Virtues & flaws of the Brewster Buffalo

[phylo_roadking]

Split from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39335




Ah yes - the "truly excellent" Buffalo....

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm - for your edification and delight!

A page of quite wonderful links covering the "combat" and service career of the "legendary" Brewster Buffalo. Read and judge for yourself....but even in the most glowing and favourable accounts - they can't help mentioning things like broken interrupter gear cables meaning their entire gun suite wouldn't fire (and few spares), incorrectly-hardened and heat-treated engine components, "self sealing" petrol tank membranes that ruptured, "new" aircraft being built with second-hand reconditioned airliner engines that had time-expired, selfraising undercarriage legs....when the aircraft was sitting on the ground an oil system that experienced difficulty keeping oil actually in the engine, various cockpit controls that couldn't be used without bruising or cutting oneself on others, side panels in the cockpit that couldn't be seen through...and the remarkable and unique story of one pilot who had to remove his BOOT in the cockpit, open the canopy, lean out and wipe the oil off his windscreen with his SOCK inflight!

The Buffalo was a complete and absolute Turkey...that the Finns managed to carry out a number of modifications to to make it something like capable. IIRC something like 2/5 of the Buffaloes they received were "wet wing" aircraft - the wing itself was the fuel tank - and needed a CO2 cartridge system to purge the wing of fumes after the "tank" was empty...which the Finns were always short of. It also meant that one bullet hole meant the entire wingspar should be replaced! The Finns got round this issue by building their own wooden wings, and installing a fuel bladder in the fuselage. They got round the oil pressure issue - too MUCH pressure IIRC - by turning one oil control ring per piston upside down! Thus reducing pressure But all their mods ever did was make the Buffalo function as it SHOULD have - it was STILL outmoded and outperformed by modern designs in skilled hands. Their major breakthrough was - like Chennault's Flying Tigers in heavy P-40s vs. lightweight Japanese fighters - coming up with tactics for the Buffalo that gave them kills then powering away from the enemy, rather than make the fatal mistake of dofighting.

They were also up against conscript aircrew and aircraft in the Winter War and the first part of the Continuation War that they and their Buffalos actually outperformed! But only for a very narrow time. When Russian fighting skills in the air improved, and their aircraft, the Finns didn't have the numbers or the performance to hold off the onslaught. Liike Rommel's armour after EL Alamein - once they LOST the advantage over the Russians, their disadvantage mushroomed.

[Juha Tompuri]

Ah yes - the "truly excellent" Buffalo....

http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm - for your edification and delight!

A page of quite wonderful links covering the "combat" and service career of the "legendary" Brewster Buffalo. Read and judge for yourself....

Yes, a nice collection of info

but even in the most glowing and favourable accounts - they can't help mentioning things like broken interrupter gear cables meaning their entire gun suite wouldn't fire (and few spares), incorrectly-hardened and heat-treated engine components, "self sealing" petrol tank membranes that ruptured, "new" aircraft being built with second-hand reconditioned airliner engines that had time-expired, selfraising undercarriage legs....when the aircraft was sitting on the ground an oil system that experienced difficulty keeping oil actually in the engine, various cockpit controls that couldn't be used without bruising or cutting oneself on others, side panels in the cockpit that couldn't be seen through...

Nearly not all.
Like the:

Brewster v. Hurricane
[The Air Fighting Development Unit at Northolt filed this report on 5 Nov 1940 after testing a 339B.]

Pilot's Cockpit - The pilot's cockpit is roomy and comfortable and well laid out, and the design of the hood gives an exceedingly good field of view, especially to the sides and rear. The type of hood itself is to be recommended in that it is very strongly built and operates on robust runners. It is difficult to close at high speed but opens easily at all speeds. The arrangement for raising and lowering the pilot's seat is bad; it is exceedingly difficult to raise when flying.

Trimming Tabs - The aircraft is supplied with elevator, rudder and aileron trimming tabs operated from the cockpit. These are very effective although rather sensitive and contribute materially to the ease of the control of the aircraft.

Field of View - For a single-seater single-engined fighter, the pilot's field of view is exceedingly good all around. For taxying, take-o9ff and landing the nose rather obscures the view directly ahead. The view to the rear is far superior to the Spitfire or Hurricane.

