 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / July 2008Brewster Buffalo question
I have the 1/32 scale Buffalo kit and have a question related to the tail wheel. The directions call for the pneumatic rear tire on the AAF version and the hard rubber tire on the Marine and Navy variant. I know the hard rubber tire was used for shipboard ops to keep the back of the plane from bouncing but since the Marines operated their Buffalos on land at Midway, wouldn't they have had the pneumatic rear tire as well? Does anyone have any definitive info on this?  SignatureCheers: Bill Woodier In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm -- > I have the 1/32 scale Buffalo kit and have a question related to the tail > wheel. The directions call for the pneumatic rear tire on the AAF version [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Does anyone have any definitive info on this? My SIA book says they were all Navy hand me downs. I would think the instructions were correct. Frank On Jun 29, 10:39 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > > I have the 1/32 scale Buffalo kit and have a question related to the tail > > wheel. The directions call for the pneumatic rear tire on the AAF version [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Frank While it is true that most Marine aircraft up to 1942 were Navy hand- me-downs, Marine aviators and their aircraft had to be carrier- capable, since they could be called upon to operate from aircraft carriers. Therefore, it would be logical that Marine F2As would have retained the hard rubber tailwheel. On the other hand, the B-339s that werre exported to Britain and Belgium were build for use as landplanes, only. > On Jun 29, 10:39�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > that werre exported to Britain and Belgium were build for use as > landplanes, only. To make things worse, the F2A-3 at Midway was a Marine-only variant--a flying gastank to handle long range CAP and intercept for island garrisons. It was carrier capable, but for transport purposes. >> On Jun 29, 10:39�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > flying gastank to handle long range CAP and intercept for island > garrisons. It was carrier capable, but for transport purposes. Actually they were envsioned for long range patrol. I think they said it had an potential endurance of 16 hours, with a range of 1600 miles. Frank Thank you all for your thoughts on this. SignatureCheers: Bill Woodier In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm -- >>> On Jun 29, 10:39�pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Frank |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.