Which would be rarer?

[AURktman]

Rarity is a subjective idea. It boils down to what someone is willing to pay for them as to their monetary value. Historical and sentimental value is subjective and varies from person to person just as the monetary value does. A plane may have a massive amount of sentimental value but be of little monetary value because there were a bunch produced and many remaining.

Monetary value: XB-70. The inherent value of the materials and engineering in the aircraft make it extremely valuable.
Historical value: Pres. G.H.W.B's Avenger. A bunch still flying/restored, but his was the only one flown by a president.
Sentimental value: Most pilots' or kids first aircraft, YMMV.


What would I be willing to pay for the XB-70? Nothing really since it is perfect right where it is at.
What would I be willing to pay for Chennault's personal plane? A whole lot more than for the XB-70.
What would I be willing to pay for the first plane I ever flew on in 1982, the former N7341F/N976UA/YV502T, a Frontier-United-Venezolea B732 (which is still flying), even more.

Now that I have said far more than anyone wants to read, I will return to my cave.

[JohnB]

And I won't stand idly by while you try to re-write history.

Who are you addressing?

If you're addressing me, my comment was trying to put the Buffalo (and other lesser aircraft of the period) into context.

You seem to be worked up over real-or imagined-corruption.
The obvious fact is, not every aircraft will be a technological wonder...for reasons that have nothing to do with corruption.
If you maintain every aircraft of less quality of the "stars" of WWII was purchased because of graft, then you probably are a troll and not a serious student of aviation history.

And if you think there is still bribery going on, then tell us, name names...and use your real name instead hiding behind a pen-name.

[Nathan]

There are, however, people like me who don't want to see the real history lesson of Brewster swept under the rug.

Who the heck is sweeping the "real" history of the Buffalo under the rug? Who is even changing it? Who cares about how the company managed the dang business. The fact remained that the Buffalo did see combat. Regardless how many times that was. No one is saying the Buffalo was a fantastic airplane. I know it was obsolete by time it saw action at Midway. But it was there, people flew it, people died in it. It is a subject of interest because of that, and it is a part of U.S. aviation history-That makes it important.

You should not criticize people for liking a airplane you don't like.

Last edited by Nathan on Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[Nathan]

- Places like wake and midway us forces fought with what they had. This conjures up fighting spirit, courage, etc. the context is important.
.

100% right!

[Tomahawk]

JohnB, I was not addressing you personally. There seems to be this movement to over-compensate for the role of these types of a/c in the war. Why not try to save more of the a/c that did the bulk of the real fighting? Early model P-38's, P-39's, P-40's, & F4F's (I'm only discussing fighters here, as the thread was about F2A's). The first critical year of the war, these are the planes that stopped the Japanese advance in the Pacific, and (along with Hurricanes & a few Spitfires) pushed the Germans out of Africa. P-47's and F4U's did not enter combat until the spring 1943, with P-51's and F6F's coming in the fall of 1943. In terms of what they accomplished, they are under-valued and under-represented in the warbird world. When we see examples of all four of these aircraft in every museum, then we can talk about the others (and I don't mean the later, more readily-available types). There are four P-39D's on the bottom of Clear Lake in northern California that would be a good place to start, if you want to recover and restore a/c. There are the five P-38F's in Greenland, etc. Scratch-building an F2A instead seems ludicrous.

Yes, I have a seriously bad attitude when it comes to the corrupt U.S. procurement system and the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned us about it, and yet nothing of any significance has ever been done about it. Just after the Brewster fiasco, there was a huge scandal at Wright concerning non-compliant engine certification. Someone at General Electric created numbers out of thin air while doing ressearch on turbos in 1918, and in doing so, convinced the USAAC to put turbos on their aircraft. This fallacy led directly to all sorts of problems later on, directly affecting the performance of our a/c at the beginning of WWII. If you think this is ancient history, and doesn't continue to this day, you are either ingnorant or a fool. This is not the topic of this thread, but if someone wants to start one, we can have a VERY lengthy thread on this issue.

