Brewster Perfomance

[Mongoose]

When I started flying Aces High, I was surprised by the Brewster. I had read about the battle of Midway, and I thought the Brewster would be an easy kill. I was very surprised to find out how good the plane was in game, and I also thought HT got it wrong.  Then I found this note in the plane database:

"The Brewster arguably gets the most number of complaints about being inaccurately modeled in Aces High. It is not, however, the overburdened, underpowered model that met disaster at the Battle of Midway, but rather the lightened model that the Finns used to great effect against the Soviet Union."
https://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Brewster_B-239

That answered the question about the flight characteristics of the Brewster.  It also explains why people keep thinking it is wrong.

[nrshida]

"The Brewster arguably gets the most number of complaints about being inaccurately modeled in Aces High. It is not, however, the overburdened, underpowered model that met disaster at the Battle of Midway, but rather the lightened model that the Finns used to great effect against the Soviet Union."

And with a better engine, de-Navalised, no self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor either. Should burn like a Zero and arguably only Finnish paint schemes ought to have been allowed, no?

[Devil 505]

And with a better engine, de-Navalised, no self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor either. Should burn like a Zero...

Our B-239 will out climb an A6M2 by 100 ft/min; with a rate of 2,900 ft/min vs. 2,800 with the Zero.

For context, the Brewsters uses by the British Commonwealth in Singapore could only attain about 2,300 ft/min of climb rate.

and arguably only Finnish paint schemes ought to have been allowed, no?

Ideally, yes. And I maintain that our B-239 has no place in special events outside of Finland either.

[Oldman731]

only Finnish paint schemes ought to have been allowed, no?

Yes.  Really, there's no comparison between the Midway and Singapore Buffalos and what the Finns got.  Luche and others may correct me, but in my memory the Finns were pretty pushy about telling HTC that the Buffalo the Finns got was way superior to the ones that the Marines and Brits died in.  Took a number of modifications, IIRC.

Bottom line, it's a historical plane, but unique, and should be advertised as such.  I'm with Shida.

- oldman

[nrshida]

Bottom line, it's a historical plane, but unique, and should be advertised as such.  I'm with Shida.

So shines a sliver of agreement in a weary world   

[nopoop]

Fly one for a TOUR and get back to me..

[DmonSlyr]

Fly one for a TOUR and get back to me..

  I double dog dare them.

[GasTeddy]

And with a better engine, de-Navalised, no self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor either. Should burn like a Zero and arguably only Finnish paint schemes ought to have been allowed, no?

Prior to the diversion the USN striped out the self-sealing fuel tanks, pilot armour plating, landing hook and life raft from Finnish F2A-1 Buffalos, which made the aircraft much lighter and more maneuverable. It had approximately less than 10% more wing loading than a Zero.

They were given the export number Model B-239, were equipped with an export-approved Wright R-1820-G5 nine-cylinder radial engine of 950 hp (708 kW) and after their delivery to Finland, the Finnish Air Force added armored backrests, metric flight instruments, the Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns.

[Oldman731]

Fly one for a TOUR and get back to me..

Well, OK, I'll get started on that.

- oldman

[icepac]

[icepac]

If the I153 showed up here, people would forget the brewster.

[nrshida]

(Image removed from quote.)

What witchcraft is this? Where are the propellors?