The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn

[Admiral Beez]

The prototype Firebrand with the Sabre engine is IMO attractive from certain angles.

This isn't a what if scenario, but more an inquiry into what impact early introduction of the Sabre-powered Firebrand might have had. Per Wikipedia the Air Ministry ordered three prototypes in Jan 1941, but the Sabre-powered Firebrand wasn't first flown until thirteen months later in Feb 1942 and finally entered service in 1945, but with the Centaurus engine.

If the Sabre-powered Firebrand enters FAA service in late 1942 or more realistically early 1943 this will likely slow Tempest production as Napier was never quick on making the Sabre. Any other impacts of early Firebrand service?

 

[tomo pauk]

How come this is not a what-if topic?

 

[Admiral Beez]

How come this is not a what-if topic?

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

This isn't a what if scenario, but more an inquiry into what impact early introduction of the Sabre-powered Firebrand might have had.

And besides IMHO the What'If forum has become a ridiculous pit of impulsive threads that both lack premise and depend on events/technologies/kit being magically conjured away.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

A very definition of what-if (my bold):
"but more an inquiry into what impact early introduction of the Sabre-powered Firebrand might have had. "

And besides IMHO the What'If forum has become a ridiculous pit of impulsive threads that both lack premise and depend on events/technologies/kit being magically conjured away.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[nuuumannn]

This thread is in danger of becoming a what-if in itself, without the original premise...

We'd have to assume that first it was actually suitable for carrier service, which, of course the Sabre variant was not, so, there is our first detour from reality. Nevertheless, what transpired beforehand in reality in terms of the Martlet, Sea Hurricane, Fulmar, Firefly and Seafire would have happened at any rate, because all these things took place either before the war or in waiting for the Firebrand. If the Firebrand was suitable for service in 1942/43, as was originally envisaged, very little would have changed, to be honest. By this stage the USA was supplying aircraft by Lend Lease to boost the navy's stock, so it would have been added to carrier decks, but in what capacity and number we'd have to imagine, since Lend Lease radically changed the navy's resources.

In '42/43, the navy is gradually building its deck space up, but it's limited. The discussion becomes a comparison/competition between the Seafire, Firefly, Martlet, Hellcat, Corsair versus Firebrand. We can assume the Sea Hurricane is ditched for the Firebrand and Seafire, which is why it became a thing in the first place.

 

[wuzak]

And besides IMHO the What'If forum has become a ridiculous pit of impulsive threads that both lack premise and depend on events/technologies/kit being magically conjured away.

And yet you are magically willing something into existence - A Firebrand that works during WWII and is suitable for carrier use.

In any case, all it would have taken is the Air Ministry to say to Bristol that their sleeve valve engines are taking too long and order them to build poppet valve engines.

It must be noted that in several specifications issued the Hercules was to be the backup to the Merlin, when the reality was the Merlin was the backup to the Hercules in some aircraft, because the Hercules was taking too long to get sorted.

 

[Freebird]

This thread is in danger of becoming a what-if in itself, without the original premise...

We'd have to assume that first it was actually suitable for carrier service, which, of course the Sabre variant was not, .

Are we sure that it wasn't suitable?

Certainly the cockpit so far back and other aspects aren't ideal for a naval fighter, but in event that there weren't Lend Lease fighters available AND that there was actually a pressing need for a long range single-seat escort/interceptor in 1942/43, could it have been made workable? (however deficient)

As I understand the issue was the long development and the shortage of Sabres.
With the exception of air cover for Husky/Torch (filled by short range Seafires) there wasn't much need anymore for high performance naval fighters in the ETO, so the British were presumably willing to wait on the modified Firebrand with the Centaurus

 

[Admiral Beez]

We'd have to assume that first it was actually suitable for carrier service, which, of course the Sabre variant was not

Why not? The chin scoop is gone. What was the failure rate of the Sabre? Typhoons and Tempests flew regularly over water and on long missions over France, etc.

And yet you are magically willing something into existence - A Firebrand that works during WWII and is suitable for carrier use.

That's not my intention. I can't stand those idiot threads that depend on magic. So let me be clear, I'm not suggesting the Firebrand was suitable or even that it works. Perhaps it would have been an unmitigated disaster. But by 1940 the Air Ministry issued the spec for the Firebrand and the prototype design was underway and will fly in 1942. I'm not conjuring anything, but I am pondering the impact had the project commenced.

As I understand the issue was the long development and the shortage of Sabres.