Take-off and Landing - The aircraft has a good take- off, being better than a Hurricane, with a slight tendency to swing to the left. . . . For landing, it has a flat approach, and to approach with comfort a little engine is required. It has a comparatively fast approach but pulls up very quickly once having touched down. The actual touch down is simple. The brakes, which are pedal operated, are very efficient both for taxying and landing.

Climb and Dive - The climb to 15,000 feet is better than that of the Hurricane, and the aircraft easily out-dives the Hurricane.

Comparative Speed in Level Flight - [The fighters were flown at the rated heights for the two-speed supercharger on the Brewster's Cyclone engine.] At 6,000 feet the Brewster was approximately 15 m.p.h. faster than the Hurricane; while at 14,700 feet the speeds were practically identical. [If similarly equipped,] the Brewster's speed at 6,000 feet would be approximately the same as the Hurricane, whereas at 14,700 feet it would be approximately 12 miles slower.

Maneuverability - In the air the Brewster Fighter is very maneuverable, its aileron and elevator controls being positive and lighter than the Hurricane or Spitfire at all speeds. The rudder is definitively heavy, but only a little movement is required for full control. It can easily turn inside the Hurricane.

Steadiness of aircraft as gun platform - Although the guns were not fitted, it is the opinion of all pilots who flew the aircraft that it should be a steady gun platform.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle2.htm

The Buffalo was a complete and absolute Turkey...

Brewster was blamed for a disaster that might better have been attributed to faulty tactics, inexperienced pilots, and poor command decisions.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga2.htm

that the Finns managed to carry out a number of modifications to to make it something like capable. IIRC something like 2/5 of the Buffaloes they received were "wet wing" aircraft - the wing itself was the fuel tank - and needed a CO2 cartridge system to purge the wing of fumes after the "tank" was empty...which the Finns were always short of. It also meant that one bullet hole meant the entire wingspar should be replaced! The Finns got round this issue by building their own wooden wings, and installing a fuel bladder in the fuselage.

AFAIK no.

But all their mods ever did was make the Buffalo function as it SHOULD have - it was STILL outmoded and outperformed by modern designs in skilled hands.

The results tell a different story.

Their major breakthrough was - like Chennault's Flying Tigers in heavy P-40s vs. lightweight Japanese fighters - coming up with tactics for the Buffalo that gave them kills then powering away from the enemy, rather than make the fatal mistake of dofighting.

Some Soviet biplanes outmanoeuvred our F2A's, monoplanes didn't

They were also up against conscript aircrew and aircraft in the Winter War

F2A's didn't see combat at Winter War.

...and the first part of the Continuation War that they and their Buffalos actually outperformed! But only for a very narrow time.

Roughly half the War.

When Russian fighting skills in the air improved, and their aircraft, the Finns didn't have the numbers or the performance to hold off the onslaught.

We seldom have had the numbers, but the performance wasn't that bad all the way till the end.
...and we managed to put end to the onslaught.

Liike Rommel's armour after EL Alamein - once they LOST the advantage over the Russians, their disadvantage mushroomed.

As above.

Regards, Juha

[phylo_roadking]

Juha, on some specifics -

that the Finns managed to carry out a number of modifications to to make it something like capable. IIRC something like 2/5 of the Buffaloes they received were "wet wing" aircraft - the wing itself was the fuel tank - and needed a CO2 cartridge system to purge the wing of fumes after the "tank" was empty...which the Finns were always short of. It also meant that one bullet hole meant the entire wingspar should be replaced! The Finns got round this issue by building their own wooden wings, and installing a fuel bladder in the fuselage.

AFAIK no.

I thought the source that described the wooden wings, and the problems with "wet wings" was in that list of source material? I'll chase it down again.

They were also up against conscript aircrew and aircraft in the Winter War

F2A's didn't see combat at Winter War.

I was taliking about the Finnish Air Force as a whole in that section, not just the Buffalo pilots. They also achieved wonders in the Winter War with some suprising aircraft...!

and the first part of the Continuation War that they and their Buffalos actually outperformed! But only for a very narrow time

.
Roughly half the War.

