Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I have never found out why the "strike" element keeps getting included in the origins of the Gannet. In WW2 terms it suggests an aircraft like a dive or torpedo bomber used in an offensive capacity.Britain has lots to keep the design, procurement and testing expertise honed and intact whilst still dumping the late war and early postwar dead-end projects. For example, Fairey has the Gannet "commenced in response to the issuing of requirement GR.17/45 in 1945, under which the Admiralty sought a new twin-seat aircraft capable of performing both anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and strike missions." Fairey Gannet - Wikipedia
Usually with prototypes they are paid for anyway, why not keep everyone busy taking a project to conclusion, they may have made some screw up that a design team needs to know about.The Firecrest didn't even fly until 1947, and lumbered along in flight testing until 1949. Despite the fact that by 1946, it was clear that nobody wanted the airplane. It seems like a "make work" project to me
1) AgreedA few other ideas post BoB into the early postwar era.
1) Do not share jet engine designs or tech with the Soviets
2) Read the late war and early postwar room. Cancel the Spiteful, Firebrand, Firecrest and Spearfish. Focus on improving the performance, reliability and timelines for the Swift, Attacker, Vampire and Sea Hawk programs. Including swept wing and transonic research.
Agreed. Blackburn should have been rolled up and its staff and kit merged into Hawker Siddeley in 1943 instead of 1963. We might not get the superlative Buccaneer, but we can avoid the waste of time and resources spent on the Firebrand, Firecrest and their other rubbish, go no where ideas.The Firecrest didn't even fly until 1947, and lumbered along in flight testing until 1949. Despite the fact that by 1946, it was clear that nobody wanted the airplane. It seems like a "make work" project to me
Harsh. And demonstrates how little you know about Blackburn history.
Blackburn is unfortunately most remembered for its failures in aircraft like the Botha, Roc and the Firebrand. These tend to overshadow what went before in terms of aircraft produced inter-war for the FAA. It was also responsible for some flying boat design innovation as shown in the B.20 with its retractable lower hull to reduce drag while airborne. While it lost out to the Saro Lerwick, it was thought promising enough for the RAF to request a prototype. The concept was pursued in the wartime B.44 design for a flying boat fighter that was dropped by the RAF (a flying boat fighter eventually emerged in 1947 in the shape of the jet powered Saro SR.A/1)
But despite all this Blackburn proved highly successful in building and modifying other companies aircraft during WW2.
Swordfish - in 1940 it became the sole manufacturer of this type at a shadow factory at Sherburn-in-Elmet. building more than Fairey itself - 1,699 v 692.
Sunderland - between Oct 1941 & Oct 1945 they built nearly one third of all Sunderlands - 241 Mark I/II/III/V out of 749, at their Dumbarton factory on the Clyde as a successor to the Botha being built there. That factory was also involved with work for the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment that had been evacuated to nearby Helensburgh.
Barracuda - 700 built in the Brough factory out of the total of 2,602 produced
During WW2 British aircraft companies were paired up US aircraft companies to undertake assembly of aircraft on arrival, or modifications to meet British requirements. Over 4,000 of these passed through Blackburn sites. These included the Grumman Avenger where Blackburn became responsible for the wartime modifications necessary to this aircraft to suit RN needs and practices, with most of the work taking place in the USA.
Immediately postwar they designed a competitor to the Fairey design that became the Gannet.
Who else would have been around in 1949 to merge with GAL who needed a partner to produce the GAL.60 Universal Freighter that became the Blackburn Beverley.
The Buccaneer emerged from an RN requirement of 1952, with Blackburn starting work on the project immediately. Given the long service life of that aircraft, keeping Blackburn alive in that late war / postwar period seems entirely worthwhile to me.
If ever there was a target for rationalisation of British aircraft design groups it was within the likes of Hawker Siddeley Group itself, where individual companies were often competing against each other to build aircraft to the same specifications. From 1935 HS included Hawker, Gloster, Avro and Armstrong Whitworth.
Unfortunately that was symptomatic of most of the British Aero-industry in the late 40s and 50s.The Beverly was a useful aircraft for a while, but it wasn't even a Blackburn design. And was something of an anachronism considering that the C-130 entered service one year later
Neither made a difference. The war was all but won. Any advances introduced to RAF service in 1945 is looking more to Britain's postwar world.Would 500 jets in the Spring of 1945 actually made any real difference in the outcome compared to 500 Tempests?
Probably not.
Neither made a difference. The war was all but won. Any advances introduced to RAF service in 1945 is looking more to Britain's postwar world.
True. One could even take that argument a step further and say stuff like the Sabre (and Vulture) were, in retrospect, not needed. They could have comfortably won the war with Merlins, Griffons, and Hercules (+ obviously a smattering of lower power engines), and those would have been good enough even in the post-war years until jets took over (well, maybe Centaurus was still useful e.g. in the Sea Fury). Of course that would have required quite a lot of foresight back in the day wrt. the development of jets, and had jets been delayed they would have been caught with their pants down their ankles, so from that perspective projects like the Sabre were definitely justified.
Yes, it would have taken a lot of foresight to see improved fuels would enable the Merlin to produce similar power to the Vulture by the mid to late war period.
By the same token, it would have been expected that a developed Vulture would be able to benefit from the improved fuels as well.
I think many could foresee the benefits of high Octane fuel, the issue was mainly producing it in thousands of tons. In the early 1930s filling up a squadron of Spitfires (if they existed) would have cost the price of of a Spitfire.Yes, it would have taken a lot of foresight to see improved fuels would enable the Merlin to produce similar power to the Vulture by the mid to late war period.
By the same token, it would have been expected that a developed Vulture would be able to benefit from the improved fuels as well.
I wonder how a Vulture retuned for high octane fuel would have performed. At least Napier Sabre territory?Yes, it would have taken a lot of foresight to see improved fuels would enable the Merlin to produce similar power to the Vulture by the mid to late war period.
The problem in the service engines was not the fuel.I wonder how a Vulture retuned for high octane fuel would have performed. At least Napier Sabre territory?
The problem in the service engines was not the fuel.
It was connecting rods.
RR never again designed an engine that used 4 cylinders on one connecting rod.
They made several 24 cylinder engines but always with just 2 cylinder per rod assembly.