The available engines for the Wyvern were the Rolls-Royce Clyde and the Armstrong Siddeley Python. The Clyde was a twin-spool engine, with one spool driving a centrifugal compressor and the other the propeller and an axial compressor. The Clyde delivered at least 4030 hp, with a potential for much more. The Clyde was used for prototype VP120. The radiator and underwing oil coolers were removed, a smaller tail was fitted, and a six-bladed contraprop installed. The engine had twin exhausts, one on each side of the fuselage, over the wing. It first flew on 18 January 1945, and showed to be excellent. Production had to be canceled however, simply because Rolls-Royce refused to build the Clyde engine in series! Rolls-Royce was committing itself fully to jet engines.
The Python was an older design and lower-powered (3760 hp), with a reverse-flow, 14-stage axial compressor. The first Python-engined Wyvern TF.2 was VP109 and flew on 22 March 1949, with an eight-bladed Rotol propeller, but otherwise similar to VP120. Oil coolers were placed in the extended wing roots. It was followed by a second prototype and a few T.3 two-seat trainers. Experiences with the engine were far from satisfactory, unreliability and a slow reaction speed making the aircraft unpopular. If it had been available, Westland would probably have liked to return to the Eagle engine; but that was not possible, and twenty Python-engined TF.2s were built. Carrier trials began on 21 June 1950
By: dhfan
- 25th August 2005 at 20:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks sort of squashed somehow.
The Python must have been one of Armstrong-Siddeley's very few dogs. Their engines were generally well up to the standards of the day.
I haven't yet read the link, (I'm supposed to be feeding my face) but the Eagle was a piston engine IIRC. Lord Hives (or plain Ernest as he may have still been then) put the kibosh on that too I believe.
By: GlynRamsden
- 31st August 2005 at 15:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
By: adrian_gray
- 31st August 2005 at 16:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the 1990s Aeroplane Monthly ran a series called "Tested and Failed" on various aircraft that did not perform as planned (eg Miles Monitor - tendency towards massive fuel fires exacerbated by being made of wood...). I'm fairly crtain that the Firebrand was in it - looked mean, mean to fly.
Adrian
(Two tailwheel tyres at Millom? Spitfires have been rebuilt to fly from less, y'know!)
By: steve_p
- 31st August 2005 at 18:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the 1990s Aeroplane Monthly ran a series called "Tested and Failed" on various aircraft that did not perform as planned (eg Miles Monitor - tendency towards massive fuel fires exacerbated by being made of wood...). I'm fairly crtain that the Firebrand was in it - looked mean, mean to fly.
I can't comment on the Firebrand article in that series, but in the one on the Welkin, the author was a bit selective in his choice of quotes from the Boscombe Down reports. It seemed to me that he was quoting to fit his argument, rather than reading the reports then forming an opinion.
By: Dog House Ldr.
- 1st September 2005 at 05:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can ya'll give me, the uneducated some information on the Blackburn Firebrand? what was the main problem with the aircraft?. Was she a handfull to fly? was the Napier a problematic engine?, if the FAA was looking for a torpedo/ ground attack plane why did they not consider the Douglas Skyraider as an alternative?
By: JDK
- 1st September 2005 at 06:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: setter
- 1st September 2005 at 07:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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'
By: JDK
- 1st September 2005 at 12:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if you WILL use feed lines! ;)
New
Posts: 7,755
By: Flood
- 1st September 2005 at 21:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Seafuryfan
- 1st September 2005 at 22:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that a Centaurus on the front of the Firebrand? If so, its an abuse of engine power.
New
Posts: 7,755
By: Flood
- 2nd September 2005 at 09:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
New
Posts: 4
By: bacplus
- 9th June 2006 at 10:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 1,612
By: turbo_NZ - 25th August 2005 at 19:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes, thats about right.
taken from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/wyvrn-01.html
The available engines for the Wyvern were the Rolls-Royce Clyde and the Armstrong Siddeley Python. The Clyde was a twin-spool engine, with one spool driving a centrifugal compressor and the other the propeller and an axial compressor. The Clyde delivered at least 4030 hp, with a potential for much more. The Clyde was used for prototype VP120. The radiator and underwing oil coolers were removed, a smaller tail was fitted, and a six-bladed contraprop installed. The engine had twin exhausts, one on each side of the fuselage, over the wing. It first flew on 18 January 1945, and showed to be excellent. Production had to be canceled however, simply because Rolls-Royce refused to build the Clyde engine in series! Rolls-Royce was committing itself fully to jet engines.
