Best Buffalo kit in 1/72nd?

[JohnMacG]

What do boardmembers think is the best 1/72nd kit of the Brewster Buffalo (NOT an F2A)?

Price is an issue as well, guys!

[occa]

Hasegawa, they offered even a 3' version with a resin elongation of the nose.

Second are the Special Hobby kits that were obviously made by Sword ....

Hobbyboss offer one too but only one version but I think it's not that bad either#

Edit:

Oops you meant the British Buffaloes obviously, SH are the only ones that made a reasonable kit as far I am aware.

Pavla has a conversion for the Hasegawa, don't know how good that is tho.

Edited June 4, 2014 by occa

[mhaselden]

Hasegawa did a lovely little F2A-2 which can easily be converted into a British or Dutch (or Belgian) airframe. They also did an F2A-3 which could be readily adapted to become the B339-23 variant as flown by the RAAF in Australia (1 PRU, 25 Sqn etc). I guess it depends what is meant by "not F2A".

[Max Headroom]

Airfix and Matchbox also released kits labelled as'Buffalos'. The Airfix one has been re released a few times. There is something wrong with it (engine cowling too narrow?) but have never built it so cannot comment with certainty. The Matchbox one was produced when the Somme Trench Digger was on holiday thankfully. A 1970's product, it was sparsely furnished internally and IIRC had see through wheel wells.

Trevor

[mhaselden]

Neither the Airfix or Matchbox offerings are remotely accurate. Airfix is better until you get forward of the cockpit. For my money, Hasegawa is the way to go (if you can find one).

[Max Headroom]

Here is Scalemates' take on the 'Sky Pearl'

http://www.scalemates.com/products/reviews.php?scale=1:72&topic=Brewster%20F2A%20Buffalo

HTH

Trevor

[JohnMacG]

Hmmm.... now this depends on exactly WHICH 1/72nd scale plans you use, so..

with a bit of work, it looks as if the Airfix kit (which I have) will make up into quite a good Finnish B-239.

I'm just wondering if by doing some work on the nose of the Airfix kit and adding the cowl and tailcone from the Mstchbox kit, I could get a reasonable B-339/Buffalo?

My big problem with the Matchbox kit, apart from being distinctly 'basic', is tht lack of the belly window.

[mhaselden]

All depends on your definition of "reasonable".

I'd go for the Special Hobby or Hasegawa offerings before I'd try the carve-up you're suggesting.

[Max Headroom]

If I remember correctly, someone in the 80's did a build article and took an Airfix kit, added a shim of plastic card forward of the cockpit and used a Revell cowling.

Trevor

[Beard]

Sorry to hijack this thread but I have the Hasegawa USN dual-boxing and the Quickboost conversion set.

How easy would it be to convert the F2A-1 to either a B-339B or a B-339E? I'm particularly interested in the engine cowling and know about the different position of the exhaust.

[mhaselden]

The exhaust is the least of your worries, I'm afraid, although it is still different - the F2A-2/B339 had a single exhaust pipe on either side of the fuselage just ahead and below the wing leading edge.

You'll also need to work out how to address other differences between the types. For example, the F2A-1/B239 had a longer nose, raised gun fairings on the top of the fuselage and a totally different-shaped cowl front than the F2A-2/B339 variant.

[Michael louey]

Hi John,

I might be able to help as I am building a Buffalo right now. It is based on an F2A2 from a Hasegawa twin boxing which also includes the parts to make a F2A3. The kit needs the following updates -

Replace the tail cone and tailwheel. Replace the propellor. I think the kit spinner is ok.These parts can be obtained from a Special Hobby F2A or Buffalo kit however that will leave you needing to build a US F2 with the SH kit. I got some spares from a colleague at 72nd scale aircraft. Quickboost does the tail and tailwheel but I can't see any replacement props in aftermarket though there are a number of other donor aircraft which may have suitable props (I've heard Zero and Wildcat).

Careful what parts you use from the Hasegawa kit if you do as there are some items (liferaft in the rear decking) which you shouldn't use.

I've built the SH kit as a RAAF B339 and have a Buffalo kit in store. They have more detail than the Hasegawa kit but don't fit as well and aren't as neat with things like clear parts and part finesse.

