Brewster Buffalo - what is the verdict? (1 Viewer)

[yulzari]

A minor point but the RAF in Malaya had access to naval stores and dockyard stores if they found the Brewster armour ineffective and too far away to obtain better in a hurry from the UK nor USA. It would seem probable that they would turn to the naval dockyards for better armour plate sufficient for their needs. Which are trivial compared to replacing armour on damaged vessels. I only mention this as a surmise. I know of no evidence that they did so.

 

[Shortround6]

A minor point but the RAF in Malaya had access to naval stores and dockyard stores if they found the Brewster armour ineffective and too far away to obtain better in a hurry from the UK nor USA. It would seem probable that they would turn to the naval dockyards for better armour plate sufficient for their needs. Which are trivial compared to replacing armour on damaged vessels. I only mention this as a surmise. I know of no evidence that they did so.

This assumes the dockyards had armor plate that thin. Trying to turn a sheet of 1/2 armor into two sheets of 1/4in armor was almost impossible (somebody somewhere may have done it

 

[buffnut453]

This assumes the dockyards had armor plate that thin. Trying to turn a sheet of 1/2 armor into two sheets of 1/4in armor was almost impossible (somebody somewhere may have done it

The armour plate for RAF Buffalos in the Far East was, indeed, made in the Singapore dockyard. Brewster provided the schematics, the dockyard made the armour plates, and the poor bluddy fitters had to crawl inside the fuselage in 88-90 deg F and 80+% humidity to install it…only to find that the mounting holes didn't line up with the pilot's seat support bars. Some of the armour plate was held in position by wire, which doesn't sound very secure to me.

 

[LBG1943]

A member at another forum posted this:

Oh yes!
Let me spend 30 seconds on google
Here this should do it
First one I found
So in short -
Poor QC at factory (the factory was garbage and there was corruption from top management to shop floor)
Landing stuts failed particularly in use by Fighter 3 sqn on Sara
Cyclone engines provided in the 170 Model 339E where of a substandard version often 2nd hand taken from DC3s - these had 1100 HP compared to the 1200 HP provided for the USN and Finns
The Cyclones power was porcine and got worse the higher it got, the engines over heated and leaked.
Commonwealth Squadrons lost many aircraft before Dec 7th due to training accidents - I believe 30 in total - granted a lot might have been down to the mostly green pilots and squadrons lacking in tools etc but much was also down to component failures and the aircraft being utter garbage.
The bloody thing was a Pork Barrel - Brewster did not expect to be found out before it was opened on the other side of the world!
The British took one look at it and went nope...nope nope nope....and fobbed it off to the ends of the earth where the only enemy it might face was the Japanese and they were thought to be rubbish, the Americans fobbed it off to the Marines after a single squadron on Saratoga (VF3) operated them in 1940-41 and found them wanting!
While initially it was made heavier by the addition of equipment found on other British fighters like armour seat rests, etc - subsequent efforts were made to reduce weight such as replacing the 50 cals with 303 Browning's and less ammo and fuel
But you cannot polish a turd!

Any takers?

Interesting. Thanks for that! Now to dig into the corruption. Years before the F-104 Lawn Dart.

 

[jimmaas]

In my quest for said primary sources I also found this:

View attachment 890243

It's from a 1942 Luftwaffe frontline news bulletin on enemy aircraft, which can be found here. Assuming the depicted figures are indicative of a 339E (Buffalo Mk. I), I'm wondering how correct they are.

The 302 l on both sides of the fuel tanks is either indicative of a slight drop in capacity from 606 l to 604 l from the Linatex and horshide leather the Brits coated the fuel tanks on the 339E with, or it's just a mistake.

The drawing in the attachment is likely from the Belgian 339B the Germans captured in France. The Belgian 339B had four .50 machine guns.

 

[jimmaas]

What I'd like to know is how have people been able determine which NX test registry belonged to which aircraft. NX56 (apparently later NX56B) supposedly had the construction number 56, hence NX56. But then why is the aircraft that's purported to be c/n 61 coded NX15694? Shouldn't it be NX61? Was it first NX61, then NX15694 after being modified into a 239 for the Finnish order? And how is it known that NX56 is the very same aircraft that ended up captured by the Germans? I assume there is some primary source documentation somewhere, but I've never seen it referenced for any of this.

The Belgian NX numbers, at least the initial ones, and Dutch and RAF NX numbers, have a tie-in to the Brewster construction numbers. I've fried my brain a couple of times trying to do an exact matchup, but remember, it;s Brewster.... Also, I have some notes done by Dayton Brown (on the back of calendar pages) which suggest the planned Finnish order may have been for 66 aircraft, interrupted no doubt by the end of the Winter War.