# Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2?



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

I found a BuAER document, dated January 25(?), 1941, that discusses an upgrade to the F2A-3 to make it more competitive. Upgrades to include:
1. wing modification to incorporate a full span NACA slotted flap and attached aileron slot lip ailerons.
2. installation of an *R-2600-12* engine to a fuselage lengthened by 18 inches. *wing to remain standard F2A*. However entire airframe to be stregnhened accordingly.
3. New F2A wing to be folding with accomodation of two .5 inch HMGs in each one. 

A maximum speed estimate of 403 mph. 

Modifications expected to produce a gross weight of 8,185 lbs.

Attached was a copy of a BuAer letter of Feb 17, 1941 *rejecting the proposal as unattractive*. Thank GOD!

Stall speed calculated to be 80+ mph, range 975 miles with extension to 1085, below the desired 1,500.


Also found the transcipt of an interview with Gordon Firebaugh: http://www.warbirdforum.com/fire.htm

"GF: Now, while I was with the Chiefs (VF-2) I flew simulated dogfights and whipped F4F's, probably the F4F-3 with no folding wing, but I could also outfly the F2A when in an F4F as well - it all depended on who was in the pilot's seat. I flew the F4F after we got switched around [when the VF-2 NAP's were spread around with other squadrons -jm] in early 1942. I got shot down over Santa Isabel [7 August 1942 during the Guadalcanal operation -jm]...and I've often thought that, _*I wish, I'd been better off in a Brewster. I think it would have matched the [Mitsubishi] Zero -*_ the F4F was heavier and didn't have the turning radius. During that fight, I met up with five Zeros, shot down three before I got shot down. I spent a long time in the water, until I got to land and met one of the [Australian] coastwatchers...

You felt the F2A was a better aircraft than the F4F?

GF: Well, remember, _*I'm thinking of the F2A-2*_. We had the F2A-3 for a couple of months, *that was a different aircraft. *It had too much fuel. I remember we could fly five hour patrols....

Q: Did you ever get an explanation for the extra tankage in the F2A-3?

GF: They had put in a wet wing - you were able to purge it with CO2 into the main tank, but it meant extra weight. That was maybe the reason we had strut failures - these wheels, the landing gear, landed pretty hard, negative 3 G's. The struts had a tendency to move forward. When you retracted the gear on the next flight, the box strut scraped on the wheel well. You couldn't have that happen, the gear not retracting, so the mechanics would file some off and get closer to the rivets..

Q: And if you did that enough times...

GF: Exactly, you have a gear failure. *I loved the F2A-2*, and wasn't as impressed with the -3 and the F4F. Now you know, VF-3 got the first batch and then we got more.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jun 24, 2012)

Interesting!


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2012)

Neither aircraft performed well compared to CV fighter aircraft such as the A6M and Me-109T that were operational during December 1941. 

The USN did well to rush the F6F into mass production. Unfortunately for us the F2A and F4F were all our CVs had during 1942.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

To be fair, at Guadacanal Firebaugh was flying the F4F-4, which had degraded performance compared to the F4F-3, which he evidently felt either comparable to or inferior to the F2A-2. 

I am not familiar with the performance or handling qualities of the Kriegsmarine Bf-109T although I realize it was designated for use aboard the Graf Zepplin. My concern about that aircraft, aside from whatever penalties might have accrued by adding naval specific hardware and modification was the impact of its low endurance on the air ops cycle. The problem with short ranged aircraft operating from a carrier is that they tend to drive the whole air ops cycle That's very destructive to combat effectiveness of the carrier and airwing as a whole. However, it must be said that the RN FAA overcame that issue with both the Hurricane and the Spitfire, so it seems the Bf-109 could have been no less effective in that role. I don't believe any of these with the exception of the A6M Zero represented an improvement over the F4F-3 or perhaps even the poorly regarded F4F-4. Legs make that much of a difference in a naval fighter and compared to the other aircraft mentioned here and in your post. The Grumman had them and the other (excepting of course the A6M) simply didn't. Beyond that, it was indeed well that the USN expedited introduction of the F6F (or F4U for that matter although one could wish for a far quicker gestation for the latter.)


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2012)

Thank heaven we didn't have to fly Brewsters for too long ...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

GregP said:


> Thank heaven we didn't have to fly Brewsters for too long ...



Too true. As a company Brewster was on a course for self destruction. I've always wondered what happened to the highly regarded Dayton T. Brown chief designer of he F2A and other Brewster aircraft. I found this on the web: 

DTB.com - Our Business is YOUR SUCCESS - Dayton T. Brown Inc 

whose CEO is DTB Jr.


----------



## davebender (Jun 24, 2012)

Me-109T was just an interim aircraft produced in small quantities. It allowed testing of catapults and CV arresting gear from expedient platforms such as converted barges. I don't think it was intended to operate from the two German CVs.

Me-155 would have been the primary German CV based fighter aircraft. It appears to me development was timed to have the Me-155 operational at the same time CV Graf Zeppelin entered service. If German CVs had a higher priority the Me-155 would also have a higher priority. Hypothetical 1941 version of the Me-155 would be based on the Me-109F fuselage rather then the Me-109G. Even with a tail hook and other such naval equipment it's going to have a 50 mph speed advantage over both USN fighter aircraft.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 24, 2012)

davebender said:


> Me-109T was just an interim aircraft produced in small quantities. It allowed testing of catapults and CV arresting gear from expedient platforms such as converted barges. I don't think it was intended to operate from the two German CVs.
> 
> Me-155 would have been the primary German CV based fighter aircraft. It appears to me development was timed to have the Me-155 operational at the same time CV Graf Zeppelin entered service. If German CVs had a higher priority the Me-155 would also have a higher priority. Hypothetical 1941 version of the Me-155 would be based on the Me-109F fuselage rather then the Me-109G. Even with a tail hook and other such naval equipment it's going to have a 50 mph speed advantage over both USN fighter aircraft.



Interesting, I hadn't heard of the Me-155 but given its 109 heritage I suspect it would as you say have that sort of speed advantage until the advent of the F6F or F4U.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 24, 2012)

> - it all depended on who was in the pilot's seat.



Interesting and true comment. Almost always overlooked.


----------



## GregP (Jun 24, 2012)

The Me 155 and me 109T were never operational, so you are talking a "what if." It never happened, as you know. Fiction is usually entertaining, but not real.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 24, 2012)

The Bf109T was actually produced and flown operationally (in small quantities), but with the delays in the Graf Zepplin, production was cancelled, and the naval 109 was dispersed to land-based units.

Primarily 1/Jg77 in Norway


----------



## GregP (Jun 25, 2012)

I know that. They were not a factor in WWII at all.

some were converted back into standard ME 109's. Some were left as-is.

None were notable in any action I know of. Ergo, they were a non-factor, as was the carrier that was never completed but was sunk and later raised and sunk again.

A real non-event in WWII history. Think of the German carrier as "bureaucratic absence of presence."


----------



## A4K (Jun 25, 2012)

Interesting info on the Bufffalo Mal!
Wonder how ours (488 (NZ) sqn fighting in Singapore) would have faired in more even odds - 300 Ki-43 against 23 Buffalo Mk.I and 2 Hurricane Mk.IIB is not much of a fair fight!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 25, 2012)

A4K said:


> Interesting info on the Bufffalo Mal!
> Wonder how ours (488 (NZ) sqn fighting in Singapore) would have faired in more even odds - 300 Ki-43 against 23 Buffalo Mk.I and 2 Hurricane Mk.IIB is not much of a fair fight!



300 Ki-43? is a missprint for 30?


----------



## Timppa (Jun 25, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> GF: They had put in a wet wing - you were able to purge it with CO2 into the main tank, but it meant extra weight. That was maybe the reason we had strut failures - these wheels, the landing gear, landed pretty hard, negative 3 G's. The struts had a tendency to move forward. When you retracted the gear on the next flight, the box strut scraped on the wheel well. You couldn't have that happen, the gear not retracting, so the mechanics would file some off and get closer to the rivets..



AFAIK this was a problem already in the much lighter the F2A-1. Even the Finnish Brewsters, operating from land bases, not subjected as harsh landings, had some landing gear failures. Literally the weak spot of the F2A...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 25, 2012)

Timppa, I believe you are correct although it may have been more a hint of what was to come as later versions gained weight. One of the first F2A-1's delivered to the navy evidently landed hard (in late 1939 or early 1940) on a flight deck and suffered a gear failure, so it's easy to believe the airplane demanded gentle touch-downs even in its youth.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I found a BuAER document, dated January 25(?), 1941, that discusses an upgrade to the F2A-3 to make it more competitive.  Upgrades to include:
> 1. wing modification to incorporate a full span NACA slotted flap and attached aileron slot lip ailerons.
> 2. installation of an *R-2600-12* engine to a fuselage lengthened by 18 inches. *wing to remain standard F2A*. However entire airframe to be stregnhened accordingly.
> 3. New F2A wing to be folding with accomodation of two .5 inch HMGs in each one.



A R-2600 powered fighter in that time period could be quite interesting.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 26, 2012)

First flight of the F4U with its P&W R-2800 was 5/29/40. First flight of the P-47, a year later, so an engine in this class was out there and being installed in single engine aircraft as was the Wright R-2600 at roughly the same time. With Brewster's apparent preference for Wright engines it's perhaps not too surprising. I don't know why that engine didn't end up in a fighter except of course the increased hp of the heavier P&W.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> First flight of the F4U with its P&W R-2800 was 5/29/40. First flight of the P-47, a year later, so an engine in this class was out there and being installed in single engine aircraft as was the Wright R-2600 at roughly the same time. With Brewster's apparent preference for Wright engines it's perhaps not too surprising. I don't know why that engine didn't end up in a fighter except of course the increased hp of the heavier P&W.



Yes, the R-2800 is another matter.
The F4U and P-47 were somewhat specialized.
Can't help but wonder how much earlier a simplified, land-based R-2800 powered fighter could have been fielded.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 26, 2012)

gjs238 said:


> Yes, the R-2800 is another matter.
> The F4U and P-47 were somewhat specialized.
> Can't help but wonder how much earlier a simplified, land-based R-2800 powered fighter could have been fielded.



Did you mean how much earler an Wright R-2600 powered fighter? 

Unlike aircraft "first flights" dates, engine development doesn't seem to have as definitive published "first run" info on the web so I don't know which engine was an earlier development or how much earlier to allow contemplating the design and development of a fighter to accomodate it. I would guess the F4U may have been as early an example of when one could have been developed and perhaps, had its value as a land based fighter been initially recognized, could have been fielded earlier than any other?


----------



## renrich (Jun 26, 2012)

In 1940-41, the R2800 was far from a well developed, reliable engine. One of the major factors that caused the rather long gestation period for the Corsair was the R2800 and the prop used on the Corsair. Many crashes and a few pilot fatalities.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2012)

RE: 2800
It seems the F4U and P-47 were relatively complicated and specialized aircraft (naval, turbocharged) and had rather protracted development.
Perhaps a relatively simple land-based fighter could have been fielded sooner.

RE: 2600
Since R-2600 powered aircraft were fielded relatively early in the war, perhaps a R-2600 powered fighter could have been fielded relatively early as well, perhaps offering more performance than R-1820/R-1830 powered fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Did you mean how much earler an Wright R-2600 powered fighter?
> 
> Unlike aircraft "first flights" dates, engine development doesn't seem to have as definitive published "first run" info on the web so I don't know which engine was an earlier development or how much earlier to allow contemplating the design and development of a fighter to accomodate it. I would guess the F4U may have been as early an example of when one could have been developed and perhaps, had its value as a land based fighter been initially recognized, could have been fielded earlier than any other?



Actually the information is there, sort of 

http://www.enginehistory.org/References/WWII Eng Production.pdf

Exhibit 11.

The engines that concern us at the moment:


Company......Engine designation...........design started..........EX engine run............5th engine.......# months*.........Years from design to 5th*

Wright.....R-2600-A (1500-1600hp)........Dec, 1935..............June,1936..................March 1938.........7................................2 1/4
Wright........R-3350 -BA........................Jan, 1936.............May, 1937...................Oct, 1939..........17...............................3 3/
P W........R-2800-A (1850hp)..............March, 1937..........Sept, 1937**.............March 1940.........6................................3.....
Wright.......R-2600-BA(1700HP)..............Nov, 1938............Nov,1939....................June, 1941..........12...............................2 1/2
P&W..........R-2800-B (2000hp)...............May, 1940...........June, 1940.................Oct, 1941...........2(?)............................1 1/2
P&W..........R-2800-C (2100hp)...............May, 1940...........Sept,1940..................Aug,1943............5..................................3 1/4
Wright.......R-3350-BB..........................Aug, 1941............Jan,1942 (?)...............Aug, 1942...........5-6...............................1..

*Number of months from start of design to first experimental engine. 
Years from start of design to 5th production engine accepted. 

** May have been a 9 cylinder test rig?

As you can see there was a considerable amount of overlap in many of these programs and "window of opportunity" for some engines for certain roles was small. Please note that the difference between an R-2800-A and an R-2800-B was fairly small while difference between an R-2800-B and an R-2800-C was tremendous. The difference between the R-2600-A and the R-2600-BA was changing the crankcase from forged aluminium to forged steel and no licensee manufacturer made both models.

While the 1600hp Wright lead the 1850hp P&W by almost 2 years the 1700hp Wright only lead the 2000hp P&W by 4-5 months. The 2 stage "B" series R-2800s did take a bit longer though. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 26, 2012)

Seems like that would have been a useful development! I'd expect (hope) someone on the forum might weigh in on this possibility if there was any historical precedent besides the still-born F2A-4.

And there is our own very knowledgable Shortround6 to the rescue!  Thanks!

SR, do you have any info on possible fighter designs that might have been prompted by the development of the R-2600, but weren't pursued?


----------



## krieghund (Jun 26, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Seems like that would have been a useful development! I'd expect (hope) someone on the forum might weigh in on this possibility if there was any historical precedent besides the still-born F2A-4.
> 
> And there is our own very knowledgable Shortround6 to the rescue!  Thanks!
> 
> SR, do you have any info on possible fighter designs that might have been prompted by the development of the R-2600, but weren't pursued?



from: HAWK 75:-- PROMISE UNFULFILLED?

For the Navy fighter trials in May 1938 Curtiss proposed four versions of the Hawk 75, two powered by the twin-row Wright R-2600, which was later to power such aircraft as the Grumman Avenger, B-25, A-20 Havoc and Curtiss Helldiver, and two others powered by versions of the P&W R-1830, including a two-speed, two-stage unit. Curtiss never received authorization to proceed to mockup stage on any of the four proposals. All four of the Curtiss proposals ranked last among the 10 presented. The Vought F4U Corsair won the competition, while a Brewster entry also using the R-2600 was ranked third. Although the Bell Airabonita, a development of the mid-engined USAAC P-39, was ranked sixth, a prototype - the XFL-1 - was ordered


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 26, 2012)

Even without the benefit of hindsight, it must have been clear that the F4U, and the R-2800, were much more forward-looking designs than the Hawk 75 and the R-2600.
Long term, the correct choice was certainly made.

Short term, an R-2600 powered version of the Hawk 75 could have been interesting


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2012)

We have a number of threads about the R-2600 and fighters. Tomo and I have gone round and round on the subject. 

Basically The R-2600 was a low altitude engine, even with a two speed supercharger it's "high" gear had a critical altitude of 11,000-12,000ft. power in "high" gear was 1400-1450 hp military at those altitudes for the 1600-1700hp take-off versions, which doesn't sound bad but the P-36 had 22% more drag than a P-40. Since the R-2600 powered version could hardly have less drag than a R-1820 or R-1830 powered version most (all?) the extra power will go into fighting the drag. Perhaps a better supercharge could have been designed but that pushes the delivery dates of production engines later than the above chart. 

I have no idea how many fighter proposals may have been sketched out on paper but darn few ever had metal cut. The R-2800 offered more power in a smaller diameter engine and quickly became the fighter engine of choice for 'future' designs.

Edit> Correction. Critical altitude could get to 14,000ft or a bit higher on some models, still a rather low attitude engine.


----------



## A4K (Jun 27, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> 300 Ki-43? is a missprint for 30?



No, have read that figure in a number of publications, though of course it is probably a rounded figure. (Some sources state 'Zeros' but the majority were actually Ki-43 'Oscars' and Ki 27 'Nates')

The Commonwealth units in Singapore were hopelessly outnumbered and outclassed, and the defending Buffaloes poorly built and underarmed (to lighten combat weight). Crews were often undertrained aswell. A classic quote re the Buffalo in that theatre is 'Performance was...pathetic' (Dan Ford).


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2012)

A4K said:


> Interesting info on the Bufffalo Mal!
> Wonder how ours (488 (NZ) sqn fighting in Singapore) would have faired in more even odds - 300 Ki-43 against 23 Buffalo Mk.I and 2 Hurricane Mk.IIB is not much of a fair fight!



Hello A4K
Don't forget the other 3 Buffalo sqns, they were also there, and there was only 35 Ki 43s committed against Malaiya, plus 123 Ki 27s and 9 Ki 44s.

Juha


----------



## A4K (Jun 27, 2012)

Not forgotten mate! 
Thanks for the figures too, though not all types are mentioned. Buffalo pilots also encountered A6M, G-3M, Ki-21, Ki-46, Ki-48, and Ki-51 aircraft. 

Commonwealth Buffalo strength, SE Asia: (Compiled from http://www.warbirdforum.com/malaya.htm )

67 Sqn. RAF:

?? Dec 41: 16 Buffalo (Mingaladon, Burma)
23 Dec 41: heavy engagement defending Rangoon
25 Dec 41: heavy engagement defending Rangoon
24 Jan 42: heavy engagement defending Rangoon
?? Feb 42: Squadron withdrawn to Magwe
10 Mar 42: Squadron strength 4 a/c, withdrawn to India

243 Sqn RAF:

?? Dec 41: 15 Buffalo (Kallang, Singapore), plus 2 Buffalo at Kota Bharu, Northern Malaya
12 Dec 41: 4 a/c flown to Ipoh, attached to 21 sqn RAAF
25 Dec 41: Squadron strength 15 a/c
First week of Jan 42: 7 a/c lost to accidents
12 Jan 42: 2 a/c lost in air combat
13 Jan 42: 1 a/c lost in air combat
15 jan 42: 1 a/c lost (MIA)
22 jan 42: 2 a/c lost in air combat
23 Jan 42: Squadron strength 2 a/c
27 Jan 42: Squadron disbanded, a/c and pilots to 453 sqn. RAAF


21 (City of melbourne) Sqn. RAAF: 

08 Dec 41: 12 Buffalo (Sungei Patani, Northern Malaya)
08 Dec 41: 8 a/c destroyed on ground
09 Dec 41: 2 a/c lost in air combat
14 Dec 41: 1 a/c lost in air combat
?? Dec 41: Squadron withdrawn to Ipoh
?? Dec 41: Merged with 453 Sqn. RAAF
27 Jan 42: embarkation for Australia


453 Sqn. RAAF:

?? Dec 41: 18 Buffalo, 1 Tiger Moth (Kallang, Singapore)
13 Dec 41: 16 a/c sent to Ipoh, 2 a/c crashing through fuel shortage en-route
?? Dec 41: New a/c received 
13 Dec 41: 2 a/c lost in air combat
19 Dec 41: Withdrawn to Kuala Lumpur, Southern Malaya.
21 Dec 41: 1 a/c lost in air combat
22 Dec 41: First major air to air combat with 64th Sentai (12 buffalo vs 18 Ki-43)
?? Dec 41: Withdrawn to Singapore with 3 a/c on strength
?? Dec 41: New a/c received
?? Dec 41: Merged with 21 sqn RAAF
25 Dec 41: Squadron strength 16 a/c
24 Jan 42: Squadron strength 3 a/c, only Buffalo squadron remaining by end of month
First week of Feb, 42: Remaining a/c flown out to Dutch east Indies.

488 (NZ) Sqn RAF:

?? Dec 41: 17 Buffalo (Kallang, Singapore)
25 Dec 41: Squadron strength 16 a/c - least trained Buffalo squadron.
12 Jan 42: First combat, 2 a/c lost, 5 damaged
13 Jan 42: 2 a/c lost in air combat
15 Jan 42: 1 a/c lost in air combat
17 Jan 42: 2 a/c lost in air combat
19 Jan 42: 2 a/c lost in air combat
23 Jan 42: Squadron strength 2 a/c, handed over to 453 Sqn RAAF
?? Jan 42: Re-equipped with Hurricane Mk.IIB (2 or 9 a/c, depending on source)

Interesting that of all the above, only 15 pilots were actually RAF personnel.


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2012)

Hello A4K
I mentioned only JAAF fighters because Malaya was primary JAAF show and wouldn't bother to count RAF/RAAF bombers etc so I didn't mention the Japanese bombers etc. But yes in Indo-China there were 25 A6M2s and 12 A5M4s, I'm not sure how actively the latter (A5M4s) participated to Malaya campaign. And because I was concentrating strictly to Malaya/Singapore area, I left 67 Sqn out.

We Finns didn't see 1:3 as hopelessly outnumbered and against unprotected Japanese planes 4x.303mgs was IMHO adequate and means more than double firepower than the majority of Japanese fighters had. (synchronization reduced rof)
Juha

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jun 27, 2012)

The Hellcat was originally designed to have the R2600 but since performance was found wanting the R2800 was substituted.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2012)

There was a brief proposal to re-engine the F4F with the R-2600. Grumman worked on it a while (on paper) and found that so many things needed changing that they might as well start with a new airframe. Preliminary work on this idea lead to the F6F. 

The basic problem with the R-2600 was it's lack of altitude performance. The "A" version was good for 1600hp take-off which was excellent for the time, however low gear was good for 1600hp to only 3000ft, and high gear good for 1400-1450hp at 12,000ft. Power fell to just under 1100hp at 19,000ft. Production does not exceed 100 per month until July of 1940 at which point talks are under way to make the Merlin XX in the US. 

