Talk:Bristol Brigand

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / British / European

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Bristol Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

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)[reply]

The poor old Brigand[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol Brigand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130105204339/http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/bomber/brigand/brigand_en.htm to http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/bomber/brigand/brigand_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]