Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Curtiss biplane Hawk types were very successful until the BF2C-1 with all-metal wing structure and retractable landing gear. Harmonic vibration caused them all to be withdrawn from service and destroyed! All within a few months of their acceptance into service.
They were such nice looking planes too!
Correct and also remember it was a time when a small air force was exponentially expanding and introducing so many new platforms all at the same time .Three years earlier they are flying B10's and P26's big changes .Allied evaluations of captured Me-109s and Fw-190s typically state that these aircraft were simple to fly. And that's exactly what you want as most WWII era military aircraft were flown by green pilots. They didn't get a million dollars worth of flight training like a modern day American military pilot before their first combat mission.
If the B-26 was too difficult to fly for typical pilots of that era then it's a problem.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the B-26 Marauders problem was the fact that the pilots were not use to a aircraft with such a high stall speed and the craft suffered unrecoverable stalls at low altitude due to this. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
100% False...If the B-26 was too difficult to fly for typical pilots of that era then it's a problem.
"landing and takeoff
characteristics of [the] B-26 were disappointing although it was a fairly good plane in the air. The
plane could be landed satisfactorily by experienced pilots when the proper amount of weight was
carried in the tail. However, due to its rate of deceleration, an experienced pilot, who understood its peculiar characteristics, was needed to fly the plane to make a satisfactory landing."
I thought the problem with the Buffalo was that Brewster did a poor job of upgrading? I think by the F2A-3, they slapped on four .50 cals and extra armor with the same powerplant as the F2A-1, killing the speed and rate of climb?
Do you have specifics? What's your definition of "craftsmanship and quality control?"
I could tell you that the Corsairs that were built at Brewster did have workmanship problems with regards to assembly, but the Buffalo for the most part was "built to print." There were inherent "design" problems that hampered performance an operation, but the airplane was "built as designed.
Flyboy,
Loose nuts in a trim tab actuator component (a bevel drive in a sealed box)
Engine issues - numerous (although this was the fault of Wright Bros not Brewster)
Oil pipes stopped up with paper
Gun attachment brackets would fracture
Two aircraft arrived with failed engine mount welds
Various loose cotter keys, washers, nuts and bolts were found in several engine and airframe components
Mark
Vassili,
The F2A-3 was built because the USN asked to increase the range of the F2A-2. The only way to do that was adding more fuel and oil. The range of the -2 was still very good - at least comparable with the F4F. Why the USN asked for the -3 remains one of those mysteries (to me, at least!).
Regards,
Mark
I am not sure if the Navy really asked for increased range or if the easiest way to change to self sealing tanks was simple to add new fuel tanks while leaving old integral tanks in place. Supposedly the old tanks were placarded as not to be used except under orders of squadron commander. The exception to this was that one of the old tanks was the "reserve tank" which needed to be kept unless a total revision of the fuel system was done.
Makes no sense to leave stuff in place that isn't to be used - and a redesign to change to self-sealing is has less impact (even given integral wing fuel tanks on the F2A) than simply retaining the old ones and adding extra ones. 'Fraid that just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps the placards were more to do with CofG issues.
For the record, the range of F2A-2 was approx 1000 miles, range of F2A-3 was 1600 miles. I think they asked for more range...