The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn

[Zipper730]

The view could be forgiven and forgotten if the Firebrand was stable at low speed.

Why did it have stability issues? I know that, at the most basic level, that the center of gravity and center of pressure weren't in the correct position, but I'm curious if there was any ineptitude in the design or simply dumb luck?

As for that picture of the plane dropping a wing, that looks like a crash would be imminent a second or so after.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Zipper730 Judging by the size of these flaps and how the tail height and area of the rudder was increased from prototype to final models, I'd say Blackburn had low speed handling and stability in mind. So, I'm surprised they buggered it up sufficiently in the production models to evoke Captain Brown's ire.

Interesting facts about the Blackburn Firebrand

 

[Dimlee]

But sticking to aircraft, are there cases of the manufacturer's design chief losing his life or being injured crashing his own design?

Vladimir Petlyakov died in the Pe-2 crash. That was a pilot's error though.

 

[nuuumannn]

Dear God no! The unable to fire forwards Defiant trope again. All that was missing was the pilot's sight and training. The turret had a a position and gun switch to point forwards with the barrels pointing above the propellor and handed over to pilot control.

Actually, I'm not saying they couldn't fire forwards, Yulzari, read my post again. In the first paragraph I say that pilots could, and in the second I say they couldn't fire at an angle of less than 19 degrees to the horizontal, then question that, but not that they couldn't fire forward.

 

[nuuumannn]

To call it a poor fighter would be like calling the Me109 a poor bomber just because it could carry a bomb.

Actually no. While you've got it right regarding the role the Skua was to carry out as understood by the Admiralty when O.27/34 was written, that the Skua was unlikely to meet enemy single-seaters during these escort roles, and that the dive bomber aspect of its multi-role task was its primary one, but it was intended as a fighter. Fighter escort is still fighter escort and the Admiralty intended that it be a fighter. It was never going to be able to match single-seaters, no, and that's what was intended, but it was still a fighter, so perhaps a more fitting allegory that that one.

The problem was the concept of a multi-role fighter dive bomber; the entire specification was short sighted to begin with. There were two very different structural requirements going on there. I get that the Admiralty wanted multi-role - the paper produced in 1930 specifying multi-role aircraft, exemplified in the TSR requirement makes sense, but even then, the role of the single-seat fighter never quite disappeared afterwards (despite what everyone else would have us believe) in the FAA - see the Sea Gladiator and desperate attempts to acquire one through any means necessary in the very early years of WW2. That the Skua was late to production and service didn't help, particularly since fighter development changed dramatically from 1934 in just a few years, with the Bf 109, Hurricane and Spitfire appearing within a year to two years after the Skua spec was issued.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The problem was the concept of a multi-role fighter dive bomber; the entire specification was short sighted to begin with. There were two very different structural requirements going on there. I get that the Admiralty wanted multi-role

With the small CAGs in the RN I can appreciate the need for multi-role aircraft, but they combined the wrong roles. If you want an all-metal monoplane dive-bomber rolled into another aircraft they should have combined it with the replacement for the Blackburn Baffin and Shark. So, instead of the Swordfish, you go straight to a radial-powered Barracuda.

 

[Kevin J]

With the small CAGs in the RN I can appreciate the need for multi-role aircraft, but they combined the wrong roles. If you want an all-metal monoplane dive-bomber rolled into another aircraft they should have combined it with the replacement for the Blackburn Baffin and Shark. So, instead of the Swordfish, you go straight to a radial-powered Barracuda.

You mean the Albacore?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You mean the Albacore?

No.

If you want an all-metal monoplane dive-bomber rolled into another aircraft...

I don't see Albacore anywhere here.

If you're happy enough with fabric-covered biplanes for the dual divebomber/torpedo role both the Swordfish and Albacore can do it. But IMO the FAA should have striven for more when calling for the dual role Skua. If the late 1930s IJN and USN can have all-metal, monoplane torpedo and dive bombers (albeit in separate aircraft), so can the Brits. That's the tender that should have gone to Blackburn......

"we want to replace your Sharks now in fleet service with an all metal, monoplane, retractable undercarriage type that can dive bomb to over 70' degrees and carry a torpedo. Now get to work. In the meantime, make us some more Sharks instead of whatever those chaps at Fairey are thinking of; but swap out the dodgy A/S Tiger engine with a Bristol Pegasus."

Make the Skua into a divebomber capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. in bombs or a torpedo and I think history would look more kindly on the poor bastards in the design shop at Blackburn. We won't do it with a Perseus though.

 

[Kevin J]

No.I don't see Albacore anywhere here.

If you're happy enough with fabric-covered biplanes for the dual divebomber/torpedo role both the Swordfish and Albacore can do it. But IMO the FAA should have striven for more when calling for the dual role Skua. If the late 1930s IJN and USN can have all-metal, monoplane torpedo and dive bombers (albeit in separate aircraft), so can the Brits. That's the tender that should have gone to Blackburn......

"we want to replace your Sharks now in fleet service with an all metal, monoplane, retractable undercarriage type that can dive bomb to over 70' degrees and carry a torpedo. Now get to work. In the meantime, make us some more Sharks instead of whatever those chaps at Fairey are thinking of."

Make the Skua into a divebomber capable of carrying 1,000 lbs. in bombs or a torpedo and I think history would look more kindly on the poor bastards in the design shop at Blackburn. We won't do it with a Perseus though.

Instead of sticking a turret in the Skua to get the Roc, perhaps we need to put a Hercules in it and sling a torpedo beneath it.

 

[fastmongrel]

Instead of sticking a turret in the Skua to get the Roc, perhaps we need to put a Hercules in it and sling a torpedo beneath it.

In that case the RN doesnt get an aircraft till the Hercules is in serial production which is mid 1940 iirc and then the Beaufighter is probably going to take priority.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In that case the RN doesnt get an aircraft till the Hercules is in serial production which is mid 1940 iirc and then the Beaufighter is probably going to take priority.

We can't get to where we need to with the Taurus, Pegasus or Neptune? Is the Skua's Perseus not up to the job? We don't need to make any pretenses to fighter abilities now, instead we need lugging power.

A single ~900hp Pegasus managed to get the 12,500 lb. Vickers Wellesley into the air. A British all-metal, monoplane carrier dive/torpedo bomber close to the loaded weight of an Aichi D3A (8,300 lbs) or Nakajima B5N (9,000 lbs) should be possible with the pre-Hercules radials.

Instead of sticking a turret in the Skua to get the Roc, perhaps we need to put a Hercules in it and sling a torpedo beneath it.

Someone had some fun here. But this may be the best use of the turret, as any Mitsubishi A6M attempting to intercept this torpedo bomber from behind will face a heavy concentration of .303.

The Whale has Wings

I think Blackburn was given an impossible task of monoplane, all metal multirole fighter/divebomber. Change this to monoplane, all metal multirole torpedo/divebomber and I bet they'd do a better job. But who knows, they made the Botha.

 

[Shortround6]

Is the Skua's Perseus not up to the job?

Nope. It was, as has been stated before, a 24.9liter, 1520 cubic in engine. Because of it's single stage supercharger even though it was rated at 905hp at 6,500ft it was only rated at 830hp for take-off on 87 octane fuel. It appears that the sleeve valve engines had a bit of problem with 100 octane fuel, That is to say they might have run on it just fine, but they could not use the same amount of extra boost that the poppet valve engines could. Perhaps the sleeves distorted or bent at the higher cylinder pressures?
In any case that is not enough power to do the job. The US SBD-2&3 had 1000hp for take-off and nobody tried to get them off carrier decks with 1600lb payloads.