Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 321BAR on June 08, 2010, 06:55:54 AM
-
Hey guys, i was thinking...since we have the Brewster B-239 model the Finns used, why not add the Brewster Buffalo F2A-2 and F2A-3 models also? This will stop the constant whining that the B-239 is "overmodeled" and "flies better than zeros"...
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
If there's going to be a new Brewster variant it should IMO be a Dutch B339. That way we'd get a new country into AH's planeset roster and have a variant which generally saw more action.
And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset. :)
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
If there's going to be a new Brewster variant it should IMO be a Dutch B339. That way we'd get a new country into AH's planeset roster and have a variant which generally saw more action.
And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset. :)
the F2A-3 IS the 339 though. the only difference truly is just a country designation... And it would expand early war scenario options such as Japan versus the Dutch and Commonwealth forces
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
Which model saw action at Midway?
Where pilot accounts said the Zero turned circles around it, the Wildcat was far superior, it did not belong in combat and anyone sent out in one should be considered lost before they even get airborne?
These type of historical accounts are why so many think it is over modeled, that if the Buffalo was so poor, no variation could possibly be so dramatically better.
-
the F2A-3 IS the 339 though. the only difference truly is just a country designation...
False. Go do some reading.
Which model saw action at Midway?
Where pilot accounts said the Zero turned circles around it, the Wildcat was far superior, it did not belong in combat and anyone sent out in one should be considered lost before they even get airborne?
These type of historical accounts are why so many think it is over modeled, that if the Buffalo was so poor, no variation could possibly be so dramatically better.
<sigh> Yes that is why people think it is overmodelled, instead of using their heads and looking a bit further.
-
maker,
From what I understand, the 239 and 339C/D used by the Dutch were close enough in performance that the 239 does make an adequate stand-in. Incidentally, HTC apparently still considers the Brewster an American bird on the AHWiki.
jimson,
The F2A-3 saw action at Midway.
I stated this in the Brewster thread on Aircraft and Vehicles, but the best way to cover as many variants as possible with the fewest aircraft would be:
B-239 - Serves as the Finnish 239 and the Dutch 339C/D
F2A-3 - Serves as the US F2A-3 and British/Commonwealth 339E
-
From Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Buffalo)
-
False. Go do some reading.
339E. forgot that. F2A-3 was like the 339E. both were not as maneuverable as the 339C/D variants or the 239. but they were all close in comparison (except an approx 900lb difference between the F2A-2/B-239/B339C or D and the F2A-3/B339E). i just want the F2A-3 to make a more historical accuracy between the two.
a.k.a. strap a 1,000 lb bomb to the Brewster we have and you have the F2A-3
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
If there's going to be a new Brewster variant it should IMO be a Dutch B339. That way we'd get a new country into AH's planeset roster and have a variant which generally saw more action.
And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset. :)
Well, considering there were only 44 total B-239s ever built, adding the most produced model F2A-3 would be justifiable. And yes, F2A-2's did see some combat in the form of British and Dutch B-339s, in Crete (RAF 805 Sqd.), Suriname, Burma and Singapore. Adding the Dutch units would be a bit more complex since they had slightly mixed bag. 72 F2A-2/B-339B airframes stripped down to export specs were ordered in 1940 and they had to order the engines separately. Can't remember which model, rebuilt R-1820-G105A 1200hp (?) and R-1820-G205A 1100hp (?) DC-3 engines maybe. Sometime in 1941 they ordered another 20 and got F2A-3/B-439s with rebuilt R-1820-G2 1000hp engines.
The British units were also a mixed bag of F2A-2/B-339Es though slightly less stripped/modified than they were for the Finnish and Dutch units.
321BAR, the B-439 was the export designation of the F2A-3.
F2A-3 (Brewster Model B-439): Third production model. Similar to the F2A-2 but with self-sealing fuel tanks with increased capacity, additional armor protection, and redesigned canopy and nose section. An order for 108 aircraft was placed on 21 January 1941 with deliveries beginning in July 1941. The increased weight due to the additional armor protection resulted in instability and handling difficulties.
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
If there's going to be a new Brewster variant it should IMO be a Dutch B339. That way we'd get a new country into AH's planeset roster and have a variant which generally saw more action.
And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset. :)
Why is any question concerning a plane got to be labeled a whine ? Wmaker . I got a hunch , the record of the buffalo in your country mens hands had alot more to do with comparative pilot skill then plane performance . I have just got a stop watch but I think we are going to have more whines from more clueless morons after I make a few acceleration tests . Comparing the buff and the F4U4 in level flight . Ok some quick results at 1000 feet alt . The f4u4 was about 1.5 seconds faster from 150 to 250 as with . I tried to make things as simple as possible , all tests are 1kalt auto level on combat trim on . It lost by about 3 seconds to a spixteen . It beat the A8 by 3 seconds or more . Does that sound right to anyone ? Would like to see other members of the community try it . Snailman can I get mine with charts ?
-
Well, considering there were only 44 total B-239s ever built, adding the most produced model F2A-3 would be justifiable.
B239s fought from June '41 'till Jan '45 scoring 477 victories (give or take a few) and flew on average 448h per plane. AFAIK F2A-3s took part in exactly two aerial combats. At that point, production numbers are completely and utterly irrelevant. Especially considering the already bloated US planeset compared to the other countries.
And yes, F2A-2's did see some combat in the form of British and Dutch B-339s, in Crete (RAF 805 Sqd.), Suriname, Burma and Singapore. Adding the Dutch units would be a bit more complex since they had slightly mixed bag. 72 F2A-2/B-339B airframes stripped down to export specs were ordered in 1940 and they had to order the engines separately. Can't remember which model, rebuilt R-1820-G105A 1200hp (?) and R-1820-G205A 1100hp (?) DC-3 engines maybe. Sometime in 1941 they ordered another 20 and got F2A-3/B-439s with rebuilt R-1820-G2 1000hp engines.
Like I said, F2A-2s didn't see combat. B339 is a B339 and F2A-2 is a F2A-2 even though they are related.
-
Why is any question concerning a plane got to be labeled a whine ?
No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. There's no need to do anything based on whining, except have fun on the whiners' expense.
I have just got a stop watch but I think we are going to have more whines from more clueless morons after I make a few acceleration tests . Comparing the buff and the F4U4 in level flight .
Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see. :lol
Well, have fun testing. :)
-
Which model saw action at Midway?
Where pilot accounts said the Zero turned circles around it, the Wildcat was far superior, it did not belong in combat and anyone sent out in one should be considered lost before they even get airborne?
These type of historical accounts are why so many think it is over modeled, that if the Buffalo was so poor, no variation could possibly be so dramatically better.
