B-239 had max range of 1350km, Weal, Weal and Barker gives 1287km for Fulmar Mk I, max for F2A-3 was 2700km. I have a better source on Fulmar but it is in my attic.
Juha
Would the British FAA have been better off with the Brewster Buffalo?
- Thread starter pinsog
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
B-239 had max range of 1350km, Weal, Weal and Barker gives 1287km for Fulmar Mk I, max for F2A-3 was 2700km. I have a better source on Fulmar but it is in my attic.
Juha
The GSG predated the F2A-1. When the low firepower of the F2A-1 is taken into account, plus its lack of protection, it doesn't represent an advance over the GSG; it might make more intercepts but would score fewer kills per pass. Add more guns, SS tanks and armour and even if the LG doesn't break, the overall F2A-1 performance would probably fall to Fulmar levels, so why pay hard cash (since there's no lend-lease at this point), for an aircraft that has less firepower than a GSG, and no proven ability to operate from a CV with upgrade firepower, to say nothing about SS tanks and armour. The primary opponent that the FAA faced was bombers so 1 x .3 and 1 x .5" just doesn't do the job.
The Fulmar did have an armoured windscreen, according to the Fulmar I/II Pilot's notes.
A-3 range was with 200IG of internal fuel, and the aircraft was not really combat capable at that weight, to say nothing of the hazards of trying to land back on the carrier, if necessary.
According to Brown at least Mk I didn't have, maybe it was retrofitted what is the date of the notes?
F2A-1 climbed better than GSG was clearly faster and surely dived better and .5 was more effective against protected bombers like those of LW had, against Italian bombers .303 was adequate. As a hint FiAF took off the two nose lmgs from Hawk 75As and put at first only one .5 in their place just to have a weapon in Hawk that could penetrate pilot's back armour and which could more easily knock out an engine.
And as I wrote the B-239s had the armour and more armament and a bit less powrful engine than that of F2A-1 and still was 30km/h faster than Fulmar Mk I and had vastly better roc and surely was more nimble.
Juha
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
My opinion is that the Buffalo represented a slightly better performance over its contemporary RN counterparts....the Sea gladiator, Fulmar and Skua. It was a significantly bette proposition to the Sea Gladiator and Skua because it had comparable firepower. It was equal to the Sea Gladiator in that both were single purpose aircraft. It was significantly inferior to the Fulmar in terms of firepower, and the Fulmar was a far more versatile aircraft because of its multi role capabilities. it had better range over the Dea Gladiator,, not sure about the Skua, and I think inferior to the Fulmar
If I were to rate importance of capabilities of each aircraft I think it would go something like this
1) Multi role capability (ther just arent enough slots or pilots available in the RN to have dedicated fighters onboard)
2) Reliability and rough weather handling (RN carriers had to often operate ant night and in poor weather...much more so than their USN cousins in the Pacific). Any aircraft with any stability or undercariage, or high landing speeds have problems and do very badly in this regard
3) Endurance or range RN fighters have to stay airborne for long periods, and they have to have a large ammunition supply. They are not needed for strike escort....most RN strike aircraft are night capable. But they need to stay airborne for as long as possible and have a lot of ammunition because they tend to get attacked over long periods by a lot of aircraft.
4) Firepower. They need to be able to unload a lot of ammunition in a short space of time
5) rate of climb They need to be abloe to get to height quickly, for obvious reasons
6) Manoverability in the horizontal
7) Protection
Given the above, I would rate as most suitable of the four, in order of preference, the following
1) Fulmar
2) Skua
3) Buffalo
4) Sea Gladiator
It might be arguable to swap (2) and (3). I dont think the Buffalo was as suited to RN needs overall as the Fulmar.
If I were to rate importance of capabilities of each aircraft I think it would go something like this
1) Multi role capability (ther just arent enough slots or pilots available in the RN to have dedicated fighters onboard)
2) Reliability and rough weather handling (RN carriers had to often operate ant night and in poor weather...much more so than their USN cousins in the Pacific). Any aircraft with any stability or undercariage, or high landing speeds have problems and do very badly in this regard
3) Endurance or range RN fighters have to stay airborne for long periods, and they have to have a large ammunition supply. They are not needed for strike escort....most RN strike aircraft are night capable. But they need to stay airborne for as long as possible and have a lot of ammunition because they tend to get attacked over long periods by a lot of aircraft.
