Excluding Spitfires and Hurricanes, best fighter for Malaya 1940-41?

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

Schweik said:
Yeah but I two problems - where do you get that engine at the time (I don't know what would be available, R-2600? Seems like that would be too heavy), and wouldn't you have stability problems with the short / fat fuselage with the extra torque?
Click to expand...
Maybe a higher stabilizer like on the Fm2 and a foot or two additional on the rear fuselage like the p40?
 

The key is "getting 300 more HP into a Buffalo in late 1941/ early 1942"

The higher HP engine in the F4F (1350hp) showed up in late 1942 (prototypes of both the engine and aircraft )and production of the FM-2 only began in Sept 1943.
The Wright R-1820 used in the FM-2 was about 160lbs lighter than the P & W R-1830 used in the F4F-4.
The Spitfire certainly picked up considerable power just with the Merlin (forget the Griffon for now) but that required the new fuel, new superchargers and so on. first two stage Merlins show up in the summer of 1942 in squadron use (for practical use, 4 Squadrons by Aug). 1942 was a succession of higher boost limits for the singe stage Merlins.
Getting back to the Griffon Spit, a single stage Griffon only weighes about 140lbs more than a two stage Merlin so the Spit XII wasn't that big a stretch. (although about 400lbs more than a Merlin III).
The SPits also went from 3 blade to 4 blade props to 5 blade as power increased.

For the Buff in late 1941, early 1942 (prototype would have had to have flown in very early 1941 for production to have started in in early fall of 1941 for planes to be built and shipped to Malaya in time for the Japanese attack) the higher powered versions of the engines it used didn't exist yet. The only US engine with the needed increase in power was the R-2600 and the large jump in size and weight of that engine and the needed propeller (the B-26 only went into production in the late spring, early summer of 1941 with the first US production 4 blade propeller) is what dictates the redesign.
Lets remember that the Buff started with a 950hp engine that only weighed 1100lbs ( not even a reduction gear for the prop), this is the engine in the Buffaloes the Finns got.
The Buffalo got a 26% increase in power during it's life. even adding 300hp to an 1100hp Buffaloe is adding 47 percent to the original 950hp plane.
An R-2600 weighed about as much as a two stage Griffon and over 300lbs more than a DB 605 (granted no radiator) but then the aircooled engine has all the weight in the nose, no radiators and coolant behind the center of gravity to help balance things.
 
Bottom line is that the Buffalo didn't really have any growing room as a design. Slightly enlarging the wing by squaring off the tips, rather like the F4F, might have improved roll rate because the ailerons could be larger and/or moved further outboard. You may also get a miniscule reduction in wing loading although drag would likely increase.

Best bet for an engine is the 1200hp Wright 1820 which I believe was available (although not sure if the US allowed it to be exported in 1940).

The USN should never have procured the F2A-3 but, rather, should have improved the -2. I suspect the -3 was an attempt to get rid of the Brewster product in favour of the F4F since the latter never received requirements for the range increase that led to the F2A-3.

For RAF usage, you'd still need to change attitudes at Singapore to improve combat performance. I find it criminal that 21 Sqn, the most forward deployed Buffalo squadron, only discovered that the wing gun solenoids were inadequate during the first engagement on 8 Dec 41. Clearly they hadn't done ANY live fire training during peacetime.
 
Last edited:
buffnut453 said:
Best bet for an engine is the 1200hp Wright 1820 which I believe was available (although not sure if the US allowed it to be exported in 1940).
Click to expand...

Lurking at the 'net a bit, here is what Joe Baugher says about the French Cyclone-powered Hawk 75A-4:
"These were armed like the A-3s but were fitted with 1200 hp Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone engines.
Maximum speed was 323 mph at 15,100 feet. "

The R-1820-G205A was a 2-speed supercharged engine, also found in the low-tier Martlets. Fuel 100 oct, while power at 14000 ft was 1000 HP per this data sheet. Max rpm was 2500, normal rpm 2400.
The Cyclone 105A, per Joe Bauger those were on the British Buffaloes, was also a 2-speed supercharged engine. Max rpm 2350 , normal rpm 2300. 91 oct fuel possible. The 205A was heavier than 105A by 35 lbs. Both used same superchager gearing. Compression ratio of the 205A was 6.7:1, vs. 6.3:1 for the 105A.
'Normal power' at S/L was 1100 HP for the 205A, 900 HP for the 105A. Seems like the Buffalo and Martlet I were of same weight? Although the Buffalo was smaller.

