Flying the Brewster SB2A: One of the worst planes in World War 2?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- "Was the SB2A really 'one of the worst aircraft of World War II?' Check it out!" Zeno, Zeno's Warbird Video Drive-In www.zenoswarbir... Don't miss our "US Navy Bombers" DVD bit.ly/HW5LVa
Though this training film goes out of it's way to sing the Buccaneers praises, her flaws are all too obvious if you watch and listen carefully. The SB2A is a prime example of how a design that looked good on paper in 1939 was woefully lacking by 1941. Between the drawing board and the production line, the SB2A put on substantial additional weight that overwhelmed her 1,700 horse power engine and outdated the air frame, resulting in a ship that proved to be slow, sluggish and with unpleasant handling qwerks. Though many other stats appear comparable to the Grumman TBF on paper, her inferior wing area, and real world performance put her way behind the Avenger. After delivery to the Navy, the Buccaneer was quickly relegated to pilot training duty.
![COLOMBIA vs. CHILE [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TDjN4W3yy1k/mqdefault.jpg)
![GEEK TIMË [OFFICIAL AUDIO]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ry-6RvkH880/mqdefault.jpg)
Just to be clear, the subject of this film is the Brewster SB2A Dive Bomber, not the Brewster F2A "Buffalo" Fighter, which was an entirely different aircraft.
Not to be confused with the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver. The Dauntless was probably better than both of them.
The Buffalo wasn't a bad aircraft. It's just that after adding guns, armour, and the extra fuel, it suffered badly.
What killed these aircraft was Brewster. Their production facilities seemed to have been designed to be the worst way possible to produce aircraft.
Yes No - It's only the stuff that you need to survive in combat, that's all.
The fighter sucked too.
yeah thebuffalo was a single seater fighter
My grandfather hated it, he said it had a quick open bomb bay door with a spring return on it. He said that the cylinders were bad, and the doors would randomly snap shut like a mouse trap crushing anybody and anything in them. They mechanics would wedge them open, but all that did was destroy the doors when the mechanism failed.
My father was a test pilot for Brewsrer. During a test flight an aliron cable broke. He could not stop the plane from rolling and was ordered to jump by the Chief pilot.
He jumped. I have his rip cord and the newspaper article about it. Lawrence Mudgett later accepted a commission as a Naval Aviator during the war. Lawrence Mudgett 2nd.
Thanks so much for sharing. These guys were real hero’s!
I was a test pilot for Seagrams.
Anyone that was charged to fly this piece of crap was a Hero in my book! It took some Serious Balls to climb into this plane day in & day out.
My sister was a test pilot for the Cedar Broom Co[.
Before Brewster moved into their factory in Johnsville, PA, the Buffalo were assembled and flight tested at Newark Airport. To this day, the service road around the perimeter of the airfield is named Brewster Road.
Assemblies were trucked over to Newark from their Long Island City plant. My uncle worked there. It was a screwed up setup, with parts going up and downstairs on the elevator for different operations & installations.
“Always keep the 2200 page operating manual with you at all times”. Wow! Like flying a submarine. A full time job following all the parameters, never mind being shot at by the enemy....
You "always keep" the book while training. It looks complicated now but after a week or so, all of it is pretty much automatic by memory.
Like what you see? Your DVD purchases at our store make this channel possible.
www.zenosflightshop.com
We need your support! Zeno
Western movie water wars
Old westerns
You can thank Jimmy Work, the head of Brewster, for the company's problems. He tried to turn a minor aircraft parts suppler into a major aircraft manufacturer overnight. His products were poorly designed, poorly made, and the company was poorly managed. In the end the US Navy had to take over the company after Work was sued for $10 million for financial irregularities. At one time Jimmy Work even had hired Alfred and Ignacio Miranda as the company salesmen. The fact is they were crooks and had been involved in frauds, spending time in prison for illicit arms sales to Bolivia. Either Work was a crook himself, or in way over his competency level, or both.
IIRC, the Brewster Co. was the only supplier of arms to go bankrupt during WWII. Bad products, bad management (as you have stated) and shoddy workmanship.
I've never seen a tailwheel strut so springy!
Looks like it hops every time he touches the brakes as if the gear is too far back and the tail wheel is lightly loaded. Maybe. It does hop around. I wonder if it had a tendency to nose over.
I was thinking the same thing!
From the Wikipedia comes a bit of ancillary data:
The Brewster SB2A Buccaneer was a single-engined mid-wing monoplane scout/bomber aircraft built for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Navy between 1942 and 1944. It was also supplied to the United States Army Air Forces and United States Marine Corps.
The SB2A was developed for the US Navy, and also ordered in large quantities by the Dutch, French and British Governments. The Dutch order was later taken over by the US Navy and the French order by Britain. An Australian order was cancelled before any of the type were delivered. The Buccaneer was under-powered and poorly constructed, and all of its operators considered it to be unsuitable for combat. SB2As were used as target tugs by the RAF and US Navy, trainers by the USMC and as "hacks" by the USAAF. Many of the completed aircraft were scrapped without entering service, and the type is considered by historians to have been among the worst of World War II. The Truman Committee stated that the SB2A "turned in a miserable performance."[1]
AMAZING this film survives until today!
I remember as a boy there were two Brewster Bermudas in the trees at the former William Northern Field in Tullahoma, Tennessee. Both were missing their tail sections and we're in very poor condition. One was plucked from its former burial site and is apparently being rebuilt. The other was removed from the trees and is near the Beechcraft Heritage Museum. From what I understand, it wasn't much of an airplane. With the much better Douglas Dauntless and the Helldiver, the military felt the Bermuda just couldn't cut it. Curious what ever happened to the one that was removed so many years ago.
