The Blackburn Firebrand; Complete Dog or Critical Strategic Asset?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- The Blackburn Firebrand is an aircraft that has a very negative reputation. But is that entirely justified?
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
ERIC "Winkle" Brown, not John! That's what I get for reading other history at the same time as working.
YAAAAAAS after 2.5 years of asking for it 👍👍👍👍 😁🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
I’m going to have to wait Nightshift calls (I’m in 🇦🇺) so I’ll have to kickback with a coffee in the morning and enjoy Thanks Ed.
I noticed that, too much geeking...
Us Erics have to fight for recognition 😀
John Winkle Brown, famous abolitionist and test pilot!
'Hello John, got a new moniker? - Hello John, got a new moniker?' . . . . . . (Sorry : )
Odd how most people these days say Blackburn always seemed to make real dogs of aircraft, but they made the Buccaneer, which was one of, if not the, best planes in it's class for decades!
Yeah, that's the internet for you unfortunately...
The Buccaneer was great and was in service from the early 60s to the end of the first Gulf War. The Beverley was also a good transport.
The Buc was the exception for this manufacturer. One of the greatest attack planes for sure.
1 success out of how many duds?
@@MrDino1953 there were several successes in its long history, such as the Beverley and smaller ones like the Shark and Kangaroo. Not that bad for making so many diverse aircraft through the years.
And the Beverley
So let get this right, when Blackburn got a serious customer who knew what they wanted. And the engineers started working on the aircraft on a day other than Monday, when they were hung over
they could design aesthetically pleasing aircraft. Ed, thanks for bringing clarity to this question.👍
This is a pretty good looking plane that still has an agricultural look. But considering the job it had to do, naval aviation requires a tough plane.
@@paulwoodman5131 It was light years ahead of other British carrier borne torpedo planes during the WW2 era, the Fairey Swordfish and Fairey Barracuda.
The firebrand is one of the first aircraft that my grandad worked on at Blackburn in 1947 and the hawk was his last in 1989
Reminds me of construction industry, nothing ever ends up like the original drawing when the customer doesn't know what they want in the first place. Do they blame the customer for constantly changing their mind? No, they blame the builder for completing late and over budget. Blackburn must have been tearing their hair out with such a customer.
Winkle Brown was once the guest on the BBC's long running radio programme Desert Island Discs. He was 95 at the time and it was the 3,000 show so a special honour. In May 2023 and in the UK the programme can easily be found and played on the internet, I'm not sure about overseas access but it's well worth looking for.
I just looked this episode up, so thanks for the recommendation. It is available to US listeners either directly or through download on the BBC page.
The Blackburn Firebrand was too late but the novelty of its outside mounted airspeed indicator was an interesting idea that appears to have foreshadowed the HUD system
Moving the cockpit forward and with later, more powerful Centaurus engines the Royal Navy might have had their own A1 Skyraider.
If my schedule holds up, see tomorrows video ;)
with similar torque issues
Had the same thought!
The best way to think of the Firebrand is not to compare it with the "Seafire" or "Sea Fury", but with the US Navy's Douglas AD "Skyraider" or Martin AM-1 "Mauler", both of which became operational at just about the same time. Of course, the Blackburn "Firecrest" would have been even better, had it been given a chance.
The Blackburn factory was right next to the River Humber. So to protect the site there was a bank built around it between it and the river. To test the Firebrand's guns the tail was raised to sit the aircraft in a level position. The guns could then be fired at a target to make sure the were grouped correctly. This was done with the bank as a backstop for safety reasons. One day while testing the guns Blackburn got a telephone call from an irate ships captain wanting to know what he was being shot at. It turned out that because the same position had been used for so long the shells had drilled a hole through the bank.
Whatever people may say about Blackburn they built the Buccaneer. The finest low level attack aircraft of its time. When flying at Red Flag the USAF could not get anywhere near it. Even when the fighters tried to catch them flying over the ridge to exit from the site the Buccaneer pilots just flipped it on its back and flew over the ridge upside down so the fighters could not get a shot.
Drilled a hole through! Wow.
@@BucketBucket275 I've seen that bank. That will have taken some doing.
So have I. It was used throughout most of WW2. So several years. And we are talking 20mm cannons.
I always liked the bulkier looking mid/late WW2 british designs like the Firebrand or Tempest MkII. For the comparison with the Corsair, I dont think it's exactly fair. The Corsair was one of the best performers right from the outset, even as a prototype, in almost everything it did. It's deck landing problems were only on the early versions, but it was a tough as nails aircraft that in the right hands absolutely demolished everything it could face during WW2. the Firebrand was better as a strike aircraft, but I think the Corsair could've been fitted with a torpedo if the Americans really wanted.
I wasnt too aware of the reputation of the Firebrand before this video, I didnt even think it's development was that long! Great vid.
The F4U was a dog of a carrier based aircraft and gained the nickname" "ensign Eliminator" Eric Brown, while acknowledging its good points was highly critical of its take off and landing performance. The USN tried one squadron of F4U's (VF-17) and the result was such a disaster that the USN fobbed them off on the USMC as land based aircraft. and they weren't accepted until the design was modified. The date of acceptance was April 1944, which meant none went to sea in the USN until December 1944
The Firebrand was designed and built to carry out the same sort of duties as the American Douglas A-1 Skyraider and with similar performance and time frame. Too often planes and other military equipment is designed and built to the ministry's requirements and then the manufacturer takes the flak for those poorly assessed design requirements. The Royal Navy seemed to be particularly prone to these bad decisions and changing their minds. Can't help but wonder if the same complaints would've been made about the Skyraider if that had been a British design.
The high-mounted airspeed indicator is a proto--Heads-Up-Display.
The Navion that I did my advanced training in had the tachometer and manifold pressure gauges mounted above the instrument panel, on the combing. It was a good set up.
I quite like the look of the Firebrand, especially the versions mounted with the Bristol Centaurus.
Really enjoyed this one Ed, have always thought the Firebrand was a fantastic looker, and I have never before heard this take on why a seemingly disastrous aircraft was used. I know the RN has had a few dogs in its time, but they always serve a purpose. I just wish there was a Firebrand still around
Sometimes you just have to set down and figure out what the customer needs not what they want.
You have found yet another aircraft I knew little about. I often wonder how many great aircraft could have been if the powerplant that needed had been available
Always had a weakness 4 torpedo fighters, w/ the Mk4 making it on looks as well as capability, that big Johnson of a nose, that tiny racing bubble canopy, & that no-nonsense tail giving her a slight edge over the F8B, altho' I get almost delirious over the Wyvern 💜💜💜.
You put out my favorite stuff ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐.
Having piqued our interest in the short-lived Wyvern, it now must be on your (long!) list of 1950s aircraft to cover. The WikiP page brings up a great advantage of early turboprops over turbojets. The problem of the notoriously poor throttle response of early jet engines was overcome by using constant-speed propellers - the engine was run at a constant speed and aircraft speed controlled by varying the pitch. An especially valuable ability in a carrier aircraft.
Your assertion is right for part of the flight envelope but incomplete. Manipulating blade pitch only, the engine is still outputting the same power no matter how the propeller pitch is set. For fine control like formation flying it's responsive enough. But for deck operations and dogfighting engagements it's the contra-rotating propellers that give it a no-torque advantage.
The Firebrand looks like the British equivalent of the Martin AM Mauler or the Douglas AD Skyrauder. It had a similiar role, equivalent performance if not quite the payload.
The Sverdlov class was equivalent to the US Cleveland and Worcester Class light cruisers in armament and protection with the later having 12 autoloading 6" guns. Given that in any future conflict prior to the missile age the Royal Navy could count on US support the Sverdlov was not much of an offensive surface threat especially since the US Navy possessed a large number of heavy cruisers. The Des Moines class had a higher rate of fire than any heavy surface ship ever built.
