PR Buffalo

[Seahawk]

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

Hmm, looks like I need to track down a copy of Couston then. In the meantime, are there any serials associated with any of the photos?

Nick

[mhaselden]

Hmm, looks like I need to track down a copy of Couston then. In the meantime, are there any serials associated with any of the photos?

Nick

AS430 and AX815.

[ReccePhreak]

I am definitely going to bookmark this thread!

Any time PR aircraft are discussed in such detail, I get excited.

Larry

[Steven Eisenman]

I played with the brightness and contrast of the photo of the F2A3 and the window can be seen.

I wonder if it's because the window is so shallow is the reason that it doesn't show up well in photos.

The window is quite obvious, even without manipulating the image. But not so obvious in some of the low angle shots that should clearly show the window if it was there.

[mhaselden]

The window is quite obvious, even without manipulating the image. But not so obvious in some of the low angle shots that should clearly show the window if it was there.

I wonder if sun angle is not part of the issue here. In the pic of the F2A-2 it seems like the sun is shining down through the cockpit canopy at such an angle that it hits the perspex of the ventral window causing the latter to be far more apparent than in most images of the aircraft. If the sun isn't at that perfect angle, perhaps the shadows combine in such a way as to make the window disappear? I know...clutching at straws but I can't find any more plausible answer at this stage.

I am definitely going to bookmark this thread!

Any time PR aircraft are discussed in such detail, I get excited.

Larry

Whoa there big fella! Slow down and take some deep breaths...obsessing about PR aircraft can be bad for your health (speaking as one who knows!)

[ReccePhreak]

Whoa there big fella! Slow down and take some deep breaths...obsessing about PR aircraft can be bad for your health (speaking as one who knows!)

You haven't seen my "stash".

Probably 75% of my aircraft kits (I lost count at 500 kits) are either reconnaissance aircraft, or will be converted to PR versions.

Most of my 24 year career in the USAF was working on the cameras on various PR aircraft, which is why I mainly build those types.

I am just so excited every time I discover some more good reference material for PR aircraft, since it is not a very "popular" subject, both with kit & decal manufacturers, as well as book publishers.

Larry

Edited August 4, 2010 by ReccePhreak

[mhaselden]

You haven't seen my "stash".

Probably 75% of my aircraft kits (I lost count at 500 kits) are either reconnaissance aircraft, or will be converted to PR versions.

Most of my 24 year career in the USAF was working on the cameras on various PR aircraft, which is why I mainly build those types.

I am just so excited every time I discover some more good reference material for PR aircraft, since it is not a very "popular" subject, both with kit & decal manufacturers, as well as book publishers.

Larry

Interesting Larry. I spent 20 years in the RAF as, among other things, an image analyst....! Me likee PR beasties too!!!!

[Antoine]

While we're at confidences, I too have a great interest in PR aircraft, mainly RAF WW2.

But I can't trace the origines, as... I was a tanker in the French army!

Maybe because my first name comes after Antoine de St. Exupéry, who was a PR pilot (bloch 174 and P-38)???

Just a guess...

[Seahawk]

AS430 and AX815.

Thanks. With the Couston book at 60-odd quid plus postage secondhand, maybe I'll pass for the mo.

[Antoine]

50€ at LELA

[Steven Eisenman]

I wonder if sun angle is not part of the issue here. In the pic of the F2A-2 it seems like the sun is shining down through the cockpit canopy at such an angle that it hits the perspex of the ventral window causing the latter to be far more apparent than in most images of the aircraft. If the sun isn't at that perfect angle, perhaps the shadows combine in such a way as to make the window disappear? I know...clutching at straws but I can't find any more plausible answer at this stage.

Look back at the images I posted on page 4. The sun is in the same position in both pictures, directly overhead. In fact, the sun is brighter in the Belgian picture (deeper shadow) and the canopy is back, meaning the sun is shining directly on the cockpit floor. Given the angle and the intensity of sunlight, the bottom window should literally glow in the Belgian Buffalo.

If you have the Kagero monograph on the Buffalo, check pages 52 and 74. There appears to be good pictures of an RAF and RAAF Buffalo underside. I only have a poor quality scan of the pictures.

