Talk:Bristol Brigand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force

---

I doubt the small bombload and the small service ceiling. I've seen these data in books as well, but they make no sense.

The weight/engine power ratio in connectionw ith the long and large wings would make such a small service ceiling only reasonable if the engines had no chargers at all. Maybe someone can check that with the given engine designations?

The bombload makes no sense at all as well. It's less than given for the combat mission example in the text. It's also extremely small because teh plane can obviously carry enormous amounts of fuel for that range, some of it in external fuel tanks (droppable). Bombs instead of those external fuel tanks would increase the bombload a lot. Pylons of that time were typically able to hold both fuel tanks AND bombs. Bombload for short range should be on the order of about 4,000 lbs.

Sven Ortmann/ wiki user Lastdingo sven-ortmann@web.de

As far as I know, the Centaurus only had a single-stage supercharger, and the design's low power:weight ratio probably didn't help with high-altitude performance. There is no total bombload listed in the specs or the text, but both seem to make sense: the text says 2×500 under the wings, and a total of 2,000 under the fuselage, plus rockets. The specs don't disagree. A 22" torpedo would have also weighed between 2,000 and 3,000 lbs. If you can find a newer source with updated figures, let us know! ericg ✈ 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The poor old Brigand

Most of the problems were caused by component failure; there didn't seem to be much inherently wrong with the airframe, apart from the over-long blast tubes. Vents would have probably helped cure the gas build up. The Hawker Typhoon was more lethal to its users, but it was wartime and persistence paid off. Had the Brigand been available a few years earlier it may well have been very useful, especially in the Far East.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)