But the Worcester's 6 inch guns didn't work and they were mothballed as soon as decently possible.
@@colbeausabre8842 They were mothballed in 1958 when the US Navy started converting Cleveland class cruisers to CLGs. The auto 6" guns worked just not as well enough for anti-aircraft work.
@@johnshepherd8687 Which was the whole reason behind their design, From the NAVWEAPS Site "These guns did not prove reliable in service, possibly because of the high rate of fire and need for any-elevation loading. Another contributing cause was that they used a dual projectile hoist system - one for AP and one for HC/AA shells - which proved to be a source of jamming."
Yes! I mentioned the Firebrand in one of your previous vids hoping you would cover it. Made my day.
As a child who grew up entertaining himself memorizing Jane's All the World's Aircraft statistics checked out from our local USAF libraries, I absolutely love every one of these docs. Well done!
HEALTH ADVERTISEMENT: WARNING: it is "Insurance" NOT part of Medicare. Insurance companies avoid paying when possible.
Excellent video, and a summation that expertly places the Firebrand in its historical context. That's proper historical research. 👍
Thanks for that Ed 👍 Please do a video on the Wyvern. It looks like another relatively unknown but fascinating aircraft.
I'll get around to it one day ;)
The Firecrest did address a lot of the issues that the Firebrand had, the cockpit being elevated and moved forward for better visibility for one. I feel like if it had been in service in 1941/2 we'd have a very different perception of it just as you say. On the whole though, Blackburn just wasn't very good at designing aircraft until they struck gold with the Buccaneer and Beverley. Thanks for the video!
So it was Blackburn's fault that the Napier Sabre had problems, and that it was directed to Hawker production instead... okay. 🤣😂😅
The Japanese Kawasaki Ki 100 is an example of an inline engine fighter, the Ki 61, having a radial engine installed.
The most critical thing for designing and building an effective system is to know what you want. When the customer keeps moving the goal posts it becomes far more difficult to manage the program, and whatever comes out the other end is likely to be a cluster of compromises that does nothing well.
Yup. It's almost like the Air Ministry's attitude was that as long as it had an engine and wings we could just keep changing the requirements. You look at the designs that eventually became dogs, either the design requirements were changed multiple times or the Air Ministry demanded the builder to use a specific engine that never worked properly forcing them to make further changes to the design.
It is amazing how many aviation experts and aerospace engineers live in RUclips but could not tell the difference between flap and spoiler in the real world.
Blackburn did build some fine aircraft ! Perth Iris , B2 Shark and the ones every one knows, They also built more Swordfishes than fairey did. Always seemed to have the goalpost move on them
The engine cowl reminds me of the Fw190 and (though not aviation related) the Pontiac Firebird had it's rev counter mounted on the bonnet back in the 70s which as a young man I thought was real Kool. Pity about those test pilots and the Hawker Tempest/Typhoon killed many a pilot during it's operational life to.
Love this reference.....never understood it before.
Was kept local because it was the fastest torpedo carrier at the time!
Great video! Tks for sharing
6 years of service is pretty good for an aircraft of that era there were a lot of aircraft that didn't spend more than two to three years in service before they were gone
An excellent article. Thank you!
Very interesting account of this unknown ( to me ) aircraft. Thanks for the video.
I have the Valom model kit of the Firebrand TF MkII on my short list of kit build . Now I'll have to put it to the top of my list . A fair number were built 220 in number. Not bad. Good looking aircraft too. Thanks Ed.
If it looks right, it flies right !
Like the Martin Mauler, the Firebrand has a sweet spot in my heart.
And as much as i like the Seafire III in Flightsims, sometimes i wish the early Variant had gotten a Shot at Naval Ops instead.
Ref 15:00 - 15:00, note that Winkle Brown was not a fan of the Vought Corsair either, especially when operated off carriers. The excellent compilation of both aircraft tests and many of Brown's naval aircraft impressions, "Wing of the Navy" is well worth looking up..maybe a good public library has a copy.
Fascinating stuff. Some fantastic images and footage of the Firebrand there 👌👍
My assessment of Eric Brown RN was a he spoke and wrote in a very direct and precise manner. His recorded comments, good and bad, could be relied upon for as unbiased and accurate.
This thing must have had hideous aerodynamics or something.
Because the same, basic Centaurus engine went into the Hawker Sea Fury.
Yet the Sea Fury could go about 120mph(!) faster than the Firebrand (460 vs. 340).
Yes, the Firebrand was about a ton heavier.
But 120mph?!?
Another interesting story, Ed.
Thank you.
Look no further than the enormous vertical tail and strengthening for massive weapon loads. The Sea Fury was a fighter. The Firebrand was a bomber.
Indeed. That first model: 358mph might have been respectable for a 1942 carrier fighter, but from well over 2000hp it says they need to try using a wing tunnel.
Nice video, Ed. But am I the only one thinking put a gull wing on the TF Mk 3 and you basically have a British Corsair. Although its sheer size -- and role -- leads to comparisons to the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider. I would also suggest that another possible reason the RN continued with the Firebrand after the war was simply to give Blackburn's factory much needed work.
Another really interesting and researched video, with excellent archive stills and film. Thanks Ed, terrific as always!
I really enjoyed that one Ed, one of my all time favourite aircraft was from the Blackburn stable the Buccaneer 👍🇬🇧👍
I really enjoyed that - great, nicely balanced analysis.
Another great video, thanks Ed.
That intro was terrific! 😁
:D from my Blackburn Blackburn video.
Your posts are greatly appreciated and it is great getting information on some of the more obscure aircraft that is never really explored. Have you done the F-7U Cutlass? That was an aircraft with a great deal of potential but the powerplants were wholly inadequate for the time.
Cheers
Not yet, very much on theblsi though.
What a beauty.
Well that video just flew by. Great looking aircraft, despite the oversized vertical stabiliser.
It sounds like the main problem for this aircraft was that the ministry could not make up it's mind what it really wanted. Much like today in that because of the dithering of the government many of their contracts end up not only years late but also massively overpriced as so many "new" requirements needed to go back to the drawing board and be completely redesigned.
The Tiger class cruisers are something of a parallel in a way, originally being ordered in 1940/1 but only finished post war to a radically different design.
After reading about WW-II designs and production it's almost like there were two recognized branches of the war effort: Practical designs no matter how bleeding edge their innovations are (B-29 for instance,) and "wild hardly practical imagination and indecisive but keep them serving or employed" teams of in-service and industry partners. #humor
Never heard of these aircraft, thanks for the history !
The Sverdlov Class for various reasons was a sort of fetish and reason for Royal Navy projects from retaining WW2 gun cruisers to the development of another Blackburn aircraft, the Buccaneer, which was to be a nuclear Sverdlov killer. Funny thing is that the soviet Navy seemed to have been wholly unaware of the high regard the Royal Navy held those ships and generally used them for training, shore bombardment and testing and never envisioned them in a front line role
Really enjoy this series, great stuff.
Interesting to note that a number of British planes of the era, including Blackburns, had the vertical rudder almost in front of the horizontal elevators. Whereas the Zero for instance was the opposite, with the rudder almost behind the horizontal elevators.
Hello; seems the Firebrand was similar in concept to the U.S.‘s A-1 Skyraider. A review of that aircraft, I think, would provide an interesting counterpoint to this video.
Seeing the photo of the lovely Spitfires and then a photo of the Barracuda right after was extremely jarring🤣
So not as "Fleet Evil" as Hush Kit stated I see. So that's what the Firebrand might have been needed at 16:30 though I would imagine by the 1960s the Soviet battleship program got canned.
There are four dimensions to an airplane. Size, weight, thrust, and red tape. Even when the first three are favorable the fourth can really screw things up!
