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.

 

[EwenS]

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?

The Bristol Brigand was another aircraft with a long & complex development going back to a Bristol proposal in Jan 1939 for a Beaufighter Bomber or Beaubomber.

Type 161 leading to the Type 162 Beaumont - Oct 1940 - to use Beaufighter wings, the unbuilt Beaufighter III rear fuselage, tailplane, fin & rudder, with a new front & centre fuselage and powered by Hercules VII engines. 1,000lb bomb load; max speed 315mph. But such was the pace of aircraft development at that time that it never got beyond the mock up stage.

Type 162 mockup in the foreground. Type 159 mock up behind.

Type 163 Buckingham - March 1941. Design started as an aircraft with more bomb load & speed powered by Centaurus engines. That in turn meant a new wing. There was a lack of enthusiasm about the project by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, probably because of the need being more than adequately filled by Lend Lease aircraft like the A-20, B-25 & B-26. Bristol also had development problems with the engines. So first flight 4 Feb 1943 after which problems emerged. It was Oct 1944 before all the bugs were worked out of the production aircraft, by which time its time had passed. 4 prototypes and 119 production aircraft were produced, with most of the latter emerging as a transport deriviative. The main reason for continuing with production was to keep the workforce together. Bristol had orders for the Hawker Tempest II.

Type 166 Buckmaster - a disarmed trainer version of the Buckingham with a new forward fuselage with side by side seating. 2 prototypes and 110 production aircraft built 1945/46.

Type 169 - a PR deriviative of the Buckingham that never went beyond the mock-up stage.

Beaufighter replacement as a torpedo fighter.
The Beaufighter was proposed as a replacement for the Beaufort in Dec 1941. It was prototyped in April 1942 and the first Interim Torpedo Fighter version entered service in June and after crew training carried out their first sortie in Nov 1942.

In July 1942 Bristol offered a choice of 2 aircraft as a successor to the torpedo carrying Beaufighter:-
1. A Beaufighter deriviative carrying one torpedo. 327mph at sea level 24,900lbs.
2. A Buckingham II deriviative with 2 torpedoes. speed 340mph at sea level. 32,500lbs.

Option 1 featuring a new fuselage with reduced cross section was chosen to fill the roles of long range fighter, torpedo attack and dive bomber. Crew 3. Powerplant Hercules XVII. Bristol called this the Buccaneer, As the design developed it had less and less in common with the Beaufighter. As weight increased so did the wingspan and then a new strengthened wing was needed. A new tail was required.

Then it was suggested that the Hercules be replaced with Centaurus, at which point it became sensible to marry the Buckingham wing already fitted out for the Centaurus engines to the Buccaneer fuselage and add the Buckingham tailplane. And so was born the Bristol Type 164 Brigand with 4 prototypes ordered in April 1943 and the first flight in Dec 1944. 136 production aircraft then followed. It was intended to use them in the Far East had the war gone on. As a torpedo fighter, the Brigand was designed to carry only a single torpedo.

The first Brigand TF.1s went to the Coastal Command Air Sea Warfare Development Unit in 1946. Plans to re-equip CC 36 & 42 strike squadrons were cancelled later that year, so making the ASWDU the only CC unit to operate the Brigand.

Instead the Brigand was redeveloped for the light bomber role. It finally entered service with 84 squadron in Feb 1948 in Iraq as a Beaufighter replacement.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The crisis of mid 1940 and the major shortages of aircraft through 1942 largely killed the chances of a lot of new British designs, as did the issues with the 2,000 HP class engines, as did the supply of US types, as did war experience. Evolution of existing designs was safer and in theory faster.

Bristol, Filton, production types and timelines
Blenheim March 1937 to January 1940 (plus 2 in March),
Beaufort October 1939 to January 1944
Beaufighter 1 in April 1940 then June 1940 to January 1944,
Buckingham 54 Medium Bomber February to December 1944, 58 Transport (32 from January to September 1945, 26 from March to September 1946), total 112 plus prototypes.
Buckmaster 110 Trainer March 1945 to May 1946,
Brigand Light Bomber January 1946 to September 1951, ignoring prototypes, 11 in 1946, 6 in 1947, 33 in 1948, 73 in 1949, 3 in 1950 and 9 in 1951, with the 1951 production trainer mark IV. There were 18 TF.I, 92 B.I, 16 MET.III, 2 of the B.I for Pakistan.