Wright's own Cyclone 9 can make 1000hp at 14,000ft and it weighs 1320lbs compared to 1930-1950lbs. The P&W two stage R-1830 can make 1100hp at 17,800ft for 350lb less and a smaller frontal area. A turbo Allison promises 1000-1100hp to 20-25,000ft. 

Even a company the size of Wright can only work on so many projects at once. They are trying to improve the R-1820, develop the steel cased 1700hp R-2600, develop the R-3350 and the R-2180. Some of what is leaned on one project can be applied to some of the others but at times one program or another is slowed down to concentrate on one of the others. the R-2180 is a rat hole that sucks up time, money and manpower with little result. 

The window of opportunity for the R-2600 as a _fighter_ engine is brief, from some time in 1938 to perhaps the summer of 1940. This for design work to start, after the summer of 1940 the 2 stage 1830, the Allison with turbo, the Merlin XX and the promised "B" series R-2800 all put the the R-2600 into the second rank. The "BA" series R-2600 with 1700hp for take-off offers too little too late, Running only 4-5 months ahead of the "B" series (2000hp R-2800). Please remember that the USAAF ordered 773 P-47s on Sept 13 1940. Even more could have gone wrong than did with the P-47 but by mid /late 1941 any design using an R-2600 would have been looked on as 2nd rate.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2012)

OK, you've sold me on the R-2600 
But then why bother with it at all?
At this point, an R-2800 powered B-25, Helldiver, Vengeance, etc. sounds real nice.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2012)

It wasn't a bad bomber engine. The drag of the engine installation on a big dive bomber, torpedo bomber or twin engine plane is a much smaller fraction of the total drag. With the back seaters, bomb bays, bigger wings etc, the power to weight ratio was going to be much worse than a fighter no matter what you did and most tactics ( the B-17/B-24 aside) didn't call for flying at 20,000ft an up like an air superiority fighter needed to do.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2012)

How feasible was the R-2600 with 'fighter' supercharger set-up, 1st and second gear set (re-geared) at, say, 10 kft and 18 kft, respectively - similar to the Wright's own R-1820? What kind of performance vs. altitude could be expected?


----------



## A4K (Jun 27, 2012)

Juha, 

Good info mate, thanks! Myself, I do think the bombers and recon types should be mentioned, as the Buffs fought against them aswell.

My comment of the Buff squadrons being hopelessly outnumbered may be a bit of a broad statement, but 1:3 odds is still bloody hard going in my book. I sure don't envy their position..

Haven't looked into exactly what Buffs had what armament, though from what I've read generally less and lighter MGs were fitted than factory issue machines, and various equipment removed to try and save weight and give the engines a chance at higher altitudes (a constant problem for the kiwis atleast)

That said, I'm not an expert. This is just from what I've read on the net and in various books.

Evan

(Btw, thinking of doing a 488 (NZ) Sqn Buff in 1:72 for the upcoming 'Carrier Aircraft' Group build)


----------



## Juha (Jun 27, 2012)

Hello Evan
I agree that 1:3 means an fairly steep uphill battle but not hopeless.
Well Japanese fighters also had to fought against Blenheims, Hudsons, Wildebeests, Martin B-10s etc and as I wrote I didn't bother to count Allied bombers so I left also Japanese bombers out even if, as You wrote, bombers were an important factor.

IIRC British Buffalos had originally 4x.5s but that was changed to 4x.303s to lighten the planes as you wrote.

Wright Cyclones had problems in 40-42, at least in all Curtiss Hawk 75A-4s (Mohawk IVs in RAF/SAAF), they tended to overheat and had oil circulation problems. Also in FiAF Brewster B-239s, but with some improvised mods Finns got them fairly reliable, at least some pilots thought they were after thr mods more reliable than DB 605As.

Finns really liked their B-239s but it was lighter (and more vulnerable, Finns added the back armour for the pilot but because of the structure of the wing it was impossible to make fuel tanks self-sealing) but less powerful than later versions. But the opponent was also different, against VVS B-239 was faster than more manoeuvrable Soviet planes (I-153s) and more manoeuvrable than faster Soviet planes (MiG-3, LaGG-3 etc) so Finns adapted different tactics against different opponents.


IIRC one USN Admiral thought that the plane simply had too small wing, so it didn't have much growth potential and F2A-3 and B-339E were simply too heavy for the original airframe.

Juha


----------



## A4K (Jun 27, 2012)

How many Buffs did you guys use Juha? Is there any chance of further survivors there like the one brought up from the lake last year?

Re the engines: according to that site I posted, one British 243 Sqn pilot actually praised the engine performance on sea patrols!

Also ok, I detract the 'hopeless' expression. That's always been the impression I got from the situation in Singapore though.

Evan


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 27, 2012)

It is my understanding they were given 44 bought and perhaps a couple more built up from spares. Also, I believe the FAF was enamored enough with the design to consider building more themselves. I believe one prototype, called the Humu was built. 

From wikipedia which I believe is reasonably accurate in this case although Juha can perhaps confirm. 

"_During the Continuation War, Finnish designers devised a new aircraft, the Humu, based on the Brewster Buffalo, which was to be produced in Finland from cheaper materials such as plywood, instead of costly aluuminum alloys. Only a single prototype was ever built, since it had become clear that this fighter was already obsolete in 1943. By late 1943, the lack of spare parts, aircraft wear-and-tear, and the improvement of Soviet fighters greatly reduced the effectiveness of the Finnish Buffalo. LeLv 26 pilots still scored some 35 victories against Soviet aircraft in mid-1944. The last aerial victory by a Buffalo against the Soviet Union was scored over the Karelian Isthmus on 17 June 1944.[57]

After Finland made a separate peace with the Soviet Union, they were forced to drive Finland's former ally, Nazi Germany out of the country. During the so-called "Lapland War," the only clash with the Luftwaffe took place on 3 October 1944 when HLeLV 26 intercepted a formation of Junkers Ju 87s, heading for a Finnish convoy in the Bay of Bothnia. A Buffalo pilot, Lt. Erik Teromaa (with 11 kills), claimed a Ju 87, and SSgt Oiva Hietala was credited with the second Stuka to fall to the unit. These two victories were the last to be made by Brewster pilots in World War II. [58] Only eight Buffalo B-239s were left at the end of that war in Lapland.

From 1943 onwards Finland's air force received Messerschmitt Bf 109Gs from Germany, and this much-superior fighter aircraft was subsequently used to equip most of the Finnish Air Force fighter squadrons. The five remaining Brewster Buffalos flew until the autumn of 1948, when they were returned to storage. The last flights of Finnish Brewsters by the Finnish Air Force were performed on 14 September 1948 by BW-377 and BW-382. They were all scrapped in 1953.[59]_"


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> How feasible was the R-2600 with 'fighter' supercharger set-up, 1st and second gear set (re-geared) at, say, 10 kft and 18 kft, respectively - similar to the Wright's own R-1820? What kind of performance vs. altitude could be expected?



It needed a whole new supercharger. The High gear of a R-2600 was already 10.0 to 1. the "A" series supercharger was turning 24000rpm and the "BA" Series was turning 26,000rpm. Diameter was 11inches. Tip speed on the "A" is 1151fpm. 1247fpm for the "BA".

Impeller tip speed for a Merlin XX was 1272fpm. There are, of course, other differences. Trying to wind the impeller up much faster just sends it into the supersonic region of tip speeds which just plays havoc with the airflow through the supercharger.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2012)

Part of the difference may be temperature. Most take-off and climb charts say to add 10% for every 10 degrees C or 22 degrees F above ) degrees C or 32 degrees F. Even a hot summer day in Finland is going to be 20-30 degrees cooler (Fahrenheit) than Singapore or Java. 10% difference at the least cool but not cold day in Finland could show a 20% difference.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 27, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> It needed a whole new supercharger. The High gear of a R-2600 was already 10.0 to 1. the "A" series supercharger was turning 24000rpm and the "BA" Series was turning 26,000rpm. Diameter was 11inches. Tip speed on the "A" is 1151fpm. 1247fpm for the "BA".
> 
> Impeller tip speed for a Merlin XX was 1272fpm. There are, of course, other differences. Trying to wind the impeller up much faster just sends it into the supersonic region of tip speeds which just plays havoc with the airflow through the supercharger.



Many thanks


----------



## A4K (Jun 28, 2012)

Cheers for the info Mal! Of those lost during the war, hopefully more will be found like last year's lake find...


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2012)

Hello A4K
as oldcrowcv63 wrote we bought 44 B-239s from US, 2 were lost in accidents during the peace between the Winter War and the Continuation War (13 Mar 40 - 24 Jun 41), so when the Continuation War began on 25 Jun 41 FiAF had 40 Brewsters in units, of which 37 were operational and 3 were in maintenance and 2 were under repairs at the State Aircraft Factory. None were build from spares but the only Humu proto was in test flight stage when the Continuation War ended on 4 Sept 44.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2012)

Hello
I checked the Buffalo Mk I armament question from Dan Ford's warbird forum, the efforts to lighten the Buffalo happened at least in 21/453 Sqn, but it seems that they replaced only 2 of the 4 .5s with 2 .303s ( and also reduced the ammo loads) besides other measures. So the lightened armaments seems to have been 2x.5s and 2x.303s

Juha


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 28, 2012)

Thanks Juha!


----------



## A4K (Jun 28, 2012)

From me too - cheers Juha! 

You wouldn't happen to know the armament fitted to 488 (NZ) Sqn machines aswell would you? Like my builds to be as accurate as possible.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 28, 2012)

The bad reputation of the F2A is mostly based on the single engagement of the F2A-3's over Midway, neglecting that:
- F2A-3 was the worst performing subtype of the F2A.
- The marine pilots involved had no combat experience.
- Opposing Japanese pilots were combat experienced, from previous combats in WW2 and in China.
- Marine pilots were greatly outnumbered.
- Marine pilots did not know the strengths/weaknesseses of their opponents, thus unable to use the best tactic.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 28, 2012)

Timppa said:


> The bad reputation of the F2A is mostly based on the single engagement of the F2A-3's over Midway, neglecting that:
> 1. F2A-3 was the worst performing subtype of the F2A.
> 2. The marine pilots involved had no combat experience.
> 3. Opposing Japanese pilots were combat experienced, from previous combats in WW2 and in China.
> ...


I agree with most of that, but points 2, 3 and 5 were often or generally true of Allied fighters v the Japanese in 1941-2. These factors are worth noting as *part* of explaining general Japanese fighter v fighter combat success in that period, but they don't differentiate that sharply between the Buffalo and other Allied fighters in the Pacific. 

As to point 2, British/CW units didn't lack all combat experience. But even though units usually had some pilots with combat experience v the Germans, the units as a whole seldom had previous combat experience together, and lacked a lot of training together. And the more junior pilots were often not very well trained. So in total Japanese fighter units usually had the edge in overall experience as units.

As to point 5, we should remember that 'wrong tactics' was an explanation or excuse of generally poor results by RAF/CW Hurricane and Spit units in fighter combat with the Japanese all the way through 1943, at least. So while I don't disagree entirely with the point either, IMO it's often stated as if to imply 'the right tactic' was very easy to determine and if applied would grant instant success. But the record of Pacific War air combat does not support that idea so neatly and clearly. 

As to point 4, VMF-221 launched 20 F2A-3's and 7 F4F-3's, of which 25 attacked the Japanese formation consisting of 36 Type 97 Carrier Attack and 36 Type 99 Carrier Bombers escorted by 36 Zeroes. The Marines attacked in two groups, but both had an initial altitude advantage. So while it was far from a perfect tactical situation for VMF-221, it wasn't hopeless either. (13 F2A's and 2 F4F's were lost, others were damaged and not ready for immediate further combat but all were eventually repaired besides those 15; Japanese losses differ even in Japanese sources but the 4 carrier kodochosho reports give 2 Zeroes were lost outright w/ one definitely to AA per both sides' records; another returning Zero pilot died of wounds and his and another a/c were perhaps shot up enough to have been total losses...but of course the carriers were all sunk later anyway; the lost Zero and DOW pilot may both have been caused by F4F's; 5 Type 97's and a Type 99 were also lost or ditched, causes not certain, AA made many claims).

Like the claim for 'vastly outnumbered' Buffalo's in Malaya/Burma/DEI the numbers argument has some truth but tends to get exaggerated. Overall, the initial Japanese superiority in fighter numbers in the SE Asian campaigns (not including the Japanese carrier force, or the US one) was only around 3:2, and the number of Army Type 1's and Navy Zeroes was actually inferior to the number of retractable undercarriage Allied fighters: the Army Type 97 was the most numerous opponent. The Japanese usually achieved numerical fighter superiority at the point of combat, from having the initiative, having longer ranged planes (which could concentrate more easily as compared to short ranged Allied fighters spread out defending different points), and general lack of coordination and planning within and among the Allied forces. Then the numbers situation tended to deteriorate for the Allies as they suffered heavier losses (though in Malaya a pretty large number of Hurricanes were later sent). Anyway it was more complicated than some pure overwhelming superiority in Japanese numbers.

Again, it's true that the Marine Buffalo's at Midway and Brit/Dutch Buffalo's as well suffered from some of the disadvantages you noted (and others) in most combats. But as far as comparing the generally similar (and dismal) fighter combat performance of Brit/Dutch/USMC Buffalo's v the Japanese, that tends to wash out, if not exactly (the British/CW and Dutch Buffalo's established a somewhat better fighter to fighter kill ratio, around 1:5 v the Marines perhaps 0 or 1:13 in that Midway combat, but they often faced Type 97's). And as far as comparing results from completely different theaters v completely different opponents, well... this is always very hard to do in a way everyone can agree with. We can always make a list of the relevant factors besides the a/c itself (hoping to get stuff like numbers correct and not say 300 Type 1 Fighters in Malaya! ). But weighing the various factors and making the final 'corrected' assessment of what various a/c 'would of/should of' achieved in 'equal' circumstances is always subjective.

Joe


----------



## Juha (Jun 28, 2012)

A4K said:


> From me too - cheers Juha!
> 
> You wouldn't happen to know the armament fitted to 488 (NZ) Sqn machines aswell would you? Like my builds to be as accurate as possible.



Sorry no, as always photos are the best source for modelling. All I can say is that most probably Buffalo Mk Is in Malaya carried the standard 4x.5 armament from the eve of Japanese attack to the Christmas of 41. According to Sgt Buntain's (453Sqn) diary, the a/c used for test the effects of the lightening first flown on 27 Dec. The results were satisfactory.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jun 28, 2012)

You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2012)

F3F.......


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2012)

The F3F was built from 1936 to 1939 and they only made 147. The Buffalo didn't reach service unilt 1939. All F3F's were withdrawn except for training and squadron hack duties by 1941 ... before the USA got into WWII. it was NOT a comtemporary.


----------



## ssnider (Jun 29, 2012)

Operating off the same ship at the same time kind of makes them comtemporaries, other wise you cannot say the F4F is a contemporary either..


----------



## A4K (Jun 29, 2012)

Juha said:


> Sorry no, as always photos are the best source for modelling. All I can say is that most probably Buffalo Mk Is in Malaya carried the standard 4x.5 armament from the eve of Japanese attack to the Christmas of 41. According to Sgt Buntain's (453Sqn) diary, the a/c used for test the effects of the lightening first flown on 27 Dec. The results were satisfactory.
> 
> Juha



Cheers mate! 
Evan


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> The F3F was built from 1936 to 1939 and they only made 147. The Buffalo didn't reach service unilt 1939. All F3F's were withdrawn except for training and squadron hack duties by 1941 ... before the USA got into WWII. it was NOT a comtemporary.



Withdrawn by the END of 1941. Last of the series (F3F-3) were ordered in 1938 and delivered in 1939 because of difficulties with the deliveries of the F2A and the F4F. _IF_ America had gone to war in the fall/winter of 1940 F3Fs would have seen combat.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 29, 2012)

Looks more like a contemporary of the Fairey Swordfish.

Both introduced in 1936.
But the Swordfish seems to have _Faired _better.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jun 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.



Actually the F2F appears to have lasted in fleet squadron usage until the nearly contemporary introduction of the F2A and F3F-3. The USN didn't procure very many aircraft of any one type in the thirties due to budgetary constraints and the older types tended to hang around in service for an inordinately long time. Delivery of the 55 F2Fs was complete by August 1935 but they continued in service until late 1939, replaced by the new F3F-3's of which there were only about 30 produced. The first F3F-1 was delivered a year after the first F2F (1st F2F delivery = January 1935) and apparently about 120+ of the improved F2F-2s were finally acquired while perhaps less than 30 F3F-3s were delivered around 1938-1939. It looks like the F2F, the F2F-1, -2 and -3 were all in service at the time of the introduction of the F2A-1. The First F2A-1s were delivered to an operational squadron in December 1939.

Info from Wiki and memory.

Your post brings up an important point regarding the lineage of the F4F as compared to that of the F2A. They were not exactly contemporary. The F2A won the navy fighter competition against the F4F-2, not the F4F-3 which was a greatly improved aircraft and essentially a somewhat later vintage. The net effect of losing the fighter competition was to spur Grumman to build a fighter whose performance and service showed it to be a significant improvement over the contemporary F2A evolutionary models, F2A-2 and F2A-3.


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2012)

The F3F was firmly in the last gasp of the Naval biplane. The F2A was firmly in the beginning of the Naval monoplane. Maybe if we counted the wings?

The first crop of monoplane fighters includes the I-16, Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, A5M and A6M, F4F, P-38,P-39, P-40, Blackburn ROC, ... etc. It does not include biplanes. The P-39 was 50 mph faster, rolled better, climbed better, and was much better armed.

Just my opinion, but the Buffalo was firmly in last place and has made at LEAST 3 of the books entitled "World's Worst Aircraft ..." with other things thrown into the title. I own two of them and heartily agree it deserves to be in the basement of Naval monoplane fighters. It might share the honor with one or two others, but it cetainly belongs at or very near the bottom of the ladder, having no redeeming qualities other then being pleasant to fly. So it a Piper Cub, but I wouldn't want to fight a Spitfire in one!


----------



## Timppa (Jun 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.



Well, reputation and performance ( if you mean flight performance ) are two different things. 
There was only one contemporary to the F2A, the F4F.
From the "American Hundred-Thousand", the speed of the F2A-3 was about equal to F4F-4. 
Both the F2A-2 and F2A-3 outclimbed the F4F-4.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2012)

GregP said:


> The first crop of monoplane fighters includes the I-16, Bf 109, Spitfire, Hurricane, A5M and A6M, F4F, P-38,P-39, P-40, Blackburn ROC, ... etc. It does not include biplanes. The P-39 was 50 mph faster, rolled better, climbed better, and was much better armed.



"The first crop of monoplane fighters..........It does not include biplanes". Rather self evident. However the rest of the statement is rather misleading. First flight of the I-16---30 December 1933, first flight of the P-38--- 27 January 1939 5 years and 1 month later, I would say that they were not contemporaries and the P-38 was not in the first crop. The A6M was designed as a replacement for the A5M so it is hard for them to be contemporaries unless the F3F-3 and F2A are contemporaries. hard for the A6M to be in the first crop if it is a replacement for a first crop fighter. The P-39 and P-40 were also second generation monoplanes. First generation US _ARMY_ monoplanes being the P-26, P-30, P-35 and P-36. The P-39 may have been a much better fighter than the Buffalo but it was 1-2 years latter in timing and could not operate of a carrier. the Bell XFL Airabonita was 2 1/3-3 years behind the F2A in timing. 



GregP said:


> Just my opinion, but the Buffalo was firmly in last place and has made at LEAST 3 of the books entitled "World's Worst Aircraft ..." with other things thrown into the title.



Doesn't the P-39 make at least one of those books?


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2012)

Hi SHortround,

Yes, the P-39 makes at least one, maybe two. But the poor old Buffalo won't come close to a P-39 in combat and the F4F never made ANY book of "worsts," but DID make several "Best of" lists including Top Ten Fighters on television (no, I don't always agree with them either ...), where it came in tenth.

If you are rooted in reality, the F4F beats the Buffalo every time. If not, combat record must not mean much, regardless of the Finnish experience. Those people citing only that are conveniently forgetting the 150+ Buffalos lost at the start of WWII in the Pacific for almost no result.

You can make things as interesting as you want in discussion, but the Buffalo is firmly in MY basement, even if not in everyone else's.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 29, 2012)

I've never put a lot of faith in the "Books of Worst Aircraft" so IMHO that really does not give a lot of weight. The issues at Midway were not just about aircraft, but of tactics and under estimating the enemy as well. IIRC several folks based at Midway recommended the F4F be with drawn as well. The Buffalo 239 was supperior then the early F4F - that's why it was selected over it. The big difference was the changes to the Buffalo made it worse whereas the changes to the F4F made it better.


----------



## GregP (Jun 29, 2012)

In combat record, the "issues" don't matter; results do. 

The F4F was WAY better in overall results and justified its selection with flying colors.

C'mon, there were 509 Buffalos made and 7,886 F4F Wildcats. You tell ME which one the government liked best! I simply agree with the Navy.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 30, 2012)

Well if you agreed with the USN the first time, you would have picked the Buffalo over the F4F, just as they did.

Ok let's talk about results then. How did the Marine F4Fs based on Midway fair? The TBF's made their combat debut based on Midway and lost 5 out of 6 aircraft. The B-26's based there lost 2 out of 4 planes. That hardly made them bad aircraft. 

You can have the best weapon in the world, but if you don't use it correctly it's useless.


----------



## GregP (Jun 30, 2012)

Stop making excuses. 

The Buffalo, in total, was as complete failure except in Finland ... and they would have won the war with Hellcats!

I reject your hypothesis ... the Buffalo was cancelled and the Windcat was produced. Really, check the facts.

Didn't you READ the numbers? Or am I just blind? Wait, I have 20-20 so it must be you.

