Warbird Information Exchange

Curtiss-Wright still exists. They switched sports (from aviation to submarines). They are still working the system, literally in a less-visible medium!
*They sold off their aviation assets to NAA.

I specifically singled out early Lightnings, Airacobras, Warhawks (Tomahawks), and Wildcats, as they are under-represented in museums. Ditto for the Flying Forts and Libs. If a restorable F2A existed, it would be one thing. Y'all are talking about re-creating one from blueprints. Yes it can be done. It will cost millions of dollars. No offense to those who are doing the work, but since this sort of thing apparently must either be done by: A) octogenarian volunteers, or B) craftsmen outside the U.S., it may take a considerable amount of time as well. All this for an a/c that made no measurable contribution to the war effort. The money and time would be better spent on the a/c that did contribute to the war effort.

_________________
"There's nothing new under the sun. It's only new to you."

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

I don't know of a book-length treatment, just mentions here and there, almost sinking to the level of innuendo. I have read several times that the SB2C had a great deal to do with killing Curtiss-Wright as an aircraft manufacturer. Basically they spent all of their political capital getting this inferior airplane into production and forced onto naval squadrons when it should have been killed in its crib. Of course most "histories" written by enthusiasts who never saw an airplane they didn't like gloss over the "teething troubles" of the Helldiver or even present it as a technological triumph that its problems were in some sense overcome.

August

I deeply appreciate the individuals and groups that sponsor and help save and restore some of the more obscure and rare types. No they are not as sexy, well known or as glamorous as some, but I love seeing planes that are sole survivors/rare whether they be static or flying. I have gone out of my way to see aircraft I have not seen before.

I too disagree with the notion that "money would be better spent on 'important' aircraft" or that these take away from other projects too much. While it is true that finite resources may be put into projects that you do not agree with the prioritization of, it does become a question of how many are enough? How many flying and static B-17's, P-51's, Spitfires, P-38's, Corsairs, Sea Furys, SNJ's etc do we really need? Yes they are iconic, and I love them all, but I admit I get more excited over obscure and rare types that I have seldom or have never seen.

I do agree that the Smithsonian should have a B-17/B-24/B-25.

You will never get 100% agreement on how to spend money, there is always a tradeoff. I do think sole survivors should be a priority. I cite the AJ-1 Savage at Pensacola- yes it was an obscure type that saw limited service, but to let it rot outdoors for decades? The Marlin finally got indoors.

I cite the recent Mosquito restoration (yes iconic, AND rare), the Il-2 (iconic and uber rare), the me-262 project, various 190's, and the Canadain Lancaster trip to the UK as exciting projects involving iconic aircraft, and that got lots of enthusiasm from both enthusiasts and the pubic. I am glad there were folks that have the resources to make these happen.

There is also lots of excitement involving less iconic types, the Polikarpov projects, the Oscars, the volunteer P-61 restoration, both p-82 twin Mustang restoration projects, the Pea-Shooter trip to the UK. I deeply appreciate these types of efforts.

I hear rumors that Jerry Yagen has a KingFisher, I would love to see one fly.

I hope I get to someday see see a JU-87 Stuka fly. Ony a few folks could make that happen, but I think it would think it would peg everyone's excitement scale.

Quote-"I do agree that the Smithsonian should have a B-17/B-24/B-25."
I thought I read somewhere ages ago that somebody had donated a B-25 to the Smithsonian, and it was flown in! Is there a list of what they have in storage or on loan?
EDIT-Found this on the b-25
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/a ... 9860003000

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b25regis ... 29887.html

I promised myself that I'd stay out of this one, but I guess I'm weak.

