Well, what the heck to write about the Blackburn Firecrest?
There is a very good Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia...kburn_Firecrest
Okay, the aircraft obviously had constructive troubles. Which could have been solved either, or, as happened, seen as useless enterprise.
But what puzzles me is its intended roll as "strike fighter". The "fighter-bomber" looks like being primarily a fighter fighting for air superiority but becoming converted to the attacker role which it often performs better then the pure attacker. The "strike fighter" looks like being designed primarily for the attacker role.
At nearly the same time the Douglas A-1 Skyraider was constructed, obviously the last piston-engined first-line combat aircraft ever, and a fine and successfull attacker. Britain for herself already had the Hawker Sea Fury as a very nice piston-engined fighter. So, what about seeing the Firecrest as attempt of a "British Skyraider"?
Could this have been useful? Would you have strained you country's budget to make it become real?
Hoping for at least one single answer, and regards,