My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .
-
My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .
This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant.
-
I want a silver one & a black one please. :D
-
Would this website help?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/f2a.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/f2a.htm)
The Brewster fighter's only U.S. combat use, on 4 June 1942 during the Battle of Midway, dramatically showed the inferiority of the F2A-3 when confronted by the Japanese Navy's "Zero" carrier fighters and well-trained aviators. In a brief battle against greatly superior numbers, Midway Island's Marine Fighting Squadron 221 (VMF-221) lost thirteen of twenty F2A-3s. Soon after, the "Buffalo" was removed from combat units and assigned to advanced training duty. In that role, it helped new U.S. fighter pilots enhance their skills before they joined operational squadrons. The aging F2A-2s and F2A-3s remained in the trainng mission into 1943, and a few were still in service in 1944-45.
-
I want a silver one & a black one please. :D
Oh I forgot.. & one with 6 blue circles on it.
-
I want a silver one & a black one please. :D
Sorry lyric! :( I'll try to get on it!
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Comparison_taas.jpg)
F2A-3 is listed with 160gal fuel load instead of the 240gal full load.
-
No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. 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. :lol
Well, have fun testing. :)
did now you do some reading bud . In objective tests performed in game it out performed one plane equaled another ,barely beat a plane it should lost too by alot . There it is an easy to reproduce test . Where there is no wind difference in al or pilot abilty it is doing something it should not do . The only opponet it ever did well against was a Soviet Air Force . That like all branches of that nations forces performed so pitifully against Germany in 1941 . The Germans outperformed them over and over again with lower numbers ,inferior equipment , in the attack . AFTER the Sovs ,had the chance to begin to make changes based on lessons from the winter war . The Finns faced a sov armed forces that had beat the Japanese in China and was fully over confident about its abilitys ,while defending over home territory and all of the advantages that gives . Calling me names and not arguing on the merits of your position makes you the moron scooter not me . 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 . Ithink 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 .
-
No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. 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. :lol
Well, have fun testing. :)
I did now you do some reading bud . In objective tests performed in game it out performed one plane equaled another ,barely beat a plane it should lost to by alot . This it is an easy to reproduce test . The only opponent it ever did well against was a Soviet Air Force . That like all branches of that nations forces performed so pitifully against Germany in 1941 . The Germans outperformed them over and over again with lower numbers ,inferior equipment , in the attack . AFTER the Sovs ,had the chance to begin to make changes based on lessons from the winter war . The Finns faced a sov armed forces that had beat the Japanese in China and was fully over confident about its ability's ,while defending over home territory and all of the advantages that gives . Calling me names and not arguing on the merits of your position makes you the moron scooter not me . 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 . I added no words to your mouth skippy , you used the words moron and whine . Weaseling out by blaming someone else does little to bolster credibilty . Didn't hear bar say he didn't say it or he was just repeating someone else . I may not agree with him at times but we debate on our positions . We don't rely on the weak method of when your position is untenable resort to ridicule . We may agree to disagree , but we do it without any misplaced sense of superiority over each other . You never answer any questions why is that ?
-
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Scan_145.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Scan_146.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Scan_111.jpg)
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Comparison_taas.jpg)
F2A-3 is listed with 160gal fuel load instead of the 240gal full load.
ROFL great chart so please explain why the 239 out turns the A6m5 in game . Unless I am mistaken a lower wing loading equals better manueverabilty . Yet the a6m5 it out turned by the 239 in game .
-
And just when I thought it wasn't gonna get any better. :)
Calling me names and not arguing on the merits of your position makes you the moron scooter not me .
I didn't call you names. I merely stated a fact. I maybe could have dropped it to you a bit more gently but it wouldn't really change the context in anyway.
There's no need for me to "argue on the merits of my position" when you haven't presented a single sound argument. If you think there's something wrong in the modelling of some plane in this sim we fly, starting to ramble on about how it did in the war itself isn't going to do you squat. :) Neither will this "combat testing" actually. Do some actual testing from where you can extract some numbers out of. Then start figuring out if the numbers you just extracted match to the real life counter part or not. There are plenty of variables that can affect to the performance of a plane in AH that are hard to test. Prop efficiency along speed range being one. But if all you can do is ramble on without any sort logic all I'm gonna do is laugh at you. I don't see any point to even try to have a logical discussion until you start presenting logical arguments.
-
Unless I am mistaken a lower wing loading equals better manueverabilty .
Well, you are mistaken. :)
-
the F2A-3 IS the 339 though.
The Brewster F2A-3 is the Brewster Model B-439.
ack-ack
-
I added no words to your mouth skippy , you used the words moron
Hmm..where did I use the word "moron"? :headscratch:
:rofl
-
Hey Lyric, try this site out...some interesting reading.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
Wmaker, considering that you speak from the single point of view of someone who researched the achievements of ~15 pilots from your country who fought against inexperienced pilots...I'm not surprised you so readily used the word "ignorant". Did you happen to also research the Finnish pilots who were successful flying the M.S. 406 or the Fiat G.50?
I don't suppose you actually researched the Dutch or British squadrons stationed in the South Pacific that went against Japanese aircraft either.
-
Wmaker, considering that you speak from the single point of view of someone who researched the achievements of ~15 pilots from your country who fought against inexperienced pilots...I'm not surprised you so readily used the word "ignorant". Did you happen to also research the Finnish pilots who were successful flying the M.S. 406 or the Fiat G.50?
I don't suppose you actually researched the Dutch or British squadrons stationed in the South Pacific that went against Japanese aircraft either.
I don't quite see how any of this is relevant except that I try my best not talk complete nonsense in here...about any topic...because it doesn't do any good to the discussion and just adds noise for the occasional reader to wade through.
EDIT/Quite a few people here only seem to know one thing about the Brewster: The losses it recieved in one aerial combat during the Midway battle. They simply take that single tidbit without really thinking the event itself very much and start screaming Brewster must be over modelled. So yes, it's quite easy to use the word "ignorant" after that. And the word is spot on too. If there's zero desire to look into the issue any further and simply deny any info that's being offered that is exactly what they are./EDIT
-
I don't quite see how any of this is relevant except that I try my best not talk complete nonsense in here...about any topic...because it doesn't do any good to the discussion and just adds noise for the occasional reader to wade through.
Well, the fact is that the Finn B-239 with a lower horse power engine appears to have performed better than historical accounts show U.S. Navy, British and Dutch variants did. The majority of the Finns who received the B-239s had less flying general time than their U.S., British and Dutch counterparts and yet they managed to achieve phenomenal results, so pilot inexperience isn't entirely a solid argument one way or the other. The fact that so few F2A-1s were actually produced and documented in flight tests as well as the F2A-2 and F2A-3, makes it difficult to understand how or why the AH B-239 can out maneuver planes in AH that people tend to think should not be outmaneuvered by the Brew.
