# Brewster Buffalos in the German and Finnish AF



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

There is a great book called "FLying aces of WWII" it said that Brewster Buffalos flew in the German and FInnish airforce. It said a Finnish ace shot down 32 fighters in the Buffalos.

I know it was a terrible airplane but if anyone knew how it got there i am dying to know


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 1, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> There is a great book called "FLying aces of WWII" it said that Brewster Buffalos flew in the German and FInnish airforce. It said a Finnish ace shot down 32 fighters in the Buffalos.
> 
> I know it was a terrible airplane but if anyone knew how it got there i am dying to know



If what Im reading is correct the Finnish goverment bought them before the war happened or at least before Finland entered the war. They where refered to as the B-239. Will see if I can find more info.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

THanks a whole lot!


----------



## Nikademus (Jan 1, 2008)

The Finns purchased the remainder of the Brewster F2A-1's contracted for the USN so that the USN could proceed to procure F2A-2's while keeping costs down to a reasonable level.

These F2A-1's were modified with Wright R-1820-G5 engines of 950hp under the company designation: B-239. They were crated and shipped to Sweden where they were assembled and flown to Finland (reportedly by Norwegian volunteers!)


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

THanks


----------



## Marcel (Jan 1, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> The Finns purchased the remainder of the Brewster F2A-1's contracted for the USN so that the USN could proceed to procure F2A-2's while keeping costs down to a reasonable level.
> 
> These F2A-1's were modified with Wright R-1820-G5 engines of 950hp under the company designation: B-239. They were crated and shipped to Sweden where they were assembled and flown to Finland (reportedly by Norwegian volunteers!)



The gun sights were replaced, de-navalised (Life raft and arresting hook removed) and doubled the firepower by installing 2 extra MG's in the wings (F2A's had only 2 MG's in the nose) before shipping the planes to Finnland. The finns also modified their B234 (armor plating, gun sights etc) and they modified the engines slightly. The B234 acted brilliantly against the Soviets, so it was not a bad plane at all. A Finnish squadron scored for instance 135 kills against 2 losses in 6 months of fighting.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 1, 2008)

THats interesting! thanks marcel


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 1, 2008)

Here is a nice little web sight on the B-239 along with a picture of a B-239 on ski's that they talkd about.

Brewster B-239 to Finland


----------



## Njaco (Jan 1, 2008)

"Although the "Winter War" was not part of the wider conflict, many pilots who had been involved fought on in the so-called "Continuation War" after Germany invaded Russia and Finland fought on the side of Germany on the northern sector of the Eastern Front. Many became aces and foremost among them was Ilmari Juutilainen, who scored 94 victories in action against the Russians, flying Fokker D.XXIs, Brewster Buffaloes and Bf 109s.

In April 1940, Juutilainen, who was now commissioned, converted to the Brewster Buffalo fighter, with which he shot down 36 Soviet aircraft....In April 1942 he was awarded the Mannerheim Cross and in 1943 he was assigned to LeLv 34, flying Bf 109G-2s. His total of 94 kills was amassed in the course of 437 sorties; the 94th was an Li2, the Russian version of the Douglas C-47, shot down on 3 September 1944 over the Karelian Isthmus.

Ilmari Juutilainen died on 21 February 1999. The astonshing thing about his career is that never once was his aircraft hit by enemy fire."

_Vital Guide: Air Aces of WWII by Robert Jackson_ pg 47


----------



## Marcel (Jan 1, 2008)

Nice info on the Buffalo and it's compagny Brewester is written here, don't know how accurate it is:
The Sorry Saga of the Brewster Buffalo


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 2, 2008)

THanks guys.......


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 4, 2008)

virtualpilots.fi: War History


----------



## Marcel (Jan 6, 2008)

Did you notice how amazingly complete this Buffalo looked when it came out of the water? What a great find!
virtualpilots.fi: bw372lecture


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 6, 2008)

Marcel said:


> Did you notice how amazingly complete this Buffalo looked when it came out of the water? What a great find!
> virtualpilots.fi: bw372lecture



Does look in great shape. Hopfully they will restore it to flying condition.


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 6, 2008)

Micdrow said:


> Hopefully they will restore it to flying condition.



Not a change. The Brewster is the only one and way too valuable. No restoration is going to be made and it shall be displayed "as is".


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 6, 2008)

I think most folks on this forum are for seeing warbirds where they belong, *in the air*, but the Buffalo is obviously too rare an aircraft.

I'd like to see it fully restored to airworthy condition, then never flown.

TO


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

Displayed "as is"? Do you have a source for that info? I can't believe they wouldn't do _any _restoration at all, even for static display. They would certainly at least want to stop corrosion from continuing.

The Naval museum in Pensacola currently has it in storage. What ends up happening by the time it hits the display area is anyone's guess.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> I think most folks on this forum are for seeing warbirds where they belong, *in the air*, but the Buffalo is obviously too rare an aircraft.
> 
> I'd like to see it fully restored to airworthy condition, then never flown.
> 
> TO



If you never plan on flying it, then there isn't any reason to spend the money to restore it to flyable condition. They can do a static restoration that looks great and spend less money doing so.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> If you never plan on flying it, then there isn't any reason to spend the money to restore it to flyable condition. They can do a static restoration that looks great and spend less money doing so.



