MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

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

I imagine a lot of Soviet records were lost or destroyed as they retreated eastwards during June to August 1941.
 

Kevin J said:
I recall reading that locked forwards that the guns were angled upwards at 19 degrees.
Click to expand...

Found a pretty convincing figure from the Assistant Resident Technical Officer, Messrs. Boulton Paul Aircraft, Ltd. - 24 Jan 1940
"Guns cannot be fired below an angle of + 18deg. 30min. for 74deg. 55min. each side of forward line (present Type A Mk.IId)"​

In other words, if the turret is pointed in the forward 32 degrees, 10 min arc of the aircraft, it can't fire below 18.5 degrees.

Although there seems to be continual work messing with the limitations of the turret angles/cut-outs throughout the Defiant's service life. So a figures for the turret at a certain date might not be applicable to an earlier/later date.
 


And I think that settles the issue that Defiant was a pretty useless aircraft. In theory, a turret - especially one which could quickly point in any direction including forward, could be quite useful. But in practice, much like the 'heavy fighter', the blimp as aircraft carrier, 'the bomber will always get through' and other neat but doomed 1930's design theories, it turned out to be a non-starter. Even if you could somehow synchronize the guns - the drag of the guns themselves, the weight of the power turret and the extra gunner, not to mention line of sight challenges, made it a non-starter.

The closest they came to something like this actually working was in the P-61 using a remote controlled power turret, and they eventually deleted the turret from most of those because it didn't really work there either.

If you had some kind of computer controlled software today you might pull it off - on a WW2 era fighter flying at WW2 speeds. Wouldn't want to have four guns waving around in the slipstream going Mach 2 though.

S
 
Schweik said:
The closest they came to something like this actually working was in the P-61 using a remote controlled power turret, and they eventually deleted the turret from most of those because it didn't really work there either.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that some of the earlier production P-61s, after the initial batches, did away with the turret, but later B models had them fitted.
 
I've read that the Buffalo was at least the equal of the Wildcat, but was inadequately armed, and Brewster couldn't match the production performance of Grumman. The Buffalo was described as a pleasure to fly, and more maneuverable than the F4F. Of course, the Buffalo was hopelessly outclassed by the Japanese aircraft it met in combat.
 
The Brewster Buffalo's only notable contribution to Aviation was, as I said, the US Navy's first monoplane carrier aircraft. - Apart from that it was a " flying brick" : for handling, manoeuvering, & critically, gaining altitude, with only 4 machine guns (2x .303 + 2x.50's) that were not reliable - But man, they sure dived well !!... like a brick !! -

As they had no radar warning, they were another other big reason that the Air Defence of Singapore collapsed, as they could not reach interception height quick enough to battle incoming Japanese bombers & were totally outclassed by the Ki-43 escort fighters. - That chap pictured on an earlier page standing in front of a P-40 ( the RNZAF " Waiarapa Wildcat," is Geoff Fisken, a Kiwi pilot who was actually able to knock some Japs down in a Buffalo, a mixture of his great ability and the fact the bloody plane was 'behaving' ok at the time -

The US Navy knew the Buffalo was a bit of a 'lemon', the Grumman Wildcat was in competition & a prototype was ordered of it, then they were asked for an 'improved' version, which came (with a better engine & 4x .50 guns) and this became the F4F-3 and the first 78 were ordered on 8th August 1939 - The rest is history, as together the P-40 & Wildcat took the fight to the Japs and started the wrestle for air superiority in the Pacific ~

The British Purchasing Commission got some in July 1940 and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm used them as the 'Martlet Mk.1' -
Two chaps, Sub-Lieutenants Norris 'Pat' Patterson & Graham Fletcher of FAA 802 Sqn. from the HMS Audacity, Britain's first 'escort' aircraft-carrier, were together the first to shoot down a Focke Wulf Condor 'convoy' bomber during Convoy 'OG74' near Gibraltar on 20 Sept. 1941 -
The first actual fighter vs fighter combat success was by two Martlets from FAA 804 Sqn. on 25th Dec.1940 -
The aircraft were also popular because they were bred for the sea, as they had special immersion switches which tripped in water and operated flotation bags in the wings and kept the cockpit clear of water initially, as behind there just past the aerial, was the stowage of the one-man Mk.1A life-raft - It saved pilots lives ~
( It's great to see that Grumman is still going today ! ) ~

With regards to the Defiant, I agree with Schweik that it was pretty useless overall, and despite these 'radar' versions, the gunflash would've blinded the pilot anyway ~

Cheers
 
Gemhorse said:
The Brewster Buffalo's only notable contribution to Aviation was, as I said, the US Navy's first monoplane FIGHTER carrier aircraft. -
Click to expand...