C'mon, join the REAL world! I'm sure legendary tales of the Buffalo live on, huh? Not ...

It is a broken cookie in the breadbox of life. Let it go or look foolish to everyone except flag wavers.

The Buffalos were simply shot out of the sky except in Finland, where they were rendered invulnerable due to the cold ... or so it is said. In reality, they ran across some really bad Russian pilots and aircraft and did good for awhile ... not too long.

The Wildcat held the line against the Mistubish Zero until the Hellcat stomped it and the Wildcat served on in places where the Hellcat was not really needed due to obsolete opposition until their numbers and servicerability were declining. Some survived as squadron hacks into the 1950's and maybe beyond, but not as fighters. 

Don't you read real history? Or is this a video game or a joke?

Crimney, ask ANY WWII Naval pilot. I have.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 30, 2012)

I don't need to make any excuses as I was stating nothing but facts, and even used your own logic to prove a point. 

Show where anything I have posted is not factual. I can back up everything I’ve said from valid sources.

On the other hand you have thrown out nothing more than rhetoric opinion and have displayed an inability to actually debate with any sort of maturity.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2012)

GregP said:


> Crimney, ask ANY WWII Naval pilot. I have.



And how many of them flew Buffalos in WW II?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2012)

Play nice guys!


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 30, 2012)

Was thinking that, when I popped in earlier....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2012)

There is little doubt that the Buffalo was inferior to the F4F for a number of reasons. Some of them had to do with construction and maintenance as well as performance. But to go from "plane A is inferior to plane B therefore plane B is the worst fighter plane of the war" is quite a stretch. 
US use of the Buffalo in combat was in numbers too small to have any real statistical meaning. 

as for the Buffalo in the far east, how many were shot down in combat, how many were destroyed on the ground and how many were abandoned ( or destroyed because they could not be flown out) in the retreats/surrenders. Would any other fighter plane of the time have made any real difference aside from changing the numbers in the tables a bit? 

The Buffalo was not a "great" aircraft but does it _deserve_ the reputation it has? 

AS for "Worst aircraft....... " books, after the "Christmas Bullet", the " Tarrant Tabor " and few other such obvious choices the author has to fill the book up with something.


----------



## muscogeemike (Jun 30, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> There is little doubt that the Buffalo was inferior to the F4F for a number of reasons. Some of them had to do with construction and maintenance as well as performance. But to go from "plane A is inferior to plane B therefore plane B is the worst fighter plane of the war" is quite a stretch.
> US use of the Buffalo in combat was in numbers too small to have any real statistical meaning.
> 
> as for the Buffalo in the far east, how many were shot down in combat, how many were destroyed on the ground and how many were abandoned ( or destroyed because they could not be flown out) in the retreats/surrenders. Would any other fighter plane of the time have made any real difference aside from changing the numbers in the tables a bit?
> ...



I agree, especially when one considers that such US aircraft as the P-26, P-35, P-43, P-66 and CW-21 all saw combat. Not to mention several other pre-war bi-planes use by the Chinese AF prior to the US entering the war.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 30, 2012)

Not proving the point one way or the other, but some thoughts from Geoff Fisken, the top Buffalo ace outside Finland (FlyPast, 2006):

"In order to be succesful aginst the Japanese, especially the 'Zero', one had to have an altitude and attitude advantage. I thought the Buffalo was a delight to fly. A beautiful aircraft but a bit underpowered. The 'Zeros' were too fast and they could turn inside of us. If you wanted to dogfight them, you simply committed suicide.
Being young and and somewhat foolhardy, I still had aspirations of growing old back in New Zealand. When we saw a flight of Japanese fighters coming in, we climbed as high as we could above them. As they drew closer, we pushed the old Buffalo over, throttles to the stops and went screaming down, firing through them. We were always outnumbered, which to me was an advantage as I had more targets to pick from. On February 1, 1942, it was no different. I already had five victories against various Japanese aircraft. Little did in know that this woud be my last fight in the Buffalo. 

Pushing the nose over and picking up speed, I hurtled myself at the swarm of 'Zeros' below. I picked one out and gave him a three-second burst. With no protective armour, it burst into flames and cartwheeled down.
Two of his friends latched into me and as I tried to shake them, I got a bit of a cannon shell in the leg and a bullet into my arm. The Buffalo was chewed to pieces as I dove for the deck. My undecarriage was shot out. My engine was coughing and smoking as my prop stopped. I managed to bring it in to Kallang, and crash-landed in there. In the process, I busted up my knee, but other than that I was all right.

In late 1943, the injuries that I received in Singapore began to catch up my body. Reluctantly, I was invalided out of the war and returned to New Zealand. I picked up where I left off, working as a shepherd on one of my family's stations."

Geoff Fisken - Telegraph


----------



## GregP (Jun 30, 2012)

Well, I debated with maturity for maybe 20 posts and them just lost patience. Mea Culpa and abject apologies. You can't argue with an evangelist; he has God on his side.

The Buffalo is in the basement according to ME, but not you, and that's OK ... OK? Let it go ...

None of the Navy pilots I ever spoke with flew Buffalos, but several flew against them in mock combat and universally said they were "meat on the table." Good enough for me, even if not for you. I have not run across even ONE former Navy pilot who thought the Buffalo was anyyhing but an abject failure. Accordingly, I feel the same way, with a LOT of heresay to back me up.

Perhaps you can tell ME about the pilots who loved the Buffalo, had COMBAT experience both the Buffalo as well as other aircraft and STILL said the Buffalo was a good plane.

That might be interesting.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 30, 2012)

> Perhaps you can tell ME about the pilots who loved the Buffalo, had COMBAT experience both the Buffalo as well as other aircraft and STILL said the Buffalo was a good plane.



Geoff Fisken, the highest scoring Commonwealth ace in the Pacific. There's one. The following is from wiki and for once comes from creditable sources. All of these kills were whilst flying the Buffalo over Singapore. 

"On 16 December, Fisken claimed a victory over a Zero. A fortnight later, on 29 December, he claimed two unidentified Japanese bombers. On 12 January 1942, Fisken claimed a Ki-27. He claimed a Mitsubishi Zero two days later on 14 January, being lucky to land after being caught in the explosion of the Japanese plane. On 17 January, he shot down, or assisted in the destruction of, three Mitsubishi G3M bombers, and four days later brought down another fighter.

By this time, 243 Squadron had lost the majority of its pilots and virtually all its aircraft. As a result it was merged with the Australian No. 453 Squadron RAAF, which continued to operate, along with No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. Fisken claimed another fighter on 1 February. Five days later, he was "bounced" by two Japanese fighters. He nevertheless shot one down, but only narrowly escaped the other, being injured in the arm and leg by a cannon shell before the dogfight ended. He was evacuated to New Zealand shortly before Singapore fell."

Thanks Juha, for bringing him up.


----------



## GregP (Jun 30, 2012)

OK, there's ONE. 

I think there are maybe about 7,000+ F4F pilots who can testify to their mount's abilities. How many are still alive is another story. Advantage Wildcat by a LARGE margin.

Basement, the Finns notwithstanding, but just my opinion. Yours may vary, like your EPA mileage estimate of your new car.

If the only worse-performing fighter was the F3F, you HAVE your worst-performing monoplane; the Buffalo.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 1, 2012)

Still waiting to hear what facts/data that I had previously posted were incorrect.

Spent a few minutes getting this together:
But since you asked here are a few:

*Flt Sgt Vic Bargh, Brewster Buffalo pilot*
Willie and I tried them out, the Hurricane versus the Buffalo. The Buffalo wasn't so bad. 
_Interview with Dan Ford in 1995_

As a followup to this:
"(339E) A 1942 mock fight between a Buffalo and a Hurricane showed the former as inferior below 16000 feet, equal at 16000 feet, and superior to the British aircraft at 20000 feet and above"
_America's Hundred-Thousand by Francis Dean, page 465_

*Gordon Firebaugh, former Naval Aircraft Pilot with VF-2, later Captain USN*“The Brewster fighter handled like a sports car – “a real dinger,” in Captain Firebaugh's opinion. By comparison, the Grumman Wildcat seemed to fly like a pickup truck.” 
_Air Space magazine, "The Sorry Saga of the Brewster Buffalo," published in 1996. _

*Pappy Boyington *
"But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other ****, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little f**ks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and f****d it up." 
_Interview with Rick West Ford in 1977_

I can post more if needed.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 1, 2012)

C.V. (Vic) Bargh was a New Zealander who flew with 67 Sqn RAF and 488 (NZ) Sqn RAF over Singapore.

That Boyington quote certainly stands out! 

British test pilot (the infamous) Eric Brown had this to say about the Brewster B-339B:

"In normal cruise at 160 mph the aircraft was longitudinally unstable, laterally neutral stable, and directionally positively stable. Maximum speed was 290 mph at 16,500 ft. and the service ceiling was only 25,000 ft. Not very impressive performance. However, it was a different story when it came to handling, for the ailerons were highly effective throughout the speed range, the elevators almost equally so, and the rudder very good too."

"My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was a true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful manoeuvrability but poor fighter performance. Indeed above 10,000 ft. it was labouring badly."


----------



## Njaco (Jul 1, 2012)

GregP said:


> You guys who are Buffalo fans, name me a US contemporary Naval fighter type with worse performance. Donl;t even say the Grumman F4F. Its reputation is well established.



I'm sure there might be some and then again not. I like the Buffalo not because of any performance stats or airworthiness - its just because I do. I like the underdog, the "Rocky" of the air, the Little Plane that Could. Yeah its ugly as hell, has no grace and a design only a beermiester could love but I love how , despite its failure in every other Air Force, the Finns use it to great advantage.

I just like it. no reason.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 1, 2012)

This is what the Finnish pilots thought of the Brewster compared to the Hutticane:

Hurricane Mk II: Straight from the Hans Wind, the top-scoring Brewster ace, while keeping a lecture to new fighter pilots: "Hurricane is the easiest enemy plane to shoot down. Under 3000 metres (9000ft) it's no match for us. It's slow and very clumsy and stiff. When you meet a Hurricane, immediately start a dogfight, then it can only depend on our good will. Aim to the front part of it, then it usually flares up" (This was taken from the "Lent{j{n n{k|kulma II")


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 1, 2012)

GregP said:


> Well, I debated with maturity for maybe 20 posts and them just lost patience. Mea Culpa and abject apologies. You can't argue with an evangelist; he has God on his side.
> 
> The Buffalo is in the basement according to ME, but not you, and that's OK ... OK? Let it go ...
> 
> ...



But is it appropriately experienced hearsay? I submit that the expert opinion you cite refer ONLY to the *F2A-3* Buffalo and that few surviving today had experience with flying either the *F2A-1 *or* F2A-2*. As of June 5, 1942, there were simply too few USMC avaitors to be available to poll today, but of course we know the opinion of those that survived and lived to fight another day. My guess is that the pilots you are quoting encountered the F2A-3s during their advanced training phase where the Brewster was employed for a period after its withdrawal from front line service. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of the books you mention aren't implicitly rendering judgment on only the F2A-3 and the export models, lumping in the Finn "Buffaloes" by assuming their pilots were so extraordinarily gifted as to overcome the obvious shortcomings of the entire line. That the Finn B-239 pilots were fine is beyond contention, but they were also human. Their judgement regarding the aircraft's qualities should be given equal weight. To the best of my knowledge, Finland didn't consider producing P-36 or Fokker D-XXIs. (Maybe they did, but found production of the B-239 was just easier?)

I'd be curious to know how those few USMC Midway survivors would have compared the F2A-3's performance with that of the F4F-4's flown by their USN counterparts during the battle. According to naval aviators the F4F-4 had significantly less performance than F4F-3 flown by the marines, more even than would be expected based strictly on the flight test data. Lundstrom apparently interviewed some F4F-4 aviators and they were quite critical of the -4 Wildcat asserting the test data was inaccurate. (I wonder if Rich Leornard might have heard some such comments from his dad?). 

I am not aware of any USN aviators who flew the F2A-3 in combat, although at least one combat vet (GF), quoted here, felt they might have done better in combat had they been in an earlier mark ( -2) instead of the F4F-4. The Finn pilots endorsed the qualities of the F2A-1, whle lamenting some of its evidently-genetic shortcomings such as its weak landing gear. 

During the very brief period, from late 1939 through mid-summer 1940 there was no other naval fighter that could touch the F2A-1.


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

Hi Njaco,

Nothing wrong with liking a plane. I like the Buffalo, too. But I would not choose it as a mount for fighter combat, regarless of what gets posted. 

Even Eric Brown said it had poor fighter performance and that was posted as a positive comment, I'm sure.

Almost no aircraft is entirely devoid of some good qualities. Most of the descriptions of it I have read of teh Buffalo were complimentary in some manner while simultaneously noting its weaknesses as a fighter.

So, my opinion is just that; it was pleasant to fly and handled OK, but was not much of a fighter. That opinion has been shared by most of the WWII fighter pilots with whom I both talked and also happened to mention the Buffalo. Admittedly, that hasn't been often ... probably no more than half dozen conversations included the Buffalo. But NONE of them had anything good to say for it and THEY were in the generation that flew the Buffalos. So, OK, I like it as a historical plane, and would love to fly one, but would never think of taking it into combat. 

That defines a bad fighter and the Buffalo is that in spades. Truthfully, I'd chose ANY other monoplane fighter over a Buffalo. The F4F Wildcat's reputation is solidly cemented in history and will always be head and shoulders above the Buffalo in any realalistic historical account.


Still, if a Buffalo came onto the warbird scene, I'd be happy to see it since it would be rare and would have no need to go into combat ever.

Until this thread, I never knew there were any Buffalo fans out there. While I disagree with them regarding the combat potential of the Buffalo, fans will always find nice things to say about their favorite. And that is OK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2012)

Gentlemen, a few things to look at here...

When the Buffalo entered service in December 1939 the Zero was still another 7 months from being deployed. Even as the first aircraft were reaching the fleet, Brewster was already having issues with not only the basic design but also production. I think what we are looking at here is the people who were running Brewster sold the US Navy a bag of goods and were always behind the power curve in not only correcting design problems, but also achieving promised production numbers. The aircraft had potential _AFTER_ it's deficiencies were identified and corrected. From Wiki;

_*"Pappy" Boyington observed: "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armor plate, radios, and other [equipment], they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little [aircraft] could turn and roll in a phone booth." *_

The bad reputation of the Buffalo mainly came out of one battle and that was the mauling VMF-221 received at Midway. By that time the Buffalo was obsolete and so were the tactics being used. Look at those who scored kills and how they scored during the battle - I believe one was from head on, the other was from a diving attack. Also consider the quality of pilots from VMF-221;

*"Many of Parks' pilots, fresh from flight training Stateside, had very little operational experience. This fact, combined with the overwhelming size and disposition of the Japanese force posed against the atoll's defenses, would have more bearing on the outcome than the operational capabilities of the F2A."*

As indicated earlier, commonwealth pilots had some very limited success with the aircraft and this as a result of experience and tactics. Meanwhile the Finns used their Buffaloes with great effectiveness against the Soviet Union. "Tactics, training, combat experience."

Could this aircraft be considered "One of the worse aircraft ever built?" I think not - I think there were high expectations of this aircraft coupled with criminal marketing by executives at Brewster. This would be further evidenced by strikes, indictments and the eventual take over by the US Government of the company. Eventually the aircraft met it's design requirements, but by that time it was obsolete. With the reputation of this company well tarnished, putting the blame entirely on the Buffalo aircraft was and still is an easy way to smoke screen some of the other issues that plagued this aircraft from its conception - design, production, training tactics. Whether you want to consider the Buffalo one of the worse combat aircraft to every be deployed, so be it, but also consider the operators, tactics and training before painting with one wide brush. If you want to consider it a complete operational failure, there was plenty of blame to be shared on the operator's end as well.


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2012)

You have some good points there FlyboyJ.


----------



## A4K (Jul 2, 2012)

Njaco said:


> I just like it. no reason.



Me too, always have.
The old Revell (of USA) 1:72 F2A-2 Buffalo was the first carrier type I ever bought (back in about '84). Got it purely for it's looks!


----------



## krieghund (Jul 2, 2012)

Here's some USN data on the aircraft being discussed. What would happen if you upgraded the R1820 in the F2A?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 2, 2012)

beautifull data krieghund (nothing for F2A-1?)


----------



## krieghund (Jul 2, 2012)

I do somewhere in hard copy. I'm still looking for it. Put a R-2600 on the F2A and you have a poor man's F8F....maybe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2012)

Thank you very much for the work and information. 

As for the R-2600 on the F2A.... AARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

"poor man's F8F....maybe"

maybe is right. Putting an engine that weighs 600lbs more (plus the bigger heavier propeller) on a plane that already has landing gear issues? Prop went from 9ft on the F2A-1 to 10ft 3in on the F2A-3. You may need a 12 ft prop for the R-2600 and longer landing gear to go with it to prevent prop strikes, A larger tail (or longer?) to counteract the greater torque and.... and... and....and......You may wind up with an R-2600 powered fighter but there will be darn little of the F2A left except the cockpit


----------



## Njaco (Jul 2, 2012)

krieghund said:


> I do somewhere in hard copy. I'm still looking for it. Put a R-2600 on the F2A and you have a poor man's F8F....maybe.



I dunno......


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> beautifull data krieghund (nothing for F2A-1?)



If one think the reputation of Brewster and its salesmen, it is surprising how well Brewster's figures matched Finnish tests, In speed trials flown by BW-366, max speed was 480kmh when Brewster's figure was 484kmh. At sea level BW-366 428kmh and Brewster's figure 427kmh. 
Climb, Brewster promised 6 min to 15.000 ft (4572m) witn normal power at 2275kg and 6.7 min at 2387kg. FiAF B-239 with pilot's back armour and other mods, t/o weight 2415kg a bit under 8 mins to 5000m, looked from very vague graph, I cannot remember if I have a better one somewhere, one old source says 7' 10" to 5000m.

I would say, that if all manufactures specs would have been that near to service tests, buyers would have been very happy.

Juha

ADDUM, I found a better graph, not that I was looking for but even better, According to a graph in SIhL 1/1999 BW-366 (a FiAF B-239) 7’17” to 5.000m and 9’26” to 6.000m.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 2, 2012)

It's such a stretch to say THE buffalo was bad. The Dutch had the B339C en D. The C version was really bad, the D version was quite okay, some Dutch pilots considering them superior to the Hurricane mk.II. On the other hand there was the B339-23 which was really bad, because of the low powered engine. The C- and D models were quite a bit lighter than the Britisch E-model and the D model had about 100 hp more. I could cite a few Dutch pilots about it, but I'm to lazy to bother.

One thing is for sure without denying that the Buffalo was moderate at most: lack of succes of the Buffalo in the Pacific is by no means a measure of the a/c's performance. It's more a tribute to faulty tactics, low numbers and no early warning. For instance, the whole of the NEI, an area of about the size of Europe was defended by about 80 Buffaloes w/o radar. That's pretty lame and even the Spitfire would not have made any impact under those circumstances.


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

Njaco said:


> I dunno......
> View attachment 205296



Ooh my god, it seems that dr Frankenstein switched careers and used F4u parts to mutilate a poor Buffalo

With looks like that, its impossible that she can fly well. There must be CG issues


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 2, 2012)

rank amateur said:


> Ooh my god, it seems that dr Frankenstein switched careers and *used F4u parts to mutilate a poor Buffalo*
> 
> With looks like that, its impossible that she can fly well. There must be CG issues



I love it!

Just think of the armor plate thickness you could put behind the pilot to correct the CG issues!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 2, 2012)

Just for the record, The original title for this thread was

"Brewster F2A*-4* Buffalo, the worst US fighter that _*might have *_fought in WW2" 

I botched the title with so many typos (probably due to the delerium tremens brought about by my outrage at Grep for maligning my beloved Brewster (F2A-1/B-239)  ) that an unidentified moderator came in to correct it but then another not to be named mod ignored my fervent pleas to restore my intended text. I figured I violated some sacred rule of the forum, so let it lie. The thread turned out pretty good anyway. A very lively discussion which I am sure completely converted Greg into a Buffalophile.  Like me, he probably now sleeps with a stuffed Brewster Buffalo (of course mine is an F2A-1/B-239). The cartoon of the *F2A-4 Corsalo (Buffalair?) * was especially personally rewarding. Thank you Njaco, you really made my day.


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> The cartoon of the *F2A-4 Corsalo (Buffalair?) * was especially personally rewarding. Thank you Njaco, you really made my day.



Granting that this Buffalo has a new wing and a new engine, it deserves a new name and a new military denotation. Might I suggest Brewster F4A-1 Seacow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2012)

Brewster would have screwed up production. F4A-1 Seascum


----------



## rank amateur (Jul 2, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Brewster would have screwed up production. F4A-1 Seascum



That's a poetic name for a gawd awfull ugly plain. Members of the jury, we have a winner!

Chrzzzzz


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 2, 2012)

krieghund said:


> I do somewhere in hard copy. I'm still looking for it. Put a R-2600 on the F2A and you have a poor man's F8F....maybe.


 


Shortround6 said:


> -snip-
> 
> As for the R-2600 on the F2A.... AARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
> 
> -snip-



Seen that coming...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 2, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Brewster would have screwed up production. F4A-1 Seascum



Tha's just so wrong.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2012)

Hello A4K
I came across some photos on Buffaloes in Malaya, at the bottom of the page:
1941 | 2536 | Flight Archive

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 3, 2012)

> Seascum


 Not nearly unflattering enough 

Good page Juha - the photos were taken by a chap called Carl Mydans for Life magazine originally although they were published in Flight in this instance and were taken at Seletar. The last pic of the line up might have been taken at Kallang. The majority of these aircraft served with 67, 263 and 488 (NZ) Sqns.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2012)

Old Crow,

Actually, I'm eating Buffalo jerky right now and enjoying it.

Loved the drawing of the Buffair or the Corsalo. Glad they didn't acutally think of it in WWII, or we might be building models of them now. Its bad enough reading about them without seeing one on my bookshelf!


