The Brewster XA-32; The WORST Aircraft They Built?

[@old_guard2431]

My first thought was that Brewster was America’s Boulton-Paul. My second thought was that I was being drastically unfair to Boulton-Paul.

[@RastaSaiyaman]

Indeed, since apart from the Defiant, Boulton-Paul also produced the powered turrets for the RAF's heavies. Which served them really well. Also, let's not forget the Balliol, which also was a well-made and liked plane.

[@morteforte7033]

And though the defiant eventually failed as a day fighter it made up for it by being a decent night fighter.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

It looks like something 12 year old me would draw if trying to draw an F4F Wildcat from memory after seeing it just once.

[@Jim-Tuner]

The aircraft was in competition and trials with the F4F Wildcat. Brewster actually did better than the Wildcat in the early evaluations, but the F4F kept improving and eventually won out. But the evolution of the F4F was definately influenced by the Brewster designs.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Take a good look at the Wildcat and tell me it's better looking than the Buffalo... It's fugly from every angle - those wings. Ugh. The Buff was one of my most fondly remembered Airfix kits. It just looked right.

[@mastathrash5609]

@Offshoretomorrow I politely and certainly disssagree. It IS! But they are both chubby, jolly Critters and I like that. But given the choice, prolly pick the Buff being more likely to be land based..

[@lancerevell5979]

@@offshoretomorrow3346 The Brewster gave good service in the Finnish Airforce, once they removed the unnecessary stuff the USAAF hung on it.

[@CAP198462]

It doesn’t look that different from the P-36 or other aircraft of the time really. The biggest fault I can find is the propellor. The blades are too short and the AOA is too steep to maintain clearance with the ground.

[@joeschenk8400]

The Brewster vertical assembly building is still there in Long Island City, Queens, New York. One of my neighbors worked there before being drafted into the army in WWII. The building is supposedly office space for Jet Blue Airlines. Thanks for the post!

[@Theonixco]

I haven't read the history of the company, but an era when many Aviation companies headquartered their factories out in the midwest for obvious reasons. Why did they locate their factory building in the middle of one of the largest cities in the world a the time?

[@robg9236]

@@Theonixco You can't get good pizza in the Midwest.

[@chonqmonk]

@@robg9236 That's a fact!

[@Theonixco]

@@robg9236 Well apparently you can't make good planes in New York either, so I guess its a fair trade.

[@jamesmaas1268]

The Jet Blue Building was originally the Brewster Building in Long Island City, but it was for the Brewster CAR company (LIC was the original "Detroit' for American car companies). The Brewster Aeronautical Corp. leased the top floor of the Brewster Building to build the prototype XSBA dive bomber (later built by the Navy as the SBN) and the the prototype XF2A-1. When Brewster Aeronautical got the contract for the F2A-1, they purchased and moved to the Pierce-Arrow Building which was four stories high and required subcomponents to be moved up and down by freight elevator. In 1940 they also leased the Ford Building across the street. The reason for the urban aircraft factory? A concentrated work force, and the expectation of a manageable workload. When it became obvious that the US was going to war, Brewster Aeronautical got the government to build a suburban plant in Pennsylvania, outside Philadelphia.

[@newman977]

"A wallowing hippo" ..one of the best lines I've ever heard.

[@orwellboy1958]

I think I used to date her.

[@TheAnxiousAardvark]

@@orwellboy1958 LOL. How does that saying go? "The bigger the cushion, the better the pushing?"

[@nonamesplease6288]

Before getting into aircraft construction, Brewster was a high quality coach builder. Their work on luxury horse drawn carriages and early automobiles was second to none. Maybe they should have stuck to their ground game.

[@Jim-Tuner]

Brewster was also a reliable supplier of aircraft components. The team they hired to design aircraft was also pretty good. Where they went wrong was in convincing themselves that they could mass produce aircraft.

[@K1W1fly]

I understand that Brewster had a lot of problems on the Bermuda project with loose items left in the aircraft structure. Instructed to do something about it, they built an enormous rig for turning the aircraft upside down and shaking it at different angles to shift anything left inside. Normal manufacturers would have done something about FOD discipline on the assembly lines...

[@jamessimms415]

Sounds a lot like Detroit Assembly Lines back in the day

[@Jim-Tuner]

Well. Part of what was going on was that the old corrupt management had been pushed out and the government was trying to run things themselves. Its somewhat suspected that some of the labor problems were caused by the executives who had been pushed out.

