Search the Community

Hi mates, Time for a new project. My New Year's resolution, besides killing my cancer, is to NOT take five months to build a model (like my recent PB4Y-1 and DAP Beaufort builds)! So I figured that a smaller model won't take as long - enter the Brewster Buffalo. The Buffalo is a dichotomy in many ways. The earlier versions were superior to the latter, "improved" versions, and the kill ratio was actually quite good even though it had a reputation as a "flying coffin." In the hands of the Finns, the Brewster proved to be a formidable opponent indeed. The legacy that the Brewster was responsible for the loss of Singapore had more to do with it being vastly outnumbered by the Japanese, and it being flown by relatively inexperienced pilots, unlike its opponents. And like many of the early war aeroplanes, it was essentially obsolete by the time the war really got going. Further evolution of the Buffalo was not possible, as its manufacturer was caught in an export scandal, taken over by the US Navy, and relinquished to building sub-assemblies for Grumman, etc. The successes of the Buffalo in combat says a lot about the courage and tenacity of the youngsters tasked with strapping into it every day. So let's build one of these tubby little buggers, eh? The Special Hobby kit consists of short-run injection moulded plastic, beautiful resin cast parts, but strangely no photoetch like most of their kits. No matter, I had enough photoetch for a while on my Beaufort build! First, the scene of the crime (Memsahib has cleaned up the workbench since the finish of the Beaufort!): Here are the "traditional" raw materials: And the resin - this, in my opinion, is where this kit really shines. The resin is superb, very nicely cast, and will add a huge amount of detail. Since this is a short run kit, it will have some characteristics that, quite frankly, prevent it from being built the same way a mainstream kit would be. For instance, the resin sidewalls can't be attached until you remove this rather large pour lug (I think that's what these are, due to the low pressure injection moulding technique used.) You could say this is poor design, but I wouldn't because I'm not a plastic moulding engineer. I have no idea why the lug needed to be right there. In any event, it's easily removed, in my case with a Dremel tool. Another thing you notice right away is that there are no alignment pegs. When this is of biggest concern is when you're assembling all the pieces of the cockpit and the area where the landing gear retract, which also contains the engine bearers. The instructions do not do a very good job of telling you what goes where. But that is why we are modellers, right? It's like a puzzle with no picture on the box! To solve this equation with multiple unknowns, I look for a part that I consider to be the "keystone." In other words, a part that can only go in one spot, and then build out from there. In the case of the Buffalo, I chose the forward cockpit bulkhead/firewall (we'll call it a firewall) because it has the scalloped recesses for the tyres when the gear is retracted, and these have to align with the cut-outs in the lower forward fuselage. Here is the firewall, this being the side that faces the engine: Uh-oh! Welcome to another fun part of the short-run world - notice any difference between the scalloped area on the left and the one on the right? Me too - the mould has been damaged, and it looks like a big piece of crud is now obscuring the scalloped area on the right. Again, easily solved with a ball-end grinding tool on your Dremel. You need to be on the lookout for this kind of stuff. Special Hobby have released the Buffalo in several different variants. I'll be building the Model B339E, or the Buffalo Mk.I. The 339E had a different fuselage structure right at the very end, and you have to cut away the one that's there (which is correct for a US Navy F2A-1) and add the 339E appendage, which is more like a tail cone. All cuts are along existing panel lines: Now let's add the keystone (you'll notice that I removed the crud): Next, I glued the rudder pedals onto the bottom of the instrument panel, and in doing so Mr. Fumble Thumbs managed to break off the coaming, which was more delicate than I expected. I got out my usual superglue, Zap-A-Gap (gotta love that name) and something quite odd happened. It didn't work. No stick. (I tested the Zap-A-Gap on some plastic to see if maybe the glue was bad, and it worked fine.) For some reason, this particular resin is impervious to Zap-A-Gap. Much strangeness, I think. I then tried one of the new "alpha" cyanoacrylate adhesives, in this case Max 1 from Germany, and it worked fine. A little putty and all is well. The forward bulkhead (we'll call it that) will have the resin engine on the front, and the supercharger on the back. In-between the firewall and the forward bulkhead are the engine bearers, or mounts, as well as some components for the retractable landing gear. Here the instructions are quite nebulous. A clue, and an important one at that, are the four small indentations on the back side of the forward bulkhead, for this