Brewster Buffalo dive speed and handling

[dtango]

That got a good laugh, thanks!!

Badboy

I liked it so much I put it in my bbs sig 

Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs

[Wmaker]

LOL guys!  

Tango, had I known you were going to do that I would have phrased it better!  

[Ardy123]

Sadly its clear that any statement questioning the Brewster is a 'personal attack' on wmaker and he goes all out to defend it, even when it's off. I will post my videos soon here too.

Maybe it shouldn't be called the brewster-Buffalo but rather it should be called Brester - 'wmakers other child'.

There's no need to do anything based on whining, except have fun on the whiners' expense.
Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see.  
Well, have fun testing.

I guess we are all whiners because we question its in game performance... hmmmm


go ahead flame away, but sadly my feelings about its handling aren't unique.

You have a plane that was death trap anywhere else against anyone else , that performed well against an enemy that had suffered an incredible purge that in particular hurt any technical part of its military . I know it is not the same exact plane , but it is not light years different either . I think there is alot more wrong then acceleration if it is so light how does it zoom so well , if it zooms so well how does it sustain climb so well ? No armor or self sealing tanks why is it so hard to shoot down ? I can't think of a test to answer these questions .Acceleration I could . Don't believe me it out accelerates the FW190 try it . How ever save the insults and argue from the merit of your position as you see it . It is all moot anyway . If this plane could do what it does here . No wildcat or hellcat would have ever been built .

[Wmaker]

Sadly its clear that any statement questioning the Brewster is a 'personal attack' on wmaker and he goes all out to defend it, even when it's off. I will post my videos soon here too.

Maybe it shouldn't be called the brewster-Buffalo but rather it should be called Brester - 'wmakers other child'.

I guess we are all whiners because we question its in game performance... hmmmm


go ahead flame away, but sadly my feelings about its handling aren't unique.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit the theories, instead of theories to suit facts." (Sherlock Holmes)

Ardy, try reading the above once more and see if it sinks in this time.


Btw, Ardy, the reason for your post became evident right away by just looking up your score. You got shot down by couple Brewsters and instead of trying to take a look at your tactics, you started typing.

[kilo2]

Wmaker does take it as a personnel attack.

If I cared enough to go and research Wmakers other child I would, but alas I don't. Who knows it could have been a clown car in real life.

With your plethora of knowledge on the Finnish buffalo you had to come across some negative reports on it though wmaker (and others)

[Wmaker]

Wmaker does take it as a personnel attack.

No I don't, and the plane type here is actually irrelevant. It's the illogical approach and the apparent thick-headness that does get to me though when it gets repeated enough.

[Wmaker]

-

[Ardy123]

(Image removed from quote.)

Ardy, try reading the above once more and see if it sinks in this time.
Btw, Ardy, the reason for your post became evident right away by just looking up your score. You got shot down by couple Brewsters and instead of trying to take a look at your tactics, you started typing.

your statement doesn't make any sense, I always stated that I was looking for the FACTS yet you seem entrenched on trying to prove that I'm looking to support a pre-established belief.

I do have a hunch, but thats it! And more importantly, everyone starts an investigation with a hunch and attempts to prove or disprove it. The very fact you went as far as to look up my score seems to imply that you are out on a witch hunt, aimed at flaming people who possibly threaten your beloved plane rather than do anything productive or useful.

Look at my original post... What did I ask for (I state my hunch and I'm looking to prove or disprove it).

Unlike the P51 or Me 109s or many of the more 'famous' planes of WW2, there doesn't appear to be much information on the filght characteristics of the finish version of the airplane. furthermore, there are almost no finish Buffalows in exsistance today. What sources have people found?

[Stoney]

a 4 inch difference in length

That's not a significant difference

[Stoney]

your statement doesn't make any sense, I always stated that I was looking for the FACTS yet you seem entrenched on trying to prove that I'm looking to support a pre-established belief.

I do have a hunch, but thats it! And more importantly, everyone starts an investigation with a hunch and attempts to prove or disprove it. The very fact you went as far as to look up my score seems to imply that you are out on a witch hunt, aimed at flaming people who possibly threaten your beloved plane rather than do anything productive or useful.

Look at my original post... What did I ask for (I state my hunch and I'm looking to prove or disprove it).

Stating a hunch is ok.  You're right in saying that's where it all starts.  However, one thing that a lot of us tire of is having to combat the hunch and the hunch alone.  HTC has always done exhaustive amounts of research when modeling these aircraft, so on that assumption, we typically feel that the obligation to prove something is on the person raising the issue, and not HTC.  

That being said, there's a lot of research available out there if you're willing to look.  Tango posted some really data-centric resources.  But, at least try to do some sort of presentation to support your hunch, and then it will be pretty well received.  Otherwise, it simply looks like just another "whine" about an aircraft that doesn't live up to historical misconceptions.

[Wmaker]

your statement doesn't make any sense, I always stated that I was looking for the FACTS yet you seem entrenched on trying to prove that I'm looking to support a pre-established belief.

Oh please!




You posted these pics and your "clown wagon comments" to this thread:http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271940.30.html about at the same time as you started this thread. Your attitude was clear from the start.

So, no use to try to play the victim card here.

I do have a hunch, but thats it! And more importantly, everyone starts an investigation with a hunch and attempts to prove or disprove it. The very fact you went as far as to look up my score seems to imply that you are out on a witch hunt, aimed at flaming people who possibly threaten your beloved plane rather than do anything productive or useful.

