Questions about the Finnish Buffalo 239

[72modeler]

I think the armor plate was bolted to the back of the tubular seat supports and the aluminum seat was bolted to the front of the support framework. Looking at photos of the RAF and Finnish Brewsters, the added seat armor was not shaped the same, but looked to be mounted in the same manner and location.

Mike

[Guest]

I think the armor plate was bolted to the back of the tubular seat supports and the aluminum seat was bolted to the front of the support framework. Looking at photos of the RAF and Finnish Brewsters, the added seat armor was not shaped the same, but looked to be mounted in the same manner and location.

Mike

Was the seat armor retrofitted before, or during the Continuation War? From what pictures I have seen not all 239's had the armor plating. The version I am building more than likely would have flown after the

Winter War.

Cheers

Edited March 10, 2016 by Spitfire addict

[72modeler]

I found a written reference that stated that there was no time to modify the Brewsters received from the U.S. before the end of the Winter War- they were shipped with the tailhooks, ADF, liferaft containers, and telescopic sights removed, as well as an export-approved R-1820G-5 engine. The armored backrests/headrests,reflector sights, and other modifications were made during the peaceful period between the end of the Winter war and the beginning Continuation War. Does this answer your question?

Mike

[Guest]

I found a written reference that stated that there was no time to modify the Brewsters received from the U.S. before the end of the Winter War- they were shipped with the tailhooks, ADF, liferaft containers, and telescopic sights removed, as well as an export-approved R-1820G-5 engine. The armored backrests/headrests,reflector sights, and other modifications were made during the peaceful period between the end of the Winter war and the beginning Continuation War. Does this answer your question?Mike

Yes, that helps. The armor plate in my conversion kit is not long enough nor will it fit in front of the seat. I will have to modify it by using the armor plate to create a proper length template for the seat. I am just wondering if the armor plated seat was universal (made for all aircraft at a particular factory) or if the armor plate was made differently at each air base? I can make something work with a little effort. I think the only accurate seat is in the CA 239 kit, yet they attach the upper head plate to the seat, whereas it was mounted to the front upper portion of the roll cage and not connected to the armored back plate. i will see what I can come up with. Thanks again.

Cheers

Edited March 11, 2016 by Spitfire addict

[Greg in OK]

Happen to have Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia on Brewster Model 239 vol 1&2.

On page 77 Vol 1 there is a photo of BW-381, #7m 1Lt. Pokela's aircraft. Unfortunately the belly is in the shade and I cannot see if it has the belly windows still intact or if they have been replaced.

Sorry I could not be of more help.

Greg in OK

[Guest]

Happen to have Suomen Ilmavoimien Historia on Brewster Model 239 vol 1&2.

On page 77 Vol 1 there is a photo of BW-381, #7m 1Lt. Pokela's aircraft. Unfortunately the belly is in the shade and I cannot see if it has the belly windows still intact or if they have been replaced.

Sorry I could not be of more help.

Greg in OK

Thanks for the help, could you tell if the bottom was aluminum or not? I'm trying to figure out if the aircraft arrived just as the Winter War was winding down. It would make sense that just the top surfaces were sprayed, but as usual, with these topics there is do much conjecture involved, welcome to Britmodeller, the best modeling site on ther Internet.

Cheers

[72modeler]

Yes, that helps. The armor plate in my conversion kit is not long enough nor will it fit in front of the seat. I will have to modify it by using the armor plate to create a proper length template for the seat. I am just wondering if the armor plated seat was universal (made for all aircraft at a particular factory) or if the armor plate was made differently at each air base? I can make something work with a little effort. I think the only accurate seat is in the CA 239 kit, yet they attach the upper head plate to the seat, whereas it was mounted to the front upper portion of the roll cage and not connected to the armored back plate. i will see what I can come up with. Thanks again.

Cheers

I am going to hazard a guess that since the state aircraft factory was the organization that did the overhauls and major repairs to aircraft during both conflicts, that the armored back and headrests were installed there at the same time the other items were added, but I don't have any reference to support that hypothesis; I'm betting the armor plates were pretty much identical from airframe to airframe- probably cut from a template or pattern of some sort. I bet Kari Stenman would know, but he's enjoying his retirement, last time I corresponded with him. Start building that puppy- we want to see it!