4) Firepower. They need to be able to unload a lot of ammunition in a short space of time
5) rate of climb They need to be abloe to get to height quickly, for obvious reasons
6) Manoverability in the horizontal
7) Protection
Given the above, I would rate as most suitable of the four, in order of preference, the following
1) Fulmar
2) Skua
3) Buffalo
4) Sea Gladiator
It might be arguable to swap (2) and (3). I dont think the Buffalo was as suited to RN needs overall as the Fulmar.
David Brown (Aircraft profile 254 - Fulmar ) states that the prototype didn't have an armoured windscreen, but the production Mk1 did.
F2A-1 and GSG power to weight ratios are very similar, especially if more weight is added to the F2A-1, so I doubt that there's much difference in climb rates to typical combat altitudes.
Both the RAF and FAAs opinions were pretty firmly in favour of lots of firepower. It's really doubtful that they could have been persuaded otherwise. The Gladiator/GSG did well everywhere it served and the main problem was that there wasn't enough of them and I can't see how a poorly armed F2A will produce more kills.
- Thread starter
- #27
All the multi-purpose aircraft in the world won't matter if your ship is sunk because your multi-purpose "fighter" is too slow to catch the dive bombers and torpedo bombers that are attacking it.
parsifal
Colonel
Agreed, but the fulmar was fast enough to do just that judging from its quite successful service record. So too were the Skua and the Sea Gladiator, though I will concede far less so. What separates the Brewster from at least the Fulmar and the Skua is that both these other aircraft could be used for other purposes. You might describe both the Fulmar and the Buffalo as adequate fighters, but thats all the Buffalo was. In addition to being an adequate fighter, the Fulmar was also an adequate recon aircraft, and a bit later, an adequate fighter bomber. Later still, it showed potential as an adequate night fighter. The skua was a less than adequate fighter but compensated for that by being a somewaht adequate D/B.
And a fleet was just as vulnerable if it cant locate an enemy fleet or submarine as it is if is under air attack. RN carriers had a big problem, they had very limited carrying capacity, and even fewer aircrews to fill those places. They needed aircraft to do more than one thing so that they could achieve all round defnce from all types of threats. There just wasnt the space or the aircrews to afford the luxury of a dedicated fighter.
The only scenario where the Buffalo might score a few points is against strikes escorted by enemy high performance fighters. Here, the poor old Fulmar was being asked to do a lot. but I doubt the Buffalo gave that much of an advantgae even in that scenario. There wasnt much difference between a fulmar versus an Me 109, and a Buffalo versus a 109. both are going to be "in the gun".
Sorry, I meant Eric Brown. So you have the Fulmar profile, lucky you. I once looked one copy at an second-hand bookshop whose owner had just got a vast collection of aviation books. But I thought that I might have enough info on Fulmar already so decided to before purhacing to check what I already have on Fulmar besides the article by E. Brown. On next day I was a bit lazy and it was rather late when I went to the shop, no more that Profile or many other items I had decided to buy.
There were not much difference in the rof of B-239 and of GSG.
As I have wrote several times, 4 gun F2A-1 had fairly reasonable armament for a 1940 fighter.
Juha
Buffalo had also enough range to escort work and 4 hours patrols, and Fulmar was also used as escort, at least during raids against Kirkenes and Petsamo in July 41 not very successfully. At least F2A-1 would have been harder victim to 109 pilots and adequate against Italian MC 200 and G.50bis.
Landing gear would have been a problem at first but according to Maas it was a soluble problem. Some strengthening and more pressure to tyres were what was needed to make the problem manageably according to him.
Juha
The Fulmars got separated from the Kirkenes Albacore strike which, unescorted, suffered heavy looses, although many of these were from Flak, but even so they didn't do too badly, shooting down an Me110 for the loss of two Fulmars. Over Petsamo, one Fulmar fighter-bomber was lost in combat, but here the Albacores and Swordfish only lost one aircraft.
