Blackburn Firebrand and Bristol Brigand

[Howard Gibson]

The British designed some interesting new aircraft around their new 2000HP engines. Hawker's designs were very successful. Other designs, less so. An elephantaisis seems to have set in, in which very large aircraft were designed, negating the new, high powered engines.

The Blackburn Firebrand I was powered by a 2300HP Napier Sabre. It had a wingspan of over 51ft, and a loaded weight of 15000lb. It did 355MPH at 18000ft. Eventually, they mounted a Bristol Centaurus to it, and converted it to a torpedo/strike bomber. It still only did 350MPH at 13000ft. Why not pull a Kurt Tank and design the tiniest possible airfame around the big engine? The Fw190 was small, but they mounted heavy armament to it, and even a torpedo at some point! If a Sabre powered Royal Navy fighter turns out to be a screaming hot rod, maybe they can build a new engine factory.

The Bristol Brigand was to be a successor to the Bristol Beaufighter, powered by Bristol Centaurus engines. As with the Beaufighter, they used the wings and tail from an existing bomber. The Beaufighter's empty weight was around 15000lb. The Brigand's was 25600lb. The Brigand was marginally faster than a Beaufighter, and not much of a replacement for either that, or the de Havilland Mosquito. Again, you make a smaller aircraft. You attach the new bomber parts to the Beaufighter fuselage. It's too bad they did not think of laminar flow wings. A twin Centaurus fighter plane ought to go way over 400MPH.

Any thoughts?

 

[SaparotRob]

Never.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Blackburn Firebrand I was powered by a 2300HP Napier Sabre. It had a wingspan of over 51ft, and a loaded weight of 15000lb. It did 355MPH at 18000ft. Eventually, they mounted a Bristol Centaurus to it, and converted it to a torpedo/strike bomber. It still only did 350MPH at 13000ft. Why not pull a Kurt Tank and design the tiniest possible airfame around the big engine? The Fw190 was small, but they mounted heavy armament to it, and even a torpedo at some point! If a Sabre powered Royal Navy fighter turns out to be a screaming hot rod, maybe they can build a new engine factory.

A lot of it depends on what the aircraft is made for. A fighter that is supposed to bring the torpedo back to the carrier if that torpedo was not dropped in action will indeed lead to a very compromised design. If the requirement that torpedo is brought back is deleted, the fighter can be much smaller and thus faster and more maneuverable. If the fighter is required just to be a good dive bomber, and not a torpedo bomber, too, it will be even better in the primary role. Fw 190 was operating from hard strips.
However, the Sea Fury should've been just fine as a dive bomber, so the dive bomber/fighter Firebrand does look like the duplication of the effort, just in time when the British industry and budget are in their toughest time.

New engine factory will not happen.

tl;dr - if the torpedo bombing requirements are not relaxed, or removed completely, the Firebrand will still be a duck, not an eagle

The Bristol Brigand was to be a successor to the Bristol Beaufighter, powered by Bristol Centaurus engines. As with the Beaufighter, they used the wings and tail from an existing bomber. The Beaufighter's empty weight was around 15000lb. The Brigand's was 25600lb. The Brigand was marginally faster than a Beaufighter, and not much of a replacement for either that, or the de Havilland Mosquito. Again, you make a smaller aircraft. You attach the new bomber parts to the Beaufighter fuselage. It's too bad they did not think of laminar flow wings. A twin Centaurus fighter plane ought to go way over 400MPH.

My idea of alternative Bristol aircraft, from Blenheim on, is that they are exclusively 1-engined.

Beaufighter already started out as a spin-off from the Beaufort, so just sticking two Centauri on the Beaufighter together with the 'bomber parts' on it will make a very compromised aircraft. If the Brigand is as streamlined as the A-20 or the He 219, then it should've been fine IMO.

 

[yulzari]

Whilst the Firebrand was intended to be a next generation fleet fighter in it's first incarnation the Firebrand that entered service was a torpedo strike fighter. ie it was to deliver a torpedo to a distant target to whit a Soviet cruiser and bring it back if the attack was abandoned. Carriers only carried a limited stock of torpedos. It could also act as a fighter but that was secondary to the assigned role which was the core of the Royal Navy strategy post war. Hence they were retained at home for this whilst the Sea Furies, actual fleet fighters, went to Korea as ground attack strike support and escort for the Firefly strike aeroplanes.