After trying to justify my own arguments against it's use in early war PTO setups, if we were talking about the F2A-2/B-339 or F2A-3/B-439 against the A6M2 I wouldn't have any arguments. Maybe it is just a matter of learning how to fly it.
-
I have no problem it being used or not being used in Special Events. Either way is ok with me. Brewster's practically non-existant altitude performance compared to th A6M2 for example (which is accurate) will severely hamper it in a Special Events setting...far more than it ever will in the MA. Right now A6M2 seems to be roughly 200lbs over weight according to common weight listings I have seen. Once Pyro remodels the Zeke line up that might help it further.
The fact that so few F2A-1s were actually produced and documented in flight tests as well as the F2A-2 and F2A-3, makes it difficult to understand how or why the AH B-239 can out maneuver planes in AH that people tend to think should not be outmaneuvered by the Brew.
Drawing unlogical conclusions from things like this never gets anyone very far. The real reasons why Navy gave up on the Brewsters haven't even been properly discussed on this board yet as far as I can remember. No, the defeats in a single combat weren't the reason by itself, not even close. The result of that combat would have been exactly the same if the Brewsters would have been replaced with Wildcats.
-
I have no problem it being used or not being used in Special Events. Either way is ok with me. Brewster's practically non-existant altitude performance compared to th A6M2 for example (which is accurate) will severely hamper it in a Special Events setting...far more than it ever will in the MA. Right now A6M2 seems to be roughly 200lbs over weight according to common weight listings I have seen. Once Pyro remodels the Zeke line up that might help it further.
Wmaker, given the Brewsters superior performance in last months FSO (at 20 to 25k) this dose not appear to be the case. The Brewster was an even match for the A6M2 at altitude, and was able to dive away to then zoom climb in a manner that the Zero could not match. As it stands now (in my opinion) the Brewster is clearly the most superior early war aircraft model we have. Using them in events is going to be tricky because of their dominant performance and will have to be balanced by limiting their numbers.
I hope that when HTC remodels the A6M's we will be able to get a much better comparison.
The only issue I have with the Brewster, is the amount of hit's they can take and continue to fly well, I'm not sure if it's the new damage model being to strong, or the old AH1 planes being rather weak. Not to say that there is anything wrong with the Brewster, but I will be very interested to see how a remodeled A6M2 compares (whenever it gets done) absorbing hits.
-
The Brewster faced 4 to 1 odds at Midway versus superior, experienced Japanese pilots and were decimated.
The Brewster sux.
The Brewster faced 4 to 1 odds against the Russians in Europe and were an overwhelming success.
It was the superior pilots, of course.
;)
Same argument. Maybe the Brew really wasn't that bad.
wrongway
-
I think you have to expand the argument a bit. The Hawk75 performed exceptionally well in both French and Finnish service. The P39 was perceived as having problems in Port Moresby yet statistically it performed better then the British spitfire equipped unit that followed it. The marine unit at Midway was more then 50% reserve pilots and pitted against the best pilots in a superior plane. Parks put his best pilots in the F4F's which IMO accounts more for the survival/kill ratio's then the difference in planes.
going back to the Rangoon FSO I flew the Brewster in one frame and the simple reality (as it relates to our experience) is that the Zeke's were poorly handled and suffered from circumstance. While they clearly had the upper hand at altitude the D3A/B5N's came in low and that not only brought the zekes down but put them in a situation where clearing a low friendly left them open to a diving attack from a different Brewster and extending then left the mud movers exposed. This is the same issue the luftwaffe had in BoB...U can't tie your escort up like that.
-
Wmaker, given the Brewsters superior performance in last months FSO (at 20 to 25k) this dose not appear to be the case. The Brewster was an even match for the A6M2 at altitude, and was able to dive away to then zoom climb in a manner that the Zero could not match. As it stands now (in my opinion) the Brewster is clearly the most superior early war aircraft model we have. Using them in events is going to be tricky because of their dominant performance and will have to be balanced by limiting their numbers.
Rgr, that may be. Of course there are a lot factors at play here. One thing is the high speed handling but that is very well documented for both of these types. Another is the armament in the game. 4*50 cals will be utterly superior to the A6M2 armament no matter which airframe they are mounted. I would also wish people would think about the differences between the game in general and the real war. The differences in the situations doesn't just limit themselves to the plane types in question.
So in short, it is my belief that if the B239 did that to the Zekes, F2A-3 would have done exactly the same thing. The difference in the armament playes a huge huge role in this sim. Hurricane IIc is a good example of that. Also F4F-4 with 6*guns and F2A-3 are actually quite comparable on paper and F4F-4 has many times dominated in these events over the A6M2.
The only issue I have with the Brewster, is the amount of hit's they can take and continue to fly well,
I guess they are giving me the wrong Brewsters. ;) If there's something wrong in that department I hope HTC finds it now that they are looking through the damage models of the planes recently.
-
So in short, it is my belief that if the B239 did that to the Zekes, F2A-3 would have done exactly the same thing.
The differences between the B-239 and the F2A-3 may not seem like a lot when reading specs but every pilot that lived to talk about the -3 model says the same thing, it was inferior to the F2A-2, even the Brits flying the B-339E disliked the F2A-3 so there is no way it would have the same performance to the B-239 if modeled correctly in AH.
-
Wmaker, like I said I don't think it's a problem with the Brewster (but maybe ;) ) but a difference between the older aircraft models and the newer ones. I am really looking forward to the full integration of the new damage model and all the possibilities that brings.
I agree about the differences between the models (and what happened in history vs how we use them in game). I just was making the point that the Brewsters use in events has to be balanced with it's performance (just like any other plane in Aces High).
Snaphook, I understand and agree with you to a point, but the Brewster was able to point its nose down and make up the speed difference between it and the A6M2 very easily.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/genchart.php?p1=71&p2=101&pw=2>ype=0)
It was very common to see the Brewsters with a slight altitude advantage (makes sense that they had alt being used in a defensive role), they would then go dose down, pick up speed, and merge co-alt in that FSO. I agree that the A6M2's were not always flown to their best strengths, but the Brewster was (in general) equal to the Zeke at altitude and could dive away when in trouble. The Zeke could not do the same.
-
Wmaker, like I said I don't think it's a problem with the Brewster (but maybe ;) ) but a difference between the older aircraft models and the newer ones. I am really looking forward to the full integration of the new damage model and all the possibilities that brings.