Must have been reassuring to hear "... the aircraft is slightly unstable..." and "...high control loads..."
You actually want some instability in a warplane, a plane that wants to turn is maneuverable. Still crap plane, though.
I have Never seen an Aircraft move this much just trying to taxi down a strip. It looks like a car with no shocks or struts working!
most planes look like that taxiing lol
The tail wheel is obviously wonky
" . . .the aircraft is somewhat unstable . . ." Ouch!
My neighbor and old friend flew in one during WWII, he was a rear gunner. He said many U.S. aircraft did not return to the carriers after combat missions at sea.
The Buc's first flight was 1941. It's Buff brother was 1937. In both cases they were woefully obsolete and inadequate the day they entered service. RIP to the crews that served in them.
Despite failing to meet any of the US Navy's specifications when tested, the SB2C Helldiver was reluctantly pushed into service because it was less terrible than the Brewster SB2A Buccaneer.
The Royal Navy rejected the Helldiver but bought the Buccaneer, never using it in combat but as a trainer.
The Royal Navy's Fairey Barracuda was worst than the Buccaneer, having a nasty tendency to flip over suddenly upside down and crash if hit by a sudden side wind. Two Barracuda aircraft crashed in formation by flipping over like this and the type was eventually grounded.
And yet the Helldiver SB2C had the nickname, "Son-of-a-Bitch, 2nd Class".... but it fared pretty well late in the war.
@@Stiglr By the time the -4s and -5s arrived the teething issues had been solved.
@@AngryHatter Yeah, I was about to say they were straight up stinkers until the SB2C-3's and by the time the 4's and 5's were coming out they were pretty damn good planes, but of course then the AD-1 Skyraider comes along and laughs in the face of all dedicated dive and torpedo bombers as it replaces them all.
...regardless of whether it was a good aircraft or not, I have always thought, visually, this was a very attractive aircraft...I love it's lines and curves... ;)
Yes the SB2A had nice lines, too bad it didn't perform as good as it looked.
dyer2cycle some people liked the lines of the Edsel. It had everything Ford put on its other cars but in the end Henry Ford couldn't give them away. Worse they never became collectable to any degree. Just another car.
@@timmayer8723 ..yes, I liked the Edsel myself..never have understood why they are not valued any higher today than they are(1960 convertibles and Wagons notwithstanding)..there can't be all that many Edsels of ANY year or model still around...I see them as a good value in a classic car...
dyer2cycle I live a few miles from the Barrett Jackson classic car auction which is scheduled for the end of Jan. 21! Maybe. I have seen the last 15 shows in person. There is usually a very well reconditioned Edsel waiting its turn to cross the auction stage. Usually painted in salmon and ivory. Slathered inside and out with cheap chrome, plastic,fake wood and Naugahyde or leatherette. Bench seats, big enough to seat four adults fore and aft with all their luggage stowed in the massive trunk. Fully loaded the Edsel probably tipped the scales at around 5000 pounds. There was nothing sporty about its lines. It was a turnpike cruiser, big, square, long, and underpowered.
Overheats, hard to control on ground, unstable in a power climb, high control loads, slow roll rate, fussy trim tabs, slow, hard to land -jeezuz, what a clunker!
He sounds like a shady used car salesman.
It is painful to watch this turd slice through the air like a baked ham with wings.
Not a pilot but this looks like a flying coffin.
Maybe it was a decoy to let the real planes through. My combat flight simulation experience tells me that would be a ripe target.
Never heard of this plane before now. Thanks for a great video.
I believe the scenery is Vero Beach Florida area my father was there at NAS Vero Beach in 1943 time frame
My grandfather was a Naval Officer at the Jacksonville flight center that taught the mathematics of navigation to cadets.
Brewster Bucaneer a plane totally forgotten
1,700 hp with a 15,000 Mx gross doesn’t say “fast” to me.
lol This movie is ultra RARE thanx for posting!!
There are bits and pieces of a wrecked one on Parris Island
I'm kinda surprised that the instrument panel shown in this video was in English. Most of the Buccaneers in service with the USN / USMC were ex-Dutch aircraft which were not delivered prior to the fall of the Netherlands East Indies in March 1942. Those aircraft had instruments panels in Dutch with metric speed / altitude numbers.
Interesting info. This is an instructional training film produced by Brewster & the U.S Navy to train American pilots. No doubt Brewster found some aircraft with English instrument panels.for the shoot.
The Dutch had problems with defense procurement. Look up the Marmon Herrington CTMS-1TB1 tank they bought. Ended up being given to the Australians but they wouldn't even use them for training.
And that most of it's issues were the result of being rushed into production. Much like the F-111 twenty years latter.
This makes me think the best Naval Dive Bomber the USN had in WWII will always be the SBD Dauntless. Though lack range and payload than the newer SB2C
I pity the poor pilots who got landed with that one Or it's fighter brother.
Finnish air force killed 477 Soviet Union air planes with Brewsters. Killing ratio was 26:1
That’s correct, but it was with the Brewster “Buffalo,” not the SB2A.
brewster apparently had the worst collection of engineers of any company at the time. sad.
It's a bit unfair when people look at some of these early war planes and go on about how bad they were (The TBD is the best example of this). They were some of the first all-metal monoplanes ever put into production, of course they were out of date relatively quickly.
TBD would have had a better reputation if it wasn't for that awful torpedo it used
Don't judge a plane without comparing it to its conceptual cousins, both at home and abroad.
While the Buccaneer was a bad mix of capabilities versus limitations, the much more famous Curtis SB2 "Helldiver" (not the first to bear that name) was an unmitigated disaster, despite its enormous horsepower, dubbed "the Ensign Killer" and "Big Tail Bastard" by those who flew them. With as much development effort as was spent to make the Helldiver into a useful tactical bomber the Buccaneer would've been just as good . . . or, maybe, a little better.
