Jump to content

FAA Brewster Buffalo's


Spitfires Forever

Recommended Posts

On 10/24/2021 at 1:50 AM, tonyot said:

You tell me mate,...... because I don`t know! You would think that Crossley would know the difference between a Martlet and a Buffalo,..... but was he mis recollecting? Easily done. Some of the Martlet Mk.III`s my have come back to the UK,.... maybe one came back for trials,...... I`d have to check for sure,.....  they were soon re painted into camouflage in North Africa and left for Kenya later still. 

I`ve never seen an overall grey coloured Buffalo in British service,...... only US Navy service.

I would agree with @Ed Russell that if Crosley said they were light grey and fitted with arrester hooks, they were, given the timing and Mediterranean origin of Eagle, almost certainly Martlet IIIs. The Belgium B-339Bs were de-navalized and had no arrestor hook and, given the way F4F arrester hooks are almost entirely retracted within the fuselage, he must have had a good look at the aircraft concerned to see if the arrester hook was fitted.    

 

If they were light grey Buffalos fitted with an arrester hook they would firstly have had to have had their de-navalized rear fuselages modified to accept and withstand the stresses of a borrowed arrester hook assembly (not borne out by admittedly few and poor quality photos of a Buffalo on Eagle's deck for trials) and secondly, the light grey colour could conceivably be sun bleached TSS.

 

 

Edited by detail is everything
added 2nd para
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 48-Alone-Is-Great said:

One also wonders about his "terrible stories about the Buffalo - and that it had the unreliable Cyclone engine and very poor flying characteristics", when a navy pilot who'd actually flown it (805 Sq commander Black) said it was manoeuvrable, a delight to fly, and a great fighter but for the lack of replacement parts. Perhaps Crosley heard those stories much later, the experience of RAF's Pacific Buffalo pilots, six months after the RN quit theirs in the Med ... but then how did they cost him a night's sleep long before?

 

 

Since when did objective truth get in the way of a good hangar-flying session? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, detail is everything said:

their de-navalized rear fuselages

I suspect Brewster's version of 'de-navalisation' was to leave off the arrestor hook. This is only based on their sloppy business practices and probably neeeds further research.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some indulgence in literature by Crosley, I assume. After all, his book is a story, not a history. He mentions a date for reporting aboard Eagle (28 December 1941), that is correct. I am doubtful about other parts of the narrative, such as the Buffalos "brought back from Crete" (all those on the island were destroyed) and also the "terrible stories about the Buffalo". Those stories would start to flow in within a few weeks, however, so he may be forgiven for mixing them up in his memory.

Anyway, Eagle had left the Mediterranean in April 1941 without any fighter aboard. Thus, it would have little chance of bringing Martlet IIIs back to Britain (they were just arriving), nor could it bring Buffalos "back from Crete" (they were still there). Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the Mediterranean Fleet would be willing to dispense with a couple of fighters at a time when they would be much needed to defend both Alexandria and the forward base in Suda Bay.

The presence of two fighters (whatever type they were) as hangar cargo, with no reported use of them for several months, sounds distinctly odd. After leaving Alexandria Eagle would no longer need a fighter flight since she was going to spend a period in the South Atlantic area before eventually reaching Britain. Indeed, she did embark fighters again for self-defence only on the final leg of her journey, from Gibraltar to Britain (two Sea Hurricanes of 804 Sqn).

 

The few Brewsters in Britain were naval fighter trainers so Crosley would probably have known, even though not flown them. The "terrible stories" may be an embellishment, but the thought of "fighting the Hun" with a fighter trainer was perhaps hardly more reassuring.

What strikes me is the express mention of "arrester hooks". On both American types those were of the "sting" type and retracted into the fuselage, so they would hardly be visible in a "dimly lit" hangar, unless Crosley thoroughly inspected the aircraft. Not to mention the fact that, in the case of de-navalized ex-Belgian Brewsters, sourcing a sting type arrester hook in Britain might not be simple. Would it be possible that those two aircraft were modified with a British type 'A-frame' hook? Perhaps strengthening was less of a problem, since the structure was in any case stressed for carrier landings. Of course we may never know, but...

 

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, 48-Alone-Is-Great said:

So Crosley says "I went in through the double doors into a dimly lit, steel-sided, empty- cathedral of a place. There, in a far corner, I could see two Brewster Buffaloes, painted in light grey paint. My heart missed a treat, particularly as I saw that they were fitted with arrester hooks."