Bristol, Weston/Banwell (Shadow factory)
Beaufighter March 1941 to September 1945,
Beaufort (mark T.II) August 1943 to November 1944,
Tempest II February to August 1945.

998 Centaurus VII reported produced August 1943 to January 1945, Centaurus IX starting production in February 1945, Centaurus 57 in September 1945. The Buckingham is reported as using the Centaurus VII and IX, the Buckmaster the Centaurus VII, the Brigand the Centaurus 57.

Buckingham, 3 seater to a 1941 specification that asked for what became around 1944 single stage engine Mosquito performance but with full defensive armament, which translated into a 4 man crew, needed the Centaurus power but engine development was prolonged, at best it was going to be a late 1944 aircraft, interesting it was classified as a medium bomber, certainly faster but otherwise around Wellington like for range and bomb load, with the Buckmaster trainer version comparable to the 80 Wellington XVIII trainer version built October 1944 to June 1945. Contract Aircraft 1915 requisition 1/E11/41 covered the bombers, Aircraft 3783 requisition 1/E11/43 covered the "Buckingham Trainers" 400 Buckingham ordered with KV serials, plus another 167 RN/RP serials which became most of the Buckmaster. Despite many references reporting the transport serials were KV366 to 372, KV402 to 450 and KV471 to 479, total 65, there is no record in the contract cards and the serial registers for the seven aircraft KV430 to KV435 and KV437, nor are there RAF cards for these, reducing the total to 58, the number in the production reports.

Firebrand, 5 mark I June to August 1943, rest of mark I, all but 1 mark II May to October 1944, mark III November 1944 to June 1945, first batch of 103 mark IV May 1945 to March 1946 plus 1 in July. Batch of 66 mark IV January to May 1947, the 4 in January marked for breakdown, the remainder marked to be modified to mark V standard. Result 9 mark I, 12 mark II, 29 mark III and 170 mark IV, plenty of conversions, lots of contracts. The mark I and II used the Sabre III (25 engines produced October 1942 to February 1944) the mark III a mixture of Centaurus VII and IX, the mark IV the Centaurus IX. The RAF notes 50 serials between DK363 and 412 on Aircraft 981/C.20(B) then another 250 serials between EK601 and EK967, order changed from 50 to 300 aircraft 22 September 1941, Firebrand name allocated 11 July 1941.

Naval specifications in 1939 for twin seater carrier fighters, 4x20mm and a 4 gun turret, rewritten dropping the turret in 1940, became the Firefly and a single seater which became the Firebrand. Required changes when Sabre engine allocation was cancelled and the Seafire proved successful enough, new specification written in 1943 to include torpedo carriage. At 11,000 pounds empty about a ton heavier than the Corsair and Hellcat and half a ton more than the Avenger.

Seafury, prototypes ordered in 1943, mark X production began in September 1946, with 5 built to end January 1947, another 46 built in 1947 and 1 in 1948, mark XI production began in September 1947, with 37 built by the end of the year.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

I'd like to see a 4:5 scale Firebrand (41 ft wingspan) with a reliable Sabre engine, without the torpedo.

 

[EwenS]

I'd like to see a 4:5 scale Firebrand (41 ft wingspan) with a reliable Sabre engine, without the torpedo.

Sounds like you are after a Sabre engined Corsair!

Go back to Dec 1939 when the RN dropped the idea of a turret fighter to Spec N.9/39. Instead they were looking for
a. A two seat, front gunned naval fighter (as requested in N.8/39); AND
b. A single seat fixed gun naval fighter
Both to be derived from the same basic design.

This new requirement was circulated to Fairey, Hawker, Gloster, Supermarine, Blackburn and Westland.