Airfix and Matchbox also have Buffalos in their range. I can't recall the Matchbox and have never built it but I assume it would have less details and finesse. The Airfix kit is 'ok' but I think it comes with incorrect cuffed props and I'm not sure the tailcone is right either.

Addendum - Reading the earlier notes carefully, I am reminded that the Airfix kit cowl has a problem. I have the article on correcting this and had some spare Revell F2A2's to donate their cowls (I forgot about the Revell kit until now - It has a nice cowl but is an F2 kit only and from memory the rest of the kit isn't too accurate).

Cheers

Michael

Edited June 4, 2014 by Michael louey

[jimmaas]

I would urge the Hasegawa F2A-2 kit as the basis for a Buffalo. You can source the correct tailcone from Hannants - Quickboost QB72326 for two Pounds. The correct, uncuffed prop would probably take some scrounging, I'd start with a P-36 prop or similar.

The Hasegawa and Special Hobby kits share some strong similarities in basic shape. Both have the correct slope to the lower line of the rear canopy (it is not parallel with the lower line of the moving canopy). However, the Hasegawa already has the dual landing lights which only occurred with the British Buffalo (and a sure sign that Hasegawa intended a British Buffalo release at some point).

[Beard]

The exhaust is the least of your worries, I'm afraid, although it is still different - the F2A-2/B339 had a single exhaust pipe on either side of the fuselage just ahead and below the wing leading edge.

You'll also need to work out how to address other differences between the types. For example, the F2A-1/B239 had a longer nose, raised gun fairings on the top of the fuselage and a totally different-shaped cowl front than the F2A-2/B339 variant.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my attempted hijack of this thread.

It looks like I'll either be selling or swapping the F2A-1 or, making a USN aircraft.

Simon

[Max Headroom]

I have another general recollection about RAF machines in that I believe at some stage the

ventral glazing was either painted or plated over.

Trevor

[LDSModeller]

I have another general recollection about RAF machines in that I believe at some stage the

ventral glazing was either painted or plated over.

Trevor

A myth.

That one or two may have had it done at the request of a pilot -possible. I recall a few years ago

on Hyperscale someone posted a photo showing the area plated over, but was an exception rather than

rule

Generally though the windows stayed through out the time the Buffaloes were in the fight.

The Buffalo loaded with armour plate, weapons/rounds, fuel, pilot & gear, already taxed the

engines. Adding extra metal would have hindered the aircraft further.

The amount of repairs done to those windows through crash landing though, must have been a right pain to

the Squadron Engineering Officers down through the NCO's, to the poor Erks who carried out the repairs.

Regards

Alan

[Max Headroom]

Thanks for clearing that up Alan. It just means that my Tamiya one is wrong in another way!

Trevor

[tempestfan]

The Buffalo loaded with armour plate, weapons/rounds, fuel, pilot & gear, already taxed the

engines. Adding extra metal would have hindered the aircraft further.

Just a thought: Removing the probably relatively thick perspex (?) and possibly associated framing and replacing it with sheet alu may actually have lightened the plane a bit.

[LDSModeller]

Just a thought: Removing the probably relatively thick perspex (?) and possibly associated framing and replacing it with sheet alu may actually have lightened the plane a bit.

Quite possible that it would work, but I think the main initial issue in resisting that, would have have been the

the Air Staff in The Far East - why change a perfectly good aircraft?

During the actual fighting, the ground crews would have had more issues on their minds, such as keeping

the aircraft flying. At one point metal for aircraft repair became quite scarce, Certainly in 488 Squadron, the

ground crews began to scavange around Singapore for any crashed aircraft, for metal to replace or repair the

metal skin of their aircraft to keep them flying.

I don't think replacing the windows with sheet Aluminium would have rated very high on list to do

Some squadrons tended to remove guns to lighten the aircraft, so the pilots only flew with x2 .5 cal or

remove the .5 cal and repace with .303 cal.

