The Firebrand and other rubbish from Blackburn

[Admiral Beez]

How many of the shoddy designs were a result of having to satisfy an impossible client spec?

IDK, you may need to research that on your own. But was the Firebrand so bad because of the customer spec?

Under Spec. N.11/40 the FAA asked Blackburn for a 400 mph, single-seat carrier-capable fighter powered by a Napier Sabre. It's not Blackburn's fault that the engine presented availability and reliability issues, but can Blackburn really blame the client for the Firebrand's abysmal view forward and terrible low speed handing/stability issues and carrier landing/takeoff characteristics?

 

[swampyankee]

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.

Blackburn had been in the aviation business for a couple of decades before the Skua; Brewster's first aircraft was the SBA scout/dive bomber, which seems to have been a serviceable design. The SB2A was a poor design, badly constructed. A major problem with Brewster was consistently poor build quality. Why the build quality was so poor is debatable, but it may be related to a corporate president who hired two high-level salesmen who then served 2 years for illegal arm sales (somewhat indicative of more than a bit of moral rot at the top), consistently poor labor-management relations (whose fault? Not important. The problem existed and wasn't solved), and "financial misdeeds," whatever they may have been (maybe not paying suppliers?)

Brewster [i[may[/i] have simply grown much faster than the abilities of its management, but a number of other manufacturers managed that level of growth much better, possibly because most had a longer history thereby better established policies and procedures (also some, like North American Aviation and Vought, were part of larger industrial combines. North American was part of GM; Vought was part of United Aircraft. This provided a source of managerial expertise and oversight that was not available to Brewster). Bell probably grew faster than Brewster, but didn't demonstrate the sort of management failures* that doomed Brewster. Regardless of why, Brewster was a badly run company. Blackburn produced some poor designs, but, overall, seems to have been reasonably well-managed.


-----------
* Poor labor-management relations are, at the heart, management failures.

 

[pbehn]

IDK, you may need to research that on your own. But was the Firebrand so bad because of the customer spec?

Under Spec. N.11/40 the FAA asked Blackburn for a 400 mph, single-seat carrier-capable fighter powered by a Napier Sabre. It's not Blackburn's fault that the engine presented availability and reliability issues, but can Blackburn really blame the client for the Firebrand's abysmal view forward and terrible low speed and carrier landing/takeoff characteristics?

Was the forward view worse than a Corsair or Seafire?

 

[swampyankee]

IDK, you may need to research that on your own. But was the Firebrand so bad because of the customer spec?

The FAA asked for a 400 mph, single-seat carrier-capable fighter powered by a Napier Sabre. It's not Blackburn's fault that the engine presented availability and reliability issues, but can Blackburn really blame the client for the Firebrand's abysmal view forward and terrible low speed and carrier landing/takeoff characteristics?

The Roc was terrible mostly because of the customer spec (Blackburn could have done a better job, but how much better requires access to the Blackburn - FAA correspondence which I don't have). I think a serviceable, CW-21 class, fighter could have been built around the same engine as the Skua (but note that the Perseus-based fighter would be obsolete quickly, having very little growth potential. It would, though, make a good base for an advanced trainer).

Some of the Firebrand's problems were the Sabre (part of the government spec), but its handling issues were all Blackburn. Cockpit visibility on the ground and during approach was a problem on practically all single-engined fighters with liquid-cooled engines except the Saab 21, so how much better Blackburn could have done is difficult to judge.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Was the forward view worse than a Corsair or Seafire?

IDK, I suggest you look it up.

Beyond its aft placed cockpit, the Corsair seems to be an ideal carrier fighter. It had a very reliable engine and stable, predictable landing characteristics. The FAA's usual final turn before hooking on in the Corsair may not be possible with the Firebrand due to its directional instability at low speed. But IDK, the Centaurus-powered models here seem to be landing well enough, start at 1:39.




As for the Seafire, IDK if view forward was the cause of its terrible prang rate - this may be more a case of undercarriage and low speed handling issues. For example, from what I've read on the Armoured Carriers website the Seafire had a propensity to lift at the final moment of touch down. But the Seafire was never intended for carrier service - the Firebrand was from the onset. It wasn't supposed to be a make-due fighter like the Seafire.

 

[fastmongrel]

As for the Seafire, IDK if view forward was the cause of its terrible prang rate - this may be more a case of undercarriage issues

If you look at the landing accident rates in the British Pacific Fleet which used Corsair, Hellcat and Seafire fighters. The accident rates are all statistically about the same. In fact the Seafire had the best landings to accident rate by a small margin.

This can be qualified by the fact that the Seafire was used as a fleet protection and escort fighter more often than the other two which did more ground attack. Ground pounders often picked up damage from AA. Further qualifications are that the Seafire flew more combat air patrols and thus flew more sorties.

You can make the figures say what you want but the Seafire MkIII in late 44 to August 45 was not the fragile butterfly the internet would have you believe. Parsifal was the man with the knowledge on the Seafire in the Pacific and his contributions are sadly missed.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You can make the figures say what you want but the Seafire MkIII in late 44 to August 45 was not the fragile butterfly the internet would have you believe.

After watching all the crash footage I thought this can't be the norm. I posted some vids of Seafires landing safely here....

Not all Seafire landings are prangs

 

[yulzari]

The Perseus 100 was a post war one (an original contender for the Bristol Freighter early design iterations) which was crudely Centaurus cylinders on the Perseus crankcase.

 

[rinkol]

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?

