The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn (1 Viewer)

[RCAFson]

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.

The Roc was a very competent divebomber, and would have made a good recon and shore based short range strike aircraft, especially when fitted with a slipper aux fuel tank. Certainly the idea was flawed, but it could have been used to good effect in secondary roles. The Roc and the Skua were never meant to compete with single seat fighters.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Roc was a very competent divebomber, and would have made a good recon and shore based short range strike aircraft, especially when fitted with a slipper aux fuel tank. Certainly the idea was flawed, but it could have been used to good effect in secondary roles.

It's true about the dive bomber aspect; Rocs were used effectively during the Battle of France as dive bombers. The problem was, the navy already had a competent dive bomber in the Skua and if that was what was needed, more Skuas should have been built.

This is what the C-in-C Home Fleet rather optomistically said about the Roc: "The Roc as a free gun fighter with an excellent multi-gun turret is more than superior to the Skua; itoffers the only chance of effective action against an enemy aircraft of equal or superior performance. To be effective, the fixed gun fighter must have a superior performance and, unless vastly superior, is confined in attack to a limited arc of approach , thus making the defensive armouring of the enemy comparitively easy. Fleet Air Arm fighters are unlikely to have such superiority and it is therefore recommended that such fighters should in future be either wholly free gun turret fighters or perhaps fitted with one large calibre fixed gun in addition."

Pilots thought otherwise.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Not so, both the Albacore and Barracuda fulfilled the torpedo dive-bomber recon roles.

Well, yes true, but I meant arrested-speed dives of 70 degrees from altitude. Anything with under-wing or central racks that can clear the prop can drop bombs in a dive.

the Fulmar, had a stellar performance. Our most successful carrier fighter in WW2.

Britain's best carrier fighter of all time. Though per Wiki the ratio isn't great "Fulmars was recorded as having destroyed a total of 112 enemy aircraft against the loss of 40 Fulmars". As a comparison, in the Falklands, the FAA shotdown 20 aircraft for a loss of 6 Sea Harriers. If we apply the Fulmar's record, the FAA would have lost an additional 40% for a total loss of 11 SHAR.

Had Blackburn or any firm provided a wide-track, folding wing single seat Merlin or (reliable) Sabre powered fighter by early 1941 the FAA record for kills wouldn't have been as costly for the Brits.

 

[nuuumannn]

Problem was, it was the turret fighter concept that was flawed and proved a big hindrance to the Roc as a fighter, aside from its dismal performance. Lloyd Richards, a Roc airman stated that there needed to be "...a lot of training between the pilot and gunner and it was very difficult to do anything. You would only need a little bit of wing drop and you'd be off target." Armourer Ron Jordan agreed: "The problem was that the air gunner controlled the aircraft, not the pilot." He did say that "the turret was a lovely piece of engineering, a real boy's delight. Useless on an aircraft though."

P/O Clarke said of the Roc during an encounter with an He 59: "If only I had one front gun! Just one, and I'd be able to make a normal fighter attack. Instead I was reduced to placing my aircraft in a ridiculously dangerous position while the other fellow had all the advantages... firing broadsides at him like one of Nelson's wooden walls."

Air gunner Ken Sims said: "There was a blanking off system to prevent shooting at your own tail. As the tail was quite large and the guns switched out in pairs there was a high probability that you only had two in action and a fair probability that you wouldn't have any at all. Not a very satisfctory defence arrangement. The turret could even dislodge from its mountings if the aircraft flew certain manoeuvres."

 

[Admiral Beez]

P/O Clarke said of the Roc during an encounter with an He 59: "If only I had one front gun! Just one, and I'd be able to make a normal fighter attack. Instead I was reduced to placing my aircraft in a ridiculously dangerous position while the other fellow had all the advantages...

Couldn't the Roc position it's guns straight forward? Or was there no prop disruption system? I assume that's what the guns-forward Defiant has below.

 

[nuuumannn]

Couldn't the Roc position it's guns straight forward? Or was there no prop disruption system?

No gun sight, no interrupter gear and I suspect, like the Defiant, the guns could not depress sufficiently to be able to do so facing forward. The Defiant's guns could only fire forward at 19 degrees above the horizontal, and with no gun sight or interrupter gear, the pilot was running a risk doing so. The Defiant was initially intended on doing so and the turret had a 'Pilot/Gunner' switch so it could be operated by either, and the pilot had a firing button on his control stick, but without the former, he was taking a risk and most never used the feature. Not sure if the Roc was similarly equipped.

Just a wee note about the image of the prototype Daffy and its gun turret facing forward. Note that the sections of fuselage that retracted with turret movement are up, which means it was not operating. When the turret was rotated, a solenoid electrically sent a signal to compressed air rams to lower them. Why the guns couldn't fire forward in this position at an angle less than 19 degrees I don't know, but they couldn't (that is, according to Alec Brew in The Defiant File).

