Brewster B-239 and the I-16

[BnZs]

I say, I say, that was a joke son...referring to the buffs, tail-guns, dead-six and all that.

You can't perk the Brewster, because it is not faster than every single farking plane in EW arena, and how are you going to compensate all the Finnish aviation fans for perking their favorite plane,  and its k/d is less than 97.5 to 1...so obviously it does not need to be perked and people who complain about a given aircraft doing every single thing better in a dogfight are just whiners, and Shaw is just an old fogey when he says pilots would give their left nut for double-superior performance...

Just got done playing with her for the first time in the Beta arena.

Very stable, incredibly agile and superb rate of roll at all airspeeds, dives like a brick, controls remain responsive even at high speeds, her flaps may be as good as the Corsair's, solid gunnery package, VERY long range. E retention appears to be very good, at least with flaps up. Her only two weaknesses are speed and sustained rate of climb.

I'm calling it now: Perk on the Brewster in EARLY WAR ARENA.

[Widewing]

On another topic, the I16 is looking to have a bleak future with the poor fuel consumption...

You can fly using only internal fuel for defensive fighting. However, for offensive flights, you will need to load the drop tanks. This will provide a 25 minute endurance, or a maximum radius of 2 sectors. A practical radius is 1 sector with about 10 minutes of combat in the target area.

On the other hand, the Brewster has an endurance of 47 minutes and a maximum radius of 4 sectors.


My regards,

Widewing

[lyric1]

In terms of guns, the four .50 cals in the Brewster seem more effective than the same gun package in the FM-2 and P-51B. This is due to having two of the guns in the cowling, with their natural concentration of fire. Typical of the .50 cals, they shoot flat. In contrast, the I-16 with two cannon and two MGs is more lethal, but the cannon's ballistics are not great. Plus, they have very limited ammo.

These two fighters will hold their own in the late war arenas, if flown to their strengths. In the early war arena, both will very tough adversaries. The Brewster will eat up the Hurricanes. As is the case with the A6M2, it would be a mistake to get into a turning contest with the Brewster if you are flying something like a Bf 109E or F, Spitfire, P-39, P-40 or F4F-4. All four of these will be hard pressed by the I-16 as well.


My regards,

Widewing

Just as well they are not modeled as the ones in Singapore.


Based off this book
 http://www.amazon.com/BUFFALOES-OVER-SINGAPORE-Brewster-1941-1942/dp/1904010326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246119831&sr=8-1
they could not out turn any of the Japanese fighters & the guns jammed all most as soon as they pulled the trigger it got so bad a squadron leader refused to up his plane for fear of being killed.

[Widewing]

I haven't had so much trouble with brewsters in the I-16 that I'd put it as being out of contention in a knife fight.  I haven't gotten much 1:1 time (too many interruptions), but from what I've seen, the only clear dominance the Brewster has on the I-16 is pure flat turns. 

There are several areas where the Brewster is superior. Turn radius is the most noticeable. However, its ailerons are superior providing great roll rate at all speeds. Aileron control at low speeds is outstanding, perhaps the best in the game. The I-16's all or nothing flaps don't do much to help it compared to the B-239's 5 position flaps. You can close the margin between the two somewhat by taking the 3 gun option in the I-16 Type 29 configuration (two 7.62mm and one 12.7mm). This reduces the turn radius by 26 feet and increases turn rate by 1 degree per second. Most will find the trade-off in lethality to be unacceptable.

Another area favoring the Brewster is stability at the limit. It is much easier to fly at the limits than the I-16, especially using flaps.

On factor that draws things closer to equal is fuel load. A fully fueled B-239 is less agile, and the match-up closes down to only a minor advantage in turn radius. I found 50% fuel adequate for flying the B-239 one sector to a fight, whereas the I-16 will need to take the drop tanks to do the same.

The single greatest issue facing the I-16 is that the Rata can't fly and fight for very long before fuel becomes a critical factor. Dead stick I-16s will be a common sight.

Dive tests show that the Brewster accelerates a bit faster in a dive and holds the resulting energy better. Both can attain speeds in excess of 550 mph TAS, but the B-239 gets to that speed a couple of seconds sooner. Its controls are also slightly less stiff at that velocity. That's all good, except that the airframe begins to groan around 560 mph and you can break the elevators if you load more than a couple of Gs. Even without dynamic loading, the elevators shred at about 575 mph, with the ailerons following soon after. Very similar to what happens to the A6M2, without the severe control stiffening of the Zero. In comparison, the I-16 suffers no failures, but begins to groan at a similar speed to that of the Brewster. The I-16 can recover using trim. Both will exceed 600 mph before impacting the ground or ocean.

I also measure speeds at 20k and 25k. Fuel was 100% for I-16, 50% for B-239 (about equal endurance).

20K
I-16: 293 mph TAS
B-239: 303 mph TAS

25K
I-16: 282 mph TAS
B-239: 295 mph TAS
A6M2: 315 mph TAS (as a reference)


My regards,

Widewing

[moot]

Thanks Widewing.

[Die Hard]

It feels like the same sort of artificial stability that the F4U isn't supposed to have at departure.  The I-16 does have a pretty loose departure, so it's not completely uncharacteristic.

I know, it's wiki, but perhaps the I-16's reputation for instability is undeserved:

"Wind tunnel testing suggested that TsKB-12 with its short tail would enter an unrecoverable flat spin, but real-life trials were necessary to confirm this. Since Cyclone engines were rare it was decided to risk the M-22 prototype for this purpose. On 1 March and 2 March 1934, Chkalov performed 75 spins and discovered that the aircraft had very benign stall behavior (dipping a wing and recovering without input from the pilot when airspeed increased) and intentional spins could be easily terminated by placing controls in the neutral position. The stories of vicious spin behavior of the I-16 perpetuated in modern literature is unfounded (perhaps extrapolated from Gee Bee experience). In fact, the I-16's stablemate, the biplane Polikarpov I-153, exhibited much worse spin characteristics."

