The prototype of this single-seat all-metal fighter flew for the first time in December 1937. The first production version was the F2A-1 powered by a 700.4kW Wright R-1820-34 radial engine. Eleven were operated by the US Navy on board USS Saratoga and 44 were exported to Finland. The F2A-1 was the US Navy's first monoplane fighter. These were followed by 43 894kW R-1820-40-engined F2A-2 and 108 F2A-3 for the US Navy. Meanwhile a few fighters had reached Belgium and others were in service in the Netherlands East Indies and with the RAF (called Buffalos). Apart from the Finnish fighters which fought well against the Russians, F2A were used almost exclusively against the Japanese and in all cases met superior aircraft. Heavy British losses in the Far East led to their withdrawal and US Navy action during the Battle of Midway was equally unsuccessful. A total of more than 500 F2A were built.
The picture above shows an F2A-4. You can almost see the added on section I aluded to, just aft of the leading edge of the wing. Tracy's engine comment sounds as if the Brewster may have been powered by several different engines during its time. AFAIK, it was only ever powered by different variations of the Wright R-1820 Cyclone engine.
Read through most of the comments posted thus far and I'd like to touch on a few of the points made. DGlover's CG comments are in reference to the F3A-3. An 8" section was added between the cockpit and the cowling, IIRC. I believe this was for additional fuel storage. The armour plating, that was added in the -2 and -3 varients, was actually due to feedback by Navy pilots, who requested it. The Finnish kill ratio was 26:1. It is well documented. Rockwell made some comments about how the Buffalo was improperly used against the Zero, thus its poor US Naval battle record. Actually, the Zero and the F2A-1 (B-239) were pretty much an even match. Aussie pilots have attested to a number of battles in the south seas where they've flown F2A-1's against Zero's. Almost all of those reports showed the pilot being surprised by the amount of performance the Brewster aircraft showed. Much better than their CAC Boomerangs. An F2A-1 can turn though 180 degrees @ 2000 meteres in 7 seconds. Believe it or not, that's about twice as fast as most of the other axis and allied fighters in operation by the middle of the war (by comparison, an Me-109 takes about 21-23 seconds and a P-40 takes about 17-19 seconds). Thus, Dogfighting is EXACTLY what one could do, with the F2A-1, when combating a Zero. No need for "boom and zoom", but it is another option. The later varients did not share this manuverability. Lastly, someone (Ron, maybe?) made a comment about later Buff's being weighed down by armour with no improvement to engine performance. The -1's engine put out 950HP. The -2 used an 1100 HP powerplant and the -3 got a 1200HP version. So improvements were made to engine power, relative to the increase in weight.
Glover, I like your point about CG. If this plane had been developed to have a decent ceiling and not hit the wall above 15,000' would it have enough stretch in the plane's design to still keep a CG balance advantage? Perhaps switching to the Pratt & Whitney would have been the end of that short nosed sweet spot.
There is a comment above about weight of the aircraft. Its a major factor but center of gravity is another. The model the Finns flew had a smaller fuel tank and slightly shorter nose. the later increase of weight up front shifted the "CG.
I must admit I've come to change my mind on a couple of WW2 fighters. What do you think are 2 (Army and Navy) of the planes that get the worst press? You guessed it the F2A and the P-39. I used to accept that for the most part but I've altered my opinions. Both of these fighters have good view for a US design in their day. Both had outstanding records when flown by the right pilots (with the right mechanics and tactics). View was one attribute they could capitalize on. They flew these for the duration of the war though obsolete. The Finns in the F2A and the Russians in the P-39. Their kill ratios tell the tale. And the were on opposing sides mostly. Both were left for dead by the US military as far as air the superiority role. Now I feel they were under appreciated. No American ace outscored the top aces flying these American made fighters.
In the Pacific there were those who lightened the F2A, swapped the .50s for lighter fast guns and used high octane petrol. They were outnumbered and retreated with the rest. Imagine if the USN had kept it a flyweight and made everything reliable, how much better off it would have been! 1000 mile range is enough to live with. Give it to the Marines and you don't need a tailhook etc...Put in the 1200 hp radial with high octane and use minimal back armor and you have a 5,000 lb Buffalo that can both climb and dive against the Zero and Oscar. Light guns were adequate for that. The Navy instead, replaced it with the F4F-4 Wildcat that had more heavy guns, range, and armor but couldn't climb or accelerate. Pilots were not pleased.