 

The Beglian Buffaloes didn't have arrester hooks. So what then did he actually see in that dimly lit far corner, which still was close and bright enough to see the hooks?

 

One also wonders about his "terrible stories about the Buffalo - and that it had the unreliable Cyclone engine and very poor flying characteristics", when a navy pilot who'd actually flown it (805 Sq commander Black) said it was manoeuvrable, a delight to fly, and a great fighter but for the lack of replacement parts. Perhaps Crosley heard those stories much later, the experience of RAF's Pacific Buffalo pilots, six months after the RN quit theirs in the Med ... but then how did they cost him a night's sleep long before?

 

The Buffalo had a poor reputation with the Fleet Air Arm pilots in the Middle East and those on Crete did have their engines removed to prevent their use,..(I think that it was Black who ordered this,.... although I would have to double check)... they were left on the airfield as decoys. I have read that the engines were unreliable as they were reconditioned civilian units,.... as the military units were apparently hard to obtain in the USA. The same went for the RAF aircraft in the Far East re the engines too,..... new airframes,...... wnd hand reconditioned engines.

 

For what it is worth,.... I reckon that the two Buffalo`s aboard Eagle for landing trials did have some sort of arrester gear rigged up,..... they were based i the Canal one where there were a number of MU`s able to do work of this kind. Now did they replicate the US Navy style,..... as also used on the Martlet,..... or a British style V Type,...... I really do not know! Light Grey paint scheme,..... I`m stumped by this too,...... I`m pretty sure that Crosley knew the difference between a Martlet and a Buffalo,.... but this aspect has thrown me. ...... so who knows? 

 

Cheers

            Tony

 

EDIT,..... Buffalo`s,.... Crete,...... you can see all three here,..... in the background,..... with their engines removed,...... at Maleme airfield;

buffalos-of-805-nas-in-background-maleme

 

And here are some of the Buffalo`s abandoned in Crete;

Buffalo-7-Z-805-NAS-Crete.jpg

Brewster-Buffalo-wreck-and-Junkers-Ju-52

Crete-Buffalo1copy.jpg

 

Another view of the Buffalo aboard HMS Eagle,.... and one of Eagle below;

Buffalo-on-Eagle-1941-E-B-Mackenzie-cour

HMS-Eagle-E-B-Mackenzie-courtesy-of-Crec

 

A view of a Belgian Buffalo in the USA,..... WEARING ITS DELIVERY SCHEME;

Belgian-Buffalo.jpg

 

A Buffalo at RNAS Hatston, after re paint and serving with 804 NAS, after being discarded by the RAF who tried to equip 71 (Eagle) Sqn with the type;

Buffalo-Hatston-804.jpg

 

Here are some 805 NAS Buffalo`s in Egypt;

DESERT-BUFFALOES.jpg

 

And here is a model that I made some time ago of an 805 NAS Buffalo;

Buffalo2-1.jpg

Edited by tonyot
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 48-Alone-Is-Great said:

So what then did he actually see in that dimly lit far corner,

 

Perhaps it was a case of 'those Fokkers were Messerschmitts"...

 

Mistaken identities happen all the time, especially among those you think would (and should) know better, and particularly with unfamiliar types.

Well do I remember, as aircrew and in non-flying roles, the number of times my peers (and, shamefully, myself at times) would mistake the identities of various friendly and 'red' aircraft in the daily ID briefings.

WEFT...

 

3d4feb4d1a2b539966ec06a78445d1d6.jpg

 

20Qs1pE3-CEnqeZfvx8ML7srSK_SC4joQ1gY6Nip

 

Vintage-WW2-Airplane-Fighter-WEFT-System

 

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Would it be possible that those two aircraft were modified with a British type 'A-frame' hook? Perhaps strengthening was less of a problem, since the structure was in any case stressed for carrier landings.

 

Well...

I think the chief load-bearing elements for the hook-to-fuselage structure joints would be in different places on the internal frame. Thus, I would think an excessive amount of work would need to be done to attach a different arresting mechanism to the airframe.

Still, this is just a guess, not having seen the Buffalo's arresting gear engineering and construction!

 

If I recall some anecdotal stuff, I seem to remember a US Navy criticism regarding a lack of strength of the undercarriage, particularly concerning carrier landings - one can only imagine further stressing - if not otherwise bending - the legs and joints by deliberately running them into a pendant!

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tonyot said:

they were based i the Canal one where there were a number of MU`s able to do work of this kind. Now did they replicate the US Navy style,..... as also used on the Martlet,..... or a British style V Type,...... I really do not know!