They still performed, but incrreasingly on a par.

Their major breakthrough was - like Chennault's Flying Tigers in heavy P-40s vs. lightweight Japanese fighters - coming up with tactics for the Buffalo that gave them kills then powering away from the enemy, rather than make the fatal mistake of dofighting.

Some Soviet biplanes outmanoeuvred our F2A's, monoplanes didn't

Yes, but the Buffalo pilots avoided dogfighting like the plague, relying on "boom and zoom" tactics to attack bombers and run away from fighters, same techniques as the USAAF had to learn in the Far East, anyone fighting an ME110, and the AVG in China against Oscars. It's not running away, before you throw that back; that's NOT what I'm saying. It's a valid tactic that broke up and scattered incoming raids, AND racked up bomber kills time after time.

A LOT of aircraft throughout the war learned to employ it if outperformed. Even Australian Spitfire pilots returning to Australia in 1943 had to REdiscover it when their Spitfires couldn't dogfight Zeroes. And yes, it could be and WAS employed against fighters, that's what gave the Finns their fighter kills.

The Buffalo was a powerful fighter, it's one advantage was engine power...when it kept it's oil inside the engine! - it just had SO many faults that the Finns gradually worked out of the aircraft. The interrupter mechanism was one of the aboslute gems; ONE wire in the gear broke with monotonous regularity, and whatever the reason, a replacement couldn't just be fabricated. So in the Far East many would be U/S for this tiny spare, and for instance ALL the Buffalos on Crete in May 1941 were grounded for their guns not working, reducing the RAF's strength there through the first two weeks of May by HALF...for the broken interrupter gear locked out the wing guns TOO! The Finns just went for undergunning...and REMOVED the interrupter gear and nose guns!!! Which IS smart...but it's also cheatin' LMAO

[Juha Tompuri]

I thought the source that described the wooden wings, and the problems with "wet wings" was in that list of source material? I'll chase it down again.

IIRC during the war Finns made tests to replace the original wing with a domestic, wooden one, but it might also originate from the info about Finnish plans to build copies of F2A's: http://www.warbirdforum.com/humu.htm

and the first part of the Continuation War that they and their Buffalos actually outperformed! But only for a very narrow time

.
Roughly half the War.

They still performed, but incrreasingly on a par.

Soviet equipment started to be better than ours not until spring-43, when La-5's began to operate at Finnish front.

Some Soviet biplanes outmanoeuvred our F2A's, monoplanes didn't

Yes, but the Buffalo pilots avoided dogfighting like the plague, relying on "boom and zoom" tactics to attack bombers and run away from fighters

Actually no.
Finnish F2A's avoided dogfights only with the Soviet biplanes.

it just had SO many faults that the Finns gradually worked out of the aircraft.

Actually no.
It was a very good and liked plane.
Of course during the years Finns made some improvements to it but I wouldn't call them just fixing faults.

The interrupter mechanism was one of the aboslute gems; ONE wire in the gear broke with monotonous regularity, and whatever the reason, a replacement couldn't just be fabricated. So in the Far East many would be U/S for this tiny spare, and for instance ALL the Buffalos on Crete in May 1941 were grounded for their guns not working, reducing the RAF's strength there through the first two weeks of May by HALF...for the broken interrupter gear locked out the wing guns TOO! The Finns just went for undergunning...and REMOVED the interrupter gear and nose guns!!! Which IS smart...but it's also cheatin' LMAO

I haven't read here of problems with the interrupter mechanism.
For sure did Finns not remove the nose guns. Actually it's the other way around: Finns added firepower to the nose by changing the original 1x 7.62mm and 1x 12.7mm nose armament to 2x12.7mm.
The misunderstanding might also originate from the VL Humu case where Finns removed the wing guns and concentrated solely to the 3!(2)x12.7 at the nose.

Regards, Juha

[Mark V]

an oil system that experienced difficulty keeping oil actually in the engine, various cockpit controls that couldn't be used without bruising or cutting oneself on others, side panels in the cockpit that couldn't be seen through...and the remarkable and unique story of one pilot who had to remove his BOOT in the cockpit, open the canopy, lean out and wipe the oil off his windscreen with his SOCK inflight!

