Blackburn Firebrand

I don’t think JDK had much luv in his heart for the old Firebrand;) :rolleyes: 😀 😉

….Or Sea Hornet!

Flap Revision

I’ll contact my RAF Buddy and ask……He was a backseat Radar Operator on a Firefly…..Se you when I get an answer.

-Bill

>From the way I interpret the published material…NO aircraft was built by
Blackburn to the N.8/39 spec. I quote…..

“The main difference between N.8/39 and the alternative N.9/39
specification was in the matter of gun installations, the former calling for
four fixed 20 mm cannon and the latter a power-driven gun turret. In the
light of operational experience with the Blackburn Roc, N.3/39 was
re-written the following year to exclude the turret, becoming N.5/40 met by
the two-seat Fairey Firefly, which was ordered in quantity.”

Quite right, but designs were produced – designs to the revised N.8/39 would have been quite hurried. Although the Firefly had its own specification (F5/40) it was initially ordered as ‘the modified Fairey N.8/39 with Griffon’. Somewhere along the line the Blackburn design had gone from being aerodynamically relatively weak for the original N.8/39 to the revised version (Firebrand) which was rated as the best aerodynamically. This time two seat and single seat versions were apparently submitted. 25 revised Blackburn single seat F.8/39s were ordered to test the flap arrangement which at the time was radical. These became the Firebrand F1s and TF2s.

What I’d like to know is how the design evolved between what was originally developed from the Skua and what became the Firebrand. When the 25 aircraft were originally organised the design still had a Hercules engine.

>From the way I interpret the published material…NO aircraft was built by
Blackburn to the N.8/39 spec. I quote…..

“The main difference between N.8/39 and the alternative N.9/39
specification was in the matter of gun installations, the former calling for
four fixed 20 mm cannon and the latter a power-driven gun turret. In the
light of operational experience with the Blackburn Roc, N.3/39 was
re-written the following year to exclude the turret, becoming N.5/40 met by
the two-seat Fairey Firefly, which was ordered in quantity.”

Flap question

Send me your e-mail address and I will send you the answer a former RAF chap sent me about it.

-Bill Clendenon
USA

Hope this helps.
Cranswick

Fantastic – that’s really interesting.

Following on from this, I’d like to pick people’s brains about a related subject. Specification N.8/39 was the requirement for a Skua replacement that eventually led to the Firebrand and Blackburn’s effort was based on the Skua. The companies were asked to revise their submissions to include single seat versions. Blackburn’s revised version apparently was quite close to the first Firebrand, the TF1 which was taken forward because of interest over its slotted flaps – the requested version was somewhat more conventional than the first offering.

Does anyone know of any existing pictures of the N.8/39 designs? Particularly the flap/aileron layout?

Firebrand flap detail

Hope this helps.
Cranswick

Firebrand Flap Details

I am a Modeler living in the States and my penchant is British Aiecraft. I am currently building a remote version of the Firebrand ( Its darn beautiful) and I am in dire need to find a sketch or whatever of the Fowler Flap track details . I an not at all sure of how the Flaps were deployed but I want the same type of method on my model. The span of my model is 84″. All the formers are plotted
and the Flap details are all that is missing.

-My Grateful Thanks.
-Bill Clendenon , Greeneville Tn , USA

Flood, was “fuselarge” an unintended mistype?

Um, I plead the application of kids not wanting to go to bed spread over the space of an hour.

Flood

Is that a Centaurus on the front of the Firebrand? If so, its an abuse of engine power.

Flood, was “fuselarge” an unintended mistype? Seems to be apposite, though, for an aircraft claimed by Melv to be “fat”.

Just to resurrect this thread again here are a couple of pictures of Firebrand TF4 EK739. I believe that this aircraft was retained by Blackburn but it doesnot say that in my Putnams. I suspect they were taken in 1946 does anyone know where?

Glyn

Depends how you define ‘retained’, I suppose…
From Air Britains Fleet Air Arm Fixed Wing Aircraft since 1946, EK739 was taken on charge by CRD () at Blackburn Brough 31/1/46. On a test flight to eliminate aileron oscillation in dives, on 7/3/46, fractures occured in the wings and fuselarge, and the ‘cockpit side window’ (presumably one of those on either side of the armoured windscreen?) broke. Flutter ceased when slowing down to 100kts prior to bailing out and the pilot, Mr PG Lawrence, landed it safely. It was classified as Cat4, not repairable on site, although no location is given for the incident (although had it been Brough it presumably wouldn’t have been made Cat4?;)). It is then shown as being to permanent C(A) charge (Controller, Air) from 1/49.
No other details.

Nice pictures.

Flood

Well, if you WILL use feed lines! 😉

Story of my life… :rolleyes:

Is that what all of them say about you then Daz? 😀

I’ll get me coat…

Fat useless and late?

Didn’t know you knew one of my ex’s, Melv! 😮

– I still say Patty should have one it is somehow “Him’

regards
John P

Fat useless and late?

James

Well said – absolutely agree – wouldn’t have wanted to face doing a torpedo attack in one of those

I have a very nice Charles Brown print of it somewhere in that beautiful old Kodak colour he used and it looked great – I still say Patty should have one it is somehow “Him’

regards
John P

Hmmm,

Too big, too heavy, too late, too complex, not wanted, torpedo bombers obsolete.

Only the RN FAA could start the war with two seat fighters that couldn’t catch a cold and exit with a single seat (torpedo-) bomber.

A less rude way of looking at it was that the need changed while the aircraft was being developed and it neither had a role nor was any good in the role it couldn’t have. It also took too long to develop. :rolleyes: Looks nice. Now let’s imaging a flight of these attacking an enemy fleet or ship torpedo bomber style. Now factor in something called ‘enemy fighters’. Oh dear. Best thing you could say is it would waste only one highly trained expensive crewman rather than three.

FWIW, I like the Firebrand, but it really, really, wasn’t ever a viable military aircraft. The Frank Bruno of warbirds.