[@Surrlibrumm]

Best fighter plane in respect of the kill ratio in WWII is and was the Brewster 239 in finnish hands. Kill ratio over the whole war ... 33 : 1, .... kill ratio in 1941 (fighting the planes it was designed to fight with) 62 : 1. The F2A "Buffalo" was a complete different airplane. The Brewster 239 was the plane Brewster designed and had excellent handling characteristics. In fact so well, that the Finns called them "Taivaan Helmi" ("Sky Pearls" in english). The american Brewster F2A was an airplane that was buildt, after a "comitee of experts" insitet of several "improvements" which made it a sluggish pig.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

It also had a good reputation with the dutch east indies. A brit pilot who had a chance to fly it after his own buffalo reckoned it a vastly better aircraft.

[@jackschulte6185]

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters It seems that a large determining factor was the combat loading of the Buffalo. Allied operators such as the Dutch and Aussies, in recognition of the much lighter weight of the Japanese fighters they were coming up against, often ditched the armor protection originally fitted to some models. The weight of the armor, combined with the navalized landing gear, structural reinforcement, and larger M2 Brownings fitted to USN Buffalos led to a sluggish aircraft in US service. Too bad this seems to be the side of the aircraft that is remembered. I would love to see a video on this aircraft, assessing it based on both its merits and vices. Very few people mention more than its supposedly abysmal performace (Military History Visualized's video is the only fair reporting of the Buffalo I think I've ever seen).

[@ftargr]

its all about the markings and camo selection obviously

[@eze8970]

@@jackschulte6185 Another thing could be the tactics, RAF flyers coming out from Britain were taught dogfighting was the best tactic (which had worked in the Battle of Britain, when they had the more manoeuvrable aircraft), but this didn't work against the more nimble Japanese fighters, who also had air superiority quickly, didn't have to worry about a British radar chain, & with the initiative, could dictate the combat.

[@johnosbourn4312]

Actually, the Brewster F3A-1 Corsair saw frontline service with the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm as the Corsair Mark-4.

[@alantoon5708]

And a freshly restored one recently made its' first flight.

[@martindice5424]

Excellent presentation mate - as always. How the hell the Finns managed to get results from the Buffalo is a subject of immense wonder to me. No other poor bastard who flew that dumpy disaster managed this feat….

[@HrothgarHeavenlight]

Brewster Buffalo is actually not bad aircraft. Outside eventual problem with quality of aircraft itself. Brewster Buccaneer though...

[@Sacto1654]

Well, proper use of tactics and Finnish mechanics figuring out how to get better reliability out of the engines.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, In my "Personal Aeroplanology..." Playlist, I have a Video about the Buffalo's worst variant, "World's Worst Fighter Aircraft ; The 1942 RAAF Brewster Buffalo...!" as well as, "World's Greatest Fighter Pilot...; Ulmari Juttilainan !" He was the Finn who racked up 94 witnessed confirmed Aerial Victories, 34 achieved while in Bufaloes ; and HIS AIRCRAFT WAS NEVER HIT BY GUNFIRE FROM ANY OF HIS ENEMY'S AIRCRAFT. The much-vaunted Erich Hartman was shot out of the Sky and CRASH LANDED 14 times and finally baled out of a 15th because he was outnumbered and about to be executed. 94 for 0..., versus 352 for 15. (!). However, in the Video about the RAF/RAAF versions, I do dig into specifically what-ALL was wrong with those machines - compared to the earlier, lighter, more powerful Finnish variety in which the Radios actually worked, the Guns didn't fracture their mountings when fired - jamming the Cowling Guns, whereas the Wing Guns broke loose, firing wild and unrestrained inside the Wing, severing the front Spar and cutting off the Wing from the Fuselage (!) And the Finns were not using Ammunition packed in Cosmoline Grease to meet US Navy Anti-Corrosion rules ; resulting in Grease from the Muzzle-Flashes of the Cowling Guns blowing back and congealing on the Cockpit Trandparencies - blinding the Pilot, in Combat. Truly, mate, the Finnish Buffalo was a VERY Different Beaste to the heaps of Shit which the British bought from Unkle Spam for issue to Oz, in Singapore and Malaya. The Finnish Buffaloes actually WORKED. The Pacific Buffaloes rarely ever did ; though one Kiwi, flying Buffaloes with the RAF in Malaya, used it to shoot down enough Japanese machines to become the only Pacific Buffalo Ace. In Finland, 11 pilots became Aces while flying Buffaloes, and in the Rekyavik Museum they have a Buffalo on display which, as an Airframe, has 38 Kills to it's Serial Number - while flown by 8 different pilots. That appears to be the highest scoring individual Airframe in the History of Warfare. There were about 480 Buffaloes built. Buffaloes shot down about 500 Enemy Aircraft.... The Buffalo, and the Fokker Eindekker, appear to be the ONLY Aircraft in the History of Warfare to have shot down more Enemy Aircraft than rolled off their own Production Lines. These figures rather make Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mustangs, ThunderyBolts, Messerschmidts, Fokke-Wulfs, Yaks and MiGs...; ALL look like bits of Shit on a Stick, by comparison. NONE of them shot down anything like even as much as HALF of their own Production-Run worth of Enemy Aircraft. Almost no Squadrons of Fighters, operating anything other than Buffaloes or Eindekkers, EVER managed to shoot down more Enemy Aircraft than they themselves lost or destroyed of their own - from Combat, getting lost, running out of fuel, or crashing on landing. The Brewster Buffalo was thus, simultaneously the worst, and the best, Fighter operated during WW-2. Such is Life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@Jim-Tuner]

