Brewster vs Buffalo

[AWwrgwy]

So it would appear then to me that claims of the Brewster being over modeled here are a result of comparing apples to oranges.

Actually, it's a "I suk and got shot down by a Brew" whine more than anything else.



wrongway

[jimson]

LOL, You would surely have to see that given the anecdotal info Americans are familiar with regarding the Brewster, it would naturally be surprising to learn that the plane is far more capable than we have been led to believe

[dtango]

So it would appear then to me that claims of the Brewster being over modeled here are a result of comparing apples to oranges.

Completely.  The F2A-1/B-239 is not the the F2A-3 of Midway infamy.

Perhaps in order to accurately model the F2A3 Buffalo, it would need to be significantly heavier and somewhat less maneuverable, perhaps with more power, unless the tropical heat would have made it actually more sluggish than the Finnish Brewster in cooler weather.

Weight significantly effects maneuverability.  Add 1,000-1,500 lbs of milk duds (+ a tad bit of HP) to a 3,780 lbs F2A-1/B-239 WITHOUT increasing wing area and volia, you have the F2A-3 with crappy maneuverability.  For the same wing area, more weight = less margin of lift that can be used for turning so yeah, the F2A-3's maneuverability would not just be somewhat, but significantly less with as much proportion of weight added.

Here's a quick wing-loading comparison which gives us a rough measure of instantaneous turn performance:

B-239 wing area: 208 sq ft, weight: 5276 lbs, wing-loading: 25.3 lbs/sq-ft
F2A-3 wing area: 208 sq ft, weight: 6906 lbs, wing-loading: 33.1 lbs/sq-ft
F4F-4 wing area: 260 sq ft, weight: 7972 lbs, wing-loading: 30.7 lbs/sq-ft

Notice that the F2A-3 has the highest wing-loading of the 3 aircraft for comparison which means neglecting wing Clmax, it probably had a crappier instantaneous turning ability compared to the B-239 and F4F-4.

LOL, You would surely have to see that given the anecdotal info Americans are familiar with regarding the Brewster, it would naturally be surprising to learn that the plane is far more capable than we have been led to believe

This zombie Brewster reasoning can't be killed.  Each time someone tries it keeps coming back to life.  It also proves that contrary to medical belief ignorance is indeed a virus which spreads at intardnet velocity. 

[jimson]

Thanks for all the info guys.

[icepac]

Does anybody have the numbers for the F2A1 as used by the U.S.?

[Widewing]

Does anybody have the numbers for the F2A1 as used by the U.S.?

For the F3A-1, 5,314 lb, with a wing loading of 25.54 lb/sq ft

[gyrene81]

Technically, you'd want for:

F2A-3 - USMC, although only used operationally in one battle before being withdrawn.
B-239 - Finns. You know the rest.
B-339E - Britain and Commonwealth. Plagued by the same basic problems as the F2A-3: Overweight and underpowered.
B-339D - Dutch. Lighter than the 339E and its engine put out 200hp more. Not a bad little ride at all, and done in more by overwhelming numbers than combat capability.

actually, you missed one...kinda. the f2a-2 which was exported as the b-339d/e models. it was the fastest of the 3 models produced and had a higher operational altitude. same engine as the f2a-3, 4x .50 cal machine guns, 2 bomb racks to carry 100lbs bombs. only 41(?) or so built for the u.s., nearly 200 built for export.

the f2a-3 was the b-339-23 and b-439.

[dtango]

Since it's fashionable to beat the crap out of a dead Buffalos (even more than dead horses) let's give it a few more whacks!

We posted wing loading numbers earlier as a very rough metric of instantaneous turn performance.  But the W/S (wing-loading) metric is yet another ratio among a litany of ratios useful at cocktail parties to make us look smarter than we really are.

Let's see if we can provide a better, more meaningful approximation of relative turn performance between our early war WWF contenders.  I've kindly put together the following instantaneous turn performance plot basis NACA and other flight test Clmax figures.



Here we have instanteous turn performance approximations for the B-239, F2A-3, & F4F-4.  Notice the difference between the B-239 and F2A-3 both in terms of instantaneous turn radius and turn rate.  ~1,500 lbs of extra baggage makes a big difference for our humble Buffalo.  The B-239 would finish the F2A-3 in a WWF wrestling match...

[Slade]

dtango,

How did you get the data for your stats and chart, how can I duplicate it?

It would be cool to get an updated gonzoville page or be able to create stats like this on our own.

Also, what is "DPS" again?

Thanks,

Slade 

[Karnak]

"DPS" is "degrees per second".

[Wmaker]

Just liked to add that the "1100lbs" figure in the weight difference between B239 and F2A-3 which I mentioned assumes that F2A-3 carries approx. the max. fuel load of the B239 (160gal vs. 240gal). That 1500lbs which Tango mentioned assumes full 240gal load.

[dtango]

How did you get the data for your stats and chart, how can I duplicate it?

Research and various maths.  Yes, you can duplicate it but it requires a level of math & aero knowledge starting with understanding lift and accelerated stall limits and relating that to turn performance.

It would be cool to get an updated gonzoville page or be able to create stats like this on our own.

It could be done but I wonder about the appropriateness and usefulness of it.  1) turn performance varies with lots of different variables - in this case that chart is only good for a given altitude, given a/c weight, and given a/c configuration (flaps, no flaps, etc.).  2) The chart above relies heavily on calculations for basic aero comparison purposes.  If you wanted to do something like that for in-game flight performance I'd be concerned with relying on calculations vs. actual in-game data.

Badboy's bootstrap turn performance calculator gives you most of what you need I think.  I'd go check that out.

[dtango]

Just liked to add that the "1100lbs" figure in the weight difference between B239 and F2A-3 which I mentioned assumes that F2A-3 carries approx. the max. fuel load of the B239 (160gal vs. 240gal). That 1500lbs which Tango mentioned assumes full 240gal load.

I figured it was the difference between the empty weights since that's about what the difference there is too.

As a tangent in case anyone is wondering, clmax figures I used are for power-off conditions.

[killb8]

Research and various maths.  Yes, you can duplicate it but it requires a level of math & aero knowledge starting with understanding lift and accelerated stall limits and relating that to turn performance.

Could you TRY to explain your formula? If it goes beyond my cranial capacity that's okay.

[oboe]

Performance arguments notwithstanding, without pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, it stands to reason we should be seeing quite a few flaming Brewsters and hearing complaints about pilot wounds from regular Brewster drivers.

I don't think I've ever see a Brewster burning, myself.  Yet I would expect it to be a very common way for the fighter to be dispatched?