Look at my original post... What did I ask for (I state my hunch and I'm looking to prove or disprove it).

Don't worry, I've flown plenty of planes through their flight model revisions in this sim. I'm not too worried.

I'm not flaming anyone but yes, if ignorant people aren't willing to learn and spout the same BS over and over I, like anyone else, get irritated. If everything I post simply gets ignored every time and same thing starts again in couple months. Then yes, my comments will get more abraisive with every new thread and for a good reason. There is no use to provide any info since it won't sink in, why should I bother? No one grasps anything anyway and the same BS just starts again within couple of months.

[Ardy123]

Oh please!


You posted these pics and your "clown wagon comments" to this thread:http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,271940.30.html about at the same time as you started this thread. Your attitude was clear from the start.
So, no use to try to play the victim card here.
Don't worry, I've flown plenty of planes through their flight model revisions in this sim. I'm not too worried.
I'm not flaming anyone but yes, if ignorant people aren't willing to learn and spout the same BS over and over I, like anyone else, get irritated. If everything I post simply gets ignored every time and same thing starts again in couple months. Then yes, my comments will get more abraisive with every new thread and for a good reason. There is no use to provide any info since it won't sink in, why should I bother? No one grasps anything anyway and the same BS just starts again within couple of months.

lol that was from a completely different thread where I was making a joke which was in reference to something I said on chann 200 the day before. Yes I bet I can dig around the forums and find a joke you made and take it out of context and say some BS too...  (I understand the joke hurt your feelings, you took it personally, I'm sorry).

yes, if ignorant people aren't willing to learn and spout the same BS over and over I, like anyone else, get irritated.

so now I'm ignorant too?
 
Actually, I am, hence why I started the thread and asked for FACTS, so that I would no longer be on the subject.

There is no use to provide any info since it won't sink in

So you are smart and everyone else is stupid?
OR
By questioning your baby, they are ignorant because everyone should assume everything you say and do is always perfectly correct?

No one grasps anything anyway and the same BS just starts again within couple of months.

Have there been many threads about Brewsters?


Ok on to the meat...

what is the "Trailing edge ailerons"?

"The low effectiveness of the trailing-edge ailerons
can be attributed, in a large measure, to the excessive
elasticity in the aileron, control system, which reduced
the aileron-deflection range attainable i n f l i g h t to
considerably lsss than the design range of t17.5O even
a t the lower speeds. For example, the maximum aileron
deflection obtained w i t h f u l l stick deflection was about
160 at a service indicated airspeed of 90 miles per hour
and about 12O a t 216 miles yer hour;"

The above quote from this document,  page 8 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930092639_1993092639.pdf

[Wmaker]

lol that was from a completely different thread where I was making a joke which was in reference to something I said on chann 200 the day before. Yes I bet I can dig around the forums and find a joke you made and take it out of context and say some BS too...  (I understand the joke hurt your feelings, you took it personally, I'm sorry).

<sigh> Whatever. I wasn't replying to you in the thread you quoted either. It was a general comment. If you search the BBS you'll find quite a bit of stuff about the Brewster after its inclusion to the game.

so now I'm ignorant too?
 
Actually, I am, hence why I started the thread and asked for FACTS, so that I would no longer be on the subject.
So you are smart and everyone else is stupid?
OR
By questioning your baby, they are ignorant because everyone should assume everything you say and do is always perfectly correct?
Have there been many threads about Brewsters?

It is very hard to put facts out to you when you haven't really numerically defined what you think is wrong in the first place. Tango posted plenty of material. That alone should keep you busy for quite a while. I will say one thing. The reach of the .50 cals or shooting distancies in general can skew the situation for the "turn fighter". But still, Brewster is either easy pickings for the G-14 or the situation will be a draw where the E-fighter won't get a shot but won't screw up either and flies away. If someone gets shot down by a Brewster in a G-14 in a clear 1 vs 1 situation, they have screwed up and screwed up royally. Unless of course they started turning on purpose just to see what happens.

Anyways some "facts" for you from the British Brewster handling tests I quoted earlier:

4. Conclusions

....

(v) All the controls are light and effective except that at low speeds (about 80 m.p.h.) the response with less than 1/4 rudder is poor, and at high speeds (above about 300 m.p.h.) the rudder is too light and the response great for small displacements. The ailerons are particularly good at high speeds, the stick force for aileron at 400 m.p.h. being about 25 lb. and the time to bank 45° about 1 1/2 secs.; Kb2 for ailerons is -0.0. Lowering the flaps and undercarriage makes the ailerons and rudder a little less effective.  The controls  of the Buffalo are a definite improvement on those of the Hurricane and Spitfire.

[Wmaker]

l

what is the "Trailing edge ailerons"?

If you'd actually read the report, you'd know. And you'd also know that they have nothing to with the B239.

[Ardy123]

If you'd actually read the report, you'd know. And you'd also know that they have nothing to with the B239.

<sigh> I'm trying to skim it at work will still doing work... but here we go again, with your defensive confrontational attitude.

It is very hard to put facts out to you when you haven't really numerically defined what you think is wrong in the first place.

As I said before, I have a hunch that it may accelerate in a dive and hold that speed better than I expect. As I said before, I was working on some films, and 'skimming' the docs as we 'furiously type' but as for 'hard facts', other than films, what are expecting as 'numerically defined'?

I'm not sure on all the math to calculate the 'projected dive speeds' or to calculate the drag created by the wings and fuselage of the aircraft to give an accurate mathematical calculation do you know the formulas?