Fixed it.
First US monoplane carrier aircraft was the Douglas Devastator.
Vought Vindicators and Northrop BT-1s also operated from Carrier decks before the Buffalo although th eBT-1 was less than stellar doing so.
 
On Brewster F2A, Finns liked the Model 239 aka de-navalized F2A-1 very much and achieved very enviable exchange rate against the Soviet planes, mostly fighters. And in fact British test facilities seems to agree

In September 1940, the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough tested Brewster serial 430, identified as a Buffalo but undoubtedly a 339B built for Belgium.
...Ailerons - Tests in the speed range from the approach glide to 400 m.p.h. showed the ailerons to be exceptionally effective; they are crisp and powerful, and the stick forces are not too light at low speeds nor too heavy at the greater speeds. The pilots considered them to be a very definite improvement on the Hurricane and Spitfire fabric covered ailerons.

General - There is no tendency for any control to oscillate snatch or take charge at any speed. The pilots considered that with this aeroplane a definite advance had been made in fighter controls....

The Air Fighting Development Unit at Northolt filed this report on 5 Nov 1940 after testing a 339B
...Climb and Dive - The climb to 15,000 feet is better than that of the Hurricane, and the aircraft easily out-dives the Hurricane.

Comparative Speed in Level Flight - [The fighters were flown at the rated heights for the two-speed supercharger on the Brewster's Cyclone engine.] At 6,000 feet the Brewster was approximately 15 m.p.h. faster than the Hurricane; while at 14,700 feet the speeds were practically identical. [If similarly equipped,] the Brewster's speed at 6,000 feet would be approximately the same as the Hurricane, whereas at 14,700 feet it would be approximately 12 miles slower.

Maneuverability - In the air the Brewster Fighter is very maneuverable, its aileron and elevator controls being positive and lighter than the Hurricane or Spitfire at all speeds. The rudder is definitively heavy, but only a little movement is required for full control. It can easily turn inside the Hurricane.

Steadiness of aircraft as gun platform - Although the guns were not fitted, it is the opinion of all pilots who flew the aircraft that it should be a steady gun platform...

So a handy plane up to 15,000 ft but above it degenerates.
 
Juha2 said:
On Brewster F2A, Finns liked the Model 239 aka de-navalized F2A-1 very much and achieved very enviable exchange rate against the Soviet planes, mostly fighters. And in fact British test facilities seems to agree
.
Click to expand...



The Finns of course called the Buffalo the "Pearl of the Sky" and loved it.

"Bufallo", a name based on the great American city where so many US aircraft were produced, had unfortunate connotations of a lumbering beast. Pearl of the Sky sounds a lot better and suits the high morale of the Finnish Air Force.

When you compare the performance of the F2A at Singapore (Geoff Fisken excepted) or Rangoon with the Finns, It's a conundrum, one of many similar ones during the war (P-39 in Soviet vs. Anglo-American use comes quickly to mind, as does the Spitfire in the Pacific) which demonstrate the adage that you can't really judge a WW2 aircraft in a vacuum. The value of the plane is the result of the quality of aircraft + the circumstances of the Theater + training and maintenance.

I suspect (but can't prove so don't ask me to) the Finns got an aircraft which was right on the edge of being too heavy, (like the one in the British test with no guns in it yet) and being a foreign, essentially cast away aircraft like almost every other one they had, they did not hesitate to customize it as much as possible. Fixed a lot of the small issues and stripped weight. "De-Navalizing" helped no doubt. They made it their own, in short, and also found it suited to their Theater.

This is somewhat similar to the changes made to the P-40 B or C (I don't think which precise subtype was ever truly settled ... because it was basically a hybrid) by the AVG in Burma or the 4 month workup the Soviets did on the P-39. Fix all the small but annoying problems which collectively, can doom a good aircraft, and work out tactics and training to maximize the strengths and cope with the weaknesses of the aircraft. And give the pilots suitable time to absorb all these lessons and familiarize themselves with the aircraft.

