Talk:Armstrong Whitworth Whitley/Archive 1

Archive 1

The things you learn

"Early marks of the Whitley had bomb bay doors which were kept closed by bungee cords. The doors were opened by the weight of the released bombs falling on them."-Ashley Pomeroy 15:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The attack on U-206 credited to a Whitley is now believed to have been against U-71. U-71 reported being attacked by a Whitley on the same night at the location but survived undamaged; the fate of U-206 is unknown. See this article at U-boat.net Astro$01 02:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Low Wing?

The previous version of this page stated that the Whitley, unlike the AW.23 from which it is derived, is a mid-wing aircraft. However, the picture accompanying the article shows the wing on the bottom of the fuselage. Do we have an incorrect picture?? I am assuming the picture is correct, and therefore have removed that phrase from the text. If somebody has more solid information, feel free to revert my deletion. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The picture is a Whitley. The AW.23 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane and the Whitley looks very similar, certainly looks low-wing, but references I have seen called it a mid-wing! Perhaps its a matter of the exact place the main spar is connected to the fuselage. Hopefully a wing expert will be along shortly! but I dont see a problem with your edit. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, you got it right, it is a mid-wing location. The photo just makes it difficult to see the actual placement of the spar. See:. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Just to complicate matters, the main wing's angle of incidence was so great that its leading edge was at mid-fuselage height even though the trailing edge was nearer to the bottom! In theory it could be described as a mid/low-wing aircraft, but as pointed out, the position of the main spar may be the determining factor. --Red Sunset 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Added cite ref templates to the books with references in the text. Moved a few inline references to the end of sentences.Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitley Flaps

The article states that flaps were eventually fitted to the aircraft. Tapper's book Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft since 1913 says "in fact, flaps were added at a later stage...." It also mentions criticism of the disposition of the flap controls in the cockpit. I have never seen any photographs or drawings showing any sign of flaps. It seems inconceivable that flaps would have been fitted without doing something about the built-in wing incidence in order to reduce drag, but AWA did some strange things. I worked at AWA in the 1950's and the general belief among the workers was that the nose-down attitude was the result of a D.O. error! (obvious nonsense). Can anyone throw any light on the possible fitment of flaps? Bagwhit (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As you state above, the initial design was without flaps as there was no general acceptance of their use at that time, however they were added later in the design stage, unfortunately when it was too late to alter the wing incidence, as to do so would have delayed the aircraft's entry into service by too long.

The early design was without flaps and the large wing 8.5 degree angle-of-incidence (AofA) was necessary to allow the landing 'float' and run to be within the specified maximum distance demanded by the official requirement. Later when flaps were incorporated into the design the large wing angle became unnecessary but the amount of work needed to re-design the wing AofA and the delay in introducing the aircraft into service it would cause made it not worth the effort for an overall gain of only some 5 or six mph in the cruising speed, an insignificant amount in a night bomber. Flaps were subsequently incorporated into the design before the Whitley prototype K4586 first flew resulting in a landing speed of only around 60 mph. The outboard wing panels also were later given dihedral to improve lateral stability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't the slow speed this made possible though seen as an advantage when parachute dropping stores for SOE? It reduced the dispersal of multiple stores capsules (the modern answer is a large tail ramp and putting them all out together). Another reason why the Whitley stayed in service as long as it did. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Medium bomber or heavy bomber? Conflicts in article

The first paragraph header says this plane is a medium bomber, but in the remaining header, it says it's a heavy bomber: "remained an integral part of the early British bomber offensive until the introduction of four-engined "heavies"". Which one is it? Seems to me like a heavy bomber but lightly armored, but should this classify as a medium bomber? WinterSpw (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Mostly it's an old bomber. Introduced as a heavy bomber, it was soon surpassed in capacity and relegated to being a medium. Quite soon it was simply obsolete as an offensive bomber, as unsurvivable in large waves over hostile airspace, and so was relegated to secondary roles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Guess it's kinda both then. WinterSpw (talk) 10:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I re-read the article, I was mistaken. Based on the text, it is definitively a medium bomber. But it's interesting to note that it was introduced as a heavy bomber? WinterSpw (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it ever was a heavy. It was designed to a specification for a heavy bomber, but I suspect that by the time it appeared it would already have slid down to a medium. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

English

There is some hectic English in this article. One example is "K4586 was powered by a pair and was powered by two 795 hp (593 kW) Tiger IX engines." Most of the problems I've seen so far seem to be about the engines. I can see a way to "fix" the above quote (delete "was powered by a pair and") but I'm afraid something was intended that I'm missing. SDCHS (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It just looks like it has been written by different people and nobody has checked that it is coherent. So well spotted and your are welcome to correct it if you want to make sense. MilborneOne (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo wrongly labelled?

The photo caption 'A RAF Whitley Mk I K7208 in flight, circa 1938' must be wrong, since it shows a Merlin-engined aircraft. I suggest it's a mark IV or V. The upper roundels look pre-war, though, so perhaps this is a prototype?Dean1954 (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, something is amisss. Although these issues are often more complicated than they first appear. Would a Mk IV have been operating with RAF serials by 1938 either? Why are the turrets faired over? Could this indeed be a Mk I (as built), used for engine tests for the next mark? It would be right to tag this caption as {{dubious}}, I think it needs checking through some source based on the K7208 serial before simply changing it.

The original source is here: [1] Andy Dingley (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

K7208 was built as a Mark 1 and then used as one of the Mark IV prototypes (from Putnam's Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918) MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I think the caption should be edited, as it's not really a representative picture of the Mark I Dean1954 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The fitment of the Merlin was performed with the early type of Merlin Power Unit which was also used on the Wellington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.203 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've revised the caption.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"Bomber types" or Bomber type military aircraft?

@Nigel Ish: With this reversion, I'm confused as to how the lead sentence defines the subject of the article. In my opinion, "Bomber type" is incomplete wording. It was not just a type of bomber, it was a military combat aircraft. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 15:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bomber type makes perfect sense in the context - i.e. one of three types or model of bombers - certainly better than "bomber type military combat aircrafts which is confused and poor English.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Weird, never heard it in that context. But fair enough —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 08:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)