This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brewster F2A Buffalo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Second Lt Charles M. Kunz was also scathing:
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 Ironically, it was superseded by the type descended from the one it beat in the US Navy fighter competition, the F4F Wildcat.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
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:
(apparently 950hp vs 940hp, while also carrying two more guns, armor, extra fuel)
"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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brewster F2A Buffalo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
Second Lt Charles M. Kunz was also scathing:
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
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:
(apparently 950hp vs 940hp, while also carrying two more guns, armor, extra fuel)
"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)
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)