You're absolutely correct. My thinking is strictly "wishful" in a potential "money is no object" situation.

TO


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

Ah, ok, the "if I won the lotto" scenario.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jan 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Ah, ok, the "if I won the lotto" scenario.



Yea, I got no problem spending other people's money  
(At least it would be for a good cause!)

TO


----------



## Haztoys (Jan 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Displayed "as is"? Do you have a source for that info? I can't believe they wouldn't do _any _restoration at all, even for static display. They would certainly at least want to stop corrosion from continuing.
> 
> The Naval museum in Pensacola currently has it in storage. What ends up happening by the time it hits the display area is anyone's guess.



No source and plans change EG ...But that the same info "I" had read at the time it was found..To display it as found...I'm sure that plan has changed...To rare not to clean her up some... ....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

I was looking to see if there were definite plans on that. I would hate to see the only example left put on display in a wrecked condition.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2008)

What's it doing in the US? Isn't that a bit far away from Finland where it saw combat and should be displayed? Just curious fellas, is it because it's an Brewster and US built?


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Displayed "as is"? Do you have a source for that info?



Brewster Buffalo: So where is BW-372 now?



> The plan is to display the aircraft in its Finnish Air Force warpaint with minimal restoration.





Lucky13 said:


> What's it doing in the US? Isn't that a bit far away from Finland where it saw combat and should be displayed? Just curious fellas, is it because it's an Brewster and US built?



Minerva Kustannus Oy » Kadonneen Brewsterin metsästys

virtualpilots.fi: bw372lecture

For short: The authors of this book, Marja Lampi and Vladimir Prytkov were part of a team searching for the Brewster in 1998 or so. A Finn, Timo Nyman, found the plane and the original plan was to get the plane to Finland or in USA.

Shortly after the plane was found, Russian OMON arrested them and took the Brewster. The Russian "mafia" then sold the plane to USA through Ireland.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2008)

I see, thanks mate! I guess that the Finns were a bit p*ssed off with that...


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 6, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I see, thanks mate! I guess that the Finns were a bit p*ssed off with that...



Well, the aviation fans were a little bit. The Goverment, the Air Force or Nokia (the company sponsored one of the Brewsters and the plane was named after the company) could not care less.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

Hmm, the page was posted in 2004. I wonder if the plan is still the same. Like I said, it seems so wrong to display the only example in that condition.


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 6, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Hmm, the page was posted in 2004. I wonder if the plan is still the same. Like I said, it seems so wrong to display the only example in that condition.



The same information can be found from the museum's website, at least I found it few months ago from the special Brewster site.

For me it's much important to preserve the original paint job and markings from the last aerial battle than have one more "fake" plane with wrong markings to some museum.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

I have no problem with keeping it in the original Finnish markings from recovery. I would just like to see it in a more flyable looking condition. 

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm doubting, I just have seen many times where what a museum plans at time of delivery is different from what ends up on the display floor, or ceiling.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2008)

I'd do complete restoration, and paint her in the colors that they found her in....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2008)

Yeah, I agree. The site that Mangrove posted says "The long-term restoration plans are still very much up in the air.". So it still remains to be seen what they will do with it.


----------



## Mangrove (Jan 31, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> I'd do complete restoration, and paint her in the colors that they found her in....



Complete waste of time, resources and historical value since the aircraft already have complete paint job from 1942!



evangilder said:


> Yeah, I agree. The site that Mangrove posted says "The long-term restoration plans are still very much up in the air.". So it still remains to be seen what they will do with it.



Message from the Museum Director Regarding Disposition of the Brewster Buffalo - 2007



> Since the recovery of the only known surviving Brewster F2A Buffalo and its acquisition by the National Museum of Naval Aviation, much as been written and discussed regarding its disposition. Most of this has been supposition and conjecture and, as a result, inaccurate and results from the fact that almost none of the information presented has come from the organization responsible for the disposition of the aircraft. The following can be considered the official position of the National Museum of Naval Aviation regarding the disposition of this historic aircraft.
> 
> The Buffalo possesses a unique historical significance that calls for some unique handling. Most of the aircraft that the Museum acquires arrive in a configuration that does not demand or even lend itself to preservation in that configuration. Thus, after appropriate assessment, the decision is usually made to restore the aircraft to a configuration that displays it as an operational machine appropriate to its most historically significant period of use. This usually means complete restoration or repair of all damage, and reconfiguration to the period chosen, including replacement of components and equipment either with original type components or material or that which is authentic to the highest possible degree. However, the Buffalo both demands and lends itself to preservation of its configuration without restoration.
> 
> ...


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

i knew the fins had them but the germans?


----------



## Mangrove (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> I knew the Finns had them, but the Germans?



The Belgians had ordered few of them and few arrived before the invasion and were thus captured by the Germans.

