Brewster buffalo question

[FLYBOYJ]

May I know what those areas were? It always interests me to know just how two aircraft, developed at the time interval and yet one of them pops to become obsolete faster than the other for some reason or the other. Oh yes, and that 'other' airplane I'm refering to is the F4F Wildcat

Aside from the less powerful engine, it had a 12V electrical system, telescopic gun site, cartridge starter, no cowl flaps, no armored fuel or oil tanks, it had a low pressure hydraulic system (1000 psi), it's canopy wasn't jettisonable, and it had a Curtiss electric propeller which in my opinion were way inferior to Hamilton Standard, especially in the 1940 time frame and it's wing guns only carried 200 rounds per wing. And let's not forget fabric covered control surfaces, although featured on many WW2 aircraft were just obsolete in terms of maintainability and durability....



BTW, some of this I knew, some of this info was gathered from this site. The site features a downloadable British Buffalo POH (Pilot's Notes).

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

[Salim]

Hmm, it seems that the variants of the Buffalo did have some big differences.

[Salim]

OK, I got some time to make an actual response this time.

Aside from the less powerful engine, it had a 12V electrical system, telescopic gun site, cartridge starter, no cowl flaps, no armored fuel or oil tanks, it had a low pressure hydraulic system (1000 psi), it's canopy wasn't jettisonable, and it had a Curtiss electric propeller which in my opinion were way inferior to Hamilton Standard, especially in the 1940 time frame and it's wing guns only carried 200 rounds per wing.

This makes want to start a whole new thread about those things you've just brought up. Anyway, I do have some questions to ask about these.

1: What exactly is the 12V electrical system? Does it mean 12 volts? If so, how is it a disadvantage and what system do you think would have been good?

2: What is a cartridge starter?

3: What are the cowl flaps?

4: About the propeller... well, let's just say that I really know nothing about propellers, so I guess all I can ask is, can you give me information about both those props you mentioned? Also, why do you believe the hamilton standard is the superior?

I guess I'd better get to doing more research on this matter, eh? Thanks in advance for any answers.

[FLYBOYJ]

OK, I got some time to make an actual response this time.



This makes want to start a whole new thread about those things you've just brought up. Anyway, I do have some questions to ask about these.

1: What exactly is the 12V electrical system? Does it mean 12 volts? If so, how is it a disadvantage and what system do you think would have been good?

2: What is a cartridge starter?

3: What are the cowl flaps?

4: About the propeller... well, let's just say that I really know nothing about propellers, so I guess all I can ask is, can you give me information about both those props you mentioned? Also, why do you believe the hamilton standard is the superior?

I guess I'd better get to doing more research on this matter, eh? Thanks in advance for any answers.

No problem, I been in aviation 28 years and am still learing, Glad to answer your questions....

With a 12 V (volts) system you're limited in power capacity to run things like radios and lights. 24 or 28V systems are better as system amperage could be higher with little load drop off when you turn on all electrical stuff....

A cartridge starter is a gas starter that has a device like an empty shotgun shell that blows compressed gas into a starting unit which turns the engine - this saves weight but is a major pain when starting in cold or when starting a fuel injected engine when it's hot.

Cowl flaps are those "flappers" you see on radial engine cowls and are used to direct air into or away from the engine. When it's cold you want to keep your cowl flaps closed, the opposite for when it's hot....

The Ham Standard propeller runs off of engine oil (or it's own oil supply) and is not subjected to going into flat pitch during an electrical failure. If a hydraulic propeller fails it will go into low pitch and stay there.

Any other questions?

[Marshall_Stack]

Whenever cartridge starters are brought up, I think of "Flight of the Phoenix" where they had only a few cartridges to use to get their new airplane to work.

Interesting thread. I could always stand to learn more about aircraft, especially the ones with the bad rap.

[FLYBOYJ]

Whenever cartridge starters are brought up, I think of "Flight of the Phoenix" where they had only a few cartridges to use to get their new airplane to work.

YEP!!! The B-57 had one as well. you would hear a "BANG" and see a whole bunch of smoke. You would think the airplne just exploded....

[Twitch]

Yeah Salim as in almost every instance or comparison we see on this site of "hardware" most folks fail to factor in the human in the equation. It boils down to the guy in the pilot's seat. If he ain't with it he ain't gonna win even with a technically superior plane.

[FLYBOYJ]

Yeah Salim as in almost every instance or comparison we see on this site of "hardware" most folks fail to factor in the human in the equation. It boils down to the guy in the pilot's seat. If he ain't with it he ain't gonna win even with a technically superior plane.

True, but some of the technical things being brought up here affect what goes on even before going into battle. You could be the greatest fighter pilot in the world but what good is it if your aircraft doesn't always start, the radios can't work with the landing lights on or the engine overheats while waiting to take off. Eventually that part of the equation comes into play no matter how good of a pilot you are. As one of the other posters stated 60% pilot, 40% machine, I like those numbers....

[Twitch]

Well sure. That's why pilots still voice their eternal dislike for crates like the P-39, F2A and such. If you have to abort before you ever see the enemy you aren't gonna get the opportunity to show if you're good or not. The whole pre-war comglomeration of machines were conceived and built with a completely different philosophy of what "modern" fighting planes should embody. Once WW 2 commenced everybody had to re-think things.

I mean we look at the virtuosos of the F4F on P-40 as guys like Joe Foss and Tex Hill and then look at the F6F and P-51 that subsequent aces flew and note the technological differences that translated to kills. Hill and Foss did great in basically obsolete planes which is more of a testament to their individual skills. By the time the Hellcats and Mustangs roamed the skies they made average skilled pilots much better. But the bottom line was the talented guys could become super stars in them just as Hill and Foss did in their "old" planes.

Just writing about it make you shiver to imagine how utterly awe inspiring these men and the men they fought were.

[Waynos]

wrong thread, duh

[FlyingDutchman]

About the quality of the Buffalo......
First of all the guys who flew the Buffalo in combat had to combat a overwhelming amount of enemy planes. All of them ultralights!
Seeing your fellow squadronmates get shotdown and killed does something to you, so your opinion about your own mount gets negative.

About the armament.....
Quote from Jimmy Thach: Firepower is not a substitute for marksmanship
after the switch form 4 .50 (F4F-3) to 6 .50 (F4F-4)

In "Buffaloes over Singapore" is a quote from Kapitein Tideman (Dutch NEI-AF): "My view is that our drawback during the fighter actions was not an inferior aeroplane (the Brewster), but we had to few of them".

The Dutch pilots flew more often than not with half the fuelload and half the amount of ammo in the Buffalo.
In this configuration it could hold its own in combat with te Navy Type O.
But quantity was the deciding matter!

The Buffalo wasn't that bad, alltough obsolete at the time.
With the proper tactics it could hold its own.
The Finns showed that to be true. (26:1 kill ratio)

It all boils down to training and quantity.