Mike

[Guest]

I am going to hazard a guess that since the state aircraft factory was the organization that did the overhauls and major repairs to aircraft during both conflicts, that the armored back and headrests were installed there at the same time the other items were added, but I don't have any reference to support that hypothesis; I'm betting the armor plates were pretty much identical from airframe to airframe- probably cut from a template or pattern of some sort. I bet Kari Stenman would know, but he's enjoying his retirement, last time I corresponded with him. Start building that puppy- we want to see it!

Mike

I have been working on it, believe me, but it is a pain staking process. I spent a few hours on scratch building the armored seat, I looked at the picture posted on the thread and copied it as best as possible. Just getting the cockpit right, as well as instrument panel is also a challenge. This is obviously why some builds can take months or years. I will send you a picture of my build when it is done. I'm going with the aluminum bottom, since this aircraft arrived at the end of the Winter War. I have even thought of not adding the armor because when the aircraft arrived and was painted they had not yet added the armor nor had they painted the cowling yellow. I knew that once I started this thing I would be obsessing about details, you know, what we call "going down the rabbit hole"? Thanks for your help and support.

Cheers

[Antti_K]

Hello all!

There is one photograph of BW-381 in the book "Finnish Fighter Colours 1935-1945" (Stenman & Holda, 2014). Some observations about the plane that might help:

-the photo is probably taken using orthochromatic film because yellow appears very dark and middle blue quite light

-the photo is taken from the starboard side rear quarter during summertime

-the plane has a DF loop antenna under the rear glazing

-the tubular support framework under the rear glazing is aluminium coloured

-the plane carries factory applied "War Paint" and Finnish style serial number (BW-381)

-the nationality markings are white and blue (not light grey and blue)

-when comparing to other photos the under surface looks like aluminium coloured although very faded

-the "Farting Elk" emblem is clearly visible

-the cockpit framing is camouflaged

-it looks like the plane doesn't have the lynx emblem on the nose

-the plane has a large Finnish style tail wheel

I also stated in an earlier post that the green matches quite nicely with Humbrol 117. Sorry . I t is Humbrol 86 that I was thinking about.

Best Regards,

Antti

[Guest]

Hello all!

There is one photograph of BW-381 in the book "Finnish Fighter Colours 1935-1945" (Stenman & Holda, 2014). Some observations about the plane that might help:

-the photo is probably taken using orthochromatic film because yellow appears very dark and middle blue quite light

-the photo is taken from the starboard side rear quarter during summertime

-the plane has a DF loop antenna under the rear glazing

-the tubular support framework under the rear glazing is aluminium coloured

-the plane carries factory applied "War Paint" and Finnish style serial number (BW-381)

-the nationality markings are white and blue (not light grey and blue)

-when comparing to other photos the under surface looks like aluminium coloured although very faded

-the "Farting Elk" emblem is clearly visible

-the cockpit framing is camouflaged

-it looks like the plane doesn't have the lynx emblem on the nose

-the plane has a large Finnish style tail wheel

I also stated in an earlier post that the green matches quite nicely with Humbrol 117. Sorry . I t is Humbrol 86 that I was thinking about.

Best Regards,

Antti

Thank you for the detailed checklist. I will use dark slate grey for the olive green, it seems to be the best bet. This is one of those builds where you just got to walk away from it before the kit obsession takes control of your life. When you dream about the kit you are working on it tells you it's time to work on another kit then come back later. It will get done, just can't say when. As a modeler I am sure you, and just about everyone else on this site can relate to my dilemma. Regardless, I have definitely gained a deep respect for the tough Finns and their determination to keep their country free. Pretty amazing. I think their neighbor to the east will have to think twice about "reclaiming" Finland! Edited March 12, 2016 by Spitfire addict

[Vonbraun]

Here is a port side view of BW-381. My best guess is that the aircraft retained the original painted aluminum under surfaces at the time the photo was taken.

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

Of BW-381

Was severely damaged in take-off accident July 1941: left wing broken, landing gear broken, fuselage bottom panels deformed and torn. Was sent to factory (VL) for repairs.

During repairs ex BW-384 wing was installed on BW-381 (BW-384 had wing changed July 1941 "in field"). BW-381 was painted according the war plane painting instructions ("Kone on maalattu sotakoneiden maalausohjeiden mukaisesti"). New, reduced (max 1 meter) markings were painted also ("Koneeseen on maalattu uusien määräysten mukaiset merkit"). The window panels under fuselage were renewed! All this according the archived repair report of VL.

