PR Buffalo

[Nick Millman]

Just a couple of questions on this. Were the "sheet metal" replacements for the ventral window supplied as specific to purpose by Brewster or were they just improvised? Could this configuration have been intentionally optional?

Nick

[mhaselden]

Just a couple of questions on this. Were the "sheet metal" replacements for the ventral window supplied as specific to purpose by Brewster or were they just improvised? Could this configuration have been intentionally optional?

Nick

Nick,

Hopefully, Jim Maas (WKBS) will chime in here but my understanding is that, with the exception of the F2A-3 airframes which never had the window, all other conversions were improvised local modifications and not Brewster-supplied components.

KR

Mark

[Kari Lumppio]

What I am inferring is that I find it difficult to determine the existence of a window, painted over window or sheet metal on any given airframe.

Hello!

This is where archive documents come to some aid.

This photo of BW-367 seen above is taken in Spring 1944. Equipment list attached to transfer document (from VL - State Aircraft Factory - to AF Depot) dated March 18th, 1943 has comment for the BW-367 bottow window(s): "2:n lasin tilalla on peitelevyt." Translation: "2 glass plates have been replaced by covering sheets" The same comment for BW-367 can be found in the transfer document (from HLeLv 24 to HLeLv 26) dated June 19th, 1944. My guess is that the two are the forward two in the one-piece wing.

The BW-367 photo is also somewhat topical to this thread as this was the sole FinnAF Brewster equipped with camera. Fairchild F-24 in rear fuselage. The sliding hatch can be seen under bottom forward of the fuselage stripe.

This photo of BW-387 has been taken in August 1942. Transfer document (from LLV 24 (squadron) to AF Depot) dated year later - August 28th, 1943 - after an accident mentions that the bottow window(s) have been broken. There is no mention of deficiencies before that.

I hope this helps some,

Kari

[Steven Eisenman]

Kari;

Thanks for the conformation. Especially confirming that BW-367 was a PR aircraft. I posted it specifically because that is what I thought. Any idea of the camera opening?

[jimmaas]

Steve, I'm pretty sure the Belgian photo above is NX-56B, the first one on the order. Here's the port side and I can see me some window....

[mhaselden]

Hi Jim,

I hoped you'd come and play...nice pic, by the way. I hadn't seen that one before.

Cheers,

Mark

[Steven Eisenman]

Steve, I'm pretty sure the Belgian photo above is NX-56B, the first one on the order. Here's the port side and I can see me some window....

But would the serial be under both wings or just the port?

Would the serial have been removed and window covered?

Edited August 2, 2010 by Steven Eisenman

[mhaselden]

Steven,

I've a sneaking suspicion the serial was painted in black under the port wing and in white above the starboard.

KR

Mark

[Antoine]

Thanks for the infos about the PR BW, Kari.

Got two 1/48 239 in the stash, you never know...

[silverkite211]

Nevermind, I'll leave it to you guys to sort it out amongst yourselves.

Edited August 4, 2010 by silverkite211

[mhaselden]

Hi Silverkite,

Per my earlier post, there are a whole host of reasons why the window fails to show up on photos - shadow, lack of contrast, dirt on the window, poor quality imagery, awkward photo angle etc. Unfortunately, once someone publishes a profile showing a Buffalo without a ventral window it becomes the gospel truth (witness the Profile Publications diagrams which, IIRC, started the problem). Interestingly, there are a couple of pics of RAF Buffalos showing the windows opened when on the ground, presumably to provide at least a modicum of air movement through the cockpit when the aircraft was parked...and despite this evidence, the rumour continues to do the rounds that RAF Buffalos weren't fitted with the ventral window.

Oh, and the pic is of an F2A-2 not a -3....

Kind regards,

Mark

Edited August 2, 2010 by mhaselden

[silverkite211]

Ooops! Well, 2 and 3 are right next to each other on the keyboard.

[mhaselden]

Ooops! Well, 2 and 3 are right next to each other on the keyboard.

And I swear they're getting closer...or maybe my fingers are getting fatter!!!

[silverkite211]

And I swear they're getting closer...or maybe my fingers are getting fatter!!!

HA!

Uh, yeah, let's go with that.

[Steven Eisenman]

Steven,

I've a sneaking suspicion the serial was painted in black under the port wing and in white above the starboard.

KR

Mark

Not likely on a light colored underside.

Hi Silverkite,

Per my earlier post, there are a whole host of reasons why the window fails to show up on photos - shadow, lack of contrast, dirt on the window, poor quality imagery, awkward photo angle etc. Unfortunately, once someone publishes a profile showing a Buffalo without a ventral window it becomes the gospel truth (witness the Profile Publications diagrams which, IIRC, started the problem). Interestingly, there are a couple of pics of RAF Buffalos showing the windows opened when on the ground, presumably to provide at least a modicum of air movement through the cockpit when the aircraft was parked...and despite this evidence, the rumour continues to do the rounds that RAF Buffalos weren't fitted with the ventral window.

Oh, and the pic is of an F2A-2 not a -3....

Kind regards,

Mark

The Belgian aircraft was taken from a lower angle than the USN aircraft, if anything it would be clearer. It is clearly not there.

[mhaselden]

Not likely on a light colored underside.