All in all, I'd say that installation of the 205A on the British Buffaloes woudl've make a lot of sense. But yes, many other things need to be fulfilled for the aircraft to prove their worth.
 
Admiral Beez said:
MTGBs, SSKs and Beaufighters would have stomped the essential landings from Formosa and FIC. Stop those and the Army can likely hold the Thai border. Leave Force Z at Ceylon, but sent whatever destroyers can be spared from the Atlantic ASW.
Click to expand...
Yes. Also enough numbers of MBT's along with CB's with AK's would have done the trick, otherwise too many MIA's and POW's and AWOL.
Also BB's, CV's protected by CVE's and DD's were crucial. Do not forget the role of CV's and LVT's in PAC as well. Not many ABV's at the time. Also no COMINT and COMNAV
Ultimately that was the rensponsibility of the CINC.
 
What we really needed was the Short Shetland flying out of Hong Kong harbour, we could have sneaked up on Japan, under the radar, and poison gassed those orientals, that would have stopped them in their tracks. Hong Kong to Japan round trip is 3500 miles. The technology was there, flying boats, Centaurus aero engines, poison gas. Alternately, there was always the Super Stirling, 4 Centaurus, proposal, and no need for all that post war agonising about whether is was better to atomise or set fire to them. So my proposed war winning plane is the S36 Super Stirling flying in at 10000 feet. Hell, all they had was Ki-27's for air defence in 1941 so at 300 mph it could have outrun and outgunned them in broad daylight. Then all our subject peoples around the World would have known that we weren't the sort of rulers to be messed with.
 
Last edited:

The F2A-3 was an improved -2.

The order for the -3 was placed jan 21 1941, in part because Grumman could not produce F4Fs fast enough. Deliveries of the -3 start in July 1941.
Also in Jan 1941 Grumman F4F-3s replace F3F bi-planes in Squadron VF-7. I don't know when the last Grumman F3F biplanes were replaced in a carrier squadron. But the US had only taken delivery of 54 F2As total before the F2A-3s started to show up.
In Dec of 1940, one month before the F2A-3s are ordered 578 F4F-3s and F4F-3As are on order but only 22 have been delivered( this does not count Martlets).
There is a distinct lack of monoplane fighters in the US Navy for much of 1940 and good part of 1941. Playing games buying an inferior aircraft (F2A-3) as a political/procurement move to force one company out of the supply chain seems to be a real stretch given the situation at the time. Brewster also hadn't yet acquired it's dismal reputation that latter programs led to (deservedly so)

There is some confusion as to the requirement for the increased range for the F2A-3. Can you provide a reference for this requirement?
The -3 certainly had tankage for more fuel but that was sort of a side result of trying to provide protected fuel storage, the 3 new fuel tanks were provided with self sealing while the two old fuel tanks (integral with the wing spars) were considered both difficult to make self sealing and difficult to repair if damaged. one of them was sealed off in service and only to filled upon orders of the squadron commander. This left the normal fuel capacity the same as the older plane with the only difference being that 1/2 the fuel was in protected tanks. However the "reserve" supply was in the bottom of the remaining unprotected tank. the -3 was also fitted with a CO2 system to fill the void space in the fuel tanks with CO2 gas to reduce the fire risk.
I don't know when the F4F-4 was fitted with (or intended to be fitted with ) drop tanks which certainly increased it's range. Some say Aug of 1942?

Long range patrols by F2A-3s certainly seem to be stretch due to radio and navigation issues but that never stopped some of the people making up requirements before
 
[
Admiral Beez said:
Britain was to order 300 Reggiane Re.2000 fighters and other equipment from Italy in 1939, but the order fell through. These might have been the best performing fighters to send, but IFF may pose obvious challenges.

View attachment 558652
Click to expand...
Still my top pick. Imagine the below at a forward RAF base.




I'd have loved to see 200+ of these in RAF colours over Malaya, Hopefully with a three blade variable pitch propeller.



The Unofficial Airfix Modellers' Forum • View topic - Brickie's Hod

Is this BoB paint scheme ideal for Malayan ops? I suppose so, since the Australians used the same.

