Which would be rarer?

[lmritger]

Now we're singin' from the same sheet of music...

I honestly don't know enough about the relationships of French manufacturers with the revolving-door governments and ministers in France through the 20s and 30s- you may well be right about the political corruption, God knows everything ELSE was screwed up in the French halls of power at that time. My impression, though, is that the manufacturers were largely left to their own devices when it came to devising and building aircraft to accomplish a certain role because frankly there was never a government or minister in place long enough to come up with any sort of long-term program other than the fabled Maginot Line- which also nearly bankrupted the country in the course of it's construction. That's why we got things like the Potez 540 push-pull bomber, the Amiot 143 "bus", the underpowered and dangerously unstable Potez biplane fighters (a bunch went to Poland and they hated them), etc... just a whole host of seemingly inexplicable designs that never seemed to meet any goal particularly well. It wasn't until the late 30s, when France seemed to realize "Oh crap, maybe this Hitler whackjob is serious!" that they seemed to get any traction on capable modern warplane designs but of course by that point, it was too late.

As to your other comments, I always suspected there was something exceedingly screwy with how the F-104 got into Luftwaffe service but I had no idea it was as bad as you report. I do know about the B-35/B-49 versus the B-36 travesty though, and of course the infamous Avro CF-105 Arrow. You are absolutely correct, corporate and governmental malfeasance is hardly new, and Brewster, while obviously deficient, is far from the worst example of it. The more I think about it, the more I think this would make for a particularly interesting book... not Brewster specifically, but just an overview of the role backroom politics and malfeasance has played in aircraft acquisition programs. It would probably never be allowed to get off the ground, though- too many high-powered people would stand to be publicly embarrassed by such an effort. (adjusts tinfoil hat slightly)

Cheers, and thanks for the interesting commentary-

Lynn

[menards]

This is certianly an interesting topic. I dont think "rare" is a function of "survivors" vs. "number built" at the end of they day you are still left with only a few examples. That said, FIFI is rare...because currently u can only see 1 B-29 fly. New-build from original blueprints are not especially "rare" because they are literally a product of deep pockets and a dream. I personally would reserve "rare" for a specific bird with a history. Race "74" was rare... being a thompson tropy winner. Glacier Girl is rare....military ww11 stock with zero civilian history... and its recovery story... Enola Gay is rare given its history... basically is there historical significance associated with THAT airframe.... thats what I reserve "rare" for

[Mark Allen M]

Revisionist history?, added much of that in a thesis I wrote. My abstract couldn't justify my revisionist theories though if I recall lol.
Anyway, all the political debate aside. I see certain similarities in both the F2A's and F4F's. Nothing that would deter me from thinking an F2A wouldn't be worth while to recreate. The interest with most enthusiasts has always been there. Just going to take someone with a broader vision and desire to spend money and take the necessary time to create one. I wouldn't hold my breathe on seeing a Buffalo restored to flight anytime soon, but a flying replica will certainly be coming along eventually. It doesn't look to be a tremendously difficult design to recreate IMO.

If you looked quickly at the first two profiles you would almost mistake them for the same aircraft. almost!
Very interesting the differences in landing gear design.

[Nathan]

Mark, that is a very interesting comparison of the two. Both are VERY similar. Honestly I don't see were the Buffalo is ugly. It actually has some very nice curves. A bit more then what the Wildcat has. Two barrels! I never here people talk about the looks of the Wildcat, always about the Buffalo. I just gotta say the Buffalo isn't bad and definitely not worth passing up on a date! HAHA

[shrike]

I've always found the Buffalo to be an attractive airplane. Compact, possibly even squatty, it certainly no worst than many of its contemporaries.

OTOH, I've always like the barrel shaped Polikarpovs too, so what do I know

[k5083]

The more I think about it, the more I think this would make for a particularly interesting book... not Brewster specifically, but just an overview of the role backroom politics and malfeasance has played in aircraft acquisition programs. It would probably never be allowed to get off the ground, though- too many high-powered people would stand to be publicly embarrassed by such an effort. (adjusts tinfoil hat slightly)

I used to think about writing such books, not necessarily with a negative slant, but about the economics, politics and people behind aviation technology. This was 20+ years ago when I was a junior academic focused on the history/sociology of science and tech. A few good articles and books have been written on individual episodes. They are difficult to research. The best primary sources would be corporate archives that you'd have trouble getting into, and people who are much less eager to talk than old pilots spinning yarns about their planes. And the resulting book wouldn't fly off the shelves. It wouldn't even make it to the shelves with the pretty-airplane-picture books at Barnes & Noble. Only a university based historian would really have the time and independence to do the digging. But it could be fascinating.

August

[Zachary]

There won't be a stampede toward it at Oshkosh, unless there's a P-51D parked behind it!

Obviously you don't know much about the warbird folks at Oshkosh...

[SaxMan]

Almost every account that I've read, the author will inevitably refer to the Wildcat as "stubby".

[airnutz]

Nice greenhouse, roomy fuselage, nice place for a second seat and flight controls....and nobody with a Brewster Buffalo in their logbook for many moons now...

[Triplane102]

Early last week, I was waiting for a Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire MK XVI, my Fav. Spit! To arrive in the mail (I got it at a Great Price too!) But I remember this thread (who can forget!) and kept looking at the 1/32 Czech Model Brewster F2A-3 Buffalo kit #3201 haunting me from my "Kit Box Wall". Even as the Spit kit arrived, I decided to put it in a safe place ( I didn't even unwrapped it! Wow! First time ever! ) so I can PLAN to do the Buffalo kit some justice! I'm pretty sure I'll go with the VMF-221 USMC colors & try to post it on the Model section of WIX. So THANKS EVERYONE, for lighting the fire for me to get off my duff & give the old Buff a chance!... Now,let me look...do I have a Buccaneer kit around?.. If not Cheers, Tony