Hawker Hurricane or Brewster Buffalo
- Thread starter ssnider
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Admiral Beez
Major
Until folding-wings were adopted, the Buffalo was the only British monoplane, single-seat fighter that could fit onto HMS Hermes' lifts. So, if we want Hermes to have a single-seat monoplane fighter, the Buffalo is your only pick. Beyond that, best to leave them in Malaya. I calculate 14-16 should fit in Hermes hangar. I omitted the forward lift below, but the space is correct.
fubar57
General
Need to fix the landing gear before you start
Hi,
I think a lot will depend on the specific time frame and type/variant of each aircraft. Specifically, some of the early Hurricanes had relatively limited performance at very low altitutudes (<5000ft) if I am recalling correctly. [see this link ]. And, even later, if fitted out with tropical filters the Hurricane II still had limited performance, especially at these very low altitudes, if I am understanding correctly [please see this link ].
On the other hand the Brewster Buffalo/B239/B339/F2A went through several iterations/variants, each with their own potential advantages and disadvantages. As such, I would suspect that a lot will depend on the circumstances involved, but it some situations I would think that a Brewster may be a better choice and in others a Hurricane may be the better choice.
Regards
Pat
fubar57
General
Why the Buffalo did better for Finland...Brewster F2A Buffalo
Interesting question, I feel like the Hurriance gets some good rep from the Battle of Britain, while the Buffalo gets a bad one from its clashes with the Japanese in the Pacific, I would have presumed the Hurricane to be the hands-down superior fighter, hopefully, I will learn more about both planes here.
That is a very misleading and selectively edited summation of the testing between the Hurricane and the Buffalo.
-First and foremost, it states clearly that the Buffalo is not carrying its full war load and is devoid of guns.
Here is another quote from the above quoted report,
"However, it was later calculated that had the Buffalo been carrying its full war load, as was the Hurricane, the speeds would of been approximately the same at the lower height, and the Buffalo would of been slower by around 12 mph at the higher altitude."
What this means is the Buffalo with its two speed supercharger has two best altitudes for speed, 6000 ft and 14,700 ft. At 6000ft the Hurricane I is just as fast, at 14,700 feet the Hurricane is 12 mph faster. The Hurricane I ' s best speed is , depending on the prop is 320 to 325 mph at 17,500 ft. The same report gives the Buffalo a max speed of around 300 mph which gives the Hurricane I at least a 20-25 mph advantage.
Other testing by Eric Brown gave the Buffalo a max climb rate of 2000 ft/min, a max speed of 290 mph and a service ceiling of only 25,000 ft. This performance is far below a Hurricane I, never mind a Hurricane II.
-First and foremost, it states clearly that the Buffalo is not carrying its full war load and is devoid of guns.
Here is another quote from the above quoted report,
"However, it was later calculated that had the Buffalo been carrying its full war load, as was the Hurricane, the speeds would of been approximately the same at the lower height, and the Buffalo would of been slower by around 12 mph at the higher altitude."
What this means is the Buffalo with its two speed supercharger has two best altitudes for speed, 6000 ft and 14,700 ft. At 6000ft the Hurricane I is just as fast, at 14,700 feet the Hurricane is 12 mph faster. The Hurricane I ' s best speed is , depending on the prop is 320 to 325 mph at 17,500 ft. The same report gives the Buffalo a max speed of around 300 mph which gives the Hurricane I at least a 20-25 mph advantage.
Other testing by Eric Brown gave the Buffalo a max climb rate of 2000 ft/min, a max speed of 290 mph and a service ceiling of only 25,000 ft. This performance is far below a Hurricane I, never mind a Hurricane II.
Admiral Beez
Major
The Winter War was before the introduction of the MiG, Lavochkin and Yak fighters. The Buffalo can compete fine with the I-16 and I-15. Give the Finns eight gun Hawker Hurricanes vs. I-16 or the Soviets MiG-3, La-5 or Yak-1 vs. Buffalo and either side clear the skies.
Last edited:
The Finnish Buffalo pilots considered the Hurricane at low level to be an easy kill. Seems like they said "aim just in front of the cockpit and it will catch fire easily" or something like that. But the Finns had the earlier lighter Buffalo and it must have been tremendously maneuverable.
fubar57
General
Here's a link from to a discussion on Finnish claims and losses (2009)...Finnish Air Force claims and losses (fighter squadrons) - Axis History Forum In it are five links to Finnish fighter groups (24th, 26th, 28th, 32th and 34th) claims and losses, albeit from Wiki. To save you the time the header reads.....
The list distinguishes the air victories gained by the Finnish Air Force during the Winter and Continuation War 24 and military losses.
