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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


It wasn't a question of "retro-fitting" the tanks but the way the original tanks were designed. They were not separate tanks but an integral part of the wing structure. The spars formed the front and back walls, ribs formed the ends and apparently the wing skins formed the top and bottom. AS for my last statement being dubious, not all self sealing protection was the same. The British 339E's were supposed to have armor on the front of the the tanks(?) and be covered in Linatex and horsehide leather. The US Navy was fitting rubber fuel cells inside their fuel tanks. Fitting the fuel cells inside the integral tanks may have been more of a problem. The US Navy did fit a CO2 purging system to the Buffalo for the integral tanks as "protection' which did add some weight and increased maintenance. I believe my statement ended with fitting the existing tanks with the type of protection the US wanted to use. The US may not have wanted to use Linatex and horsehide leather
 
"As for the USN, they went with a company that was able to deliver, Grumman (again, when the USN wanted a fighter it went to Grumman...that was the case right through to the F-14), not the bunch of crooks that led Brewster."

I think that is the real issue with the F2A. The things that the Brewster company pulled on the British and US Navy were criminal. Just look at the quality issues the Brewster made Corsairs had.
 
buffnut453 said:
... that says something about the generational differences between aircraft designed in the mid/late 1930s and those designed post-1940.
Click to expand...

Picking nits as is my wont, I'd modity your last statement to be:

"...that says something about the generational differences between aircraft designed in the early to mid 1930s (arbitrarily: 1930-1937) and those designed in the late thirties (arbitrarily: 1938-39)."

As I am sure you know, both the P-51 (10/26/40) and F4U (5/29/40) were circa 1939-40 designs, while designs of the early to mid-thirties include (with first flight of the type) the P-35 (8/15/35), P-36 (5/6/35), F2A-1 (12/2/37), F4F-2 (9/2/37), for the US, the Bf-109 (5/29/25), Hurricane (11/6/35) and Spitfire (3/5/36). were pretty much creatures whose initial design was in the early to mid-thirties. If we are talking about effective service, then of course your dates are more accurate.

IMHO that's what makes the Spitfire such an icon: its manufacturing duration. That's got to be a criterion for greatness. I'd guess the Bf-109 might have had a similar manufacturing history. It certainly had a similar operational span.

To be fair, we might parse these dates to equal segments (early: 1930-32), mid: 1933-36 and late: (1937-39) but now my OCD is showing.

No Wait! It should have been: 1/1930 - 4/1933 early; 5/33 - 8/36 mid, and 9/36 - 12/39 late...
 
Last edited:
There's a lot of good information here about this aircraft - great posts guys.

Is the Brewster F2A-4 Buffalo, the worst US fighter that fought in WW2? Based on combat record and aircraft performance the answer would have to be yes and I think it's clearly shown here - HOWEVER, this aircraft was just about obsolete when it was thrown into battle with inexperienced pilots utilizing dated tactics. This combination set groundwork for this aircraft's place in history. Now if there never was a Brewster Buffalo and the F4F was subjected to a similar mauling at Midway and used by the RAF in lieu of the Buffalo, would we be saying the same negative things about the F4F?
 
Uhh guys, the F2A-4 was never built. its the proposal by Brewster for a Buffalo version with the Wright R-2600 engine. I am pretty sure you meant to say, the F2A-3. Just saying...

The thread topic was supposed to be: "Was the Brewster F2A-4 the worst fighter that never fought in WW2?".

FJ, I think the answer to your question may be that the 2 stage, 2 speed super charger on the Wildcat's P&W engine would eventually make it a winner. It had its own landing gear issues but, in general, with its larger wing area, it could accommodate the weight gain better than the Brewster. IMO...
 
Last edited:
Marion Carl WAS a great pilot. I especially liked his experimental flying after the war; the stuff of legend. As Juha said, there were Fins who loved the Buffalo and that is pretty neat. Marion Carl liked it, too. I acknowledge their love of the Buffalo while still ranking it at the bottom of my list, and that is where it will stay.

