Armstrong Whitworth Whitley Re-Design 1938

[Fearless Leader]

If anyone would humour an idle thought of mine, particularly those with specific, technical aviation knowledge, I'd appreciate it.

Now in OTL the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley was the oldest of the bombers available to the RAF at the outset of the war. Yet it remained in production until 1943 and ultimately AW made 1814 aircraft. The majority of these aircraft (1466) were of the Mark V variant which featured a pair of 1145hp Merlin X engines in place of the unreliable Armstrong Siddeley Tiger in addition to a few other modifications and a redesigned tail.

Unfortunately, none of these modifications addressed the aircraft's main flaw (not the bungee chord bomb bay doors, that was addressed earlier AFAIK): the wing's angle of incidence. Due to wing flaps being relatively new at the time John Lloyd designed the Whitley, the first two prototypes flew without them and compensated for that by having the wing set at a relatively large angle of incidence to guarantee safe landing conditions. AW ultimately fitted wing flaps to all production Whitleys but the angle of incidence remained unchanged. This meant that the Whitley served its entire career with a distinct nose-down flying attitude which caused significant drag. I've never quite understood why the wing wasn't modified for the Mark V along with all the other changes. Anyone have any insights? My initial guess is that redesigning such a crucial portion might lead to unacceptable delays given the war on the horizon in Dec. 1938.

But let's say that they go through with it anyways in TTL. Anyone have any idea roughly how much faster the Mark V would be in that case? What about if they removed the front turret and redesigned the nose to be more streamlined while they're at it and more thoroughly redesigned the tail as well? Any chance of redesigning the bomb bays to allow for larger ordinance? Even if the latter is a bit of a stretch, would the redesigned wing help it remain in service longer/better or help it transition to service with Coastal Command?

I'll admit that all of this would constitute a vain effort to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but it's an interesting one (to me at least).

 

[tomo pauk]

Whitley was the best bomb-lugger that RAF had when ww2 started; Blenheim was older (granted, not the same class of the bombers). It's (Whitley's) max bomb load was 8000 lbs, that includes 2x2000 lbs + 2x500 lbs + 12x250 lbs.
What we'd need is 'to do a Lancaster' thingy - modify the wing for 4 engines. Shove the 4 Pegasus engines in front of the wing, and 'tilt' the wing a bit do it does not have that a pronounced incidence. Use the A-W Ensign as a pattern aircraft to speed up the job. Since it is a night bomber, lost the front turret and streamline the nose.
We will not gain that much of speed (4 clunky radials and thick wing are not very conductive for speed), but the engine-out situation and possible the payload capacity should improve. The long range marine patrol job capacity should also go up. Plus it does not need Merlins anymore, that can go in other aircraft.

 

[PMN1]

BSP has some information on a 4 engined Whitley, it came too late in the day to be of any use.

 

[Driftless]

(snip) Since it is a night bomber, lost the front turret and streamline the nose.
(snip) The long range marine patrol job capacity should also go up. Plus it does not need Merlins anymore, that can go in other aircraft.

If the new base form is no front turret, could you instead put some weapons in the solid nose for the maritime role?

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Would going with their AW.23 proposal instead help? It even looks similar to the Wellington.

Could it be then upgraded 'Manchester' style into a four engine heavy?

Much obliged!

 

[Fearless Leader]

Whitley was the best bomb-lugger that RAF had when ww2 started; Blenheim was older (granted, not the same class of the bombers). It's (Whitley's) max bomb load was 8000 lbs, that includes 2x2000 lbs + 2x500 lbs + 12x250 lbs.
What we'd need is 'to do a Lancaster' thingy - modify the wing for 4 engines. Shove the 4 Pegasus engines in front of the wing, and 'tilt' the wing a bit do it does not have that a pronounced incidence. Use the A-W Ensign as a pattern aircraft to speed up the job. Since it is a night bomber, lost the front turret and streamline the nose.
We will not gain that much of speed (4 clunky radials and thick wing are not very conductive for speed), but the engine-out situation and possible the payload capacity should improve. The long range marine patrol job capacity should also go up. Plus it does not need Merlins anymore, that can go in other aircraft.

AFAIK the Whitley was never fitted for the Pegasus but rather the unreliable Tiger radial engine so that's a non starter I suppose a pair of Pegasus' could be incorporated if the need arose. Some Ensign's had 4 Wright R-1820's put in instead which were markedly better than the Tigers they replaced. There was a proposal to put 2 R-1830's in the Whitley but that never got anywhere. From what I can gather the 8000lb bomb load was theoretical and required a concrete runway and short flight time neither of which were in high supply for the RAF early in the war. Usual bombloads were around 3000lbs in OTL due to the runways and range the available missions required.

BSP has some information on a 4 engined Whitley, it came too late in the day to be of any use.

I saw that. AW's insistence on putting most of the bombs in the wings probably made that design a non-starter due to Bomber Command's evolving mission.

If the new base form is no front turret, could you instead put some weapons in the solid nose for the maritime role?

I'd imagine they'd initially stick a .303 or two in there, but I don't think something like what the US did with the B-25H is in the RAF's doctrine at the time.

View attachment 628649

Would going with their AW.23 proposal instead help? It even looks similar to the Wellington.

Could it be then upgraded 'Manchester' style into a four engine heavy?

Much obliged!