----------



## A4K (Jul 4, 2012)

Damn, can't see the page yet...acrobat reader crashed when tried to open it. Thanks in advance though Juha!

Evan


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 4, 2012)

GregP said:


> Loved the drawing of the Buffair or the Corsalo. Glad they didn't acutally think of it in WWII, or we might be building models of them now. Its bad enough reading about them without seeing one on my bookshelf!


 You could've put it on your mantle next to the P-26 Peashooter


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 4, 2012)

GregP said:


> Old Crow,
> 
> Actually, I'm eating Buffalo jerky right now and enjoying it.!


 



GregP said:


> Loved the drawing of the Buffair or the Corsalo. Glad they didn't acutally think of it in WWII, or we might be building models of them now. Its bad enough reading about them without seeing one on my bookshelf!



Brewster thought of it, but evidently more highly than did BuAer. Fortunately the USN chose not to build it. From 1941 to wars end, I am sure Brewster could have managed to push maybe a dozen of these _war winners _out the factory door. On the other hand, imagine Corsalo replacing all 735 of Brewster built Corsairs?  I am sure the RN FAA woild have endorsed the exchange of the 430 they received!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Jul 4, 2012)

Hello nuuumannn
thanks for the extra info on the photos. I think that I have seen the first and the last before but the erection photos are probably new to me, I have seen a couple photos on assembly of F2As but IIRC correctly the planes were A-3s or -339Ds.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jul 4, 2012)

Hi gis 238,

The Peashooter is one I like. It is probably because we have one that is flyable and it flies about every 3 - 4 years or so. If I hadn't been in the cockpit, I might never have noticed the Peashooter. Up close and personal changes that sometimes. From right in front you get a nice view of an R-1340 with cowl and 30-cal machine guns on each side.

We also have a Boeing FB-5 that recently completed restoration to static condition. I have ignored that plane for decades but, after being up close and personal and looking into the cockpit at the original instrument, I now think it is pretty neat, too. Ours spent most of its service life on the USS Langley, our first aircraft carrier!

So, one's favorites are sometimes tied to ones experiences. If you helped restore ... say ...a Buffalo, you might actually find it to be one of your favorites.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 4, 2012)

(Hopefully my last post on the revolutionary wonderfulness (It's a word, I looked it up) of the F2A-1/B-239)

Relevant to the point that B-239 victories came at the start of the Continuation War (fought: 6/25/41 through 9/19/44) and were therefore scored against relatively poorly trained opponents while the capability of the aircraft diminsihed when confronted by more skiled opposition later in the war: 

During the continuation war (the Finn piloted Buffalo B-239 was credited with the following victories:
1941: 145.5
1942: 191
1943: 135.5
1944: 23

If we normalize to victories per month

1941: ~24 victories/month
1942: ~16 victories/month
1943: ~11 victories/month
1944: ~ 2 victories/month

These numbers appear to provide some support for that position. 
What I find interesting in the above numbers is that the decline was as slow as it evidently was. 

However, interpretation of the talley is, as might be expected, more complicated when considered in detail:

The 1941 total includes 67, I-153 and 21, I-16, so nearly 60% of its total victories were over A/C types of an earlier generation, and might be expected to be easy meat for a more advanced aircraft flown by capable pilots. In 1942 this had shrunk to 17, I-153 and 37, I-16, or less than 30% of combat opponents were these older a/c. By 1943, B-239 victores over older types had diminshed to less than 10%. So, as has been stated eslewhere, it seems to me that as russian pilots became more skilled and flew more modern aircraft, the B-239 more than held its own. The original aircraft subsequently called the Buffalo could be called a reasonably '_successful fighter_' design, unless one judges an aircraft primarily by its growth potential, which was for the Brewster admitedly very limited. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Brewster fighter's real problem were corporate and on the assembly line floor. 

(Someone may want to check these numbers. Arithmetic has always been a challenge for me).

http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 4, 2012)

The information I have states the Finns only had 44 Brewster 239s, that's all they had. After the initial 44, I don't think they could have bought any more, they were on the wrong side. 

By 1944 those 44 had to be reduced in number somewhat, and the ones left pretty tired, you can only re engine and rebuild any aircraft so much.

So the later in the war figures don't necessarily only reflect that the aircraft was less effective, but also that fewer were in action, and they might have been moved to less active sectors of the front.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 4, 2012)

Some time late in the war (IIRC late 43 - early 44 time frame), LeLv 24 exchanged their surviving B-239s for Bf-109s bought from Germany. The remaining Brewsters were handed off to LeLv 26 which I don't believe saw quite as much action as LeLv-24. The surviving number can probably be deduced form the website which also lists the fate of many (all?) of the Brewsters. Without looking at loss dates, it looks to me like about a dozen Brewsters survived the continuation war. It looks like many were damaged and restored to service after repair so I'd expect them to be pretty worn out. It would seem to show remarkable resilience (and of course amazing maintenance support) of so few airframes to have soldiered on for over 3 years. 

http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 5, 2012)

> thanks for the extra info on the photos. I think that I have seen the first and the last before but the erection photos are probably new to me, I have seen a couple photos on assembly of F2As but IIRC correctly the planes were A-3s or -339Ds.



No problem Juha; those are a few of a series of images taken on the same photo shoots by Mydans for Life magazine; there are some of Blenheims as well. In the other images, serial numbers of the Buffalos can be made out.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 6, 2012)

Late to the party - leading a scout camp and then without power for 6 days thanks to the storms in VA.

Anyhoo...I've corresponded with Marion Carl and met Bill Brooks both of whom survived the Midway carnage and had experience on both F2A and F4F aircraft. Both said that the F2A wasn't as bad as its reputation indicated - Carl is on record as stating that the Marines at Guadalcanal would have done just as well with F2As as they did with F4Fs. We should also remember that the F2A-3 was demanded by the USN because they wanted a long-range patrol fighter - if the -3 was crap then blame the USN requirements guys who asked for it (rather like the poor old Defiant). 

From a Commonwealth perspective, the vast majority of Buffalos were lost in accidents or destroyed on the ground. With a few exceptions, the fighter-vs-fighter combats were generally undertaken at a tactical disadvantage due to lack of warning, and a number of Buffalos were lost due to return fire from bombers. 

Now back to our normal programming....


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 6, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Late to the party - leading a scout camp and then without power for 6 days thanks to the storms in VA.
> 
> Anyhoo...I've corresponded with Marion Carl and met Bill Brooks both of whom survived the Midway carnage and had experience on both F2A and F4F aircraft. Both said that the F2A wasn't as bad as its reputation indicated - Carl is on record as stating that the Marines at Guadalcanal would have done just as well with F2As as they did with F4Fs. We should also remember that the F2A-3 was demanded by the USN because they wanted a long-range patrol fighter - if the -3 was crap then blame the USN requirements guys who asked for it (rather like the poor old Defiant).
> 
> ...



wondered where you had got to...


----------



## GregP (Jul 6, 2012)

Still the worst US-produced Naval monoplane fighter of the time ... unless you have another candidate?

We aleady know the Navy chose the Wildcat.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 7, 2012)

Actually the Navy chose the F2A and settled for the F4F when the Brewster company could not deliver as promised. As far as US-produced monoplane navel fighters - the FT-1, H75B, NF-1, F13C, F7B and of course the xF4F-2.


----------



## Juha (Jul 7, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Some time late in the war (IIRC late 43 - early 44 time frame), LeLv 24 exchanged their surviving B-239s for Bf-109s bought from Germany. The remaining Brewsters were handed off to LeLv 26 which I don't believe saw quite as much action as LeLv-24. The surviving number can probably be deduced form the website which also lists the fate of many (all?) of the Brewsters. Without looking at loss dates, it looks to me like about a dozen Brewsters survived the continuation war. It looks like many were damaged and restored to service after repair so I'd expect them to be pretty worn out. It would seem to show remarkable resilience (and of course amazing maintenance support) of so few airframes to have soldiered on for over 3 years.
> 
> http://www.warbirdforum.com/scores.htm



Hello oldcrowcv63
LeLv. 26/HLeLv 26, H at the beginning means hävittäjä = fighter, had 18 BWs (B-239s) on 9 Jun 44

Juha


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 7, 2012)

GregP said:


> Still the worst US-produced Naval monoplane fighter of the time ... unless you have another candidate?
> 
> We aleady know the Navy chose the Wildcat.



Depends on when you're talking. Prior to the F4F-3, then the F2A was actually the best US-produced naval monoplane fighter...it was the only one! The Wildcat was selected as much because Grumman could deliver where Brewster couldn't (and because, as we well know, Navy fighters are always produced by Grumman!  ) than for any massive performance benefits it had over the F2A...and per my previous post, there are a few combat veterans who flew both that thought the performance of the 2 types was pretty similar. The F6F and F4U were a generation later and so hardly a fair comparison.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 7, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Depends on when you're talking. Prior to the F4F-3, then the F2A was actually the best US-produced naval monoplane fighter...it was the only one! The Wildcat was selected as much because Grumman could deliver where Brewster couldn't (and because, as we well know, Navy fighters are always produced by Grumman!  ) than for any massive performance benefits it had over the F2A...and per my previous post, there are a few combat veterans who flew both that thought the performance of the 2 types was pretty similar. The F6F and F4U were a generation later and so hardly a fair comparison.



You are wasting electrons Buffnut, Greg eats Brewtser Buffalo jerky and probably wears Brewster Buffalo pelts to the theater. He is insensitive to the plight of this endangered creature (Only one remaining of the species and that one soggy from neglect and its tenure at the bottom of a lake). 

I would call the F2A-1 the best naval fighter in the world at the time of its introduction, recognizing that its tenure with the crown lasted only about 6 months. 

The Recovery Of The Last Brewster Buffalo

Check out the landing gear! Still able to support the aircraft (sans engine) even after nearly a century of admitedly slow decay and disuse)


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 7, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello oldcrowcv63
> LeLv. 26/HLeLv 26, H at the beginning means hävittäjä = fighter, had 18 BWs (B-239s) on 9 Jun 44
> 
> Juha



Thanks Juha!


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 8, 2012)

Juha, have you actually read of any Finnish pilot who felt the DB 605 was the more reliable engine? I have not. OTOH Heimo Lampi's comments on his absolute trust of the Cyclone.




Juha said:


> but with some improvised mods Finns got them fairly reliable, at least some pilots thought they were after thr mods more reliable than DB 605As.


----------



## Juha (Jul 8, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> Juha, have you actually read of any Finnish pilot who felt the DB 605 was the more reliable engine? I have not. OTOH Heimo Lampi's comments on his absolute trust of the Cyclone.



No, but I don't know the opinion of vast majority of Finnish fighter pilots, so all I can say that at least some of them thought that Cyclone was more reliable after the mods. What others thought, I simply don't know.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Jul 8, 2012)

The F13C was a biplane and so does not qualify. The F7BH was a B-24 Liberator and also does not qualify. The only FT-1 I know of is by Shenyang in China and is a jet trainer first flown in 1958 and, of course, does not qualify. I have full data on 1,019 WWII piston aircraft and ... no FT-1. Doesn't man I haven't missed one, so I'll keep looking for it for awhile. 

The decision path leading to the selection of the Wildcat is not important. If Brewster could have fulfilled the contract, they WOULD HAVE. Since they didn't, the Wildcat went on to distinguish itself and the Buffalo lives on as the worst US Naval monoplane going into WWII. A production WIldcat was a LONG way from the XF4F-2, to say the least!

The only praise I have ever heard for teh Buffalo it is in here. None of the presenters at any WWII fighter symposiums I have attended have had one good thing to say about the Buiffalo. I decline to rewrite history's view of the Buffalo ... but, I must say, this discussion HAS been very interesting and gives me new things to look into, even if I still regard the Buffalo as a bit incompetent as a WWII fighter. As a "Between the wars fighter, " it was pretty good but, like the P-26 of 1933, wasn't up to WWII, even though pressed into service in the early part of the war.

Again, just my take on it. I see many of you in here are real Buffalo fans, and that is good to see since I have never run across another one!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 8, 2012)

Greg, hopefully an objective question: How many of the modern-day detractors may have been influenced by the reputation of the Buffalo and not at least by some facts?

I still don't think of it as the worst. A bad machine, yes but worst? I don't think you can be successful ( like the Finns) in an aircraft that has absolutely no redeeming value. There are a few others that would make the case for being worse than the beer-barrel Buffalo!  I think thats the only point anyone here is trying to make.

Now does anybody know how to to get schmutz off my rose-colored glasses?


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 8, 2012)

Juha said:


> No, but I don't know the opinion of vast majority of Finnish fighter pilots, so all I can say that at least some of them thought that Cyclone was more reliable after the mods. What others thought, I simply don't know.
> 
> Juha


 

It is quite safe to interpret that when 100 % of the commentary on engine A's reliability is negative and 100 % of the available commentary on engine B is neutral/positive that engine B is more reliable.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 8, 2012)

Northup FT-1


----------



## ssnider (Jul 8, 2012)

Curtis F13C


----------



## ssnider (Jul 8, 2012)

Boeing F7B


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 9, 2012)

> Now does anybody know how to to get schmutz off my rose-colored glasses?



Buffalo cloth...


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2012)

Really cool obscure aircraft! I love them and have over 100 catalogued. Thanks for the new entries.

1. The F13C: They made 13 of them. Not entirely an outstanding thing and certainly not in production or achieved production acceptance. I was thinking of the ORIGINAL Curtiss F13C, which was a biplane. Google "F13C aircraft" and see it.

2. Boeing F7B: This was s contemporary of the P-26, and not really a WWII aircraft. They DID build 4 and they were never accepted for production, a requirement if you will recall. Google the F-7B Liberator and see it, too.

3. Northrup FT-1: Only 1 built. Hardly qualifies for production and was another contemporay of the P-26. Oboselete at best when WWII started and since there was only 1, it would make no contribution except to convert some gasloine into noise. Google the Shenyang FT-1 and see it; a pretty neat little jet trainer.

Sorry, none of these qualify as fighters in use at the start of WWII and none were accepted for military service.

But ... I thank you for the new (to me) obscure aircraft you brought to my attention. I feel somehwat better since my timeframe for my favorite aircaft starts in 1936, and I have never researched earlier planes except for the occasional foray into those times.


----------



## Juha (Jul 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> ...the Buffalo lives on as the worst US Naval monoplane going into WWII...



Worse than Curtiss SO3C Seamew for ex? Rather sweeping opinion but...
Now F2A-1 and -2 were not so bad but USN wanted to overload the plane with all those extra equipment and extra fuel and Brewster willingly complied so USN got F2A-3, noticing only afterwards that the plane had too small wing for all that weight. SO IMHO 2 main failings of F2A were that it had not much development potential because of its rather small wing and that its wing structure made installation of self sealing fuel tanks very difficult. Earlier versions were rather slow but nimble fighters without any major vices at their best at low and medium altitudes. They suited in Eastern Front enviroment but unfortunately in Pacific Japanese planes had also good high altitude capacity and were exceptional nimble, so F2A hadn't many aces there.

Juha


----------



## Alte Hase (Jul 9, 2012)

In Tim Vigors' book " Life's too short to cry", he describes flying the Brewster Buffalo with the RAF in Singapore-he indicated it had a lot of problems in the hot, humid conditions and the pilots resorted to buying ladies feminine hygiene products to stuff into the air intake to help regulate the moisture!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2012)

I would agree that the F2A-3 was the "worst" monoplane fighter in the US Navy inventory in late 1941. Of course that basically means it was in either 2nd place if you count the F4F's all as one or maybe it's in 5th or 6th place if you count each variation of the F2A and F4F. But being the "worst" US Navy fighter doesn't quite mean the F2A 'series' deserves the reputation it has. There were a number of other fighters around the world in 1939-41 that weren't any better. The already mentioned Caudron C.714 being a prime example. 

leaving out the word 'fighter' opens a whole new can of 'worms' or better, a whole case of turkeys


----------



## ssnider (Jul 9, 2012)

"Still the worst US-produced Naval monoplane fighter of the time" It seems that your statments/questions shift to suit your claims. The fact is the F2A was the first monoplane the Navy felt was worthy of production. 

"SO IMHO 2 main failings of F2A were that it had not much development potential because of its rather small wing and that its wing structure made installation of self sealing fuel tanks very difficult." The latter F2A-2s had self sealing tanks and as Juha states, along with the wings the engine selection mandated by the US Navy made development difficult.

The F2A-2 was faster with a better climb rate, dive speed, better turn rate and acceleration then the F4F-3 as well as longer range. The F2A also maintained their maneuverability at higher speeds better than most contemporary aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2012)

The wing structure of the F2A meant that for self sealing tanks of the US type to be installed new tanks had to be added to the plane. the old ones were left unprotected and for the most part, one of them left unused.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> If Brewster could have fulfilled the contract, they WOULD HAVE. Since they didn't, the Wildcat went on to distinguish itself and the Buffalo lives on as *the worst US Naval monoplane going into WWII.* A production WIldcat was a LONG way from the XF4F-2, to say the least!
> 
> The only praise I have ever heard for teh Buffalo it is in here. None of the presenters at any WWII fighter symposiums I have attended have had one good thing to say about the Buiffalo. I decline to rewrite history's view of the Buffalo ... but, I must say, this discussion HAS been very interesting and gives me new things to look into, even if *I still regard the Buffalo as a bit incompetent* as a WWII fighter. As a "Between the wars fighter, " it was pretty good but, like the P-26 of 1933, wasn't up to WWII, even though pressed into service in the early part of the war.



Remember - there's plenty of blame for the operators too. An outnumbered squadron of green pilots going into battle with obsolete tactics. VMF-211 could have been in Wildcats, I doubt the outcome would have been much better. Did the presenters at the WW2 fighter symposiums ever discuss pilot experience, tactics and training with regards to the Buffalo? Again I think a lot of the Buffalo's bad press is based on aircraft performance and little or no consideration is given to the quality of the guy behind the stick.


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2012)

Well guys, so far I have a lot of Buffalo defenders, but no list of possible US naval monoplane fighters worse than the Buffalo. The Seamew isn't a fighter and prototypes listed a few pages above were just that; prototypes not selected for production. So, again, O'm wondering if tehre is another candidate ... and I see the answer is most probably no. Becasue it is the worst doesn't mean it was useless; it means the others were better, that's all.

Therefore I nominate the Brewster Buffalo as the worst US naval monoplane fighter at the start of WWII that was designed from 1936 forward. 

I picked 1936 because the Messerschmitt Me 109, which is a very strong candidate for the best piston fighter ever by virtue of its combat record alone, hails from that time. If Willy could do it, then who ELSE could do it? I chose US just for the heck of it, but this opens the plate for the worst 1936 and forward monplane fighter of WWII regardless of nationality.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2012)

as far as personal anecdotes go, a lot depends on the person telling the story frame of reference. As in personnel knowledge or hearing other stories at the time. Also personnel experience counts. 
As an example I once asked my father, who served in the 6th Marine division on Okinawa, about how good the Colt .45 automatic was. I had read several accounts by combat veterans of how it was so inaccurate that you might as well throw it at an enemy as shoot it. He said he never had any trouble with it and left it at that. It wasn't until a number of years later that I found a picture of him as a teenager, he was posing with a number of middle aged men. They were the local gun club pistol team, My father had owned several rather specialized target pistols and fired thousands of rounds of .22 ammo through pistols ( and more through rifles) before he ever went in the Marine Corp. His experience with a .45 was rather different than most recruits. Take an 18-19 year old kid who had never fired a gun a before basic training and give him a .45 and 30-50 rounds of ammo and what do you think his experience/recollection of it would be? But would it be an accurate account of the capabilities of the gun?


----------



## Juha (Jul 9, 2012)

Hello Greg
I'm well aware that Seamew wasn't fighter, I mentioned SO3C as an answer to your message #124 .

As an answer to the question in the heading of this thread I'd say that F2A was better than P-35/P-35A and most of the Finns thought that F2A-1 was better than Hawk-75A (P-36 family), there seems to have been a few exceptions who thought that Hawk 75A-4 might have been better but they were a minority. But I'd not be surprised if majority of RAF pilots who flew both types thought the opposite. I remember too little of the operational histories of P-43, P-66 and CW-21 to form a firm opinion on their relative merits, P-70 wasn't a great success either same goes to fixed landing gear Hawk 75Ms and Ns

Juha


----------



## JoeB (Jul 9, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> VMF-211 could have been in Wildcats, I doubt the outcome would have been much better.


But if you look at the details of the Midway combat, which involved both F2A-3's and F4F-3's, the latter did do better. The Marines were officially credited with 4 Zeroes, 3 by F4F's v 2 F4F's lost. The actual Japanse loss/damage for Zeroes was: PO1C Ito from Kaga missing and probably shot down by VMF-221, PO1C Iwami of Akagi missing but Japanese and US accounts and recovery of the wreck showed the a/c downed by AA, PO1C Tanaka regained Kaga but died of his wounds, PO1C Kikuchi regained Akagi with 30 holes in his a/c; another Zero was hit once. So taking a 'soda straw' view of just the F4F participation, not so bad, by the usual standard of Zero success against Allied fighters in the first half of 1942. I hasten to add that some element of this apparent difference in success even in this same combat could have been just the luck of the draw, but still there it is.

Marion Carl was flying one of the F4F's, and was credited with one of the Zeroes claimed, which I think might be relevant to the statement attributed to him above saying F2A wasn't so bad. The official reports of 221 were not complimentary to the F2A-3. This page gives lots of detail from US side including such reports:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/midwayx.htm

I have to agree with GregP the Buffalo was viewed by the USN and USMC as the worst of their WWII fighters as a combat airplane (if we're talking USN/USMC 'WWII' starts 12/7/41; F3F is a pre-war a/c in that context). Statements about the joy of flying stripped down versions of particular planes, or how they were 'ruined' with combat equipment weight make me wonder. Sure it's important to realize whether combat modifications had a little or not so little impact on performance. But the additions were for valid combat reasons. If not, they could have been stripped back off, at least to some degree. So, yes the F4F-4 had lower aerodynamic performance than F4F-3, but rating the -4 inferior to -3 simply on this basis raises a question in my mind what people are really talking about in terms of 'better' or 'worse'. And it seems in general that the F4F/FM in various versions had a way of being a more effective *fighter combat a/c* than it appeared on paper or how lovable it might have been to peacetime pilots.