No worries Baumer, I know from the past that with you this conversation will follow good logic. ;)
I agree about the differences between the models (and what happened in history vs how we use them in game). I just was making the point that the Brewsters use in events has to be balanced with it's performance (just like any other plane in Aces High).
Rgr that. That comment of mine was intended in a general way. I know that you being a good CM have to think about these things a lot and have the passion for the history too. :)
but the Brewster was able to point its nose down and make up the speed difference between it and the A6M2 very easily.
One thing that really comes to play in here is the reach of the .50 cals.
-
The Biggest issues were the tendency of the zeke drivers not to E fight combined with the mission design that placed them in a quandary. Dive down to protect the attack planes or protect the perch? This is a match up where the zeke has to E fight since it cant afford to trade blows or get caught up in any type of a reversing fight. It is IMO a very demanding fight for the zeke in the sense that it requires patience and discipline since any lapse offers a FQ shot to the brewster that will often end the fight...
-
...F4F-4 has many times dominated in these events over the A6M2.
Interesting how no one is on here screaming about the F4F's flight modeling.
We have the benefit of the experience of the pilots who actually fought that war when we take planes up. We already know what tactics work best against certain opponents. You can't help that pilots flying for the Allies in pre-Midway events already know to use hit and run and cooperative tactics against the Zero. We don't have pilots indoctrinated into the old-school of aerial combat learning through trial and error that, oops, trying to maneuver with the Zero doesn't work. We already KNOW the tactics that developed to counter the Zero, and this is why the Allies often seem to end up with an advantage against the Japanese plane set, despite "inferior" aircraft.
The Brewster has the same key advantages as the F4F: Good instantaneous turn, good diving ability, good high-speed handling, excellent firepower, and good durability. She has the same disadvantages: The Zero is faster and has better acceleration, is superior in the vertical and sustained maneuvers (sorry guys, but the Brewster does NOT beat the Zero in a sustained turning fight. I've been in enough of them to know that if I don't end the fight in the first half-turn or so he's got me unless I've got a friend to clear my six).
-
Interesting how no one is on here screaming about the F4F's flight modeling.
Yep, that was my point exactly.
-
Hey Lyric, try this site out...some interesting reading.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
I know it well in fact I am on that BBS in a few threads.
-
My my, all this gnashing of teeth about the Brewster Buffalo :D. What a riddle the B-239 is indeed.
Riddle me this- what difference would it make on performance to take a B-239, add 200hp and 1,000lbs weight to it?
Oh nevermind. They did do that didn't they! That's the hunk of junk they called the F2A-3 that was shot to pieces over Midway!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
The majority of the Finns who received the B-239s had less flying general time than their U.S., British and Dutch counterparts and yet they managed to achieve phenomenal results, so pilot inexperience isn't entirely a solid argument one way or the other.
phenominal? try astrological...they still have the record for one pilot's kill record over any other aviator. They had a victory ratio of 26 to 1 versus the Russians. Hans Wind has the most kills in any Brewster with 39 kills, 26 of which were in BW-393 and Eino Juutilainen scored another 7 in that same plane. Eino Juutilainen scored 34 of his 94 and a half kills in B-239s. BW-393 scored 41 kills and is possibly the highest single aircraft with the most victories in air warfare
-
Interesting how no one is on here screaming about the F4F's flight modeling.
I have questioned it in the past. I recall an F4F pilot at the 2001 con watching somebody fly the AH1 F4F, mixing it up with Zeros and commenting that the game looked fun, but if they'd tried that with Zeros in reality they'd have died.
I don't know how much the maneuverability is off, if at all, but the firepower and durability differences seem too great. As modeled in AH the F4Fs would have slaughtered the Zeros wholesale as the Zeros have no choice but to saddle up for long tracking shots, giving other F4Fs ample time to blow the now not maneuvering Zero to bits.
-
I have questioned it in the past. I recall an F4F pilot at the 2001 con watching somebody fly the AH1 F4F, mixing it up with Zeros and commenting that the game looked fun, but if they'd tried that with Zeros in reality they'd have died.
I wouldn't either if my life was hanging in the balance. Since it is not I'll take the chance. IIRC Pug Sutherland gave Saburo Saki all he could handle also if Pug's guns didn't jam the out come of their fight might have gone differently. So like in game pilot quality makes a huge difference.
-
This highlights the reality that from an ACM perspective most sim sticks are far ahead of there real life counterparts. While nothing can replace the real thing most combat pilots had a few hours of total combat time (time actually engaged in combat) and very little actual combat ACM experience. So true combat manuevering was rare compared to slashing hit and run attacks. Here is a quote from Saburo...
At once the Grumman snapped away in a roll to the right, clawed around in a tight turn, and ended up in a climb straight at my own plane. Never before had I seen an enemy plane move so quickly or gracefully before, and every second his guns were moving closer to the belly of my fighter
Pretty typical in AH but very rare in actual WW2 combat...
-
I wouldn't either if my life was hanging in the balance. Since it is not I'll take the chance. IIRC Pug Sutherland gave Saburo Saki all he could handle also if Pug's guns didn't jam the out come of their fight might have gone differently. So like in game pilot quality makes a huge difference.
I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be. It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities. It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher. Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing. The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.
The only two fighters that I think are more maneuverable than they should be are the Bf110 and Hurricane.
-
I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be. It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities. It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher. Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing. The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.
Then again, Sakae once emptied his clip into an F4F only to watch it fly off home....
Carrier aircraft are built tougher to withstand the stress of carrier landing, so there could be something in the structure that spells the difference between the F4F and the Spit.
-
Then again, Sakae once emptied his clip into an F4F only to watch it fly off home....
Carrier aircraft are built tougher to withstand the stress of carrier landing, so there could be something in the structure that spells the difference between the F4F and the Spit.
The A6M is a carrier aircraft too, and not that much lighter than the F4F when both are empty.
As to Sakai's clip, I recall that was just the 7.7s, not the 20mm.
-
I don't think the maneuverability is off by much, if at all, on the F4F, but I do think it is modeled as being tougher than it should be. It isn't the maneuverability that kills the A6M2, it is the astronomical difference in their respective durabilities. It just doesn't make sense that a fighter that weighs the same as a Spitfire and is actually larger in dimension would be so much tougher. Metal is metal, and you just can't make it do that kind of thing. The F4F should be slightly tougher than the A6M, with the added notes that it has self sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. It should not be a flying cannon and machine gun sponge.
The only two fighters that I think are more maneuverable than they should be are the Bf110 and Hurricane.
