Brewster Buffalo

What the f3fs the flying barrel, probably why it was called such. Not bad looking but not a good flyer the f2a1 was a better aircraft. They recently salvaged a f3 not long ago guy ran out of fuel and had to ditch. Claimed he switched tanks but the engine quit. The plane was located intact but when the salvage ship got there they couldn't find it found it a mile off and broken up they recovered it and a team restoring the aircraft found the switch in the correct position but the key was stripped so the valve was inoperable. Contacted the pilot who is now a ranking officer to tell him they found the plane and he was right he turned the switch but it didn't matter.

 

Found it here: 1:72 Brewster Bison Mk Ic; RAAF 82 Squadron, New Guinea, 1944

and

looks like we were a little off...

 

Now he said he used the buffalo fuselage from matchbox and the wings of a supermarine attacker but he made modifications to the wings he didn't mention.

 

I got it when I remake the fuselage I'll take parts from one of my typhoons since its make believe, I think it should look good

 

Usually when an aircraft doesn't feel right it's due to it being underpowered...

 

Nope, F3A was a Brewster built F4U Corsair, just as the FG was a Goodyear built F4U. Same specs, same R2800 engine. Walk around, looks almost identical; though my father said he, and others, could spot a Brewster at a glance. Brewster built some 738 F3As, most went to the training pipeline, none of them went to a USN or USMC unit destined for combat. My father's experience with the F3A was all at ComFAirWest at NAS San Diego, circa August 1943 to October 1944, where he was Director of Fighter Training.

 

The Corsair did experience a number of flight and landing problems, most of which the British fixed. As an interesting side..."At the end of World War II, under the terms of the Lend-Lease agreement, the aircraft had to be paid for or to be returned to the U.S. As the UK did not have the means to pay for them, the Royal Navy Corsairs were pushed overboard into the sea in Moreton Bay off Brisbane, Australia"
Sunshine Coast, Queensland, aircraft dumped offshore

In 1946 numerous World War 2 aircraft were dumped into 200 metres of water off the Sunshine Coast, north of Brisbane. Scores of Voight-Sikorsky F4U-1D Corsairs, F6F Hellcats, a Fairy Barracuda, at least 12 Seafires, several TBM Avenger torpedo bombers, AT6 Harvards and Supermarine Otter seaplanes were dumped.

They were dumped on the orders of the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm from the decks of HMS Pioneer, HMS Perseus and HMS Slinger. Apparently about 9 shiploads of aircraft were dumped with about 70 to 100 in each shipload. Thus there is potentially about 700 to 800 aircraft on the seabed in that area off the Sunshine Coast. - Fark!

Not far from Brisvegas...

 

The Finnish Air Force!

 

The Finnish Air Force!

 

Okie dokie, I kinda guessed but wanted to be sure. You guys racked an amazing kill ratio. My article said a 32/1 kill ratio against all Russian aircraft at the time. Not sure if that's a reflection of the Soviet aircraft or pilots or both. But most stories say the Finns were the most well trained and experienced pilots.

 

The B-239E was never referred to as the name Buffalo in Finland; it was known simply as the Brewster, or by the nicknames Taivaan helmi ("Sky Pearl") or Pohjoisten taivaiden helmi ("Pearl of the Northern Skies"). Other nicknames were Pylly-Valtteri (lit. "Butt-Walter"), Amerikanrauta ("American hardware" or "American car") and Lentävä kaljapullo ("flying beer-bottle").[citation needed] The total of 44 examples of the B-239E fighters used by the FAF received serial numbers BW-351 to BW-394.


Finnish Air Force Brewster B-239 formation during the Continuation War

Finnish pilots regarded the B-239E as being easy to fly, or in the words of ace Ilmari Juutilainen, a "gentlemen's travelling [or touring] plane".[32] The Buffalo was also popular within the FAF because of its relatively long range and good maintenance record. This was in part due to the efforts of the Finnish mechanics, who solved a problem that plagued the Wright Cyclone engine by inverting one of the piston rings in each cylinder, which had a positive effect on reliability.[citation needed] The cooler weather of Finland also helped, because the engine was prone to overheating as noted in tropical Pacific use. 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.[33]

In service from 1941 to 1945, Buffalos of Lentolaivue 24 (Fighter Squadron 24) claimed 477 Soviet Air Force warplanes destroyed, with the combat loss of just 19 Buffalos, an outstanding victory ratio of 26:1

http://ww2f.com/threads/brewster-buffalo.75716/page-2#post-869718

 

The British were into analyzing and resolving combat problems. They found a lot of the weakness of the Sherman and came up with the reworked model. Yes figured out how to land the corsair that was a carrier plane but the USN couldn't figure it out. The British figured out a lot on carrier design we adopted, the off set superstructure the angle deck etc.

 

Wow wonder if they are worth salvaging some historical society might be interested.

 

I think they are coral wonderlands these days...

 

Yeah problem with warm waters. But might be able to salvage something. Funny they say out of the thousands of zeros built only a dozen left and only one can fly. I never knew that buffalo in Netherlands markings was a replica.

 

That is sad just tossed away. LoL was looking for my buffalo kit wanted to see how to get the typhoon wings on.

 

Nope, sorry. Nothing against the Royal Navy, but Royal Navy resolution of supposed F4U problems, carrier landing or otherwise, is a history channel/internet perpetuated repeated-enough-times-it-must-be-true myth.