The Finland variant of the Buffalo had alot of local modifications made to it. And they got better quality engines than others did for whatever reason. It wasn't a bad aircraft design. It was mostly a badly build aircraft.

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@Jim-Tuner G'day, Agreed... If you crave a bit more details, check out my earlier reply under this Comment's Thread. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@s1nb4d59]

One of my first models made by airfix many moons ago was the brewster buffalo,it will still remain a warm nudge in my heart even to this day 8).

[@sambrooks7510]

"A wallowing hippo" - LOL! Perfect metaphor! I would call it a superb engine mated to an abysmal airframe. And I've heard the Buffalo referred to as the "Beer Barrel". I really enjoy Ed Nash's videos, and I really appreciate the research he puts into them. Thanks, Ed!!

[@lanagro]

Been waiting for this one. Sort of the final nail in the coffin that was the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation.

[@MattVF]

A bent nail.

[@Cadadadry]

@@MattVF ... with a tendency to jump out of the coffin with vibrations.

[@geordiedog1749]

Nice one, Ed. I also heard (on Armoured Carriers’ channel) that the Grumman Martlet/Wildcat sold to the FAA was widely sabotaged at source, too.

[@FolgoreCZ]

The high-mounted wing and T-shaped tail remind me of Fairey Barracuda. Which was also a bit of a stinker, so I guess that checks out.

[@lebaillidessavoies3889]

I didn't know the corsairs they build were so poorly made that they didn't see combat....really disappointing...

[@KF99]

Reminds me a story of the Silvansky I-220 “IS” fighter and his “design team”. It was even worse failure.

[@lafeelabriel]

To be fair it *might* have been a decent plane if *someone* hadn't got the measurements catastrophically wrong, and decided to resolve it by *taking a literal saw to the propeller*

[@lafeelabriel]

Or at least that was the explanation I read on what happened with that snafu..

[@philiprufus4427]

@@lafeelabriel Briilliant engineering, sounds like some of our crowd with car engine conversions back in the 1970s. If it's in the way,chop it off b - - - - - what its there for. No wonder some fabulous creations fell apart,usually in front of the cops,who could not do anything for laughing at the folly of youth. Bit different when your high up though !

[@lafeelabriel]

@@philiprufus4427 Guess you can call it a blessing in disguise that it could barely even be persuaded to divorce from the ground then, LOL. Which is more than you can say for one of Marcell Bloch's early designs (you know, the same guy that later founded *DASSAULT* ) as that categorically refused to leave the ground

[@stephenpointon]

jeez makes the firebrand look good!!

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Damn sight prettier than the Barracuda or Blackburn Skua - not to mention the Avenger.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The individual exhaust ports on a radial engine generate useful thrust, a collector ring with twin ports is heavier and loses all the thrust because the exhaust gas exits as a cooled slow flow.

[@mrjockt]

Over half the Brewster built Corsairs, designated F3A-1 and F3A-1D, were delivered to the Royal Navy as Corsair III’s, they were never issued to front line squadrons due to the reason given in the video, badly fitting wing components that tended to detach in flight during fast manoeuvres.

[@philiprufus4427]

They were apparently supposed to be the aircover for Rodney and Renown but did not turn up. Singapore fared little better than the Battlewagons due to their intervention against the Japanese Air Force it would seem.

[@mrjockt]

@@philiprufus4427 I think you’re thinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, the ships were originally told they would have RAF fighter cover for their operation in the Indian Ocean which would have been provided by Brewster Buffalo fighters, the RN didn’t start to receive Corsairs until almost two years later.

[@thomasrotweiler]

@@philiprufus4427 Do you mean Prince of Wales and Repulse ? The Brewster Corsairs didn't arrive in the Fleet Air Arm until 1944.