Luftwaffe Experten - Captured Brewster Buffalo


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 1, 2008)

Well thats a great read of a thread , good info guys


----------



## Elvis (Feb 3, 2008)

Nikademus said:


> The Finns purchased the remainder of the Brewster F2A-1's contracted for the USN so that the USN could proceed to procure F2A-2's while keeping costs down to a reasonable level.
> 
> These F2A-1's were modified with Wright R-1820-G5 engines of 950hp under the company designation: B-239. They were crated and shipped to Sweden where they were assembled and flown to Finland (reportedly by Norwegian volunteers!)


The Russians had already made it to Finland's southern border and were trying to gain a nice chunk of prime land (which they had occupied earlier and eventually got back).
Their own AC were woefully obsolete at that point and all _competitive_ foriegn (for Finland) allied AC were needed for their own respective countries.
The US, who had a good experience with the Brits, decided to extend their "Lend/Lease" policy to the Finn's and thus they ended up with the B-239 varient of the Brewster Buffalo, which (by that time) was already taking a back seat to the F4F in the USN.
That's why the planes were shipped to Sweden. 
Any boats coming directly into Finland would have had their cargo confiscated by the Russkies.

I've got a great article on this in a mag....which is at home right now (of course  ).

Anyone needs any kind "verification" or any specific info, post here and I'll try to get it to you via the aritcle (that is IF THE EMAIL ALERTS FOR THIS SITE WILL COOPERATE! ).




Elvis


----------



## Juha (Feb 3, 2008)

Elvis, only a short note
FAF Brewsters were not "Lend/Lease" a/c but Finland bought them paying in dollars. IIRC "Lend/Lease" was a later program. Even British bought their US material at that time.

Juha


----------



## Mangrove (Feb 3, 2008)

Elvis said:


> The Russians had already made it to Finland's southern border and were trying to gain a nice chunk of prime land (which they had occupied earlier and eventually got back).



Southern border? Pre-1939, sure, but the city of Viipuri (Vyburg) was mostly still held by the Finnish troops on 13th March 1940. The city is situated about 30-40 kilometers from the 1940 border.



Elvis said:


> The US, who had a good experience with the Brits, decided to extend their "Lend/Lease" policy to the Finn's and thus they ended up with the B-239 varient of the Brewster Buffalo, which (by that time) was already taking a back seat to the F4F in the USN.



Lend/Lease? Apart from the fact that Finns had to pay full price from the Brewster it was kind of Lend-Lease...  . The Finns bought the Brewster direct from the factory, not through the US Goverment, after finding out that the planes could be bought after they were declared obsoleted by the Navy.



Elvis said:


> Any boats coming directly into Finland would have had their cargo confiscated by the Russkies.



With what? The Soviets had only one or two submarines operating at the western part of Gulf of Finland. Finnish Navy (including Coastal defence ships Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen) were operating from Turku which lies at the western part of Finland. Soviet Navy couldn't use the battleships because of Finnish coastal artillery and sea ice.

The planes were assembled at Sweden because it was the safest thing to do. Flying (the pilots were Finns apart from american volunteer Robert A. Winston) them to Finland was then the most obvious thing to do.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

As said it wasn't lend-lease (in fact lend-lease exascerbated instabillities of Brewster) they were purchased by Finland at full price. However it was the state department that convinced the USN to allow these a/c to go first (and not to the Navy) and later recieve F2A-2's instead.

Here's another article: The Sorry Saga of the Brewster Buffalo


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 6, 2008)

> Maailman ainut Brewster-hävittäjä visiitille Suomeen
> Ilmavoimien Esikunta tiedottaa: Maailman ainut Brewster-hävittäjä visiitille Suomeen
> 
> Vapaa julkaistavaksi 6.3.2008 09:00
> ...



The World's only Brewster's visit to Finland
The HQ of the Air Force notifies: The World's only Brewster's visit to Finland

Free to be released on 9 o'clock 6th March 2008.

The World's only Brewster's visit to Finland

As the Finnish Air Force is now 90 years old the National Naval Aviation Museum has loaned the World's only Brewster to Aviation Museum of Central Finland for several years. The plane arrived to Finland in previous week and it will be introduced to the preess at the Finnish Air Force Day on Tuesday 6th of March.[...]


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 6, 2008)

Ajankohtaista


----------



## Juha (Mar 6, 2008)

Great news!!
Thanks a lot, Mangrove


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 6, 2008)

Pienoismallit.net | BW-372


----------



## Juha (Mar 7, 2008)

Wow!
Excellent pictures!!
Thanks a lot for the link, Mangrove!

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 7, 2008)

So if they want it displayed as it was just after crash landing that would mean preserving what they can and repairing all damage and corrosion/weathering that took place since then, and touching up the paint. Though they'll probably preserve as much of the original paint as they can. (which is in remarkably good condition) All battle damage would remain but all decaying components and fabric control surfaces should be restored to display condition.

But I'm not sure what the actual plans are, though it is supposed to be displayed as it was just after bing shot down.


And as for flying condition this doesn't seem likely in this case but some other Buffalo wrecks seem to be surfacing so there's still a chance.
And just because a plane is the last of its kind doesn't mean it they won't fly it, look at Planes of Fame, they have the only authentic P-26 and its still flying and there's also the only fully authentic A6M still flying with original Sake engine!


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 7, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But I'm not sure what the actual plans are, though it is supposed to be displayed as it was just after bing shot down.



