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

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Juha]

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]

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]

Thanks Juha!

 

[A4K]

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]

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]

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.
4. Marine pilots were greatly outnumbered.
5. Marine pilots did not know the strengths/weaknesseses of their opponents, thus unable to use the best tactic.

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]

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]

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]

F3F.......

 

[GregP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Looks more like a contemporary of the Fairey Swordfish.

Both introduced in 1936.
But the Swordfish seems to have Faired better.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

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]

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!