Time for the Brewster?

[Shuckins]

While the Brewster would be at a distinct speed disadvantage in the main arena, the F2A-1, which was 400 pounds lighter than the F4F-3, could be one of the supreme furballers in the game.

The F2A-1 could almost match the climb rate of the early F4F-3 to 20,000 feet, reaching that altitude in seven and a half minutes.

To put that in perspective, the late war hot rod F4U-4 could reach 20,000 feet just 45 seconds faster than the F4F-3.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Shuckins
While the Brewster would be at a distinct speed disadvantage in the main arena, the F2A-1, which was 400 pounds lighter than the F4F-3, could be one of the supreme furballers in the game.

Truly

An experienced FiAF Brewster pilot was teaching the new ones on how to fight against ruski Hurricanes... "just turn with them and they are easy to kill"

[Krusty]

BlauK, you exaggerate, though. The Finnish pilots were up against total retards, when it came to piloting skills. Make a mythical aircraft, give it a turning radius of HALF that of the best turn fighter in the game, and put a retard in it, and you can still out-turn it.

That doesn't mean that "in equal hands, a brewster will out-turn a hurricane" -- it just means that the Finns could, and did, against far inferior pilots.

[BlauK]

Dunno Krusty,

Capt. Hans Wind's Lectures on Fighter tactics - part "solo fighting"
 
Why would an experienced pilot risk giving such advice to new pilots? One could never know the enemy pilot's experience just by the plane type.
And I would not go as far as to dispise the skills of all pilots in any airforce in general. Possibly there were more newbies in VVS those days, but I have not seen any thorough study on the subject so far.

Anyhow,  the lecture is naturally based on subjective opinions and experiences, and not on detailed tests, but still it tells something about the Brewsters' performance and potential as well

[Krusty]

I meant the Soviet pilots were the "retards", so that any pilot above the "retard" level would easily out-turn them. The Finns were better, sure, but being able to out turn a hurricane means little about the plane, if the hurricane pilot can't find the throttle with a map and 2 hands >

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Krusty
I meant the Soviet pilots were the "retards"

Quite a sweeping (and pompous) statement.

[ridley1]

Uh, in finnish markings?   how ya gonna get around the skins requirement of no swastikas?

[BlauK]

Krusty... VVS = soviet air force

Ridley, there are already some planes with Finnish markings. The HTC skin policy is obviously concerning the nazi swastikas, not the Finnish ones

[Krusty]

Yes, I'm aware of that BlauK. My point is that the Finnish forces were much more capable, and this is because of their people and training, not because of the Brewster. They would have done just as well with export P40s or P36s.

TimRas, going by the things posted on these forums, links to long articles, webpages on the subject, the Finns did not prevail by using a better technology. They prevailed because they developed tactics, they figured out better ways to fight, ways to fight to their advantage. They won because the VVS in the beginning of the war was very inept.

[Wmaker]

I thought since we are talking about which aircraft should be voted for inclusion into AH I would post some information about the delightful handling characteristic of this little fighter that served the Finnish Air Force so well over 60 years ago.

Here are couple of anecdotes about the handling qualities of the Brewster from the Francis Dean's famous book "America's hundred thousand":

The following comments are particularly interesting considering that they are from the U.S. Navy pilots who had been flying very maneuverable F3F biplane fighters before the Brewster.

Navy pilot: "When first produced the F2A-1 was an excellent aerobatic aircraft, a delight to fly."

Another Navy pilot (about the F2A-2 version, probably before some of the weight gaining modifications): "I think it would have matched the Zero (in maneuverability)."

Foreign quote about the regarding the 339 export version: "The Buffalo could almost match Zeke 22 for maneuverability."

The British commented: "The aircrfat was excellent for all acrobatics. It behaves with the ease of a Gloster Gladiator, and is just as simple to acrobat."

General comments about (during) maneuvering: "Elevators were very effective", "Ailerons were highly effective throughout the speed range" and "Rudder performance was good".

Comments from the finnish pilots are generally very similar to these.

So here is what I think it would be in AH:

It would be the slowest fighter in the game, with very similar turn rate and radius as the A6M2 with a nice roll rate (significantly faster than Hawk-75A according to finns). It would also have very good high speed handling. In general it would be easy and delightful to fly. It just can,t run or catch anything.

[morfiend]

Originally posted by Meatball


Of course, the BW needs it adversaries as well, the I-16 and I-153 would be nice. Plumpy too, they are. And continuing in the plumpiness vein, I would most of all like to see the Me163 in AH. [/B]

wouldnt the Me 163 be that little rocket powered delta winged A/C found in the hanger:O

Oh ya btw "IN"

[Panzzer]

Originally posted by morfiend
wouldnt the Me 163 be that little rocket powered delta winged A/C found in the hanger

You didn't check the date of that post, did you? Maybe there was a time in AH when 163's weren't available...

[Wes14]

brewster..looks like a cool plane:D

[devil956]

well I think this settles it.

[balance1]

BALANCE1 WANT BREWSTER!!!!!!!! ME WANT BREWSTER NOW!!!!!