Brewster Bermuda; 1/72 Rareplane Vacforms

[vacant]

The Brewster Buccaneer, known as the Bermuda in RAF service, occupies a largely forgotten place in aviation history. It was not a success in its dive bombing role so it was mainly used by the RAF for training and target towing. A total of 771 of the type were built.

[iggie]

Very nice!

It was also used for tomato growing I should think with that greenhouse!

[ShaunW]

Nicely done, Vacant and that's another type you've introduced me to! Looks like you spent a while drilling away to improve the look of the dive brakes or are they PE replacements?

[vacant]

PE - me? You must be joking! I drilled them.

[Eric Mc]

Lovely.

Did Brewster design a single aeroplane that was any good?

[Lone Modeller]

Another new type to me too! There are resemblances to the Helldiver but clearly this design was less successful. Great model though.

[rob_van_riel]

Did Brewster design a single aeroplane that was any good?

Don't dismiss the Buffalo so easily..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_ ... ffalo_aces;

[Eric Mc]

I know the Finns made the best use of the Buffalo. How well an aircraft performs against an enemy is not just down to the atributes of the aircraft and its pilots, it's also very much dependent on the atributes of the aircraft and pilots of the enemy.

The Finns were fighting the Russians

The US, Dutch and British were fighting the Japanese.

[rob_van_riel]

I know the Finns made the best use of the Buffalo. How well an aircraft performs against an enemy is not just down to the atributes of the aircraft and its pilots, it's also very much dependent on the atributes of the aircraft and pilots of the enemy.

The Finns were fighting the Russians

The US, Dutch and British were fighting the Japanese.

All true, the real point, however, is that because of all these factors, historical outcome is not a good measure of the qualities of a given design. It is entirely justified to say that Brewster never designed anything that fairly universally succesful. To imply that they were "no good" seems overly harsh though.

[vacant]

The Bermuda seems to have been quite useful as a target tug and trainer, though that is not what it was designed for, but I don't suppose that counts in the criteria for 'successful'.

[iggie]

The Bermuda seems to have been quite useful as a target tug and trainer, though that is not what it was designed for, but I don't suppose that counts in the criteria for 'successful'.

That's a good point; consider the Vulcan, designed for high altitude nuclear delivery, yet it outclassed several (most?) other aircraft in the low altitude strategic role, even though the others were designed to be capable in that role.....

[Eric Mc]

I know the Finns made the best use of the Buffalo. How well an aircraft performs against an enemy is not just down to the atributes of the aircraft and its pilots, it's also very much dependent on the atributes of the aircraft and pilots of the enemy.

The Finns were fighting the Russians

The US, Dutch and British were fighting the Japanese.

All true, the real point, however, is that because of all these factors, historical outcome is not a good measure of the qualities of a given design. It is entirely justified to say that Brewster never designed anything that fairly universally succesful. To imply that they were "no good" seems overly harsh though.

It was pretty much "no good" in the role it was intended to be used for. It failed in the hands of everyone apart from the Finns - and that was as much to do with the standard of the opposition as any inherent good qualities of the aircraft itself.

Both the US Navy and RAF could not wait to get rid of the things and replace them with better aircaft.

Another factor that emerged was the fact that Brewster were involved in a number of major financial scandals in their efforts to win orders from the US and other Governments. There was an official enquiry into the company and the board of directors was sumarrilly removed by government order with initially Navy personnel taking over and then the board of the Naval Aircraft Facory being drafted in. As far as I know it's the only time such an event ever happened in the American aviation industry.
Even when they were ordered to build Corsairs under licence i.e. they were told not to design any new types - they were found to be mismanaging the project and the orders were cancelled and transfered to other Corsair sub-contractors.

In short, the company was a mess and was very poorly run - with more effort spent concentrating on maximising income rather than providing quality product.

In World War 2, target tugging was what happened to an aeroplane that had failed or was no longer suitable for its original intended purpose.

[Spaceowl]

I know the Finns made the best use of the Buffalo. How well an aircraft performs against an enemy is not just down to the atributes of the aircraft and its pilots, it's also very much dependent on the atributes of the aircraft and pilots of the enemy.

The Finns were fighting the Russians

The US, Dutch and British were fighting the Japanese.

The US, Dutch and British were fighting the Japanese with an aircraft 1 ton heavier because of all the armour the US Navy piled on to it. The B-239 used by the Finns is a whole different aircraft when it comes to dogfighting.

[Eric Mc]

I still think the quality of the opposition and the lack of experience of the Commonwealth and US pilots that meant the Buffalo didn't have much of a chance against hardened Japanese flying pretty good fighters.

[Spaceowl]

Fair point, and I should have added, expert build there, Vacant.

It sounds like Brewster were the US equivalent of Blackburn; if they built a good design it was by accident.