The Python was an older design and lower-powered (3760 hp), with a reverse-flow, 14-stage axial compressor. The first Python-engined Wyvern TF.2 was VP109 and flew on 22 March 1949, with an eight-bladed Rotol propeller, but otherwise similar to VP120. Oil coolers were placed in the extended wing roots. It was followed by a second prototype and a few T.3 two-seat trainers. Experiences with the engine were far from satisfactory, unreliability and a slow reaction speed making the aircraft unpopular. If it had been available, Westland would probably have liked to return to the Eagle engine; but that was not possible, and twenty Python-engined TF.2s were built. Carrier trials began on 21 June 1950
TNZ
Posts: 77
By: Michel Lemieux - 25th August 2005 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now h'bout the Firecrest..........
Now this one was even more odd.
A mix of Stuka / Seafury ????
Posts: 2,892
By: dhfan - 25th August 2005 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks sort of squashed somehow.
The Python must have been one of Armstrong-Siddeley's very few dogs. Their engines were generally well up to the standards of the day.
I haven't yet read the link, (I'm supposed to be feeding my face) but the Eagle was a piston engine IIRC. Lord Hives (or plain Ernest as he may have still been then) put the kibosh on that too I believe.
Posts: 222
By: GlynRamsden - 31st August 2005 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 3,194
By: adrian_gray - 31st August 2005 at 16:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the 1990s Aeroplane Monthly ran a series called "Tested and Failed" on various aircraft that did not perform as planned (eg Miles Monitor - tendency towards massive fuel fires exacerbated by being made of wood...). I'm fairly crtain that the Firebrand was in it - looked mean, mean to fly.
Adrian
(Two tailwheel tyres at Millom? Spitfires have been rebuilt to fly from less, y'know!)
Posts: 655
By: steve_p - 31st August 2005 at 18:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't comment on the Firebrand article in that series, but in the one on the Welkin, the author was a bit selective in his choice of quotes from the Boscombe Down reports. It seemed to me that he was quoting to fit his argument, rather than reading the reports then forming an opinion.
Best wishes
Steve P
Posts: 2,146
By: STORMBIRD262 - 1st September 2005 at 04:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting stuff guy's
Posts: 262
By: Dog House Ldr. - 1st September 2005 at 05:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
can ya'll give me, the uneducated some information on the Blackburn Firebrand? what was the main problem with the aircraft?. Was she a handfull to fly? was the Napier a problematic engine?, if the FAA was looking for a torpedo/ ground attack plane why did they not consider the Douglas Skyraider as an alternative?
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 1st September 2005 at 06:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 1,234
By: setter - 1st September 2005 at 07:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 2,764
By: Melvyn Hiscock - 1st September 2005 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fat useless and late?
Posts: 18,353
By: DazDaMan - 1st September 2005 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Didn't know you knew one of my ex's, Melv! :eek:
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 1st September 2005 at 12:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that what all of them say about you then Daz? :D
I'll get me coat...
Posts: 18,353
By: DazDaMan - 1st September 2005 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Story of my life... :rolleyes:
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 1st September 2005 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, if you WILL use feed lines! ;)
Posts: 7,755
By: Flood - 1st September 2005 at 21:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 2,929
By: Papa Lima - 1st September 2005 at 22:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flood, was "fuselarge" an unintended mistype? Seems to be apposite, though, for an aircraft claimed by Melv to be "fat".
Posts: 2,435
By: Seafuryfan - 1st September 2005 at 22:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is that a Centaurus on the front of the Firebrand? If so, its an abuse of engine power.
Posts: 7,755
By: Flood - 2nd September 2005 at 09:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Um, I plead the application of kids not wanting to go to bed spread over the space of an hour.
Flood
Posts: 4
By: bacplus - 9th June 2006 at 10:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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