I do have a small quibble on a technical matter. "Torque" isn't really the problem with powerful propellor aircraft. P-factor and spiral flow effects are. A Firbrand, Corsair, or just about any of them would roll from torque if a pilot hit the throttle too hard while near the stall but at all other times it's the other two. I don't take any marks off, though, because EVERYONE confuses the two but I suggest looking them up if you're interested. I will add that, before computer modeling, it was impossible to calculate p-factor and that's why some planes flew straight off the drawing board while some needed major redesigns to ever fly straight at all; especially after an engine or propeller change.
Cheers!
Thank you for a balanced view of this aircraft.
It's so slow relative to the engine power it had. I think it's probably due to the thicker wings at the front part of the wing that was optimized for low speed lift and low speed maneuverability many british designers were going for. Please correct me if i am wrong
That was my thought as well. 358 mph from 2,300 hp? There were other fighters doing more with less, for example:
Spitfire Mk IX, 400 mph from hp
P-47D, 425 mph from 2,000 hp
P-40, 338 mph 1,240 hp (only 20 mph slower with 1,000 less hp!)
P-39N, 385 mph from 1,200 hp
P-51A (aka Mustang II), 390 mph from 1,200 hp
Some of these were comparatively svelte aircraft, but the P-47 was not and yet was almost 70 mph faster with 300 less hp. I realize comparing top speeds can get tricky, but a fighter with 2,300 hp should have done much better.
My favourite Blackburn aircraft was the Fairey Barracuda as it was the aircraft my grandfather was flying during WWII I still have pictures of him with his aircraft when he was with 812 navel air squadron on hms eagle in the med he also was flew out of HMS falcon on Malta he loved that plane and said it was amazing to fly he loved every minute of it
The Napier Sabre - the first best cause of PTSD for the ground crew... Christ almighty and they put it on a carrier..
Excellent video Mr. Nash. This got me to pondering the weird culture of armchair snobbery the internet generates. All these solid yes/no zero sum opinions (from people who weren't there) on machines that were made under incredible pressures, that maybe "underperformed" by a couple of percentage points. It reminds me of racing snobbery. (The guy that's dead last is just a split second slower per lap. That doesn't mean he's slow. He's fast enough to race, and he's always faster than the guy calling him "slow") Really nice to hear Captain Brown's opinion. Thanks again.
Just a thought but with modern targeting systems would there be a place for computer controlled turrets on a faster aircraft than a helicopter. They could even destroy incoming missiles.
Kind of:
ruclips.net/video/W1tDZkDc280/видео.html
Blackburn feels to me like the company who got shafted at nearly every opportunity. The Roc was, in my opinion, a great plane. You know what made it successful? It met a difficult specification. Why did it fail? The specification was a pile of shit. The Firebrand exemplifies this. They built a plane to fir a specification which was then denied and then a stupid specification was sent their way and they fulfilled it despite the challenge.
For Supermarine, Hawker, Shorts, De Havilland, Vickers, Avro, Fairey and Bristol, a new airframe already had a foot in the door. Blackburn struggled to get a toe in that door. Look no further than the Lancaster. The Manchester was a true dog but the RAF was more than happy to buy the Lancaster despite the history of its forefather, falling out of the sky is usually considered something to be wary of.
Interesting article thanks!
Would have loved a snippet on the Firecrest....just to fill in the rest! Cheers
As is often the case the source of the problem was the customer. Given a reasonable specification, a competent design team has a fair chance of creating a successful aircraft. To Blackburn's detriment the Admiralty had no clue what they actually required and believed they should be able to constantly change their demands as well. Can you image what de Havilland would have produced if the Air Ministry had issued the specification for the Mosquito. It beggars the imagination. Blackburn did a workmanlike job despite their customer.
Blackburn designers must also accept the blame for not being strong enough to say NO! Commander Mike Crosley had nothing nice to say about them or Fairy! Crosley also said that the Seafire, while acknowledging its weaknesses was often made to look worse because of the Salerno landings - when Admiral Vian (who never bothered to learn about the aircraft in his fleet, operated the Seafires from slow escort carriers in very calm winds - meaning there was never sufficient wind over for landings.