The Douglas SBD "Dauntless" was obsolete soon after hostilities commenced, but, so bad were its proposed replacements that, like the Fairy Swordfish and Curtis SOC, it was forced to soldier on until a completely redefined aircraft type, the Naval "Strike Fighter" (whose specifications resulted in the Douglas AD1 Skyraider), could be designed.
As with the Me110, which, already outclassed in 1940 by more recent developments, had to serve on and on, while its replacement, the Me210 Hornisse, had so many flaws (like the forward weapons bay doors, which, when opened, destroyed aircraft stability) that it was declared a failure. A thorough redesign of the concept resulted in the much superior Me410 which, sad to say, appeared too late to serve any good purpose other than a diversion of critical resources better applied elsewhere..
Just sayin' . . .
William Cox Your posts seem pretty educated, NOT the standard YT post. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. :) Seriously, fascinating man, thanks.
liljgoneman Thanks for a worthy compliment. I very much appreciate it.
William Cox The earlier Curtis divebomber to carry the Helldiver name was a similar looking bi-plane. In the Royal Navy it was known as the Cleveland. The Dauntless could pull up from a very low height and so therefore was a nore accurate dive bomber. It could also mix it with fighters due to reasonably good maneuverability, something the Helldiver and Buccaneer both lacked. The Helldiver did carry 20mm. cannon but the tail gunner could not see or shoot enemy fighters directly behind the tail.
Andy Reid Interesting and thanks for the comment.
Michael Naisbitt the Battles reason for it's losses in 1940 Battle of France was due to RAG failure to provide fighter support and tactics that were not suited to the aircraft
Plane is nose heavy if every time the pilot touches the brakes, the tail jumps off the ground. Tailwheels constantly broke of. For further information, I recommend Warbird Mistresses' video on the plane.
She goes into detail why this plane was one of the worst ever.
In answer to your question, no, the SB2A design was not sold to Curtiss. The designation is "S" for Scout "B" for bomber, 2 for the second bomber project from "A", the Navy assigned designation for Brewster (B was assigned to Boeing). Subsequent variants would have been designated SB2A-1, SB2A-2, and so on.
The two airplanes looked similar because form follows function, but in aircraft design it's the small nuances that make all of the difference. The Brewster design was a train wreck, the Curtiss Helldiver had its issues but matured into a competent weapon by the end of the war.
While a replacement dive bomber for the SBD Dauntless was needed because of the Douglas' slow speed. We certainly didn't do a great job of building a better one than what we already had. I don't think the Helldiver actually ended up replacing the Dauntless until sometime in the last year of the war. And even then, most all the pilots still preferred the SBD.
The aileron neutral trim tab setting should tell you that engine was a tad weak.
Not as much as being able to come to full power with the brakes locked.
@@Rikki0
So in other words ALL of the WW2 aircraft like the 2,800 HP P47M were weak, because NONE of them would overcome their brakes while sitting stopped at full throttle on the ground, that's exactly how all of them took off from the improvised airstrips that were too short.
That's how modern airliners take off by the way, at least everyone I've ever flown on.
This plane was simply overweight not under-powered. You always build an aircraft to its intended powerplant. If you watch a few of these old birds you will observe them with the tail of the plane looking like a dog with worms. It appears as though it was nearly the size of an Avenger. Which was a very large plane. Asking something that size to do nearly vertical dives definitely sounds daft to me. The dauntless was a very nimble plane. Was even credited with a few shoot downs with the forward facing guns.
Rikki0 not being able to overpower your brakes is an important thing. If you’re taking off on a short field then you have to hold brakes while at full power and then takeoff so that you have more thrust and runway
@@johnmaddox7432 At one point in time early in the war they actually tried using SBD's as CAP aircraft ... but they learned not to do that ...
.
So, one had to fiddle with the trim tabs while IN the dive in order to keep it steady? I'd say there were better choices for dive bomber.
you had to do that with all aircraft in a steep dive
The SBD!
@@allandavis8201 Aerodynamically unstable, "fixed" with trim hacks, training, and wise words in the manual. The B737 MAX of the 1940s. So Boeing isn't the only shoddy, unscrupulous manufacturer that ever was.
@@richardlahan7068 ahhh... Scout bomber douglas...
In Finland's war against Soviet Union 1941-44 Brewster served superbly in Finnish hands. Killing ratio 32:1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo
True. Brewster had terrible manufacturing problems. They couldn't even make corsairs. Makes me wonder what Finland mechanics could do with this plane.
I don't know of these ever being used in frontline service. My understanding was that it was a parallel development to the Helldiver just in case the latter proved to be unable to work out its numerous issues.
As far as I know some were used for level bombing missions in India/Burma from land bases, never off carriers.
@@ZenosWarbirds Somewhat the way they were able to make use of the Vengeance dive bombers they weren't able to offload as I recall. Thanks for the reply!
11:17 I'd like to see a pilot slowly and carefully adjusting the elevator trim tab while diving into a hell of a lot of AA during actual combat.
They ALL had to be re-trimmed in a high speed drive compared to level flight.
I wonder where this was filmed.
After watching this I feel qualified to fly one of these
I feel qualified to crash one.
Robert Alvarado leaving the ground in one of these was the biggest mistake a young pilot could make.
Jee.... With that many proceedures in the cockpit, with that many buttons and twists....I wonder if the pilot got any time for the Enemy at all.... "interceptor Enemy behind !!!" "Just wait ! I'm checking cilinder temperature and mainfold pressure...".
