Hurricane vs Buffalo

[pinsog]

I finally found the reference to the Hurricane vs Buffalo test

 

[pinsog]

Last 2 pages have the reference to a mock dogfight. The previous pages give some background

 

[SaparotRob]

Last 2 pages have the reference to a mock dogfight. The previous pages give some background

I was just thinking about the lack of things Buffalo here.

 

[pinsog]

It had come up in other threads and I knew I had read it somewhere and I finally came across it

 

[swampyankee]

Pinsog, thank you.

The Buffalo's success in one limited theatre should be weighed against its inadequacy in other areas where it fought. It's not the only aircraft that was found lacking in one theatre but was found successful in another one, e.g., the P-39.

 

[pinsog]

I found it interesting/unbelievable that a Buffalo would outperform a Hurricane II above 20,000 feet. I would have thought, IF it outperformed it anywhere at all, it would be down low below 10,000 feet or even below 5,000 feet. I wish there were more details on the test.

 

[Juha3]

Hello Pinsog
do you know from which book the pages are?
If one had asked from Finnish fighter jockeys, the answer would have been Brewster Model 239 hands down, it could make a 360 deg turn in 17.5 sec at 1,500 m. But one must remember that Finns used 87 octane fuel.
And Finns also noticed the floppy construction quality of Brewster but we had one year time to correct the defects before the Continuation War began. 239s flew a dozen or so sorties during the last days of the Winter War but without enemy contacts.

 

[SaparotRob]

While it would never have been a world beater, I believe the poor build quality of the Buffalo really contributed to its dismal performance in the PTO. This was mentioned in the book World's Worst Aircraft. Brewster was so bad U.S. Navy officials shut down Brewster while they were building Corsairs.

 

[RCAFson]

This is from Caygill's Flying to the Limit:

"Brief comparative trials were flown against a Hurricane at the Buffalo's rated altitudes and during level speed tests the Buffalo was found to be 15 mph faster at 6000 ft. At 14,700 ft the maximum speed of the two aircraft was virtually identical. However, it was later calculated that had the Buffalo been carrying its full war load, as was the Hurricane, the speeds would have been approximately the same at the lower height and the Buffalo would have been slower by around 12 mph at the higher altitude. Owing to the disparity in weight the Buffalo also out-performed the Hurricane in climbs to 15,000 ft and it could easily turn inside the British aircraft. Pilots were of the opinion that the Buffalo would be a good gun platform.

With a maximum speed of around 300 mph and a rapidly deteriorating performance above 15,000 ft, there was no possibility of the Buffalo being used in the European theatre and most aircraft were shipped to the Far East. The first unit to become operational was No. 67 Squadron at Kallang, Singapore in May 1941. The Buffalo was also flown by Nos 146, 243, 453, 488 and (RAAF) 21 Squadrons. Carrying full fuel and armament, the Buffalo's performance was reduced still further. Following the Japanese invasion in December 1941, it was hopelessly outclassed by the nimble Mitsubishi Zero, which benefited from a vastly superior power-to-weight ratio. A story that did the rounds at the time told of Buffalo pilots having to suffer the ignominy of the Blenheim twin-engined bombers they were escorting being forced to slow down so that they could keep up. In an effort to improve performance, some aircraft had their all-up weight reduced by having two of their 0.5-in guns replaced by 0.303-in Brownings, together with a smaller ammunition load and less than full fuel. This accounted for around 900 lb, which reduced the performance gap with the Zero. However, general wear and tear on the airframes and down-on-power engines countered this and following the withdrawal of units to India, the Buffalo was quickly replaced by the Hurricane."

I suspect that Hurricane performance was assessed without overboost, while the Buffalo's engine did not have a Military or War Emergency rating, IIRC.

 

[glennasher]

Didn't I read somewhere that during the trials, it outflew the F4F, climbing faster and turning better? I seem to recall that, but I can't remember where or when. I also seem to recall that the Navy wanted the Buffalo more than the Wildcats at first, possibly due to it's climbing performance. I do NOT recall that there were issues about Brewster's quality, though.

 

[RCAFson]

Didn't I read somewhere that during the trials, it outflew the F4F, climbing faster and turning better? I seem to recall that, but I can't remember where or when. I also seem to recall that the Navy wanted the Buffalo more than the Wildcats at first, possibly due to it's climbing performance. I do NOT recall that there were issues about Brewster's quality, though.

The F2A-1 beat the F4F during their initial USN fighter competition and was selected as the USN's first monoplane fighter.

 

[SaparotRob]

I can't recall where I read this but Brewster was sometimes using rebuilt and/or sub standard engines. This was in addition to poor build quality of the aircraft. There were also allegations of sabotage as well. I'm pretty sure I read this in a link on this forum.

 

[Shortround6]

I can't recall where I read this but Brewster was sometimes using rebuilt and/or sub standard engines. This was in addition to poor build quality of the aircraft. There were also allegations of sabotage as well. I'm pretty sure I read this in a link on this forum.

Yes and no.
The US Navy ordered their engines from the manufacturer (Wright) and Wright sent the government owned engines to the Brewster factory. Any shenanigans in substituting used/rebuilt engines and keeping the new engines in the back room would have seen at least a few people at Brewster in prison.