Please guys, I have the right to my own opinion, as you do to yours. If you don't rank the Buffalo last, then simply make your own list and let it go ... please.

C'mon, I thew out about a dozen or more classes and I'm still getting Buffalo arguments! Even if you Buff fans are right, it wasn't THAT great or they would have simply had some other factory build it, just as Curtiss built some P-47 Thunderbolts (the G model). Since they didn't, the Navy was apparently content to let the design go away.

I refuse to defend the list any further. So, let's PLEASE get past the Buffalo and on to other "Worst Of" nominees.
 

Then let me make the correction;

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

YES

See post 166
 
Greg, Check the title of this thread. I think somehow the wires got crossed. The one thread (this one) somehow flowed over into the other (the one you started which I believe is where you want us to go)...
 
The F4F got a chance to redeem it's reputation by a lot of good work elsewhere. The Buffalo never got another chance from the US, heck, it couldn't have been our fault, it had to be the aircraft.
It doesn't matter that other users saw good qualities, in aircraft the US found wanting . If the US thought a aircraft was substandard, to most, that's the end of the story.
 

AN interesting concept for a thread (or series of threads), however I would also like to know WHY an aircraft was WORST?

1. Was it a really bad aircraft? bad flying characteristics, parts fell off in flight, failed to meet performance specifications by a large margin?

2. Plane was obsolete when it went into combat? Good aircraft in it's day was used 3-6 years after it was designed with minimal upgrading against up to date opponents?

3. Aircraft saw combat in a role it was never intended for? Some aircraft did well in combat roles they weren't design for, others didn't do so well and were only used due to a total lack of newer airframes.

Take the TBD Devastator, Design started in 1934. Production started in 1937, it was the first monoplane to operate off US Navy carriers. There was also never a follow up model built and the originals soldiered (sailored?) on into 1942 with fairly predictable results. What would be the reputation of the Dauntless if the US Navy had used several hundred of the Northrop BT dive bombers in the first 6 months of WW II, a newer plane than the Devastator? The Vought SB2U Vindicator first flew about 9 months later than the Devastator. In a way the Devastator was the worst monoplane carrier torpedo bomber, it was also the oldest and with the introduction of the Nakajima B5N2 it was the lowest powered. Not a lot going for it.

Or the Fairey Battle. Designed as a long range, light strategic bomber in case if an international treaty banning heavy bombers, it was never used in it's intended role. Probably a good thing as defensive fighters had advanced a lot since it's first flight in March 1936. It was a good sturdy plane with few, if any vices to catch the pilot unaware. It's only real competition was the Vickers Wellesley and the Mitsubishi Ki-30 and Nakajima Ki-32.
It was built in too large a numbers and used in France for a role it was never intended for. Couple that with a lack of tactical cooperation that meant it was unescorted for most of it's missions and once again, the results should have been predictable. Unfortunately the British only had two other choices for those missions, The Lysander and the Blenheim.
One could say the Battle was one of the worst light bombers or one could say it was obsolete when called to action, misapplied, and sent into combat without support.
In 1940 what other single engine bomber without fighter escort would have done much better?
 

Even the Battle had something going for it to make its existence at the start of WW2 worthwhile. As the basis of the Fairy Fulmar figher, it provided a ready frame work for redesign to something never intended. While the Fulmar might be considered the worst naval fighter of WW2 (Strictly in terms of performance, I'd rate even the F2A-3 [not the B-339] ahead of it.) Yet it ably filled a gap (which I believe to some extent may have been more percieved than real) for a time. I have heard little bad from pilots about its handling and it provided the FAA with a few moments of real glory. As a naval fighter it apparently had signiticant virtues to recommend it.
 

Believe it or not, the Fulmar had the most kills of any FAA fighter in WW2.
 
I believe good ditching characteristics are good for a carrier fighter and AFAIK Fulmar emulated a submarine...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
M
RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
5K
GrauGeist
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Engineman
E
D
Total number of USAAF fighter pilots enlisted in WW2
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
J.A.W.
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
Menu
Log in
Register