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
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Fulmar I had 155IG internally versus 135IG for the F2A. The Fulmar II began production in Jan 1941 and it had 155IG internally and a 60IG drop tank. It's doubtful that the useful range of the F2A was any better than a Fulmar.
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.Hello RCAFson
Gladiator didn't have SS tanks nor pilot armour either, so maybe FAA would have satisfied with a F2A-1 without them, especially because the self-sealing of F2A-1 tanks would have been very difficult. Fulmar Mk I didn't have armoured windscreen, which was bad for so slow fighter (usually forced to attack from rear while slowly overtaking the target) and anyway it had vulnerable liquid cooled engine. Even if Cyclone wasn't super reliable it was robust.
Juha
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.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.
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
1) Multi role capability (ther just arent enough slots or pilots available in the RN to have dedicated fighters onboard)
(3). I dont think the Buffalo was as suited to RN needs overall as the Fulmar.
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.
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.
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".
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.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
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.
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.
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 eployed aboard the Saratoga with their F2A-1s.
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.
During 1940, the Navy decided to install the optional 0.50 cal guns in the wings of its F2A-1s, and immediately started to encounter landing gear failures because of the additional weight. Later that year, VF-3 traded in its F2A-1s for more powerful F2A-2s, and the F2A-1s were returned to Brewster for modifications. Eight of them were remanufactured to F2A-2 standards, and were reissued to VS-201 for service aboard the escort carrier USS Long Island. By mid-1941, only one of these was left (BuAer 1393), and it remained with a training squadron until 1944.
[/http://www.joebaugher.com/navy_fighters/f2a_2.html
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.
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.
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.
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.