For Finnish machines, FR stands for Fokker D.XXI, BW stands for Brewster 239 and MT stands for Messerschmitt Bf 109.
In the list, some of the Air Force are most likely recorded as the wrong type of enemy aircraft, because in combat conditions, identification was not always easy. For example, the Mustang and Spitfire aircraft were not used on the Finnish front. Mustangs are probably Jak-9 machines
Off the get-go, the 24th, with Buffaloes shot down a lot of "modern" Russian aircraft during the Continuation War
The list distinguishes the air victories gained by the Finnish Air Force during the Winter and Continuation War 24 and military losses.
For Finnish machines, FR stands for Fokker D.XXI, BW stands for Brewster 239 and MT stands for Messerschmitt Bf 109.
In the list, some of the Air Force are most likely recorded as the wrong type of enemy aircraft, because in combat conditions, identification was not always easy. For example, the Mustang and Spitfire aircraft were not used on the Finnish front. Mustangs are probably Jak-9 machines
Off the get-go, the 24th, with Buffaloes shot down a lot of "modern" Russian aircraft during the Continuation War
- Thread starter
- #12
Do not know if it was derived from above files but one list I saw includes 58 Hurricanes shot down by Brewsters in the 24th
GregP
Major
I rate the Buffalo as the worst fighter produced by the U.S.A. to be used in the war with the sole exception of the Boeing P-26 Peashooter that was pretty good when it entered service but was obsolete when WWII broke out. The success of the Buffalo in Finland can be attributed to a few points including:
1) Very poor Soviet opposition with green pilots in obsolete types, fighting over enemy territory. Anyone who went down and lived was probably lost or captured.
2) Experienced and talented Finnish pilots, fighting FOR their country over their own territory. Anyone who went down and lived was repatriated and could return to duty.
Also, the Buffalo as it served in US service didn't climb at over 3,000 feet per minute. It was more like 2,400 fpm. From all reports, it was a pleasant aircraft to fly, but not really in the fighter league. Aerobatics were "gentlemanly," not spirited. The armament was not very good, but was sufficient against lightly-built or obsolete opponents that had ever worse fighter performance than the Buffalo.
It did NOT have a 26 : 1 kill ratio as a type, only in Finnish service. When you state a kill ratio, it must include the population of the type. Otherwise, where do you stop? With one mission? I can point out missions where almost all WWII fighter types had a combat kill without loss. That doesn't mean the type had an outstanding kill ratio.
Imagine if the Finns had GOOD fighters in service!
1) Very poor Soviet opposition with green pilots in obsolete types, fighting over enemy territory. Anyone who went down and lived was probably lost or captured.
2) Experienced and talented Finnish pilots, fighting FOR their country over their own territory. Anyone who went down and lived was repatriated and could return to duty.
Also, the Buffalo as it served in US service didn't climb at over 3,000 feet per minute. It was more like 2,400 fpm. From all reports, it was a pleasant aircraft to fly, but not really in the fighter league. Aerobatics were "gentlemanly," not spirited. The armament was not very good, but was sufficient against lightly-built or obsolete opponents that had ever worse fighter performance than the Buffalo.
It did NOT have a 26 : 1 kill ratio as a type, only in Finnish service. When you state a kill ratio, it must include the population of the type. Otherwise, where do you stop? With one mission? I can point out missions where almost all WWII fighter types had a combat kill without loss. That doesn't mean the type had an outstanding kill ratio.
Imagine if the Finns had GOOD fighters in service!
buffnut453
Captain
Actually,.the 26:1 (in reality closer to 27:1) is for the type including all users. The ratio for just Finnish airframes was 33:1.
GregP
Major
Actually, the references for the Buffalo kills and losses are very scarce, particularly the losses, and almost all I have found contradict each other, with few numbers adding up. I can't find any primary records of actual victories outside the USA, though I freely admit they must be out there somewhere.
The Finns claim 496 victories for the loss of 19 Buffalos. I assume that is airborne in combat and does not include operational losses, losses while repositioning, etc. I cannot say anything about these claims because they are internet claims. I have never seen the actual Finn claims anywhere. At Midway, the US Navy lost 13 of 18 Buffalos and 2 of 4 Wildcats against 9 kills (8 attack planes and 1 fighter) that were mostly made on the first firing pass. After the Zeros got involved, the Buffalos were toast. Virtually all the Buffalo kills were outdated types. I have found a record on ONE Zero shot down, and the pilot (Dutch) who did it was immediately shot down and lost. The Type's success was ALL in Finland, where the opposition was obsolete and the Soviet pilots were green. Any Soviet pilot who was experienced was assigned to fight the Germans. Against any quality opponent, the Buffalo was toast.