The bearer that supports the arrestor hook could be used to support an A-Frame hook

51629463771_9a8f7708cc_b.jpg

But we are getting into the wildest speculation here.

5 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Of course we may never know, but...

I reckon you are right!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That old Air Enthusiast cutaway has a lot of fictional content.   The actuating mechanism for the arrestor hook was in fact offset to the port side of the airframe.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ed Russell said:

The bearer that supports the arrestor hook could be used to support an A-Frame hook

 

However, using that bearer/longeron in that location (based only on that diagram - if correct), risks an A-frame assembly and hook fouling the rear wheel and fuselage; therefore, any mounting (plus associated ram mechanism and localised strengthening) for an A-frame would have to be further forward, at a point roughly where the diagram stops (slightly forward of the '101') - similar to that of the Seafire, I would think.

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say so but I thought the diagram was inaccurate because the actuating mechanism for the arrester hook is offset to the port side of the airframe. I'm fairly sure I could design a simple A-Frame that picked up the two ends of the bearer but this is even wilder speculation.

I don't see a hook on those deck landing pictures and it sure looks like a wheel has fouled an arrester wire.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ed Russell said:

it sure looks like a wheel has fouled an arrester wire

 

I agree, I can't see any kind of hook going on there.

I guess that's what the desperation of wartime needs will make people consider (shudders and hands in his wings...)!

 

top-gun.png

 

Edited by Blimpyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tonyot said:

The Buffalo had a poor reputation with the Fleet Air Arm pilots in the Middle East and those on Crete did have their engines removed to prevent their use,..(I think that it was Black who ordered this,.... although I would have to double check)... they were left on the airfield as decoys. I have read that the engines were unreliable as they were reconditioned civilian units,.... as the military units were apparently hard to obtain in the USA.

Thank you very much for the photos. The first one in particular, and the explanation above, finally solve my doubt about what kind of accident had caused all the Brewsters to shed their engines...!

 

As regards reliability, there seemingly were some issues there:

"...the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed and 805 did not have the necessary spares." (Lt. Cmdr. Black)

"Lt. Brabner (...) was up again next day, mounted on AS419, only to turn back because of engine trouble. He crash-landed short of the airfield, and the Brewster flipped over on its back (...)"

 

2 hours ago, Blimpyboy said:

However, using that bearer/longeron in that location (based only on that diagram - if correct), risks an A-frame assembly and hook fouling the rear wheel and fuselage; therefore, any mounting (plus associated ram mechanism and localised strengthening) for an A-frame would have to be further forward, at a point roughly where the diagram stops (slightly forward of the '101') - similar to that of the Seafire, I would think.

Agreed about the position. My bet would be for an external fitting as made in the Interim Sea Gladiators, but... this is getting much far into "what-if" modelling subjects!

 

About "carrier trials" on HMS Eagle:

HMS Eagle sailed from Alexandria on 19 February 1941, embarking 805 and 806 Sqn. Fulmars, Sea Gladiators and Swordfish. While the ship was still near the coast, deck landing trials with the Buffalo were carried out, but results were unsatisfactory. The Buffalo approached at a speed well over 100 knots, which made landing impossible.

On 3 March, further brief deck landing trials with the Buffalo followed, destroyer HMS Jaguar acting as plane guard. This time the tests were judged successful, although the Buffalo was considered better suited to shore-based operations.

The latter is probably when the photo on deck was taken and landing wires appear to have been engaged by the undercarriage wheels, as @jimmaas noted.

Deck-landing practices differed between the FAA and the USN at the time, which might suggest a reason for the difficulties experienced in the first trial.

Since Eagle was already scheduled to leave the Mediterranean, I doubt any long-term involment of local MUs in "carrier modification" for the Brewster.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

 

 

3 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Thank you very much for the photos. The first one in particular, and the explanation above, finally solve my doubt about what kind of accident had caused all the Brewsters to shed their engines...!

 

As regards reliability, there seemingly were some issues there:

"...the guns could not be fired because the ends of the wires which were part of the interrupter gear, failed and 805 did not have the necessary spares." (Lt. Cmdr. Black)

"Lt. Brabner (...) was up again next day, mounted on AS419, only to turn back because of engine trouble. He crash-landed short of the airfield, and the Brewster flipped over on its back (...)"

 

Agreed about the position. My bet would be for an external fitting as made in the Interim Sea Gladiators, but... this is getting much far into "what-if" modelling subjects!