That said, the counterpoint to GregP is also correct that 'worst' for Buffalo in USN/USMC means second place to a single roughly contemporary competitor: the F4F. It doesn't mean 10th out of 10. The Buffalo also had a poor combat record v Japanese fighters in RAF/Dutch service, but so did the Hurricane and minor Dutch types (Hawk 75, CW Demon) flown by same air arms v same opposition. P-40's flown by AVG did noticeably better than Buffalo and Hurricane facing the same Japanese Army fighter units, but that's not the same air arm; P-40's flown by USAAC didn't do well v Japanese Navy fighter units in same early months of the war. Anyway, the Buffalo's record in RAF/KNIL doesn't IMO support an argument that it was as good as the F4F afterall, but OTOH it doesn't strongly support an argument for a bigger and broader 'worst' sign to be hung on the Buffalo either. But I think it's pretty easy to support the assertion that the USN and USMC *viewed* the Buffalo as the second best of two, and therefore worst, *combat fighter a/c* available to them early in WWII, as a general consensus.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2012)

JoeB said:


> But if you look at the details of this combat, which involved both F2A-3's and F4F-3's, the latter did do better. The Marines were officially credited with 4 Zeroes, 3 by F4F's, v PO1C Ito from Kaga missing and probably shot down by VMF-221, PO1C Iwami of Akagi missing but Japanese and US accounts and recovery of the wreck showed the a/c downed by AA, PO1C Tanaka regained Kaga but died of his wounds, PO1C Kikuchi regained Akagi with 30 holes in his a/c; another Zero was hit once. So taking a *'soda straw' view of just the F4F participation, not so bad, by the usual standard of Zero success against Allied fighters in the first half of 1942. I hasten to say that some element of this apparent difference in success even in this same combat could have been just the luck of the draw, but still there it is.*


 Point made - but also consider the experience level of the pilots (or I should say the lucky ones) who flew the 7 F4Fs at Midway in lieu of the Buffaloes. I don't think any of the "greener" pilots were flying the F4Fs. Info?


----------



## Njaco (Jul 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> Well guys, so far I have a lot of Buffalo defenders, but no list of possible US naval monoplane fighters worse than the Buffalo. The Seamew isn't a fighter and prototypes listed a few pages above were just that; prototypes not selected for production. So, again, O'm wondering if tehre is another candidate ... and I see the answer is most probably no. Becasue it is the worst doesn't mean it was useless; it means the others were better, that's all.
> 
> Therefore I nominate the Brewster Buffalo as the worst US naval monoplane fighter at the start of WWII that was designed from 1936 forward.
> 
> I picked 1936 because the Messerschmitt Me 109, which is a very strong candidate for the best piston fighter ever by virtue of its combat record alone, hails from that time. If Willy could do it, then who ELSE could do it? I chose US just for the heck of it, but this opens the plate for the worst 1936 and forward monplane fighter of WWII regardless of nationality.



I'm going to have to call a violation on this Greg. If the criteria is a naval design, after 1936, monoplane and operational (not a prototype) at the start of WWII then I don't think you can use the Bf 109. It wasn't designed as a naval a/c and was developed in 1935 - first flight Sept 1935.

Your turn.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 9, 2012)

From this site...

http://www.warbirdforum.com/midwayx.htm

*The following is number of listing of the personnel and the aircraft of VMF-221, that participated in aerial combat in the defense of Midway Island on the morning of June 4th, 1942. 

FIRST DIVISION (F2A-3) 



Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status 
MF-1 01518 Maj. Floyd B. Parks USMC MIA 
MF-2 01548 2Lt. Eugene P. Madole USMCR MIA 
MF-3 01525 Capt. John R. Alvord USMC MIA 
MF-4 01537 2Lt. John M. Butler USMCR MIA 
MF-5 01569 2Lt. David W. Pinkerton Jr. USMCR MIA 
MF-6 01552 2Lt. Charles S. Hughes USMCR Did not engage, 
Turned back due 
Engine problems 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND DIVISION (F2A-3) 

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status 
MF-7 01552? Capt. Daniel J. Hennessey USMC MIA 
MF-8 01541 2Lt. Ellwood Q. Lindsay USMCR MIA 
MF-9 01524 Capt. Herbert T. Merrill USMC Bailed out WIA 
MF-10 01528 2Lt. Thomas W. Benson USMCR MIA 
MF-11 01568 Capt. Phillip R. White USMC Survived 
MF-12 01542 2Lt. John D. Lucas USMCR MIA 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD DIVISION (F2A-3) 

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status 
MF-13 01562 Capt. Kirk Armistead USMC Survived 
MF-14 01563 2Lt. William B. Sandoval USMCR MIA 
MF-15 01553 Capt. William C. Humberd USMC Survived 
MF-16 01523 2Lt. Williams V. Brooks USMCR WIA 
MF-17 01521 2Lt. Charles M .Kunz USMCR WIA 
MF-18 01559 2Lt. Martin E. Mahannah USMCR KIA (his body washed 
up later) 
23 (F4F-3) 3989 2Lt. Walter W. Swansberger USMCR MIA 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTH DIVISION (F2A-3) 

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status 
MF-19 01520 Capt. Robert E. Curtin USMC MIA 
MF-20 01550 2Lt. Darrell D. Irwin USMCR Survived 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH DIVISION (F4F-3) 

Plane No. Bu.No. Pilot Status 
22 4008 Capt. John F. Carey USMC WIA 
24 4000 Capt. Marion E. Carl USMC Survived 
25 3997 2Lt. Clayton M. Canfield USMCR Survived 
26 4006 Capt. Francis P. McCarthy USMC MIA 
27 2532 2Lt. Roy A. Corry USMC Survived 
28 1864 2Lt.Hyde Phillips USMCR Did not engage; 
a/c out of order. 


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

Total Losses for June 4th, 1942 for VMF-221: 
Aircraft: 12 F2A-3, 2 F4F-3 
Pilots: 13 MIA, 1 KIA, 4 WIA 4 *

Count the 2Lts (who I would assume to be the "greener" of the listed pilots) who were killed or wounded. There was one flying an F4F in the 3rd division MIA (KIA). Again you can slice these small numbers but I don't think an entire F4F VMF-221 would have been a big game changer.

Not to take anything away from the unit, VMF-221 when on to be the 2nd highest scoring Marine Fighter Squadron in WW2.

From Wiki;

_Marine Fighting Squadron 221 (VMF-221) was a fighter squadron of the United States Marine Corps in World War II. During the war, they flew the Brewster F2A-3 and, after reconstitution in 1943, the F4U Corsair. The squadron, also known as the “Fighting Falcons,” is most notable for its actions on June 4, 1942 during the Battle of Midway, which resulted in 23 members of the squadron, many posthumously, being awarded the Navy Cross for their actions in combat. VMF-221 ended WWII with 185 air to air victories, the second most of any Marine Fighting Squadron in the war._


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> _*The only praise I have ever heard for teh Buffalo it is in here*_. None of the presenters at any WWII fighter symposiums I have attended have had one good thing to say about the Buiffalo. I decline to rewrite history's view of the Buffalo ...



As we have seen, there exists ample literature and personal testimony that praises the qualities of the F2A-1 and -2, which includes a very successful combat career for the former and endorsements by combat veterans for the latter. But, as stated before, it really doesn't seem fair to subsume either of them with the name _Buffalo_ given to the export Brewster fighter by the British and its ill fated USN brethren developed from these two progenitors. The USN entered the war with the F2A-3 and that aircraft, for a variety of reasons (including manufacturer deficiencies) proved to be a turkey. The F2A-1 went to the Finns as the B-239 and the F2A-2 never saw combat and AFAIK was not in front line service at the time of PH so neither is a contender in worst USN fighter of WW2 sweepstakes.



JoeB said:


> I have to agree with GregP the Buffalo was viewed by the USN and USMC as the worst of their WWII fighters as a combat airplane (if we're talking USN/USMC 'WWII' starts 12/7/41; F3F is a pre-war a/c in that context). _*Statements about the joy of flying stripped down versions of particular planes, or how they were 'ruined' with combat equipment weight make me wonder.*_
> 
> That said, the counterpoint to GregP is also correct that 'worst' for Buffalo in USN/USMC means second place to a single roughly contemporary competitor: the F4F. It doesn't mean 10th out of 10. The Buffalo also had a poor combat record v Japanese fighters in RAF/Dutch service, but so did the Hurricane and minor Dutch types (Hawk 75, CW Demon) flown by same air arms v same opposition. *P-40's flown by AVG did noticeably better than Buffalo and Hurricane facing the same Japanese Army fighter units, but that's not the same air arm; P-40's flown by USAAC didn't do well v Japanese Navy fighter units in same early months of the war.* Anyway, the Buffalo's record in RAF/KNIL doesn't IMO support an argument that it was as good as the F4F afterall, but OTOH it doesn't strongly support an argument for a bigger and broader 'worst' sign to be hung on the Buffalo either. But I think it's pretty easy to support the assertion that the USN and USMC *viewed* the Buffalo as the second best of two, and therefore worst, *combat fighter a/c* available to them early in WWII, as a general consensus.
> 
> Joe



The F2A-1 and F2A-2 were not stripped down aircraft. They were delivered as combat ready aircraft (albeit to a prewar, unblooded USN) The Finns took the F2A-1 and, with minor modifications turned it into a winner, through 1944 or the bulk of WW2. Good points otherwise...

Any comparison of the the AVG with the USAAC should note that the former were flying the P-40B, which, similar to the fate of the F2A-2 and F4F-3, wasn't yet loaded with among other items, the additional weight of replacing the B's four 30's with the heavier four 50's) that gave it a lower ceiling and slower climb rate than its "_more advanced_" P-40E flown by USAAC pilots at the start of WW2. It looks like the loaded B was about 1,000 pounds lighter than the E. Story in Brautsch's _Doomed at the Start_: early in the campaign, experienced pilot, 1st Lt John Brownewell, along with other gear, pulls four of his 50's out of his P-40E while he is tasked flying recce flights out of Del Monte field. Despite the CG issues, Brownewell reports it seems to perform far better than before. Later a rookie, unfamiliar with its handling quirks is killed in the ship on a routine local flight.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 9, 2012)

Some further commentary:

1. The F2A-3 wasn't only weighed down with additional operational equipment (ie armour plate and self-sealing fuel tanks) - it also had extra fuel and oil tanks and carried more ammunition per its intended role as a long-range patrol fighter. At Midway, it was expected to perform the role of interceptor.

2. The F4F-3s of VMF-221 didn't have armour plate or self-sealing tanks so one would expect them to have better performance than an aircraft fitted with those additional items (as noted in comparisons between the -3 and -4). 

3. VMF-221 was using outdated divisional tactics and were committed largely piecemeal to the fight.

4. The F4F-3s were largely flown by more experienced pilots (per Flyboy's hunch earlier).

5. While fighter-vs-fighter claims are an interesting measure of "effectiveness", that was not the mission assigned to VMF-221. Their role was to hit the Japanese bombers and that's exactly what Parks tried to do (indeed, one could argue that the first pass against the bombers was accomplished quite effectively). The Zeros, operating above the bombers, were able to engage the VMF-221 aircraft at an altitude advantage (per Bader "he who holds the height controls the battle"). I cannot imagine the bravery of the VMF-221 pilots who knew they had to hit the bombers but also recognised that a sizeable formation of Japanese fighters was about to engage them.

6. The Commonwealth squadrons operating in the Far East also used inappropriate tactics. They continued to use 3-ship vic formations which were unwieldy and prevented the implementation of effective countermeasures against the more nimble Japanese fighters.

Undoubtedly the F4F-3 was a better performer than the F2A-3 but the 2 aircraft were supposed to fulfill different roles, the latter being intended as a long-range patrol fighter. That the 2 types ended up on the same squadron says much about the hand-me-down nature of the USMC's equipment provision. The performance gap between the F2A-3 and the F4F-4 was less pronounced, indeed per Marion Carl's comments the two were broadly equivalent in terms of general combat performance. The performance of the F2A-2 was comparable, if not better than, the F4F-3 although neither were truly fit for combat due to the lack of self-sealing fuel tanks and armour plate.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 9, 2012)

AFAIK, the F4F-3 that went to war from December 7, 1941 onward was equipped with both armor and self sealing tanks. IIUC, a widely reported early problem with the -3 were fuel contamination from the tank liners. I believe a number of F4F-3 were lost at sea before and after December 7. I think that is also true for the F2A-3, I believe it was armored, although, as others have stated here, some of its fuel tanks remained unprotected.

I believe most of the weight problem with the F4F-4 was due to its wing-fold hardware and the addition of two HMGs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2012)

DO you have source for the _intended_ role of the F2A-3 as a long range patrol fighter?

_IF_ "America's Hundred Thousand" is correct the _extra_ fuel capacity was rarely used. If the plane's fuel filler for the port fuel tank was sealed off and stenciled "Not to be filled except on the special authority of Commanding Officer." it would seem that for routine flying the fuel capacity was the same 160 gallons as the earlier planes. With 5 fuel tanks available one would think that the fuel load was adjusted to the mission at hand (of the day?) and if the Mission was defend a fixed base and intercept incoming bombers then an overload of 240 gallons was not needed, especially if flying in company with F4F-3s which had a fuel capacity of 160 gallons unprotected and 147 gallons protected. The book claims that the F4F series only gained drop tanks with the -4 model. 

The "extra" fuel tanks in the F2A-3 were to _restore_ fuel capacity with _protected_ tanks due the difficulty of fitting the existing tanks with the type of protection the US wanted to use.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I believe most of the weight problem with the F4F-4 was due to its wing-fold hardware and the addition of two HMGs.



That was a large part but "general" weight gain played a part. 40lbs of engine section, 30lbs in the fuel section, almost 50lbs in "surface controls"?, 13lbs of furnishings and equipment and a few more pounds in instruments and controls? (not counting a few pounds here and there that might be just variation from plane to plane). of course the deletion of 90lbs worth of flotation gear at some point helped. another 4lbs of "pyrotechnics" and perhaps another 30lbs of com/nav gear? 

A "fully" loaded F4F-3 could go 7543lbs (4 guns full ammo, full internal fuel, no bombs) while an F4F-4 could go 7972lbs ( 6guns, full ammo, full internal fuel, no bombs) _*IF*_ the numbers in "AHT" are correct ( and there may be a few typos in the the F4F-4 weight charts?) that is only about a 430lb weight gain if we are comparing apples to apples. The Navy seems to have played a lot games with weight charts and giving performance figures for planes with part fuel and part weapons load (including stripping a plane to just TWO guns when carrying bombs) so we have to be sure we are comparing like to like to like with the performance numbers.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 9, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> DO you have source for the _intended_ role of the F2A-3 as a long range patrol fighter?



Jim Maas's "In Action" book on the Buffalo states "The increased fuel capacity dramatically raised both the endurance and range of the F2A-3. The additional 80 gallons gave the F2A-3 a maximum range of 1,680 miles - approximately 13 hours of flying time. A number of F2A-3 pilots reported routinely flying 5 or 6 hour patrols. It is believed the Navy intended to use the F2A-3 to maintain standing patrols at considerable distances from the carrier however the advent of shipborne radar made the need for long range standing patrols unnecessary." I've known Jim for many years and there is no more knowledgeable person when it comes to Brewster Aeronautical.

Since the F2A-3s were new-build aircraft, there was no issue with retro-fitting self-sealing tanks as you seem to indicate. The RAF Buffalos were also fitted with a form of self-sealing fuel tank so I think your final comment is dubious at best. Irrespective, the lengthened fuselage, extra tankage (whether empty or full), self-sealing fuel tanks, armour plate and additional ammunition all increased the weight of the aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jul 9, 2012)

I'll answer you Njaco,

My own time of interest starts about 1936 or so and includes the second world war onward. The Bf / Me 109 is one of the all time WWII greats and it occurred to me that f Willy Messerschmitt could design a plane relevant all the way through WWII, theh maybe others could, too. We all KNOW Reginals Mitchell did. Incidentally, the first flight was in May 1935, but service introdutction was 1937. So it falls into my timeline of 1936 onwards becasue no Me 109 saw Luftwaffwe service until after the start of 1936.

So, I posted inquiring as to what was the worst monoplane fighter of WWII, and expected to hear a chorus of "Buffalo." I didn't, and it was and IS surprising. It evolved into US because I really didn't expect to include low-production European types, I was and am looking for the planes that were accepted into service and produced and FOUGHT in WWII as WWII designs and not carry-overs from the early 1930's, such as the P-26, which although it DID participate in WWII, was NOT a WWII design and was withdrawn quickly.

Yet, when I asked for lists of same, I got a lot of prototypes that never made production, which were specifically eliminated earlier in the requirements for the thread topic.

So, yes, I know the Me 109 was not Naval. But the thread evolved into Naval since the Buffalo, my prime nominee, was Naval. I didn't realluy want to narrow it, but allowed it because I intended to expand the worst to include other types, too. It was pointted out that while the Buffalo was probably the worst US type, there were other types from other nations that were worse. Not wanting to be perceived as a "bash Eruope" type of American, and not being one in fact, I thought I'd first find the worst US monoplane fighter and then expand to include worst overall monoplane fighter. Then I'd probably ask for the worst light, medium, and heavy bomber, worst Naval torpedo bomber, etc.

So far, all I get is arguments about the Buffalo's GOOD points, which, as I stated, no single WWII fighter pilot I have spoken with supports, and that includes this past Saturday. We had 5 WWII pilots make a presentation on long range Pacific escort, and I got to speak to 3 of them. Keeping this thread in mind, I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics. That comes from the people who were contemprary with the Buffalo.

Not to be argumentative, but none of the assertions put forth in about the Buffalo here has ever been supported by any WWII combat pilot I have spoken with ... which now amounts to about 8 or 9 that have actually talked about the Buffalo at all.

So, although it mat appear to change, I am really seeking the worst WWII monoplane fighter in military service in about 1940 - 1941, 1942 - 1943, and 1944 - 1945. I just didn't geta round to it since everyone is staunchly defending the Buffalo. If it was so good, why didn't we fight with it for more than a battle or two? I can't say and am really not interested in extenuating circumstance, just results, and the Buffalo, except for the Finish service experience, was awful. Hurray for the Fins!

If the Buffalo fans continue, I may never GET to the worst 1944 - 1945 fighter ... but I intend to do so.

1. Worst WWII fighter 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
2. Worst WWII fighter 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
3. Worst WWII fighter 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
4. Worst WWII light bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
5. Worst WWII light bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
6. Worst WWII light bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
7. Worst WWII medium bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
8. Worst WWII medium bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
9. Worst WWII medium bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
10. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
11. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
12. Worst WWII heavy bomber 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.

This could go on to torpedo bomber, reconaissance, observation, liaison, dive bomber, etc.

Since we have had a lot of threads of "best of," I just wanted to start a series of "worst of." That's all, but they must be planes in actual service, not prototypes. So forget the Natter, it was a passing protoype fancy that was much more deadly to German test pilots than Allied aircrew. Forget the Me 264; never made it into service. Forget the BV238; never made it into service ... etc.

I'm sure the Fairely Battle and the AW Whitely might show up somewhere. So will the P-39, Mitsubish G4M, etc. Maybe the Morane Salunier MS.406, who can say?

So, this is now a "general Worst Of" thread. Pick a category and sling the mud!

For worst Torpedo Bomber, I nominate the Douglas Devastator. They only made 130, but that shows production. For worst medium bomber I WOULD nominate the LWS-6 / PZL-30 Zubr except they only built 17 before they realized the airframe life was used up in just about 1 flight! So, although very deserving of a "Worst Of" title, it doesn't make the grade to be considered as a "Worst Of" champion. I suppose we COULD come up with a "Worst Of" as long as at least ONE was built ... if we did THAT, the Zubr would be a viable champion, and probably a number one seed in the medium bomber class.

Hopefully, that clears up the intent of the thread? If not, I withdraw the poll! The intent is humorous, but also a real look for the worst of the war at different times.

For worst-looking naval aircraft, the Fairey Barracuda is a strong contender. When the wives of Barracude pilots found out what their husbands were flying, they divorced them rather than face the neighbors ... OK, run with it!


----------



## Njaco (Jul 9, 2012)

Well stated! I hope that maybe we have shed some light on the flying pork barrel. Don't get me wrong: It was not great, good or even mediocre. But as for worst I guess we disagree.

As far as worst looking Naval aircraft, I would go with the Vultee Vengeanace. Ugghhh!!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 9, 2012)

GregP said:


> So far, all I get is arguments about the Buffalo's GOOD points, which, as I stated, no single WWII fighter pilot I have spoken with supports, and that includes this past Saturday. We had 5 WWII pilots make a presentation on long range Pacific escort, and I got to speak to 3 of them. Keeping this thread in mind, I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics. That comes from the people who were contemprary with the Buffalo.
> 
> Not to be argumentative, but none of the assertions put forth in about the Buffalo here has ever been supported by any WWII combat pilot I have spoken with ... which now amounts to about 8 or 9 that have actually talked about the Buffalo at all.



Greg,

I'll see your "8 or 9 pilots that have actually talked about the Buffalo" and raise you 25 pilots I've met, spoken to or with whom I've corresponded who flew it in combat (including 3 Midway veterans), and a further 6 who flew it in non-combat situations. We can add to this the written and oral accounts of former Buffalo pilots I've accessed from books, magazines and museum archives which easily puts the figure of combat-veteran views over the 30 mark. None of them hated the Buffalo and many had considerable affection for the aircraft. None would claim it was a particularly good aircraft but all accepted that, for the most part, it was thrown into combat under extremely disadvantageous conditions. From the USN and USMC veterans the general consensus was that the F2A-2 was far preferable to the F2A-3 and many considered the -2 better even than the F4F. 