That was more my understanding, that Sabres were long to produce and the limited supply was directed to the Typhoon and Tempest. And that returns to my original question, does giving the FAA the Firebrand reduce the available Typhoons and even impact the entire Tempest program? The latter is the RAF's primary V-1 missile interceptor.

 

[wuzak]

That's not my intention. I can't stand those idiot threads that depend on magic. So let me be clear, I'm not suggesting the Firebrand was suitable or even that it works. Perhaps it would have been an unmitigated disaster. But by 1940 the Air Ministry issued the spec for the Firebrand and the prototype design was underway and will fly in 1942. I'm not conjuring anything, but I am pondering the impact had the project commenced.

And Tomo was just pondering the impact had Bristol and Napier's sleeve valve designs failed.

Tomo never suggested that the sleeve valve was never invented or used, but that the Sabre and Bristol projects failed.


If the Firebrand wasn't suitable or did not work then its impact would be about as much as it was historically.

 

[swampyankee]

How come this is not a what-if topic?

That would be my exact question, especially given the OP's phrase "an inquiry into what impact early introduction of the Sabre-powered Firebrand might have had."

He's positing a different event and looking into the ramifications; that would fit my definition of a "what-if" scenario.

Don't get me wrong: I think he's proposing a very interesting scenario. The UK had more than one "almost" in its aircraft development programs in WW2, probably one of the closest being the Hawker Tornado.


The Sabre had some very real reliability problems in service, many of which could be much more problematic in an aircraft taking off and landing from a carrier than one cruising over water, one of which is that one of the more common times for engine failure is power reduction after take-off. I think that, had the UK had a viable alternative to the Sabre in 1940, they'd have cut their losses and terminated the program. They didn't, nor, for that matter, did the US with the R-3350.

 

[wuzak]

I think that, had the UK had a viable alternative to the Sabre in 1940, they'd have cut their losses and terminated the program. They didn't, nor, for that matter, did the US with the R-3350.

The US did, in the V-3420. Replaced R-3350s on the XB-19 specifically to test it as a backup to for the B-29.

But the USAAF never did stick with it - one minute they wanted, then they didn't, then they did again.

Then they allowed the team working on the V-3420/B-29 to waste time making the waste of space that was the XP-75.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think that, had the UK had a viable alternative to the Sabre in 1940, they'd have cut their losses and terminated the program.

When the UK finally did have a viable alternative to the Sabre, they continued the program with introducing the Centaurus-powered variant to fleet service in 1945. That decision (plus the Seafang) always perplexed me, since they've got the Hawker Sea Fury now, which along with the Grumman F8F Bearcat has to be one the best all time piston powered carrier fighters. I suppose the Firebrand could carry a torpedo, but that always struck me as a hail Mary attempt for relevance.

 

[swampyankee]

The V-3420 was probably the greatest missed engine development of wwii

 

[stona]

The Sabre had some very real reliability problems in service, many of which could be much more problematic in an aircraft taking off and landing from a carrier than one cruising over water, one of which is that one of the more common times for engine failure is power reduction after take-off. I think that, had the UK had a viable alternative to the Sabre in 1940, they'd have cut their losses and terminated the program. They didn't, nor, for that matter, did the US with the R-3350.

Many of the Sabre's problems were production problems. They began to be mitigated in 1943 when English Electric became involved.

The problem in 1939/40 was that there were no guaranteed alternatives to the Sabre for the next generation of aircraft. Rolls-Royce was struggling with the Vulture which had successive failures in 1939. Bristol's Centaurus was at a most rudimentary stage of development and the Air Ministry had already taken a gamble on the Hercules, placing production orders before it was a proven success.

The Air Ministry had got itself into this pickle because although there were five manufacturers of aero engines in the inter-war years, as rearmament gathered pace, between April 1936 and May 1939, 83% of British military aero engines were produced by just two, Rolls-Royce and Bristol.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but not afforded the decision makers at the time.

The decision to proceed with the Sabre (and build a factory to produce it at Liverpool) was taken with the distinct possibility that Messrs. Napier might withdraw from the aero engine business altogether. What then if both the Vulture and Hercules failed? The Sabre was a third string to the Air Ministry's bow. It is also worth remembering that nobody realised at the time that Merlin development offered the most direct path to improved fighter performance. In April 1940, a memorandum prepared by Air Member for Research and Development (Freeman) for the Secretary of State for Air listed two variants of the Hercules, the Sabre, Griffon* and Centaurus. It did not mention the Merlin at all!