The problem really was that aviation technology was accelerating so rapidly at this point in history that planes were often obsolete just a few years after being introduced. Some, like the British Lysander, soldiered on well in a different role then they were initially designed for. Other's were relegated to training or backwater theaters of the war where they might still be adequate.
In my opinion the F2 was a fine plane. Comparing it to later fighters, whose engines approached double the horsepower of the F2A's 900hp and the F2A2's 1200hp engines is completely unfair. The F2 was one of the mid to late 1930s "1000hp era" (those with designed powerplants producing between 850hp and 1300hp) aircraft and should be judged against its brothers, not its linear descendants. Compare it with other "1000hp" naval fighters, like the A5M Claude, or the later A6M2 Zero, the Me109T, Fairy Battle, and Blackburn "Sea Skua", before you toss it out altogether.
Here's Pappy Boyington on the F2:
"But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armor plate, radios, and other [equipment], they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little [aircraft] could turn and roll in a phone booth."
Wikipedia adds: "This might be expected from the low wing loading, only 24.1 pounds per square foot, only 10% higher than that of the Zero."
The F2 was not designed to the same standards as the excellent Zero fighter, whose entire design regime was bent toward ultra--light construction so as to achieve extremely long long range, conferring serendipitously an equally impressive maneuverability as well.. F2, designed to absorb the greater impact of carrier landings (and, potentially, catapult assisted take--offs), was sturdier than the Zero, better armored, and more robust--a very important factor when comparing Naval Carrier Aircraft. F2 could not outfly a zero, but it sure could take more damage and keep flying, something more useful to US Naval Planners than pure performance.
Just sayin' . . .
Na. My father - a gunner in the Malayan campaign - retailed tales to me of sitting in a slit trench watching a single Zero make mincemeat of a formation of four Buffaloes. Yeah they could take a lot more damage than a Zero - but then they had no hope of damaging the Zero anyway.
And according to experienced Japanese naval aviators, they could take down the F2A with only their 7.7mgs without much difficulty. But compared to other planes around that time period like the F4F, Japanese light machine guns would not do much to the much more rugged plane. Sure the F2A was more maneuverable than the F4F but the zero was much more manuverable than both planes. You would want a more sturdier plane that could outdive the zero, and have better flight characteristics at high speeds.
The main issue is remember all of this when a zero is shooting at me!
"The aircraft is stable" ..."while taxying on the ground" ..."unless the tail swings wildly".
"In flight, the aircraft is unstable, but not enough to interfere with flying".
General modifier word for all operations: "Gradually".
Powered by dual rubber bands.
Probably for the same reasons the Brewster and the Edsel have a lot in common.
This aircraft could NOT have been worse than the SB2C Helldiver AND the SB2C was not as terrible an aircraft as has been reported. The SB2C was not any great improvement over the Douglas SBD and it was not "built well" as opposed to "well-built". Both companies (Douglas and Curtis) seemed to be unable to design a viable replacement for the Dauntless. Douglas eventually shook off the "brain freeze" and developed the classic Skyraider in post war years (albeit with a couple of frankly daft but interesting intermediate design proposals). Curtiss never did, nor could they tweak the P-40 to keep pace with current fighters (or produce a successor) and the rest is history. Brewster's problem (aside from massive mismanagement) was that they, like Curtis (and Northrop), tried to build what the U.S. Navy ordered and not what the U.S. Navy needed.
The SB2A was so bad, it made a piece of crap like the SB2C look good, (and that takes some doing).
Brewster was deadly weapon in right hands.Seek Ilmari Juutilainen...
We,i mean our fathers just have to use weapons they had.Superb tactics,personal skills.Like Juutilainen says,hit and run if you know you cant dogfight.Or its just you going ground in flames.When Juutilainen gets finaly bf109...plane with you can dogfight.Rest you know.
BruceK10032 good pilots!
The opposition was very poorly trained Finn buffalo had 5-1 kill ratio when they got BF109 it went up to 29-1
He was fighting pilots with inferior training and planes.
@@BruceK10032 Same question for the Russians and the P-39.
A family friend flew both Buffalo and Buccaneer during WWII, from the CV-3, as I recall. He particularly disliked the tendency for the landing gear to collapse on touchdown. Narragansett Bay.
All of Brewster's aircraft had major quality control issues, and the company was constantly under investigation for fraud. None of the Corsairs they built were considered suitable for combat, and wound up as trainers stateside. Also, I would nominate the Curtis SO3C as the worst aircraft of WWII.
The SB2A was not a terrible aircraft. It had, however, a couple of major strikes against it that were not the fault of the design. First off, the dedicated dive bomber role was becoming a thing of the past (Midway was the last "hurrah" of the dive bomber). Fighters began to be able to carry a similar weight of ordinance and they could defend themselves. Even the Avenger became more of a general purpose attack aircraft rather than a torpedo bomber. The Helldiver (an aircraft in the same class as the SB2A) never lived up to expectations either. The biggest problem for the SB2A was the company that built it. Ironically, it might have proved a somewhat better carrier aircraft than the Helldiver proved to be but the Brewster management was a bloody shambles.
So, this plane has nothing to do with the SBD Dauntless dive bombers also known as A-24 Banshee that my uncle flew, right?
Right - designed for the same role but different airplane, different manufacturer
Brewster SB2A (Buccaneer & Bermuda) dive bombers as well as the Buffalo fighter aircraft were obsolete when they went into service. USA was ill prepared for WW II and we got caught with our pants down! The USA SB2A (Buccaneer) dive-bomber NEVER saw combat action, the Brits used SB2A (Bermuda’s) dive-bombers with some success. However, USA did use them successfully to train pilots in dive bombing techniques in the states. So the SB2A did play a useful and valuable roll. We had lots of obsolete junk in WW II’s begging, for example, the first German sub (U 85) sunk by US forces was sunk by an obsolete WW I destroyer (USS Roper) just off the Carolina coast. The U 85 was letting off spies to paddle ashore when the Roper hit the conning tower with a small 3” deck gun (U 85 had a 88 mm [3 ½”] deck gun).