The Buffalo was a complete and absolute Turkey...that the Finns managed to carry out a number of modifications to to make it something like capable.

Hi.

All is relative.

Even if compared to Grumman "iron works" products they were propably shoddy - they still clearly had American engineering pedigree. Workmanlike machines. Built in FACTORY.

..COMPARED to many ac of time..

You know, like planes with rectractable undercarriage which needed the pilot to pump manually the gear up. 15 minutes after take-off, the gear was up - but flight regime slightly wobbly as pilot was near to exhaustion inside the cockpit. Or some Italian gems with airframe insides like 3 tons of pasta was squeezed there, and lubricants demanded in factory manual were from plant world. Some Brit planes had features like they were bult in some shed by talented and enthuastic radio amateur, and his plumber and carpenter cousins. Many countries built aircrafts from which cockpit you could not see squat. In many planes operating some controls faced an serious risk of injury - not just some odd sharp corner. In many planes the most regularly used controls were hidden so that you had to be acrobat to reach them - same time the controls never changed were positioned directly on front of you. Brits, Italians, and Soviets also brought "mixed" airframe construction to new heights... Brewster atleast was built the way that mechanic could rely, when tasked of "patching up" an Brewster after "hosing" of AA fire, he would be facing dural plate...

Cyclone engine had its problems, but exactly because they were basically same as in many Douglas commercial aircrafts, we had hope of gathering some parts by "unofficial" ways, to keep them going till 1944.


Mark V

[Mark V]

For sure did Finns not remove the nose guns. Actually it's the other way around: Finns added firepower to the nose by changing the original 1x 7.62mm and 1x 12.7mm nose armament to 2x12.7mm.

I haven't either heard of any serious problem with armament. It was praised in early war (3x .50 plus 1x .30 was miles ahead of standard armament used to - 4x .30 cal MGs), and like Juha told Finns actually upgunned their Brewsters, and it was indeed one .50 replacing .30 cal in synchronized placement.

Finns also built an copy of .50 Browning machinegun for their needs. I guess Humu was the main motivation here.

Mark V

[Juha Tompuri]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the info

Finns also built an copy of .50 Browning machinegun for their needs. I guess Humu was the main motivation here.

Here's a link to the gun: http://www.warbirdforum.com/gun.htm

Regards, Juha

[phylo_roadking]

The interrupter gear issue was endemic in the Buffalos used by the RAF - the grounding of ALL the Buffalos in Crete for example is confirmed in the "correspondence" between Freyberg and Longmore, as Freyberg kept pushing for the "full foghter squadron" he thought he had been promised.

Mark - as for the sheer mechanical problems of the Buffalo and the Wright Cyclone - and Juha too...go through the links al the pilots' memoirs. ALL of these...

like broken interrupter gear cables meaning their entire gun suite wouldn't fire (and few spares), incorrectly-hardened and heat-treated engine components, "self sealing" petrol tank membranes that ruptured, "new" aircraft being built with second-hand reconditioned airliner engines that had time-expired, selfraising undercarriage legs....when the aircraft was sitting on the ground, an oil system that experienced difficulty keeping oil actually in the engine, various cockpit controls that couldn't be used without bruising or cutting oneself on others, side panels in the cockpit that couldn't be seen through

...are scattered throughout those sources.

Mark - on THIS...

they still clearly had American engineering pedigree. Workmanlike machines. Built in FACTORY.

...see the remarks on the Brewster factory when the US government had to investigate it for the really shoddy state of Grumman aircraft built under licence that came out of there. There's a link to the investigation details on a thread on Feldgrau I started about it, I'll post it up when I find it again. If you think ALL American factories are little fragments of engineering heaven...think again...

lubricants demanded in factory manual were from plant world

Have you ever heard of Castrol R30 or R40? Once the staple lubricating oils of the racing world for about 50 years...and they were vegetable oils! Because they didn't break down under extreme temperatures and mechanical conditions quite as readily as mineral oils. Mineral oils only became truly stable enough for ectreme conditions over the last 30-40 years with the addition of long-chain polymers etc. - and THEN they invented "synthetic" LMAO.