[@eze8970]

@@mrjockt The Navy didn't ask for RAF cover for POW & Repulse, due to the Naval Commander in charge believing the ships could fight off any air attack (& possible inter service rivalry). As soon as the RAF knew the navy was under attack, they offered to help, but the antiquated command & communication structure took to long to approve. The RAF cover was only about 10 minutes away. Terrible waste of men's lives & 2 good ships.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

What 'components' were these?

[@kabbey30]

Brewster eventually realized their mistake. Brewster immediately made a company wide ruling that they would never hire both, blind designers and blind quality control chiefs again.

[@chuckcawthon3370]

I love your history lessons. Never heard of this plane until today.

[@billbutler335]

The Buffalo was actually a very good aircraft for its time (the mid 1930's), the pilots loved it. The problem was that they tried improving on the design just by adding stuff with no consideration to the effect of the changes on the aircraft. This effected its handling characteristics, speed and other specs. By the early 1940's it was going up against newer, better aircraft that it was never designed to fight. Several of the Finnish aces actually preferred the Buffalo over the more modern aircraft (like the Bf 109's) later in the war. The other two aircraft mentioned here were garbage, with that I agree.

[@Jim-Tuner]

The Buffalo's design evolution was impacted in big ways by the parent Brewster company (the car company) going bankrupt in 1935. The aircraft company was spun off on its own, but had very limited access to resources and capital after the main company went bankrupt.

[@rayjay2638]

Ed, I have enjoyed your many videos because of their content and accuracy but not with Brewster. The US Navy favored Brewster designs so much so, that the first offering by the company was manufactured at the Naval Aircraft factory in PA. That design was very advanced for 1936, having stressed skin, monocogue construction with cantilever wings and fully retractable landing. This at a time when the USN was still flying biplanes with wired braced wings and fabric covering. The second Brewster design to curry favor and become the US Navy first monoplane fighter was the F2A-2, an airplane 2 years more advanced then the Grumman F4F-3. with butt joined skins and full flush riveting. The total initial F2A order was for 80 aircraft, which could hardly be called mass production. I have been in the military aerospace industry for close to 45 years, and IMO we will never know the full and complete story to Brewster aircraft. North American and Lockheed had similar labor problems, and walk-out strikes, lasting weeks and requiring intervention from the armed services.

[@Jim-Tuner]

The full and complete story of Brewster is mostly known. They were an aircraft component supplier that hired some really good designers in the early 1930s. They were really innovative in the designs produced in the early days of monoplanes. But they were never set up for in-house aircraft production. They didn't even have a proper facility to produce aircraft. They had enough infrastructure to produce prototypes, but that was about it. They were originally part of the larger Brewster company that sold cars. But the aircraft company was spun off on its own when the car company went bankrupt in 1935. Their great mistake was in hiring two shady international arms dealers (Alfred and Ignacio Miranda) to sell the planes and hiring their associate (a bar owner in New York named F. William Zelcher) into a senior management position. The three were interested in getting as many deals for Brewster as possible and skimming as much money as possible off the deals. They together made 9 million dollars (before any off-books skimming) on the overseas sales of Brewster aircraft. The Mirandas were able to generate a huge number of overseas orders for Brewster aircraft. But there wasn't any kind of infrastructure to build the aircraft nor was there any money to build the infrastructure. It was a classic sales-run business where the sales guys didn't care about anything beyond getting the contracts signed and getting their commissions. The Mirandas got sent to federal prison in 1940 for arms export law violations in the 1930s. Then the Navy took the company over and kicked out the management in 1942. My opinion is that they were a great design and prototype shop up until the mid-1930s. But that they had no business actually manufacturing aircraft. People wanted to believe that it was all real because their early designs were so good. But the manufacturing side of the company was never much more than an undercapitalized aircraft parts manufacturer trying to do things it couldn't.

[@martindice5424]

All this is demonstrably true but.. The Buffalo may have been cutting edge in the mid 30s but aviation advances in this period were astonishing. Of course, the Royal Navy was lumbered with the concept that aircraft designed for naval operations would necessarily be ‘inferior’ in performance to land based aircraft. Not true if you used US designed planes. Except the Buffalo.

[@anthonysantiago1999]

The picture of the aircraft parked in the High Brush says it all. Parked to rot it seems. Another great story Sir.

[@nairbvel]

I've often wondered if someone in Brewster's management had some real dirt on someone in the USAAF and/or USN procurement divisions... This plane makes me wonder all the more. :-)

[@Itsjustme-Justme]

When you think it can't get worse than Blackburn ....

[@gregedwards5608]

I appreciate this type of report

[@jimdavis8391]

If Brewster existed now they would be manufacturing PPE.

[@womble321]

They are now called Boeing!

[@tomlobos2871]

ah brewster, who has not heard of this innovative legend in aviation, holding up its name up to today. ...oh wait a second.

