SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
You're right. That was something I never heard of. However, that was not the point I was trying to make.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You're right. That was something I never heard of. However, that was not the point I was trying to make.Something you may not have heard of. In 1945 the RAAF (Australian Air Force) were still using the Buffalo along with P 40s, P 51s, Spits and Hurris. The Buffalos were properly maintained but were pretty much the same model as those with which the war began. Those Buffalos were not only scoring well against Japanese Bombers and Reconnaissance but were even managing to shoot down Zeros. True, they didn't get many, but they did get them and did so while suffering much lower and in some cases no losses against their enemies. It can be fairly argued that the Japanese pilots by the end of the war were of much poorer quality than those at the beginning, but it should be remembered that the allied pilots had been learning to use their strengths while denying the Japanese their aircraft's weaknesses.
Just being snarky.No, no. I'm saying that every man made machine is subject to the laws of God and Nature. Physics does not take a hike just because man figures out how to fly. Gravity is a killer, although when properly used can be an excellent help.
For the most part, THAT'S what I have heard.Sorry but, no, the RAAF was NOT using the Buffalo in 1945. They were all pretty much out of service by early 1944 and they did not participate in a single interception of Japanese forces. Only one RAAF fighter squadron was equipped with the Buffalo in Australia and it provided air defence for Perth. Another 6 airframes were used by 1 PRU but they had no guns and never flew outside Aussie airspace.
That's a great avatar, Buffnut453. What might that be?
Sorry but, no, the RAAF was NOT using the Buffalo in 1945. They were all pretty much out of service by early 1944 and they did not participate in a single interception of Japanese forces. Only one RAAF fighter squadron was equipped with the Buffalo in Australia and it provided air defence for Perth. Another 6 airframes were used by 1 PRU but they had no guns and never flew outside Aussie airspace.
Sorry, the article I read about the Australian pilot who had been credited with a Zero was said to have done so at the beginning of 1945. as I remember the article said something about the Australians having advanced radar warning of the approaching Japanese. It could be that the article was wrong or that the date was 1944 and I was remembering it as 1945 or that it could just have been an odd circumstance that did occur in 1945. Or it could be that the article was completely wrong.
The Buffalo is one of my favorites. But we all know that.
Agreed. Brewster was a really bad manufacturer. I'm sure someone here can expand on just how bad they were. They were a defense contractor that went out of business during the Second World War.When anyone who has a certain amount of knowledge about the level of construction and design complexity that aircraft had arrived at in the 1930s, it comes as a real surprise that a company that made Train engines and associated equipment was able to come up with a, for that time, successful airplane design. It's not like the Brewster company had a long history in aviation the way Curtiss-Wright and Boeing and Bell, as well as the others had.
The Buffalo is one of my favorites. But we all know that.
A couple of books come to mind; Samurai an autobiography by Saburo Sakai with Martin Caidin. Zero Fighter published by Ballantine books. There was also an article I read a very long time ago that was part of a study done by US Naval Intelligence on the various aircraft used in Japanese Kamikaze operations which went into the the performance figures and limitations of the machines used for those operations. I too have come across those 400 mph figures and found that they were estimated figures based on extrapolations from the perfomance figures of the late model Zeros. I'm sure with a little digging you can come across that info. The G forces involved in trying to recover from a terminal dive have easily caused structural failure in the wings as well as other structural parts of aircraft that were far more ruggedly built than the Zero. I know of one case where a P 51B Mustang was able to surprise a Messerschmitt 262 and the P51 pilot, knowing he had the German, went into a very steep power dive accelerating well past the never exceed speed (VNE). The German pilot spotted the P 51 just after he had initiated the dive and spooled up as quickly as the Jumo's could at that time. The upshot was that the 262 accelerated away leaving the American pilot with the choice of either auguring into the ground or pulling out of the dive. He succeeded in pulling out at the cost of permanently distorting both wings, which made the plane just barely flyable, and by hearing a very loud sound as if a giant piece of fabric was being torn in two. Upon landing he found that the tearing sound had been caused by a line of rivets, starting just aft of the canopy and extending all the way back to the tail, that had literally been popped out from the bending forces that the fuselage had sustained in the recovery.
I've researched the Buffalo for over 20 years and never come across any records describing an engagement while flying in Australia. The RAAF handed it's Buffalos to the USAAF in early 1944.
Until you read it in a combat report, its hear-say, especially from Caidin.
Agreed. Brewster was a really bad manufacturer. I'm sure someone here can expand on just how bad they were. They were a defense contractor that went out of business during the Second World War.
"Caidinism" (which roughly translates to "bullshit")
If I remember right, you're the one who coined the term...Adding that to the site dictionary!