Talk:Brewster F2A Buffalo

Buffalo Aces Part II

This section is misleading. Not only does it make an uncited and rather vague claim that the Buffalo may well have the highest ratio of aces to aircraft of any type but it gives a rather false impression of the aircraft. Flown by highly competent Finnish pilots and pitted against early Soviet types with no radios, the Buffalo might have looked good, especially since it was mainly engaged at relatively low altitudes. Against a well flown Zero with a highly experienced pilot at the controls, it was a sitting duck, as the pilots based on Midway found out during the battle of the same name. Captain Herbert Merrill was the only survivor of his flight. Severely burnt on the face, neck and hands, he had this to say:

"The F2A-3 is not a combat aeroplane," he reported. "The Japanese Zero Fighter can run circles around the F2A-3. It is my belief that any commander that orders pilots out for combat in a F2A-3 should consider the pilot as lost before leaving the ground..."

Second Lt Charles M. Kunz was also scathing:

"As for the F2A-3...it should be in Miami as a training plane, rather than be used as a first line fighter."

The Brewster Buffalo was designed and ultimately selected as a first line fighter and it is in that capacity that it needs to be judged. Ironically, it was superseded by the type descended from the one it beat in the US Navy fighter competition, the F4F Wildcat. As a first line fighter it was undoubtedly a failure. In other senarios, like the Finnish Air Force, it was up against less formidable opposition and did rather better. But any inference that the type was underrated or secretly somehow good should not be made. Not if you take the words of the men who flew them against the Japanese at Midway, anyway. Flanker235 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Horsepower ratings

I have gone over the whole article and tried to figure out the confusing and hard to find power ratings for each variant. In order of appearance in the text:

• X2A-1- "Powered by a 950 hp (708 kW) single-row Wright R-1820-22 Cyclone radial engine"

• F2A-1- "powered by the 940 hp (701 kW) Wright R-1820-34 engine"

• F2A-2 - "more powerful R-1820-40 engine"

• F2A-3 - "-40 two speed supercharged Cyclone engine"

• B-239E - "B-239E was built with a more powerful engine than the F2A-1, in the form of the Wright R-1820-G5, producing 950 hp "

(apparently 950hp vs 940hp, while also carrying two more guns, armor, extra fuel)

• B-339 - "Belgium ordered 40 Brewster B-339 aircraft, a de-navalized F2A-2, fitted with the Wright R-1820-G-105 engine approved for export use. The G-105 engine had a power output of 1,000 hp (745.7 kW) (peak) on takeoff, some 200 hp (149 kW) less than the engine fitted to the U.S. Navy F2A-2."

• B-339E - "The B-339E, or Brewster Buffalo Mk I as it was designated in British service, was initially intended to be fitted with an export-approved Wright R-1820-G-105 Cyclone engine with a 1,000 hp (745.7 kW) (peak takeoff) engine."

"The Brewster Model B-339E, as modified and supplied to Great Britain was distinctly inferior in performance to the F2A-2 (Model B-339) from the original order. It had a less powerful (1,000 hp (745.7 kW)) engine compared to the F2A-2's 1,200 hp (895 kW) Cyclone" "The Wright Cyclone 1890-G-105 engine designated for use in the Brewster Mk I was in short supply; many aircraft were fitted with secondhand Wright engines sourced from Douglas DC-3 airliners and rebuilt to G105 or G102A specifications by Wright." (I assume this ought to be DC-2s, since they were powered by R-1820s. The DC-3 typically used 2-row R-1830s. I can only interpret the text to mean that they were INTENDED to fit a 1,000hp G-105 and actually ended up using less powerful variants. Or....something. And if the engines are "rebuilt to G-105 standard", then why are they not 1,000hp then?)

The main missing figure is the 1,200 hp figure for the F2A-2, which you must read down to the bottom of the article. It would be nice if all the ratings were given in the text AND listed in the variants, so you didn't need to sift through going back and forth comparing numbers and trying to decipher what is actually being said.

Also in the Finnish section it says

"The upgraded engine and slightly reduced net weight (i.e. from the omitted armor and de-navalization) resulted in an improved power-to-weight ratio and better general performance. " "After delivery of the B-239E, the Finnish Air Force added armored backrests, metric flight instruments, the Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns."

So they removed the armor and then added it back on? They also didn't "fit 4 machine guns", unless you mean they swapped the original Brownings for 13.2mm FN-Brownings. The planes were most likely already outfitted for four guns, whether they were carrying them or not. And it's hard to believe that going from 2 guns to 4 AND adding armor actually ended up with a net weight decrease after removing the arrester hook and life raft. I wonder if they also removed some of the rear fuselage bracing as redundant.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between the official ratings of engines and what power they could actually deliver in service conditions, particularly for re-built civil engines as used by export Buffalos and Curtis Hawks - take-off power may differ significantly from power at combat altitudes, particularly for civil engines built for powering airliners. And whether they gave the power they were meant to is a different story.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For engines originally intended for a contemporary airliner it should be borne in mind that most airliners of the period cruised at not much higher than 8,000 ft and so the most important figure for their engines would be the fuel economy at that altitude as that is where they spend most of their time in the cruise. I suspect that for the civil R-1820 engines an actual horsepower figure at that altitude was probably no more that around 750-800 hp due to that being possibly the highest altitude the supercharger would have been designed for.

If any combat in a fighter took place higher than this then engine performance would be even worse. In addition, the temperatures at places such as Singapore would for much of the year be at least 30 c and more in summer, with a corresponding reduction in take-off power over that of an ISA which is what the engine power ratings would be stated for. FWIW I suspect that for that theatre the engines were producing no more than around 900 hp at take-off.

IIRC, the engines concerned were stated as being 'reconditioned' which is not the same as being rebuilt, and implies that the engines were not modified to a military standard, but merely overhauled to a previous standard, i.e, in airliner one. If the engines had been upgraded as is claimed then there must be some other reason for the aircraft's poor performance in the Far East, which is widely stated in contemporary reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

32:1

I think this needs closer examination. This might have been the case for one squadron - or even one section - but it stretches credulity to believe that an aircraft with such an unenviable combat record in the Pacific (however much extra equipment it was saddled with) could have achieved this sort of over all ratio. It also needs to be seen in the context of its opponents. Flanker235 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you please be more specific about what you're talking about, and where in the article it's found? I don't appreciate being made to read an entire article simply to find out what a poster is referring too. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It actually says 33:1 here:

The Brewster Buffalo earned a reputation in Finnish Air Force service as one of its more successful fighter aircraft, along with the Fiat G.50, which scored an unprecedented kill-loss ratio of 33-1

I have seen this sort of thing before but Andre R. Zbiegniewski gives an overall ratio of 5 or 6:1. I can't remember which. Flanker235 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)