Worst mass produced, monoplane, single-engine, single-seat, retractable undercarriage fighter of WW2?

[SaparotRob]

The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.

The Finns did well with both.

Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia
Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

 

[special ed]

I think Kermit weeks found a Buffalo but until it's restored you will have to go to Finland to see one.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Armament might be a wash, but I don't know my ass from third base about French weapons.

Id give the armament to the 406, that central Hispano cannon was a formidable weapon, albeit with only 60 rounds in the drum. The synchronized Browning's in the F2A would have only been firing about 400-450 rpm.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Finns did well with both.

Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 - Wikipedia
Brewster F2A Buffalo - Wikipedia

Of course they would. Those guys would have had success with the Wright Flyer.

 

[SaparotRob]

I think Kermit weeks found a Buffalo but until it's restored you will have to go to Finland to see one.

Was that the wreck found off Midway Atoll?

 

[msxyz]

The A6M Zero neglected five of the above seven elements to focus on agility and endurance, resulting in an unbalanced design that was doomed once its one trick and the related compromises were exploited by the enemy, IMO. It would have been interesting to see what Jiro Horikoshi would have designed had Mitsubishi sourced a competitive engine in the late 1930s.

It's not only a matter of engine (he designed also the J2M which used an engine that was available when he designed the Zero, and that was universally praised by US/British pilots who flew it after the war). I think it's more a matter of what he was asked to create. Factor into that also the much better political connections of Nakajima that prevented Mitsubishi and others to use a number of alternate engines. We all knew how it played out with the Homare.

I see some people mentioning the G.50 as a possible candidate for worst fighter. There's nothing wrong with it, except that it was already outdated at the beginning of war. Italy weakness was the engines, or rather both the lack of strategic materials and the quality of the fuel available (ironic, since high octane gasoline was available to the public in '30s for sport cars even!) and this doomed and entire generation of projects till the Germans came to the rescue with their DB601-605.

Engines available in quantity to an Italian designer in the second half of the '30s:

Alfa Romeo: license built versions of the Pegasus, albeit much improved (Alfa Romeo had cross license agreements with Bristol, so that all the improvements were relayed back to Bristol) : 700-900 HP: very large diameter but at least it was reliable.
Fiat A.74: loosely based on Pratt & Whitney designs (for which FIAT had acquired the right to use their patents): 840HP, very reliable
Fiat A.80: 18 cylinder large and heavy engine derived from the A.74: reliable and cheap but offered only 1000HP
Piaggio P.IX and P.XI: licensed versions of the Gnome 14K: 700-900HP; Piaggio engines were always more 'delicate' that their contemporaries and, as such, not very popular.
Piaggio P.XII: starting from the P.XI, Piaggio engineers created an improved, enlarged version; it took a long time to mature: lightweight but very large, at least it could deliver 1500HP.
Isotta Fraschini Asso: bulky W engine with 750-1000Hp. Not very suited for a fighter plane
Isotta Fraschini Delta: lightweight V12 aircooled engine. An engineering marvel but with only 750HP it was no better than the radials of the time.

All these engines were evolutionary dead ends. The Piaggio P.XI evolved into the P.XIX using higher compression ratio and german fuel to achieve 1150HP, but that's all.
Italy was never able to mass produce an engine in the 1500-2000HP class in quantity both due to the deterioration of the situation and because all the designs available were plagued by problems that were never adequately solved.

 

[buffnut453]

Of course they would. Those guys would have had success with the Wright Flyer.

Agreed, but it's interesting to compare the performance of the different types used by the Finns. Since all types were operating under broadly similar circumstances, the Continuation War offers some useful insights into some of the "second rate" fighters of the early 1940s. For example, despite having similar numbers of Brewsters and P-36s, the former delivered a significantly better combat performance than the latter. It's been a while since I looked at the numbers but, IIRC, the Brewster and the P-36 significantly put-performed other Finnish fighters until they started getting Me109Gs later in the war.

 

[SaparotRob]

I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.

 

[buffnut453]

I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.

The B339 was the peak of the Brewster design. It had more power and better armament than the B239 and yet didn't have all the extra fuel/oil tankage of the F2A-3.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The B339 was the peak of the Brewster design. It had more power and better armament than the B239 and yet didn't have all the extra fuel/oil tankage of the F2A-3.

I wonder what the Japanese thought of it?

 

[SaparotRob]

I have seen them used as "targets" in a Japanese propaganda film where IJN fighters strafed an "enemy airfield". It's in the movie about Hayabusa pilots that someone graciously posted.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder what the Japanese thought of it?

View attachment 627016

There's no comment on Japanese opinions of the Buff, but this article has some more interesting pics.

 

[Juha3]

If only someone had thought enough of the Buffalo to save one...and a TBD or two.

Some comfort to you

 

[Juha3]

In the F-104's case weren't most of those CFIT? Hardly the crate's fault if the driver steers for the ground. The Canadians did fine with their CF-104s, assigned a NATO tactical nuke strike mission.

I don't know, the article I linked probably has the answer, I looked for info on F-84 safety records, and that was the best I came across during a quick search. Not optimal, because in fact I was looking for info on the early F-84s and the Germans used F- and RF-84Fs, a bit different aircraft. IIRC the safety record of early F-84s (B and C) was appalling.
But the story of 104 with the Luftwaffe was complicated, there were training, logistic and organizational problems. It was too complicated and demanding for the new airforce, to both pilots and ground crews. But IIRC there were a few AFs which had even higher accident rate with 104 that the German LW.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm surprised that the Buffalo outperformed the Hawk. The B-239 must have been significantly better than the B-339.

I've always liked the Curtiss Hawk. Give it the F4F's more powerful P&W R-1830-76 Twin Wasp and the Hawk would do as well as the Wildcat.

 

[Glider]

Id give the armament to the 406, that central Hispano cannon was a formidable weapon, albeit with only 60 rounds in the drum. The synchronized Browning's in the F2A would have only been firing about 400-450 rpm.

Your right but I read a book on the Finnish use of the MS406. In it was mentioned the replacement of the 20mm with a Russian 12.7mm and the comment was that while the 12.7 wasn't as powerful at least there was confidence that it would fire.
Spare parts for the 20mm must have been difficult to come by after a while.

 

[buffnut453]

Some comfort to you

Yeah...I'm trying to work out a plan to visit that wee beastie. Alas, it's not exactly easy to reach, even from within Europe.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The heck with the specs. I don't even read 'em. The Buffalo is prettier.

I've always believed that there was nothing wrong with the Buffalo in Malaya, they just needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons.

This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command's fighter force.

Give Malaya Command twenty squadrons of Buffaloes along with well defended, properly placed bases and they'll give the IJAF's Oscars and Nates a good fight. The Buffalo is fine, but you can't hold back a Japanese onslaught with sixty active aircraft.

It's too bad the dozen or so MS.406 didn't escape and fly to Malaya to become a Free French unit.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've always believed that there was nothing wrong with the Buffalo in Malaya, they just needed was more of them. In Nov 1941 Malaya Command had five active squadrons of Buffaloes for a territory larger than the UK where RAF Fighter Command had over 80 fighter squadrons.

This photo below of a dozen RAF Buffaloes represents a full fifth of the entirety of Malaya Command's fighter force.

View attachment 627059

Give Malaya Command twenty squadrons of Buffaloes along with well defended, properly placed bases and they'll give the IJAF's Oscars and Nates a good fight. The Buffalo is fine, but you can't hold back a Japanese onslaught with sixty active aircraft.

It's too bad the dozen or so MS.406 didn't escape and fly to Malaya to become a Free French unit.

View attachment 627060

Re: the Buffalo, Eric Brown had this to say:

Capt. Brown flew a Belgian-order Brewster 339 at Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton, early in 1941, along with a Grumman Martlet, as the British called the F4F Wildcat. "They were both tubby little single-seat fighters with a very purposeful air about them," he wrote. Brown noted that there were 40 of these planes, acquired when Belgium fell to the Germans, and shipped to Britain aboard HMS Furious. They were assembled at Burtonwood, later a huge American base--near Manchester, I think. He obviously had his notes in front of him as he wrote the Buffalo chapter:

"Once in the cockpit I found the view ahead rather poor because of the aft position of the pilot and the high position of the nose. In spite of this, the aircraft was very easy to taxi, as the brakes were smooth and very efficient.

"On take-off the throttle had to be opened carefully as there was no automatic boost control, and the stick [had to be] moved forward to get the tail up and improve acceleration. The rudder control was very good in keeping the aircraft straight on its short run.

"The climb was steep and initially at a rate of 2,000 ft./min. but soon began to fall off noticeably as altitude increased. The longitudinal stability was decidedly shaky and would make instrument flying very difficult. [Commenting on another a/c, Brown noted that longitudinal instability was a good feature in a fighter.] It was also apparent that there were [exhaust] fumes coming into the cockpit....

"In normal cruise at 160 mph the aircraft was longitudinally unstable, laterally neutral stable, and directionally positively stable. Maximum speed was 290 mph at 16,500 ft. and the service ceiling was only 25,000 ft. Not very impressive performance. However, it was a different story when it came to handling, for the ailerons were highly effective throughout the speed range, the elevators almost equally so, and the rudder very good too.

"The all-up stall occurred at 76 mph with a sudden but mild wing drop followed by the nose. The all-down stall was at 67 mph with similar but slightly more pronounced characteristics.

"For landing the undercarriage was lowered at 95 mph followed by the slow moving flaps at 90 mph. An approach speed of 80 mph gave a reasonable view, but needed almost full backward elevator trim. Touch down occurred at 75 mph with a good pull back on the stick to achieve a three-pointer as the power was cut. Once on the ground the aircraft could be kept nicely straight on rudder with a discreet touch of brake.

"My feeling after flying the Buffalo was one of elation tinged with disappointment. It was a true anomaly of an aeroplane with delightful manoeuvrability but poor fighter performance. Indeed above 10,000 ft. it was labouring badly."

Brown acknowledge [sic] the Brewster 239's success in Finland, and suggested that "the climate and the opposition" must have favored the plane in Finnish service.

Brewster Buffalo / Eric Brown's opinion

I'm not sure if that's the entirety of his opinion, as that is clearly hearsay, but it doesn't seem he was carried away by the Buffalo's capabilities.

Of course more squadrons in Malaya would have been useful. I'm unsure how much so.