 

[yulzari]

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. With the original concept sight the pilot then had x4 guns to use in forward firing. All the upwards inclination did was to need a sight that allowed for that. Bullets drop as soon as fired. With an upwards inclination all that happens is that they do not drop as far down as soon as if they were already horizontal. This was part of the original idea hence the controls with which the production Defiants were fitted. Look into a Defiant cockpit and there is a gun firing switch. In the turret the switch to pass over control to the pilot. What is the problem is that the story got lost before the Defiant went into service. The hardware was fine.

 

[yulzari]

The Skua was not a fighter. Not in the fighter on fighter sense. It had a fighter role against unescorted bombers and reconnaissance aeroplanes over the ocean. It also gave it some chance against land based fighters when in the strike role. It was a (for it's day) fast dive bomber as the core role. To call it a poor fighter would be like calling the Me109 a poor bomber just because it could carry a bomb.

This also explains the Roc as that was optimised for the bomber/reconnaissance killer role. Except that someone did not read the brochures for the Do17, He111/ Ju88 and see that the Roc could not catch those. Possibly they just looked at the Luftwaffe flying boat and float plane brochures? Those at least they might catch. Did some nice dive bombing over France though, together with the Skua and Swordfish. I am sure the Finns would have been most amused pleased with being given free Rocs....

 

[yulzari]

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.

Blackburn's cocked up the centre of gravity so the Perseus (or Mercury in the prototype) had to have the engine bearers lengthened to push the engine weight forwards. It gives rise to the thought that one could revert to the original length(ish) and put in a heavier engine.

 

[yulzari]

To finish off today's burst of posting on the OP. How would better fighters be crucial to the task of sinking Japanese invasion troopships? That is the prime air task. Yes engaging Japanese fighters may reduce strike losses but it is troop ship sinkers that would change the campaign. Even Bothas or Sharks would make more difference than Spitfires.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Fulmar had a better record than it looks at first. Figures are a little uncertain but it is thought the Fulmar shot down 112 aircraft and losses to aircraft were either 14 or 17. Even against the mighty Zero it was iirc 2 victories to 3 losses. The majority of the victories were against bombers but they are the targets fighters can't sink your ships. A ratio of 7.5 to 1 in favour of the Fulmar.

The Skuas win/loss ratio is even harder to work out the figures but it looks like Skuas had a positive impact of 4 to 1.
28 victories to 7 losses against aircraft.

 

[Kevin J]

Blackburn's cocked up the centre of gravity so the Perseus (or Mercury in the prototype) had to have the engine bearers lengthened to push the engine weight forwards. It gives rise to the thought that one could revert to the original length(ish) and put in a heavier engine.

Perhaps they didn't cock up the CG, perhaps the plan was to fit the 14 cylinder Hercules later. The Su-2, a similar size and function plane, got Ash-82 engine later. Quite a good performance too. Lower loss ratio per sortie compared with Il-2.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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. With the original concept sight the pilot then had x4 guns to use in forward firing.

Circling back to Blackburn, did the a Roc have this feature?

 

[Shortround6]

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...

Thank you.

What I meant was that the Roc never got a real upgrade like the SBD, SB2-C, Val, Ju-87 and some others did with better engines, increased bomb loads and changes in armament.

 

[pbehn]

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.

.

Well pre war assumptions were made, the turret fighter didn't perform as expected. But pre war the thinking wasn't based o Germany controlling France and Norway and so able to range far into the North Sea and Atlantic. The Roc did have some advantages, it didn't use Merlins, and it was very similar to the Skua so small carriers didn't need two types of engines and many other spares. Many procurement decisions were based on such ideas as keeping companies and design teams and even military arms together and in production for future use. You can say that the Roc and Firebrand were useless, but the Firebrand didn't have an enemy when introduced, by keeping things together the Buccaneer eventually emerged which wasn't useless. The A-36 Apache was a fairly good dive bomber, even if it was a completely useless dive bomber it was worth making to keep production lines running and people getting employed and trained for the later P-51B/C/D.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You can say that the Roc and Firebrand were useless, but the Firebrand didn't have an enemy when introduced, by keeping things together the Buccaneer eventually emerged which wasn't useless.

True, I can agree with that. If you have deep pockets, roll the dice and keep throwing good money after bad you may eventually get something useful.

I wonder had shoddy designs not forced its inevitable closure in 1946 how many successive failures Brewster would need (like the XA-32 and their own Buccaneer) before it and its design chief Dayton Brown produced something superlative like the Blackburn Buccaneer.

 

[Shortround6]

It's difficult to understand why the Perseus was ever built

too many people had swilled the sleeve valve cool-aid.

From wiki but a bit edited.