Thanks
Great video as always, how about one on the wyvern?
It's like a Corsair got together with a Spitfire and then a Hawker Sea Fury! Cheers!!
I love how your channel introduces me to aircraft I'd never know about otherwise!
Thanks for the video. This plane is new to me
Ah.. The Napier Sabre, The Mighty Bristol Centaurus. Glad you corrected the blasphemy of John Brown !!! Brilliant Video. Thanks.
Your Video Starts with excerpt of a Movie with Vincent Price; can you tell me which movie it was?
I believe it is "Return of the Fly" (1959).
Captain Brown's opinion on aircraft are extremely detailed and accurate. He did assess the Firebrand and did not like some of its aspects. But and it is a big but that is often ignored, he did find it had some good features. The problem with the Firebrand was that it came along too late and there were other aircraft which were a greater priority. Had its development been completed 2 years earlier and its less pleasant aspects been worked out it might have become a very good asset.
Well done Ed ! Now could you do the Firecrest?
Hopefully tomorrow ;)
The position of the cockpit and the length of the nose indicates to me that it must have been an extremely difficult aircraft to line up and land on a carrier.
Squire would love this video
Eric (Winkle) Brown test pilot, said of this aircraft. "It is built like a battleship and it flys like one too"
Thank you for this video, it was most interesting. Poor old Blackburn, being fucked about by the ever changing requirements, never standing still long enough to get the last requirement correct and ready to go into service then it all changes again, especially when they had to go from the Sabre engine to the radial Centaurus. That must have been a headache to the design team and really soul destroying.
Interesting that an aircraft with such powerful engines and clean aerodynamic lines had such a low top speed compared to the F4U and F8F, even the F6F was faster. The only reason I can think of is perhaps it was very heavy.
Always thought that the FB and Wyvern were handsome aircraft.
You showed a couple of views where you're talkin about Browns other opinions of the Firebrand. Especially the one with the two-tone Royal Navy paint job. In those views tell me it does not resemble the German ta-152? And, just as an aside I wonder what would have happened if the German did manage to get the focke-wulf 190 or ta-152 onto a carrier deck?
Performance aside always thought the Firebrand looked badass
Thanks for sharing 👍
Eric ffs! Sure, it was no fighter, but for dropping torpedoes....it looks pretty good.
13:24 - Eric Winkle Brown, not John...
The firebrand is absolutely my favorite aircraft. A true beauty, just look at that huge tail...
Did they land on carrier with torpedo still attached
the fleet air arm pilots didn't like the Seafire, far too many broke up in landing accidents. they much preferred the American types they got later in the war
Probably better than it was regarded, and it did it's preferred job well.
And, TBF, "Great Naval Engagements of the Korean War" is one of the thinner books out there. 😉
Ed, just come across another Blackburn failure, the Blackburn Botha. Maybe a video you could do?
Oh yes, that one is on the list.
So not Blackburn, at fault but the changes weekly by air ministry caused the delays..
I think the American Navy was correct in requiring carrier aircraft to use radial engines. Being air cooled, they are more reliable and robust than liquid cooled engine. Very important when flying long distances over water.
I was trying to figure out a while back why the UK military kept ordering aircraft from Blackburn. Now I know, the Blackburn company screwed up and built pretty much what they were told to its just that the government told them to build the wrong things. How could you expect Brown to figure out if the plane was any good or not? The Lancaster was really a poor dogfighter and the Spitfire was a miserable high-altitude bomber and basically, the Firebrand chassis was used for both and no surprise did both poorly.
I do have a question,with a Centaurus that chucks out more power than Pratts 2800, why does this thing have such a lower speed and about same load as a F4U? Whatdid Blackburn gain for that trade off?
Interesting to learn of its mixed character. Powerful looking aircraft though.