The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
Admiral Beez
Major
Indeed. These are Bristol sleeves but I assume Napier are similarly complicated.
Did all these hard to seal parts mean the Sabre burnt a lot of oil? That wouldn't do for a naval aircraft.
I often wonder why Armstrong's engines weren't develped further as a contingency in case Bristol (or Napier) failing.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Which engines?
The Tiger, a 2000 cu in two 14 cylinder radial was rapidly establishing a reputation for being absolute rubbish. It powered early Whitleys but once the Merlin powered ones showed up the Whitlews with A-S Tiger engines were banned from over water flights. Most engineers knew what was wrong with it. It had no center bearing on the crankshaft between the two rows of cylinders. This had worked for over 15 years on smaller, lower powered two row radials but there was too much crankshaft flex on big engines using much boost. Strangely enough the Tiger was the first production engine to use a two speed supercharger.
That leaves the Deerhound and kin. With A-S's reputation circling the bowl of the porcelain facility it needed a pretty good showing to get taken seriously. While it many not have tested badly it also had cooling problems that were taking a while to sort out, not helped by A-S changing the size of the engine periodically as the desired power output kept going up.
Like many canceled engines, it is claimed it was canceled just as most/all of the problems were solved
Part of the trouble may have been that to be taken seriously as a backup program to 1 or 2 novel programs it helps if the backup program is not an engine configuration that nobody else has gotten into production either.
- Thread starter
- #24
Admiral Beez
Major
Shame. I like their cars, though equally a dead end. And I don't know what the heck they were thinking here with this postwar model.
I wonder what happened to the Firebrand's designer G.E. Petty, presumably he also made the Firecrest. Someone else surely made the superlative Buccaneer, Blackburn's best carrier aircraft since the Baffin.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,034
- Jun 25, 2013
Somebody liked pickup trucks
- Thread starter
- #26
Admiral Beez
Major
That's the Australians and their 'utes, the mullet of the car world, business in the front, party in the back. The Ute or utility vehicle was designed to be a respectable car in the front for taking to town whilst the back could carry the farm equipment on workdays. Armstrong made these special for the Aussie market.
Armstrong Siddeley - Wikipedia
Apologies for taking us off topic but I love old British cars. This August, Covid19 permitting I'm visiting the British Motor Museum | Home
Wasn't just to do with availability of engines, but its lousy view over the nose and various other issues regarding deck handling (it took ages and the half the manpower on deck to manually fold its wings). Increases in control surface size improved its low speed handling, but it suffered niggling issues that didn't go away, for example when the flaps were put down, the thing shuddered (this was only present in the Sabre engined variants), so it was a less than operable solution by the time it had completed carrier trials aboard Illustrious. Another aspect of it was that it became a victim of its own ability in that its impressive load carrying capability and size made it a good load lifting machine, i.e. a torpedo carrier, so it was decided that that should be its course, this was before nine fighter F.Mk.Is had been completed. Enter the TF Mk.II, the Sabre engined torpedo carrier.
The next issue was that the aircraft introduced into service as alternates, i.e. the Seafire could better it in ability as fighters. It had good diving characteristics and it was fast for such a big machine, but in trials with a Spitfire, it was left standing in terms of manoeuvrability and low speed handling, not surprisingly.
The challenge that Brough had to convert it into a torpedo fighter took up precious time also, to the extent that the first Firebrands didn't see squadron service aboard a carrier until 1947 (!). Brown reported that during a trial landing of a TF.III in 1944, he ripped the arrestor hook out of its mount on catching the wire... Clearly there was work to be done.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
Admiral Beez
Major
I think I need to relabel this thread, Why Was the Firebrand Rubbish?"
Here's the last word in Aussie utes, the Maloo, a V8 LS engined workhorse capable of a respectable nought to 62mph in just over four seconds. Not bad for a flat bed pick-up (I have the four door sedan version of this beastie).
https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/holdenspecialvehicles/maloo/
Shortround6
Major General
Well, it will get you to the pub before closing time after a long day
I know a joke like that, An Aussie farmer and a Kiwi farmer are talking about their farms and the Kiwi farmer said that his farm was huge, and that he had some 1,000 head of cattle. The Aussie farmer says, "jeez mate, that's nothing, I've got three times that number of cattle and it takes three hours to drive from one end of my farm to the other!" The Kiwi farmer turns to the Aussie farmer and says, "no sh*t mate, I've got a ute like that, too!"