The Brewster Buffalo fighter: The Finns 26:1 KILL RATIO WAS DUE TO THEIR OPPONENT/S PLANES INFERIORITY. Think of F14 Tomcat v/s P51 Mustang. The Finns were Hitler’s Axis Allies - their Buffalo’s fighters had swastikas & iron crosses on the fuselage & wings. The Dutch had a 2:1 kill ratio in the Pacific. The Buffalo was no match to the light weight wood Zero, US Marine pilots called them “Flying Coffins”. Exported Buffalos were made in Brewster’s plant in Warminster, PA. Known later as Johnsville Naval Air Develop Center (NADC). I find it interesting the USA sold ready to go war machines to a nation supporting Hitler - that was warring with USA Allies! A good book to read is ‘Trading with the enemy’.
Another interesting Brewster tidbit: Brewster made F4U Corsair’s under license at the Warminster plant. They produced about 700 of them. USA military brass would not allow them into combat or to perform aerobatics because the Brewster produced Corsairs had an unhealthy habit of shedding their wings at the most inconvenient time - IN FLIGHT - Yikes!
In closing, Brewster didn’t design or make bad planes. The Brewster worker/s who have the distinction of being the only war supplier workers to go on a labor strike during WW II - the country needed them the most - this is what gave Brewster products the bad name. After all, somebody had to make (profits) and warplanes for Hitler’s allies! Maybe we should have sold them the Corsairs too (before they shed wings) :-).
A comment containing some asinine bits. The Finns made an alliance of convenience with Nazi Germany after the Communist Soviet Union had illegally invaded and annexed territory (aka the Continuation War). Finland did not sign the Tripartite Pact, did not subordinate its military to German command, protected its Jews and other minorities from persecution, and did not fight against Allied powers apart from the Soviet Union. If the Soviets had not started a war of aggression against this small democracy, they would not have allied with Germany. As a final note, the Soviets' pretext for invading Finland, with the ultimate aim of complete annexation, was the bombing of the village of Mainila on the Karelian Isthmus. Of course, it was the Soviets themselves, not the Finns, who had attacked the village in a false flag operation.
@@tomkuntz8568 Exactly, thank you!
@@tomkuntz8568 And the Brits didn't use the Bermuda with any success, unless towing targets and being used as ground instructional airframes is success. We never used the thing in combat. Seems somebody can't tell his Vengeance from his Bermuda.
"…their Buffalo’s fighters had swastikas & iron crosses on the fuselage & wings."
Yes. They did have swastikas on the fuselage and wings. The Finnish air force had them since the end of the first world war, well before the NSDAP adopted the swastika, and before the NSDAP was founded. It wasn't a sign of collaboration, but a benign insignia. It was discontinued when the Finns changed sides in 1944.
Any one flying this deserved an automatic navy cross !
Brewster never really had a good reputation,but the Buffalo performed well in Finnish service during the Finnish Soviet conflict.The Buccaneer most likely gained negative press due to the introduction of the excellent Helldiver.
It's because the Buffalo was ordered first by Finland, before any one else. It was the early F2A-1 which was not yet overloaded with equipments, fuel and weaponry. Even "pappy" boyington flew it and loved it in this first version. Who are to blame here ? Brewster's boss which did not planned future weight additions (the wing load was met too quickly) -plus the bad management, poor quality, etc. and the Navy that asked too much of from the A-3, (but at that stage they apparently no longer have the intention to use it already !) and probably also massively overrated by the dubious company's salesmen... Deserves a movie, like "pentagon wars".
Exactly correct. : )
Any idea where the airfield scenes were filmed?
One writer says NAS Vero Beach, FL
At least the sound of that Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone is great... a little bit underpowered for a bomber.
all in all the pilot in this film was a highly skilled guy...
anyone who thinks that the controls of this Brewster were intricate should watch once or twice the Curtiss P-40 instruction film.
I feel bad for the guy sitting way way back. How are you going to read 173 knots on those guages buzzing in flight when you are being shot at with flack and fussing with the trim tabs in a diving attack? I'd be kicking myself for not signing up for B-17's.
All these steps to actually fly the plane could have been avoided. The cowling flaps could have been driven electric by a engine reacting from heat sensors, Propeller could adjust according to rpm. Trim flaps and much more.
What a pilot do not need under any circumstances is to have his hands full just to fly a plane during evasive action.
The early versions of almost all of the combat aircraft in WW2 had to have all of these controls run manually, automatic controls for boost and other systems were developed for them during their service in the war, early Spitfires had manual boost, early P40's had manual boost and so on and so forth.
I read about several flights of P-38 Lightnings all shot down while trying to escort bombers over Germany in '43. When introduced to the European theater, the Germans actually had little trouble shooting P-38s down, due to the fact that, on the Lightning in order to trim the flight surfaces and alter engine settings from cruise configuration over to combat trim, it took several seconds of the pilot's time. And, as anyone who knows anything about WW2 areal combat, you rarely have more than a couple seconds to react when being bounced by enemy fighters.
@@HappyFlapps
Well you need to check your sources on that if your not making it up yourself, there was NEVER an occurrence where EVERY P38 in an escort was shot down, that's hogwash.
@@dukecraig2402 Hogwash eh? Read 20th Fighter Group commander Colonel Harold J. Rau's description of the P38s under his command. www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm
SBD Dauntless>>>>>All
AIM-9X Sidewinder SBD was getting a little long in the tooth and longer range, a larger pay load and more sophisticated navigation equipment was really needed. The Japanese carrier aircraft had over 100 nautical range advantage over US carrier aircraft in the first two years of the war.