Let's get past hearsay please...

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 9, 2012)

Njaco said:


> As far as worst looking Naval aircraft, I would go with the Vultee Vengeanace. Ugghhh!!!



Err...the Vengeance was a USAAF aircraft.


----------



## ssnider (Jul 10, 2012)

"I asked all 3 about the Buffalo. None had flown it; one had flown against it in mock combat, and all 3 said it was abysmal for combat though fun to fly for sport and aerobatics." Interesting, if they had not flown it, how would they know? A couple of references from pilots who did fly the Brewster fighter, but I guess that since you have not talked to them personally they do not count, just like your dismissal of the sucess the Finns had with the plane while being fixated on one battle. A disastrous fight can be found for almost every fighter plane as can a success. Why not fixate on the following battle: In a major engagement above Semplak on 19 February 1942, eight Dutch Brewster fighters intercepted a formation of about 35 Japanese bombers with an escort of about 20 Zeros. The Brewster pilots destroyed 11 Japanese aircraft and lost four Brewsters; two Dutch pilots died.[33]

Captain Piet Tideman, commander of 3-Vl.G.V, gave in the recently published book “Buffaloes over Singapore” the following analysis of the Brewster fighter: “Coming to an evaluation of the Brewster fighter, especially compared to the Zero by which it was opposed - I think that my views are not directly in line with what is generally said about the Brewster. Generally it is said that that it was far inferior to the Zero. (.....) On the contrary, the Brewster was a good, sturdy, fast fighter with two half-inch armour-plates behind the seat. She would take a hell of a beating. My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane, but that we had too few of them and also our armament was too little and too light.

"In 1992, I had the opportunity to speak with the late MGEN Marion Carl, who had flown one of the VMF-221 Wildcats at Midway, during which he scored his first victory. Later a famous ace in the bloody struggle for Guadalcanal, General Carl startled me by saying that -had the Marines at Midway had the understanding of proper tactics against the Japanese that he and others used over Guadalcanal - the outcome might have been far different. He went on to say that the difference between the F2A-3 Buffalo and the F4F-4 Wildcat performance-wise was not so much that if he had flown the F2A-3 at Guadalcanal using proper tactics, he believed he would have scored as he did in the Wildcat.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

I was incorrect about the installation date for self-sealing tanks and armor on the F4F-3 and probably F2A-3. Acording to Don Linn, 11 December 1941 BuAer issued the change order to install these in the F4F-3 and 3A fighter aircraft. I assume that went for the F2A-3 as well. Apparently the dozen F4F-3s of VMF-211 delivered to Wake were not so equipped.


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2012)

Buffnut, you go ahead and get past the heresay. I'll stay with it. They only built 509 and withdrew them RAPIDLY when they started the withdrawl. That speaks to me if not to you. Do you think they would have stopped with 509 P-51 Mustangs or 509 Spitfires or 509 Fw 190's? Maybe, but I think not. If you disagree, that's OK; we disagree. I never said the Buffalo was all bad, just that it was overall the worst US Naval fighter of the early war. Since it made production, it HAD to have some good points, no argument there. I simply think the others had MORE good points, even if the more good points were armament and ammunition ... or even fuel.

Njaco, the Vengeance WAS ugly ... at least to me. If it wasn't to you or whoever, then ... OK. One man's dog is another man's queen, and there is nothing wrong with that. Otherwise the dogs would never have lovers, and that would be a shame.

Hey, if you don't agree with my assertions or my lists, that's OK; make your own. I certainly do and will. You don't have to agree; it is just my opinion ... like yours. I don't want to fight about it and you won't change my mind. My own research does that, as I assume yours does. It's OK if we come to different conclusions.

I might think Rare Bear will CRUSH the competition this year at Reno but, considering the sate of its engine about now, it won't even compete! If we all thought the same, life WOULD be dull, huh?

Cheers to all, even Buffnut ... I like the P-26 (because we HAVE one and FLY it) and that puts me firmly in the minority of aviation people, too!

Ssnider, the Navy didn't agree with Marion Carl; they bought the Wildcat instead. Says SOMETHING, doesn't it? Marion Carl could be right, or the Navy could be right.

The Navy, using their choices, won the war in the Pacific, Marion Carl didn't by himself.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> Ssnider, the Navy didn't agree with Marion Carl; they bought the Wildcat instead. Says SOMETHING, doesn't it? Marion Carl could be right, or the Navy could be right.
> 
> The Navy, using their choices, won the war in the Pacific, Marion Carl didn't by himself.


Yup, says that the brewster plant was the worst in production. Gruman could deliver much faster.


----------



## Juha (Jul 10, 2012)

Hello Greg
The 4 Brewster B-239 pilots I have met all liked it as a combat plane, namely
Pokela 2 kills while flying B-239 and 3 while flying Bf 109G
Lampi 5.5 kills while flying B-239 and 8 while flying Bf 109G
Järvi 11,5 kills while flying B-239 and 17 while flying Bf 109G
Juutilainen 2 kills while flying Fokker D.XXI, 34 kills while flying B-239 and 58 kills while flying Bf 109G
In fact I haven't heard on a FiAF pilot who didn't like the plane or who had considered it a bad fighter in 1941-42. In 1944 the weary B-239s were clearly underdogs against newer fighters, but so would have been old F4F-3s or Spifire Mk Ias or Bf 109E-3s, in fact all in 39 built fighters constantly flown would have been underdogs in 44 enviroment.

Juha


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 10, 2012)

Greg,

You made a number of assertions and I was simply trying to offer alternative interpretations based on my research. I'm simply trying to share some knowledge that many don't know about. About 15 years ago, I read "Bloody Shambles" starting from the position that the Buffalo was an abject failure and was shot down in droves. That book made me ponder the accuracy of my "knowledge" because it was pretty clear that relatively few Buffalos were actually shot down in combat and so I started to look into the aircraft's reputation. I have no problem with other people's opinions but it's usually more productive if they are based on reasoned knowledge and sometimes, as I did, it's appropriate to reconsider our opinions. If you're happy continuing to spout misinformation citing, as sources, people who had no real dealings with the aircraft then crack on. That's fine so long as we all understand your position and can counter it reasonably...which is all I've tried to do.

I think the Marion Carl jibe is a bit silly - he was a fantastic pilot and a true gentleman but, more importantly, we've also shown that there were several other pilots who quite liked the Buffalo. As for the USN, they went with a company that was able to deliver, Grumman (again, when the USN wanted a fighter it went to Grumman...that was the case right through to the F-14), not the bunch of crooks that led Brewster. However, that doesn't mean the F2A was a bad design, indeed for its time it was literally revolutionary. For the record, the Wildcat didn't win the war in the Pacific either and was replaced as soon as possible by a couple of aircraft that continued service for a decade - that says something about the generational differences between aircraft designed in the mid/late 1930s and those designed post-1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Since the F2A-3s were new-build aircraft, there was no issue with retro-fitting self-sealing tanks as you seem to indicate. The RAF Buffalos were also fitted with a form of self-sealing fuel tank so I think your final comment is dubious at best. Irrespective, the lengthened fuselage, extra tankage (whether empty or full), self-sealing fuel tanks, armour plate and additional ammunition all increased the weight of the aircraft.



It wasn't a question of "retro-fitting" the tanks but the way the original tanks were designed. They were not separate tanks but an integral part of the wing structure. The spars formed the front and back walls, ribs formed the ends and apparently the wing skins formed the top and bottom. AS for my last statement being dubious, not all self sealing protection was the same. The British 339E's were supposed to have armor on the front of the the tanks(?) and be covered in Linatex and horsehide leather. The US Navy was fitting rubber fuel cells _inside_ their fuel tanks. Fitting the fuel cells inside the integral tanks may have been more of a problem. The US Navy did fit a CO2 purging system to the Buffalo for the integral tanks as "protection' which did add some weight and increased maintenance. I believe my statement ended with _fitting the existing tanks with the type of protection the US wanted to use_. The US may not have wanted to use _Linatex and horsehide leather_


----------



## ssnider (Jul 10, 2012)

"As for the USN, they went with a company that was able to deliver, Grumman (again, when the USN wanted a fighter it went to Grumman...that was the case right through to the F-14), not the bunch of crooks that led Brewster."

I think that is the real issue with the F2A. The things that the Brewster company pulled on the British and US Navy were criminal. Just look at the quality issues the Brewster made Corsairs had.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> ... that says something about the generational differences between aircraft *designed in the mid/late 1930s *and those *designed* post-1940.



Picking nits as is my wont,  I'd modity your last statement to be:

"...that says something about the generational differences between aircraft designed in the early to mid 1930s (arbitrarily: 1930-1937) and those _designed _in the late thirties (arbitrarily: 1938-39)." 

As I am sure you know, both the P-51 (10/26/40) and F4U (5/29/40) were circa 1939-40 _designs_, while designs of the early to mid-thirties include (with first flight of the type) the P-35 (8/15/35), P-36 (5/6/35), F2A-1 (12/2/37), F4F-2 (9/2/37), for the US, the Bf-109 (5/29/25), Hurricane (11/6/35) and Spitfire (3/5/36). were pretty much creatures whose initial design was in the early to mid-thirties. If we are talking about effective service, then of course your dates are more accurate.  

IMHO that's what makes the Spitfire such an icon: its manufacturing duration. That's got to be a criterion for greatness. I'd guess the Bf-109 might have had a similar manufacturing history. It certainly had a similar operational span.

To be fair, we might parse these dates to equal segments (early: 1930-32), mid: 1933-36 and late: (1937-39) but now my OCD is showing. 

No Wait! It should have been: 1/1930 - 4/1933 early; 5/33 - 8/36 mid, and 9/36 - 12/39 late...


----------



## Njaco (Jul 10, 2012)

Its great to see 11 pages of disagreement without one sarcastic remark or personal putdown. Great work everyone!


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

Njaco said:


> Its great to see 11 pages of disagreement without one sarcastic remark or personal putdown. Great work everyone!


Evidently, your glass is HALF FULL!  I'll drink to that!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2012)

There's a lot of good information here about this aircraft - great posts guys.

Is the Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2? Based on combat record and aircraft performance the answer would have to be yes and I think it's clearly shown here - HOWEVER, this aircraft was just about obsolete when it was thrown into battle with inexperienced pilots utilizing dated tactics. This combination set groundwork for this aircraft's place in history. Now if there never was a Brewster Buffalo and the F4F was subjected to a similar mauling at Midway and used by the RAF in lieu of the Buffalo, would we be saying the same negative things about the F4F?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

Uhh guys, the F2A*-4* was never built. its the proposal by Brewster for a Buffalo version with the Wright R-2600 engine. I am pretty sure you meant to say, the F2A*-3*. Just saying...

The thread topic was supposed to be: *"Was the Brewster F2A-4 the worst fighter that never fought in WW2?"*.

FJ, I think the answer to your question may be that the 2 stage, 2 speed super charger on the Wildcat's P&W engine would eventually make it a winner. It had its own landing gear issues but, in general, with its larger wing area, it could accommodate the weight gain better than the Brewster. IMO...


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2012)

Marion Carl WAS a great pilot. I especially liked his experimental flying after the war; the stuff of legend. As Juha said, there were Fins who loved the Buffalo and that is pretty neat. Marion Carl liked it, too. I acknowledge their love of the Buffalo while still ranking it at the bottom of my list, and that is where it will stay.

Please guys, I have the right to my own opinion, as you do to yours. If you don't rank the Buffalo last, then simply make your own list and let it go ... please. 

C'mon, I thew out about a dozen or more classes and I'm still getting Buffalo arguments! Even if you Buff fans are right, it wasn't THAT great or they would have simply had some other factory build it, just as Curtiss built some P-47 Thunderbolts (the G model). Since they didn't, the Navy was apparently content to let the design go away.

I refuse to defend the list any further. So, let's PLEASE get past the Buffalo and on to other "Worst Of" nominees.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Uhh guys, the F2A*-4* was never built. its the proposal by Brewster for a Buffalo version with the Wright R-2600 engine. I am pretty sure you meant to say, the F2A*-3*. Just saying...
> 
> The thread topic was supposed to be: *"Was the Brewster F2A-4 the worst fighter that never fought in WW2?"*.
> 
> FJ, I think the answer to your question may be that the 2 stage, 2 speed super charger on the Wildcat's P&W engine would eventually make it a winner. It had its own landing gear issues but, in general, with its larger wing area, it could accommodate the weight gain better than the Brewster. IMO...



Then let me make the correction;

Is the Brewster F2A Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2?

YES

See post 166


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

Greg, Check the title of this thread. I think somehow the wires got crossed. The one thread (this one) somehow flowed over into the other (the one you started which I believe is where you want us to go)...


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 10, 2012)

The F4F got a chance to redeem it's reputation by a lot of good work elsewhere. The Buffalo never got another chance from the US, heck, it couldn't have been our fault, it had to be the aircraft.
It doesn't matter that other users saw good qualities, in aircraft the US found wanting . If the US thought a aircraft was substandard, to most, that's the end of the story.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Then let me make the correction;
> 
> Is the Brewster F2A Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2?
> 
> ...



 Thank you.... except of course, I wished you'd said F2A*-3* But some folks (like me) are never completely happy.


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 10, 2012)

Brewster Buffalo's greatest fault was Brewster...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2012)

GregP said:


> 1. Worst WWII fighter 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
> 2. Worst WWII fighter 1942 - 1943, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
> 3. Worst WWII fighter 1944 - 1945, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
> 4. Worst WWII light bomber 1940 - 1941, monoplane, accepted for service, and produced in a quantity of 100 or more.
> ...



AN interesting concept for a thread (or series of threads), however I would also like to know _WHY_ an aircraft was _*WORST?*_

1. Was it a really bad aircraft? bad flying characteristics, parts fell off in flight, failed to meet performance specifications by a large margin?

2. Plane was obsolete when it went into combat? Good aircraft in it's day was used 3-6 years after it was designed with minimal upgrading against up to date opponents? 

3. Aircraft saw combat in a role it was never intended for? Some aircraft did well in combat roles they weren't design for, others didn't do so well and were only used due to a total lack of newer airframes. 

Take the TBD Devastator, Design started in 1934. Production started in 1937, it was the first monoplane to operate off US Navy carriers. There was also _never_ a follow up model built and the originals soldiered (sailored?) on into 1942 with fairly predictable results. What would be the reputation of the Dauntless if the US Navy had used several hundred of the Northrop BT dive bombers in the first 6 months of WW II, a newer plane than the Devastator? The Vought SB2U Vindicator first flew about 9 months later than the Devastator. In a way the Devastator was the worst monoplane carrier torpedo bomber, it was also the oldest and with the introduction of the Nakajima B5N2 it was the lowest powered. Not a lot going for it. 

Or the Fairey Battle. Designed as a _long range, light strategic bomber_ in case if an international treaty banning heavy bombers, it was never used in it's intended role. Probably a good thing as defensive fighters had advanced a lot since it's first flight in March 1936. It was a good sturdy plane with few, if any vices to catch the pilot unaware. It's only real competition was the Vickers Wellesley and the Mitsubishi Ki-30 and Nakajima Ki-32. 
It was built in too large a numbers and used in France for a role it was never intended for. Couple that with a lack of tactical cooperation that meant it was unescorted for most of it's missions and once again, the results should have been predictable. Unfortunately the British only had two other choices for those missions, The Lysander and the Blenheim. 
One could say the Battle was one of the _worst_ light bombers or one could say it was obsolete when called to action, misapplied, and sent into combat without support. 
In 1940 what other single engine bomber without fighter escort would have done much better?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Thank you.... except of course, I wished you'd said F2A*-3* But some folks (like me) are never completely happy.




The F2A-4 (with the 14 cylinder Cyclone) would have a been a top contender for _worst_ fighter to _never_ have fought in WW II


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Or the Fairey Battle. Designed as a _long range, light strategic bomber_ in case if an international treaty banning heavy bombers, it was never used in it's intended role. Probably a good thing as defensive fighters had advanced a lot since it's first flight in March 1936. It was a good sturdy plane with few, if any vices to catch the pilot unaware. It's only real competition was the Vickers Wellesley and the Mitsubishi Ki-30 and Nakajima Ki-32.
> It was built in too large a numbers and used in France for a role it was never intended for. Couple that with a lack of tactical cooperation that meant it was unescorted for most of it's missions and once again, the results should have been predictable. Unfortunately the British only had two other choices for those missions, The Lysander and the Blenheim.
> One could say the Battle was one of the _worst_ light bombers or one could say it was obsolete when called to action, misapplied, and sent into combat without support.
> In 1940 what other single engine bomber without fighter escort would have done much better?



Even the Battle had something going for it to make its existence at the start of WW2 worthwhile. As the basis of the Fairy Fulmar figher, it provided a ready frame work for redesign to something never intended. While the Fulmar might be considered the worst naval fighter of WW2 (Strictly in terms of performance, I'd rate even the F2A-3 [not the B-339] ahead of it.) Yet it ably filled a gap (which I believe to some extent may have been more percieved than real) for a time. I have heard little bad from pilots about its handling and it provided the FAA with a few moments of real glory. As a naval fighter it apparently had signiticant virtues to recommend it.


----------



## baclightning (Jul 10, 2012)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Even the Battle had something going for it to make its existence at the start of WW2 worthwhile. As the basis of the Fairy Fulmar figher, it provided a ready frame work for redesign to something never intended. While the Fulmar might be considered the worst naval fighter of WW2 (Strictly in terms of performance, I'd rate even the F2A-3 [not the B-339] ahead of it.) Yet it ably filled a gap (which I believe to some extent may have been more percieved than real) for a time. I have heard little bad from pilots about its handling and it provided the FAA with a few moments of real glory. As a naval fighter it apparently had signiticant virtues to recommend it.



Believe it or not, the Fulmar had the most kills of any FAA fighter in WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jul 10, 2012)

> I refuse to defend the list any further. So, let's PLEASE get past the Buffalo and on to other "Worst Of" nominees.



You're thinking of the other thread, Greg.


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/worst-piston-monoplane-fighter-wwii-33175.html


----------



## Trilisser (Jul 10, 2012)

I believe good ditching characteristics are good for a carrier fighter and AFAIK Fulmar emulated a submarine...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 10, 2012)

Trilisser said:


> I believe good ditching characteristics are good for a carrier fighter and AFAIK Fulmar emulated a submarine...


 LMAO


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 10, 2012)

> In 1940 what other single engine bomber without fighter escort would have done much better?



The big problem with the Battle was that the requirement was at fault; a single engine day bomber flying at medium altitude straight and level over a target in broad daylight was asking for trouble. the day bomber requirement was like other British pre war ideas that in reality of combat proved to be non-starters, such as the bomber transport and turret fighter.

Marcel Lobelle's Battle was actually a well built, beautifully designed machine that was very advanced when it was first conceived, which led to large off-the-drawing-board orders. It was apparently pleasant to fly as well, being stable and responsive. So, in reality it fulfilled the requirement excellently.

It took a while before the RAF accepted the ground attack role, even preferring to call it "Army Co-operation".

Anyhoo there's a new thread to duscuss such things as the worst piston engined bomber of the war, now...


----------



## GregP (Jul 10, 2012)

Hi Oldcrow! You are right and teh Buiffalo is in the thread title. 

The thread was expanded around page 9 or so, but that is hard for anyone to actually FIND ... so ... OK, I give and will either start another thread for more "Worst Of" candidates ... or else simply let it die a natural death. I haven't decided, but will likely just let it go.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 10, 2012)

Greg, one of the best debates on this forum in a long time!


----------



## JoeB (Jul 11, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Some further commentary:
> 
> 2. The F4F-3s of VMF-221 didn't have armour plate or self-sealing tanks so one would expect them to have better performance than an aircraft fitted with those additional items (as noted in comparisons between the -3 and -4).
> 
> ...


2. Source? F4F-3's were retrofitted with seat armor and tank liners shortly after the war began. AFAIK the only F4F's to enter fighter combat without armor or tank liners were VMF-211's at Wake in their one combat with Zeroes; some USN F4F-3's in the combats with Type 96's in Feb 1942 carrier raids had homemade armor but not tank liners. If generic sources say that -3's in June 1942 lacked these features, they are probably just carelessly assuming it.

4. None of the pilots had previous combat experience. If the ones with more flying experience flew F4F's that's partly a circular argument, it would have been because 221 thought the F4F superior.

5. As always when this dubious gambit is used, such an argument is plausible in case of interceptors achieving say 1:2 ratio's v escorts (Spits v Bf109's over Malta, etc). It's not plausible when the result is totally one sided in fighter-fighter combat. And the actual results show VMF-221 didn't shoot down many strike a/c (see above 5 or 6 strike a/c, causes can't be determined v AA) and the RAF/Dutch Buffalo's didn't shoot down not a lot more total Japanese bombers over many weeks of action than the JNAF's total losses over Midway. If interceptors can't contend with escorts on a *reasonably* even basis, they won't achieve other goals, and Midway and early SEA campaigns show this clearly.

6. Again, same point debated year after year. Yes, *but* when stated that way it tends to imply that tactics is some easy thing to fix. Hurricanes had 1:4-5 ratio v Type 1's in 1942 *and* 1943. Not some easy switch to flip for them apparently, and no one is assuming the unit leaders in those cases were derelict in their duty. The enemy was capable, including his a/c despite their weaknesses, and the Allied models used perhaps not as good as their fans like to believe.

Likewise as we've covered ad nauseum the USMC over G'canal did not use any preplanned anti-Zero tactics. Thach Weave was only used in 1942 in combat by VF-3 at Midway and VF-10 in the G'canal campaign. The F4F units at G'canal did have the opportunity to learn from mistakes, of course the *whole* difference wasn't that F2A sucked and F4F didn't. 