For example the Soviets didn't do very well with the Spit V because they never fully understood the aircraft and had little time to learn it. New Zealand pilots (like Fisken) did better with the P-40s (in terms of victory claim to loss ratios) than American pilots in the same Theater most likely because they started with a lot of well trained pilots (including instructors) did 'advanced' training like gunnery training, and had plenty of time to familiarize with the type. Also apparently had higher maintenance standards.

The Me 110 was considered the most dangerous opponent in the Battle of France but was knocked down a peg in the Battle of Britain. It later proved valuable again in Russia. The P-38 excelled in the Pacific but came up very short in Europe and the Med. The Spit was the reverse.


Theaters vary enormously. The altitude where combat takes place, the range between forces, the temperature and weather conditions. I've learned on this forum just how much temperature can affect engines and even airfoils. An aircraft great in one Theater may not perform in another, and vice versa. And of course the nature of the enemy aircraft.

Whether an aircraft excels or suffers unacceptable losses, or falls somewhere in between, often hinges on marginal advantages in performance or maneuverability which, once realized, could be consistently exploited by the pilots. The Zero proved terrifyingly effective against nearly all Allied aircraft in 1941 and the first few months of 1942, thanks in part to a marginally superior altitude ceiling (of maybe 4,000 feet) and better turn radius, but once Allied pilots realized they could out dive the Zero they gained the ability to disengage almost at will which evened the odds considerably and began to tip the fight into their favor.



Some time in late 1942 or early 1943, in the Pacific around New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, P-38 pilots in the 49th Fighter Group figured out they were capable of out-climbing the Zero or Hayabusa in a shallow high-speed climb, within a certain altitude band. This narrow window of performance advantage gave experienced "Lightning" pilots the edge they needed to 'hit and run' and they started racking up victories at a rate that quickly became untenable for the Japanese.

Similar techniques, such as a high speed climbing turn, were used with great success with the Bf 109 against a variety of Anglo-American and Soviet aircraft in 1941 through early 1943 (including against P-38s), before more capable engines closed that niche. Luftwaffe pilots during the Battle of Britain also famously used the zero-G capabilities of their fuel injected engine to perform a nose-down dive escape maneuver which saved many German lives (and ultimately cost many English ones) though American and eventually, British aircraft addressed this particular issue with the carbeurator flooding.

I think in general we tend to exaggerate the superiority or inferiority of many wartime aircraft. Truly inferior types were usually taken out of the line pretty quickly. Though tolerance for losses varied, (certainly higher for the Soviets than for Anglo-Americans for example), there was a limit in how lop sided a loss rate you could endure, in terms of pilot training systems, morale, and aircraft production. This is why you don't see Boulton Paul Defiants or Gloster Gladiators fighting in 1944 (as far as I know). Though you did see some B-239s flying in Finland I think which speaks well of the design.

Narrow advantages, when disseminated through training, gave one side or the other the edge .. for a time. Those countries able to stay "in the war" usually closed these gaps quickly either through training, design tweaks, or entirely new designs. The Japanese responded to alarming losses to new American fighters in 1943 by deploying the new, faster and higher flying A6M5 variant of the Zero and other fighters like the Ki-61 and Ki-44. Extreme cases may have lasted 5 or 6 months or more (and this typically meant a change of Strategy in the interim, such as the end of "Rhubarb" raids by Spitfires during the heydey of the Fw 190) but more often these lopsided cases were closed down - or at least substantially narrowed- in a matter of weeks.

Once a given Air Force was no longer capable of answering enemy innovations, that was basically the end - certainly the sharp decline, and beginning of the ultimate destruction of that Air Force. Arguably from the middle of 1943 this was the case for the Italians, Japanese and Germans (roughly in that order, as the German collapse was a bit slower, and the Italians more precipitous). After that changes and adaptations were basically too little, too late.

S
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
"Bufallo", a name based on the great American city where so many US aircraft were produced,
Click to expand...

The British named it the Buffalo. The Buccaneer (Bermuda in British service) also began with a 'B'. More like the names began with a 'B' because they were built by Brewster.
 
