Case study in wrong design choices. Brewster Buffalo

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Case study in wrong design choices. Brewster Buffalo
heraldabc 12/12/2010 7:50:28 PM

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/brewster_buffalo.php I will have some things to say about the plane as it shows a general theme in aviation mistakes. Next posting...

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

heraldabc Background from aviastar. 12/12/2010 8:28:48 PM

From aviastar.

Brewster F2A Buffalo

1937

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/brewster_buffalo.jpg" alt="Brewster F2A Buffalo" height="238" width="402" />

The prototype of this single-seat all-metal fighter flew for the first time in December 1937. The first production version was the F2A-1 powered by a 700.4kW Wright R-1820-34 radial engine. Eleven were operated by the US Navy on board USS Saratoga and 44 were exported to Finland. The F2A-1 was the US Navy's first monoplane fighter. These were followed by 43 894kW R-1820-40-engined F2A-2 and 108 F2A-3 for the US Navy. Meanwhile a few fighters had reached Belgium and others were in service in the Netherlands East Indies and with the RAF (called Buffaloes). Apart from the Finnish fighters which fought well against the Russians, F2A were used almost exclusively against the Japanese and in all cases met superior aircraft. Heavy British losses in the Far East led to their withdrawal and US Navy action during the Battle of Midway was equally unsuccessful. A total of more than 500 F2A were built.

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/brewster_buffalo-s.gif" alt="Brewster F2A Buffalo" height="157" width="400" />

Specification

MODEL	F2A-3
CREW	1
ENGINE	1 x Wright R-1820-40 Cyclone, 895kW
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight	3247 kg	7158 lb
Empty weight	2146 kg	4731 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan	10.67 m	35 ft 0 in
Length	8.03 m	26 ft 4 in
Height	3.68 m	12 ft 1 in
Wing area	19.41 m²	208.93 sq ft
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed	517 km/h	321 mph
Cruise speed	415 km/h	258 mph
Ceiling	10120 m	332

Quote Reply

JFKY Glad to see you back Herald... 12/12/2010 9:12:30 PM

The Buffalo is certainly no match for the Rafale....

Quote Reply

heraldabc 12/12/2010 9:30:32 PM

The Buffalo is certainly no match for the Rafale....

This is a Brewster Buffalo versus Grumman Wildcat (teaching military aviation design first principles) thread and thanks for the welcome.

Quote Reply

JFKY Just from what little has been presented: 12/13/2010 10:38:50 AM

1) Tactics/pilots matter...the Finns did well with it, certain Australians did well with it. Know what the plane can and cannot do...

2) Management matters, apparently Brewster could not produce a/c well...The Navy ceased believing in them and hence the airframe.

3) Plan on upgrading...the Buffalo reached it's design end-stage by 1940...it coudn't be fitted with a bigger engine.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 12/13/2010 4:26:13 PM

1) Tactics/pilots matter...the Finns did well with it, certain Australians did well with it. Know what the plane can and cannot do...

2) Management matters, apparently Brewster could not produce a/c well...The Navy ceased believing in them and hence the airframe.

3) Plan on upgrading...the Buffalo reached it's design end-stage by 1940...it coudn't be fitted with a bigger engine.

Let me guess, those Australians were dealing mostly with Ki-43.

The difference is combat model. During the continuation war, Soviet Union didn't put elite fighter/bomber squadrons on the Finnish front. Also Soviet air power was delivered via low to mid altitude bombing. F2A wasn't a great fighter by any means, but it does have some edge when used against I-15, I-16, Tupolev SB and intercepting loaded Po-2. That was the case when most Soviet resources were thrown against ze Germans.

Quote Reply

heraldabc 12/13/2010 5:16:32 PM

1) Tactics/pilots matter...the Finns did well with it, certain Australians did well with it. Know what the plane can and cannot do...

2) Management matters, apparently Brewster could not produce a/c well...The Navy ceased believing in them and hence the airframe.

3) Plan on upgrading...the Buffalo reached it's design end-stage by 1940...it coudn't be fitted with a bigger engine.

That is a very good summary of the end result.

Now lets look at the some of the major initial mistakes and draw some conclusions.

