Talk:Blackburn Firebrand/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 10:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Added one pilot's opinion about the aircraft's performance. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

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: