Talk:Blackburn Firebrand

Production numbers
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)

Typo?
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)