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

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.

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 ?

Best regards,

Francis

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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,

Francis

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Lefa said:

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)

Click to expand...

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)

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

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

Aozora said:

Note the comments about instability in some flight conditions

Click to expand...

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'...

Aozora said:

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

View attachment 251800

View attachment 251801

Click to expand...

to quote myself:

I found this performance data for the Martlet IV which is basically the F4F-4B:
View attachment 231438
View attachment 231439
so we can get a direct comparison of the Fulmar II and F4F-4B.

This report:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f-4-02135.pdf
states that a comparison of the F4F-4 and the -4B found "...the F4F-4B being slightly superior at low altitudes and the F4F-4 being slightly superior at 15,000 ft and above."

Click to expand...

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
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)

Click to expand...

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
max climb rate: 1940ft/min at 7600ft
service ceiling: 31,000ft
max speed: 293mph at 13,800 ft.

flight test data from Boscombe Down (Secret Years, p.306)

Click to expand...

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.

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'...

Click to expand...

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

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'...

Click to expand...

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).

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.

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

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.

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'.