The whole tale of the Firebrand is exceedingly complex with more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing but it never served as a fighter per se but as a torpedo delivery system so has to looked at as such in service.

As to the Brigand Bristol they were making a medium bomber out of a family of kit parts not a Centaurus Beaufighter. They simply did an inadequate job. Hot on its heels was the Canberra.

 

[ThomasP]

It should be noted that the USN also went to what would have been called monstrously large aircraft before the war. In some ways the AD-1 and AM-1 were just stepping stones to the intended follow-ons.

"Grumman F7F Tigercat - Wikipedia"
17,000 - 26,000 lbs

"Grumman XTB2F - Wikipedia" (evolved into the SF Tracker - eventually)
24,000 - 45,000 lbs

"Douglas A-1 Skyraider - Wikipedia"
12,000 - 20,000 lbs

"Douglas BTD Destroyer - Wikipedia"
13,000 - 19,000 lbs

"Martin AM Mauler - Wikipedia"
15,000 - 26,000 lbs

"Douglas XTB2D Skypirate - Wikipedia"
19,000 - 29,000 lbs

"North American AJ Savage - Wikipedia"
28,000 - 50,000 lbs

"Vultee XA-41 - Wikipedia" (USAAF)
19,000 - 25,000 lbs

In 1940, the USN was concerned about the size of aircraft to put on the upcoming Essex aircraft carriers. The potential 10,000 - 11,000 lb GTOW weights and size of the twin-engine F5F was considered too large by many of the people involved in planning.

 

[Howard Gibson]

It should be noted that the USN also went to what would have been called monstrously large aircraft before the war. In some ways the AD-1 and AM-1 were just stepping stones to the intended follow-ons.

"Grumman F7F Tigercat - Wikipedia"
17,000 - 26,000 lbs

"Grumman XTB2F - Wikipedia" (evolved into the SF Tracker - eventually)
24,000 - 45,000 lbs

A number of your aircraft were twin engined. This makes them a handful on carriers, but at least the Tigercat had good performance. The Royal Navy had a carrier borne Mosquito, which would easily out-run a Bristol Brigand. The Brigand's size and weight more than made up for the powerful Centaurus engine.

 

[EwenS]

Other than for trials and deck landing training the Mosquito never operated from a carrier despite plans for It to do so. The only carriers intended to operate them were the Implacable & Indefatigable. The former was used to give pilots of 618 squadron RAF deck landing experience in their Highball Mosquito IV before they departed for Australia at the end of Oct 1944. Indefatigable was used for the first Mosquito deck landing trials in March 1944.

Only one front line FAA squadron, 811, used the Mosquito and was shore based throughout its short existence on the type:-
Mosquito VI - 15 operated from 15 Sept 1945 to April 1946.
Sea Mosquito TR.33 - 12 operated from April 1946 to Dec 1946 and 6 therafter until disbandment on 1 July 1947.

Plenty of Mossies in a variety of versions were used by second line 700 series squadrons from 1944/45 from shore bases providing various types of support to the fleet.

 

[Shortround6]

Whilst the Firebrand was intended to be a next generation fleet fighter in it's first incarnation the Firebrand that entered service was a torpedo strike fighter. ie it was to deliver a torpedo to a distant target to whit a Soviet cruiser and bring it back if the attack was abandoned.

The whole tale of the Firebrand is exceedingly complex with more twists and turns than a twisty turny thing but it never served as a fighter per se but as a torpedo delivery system so has to looked at as such in service.

Firebrand with the extra 18in of wing to accommodate the torpedo first flew March 31st 1943. A little early to be planning on attacking Soviet cruisers, but, as you say the Firebrand tale is very long and very complex. But we do have to separate out what they were planning on doing with it in initial planning (1939-42?) and what they changed to (1943-43 and later).
The idea of carrying a torpedo (or even bombs) had no room in the British thinking in the first few years of planning.