The BW-372 will be "restored" to the state it was after _raising_ the plane from the lake. So no new paint jobs, canvas or anything like that. Just repairing the damage made to the fuselage (it's in two parts now) etc.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 8, 2008)

Mangrove said:


> Ajankohtaista



I'M MOVIN' TO FINLAND!

...screw the plane, I just wanna party with the blonde!

 (just kidding)

Seriously, nice piece of research Mangrove (and I mean the plane!).
Thanks for posting that.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 8, 2008)

The plane's currently residing in Florida:



> The aircraft was recovered from the lake in 1998, and after extensive negotiations with Russian officials, it was finally transported to the United States. The Brewster fighter finally reached the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida, on 18 August 2004. After discovering the historic nature of the aircraft, original plans to restore and display it as an F2A from the Battle of Midway were quickly dispensed with. The museum plans to reassemble the Brewster and display it exactly as it came from the lake in Russia. Damage caused by enemy fire and subsequent crash landing will not be disturbed. As near as possible, it will be fully authentic and original and instantly recognizable as a Finnish Air Force B-239 at a point in time when it made its last flight in hostile skies and settled to the bottom of the lake.


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 10, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The plane's currently residing in Florida:



That is incorrect. As you can see the plane is in Finland.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 11, 2008)

Looks to me like it was over here in 2004, but was recently shipped to Finland.

Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 11, 2008)

Never mind...


----------



## Njaco (Mar 12, 2008)

Some more stuff on the Buffalo from this site with pics and links to the story about it.

Military Photos . net


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 13, 2008)

Gotta love that Finnish camo scheme!


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 13, 2008)

AWESOME!

Reminds me of this:


WWII Russian T34 Tank Rescue.

Update On Recovered T-34 Tank With German Markings


.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2008)

Muddy bogs and the bottoms of cold fresh water lakes have actually been found to be great preservers.
That's probably why both the plane and the tank (anyone notice the German Panzer markings on the turret?!) survived as well as they did.
I remember a story from around here where an elderly couple went for a drive in 1924 and were never seen again.
70+ years later their car was found at the bottom of Lake Washington.
The bodies were so many bones by that time, but the car was still remarkably intact.
Probably the same process that petrifies fallen trees found in lake bottoms, apply here (maybe).

-------------------------

NJaco,

Great drawing of that plane (top pic).
Looks like one from a website I used to frequent that dealt with different WWII airplanes, all catagorized by country.



Elvis


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 15, 2008)

anaerobic environments!

warships from the American revolution have been found remarkably intact in the great lakes..


----------



## Njaco (Mar 15, 2008)

Elvis, thats from that forum website. It is pretty different from most profiles you see.

And I too noticed the German marking. Funny I just read where when the T-34 first appaered that German crews would sometimes use captured examples. The marking looks early 1940 though.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2008)

NJaco,

That pic is from somewhere else, too.
If I ever find the site again (it may not exist anymore), I'll let ya know.

Re: T-34.
The Germans gained great respect from that tank very quickly, as nothing in the German arsenal, short of the Pak42 75mm gun fired at close range, could penetrate the T-34's armour.
The German commanders were VERY surprised by the performance of this tank, especially considering that they thought of the average Russian's mentality as being quite "simple" and thus, they could have never designed such a fine piece of battlefield armour.
The T-34 was a landmark fighting vehicle. That's for sure.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 15, 2008)

Some deserts preserve things remakably well too as long as sand isn't too prevelant. The California Mojave desert can be a bit harder on iron/steel though due (realitively) higher humidity, but there hve been some remakably well presered cars and such found in Navada deserts (lower humidity) well over 50 years later.


----------



## ulf (Nov 30, 2008)

Hello B17 engineer,

Have you seen this web page: Robert Winston and the Finnish Brewsters

Best regards
Ulf


----------



## Elvis (Nov 30, 2008)

Hey guys,

Just skimmed through this thread again.
Man, some really good research went on here.
Cudo's to all for your excellent work.

Just wanted to address two things that I didn't see in the thread thus far.

1) I noticed I never apologized to the board for an earlier statement I made in which I said that the Brewsters were part of the Lend/Lease act.
You guys are right. They were bought outright and never part of that process.
Sorry about that.  

2) I didn't see anyone address the other part of the initial question, which was how/why the Buffalo was flown with the Luftwaffe.

AFAIK, it wasn't.
However, the Finns aligned themselves with the Germans during the "Continuation War" because they shared a common enemy, the Russians.
In fact, in the later part of that war, a lot of the Brewsters were being replaced with 109's.

If B-17engineer is still looking in on this thread and is still interested in the exploits of the B-239 with the Finnish Air Force, he might want to see if he can find a back issue of "_Aviation History_" magazine.
This is the one I have. 
It is the November 1996 issue and the cover shows a Buff going after a Russian airplane.
The article, which starts on page 34, is called "_Brewster Buffalo Finland's unlikely ace maker_".



Elvis


----------



## Mangrove (Feb 25, 2009)

BW-372 is almost ready on it's "restoration". New photos from FsNordic, page 6.