I have to come down on the side of theose who place more value in some of the more obscure aircraft. Not so much because of the contribution(if any) a particular type made, but just because they're not as common. I certainly mean no disrespect for the people who finance and restore them, quite the opposite. They are keeping avaition history alive. But, I've seen enough B-17Gs, P-51Ds and sharkmouthed P-40s in glossy OD. Kermit's P-35A was the one ship I really wanted to see at Planes Of Fame. The pre E model P-40s are
a treasure. A true P-400 or a rescued TBD would certainly rate a "Wow." With regard to the NASM, I do belive that they dropped the ball by not including aircraft such as the B-24 and B-25, but in the case of the Swoose, they were caught between a rock and a hard place in that they could never decide what configuration to restore it to. That problem seems to have been resolved since its transfer to WP. If they deside on an OD finish, I hope it's matte!

Duane

In defense of the NASM, they were trying to get a B-24. There was a deal in the works that would have sent a couple of T-33s to Canada for the B-24 that went down in Newfoundland. It was an RCAF bird that had one, possibly two, U-boats to its credit. The Newfoundland government stepped in and killed the deal. Basically, the argument was that in 1944 when the plane went down, Newfoundland was not part of Canada, and therefore, the Canadian government had no right to make the deal. I corresponded with them regarding the LB-30 in Ft. Collins (ex AL-557, now owned by Don Whittington), but they were not interested because the plane did not have any significant combat history.

The early plans for Udvar Hazy had "The Swoose" on the main floor. The NASM folks are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They are trying to cover all the bases in aviation (and space), both civil and military, both unique and common. Those of us here tend to take a very warbird-centric view on what should be in their collection, while others feel that there should be more emphasis on the civil side. In the end, they seem to be unable to keep everyone happy, and seem to manage to offend everyone at some point as well. While they've shown some questionable judgment at times (the Flak Bait and Swoose for instance), OTOH, they've displayed some most unique items such as their very nicely conserved P-61 on display, an F9C Sparrowhawk, and I don't think anyone can argue against the restoration of the He-219, which will be amazing when complete.

Exactly, any attempt to put the sins of the builder on the aircraft itself is silly politics.
Another political agenda by someone with an axe to grind.

As far as building obsolete types past their "best by" date, look at the Germans and the English...
Some of it had to do because there was nothing better...(though in the case of UK types one could argue that they could have made US aircraft under license but I suspect national pride would not have allowed that) but politics and expediency played a part.
Postwar, the UK had far more aircraft builders than it could support, but government contracts kept most of them on life support until the Labour government forced mergers in the 60s-70s.

And efficiency is in the eye of the beholder, the large plant in Canada only produced 422 Lancasters during the war, with 179 in 1944 and 229 in roughly the first half of 1945. With their natural resources and labor force, I'd think they could have done better than that.
Again, proof that aircraft aren't easy to make, political and alleged business and political shenanigans aside.

And while I can't and won't defend Curtiss, I'll ask that you always consider a simple, non conspiracy-driven answer:
Not enough work to go around. Bell pretty much disappeared the way Republic/Fairchild-Hiller Republic would after the A-10 and Grumman would shut down its factory in the 90s. Curtiss-Wright just quit building planes when they couldn't make money at it. In the auto world the same thing happened to Studebaker..it had diversified enough that it could survive without building cars...it didn't "go broke" in the usual sense.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Jack squat? Silly politics?

Corrupt builder -> bad aircraft -> troubled service history -> dead pilots -> wasted bravery and unnecessary sacrifice.

Politics matters, corruption matters, they affect all aspects of any industrial product, whether it gets made, how well it performs. The Buffalo like any other product is a distillation of human and organizational effort and it was what it was because of those shenanigans. Great (including ethical) companies make great products, bad ones not so much. That can influence the success or failure of weapons, the outcome of battles, maybe even the outcome of wars.

If you want a huge example of the above, just consider the French aircraft industry of the late 1930s. Just about every company was a Brewster and almost all of its operational aircraft were of Buffalo-like quality, contributing to the walkover that was the Battle of France in 1940.