[@Jim-Tuner]

Brewster started out as a aircraft component company. Then they got into aircraft design as a side-business. Their first plan design (the SBA) was built by the Navy itself rather the Brewster. Toward the later 1930s, the company hired two guys named Alfred and Ignacio Miranda to sell aircraft internationally. The Mirandas were international arms dealers who operated at the edge of the law. They sold aircraft that the company couldn't build on the front end and took money out of the company on the back end. Even in the late 1930s, they were still basically an aircraft parts manufacturer pretending to be an aircraft production company. When the war broke out, the US government treated them as if they were a serious company and flooded them with money & contracts. When they didn't meet production targets, the navy took the company over with the idea that different management could fix things. But the navy couldn't fix things either. The basic problem at Brewster was that they were a parts manufacturer with a handful of people who could design and build a good prototype, but could not mass produce aircraft.

[@HereticalKitsune]

An attacker slower than some medium bombers, oh my!

[@SanderAnderon]

the sudden chuckle I got from "...an aerodynamic cock-up" made me double-clutch on an a.m. coffee sip..., good one Ed

[@lafeelabriel]

Well, that's a clear example, if there ever was a one, of "if it looks wrong, it probably is" because that plane doesn't even *look* right.

[@sim.frischh9781]

Given the usual performance and quality, it´s a wonder Brewster planes were actually bought by the US at all. Yet i cannot deny their planes had charm and looked at least interesting, even cute.

[@jb6027]

Ed, How about a C-74 Globemaster video?

[@blockheadgreen_]

I think this thing has a certain aesthetic charm.

[@zombize23]

You're a bit of a freak, aren't you?

[@poil8351]

how do you manage to take aicraft and aircraft and build it so wings fall off when you try to fly it?

[@jacobwang7962]

The front looks remind me 0:06 / 18:50 The front looks remind me the Japanese' N1K2 SHIDEN-KAI

[@stephengardiner9867]

Actually, I like the looks of it...with some important exceptions. Having exhaust stubs exiting in the direction of the windscreen was just plain STUPID. It could have used a taller tailwheel as that portly "belly" is dangling dangerously close to the ground. The "razorback" design was being weeded out of most American single seat combat aircraft as it had become apparent that some amount of rearward visibility was a good idea, particularly since one had no rear gunner to alert you to the fact that someone was trying to really ruin your day. Wide track undercarriage was a real improvement over the Buffalo's flimsy units. It's worst failing seemed to be the fact that it was being built by a company with a lamentably poor record in just about every facet of operation. I think that another company might just have made something of this (not Curtiss, though. They were already on their own downward spiral to extinction. Just took them a few years longer...)

[@lmyrski8385]

Concerning the Brewster Corsair, I never heard the Royal Navy complaining that their Corsairs were shoddy or defective...or that they fell out of the sky, etc. Brewster built 735 Corsairs with 430 going to the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm and they seem to have survived tough sea service on Britain's carriers. As I understand it Brewster had a poor reputation and that rubbed off on the Corsairs when they built them.....and they built them behind schedule. In contrast to the Royal Navy Corsairs, the ones that remained in American hands had speed limitations placed on them and went to training units. As far as I've been told, the Corsair could be a tough plane for a novice pilot. Likely that caused a number of crashes among American planes. If anyone knows of any Royal Navy complaints, please do share them. As far as I know, the Brits were happy to have them....but maybe there's something I don't know. Maybe the Brits refused delivery of any that did not meet their standards?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Yes, I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has more info on Brit use of Brewster corsairs too! I found a source that said that they also werent used by the FAA off carriers, with only the mk.1 and .2 seeing carrier use, but I wasnt able to confirm this. Considering the number supplied, it would surprising if they were not.

[@HarborLockRoad]

Same story with the B32 Dominator, so bad, it was flown directly from the factory to the scrapyard! Not even joking here.

[@stevetournay6103]

Front three quarter view of the XA-32 on the ground is rather purposeful looking. Most other angles, though, not so much. Looks like it overate.

[@robinsonsstudios]

Breswster is the American version of Blackburn it seems (at least Blackburn had the buccaneer)

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Or Fairey: Barracuda, Battle.

[@robinsonsstudios]

@@offshoretomorrow3346 nah fairey is fine, the barracuda is ungainly but it did its job, they also made the swordfish and the firefly, both were good aircraft

[@olgreywolf9688]

I was born before WWII officially started. I saw over the years, and read stuff about the infamous "Brewster Buffalo" ... amazingly, from the first flight onwards ... the machine would have been classed as a nightmare. As a child, I read (I''m a retired, career aviator!) about the low ratings it had. As I recall, it had mostly near zero manueverabilty qualities.