However export aircraft were a somewhat different story. Once again the purchaser of the airframe was responsible for supplying the engines to Brewster and there just were not enough new engines to go around for all the aircraft that needed them. US aircraft were getting first priority. Wither Brewster helped locate the engines or not I don't know but the some of the aircraft that the British wound up with (and maybe some of the Dutch ones) got overhauled engines taken out of DC-3s. This may have been entirely on Wright as they would be the most logical source of used/overhauled Wright Cyclone engines. The engines were not overhauled in AIrline maintenance hangers, at that time, New or newly overhauled engines would be swapped for the time expired engines to keep the aircraft in the air (and making money) while time expired engines went back to the manufacturer or approved service center/overhaul facility.

 

[ssnider]

Yes and no.
The US Navy ordered their engines from the manufacturer (Wright) and Wright sent the government owned engines to the Brewster factory. Any shenanigans in substituting used/rebuilt engines and keeping the new engines in the back room would have seen at least a few people at Brewster in prison.

However export aircraft were a somewhat different story. Once again the purchaser of the airframe was responsible for supplying the engines to Brewster and there just were not enough new engines to go around for all the aircraft that needed them. US aircraft were getting first priority. Wither Brewster helped locate the engines or not I don't know but the some of the aircraft that the British wound up with (and maybe some of the Dutch ones) got overhauled engines taken out of DC-3s. This may have been entirely on Wright as they would be the most logical source of used/overhauled Wright Cyclone engines. The engines were not overhauled in AIrline maintenance hangers, at that time, New or newly overhauled engines would be swapped for the time expired engines to keep the aircraft in the air (and making money) while time expired engines went back to the manufacturer or approved service center/overhaul facility.

The British knew they were getting used engines as that was all that was available. However I read somewhere (i never learn to record sources) that the CEO of Brewster had a controlling interest in the test house that certified the rebuilt engines. Also the Brewster salesmen had skimmed the British contract incentive to cut costs was high.

 

[taly01]

The engine of Buffalo's is far more confusing than simple accessory and settings. I researched them for flight sim modelling.

The R-1820-G5 (F2A-1, B239) has an alloy crankcase limited to 2,200rpm power.
The R-1820-G105A (B339E) had a steel crankcase at 2,350rpm power.
The R-1820-G205A (F2A-2/3) had a lighter steel but webbed reinforced crankcase for 2,500rpm power.

Also the only real power advantage the G105A had over G5 was a much better emergency/take-off power 1100 vs 950hp in 1st supercharger gear only!

 

[buffnut453]

The stories of sabotage date from the delivery of Buffalos to British forces in Singapore. Upon uncrating and inspecting the aircraft, 2 were found to have poorly welded engine bearers, while an unspecified number had small pieces of metal in the engine oil sump. It's unclear whether these were deliberate acts of sabotage or if they were simply manifestations of Brewster's shoddy quality control.

Part of Brewster's problem is that they lacked an established track record of aircraft production. The company started out as a coachworks, building bespoke bodies for automobiles. They diversified into aircraft components, building wing floats for floatplanes, before deciding to design their own aircraft. When the orders started to come in, Brewster had to find a workforce...and quickly. This meant they hired anyone they could find which caused problems in a demanding field such as aviation. There were also problems between management and the unionized workforce.

Finally, the Brewster "production line" operated over several floors in a downtown factory that had no adjacent airfield. The factory lacked a proper Ford-like production line and completed airframes had to be dismantled and trucked to an airfield for test flying. The set up was ok for small-batch orders under peacetime conditions. It broke down rapidly when order sizes increased and deliver schedules compressed. Of course, the Brewster salesmen promised that entirely impractical delivery schedules could be met.

Overall, not a recipe for success.

 

[Juha3]

The stories of sabotage date from the delivery of Buffalos to British forces in Singapore. Upon uncrating and inspecting the aircraft, 2 were found to have poorly welded engine bearers, while an unspecified number had small pieces of metal in the engine oil sump. It's unclear whether these were deliberate acts of sabotage or if they were simply manifestations of Brewster's shoddy quality control.

Part of Brewster's problem is that they lacked an established track record of aircraft production. The company started out as a coachworks, building bespoke bodies for automobiles. They diversified into aircraft components, building wing floats for floatplanes, before deciding to design their own aircraft. When the orders started to come in, Brewster had to find a workforce...and quickly. This meant they hired anyone they could find which caused problems in a demanding field such as aviation. There were also problems between management and the unionized workforce.

Finally, the Brewster "production line" operated over several floors in a downtown factory that had no adjacent airfield. The factory lacked a proper Ford-like production line and completed airframes had to be dismantled and trucked to an airfield for test flying. The set up was ok for small-batch orders under peacetime conditions. It broke down rapidly when order sizes increased and deliver schedules compressed. Of course, the Brewster salesmen promised that entirely impractical delivery schedules could be met.

Overall, not a recipe for success.

Brewster Corporation acquired a couple other factories, at least one had a very militant shop steward. On the other hand while Brewster had notorious Miranda brothers as salesmen, Model 239 was one of few 30s-40s acquisitions of the FiAF which fulfilled exactly its promised specs. But as said FiAF's Model 239s had numerous manufacture defects beginning with leaking integral fuel tanks.

 

[SaparotRob]

Does anyone know how the Brewster B-239 got the name "Buffalo"?

 

[fubar57]

F2A BUFFALO in action - Squadron/Signal Publications Inc​

 

[SaparotRob]

Thanks again fubar57. I shoulda' known it was the Brits. Vildebeast should have tipped me off.