Brits, Italians, and Soviets also brought "mixed" airframe construction to new heights...

There is actually a VIRTUE in this - all-metal items like the Mustang or the Spitfire or the Buffalo were great - BUT they're very hard to repair when it comes to SMALL repairs, and monocoque fuselages etc are almost impossible to safely. They demand mechanics trained to repair alloy SAFELY, dealing with stress fractures and damage, making sure drilling for rivetting patches etc. doesn't actually damage the integrity of the aircraft even further. But wooden airframes can be repaired with skills learned in high school and a pile of seasoned timber, tools available at a pinch in the nearest garden shed, and a roll of aircraft linen...or again in a pinch ANY linen LOL And ALSO - the airframes' strength comes from all those nice little connected members and braces, NOT the structural integrity of the WHOLE, like a Spitfire's monocoque. Damage a Spitfire's fuselage significantly...and it was carted off to Beaverbrook's Forward Repair Depots and
swapped out; damage the fuselage of a Hurricane to the same degree...and while the sergeant-fitter worked on its
Merlin's regular maintenance, the 17 yr old trainee woodworker masquerading as an A/C2 repaired the damage with a hacksaw, a spokeshave and a handful of screws Of course - it ALSO meant that you were building and repairing them with "non-strategic resources" An aircraft with a sizeable percentage of wooden construction can be maintained easier at a forward airfield in the middle of a desert or unbroken country than an all-metal fighter.

Of course - I SHOULD note the MAJOR exception of the MOSQUITO'S wooden moncoque...for this is where the unrepairability of a METAL monocoque is borne out. Damage a Spitfire - and you have to drill lots of little holes and pop-rivet a patch in place if you can...and THEN also worry about radiating stress from the drilling Damage a Mosquito in the same way? Take a piece of shaped marine ply, cut to shape....and GLUE it in place!!!

[phylo_roadking]

Found it...

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic ... 55&t=27540

On Aug.23, 1943, despite having taken a wartime 'no-strike pledge' United Auto Workers Local 365 struck the plant for four days, at a cost of 240,000 man-hours, the time it would have taken to build 20 planes.

Worse, the Johnsville action seemed trivial: Guards had not been allowed to choose their posts - front gate or bathrooms - by seniority. Even a pro-Brewster newspaper dubbed it "the most disgusting strike in the history of this country."

The union local's flamboyant president, Thomas V. DeLorenzo, fanned the fire. "If I had brothers at the front line who needed the 10 or 12 planes that were sacrificed [in the strike], I'd let them die, if necessary, to preserve our way of life or rights or whatever you want to call it," he told a Washington Post reporter.

To readers - including many in Congress - the Brewster plant was a portrait of trade-unionism gone insane.

For three months in 1943, the House held hearings, and what lawmakers learned about the factory astounded them:

-Apparent sabotage by workers led to Buccaneers that would lose rudder control, or with engines that could not be turned off.

-Workers spent hours loafing in the factory known as the "Bucks County Playhouse" and some allegedly had sex in the planes. Rival shifts hid parts from each other.

-(?) $50,000 worth of tools and materials were stolen.

But the chaos was not limited to the workforce. Strange tales of inept management abounded.

When supervisors discovered tools left in finished planes, for instance, they ordered disbelieving engineers to build a giant device to flip planes and shake out loose bolts and tools.

Before the hearings even ended, the Navy canned the Buccaneer, hauling more than 300 of them out of the plant as scrap.

By then, the Buccaneer already was a joke among U.S. pilots. Though some of the bombers were in Navy combat units, not one saw battle. Most were used for training; others were launched into the sea to test catapults on aircraft carriers.

And it should be noted that these weren't related to the FOUR-DAY strike on hands at the time - but were Brewster's NORMAL working policies and procedures! Put THESE, together with the Buffalo-specific faults you'll find in that set of sources, and the Finns - when you look at the long list of "modifications" they made - DID spend a considerable part of the Buffalo's service life putting faults right BEFORE improving them.

