The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Shortround6 said:
...
Most I-16s (and all the ones from the mid 30s on) used Russian built R-1820s or descended from them. And please note that the 3 fighters I quoted as using the R-1820 all were 290-310mph fighters.
Click to expand...

I've went specifically for the I-16 and not for the American fighters for a reason. The reason being that American fighters have had the wing about 50% bigger and were much heavier.
We can of course take a look at Fokker XXI with Perseus X and retractable U/C. Or take the Japanese fighters in consideration for the base, like Ki 27 or A5M.

It would have been if you stuck an engine with 100hp less in the nose
Click to expand...

The I-16 Type 18, with M62 engine of 820 HP at altitude, was good for almost 290 mph. 880 HP is more power, not less.
The I-16 Type, with M63 engine of 900 HP at 4.5 km (14760 ft without ram) was good for 300+ mph at 15750 ft.
 
Kevin J said:
Perhaps a Perseus powered Whirlwind for use in the Far East?
Click to expand...
Not a Whirlwind, but if anyone could get the aerodynamic efficiency and streamlining needed to give a POS engine like the Perseus the best chances in a single-engine fighter, it's "Teddy" Petter.

But then again, Petter's first single-engine, single-seat fighter was the failed Wyvern, the last Westland aircraft designed by Petter before he joined English Electric.
 
Last edited:


I-16s typically carried about 56imp gallons of fuel, the Type 18 had four 7.62 machine guns, granted the rate of fire was closer to six of most other peoples RCMGs. But other mations are not going to have that machine gun and have to make up the firepower with more (heavier) guns.

So our Perseus fighter in the west has 4-6 RCMGs and 55-65 imp gallons of fuel and tops out at around 300mph at altitude?

Great if your enemy delivers not particularly well protected aircraft right to your doorstep, Not so great if you have to fly any distance/time or attack larger, tougher aircraft.
 

You can note that by the last pages of this thread people want to strip down the Roc or wrap something around the Perseus in order to have a half-decent fighter. A 300 mph fighter with 4-6 LMGs seem to offer that is wanted here, and then some more.
 
"strip down the Roc or wrap something around the Perseus in order to have a half-decent fighter. A 300 mph fighter with 4-6 LMGs seem to offer that is wanted here, and then some more. "

And what you get is exactly that " a half-decent fighter"instead of a decent fighter. You need more of them to get the same target effect, you loose more pilots for the same damage done ot the enemy, you suck up more ground crew for the same damage done to the enemy because they have to service more planes.
 

I also can be persistent.
Note that I've also said 'and then some more'. With what I've suggested, there will be less sorties required and less ground crew needed than with any radial-powered British fighter in 1935-1940, and some V12-powered.
 
With this in mind, there's no much hope for improving the Skua by removing the second seat, streamlining the canopy and external surfaces, doubling the forward armament and losing the bomb fittings. This won't address the spinning or lack of acceleration.

Could clipping the wings improve roll and aerobatic abilities? The Skua was 35 ft long with a wingspan was 46 ft, a full ten feet wider than a Spitfire Mk. V. I don't think any single engine fighter had such a massive wingspan, for example Grumman Hellcat is 43 ft. Clearly the Skua's wingspan is driven by the need to lift bombs off a short deck - skip that requirement, clip the wings and perhaps Blackburn can achieve something?

Why is the engine so far forward? What's in the empty space behind it? Shortening this forward section or the tail length may also be worthwhile, but now we're getting into an entirely new aircraft.

 
Last edited:
I have no idea where this idea comes from that you can take a big wing, 2 seat, loading carrying aircraft and taking a pair of tinsnips in hand, convert it into a viable fighter plane.

Cut five feet off each wingtip, you still have the heavy wing structure intended to withstand high G pullouts from dive bombing on a regular basis. A plane designed for a 36-38 foot wing span may have lighter spars to begin with even if designed for the same G load. You also have to totally redo the flaps and ailerons. You have the original airfoil.
Fare over the back seat, you still have the extra length, weight and surface skin drag of the original fuselage.

So what if you pick up 15-20mph with all the modifications. You are still way to slow even against the enemy 2nd sting aircraft.
 
While the Skua wasn't a great aircraft, it was a competent dive bomber (ask the crew of the Königsberg about how useless it was). Unlike the SBD, it was operating in a comparatively target-poor environment (the Kriegsmarine was both smaller and its surface fleet less aggressive than the IJN) and in one where it was more likely to meet heavy fighter opposition. Overall, it doesn't compare too badly to the SBD.

The Roc was a piece of crap. Period. First, to be an effective fighter it must be reasonably able to combat enemy fighter aircraft; the Roc could not compete with biplane fighters in service at the time. Indeed, the Roc was barely faster than the Douglas B-18 or the Martin B-10, both obsolescent at the start of WW2. If the only thing providing air cover for your carrier task force is Blackburn Rocs, an attacking air group need not bother with escorts. The laden bombers (say SM.79s) would be faster than the defending fighters.