Fairey submitted designs for both, with Griffon & Sabre engine options. The latter was heavier in single seat form but predicted to reach 310 knots (355 mph). The two seater was chosen for development into the Firefly (span 44.5ft in Mk.I form). The Blackburn design was chosen as the single seater after a lot of changes evolved into the Firebrand.

Fairey noted
"It should be borne in mind that the exceptionally high take-off power loading combined with the small diameter aircrew may well lead to difficulty in directional control during take off - particularly important in the case of deck operated aircraft having a restricted take-off run".

Vought got round this problem with the inverted gull wing on the Corsair, which allowed a large aircrew diameter but short undercarriage.

For all the designers the challenge was the flight deck restrictions imposed on all the designers -
AUW not to exceed 10,500lb
Stalling speed engine off in landing configuration not to exceed 58 knots
Take off distance 300ft against a 20knot wind.
Folded width 13.5ft

Relaxed in mid 1940 to
AUW 12,500lb
Stalling speed engine off 68 knots
Take off distance into 30 knot wind 350ft.

Hence the need for the big wing.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Sounds like you are after a Sabre engined Corsair!

Go back to Dec 1939 when the RN dropped the idea of a turret fighter to Spec N.9/39. Instead they were looking for
a. A two seat, front gunned naval fighter (as requested in N.8/39); AND
b. A single seat fixed gun naval fighter
Both to be derived from the same basic design.

This new requirement was circulated to Fairey, Hawker, Gloster, Supermarine, Blackburn and Westland.

Fairey submitted designs for both, with Griffon & Sabre engine options. The latter was heavier in single seat form but predicted to reach 310 knots (355 mph). The two seater was chosen for development into the Firefly (span 44.5ft in Mk.I form). The Blackburn design was chosen as the single seater after a lot of changes evolved into the Firebrand.

Fairey noted
"It should be borne in mind that the exceptionally high take-off power loading combined with the small diameter aircrew may well lead to difficulty in directional control during take off - particularly important in the case of deck operated aircraft having a restricted take-off run".

Vought got round this problem with the inverted gull wing on the Corsair, which allowed a large aircrew diameter but short undercarriage.

For all the designers the challenge was the flight deck restrictions imposed on all the designers -
AUW not to exceed 10,500lb
Stalling speed engine off in landing configuration not to exceed 58 knots
Take off distance 300ft against a 20knot wind.
Folded width 13.5ft

Relaxed in mid 1940 to
AUW 12,500lb
Stalling speed engine off 68 knots
Take off distance into 30 knot wind 350ft.

Hence the need for the big wing.

So the two-seat Firefly had a much smaller wing.

 

[EwenS]

So the two-seat Firefly had a much smaller wing.

And the Firefly was fitted with the Fairey-Youngman flap system, which when set at its half flap position, had the effect of increasing the wing area for take off, as well as settings for cruise and landing. Bottom of this page has wartime photos from Flight showing the 3 positions possible.

FAIREY FIREFLY ULTRA COOL FLAP DESIGN

The Alverstoke Aviation Society happened across a couple of very nice examples of a cool British Naval fighter designed in the early 1940s, ...

alverstokeaviation.blogspot.com

Developed in the late 1930s by Fairey and intended for use on their FC1 airliner project and patented by them in 1941.

Fairey FC1 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Also used on the Barracuda. Supermarine opted for a variable incidence wing on their Type 322 Barracuda competitor to meet the stringent deck limits.

Challenging times for aircraft designers.

The Firebrand got huge flaps to assist in landing.

 

[Ascent]

Vought got round this problem with the inverted gull wing on the Corsair, which allowed a large aircrew diameter but short undercarriage.

I know it's only a typo but I like the idea that they designed the aircraft to fit fatter pilots.

 

[special ed]

Agree! Movie star pilots.

 

[GreenKnight121]

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.

Grumman AF Guardian - Wikipedia
14,580 lb - 22,640 lb

 

[Howard Gibson]

Grumman AF Guardian - Wikipedia
14,580 lb - 22,640 lb

Was the Grumman Guardian ever considered as a fighter?

 

[GTX]

Was the Grumman Guardian ever considered as a fighter?

I don't think so...unless you count fire fighter.