FsNordic.net


----------



## Nightwitch (Feb 25, 2009)

I remember how mad I was when this was first dragged out of the water and taken to the US, and the US plans were to dress it up like a Marine F2A from Midway, totally ignoring the Finnish history behind it. I'm glad they got that out of their heads eventually.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 25, 2009)

Mangrove,

Thanks for the link.



Elvis


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2009)

Great pics on that link Mangrove!!


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 8, 2009)

[Drums....]

1. [C] Pentti Hyvärinen.







2. [C] Juha Klemettinen.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2009)

Nice pics Mangrove 8) Am I right in thinking that the B-239 'acemakers' of the Finnish AF were a different aircraft to the Buffaloes and F2As which fared so poorly in the Far East? I am sure I have read either on this forum or elsewhere that although visually similar, the Finnish a/c were of a superior type to the US/RAF/Dutch types and this partly explains the better record of the Finnish machines


----------



## Nightwitch (Mar 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Nice pics Mangrove 8) Am I right in thinking that the B-239 'acemakers' of the Finnish AF were a different aircraft to the Buffaloes and F2As which fared so poorly in the Far East? I am sure I have read either on this forum or elsewhere that although visually similar, the Finnish a/c were of a superior type to the US/RAF/Dutch types and this partly explains the better record of the Finnish machines



Actually, as far as I am aware, the B-239 the Finns received was an inferior model to the F2A-2 the US received. So, I think actually their equipment was worse than the equipment of the US/RAF/Dutch.


----------



## Amsel (Mar 8, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Nice pics Mangrove 8) Am I right in thinking that the B-239 'acemakers' of the Finnish AF were a different aircraft to the Buffaloes and F2As which fared so poorly in the Far East? I am sure I have read either on this forum or elsewhere that although visually similar, the Finnish a/c were of a superior type to the US/RAF/Dutch types and this partly explains the better record of the Finnish machines



The Finnish Brewsters and pilots were going against the Soviet early war pilots and fighters while the US/Dutch/RAF were fighting the Japanese war machine, who had exceptional aircraft and men.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 8, 2009)

The B239's were actually much lighter than the versions used by the British and US. They had no naval equipment like the US planes and had several Finish modifications. The British put too much equipment and armour in their planes and performance suffered accordingly. I already mentiones somewhere on this board the remarks of British Buffalo pilots who thought that he Dutch B339's were much better than their own crates. Climb performance was at least much better than that of the British.


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 8, 2009)

Amsel said:


> The Finnish Brewsters and pilots were going against the Soviet early war pilots and fighters while the US/Dutch/RAF were fighting the Japanese war machine, who had exceptional aircraft and men.



I didn't matter since Finns could still get a good win / loss ratio with Brewster against La-5s, P-39s, P-40s, Yak-7Bs and Yak-9s even in 1943 - 1944. It's all about the tactics.


----------



## Amsel (Mar 8, 2009)

I agree it is all about the tactics for the most part. The British pilots fresh from the Battle of Britain using Hurricanes and Spitfires then transfered to the East to fly Brewsters against the Japanese might not agree 100%. But they got the job done against very good pilots and machines. The Eastern front was a goldmine for kills against the Soviets. Just look at the Germans and Axis records.

Definantly not taking away from what the Finns did; they were ferocious.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 12, 2009)

Mangrove,

Nice pics. Thanks for posting those.
I never noticed how peaked the canopy is. Odd. I guess it had "ample" headroom, anyway. 
So I guess there's no plan to restore this plane?
Kind of a pitty, but considering the shape its in, I would think it would be almost as easy to simply build a full sized repop and at probably the same or similar cost.
----------------------------------------

As for the recent questions about the Buff's performance.
Man, people are so quick to toss the Buffalo into the "useless" pile.

Ya know, the US Navy picked it for a reason....and that reason WASN'T that it couldn't perform.
What started off as a (fairly) good idea, got weighed down with more armour, fuel and guns, with no appriciable increase in the _drivetrain_.
When you tack about 2000 lbs onto an airplane and make only minor improvements to the powerplant, the performance is gonna suffer, I don't care who you are.
To make things even worse, the additional weight didn't only lessen speed and climbing ability, it also threw off the balance of the airplane, so now handling was out the window, and the Brewster actually posted some very good handling figures, in "F2A-1" form.
As the design went from the 339 to the 439 ("-2" and "-3"), things only got worse.
Finally, the plane was pulled from front line duty and placed in "lesser" roles, where its performance was less of a hindrance to the war effort.
If either the power had been addressed, as the weight was added on, or if the changes were more _minimal_ than they actually ended up being (or a combination of both), I think the plane would've been remembered as a more successful contributor to the allied war effort.

So, in the end, the Finns actually got the best of the bunch, and at its best, it really wasn't that bad of a fighter plane.




Elvis


----------



## Negative Creep (Mar 12, 2009)

In RAF service the Buffalo never stood a chance anyway. The fighting ability and tactics of the JAAF and JNAF were fatally underestimated and the fighters available were too few and far between to have an impact. Even if they'd all been Spitfires it would have made no difference to the end result. Most Buffaloes were destroyed on the ground or simply abandoned


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 12, 2009)

> Ya know, the US Navy picked it for a reason....and that reason WASN'T that it couldn't perform.
> What started off as a (fairly) good idea, got weighed down with more armour, fuel and guns, with no appriciable increase in the drivetrain.
> When you tack about 2000 lbs onto an airplane and make only minor improvements to the powerplant, the performance is gonna suffer, I don't care who you are.