is where all those engine bearers should attach: I don't believe there was a solid bulkhead in the actual aeroplane. The raised ring around the outside of this piece is meant to represent the exhaust collector (the Buffalo had two exhaust outlets, one on each side of the lower cowling). The resin supercharger chamber will mount to the center of the smaller embossed ring. The lower area with the mesh screen effect moulded in is the oil cooler. Assembling the engine bearers so that they will attach to the four small holes leaves us with this: Welcome to short run modelling, part three. The two lower engine bearers are considerably too long, and protrude in the front beyond where the forward bulkhead should be. Notice the pencil line that I drew in the fuselage? This is where the forward bulkhead goes. For some reason, there is a raised edge on the port fuselage half to indicate this, but Special Hobby neglected to continue that edge on this half. No matter, my pencil worked just fine! A quick snip of the side cutters and the lower bearers are now the correct length. Next, I added the fuselage side panels using the Max 1 superglue (this stuff bites almost immediately so be very careful in your placement!): I aligned the top edge of the sidewall with the top of the fuselage. I'm pretty sure this is the correct way - we'll find out soon! At this stage, I did a dry run of the two fuselage halves, and the front of the cowling. I wanted to know if the firewall was going to need some sanding in order for the two halves to close. The answer is yes, if you want the fuselage halves to close. But thank goodness I also taped on the front of the cowling, because I found something REALLY strange. The bottom seam is closed, as is the top seam back by the tail. The circumference of the front cowling is aligned with the fuselage all the way around. What on earth is on top of the forward fuselage?? It's a gap. A big gap. The mother-in-law of all gaps. Gaposis Extremis. The "It's Bigger Than The Fulda Gap" Gap. This can't be right. If I sand the firewall so that the fuselage halves close all around, then the front of the cowling will be too large. Let's try another test, and see how the canopy parts fit (since it's almost always easier to make the fuselage fit the canopies than the other way around). Guess what? With everything as shown in the above picture, the canopies fit quite nicely indeed. The width seem just right, for the windscreen, the sliding portion, and the rear fixed portion. If I closed up the Gap, the canopies will be too wide. Pardon my French, but WTF? I compared to some 1:72 scale drawings I have (of unknown providence and accuracy) and the above configuration lined up well. In other words, the size of the front cowling matched the width of the drawings. The port fuselage half lined up well with the side view drawing. I test fit the instrument panel, and for it to be in its proper position, the Gap must be present. If I closed up the Gap, I would have to remove an equal amount of material from the sides of the instrument panel. Uh, no, don't really want to do that. Same goes for the seat support. And the forward bulkhead fits fine, with the Gap as shown. I pulled my Hasegawa Finnish Model 239 Buffalo out of my stash (and it was on the bottom!). I measured the width of the front cowling - 18.9mm. I measured the width of the Special Hobby front cowling - 19.0mm. A difference of 0.1mm (.004"). This is negligible - for all intents and purposes, the two kits are the same. (The Hasegawa and Special Hobby fuselage halves line up well, too. The lower window is about 0.5mm farther forward on the Hasegawa kit, though.) I can only conclude one thing. Somebody at Special Hobby had an "Oops" moment. OK, so be it, we can fix it! I have styrene, putty, and Max 1 superglue! I can conquer the Buffalo! Stayed tuned for another exciting episode of "Short Run Modelling - Your Pathway to Going Postal with Plastic!" Cheers, Bill PS. Ah, I forgot about the markings. What colour the RAF Buffaloes were painted seems to be endlessly controversial. Not wanting to initiate yet another five or six pages of debate, I want to say that my choices for the camouflage colours will be chosen according to this theory: The RAF Buffaloes were painted in DuPont equivalents of MAP Dark Green and Dark Earth, with the undersides in DuPont equivalents of MAP Night and MAP Sky. The fuselage band and spinner will be in MAP Sky Blue, assuming these were applied in theatre. The cockpit was painted in DuPont equivalent of British Cockpit Grey Green, from the firewall to the aft end of the cockpit. Beyond those areas the inside of the fuselage was aluminum lacquer. The main landing gear legs, as well as the scalloped recesses for the tyres, were painted in the underside colour (although the legs may have been in the camouflage colour, there is much debate about this). The engine bearers, retraction struts, etc. were aluminum lacquer. That's it, that's my decision relative to the colours. Is this scheme accurate? I have no clue. But, I think it will look nice and it's a reasonable theory, at least as reasonable as any other theory.