Could an effective carrier fighter be based on the Perseus engine? Possibly. It would have to be very carefully designed and would be more like the Curtiss CW-21/CW-21B or Caudron CR.714 than any really successful fighter aircraft.
 
swampyankee said:
The Roc was a piece of crap.
Click to expand...
If they wanted a turret fighter, the FAA should have just asked for a folding Defiant. The wing is essentially made for a folding mechanism.



So much wasted effort and resources chasing designs that if the AM had only asked the pilots they'd have known which ideas were dead ends. What was the point of having "Winkle" Brown on the FAA's evaluation/procurement team if they didn't consult with Brown during the initial phase of outlining design ideas and performance requirements?
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
What was the point of having "Winkle" Brown on the FAA's evaluation/procurement team if they didn't consult with Brown during the initial phase of outlining design ideas and performance requirements?
Click to expand...
When the Roc was introduced Brown wasn't even a military pilot.
 
pbehn said:
When the Roc was introduced Brown wasn't even a military pilot.
Click to expand...
True, in Brown's case I was thinking of aircraft he evaluated during his time with the FAA, such as the Blackburn Firebrand. My suggestion wasn't meant to focus entirely on Brown, one would have hoped the FAA's procurement and evaluation team always included some experienced pilots.... but perhaps not, as someone approved the Roc for production even though it was slower than almost anything it had to catch.

Did the Germans have their own version of Blackburn, some firm making consistently rubbish or over-thought aircraft? Certainly each German firm had its dogs, this could arguably include the Messerschmitt Me 210 and Heinkel He177, but these firms also had superlative types. Could we regard Henschel as the German Blackburn? Their Hs 129 was no winner, let down like many a Blackburn by poor engines and like Blackburn most Henschel designs don't make it past prototype or limited runs.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
If they wanted a turret fighter, the FAA should have just asked for a folding Defiant. The wing is essentially made for a folding mechanism.
Click to expand...

Yup, I said this several posts back. And the fact that slimming the Skua and Roc down was not going to produce something viable. Again, y'all are wasting your time. Nothing good is gonna come from it. The airframe is old by 1940. It's also large. Take a look at the Defiant versus Skua/Roc figures I posted. It's just not worth putting that effort into it. Build an entirely new aircraft or convert some existing single-seater for navy service, but these two's future died when they did.

Even the British officials thought that the Skua was a bad fighter. In 1938 the Air Material Department of the Air Ministry recommended that the aircraft be cancelled on the basis that it was apporaching obsolescence as a fighter and the Naval Air Department objected because there was nothing to replace it with and cancelling it would leave the navy without a dive bomber for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
The Skua never really got a MK II version.
Click to expand...

You mean to say there was a Mk.II and the Mk.Is were the prototypes. These were powered by the Mercury and had minor differences from production variants, which were, strictly speaking, Skua Mk.IIs. I know, it's a pedantic point, but for the sake of accuracy...
 
The RN didn't have dive bomber before the Skua and didn't field one after the Skua was withdrawn in 1941 until the Barracuda entered limited CV service.

As for fighter, how would you rate the Sea Gladiator against the Skua in a mock dogfight?
 
Admiral Beez said:
The RN didn't have dive bomber before the Skua and didn't field one after the Skua was withdrawn in 1941 until the Barracuda entered limited CV service.

As for fighter, how would you rate the Sea Gladiator against the Skua in a mock dogfight?
Click to expand...

The Swordfish and Albacore were both capable of vertical divebombing, and the Albacore's flaps were stressed for divebombing.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
The RN didn't have dive bomber before the Skua and didn't field one after the Skua was withdrawn in 1941 until the Barracuda entered limited CV service.

As for fighter, how would you rate the Sea Gladiator against the Skua in a mock dogfight?
Click to expand...
Not so, both the Albacore and Barracuda fulfilled the torpedo dive-bomber recon roles. As for the Skua's opponents, you're looking at the Ar 196, Bv 138, Do 24, H3K and whatever the Italians had against which its replacement, the Fulmar, had a stellar performance. Our most successful carrier fighter in WW2.
 
Pursuing the Perseus as a fighter engine didn't happen in real life, so why is it that people here think it should have been? Is there something that Bristol and fighter developers in the late 30s were missing that you guys know? Bristol already had a fighter engine in the Mercury. The Perseus was fitted to only one single-seat fighter, the Bulldog as a trials airframe only. The Mercury, as we know was fitted to the Gladiator and the Fokker G.1, Blenheim If, Bulldog and a host of other noin-fighter types put into production, not to mention the licence built variants that foreign countries chose to put into their designs.

(I'll say it again...) Vickers avoided the Perseus altogether and put the lower power rated Aquila into the Venom, which, in Jeffrey Quill's view was a match for the Hurricane in terms of performance.
 
It's difficult to understand why the Perseus was ever built. Many years ago I worked for ICL, they did a similar thing, computers that competed with each other in the market place, same with Austin-Morris and British Leyland with their cars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Blackburn Firebrand and Bristol Brigand
Replies
9
Views
653
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
A
How did B-17 and B-24 formations avoid shooting each other?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
5K
Peter Gunn
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
Rare (mostly unseen) footage of Power Jets, the Miles M.52, and other projects
Replies
3
Views
800
Dronescapes
Menu
Log in
Register