[Mark Allen M]

I remember when I first started playing around on this wacky forum. A combination of lack of experience with posting on forums and my own passionate feelings about old airplanes led to a few lively debates, among other things. I have since learned that Internet forums simply do not have the capacity to handle differences in adamant opinions without turning into insults back and forth because of some people take others opinions too personally. Most who frequent these forums have learned to stay out of potential heated debates because they have seen where they usually lead, which are usually bound to be locked and/or members being banned etc. Not worth it anymore IMO. Might be best to keep those opinions to yourself as opposed to Internet forums.

Tomahawk I think you've handled yourself relatively well in this thread and you've seen responses to your posts go in all directions from certain levels of acceptance to scorn. It happens here quite often unfortunately.

FWIW You remind me of ... me Lol

Today's 2 cents worth.

[Scooby]

There are, however, people like me who don't want to see the real history lesson of Brewster swept under the rug.

Who the heck is sweeping the "real" history of the Buffalo under the rug? Who is even changing it? Who cares about how the company managed the dang business. The fact remained that the Buffalo did see combat. Regardless how many times that was. No one is saying the Buffalo was a fantastic airplane. I know it was obsolete by time it saw action at Midway. But it was there, people flew it, people died in it. It is a subject of interest because of that, and it is a part of U.S. aviation history-That makes it important.

You should not criticize people for liking a airplane you don't like.

Exactly, also forgotten is the obsolete Buffalo's were used in training command so that newer aircraft could go into combat. It was still a fast mover when compared to Stearman's for new naval aviators.It was a design that was improved upon.

[Scooby]

Yes, I have a seriously bad attitude when it comes to the corrupt U.S. procurement system and the military-industrial complex.

Do you really think any government official intentional procures any military hardware with the intent to not safeguard US military members?

Yes, mistakes are made but I am certain that during WWII the best possible equipment was being used and developed. The US didn't have much of a choice when they had to go to war with the Buffalo, it was already obsolete and there was nothing superior in the inventory.

[SaxMan]

Tomahawk - I would disagree with you on one point with your logic. It appears you assume that if someone went through the fuss of restoring a Buffalo, it would come at the expense of another plane not being saved or restored. I would disagree with that. Warbirds are not a zero-sum game. One plane doesn't get restored at the expense of another, and there's still plenty of people willing to save and restore these birds that there is no downside to saving or restoring a rare type, even if it was an underwhelming performer. At worst, the project gets delayed a few years, but if there are planes out there worth saving and restoring, people are going to find them and save them (bureaucratic issues notwithstanding).

There are always going to be people in the warbird movement that will save the "mainstream" types (P-51s, F4Us, Spitfires, etc) that it is nice when someone takes the initiative to save a more overlooked type. Variety is the spice of life, and it is what makes our little hobby so interesting. What would be the fun of going to an airshow where you only saw P-51s? Yes, I think the P-51 is a great plane and I always appreciate seeing one (or two, or twelve), but when you see the obscure types, there's always the "Wow, look at that!" factor.

[Tomahawk]

Do you really think any government official intentional procures any military hardware with the intent to not safeguard US military members?

The Truman Committee was formed for this very reason.

Yes, I do, because it has happened more than once. For example, a USAAF Maj. Gen. went to prison for his role in the aforementioned Wright engine scandal. Although we tend to overlook these activities, in favor of seeing the U.S. military as a knight in shining armor during WWII, the fact of the matter is these kinds of things happened quite often. Eisenhower had to create severe penalties for the misappropriation of necessary personal equipment items (i.e. winter clothing and boots, sleeping bags) which were not making it to front line troops in the ETO. The low relative pay of servicemen makes bribery and thievery attractive and commonplace, particularly in wartime.

Studs Terkel wrote an enlightening book about such things: The Good War (1984) ISBN 0-394-53103-5
It covers many different aspects of injustice that were glossed over during WWII.

SaxMan - "Flak Bait" has been in need of restoration (or at the very least, conservation) since before the end of the war. There are many, many important combat a/c gathering dust and corrosion for lack of funds to restore them. It will take decades to restore the present-day projects at the current rate of completion.