In 1940 the FAF was impressed by a demonstration showing a Fiat G 50 could not shake the Brewster in pursuit (It was like a Zero that could dive too in my opinion). The Finns installed their own instruments, armor and guns.
In the specs above I notice that the loaded weight of the F2A-3 was a ton heavier than the version flown by Finland! No wonder no one liked to fly the -3. The Sky Pearl could have been better if it swapped the slow and unreliable Browning cowl guns with the MG 131s or even Bredas. When Finland later switched sides, it could use 4 even better fast Russian UBs.
Smart Finish pilots and lighter weight was complimented with good Finish mechanics. They reversed the piston rings : engine performance improved. Elsewhere it would starve for fuel above 15,000'. A good tactic was to fly in 4s. 2 near the ground as bait and 2 up high to pounce in a dive. It almost always worked against rookies.
While the initiail success of the F2A was against the Japanese Army nate and Oscar, that was short lived and the Zero was not threatened at all since the dogfight style was used by both sides. The Finns studied these far east encounters and wrote their own tactics for their Brewsters as they called the Buffalo. Even if their victorious 26 to 1 ratio is inflated, it was still quite successful 1942-45 against Russian and German aircraft! Smart training is the difference.
The Brewster was handycapped by its design. It was originally designed around a 9 cylinder single row engine with a single stage turbo-super charger, this limited its performance, so only the best pilots could make do with it. Because of its structural design mounting a double row engine, like the 14 cylinder engine in the Wildcat, would have required a complete redesign of the entire aircraft. Do to poor management, the Brewster company was never more than a cottage plane maker and never had the resources to do a complete redesign. The necessary upgrades needed to keep the plane relevant ended up increasing the weight beyond the limits of the best engines that would fit in it. It's sad because the Brewster was an excellent forward looking design and with proper management it may have acquired a less infamous reputation.
In response to Brewster's comment about the 19:1 Buffalo kill:loss ratio. I do not know if that is correct or not, but the Hellcat had that same ratio so it wouldn't be considered the best (just tied for the best) by that measure.
When used properly the F2a was a very good aircraft. Using it's strenghts it could beat the Zero, but trying to dogfight with it was asking to be shot down. Even in British hands the Buffalo achieved a better than a 2-1 record. Had the buffalo used it's diving speed like the P-40 in AVG hands, it would have had better results. Gregory Boyington stated the F2a was a fine aircraft that was very manuverable until the Navy added too much extra weight to it. The Finns proved that in the hands of an experienced pilot, that it was a very formidable weapon.
the buff is a beautiful aircraft. its failure in combat was due to many factors, add ons which caused it to be overweight, poor piolt training, failure to correct maintainence problems, very poor combat tactics. The Finns however flew an earlier version of the buff which was lighter and faster. Their maintainence people also quickly resloved the machanical problems which plagued the engines. the finns achieved a kill ratio of well over 19 to 1 against the russians who flew hurricanes, spitfires and p40s just to name a few. the marines took a terrible beating at midway flying the buffalo. they flew the overweight f2a3 which was never a match for the type 0. further the tactics used were poorly thought out and the piolts were not well trained in the buff.
Terminal dive was 575 mph! No wonder it made some aces against the Ki 43 in China and the I-16 et al in Finland if they were smarter than the average Buffalo pilot.
Actually, I believe that the old barrel with wings holds the record as having the highest kill to loss ratio in World War 2, something like 19:1 when used by the Finns against the Soviets. I understand they had an older, lighter model (no armour slapped all over it without an increase in power) and was actually very popular with its pilots there.
The 5 planes you can't account for were never built. The F2A-1's were diverted to foreign countries, because Brewster had convinced the USN that the F2A-2 was a "better" airplane, so the order was changed, to be completed with -2's and, eventually, -3's.