G'day,
Why would the Brewster Buccaneer be considered one of the Worlds Worst Aircraft ?
Have you never heard of the Fairey Battle, or it's Navalised variant the Fulmar ; Crew of 3, a single 1050 Hp Merlin Engine, and then add 500 Pounds of Bombs..., & Fuel...?
By comparison, the Buccaneer was pretty pleasant...; in an ugly & clunky sort of a way.
And, to be a contender for the Worlds' Worst, the Buccaneer would have to be worse than the *Brewster Buffalo* ..., which was not only slow, overweight, underpowered, with a Fuel-Pump which didn't work above 16,000 Ft, Fuel Guages which didn't Work & Radios which only recieved Static from Lightning emanating from tropical all the Thunderstorms....; but the Buffaloes' Wing Guns broke the Mounts when fired, and then moved backwards inside the Wing, sometimes still firing uncontrollably, with rounds coming out through the Wing-Skin..., and the Nose-Guns emitted a puff of Vapourised Cosmoline Grease with each bullet, and the Grease congealed on the Windscreen in the Prop-Blast, rendering the Pilot blind...
Now..., *That..., there, was a signifigantly HORRIBLE Aeroplane* , in which to be ordered to pursue the King's Enemies...!
As it happens, I uploaded a Video, "World's Worst Fighter Aircraft, The 1941 RAAF Brewster Buffalo !" ; which contains several Pilot Reports from people who survived dogfighting with Zeroes while flying Buffaloes in Malaya.
Have a good one,
;-p
Ciao !
The Brewster Company is often regarded as producer of "worst" because of company miss-management.
The Buffalo wasn't such a bad airplane-the Finns turned it into quite a dogfighter against the Russians. Our problem were relatively inexperienced pilots, poor tactics and the Zero as an enemy.
ww2Mollison
G'day,
Well, yeah, the Yanquis at Midway had problems with the levels of Pilot-Training as well as the same equipment-issues which the RAAF experienced in Malaya..., but the RAAF pilots were in-fact quite well-trained and fairly experienced in terms of Hours flown, say 750 - 950 hours...
About 3 montbs ago I uploaded a video about the RAAF-operated Buffaloes in Malaya, drawing on "War Without Glory" by JD Balfe for the firsthand accounts as well as the Chronological historical narrative...; and the chief problems with the Aeroplanes were the Gun-Mountings which broke & the Grease on the Ammunition which covered the Windscreen when the synchronised Cowling- Guns were fired - after new redesigned stronger mountings had been cobbled-up in the field, and the Fuel-Pump which failed above 10,000 Ft, & the Radios which were swamped by the Static of Tropical Storms, which happened every day from about 11 AM onwards, and the Range wasn't great, but it was slow, overweight, and it climbed and turned badly...; on the bright side, it could dive very well & (when the Guns worked) it was a stable Gun-Platform.
The RAAF was hoping to have a lot of success diving on Bombers & strafing the Japanese on the Ground.
The Problem with the Operations stemmed from being British Imperial Colonial Troops serving away from home, defending a different Colony and being unaware that they were sadly unaware of all the aspects of Malayan Weather & British Communications Limitations & lack of co-ordinated Command & Control & Japanese Tactics & Equipment & Strategy & Experience, which mattered...
So, they got bombed & strafed on the ground, and when they did manage to get airborne the Radios failed, they got Bounced, and if the Guns didn't jam or shoot the Wings off then a 3-second Burst removed all forward visibility when the Cosmoline Grease from each red-hot Bullet congealed on the Windscreen in the 300 MPH Slipstream...
The Finns were fighting over their home ground (they stopped invading Russia when they reached their old "tradional" Border in 1941...), they had good Communications & Air-Raid Warning Notification & Warning systems in place, they were fighting at low-altitudes, and *they had German Guns, with German (un-greased) Ammunition, & German Radios...;* so all the issues which were Show-stoppers in Malaya were fixed for them,* and they were mostly going up against Polikarpovs and other pre-1935 Fighter Designs, and any 1930s vintage Bombers were *All Easy Meat* for any monoplane Fighter...
My Video on the topic is called "World's Worst Fighter Aircraft ; The 1941 RAAF Brewster Buffalo !" ; you might enjoy it ?
;-p
Ciao !
The RAAF played a great role in the Pacific...and Aussie industry showed marked creativity, too. The CA-15 is one of my favorite airplanes for the story and looks alone. :)
A while back, I did one of your B-24s, too.
ww2fighters.blogspot.com/2014/12/profile-95-finished176-b-24m-as-flown.html
Where's your video on the RAAF Buffalo?
ww2Mollison
The War in the Pacific was a bit strange, the Australian Population were fully expecting to be invaded, due to the speed with which the Australian British Dutch & AmeriKan Command collapsed in 1941-42..; but the US Navy had cracked the IJN Codes and was fully aware that there were no plans, no troops, nor available Shipping for the hypothetical Japanese invasion of mainland Oz...
So, while the Japanese were planning to stop at Timor, Port Moresby & The Solomons, as forward-bases from which to bomb Darwin, Broome & Townsville..; Australia was preparing to withdraw behind the "Brisbane to Melbourne Line", abandoning over 90% of the Continent & 50% of the Population...
It wasn't till May 1942, when MacArthur arrived in Oz and *He ordered the reversal of Australia's Government Policy...,* that the First Squadron of Fighters (US P-40s) were sent to Darwin for the Defence of Darwin...; and the first reinforcements were sent to the Darwin Anti-Aircraft Gun Defences on MacArthur's orders as well.