 

About "carrier trials" on HMS Eagle:

HMS Eagle sailed from Alexandria on 19 February 1941, embarking 805 and 806 Sqn. Fulmars, Sea Gladiators and Swordfish. While the ship was still near the coast, deck landing trials with the Buffalo were carried out, but results were unsatisfactory. The Buffalo approached at a speed well over 100 knots, which made landing impossible.

On 3 March, further brief deck landing trials with the Buffalo followed, destroyer HMS Jaguar acting as plane guard. This time the tests were judged successful, although the Buffalo was considered better suited to shore-based operations.

The latter is probably when the photo on deck was taken and landing wires appear to have been engaged by the undercarriage wheels, as @jimmaas noted.

Deck-landing practices differed between the FAA and the USN at the time, which might suggest a reason for the difficulties experienced in the first trial.

Since Eagle was already scheduled to leave the Mediterranean, I doubt any long-term involment of local MUs in "carrier modification" for the Brewster.

Hope you don't mind my giving attributions for the above information.  The first Crete quotation looks like a paraphrase of words on p.141 of Cull et al's Air War For Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete, the second may not be from the same source but agrees completely with the facts as reported in the same book, p.142.   The information re the carrier trials appears paraphrased [completely accurately] from Peter C Smith's Eagle's War, pp 83 & 84.

 

As regards where FAA pilots learned of the Buffalo's limitations, one of the aircraft at Yeovilton since 9/40 had previously served with 71 Sq, whose scathing verdict "not suitable for combat use in Western Europe" (I may be paraphrasing) is known).  It is hard to credit that it arrived without some words percolating down on the pilot grapevine about its qualities.  And there might have been a natural curiosity as to why the RAF was so keen to slough them off onto the FAA.  And, even if neither of these applied, a quick flip in the aircraft would presumably have been enough for them to form their own impressions: again pilot grapevine would do the rest.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another problem with Crossly’s tale.

 

Eagle had been operating successfully in the South Atlantic against German supply ships. But, according to Peter Smith in “Eagle’s War” and Hobbs “British Carrier Aircraft” on 20 Sept 1941 she suffered an accidental hangar fire caused by an aircraft sea marker containing aluminium going off. The hangar spray system then soaked everything not destroyed ( Hobbs notes 13 aircraft lost). Smith notes it left her with 4 operational Swordfish (but some may have been repairable after drying out). No mention of anything other than Swordfish. Accounts vary about the extent of the damage but she returned to the U.K. on 26 Oct when she disembarked her remaining aircraft on the Clyde. The histories of both 813 and 824 squadrons show them moving from Eagle to the shore base at Macrahanish on 26 Oct. She must have docked somewhere on the Clyde to disembark the maintenance personnel and any stores they would need while ashore. Why not then take the opportunity of offload any aircraft simply being transported if not flyable? Then it was off to the dry dock in Liverpool to refit starting 30 Oct. She sailed again from Liverpool on 9 Jan 1942 and re-embarked both squadrons on the 20th Jan 1942.

 

So for Crosley’s tale to be true those two Buffalos were sitting in Eagle’s hangar for two months while she was in refit. Seems distinctly odd and not a usual practice particularly with so many RN air stations in the Liverpool area. Certainly later in the war aircraft were towed from Liverpool docks to the airfield at Speke.

 

That then raises another possibility. That they were put aboard her in Liverpool for her to transport elsewhere. Eagle did go back to the Clyde to pick up her squadrons.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EwenS said:

she suffered an accidental hangar fire caused by an aircraft sea marker containing aluminium going off

 

...and note that Crosley omits to mention setting the thing off while crawling around the Buffalos in the semi-darkness 😉

Edited by gingerbob
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gingerbob said:

 

...and note that Crosley omits to mention setting the thing off while crawling around the Buffalos in the semi-darkness 😉

The fire was 3 months before Crosley joined the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, detail is everything said:

Dang! I keep looking at the picture of 7Y in Tony's post above and I keep seeing a serial starting AX5, not AX8. Am I going billy bonkers?

 

Were serials in the range of AX501 - AX599 assigned to any British aircraft?

 

Simon

Yes.  All Ansons.