*The Griffon was resurrected by Rolls-Royce precisely because of the perceived competition posed by the financing of the Napier Sabre. Without the Sabre there might not have been a Griffon at all, and certainly not so soon.

 

[Shortround6]

The termination of the Sleeve valve program at Bristol was possibility. It may have been the determination of one man, Roy Fedden, that carried it through. For good or bad he was seen as the dean of British aircraft engine designers in the late 20s and for the 30s. However he was often not easy to get along with and the board of directors of Bristol terminated his employment in 1942, which did nothing to advance the Centaurus program, but does say something about his ability to get along with others, regardless of how conservative or stodgy the Board of directors may have been. One might say they either terminated him several years too late or a couple of years too early.
Either kill the sleeve program in the mid 30s or let him see the Centaurus through to production.
According to some accounts Fedden nearly bankrupted the company developing the sleeve valve engine and getting it into production so the possibility of the program collapsing certainly existed without resorting to "magic". Or even AIr Ministry interference.

Quite possibly (my opinion) the thing that kept the sleeve valve going in England (not counting Napier) was that the large British radials were obsolescent, dating back to the mid 20s or earlier and the designers were looking for a great leap forward rather than a steady development. As I have said before, many of the advantages touted for the sleeve valve radials over the poppet valve engines only applied to Bristol engines and quite possibly the Armstrong Siddeley ones. The British were loosing world market share to the Americans and needed something dramatic to regain it.

Getting the Firebrand in service on flight decks in 1942/early 43 requires a more reliable Sabre, a greater supply of Sabre engines, and a Firebrand that actually handles well at low speeds.
Please remember that the squadrons should get their first planes months before deploying to a carrier deck in action for training/familiarization so saying that the Sabre was "fixed" in the middle of 1942 is a bit too late. You can't have dozens of airframes waiting for "fixed" engines without a bit of "magic". Many aircraft were planned to use the Sabre but as the Sabres troubles wore on many were canceled or they tried to switch them to other engines. Getting the Sabre 'fixed' and into large scale production was too much of a gamble to bet on for planes 1-2 years in the future.

 

[swampyankee]

I think one thing to recall is that the Merlin, the Griffin, the R-2800, the R-3350, and the R-4360 all had long careers after the end of WW2. The Sabre didn't. Indeed, of all the Allied piston engines in large production, it was the one which fell out of service first. While this is obviously hindsight, I think it speaks volumes about the negative reputation that the Sabre built for itself.

Other than the Typhoon and Tempest, how many Sabre projects went beyond prototype stage without changing to a different engine?

 

[Shortround6]

Well...............I believe the current subject, the Firebrand, had the largest number of either airframes or installed engines. Lots of planned twins, few real aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I think one thing to recall is that the Merlin, the Griffin, the R-2800, the R-3350, and the R-4360 all had long careers after the end of WW2. The Sabre didn't. Indeed, of all the Allied piston engines in large production, it was the one which fell out of service first.

That's a good point. Is anything flying with the Sabre today? When was the last time a Typhoon or Tempest flew?

Wikipedia shows several Tempests under restoration, but only two are Sabre-powered, the rest being the later Centaurus-powered variants. It must be hard to find parts or support vs. plentiful Merlins.

 

[stona]

Quite possibly (my opinion) the thing that kept the sleeve valve going in England (not counting Napier) was that the large British radials were obsolescent, dating back to the mid 20s or earlier and the designers were looking for a great leap forward rather than a steady development. As I have said before, many of the advantages touted for the sleeve valve radials over the poppet valve engines only applied to Bristol engines and quite possibly the Armstrong Siddeley ones. The British were loosing world market share to the Americans and needed something dramatic to regain it.

I seem to remember Napier receiving some materials technology from Bristol to improve the Sabre's sleeve valves. I can't remember where I read about it

Whenever I see a sleeve valve system demonstrated it looks rather over complicated, with too many bits of metal sliding up and down relative to each other!

 

[swampyankee]

I seem to remember Napier receiving some materials technology from Bristol to improve the Sabre's sleeve valves. I can't remember where I read about it

Whenever I see a sleeve valve system demonstrated it looks rather over complicated, with too many bits of metal sliding up and down relative to each other!

Look at all the gears, cranks, and linkages involved in driving the Sabre or Centaurus sleeves. It couldn't be done by a simple set of cams and followers; the sleeves need to both reciprocate and oscillate.