So anyway, back to the Firebrand and a few bits from a book referencing the A & AEE reports on the type, beginning in April 1942. The first example that arrived for testing was immediately sent back to the manufacturer because of serious handling issues. On the return of the type to Boscombe Down the longitudinal stability had improved by the fitting of a tailplane with increased span, but "serious faults persisted including rudder overbalance to the left...", whereas right rudder caused the elevators to pitch up, thus causing the nose to rise and the ailerons tended to also overbalance. large trim changes were required during changes in configuration. The pilot also suffered with exhaust fumes entering the cockpit - this appears to have affected the aircraft throughout its development. The worst aspect was that there was poor response to control inputs on final approach, becoming worse with power reduction.
A third visit with trim tabs on all control surfaces had no impact on rudder and aileron overbalance. The elevator ceased to hunt and trim changes with power and speed were reduced, but the flap operation still required large changes in trim. Forces required to move control surfaces remained too high overall however, despite increases in surface area of fin and rudder. It was found that the rudder became immoveable at high speed, which resulted in a cut down rear fuselage.
Armament trials went by without a hitch initially, but trials with rockets were not successful, stall speed was high, as was buffeting and alteration of speed caused large lateral and directional trim changes and there was no downward view for launching an attack. "The aircraft was rejected on handling behaviour". A couple of the individual examples sent to Boscombe were withdrawn from use due to serious handling problems. During torpedo trials in July 1943, the aircraft suffered shuddering above 200mph and this resulted in the trials being stopped. This was cured by a faired torpedo cradle, but there was a problem with poor longitudinal control, again, something the type suffered throughout its career, which was exacerbated by the rear CG when carrying a torpedo.
These aircraft trialled that I've written about thus far were all Sabre engined variants. The Centaurus was more reliable, but handling issues still affected the aircraft; take-off swing was excessive and the rudder heavy, whilst elevator forces were too light. Ailerons were better but during approach were too heavy. After factory modifications, they were better above 100mph but poor on approach, the view forward was improved, as was elevator effectiveness on approach, but it remained too light at high speed. The fitting of spring tabs and a broader rudder travel improved matters, but these fixes were still insufficient to cope with large trim changes. large G-forces on pull-out of dives remained a criticism.
By mid 1945, the issues hadn't changed much, and rudder spring and trim tabs were introduced to give acceptable pedal travel, but take-off distance increased. High approach speeds were necessary because of "heavy and inefficient" ailerons.
Anyway, that's a snapshot of what the aircraft suffered throughout its wartime testing history. Several crashed during trials owing to various things like engine fires, loss of oil, torpedo tails breaking off etc. It really was a dog and there was no wonder the navy wouldn't let it aboard a carrier for so long. Brown said that it should have been cancelled once its various issues were revealed during initial trials - I suspect he could have been right.
A third visit with trim tabs on all control surfaces had no impact on rudder and aileron overbalance. The elevator ceased to hunt and trim changes with power and speed were reduced, but the flap operation still required large changes in trim. Forces required to move control surfaces remained too high overall however, despite increases in surface area of fin and rudder. It was found that the rudder became immoveable at high speed, which resulted in a cut down rear fuselage.
Armament trials went by without a hitch initially, but trials with rockets were not successful, stall speed was high, as was buffeting and alteration of speed caused large lateral and directional trim changes and there was no downward view for launching an attack. "The aircraft was rejected on handling behaviour". A couple of the individual examples sent to Boscombe were withdrawn from use due to serious handling problems. During torpedo trials in July 1943, the aircraft suffered shuddering above 200mph and this resulted in the trials being stopped. This was cured by a faired torpedo cradle, but there was a problem with poor longitudinal control, again, something the type suffered throughout its career, which was exacerbated by the rear CG when carrying a torpedo.
These aircraft trialled that I've written about thus far were all Sabre engined variants. The Centaurus was more reliable, but handling issues still affected the aircraft; take-off swing was excessive and the rudder heavy, whilst elevator forces were too light. Ailerons were better but during approach were too heavy. After factory modifications, they were better above 100mph but poor on approach, the view forward was improved, as was elevator effectiveness on approach, but it remained too light at high speed. The fitting of spring tabs and a broader rudder travel improved matters, but these fixes were still insufficient to cope with large trim changes. large G-forces on pull-out of dives remained a criticism.
By mid 1945, the issues hadn't changed much, and rudder spring and trim tabs were introduced to give acceptable pedal travel, but take-off distance increased. High approach speeds were necessary because of "heavy and inefficient" ailerons.
