Blackburn Firebrand

[vinnye]

Although a prototype was made in February 1942 - it never really saw much action during WW2 due to lack of suitable Sabre engines.
What if the Firebrand were fitted with an R2600 or R2800 engine? How would it have compared during mid to late 1942?

 

[nuuumannn]

Hey vinnye,

What a beast of a machine the Firebrand was. It actually saw no service in WW2, the Firebrand Mk.IV entering squadron service in September 1945. Your question is an interesting one, but remember they replaced the Sabre with the Bristol Centaurus in the TF.III model, even then the issues that plagued the aircraft did not entirely disappear. In service it was found to be good as neither a fighter nor a torpedo bomber. Pilots found it heavy to fly and difficult to land because the cockpit was closer to the tail than to the nos; engineers complained about its complexity and how difficult it was to maintain. It wasn't well liked in FAA service.

Even if the Sabre was replaced by either of the engines you suggest, the issues that plagued it would have still delayed its entry into service.

 

[vinnye]

Thanks for the reply.
I had read that it was not well thought of by many - even considered to be one of the worst aircraft of WW2 by some!
I just thought that if a reliable power plant was readily available - some of the other defects could maybe have been ironed out?
For example - the Tyhoon was not without its teething problems - but did receive modifications until the Tempest resulted.
Maybe something similar could have occured?
Perhaps there were too many other aircraft being developed at that time - meaning resources were allocated where they were considered to be going to provide a better / quicker solution.
The Firebrand looks kinda right to me - apart from the cockpit being too far back, and airplanes that look right frequently are!
Just maybe not this time!