Where might one suppose all those Royal Navy F4U pilots received their airplanes and their training, to include carrier qualifications? Who trained them?

We might do well to remember that all, that's right, ALL, of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm F4U squadrons received their airplanes and were trained, to include carrier qualifying, by USN aviators, at various naval air stations in the US and on US carriers. All, yes, all of them, all 19 of the FAA F4U squadrons accepted their aircraft and trained in the US for an average of about three months. All of them carrier qualified in US waters on US carriers and all this training was accomplished with USN instructors. The first FAA squadron destined for F4Us, 1830, arrived at NAS Quonset Point in June 1943. The rest began their training:
1831 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1834 in July 1943 NAS Quonset Point
1833 in July 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1835 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1836 in August 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1837 in September 1943, NAS Quonset Point
1838 in October 1943, NAS Brunswick
1841 in March 1944, NAS Brunswick
1842 in April 1944, NAS Brunswick
1843 in May 1944, NAS Brunswick
1845 in June 1944, NAS Brunswick
1846 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1848 in July 1944, NAS Brunswick
1850 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1849 in August 1944, NAS Brunswick
1851 in September 1944, NAS Brunswick
1852 in February 1945, NAS Brunswick
1853 in April 1945, NAS Brunswick

Check the FAA records. Most of what these squadrons were doing in the US is available on the internet, for example, see First Line Squadrons Menu.

One US naval aviator of my acquaintance - full disclosure, my father – who, after a couple of combat tours, carrier and land based, was director of VF training at ComFAirWest from Sept 1943 to Oct 1944, reported that the “crabbing” approach was the only way to land an F4U on a carrier and still keep the LSO in sight. Quoth he: “It was the only way we knew how to do it and the only method that made sense. It was not something we felt needed comment.” He first flew the F4U-1 at San Diego on November 3, 1943, after returning from a tour in the Solomons in VF-11 flying F4Fs (his first F6F flight was at Espiritu Santo on 14 July 1943, in a plane borrowed from VF-33 as the squadrons crossed paths to and from the combat area, some ratting about with F4Us, his adversary was one Ken Walsh . . . another story for later). Upon return to the states, he became director of fighter training at ComFAirWest where he was flying at least every other day, F6Fs, FMs, F4Us, even the occasional SBD, and sometimes three or four flights a day. Working from his pilot’s logbook, his first flight in an F4U-1A was on 31 January 1944. After a couple of FCLP flights in the preceding days, his first actual carrier landing in an F4U, a -1A, was on February 24, 1944 aboard the CVE USS Altamaha, this in prep for the March 1944 RATO experiments. He would always say that the way to land the F4U on a carrier was obvious to anyone with any experience (he earned his wings in November 1940 and was already an ace) and had an inkling as to what he was doing and what needed to be done. The shape of the plane, the position of, and view from the cockpit, the need to keep the LSO in sight led one naturally to use wide and side approach, straightening out only at the last few seconds. He also noted that he never experience either the notorious oleo bounce or stall problem. In his opinion (did I mention that post-war he was programs director at TacTest at NAS Patuxent - the test pilots before there was a test pilot school or that he was one of the very few checked out in both the A6M2 and the A6M5?), landing problems were largely a matter of improper technique. I could elaborate, but that's another story.

Still another naval aviator of my acquaintance, Bob Dosé one of the leaders in VF-12, an early USN F4U squadron (the members of which were outraged when they had to turn their F4Us over to the local CASU and draw F6Fs for the air group’s first deployment), told me pretty much the same thing, the carrier landing technique was obvious and was what they taught their pilots.

Most of the film clips one finds of the VF-17, the first USN F4U squadron, initial carrier quals in birdcage type F4U-1s, focus on some rather spectacular barrier crashes, but, if you can find it, there is film that shows their landing approaches and they are using the crab approach. What people usually like to see in most of the available videos are the barrier crashes, which narrations most like to attribute to the F4U purported poor landing characteristics but were actually the result of hook failures which, if you pay attention in the clips that show the approaches you can see the hook tips bouncing down the flight deck just prior to barrier crashes. Ignore the crashes and watch the approaches.

Been searching, but I can’t find the right one . . . I’ll bet, though, some one here has it.

And let us not forget that the USN was operating F4Us in combat off carriers before anyone, ANYONE, else and night fighters at that . . . see VF(N)-101. How does one suppose a night landing in a F4U worked?

The entire concept then revolves around something that is not true. The claim the the RN was first to operate F4Us from carriers QED they must have developed the distinctive F4U carrier landing approach.

Well, the RN was NOT first to operate F4Us from carriers. Carrier landings are part of the training syllabus and are taught first with FCLP and then actually going out to a carrier and shooting the requisite number of landings and launches. All part of the training program, and for RN F4U pilots taught by the USN, practiced on USN stations, and qualified on USN carriers in US waters before one could be certified an F4U pilot. Remember, the USN was training its own F4U pilots at the same time. How silly seems the concept that the RN developed this magic landing technique AFTER their squadrons were attached to an operating carrier.

Time to put a stake in these myths.

 

Hey CAC was trying to see if the Australian navy got any of the old type21s the UK decommissioned. Got shunted to this story about the ABC Australian broadcast corporation and the Australian navy twerking. I would say it was not well planned. Not appropriate for the occasion