Anyway, that's a snapshot of what the aircraft suffered throughout its wartime testing history. Several crashed during trials owing to various things like engine fires, loss of oil, torpedo tails breaking off etc. It really was a dog and there was no wonder the navy wouldn't let it aboard a carrier for so long. Brown said that it should have been cancelled once its various issues were revealed during initial trials - I suspect he could have been right.
Last edited:
wuzak
Captain
The Tiger, a 2000 cu in two 14 cylinder radial was rapidly establishing a reputation for being absolute rubbish. It powered early Whitleys but once the Merlin powered ones showed up the Whitlews with A-S Tiger engines were banned from over water flights. Most engineers knew what was wrong with it. It had no center bearing on the crankshaft between the two rows of cylinders. This had worked for over 15 years on smaller, lower powered two row radials but there was too much crankshaft flex on big engines using much boost. Strangely enough the Tiger was the first production engine to use a two speed supercharger.
That leaves the Deerhound and kin. With A-S's reputation circling the bowl of the porcelain facility it needed a pretty good showing to get taken seriously. While it many not have tested badly it also had cooling problems that were taking a while to sort out, not helped by A-S changing the size of the engine periodically as the desired power output kept going up.
Like many canceled engines, it is claimed it was canceled just as most/all of the problems were solved
The Deerhound was air-cooled because the Air Ministry wanted it that way. If Armstrong-Siddeley had their way it would have been liquid-cooled.
Apart from the cooling issues and not making the required rated power, what problems did the Deerhound have? I don't think it had the number of issues Rolls-Royce had to work through on the Vulture.
In any case, Deerhound development was cancelled so that AS could concentrate on developing a gas turbine engine, the ASX.
- Thread starter
- #34
Admiral Beez
Major
Thanks. This gives some insight to this image, as the conditions look fine for landing. This too. Why did the Brits keep trying when they had the superlative Sea Fury?
Outside of the Buccaneer, did Blackburn make any good aircraft? Even those that saw wider service seemed to be withdrawn and replaced as soon as possible. The Baffin and Shark were quickly replaced by the Swordfish, the Skua and Roc by the Fulmar, Firebrand by Sea Fury, etc. After the Botha disgrace who was giving this firm more business? They're the British Brewster.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,034
- Jun 25, 2013
Quite a few government agencies -- including the militaries -- seem to have never heard of the sunk cost fallacy and will keep throwing more money into projects that should have been terminated earlier. (as an aside, any time you hear a politician saying "we can't let those <insert nationality here> have died in vain," they're indulging in a sunk cost fallacy.)
Shortround6
Major General
They weren't as bad as Brewster by a long shot.
The Baffin was just plain old, many of them were actually rebuilt/re-engined Ripons. You have part metal, part wood fabric covered airplane and you stick a new engine in the nose of a two year old airplane, how long do you think it was going to last? The Baffin was a more reliable, cheaper to maintain alternative to keeping the Ripon in service during the great depression.
Not saying it was a great airplane but calling it a failure because it was replaced as quickly as it was (and the plans for replacing it were already underway) dosen't seem fair.
The British had a real "thing" for ordering all kinds of "interim" aircraft to hold them over until the real plane/s they wanted showed up.
I don't know how bad the Shark was as an airplane, it had the misfortune to be powered by the A-S Tiger engine which was exhibiting signs of unreliability even in the early/mid 30s.
This certainly didn't help things. Later versions got Pegasus engines. The Shark did have several things going for it at a naval aircraft. All metal fuselage, not fabric covered, with built in floatation. Stainless steel main spars, strut braced wings with few wire braces decreased maintenance. It may have been more expensive? It was chosen for production in Canada.
In contrast to Brewster, Blackburn did manage to build 1700 Swordfish under licence, 635 Barracuda MK IIs and 250 Sunderlands. With few, if any, complaints as to build quality.
- Thread starter
- #37
Admiral Beez
Major
Maybe that's how Blackburn should be remembered, as a an effective license producer of other firms' aircraft. As such, it's noteworthy they could go from this to the Bucaneer.
Shortround6
Major General
Blackburns design staff were busy boys, from 1945 till the Buccaneer they went through about 57-58 design studies. Some got further than others.
They were trying everything they could think of.
They were trying everything they could think of.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,034
- Jun 25, 2013
That aircraft, albeit it ugly, did work.
Shortround6
Major General
No argument there.
The designs swung from a 6 engine flying boat to 6-10 seat commuter planes sort of like the De Havilland Dove and a lot of stuff in between
The designs swung from a 6 engine flying boat to 6-10 seat commuter planes sort of like the De Havilland Dove and a lot of stuff in between