My understanding is that the zero was made out of a more brittle aluminum alloy which offered more strength per pound but was more brittle than what other aircraft were using.
-
My understanding is that the zero was made out of a more brittle aluminum alloy which offered more strength per pound but was more brittle than what other aircraft were using.
Not more brittle, but rather it would corrode and become brittle over time, but the Japanese didn't intend the Zero to be in service 10 years down the road, so they didn't think that was really an issue. That is how I understand it.
-
I don't know how much the maneuverability is off, if at all, but the firepower and durability differences seem too great. As modeled in AH the F4Fs would have slaughtered the Zeros wholesale as the Zeros have no choice but to saddle up for long tracking shots, giving other F4Fs ample time to blow the now not maneuvering Zero to bits.
a good zero pilot in the MA will soon realize that if you cannot get a shot on an enemy within the space of less than approx two seconds, its time to pull out and find a new target...
The A6M is a carrier aircraft too, and not that much lighter than the F4F when both are empty.
yes its a carrier aircraft but you do notice Japan and America used two different CV A/C styles correct? Japan went for the maneuverability and light craft, America went for the heavy armored planes with speed and firepower with SOME maneuverability
-
Kind of off topic but since I brought up the fight between Sakai and Sutherland. I though you all might enjoy this.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1258888794/?starttime=0
-
a good zero pilot in the MA will soon realize that if you cannot get a shot on an enemy within the space of less than approx two seconds, its time to pull out and find a new target...
Which against the F4F means you don't kill any many F4Fs as you have to saddle up for an extended time. The F4F is plenty maneuverable to make the A6M2's shot difficult/
yes its a carrier aircraft but you do notice Japan and America used two different CV A/C styles correct? Japan went for the maneuverability and light craft, America went for the heavy armored planes with speed and firepower with SOME maneuverability
You can't magically make an extra 500lbs of aluminum on a larger airplane have that much more durability. The light Japanese aircraft isn't that much lighter and we're not talking about a F6F or P-47 here.
-
I'm also interested in whether you're accounting for the awful ballistics of the Zero's 20mm. I've flown both sides in early PTO scenarios, and even if I get a good tracking shot at convergence range with the 20mm the rounds still fall low and miss the target outright. (confirmed by just firing the 20mm). When I CAN get the 20mm in there is when I get the kills (and that's certainly consistent with Sakai's report. If the cannon aren't hitting, those 7.7s aren't going to do much more than tickle).
And for the record, I have no trouble putting F4Fs down with a bank of Brownings. If there's a fault I'm more inclined to believe it's the abysmal performance of the early Japanese cannon (combined with the F4F just being hard to hit) than any modeling of the F4F's durability.
-
I've shot down F4Fs in AH with just the 7.7mm guns, but no, I am talking about hitting with the 20mm.
And it isn't only the A6M. I have had the same experience with the Mossie, and you can't ding that one for lack of firepower or poor ballistics. The F4F is an extremely durable fighter, and looking at it closer tonight that just doesn't make sense that it should be that tough.
-
No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. 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. :lol
Well, have fun testing. :)
"And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset." So I put words in your mouth ? That is a quote from you .
Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 . Your only response . "My guess is that the power loadings agree nicely with real life figures." You go on and on abut proof yet you give a guess as evidence ? Except for your contention that the buff was this uber plane in comparison to other ww2 fighters . You contradict every other post you make sometimes you do it right in the same post . You don't insult/name/call . Next line anyone that asks a question is lazy thick headed ignorant . You want facts, you reply with a guess . Well guess what show me the facts that prove buff could out accelerate the a8 . Then post the facts proving me wrong that my contention that it did well only in Finnish hands is wrong . Show me where they were not eliminated by their enemy either to or almost to the last machine .
Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see. Hehe!
Well, have fun testing.
In comparison yes it does . I posted on the other thread I am sure a towering intellect like you remembers the redone test data. With double the horsepower and much much lower drag in the 190 . The brewster should not out accelerate the FW190A8 . Yours is the extraordinary claim not mine . You say it is correct that a 1936 design should out accelerate a 1943 wartime one . I say prove it . Please if you can't respond like an adult , save it for the people that have deluded you into thinking you are funny . No personal attack just prove your outlandish claim
My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .
"This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Once again a personal attack on something I know is basically right . The word slaughter may not have applied to the dutch , that is a matter of opinion though . Please show me anywhere else that it achieved anything like the Finnish K/D ratio . We both know you can't . Once again you suggest a claim about the plane that is inaccurate and against accepted history . Burden of proof is yours . Wish I could say I am looking forward to a reply on this . We both know it was not successful in any other hands than Finnish ones , against pilots of unequal quality . I wonder if you will suggest end of war German or Soviet pilot quality through out the war was anything other then unequal .
"I didn't call you names. I merely stated a fact. I maybe could have dropped it to you a bit more gently but it wouldn't really change the context in anyway." "This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Both quotes of you . In reply to me . Both in direct contradiction of each other . I assume English is not your native tongue . Yet you write well and speak it so so . I have a hard time thinking you don't understand the definition of the words , for the context they were used in . Yet these two posts suggest you do . So please save the insults for your kids or who ever it is weaker then you that helped you to develop that attitude .Someone has been dishonest with you . Your not funny at all . So please save it and just answer the questions . BTW a psych study done at a near by university about cyber bullying sheds some light on why you act the way you do online . A friend of my daughters who is doing graduate work on it really gave me a chuckle when she analysed your posts in this forum. I should post the profile here , but it would just get skuzzyfied . You make some powerful statements about how you are tired of the ignorant people and their claims . I have seen no one make claims . Just ask questions . Further I have seen you do little to nothing to answer the questions . Well I have more questions and observations to point out . I shall end it here though so as not to be accused of rambling . The two questions are easy to see lets see an answer .
-
Question;
I think I've read somewhere that the Soviet pilots stationed near Finland were those that had previously fought Japan in the Sino-Japanese war, is this correct?
On top of that then, they would have had the added experience of fighting the Finns in the Winter War... (assuming that units weren't moved around, I'm unfamiliar with the Soviet side of this)
That would then make the Soviet pilots fighting against the Finnish Air Force the most experienced in the VVS at the opening of the Continuation War, wouldn't it?
I'm just curious, with all of this talk about pilot skill.
Having read some of Juutilainen's exploits in the Brewster, I do not doubt the capabilities of the B-239 in this game at all. I do wish we had an F2A-3, though.
-
At the time, the soviet air force was coming out of the worst paranoid purge in all of stalinist history. About 75% of ALL the leadership and structure was "purged" (killed, sent to camps, "removed" etc...)