[Krusty]

I am finding it odd that in this game the BREW has no vices.. I was in a light P-47N, 6 guns, light ammo, 50% fuel, and a brewster I engaged at below 5K chased me all the way to 20k and stayed on my six, dove with me from 20k to the deck, never leaving 1K distance (often inside 600 yards, I was being shot at many times). In fact the only thing it couldn't do was keep up when I went level.

I think it's TOO stable across-the-board. The US Navy called it an "unstable" plane, and the heavier models "unmanuverable"... But to me this is a super zeke with 4 MGs instead of 2 cannons.

Doesn't feel right.

[moot]

Well, what else would you expect from a model of the F2A/F4F/F6F family that's been stripped of all ballast?

[Krusty]

Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.

In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.

Again, it just doesn't feel right.

[Widewing]

I am finding it odd that in this game the BREW has no vices.. I was in a light P-47N, 6 guns, light ammo, 50% fuel, and a brewster I engaged at below 5K chased me all the way to 20k and stayed on my six, dove with me from 20k to the deck, never leaving 1K distance (often inside 600 yards, I was being shot at many times). In fact the only thing it couldn't do was keep up when I went level.

I think it's TOO stable across-the-board. The US Navy called it an "unstable" plane, and the heavier models "unmanuverable"... But to me this is a super zeke with 4 MGs instead of 2 cannons.

Doesn't feel right.

I have never seen any reference to the F2A-1/239 being unstable.

Those navy pilots who flew the F2A-1 thought it to be a vice-free fighter with outstanding maneuverability. The Finns agreed completely. Navy pilots even thought that the F2A-2 was still a pretty sweet little fighter once airborne. Only the F2A-3 received poor reviews. In many respects, the -3 was a markedly different airframe than the -1.

In case you missed it, the F2A-1 was a model B-239...



My regards,

Widewing

[moot]

Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.

In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.

Again, it just doesn't feel right.

Ballast keeping things stable sounds like safety in inertia, iow from unexpected and/or uneven forces applied to the plane.  Do you need/benefit from that in the perfectly still air of AH?
Do you know for sure that the CoG moved fwd, and excessively so?  You've looked at the blueprints and actually checked what the items we know for sure that the FAF removed had this effect?
That the FM2 is a 44 bird, versus the Brewster 239 being from 39 is no guarantee of anything..

The wingload, powerload are both valid points, if they are as you say.  But stability - how do you quantify this exactly?  --  nm on that one, see above.

[Widewing]

Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.

In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.

Again, it just doesn't feel right.

Some of this is incorrect. The B-239 has a lower wing loading and a much higher rate of roll. The FM-2 climbs better, accelerates faster and is faster over much of the altitude range. If the FM-2 gets into a stall fight with the Brewster, it will lose. Thus, it must use its better vertical performance and speed advantage (better than 20 mph at sea level).

If people are in the habit of yanking and banking in the FM-2, the Brewster will exploit that mindset just as a Zero would. The I-16 will give the FM-2 a bad time as well.


My regards,

Widewing

[moot]

So Krusty had to be doing something wrong for a Brewster to stick with his 47N in a fast dive and zoom...

[Widewing]

So Krusty had to be doing something wrong for a Brewster to stick with his 47N in a fast dive and zoom...

I'd love to see a film, but there's no film viewer for the Beta that I know of....

Inasmuch as the Brewster can dive up to at least 560 mph without breaking anything, the P-47N won't get far ahead. As to climb, if he used WEP the Jug would leave the B-239 behind. Without using WEP, the Brewster can keep up to about 10k. Also, if he was climbing at too steep of an angle, it could be the cause. Like the Zero, the B-239 climbs at a low speed, but steep angle. A high speed climb, of around 1.5k a minute would leave the Brewster way behind rather quickly.

It reminds me of P-40 pilots in the 5th AF, who used a shallow high speed climb to get away from a swarm of Ki-43s.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

I did a little offline testing of the P-47N and B-239.

I took a P-47N with 50% fuel, 8 guns with the smaller ammo load (267 rds per gun) and a B-239 with 25% fuel.

I took off and climbed to 3k. At 285 mph, I engaged auto-climb and allowed the fighters to climb to 20k. What I discovered is that in MIL power, the P-47N climb rate is less than the B-239 until around 18.5k, where the Brewster's climb rate equals that of the Jug. However, the P-47 is climbing at 164 mph IAS vs 140 mph IAS. So, if both use auto-climb, the Brewster get to 20k first, but the P-47 puts some distance between the two.

Times in minutes:seconds.10ths of seconds were...
Brewster: 6:17.31
P-47N: 7:10.67

If the Brewster matched the P-47's 164 mph IAS, it still climbed at a greater rate, but only up to 17k.

If the P-47N used wep... It simply checks out from the Brewster.
Same parameters as above, the Jug took...
P-47N WEP: 4:46.87

I did dive tests as well. While the Brewster dives very well, the P-47N accelerates faster and can attain speeds that would rip off the Brewster's elevators. But, if the dive is too shallow, the Brewster can dog it for a long time.

So, Krusty probably didn't use much WEP while trying to out-climb the Brewster. Likewise, he didn't push the dive fast enough to either force the Brewster to pull off power or damage the aircraft.

Indeed, the P-47N would have a bigger problem with 109E, or C.202. Why? Miserable climb rate without WEP.


My regards,

Widewing