying and dropping bombs, which seems to suggest that there was some torque caused by both propellers turning in the same direction. However, each engine has a small exhaust stub protruding from the back of the exhaust fairings - but only on the inside. This suggests a handed configuration. Some of the pictures I looked at seemed also to show propeller blades that turned in the opposite direction, but other pictures were not conclusive. The propeller units supplied with the kit both turn in the same direction, but it is hardly a hanging offence if that's wrong.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The painting guide is excellent, although a couple of areas are overlooked. These are the insides of the nacelles, and the front lower section of the nose, which in the diagrams are obscured (naturally!) by the nacelles. After I had applied the first coat of upper camouflage (Hu 29 brown and Hu 30 green), I got a bit of a shock. I looked closely at the profile in the Air Enthusiast article, which showed aircraft P6985 (HE-J) of 263 Sqn. This is a widely reproduced profile, and the aircraft in question would be very similar (but not identical) to the aircraft I was building. However, the upper plan view showed a camouflage pattern running in the reverse direction to that illustrated in the kit. A closer look showed that the navigation lights were the wrong way around in the profile view. Panic over - obviously a printing error in the magazine.
The magazine profile shows the topside camouflage wrapping around the leading edge of the outer wing section, as far as the first panel line on the underside. This is not shown in the kit, where the demarcation line is right on the leading edge all the way along the wing. It's probable that there was a fair amount of variation in practice here, but I decided to follow the profile. (Note: the 1942 aircraft has a yellow leading edge running all along the outer wing). For the underside, I used Hu 90 for the 'sky' areas. This is what Airfix specify in the kit, although they have also used some other Humbrol paints for this colour with other kits.
The decals are a far cry from those of twenty years ago. I found them to be of a very high quality, which is what I expected. Like Mark, I did see some minor defects in reproduction and register, but I felt that these were not really visible unless you looked very closely.
This was a very easy kit bash, with no really nasty surprises lurking anywhere. Given the age of the kit, you would always factor in a certain amount of sanding and filling in your expectations. Apart from the nacelles, this wasn't too much of an issue. Even the canopy was an almost perfect fit. I was surprised not to see the Whirlwind on the modellers 'most wanted' list on the MPM website, as it's another obvious subject for the Czech company. As I don't build in 1/48 scale, I won't be building the Classic Airframes Whirlwind kit, which leaves this as the only kit for the time being. Despite its age, this is still an excellent little kit.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
Note: the following related reviews links have not been updated since early 2000's - more kit reviews of this aircraft may now be on SMAKR, not reflected below. Refer to the Index for other kits of this type.
Related Reviews:-
Airfix 1/72 Westland Whirlwind (myself)
Related INBOX Reviews:-
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