 

I have a similar problem.  In the Flugzeug Foto-Archiv Band 3: Kreta - Adererlass der Transportflieger-Verbaende there are 2 photographs of an apparently uncoded, upright engineless Buffalo at Maleme.  It's also finless so it could be Brabner's damaged aircraft put the right way up (it ended up inverted in the crash).  In one photo (p.55) the serial clearly begins AS (and definitely not AX) and in the other (p.39), the last 2 of the serial, photographed from about 10 feet away, is xxx13 (remainder not in shot).  But, as any fule who has read Cull and Sturtivant kno, the 3 Buffaloes sent to Crete were AS419, AS420 and AX814, Brabner crashed with engine failure in AS419, there do not appear to have been an exchanges of Buffaloes between Crete and Egypt, AS413 survived to involved in a collision in Egypt  on 16 May 41 and AX813 was shot down off Sidi Barrani on 17 June 1941.  So I shall keep my ridiculous ideas to myself and take myself back to Specsavers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Seahawk said:

Hope you don't mind my giving attributions for the above information.

Thank you @Seahawk, the references you mention are exactly where they were taken from. Sorry for not giving full references, but they were not at thand while writing.

 

9 hours ago, EwenS said:

That then raises another possibility. That they were put aboard her in Liverpool for her to transport elsewhere. Eagle did go back to the Clyde to pick up her squadrons.

That would by my take as well.

 

59 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

I have a similar problem.  In the Flugzeug Foto-Archiv Band 3: Kreta - Adererlass der Transportflieger-Verbaende there are 2 photographs of an apparently uncoded, upright engineless Buffalo at Maleme.  It's also finless so it could be Brabner's damaged aircraft put the right way up (it ended up inverted in the crash).  In one photo (p.55) the serial clearly begins AS (and definitely not AX) and in the other (p.39), the last 2 of the serial, photographed from about 10 feet away, is xxx13 (remainder not in shot).  But, as any fule who has read Cull and Sturtivant kno, the 3 Buffaloes sent to Crete were AS419, AS420 and AX814, Brabner crashed with engine failure in AS419, there do not appear to have been an exchanges of Buffaloes between Crete and Egypt, AS413 survived to involved in a collision in Egypt  on 16 May 41 and AX813 was shot down off Sidi Barrani on 17 June 1941.  So I shall keep my ridiculous ideas to myself and take myself back to Specsavers.

The photo of Brabner's crashed aircraft in "Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete" (ASxxx upside down) shows that the rear fuselage was bent, I'd agree a finless aircraft might be Brabner's. To me, another pointer to AS419 is the position of the fuselage roundel, that appears to be further back than in 7Y and 7Z. About xxx13, maybe it would be possible to mistake '9' for '3'?

 

My other problem with serials, since "anybody knows" that the three aircraft in Crete were AS419, AS420, and AX814 (it's in "Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete"), is that either '7Y' or '7Z' would have to be AS420, but the fuselage roundel is positioned forward on both, which to me suggests AXxxx serials. But I may be wrong.

Sturtivant's "Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939-1945" lists three serials with the same indication, PD 27.4.42, where PD is short for 'papers deposited', meaning the aircraft had long been out of existence by that date, possibly an administrative clean-up. These are AS420, AX810 and AX814. Furthermore, there is no information for AX816. Possibly the two abandoned in Crete were among these four? '7Y' is certainly AXxxx.

Edited by ClaudioN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

 About xxx13, maybe it would be possible to mistake '9' for '3'?

 

It's the obvious answer, isn't it?  But I can't in all conscience say that's what I see, even knowing it's what I should see.   And the picture's taken from a range of only about 10 feet.  Nor does it look as if paint has peeled off: the top and bottom halves of the "3" are symmetrical.  In the absence of other solutions, I'm wondering if the true airframe AS419 got mis-marked as AS413 somewhere along the line ie someone else gots their "3"s and "9"s confused.  But then we would have both the true and the false AS413 serving in the same unit at the same time, even if not in the same location (one at Dekheila, Egypt, one at Maleme, Crete).

 

As you would expect from an AS-serialled airframe it has the roundel located aft (centre of centre spot in line with the rear edge of the canopy) and has the prominent stencil markings on white rectangles (in this case "FIRST AID" on a white rectangle at half past seven from the roundel).  Maybe the need for space to paint up squadron symbols (aka codes) on the Buffalo's stubby fuselage necessitated moving the roundel forward, even on AS-serialled aircraft.

 

I don't think we should do violence to the historical record by surmising that there were ever more than 3 Buffaloes on Crete.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAF Serial Registers reported on this thread by @Geoffrey Sinclair indicate AS419 as SOC on 2 July 1943. This date is not reported by Sturtivant, but it is in a RAF document. It seems too much later than Crete to assume it was just the result of some clerk catching up with paperwork. So... was AS419 really the crashed Brewster in Crete?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...