If you Title-Search my Uploads for "Darwin 1942, Australia's National Day Of Shame..." there's a bookreading series by that name, wherein I read the entire Book of that name to the Camera...; it was written in the early 1990s after the Secret Cabinet Papers & the Proceeds & Findings of the Court of Enquiry & the Royal Commission were released to the Public after 50 years.
It was pretty disgraceful..., the RAAF personnel were told to "Disperse into the Bush" and they ran off and some simply kept running, they were picked-up as far away as Alice Springs, Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, & one even made it to Melbourne...; then the Civilians were evacuated, *and the Australian Troops LOOTED THE TOWN,* even sending Crates of stolen Household goods by Cargo-Ship back to Brisbane & Sydney...
Not a particularly heroic story, but half the truth is 100% of a Lie.
In my Viewing-History about a month ago there's a very nice Doccumentary called "Whispering Death, RAAF Beaufighters In Service....", or something similar...; if you're into RAAF operations in the Pacific then you'll really enjoy it..., it has Gun-Camera Footage of the Battle of the Bismark Sea (14 Japanese Troopships sunk, 16,000 Survivors machinegunned in the Water, it took about a week to kill them all - "least they prove to be a nuisance to the Army, if they had have made it to New Guinea..." !).
Have a good one,
;-p
Ciao !
1. The Fulmar wasn't a navalised Battle, but a totally fresh design. It has a family resemblance because it shared the same designer, that's all. 2. It had a crew of 2, as called for in the design specification. 3. The 1050hp Merlin was the best engine available at the time. 4. It didn't carry bombs. It was a pure fighter. 5. Despite carrying the extra weight of a navigator, it served well in combat in the Mediterranean theatre against the Italians, so I figure that makes every contemporary Italian single-seat fighter a worse aircraft than the Fulmar. 6. Er... you have to add the weight of fuel to all powered aircraft. I suppose you could launch a glider from a steam catapult, but I suspect it wouldn't have much of an effective combat radius.
I've read that Brewster aircraft were very poorly made.
That bouncing tailwheel effect looks a bit strange. Their tail fins look unlovely.
I think that many of Brewster's problems stemmed from labor problems.
The Finns really liked the F2A Buffalo, they used them to great effect against the Soviets until the Yak series of fighters showed up in 1942/3 and they replaced the F2A with Me-109's.
Looks like a economy version of the Helldiver!
Was thinking the Buccaneer was almost a clone of the Vindicator (or vice versa), but Helldiver works too.
I like how announcers used to sound like Carnival Barkers or Auctioneers, see.
During WW2 Finnish figter aces made BREWSTER killing ratio to 1:36. Good plane and good manouvreble.
Compared to the Dauntless it was a failure. All that extra power got less the 20kts of speed, smaller bomb load and poor handling. It never went into combat so we'll never know how truly bad it could have been compared to the Buffalo or the Helldiver.
Buccaneer ? Sounds like a lot for corn.
Grandpa, get off the computer and come take your meds.
Yes. It was largely combat ineffective in the Pacific; it worked a bit better in cold weather for Finland.
They should have stuck to brewing beer.
Couldn't have been much worse than the Curtis SB2C. The SBD was the finest USN dive bomber.
You know your plane is bad when the Curtiss Helldiver outperforms it. Navy should have just stuck with Avengers to do bombing and torpedo attacks. And the Dauntless.
Was Brewster building airplanes as a hobby? Did they have any airplanes that were any good? Makes one wonder whose brother-in-law they were or who they contributed to and lobbied. Enough power? Not likely with such a long take-off run. Instead of saying, "when you are comfortably airborne" they should have said, "IF you are comfortably airborne".
The Brewster F2A Buffalo was innovative and well-liked when it first entered service, but the later variants added too much weight and performed poorly in combat in the Pacific. The Finnish did really well with the ones they received, though.
They also built an earlier scout/dive bomber, which wasn't a great aircraft, but it wasn't a disaster either. The problem with that one was that Brewster didn't have capacity to produce it themselves, and the delay meant it was obsolete by the time the order was fulfilled.
To dive-bomb only 30knt faster than level flight sounds like gently landing and not terrifying the target. Perhaps not starting the dive with the dive flaps open might help.
No... You want a dive bomber to have as slow as possible vertical dive... The dive brakes are designed to slow you down as much as possible.
No, diving is to increase the momentum of the bomb, improve its flight trajectory, increase the aiming accuracy, reduce the drop-off distance, get close to the target, present a lower profile to the target to not get shot down and sweep away or back to height fast to avoid ground fire. All of this is improved with speed. Dive flaps are to improve the control of the plane at speed and stop the plane getting to an airspeed dangerous to the airframe and physiology of the pilot. Stukas had automatic flaps, brakes and elevator controls to operate the pull-out because the pilot is often blacked-out. To limit the dive to only 30knots faster than level flight indicates a lack of confidence in the plane and pilot. Do remind yourself this video is about how bad the plane was from design concept, development changes and real world performance. All manner of fighters would dive as fast as they could tto strafe, rocket and bomb at 500+ without dive flaps and to drift into a target at half the speed would be regarded as a suicide order - whether designated as a dive bomber or a ground-attack fighter.
The management at Brewster should have put up against a convenient wall. Soon to be followed by the Union leadership after they drag the bodies away.
This is strictly my opinion but I think the Navy would have better served putting a Navalized P-47 into service as a dive bomber rather than the SB2C or the SB2A. The TBF/M Avenger was heavier so the Thunderbolt should have been able to operate from US carriers. Equipping the Aircraft used for Naval service with mechanical superchargers instead of the turbo superchargers would have allowed a commonality of engine parts etc with the F6F Hellcat. P-47s were launched from light and possibly escort carriers to land on newly constructed or captured airfields
Looks like a Helldiver knock-off.
looks like a hot dog with wings
Should have been called the Brewster Hippo. Only positive is that it's not liquid cooled.