7. And this gets back to the confused tendency to speak of a/c capability as if only aerodynamic performance mattered. For example the 'pin cushion tactic' of F4F's at G'canal (just let a Zero on you tail fire into your armor and try to run, don't turn and give him a deflection shot at the cockpit) didn't work with an unarmored a/c. So F4F-3's lacking armor would not have been more capable, but less capable for *combat*. Same confusion with attributing the AVG's success to 'superior' P-40B's v 'inferior' P-40E's (though actually AVG and FEAF both flew a mixture of those types). Yes P-40E weight was used as an 'explanation' for poor results by FEAF after the fact, and also the new a/c had mechanical bugs the B's didn't (gun chargers) and the pilots were less familiar with them. But in general the idea that P-40E was a strictly inferior combat a/c to the B, ignoring its greatly superior firepower when the guns worked properly, is highly dubious. 

And we, I anyway am, defining best/worst as *combat effectivness* of fighters. That's not to say it's easy to discern this independently of totally non-plane factors, but if we start mixing up pure aerodynamics or flying fun with combat effectivenes, it gets hopelessly confused IMO.

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 11, 2012)

Joe, 

If the F4Fs at Midway were fitted with self-sealing fuel tanks then the pilots should have returned them to the manufacturer and asked for their money back. From the combat report of 2Lt Corry (who flew an F4F during the battle), "By this time my tanks were all leaking badly and the fighters were shooting my plane up very effectively." 

Just for fun here are some other less well-known quotes from combat reports from Midway:

Canfield, also flying an F4F reported his undercarriage collapse upon landing. 

Armistead reported a 20mm shell in the starboard wing fuel tank of his F2A-3

Irwin, also in an F2A-3, wrote "My plane has several cannon holes in it, although my right wing tank which was struck by cannon fire did not burn, but was hot enough to scorch and blister paint on the wing and aileron." 

We can all cherry-pick sources to paint a different picture... 

I agree measuring combat effectiveness is hard - there are just too many variables for sweeping generalizations to be made. I do agree, however, that the F4F in concert with the pilots who flew it and the operational conditions under which it faced combat, did remarkably well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2012)

I would note that there are "bullet proof" tanks which are a far cry from "shell proof" tanks. 

It also took a few minutes for the self sealing material to work in order to plug the "bullet" holes.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 11, 2012)

> Armistead reported a 20mm shell in the starboard wing fuel tank of his F2A-3



Sounds like it was 'sealed' nonetheless!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2012)

Folks - a few points...

Self sealing tanks aren't bulletproof. They aren't leak proof either. They are designed to swell around punctures and *minimize* leakage. If you absorb an excessive amount of damage, you will see excessive leakage.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2012)

As FlyboyJ says, They minimize leakage and most were designed to protect against rifle caliber holes. 7-8mm in diameter, meaning the sealing compound/effect only had to move in 3.5-4mm from the edge of the hole. Slant hits with oval holes/tears presented problems as did 12.7-13mm hits let alone 20mm hits. The big bullets could also generate enough force (depending on how full the tank was and the size of the tank) to split seams. Things may have gotten better for some air forces as the war went on (1944 tank/cell being better than a 1941/42 tank/cell?) but things are relative and later war aircraft had the heavier guns. 

Of course in the early part of the war some "self sealing' tanks weren't even without combat damage, See the P-43


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 12, 2012)

JoeB said:


> 7. And this gets back to the confused tendency to speak of a/c capability as if only aerodynamic performance mattered. For example the 'pin cushion tactic' of F4F's at G'canal (just let a Zero on you tail fire into your armor and try to run, don't turn and give him a deflection shot at the cockpit) didn't work with an unarmored a/c. So F4F-3's lacking armor would not have been more capable, but less capable for *combat*. *Same confusion with attributing the AVG's success to 'superior' P-40B's v 'inferior' P-40E's (though actually AVG and FEAF both flew a mixture of those types). Yes P-40E weight was used as an 'explanation' for poor results by FEAF after the fact, and also the new a/c had mechanical bugs the B's didn't (gun chargers) and the pilots were less familiar with them. But in general the idea that P-40E was a strictly inferior combat a/c to the B, ignoring its greatly superior firepower when the guns worked properly, is highly dubious. *
> 
> Joe



The P-40B (early in WW2) with lighter armament and a lower powered engine had a higher ceiling than the P-40E. The AVG evidently flew only P-40B's during their salad days until March 23rd before they started to incorporate a few P-40E replacements. From that point on they presumably flew a mix with the P-40Es becoming a progressively greater portion until the AVG was disbanded in early July 1942. You could be correct that fighting the IJA in Burma and China, any P-40 might have done well and the E might not have been at any serious disadvantage. Although my source is suspect, it seems as though IJ aircraft flew higher against the PI's FEAF and against Java. Were these IJ aircraft predominantly Navy? The FEAF P-40E's seem to have been unable to successfully intercept high altitude IJ aircraft (above about 27,000 feet during the campaign (the B's were largely eliminated on the first day) and at Java many opportunities appear to have been lost due to the P-40Es inability to reach the 27,000 + foot altitude regime where the bombers and their escorts were flyng according to Bartsch. In April, it appears the USAAF P-40E's defending Darwin began to use tactics to achieve some success in intercepting IJ raids. 

WRT to the 6 gun's greatly superior firepower, I agree that the P-40B was at a relative disadvantage (compared to an aircraft that could confront an enemy A/C at or above its altude with 6 working HMGs) but it seems to me that 4 x 50's (as in the P-40C and D) would have been adaquate and a better option. Deleting 2 50s and their associated ammo should have lightened the P-40E by ~280 pounds. Trading some of that weight savings with an increased ammo load might have been desirable as 200 rpg seems a very short firing time at least compared to the USN which argued strongly against the F4F-4 with a reduction from 450 rpg in the -3 to just 240 when the two additional 50's were added. The USN returned to the 4 gun configuration with the FM-1 as did the army with the P-40L in January of 43 until engines with higher power became available. even with the FM-2 the USN stayed with the 4 gun configuration even the F8F had a 4 gun installation so 4 guns were judged to be sufficient. IIUC, that was the opinion of USN Pilots in 1942. By comparison the ammo load of the F2A-3 was 325 rpg.

I think there also would have been a maintenance, logistic and supply benefit to the 4 vs the 6 gun rig. Fewer guns may translate to faster A/C maintenance, and rearming and easing the ammunition logistical demands of each aircraft by a third. IMHO, the 6 gun installation on the P-40E and F4F-4 early in the war was a big mistake that cost lves and perhaps more. JMO


----------



## Oreo (Jul 14, 2012)

Well, we have several different discussions going on here. Some of it has to do with an F2A-4, which never saw service, and some of it has to do with the F2A versions that did see service, and whether or not they were worthy aircraft. Well. I would never say the F2A was better than the F4F overall, or equal, but I think it was within 90% of being equal. That puts it squarely within the zone where pilot skill and a myriad of other factors can make all the difference. Many of the Japanese pilots of the time were highly experienced combat veterans who had been blowing Chinese aircraft out of the sky for years. The Japanese system had learned how to conduct war, and was comfortable with its way of conducting combat. The allied forces in the early days of the war, on the other hand, were surprised out of their wits, so to speak, by the audacious Japanese blitzkrieg of the Pacific world, and many of these men had not seen combat before. The US and NEEIF had seen little to no combat. Many of the Commonwealth men had seen no combat, also. Whether armed with F2A's, F4F's, P-36, P-40, or Hurricanes, everybody saw a hammering. There were brief moments of hope, and some outfits, such as the AVG, did better than others. It may have been partly to do with the aircraft they flew, and partly to do with leadership, experience, opposition, intelligence, organization, timing, climate, support structure, morale, and so on. The Finns probably would have trounced the Russians even if they had flown the castoff aircraft from every nation of the World. Oh. That's right. They did.


----------



## Francis marliere (Jul 16, 2012)

Gentlemen,

I don't understand what does make the F2A-3 Buffalo so bad for a 1942 fighter. I am not a Buffalo fan and I don't contest your comments, but I would like to understand why do you rate the Buffalo so poorly and the Wildcat so high, while they seem to have, on the paper the same characteristics : both have the same level speed (about 320 mph), wing loading (+/- 31 lb/sq;ft) and power loading (about 7.3 lbs/bhp) ; yet the Buffalo has, as far as I know, better climb rate (2760 fpm at SL vs less than 2500 for F4F-4) but the Wildcat has better firepower and armor. 
So why is the Buffalo so bad and the Wildcat so good ?

Thanks for your clarifications,

Francis Marliere


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 16, 2012)

Francis, the answer to your question can be found on reading through the discussion going on in this thread. Mind you, if you can't really deal with trawling through the pages, just take a look online. Mere statistics don't really tell you anything, I'm afraid. You have to look deeper than comparing figures.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 16, 2012)

Francis marliere said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I don't understand what does make the F2A-3 Buffalo so bad for a 1942 fighter. I am not a Buffalo fan and I don't contest your comments, but I would like to understand why do you rate the Buffalo so poorly and the Wildcat so high, while they seem to have, on the paper the same characteristics : both have the same level speed (about 320 mph), wing loading (+/- 31 lb/sq;ft) and power loading (about 7.3 lbs/bhp) ; yet the Buffalo has, as far as I know, better climb rate (2760 fpm at SL vs less than 2500 for F4F-4) but the Wildcat has better firepower and armor.
> So why is the Buffalo so bad and the Wildcat so good ?
> ...



I"ll check my numbers but I don't believ they will agree with those you've quoted above. That's not to say the numbers I am thinking are all that different. But, in general, I believe the edge is more favoriable to the F4F. The most critical consideration, as I have been saying, is which model are we talking about? Are you comparing the F2A-3 with the more lack luster but later F4F-4? Or are you comparing it with the more sprightly contemporary F4F-3? Of course the big difference between the two (other than the manufacturer's competence) was the P&W 2 stage supercharger in the F4F and the Wright's single stage SC. Wing loading for the F4F-3 was a litttle less than 29 #/sq. ft. (~7,500 # and a 260 sq ft wing) That of the F4F-4 more like 30.8 #/sq ft. (~8,000# and the same wing area) The F2A-3 (~7,200 # for a 209 sq ft wing) a wing loading of 34.4 #/sq ft. That parameter shows a pretty distinct advantage to the F4F even ignoring the much better high altitude performance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2012)

Part of the problem with comparing just a few numbers is that they give a "snapshot" of the performance instead of an album or movie. Many planes performance changed with altitude and some got better and some got worse. Another point of confusion is that max speeds are often not quoted at the same altitude. The F4F-4 had a two stage supercharger and it's performance did not fall off as bad at higher altitudes for one thing.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 16, 2012)

I agree Shortround: Another part of the problem is reputation; the Buffalo has a bit of a bad rap - some of it deserved, some of it not and unfortunately for it, some of its bad reputation is based on its performance over Singapore, which it couldn't actually do anything to change the outcome, which is the gist of this thread, but then again, the Finns made something of it. 

One of the big problems of making comparisons between performance figures is that comparisons don't really count for much in real world conditions. Take the Fairey Swordfish for example - an aircraft getting a huge amount of words being hurled around about it in another thread as we speak. Here was an aeroplane that had worse performance figures than the machine (the Blackburn Shark) that it supplemented and eventually replaced in FAA service. It then went on to serve longer than its intended replacement (the Fairey Albacore) from the same company that built it, aaaand it was very much obsolete at the outbreak of war and yet it has an enviable combat record. On paper, both the Shark and Albacore had better performance and offered a superior product in so many ways, but the Swordfish emerged from the war as one of the great combat aircraft in history.

Other examples include the SBD Dauntless and Ju 87 Stuka, both slow, cumbersome dive bombers that when subject to the attentions of enemy fighters got shot down in droves, but both are in the annals of history because of their war record and their staying power in the hands of the services that employed them. Also the Il-2M3 Sturmovik and the Fairey Battle, both had very close performance figures, yet the Battle flew the kind of operations that earned its crews posthumous Victoria Crosses and has a poor reputation as a result, the Sturmovik was the most mass produced aircraft in history and emerged from the war - despite high losses at the hands of enemy fighters as - like the Swordfish, one of the greats.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 16, 2012)

SR, Been looking at the tables and charts for the P-40 F L and E (from tech section of the website) and the frustrating thing is that the gross weights quoted seem to be more alligned with generic combat loads than for the specific interceptor mission. For example, If I compare the GWs for the -L in the table and those in AHT, it seems OK. (8,486# (AHT vs 8,500#): so far so good assuming I add a drop 366# tank. (I don't know. but would be surprised to learn that F4F-4s flying interceptor missions out of Cactus in he Fall of 1942 used drop tanks, unless their early warning net gave them really advanced warning) On the other hand, the table purported to be applicable to the -F shows gross weights of 7,500, 8500, and 9,300# If I take the AHT clean GW of 8,678# and add a 366# tank it is well above the 8,500# and well below the 9,300# line. Are these meant to use as simple guides for interpolation? were performance nomographs ever published for any of these aircraft? In short, its difficult to estimate the performance of the P-40D-type A/C that might have provided a more effective interceptor early in WW2. Just how much climb and ceiling improvement can one expect for a 4-gun, allison powered ship with ~230 rpg?

Did I just post in the wrong thread?  I know SR posted those reference manual and chart somewhere. Now if I can only find where we were posting


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 16, 2012)

> SR, Been looking at the tables and charts for the P-40 F L and E (from tech section of the website) and the frustrating thing is that the gross weights quoted seem to be more alligned with generic combat loads than for the specific interceptor mission. For example, If I compare the GWs for the -L in the table and those in AHT, it seems OK. (8,486# (AHT vs 8,500#): so far so good assuming I add a drop 366# tank. (I don't know. but would be surprised to learn that F4F-4s flying interceptor missions out of Cactus in he Fall of 1942 used drop tanks, unless their early warning net gave them really advanced warning) On the other hand, the table purported to be applicable to the -F shows gross weights of 7,500, 8500, and 9,300# If I take the AHT clean GW of 8,678# and add a 366# tanks it is well above the 8,500# and well below the 9,300# line. Are these meant to use as simple guides for interpolation? were performance nomographs ever published for any of these aircraft? IN short its difficult to estimate the performance of the P-40D-type A/C that might have provided a more effective interceptor early in WW2. Just how much climb and ceiling improvement can one expect for a 4-gun, allison powered ship with ~230 rpg?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 16, 2012)

Nuuu, Not so much a _microwave moment_ as a _senior moment_.


----------



## Francis marliere (Jul 20, 2012)

Gentlemen,

sorry for not answering earlier and thank you for answering me. 
I understand that statistics don't tell all about a plane. It's the reason why I asked my question : the F2A-3 and F4F-3/4 were very close 'on paper' but apparently not on the air. Did the Wildcat have better altitude performance, roll rate or dive acceleration ? Or is there something else that makes the Buffalo so bad ? 

Best regards,

Francis


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2012)

Nuuuuman, your statement that the SBD was slow and cumbersome and shot down in droves by EA is not entirely accurate. The SBD was pretty well armed and also pretty survivable. It also was a good maneuvering AC. It was used in the early going in the PTO as an anti VT CAP. At Midway, the IJN fighter escort of the first strike against the US CVs encountered some SBDs withdrawing from the strike where three IJN CVs were sunk by SBDs. The Zekes pounced on these SBDs, lost two of their own and shot down no SBDs. Reminds me of Churchill, " England will have her neck wrung like a chicken, some chicken, some neck!" SBDs could be quite dangerous to attack. They were better armed than some Japanese fighters and those twin 30s in the aft cockpit hindered the above astern attack the IJN favored.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 21, 2012)

Francis marliere said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> sorry for not answering earlier and thank you for answering me.
> I understand that statistics don't tell all about a plane. It's the reason why I asked my question : the F2A-3 and F4F-3/4 were very close 'on paper' but apparently not on the air. Did the Wildcat have better altitude performance, roll rate or dive acceleration ? Or is there something else that makes the Buffalo so bad ?
> ...



Francis, I think this has been answered elsewhere but I'll try and do a quick recap. The two-stage superchargers on the P&W engine gave the heavier F4F a consdierable altitude performance advantage over the F2A with its Wright engine possessing a only a one-stage supercharger. Also, the F2A-3 had a problematically weak landing gear that proved a maintenance headache and frequent instances of landing gear failure. The F4F's gear was also not as robust as might be desired, but came with years of engineering development and flight history, so was not quite as fragile and prone to failure and could accomodate weight growth better than the F2A's gear. Aside from these attributes, the corporate culture of Grumman was far more condusive to continued US Navy business while that of the Brewster corporation was a disaster. The company was effectively federalized and ceased to provide anything more than an assembly line for what the Navy wanted rather than production of Brewster products.


----------



## Rogi (Jul 21, 2012)

What was the kill to loss ratio for Finish Pilots? 36:1, or 26:1 something like that (if anyone knows the exact number I'd be greatful)? hmm, hardly consider that "bad" 

If I was to be so bold to elect a "worst fighter" that served in combat from the US and not counting Bi Plane Fighters, I'd have to say, as much as I love the aircraft, the CW-21, bad construction, overwhelmed by the Japanese, kinda sounds like a similar fate to the buff, all the good points of the aircraft were drowned by the opposing forces. The Japenses forces captured the remaining CWs and used them in their test instirtiute I can't recal if they used the fighter in combat (like they had the P-40) but it would be interesting to find out.

There are a couple other fighters that "crashed and burned" but the CW remains as my top fighter that "could of been" had effort been put into pilot training and poper construction of the airframe.


----------



## Francis marliere (Jul 23, 2012)

oldcrowcv63, thanks for your answer. 
If I understand correctly, the main advantage of the Wildcat over the Buffalo is not in performances (they are relatively close, except at high altitude) but in 'logistics' : The F4F-3/4 was a robust planes that could be built in large quantities while the F2A-3 was a fragile one that could be available in limited numbers only.

Best,

Francis


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 24, 2012)

Francis marliere said:


> oldcrowcv63, thanks for your answer.
> If I understand correctly, the main advantage of the Wildcat over the Buffalo is not in performances (they are relatively close, except at high altitude) but in 'logistics' : The F4F-3/4 was a robust planes that could be built in large quantities while the F2A-3 was a fragile one that could be available in limited numbers only.
> 
> Best,
> ...



I think that's a pretty good summary. But I'd make the F2A-3's lack of high altitude performance pretty important roughly on a par with its very serious structural and logistics related failings. I can't tell you how different history would have been if Brewster had been a better company (in every sense) and the Navy had equiped with F2A's instead of F4Fs, but I believe it would have been a very different war. Renrich has suggested the F4F was perhaps the mosy underrated fighter of WW2 and I think he is correct. Just think, when European skies were becoming filled with P-38s, 47s and even (I think) a few 51's, and even PTO skies were seeing an increase in F4U's., Rich Leonard's dad and the F4Fs of VF-11 were performing yeoman service in the skies over Guadacanal and the slot. Yes the USN pilot's were good, but I also believe they had some serious faith in their somewhat dated mounts. I just can't see F2A-3's filling that role successfully. In fact I have to wonder whether Guadacanal could have been held with the F2A-3 as the primary USN/USMC fghter, even if their had been enough of them and their gear had miraculously not chronically collapsed.


----------



## Lefa (Jan 9, 2014)

Old topic, but....

The Finnish version was much lighter than the F2A3

Specifications FA2-1( Model 239) 
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 26 ft (7,9 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10,67 m)
Height: 11 ft 11 in (3,63 m)
Wing area: 209 sq ft (19,4 m²)
Empty weight: 3,785 lbs (1 717 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 5,045 lbs (2 286 kg)
Wing load: 24,1lbs/sq ft ( 117,8kg/sq m) (Max weight)
Powerplant: Wright_R-1820-G5 Cyclone (700 kW / 940 hv)

Performance
Maximum speed: 271 mph (436 km/h) at sea level
301 mph (484 km/h) at 17,000 ft (5,180 m) 
Range: 1000 mi (1 600 km)
Service ceiling: 33 150 ft (10 100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,060 ft/min (15.5m/s ) (another source 12,5m/s)

Guns:
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns



The British and the Dutch version F2A2

Specifications F2A-2 (Model 339) 
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 25 ft 7 in (7.80 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 12 ft 0 in (3.66 m)
Wing area: 209 sq ft (19.4 m2)
Empty weight: 4,576 lbs (2,075.64 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 5,942 lbs (2,695 kg)
Wing load: 28,4 lbs/sq ft ( 138,9 kg/sq m) (Max weight)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820-40 Cyclone 9 9-cyl air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,100 hp (820 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 285 mph (458 km/h) at sea level
323 mph (519 km/h) at 16,500 ft (5,030 m) 
Range: 1,015 mi (1,633 km) 
Service ceiling: 34,000 ft (10,363 m) 
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (12.7 m/s) 

Guns:
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns (English version 2x 0,303in (7,7mm)
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns


U.S. Navy version F2A3
Specifications F2A-3
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
Wingspan: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 12 ft 0 in (3.66 m)
Wing area: 209 sq ft (19.4 m2)
Empty weight: 4,732 lb (2,146 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 7,159 lb (3,247 kg)
Wing load: 34,25 lbs/sq ft ( 167,4 kg/sq m) (Max weight)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820-40 Cyclone 9 9-cyl air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (890 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 284 mph (457 km/h) at sea level
321 mph (516 km/h) at 16,500 ft (5,030 m) 
Cruise speed: 161 mph (140 kn; 259 km/h)
Range: 965 mi ( 1,553 km)
Service ceiling: 33,200 ft (10,120 m)
Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min (12.4 m/s)

Guns:
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) nose-mounted M2 Browning machine guns
2 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) wing-mounted M2 Browning machine guns

.... attempt to improve performance led to disaster. Fighter became heavy and clumsy. Empty weight increased by more than 400 kilos, and loaded weight gain of more than 960 kilos, a slight increase the speed.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 9, 2014)

Would the P&W R1830 have been a better power-plant choice?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2014)

Depends on how much redesign you want to do.