[@jakobc.2558]

The Buffalo was not actualy a bad plane, it was just extremely old and outdated by the time war was declared on the U.S.. The plane did very well in Finland against early war soviet planes which is a testiment to the fact that it was at the very least a good enough design. Everything they produced after the Buffalo is indefensible though, I am afraid.

[@MattVF]

Looks a bit like a Helldiver with the good bits removed.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

A Son-of-a-Bitch third class!

[@MattVF]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 😂

[@somethingelse4878]

usaf to brewster dive bomber sales man.... so what altitude do i pull up?... pull up?

[@animaltvi9515]

Did you have to keep showing the XA32 from the side without any warning. .

[@JGCR59]

Re the F3A, the "none saw combat" thing is only true for the US, as far as I know the Royal Navy used them in combat

[@aussiviking604]

Burma

[@rutabagasteu]

Several military historians stated in ww2 books i have read said the Brewster Buffalo should never have been in combat air with the Zero.

[@bigrobnz]

I think both Hitler and Goering had shares in Brewster......it was regarded as one of their best performers......

[@nozveratu5020]

1:04 So they even sold some aircrafts to Belka.🤔

[@SoloRenegade]

the A-36 was not replaced by the P-47. the A-36 was faster and more maneuverable at low altitude, and was a better and more accurate dive bomber. A-36 production was short lived, and they started using P-47 only after they ran out of usable/repairable A-36. Even Robert S. Johnson spoke favorably of the A-36. A-36 pilots even preferred the A-36 over the P-47.

[@bobjoned3398]

The A36 wasn't intended for combat. The USAAF decided to buy the P-51, however however, the budget for fighters was totally allocated. In order to keep the North America production lines up and running, the USAAF decided to use the funds available to buy dive bombers. Remember this was early war infatuation with the Stuka, so funds had been approved for the A-24, but the Navy had dibbs on the Dauntless. The USAAF was able to shift to the A-36 Apache. In combat, it was used in ground attacks, but the dive brakes were usually wired closed.

[@SoloRenegade]

@@bobjoned3398 Yes, the A-36 was a stop gap fighter, but it 100% was intended for combat and they were all used in combat till the last plane could no longer fly. The US invented dive bombing, not the Germans, but it worked, as the SBD showed. The A-36 became the best dive bomber of WW2,a nd the only one allowed to do danger close dive bombing in support of troops in contact. The Second best dive bomber of WW2 was the F4U Corsair. The dive brakes were NEVER wired shut, this is a lie that has been refuted by Multiple experienced A-36 combat veterans. they specifically address this lie, and they flatly refute it with prejudice. Read any first hand accounts of A-36 pilots. Even Robert S. Johnson flew the A-36 at one point and had high praise for it. Many A-36 pilots Preferred the A-36 to the P-47 for ground attack, and resisted giving up their A-36 till they literally ran out of airplanes. Even the Germans that test flew the P-47 said it was a sluggish dog below 20k ft, and that they could never get one to go over 310mph at lower altitudes. Read the first hand accounts of the Germans who test flew captured allied aircraft. They didn't much care for the P-47, but they did agree it performed much better above 20k ft and dove well. But a dog at low altitude. Even a P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft, and was equally as tough an airframe as the P-47. Ever notice how no P-47s raced at Reno after the war?

[@dovepond]

Did you know the Brewster factory was the old Rolls Royce America plant?

[@shawns0762]

If you are going to make an aircraft with wide track landing gear, it's dumb to make the wings mid-mounted because the landing gear has to be longer and heavier

[@kittyhawk9707]

The Buffalo was a pretty good aircraft .. but it's problem was that it was built to exact specification that the US airforce requested .. that it fulfilled perfectly .. but because of that it had very little room for modifications .. The initial models where very good planes ..but as it gained weight/extra equipment it couldn't keep up .. Also it was up against the ZERO .. You cannot blame the plane for not being able to cope with the A6m .. Not many could initially .. Hurricanes , P40's and Spits found it hard going .. The Buffalo .. was just behind the times , bit outdated .. but hey most of mid/late 30's designs found themselves in the same position .. The P36 and CW21 Demon weren't THAT spectacular facing the same opposition as the Buffalo in the pacific theatre ..

[@jfu5222]

I knew that Brewster had it's critics, however, this video makes their faults seem almost criminal!

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Good grief! What was Brewster thinking designing and building this thing? Looks like something a Zero would have difficulty shooting down though!

[@mkendallpk4321]

My guess is that Brewster was the American version of Blackburn (British). Both made bad aircraft and their names started with the letter B.

