Coming Brewsters

[Widewing]

I don't know which model or models are being considered, but how about the F2A-1/B239 and the 339E and the F2A-3 for scenarios? I fully expect the first and last on my list, but the middle variant would be perfect for Burma scenarios along with the Hurricane I, P-40B and P-40E. Of course, to do Burma correctly, we would need the Ki-43 and or Ki-27 too.    An early war Japanese bomber would be nice too....


My regards,

Widewing

[Bronk]

That would be 4 diff models correct? Navy an land base versions?

[SmokinLoon]

I hope they deliver the most capable and carrier worthy Buffalo avalible.  There really isnt that much difference between the versions in performance enough to worry all that much, imo.  Just hope that Greebo, Krusty, and Co. can get the different skins out (kudos to ALL of the skin modelers!).   

No sense in "nit-picking".    

[Bronk]

I hope they deliver the most capable and carrier worthy Buffalo avalible.  There really isnt that much difference between the versions in performance enough to worry all that much, imo.  Just hope that Greebo, Krusty, and Co. can get the different skins out (kudos to ALL of the skin modelers!).   

No sense in "nit-picking".    

The a-2 and the 239 have over 900lb difference. If that's not much I don't know what is.

Edit: from another thread. Numbers taken from dean's AHT.

Just for comparison

2gun 239 GW =5014.1 lbs   2 gun f2a-2 = GW 5942 lbs    both with 660 lbs of fuel.

[Saxman]

The F2A-2 was considered by most of her pilots to be the best of the Brewsters the Navy and Marines deployed, however she never saw combat. She was replaced by the grossly overweight F2A-3 before the US joined the war. The -3s were the ones that were used at Midway.

So I doubt we'll get the -2.

[Bronk]

The F2A-2 was considered by most of her pilots to be the best of the Brewsters the Navy and Marines deployed, however she never saw combat. She was replaced by the grossly overweight F2A-3 before the US joined the war. The -3s were the ones that were used at Midway.

So I doubt we'll get the -2.

Yes that's why I tossed out the 239 numbers. IIRC 200 hp less than the A-2 but with -900 pounds.

And the 339E vs -3
normal Gross wt USN -3 =6518 pounds     Brit land based 339 =6112

Will 400 pounds make a noticeable difference on the same airframe with the same hp?

[Saxman]

Why do you think I keep asking for a loadout option to make an FG-1A land-based Corsair with no wing-folding mechanism or arrestor gear.

[Widewing]

That would be 4 diff models correct? Navy an land base versions?

Well, yes and no... The F2A-1s were shipped to the Finns and replaced by the F2A-2. Thus, in general terms, by removing the tailhook and replacing the engine with the commercial version, you have the 339. Same airframe.


My regards,

Widewing