Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hi Buffnut
I don't think you can safely assume anything, because your assumptions and quotes appear to heavily rely on discredited information, which I pointed out to you previously, but which you are preferring to adhere to at this point
I agree the ORBAT info is pretty clear in for example Bloody Shambles, and most of the JAAF info in that book is straight out of Vol 34 of Senshi Sosho, the Japanese official history volume covering JAAF ops in that theater and period (likewise relevant volume for JNAF info). So I agree with your and Buffnut's side of the argument there.Are you saying that my information is discredited? The numbers I quoted are from a reputable book...one of the authors (Christopher Shores) is even cited in an article you linked. The only thing Buffnut comes even close to "assuming" is the aerocraft numbers I quoted...
The wing was one piece (no left anf right) with the landing gear in it so the only way to repace the wing was to hoist the fuselage into the air with a crane. (OK. Lots of jacks and cribbing?)
Having removed a few wings in this manner I don't think it would make that much of a difference, the determining factor would be how accessible the attach points would be on both aircraft and what type of support equipment is available to facilitate removal.True but the Buffalo being a midwing aircraft didn't make the job any easier. Lower fuselage was built in with the wing so you did need more ground clearance before the wing could be slid out.
And there you have a point - a matter of maintainability.You certainly have more experience than I do but considering that most U.S. fighters din't have this repair problem why stick with one that did considering it (the Buffalo) offered no real advantages to compensate?
Shortround,
AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a different airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".
So I'm not sure where your line of thinking came from, as far as the USN being dissatisfied with the Buffalo's performance.
What happened was the advent of the F6F.
Once the Hellcat hit the scene, it made just about everything else in the USN's inventory obsolete, except maybe for the Corsair, and they'd already given those to the Marines.
The reason for the strife between Brewster and the US Government was that Brewster never fully delivered on their orders.
As Buffnut mentioned, there was some internal strife and the main plant used an antiquated format for contructing their planes.
Even though you showed several months in 1941 where production was at least in step with Grumman, you have to remember those are (for us) pre-war figures.
Once we got mixed up in brawl, we needed much more significant productioin numbers and even though there were various plants, they were "stages" rather than full production facilities, so if anything, even the added floor space was used ineffciently.
What gets me, is how Brewster was able to keep the goverment enticed for so long.
Shows ya' just how slick those salesmen were and should also serve as insight into the governments perception of the lethality of the Buffalo.
-------------------------------------------------
Elvis
Shortround,
AFAIK, no USN pilot was ever "dissatified" with the performance of the Buffalo.
Upon reflection, some may have lamented the want for a different airplane, when recalling a certain situation, but I've never read any reports that ever said anything to the extent of "The Brewster Buffalo is a lousy fighter plane".