This.

The P-40 and the Brewster, in my humble opinion, were both superior fighters to the A6M2 and the Ki-43 (Zero and Oscar.) The P-40 was faster and had a markedly superior roll rate (which some people contend made it _more_ manuverable then the zero, since roll rate is arguably more important then turn rate,) and the Buffalo F2A had a rather nice climb rate. It wasn't the spectacular climb rate of the Zero, but certainly better then the P-40, giving it the vertical performance to stay with a Zero in a climb long enough to hose it down. The 3 .50 caliber guns and single .30 cal gave it a longer reach and better firepower then the early war P-40 (with only two .50's and four .30's.)

Pappy Boyinton himself praised the Brewster's maneuverability, and that was a valuable asset, even against a Zero. One might not be able to turn with a Zero indefinitely, but being able to turn _long enough_ with a Zero to nail it with your guns is all that really matters. 

Now it's a well-known fact that some of the most manuverable and lethal dogfighters of the war- such as the F6F Hellcat and F4F Wildcat- have undeserved reputations as un-turnable freight trains simply because their principle opponent was the Zero. The F4F was a good fighter, but in my opinion the Brewster was better, because even though they both turned pretty well, the Brewster had far better vertical performance. This made it a better early-war plane for fighting the Zero, because the two things the Zero excelled at (and sacrificed so much survivability for) was turning and climbing. Now, any fighter would lose in a turning fight with the Zero, but if it could be bested in any other area, it could be made to pay dearly for it's deficiencies. This either meant exploiting it's slow speed (which the Brewster wasn't fast enough to do effectively as the P-40,) or compensating for it's advantage in the vertical. The F4F was a _painful_ aircraft to try and climb with, and it wasn't terribly fast, so it was simply doomed. The Buffalo, however, could cling to a Zero's tail in a rope-a-dope long enough to nail it, perhaps at long range, and that's where the Zero would be made to pay for it's light construction. Zero pilots couldn't afford to give up _any_ shots.

The roll rate of the Buffalo is a statistic I no nothing of, and that's important, because roll rate is especially poignant in this discussion because of the Zero's poor roll performance. Weather the Buffalo could beat the Zero in the horizontal scissors in the way the P-40 could, I don't know. It's a shame that one of the most important measures of an aircraft's maneuverability- roll rate- is almost always absent from reference books and internet websites.


----------



## renrich (Mar 12, 2009)

Don't know where the 2000 pounds of additional weight mentioned by someone came from, but the normal gross weight of the XF2A1 was slightly less than 5000 pounds and the F2A2 was over 5400 pounds. The F2A3 four gun fighter had a gross weight of 6321 pounds and the 4 gun overload fighter was 6906 pounds. The empty weight of the model 239 that went to the Finns was 3744 pounds and 4 gun fighter gross weight with 110 gallons of fuel was only 5276 pounds. As a 4 gun overload bomber it could get up to 7159 pounds in the F2A3 version. Quite a lot of difference. The Buffalo had a weak landing gear which made it unsuitable for carrier landings and fitting SS tanks to it was a nightmare. In the Pacific, it was a dog and the Marines flying them at Midway, who were skilled pilots, were overmatched against the A6Ms.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 13, 2009)

Renrich,

That was me that posted that 2000 lb. figure, but not quite as "matter-of-factly" as you stated it.

Here's what I actually wrote...



> When you tack about 2000 lbs onto an airplane and make only minor improvements to the powerplant, the performance is gonna suffer, I don't care who you are.



The figures I have for the F2A-1 is 5040, loaded.
You listed the F2A-3's loaded weight at 6900+

That's a difference of almost, or "roughly", or _about_, 2000 lbs.



Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Mar 13, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> This.
> 
> The P-40 and the Brewster, in my humble opinion, were both superior fighters to the A6M2 and the Ki-43 (Zero and Oscar.) The P-40 was faster and had a markedly superior roll rate (which some people contend made it _more_ manuverable then the zero, since roll rate is arguably more important then turn rate,) and the Buffalo F2A had a rather nice climb rate. It wasn't the spectacular climb rate of the Zero, but certainly better then the P-40, giving it the vertical performance to stay with a Zero in a climb long enough to hose it down. The 3 .50 caliber guns and single .30 cal gave it a longer reach and better firepower then the early war P-40 (with only two .50's and four .30's.)
> 
> ...


Well, it seems we have a Shakespere fan among us!
Welcome Demetrious!