First was the choice of engine. The engine that Dalton's design team in 1936-1937 selected at the time of design was the 700 kilowatt Wright R-1820 Cyclone. It was actually a very good engine with a decent single-stage supercharger and a respectable performance altitude of about 5000 meters. What it did not have that the Pratt R-1830 had was an ability to plumb in a turbo-charger into the Brewster airframe.

Specifications (GR-1820-G2)

Data from ^ Tsygulev (1939). Aviacionnye motory voennykh vozdushnykh sil inostrannykh gosudarstv (Russian: &<040;&<074;&<080;&<072;&<094;&<080;&<086;&<085;&<085;&<099;&<077; &<084;&<086;&<090;&<086;&<088;&<099; &<074;&<086;&<077;&<085;&<085;&<099;&<093; &<074;&<086;&<079;&<076;&<091;&<096;&<085;&<099;&<093; &<089;&<080;&<083; &<080;&<085;&<086;&<089;&<090;&<088;&<072;&<085;&<085;&<099;&<093; &<075;&<086;&<089;&<091;&<076;&<072;&<088;&<089;&<090;&<074;). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe voennoe izdatelstvo Narkomata Oborony Soyuza SSR. http://base13.glasnet.ru/text/aviamotory/t.htm.

General characteristics

* Type: Nine-cylinder single-row supercharged air-cooled radial engine

* Bore: 6.125 in (155.6 mm)

* Stroke: 6.875 in (174 mm)

* Displacement: 1,823 in³ (29.88 L)

* Length: 47.76 in (1,213 mm)

* Diameter: 54.25 in (1,378 mm)

* Dry weight: 1,184 lb (537 kg)

Components

* Valvetrain: Two overhead valves per cylinder with sodium-filled exhaust valve

* Supercharger: Single-speed General Electric centrifugal type supercharger, blower ratio 7.134:1

* Fuel system: Stromberg PD12K10 downdraft carburetor with automatic mixture control

* Fuel type: 87 octane rating gasoline

* Oil system: Dry sump with one pressure and one scavenging pump

* Cooling system: Air-cooled

Performance

* Power output: 1,000 hp (746 kW) at 2,200 rpm for takeoff

* Specific power: 0.46 hp/in³ (20.88 kW/L)

* Compression ratio: 6.45:1

* Specific fuel consumption: 0.6 lb/(hp?h) (362 g/(kW?h))

* Oil consumption: 0.35-0.39 oz/(hp?h) (13-15 g/(kW?h))

* Power-to-weight ratio: 0.84 hp/lb (1.39 kW/kg)

Specifications (R-1830-S1C-G)

Pratt & Whitney R-1830 "Twin Wasp" (sectioned)

Data from ^ Quote Reply

Mikko 12/14/2010 5:46:42 PM

Good to have you back H, giving interesting topics to read and learn.

Wikipedia says in both English and Finnish that Buffalos didn't fight in Finnish fronts until Barbarossa began, in the Continuation War. You just said 1939. Don't know if it matters in Soviet gear or in lessons of Brewster Buffalo, just wanted to make sure. Later in war but with lower priority, maybe the Soviets of '39 and '41 were on par.

In Winter War our winged guys flew Fokker D.XXI's, Fiat G.50's and Gloster Gladiators.

Just wanted to briefly check in as this thread had so much of the magic word for me :)

Quote Reply

heraldabc 12/14/2010 7:17:58 PM

Good to have you back H, giving interesting topics to read and learn.

In Winter War our winged guys flew Fokker D.XXI's, Fiat G.50's and Gloster Gladiators.

Just wanted to briefly check in as this thread had so much of the magic word for me :)

My mistake. I found this.

Brewsters in Finnish Service.

PURCHASING BREWSTERS

When the Second World War started and Soviet Union asked Finland to start "negotiations" with Soviet Union about Finnish territory, the Finnish Defence Forces were mobilized and suddenly the shortage of money which had troubled all kind of equipment purchases during the 30's was over. Finland was trying to buy military equipment from all directions.

Why Brewsters?

In the USA, the Brewster Export corporation offered Brewster Model 239. It was one of the three US candidates, others were Grumman F4F and Seversky EP-1. The Brewster wasn't considered to be strong candidate in light of US Navy's experience with deliveries, but the Grumman couldn't sell F4F and Sweden had bought all planes in the production line of EP-1.

