Alternatives to the Blackburn Firebrand

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk said:
Hence this thread
Hellcat was rated to carry a torpedo. P-38 was tested with two.
Click to expand...
Well then you're talking semantics -

The Skyraider, for what ever you want to call it, met the bill. It carried a torpedo, bombs and not only can it obviously hold it's own against late war fighters, but proved itself in combat against MiG-17s!!!!

Perhaps if it was used by the Mauritius air force and given the designation "F-10" it would make the cut!
 

It was proved that pilot of MiG-17 was acting against the doctrine of not engaging in a turning fight against a slow opponent, and paid the price; yes, the cool nerves and skill of the US pilot also played the part. The AD was not any more of a fighter than it was the SBD, or the Martin Maryland that A. Warburton used to kill Italian aircraft.

A 'fighter' part should be much more present on a TF here.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Well it was more of a fighter than the Firebrand could ever be
Click to expand...
Agreed. The title of this thread "Alternatives to the Blackburn Firebrand" says it all for me. Scrap the Firebrand and the torpedo-fighter concept entirely and instead focus on getting the Sea Fury into earlier service in greater numbers. Also abort the Firecrest, Spearfish and Wyvern programs and instead get the Attacker (or a better jet fighter) and the Gannet into earlier service. Though can Fairey get to the Gannet without the failure and learnings of the Spearfish program?

The Gannet is clearly where FAA was meant to go. Per Wikipedia, Admiralty requirement GR.17/45, for which the Gannet was made, sought a twin-seat aircraft capable of performing both anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and strike missions. Clearly this contradicts the need for a torpedo fighter, and such outlandish distractions are probably in part why the Gannet ordered in 1945 didn't enter FAA service until 1953!

If we must pursue a British-designed prop-powered fighter-torpedo concept, then use the existing Sea Hornet for feasibility trials before binning the idea. Folded, the Sea Hornet cannot fit onto the three Illustrious class, but it's fine for HMS Indomitable and all the Implacable, Audacious, Majestic, Colossus and Centaur class carriers.
 
Last edited:
The Firebrand is an aberration in wartime FAA aircraft development.

Go back to 1943 and 1944 and study what types the Admiralty wanted for the future. The Future Building Committee laid it out in Feb 1943. The short version (there were many twists and turns)

Fighters - interceptor
The proposed line of development was from the existing Merlin Seafire line to Griffon engined Seafire XV in 1943 /44, to Spiteful/Seafang in 1944/45 (replaced by Spitfire XXI derived Seafire 45/46/47 when the wing of the Seafang was seen as too risky) then a new type, for which a myriad of proposals existed before the Sea Fury was selected in Spring 1943. By 1944 the successor to that series was seen to be a jet which emerged as the Sea Hawk in 1947/48. Slow progress with Sea Hawk saw the adoption of the Supermarine Attacker as a short term expedient.

Biggest problem here was the delays in developing Seafire variants. Seafire XV only entered low rate production in Sept 1944 and reached the first squadron in May 1945. It saw no combat in WW2.

Fighter - night
A need for this type arose in 1944 and was met by the Sea Hornet NF.21, with NF versions of the Firefly as an interim fix.

Fighters - escort/long range
In 1943 it was hoped that a new generation of strike aircraft would be fast enough to do without escorts. By 1944 it was clear that would not be possible. The Sea Hornet was selected in mid-1944 to fill the role. The successor to that came in Spec N.11/44 in late 1944/early 1945, whose primary role was as a fighter, with a secondary role as a strike aircraft (see below) with a choice of weaponry including the torpedo and those big 1,000lb rockets. That became the Wyvern (see one of my previous posts).

Reconnaissance bomber
Long range, 3 seat, twin engined to operate from Audacious & Centaur classes. From which came the Short Sturgeon.

Dive and torpedo bomber
Combined roles because British torpedo dropping tactics from pre-war days called for a diving approach, just not as steep as a dive bomber. 2 seater. From this came the Fairey Spearfish, with the Griffon engined Barracuda V as a gap filler.

Firebrand
And it is here that the Firebrand fits in. It was no longer required as a fighter but the money had been spent on its development and in setting up a production line on which aircraft were already being built. It had the ability to lift the weight of a torpedo with little modification (F.I to TF.II). The Fifth Sea Lord, in charge of naval aviation, saw existing TBR, and even the proposed 2 seater as too slow, and grabbed the opportunity he saw in the Firebrand. The first TF.II was airborne in March 1943. But even he accepted that they would need led to their target by the 2 seat dive/torpedo bomber. Add to that, it also probably couldn't operate at night.

The successor, as a single seat torpedo aircraft, came from the secondary role allocated to the Wyvern (see above).

Nothing further happened on the "strike" aircraft front until 1947 and proposals for single and two seat jets. And then we get the blurring of the lines between the two categories, fighter and strike, in the Scimitar.

ASW aircraft to operate from CVE & MAC ships.
Swordfish replacement. Short term the role was to be filled by the Barracuda III. Longer term, nothing became of this until the late 1940s which led to the Short Seamew.

