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

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

Vincenzo said:

300 Ki-43? is a missprint for 30?

Click to expand...

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).

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!

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

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

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

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]"