[@GB_GeorgiaF]

Not really, as Blackburn could make good aircraft, unlike Brewster.

[@AnthonyEvelyn]

Well they were B tech aircraft companies...

[@Jim-Tuner]

Brewster was really an aircraft component company. But they hired a couple good designers and produced some decent prototypes that did well in military contract competitions. But the company wasn't set up to produce aircraft. They didn't have the workforce or even a factory at which they could mass produce aircraft. Brewster also hired a couple of really shady salesmen who had great connections overseas. They got the company contracts but they oversold what Brewster could do and also did alot of bad things. What the US Navy should have done was take the Brewster designs and have them produced by someone else. Brewster was just not a company organized for mass production of aircraft.

[@thearmourboy3254]

Just blows my mind how anyone in that company couldn't see what was being built by other companies ( especially considering they were building those themselves) and think, hey maybe we should stop making every aircraft we produce look like a sow without legs.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Not kidding about the size -- 4.5 feet longer and wider, and 3500 pounds heavier empty, than the P-47, with the same engine.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

But it's a bomber, not a fighter.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@offshoretomorrow3346 What's that got to do with it? A P-47 could carry as much bombload. "Oh but it's a fighter, not a bomber, you can't make that comparison!"

[@TK421-53]

The Buffalo and Buccaneer were not bad airplanes. The F2A Buffalo was handicapped as a Navy fighter because of the additional equipment and an engine that did not have enough horsepower to deal with that additional weight. The US had to adapt to fighting the Japanese AND they had a better fighter already in production with the F4F Wildcat. The Wildcat was a better carrier fighter. The Finnish, Dutch and British Brewsters (model 239 and 339) were not hampered by the additional weight and generally liked by their pilots. We should not take the Finnish claims at face value, but it was an effective type until eventually replaced (and opposed) by superior aircraft. I’ve read pilot accounts that compare the performance to that of Hurricanes etc. It is all about context. The Buccaneer was not a bad aircraft, you can read British FAA test reports that are favorable. You can’t really claim that the Swordfish was superior, although it did continue to operate in the FAA. I’ve learned to be careful with tags like worst aircraft etc. Again all about context, time, circumstances, politics etc.

[@rickb1973]

Its a real shame to think about the wasted man-hours of labor and squandered strategic construction materials....ugh.

[@alessiodecarolis]

It's incredible how long such a stinker of producer was able to survive in a strong competitive world as aircrafts ' making, expecially given their competitors ' superior quality. They weren't capable to build a SINGLE successful model, or also build on licence others producers' ones!

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Bigger than the Jug, slower than a tug.

[@wape1]

Anybody else get *Kawanishi N1K-J Shiden* (the early, mid-winged variant) vibes from this thing? 🤔

[@raptormesh]

How is this thing so slow, with that 2000hp engine??

[@underworldguardian704]

The XA-32 was literally a flying brick. 😂

[@OscarReyes-ud4vz]

Oboy! Brewster was constantly from bad to worse! And that QC! I now wonder why they didn't go broke during WWII!

[@barnykirashi]

Blackburn and Brewster were fighting for who makes the worst aircraft into service FR.

[@icewaterslim7260]

Brewster F4Us were bad enough but a Brewster designed fighter that Brewster built would be the Brewster Buffalo. I'm still trying to find an aerial kill of any Japanese fighter by a Brewster Buffalo, in Burma, Malaya or wherever they were used by anybody. There's got to be an F2A victory somewhere that some savvy Brit sneaked up on some green pilot in a Nate or Claude and shot the bastard down before he could wake up . . . but so far I haven't found it..

[@juancarloscuaocastellanos8813]

I agree with you. Somewere, there has to be a register of an aerial kill of the Brewster Buffalo. But, I think that It wasn't told by the survivors. In fact, I imagine something like this: "Kobayashi-san died during the mission, Comander-san." "And he was killed by... this thing! Yamamoto-san, don't tell everyone about this. If the family or the General ask, tell them that It was done by a bomber, or other kind of plane. Kobayashi-san deserve to be remembered as someone who fought and died as a warrior, not killed by this piece of shit!"

[@icewaterslim7260]

@@juancarloscuaocastellanos8813 lol luv it

[@Jim-Tuner]

There is a whole book on the topic. See: Brewster F2A Buffalo Aces of World War 2 By Kari Stenman, Andrew Thomas · 2013 The victories were what you speculated. Bad Japanese pilots in bad aircraft at the very beginning of the war.

[@tommytwotacos8106]

Someone needs to turn the story of Brewster into a miniseries

[@tommytwotacos8106]

The tag line would say: As Americans it's in our nature to root for the scrappy underdog to succeed. Sometimes, however, underdogs ended up at the bottom for some pretty good reasons.

