Firstly, they are an excellent design but were very wrongly
built in America. This resulted in problems in two areas: Engines
& Airframes.
Our aircraft were supposed to be fitted with the 1,250 hp
engines, and the engine plates so stated. However, the variation
in power [between one aircraft and another] was very evident.
When making an operational formation
climb, particularly over 8,000 ft., the relative performance of
some aircraft was pathetic. This stemmed from the fact that a
number of the engines were time-expired airline engines reworked
and reissued as new and up to rated power. We also had a sabotage
problem in the American factories: valve springs over-hardened,
flattened cam rings, cam rings not hardened at all, oil pumps
outside tolerance and thus low pressure, and pressure relief
springs being too soft--again low pressure. A fuel pump from the
"Hornet" series engines of 600-800 hp output would not supply
those bigger engines. Airscrew seals were second-hand and blew if
the oil pressure surged due to quick change to fine pitch.
[I
think it's fairly well established that the problems in Buffalo
manufacture were due to Brewster's incompetence, not sabotage.
Evidently some
Buffs had been refitted with fuel pumps from the Pratt & Whitney
Hornet engine, inadequate to the task. -- DF]
Whilst the airframes themselves were basically very sound, the
"bits" were a real headache. The single hydraulic ram for the
undercarriage was a good design, but the inboard ball joint was
prone to bend or fail. Also the piston on the undercarriage rod
was a single bolt--quite good if the bolt is there and tight
[but] several of our aircraft had no bolt on delivery. Makes
landings very interesting!
We had two variants, the W series and the AN series. [The
reference is to the RAF serial numbers.] I believe the W's were
originally for the RAF and the AN's were directed Belgian orders.
A number of the W series had a 1,000-lb bomb fork under the
fuselage and some windows in the fuselage bottom to allow
verification of release of the bomb. These were removed from the
aircraft before issue to us since we had no bombs to fit them.
This yoke was to cast the bomb clear of the propeller. The AN
series did not have this setup but I believe both series had the
wing-hardened mounts for eight bombs--four on each side. Because
the RAAF-RAF bomb-racks did not fit, we were not allowed to
modify the racks.
[The bit about the bomb fork is evidently a slip
of the 45-year-old memory. No Buffaloes were so equipped. -- DF]
All our aircraft were fitted with two inboard and two
wing-mounted 0.5 [50 caliber] guns. The two inboard were
propeller synchronized with the American wire system which was
not bad if kept adjusted up, but far more troublesome than the
British Constantinesque hydraulic system. However, all guns were
on the 0.3 [30 caliber] Browning mounts. Our ground staff had
much difficulty and a lot of time building these for reliability.
The firing solenoids were also found to be 0.3 types and
therefore were not dependable. The breech-blocks were found to be
impossible and had to be reworked by the armourers, fitters, and
aircrew who could be mustered. Good fun!
Since no 0.5 ammunition reached us until 1st December [1941],
the gun fixing was done by inspection and proven correct.
Tactics
We were directed to learn, practice, and obey the RAF Spitfire
tactics for use against the Bf-109 and FW-190. What a joke.
1. Spitfire could out-climb the Buffalo, particularly above
10,000 ft, and could out-dive one by a great margin.
2. Buffalo fuel consumption at climbing or operational power
was much greater than the Spitfire.
3. The step-down tail and Charlie Wriggler was okay in the
Spitfire due to designed clean lines and low-drag controls.
Buffalo having a very (relatively) low landing speed and stalling
at about 50 mph, the controls and wing design made great brakes
for this type of manouvering.
Hence, whilst when we wanted to we could take off and execute
five turns of a vertical roll before having to flatten out, this
was possible only in some of our aircraft. We were never allowed
to make the fuel test of the reconnaissance setup. This was
specified as 3,000 ft, 1,250 rpm (full coarse), 25 inch boost,
and full lean mixture. This did not cause overheating and gave
125 mph corrected. The endurance was stated as 8-10 hours and
allowed 15 minutes of full power on return for local combat. This
indicates a radius of 500-600 miles--what a bore on the seat!
This makes some "recce" types look odd.
I found them generally a very forgiving aircraft, and if the
build qualify of the bits and pieces had been better, [the
Buffalo] would have been very good.
Question? Comment? Newsletter? Send me an
email. Blue skies!
— Daniel Ford
On this website:
Front page |
Flying Tigers |
Chinese Air Force |
Japan at War |
Brewster Buffalo |
Glen Edwards & the Flying Wing |
Vietnam |
War in the Modern World |
The Spadguys Speak |
Bluie West One |
Poland 1939-1948 |
Book Club |
Book reviews |
Question? |
Google us |
Website & webmaster |
Site map
Other sites:
Flying Tigers: the book
| Daniel Ford's blog
| Daniel Ford's books
| Facebook
| Piper Cub Forum
| Raintree County
| Reading Proust
| Expedition Yacht Seal
Posted May 2019. Websites © 1997-2019 Daniel Ford; all rights
reserved.