The pilots fighting the Finns were the worst of the worst, [Edit, don't get me wrong there may have been a couple competent folks trying to keep things going, but as an overall unit it was hopeless] by this time they had little to no training, and barely knew that "turning" was a good way to follow an enemy. This remained true to lesser and lesser degress through the war, and it wasn't until all the way up to late 44, 1945, that the Soviet training machine geared up and actually started producing pilots on par with Western nations.
Before that it was limited to a single good pilot trying to teach his squad mates very basic things. That's why the Soviet aces stood out so much, received so much accolades, because they were a step above, and were in essence the teachers for their green pilots.
At the time of Barbarossa, Soviet pilots had almost no training as well, often bombers flying straight and level in formation as they let themselves be shot down. The German pilots felt sick that they didn't even put up a fight. Left a sour taste, but they learned that Stalin's paranoia only allowed the lead plane in any formation to know what it was doing and where it was going, so they killed it first. The rest didn't know what to do and flew on level until they were all shot down.
The Soviet air force was VERY much a quantity over quality deal, and this is very much true at the beginning of the war. That's why the Finns had such a massive kill ratio against them, most didn't know how to turn, let alone turn fight.
-
There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.
There is a RAAF claim of an overall kill/death ratio of 2-1 in the Brewster's favour. To dismiss it as a useless aircraft in that conflict, as some tend to do, without delving more deeply into its history tends to tarnish the aircraft and those that flew it somewhat unfairly. It's an interesting and complicated story.
4 Pilots made Ace in the plane during that early conflict and there is a fair list of multiple victors.
The Brewster is documented as having been delivered from the factory with multiple faults requiring field fixes. Underpowered engines on some planes noted.
There are some great books about, that are quite illuminating, but you don't have to go that far.
Lots of research done on the WB forums on the topic and it's a useful place to start:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
and
http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm)
Some of which is repeated here for illustration - best to go to original site.
Notable Brewster Buffalo pilots in Southeast Asia, 1941-42
by Santiago A. Flores
The following is a listing, compiled from various sources, of notable Brewster Buffalo pilots who flew in combat in the early part of the Pacific war. I have chosen to list the individual claims of those pilots who claimed 4 victories. For those who claimed over 4 victories (to include shared victories), information can be found in Aces High and Aces High Vol.2, written by Christopher Shores and Clive Williams. All the victories claimed for P/O. G. B. Fisken are already noted in this web site.
Not all the individual claims for each pilot has been found and there are some discrepancies between the sources that I have consulted from type of aircraft claimed shot-down to the day of the claim. Any help or information would be most welcomed to make the listing as accurate as possible.
SGT. GEOFFREY BRYSON FISKEN 6 victories RNZAF 243,453 Squadron WIA Feb. 1, 1942 Later flew in No.15 RNZAF Squadron, claiming 5 more victories to become the top scoring Commonwealth pilot against the Japanese.
F/LT. MAURICE HENRY HOLDER 5 victories RAF 243 Squadron KIFA July 16, 1942 (2 and 3 shared destroyed, and 2 shared damaged) He returned to the UK, only to be killed in a training accident.
SGT. ALFRED WATTLE BENJAMIN CLARE 5 victories RAAF 453 Squadron
F/LT. RICHARD DOUGLAS VANDERFIELD 5 victories RAAF 453 Squadron (plus 1 shared probable)
SGT. MALCOLM NEVILLE READ 4 victories RAAF 453 Squadron KIA December 22, 1941 December 13, 1941 3 shared Ki-51's December 22, 1941 1 Rammed a KI-43
F/LT. DAVID JOHN COLIN PINCKNEY 4 victories RAF 67 Squadron KIA January 23, 1942 (Plus 3 claimed victories, 3 probables and 1 damaged with 603 squadron in Europe. His story is listed in this web site.)
SGT. BERT SAMUEL WIPITI 4 victories RNZAF 243, 453 Squadron KIA Northern Europe (3 and 1 shared victories) Known claims:
January 10, 1942 sh Ki-46
January 21, 1942 Ki-43
January 22, 1942 "Navy 96" Bomber
Later transferred over to 453 Squadron, served in the UK. Promoted to WO. Served in 458 Squadron flying Spifires, later reported KIA probably after 1943. He would claim two more shared kills in this unit:
September 16, 1943 sh. ME-109
October 3, 1943 sh. FW-190
SGT. C. V. (Vic) BARGH 4 victories RNZAF 67 Squadron 4v Know claims based on the book "Bloody Shambles":
December 23, 1941 KI-27 Probable Bomber Destroyed
December 25, 1941 Fighter Destroyed
January 24, 1942 Bomber Destroyed
SGT. VIVIAN ARTHUR COLLYER 4 victories RAAF 21/453 Squadron
December 13, 1941 3 sh. Ki-51
December 22, 1941 1 enemy aircraft
F/LT. JACK ROTSTON "CONGO" KINNINMONT 4 victories RAAF 21/453 Squadron Generally credited with 3 claims with the Buffalo, later served in 75,76 and 86 RAAF Squadrons. Known claims:
January 15, 1942 Bomber Probable
January 19, 1942 Recon Aircraft
January 19, 1942 KI-43
January 29, 1942 Bomber Damaged
January 31, 1942 Zero Damaged
F/O. NOEL C. SHARP 3 victories RNZAF 488/243/604 Squadrons Known claims:
January 12, 1942 Fighter Probable
January 13,1942 Fighter Ki-43
January 18, 1942 Fighter Type O
January 20, 1942 2 Bombers Damaged
F/ LT. TIMOTHY ASHMED VIGORS 3 victories RAF 243/453 Squadron WIA December 13, 1941
December 13, 1941 3 e/a fighters.
Note: These claims are not credited to him, the Japanese did not suffer any losses that day. Had served in No.222 squadron in Europe, with a score of 6 claimed destroyed, 1 unconfirmed destroyed, 6 probables, 3 and 2 shared damaged. Later promoted to Wing Commander .
NOTABLE DUTCH BREWSTER BUFFALO PILOTS, 1941-1942
In the case of the Brewster Pilots of the Dutch Netherlands East Indies Air Force it has been mentioned that the Dutch pilots claimed about 55 enemy aircraft destroyed for the lost of 30 aircraft in combat. But a complete listing of all their claims has not been published to the knowledge of the author to better document the claim victories of the following notable Dutch pilots.
KAPT. JACOB.P.VAN HELSDINGER 3 victories 2-VIG-V KIA March 7, 1942 Known Claims:
January 12, 1942 1 Ki-27
LT. AUGUST. G. DEIBEL 3 victories 2-VIG-V WIA January 12, 1942; WIA February 19, 1942 Known Claims:
January 12, 1942 2 Ki-27's
Later KIFA June 12, 1950 in the Netherlands.