[JohnB]

Studs Terkel wrote an enlightening book about such things: The Good War (1984) ISBN 0-394-53103-5
It covers many different aspects of injustice that were glossed over during WWII.

But he's hardly impartial. A look at his political leanings seems to indicate that.
Yes, he may have been correct in as much as some stuff happened, but I'd be very careful about holding him up as a objective historian.
For every case he cites, there were a dozens or hundreds of cases of the contracts being fulfilled properly.
In the sheer numbers that made up WWII, you're always going to have a percentage of bad actors.
If I cherry-picked cases, I could paint all WWII American GIs as drunks and rapists, because there were some in the service.

Yes, Eisenhower warned about the "military-industrial complex", but ever since then a portion of the public has used that term, and the cover it provides in coming from a respected general turned politician, to attack the military and its procurement system.
Ahealthy bit of skepticism is fine, but when taken too far, tends to create bogymen under the bed where nothing exists...and when taken too far as a matter of policy, can be very damaging.

Minor rant: That same "trick" of using a respected man's words to show support for an argument is frequently done.
How many times have you seen a Sabuaru with the bumper sticker "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. --Albert Einstein"?
Yes, Einstein was a very bright guy...but that doesn't mean he was right on everything.

SaxMan - "Flak Bait" has been in need of restoration (or at the very least, conservation) since before the end of the war. There are many, many important combat a/c gathering dust and corrosion for lack of funds to restore them. It will take decades to restore the present-day projects at the current rate of completion.

Don't get me started on the NASM's restoration policy. It seems they've gone out of their way to restore everything except the important American combat aircraft.
My main argument is there is no B-17. Can you imagine a UK museum without a Lancaster or a Russian museum without an IL-2? Yes, they have a nice Keith Ferris mural on the wall downtown, but no real aircraft and they've never been in a hurry to restore one they've had since 1949 (The Swoose)...but at least they finally gave it to the NMSAF after 60-odd years.

Yes, we should save more of the ac that did the bulk of the fighting. But what are there...200 each Mustangs and Spitfires flying?...plus who knows how many in museums.
But that doesn't mean that the Buffalo should be forgotten.
Again, it was not a bad airplane, just obsolete before others. Because the guy who made it may have been a crook, doesn't mean the aircraft itself was criminally bad or we should forget the role it played.

[lmritger]

A few points:

Re, the Buffalo, here's what noted beer enthusiast Greg Boyington had to say about it, from an interview with Rick West in 1977:

"I remember asking him about the Brewster Buffalo (Then, Now and Always, my favorite aircraft). I had no sooner finished saying the word 'Buffalo', when he slammed his beer can down on the table, and practicaly snarled, "It was a DOG!" (His emphasis). Then he slowly leaned back in his chair and after a moment quietly said, "But the early models, before they weighed it all down with armorplate, radios and other sh|t, they were pretty sweet little ships. Not real fast, but the little fxxks could turn and roll in a phonebooth. Oh yeah--sweet little ship; but some engineer went and fxxked it up." With that he reached for his beer and was silent again. After that answer, I somehow had the feeling that I had just gotten a glimpse into Boyington's attitude towards life in general." And it should also be mentioned that all the crap added to the F2A was done so solely at the direction of BuAer- so the Navy actually screwed the airplane up, not Brewster. Let's not forget that the prototype XF2A flew rings around the prototype XF4F, which is why it secured a production contract in the first place... the Navy wanted the capabilities the aircraft would provide them in an increasingly fast-paced aerial combat arena, and performing due diligence as to whether a company would actually be able to fulfill that order was not part of the process back in the day.

