Which would be rarer?

[Snake45]

On a related topic, how many "rarest" warbirds can dance on the head of a pin?

[SaxMan]

Well, if you're going to call a plane "Winner" or "Loser" based on combat experience, why, then would there be such an effort to recover a TBD? They were, hands down, a failure in combat. On the other hand, the valor of those who flew them because no other plane was available in quantity (save a handful of TBFs) is without question, and recovering / restoring one is certainly a worthy cause. Why shouldn't the same apply to the F2A? Was the Marine flyers' sacrifice any less than those of the Navy torpedo squadrons?

Perhaps the most often overlooked role that the F2A played in the war effort was that of a stateside trainer. At a time when every available F4F was being send to the Pacific Navy and Marine squadrons, the Navy needed a good advanced fighter trainer to give their new pilots experience handling a single engine fighter. In this role the F2A performed marvelously, and the results can be seen with the fighter squadrons that went into action in the Fall of 1942 through the spring of 1943. It was the new and replacement pilots who ended up winning the Pacific War. The Americans made good on their losses, not only with more pilots, but better trained pilots. The F2A was part of that equation initially, at least until the F4Fs became available to the training squadrons in quantity. The Japanese training pipeline was much thinner and could not keep up.

[JohnB]

It's all pixie dust vs. unicorns.

[Scooby]

You can state all the facts all you want, but at the end of the day, the a/c that performs, wins. Never mind its place in history, it's a "winner". The XB-70 set many speed records: WINNER! Most people don't even have any knowledge that there WAS a Russo-Finnish War, and it's too late to teach them about it now. On top of being a "loser", the F2A doesn't have any aesthetic appeal, either. It's a butt-ugly design from a mismanaged company. They have nothing to get excited about. There won't be a stampede toward it at Oshkosh, unless there's a P-51D parked behind it! It's a plane no one cares about, not then, and certainly not now. People vote with their feet.

Of twenty F2A-3's defending the island during the Battle of Midway, , the U.S.M.C lost thirteen pilots and aircraft, in its only combat with U.S. forces.
They did manage to account for three Vals, a Zero, and a Kate.

Spitfires and Hurricanes had constant-speed metal props in time for the Battle of Britain (again, winners), 1 1/2 yrs before Pearl Harbor.

The Buffalo went into production and also went into combat, clearly it was a winner.

The XB-70 didn't go into production. Clearly it failed during testing. I won't call it a loser though.

A Buffalo would be a huge attraction if it made an appearance at Oshkosh. Bigger than any P-51D or other exotic aircraft which exists in greater numbers.

[Elwyn]

Thanks for all the responses. I almost didn't post the question because i thought it might be too silly, but it has brought out a lot of interesting discussion and ideas.

[Snake45]

The XB-70 didn't go into production. Clearly it failed during testing.

It failed because someone drove another airplane into it? Wow, tough room.

[sandiego89]

I'd bet that if a flyable Brewster Buffalo were to show up at Oshkosh, it would be the hit of the warbirds!

And if an XB-70 showed up at Oshkosh, it would be the hit of the decade!

The XB-70 didn't go into production. Clearly it failed during testing.

It failed because someone drove another airplane into it? Wow, tough room.

I don't think that post is referring to the crash, rather the failure to win a production order- which was due to many reasons.

[sandiego89]

I have a soft spot for sole survivors, with the Arado-234 being my "favorite" that I have seen and pretty rare with only a few hundred produced, and even fewer entering service. It is great to be near the Axis line up at Smithsonian UH and see 4-5 sole survivors in one glance.

HK-1 Hercules (Spruce Goose) is another- 1 of 1

[lmritger]

I was told there would be no math.

Also, I hope to God this "Tomahawk" guy doesn't actually work in the aviation history field. Only the winners count? Really? What the he||, when did Blake from "Glengarry Glen Ross" start posting over here? That's some kind of jacked-up perspective. Any museum or organization which only tailors their displays to cater to the low-level knowledge of the general public isn't a museum at all, it's an entertainment venue. Museums and other such educational institutions exist to TEACH. They're not just there to celebrate the winners, they're there to bring attention to all sides of a particular story.

And since we're talking about rare aircraft, nobody's mentioned the Fw 189 still pending restoration... oh wait, that's not a "winner", nobody cares, right? </sarcasm>

Lynn

[Russ Matthews]

[TBDs] were, hands down, a failure in combat.

I suspect LCDR Lem Massey and the men of VT-6 who took the fight to the enemy in their TBDs at Kwajalein would disagree.



As would the Devastator crews of VT-5 who crossed the Owen-Stanley range to attack Lae-Slamua.



And the same most definitely goes for members of VT-2 and their part in successfully sinking the Imperial Japanese carrier Shoho at Coral Sea while flying Douglas torpedo bombers ...

[gemmer]

I'm always amazed how the the deficiences of some of our early WWII aircraft can be spun toward the positive using the excuse of poor pilot training, outnumbered, etc.
The F2A as fielded against the Japanese was a dog, as testified to by RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, USMC, and Dutch pilots.

Duane

[SaxMan]

Point taken, TBDude. I stand corrected.

The main point I was trying to illustrate was that whether a design was a "winner" or "loser" based on its combat record has no bearing upon the valor of the pilots who flew them. I think almost everyone here would be in agreement with that statement.

I'm hard pressed to think of any plane that was such an abject failure that its preservation would not be worth it.

[SaxMan]

I'm always amazed how the the deficiences of some of our early WWII aircraft can be spun toward the positive using the excuse of poor pilot training, outnumbered, etc.
The F2A as fielded against the Japanese was a dog, as testified to by RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, USMC, and Dutch pilots.

Duane

I think training and numbers are certainly factors. The best analogy is the A-24 versus the SBD. In AAF service, the A-24 was not successful. It was considered too slow, too unprotected and carried too light of a load. Yet, that same plane in USN service proved to be very successful. The difference between the AAF and USN was the training and operational doctrine.

The problem with the Buffalo versus the Japanese was the same problem all fighters had initially when facing the Zero in the closing days of 1941: The Allied pilots were trying to dogfight the Zero, which was nearly impossible. In those opening days of the Pacific War, only Claire Chennault seemed to have understood, that you had to develop tactics that took advantage of your aircraft's strengths. Later Jimmy Thatch came up with very effective tactics for the Wildcat. Had the Buffalo pilots adopted Chennault's or Thatch's tactics, while the outcome may not have changed, they certainly would have taken a bigger bite out of the Japanese than they did.

[Nathan]

TBD's also bombed the Gilberts and Marshall's in early 1942, along with bombing Wake Island.

The SBD was the most shot down U.S. type in 1942. But that is always regarded as one of the best planes of ww2. So bad remarks about the Brewster or TBD's really have no credibility.

[Scooby]

I'd bet that if a flyable Brewster Buffalo were to show up at Oshkosh, it would be the hit of the warbirds!

And if an XB-70 showed up at Oshkosh, it would be the hit of the decade!

The XB-70 didn't go into production. Clearly it failed during testing.

It failed because someone drove another airplane into it? Wow, tough room.

I don't think that post is referring to the crash, rather the failure to win a production order- which was due to many reasons.

Correct, that is exactly what I meant. Thank-you.