LT. GERARDUS. M. BRUGGINK 2 victories 2-VIG-V Known Claims:
January 12, 1941 1 Ki-27
KAPT. ANDRIAS. A. M. VAN REST 2 victories 1-VIG-V
-
Which against the F4F means you don't kill any many F4Fs as you have to saddle up for an extended time. The F4F is plenty maneuverable to make the A6M2's shot difficult/
i've lost an elevator in the A6M5B and fought an F4F and dodged another A/C for a good 3 minutes then went into a rolling scissors and killed the F4F after another minute of that. The F4F isnt the most maneuverable aircraft to go up against the zeke with. I've shot down my share of them.
You can't magically make an extra 500lbs of aluminum on a larger airplane have that much more durability. The light Japanese aircraft isn't that much lighter and we're not talking about a F6F or P-47 here.
i did somewhat go off subject with that but you took my statement incorrectly or i misstated myself. either or here. no magical 500lbs meant.
I'm also interested in whether you're accounting for the awful ballistics of the Zero's 20mm. I've flown both sides in early PTO scenarios, and even if I get a good tracking shot at convergence range with the 20mm the rounds still fall low and miss the target outright. (confirmed by just firing the 20mm). When I CAN get the 20mm in there is when I get the kills (and that's certainly consistent with Sakai's report. If the cannon aren't hitting, those 7.7s aren't going to do much more than tickle).
And for the record, I have no trouble putting F4Fs down with a bank of Brownings. If there's a fault I'm more inclined to believe it's the abysmal performance of the early Japanese cannon (combined with the F4F just being hard to hit) than any modeling of the F4F's durability.
The Type 99 is one of the best cannons in the game punch wise but i understand what you mean with the tracking. I set my convergence to coordinate with the two mgs as best as i could (a6m2 being 7.7s and 5b being 7.7 and 12.5 correct? :lol i dont even know what the mg caliber for the 5b is and its my plane to fly) I have no trouble killing F4Fs with any weapon, it just takes the right hit.
-
No need to try put words in my mouth. BAR mentioned on the constant whining and I just said like it is. 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. :lol
Well, have fun testing. :)
i've come back to this thread 7 times and i still cannot figure out which thread you are talking about with this statement about me? :headscratch: :lol i give up. i do know i said it recently though...
-
There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.
There is a RAAF claim of an overall kill/death ratio of 2-1 in the Brewster's favour. To dismiss it as a useless aircraft in that conflict, as some tend to do, without delving more deeply into its history tends to tarnish the aircraft and those that flew it somewhat unfairly. It's an interesting and complicated story.
4 Pilots made Ace in the plane during that early conflict and there is a fair list of multiple victors.
The Brewster is documented as having been delivered from the factory with multiple faults requiring field fixes. Underpowered engines on some planes noted.
There are some great books about, that are quite illuminating, but you don't have to go that far.
Lots of research done on the WB forums on the topic and it's a useful place to start:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
and
http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/notable.htm)
Some of which is repeated here for illustration - best to go to original site.
You are correct in some ways, however if you closely examine the details of those aerial conflicts you will note that most of the "victories" those Brewster pilots had against the Japanese were against bombers as well as Ki-27s, A5Ms and few if any Ki-43s or A6Ms. There are many accounts of plane misidentification that occurred.
-
Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 .
What were your results in seconds?
I've re-read your posts and I am still not sure why you are certain that the Brewster should not accelerate as fast as a 190A-8. At 1000 feet, the A-8 has a faster top speed than the Spixteen or the 109F, but according to Gonzo's excellent site (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php), both would out-accelerate the A-8 from 150 to 250 MPH. And conversely, the F4U-1 would have a faster top speed at 1000 feet, but the A-8 would out-accelerate it from 150-250. So besides the obvious difference in top speeds between the Brewster and the 190A-8, what are you basing your conclusion on? Because after re-reading your posts, I still don't know why you think it must be so except that you think it must be so.
Unfortunately Gonzo's site hasn't been updated in years, so the Brewster and many other more recent additions aren't there, but it would be interesting to see if 1) your results for the 190A-8 match the site and 2) what your reasoning is in saying the A-8 should absolutely out accelerate the Brewster.
-
You know what, scratch all of that. I just tried to do some testing because I realized I was taking the claim that the Brewster out-accelerates the 190A-8 at face value.
At 1000 feet, starting at 150mph TAS according to E6B and holding it for 3 seconds at that speed on autolevel (at which point the A-8 was actually decending slightly), then firewalling the throttle and hitting stopwatch, the times I got to 250mph were as follows (two tests per, timing was in agreement):
Brewster: 41 seconds
190A-8 at mil power: 36 seconds
190A-8 at WEP: 28 seconds
I'm not even sure what the complaint is now. What did I do wrong?
-
You are correct in some ways
Strange thing to say. Nothing there is incorrect as far as I know. You have contrary information? Something there not factual?
if you closely examine the details of those aerial conflicts you will note that most of the "victories" those Brewster pilots had against the Japanese were against bombers as well as Ki-27s, A5Ms and few if any Ki-43s or A6Ms
If you examine the details of any/all large scale conflicts and individual pilot records you will see that most of them pan out against a number of different aircraft types. This doesn't diminish their accomplishments. This is especially so here. Do you think that the the strike/bomb aircraft shot down by the Commonwealth pilots were unescorted and somehow sitting ducks?
The printed history illuminates that the Allied pilots were fully defensive, poorly supported, greatly outnumbered and received little or no warning of incoming raids. They and their aircraft were on the losing side in that battle, but the records show that neither pilots nor aircraft were the "pushovers" of popular myth. Both acquitted themselves well.
You might be involved in a long argument on the technical merits of the AH implementation of the Brewster. I am not. I have simply posted a grab of facts so that anybody passing by and taking an interest might be spurred on to read through some of the information readily available on that conflict. There is a lot of it but it rarely appears on the "must read" lists.
If you want to know why the the Hurricanes sent there were ineffective then it's worth reading "Hurricane Over the Jungle" by Terence Kelly. Their experiences reflect those of the Buffalo pilots.
Getting away from the technical merits of the planes involved and the quality of the pilots, it can simply
be a matter of how they are used that is the ultimate determinant of the historical scoreboard. That's an issue that is hard to quantify.
-
There is a lot of evidence that the Brewster was generally a capable aircraft against the Japanese.