 
Last edited:

Hi,
I think I read somewhere that at one point in time, that due to engine shortages in the US, Brewster briefly looked at a concept along the lines of fitting the Buffalo with an RR Merlin, but I don't know how seriously it was investigated.
Pat
 

I seem to be missing something???
Reggiane

  • Length: 7.99 m (26 ft 2½ in)
  • Wingspan: 11.00 m (36 ft 1 in)
  • Height: 3.20 m (10 ft 5⅞ in)
  • Wing area: 20.40 m² (219.6 sq ft)
  • Empty weight: 2,090 kg (4,585 lb)
  • Loaded weight: 2,839 kg (6,259 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Piaggio P.XI RC 40 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engine, 986 hp (736 kW) (1000 CV) at 4,000 m (13,125 ft)
Buffalo F2A-3
  • 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)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-1820-40 Cyclone 9 9-cyl air-cooled radial piston engine, 1,200 hp (890 kW)
Reggiane
F2A-3
  • Maximum speed: 321 mph (517 km/h, 279 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 161 mph (259 km/h, 140 kn)
  • Range: 965 mi (1,553 km, 839 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 33,200 ft (10,100 m)
  • Rate of climb: 2,440 ft/min (12.4 m/s)
Reggiane
Guns: 2× 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns

F2A-3
  • 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
Now because WIKI sometimes gets things wrong lets check a few things on F2A-3, like the rather suspicious weight.
It is perfectly correct IF the plane is loaded with 1300 rounds of .50 cal ammo, 180 US gallons of fuel and a pair of 100lb bombs under the wing.
The climb rate is correct for a plane weighing about 6070lbs and not the 7,159 lb in the WIKI listing. The 6070lb figure is correct for a plane carrying no guns and no ammo.
a better weight is about 6320lbs which includes 4 guns each with 200 rounds and 110 US gallons of fuel, climb is 2290fpm and time ot 10,000ft is 4.4 minutes.
Please note the F2A-3 has a two speed supercharger, the Piaggio P.XI does not. but the Cyclone makes just about the same amount of power in high gear at a slightly altitude, about 1000ft higher. The Cyclone has about 200hp more at sea level.

Yes, I know the RAF and DUtch didn't have the F2A-3 and used a lower power engine, however the British and Dutch planes were also about 200lbs lighter (or more, depends on ammo load).
The Re 2000 also had no fuel tank protection and no armor or bullet proof glass. And perhaps no radio?

The Re 2000 isn't enough different to affect the outcomes of most combats.
Without changes to both the training and tactics I don't see the Re 2000 really changing things.
 
The advantage of the Reggiane, aside from being far more beautiful to behold, would be (I think) agility and maneuverability. With the big, efficient wing, well balanced ailerons, it had a better turn rate, better roll, and better climb. Not sure about dive speed which would be very important particularly against the Japanese. Supposedly in mock dogfights it could out-maneuver both CR.42 and Bf 109E. They seemed to perform pretty well for the Hungarians, who reported being able to out-turn Soviet fighters.

Reggiane has a semi-eliptical wing which is pretty thin, the fuselage is a bit portly overall but it's nicely streamlined for the time. I would guess a bit less drag than an F2A. I think it would be roughly equivalent to a Hawk in many respects (though the Hawk is a bit slimmer), which is probably pretty good. Maybe even better if you could put a Pratt and Whitney engine on it (maybe then you also have enough power for armor and protected tanks). Definitely better with a Merlin IMO though that would take a lot more work to sort out.

If you could get a Merlin or an Allison on it, you'd probably have something like an Re 2001 which was a far more capable fighter that was able to hold it's own against Spitfire Mk Vs. (Re 2001 also had a redesigned fuel system though which would add time for British modifications...)

I love the design myself, and it's what led to the Re 2005 so clearly it has potential. But it also had some teething issues, fuel tank leaking was a problem, and the tanks, which took up a lot of the internal space of the wing, were vulnerable. Handling was also apparently tricky and stalls and spins were freqeuently mentioned, including dreaded flat-spins. Probably not a game changer I agree with that.

Someone made a lovely kit of one here:

Silver Wings 1/32 Reggiane Re.2000 Falco | Large Scale Planes
 
Last edited:
It's not the fighter that's wrong or its numbers, there's only six radars in Malaya, the northernmost one in Kuala Lumpur, so the air defence is doomed to fail.
 