Stig1207 said:
The Finns were pretty successful with other types of fighters as well. It probably says more about the Finnish pilots than the particular aircraft they flew.
Click to expand...

But the fact that Finnish fighter pilots liked Model 239 very much and that it was the most successful FiAF fighter during the early years of the Continuation War (1941-06-25 - 1944-09-04) says something on the plane.
 
On the Model 239, it has its early problems e.g. leaking of the integral fuel tanks, so it was good that Finns had time to fix them before Brewsters got into real actions. And of course time to perfect the tactics to be used against VVS fighters and pilots to learn the tricks of the plane. There was still a little room for weight additions, e.g. Finns added the back armour for the pilot and in 1942 began to change the nose .300 to a .5, so the armament went from 3 x .5 + 1 x .300 to 4 x .5.
 
Thanks for the comments gentlemen ~

Juha2, your comments are most interesting especially as they come from British sources -

And Schweik, many thanks for your broader view and grasp of the situations respectfully to each nation at the time ~ And thanx for the great photos !

I went and dug-out the book that I read years ago, "Last Stand in Singapore" by Graham Clayton - His father was a member of the groundcrew of RAF 488 (NZ) Sqn. which was formed the day after the bulk of the Squadron arrived in Singapore, on the 11th October 1941- It was essentially a RNZAF Sqn. made up of Kiwis, lead by kiwi Sqn.Ldr. Wilf Clouston DFC, an ex-BoB pilot from RAF 258 Sqn. His flight commanders were also ex-BoB pilots of high calibre. The rest of the aircrew were basically trained - They shared Kallang airfield in Singapore with RAF No. 243 Sqn. and a Netherlands East India Brewster Sqn. -
They took over from RAF No. 67 Sqn. after they departed for Burma, leaving 21 unserviceable Buffaloes, no tools or spare parts; the only equipment found abandoned with the aircraft were 6 trestles, 6 chocks, one broken ladder and 6 oil-draining drums. The aircraft had originally been crated out from the US to Singapore and assembled at Seletar airbase nearby, earlier in the year - Kiwi ingenuity helped get the planes airworthy, including refitting the armour-plating which had arrived with all the bolted connection holes being drilled in the wrong place. Being hardened steel they could not be re-drilled and considerable improvisation was needed, some being fitted literally using the proverbial Kiwi No.8 fencing wire ! -As test flights began once airworthy, early training wasn't helped by a complete absence of radio gear - So it was hand signals and wing-waggling required with careful judgement. -

The author states...
"The Brewster Buffaloes really were a sorry saga. Two international publications list them as the worst fighter aircraft in WW2 - The Buffalo story goes back to 1932 when an aeronautical engineer called James Work brought the aircraft division of Brewster and Co in the US.- The US Navy was looking for a carrier-based fighter-bomber. There competition from the Grumman Wildcat but the Buffalo won out due to it's better handling and the fact that many of it's systems were hydraulically controlled, particularly the undercarriage. Amazingly, the Wildcat still had a manual winding system for it's undercarriage. Brewster got the contract and an order from the US Navy for 54 aircraft. - When war broke out with Germany in1939 the US was still neutral and the Brewster factory were exporting their aircraft to Finland. When Finland was overrun by the Russians, the US pushed sales to other European countries, including France, but of course the German invasion beat the delivery to both Belgium & France by a wide margin. Britain took over the Buffaloes and assigned them to RAF 71 Sqn. - The model sold to Britain was the modified Model 339E and were used as trainers, due mainly to the fact they had no armour plate and not enough guns. Worse, the fuel tanks were in the wings and a single bullet hole meant a total rebuild. - Britain ordered more Buffaloes built to new specifications and these acquisitions were sent to the Far East to bolster the Singapore and Malaya defence - Although deemed unsuitable for RAF ETO operations by the Air Ministry, just a few months later they placed an order through the British Purchasing Commision for 170 Model 339E's - they were deemed suitable for use in the Far East -
Despite the criticism levelled at the Buffalo, both 488's flight commanders had earlier described them as 'nice old gentlemen's aeroplanes' so clearly some aircrew found them okay to fly. - Consensus opinion however was they were not the most 'accommodating' aircraft to fly, in fact compared to Harvards these Buffalo beasts were something else ! They had extremely high landing speed due to their brick-like aerodynamics and once on the ground the pilot had a very limited forward vision because of the large radial engine. Taxiing was also fraught with danger due to the series of zigzags, requiring the pilot either standing up or leaning out either side of the cockpit - They were not sleek with their fat little bodies and stubby wings. The propellor appeared ludicrously small for such a heavy-looking aircraft.-The CO of 488, Wilf Clouston reported his concerns about the ability of the Buffalo to do it's job, being particularly critical of it's manoeuvrability and poor armaments. But he did concede that he considered the technical staff provided by the RNZAF for Singapore were of a very high standard -"