As to the claims of corruption and malfeasance during the war, nobody's going to argue that Brewster was not a terribly run company... what kind of individual of questionable judgement tries to build aircraft in a six-story furniture factory (or whatever it was) in Long Island City? But they were hardly the only company that screwed around on the taxpayer's dime during the war. Warren Bodie leveled some incredibly acerbic jabs at the War Production Board in general, Curtiss for keeping the archaic P-40 in production so long and for badly botching so many other projects- how many P-47Gs were built, and how many got into combat? Not many, if any... if memory serves, they all wound up being kept stateside for some reason), and especially Consolidated-Vultee for keeping the utterly useless Vengeance "dive bomber" in continuous production when the country was most in need of advanced designs such as the P-38 and P-51. It was a fairly eye-opening revelation found in "WWII American War Eagles - America's Arsenal of Democracy, vol 1".

So call out Brewster for their terrible management, but they were hardly alone in their corporate idiocy- they just weren't as well connected politically as Curtiss and Consolidated-Vultee, and thus were an easy target. That has jack squat to do with the history and service of the F2A, and the bravery and sacrifice of the men who flew them.

Lynn

[lmritger]

Don't get me started on the NASM's restoration policy. It seems they've gone out of their way to restore everything except the important American combat aircraft.

As much as I deeply appreciate the fact that the Arado 234, Dornier 335 and Heinkel 219 are present and on display, I completely agree with you... how in the everloving he|| is there not a B-17 or B-24 on display? In fact, the NASM does not even have a B-24 at it's disposal, if I recall correctly- the single most produced aircraft in American history, performed the majority of strategic bombing missions in the MTO and PTO, and they not only don't have one earmarked, they don't even have one even if they wanted to display it! And the B-17... seriously? At least there's one scheduled to get there once "Memphis Belle" takes pride of place in the dim, dark halls of the NMUSAF. I doubt it'll happen, but I really, really hope they manage to find a way to re-restore "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" back to her proper NMF scheme once the transfer from Dayton takes place.

Lynn

[k5083]

I have heard the Buffalo complimented on its handling as well. Of course, that may only mean it would have made a good sport aircraft, not necessarily a good fighter. The P-39 was also very highly thought of if you were just fooling around in it, not so much if you had to fight with it.

Brewster's difficulties are well documented, including the F3A Corsair scandal. There were many procurement scandals during the war, and then there was the general profiteering that was well short of scandalous but still rather unseemly. The corporate economics of the war are still underexamined. Many hesitate to look at the economics of the war from a Wall Street perspective, except perhaps as a massive Keynesian stimulus with many benefits for the postwar economy. Certainly we can say that defense companies and their owners and executives did not, as a rule, experience a lot of austerity in the course of contributing to the war effort.

I find myself unconvinced by anyone's arguments about what type of plane should be restored first, since I like old airplanes and am not hung up on how historically important it supposedly was or what country it came from.

August

[lmritger]

August, I understand your point re: restoration priority of one type versus another, and as a lifelong Luftwaffe hardware enthusiast, I generally agree... but the NASM operation is rightly considered not just a world leader, but also a storehouse of American treasures, and it is sincerely puzzling that they don't have a B-24 or B-17 on display yet have an amazing number of far less significant types (in terms of operational and technological value) on display.

As to your comments regarding the under-examination of wartime profiteering, not to get the tinfoil hat cranked on too tightly, but I don't know that a researcher would get too far with primary source reference requests from the monolithic aerospace corporations such as Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, etc. There is likely a fair amount of "dirt" in those archives which the company leaders would probably prefer to remain unnoticed... but you're right, that would be an interesting and potentially infuriating exercise. Bodie's book was the first I had read that "named names" when it came to political screwing around with development and production contracts; I just went back through a bit of it, and he really comes down HARD on Curtiss for gaming the system through ridiculously lowballing the initial Hawk 75 prototypes and using backroom political deals to completely invalidate the procurement process where their initial entry was soundly defeated by Seversky's AP-2.

On that topic, I've always found it curious that Curtiss, one of the most recognized names in the aviation world folded so incredibly quickly after the war... they spent too much time playing politics and not enough time actually making worthwhile contributions to the war effort. Do you know if there's ever been a book published about their wartime shenanigans and subsequent disappearance after the complete failure of the XP-87?

Lynn