Brewster F2A Buffalo or P-39 Airacobra?

[MacArther]

From what I remember, it was a Stateside plane...beyond that, I don't know.
I THINK I got the picture fromWINGS PALETTE - Brewster B-239/339/F2A Buffalo

 

[Le Stuka]

P-39 purely because of the 37mm cannon and the looks. In the ground attack role I would use it any day!

 

[JF3D]

P-39 with the 20MM and 4 fifty's. the 37MM wasn't that good a gun. the 20 had better ballistics, better ROF and more rounds. The 39's used to fly over the mountain range (Stanley's?) in PNG and come screaming down on the JAF on the north side of the island. When they had the height and speed, they did OK. It's when they got caught low and out of energy is when they got clobbered. The guy who ordered them without turbo/supercharger's should have been made to walk naked covered in honey through grizzly bears during mating season.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

 

[Marcel]

My choice is the buffalo, but more because of the de-navalised, heavier armed B-239, which the Fins used. They showed that with some small modifications, the small plane could match anything the Russians could throw at it, agains overwhelming odds. I always wonder how the Fins could do so well with planes that were, eh, not so good in other theatres. Not only the Brewster, also with the ms406, Fokker DXXI, Bleheim, Fiat G50 etc. Maybe if they had some P39, they would have put it in good use as well.

 

[Matt308]

Interesting camo scheme. Reminds me of the camo scheme for the 1970s and 1980s F-16 and F-18, where the cockpit was painted on the lower fuselage too. Makes for some confusion in the heat of maneuvering of which way the aircraft is banking. The Brewster camo seems to take that to extreme. Perhaps effective against enemies making snapshot glances, but likely fails for more general effectiveness.

Either that or they intended to hide them in crop circles. I'm just making this stuff up anyway.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I may be mistaken, but I think the Buff really had a cockpit in the belly. It was there so the pilots could aim at the ground targets if they used bombs. I have a model of a US Navy Brewster Buffalo that has the bombardier window. I'm not really sure if the Finns kept that feature in their Buffs or not.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I may be mistaken, but I think the Buff really had a cockpit in the belly. It was there so the pilots could aim at the ground targets if they used bombs. I have a model of a US Navy Brewster Buffalo that has the bombardier window. I'm not really sure if the Finns kept that feature in their Buffs or not.

Not true - look at the pilot's manual we have in the tech library. There were 2 small windows in the fuselage at the pilot's feet below control cables. It was there to give a view below the aircraft but if you look at the pilot's manual there is little room there...

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Yeah, I guess cockpit is the wrong word. But I can't seem to find the tech library on here.When I tried the search on the Aircraft database for Brewster Buffalo, it wouldn't give me a thing. Unless you mean in the photo albums?

I found some other pictures on the net that show two differant kind of belly bombardier windows on the Buff. And one of the versions seems to be a single window on the belly, not two.

 

[Matt308]

I'll be dang. Interesting Soundbreaker. I think you may be on to something.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Have to build my model to find out!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This is out of the pilots notes for the Mk I

3. The pilot is seated just forward of the approximate midpoint of the fuselage. He is protected from flame in the
engine compartment by a fire wall which isolates him from the forward nose of the aeroplane. He is protected by
armour plate from a cone of gun fire originating forward of the aeroplane. A sliding canopy constructed of
transparent Plexiglas shelters his head and shoulders and permits him full view in all directions except downward.
View in a downward direction is obtained through four Plexiglas windows mounted just under the pilot's knees.
The pilot's seat support tubes are designed to carry a sheet of armour plate on the aft side.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/buffalo-mk-i-4912.html

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's a shot of the cockpit, you could see the rudder pedals, a bombidar smaller than a pigmy would be the only one who could fit under there!!

 

[Matt308]

Certainly its not Bombadier station, but what is the structure. Sure looks like cockpit framing! And it's not 4 bloody pieces of plexiglass. Flyboy, what year is your manual. I didn't think plexiglass was brought to market in time for mass aviation manufacturing. Is plexiglass and perspex one and the same? If not, what the differences in their properties?

 

[Matt308]

Nevermind. Answered my own question. Perspex is a European trade name for plexiglass. They are one and the same.

 

[Matt308]

Here's another diagram. No cockpit lattice work structure on this one either. I'm going back to my original premise I think. I did find on another archive site that the Buffalo underwent some camoflage schemes that were concocted by a graphic artist in 1940. The Navy performed tests and confirmed that they did not contribute towards their goal. These camo schemes looked like the one in this thread and others appeared to have that same disruptive patter that you often seen on the sides of ships to ward of submarine attacks. I have read that they were of dubious value too.

 

[Matt308]

Found it.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I Incorrectly termed the Pilot as the Bombardier. I read in the Tamiya instructions manual that when the Buff was carrying bombs, the pilot would look down at the window at his feet, and then he could see the ground target underneath, and that gave him better accuracy to be able to drop his bombs on it. So, he was kind of doing what a bombardier would be doing, aiming at the target with bombsight and not with his gun sight or by eye.

I'm imagine the window made it easier for ground attack missions. In the documentary "Thunderbolt!" they said how it was trickier for the P-47 pilots to hit the target without a bombsight. It required more experience to bomb without it.

The only downside is a bullet being shot from below you might have an easier time passing through the glass in the belly and hitting you than it would have if it was all metal plated there.


Oh and Matt, sorry to take so long to get back. The first manual I found on google search and it's a blue print for making a wooden model Brewster Buffalo. The other one is a Tamiya instructions manual for the 1/48 Brewster Buffalo. Tamiya is a pretty acurate company so I imagine the window is correct. But they could have made a mistake on this.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you look at the manual posted and other drawings of the Buffalo, there was noting below the seat - an empty cavity and that is common with a lot of aircraft of the era. As far a a round going through the glass, the seat was armoured and even if the glass was removed I would guess the thickest the skin would be in that area is about .040.

I think the primary goal of that glass was to give the pilot a little downward visibility. It might of been used for reference if they were going to drop bombs from the aircraft (something I think was done little with the Buffalo).

 

[Matt308]

...so what is the diagramed cockpit lattice type structure. Back to the camo theory?