Sea Fury
I'm not sure how you can get the Sea Fury much quicker. The project only emerged at Hawker in Sept 1942. Admiralty selection was April 1943. First RAF Fury flew in Sept 1944, and the Sea Fury in Feb 1945. Then you have the inevitable postwar slowdown with the associated lack of funding, so the first production Sea Fury flew in Sept 1946 with squadrons beginning to receive them in Aug/Sept 1947 after all the necessary peacetime clearances had been obtained.

Gannet
Spec GR.17/45 was intended as a Barracuda III replacement in the ASW role (hence the GR for General Reconnaissance prefix). There were contenders from Blackburn & Fairey. The Fairey Gannet won. It was never intended as a "strike" aircraft. Its progress was delayed by first engines and then in 1949 the need for a redesign to incorporate a third crew member to operate the sonobuoy gear.

AS versions of the Firefly served with the last Barracuda III until Gannet became available.

Engines
The big problem facing all British naval aircraft designers in this period was engine power. In late 1944 MAP stopped development of piston engines to concentrate on jets and turboprops. That left the Centaurus and Eagle as the most powerful piston engines and resulted in cancellation of a number of larger more powerful engines then in development. And of course the new technology took longer to develop than expected. So designers of the designs allowed to continue had the additional headache of adapting their design to a new engine.

So for example Fairey was hoping for an extra 30mph out of a Spearfish with a Pennine engine. Without that it resorted to a tandem engined, twin Merlin layout in 1944 for what became known as the Fairey Strike Aircraft to Spec O.21/44, which was not adopted. See below.



In 1945 Fairey were asked to turn their attention to a twin turboprop aircraft referred to as the Fairey Strike Fighter. This was dropped when RR decided they would not continue development of the AP25 (Coupled Tweed) engine.

Fairey's next project was of course the Gannet with its Double Mamba engine. Perhaps the Fairey Strike Fighter helps explain the opt repeated story about the Gannet being intended as a strike aircraft.

End of War.
The end of WW2 saw massive cutbacks in both production of existing types and the development of new types. Peace was expected to last. Money was in short supply. Piston engined designs were obsolete. Why continue to pursue types that will be obsolete if they enter service. So Spearfish and Sturgeon only appear in small numbers because work has already proceeded too far to cancel altogether. Spearfish developments canned and Wyvern gets adapted for turboprop power.

And a number of the turboprop engine types chosen then get cancelled (RR Clyde for the Wyvern, RR Tweed for the Gannet, Napier Coupled Naiad for the Blackburn B-54 Gannet competitor). All helping to create and add to delays.
 

Hmm - how about a torpedo-carrying Sea Hornet? Does the 'fighter' part of the job very nice.
 
tomo pauk said:
Hmm - how about a torpedo-carrying Sea Hornet? Does the 'fighter' part of the job very nice.
Click to expand...
Mmmm. Just looked at some figures, bearing in mind that British torpedo dropping tactics called for an approach at 8-10,000 feet, followed by a dive to 200ft, slow to 200 knots (230 mph) and drop. Then accelerate clear of the target.

Firebrand - max speed 278 knots (320 mph) with torpedo. That is around 13,000ft.
Wyvern - max speed 333 knots (383mph) at sea level (I can't find whether that is with or without torpedo).
Hornet F.3 - 380 knots (438mph) at 10,000ft. The Sea Hornet F.20 is a wee bit slower but not significantly so .

But the Hornet figures are for a clean aircraft. Add two 100 imp gal fuel tanks (weight of fuel alone is 1,440lb) and the speed drops to 290 knots (333mph) from sea level to 10,000ft.

So the question then is whether the drop in speed is due more to weight or the drag from the tanks. And how will that compare with the drag of a torpedo & its mounts. So not that much of a speed advantage over the Firebrand where it counts. The only advantage of the Hornet then becomes its range.

But step back a minute. By 1946 the torpedo as a weapon is going out of fashion. Coastal Command didn't re-equip its strike squadrons with the Brigand. The last of the wartime Avenger squadrons disband in March & June when Indefatigable & Implacable return from the Pacific. The last wartime Barracuda TBR squadron disbands on return from the Far East in in July 1946. The sole Firebrand squadron (813 formed on 1 Sept 1945) disbands on 30 Sept 1946.

After that 813 re-forms with the Firebrand TF.5 in May 1947. It converts to the Wyvern between May and Aug 1953 only to disband again at the end of 1955.

827 reforms on the Firebrand TF.5 in Dec 1950 and disbands in Dec 1952. It reforms on the Wyvern 2 years later. 830 & 831 don't form for another year.

By about 1952, the Firebrands seem to have stopped using the torpedo (at least the photos from that peiod don't show them). The TF designation was changed to S in 1953 when the Wyvern S.4 (formerly TF.4) entered service. The first production batch of Wyverns (20 TF.2 of which 7 were completed as S.4) was ordered on 19 Sept 1947 with the first coming off the production line in May 1951.