It would seem that the Sabre must have demanded considerable maintenance. That is a definite issue on a carrier. There is also the complication of having to support an additional type of engine and one that has little in common with the other FAA aircraft.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It would seem that the Sabre must have demanded considerable maintenance. That is a definite issue on a carrier. There is also the complication of having to support an additional type of engine and one that has little in common with the other FAA aircraft.

Good points. I suppose the onboard maintenance personnel would be used to working on sleeve valve engines, but it's one thing to pull off a cylinder to adjust something on a Bristol vs. an inline, liquid-cooled Sabre.



That said, the FAA wanted the Firebrand and its Sabre, writing the spec for both.

 

[BiffF15]

Good points. I suppose the onboard maintenance personnel would be used to working on sleeve valve engines, but it's one thing to pull off a cylinder to adjust something on a Bristol vs. an inline, liquid-cooled Sabre.



That said, the FAA wanted the Firebrand and its Sabre, writing the spec for both.

Lots of small moving parts.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Lots of small moving parts.

AIUI, one of the advantages of sleeve valves is the lack of moving parts vs. poppet valve engines.

 

[Greyman]

Was the forward view worse than a Corsair or Seafire?

I can only speak to directly over the nose (ie: sighting view) but in this respect:

- Seafire 3.5 degrees​

- Corsair ( F4U-1 / Mk.I ) less than 3.0 degrees, I can't be more precise because I don't know the Corsair's flying attitude/angle​

- Firebrand 2.5 degrees​

EDIT: forgot Firebrand info

 

[Shortround6]

AIUI, one of the advantages of sleeve valves is the lack of moving parts vs. poppet valve engines.

That was what was advertised, reality was a bit different.

Yes there was a lack of moving parts in the cylinder heads or leading up to the cylinder heads, however the number of parts per cylinder inside the crankcase was a lot more than the poppet valve engine. The Sleeve valve engine had fewer parts in total but was not quite as simple as the advertising claimed.
It was also claimed (in the beginning) that the sleeve valve engines would be smaller in diameter or narrower. Unfortunately reality intruded and on the air cooled engines the need for large amounts of cooling fins meant the heads weren't much shorter.
And again the comparisons were being made against Bristol poppet valve engines which used 4 valves per cylinder. American Radials had about 1/2 the number of parts per cylinder becasue they were two valve per cylinder engines.

 

[wingnuts]

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?

View attachment 576831

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.

The Blackburn Beverley was a very useful design for the times, although it was originally a General Aircraft design. My very first job and an apprentice at Blackburn's was making Beverley spares, mainly flaps and I flew in them a few times in the Middle East when I was in the RAF in the 60s.

 

[wingnuts]

I suppose we can argue that the front line came to Hitler and Stalin, but to their credit they didn't flee to safer places, King George VI and family wouldn't have fled Britain had Sealion occurred, but I appreciate that's not the same as Cromwell leading at Hastings. But hey heel spurs are a real thing, and here in Canada I don't think we've ever had a former soldier serve as PM (edit).

But sticking to aircraft, are there cases of the manufacturer's design chief losing his life or being injured crashing his own design? Akin to the RN's captain Coles perishing when his deeply flawed design HMS Captain sank. For example, here is the Blackburn Pellet, self destructing on its takeoff run for the 1923 Schneider race.

View attachment 577026

As for the underpowered and flawed Botha, could have it have been useful if sent to Malaya to bolster the Blenheims and Hudsons? Wikipedia lists the many flaws of the Botha, but it was torpedo-capable, something that only the two squadrons of suicidally-obsolete Vilderbeests provided for the entirely of Malaya's coastal defence.

View attachment 577028

Roy Chadwick of Avro's also died in the crash of an Avro Tudor in 1947, he was the designer of almost all of Avro's aircraft from the Manchester, through the Lancaster, York, Lincoln and Shackleton to the initial design of the Vulcan.

 

[wuzak]

That was what was advertised, reality was a bit different.
View attachment 577715
Yes there was a lack of moving parts in the cylinder heads or leading up to the cylinder heads, however the number of parts per cylinder inside the crankcase was a lot more than the poppet valve engine. The Sleeve valve engine had fewer parts in total but was not quite as simple as the advertising claimed.
It was also claimed (in the beginning) that the sleeve valve engines would be smaller in diameter or narrower. Unfortunately reality intruded and on the air cooled engines the need for large amounts of cooling fins meant the heads weren't much shorter.
And again the comparisons were being made against Bristol poppet valve engines which used 4 valves per cylinder. American Radials had about 1/2 the number of parts per cylinder becasue they were two valve per cylinder engines.

That doesn't really apply to the Sabre, since its sleeve drives were really no more involved than a camshaft drive.

 

[Admiral Beez]

That doesn't really apply to the Sabre, since its sleeve drives were really no more involved than a camshaft drive.

True. And you get to omit the poppets, springs, push rods, etc, etc.

 

[Zipper730]

Under Spec. N.11/40 the FAA asked Blackburn for a 400 mph, single-seat carrier-capable fighter powered by a Napier Sabre. It's not Blackburn's fault that the engine presented availability and reliability issues, but can Blackburn really blame the client for the Firebrand's abysmal view forward and terrible low speed handing/stability issues and carrier landing/takeoff characteristics?

The Hawker Typhoon didn't seem to have visibility issues up front -- at least it didn't seem to be worse than the F4U...

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Hawker Typhoon didn't seem to have visibility issues up front -- at least it didn't seem to be worse than the F4U...

The view could be forgiven and forgotten if the Firebrand was stable at low speed. I only mention the view forward as test pilot Captain Brown made a point of it.

Wikipedia also says "and the aircraft had a tendency to drop a wing at the stall while landing".