Aussie fighter pilot Bobby Gibbs mentioned similar remarks when speaking about the attributes of the P-40, although not in comparison to the Zero.
He said that if flown "properly" it could turn with a Spitfire and outclimb one, too. 
(NOTE: _Which_ version of Spitfire he was referring to, was never mentioned)




Elvis


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2009)

The worst feature of the P40 was it's climb rate. It was lousy and I question if a P40 could ever outclimb a comparable Spitfire. Elvis, after I wrote that, I realised that a Buffalo could have 2000 pounds added but overload fighter or bomber are not really typical of how a Buffalo went to war against enemy fighters.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 13, 2009)

i know the finnish had a bunch


----------



## Marcel (Mar 13, 2009)

About the comparison of Britisch and Dutch Brewsters:
British Brewsters were all fitted with the 1100 hp Cyclone G-105A. the majority of the ML-KNIL aircraft had 1200 hp and the British had also been fitted with additional equipment bringing the weight of the aircraft to 2955 kg, about 265 kg (10%) more than the Dutch aircraft. Because of this for instance the rate of climb (at sea level) of the British version was just 3000 ft/min, very poor compared to the 4700 ft/min of the Dutch aircraft.


----------



## renrich (Mar 13, 2009)

My source gives the 339D which went to the Netherlands as having a normal gross weight of 6094.5 pounds with the R1820-G105A with a one stage two speed supercharger producing 1100 HP at takeoff power. The Belgian models with the same engine were the lightest at 5436.9 pounds whereas the British models had a GW of 6112.2 pounds. The climb rate of 4700 fpm seems high. The 339-23s were a NEI order but 17 went to the RAAF. They had 1200 HP at takeoff power.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 13, 2009)

Would the different climates in which they operated affect the performance?


----------



## Elvis (Mar 14, 2009)

FWIW, my source lists an initial climb rate of 3060 ft./min. for an F2A-1 (B-239) and I'd think it would have the best climb rate out of any of the versions, due to its lighter weight.
I wish performance data for the HUMU existed.
It would be interesting to compare that to the B-239.
------------------------------------------

renrich,

I dont' want to skew this thread, so if you wanna discuss this further, maybe we could take it to the _PM Zone_.
However, in a final response to your last statement on this, I don't know what to tell you about the climbing ability of the P-40, but Bobby Gibbs did fly the P-40 for Australia during WWII and that was his comment I was quoting.
I wouldn't think he'd lie about something like that.
...and remember, I also stated that he never mentiioned a particular version of either airplane.
Could it be a comparison of a later P-40 to an early Spitfire?




Elvis


----------



## renrich (Mar 14, 2009)

The rate of climb for the F8F is given as 4570 fpm at sea level. A Bearcat from a standing start could and did get to 10000 feet in 1.5 minutes. Those numbers make the 4700 fpm ROC for a Buffalo seem optimistic.


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> The rate of climb for the F8F is given as 4570 fpm at sea level. A Bearcat from a standing start could and did get to 10000 feet in 1.5 minutes. Those numbers make the 4700 fpm ROC for a Buffalo seem optimistic.



Indeed, sir. IIRC, the climb rate of the F2A Navy Brewster (the original, fairly light model,) was in the area of 3,000 feet, which was quite good for the era. Pilots described it as taking off from the ground "like a rocket." 

I have to second the surprise at that Australian ace's insistence that the P-40 could out-climb the Spitfire. The P-40 was indeed shoddy at climb rate, and the Spitfire was well-known for it's rapid climbing ability- a combination of a light lean plane and those big, low-loaded wings (much like the Zero.) All I can figure is that Bobby Gibs was talking about a high-speed scenario, wherein the P-40's superior instantaneous turn ability and higher energy retention (because it was heavier) would allow it to zoom climb much better then the equivalent model years of Spitfires could hope for. 

I can easily believe the comment about it out-turning a Spitfire, though. The P-36, the P-40's little brother, was a dedicated turn-fighter, and in fact was only narrowly edged out by the Spitfire in acceptance trials for the RAF. (The Brits wanted the Spitfire's better speed, which was a wise decision.) The P-40 gained a lot of speed while still retaining a lot of the P-36's inherent turning ability, which made it one of the better turning fighters of the war. Off the top of my head, the Spit could do a 360 turn in about 17 or 18 seconds, varying on model, the P-40 could do a 360 in about 20. That was a lot closer to the Spit then most other aircraft of the era, who could do a 360 in about 22-24 seconds. Given that, a P-40 "flown properly" could easily glue itself to a Spitfire's ass and stay there, using high and low speed yo-yo's and other such maneuvers. The Spitfire could easily beat the P-40 in the vertical, but it's substandard roll rate vs. the P-40's excellent roll would put it at a severe disadvantage in the horizontal scissors or the like. 

They were pretty evenly matched, IMO.


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 14, 2009)

Demetrious said:


> Indeed, sir. IIRC, the climb rate of the F2A Navy Brewster (the original, fairly light model,) was in the area of 3,000 feet, which was quite good for the era.



Brewster Aeronautical Corporation. December 15, 1939. Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine).



> 113a. The Performance is estimated to be as follows:
> 
> Gross Weight (110 gals. fuel): 5014.1
> [...]
> ...


----------



## Demetrious (Mar 14, 2009)

Mangrove said:


> Brewster Aeronautical Corporation. December 15, 1939. Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine).



2500 feet a minute? Sounds about right. I vaguely recall the "overloaded" models had their climb fall to something like 2,000 feet a minute or worse.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 14, 2009)

Mangrove,

Can you provide a link for those stats you posted, or is that a quote from a book?

