# Talk:Blackburn Firebrand

The latest production numbers posted do not match those given in Jackson, which gives 3 prototypes, plus first batch of 50, plus 170 T.F. IV/5/5A. Given that he provides construction numbers for all the aircraft, I'm not inclined to doubt his numbers. I'm also very surprised that Sturtivant's production breakdown for the IV/5/5A differs so much from Jackson. I don't have Sturtivant's book so can't verify his numbers, but which ever one of y'all is adding this material needs to update the text to match the numbers. And put the cites in matching format to those that are already there, for consistency's sake.
While the Firebrand did serve with all those second-line squadrons, is there any point in mentioning those as most of those likely had only "onesies" or "twosies" on strength at any one time? We certainly don't do that for aircraft that served in larger numbers, so I see no reason to do it here. 708 Squadron is likely the only user in relatively large numbers and that's mentioned in the main body already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My error I was one out when I wrote my notes so it is 3+50+170 = 223 which is the same as Jackson. Dont understand you comment about cite format I am using the usual style used and cant see where it differs. As for ignoring small users as far as I know we have never ignored small users in any of the aircraft articles I have been involved in. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
T.F.IVs
EK601 to EK638, EK653 to EK694, EK719 to EK748, EK764 to EK799, EK827 to EK850 (EK851 to EK867 and EK885 to EK913 and EK934 to EK967 cancelled) which is 170.
T.F.5s
Converted to T.F.5 was EK609, 614, 621, 623, 624 625, 626, 627, 628, 633, 634, 636, 637, 638, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 665, 667, 668, 669, 670, 672, 673, 674, 675, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 684, 687, 689, 690, 691, 693, 694, 721, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 729, 731, 734, 736, 738, 740, 742, 743, 745, 747, 748, 764 to 799 and 827 to 850 which I make 124.
T.F.5As
Converted to T.F.5A was 726, 728, 730, 732 733, 735 and prototype 769 which is a total of 7. 726 and 769 had been 5s the others IVs.
T.F. IV(mod)
Modified to IV(mod) was 673, 676, 684, 685, 686, 688 which is six. 673 and 684 later to a Mk 5.
Just for info. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the citation format several times, so no differences are visible now. It's minor stuff like a space between the p. and the actual page number, use of endashes rather than hyphens for page ranges, etc., but it's stuff that I'm used to standardizing for my FACs. I would suggest providing the exact page for a cite rather than the range of the entire section as the former is rather more useful to a reader. As a reader I'm firmly indifferent to any aircraft's service with second-line squadrons as it's not actually very important. Reflecting this, sources often do not even mention this for many aircraft made in large numbers. That said, I'll not fuss any further if y'all think that they're worth adding back in. Thanks for all the s/ns; Jackson doesn't breakdown the numbers that finely.
How good/useful is Sturtivant's FAA aircraft book? And Butler's British Experimental Combat Aircraft of World War II? I was planning on working on the postwar FAA attack aircraft using my collection of the Putnam company histories, Buttler's older book and Air International/Enthusiasts, but I'm wondering if I should hold off until I get either Sturtivant or Buttler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
OK understood, if you think the numbers are still wrong then please change them. The late Mr. Sturtivant lists every fixed wing aircraft operated by the FAA since 1946 with a full history, well worth it in my opinion, I dont have the other book, example:
EK850 To CRD charge at Blackburn Brough 24.3.47 (conv TF.5); AHU Arbroath 25.7.47; Blackburn Brough to RDU Anthorn 3.10.47; Culdrose 10.1.48; 813 Sqn ('110/C'). u/c failed to lower, belly landed Culdrose 5.1.49 (L/C DF Battison); RNARY Donibristle 7.49; AHU Abbotsinch 2.2.51; 813 Sqn ('113/A') 3.51; Barrier crash Indomitable 3.5.51; Bounced, floated over wires, into No.1 & 2 barriers Indomitable 4.7.51 (S/L RA Lister); SOC 1.5.52. :MilborneOne (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, just like he did in his FAA 1939–1945 book, which, now that I look at it, says 102 T.F. IVs through EK741. It doesn't mention any further s/ns or later models, probably because it ends at the end of '45. Looking at a few serials EK609 became a T.F. 4(mod) which may have been an intermediate step before T.F. 5, but there are others that became T.F. 4(mod)s as well, like 665-680, 689 which may well be in similar situations. BTW, what the hell is a T.F. 4(mod)? It's not mentioned in Jackson, Brown or Buttler. Another issue is that he says the Centaurus Mk XI was fitted in the T.F. IV, not the IX like most everybody else. Any ideas?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Does Sturtivant give better details on the three Blackburn B-48 Firecrest prototypes than is currently in that article? I've fixed the production data to match your info from Sturtivant, but I don't think I'm going to mention the IV(mod) until I find out what it actually was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blackburn Firebrand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