I'm beginning to believe that other than the USN, no one had a real need for that window. Could it have reflected too much light if hit by a search light? Was it seen as lack of protection for the pilot?

[mhaselden]

Steven,

Please see Jim Maas' "In Action" book p.30 showing RAF Buffalo W8198 (NF-U) with the ventral window open. Also "Bloody Shambles Vol 2" p.84 which shows RAF Buffalo AN196 (WP-W) again with the window open. The latter machine was captured by the Japanese in that condition. The pics I have of RAAF B339-23s indicate the window was in-place.

KR

Mark

[Steven Eisenman]

Steven,

Please see Jim Maas' "In Action" book p.30 showing RAF Buffalo W8198 (NF-U) with the ventral window open. Also "Bloody Shambles Vol 2" p.84 which shows RAF Buffalo AN196 (WP-W) again with the window open. The latter machine was captured by the Japanese in that condition. The pics I have of RAAF B339-23s indicate the window was in-place.

KR

Mark

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I'm not saying all had windows or all did not. But, it seems that we cannot take an absolute position on this. It seems quite possible that for what ever reason, they were not there, including Belgian Buffaloes before shipment. Unless there is a clear and good picture, might as well flip a coin or take a position that more likely there than not, or more likely removed, covered and painted over. At bottom, when making a model of a Buffalo, we are left to our own conclusion as to what was there on the underside.

[mhaselden]

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. I'm not saying all had windows or all did not. But, it seems that we cannot take an absolute position on this. It seems quite possible that for what ever reason, they were not there, including Belgian Buffaloes before shipment. Unless there is a clear and good picture, might as well flip a coin or take a position that more likely there than not, or more likely removed, covered and painted over. At bottom, when making a model of a Buffalo, we are left to our own conclusion as to what was there on the underside.

Steven,

There's no such thing as absolute...not when we're trying to look back 70 years with only fragmentary records. However, we can state some racing certainties:

1. All British-ordered Buffalos had the ventral window - we have enough photographic evidence including shots of airframes captured by the Japanese at the end of the Malayan Campaign.

2. All Finnish Brewsters were delivered with ventral windows in place.

3. All Dutch-ordered Brewsters were delivered with ventral windows, including the B339-23s and the sole B339D which eventually made it to Australia.

4. There is photographic evidence that at least some Belgian Buffalos were built with the ventral windows in place. There is also photographic evidence that ex-Belgian Buffalos in service with the RN retained the ventral window.

5. All USN and USMC Buffalos were delivered with ventral windows with the exception of the F2A-3 variant which had extra fuel tankage in the lower fuselage which would have completely blocked the window had the latter been retained.

If there were any Belgian airframes which did not have the window, then I feel they would very much be the exception to the rule and I, for one, cannot understand how or why there should be a difference within a production run for a single customer when airframes to all other customers (except for 5 above) were delivered with the ventral windows in place. I accept that the one pic you have presented is pretty compelling but I've also seen plenty of good-quality images of this aircraft type which apparently show no window when we know it was present. Why is it not visible in that one pic of the Belgian airframe? Dunno.

We can never be sure I also think we're a long way from having to flip a coin (which suggests 50% of Buffalos were delivered without ventral windows). If I were a betting man my money would be on building a Belgian Buffalo with the ventral window present. Others may have different opinions and I wish them well with their interpretations of the available evidence.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited August 5, 2010 by mhaselden

[LDSModeller]

In line with Marks comments

Pilots notes

Photo of RAF 339E being unpacked

Clearly see ventral window orifice

488 Squadron Aircraft (previous 67 Squadron) all different aircraft too!!!

Look carefully under pilots feet, you can see ventral window

You can see framing for ventral window

Other photos in Last Stand Singapore show a number of 339E's with ventral windows

Three or more different aircraft, all with ventral windows, thats pretty good odds for a possible 50/50 coin flip

Going again with Marks comments, Belgian 339B, RAF 339E, Dutch NEI 339D, all conversions from

the basic F2A-2 frame which we know had the ventral window.

When one thinks about it the conversions, they were not overly major, external/Internal, a win/ win situation

for Brewster, they had the airframes, just needed to add the extras, paint them in required colours and

order complete (some what simplistic I know but you get the picture).