[@tommytwotacos8106]

It would probably be a good idea to have the story of the P-38 and the Roc, and The Airicobra as well to help break up the parts of the story and provide context for the Brswster story

[@Machia52612]

Finland used the (F2A Buffalo) with good success.

[@micodyerski1621]

That looks like a drunk at the bar described a P-47 to a drunk Brewster engineer and he drew it on a napkin to get this 🔝.

[@Philistine47]

It really is astonishing just HOW bad Brewster was. It's also a mark of just how desperate basically every Western air arm was for modern aircraft from 1939-ish to 1942-ish, that they KEPT placing orders with Brewster even after the company's problems had become obvious.

[@MrOlgrumpy]

Ah,greed,corruption,mismanagement,this could be applied many governments today !!

[@patrickradcliffe3837]

That thick wing did it no favors.

[@comentedonakeyboard]

The, absurd, setup of Brewsters factory sounds as if designer by Hermann Göring.

[@ftargr]

for me, its the buffalo. i just like it bros

[@aaronlopez492]

The Brewster Buffalo was certainly bad but the German war machine was so devastated by the allied bombing that due to shortages they built the Heinkel He-162. A coffin, oops.... I mean jet "fighter" made out of plywood and glue with strap-on jet engines. with minimal armor. Ed my entry to the worst "fighter"ever built. Thank you.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

I'd say that's a good call

[@Sacto1654]

But yet, after the war test pilots like the legendary Eric Brown said the He 152 actually had quite good handling characteristics with a competent pilot (and Brown was extremely competent to start with).

[@suzi_mai]

Also not very good if you had to leave the aircraft in a hurry with the engine right over your head.

[@pastorrich7436]

When the spade is a spade...

[@MartinCHorowitz]

The Buffalo provided decent service to the fins, but Brewster's design and manufacturing methodology was flawed.

[@richardferg6455]

Chunky Monkey popped into my head when seeing the XA-32. If I had to fly it, that's what I'd name it.

[@davidbocquelet-dbodesign]

Well done, did not knew about this last bird (or turkey). The mediocrity of this company would be worthy of a comedy movie like "pentagon papers"

[@mattperson7293]

It's glorious!

[@brianedwards7142]

If that flash of red @ 8.00 was meant to be subliminal advertising it failed both ways because I noticed it and don't have a sudden desire to buy laundry powder. 😉

[@robertspeicher5047]

Not arguing. But they built a model that won over the Grumman EARLY wildcat. Orders bu Navy.

[@noname2490]

So they managed to use the same engine as the P47 and got no speed from it? They might have been idiots

[@Sublette217]

The Truman Committee singled out the Buccaneer as one of the absolutely WORST designs that actually made it into production.

[@jarigustafsson7620]

When a plane is larger then a P-47 you probably need a bigger engine or two.

[@blue387]

All Brewster aircraft look like they stuck a bunch of wings and an engine on a beer barrel

[@msgfrmdaactionman3000]

Well, it was a New York City company, so FDR and his like was cool with it.

[@memonk11]

It's not 55 miles away. Maybe 25.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

Heavier, slower, shorter ranged.. the ANTI Zero

[@sealove79able]

anti anti zero

[@TK_FHW]

It's a shame Brewster was how it was, the things a giant bus, but it honestly looks cool

[@cantrell0817]

No doubt that company was a stressful place to work. Clearly it had ineot management.

[@survivaloptions4999]

And because I'm not seeing an official name for the "aircraft" it shall henceforth and forever be known as XA-32 Wallowing Hippo. Someone go edit the Wikipedia page.

[@tHeWasTeDYouTh]

I wish the video went over the Nazi sympathizer part but it just mentions it at the start

[@Knuck_Knucks]

Yikes! 😬

[@stug41]

Ive gotta speak on behalf of my favorite chonkster, the buffalo. It us most certainly not the worst fighter of the war. It was chosen over the f4f at first because it at the time better met the requirements, and outside of that it had competitive performance to other designs of its time. The French, British, and Dutch, all ordered them deliberately and the Dutch had success with them. The French ones ended up sitting in the caribbean, then mysteriously blew up. The British ones went to the Finns and the Finns used them well against superior midwar aircraft. Brewster did greatly overpromise on how many they could deliver, their sales people were like used car salesmen. The navy contract was constantly delayed for foreign deliveries, then the navy took the f4f instead, which quickly developed in to a superior aircraft. Yay duel stage multigeared intercooled supercharging!

[@Jim-Tuner]

Their sales people were literal criminals. They were two mexican arms traders who were like bad guys out of a James Bond movie.