### Comments
It's good to see a detailed article on this impressive looking, but under-achieving aircraft. I have the following comments and suggestions:

The first sentence of the 'Development' section needs context (especially around timing - eg, during which period had the FAA had this requirement?)
Is the six month delay between the tender being accepted and an order being placed considered unusual in the sources? This seems somewhat leisurely given Britain's strategic situation in 1940.
It doesn't seem to be unusual; certainly nobody comments that it was.
The development of new aircraft not essential to the defence of the UK has temporarily halted in 1940 due to the ongoing Battle of Britain. After the battle development was resumed incorporating lessons learned in the battle leading to some changes in specification or cancellations, e.g., the 'Turret Fighter' (Defiant, Roc) was abandoned as a concept as was the 'Light Bomber' e.g., the Battle. The results of the Battle of Britain also led the Air Ministry to cancel all UK dive bomber requirements.
"neatly-cowed" - what does this term mean?
Typo fixed and linked.
You could have made up a complex technical explanation for the term "cowed" and bamboozled me completely ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Why did the MAP decide to stick with this design after it was ruled out as a fighter? (especially as the American Corsairs, Wildcats and Hellcats which were being delivered at about this time were also excellent ground attack aircraft and the Barracuda was hoped to be a good dive and torpedo bomber)
Nobody actually says anything about this in any of my aircraft-oriented sources, but the Firebrand was about 100 mph faster than the Barracuda and it was also faster and carried a heavier bombload than the early Fireflies. Remember that the American aircraft would have to be returned or paid for at the end of the war and the Brits probably didn't want to be reliant on US aircraft.
Fair points. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The Firebrand was continued in order to give the Navy a 2,000hp fighter at a time when the Seafire had not yet flown with the Griffon engine. The supply of American aircraft was dependant on US political whims and also on delivery by ship and the UK was loathe to rely on outside sources at a time when ships were being sunk in the North Atlantic daily. All new UK fighter designs from 1940-on - the Tornado/Typhoon, and Firebrand - utilised a 2,000hp engine, the Sabre, Vulture, or Centaurus, as no-one knew the extent of the increased powers the-then 1,000hp Merlin was capable of with development and the Spitfire was thought soon likely to be rendered obsolete due to limiting by its 1,000hp engine. The use of a 2,000hp engine allowed a smaller airframe able to carry a torpedo while still retaining a fighter's speed and manoeuvrability when the torpedo had been dropped - Hence the new category 'Torpedo Fighter'.
The Barracuda had been designed for an engine (the Exe) of greater power than the Merlin 32 it was subsequently ordered with but the Exe had been cancelled.
Why did the FAA place the Firebrand into service after the war given that it had lots of good aircraft available, with the excellent Sea Fury about to come online in the fighter and ground attack roles? Was it compelled to do this?
I think, but again, nobody actually says, that they felt that they needed something that could deliver a torpedo. It may well have also been something to keep the factory/design team going. I'll poke around a bit and see if I can find something to clarify RN aircraft development post-war.
OK, I'll hold off on passing until you let me know how you go here. I don't have any sources to help I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically it seems to have been intended as an interim aircraft pending delivery of the Fairey Spearfish and Westland Wyvern strike aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, excellent. The British aviation industry certainly turned out a lot of very ordinary carrier aircraft types during this era! Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The Firebrand initially had a greater load-carrying capacity (bombs, rockets, etc.) then the Sea Fury due to its generous wing area. It was therefore seen as a post-war replacement for the Lend-Lease Corsairs and Avengers, which had to be returned to the US.
Do we know how the aircraft was regarded by aircrew and other RN personnel? Have aviation historians commented on the design? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Added one pilot's opinion about the aircraft's performance. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

the aircraft could only reach 32 mph below Blackburn's estimated maximum speed of 390 mph. Replacement of the Sabre II with a Sabre III (an engine built specifically for the Firebrand) improved its top speed to 358 mph; erm 358 + 32 = 390. Typo? Keith-264 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it. 

 "The initial flight trials were a disappointment as the aircraft could only reach 32 mph (51 km/h) below Blackburn's estimated maximum speed of 390 mph. Replacement of the Sabre II with a Sabre III (an engine built specifically for the Firebrand)[4] improved its top speed to 358 mph (576 km/h)."

Math doesn't add up. Possibly the "32" was supposed to "352" or something? In that case, the grammar is wrong anyway. Even besides the math, it's not really the best way to write it; ought to say "aircraft could only reach 358mph, which was 32mph below the expected speed of 390mph", or something. AnnaGoFast (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a copy of the source given, I shall have to check it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)