So with but a single torpedo bomber / fighter squadron in service for 4 out of 6 years between May 1947 and May 1953, and the Firebrand replacement already on order from the beginning, there really is no place for anything else in between in a period of austerity. Note postwar use of the Barracuda was in its ASW guise as the TR.3, as were the Avengers obtained in 1953 under MDAP.

Incidentally FAA plans in 1945 were looking forward to only 2 Firebrand squadrons on light fleet carriers from mid-1946.
 

Drag kills the speed, weight is far less of a problem between SL and the rated altitude.
Could you please take a look at speed figures for the Firebrand clean? Speed difference of just 10 kt vs. the clean A/C??
The speed of the clean Hornet vs. a clean Firebrand also counts. It comes into play when they try to be fighters - Hornet is excellent in that role, Firebrand is bad. Add the range advantage, capacity for a second crew member, seamless radar installation: Hornet all the way.
 
Thank you.

EwenS said:
But the Hornet figures are for a clean aircraft. Add two 100 imp gal fuel tanks (weight of fuel alone is 1,440lb) and the speed drops to 290 knots (333mph) from sea level to 10,000ft.
Click to expand...

data

Sea Hornet with two 100 gal drop tanks was good for 355 kt at 6000 ft, and 332 kt at SL.
Clean, it was good for another 15-16 kt on these altitudes.
With two 1000 lb bombs, it was 305 at 6000 ft, and 285 kt at SL; 325 kt at best altitude.
We can guess all day the speed figures with one torpedo - talk in-between the two DTs and two 1000 lb-ers? Means 330 at 6000 ft, 305-310 kt at SL?
Yes, the torpedo run will be done on speeds as permitted by torpedo launch envelope.

But at any rate, a dirtiest Sea Hornet is still faster than a clean Firebrand.
 
EwenS said:
For shipping strike the RAF/FAA concluded in 1943 that the solid 25lb AP head was better than the 60lb HE head and used it in that role to the end of the war. It proved far better at letting the water in!
Click to expand...
From what I've read that was very true for submarines, a solid 25lb AP rocket is going to punch through a lot of ship before stopping and was similar to the RAF's finding that solid cast iron drill rounds for the 20mm Hispano caused serious structural damage to aircraft.
 
The one very noticeable difference between British and American carrier aircraft is the pilot position, the Americans learnt from the Hellcat, the British reinvented the Corsair.
 
PAT303 said:
The Americans learnt from the Hellcat, the British reinvented the Corsair.
Click to expand...
That's in part because before the Firebrand the British hadn't launched a CV-dedicated single seat fighter design since the Fairey Flycatcher of twenty years earlier. Everything else was a rehash of a RAF aircraft.

But still, what was Fairey thinking? It looks like the observer's seat in their Fulmar was not much further from the nose than the Firebrand's pilot.
 
Last edited:
PAT303 said:
....the British reinvented the Corsair.
Click to expand...
Remember the Corsair cockpit moved aft 3 feet between the XF4U-1 flying in May 1940 and the first production F4U-1 flying in June 1942, because of the need to move the fuel tanks from wing to fuselage.

That pretty much covers the development period of the Firebrand. Selected for development in Jan 1940. First flight Feb 1942.

We were quite happy to make our own mistakes thank you very much! Nothing to learn from the USA.

Ultimately it comes down to the type of engine (in-line v radial) and then where you place the fuel tanks. In front of, behind or underneath the pilot. Each position has its pros and cons. But in 1940 Britain didn't have a radial engine putting out the power of the R-2800 (1,800hp in the prototype XF4U-1). So inlines it had to be as the starting point. In the Firebrand's case the Napier Sabre.

But the principle of making sure the pilot of a carrier aircraft had a good view over the nose was not entirely lost on British designers. Look at how the pilot's cockpit moved forward from Shark & Swordfish to Albacore & Barracuda so that he sat at the wing leading edge as opposed to its trailing edge.
 
Admiral Beez said:
But still, what was Fairey thinking? It looks like the observer's seat in their Fulmar was not much further from the nose than the Firebrand's pilot.
Click to expand...
Look at the design layout of the Fulmar. The fuel tank is between the pilot and the observer.

And the observers cockpit is laid out to allow him to perform two functions, navigation and operating the radio. The necessary chart table was at the forward end along with the morse key for the radio. At the aft end you have the radio equipments itself along with the all important compass to aid navigation. And the observer sat on a rotating seat in the middle.

 

Sabre it is, before something else is available, like the Centaurus.
A sizable fuel tank on such a big aircraft can go behind the pilot, so the pilot is at the front as much as possible in order to have good visibility. Already that was the case with Fulmar and Firefly, and will be the case with AD-1 (granted, even the tiny Bf 109 have had pilot in front of the fuel tank). On a big aircraft a lot of fuel can go under the pilot and in the wings. Drop tanks are always an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Blackburn Firebrand and Bristol Brigand
Replies
9
Views
488
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
144
Views
4K
tomo pauk
AA guns + rockets alternatives for 1935-45
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
SplitRz
French Army alternatives, 1935-40 (41?)
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
3K
Admiral Beez
A
A
Any monoplane alternatives to the Hawker Nimrod?
Replies
5
Views
869
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register