August

Brewster was new at aircraft building and they wanted to get into the field. Everyone has to start out small somewhere. You can't micromanage this. There are too many variables that attribute success or failure in combat. The Buffalo was a mid 30's design. And happened to still be service when ww2 began for the U.S. . I don't see how the companies dealings had anything to do with what combat the Buffalo did see.

_________________
Shop the Airplane Bunker At
www.warbirdbunker.com

So you don't remember the sacrifice of the pilots or what (perhaps little) the plane achieved in a quest to "out" its builder 70 years later?
Revisionist history at its worst.
I'm not saying the Buffalo was a"world beater" (to use the phased overused by the English in describing most of its aircraft)...but certainly an example is worth restoring and having around. Period.

Yes, write a solid, researched book on the sins of its builder..name names, quote the Truman report, give us technical details, but put it in context. In other words, it shouldn't look like a politically-inspired hatchet job. I'm not interested in the "left" (or the "right" or anyone else) doing a politically-motivated hatchet-job.
Don't hide behind an anonymous internet name.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Nobody is saying such a silly thing.



Do you know what revisionist history is?



I assume that's directed at Tomahawk, since my posts above show that that I agree with you about the value of restoring and displaying F2As and similarly successful aircraft, for better reasons than "Period."



Uh, good, I guess none of us is interested in that. Thanks for bringing it up?



I'll assume that's directed at Tomahawk, since I sign every post, but it's yet another straw man. People have perfectly good reasons to use pseudonyms onine.

August

Not a straw man. I'm a journalist, part of the deal is to stand behind your words...otherwise it becomes nothing more than libel/slander and innuendo.

I've given my opinions, and you seem insulted by anyone offering their take on the subject.



If you agree with what I'm saying, that the plane should be judged on its own merits, and not on politics, say so.

I somewhat agree with your statement that great builders make great aircraft, but the cynic in me knows there is more to it than that.
Nothing is that black and white. Engineering excellence isn't always tied to the boardroom or politics.

Howard Hughes seriously underbid the contract for the OH-6, but the resulting aircraft was a good one. There are other examples as well, I'm sure.

And I'm sure if a conspiracy buff were to look hard enough, there are skeletons in every aircraft builder's closet. Even the great ones.
Of course that leads us down the road to..."one's man's doing business is another man's scandal". Some of a political bent might find even the great firms at fault for something...possibly nothing more than the crime of being capitalistic enterprises.

IIRC, most contracts were based on a cost plus a fixed fee for profit, about 4%. Again, not a great way to get rich quick.
And then, they faced huge postwar tax bills of those profits. that's what helped to do-in Packard.

And yes, I know what revisionist history is.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Okay, I'll explain what I meant. Good history asks not just what happened, but WHY? It's convenient that you're a journalist, because you'll understand that good journalism does the same.

So: Why was the F2A a mediocre plane? Why was the USA generally stuck with mediocre planes in 1941-42? Important historical questions; and although, contrary to your statement, I have not implied up to now that anything is more important than anything else (apart from Midway being not such an epic battle), I will now accept your invitation and say that the WHY of history generally is more important than the WHAT, WHEN and WHERE. IMO.

And with technology, the why has a great deal to do with organizations, economics, and, sorry if this upsets you, politics. If you do not understand the corporate history and, yes, politics of Brewster then you do not have a good historical understanding of the F2A Buffalo. IMO. You may have an airplane buff's understanding of its technical features but not why they were that way, or why it was built at all. You may have a war buff's understanding of the sacrifices made in the Buffalo, but not why the sacrifices associated with the Buffalo were mostly those of people who flew it rather than of the people it was trying to attack.

So, do I agree with you that an airplane should be judged on its "merits," rather than on "politics"? No. Taking a technological artifact out of context like that would be superficial, not good history.

Let's face it, nobody who discusses the problems with Brewster 70 years ago has any current "political" motive in any meaningful sense of that word. What political purposes could such an exercise serve? Some people enjoy being iconoclastic and exposing corruption. So what? It is not for me to judge whether that is more or less noble than dwelling on remembrance of military sacrifice. Whatever their motives, the information that corporate, economic, "political" and, yes, revisionist researchers uncover can help us understand important things, like why the USA was less prepared for WWII than it could have been. Indeed, we cannot properly understand that without such folks.