Immediately rejected by the USN, RAF, RN FAA as "unsuitable for combat". Rejected even as a trainer, says Wiki.
Can't imagine having to remember all those control settings in combat situations. There must have been shortcuts taken under stress.
..and to think they were 19 year-olds learning thus and flying these planes and other similar planes ..and onto carriers!
@@mebeasensei our current 19 year olds are stuck on their smart phones and can't even change a ligt bulb
I noticed that with the video on the avenger and particularly the P-61,there's no way the recommended procedures could be followed in full during combat.
@@Fearless1247 They could probably SPELL light bulb though!,sorry.
In his memoir, fighter ace Budd Anderson wrote about constantly adjusting trim, engine and prop controls in dogfights to gain every possible bit of performance. I also assumed it was just yanking, banking slamming the throttle back and forth.
Let's remember that as bad as it was the SB2C still destroyed more enemy shipping than the dauntless.
jeffrey skoritowski what a comprehensively innaccurate statement!
Patrick Hickey How ?
+jeffrey skoritowski I think he has the SB2A(Buccaneer) confused with SB2C(Helldiver). The Helldiver did actually sink more tonnage than Dauntless. It also had unfavorable reputation among its pilots.
+Patrick Hickey Still waiting.
If you look at the time period in which it served and the numbers produced - that would be a reason. When the SBD was the main dive bomber the Japanese had much better aviators and it was subject to a much more vicious attack. By the time the SB2C became the main aircraft on all those Essex Class Carriers - the opposition was much reduce in it's capability. That and they built over a thousand more of them.
.
Seems like most of the carrier dive bombers in the early part of WW2 suffered from similar problems. Overweight and underpowered. Made worse by the need to limit the power plant to a single engine to meet carrier operations design constraints. The Stuka cops a lot of flak but when you compare it to other single engined dive bombers of its era, it stacks up ok. Would have been interesting to see how it performed if the Graf Zeppelin ever became operational. This thing is a dog.
If you read between the lines of the briefing, you can hear the condolences from the announcer. “Too bad you washed out of F-4 class. You’ll most likely die.”
Only Brewester WW2 Plane I've heard of was the Buffalo.
This plane was called "Daffey" by the Brits. It would be a contender for worst.
Boulton Paul Defiant
I say the worst plane was the fiat cr-42 biplane. It was allready obsolete when it came out in 1938. Italy made them untill 1942. When they were worse then useless.
Most of the aircraft designed in the late 1930's were innovative 'at that time'. For example the Grumman F1F/F2F/F3F from the 30's were bi-planes.Then finally the F4F came out.
Rick Brauer and then the F6F, racking up kills 10 fold
Why does it look like an even worse version of the curtiss SB2C-1 helldiver.
I thought the Brewster Buffalo was the worst. Every Brewster was bad, but with the right modifications they could have been a lot better.
THIS IS NOT the Brewster Buffalo.
fuck off google No, that was the F2A. This is the SB2A, same company different type of a/c completely.
Predecessor to the sumbitch second class. the Curtiss SB2C
@@chipaultman3563 Nope. The SB2C was a completely different aircraft designed and built by a different company (Curtis).
I agree with the other comments, The Brewster Buffalo was the best plane in WW 2. It may have been a hundred miles an hour slower than the average Axis fighter and not able to turn or climb with them, but a good pilot could make it perform miracles. It was underpowered and not adequately armed but the Finns seemed to do Ok. It's only problems were that it was probably 10 years behind in technology, and lacked a lot of the refinements of the Axis and Allied fighters. The Finns seemed to be able to fight against some of the first Russian fighters though. I don't think we should believe all the pilots who didn't like it.
P-47
Would have made a better photo reconnaissance plane than a bomber.
Probably would be lighter as well.
At the beginning you can tell how under powered its engine was.
You know you're aircraft is bad when it gets beaten out by the SB2C [son of a bitch second class] Helldiver
at what point did they pull this plane out of production? anyone know?
Much worse is having no dive bomber at all. Much depends on how they are used and the skill of the operator. Those with low skills overcompensate for their shortcomings with equipment. Hans Rudel destroyed 519 Soviet tanks, a battleship, a cruiser, 2 destroyers and 9 aircraft (including a state of the art fighter P-47) with an inferior Stuka in WWII.
It's easier to be successful with superior equipment.
*****
The biggest difference was the Allied pilots rotated back as instructors after 1 tour, some rarely had 2 tours.
Axis pilots either died or survived and became good, but continued to fly for 4-5 years. 107 German fighter aces and 4 German tank aces had over 100 victories each. If the leading US ace (Bong) flew combat for 4 years he would also have an astonishing record.
Rudel was good, flew for many years and had luck on his side.
The Ju-87 was inferior only when confronted with fighters, something it wasn't designed to do. As a dive bomber it was superlative.
***** So, if you have dug deeper, what are your numbers for Rudel ?
Absaalookemensch: I didn't know, Mr. Rudel destroyed half of the Allied Navy singlehandedly.
The Buffalo s nickname was the "flying coffin" Slower than the zero, less maneuverable than the zero, Zero pilots called it an Easy Kill. After getting blown out of the skies of Midway and the Far East, it was pulled from fighter service. The Finns had better luck. They were flying against ancient soviet aircraft or untrained Soviet pilots. Worst fighter in WW II that cost a lot of Allied pilots their lives.. The only US fighter that had its' production stopped in WW II.
And... that has what to do with this plane?
Over complicated, under powered, it's essentially a stretched Buffalo. No wonder it didn't work out