But here is the real juice...
"Brewster Buffalo - the 'world's worst fighter aircraft"
The 339E was a variant of the early F2A-2 models designed for carrier use for the US Navy. They were powered by a Wright R-1820-G105 Cyclone engine that developed 1100hp. The British specification increased the weight by 6500 pounds, almost 1000 pounds heavier than the standard F2A-2. The top speed was lowered to 528kph and the rate of climb lowered to only 2600 fpm. The increased weight raised the wing loading, and reduced overall manoeuvrability. One of the modifications was a change to the fuel line pressurisation system, as fuel starvation became a problem above 18,000 ft. The Curtiss Electric cuffed propeller was replaced with a 10 ft 1 inch Hamilton Standard propeller and the small retractable naval-type tail wheel was replaced by a larger fixed tail wheel. - The Cyclone engine installed in the Buffalo Mk.1 had been selected as there were sufficient numbers of engines available to meet the first British contract. Unfortunately, insufficient numbers of these engines were available for the second contract supply and Brewster was forced to purchase used Cyclone engines from commercial airlines which had been using them to power their Douglas DC-3 airliners. Used engines were returned to Wright, which reconditioned them to the G105 standards. - The Buffaloes did have some good characteristics but also considerable deficiencies. There were officially 27 modifications that had to be made to make them battle-worthy. One of the major problems was faulty interrupter gear. This was the device that timed the firing of the guns through the arc of the rotating propeller without shooting it to pieces. The Buffalo had four Colt Browning .50-calibre machine-guns as it's armament. Two were mounted behind the engine and one in each wing. They packed a punch. That is, when they decided to fire. The downside was that they were too heavy, which affected the manoeuvrability and rate of climb of the aircraft. When lighter .303 machine-guns were fitted and the amount of ammunition carried reduced, things improved. - The fuel load was also reduced to try and improve their competitiveness but this had the effect of limiting the time they could spend in action. It was a constant battle to see which would run out first, the ammunition or the fuel. Mostly, the fuel lasted longer as much frustration was reported by many of the aircrew over getting into a good attack position, waiting until the last second before squeezing the fire button and having either nothing happen or, if you were lucky, a very short burst then nothing. Some aircrew were so frustrated that for a split second they considered ramming the target aircraft ! - The Buffalo's (reduced) top speed of 528 kph was seldom reached. It had an operating range of 1400 km, which was exceptional.~"

So, that's what the book's story tells, all these men tried their best with the Buffalo - They also offered air cover for Force Z, the battleships 'Repulse & Prince of Wales' but were refused by the Royal Navy. But despite their aircraft's shortcomings they were still prepared to support & fight.
This is a really moving book, these men who survived felt such shame at their defeat that they never spoke of it over the years, carrying that terrible weight of loss - How 30,000 Japs defeated an Allied force of 100,000 ! - Of all books, this one tells of so many aspects of the Singapore debacle -
(This isn't the only book I've read about Singapore etc- "Bloody Shambles Vols 1 & 2" I 've read and also "Buffaloes over Singapore" by Brian Cull)

So if you were a fighter pilot back then and you were given a Buffalo, how would you feel about it ? - I have read the book which tells much, much more, but the thought of being a Buffalo pilot positively chills me !

Thanks Swampyankee, I was aware of Lockheed/Grumman, although I wasn't aware of how well it was going. Grumman used to make those great seaplanes too, some are still around -

Thanks for letting me vent gents, both 488 & 243 Squadrons were crewed by New Zealanders - They just should have had better war materiel & support.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
687
yulzari
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
408
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
897
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
546
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register