"A long series of tests and materials changes and improvements required six years and an estimated £2 million to cure. By 1933, the problems had been worked out and the Perseus went on to become the first sleeve valve aero-engine in the world, to be put into large quantity production.[2]"

Large scale is a few dozen a year in the first few years, if that.

"The result was a Bristol Mercury-sized engine adapted to the sleeve valve system, the Perseus, and its smaller cousin, the Bristol Aquila. The first production versions of the Perseus were rated at 580 horsepower (433 kW), the same as the Mercury model for that year, which shows that the sleeve system was being underexploited. The engine was quickly uprated as improvements were introduced and by 1936 the Perseus was delivering 810 hp (604 kW), eventually topping out at 930 hp (690 kW) in 1939, while the Perseus 100 with an increased capacity of 1,635 cu in (26.8 L), produced 1,200 hp (890 kW) at 2,700 rpm at 4,250 ft (1,296 m).[3] This far outperformed even the most developed versions of the Mercury.

I don't know what the Mercury was being rated at in 1936 but it obviously caught up with Perseus in the next year or two. The two may have see-sawed back and forth a bit for several years?

Now IF wiki is correct and Fedden spent 2 million pounds on this project in the middle of great depression there was some pressure to show some results, like selling some engines and not trashing the project. I have seen no actual prices for the two engines and I don't know if the Perseus was priced significantly higher than the Mercury.
The Perseus 100 is a Mystery engine from the end of WW II-1946, It is not listed in Lumsden and may never have been flown in a test bed aircraft or even run in a test house, No photo was available in Feb 1946 for "Aircraft engines of the World" for it's 4th edition.
It may have been under rated in the late 30s versions in order to maintain or establish reliability? Certainly the early Hercules engines using the same cylinders had problems.

I believe (could be wrong) that Fedden and Bristol had too much money, time and prestige tied up in the sleeve valve project ot give up on it.

 

[Kevin J]

too many people had swilled the sleeve valve cool-aid.

From wiki but a bit edited.

"A long series of tests and materials changes and improvements required six years and an estimated £2 million to cure. By 1933, the problems had been worked out and the Perseus went on to become the first sleeve valve aero-engine in the world, to be put into large quantity production.[2]"

Large scale is a few dozen a year in the first few years, if that.

"The result was a Bristol Mercury-sized engine adapted to the sleeve valve system, the Perseus, and its smaller cousin, the Bristol Aquila. The first production versions of the Perseus were rated at 580 horsepower (433 kW), the same as the Mercury model for that year, which shows that the sleeve system was being underexploited. The engine was quickly uprated as improvements were introduced and by 1936 the Perseus was delivering 810 hp (604 kW), eventually topping out at 930 hp (690 kW) in 1939, while the Perseus 100 with an increased capacity of 1,635 cu in (26.8 L), produced 1,200 hp (890 kW) at 2,700 rpm at 4,250 ft (1,296 m).[3] This far outperformed even the most developed versions of the Mercury.

I don't know what the Mercury was being rated at in 1936 but it obviously caught up with Perseus in the next year or two. The two may have see-sawed back and forth a bit for several years?

Now IF wiki is correct and Fedden spent 2 million pounds on this project in the middle of great depression there was some pressure to show some results, like selling some engines and not trashing the project. I have seen no actual prices for the two engines and I don't know if the Perseus was priced significantly higher than the Mercury.
The Perseus 100 is a Mystery engine from the end of WW II-1946, It is not listed in Lumsden and may never have been flown in a test bed aircraft or even run in a test house, No photo was available in Feb 1946 for "Aircraft engines of the World" for it's 4th edition.
It may have been under rated in the late 30s versions in order to maintain or establish reliability? Certainly the early Hercules engines using the same cylinders had problems.

I believe (could be wrong) that Fedden and Bristol had too much money, time and prestige tied up in the sleeve valve project ot give up on it.

Actually, one of the highlights of my I. T. career was when one of our customers asked us to do something that was completely stupid. So we did, made lots of money out of it. Then they realised why their profits had fallen, so we put in what they needed in the first place, but hadn't listened to us. Hey, but we kept them happy, got more business out of them. Sounds like Blackburn, doesn't it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, one of the highlights of my I. T. career was when one of our customers asked us to do something that was completely stupid. So we did, made lots of money out of it. Then they realised why their profits had fallen, so we put in what they needed in the first place, but hadn't listened to us. Hey, but we kept them happy, got more business out of them. Sounds like Blackburn, doesn't it.

 

[pbehn]

True, I can agree with that. If you have deep pockets, roll the dice and keep throwing good money after bad you may eventually get something useful.

.

How many of the shoddy designs were a result of having to satisfy an impossible client spec? With a specified engine and crew and payload and range that just couldn't be met without liberal use of unobtanium and futuralumin.