[phylo_roadking]

If you go through the FINNISH section of the sources you find all sorts of good stuff

But if you go through the British, American, and Dutch sections you find...THESE

Our aircraft were supposed to be fitted with the 1,250 hp engines, and the engine plates so stated. However, the variation in power [between one aircraft and another] was very evident. When making an operational formation climb, particularly over 8,000 ft., the relative performance of some aircraft was pathetic. This stemmed from the fact that a number of the engines were time-expired airline engines reworked and reissued as new and up to rated power.

We also had a sabotage problem in the American factories: valve springs over-hardened, flattened cam rings, cam rings not hardened at all, oil pumps outside tolerance and thus low pressure, and pressure relief springs being too soft--again low pressure. A fuel pump from the "Hornet" series engines of 600-800 hp output would not supply those bigger engines. Airscrew seals were second-hand and blew if the oil pressure surged due to quick change to fine pitch.

The single hydraulic ram for the undercarriage was a good design, but the inboard ball joint was prone to bend or fail. Also the piston on the undercarriage rod was a single bolt--quite good if the bolt is there and tight [but] several of our aircraft had no bolt on delivery. Makes landings very interesting!

All our aircraft were fitted with two inboard and two wing-mounted 0.5 [50 caliber] guns. The two inboard were propeller synchronized with the American wire system which was not bad if kept adjusted up, but far more troublesome than the British Constantinesque hydraulic system

all guns (0.5in) were on the 0.3 [30 caliber] Browning mounts. Our ground staff had much difficulty and a lot of time building these for reliability. The firing solenoids were also found to be 0.3 types and therefore were not dependable. The breech-blocks were found to be impossible and had to be reworked by the armourers, fitters, and aircrew who could be mustered. Good fun!

The side panels of the windscreen are at such an angle that it is difficult to see through them

The [primer] is not positive like our Ki-gas and it has a habit of sticking in the off position. It incorporates a rubber gland which perishes and has to be removed.

The fuel tanks appear to be of the integral type built into the spar. A bullet hole in the tank will therefore mean changing the wings.

The wings are not bolted to a centre section but appear to have a common main rear spar located through the fuselage. Changing wings in the event of accidents will therefore be uneconomical and slow.

It was also apparent that there were [exhaust] fumes coming into the cockpit....

[phylo_roadking]

AND....

the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed

We have had cases of engine loss of power through drop of oil pressure and excess oil temperature

A further serious setback was that above 14,000 feet the pilots had to pump his petrol to his engine continually by a hand pump if he wished to use more than about half throttle setting

By reducing the petrol load and ammunition and replacing two of the four .5 guns with .303, we reduced the load by almost 900 lbs, thereby improving the performance in combat appreciably.

it was found that a large proportion of the Cyclone engines were suffering from a serious lack of power. Spare engines were no available and the number of aircraft therefore available for operational work never exceed six, though there were several more flyable

I had to go off and clean the windscreen of oil. They had an engine in the hanger, and they said these [push-rod] valve springs are too strong. They were discolored. We didn't have any valve springs suitable, so they just stayed on. They tried to raise the rems from 2250 to 2500 to get more power, and that's what caused the trouble. I never had a failure, personally. The oil used to come out and drip off the power wheel? It would just get too hot and overflow. Everybody was faced with that problem. As soon as you went flat out, you see, as soon as the engine was at full throttle, this would happen. After the war started, we were told not to run at full throttle. We used to run along at 1800 rems, as smooth as you like, but if you went to 2500, these problems developed.

They had put in a wet wing - you were able to purge it with CO2 into the main tank, but it meant extra weight. That was maybe the reason we had strut failures - these wheels, the landing gear, landed pretty hard, negative 3 G's. The struts had a tendency to move forward. When you retracted the gear on the next flight, the box strut scraped on the wheel well.

"Disintegration fuselage self sealing fuel tanks F2A-3 planes has resulted in removal this model from carrier operations earlier than anticipated. Failure occurs along vulcanized seams inner lining. Believe fuel leakage around fittings attacks outside rubberized cover and passes into active material causing selfsealing tank to burst inward. Leading edge and fuselage tanks being temporarily blanked off from fuel system."

Also the 1200 hp Brewster developed vapor lock in the fuel lines when they flew at high altitudes

the machine guns would jam in high g flight. This problem could be prevented by limiting the amount of ammunition.

As required by the "Neutrality Act," Brewster modified the F2A by replacing its government-supplied engine

Worse yet, its fuel tanks were built into the wings, and the wings into the fuselage, so that a single bullet-hole could require a major rebuild. The tail wheel wobbled. The clock had no trip indicator, so the pilot couldn't tell when to switch fuel tanks

To make matters worse, Brewster shipped some of the British B-339s with Wright Cyclones cannibalized from the TWA passenger fleet.

The Cyclone had valves and rocker arms at the top of the cylinder head. Yup it was a pushrod engine with the cam mounted concentric to the crank. The rocker reversed the pushrod motion to operate the valves. All this stuff needs oil and the rocker/valve stem clearance needs regular adjustments. On the Cyclone there is a stamped metal cover, one to each side of the cyclinder seated on a gasket to allow access to the rocker and valve stem. [Some of] the RAF buffs in Burma had rebuilt engines off DC-3s, and I doubt Brewster paid for top of the line rebuilds. Once this stuff got good and warm and the wind got to blowing the covers leaked and the slipstream carried the oil mist out the cowl flap openings to the windscreen.

Yeah, it was grrrrrreat...

[Juha Tompuri]

The interrupter gear issue was endemic in the Buffalos used by the RAF - the grounding of ALL the Buffalos in Crete for example is confirmed in the "correspondence" between Freyberg and Longmore, as Freyberg kept pushing for the "full foghter squadron" he thought he had been promised.

You answered to the, unknown to the Finns, RAF interrupter gear problems yourself:

All our aircraft were fitted with two inboard and two wing-mounted 0.5 [50 caliber] guns. The two inboard were propeller synchronized with the American wire system which was not bad if kept adjusted up, but far more troublesome than the British Constantinesque hydraulic system

emphasis on mine
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... &start=285

Additional info from battle of Crete:

"The Buffalo was a delight to fly--very maneuverable (compared to the Fulmar). It would have been an excellent fighter but the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed and 805 did not have the necessary spares." He does not explain what happened to the two .50-cal wing guns.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/crete.htm
Without spares or innovative mechanics every plane gets grounded.


Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

If you go through the FINNISH section of the sources you find all sorts of good stuff

Naturally

But if you go through the British, American, and Dutch sections you find...THESE

A bit selective sortiment...but much better than your earlier urban legend based.

Our aircraft were supposed to be fitted with the 1,250 hp engines, and the engine plates so stated. However, the variation in power [between one aircraft and another] was very evident. When making an operational formation climb, particularly over 8,000 ft., the relative performance of some aircraft was pathetic. This stemmed from the fact that a number of the engines were time-expired airline engines reworked and reissued as new and up to rated power.

1250hp?

evidently a slip of the 45-year-old memory.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/wright.htm As with all the other his "memoirs" ?

All our aircraft were fitted with two inboard and two wing-mounted 0.5 [50 caliber] guns. The two inboard were propeller synchronized with the American wire system which was not bad if kept adjusted up, but far more troublesome than the British Constantinesque hydraulic system

" if kept adjusted up" explanes a lot if not everything.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

AND....

the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed

IF quoting the whole sentence, the issue becomes more clear:

"The Buffalo was a delight to fly--very maneuverable (compared to the Fulmar). It would have been an excellent fighter but the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed and 805 did not have the necessary spares."

http://www.warbirdforum.com/crete.htm
Without spares or innovative mechanics every plane gets grounded.

We have had cases of engine loss of power through drop of oil pressure and excess oil temperature

Good maintenance, clean oil, lower ambient temps and correctly rebuilt engines would have probably prevented this problem and may explain why the Finish Buffs didn't have the oil leaks.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/cyclone.htm

A further serious setback was that above 14,000 feet the pilots had to pump his petrol to his engine continually by a hand pump if he wished to use more than about half throttle setting

correctly rebuilt engines

http://www.warbirdforum.com/cyclone.htm
?

By reducing the petrol load and ammunition and replacing two of the four .5 guns with .303, we reduced the load by almost 900 lbs, thereby improving the performance in combat appreciably.

Aha...from the "Harper report"...
Some additional info from him:

The aircrew personnel of No. 453 Squadron with the exception of the two Flight Commanders, Flight Lieutenant Grace and Flight Lieutenant Vanderfield, were pilots straight from PTS [pilot training school], and some of them told me when I questioned them, that they had no desire to be fighter pilots and had been given no choice in the matter.

The landing ground position was disastrous for fighter operations.

This Unit's ground crew strength was totally inadequate for one Squadron, let alone two, and the vast majority of guns in the aircraft would not fire, because of the rust which the troops had not had time to clean off.

Our pilots could not dog fight nor use dive and zoom tactics

I was several times approached by the pilots who spoke in a manner showing they had little confidence in the RAF's ability to run its affairs, and they were opening in favor of moving nearer to Australia so they could come under Australian control and put up a better fight.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/secret.htm
...I think this is revealing enough...

Also the 1200 hp Brewster developed vapor lock in the fuel lines when they flew at high altitudes

the machine guns would jam in high g flight. This problem could be prevented by limiting the amount of ammunition.

From the same source:

Captain Piet Tideman, commander of 3-Vl.G.V, gave in the recently published book “Buffaloes over Singapore” the following analysis of the Brewster fighter: “Coming to an evaluation of the Brewster fighter, especially compared to the Zero by which it was opposed - I think that my views are not directly in line with what is generally said about the Brewster. Generally it is said that that it was far inferior to the Zero. (.....) On the contrary, the Brewster was a good, sturdy, fast fighter with two half-inch armour-plates behind the seat. She would take a hell of a beating. My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane, but that we had too few of them and also our armament was too little and too light.

“with this all (….) not any aircraft could have given a better performance.”

http://www.warbirdforum.com/casius4.htm

Yeah, it was grrrrrreat

Yeah, I agree.

Regards, Juha

P.S. phylo, according to the Forum rules, when quoting please provide info on the source/link of a website(s)

[alf]

I see the Buffalo is back in list again. Some things never change

The Finns rate the Buffalo highly in their war tucked away in the northern tip of Europe. Everyone else rated it a lemon. Anything above 15,000 ft it was a dog and those who flew against the Japanese had to fight at those altitudes, Bombers regularly came in at 20,000ft plus and escorts higher.

Hand pumping fuel and dogfighting, to give a glib reply of "redesigned" engines misses the point entirely. That is what the Pacific War Buffalo pilots had to do, simple fact. Plus the engines were totally different between the exported Buffalo's the Finns had and the ones operated in the Pacific. Again there is context of the condtions also, a basically static front (Finns) with engineering facilities and time to rework the Buffalo and a rapid retreat without any time for modifications or anything but basic repairs. (Malaya).

Way back in this thread I published a long list of the modifications done on the Buffalo's in Malaya, taking out half a ton of "unnecessary" equipment. I won't repeat but it finished with the quaint but telling comment that after everything was taken out "The Buffalo could now loop". That indicates a major difference between the two models of Buffalo.

There was no "spitfire" style tactics as some like to state, the descriptions of the battles in Malaya are usually of Buffalos struggling to get height and being bounced. The enemy always held the advantage of height and could chose to accept or refuse combat at will.

For the Finns how many kills did the Buffalo achieve over 15000ft? Northern European combat was fought at lower levels usually.

The "Harper Report" is quoted again. The Royal Australian Air Force in its history of No 453 Squadron. "Defeat into Victory" takes the highly unusual step of speaking very critically of Harper. His pilots accused him of cowardice, he was always on the ground for serious missons. He had 5 kills painted on his aircraft from the BOB but these are unsubstantiated. He was more interested in furthering his career rather than lead a fighting squadron. It is an interesting controvosy but off topic. The Harper Report written in India was his version of events, not necessarily the truth, thats what the RAAF History published in the 1990's states.

I'm sure , the Buffalo will pop up again, perhaps we could have a "what if", How would the Finns fought the Japanese in Malaya with their Bufffalos? Until everyone stops with the nationalistic pride and looks at the layers of differences between the war fronts, this debate will continue endlessly.