Lacking a good list of losses, I cannot state the actual kill ratio. Seems like it was pretty decent, due to the Finns, and very little use elsewhere that amounted to anything other than losses. I would like to have one flying at a museum or in private hands, but I doubt I'd have been happy to have seen the Buffalo as a primary combat aircraft anywhere. When they were out of service, it was a good thing, not a crying shame. Obviously, Buffnut disagrees. But the US Navy certainly doesn't.
Perhaps, if the primary fighters of WWII were 50 - 80 mph slower, the Buffalo would have been right in there with the good ones, assuming you could get production away from Brewster, that is.
The Finns claim 496 victories for the loss of 19 Buffalos. I assume that is airborne in combat and does not include operational losses, losses while repositioning, etc. I cannot say anything about these claims because they are internet claims. I have never seen the actual Finn claims anywhere. At Midway, the US Navy lost 13 of 18 Buffalos and 2 of 4 Wildcats against 9 kills (8 attack planes and 1 fighter) that were mostly made on the first firing pass. After the Zeros got involved, the Buffalos were toast. Virtually all the Buffalo kills were outdated types. I have found a record on ONE Zero shot down, and the pilot (Dutch) who did it was immediately shot down and lost. The Type's success was ALL in Finland, where the opposition was obsolete and the Soviet pilots were green. Any Soviet pilot who was experienced was assigned to fight the Germans. Against any quality opponent, the Buffalo was toast.
Lacking a good list of losses, I cannot state the actual kill ratio. Seems like it was pretty decent, due to the Finns, and very little use elsewhere that amounted to anything other than losses. I would like to have one flying at a museum or in private hands, but I doubt I'd have been happy to have seen the Buffalo as a primary combat aircraft anywhere. When they were out of service, it was a good thing, not a crying shame. Obviously, Buffnut disagrees. But the US Navy certainly doesn't.
Perhaps, if the primary fighters of WWII were 50 - 80 mph slower, the Buffalo would have been right in there with the good ones, assuming you could get production away from Brewster, that is.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
The "Naval Version"?
The plane was accepted by the USN for Naval use. There never was another version of the F2A-1.
Fubar's right, though. The Buff's big Achilles Heel was always it's weak (for carrier use) landing gear. One of the reasons it was replaced by the F4F and limited to land based operations only (that, and later versions of the airplane turned it into an inferior fighter. In the end, the F4F became a better plane than the F2A. Some say it always was...we all have our favourites, I guess).
Elvis
buffnut453
Captain
Actually the undercarriage story is a bit more complex. Issues were found with the F2A-1 which were largely corrected in the F2A-2. Unfortunately, Brewster/the US Navy decided to build the much heavier F2A-3 and undercarriage problems started to return.
The RAF operated a pretty heavyweight version of the -2 and I haven't seen a single record of the sorts of undercarriage problems encountered by the USN. Now, admittedly, landing on a carrier deck is a whole different issue, particularly on a pitching flight deck. However, the RAF had no problems landing on some pretty rough and ready (and often monsoon-soaked) grass airfields. Most undercarriage problems encountered by the RAF were operator error because few of the pilots in Singapore had flown an aircraft with a retractable undercarriage before (with the exception of a short "conversion" course using Wirraways).
I'm not suggesting the Buffalo's undercarriage was a good operational design but, as with all things Buffalo, one has to be specific about the variant under discussion because performance varied so greatly between the different marks.
- Thread starter
- #18
The royal navy refused to consider the Buffalo because it had no tail hook. The RAF had ordered a de-navalized version and the navy seems to have not bothered to look at the US version. The landing gear was fixed eary on in the F2A1 and did not cause issues with the F2A2. The extra weight of the F3A3 caused a different mode of failure on repeated hard landings. Thhis slow bending of the strut mount was partly due to maintenance practices. The F2A3 maneuverability was essentially equivalent to the F4F3 except for roll rate, which was better. The F2A3 was a dog compared to the F2A2 not the F4F3.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
If the problem returned, that means it was never fixed in the first place.
As you can see here the whole arrangement is a compromise.
The load is supposed to be directed into the large main struts, but they're anchored out towards the end of the wing.
Should be the other way around. The root is always your strongest area.
Then there's the angle. The whole thing is a big "W". If there were less angle to the main struts, they would absorb more of the load and it would be better, but the design is still weak. It's always going to put some of the load onto the smaller articulated parts and that shouldn't be.
Elvis
buffnut453
Captain
But it wasn't the smaller articulated parts that were failing. It was the hinge point on the wing. As ssnider noted, the problem with the F2A-3 was the landing gear slowly creeping out of alignment, exacerbated by groundcrew literally filing off parts of the undercarriage so it would close...which, of course, made the problem worse. None of those problems have anything to do with the smaller articulated parts.