What's it all mean for the restoration of Buffalos? Like I've said, I'd like to see one. Maybe we can persuade Tomahawk that it would be good to have one around, even if just as much a monument to corporate corruption as to military valor.

August

All history is "revisionist", in that we continually revisit and revise what we know based on new information.

Anyways, back to the tempest du jour, I see where you're going with that line of questioning August (your background in law is starting to show through there), but "wasted bravery" due to inferior equipment is overstating it quite a bit. The first F2As had substantial merits, all of which have been discussed here, but unfortunately the type's reputation in postwar history books has hung on the slaughter of the Marine F2A-3s at Midway which were overweight and underpowered. If memory serves, and I stand to be corrected here, I believe Brewster unsuccessfully argued against the addition of that extra equipment without a correspondingly higher powered engine and were told "Do it with what you've got, you can't have that engine"... chalk that up to a poor business/client relationship maybe, I dunno. I'll have to go back to get the details on that.

Regarding your comments about the French aviation industry, you are conflating the insane political instability of the country during the interwar period with the basic "cottage industry" nature of most French manufacturers. They never quite got the assembly line concept working, and if they had one significant drawback, it was the generally low power available from the Gnome-Rhone and Hispano-Suiza engines. Their aircraft were well designed and sturdy- well, most of the "modern" ones (i.e. from 1936 onwards) were anyways- they had excellent armament, but they were not fast, they were not easily repaired in the field, and there were never enough of them. Aircraft like the Breguet 690, Potez 630, and Dewoitine 520 were every bit as capable as their British and German contemporaries, but there just weren't enough to stave off the overwhelming numbers of German aircraft. The Morane 406 and Bloch 152 were rugged and well armed, but came off second best against Bf 109s which had a 200+ horsepower advantage over the French mainstays.

Lynn

Well said. I've yet to hear anyone complain about revisionist history who knew what history is. The first draft of history is generally a compilation of contemporary records shortly afterwards, which in wartime means mainly propaganda of one sort or another. When it comes to World War II, we're still working on the second draft. Warmed-over propaganda is still the dominant historical narrative.



Fair viewpoint. As I understand it, the F2A won the 1937-38 fighter competition fair and square, when one would think that Grumman had the political advantage going in. Probably that defeat spurred Grumman to develop the F4F-1 into the monoplane Wildcat. So technologically the F2A was quite advanced, scored a few technical "firsts" among USN fighters, and raised the competitive bar as well as helped persuade the Navy that it was okay to fly a monoplane fighter off a carrier. Tomahawk is definitely assessing the airplane through a very limited set of blinders. The above points and yours are more than good enough reasons to have some preserved and on display, and I'm glad there's a good replica near here in Long Island.

I think there might be more of a political/corruption angle to the 1930s French aircraft industry than your version suggests, but it was only an example. My broader point is that politics always matters and is sometimes decisive. We are all familiar with many examples. Why couldn't Fokker get the excellent Mercedes engines to build a fighter around prior to the D.VII? Only politics explains that. Why was the Lockheed F-104 adopted by several NATO countries and Japan for the all-weather fighter-bomber role to which it was ill-suited, leading to a high accident rate? $22 million in bribery payments (that we know of) that sent several foreign officials to criminal court and nearly killed Lockheed (and did kill dozens of pilots). Why did the US Army standardize on the Allison V-1710 for fighters in the late 1930s, causing such difficulty in getting a good high-altitude fighter in WWII? Politics again. And of course we all know about the role of politics in more recent contests such as F-16 vs. F-17, F-22 vs. F-23, F-20 vs. nothing, and the recent tanker contract. It would be nice to see properly researched write-ups of these and many other things we don't know about.

August