Replacement for the Brew

[Karnak]

I always thought the issue was people comparing the Brewster B-239 with negative history of the model used in Midway and the one used by the RAF/CW in the CBI.

If we agree that there is a significant physical differences in these versions and we already have a modifiable model why can't we get another one modeled after the more sucky Brewsters and call it good?

I would love to see the F2A-3 modeled.  Its historical use doesn't really justify it, but the ongoing drama and fury about the B239 does justify it.

[Wmaker]

If we agree that there is a significant physical differences in these versions and we already have a modifiable model why can't we get another one modeled after the more sucky Brewsters and call it good?

I've said this before but...I doubt even that would end it, it could even add to the fire. Based on the comparison that I've done to the technical specs, for example light loaded F2A-3 isn't all that far off of a F4F-4 (power loading is actually better and wing loading is heavier but not by much) and will still have much better control harmony and roll rate for example. The reasons why Brewster was eventually canned are mostly elsewhere than in strict flight performance, which is the emphasis here.

Brewster Corp. wasn't exactly a well managed company. Brewster Corp's separate selling organization called Miranda Brothers was a source of problems. They had been found guilty of illegal arms trade in the spring of '40 although that particular incident wasn't connected to Brewster Corp. This selling organization made the Co. of the Brewster Corp. sign deals which they didn't have the production capacity for. As the orders and the company grew fast they took on labor force which was bit on the shady side and due to this even sabotages occurred. In one of these incidents F2A-2's arrestor hooks had been deliberately weakened. I'm sure you can imagine that something like that didn't exactly add Brewster's points in the eyes of the Navy.

All the above happened largely after the Brewster B239's were delivered to Finland.

Then there were the technical problems which made F4F better suited Naval fighter:

- Brewster's landing gear didn't withstand carrier use well. They tended to collapse quite easily and the fact that the take-off weight kept creeping up with the later variants didn't exactly help either. This wasn't a similar problem when operating from land bases. There were couple gear collapses in Finnish use but not many.

- The wing was a single piece unit with a single continuous spar. When damaged it was very hard and slow to repair and it really could not have been made foldable without more or less complete redesign.

- Those self sealing tanks which already have been mentioned.

- F4F was more rugged airframe and based on my experience that is the case in AH. Again, only my subjective view regarding the matter. If someone doubts it, you can test it.

- Twin wasp generally was more favored as the fighter engine over the Cyclone in the US military circles.

[Wmaker]

For what it is worth, I am suspicious of its high speed handling as well.  I just have nothing to gainsay it as being inaccurate.  Without supporting evidence that it is wrong I really can't justifiably object to it.

You've been suspicious about this before and I've replied to you before: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674

From Report No.B.A.1689. (July, 1941), Handling tests on Buffalo (Brewster A.S.430):

Ailerons

Tests in the speed range from approach glide to 400 m.p.h. showed the ailerons to be exceptionally effective: they are crisp and powerful, and the stick forces are not too light at low speeds nor too heavy at the greater speeds. The pilots considered them to be a definite improvement on the Hurricane and Spitfire fabric covered ailerons.

....

Elevator

The elevator was tested at speeds between 80 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h.; the response and feel were found to be excellent. At 80 m.p.h. the response is exceptionally good and the stick forces are not too small. The weight increases steadily with speed but even at 400 m.p.h. the stick force is not unduly large and the response is still very good.


Pyro has this document.

Further from the same document:

General (*)

There is no tendency for any control to oscillate, snatch or take charge at any speed. The pilots considered that with this aeroplane a definitive advance had been made in fighter controls.

*regarding all three controls

From Conclusions:

The controls of the Buffalo are definitive improvement on those of the Hurricane and Spitfire.

[FLOOB]

I assume you are being sarcastic, as I have not been able to validate any of those claims about the Brewster, at all.

I would welcome a film showing all that.

Not being sarcastic, he said seemingly cannot, where I would've said the brewster demonstratively cannot do any of those things claimed in the first post of this thread.

[Karnak]

You've been suspicious about this before and I've replied to you before: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674


Further from the same document:

General (*)

There is no tendency for any control to oscillate, snatch or take charge at any speed. The pilots considered that with this aeroplane a definitive advance had been made in fighter controls.

*regarding all three controls

From Conclusions:

The controls of the Buffalo are definitive improvement on those of the Hurricane and Spitfire.

Yes,  but as you noted, nobody took the Brewster to 500mph, let alone past it.  The test data simply isn't there.  Just seems unlikely that Brewster, with no prior experience in aircraft, would have lucked into a design less impacted by speed than the Spitfire, Fw190, Bf109, A6M, Ki-84, N1K, P-47, P-38 and so on and on.

[Randy1]

You must produce the evidence of incorrect behavior and the documentation to support that claim.  Saying " . . .

Exactly!  AH films just are not the answer in this case and the best I can tell the performance data to pin down the drag coefficient doesn't exist. 

HTC model's assumptions made to fill in missing information is the question. 

Now we could toss in a bag of bucks and have modern day test ran on the old bird and put this thing to bed once and for all.  There may be out there a historical research project that did test and older warbird of a different model that might could be used to test HTC's model assumptions.

I will say this again, I have zero proof the AH model is wrong but I know from past experience any assumption carries a risk of error.  One should always try to eliminate assumptions conscionable or not.

[Coalcat1]

For my last post on this thread, I will say I would be fine seeing the F2As the US used. Lower the B239s ENY to 10 or 15 and I'll be happy.

[Karnak]

For my last post on this thread, I will say I would be fine seeing the F2As the US used. Lower the B239s ENY to 10 or 15 and I'll be happy.

Its usage and capability don't remotely justify an 10 of 15 ENY.  By usage it ought to be about ENY 35.

[Coalcat1]

By the way it's used, it's a hard kill, and shouldn't be so. Therefore it should have a higher ENY

[Lusche]

By the way it's used, it's a hard kill,

And that's probably why it's actually one of the great victims of the MA, with a current yearly true A2A K/D of 0.76. That's rank 55 out of 71 fighter planes.

[Coalcat1]

Yes, becouse when people see a brew, I rightfully gets ganged,picked and HOed all at once.

[jimson]

I would love to see the F2A-3 modeled.  Its historical use doesn't really justify it, but the ongoing drama and fury about the B239 does justify it.

Having little interest in the MA and being more of a scenario guy, I think it is historically justified by 2 very iconic things and that is the battle of Midway and RAF/Commonwealth use alongside the Flying Tigers in Burma.

Take it for what it's worth because I want to see the A5M and KI27 added as well, LOL.

[Karnak]

Having little interest in the MA and being more of a scenario guy, I think it is historically justified by 2 very iconic things and that is the battle of Midway and RAF/Commonwealth use alongside the Flying Tigers in Burma.

Take it for what it's worth because I want to see the A5M and KI27 added as well, LOL.

Ideally all WWII aircraft would be added.  I didn't mean to imply that the F2A-3 didn't have a place in AH, just that it was lower priority than things like the Beaufighter, Wellington, Pe-2, Ki-44, Ki-45, J2M, P-51A, Bf109G-6/AS and Seafire Mk III.

[Ack-Ack]

By the way it's used, it's a hard kill, and shouldn't be so. Therefore it should have a higher ENY

the Brewster is only a hard kill if you're not very good.

ack-ack

[Randy1]

the Brewster is only a hard kill if you're not very good.

ack-ack

Brews are like mushrooms.  They grow in thick furbals where P-38s don't last long.