Steven,

I said black under the port wing and white above (ie on top of) the starboard wing. These were temporary civilian registrations applied for test flights prior to the aircraft being delivered to the customer.

Kind regards,

Mark

[Steven Eisenman]

Steven,

I said black under the port wing and white above (ie on top of) the starboard wing. These were temporary civilian registrations applied for test flights prior to the aircraft being delivered to the customer.

Kind regards,

Mark

The pictures of Belgian Buffaloes on Bearn show no serial on the wing top. That one pic of the first one in civil registration is a one off of no evidence. It is quite possible that the Belgian Buffaloes had the lower glass replaced.

So the existence of a serial is of no relevance. That picture seems to show no window.

[mhaselden]

The pictures of Belgian Buffaloes on Bearn show no serial on the wing top. That one pic of the first one in civil registration is a one off of no evidence. It is quite possible that the Belgian Buffaloes had the lower glass replaced.

So the existence of a serial is of no relevance. That picture seems to show no window.

Steven,

You had asked whether the serial number was applied to both undersides and I was answering that specific question - the serial was applied in black to the port underwing and in white to the starboard upper wing. I was not seeking to link serial numbers to the presence, or otherwise, of the underside window. As previously stated, the serial numbers were temporarily applied to enable flight testing in the USA and would be removed after successful completion of the flight testing programme (ie by the time they were onboard the Bearn they most certainly were not needed).

There are pics in Couston's book (eg p.146, p.147 and p.150) which clearly show ex-Belgian airframes with the window still intact. Why would the RAF/FAA replace the window if the Belgian Air Force (or some intermediary) had previously removed them? The replacement of the windows on some airframes while they were left in place on others makes no logical sense. As is so often the case with things Brewster we seem to be left with something of a conundrum.

Kind regards,

Mark

[mhaselden]

Hey!!! Congratulations to me!!!! I'm now officially an "Old Hand"....whatever that means!!!

Edited August 3, 2010 by mhaselden

[Antoine]

Nothing, really nothing.

Look at myself, it say that I should "know it all"!

[mhaselden]

Nothing, really nothing.

Look at myself, it say that I should "know it all"!

So there's no increase in my social standing? Hurrumpfghhh...I was thinking this would make me more popular, or handsome, or attractive to women, or rich....or SOMETHING!

[Steven Eisenman]

Steven,

The replacement of the windows on some airframes while they were left in place on others makes no logical sense. As is so often the case with things Brewster we seem to be left with something of a conundrum.

Kind regards,

Mark

With that I agree. It appears that one cannot make blanket statements or assumptions about the lower window. Interestingly, with the issuance of the Breda 65 from Special Hobby, those interested in this aircraft are dealing with the same issue, was the observation window on the underside deleted on certain aircraft? The question may be the utility of such a window in actual use.

[mhaselden]

With that I agree. It appears that one cannot make blanket statements or assumptions about the lower window. Interestingly, with the issuance of the Breda 65 from Special Hobby, those interested in this aircraft are dealing with the same issue, was the observation window on the underside deleted on certain aircraft? The question may be the utility of such a window in actual use.

I can imagine operational usage determining that the window was of no relevance, and hence aircraft would have it sheeted over as they went through the standard deep maintenance schedule, but this is not the case for the Belgian airframes as all the photos were taken prior to or during the abortive delivery attempt. Now, it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Belgian test pilot test flew the aircraft and said "get rid of that da**ed window" but I suspect that's unlikely given that it would result in a contract amendment (and I don't think it was a sufficiently big deal when replacement of the window by aluminium sheet was well within the capabilities of your average aircraft maintainer). Might the windows have been plated over, or in some other way covered, for the voyage on the Bearn to prevent salt spray ingestion? It seems odd since the Buffalo was originally designed for carrier use but the Belgian aircraft may not have had the necessary anti-corrosion treatments. What is clear is that at least one of the Belgian airframes was built with the window in place (per Jim's photo of "NX56B") and that a number of ex-Belgian airframes that eventually entered service with the RN also had the window in place.

[Seahawk]

What is clear is that at least one of the Belgian airframes was built with the window in place (per Jim's photo of "NX56B") and that a number of ex-Belgian airframes that eventually entered service with the RN also had the window in place.

Yes, you will see from my post 46 above that I was sceptical that FAA aircraft had them but in discussion off-line Jim Maas has convinced me that the windows were present. At the risk of dragging this thread further off the topic of PR Buffalos, if anyone has more evidence of FAA Buffalos with underside windows, I'd be extremely interested to see it.

Nick

[mhaselden]

Yes, you will see from my post 46 above that I was sceptical that FAA aircraft had them but in discussion off-line Jim Maas has convinced me that the windows were present. At the risk of dragging this thread further off the topic of PR Buffalos, if anyone has more evidence of FAA Buffalos with underside windows, I'd be extremely interested to see it.

Nick

Nick,

Per post #93 above, the Couston book has pics of RN Buffalos which clearly show the ventral window (p.146, 147 and 150). Of course, there are other pics where the window is not visible. The question is whether the window is invisible because of dirt/camera angle/image quality or because the window simply isn't present on that airframe. My personal view is that it's unlikely an individual air arm would have these types of differences within a single airframe type unless lack of spares necessitated some form of local adaptation. However, that's not the case with the Belgian airframes prior to their being taken over by the RN.

Cheers,

Mark