From what I can gather, the AW.23 was even more primitive than the Whitley so that's probably a non-starter. The AW.23 was designed to fill the same requirement as the Bristol Bombay which was a hybrid Bomber/Transport. OTL's Whitley maintained a number of these transport features, such as an emphasis on having bombs in the wings so the fuselage could carry cargo, which IMO impeded it's effectiveness as a bomber. As @PMN1 stated earlier, AW did push a 4 engine Whitley in OTL but it didn't get anywhere.

Looking at the schematics available online and reading a few testimonies from OTL pilots I came up with a few more ideas:
-Remove the outer bomb cells in the wings. They were almost never used in OTL so that doesn't impact its effectiveness as a bomber all that much. While they're at it, they could expand the fuel tanks in the wings and remove the fuel tank in the fuselage.
-To compensate for losing some of the bomb bay space in the wings, the port for the ventral turret present in the Mark III but removed in subsequent models due to drag could be fully deleted and allow for a larger, expanded bomb bay which could also fit a torpedo (looking towards a future with Coastal Command.)
-I don't have a whole lot of aeronautical expertise, but these modifications and the ones I mentioned earlier should produce a pretty effective bomber in 1939/40. It would be simpler to build than the Wellington, probably just as fast if not a smidge faster and capable of carrying a similar number of bombs. Could TTL see the numbers of Whitleys and Wellington's flipped (10k+ Whitley's produced vs. 2k Wellingtons)? Merlins would be an issue, but there were options of fitting American engines or British ones.
-In making a pure bomber version of the Whitley instead of a version which maintained a number of transport aircraft features, I wonder if AW could comes up with a pure transport version to compensate. It would probably be too much to have a rear ramp, but removing the tail guns and providing an expanded door could give the RAF a pretty decent transport aircraft for the time.
-Assuming that the 4 engine Whitley maintains the above features while continues to improve on the design of the wing, such an aircraft could very well give the Stirling, Halifax, and Lancaster a run for their money.

 

[tomo pauk]

AFAIK the Whitley was never fitted for the Pegasus but rather the unreliable Tiger radial engine so that's a non starter. Some Ensign's had 4 Wright R-1820's put in instead which were markedly better. There was a proposal to put 2 R-1830's in the Whitley but that never got anywhere. From what I can gather the 8000lb bomb load was theoretical and required a concrete runway and short flight time neither of which were in high supply for the RAF early in the war. Usual bombloads were around 3000lbs in OTL due to the runways and missions available.

Pegasus is pretty much a starter - it is in volume production, it is light, and it is reliable. Four of them per aircraft will do. Tiger was indeed a lousy engine.
'Short flight time' was not something that can be 'available'? Granted, the range with 8000 lb of bombs was short, since it required reducing the fuel load or the engine power will not do it for take off - another reason going with 4 engines.

 

[Fearless Leader]

Pegasus is pretty much a starter - it is in volume production, it is light, and it is reliable. Four of them per aircraft will do. Tiger was indeed a lousy engine.
'Short flight time' was not something that can be 'available'? Granted, the range with 8000 lb of bombs was short, since it required reducing the fuel load or the engine power will not do it for take off - another reason going with 4 engines.

Gah, I realized how that sounded only after the fact I tried to edit it in time but didn't quite make it. I completely agree about the Pegasus, I was referring to the Tiger being a piece of junk.

As for the "Short Flight Time," all the testimonies I read (granted not that there's a lot out there) stated something along the lines of "IF the Whitley could carry 8000lbs it would need a long concrete runway in Dover and have a target in Calais."

Mounting 4 engines is going to require a very different wing and also runs afoul of Lord Beaverbrook's initial plans. If AW goes forward with it, I don't see it happening until 1942/3. Speaking of Beaverbrook though, I wonder if TTL's upgraded Whitley could end up becoming the main RAF bomber of the beginning of the war especially if it's redesigned bomb bay allows it to take over torpedo bombing duties from the cramped Hampden. It would probably need a dorsal turret in that case, but that's not outlandish, particularly if the fuel tank's been moved from behind the pilots to the wings.

 

[tomo pauk]

As for the "Short Flight Time," all the testimonies I read (granted not that there's a lot out there) stated something along the lines of "IF the Whitley could carry 8000lbs it would need a long concrete runway in Dover and have a target in Calais."

A combination of a huge airframe, big payload and low engine power does such things

Mounting 4 engines is going to require a very different wing and also runs afoul of Lord Beaverbrook's initial plans. If AW goes forward with it, I don't see it happening until 1942/3. Speaking of Beaverbrook though, I wonder if TTL's upgraded Whitley could end up becoming the main RAF bomber of the beginning of the war especially if it's redesigned bomb bay allows it to take over torpedo bombing duties from the cramped Hampden. It would probably need a dorsal turret in that case, but that's not outlandish, particularly if the fuel tank's been moved from behind the pilots to the wings.

The Whitley needs to be converted to a 4-engine version ASAP, with prototype flying before 1939. This is why I've suggested that Ensign (converetd to 4 Pegasus) can be used to speed up the job. Preferably, it (Whitley) should've been conceived as such from the get go, ie. no 2-engined historical type.

OTOH, slapping the 2 Hercules engines per aircraft (instead of Merlins) might've helped with palyoad capability, as well as in the engine-out situation (is not as good as if it was a 4-engined A/C).

 

[Driftless]

What about running the Whitley as a tri-motor? I know that wasn't a British thing, but the Italians, Germans, Americans, Dutch, French made a number of trimotors in the '30's