I do not doubt all brand new Begian/RAF/Dutch had their windows. As I mentioned once before "just because you don't see it

does not mean it's not there. Later on in battle accounting for attrition, battle damage, etc odds can change

Regards

Alan

[Antoine]

Scratching an F.24 camera shouldn't be a big problem, but I'm wondering about the camera controller (obviously a type 35?):

Can't see much available place in the pit to fit one...

But there were most certainly one, don't you think so?

Replacing the gunsight, PR spit-like?

[LDSModeller]

Scratching an F.24 camera shouldn't be a big problem, but I'm wondering about the camera controller (obviously a type 35?):

Can't see much available place in the pit to fit one...

But there were most certainly one, don't you think so?

Replacing the gunsight, PR spit-like?

Hi Antoine

Reading through the pilots notes for the 339E there is

a bracket just aft of the pilot ( starboard side, near back of seat)

which was added for the mounting of a R 3003 control unit.

The R 3003 was never used in the 339E so a perfect spot for

the camera controller I should think, would not have taken too

much engineering for the MU (maintenance unit) folks to fit the

controller there, and within easy reach of the pilot too.

Hope that helps

Alan

[Antoine]

Hi Alan,

Got it!

In fact, I've just glued the PE part figuring it, and I think you could be right.

But it's a bit out of reach for the pilot, and unreadable in flight.

The pilot would have to know the panel very well.

[LDSModeller]

Hi Alan,

Got it!

In fact, I've just glued the PE part figuring it, and I think you could be right.

But it's a bit out of reach for the pilot, and unreadable in flight.

The pilot would have to know the panel very well.

Hi Antoine

Do you by chance have a picture of the controller, there are

a couple of other spots I can think of that it might go

Thanks

Alan

[Antoine]

No, sorry, the only pic I have comes from classic warbirds Merlin PR spits in detail.

[mhaselden]

I'm not entirely convinced there was a camera controller in the PR Buffalos. Accounts by a couple of pilots indicate they controlled the cameras manually. It may be that the MU simply wired the cameras to the gun firing button on the control column and the pilot used a stopwatch to ensure the correct timing between photos for the altitude he was flying at.

[Antoine]

Hello, Mark,

We never know, as working with a camera at the time wasn't a matter of "push one button only", there were other settings to be dealt with, and I don't believe that everything could be set on the ground before the flight (Yes, I know, Wareham's description of the procedure is quite simple).

And then, with one button only, what about W8166 with its three cameras?

I also believe that every camera was delivered with some sort of contrôle panel.

Anyway, I'll be happy to hear about any other opinion.

[mhaselden]

Antoine,

IIRC the pilots of single-seat RAF PR aircraft had precious few controls to worry about. They could take the images manually or they could set a time interval to automatically take pictures. They were unable, however, to alter the shutter speed or aperture, or f-stop (focal length being fixed). You may be right that each camera came with its own control unit but if that was the case, why would Wareham state he took the imagery manually which is a fussy procedure in a single-engined, one-man aircraft?

One thing we seemingly glossed over in the early stages of the thread was the similarity of the RAAF 1 PRU Brewster B339-23s to the Long-Range PR Buffalo (W8166) used by 4 PRU in Singapore. The RAAF airframes show 3 cameras whereas there is some evidence that W8166 had only 2 cameras, probably in the rear fuselage. Sorry for the confusion and failure to clarify...

Cheers,

Mark

[Antoine]

Mark, I could agree with you about W8136, with only one F.24, but even with only two camera, I'm wondering how the while thing works with only one button, I really think that a controller of some sort was unavoidable in this case.

Are you sure about the two camera in the rear fuselage?

With no guns and ammunitions up front, there would certainly be a CG problem. Best place is still under the seat.

[mhaselden]

Antoine,

Disregard my last post about W8166 being a 2-camera installation. It carried 3 cameras, one under the seat and 2 behind it.

I would imagine a single switch should suffice for controlling all 3 cameras - all you're doing is causing the shutter to operate and the film to advance and this can be done via a single button action in the cockpit (again, the guns could all be operated using one switch so why not 3 cameras?).

KR

Mark