I think the quality of the fighters made a difference - both quantity and quality could help. But no doubt overall preparation was seriously lacking. Warning networks could have substituted in large part for lack of good radar - at least they had some radar. AVG didn't have any I don't think but used warning networks successfully. Other things mentioned like preparation of airfields and so forth also mattered.

But you can see in places like 75 Sqn RAAF at Port Morseby and Milne Bay where the Australians were equally ill-prepared, and lacked the cunning and experience of somebody like Claire Chennault: green pilots with new aircraft they had almost zero training on, bad conditions in the airfields, decimated by disease, limited repair facilities, I don't think they had radar, very limited if any warning network. What they did have were better fighters and fewer opponents. They had roughly the same or slightly less fighters in most of the air battles that took place, and they held their own. More importantly they were able to affect the ground war - shoot down bombers and sink invasion barges. Strafe troops and bomb tanks. Sufficient that it made a big difference in the campaign.

Which to me says if the British had more fighters in Malaya, so that they weren't so heavily outnumbered, and if they had a little logistical support perhaps from the Americans (which I think helped the Aussies), and better fighters closer to parity with the Japanese (or more precisely and maybe more important, able to somewhat reliably disengage from Japanese fighters when a fight wasn't going well) then they could have done better, maybe won that battle. Even when pretty badly outnumbered, RAAF units of say 7 or 8 fighters could attack 20 Japanese planes in New Guinea because they knew they could dive away and disengage. Not that it was easy, there were often long chases and the fights seem to have been quite harrowing. But they were able to cause damage and get away enough of the time to fight another day. Allowing them to last long enough as an effective force to prevent Southern New Guinea from being taken over by the Japanese (albeit Coral Sea also played a big role in that).

If the RN had showed up near Malaya with a carrier or two full of Martlets that definitely could have helped as well and they could have had their own Coral Sea perhaps...
 

the F2A-3 story remains somewhat shrouded in mystery, with plenty of illogic thrown into the mix. Jim Maas put forward the idea that the -3 was designed with an increased fuel load for long-range fighter CAPs, although the role was negated by advances in shipborne radar. He cites VF-2 pilots flying 5-6 hour patrols which certainly jives with a requirement for longer-range fighter patrols. That said, I can't find any indication that oil capacity was also increased, which would be pretty important for such extreme long-range operations (particularly given the problems experienced by RAF pilots with oil loss on their Buffalos).

That said, I'm not entirely sure the whole "leave the wing tanks empty and use the new tankage" explanation makes total sense either. The RAF Buffalos already had a degree of fuel tank protection which, although not totally self-sealing, was certainly better than than the standard F2A-2. The RAF also established procedures for repairing the integral wing fuel tanks: Peter Bingham Wallis ranted in his logbook when his aircraft was destroyed because the groundcrew didn't follow correct procedures to evacuate fumes before trying to repair the patch. Now, the repair process wasn't rapid or clean compared to aircraft that had removable tanks but it worked. I can't understand why Brewster would install all that extra tankage without doing anything about the existing fuel tanks when a potential solution was already available. Short of the USN mandating the design approach, it just doesn't make sense.
 
You are betting on an under armed, unprotected plane to outmaneuver and out performe the Zero and Ki 43 while using an engine that is, at best, no more powerful. That big wing is actually smaller than the Japanese wings, although not by much. No combat flap to match the Ki 43,either.
Armament is problematic. Even if supplied with Italian guns the ammo supply is not going to continue after the summer of 1940. British .5in ammo is close and might even work with minor modifications to the guns but the British never issued a .5in HE round. British might be faced with fitting US .50 cal guns for somewhat common ammo supply. Dropping to a pair of .303 guns is probably not going to happen.
Without redesigning/ rebuilding the wings mounting guns in the wing is out. The wing was the fuel tank. You not only have to seal up the space the guns and ammo would take up but route firing controls and possibly gun heating systems through the fuel space?
Anything can be done if you throw enough effort and money at it but this does not look like a good option.
BTW, the engine doesn't look good either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
16K
PAT303
P
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Best piston engine(s) for fighters of 1945?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
12K
spicmart
S
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register