Regards

Alan

[tempestfan]

I seem to recall having read (IIRC Squadron feature in AvNews) that 71 Sq., receiving Buffalos as initial equipment in sep./Oct. 1940, was so dissatisfied with the Buffalo that the aircraft were deliberately damaged in faked landing accidents in order to get rid of them. While the situation in the Far East may have been somewhat different due to the (then apparently) perceived inferiority of Japanese fighters, I'm inclined to think that the Buffalo wouldn't have been deemed a "perfectly good aircraft" a year later. I don't claim the removal was done, and if so, likely before hostilities there began for the reasons you state.

Edited June 5, 2014 by tempestfan

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

Friends, when I read it here, so it needed a new model? Am I right?

Finally, each type of Bufalo separately and correctly. Of course, the HQT metal molds and for good money.

We think ...

[mhaselden]

Sqn Ldr Churchill wrote a damning report about the ex-Belgian B339B airframes but some of his comments smack of over-selling his case (eg complaining that the lack of a spade grip on the control column limited the ability of the pilot to manoeuvre the aircraft). Bear in mind that the Buffalo was still the high-performance aircraft for Far East Command which, although reasonable well-off with Hudsons and Blenheims, was still using Vildebeests. With little likelihood that better fighters (and it's still debatable whether the Hurricane was much of an improvement over the Buffalo) would be released from other theatres, AHQFE had to soldier on with the Buffalo. The problems in the Far East were less to do with the aircraft and more to do with outright numbers, lack of early warning and some out-of-date thinking in AHQFE regarding the role of aircraft in modern warfare.

There is not one single photograph that can absolutely positively confirm the presence of a plated-over fuselage window on a Far East Buffalo. Conversely, there are plenty of photos showing aircraft with the window still in place. By the time fighting had commenced, the chances of repairing an aircraft that had suffered a wheels-up landing were remote at best. The only one I can think of is W8230 which was still on strength of 151 MU when the accident happened.

[Navy Bird]

Friends, when I read it here, so it needed a new model? Am I right?

Finally, each type of Bufalo separately and correctly. Of course, the HQT metal molds and for good money.

We think ...

I think ... that I like that idea!

Cheers,

Bill

[LDSModeller]

I seem to recall having read (IIRC Squadron feature in AvNews) that 71 Sq., receiving Buffalos as initial equipment in sep./Oct. 1940, was so dissatisfied with the Buffalo that the aircraft were deliberately damaged in faked landing accidents in order to get rid of them. While the situation in the Far East may have been somewhat different due to the (then apparently) perceived inferiority of Japanese fighters, I'm inclined to think that the Buffalo wouldn't have been deemed a "perfectly good aircraft" a year later. I don't claim the removal was done, and if so, likely before hostilities there began for the reasons you state.

If you go by/believe this Wikipedia page about 71 Squadron, they had the Buffalo from Oct 190 - Nov 1940

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._71_Squadron_RAF

Seeing as the 170 odd 339E's didn't start arriving in Singapore/Malaya from the US, till Spring of 1941 (March- April-May ish), I'm not sure when 71 Squadron would have flown them, as at that time again according to the Wiki Page, 71 Squadron were flying Hurricanes in Britain.

Only three 339E's were sent to Britain for testing, if 71 Squadron did fly them - you see where this is going.

Mark has easliy answered the metal plate issue in his post above.

As to the ability of the Buffalo to be flown and fought, a number of Pilots made kills of 3 or more (and a number of Aces), you can see who they were here

http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm

The Buffalo was not a perfect aircraft, but it was all the RAF had at the time given Britains commitments across the Far East and Europe.

That the Japanese had more aircraft to throw in the mix, eventually won through for them.

The pilots who flew and fought in the 339E Buffalo against these odds are heroes in my book, and that Stubby little aircraft known as the Brewster Buffalo is one of my favourite aircraft.

Regards

Alan

Edited June 6, 2014 by LDSModeller

[Work In Progress]

Friends, when I read it here, so it needed a new model? Am I right?

Finally, each type of Bufalo separately and correctly. Of course, the HQT metal molds and for good money.

We think ...

I would say: do it. People like to build models of the Buffalo and most of the available kits are very old and/or compromised on the versions you can make out of them. I think it would be a popular choice and do well commercially.