Brewster Buffalo

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:31 pm

RMAllnutt wrote:

Hi Chris... this has been well covered in the past. In a nutshell, Gary Villiard recovered it. Wanted millions for it. Took many years before eventually the Navy traded some P2V's for it (I believe 3).

Three P-3 Orions traded to a dubious middleman Russian outfit that GV had hooked up with. :wink:

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:39 pm

Nathan wrote:

There is no one more in this world that would love to see a Buffalo and in U.S. markings then me. But given that this is a different model and has actual combat kills and history I can't see why no one wouldn't want the Finns to have it and to keep it in original condition. :?:

Because Amigo..There ain't none left which are easy to get to. It was the "only game in town" and the Navy
had the resources which came closest to the asking price. A huge investment on the USN's part.

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:43 pm

DaveM2 wrote:

And of course the Finns ( including the daughter of the Pekuri) and the Russians who put up a large amount of time and money in 'partnership' were 'stiffed' along the way...as Jack said a real shambles.
Great to see the NMNA do the right thing and at least loan it out.

Dave

Important details in this mess which bears remembering. Yup glad to see the USN softened on the issue with the Finn's. :wink:

Steve · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:06 pm

I thought the Fins actually own the plane having BOUGHT it. now the Navy wants it. Basically, the Navy is claiming rights to a Buffalo OWNED by the Fins. A reverse in Navy policy. They never had ownership in it. There are still a few off Midway but why bother when you can just CLAIM one on land.

correct me if this is wrong

Thanks
Steve

Nathan · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 6:10 pm

Steve wrote:

I thought the Fins actually own the plane having BOUGHT it. now the Navy wants it. Basically, the Navy is claiming rights to a Buffalo OWNED by the Fins. A reverse in Navy policy. They never had ownership in it. There are still a few off Midway but why bother when you can just CLAIM one on land.

correct me if this is wrong

Thanks
Steve

I dont understand why the Navy wanted it. It has no USN history to it. :?:

Would it have been kept in Finnish markings or would it have gotten a USN paint job?

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:05 pm

[quote="Nathan I dont understand why the Navy wanted it. It has no USN history to it. :?:

Would it have been kept in Finnish markings or would it have gotten a USN paint job?[/quote]

Of the 44 Brewster Model 239s that the Finns acquired 38 of them came from the first group of F2A-1s that were delivered to the USN. Six of them were converted to Model 239 from an order of Model 339s ordered by Belgium. I don't know where BW-372 falls in those groups but the odds are that it flew first in USN.

The Finns modified thier Model 239s to something akin the F2A-2 by adding locally made armor plate and coating the outside of the fuel tanks with some kind of self sealing material. They also removed the telescopic gunsight in favor of a reflecting sight (probably a German REVI). Most of the 239s had the .30 caliber gun in the fuselage replaced with a .50 caliber giving the aircraft four .50 cals.

Before the Navy loaned BW-372 to the Finns they made some noise about leaving it in Finnish colors because of its combat history.

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:11 pm

all the b.s. aside......... bottom line it looks great. we should all be thankful!!!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:13 pm

Steve wrote:

I thought the Fins actually own the plane having BOUGHT it. now the Navy wants it. Basically, the Navy is claiming rights to a Buffalo OWNED by the Fins. A reverse in Navy policy. They never had ownership in it. There are still a few off Midway but why bother when you can just CLAIM one on land.

correct me if this is wrong

Thanks
Steve

Yeah you are right, the Navy should just put it back. :roll:

John Dupre · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:24 pm

RMAllnutt wrote:

[
Chris... I think it was a case of ownership issues. The Fins claimed that they owned BW372, having bought it in the first place. The US Navy has done this or tried to do this on a number of occasions themselves. Having set the precedent, it would have been a little tricky to not at least pay some attention to the Fins. I'm not sure how I feel about that of course... given that it was essentially discarded as wrecked, and would surely have been scrapped had she been found on the surface in earlier times. Just one of those things I guess...

Cheers,
Richard

And the Finns really did pay for it since they paid the US for all of the equipment it bought even paying Pratt and Whitney license fees for Swedish copies of the R 1535 that the Swedes built without a license!

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:30 pm

Steve wrote:

I thought the Fins actually own the plane having BOUGHT it. now the Navy wants it. Basically, the Navy is claiming rights to a Buffalo OWNED by the Fins. A reverse in Navy policy. They never had ownership in it. There are still a few off Midway but why bother when you can just CLAIM one on land.

correct me if this is wrong

Thanks
Steve

Nope the Buff was actually in a disputed territory, Karelia IIRC, which the Russians now control since the war.

Really guys, Old Iron gave you an excellent reference for the history of this recovery with most if not all of the twists and
turns. Take the time to read it...
www.warbirdforum.com/bw372.htm

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:45 pm

Nathan wrote:

I dont understand why the Navy wanted it. It has no USN history to it. :?:

Would it have been kept in Finnish markings or would it have gotten a USN paint job?

Again Nathan, it was/is the last easily attainable Buffalo. There are none known other than in the ocean.
One I know of referred to on Dan Ford's site, fell off a carrier during an exercise off San Diego, the Midway
birds, and the Gulf of Finland. The Gulf of Finland was one of the early sites Villiard considered searching but
the problem is...Where do you start?? There are hundreds of wrecks there.

There is Navy paint on the bird IIRC, but it was never delivered. There was talk early of it being restored to
reresent Navy Buffs, but fortunately it appears she'll retain her wartime honors and be displayed as deserved.

Russ Matthews · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:59 pm

Nathan wrote:

...So sure restore the bloody thing and "fool" everyone in thinking its a F2A but I will know otherwise. :roll:

Actually, NMNA never had any intention of restoring BW 372 as a US Navy F2A. There used to be a an open letter on the museum website in which director Rasmussen discussed the plane and stated that in recognition of its great historic significance it was to be conserved in its original Finnish markings. I suppose, with the aircraft now in Finland, there was no longer any reason to leave the letter on the site...

DaveM2 · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:14 pm

TBDude wrote:

Nathan wrote:

...So sure restore the bloody thing and "fool" everyone in thinking its a F2A but I will know otherwise. :roll:

Actually, NMNA never had any intention of restoring BW 372 as a US Navy F2A. There used to be a an open letter on the museum website in which director Rasmussen discussed the plane and stated that in recognition of its great historic significance it was to be conserved in its original Finnish markings. I suppose, with the aircraft now in Finland, there was no longer any reason to leave the letter on the site...

Rasmussen is no fool, and has a keen sense of history- kudos to him

Dave

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:30 pm

TBDude wrote:

Nathan wrote:

...So sure restore the bloody thing and "fool" everyone in thinking its a F2A but I will know otherwise. :roll:

Actually, NMNA never had any intention of restoring BW 372 as a US Navy F2A. There used to be a an open letter on the museum website in which director Rasmussen discussed the plane and stated that in recognition of its great historic significance it was to be conserved in its original Finnish markings. I suppose, with the aircraft now in Finland, there was no longer any reason to leave the letter on the site...

Ahhh..Thanks TBDude..I wasnt sure. And I'm not sure about the Navy paint underneath(the wings,IIRC)..tho it
may have been yellow chromate. :roll:

The idea was to steer 'em toward a pretty well documented progression of the events in Mr. Ford's site before
the speculation snowballed...as well as a stockpile of web Buffalo data. Hope I didn't create more confusion? :roll:

Steve · **Posted:** Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:52 pm

Airnutz thanks for the link explains alot.

and no I don't think the Navy needs to put it back, just not claim what belongs to another countries history.

Steve

Warbird Information Exchange

Brewster Buffalo

Who is online