Joe Baugher lists these stats for the F2A-1

"_Powerplant: One Wright R-1820-34 Cyclone nine-cylinder single-row air-cooled radial engine, rated at 940 hp. Performance: Maximum speed of 311 mph at 18,000 feet, and a maximum speed of 271 mph at sea level. *Initial climb rate 3060 ft/min.* Service ceiling 32,500 feet. Maximum range 1545 miles. Weights: 3785 pounds empty, 5055 pounds gross, 5370 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 0 inches, length 26 feet 0 inches, height 11 feet 8 inches, wing area 209 square feet. Armament: Three 0.50 inch machine guns, one 0.30-inch machine gun. _"

The magazine article I have on B-239 service in Finland reflects the same initial climb rate.

I think the rate of climb for the F2A-3 was somewhere around 2200-2400 ft./min.

Could you be thinking of the Grumman Wildcat, Demetrious?
I think the rate of climb for an F4F-4 was only 1950 ft./min.



Elvis


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2009)

The problem with the numbers we see quoted is that various models had various engines and weights and the early models often had the best performance figures because they weighed less. The early F4F3 had a sea level climb rate of 3200 fpm. The F4F4 was lucky to get 2000 fpm because it weighed a lot more. AC with 2 speed, 2 stage superchargers might not climb as well as earlier models with 1 speed 1 stage superchargers at sea level but far surpassed the early models at altitudes above 10000 feet or so. Almost always, the AC that were relegated to secondary roles in the war were done so for good reasons, no matter what we might see on paper.


----------



## Marcel (Mar 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> My source gives the 339D which went to the Netherlands as having a normal gross weight of 6094.5 pounds with the R1820-G105A with a one stage two speed supercharger producing 1100 HP at takeoff power. The Belgian models with the same engine were the lightest at 5436.9 pounds whereas the British models had a GW of 6112.2 pounds. The climb rate of 4700 fpm seems high. The 339-23s were a NEI order but 17 went to the RAAF. They had 1200 HP at takeoff power.



Because of lack of engines, many Dutch B339's were equipped with 1200 hp engines, taken from KLM airliners. I can even tell you how many, but I'll have to look it up.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> The problem with the numbers we see quoted is that various models had various engines and weights and the early models often had the best performance figures because they weighed less. The early F4F3 had a sea level climb rate of 3200 fpm. The F4F4 was lucky to get 2000 fpm because it weighed a lot more. AC with 2 speed, 2 stage superchargers might not climb as well as earlier models with 1 speed 1 stage superchargers at sea level but far surpassed the early models at altitudes above 10000 feet or so. Almost always, the AC that were relegated to secondary roles in the war were done so for good reasons, no matter what we might see on paper.


Renrich,

Most of the climb rates I've seen for the F4F-3 are around the 2200-2300 fpm range.
F4F-4 and FM-1 are typically listed @ 1950 fpm.
Aeroweb lists a climb rate of 3650fpm for the FM-2.


Elvis


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2009)

Elvis, from Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," page 473, " The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate of the early F4F3 was over 3300 fpm at SL, very sprightly performance for the time. The heavier F4F4, in contrast, could make less than 2500 fpm at SL and, as the curve shows, this performance decreased rapidly at the higher altitudes to little over 1500 fpm in spite of using the two stage super charged engine." I have found that Dean has the most thorough study of US fighters that I have ever read. All of his info is backed up by graphs and charts from manufacturers and the AAF and USN. The problem with all this is that F4F3s are not all equal. They come with different engines with different super chargers with different amounts of armor and with different fuel tanks, etc.


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 16, 2009)

Elvis said:


> Can you provide a link for those stats you posted, or is that a quote from a book?



That's a quote from a manual "Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine)." An Finnish aviation museum has a copy of it. Notice the climb rate in the manual is *estimated*. Climb rate for VL Humu was about 13,3 m/s (from zero to 4000 meters in five minutes) or 2600 ft./min (VL Humu â€“ Wikipedia). Humu operational weight was c. 2500 kg or 5500 lb.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 19, 2009)

Mangrove,

Thanks for clarifying that.
I've read in the past that the Finns were initially excited about the prospect of using captured M-63's, but later found that they were crudely built and thus, not capable of the performance of the American built Cyclones those planes originally came with.
I didn't know that page existed, so it was cool seeing some actual performance figures on the HUMU (BTW, top speed translates to about 267 mph).
Thanks again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

renrtich,

Not saying that guy's figures are wrong, but those seem to be some very optimistic numbers.
If his are based on the USN and AAF official records, I wonder why everyone else lists much lesser performance fgures for those planes.
...interesting...

BTW, what does he say about the FM-2, in comparison to those figures you posted about the "-3" and -4" Wildcats?



Elvis


----------



## Mangrove (Mar 25, 2009)

Can there be to much photos from BW-372?  

Pylly-Waltteri at Tikkakoski (44 kuvaa) - FSnordic.net


----------



## Marcel (Mar 26, 2009)

Mangrove said:


> Can there be to much photos from BW-372?
> 
> Pylly-Waltteri at Tikkakoski (44 kuvaa) - FSnordic.net



Nope and don't forget the beauty in the back (D.XXI) 8)


----------