The R-1830 was a bit longer and and bit heavier than the R-1820 _without_ the two stage supercharger. The F2A was about 2 feet shorter than than a Wildcat with a Cyclone and about 2 1/2 ft shorter than than one with an R-1830. Granted some of that was behind the wing and not in the engine bay but it did give room/distance for balance. 

R-1830 without two stage supercharger wasn't much different than the Cyclone.


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 9, 2014)

Lefa said:


> The British and the Dutch version F2A2
> 
> Specifications F2A-2 (Model 339)
> General characteristics
> ...


BUFFALO I AS430 
Engine:R-182OG10SA 
Weight: 6,430lb time to 20,000ft 10.5min
max climb rate: 2,240ft/min up to 8,200ft
service ceiling: 31,800ft 
max speed: 294mph at 18,700 ft.

flight test data from Boscombe Down (Secret Years, p.304)


----------



## Aozora (Jan 9, 2014)

From the Buffalo I Pilot's Notes AP 1806A (Wright G.R 1820G.105A Engine):






Note the comments about instability in some flight conditions

Has anyone got a set of Martlet Pilot's Notes? I have them for the Martlet VI or FM-2, which had different characteristics and performance cf earlier versions. 

Also the performance stats for the F4F-3 (land) and F4F-4

View attachment Grumman F4F-3 Performance August 1942.pdf


View attachment Grumman F4F-4 Performance July 1943.pdf


----------



## Lefa (Jan 9, 2014)

When I search differences between types of aircraft, the 339 version information is hard to find.
Each source gave slightly different information, and the type equipped with at least three different engine type, between 1000-1200 hp

BW 239 was at first equipped with three 0.50" machine guns and one 0.30", but the Finns replace the fourth 0.30 to 0.50 "machine-gun.

I'm sorry for my bad english


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 9, 2014)

Aozora said:


> Note the comments about instability in some flight conditions



Spitfire PR variants and the P-51 both had major instability issues at some flight conditions and loading levels. Several WWII aircraft had load issues during certain phases of flight that impacted stability. Just sayin'...


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 9, 2014)

Aozora said:


> Also the performance stats for the F4F-3 (land) and F4F-4
> 
> View attachment 251800
> 
> ...



to quote myself:


> I found this performance data for the Martlet IV which is basically the F4F-4B:
> View attachment 231438
> 
> View attachment 231439
> ...




The "official" USN stats in the SAC data, given above, are far removed from the performance that pilots were reporting, and UK trials were revealing. Again compare the Buffalo I Boscombe Down data:



> BUFFALO I AS430
> Engine:R-182OG10SA
> Weight: 6,430lb
> time to 20,000ft 10.5min
> ...



with the Martlet IV data, above. It's no wonder that the USMC reports from the Midway disaster drew no distinction between the F4F-3 and the F2A-3.

The Martlet II data was very similar:



> Martlet II AM991
> Engine:R-182OS3C4-G
> Weight: 7790lb
> time to 20,000ft 12.5min
> ...


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 9, 2014)

Comparison's of flight performance characteristics independent of assigned mission might be a bit misleading. I think in this case the suggestion that the F4F-4 was slightly superior to the F4F-4B above 15k' is just so. Over Guadalcanal, the time to reach and perform at ~30k' was critical, and while the -4 wasn't setting records in reaching or performing at such heights, with the help of the Commonwealth's coast watcher network and RADAR direction, the -4 had the necessary capability. I doubt the -4B would have been a viable replacement for the -4. In terms of mission application a 'slight' advantage was probably the difference between winning and losing the aerial battle.

In a similar vein, regarding the Buffalo, the much maligned export Brewster was, in Dutch service, as an interceptor apparently considered superior to the P-40E, at least in its ability to reach high flying Japanese bombers and their escorts. To quote Bartsch "_Every Day…"_ page 302, one P-40 pilot (Paul Gambonini?) evidently told Bartsch: 
"_Nearing the target area, he spotted 6 Betty and 12 Zeroes above him, but only the (4 Dutch) Brewsters could reach [and engage] them_." He goes on to report that the enemy aircraft were too high for the worn out P-40s to engage. I expect the difference was not the relative repair condition of either the allied fighter type so much as the performance edge provided by the two speed supercharged radial engine over the P-40E's single stage, one speed SC. I wouldn't class any export buff as superior to any contemporary model of the P-40, although perhaps in at least some respects, the Finn B-239 comes closest. It apparently took the measure of some export Curtiss P-40s. So seems like further evidence that the trinity: pilot skill, specific mission application and altitude regime goes a long way to make a fighter aircraft's reputation. 

Finally it may be worth reminder that the title of this (my) thread: 

Discuss Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2? in the World War II was the result of multiple typos. It was supposed to read:

Discuss Brewster *F2A-4 *Buffalo, the worst US fighter that *NEVER* fought in WW2. 

There was never more than a proposal for an aircraft called the F2A-4 and barely that.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 9, 2014)

buffnut453 said:


> Spitfire PR variants and the P-51 both had major instability issues at some flight conditions and loading levels. Several WWII aircraft had load issues during certain phases of flight that impacted stability. Just sayin'...



Adding hundreds of pounds of fuel in overload/long range tank/s is a bit different than having stability problems after firing off _part_ of the ammo load. Just sayin'... 

Although to be fair, the P-39 also had problems with the nose ammo gone


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 10, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> Adding hundreds of pounds of fuel in overload/long range tank/s is a bit different than having stability problems after firing off _part_ of the ammo load. Just sayin'...



Good riposte, SR6! 

I suspect the manual is slightly misleading. Given the positioning of the paragraphs, I believe the warning actually pertained to ammo expenditure when the fuel tanks, which were also located in the wings, were full. The ammo bins and feeds for the wing guns are all in line with the fuel tanks, the latter being formed by the main wing spar "box". I don't see expending only nose gun ammo impacting the CofG much if the fuel tanks aren't full - if it did then, logically, an aircraft with full fuel tanks would be unstable with no ammo in any of the gun bays (nose or wing).


----------



## GregP (Jan 11, 2014)

All of which is a REALLY good reason to have belly-mounted weapons near the CG.

I bet the top and belly guns on the P-61 had very litle effect on CG or stability.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 11, 2014)

The P-26 fought briefly in the P.I. I would give the Buffalo an edge over the P-26.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2014)

One consideration regarding the F2A in U.S. service at the start of the war:
The pilots flying them were not combat experienced in the type, so did not know the limitations or capabilities of the Buffalo. Add to that the limited knowledge of the Japanese aircraft they were facing at the time, knowledge of which, was learned along the way and exploited later on.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 11, 2014)

We might also consider their opponents. In 'Shattered sword', there is a passage where the authors note the strict class divide between officers aviators, and NCO aviators. The later considered that as an impetus to train to be better pilots than officers, and, for the most of the times, they succeeded. Authors say that the NCOs 'wore their Zeroes like second skin'.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 11, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> We might also consider their opponents. In 'Shattered sword', there is a passage where the authors note the strict class divide between officers aviators, and NCO aviators. _T*he later considered that as an impetus to train to be better pilots than officers*_, and, for the most of the times, they succeeded. Authors say that the NCOs 'wore their Zeroes like second skin'.



Interesting observation TP, I think it can be argued to be true across nationalities and across aircrew specialty. The USN USMC enlisted pilot program were quite succesful at producing very competent pilots. In general, I have found NCO aircrewman to be _top drawer_ in whatever role they were assigned. In the rare modern cases where NCO aircrew performed the same job as flight officers, the NCO's typically set the standard of excellence.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 11, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> One consideration regarding the F2A in U.S. service at the start of the war:
> The pilots flying them were not combat experienced in the type, so did not know the limitations or capabilities of the Buffalo. Add to that the limited knowledge of the Japanese aircraft they were facing at the time, knowledge of which, was learned along the way and exploited later on.



My impression from first person accounts is that (particularly?) american pilots, with a few notable exceptions had been sold a pre-war bill of goods by their leadership, reinforced by their culture. They were told their equipment was the equal or superior to that fielded by any other nation. Many entered combat for the first time with an unrealistic sense of what they were up against, how well they had been trained and how good was their equipment. Just my perhaps jaundiced view of history. God knows, (we) americans are not known for our hubris in the 21st century. Or is their such a thing as _*warranted hubris*_? let the blood letting begin.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 11, 2014)

Plus old WWI slow speed turning tactics.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> They were told their equipment was the equal or superior to that fielded by any other nation.


Can't think that too many militaries across the world will gather thier guys around and say "well guys, we're going to war and you'll be riding atop a pile of steaming sh!t, but good luck anyway!"

The prewar years in the U.S. saw a disturbing detatchment from reality in several respects and I honestly think that they felt that the performance of current several types would be adequete for the job. Instead of gathering serious intel on belligerants and adapting the current arsenal, they preferred to bicker about who got what funding for what contract and which arm of the service should have what peice of hardware and so on. Of course, that changed quickly on 7 December, but the damage was done and the U.S. had to play catch-up from that point onward.

But even an outclassed aircraft had a fighting chance in the hands of an experienced pilot with enough determination, case in point: Swede Vejtasa and his Dauntless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 11, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> But even an outclassed aircraft had a fighting chance in the hands of an experienced pilot with enough determination, case in point: Swede Vejtasa and his Dauntless.



And his F4F (7 kills in one day)!


----------



## Aozora (Jan 11, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> Can't think that too many militaries across the world will gather thier guys around and say "well guys, we're going to war and you'll be riding atop a pile of steaming sh!t, but good luck anyway!"
> 
> The prewar years in the U.S. saw a disturbing detatchment from reality in several respects and I honestly think that they felt that the performance of current several types would be adequete for the job. Instead of gathering serious intel on belligerants and adapting the current arsenal, they preferred to bicker about who got what funding for what contract and which arm of the service should have what peice of hardware and so on. Of course, that changed quickly on 7 December, but the damage was done and the U.S. had to play catch-up from that point onward.
> 
> But even an outclassed aircraft had a fighting chance in the hands of an experienced pilot with enough determination, case in point: Swede Vejtasa and his Dauntless.



Once the USN adopted teamwork and tactics devised by the likes of Cdr John Thach, the superior performance of the A6M over the F4F was negated











The Japanese pilots were highly experienced and aggressive, flying a superior fighter, but their formations and tactics were poorly thought out. The radios installed in the Zeros were all but useless, which meant that the formation leaders had no control over what happened in battle.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 9, 2018)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I found a BuAER document, dated January 25(?), 1941, that discusses an upgrade to the F2A-3 to make it more competitive. Upgrades to include:
> 1. wing modification to incorporate a full span NACA slotted flap and attached aileron slot lip ailerons.
> 2. installation of an *R-2600-12* engine to a fuselage lengthened by 18 inches. *wing to remain standard F2A*. However entire airframe to be stregnhened accordingly.
> 3. New F2A wing to be folding with accomodation of two .5 inch HMGs in each one.
> ...



Yes, this seems like a pipedream, though I suppose that's not inconsistent with some of Brewster's design projections and promotion. Best-case, they were heavily exaggerating how much it actually had in common with the F2A, was basically a new aircraft, and might have actually been better suited to Brewster's production facilities (and quirks) than the F3A Corsair production turned out to be. (even so it wouldn't have managed those performance specs and would've likely been plagued by the same problems other R-2600 platforms had with various corrosion issues, carburetor mismatches, etc)

I suppose it also would've been a better use of resources than the SB2A turned out to be, but that's not saying much either. (aside from hypothetically allocating a similar number of R-2600 engines)

Their efforts with the XA-32 weren't really encouraging either, though.


I'd say the only thing they'd really have been suited for was fixing the basic problems with the F2A, changing as little as possible to get something reliable and useful, being as conservative as possible, and working on licensing it out to offset in-house production difficulties. (albeit the latter probably should've been done with the F2A in the first place, rather than expanding internally ... the Navy had already used the Naval Aircraft Factory to supplement Brewster production with the SBN, and while I'm not sure the capacity there would've been suitable for F2A production, licensing the design to some other significant manufacturer might have been viable ... perhaps Curtiss would've been better suited to that than it turned out they were with P-47 production)

I could see a rationalized F2A filling the escort carrier fighter role similar to the F4F, but without folding wings it would have to rely on smaller natural footprint and perhaps adopt slightly shorter, squared-off wings. Beyond that, they needed to focus on reducing weight as much as possible, compromising with a more limited internal fuel capacity, and simplifying some of the components for more streamlined assembly. 

I recall the wing being both a pain to assemble in the factory and service in the field, so modifying that might have been the biggest change. Part of that would've been deleting the integral wing tanks, adding appropriate conventional internal structure to fill the structural duty, and reserve more space for newer, self-sealing fuel cells in the wings. (the F2A-3 added a limited amount of self-sealing tanks in the wing leading edge and in a fuselage extension, but beyond that had to rely on the unprotected main tanks, of 8- gallons each iirc, but one of which was normally capped and unused other than ferry flights or very long patrols)

They probably could've deleted the ventral window to simplify things and possibly save some weight, too (or improve structural integrity at similar weight). Deleting that window might also have facilitated some of the wing redesign. (ie not needing to have any significant view below the pilot's feet opens up a lot more engineering flexibility) I'm not totally sure why they included it in the first place, but it seems like the US Navy was interested in visibility below the aircraft as the F2A-3 also featured ventral view ports, albeit much smaller ones than the F2A sported.

The landing gear issue was supposedly solved by reducing the tire pressure (which screams insufficient testing and poor documentation) but skimming off some of the weight in general should have further moderated that problem.

The single-stage R-1830 might have been a better fit for the F2A than the R-1820, especially the lighter single-speed supercharger variant. It wasn't lighter than the R-1820, but the smaller frontal area should have complemented the F2A more than it did the F4F, and I'd argue those engines would've fit the F2A better than they did the various Wildcats and Martlets. (and a few F4F models using single-stage superchargers) However, given the likely engine mount and CoG changes, that's more a change that might have been worthwhile prior to the F2A-2's introduction (ie developed and tested as a follow-on to the F2A-1) and by the time the F2A-3 was in service, it might have just been better not to bother and instead focus on not screwing anything else up. (as it was, they might have managed that had they cancelled all projects except the F2A and just focused on making it work reliably)

Had the F2A-2 (onward) been designed around using engine mounts compatible with either the R-1820 or R-1830 (at least within a certain weight threshold), it would've made production a good deal more flexible as well, more like the Wildcat or P-36/Hawk-75.

Also note the F4F also had landing gear problems, but those were related to the manually cranked mechanism employed and pilots failing to make sure they'd fully locked the gear in the down position before landing. (I don't believe that issue was ever fully solved, or an automatic/powered gear mechanism ever installed, though I now wonder how much weight/complexity the manual system saved and if that might've been a solution to some of the F2A's problems)

I'd also think the F4F would've been a much better platform for the R-2600 given the aircraft's size, structure, and larger wing area. (though the R-2000 might have been more appropriate, possibly moderately better than the up-rated R-1820-56)


Oh, and given the tendency for Navy operations to take place at medium altitudes in most cases, I don't think the 2-stage R-1830 was that critical for the top-gear supercharger performance, though the boost given by the smoother power curves of the 2-speed + neutral as well as presence of an intercooler made some difference and the heavier base weight of the F4F's airframe made the advantages of the lighter single-stage engines less significant.

The R-1820-40 of the F2A-2/3 also had pretty good altitude performance for a single-stage engine, more in the realm of the Merlin XX series and better than single stage R-1830s and the more powerful -56 had a similar altitude power curve, iirc, though better power all around. (critical altitude for WEP with water injection was rather limited, of course)

The FM-2's altitude performance was also worse than the F4F-4 with 2-stage Twin-Wasp, yet it was generally seen as a superior performer. (ie it was less underpowered at most useful combat altitudes)


Alternatively, Brewster also could've just been relegated to lend-lease duty and produced the B.339, 439, etc for export exclusively. As it was, I imagine the Royal Navy would've appreciated Buffalo Mk.I fighters had they retained their naval equipement (and having that historical data point would've been rather interesting to compare/contrast today), but the land-based configured fighters they got weren't suitable for that, primarily due to the deletion of the arrester hook.

It's also worth noting that the Buffalo/B.339 in British Service received self-sealing material (similar to linatex used in British service, or the material used on P-40B/Tomahawk tanks) covering the existing metal tanks. The F2A-2 did not receive that upgrade and the F2A-3 apparently also lacked it (it got more advanced self-sealing tanks in the fuselage and wing leading edge, but the integral wing tanks just got CO2 purge).

With that in mind, it also might have been better had the F2A-2 simply had the self-sealing material added and not the other fuel tank additions or the added weight those cost it. That material worked well against rifle caliber bullets, but failed against .50 cals (or at least US .50 cals ... I'm not 100% sure the lower velocity Italian/IJA 12.7x81mm stuff had enough hydrostatic shock effect to cause fuel tank explosions like .50 BMG). I'd also think it would've been easier to retrofit to the existing F2A-2s, and the lack of having to change the internal structure might have helped quality control. (ie actually refine existing manufacturing rather than introducing new changes)

The US Navy might have found that compromise unacceptable, though, which again points to lend-lease being more appealing.






> Also found the transcipt of an interview with Gordon Firebaugh: Brewster Buffalo pilot Gordon Firebaugh
> 
> "GF: Now, while I was with the Chiefs (VF-2) I flew simulated dogfights and whipped F4F's, probably the F4F-3 with no folding wing, but I could also outfly the F2A when in an F4F as well - it all depended on who was in the pilot's seat. I flew the F4F after we got switched around [when the VF-2 NAP's were spread around with other squadrons -jm] in early 1942. I got shot down over Santa Isabel [7 August 1942 during the Guadalcanal operation -jm]...and I've often thought that, _*I wish, I'd been better off in a Brewster. I think it would have matched the [Mitsubishi] Zero -*_ the F4F was heavier and didn't have the turning radius. During that fight, I met up with five Zeros, shot down three before I got shot down. I spent a long time in the water, until I got to land and met one of the [Australian] coastwatchers...
> 
> ...



And given this sort of commentary, it seems pretty clear a lot of pilots would've liked a spruced up F2A-2 more than anything else, including simply adding external self-sealing material to the fuel tanks and replacing the telescopic gunsight with a reflector one. (though some might've actually liked the telescopic sight) I'm sure some appreciated the ammo counters on the fuselage machine guns as well.

Even with the F2A-2's fuel capacity, it was probably the longest-legged US fighter in 1940, and the only one close to the A6M-2 ... and still much more heavily built, if still light by US standards. (perhaps more in the vein of BoB era European fighters, though it also had the outstanding roll-rate typical of American fighters)

I'm also unsure about the stability issues mentioned later in this thread related to empty ammo boxes. It might have been specific to the F2A-3, though, and related to the added fuselage extension (between the pilot and engine bay) that included the added fuel tank. If it was also a problem on the British Buffalo, I'm also unsure ... though I imagine that also would've meant adding ballast in examples that installed .303 nose guns. (and the lighter ammo weight of those guns would've shifted CoG a lot less)

The F2A's nose guns also carried up to 500 rounds per gun, so that's a lot of weight of .50 cal ammo, so I could see some validity in problematic COG shift. OTOH, that might have been a sound argument for installing .30 cal guns there instead, particularly given they'd be firing more than twice as fast and been rather effective against Japanese opponents, especially if incendary ammo was used. (the poor rate of fire of synchronized .50 M2 Browning guns made that somewhat appealing in general, at least until self-sealing fuel tanks were introduced: again the sort of external self-sealed tanks used by the Japanese would tend to burst/explode from hydrostatic shock if .50 BMG rounds hit them: the same, incidentally, was the case for the tanks used by German bombers during the BoB and likely would've been substantially more effective than the .303 guns for that reason, even if the effect on structural components wasn't so drastically different or anywhere neat that of 20mm shells) Also, unlike .303 British, the trajectory of .30-06 was much closer to .50 BMG, so harmonizing the guns (and using .30 cal guns to range-in) would've been rather useful. 



The F2A-3 itself, with its max fuel load, might have been more useful as a photo recon plane. Otherwise it wasn't all that useful or practical an advantage, including the lack of bombload sufficient to really merit the added range. (in the latter case, had it been capable of carrying as much or more bombs than the Hurricane IIs in Commonwealth service, it would've made a more useful tactical bomber while Hurricanes could fly escort ... but with the roles reversed, the range of the Hurricanes were far too limited for the fuel tankage of the Buffalo to matter at all)


----------



## Kevin J (May 30, 2018)

Njaco said:


> I dunno......
> View attachment 205296


Put a R-2600 in a Buffalo, make the wing bigger, and add a seat for a navigator so that you stand a reasonable chance of finding your way home. Add the ability to carry bombs to make the plane more useful. Well hell, why not put the bombs in an internal bomb bay since you've got a great big radial up front. Sounds like the Brewster Buccaneer to me.


----------



## swampyankee (May 30, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> *Can't think that too many militaries across the world will gather thier guys around and say "well guys, we're going to war and you'll be riding atop a pile of steaming sh!t, but good luck anyway!"*
> 
> The prewar years in the U.S. saw a disturbing detatchment from reality in several respects and I honestly think that they felt that the performance of current several types would be adequete for the job. Instead of gathering serious intel on belligerants and adapting the current arsenal, they preferred to bicker about who got what funding for what contract and which arm of the service should have what peice of hardware and so on. Of course, that changed quickly on 7 December, but the damage was done and the U.S. had to play catch-up from that point onward.
> 
> But even an outclassed aircraft had a fighting chance in the hands of an experienced pilot with enough determination, case in point: Swede Vejtasa and his Dauntless.



...on the other hand saying "guys, don't worry, those other guys are blind semi-baboons flying planes made from bamboo and tissue paper and powered by stolen OX-5s" isn't optimal. There seemd to a lot of "those people can't do X" based on feelings and ideology rather than actual data.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