During the time Finnish Embassy was negotiating with plane makers, the Soviet Union attacked Finland _without official declaration of war_. Only modern fighters in Finland were 36 Fokker D.XXI's, the Soviets had about 2000 fighters and therefore Finnish embassies were instructed to buy any modern fighter planes at all costs, directly from storage. In the USA laws about selling war materials to a country in war weren't an issue, since Finland wasn't in war _de jure_, and there were 44 Brewster 239's just about to be completed for the USN. (Finland hadn't declared war on Soviet Union, and Soviet Union considered their own puppet "People's Government of Finland" being the legitimate government of Finland.)

But there were laws prohibiting selling of armament headed for the USN or the US Army. But with clever lawyers a plot was made; the fighters headed for Finland were declared surplus by the USN, and so they could be bought by the Finland after all USN equipment, such as machine-guns, sights, emergency rafts and instruments were taken away.

And so 44 Brewsters were bought in 16th of December 1939, with a price of 54000$ a piece + delivery costs. (compare this with modern fighter costs...) The Finnish Brewsters weren't equipped with standard Wright R-1820-34 -engines since they weren't available for foreign sales, they were equipped with refurbished R-1820 G-5 -engines instead, taken from DC-3 airliners.*

Which was a stroke of genius, because those engines were not 'military' and the engine supply line was internationally established.

Delivering Brewsters

Three Brewsters were completed and test flown in the USA, the rest 41 planes were assembled and test flown in Trollhattan, Sweden. First planes left New York harbour in 13th of January 1940, and the last planes arrived Sweden in 13th of March. As always with the Brewsters, they were late. The unassembled planes were assembled by Swedish, Norwegian and British volunteers, and were equipped with three Colt MG 53-2 .50 cal machine guns and one Colt MG-40 .30 cal machine gun (.30 cal MG was later on changed into .50 cal), instruments originally bought for licence-made Fokker D.XXI's and British Aldis telescopic sights. (replaced with Finnish copy of German Revi 3/c deflector sights before the Continuation war) Since the Brewster test pilot Robert A Winston arrived in late February, the first test flights were made by Finnish pilots without anykind of advice. The Brewsters were cod

Quote Reply

doggtag nice to have ya back, H. 12/15/2010 9:41:59 AM

The guys who designed the current Gripen and the Typhoon learned the lesson very well. It remains to be seen if SAAB and Eurofighter will get the opportunity to grow their birds, like the Russians and Americans can and still do grow theirs.

Missed your... unique input for a while.

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" align="absMiddle" border="0" alt="" />
Question I'd ask/add of this last part of your post:

It was the Israelis (Kfir), and also to some extent the South Africans (Cheetah), who took the Mirage (III) airframe to higher levels than the French (without going to the "new" M2000 planform) ever did (for combat models),

so do you feel that the Rafale is such a dead-end design that,

should any foreign nations ever procure it,

they couldn't make it better (avionics, radar, other sensors, weapons) than as it sits now in French service?

Seems to me that modernizing aircraft as the years go by can make a dog of an aircraft into something more than just a mediocre upgrade...and again, a heavy portion of what makes a given aircraft superior can certainly be traced to its sensory capabilities and weapons integration.

Quote Reply

Phaid 12/15/2010 12:06:50 PM

so do you feel that the Rafale is such a dead-end design that,

should any foreign nations ever procure it,

they couldn't make it better (avionics, radar, other sensors, weapons) than as it sits now in French service?

In general this is a lot harder to do today than it was 30 years ago, though. Back then everything was compartmentalized, now every system talks to every other system. Sure, you could probably rip the RBE2 out of a Rafale and install something else, but without access to the whole avionics software you're going to lose a lot of the sensor fusion advantages that modern aircraft have. Same with engines, the FADEC talks to the FCS etc, it's not just a bunch of mechanical linkages any more.

Having said that, even if you surmount the software / integration problem, Rafale has some design issues that make this difficult. The nose/radome is small and power generation is already close to its limit with the upcoming AESA set (see the earlier thread on "UAE demands for Rafale are revealing" -- to exceed the range of the F-16E/F Block 60's radar the Rafale would need more power generation and cooling than it currently has) so significant radar upgrades beyond the RBE2 AESA are problematic. Likewise re-engining will be a problem since the airframe is too small for F414 or similar. So again it's going to be more than just replacing a component, you're looking at substantial engineering issues that go way beyond just making something fit.

Quote Reply

1 2