From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Brewster Buffalo (Worst WW2...etc)
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:39:08 GMT


From bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)

In article <C02w55.GGD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Lauri S{{ski Tkkk <LSAASKI@finabo.abo.fi> writes:
>From Lauri S{{ski Tkkk <LSAASKI@finabo.abo.fi>
>
>> >The Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo was credited with 517km/h. The Finnish ones, if
>> >they were really lighter with same power, must have been faster.
>> 
>> The only reference I have credits the F2A-3 with a 300mph maximum speed
>> (about 480 kmph).  Also a full-up weight of 7,160 lbs.
>> 
>> The Finnish version was given at 5,160 lbs.  Even if it wasn't faster
>> in level flight, it should have climbed a lot better.  Not so many
>> engine fires up north, either.
>> 
>Since there seems to be large interest in the Brewster topic, I'd like
>to share my information, based on the book The_American_Fighter by
>Enzo Angeluggi, 1987. It doesn't show complete information, so
>I can't make comparisons between their rate of climb. Maybe someone
>can fill us up.   
> 
>Plane	      |	Finnish BW (Model B-239)	F2A-3 (Model B-439)		
>Power plant   |	Wright R-1820-G5, 950 hp	Wright R-1820-40, 1200 hp
>--------------|----------------------------------------------------------
>Empty weight  |	3900 lb				4732 lb
>Gross weight  |	N/A				6321 lb
>Max take-off  |
>weight	      |	5820 lb				7159 lb
>Max speed     |	297 mph at 15,580 ft		321 mph at 16,500 ft
>Climb at	9,840 ft			N/A
>in		4 min 12 sec			N/A
>Climb in 1min |	N/A				2,290 ft
>Ceiling       | 32,480 ft			33,200 ft

	Interesting.  All-up take-off weight for the F2A-3 seems to account 
for possible performance problems?    


~~~~~~~~~~~
(Horrible diversion into background material follows!)

	A South African journalist (Gallagher) working for the Daily Express 
had the "Singapore Beat" in the time leading up to and during the Japanese 
attack in 1941.  He subsequently wrote a book (Retreat in the East) of his 
experiences in which he goes into some detail concerning the air defences of 
both Malaya and during the follow-up invasion of Burma.  Citing interviews 
with RAF and RAAF Buffalo pilots, he makes it clear that they were not happy 
with the a/c; chiefly on grounds of what was described as a weight problem 
causing a loss of performance.  In one instance, a pilot adopted the habit 
of only having his 'plane's ammo tanks half-filled in the hope of gaining a 
marginal perf. improvement.   Against Japanese fighters (reading between the 
lines -- remember the book was written in 1942!), it is evident that a 
Buffalo pilot had to be pretty skilled to come home safe -- already, the 
successful ones were those who managed to get some altitude, carefully stalk 
a Japanese formation using cloud cover, make a hard diving pass onto some 
unfortunate's "six" then pile on the coal to reattain cloud cover: 
dogfighting a pack of Zeros was not a good idea in a Buffalo!   The Buffalo 
appears to have been pretty effective against Japanese bombers --when they 
could catch them by being given early enough warning to take-off and 
manoeuver for best position.  (The Nell was felt to be quite a rugged a/c 
but easier to catch; the Betty was quite speedy and thus a Buffalo had a 
tough time getting into attack position -- however, once in the gunsight 
it tended to burn readily.)	Gallagher also has much to say regarding the 
famous Flying Tigers in their P-40's  --  he pays their pilots, ground crews 
and aircraft high praise during the final hectic and tragic weeks of the 
invasion of Burma.  It is clear that without them the Japanese victory would 
have come much sooner: they really hacked down Japanese 'planes -- esp 
bombers.  The snag was that allied ground forces were driven back allowing
progressively shorter and shorter periods of advanced warning of incoming
waves of Japanese a/c, thus many allied fighters were either lost on the
ground or 'bounced' as they tried to scramble for altitude.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	BTW, I was looking at some photos and film footage of the Malayan 
Buffalos the other day and was struck by the relatively small diameter of 
the three-bladed propellor.  Given that the Buff was quite a small a/c in 
terms of its overall dimensions, and that it had (at 1200hp) quite a potent 
engine; I can't help but wonder whether there were some serious performance 
losses attributable to the Buffalo being fitted with an inappropriate 
propellor?  (The parallel -though different- example of early-contemporary 
Spitfires/Hurricanes being fitted initially with props that permitted only 
"fine" and "coarse" pitch settings, and having their general combat 
worthiness significantly improved by being retro-fitted by "constant-speed" 
propellors, springs to mind.)

	Hypothesis: The Buffalo had a "propellor problem".

Any takers?

Cheers and all'ada best for '93!!!!
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Newsgroups: sci.military