Brewster Buffalos in the German and Finnish AF

[ulf]

Hello B17 engineer,

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

Best regards
Ulf

 

[Elvis]

Hey guys,

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

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

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

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

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

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



Elvis

 

[Mangrove]

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

FsNordic.net

 

[Nightwitch]

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

 

[Elvis]

Mangrove,

Thanks for the link.



Elvis

 

[Njaco]

Great pics on that link Mangrove!!

 

[Mangrove]

[Drums....]

1. [C] Pentti Hyvärinen.

2. [C] Juha Klemettinen.

 

[BombTaxi]

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

 

[Nightwitch]

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

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

 

[Amsel]

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

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

 

[Marcel]

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

 

[Mangrove]

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

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

 

[Amsel]

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

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

 

[Elvis]

Mangrove,

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

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

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

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




Elvis

 

[Negative Creep]

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

 

[Demetrious]

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

This.

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

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

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

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

 

[renrich]

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

 

[Elvis]

Renrich,

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

Here's what I actually wrote...

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

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

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



Elvis

 

[Elvis]

This.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Elvis

 

[renrich]

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