A four .5" F2a strengthened for carrier landings? Then you are talking about the F2a-2 which entered service in Oct 1940, with no SS tanks; both of which were present on the Fulmar and Sea Hurricane 1B, which also had armour. Again, the FAA would have had to accept the f2A-2 without these mods, which is very unlikely, or wait until they could be fitted and accept the delay and the weak LG, which would put them into service after the Sea Hurricane.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
No RAFson, we (at least I) aren't talking about an F2A-2 with 4 HMGs. I have seen plenty of reliable sources that confirm the F2A-1 was designed to accomodate two wing mounted .5" HMGs. If you wish: America's Hundred Thousand, page 442 Table 70. Jim Maas, F2A Buffalo in action: page 4. "provision were made for fitting two 50 cal. mg in each wing just outboard of the main landing gear." While the USN F2A-1 was not initially operated in this armament configuration, the subsequent, denavalized B-239's (production line F2A-1s that were stripped of all naval associated gear) were so equipped for the FiAF. The point being that whether the USN F2A-1s operated with the ful suite of guns, the FAA would most certainly have done as did the Finns. The B-239 was an F2A-1 without a tail hook or raft. It was essentially the same aircraft but one that exploited the option for the full suite of guns (three .5" and one .3" mgs). And what do you mean "strengthened for carrier landings." The F2A-1, -2 and -3 were built for the USN to be flown from carriers. They were designed for that purpose. The 54 F2A-1s were essentially all produced by January 1940. Initial models became available for training and familiarization in late 1939. VF-3 deployed aboard the Saratoga with their F2A-1s before switching to F2A-2s.
Also from Maas: page 7 "In the Spring of 1940, the Navy decided to install the optional .50 caliber mg in the wings of the F2A-1." The USN was finally catching up to the FiAF.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
RCAFSon
But the Sea Hurricane wasn't available in Oct 1940. Per the FAA Museum website, the first Sea Hurris were taken on strength in Feb 1941. The RAF's Buffalos, with 4x50cals and self sealing tanks were available in late 1940 and, in all probability, had the FAA/RAF levied an order, could have been available earlier in 1940 - Belgian F2A-2 airframes were. Seat armour was locally produced for the RAF Buffalos based on drawings from Brewster - again, it's hard to imagine that not being feasible earlier. So from where do you get the "accept the delay" part?
But the Sea Hurricane wasn't available in Oct 1940. Per the FAA Museum website, the first Sea Hurris were taken on strength in Feb 1941. The RAF's Buffalos, with 4x50cals and self sealing tanks were available in late 1940 and, in all probability, had the FAA/RAF levied an order, could have been available earlier in 1940 - Belgian F2A-2 airframes were. Seat armour was locally produced for the RAF Buffalos based on drawings from Brewster - again, it's hard to imagine that not being feasible earlier. So from where do you get the "accept the delay" part?
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Sorry Pars, can't agree with you. On a strictly performance basis I would rate the aircraft in each role:
Air defense: (Naval CAP)
1) F2A-2 (4 x HMG) available late 1940 to early 1941 (mid to late 40 but for politics)
2) F2A-1 (3 x HMG, 1 x LMG) available early to mid-1940
3) Navalized B-339B (4 x HMG) mid to late 1940 (1940 USN F2A-2 production interrupted in favor of B-339B)
4) Fulmar (8 LMG) (available mid to late 1940)
5) Sea Gladiator (4 x LMG) (available 9/39)
6) Skua (4 x LMG) (available 9/39)
Air Control (air superiority / power projection) I don't include the GSG because with its short legs it couldn't perform effectively in that role.
1) F2A-2 (4 x HMG)
2) F2A-1 (3 x HMG, 1 x LMG)
3) B-339 (4 x HMG)
4) Fulmar (8 x LMG)
5) Skua (4 x LMG)
My personal opinion, any day of the week, I'd prefer to have 3 or 4 HMG's than 8 lmgs, but that's JMO.
I like the Fulmar for a lot of reasons If I couldn't have the F4F, and the other three, I'd want the Fulmar.
Given a choice, I'd have to go with performance and swallow the broken gear.
Last edited:
I keep stating this but it doesn't seem to get through!
F2A-1 = 1 x .3 and 1x .5" and more weight = LG failures and this aircraft was simply too under armed for FAA use.
F2A-2 = Sept 1940, after the Fulmar and by then SS tanks and armour were mandatory, and with these the LG starts to fail again...
F2A-3 = almost unusable due to LG failure - which is no surprise because these were built with armour and SS tanks.
The end result is that no version of the F2A ever met FAA requirements at any point in time.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
OK what doesn't seem to register is that you are GROSSLY exagerating the problem with the gear for the F2A-1. It really didn't become severe until the F2A-3. If it had been as bad as you claim the F2A-3 wouldn't have deployed neither would the F2A-2 or -1. The Finns certainly would have damned it. It worked very well for them over 3 years of intense fighting. B-239 ( 4xHMGs, minimal gear problems) = F2A-1 deployed with 4 HMGs (and suffered a premonitional gear problem during a hard deck landing). Aircraft landing on carriers occasionally land hard and break their gear. It happens, the aircraft gets fixed. It's a maintenance headache, not a debilitating problem, especially for an aircraft considerably lighter than the F2A-3.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
We will never know if a carrier borne Buffalo wulld do as well, worse, or better than the Fulmar as a fighter. We do know that it would not hav been able to fulfill many of the roles also undertaken. for example, fulmars were often used to shepherd SE fighters from Carriers to malta, because of the superior navigational capabilities of the fulmar. We also know that they played a role in the hunts for enemy shipping, including the bismarck, where they permitted strike aircraft to be freed up for strike purposes.
