Blackburn B.44

[KJ_Lesnick]

Was this design feasible?

[Mossie]

Feasible, yes.  The B.20 showed that the concept worked, however, it was felt that configuration didn't offer enough advantage over more conventional flying boats.

[zenrat]

I feel it's always nice to have pictures so we know what we're talking about.

[Captain Canada]

Never heard of it ! Looks strange in both configurations. Kinda like a Spitfire as well.

[PR19_Kit]

The B-44 was a lot bigger than a Spitfire, not the least because it was effectively a Firebrand with a retractable hull grafted onto the bottom.

The Firebrand was a BIG aeroplane for a single engine, single seat 'fighter', 51 ft. span and 11500 lbs. empty!

[rickshaw]

Got to admit, the retractable float is a clever solution to how to have a single-engined fighter floatplane and not suffer the massive drag from a separate float.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Does anybody have any comprehensive data on the design? 

By comprehensive I mean information that includes things like

• Dimensions/Wing Area
  
• Weights (loaded and empty)
  
• Armament
  
• Projected top-speed
  

And stuff of that sort

[PR19_Kit]

Look up stuff on the Firebrand, it won't be that far out.

[rickshaw]

Does anybody have any comprehensive data on the design? 

By comprehensive I mean information that includes things like

• Dimensions/Wing Area
  
• Weights (loaded and empty)
  
• Armament
  
• Projected top-speed
  

And stuff of that sort

Right Here

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

If the figures I found were correct, I got

• Length: 39'4"
• Span: 50'0"

• Armament: 4 x 20mm cannon
  
• Engine: Napier Sabre
  

I'm curious if there have ever been figures for wing-area, operational empty weight, and loaded weight.

[kitnut617]

Look up stuff on the Firebrand, it won't be that far out.

Actually it was to have an elliptical wing Kit, it looks more like a P-47 wing, or a Fairey Firefly wing

http://www.unicraft.biz/on/b44/b44-dr.jpg

Kendra/Robyn should be able to work it out from here

[PR19_Kit]

Yes, I saw that, but that was presumably because its role was as an interceptor rather than a torpedo truck like the Frirebrand. The rest of the B.44 was based on the Firebrand, it's mentioned in other places and the fuselage and tail are pure Firebrand.

[rickshaw]

While the retractable float is a great idea to reduce drag, it does rather give it the look of a pregnant guppy.   I'm wonder if a better idea might have been a retractable float with an inflatable top?   Make the bottom, planing surface of metal but make the top inflatable so when it's retracted, it collapses and folds down much smaller?

[pyro-manic]

That's a good idea! It introduces another possible failure, though - if your float bursts, or is punctured by a bullet, or if the compressed air bottle and/or hoses fail, you can't land. And that's on top of the float retraction mechanism.

[rickshaw]

That's a good idea! It introduces another possible failure, though - if your float bursts, or is punctured by a bullet, or if the compressed air bottle and/or hoses fail, you can't land. And that's on top of the float retraction mechanism.

Always a problem with flying boats - you get a hole in the hull and you're stuffed.   The inflatable upper surface could be made self-sealing for the small holes.  Anything it can't fix, a non-inflatable one isn't going to be any help anyway.   The inflatable section could be compartmentalised anyway.   As for the retraction mechanism, thats a problem in any modern aircraft, whether it's wheels or floats.