Now literally the war plane painting instruction would have meant light grey undersides at the time (July-October 1941). There are differing opinions if this was followed or was aluminium dope used instead. In any case the BW-381 fuselage bottom was repainted with something as new panels were rivetted there. My personal bias is on favor of light grey but flipping coin is equally good advice.

It looks like the BW-381 photo shown in ths thread is taken at Tampere Härmälä where Valtion Lentokonetehdas (VL) was. To me it looks like the paint is new and then very likely the timeframe is Autumn 1941 after the repair work on BW-381 was being finished. What you can see is that the markings - under the left wing at least - are not new reduced markings as the white circle spreads over the aileron. Perhaps paint finish was good on the the exBW-384 wing and there was no need to paint it? In which case the VL repair report text of paint finishing goes only for fuselage and empennage? Wing underside might be aluminium dope in any case.

Cheers,

Kari

[Guest]

Hello!

Of BW-381

Was severely damaged in take-off accident July 1941: left wing broken, landing gear broken, fuselage bottom panels deformed and torn. Was sent to factory (VL) for repairs.

During repairs ex BW-384 wing was installed on BW-381 (BW-384 had wing changed July 1941 "in field"). BW-381 was painted according the war plane painting instructions ("Kone on maalattu sotakoneiden maalausohjeiden mukaisesti"). New, reduced (max 1 meter) markings were painted also ("Koneeseen on maalattu uusien määräysten mukaiset merkit"). The window panels under fuselage were renewed! All this according the archived repair report of VL.

Now literally the war plane painting instruction would have meant light grey undersides at the time (July-October 1941). There are differing opinions if this was followed or was aluminium dope used instead. In any case the BW-381 fuselage bottom was repainted with something as new panels were rivetted there. My personal bias is on favor of light grey but flipping coin is equally good advice.

It looks like the BW-381 photo shown in ths thread is taken at Tampere Härmälä where Valtion Lentokonetehdas (VL) was. To me it looks like the paint is new and then very likely the timeframe is Autumn 1941 after the repair work on BW-381 was being finished. What you can see is that the markings - under the left wing at least - are not new reduced markings as the white circle spreads over the aileron. Perhaps paint finish was good on the the exBW-384 wing and there was no need to paint it? In which case the VL repair report text of paint finishing goes only for fuselage and empennage? Wing underside might be aluminium dope in any case.

Cheers,

Kari

Thanks so much for the information. I think I have enough information now that I can build as reasonably an accurate model as possible. The information on the under side observation windows is very helpful. I decided to paint the framework anyway, figuring that more than likely there would be the Perspex panels and it actually turned out really well. I will go with the faded aluminum bottom, seems the most logical. Another great aspect of that picture is it shows the armored seat in aluminum, not the leather covered seat backs that were used on some aircraft. I scratch built an armored seat and that also actually turned out really nice, just got to make some seat belts. Anyway, thanks again for the great info.

Cheers

[Kari Lumppio]

... Another great aspect of that picture is it shows the armored seat in aluminum, not the leather covered seat backs that were used on some aircraft. ...

Cheers

Hello!

Wait a minute. BW-381 armour seat cushion was also repaired when at VL July-October 1941 ("Korjattu: Panssari-istuimen verhous..."). In the photo the cushion probably still is at shop?

I hope this info is not a fly in ointment.

Cheers,

Kari

[Guest]

Hello!

Wait a minute. BW-381 armour seat cushion was also repaired when at VL July-October 1941 ("Korjattu: Panssari-istuimen verhous..."). In the photo the cushion probably still is at shop?

I hope this info is not a fly in ointment.

Cheers,

Kari

One of the pictures in the thread shows the custom made seas placed next to the stock seat that was part of the original aircraft. The armored high backed seat is different from the leather covered armored seats that I have seen in other aircraft. This would suggest that not all armored seats were the same and thusly, there was not a universal seat made in just one location. Looks like there was some retrofitting done and it really comes down to pictures of the original aircraft to know for sure. So far the few pics of BW-381 that show the seat reveals a dark image, possibly suggesting a leather covered armored seat. But depending on the time and location the seat could be either one or the other. I will probably go with the aluminum dope colored version just to be safe.

Thanks again.

[stevehnz]

I've been following this one a bit keenly as I find Finnish Aircraft quite attractive. In view of the paucity of available F2A-1/B.239s, I'm quite keen to do one of these using a Hobby Boss F2A-1 with some after market decals, maybe not an ideal solution but OK from what I've found out. Comments?

Steve.