having eight LMGs is less firepower than 2 x 20mm cannon, though I am unsure about 4 x 50s. But a smaller number of bang sticks is only better if you have accurate shooters, if not you need to rely on spraying the sky with bullets, in the hope you will hit something with your inexperienced pikots....
And the combat record of the Fulmar is not to be easily dismissed. just looking at 808 sqn, a not especially successful sqn, it achieved the following. "No.808 Naval Air Squadron was a single-engine fighter squadron that served on the Ark Royal until she was sunk, then helped support the landings at Salerno before joining the East Indian Fleet.
No.808 Squadron was formed at Worthy Down on 1 July 1940, as a single-engine fighter squadron using the Fairey Fulmar I. This was soon replaced by the Fulmar II, before the squadron moved north to RAF Castletown in Caithness, to protect the Home Fleet's base at Scapa Flow. This was a brief assignment, and in the following month the squadron moved south to Donisbristle, where it joined HMS Ark Royal.
The squadron had an eventful time on the Ark Royal, claiming nineteen victories in ten months. After arriving in the Mediterranean at the start of November the squadron was involved in attacks on Italian airfields on Sicily on 9 November and in the inconclusive action off Cape Spartivento (as both observer a/c and as fighters) on 27 November. In May 1941 the squadron took part in the hunt for the Bismarck (again as observer a/c), and she was still on the Ark Royal when she was torpedoed on 13 November 1941. In the aftermath of this disaster No.808 was absorbed by No.807 Squadron"
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
For example, from December thru the end of January 1942, VF-2 embarked on the Lexington continuously operated at a level of about 17 F2A-3s. It looks like (based on Lundstrom's day to day operational account of at sea periods) two F2As were lost in accidents unrelated to landing gear and there were about 2 or 3 hard landing associated landing gear related accidents. The Lex was able to keep at least 15 F2A-3's operational throughout that period, a number not too different than that of the squadrons operating F4F-3 and -3As. I am not a fan of the F2A-3, but its service during the first two months of the war when there was little else to put on the USN CVs, provides some indication that the aircraft, at that point not new to the fleet, was holding its own despite its notoriously weak gear.. The F2A-1 and -2 were lighter aircraft than the -3 even with their 4 HMGs. So, the problems with gear failure should have been and were less egregious than those of the -3.
Also RAFson, I want to apologize. I am quite tired tonight and find my patience to be a bit lacking. if my words appeared unduly sharp and I offended, mea culpa.
Also RAFson, I want to apologize. I am quite tired tonight and find my patience to be a bit lacking. if my words appeared unduly sharp and I offended, mea culpa.
Last edited:
Aircraft landing on carriers, using a hook, always land hard. A CV landing = about 100ft of deck roll, at most followed by a severe deceleration, and if you have ever seen an aircraft make an arrested landing, you will know what I'm talking about. The Finns experience with de-navalized F2A-1s tells us nothing about how they would fair on a carrier.
Peal harbour was on Dec 7th and the nearest carrier with F2A-3s was lexington:
First team, p26
so by 11 Dec, VF-2 was forced to "cease all operations until enemy contact became imminent" because of progressive LG failure. The Buffalo hasn't been a top pick for "worst fighter" for nothing, and there's no way the FAA would have ever accepted this aircraft for service; it just wasn't carrier ready and never would be.
"Also RAFson..." thanks, no worries.
Last edited:
Now the separation of Fulmars from the strike planes seemed to have been intentional, at Kirkenes to distract Germans and at Petsamo the Fulmars used blocking tactics flying between Petsamo and the nearest German fighter base. Both formations lost 2 Fulmars, one of those lost near Petsamo seemed to has been lost because of engine failure, and the only lost Bf 110 was shot down by a Albacore rear gunner.
In fact I'm talking about 3x.5+1x.303 F2A-1s, Finns were capable to do some mods by themselves so I suppose also FAA would be able to do something by thamselves and would probably have gotten some info from USN on the LG problems and their causes.
Juha
Last edited:
