Matrix Games Forums

Hello all knowledgeable ones.

The other thread "Bloody Shambles" has gotten me concentrating on trying to find out the true parameters of Brewster Buffalo performance.

The one point where I find no agreement from sources is speed. Never before have I seen one aircraft with performance figures so widely divergent.

For the Brewster F2A-3, everyone agrees that 321 MPH was max speed.

For the Buffalo Mk I, and Dutch 339D, it's another matter. There are sources (that appear very knowledgeable) that quote from 330 MPH to 290 MPH (the RAAF Museum reports 504 KPH, or about 314 MPH, other sources say 311 MPH, etc.).

In the stock game they are rated at 288MPH for the 339D and 295 MPH for the Buffalo Mk I.

So what I am asking is for anyone who has some authoritative reference to please step up and share what info you may have access to.

Thanks

Well, first of all

"Brewster Buffalo Performance" would seem to be an oxymoron!
[:D][:D][:D]

I'm no expert at all , but i do know it dutch version was fitted with an engine that had a lower power output
than the one it was normally fitted with, as the dutch wanted the same engine fitted used in other(bomber) aircraft in dutch service.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well, first of all

"Brewster Buffalo Performance" would seem to be an oxymoron!
[:D][:D][:D]

That wasn't much help [:D][:D][:D]

I will check out all I got about Finish ones.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well, first of all

"Brewster Buffalo Performance" would seem to be an oxymoron!
[:D][:D][:D]

hehe very good ! [:D]

seriously, in one of my books (muttering : hell, where...where....) I remember about a report that some Marine pilots where moaning about the new arrived Wildcat and that they prefered the Buffalo because of the size and other abilities of the Buffalo (Getting faster killed [:'(] ? ) . However, isnt it always this way with new equipment ?

ORIGINAL: Rafael Warsaw


I will check out all I got about Finish ones.

Thanks,

I believe the Finns used the Brewster B-239, with the Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone, rated at 905 hp.
That would have different performance characteristics than the Dutch and British 339B's, E's, and D's which were equipped with the Wright GR-1820-G105A Cyclone Radial rated at 1100 hp.

But any further info would still be appreciated.[;)]

The Finnish had the 950hp engine and rated at 297 mph at 15000 feet. They were the lighter early version.
 
Some of the differences may be simply the load out altitude fuel and climate in which the plane was tested. 320 or 310 314 is not a great difference.

RAF Version 292 MPH at 20,000ft

USN F2A3 290 at 16,500ft

No info on Dutch version at this time but I will recheck.

MJT

In Malaya, .50cals taken out, some replaced with .303.
 
Armour taken out or never fitted.
 
Refurbished engines, or poorly made/fitted new engines. Ever decreasing spare parts and maintenance.
 
IMHO there wasnt a standard for the Buffalo in Malaya

ORIGINAL: fokkov

I'm no expert at all , but i do know it dutch version was fitted with an engine that had a lower power output
than the one it was normally fitted with, as the dutch wanted the same engine fitted used in other(bomber) aircraft in dutch service.

I believe, I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'm pretty sure, that the Dutch version had the lower horse power engines because Brewster couldn't provide enough of the right engine.

I am not surprised that speed varies widely. Brewster couldn't produce planes to save their life. All sorts of "mods" roled off their assembly line as nations ramped up to go to war. There is a relatively good source on the net, unfortunately I don't have time to find it right now, but it details all the versions and variants of the versions produced and where they went. That might help you get a handle on the speed problem.

I do seem to recall that the 339D (version I think in the DEI) had a speed about 290, with awful climbing ability. It was a real dog.

The "Buffs" sent to the UK matched the published speed much better (320ish) and had much better climb performance. Basically worked as designed...when it wasn't broken down with no spare parts available.

The Finns may have come out the best. IIRC they received some of the earliest exports, before Brewster's production system completely fell apart. They received planes with stock pile of spare parts.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: fokkov

I'm no expert at all , but i do know it dutch version was fitted with an engine that had a lower power output
than the one it was normally fitted with, as the dutch wanted the same engine fitted used in other(bomber) aircraft in dutch service.

I believe, I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I'm pretty sure, that the Dutch version had the lower horse power engines because Brewster couldn't provide enough of the right engine.

I am not surprised that speed varies widely. Brewster couldn't produce planes to save their life. All sorts of "mods" roled off their assembly line as nations ramped up to go to war.

Kind of hard to download those kind of patches too. [:D]

Well, it seems that the Brewster Buffalo's speed was actually in the 320+ range for all but the early Finnish Model 239.

It also seems the Dutch 339's were no worse off than the British 339's. In fact, 2/3's of the Dutch Buffalo 339's seemed to have been equipped with the 1200HP engine instead of the standard export model 1100HP engine.

(see below)
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a.html

As for the F2A vs the F4F, I can see how some pilots would have preferred Buffalo's to Wildcats, if they had flown the pre-war F2A-2 model. It seems that - that aircraft had a top speed of 340MPH, better range, and climb than the F4F-3, and was considered nimble. However, the F2A-2 had no armor, and the follow on F2A-3 which was equipped as a combat aircraft (like the Wildcat) did not perform as well as the F4F-3.

All in all, it seems that a reappraisal of the Buffalo is in order.

"Wildcats" didn't generally have armor or self-sealing tanks until well into 1942. And when the F4f-4 first came out with armor and folding wings (= more weight) the performance was deemed "awful" by the pilots, who perferred the "more nimble" -3 model (they also liked the more rounds per gun .. even though the -4 had more guns).

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

"Wildcats" didn't generally have armor or self-sealing tanks until well into 1942. And when the F4f-4 first came out with armor and folding wings (= more weight) the performance was deemed "awful" by the pilots, who perferred the "more nimble" -3 model (they also liked the more rounds per gun .. even though the -4 had more guns).

It seems, according to Lundstrom, that both the F2A-3 and F4F-3 were fitted with pilot armor and early self sealing tanks at the outset of 1942 (fitted in service - not the factory).
(an online reference for those without the book)
http://warbirdforum.com/gas.htm

EDIT: Which was why the F2A-3's performance fell off compared to the A-2.

But it still doesn't answer the original question about the Brewster's actual performance range.

I have a book "The American Fighter" by Enzo Angelucci with Peter Bowers, that charts the various American versions of the plane with foot notes as to many of the foreign versions. I have know idea how accurate this information is, but, it does go into the various weights, engines, horsepower, speed, etc.

You might want to check it out at the library if you can find it. If you have any specific questions, I will try to answer them if you keep it simple for my simple mind.

As a side note, the narrative of book I mentioned, refers to the poor performance of the Marine Squadron VMF-221 during the Battle of Midway that had 19 F2As and 6 F4Fs only 7 survived (6 F2As and 1 F4F). I hadn't realized that they were still being used at that late date to that extent.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I have a book "The American Fighter" by Enzo Angelucci with Peter Bowers, that charts the various American versions of the plane with foot notes as to many of the foreign versions. I have know idea how accurate this information is, but, it does go into the various weights, engines, horsepower, speed, etc.

You might want to check it out at the library if you can find it. If you have any specific questions, I will try to answer them if you keep it simple for my simple mind.

Thank you, That book seems to be one of the sources this was complied from:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f2a.html

It appears to be fairly authoritative, and well researched.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

As a side note, the narrative of book I mentioned, refers to the poor performance of the Marine Squadron VMF-221 during the Battle of Midway that had 19 F2As and 6 F4Fs only 7 survived (6 F2As and 1 F4F). I hadn't realized that they were still being used at that late date to that extent.

Midway in my opinion was expected to be lost. The limit of "modern" aircraft there was 6 F4Fs and 3 TBFs. The rest were obsolete junk that was deemed expendable. The B-17s could bomb and stage out to Hawaii so Im not counting them.

ORIGINAL: Big B
according to Lundstrom, that both the F2A-3 and F4F-3 were fitted with pilot armor and early self sealing tanks at the outset of 1942

My copy of Lundstrom (p76) indicates that after the Feb'42 raids VF-6 for example was still waiting for factory armor. They had, just prior to the raids in late Jan installed some "ersatz" armor. And that (p58) prior to the raids VF-6 had no armor or self-sealing tanks.

I guess point I was making is that F4f-3 may be cited to out perform even the F4f-4 depending on whether the -3s in question had the extra weight added to it, as it began the war and operated for some time without it.

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


"Q: Why did the Finns achieve so much with the Buffalo?


A: First off, the Finnish Brewsters weren't Brewster Buffaloes, or Brewster 339's, or F2A-2, which were very bad fighters. They were Model 239's much closer to the original USN F2A-1, which were reported to be delightful to fly. Finnish nickname "Taivaan Helmi" "Pearl of the Skies" reflects this.

Also, Finnish Brewsters had reflector sights and reliable armament of three heavy machine guns and one rifle-caliber mg. (later on four heavy MG's) and seat armour.

The Finnish Air Force also used innovative modern air combat tactics, such as largely relying on finger four / Thach Weave / Schwarm, whatever you call it, against doctrinal Soviet tactics, such as using three plane flights and "Spanish circle" described later on.

In 1941 many of the Finnish Buffalo pilots had had combat experience during the Winter War, and air combat tactics were modified and developed. Mock dogfights were made against captured russian planes. Training with Brewsters hadn't been so good as it might have been, since the severe shortage of aviation fuel in 1940-1941.

The quality of Soviet planes in 1941, when the best kill ratio 67.5 - 1) was achieved, was lower than Brewsters, most common types being used were SB-2, DB-3, I-16 and I-153.

Finally, there was element of luck. The fighter squadron the Brewsters were in most of the war, 24, was commanded by an excellent commander, Major G. Magnusson, a great organizer and tactician who is considered to be "Grand Old Man" of the Finnish fighter aviation. By almost sheer luck, some of the finest pilots of the Finnish Air Force were in the Brewster Squadron when the war started, such as Hans Wind, Ilmari Juutilainen, Joppe Karhunen and Lauri Nissinen, each one of them later on gaining huge kill numbers also with Messerschmitt 109G-2's and G-6's.

The Brewsters probably could have made even more kills, but the Finnish fighter control system during the Brewster's golden age in 1941-42 was abysmal. For an example, sometimes the alert messages were only somekind like this: "Village of Inkeroinen is being bombed" and arrived as much as 15 minutes too late. But by the summer 1944 it was excellent.

Criticism against Finnish ground control system and FAF brass in general has been extremely harsh by Joppe Karhunen, a Brewster ace and an aviation historian.