You were correct in some ways, meaning it was capable against older and slower aircraft, not against the newer A6M or Ki models. Regardless of how they met the enemy or pilot skill, when pitted against the A6M2 and Ki-43 the B-339E and F2A-3/B-439 lost every time except for 2 recorded instances, and none of those Brewster models were in the hands of the FAF.
-
"And clueless and ignorant individuals whining about something isn't really a good reason to add or remove planes from the planeset." So I put words in your mouth ? That is a quote from you .
Here is the test . Test conducted at 1000 k alt auto level on . E6b used for recording speed . 1k alt was obtained throttled back until speed was 120 ias . Full throttle then applied .2 stop watches started by myself and wife as speed hit 150 mph. watches stopped at 250 mph . Test repeated 5 times . Differences in times below .5 seconds for both watches , each test . AC were augured after each test . Fuel level was 100% no ords and heavy gun package . Load out was slightly modified from original test ,to eliminate only complaint you had to tests . This is a brew vs a 190a8 . Buffalo out accelerated the a8 . Your only response . "My guess is that the power loadings agree nicely with real life figures." You go on and on abut proof yet you give a guess as evidence ? Except for your contention that the buff was this uber plane in comparison to other ww2 fighters . You contradict every other post you make sometimes you do it right in the same post . You don't insult/name/call . Next line anyone that asks a question is lazy thick headed ignorant . You want facts, you reply with a guess . Well guess what show me the facts that prove buff could out accelerate the a8 . Then post the facts proving me wrong that my contention that it did well only in Finnish hands is wrong . Show me where they were not eliminated by their enemy either to or almost to the last machine .
Oh so it accelerates to fast now I see. Hehe!
Well, have fun testing.
In comparison yes it does . I posted on the other thread I am sure a towering intellect like you remembers the redone test data. With double the horsepower and much much lower drag in the 190 . The brewster should not out accelerate the FW190A8 . Yours is the extraordinary claim not mine . You say it is correct that a 1936 design should out accelerate a 1943 wartime one . I say prove it . Please if you can't respond like an adult , save it for the people that have deluded you into thinking you are funny . No personal attack just prove your outlandish claim
My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .
"This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Once again a personal attack on something I know is basically right . The word slaughter may not have applied to the dutch , that is a matter of opinion though . Please show me anywhere else that it achieved anything like the Finnish K/D ratio . We both know you can't . Once again you suggest a claim about the plane that is inaccurate and against accepted history . Burden of proof is yours . Wish I could say I am looking forward to a reply on this . We both know it was not successful in any other hands than Finnish ones , against pilots of unequal quality . I wonder if you will suggest end of war German or Soviet pilot quality through out the war was anything other then unequal .
"I didn't call you names. I merely stated a fact. I maybe could have dropped it to you a bit more gently but it wouldn't really change the context in anyway." "This is exactly what I mean by the clueless and ignorant." Both quotes of you . In reply to me . Both in direct contradiction of each other . I assume English is not your native tongue . Yet you write well and speak it so so . I have a hard time thinking you don't understand the definition of the words , for the context they were used in . Yet these two posts suggest you do . So please save the insults for your kids or who ever it is weaker then you that helped you to develop that attitude .Someone has been dishonest with you . Your not funny at all . So please save it and just answer the questions . BTW a psych study done at a near by university about cyber bullying sheds some light on why you act the way you do online . A friend of my daughters who is doing graduate work on it really gave me a chuckle when she analysed your posts in this forum. I should post the profile here , but it would just get skuzzyfied . You make some powerful statements about how you are tired of the ignorant people and their claims . I have seen no one make claims . Just ask questions . Further I have seen you do little to nothing to answer the questions . Well I have more questions and observations to point out . I shall end it here though so as not to be accused of rambling . The two questions are easy to see lets see an answer .
<sigh>
First of all, the burden of proof is with you. I don't have to prove anything or explain anything to you. You made the claim. It is also your job to back it up. Second, an aircraft accelerates with the excess thrust that is at its disposal at any given moment. So when an aircraft is flying at "full throttle" and isn't flying at its top speed it is either climbing or accelerating. So if the climb rates are correct, so is the acceleration. I already stated it in that another thread. A-8s climb data is well known and AH A-8 hits one data set to the mark. Brewster's climb data I've seen is only for the 850hp continious power setting. I haven't personally extrapolated 1000hp figures but the ones Pyro has come up with look very plausible and agree ok with the slope of the 850hp data (see the other thread). If you think something is wrong with the acceleration/climb rate just extrapolate your own climb curve and compare it to the AH climb chart.
Read Tango's reply in the other thread. Also, Tango duplicated your tests and his results considerably differed from yours. Let's just say that I don't have to do the test myself to decide who to believe. :) Just because you think Brewster shouldn't accelerate the way it does compared to the A-8 doesn't make it wrong in anyway.
I have never stated that the Brewster was an "uber plane" or anything of the sort. The fact that you think it's one in AH is fairly amusing. :)
Regarding to the psyco analysis, I am much entertained. :) If you don't want to post the profile here, could you send it to me as a private message? :) Feel free to check my posting history here for "cyber bullying". At the same time search for "Brewster" from this BB for the past year. It just gets frustrating when people who have practically zero knowledge of the subject matter come here with attitude and their "hunches" and demand information that they should be seeking by themselves if they think something is wrong.
Here's a good example: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272699.msg3411772.html#msg3411772 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272699.msg3411772.html#msg3411772)
All in all this post of yours is so way off base and you don't have much logic to your claims. So I don't really see much point trying to get through to you. But please post that profile in a PM, I'd really like to see it. :)
-
most didn't know how to turn,
Hmm...I've heard that the soviets sometimes landed to the same airfield they took off from. :headscratch:
Or were they some of the "better ones"? :lol
-
i've come back to this thread 7 times and i still cannot figure out which thread you are talking about with this statement about me? :headscratch: :lol i give up. i do know i said it recently though...
.........
This will stop the constant whining that the B-239 is "overmodeled" and "flies better than zeros"...
-
Hmm...I've heard that the soviets sometimes landed to the same airfield they took off from. :headscratch:
Or were they some of the "better ones"? :lol
Oh here we go...thank you for opening the flame door Wmaker :neener:
What Krusty was talking about in English is that the early Soviet pilots with little experience did not know how to turn fight, even if they did know how to return to base.
-
Oh here we go...thank you for opening the flame door Wmaker :neener:
What Krusty was talking about in English is that the early Soviet pilots with little experience did not know how to turn fight, even if they did know how to return to base.
"flame door"? :headscratch:
Anyway, I'm way past caring...again.
Regarding to the "Soviet skill level", it just isn't as black and white as Krusty puts it.
I recommend Luukkanen's Fighter Over Finland and Juutilainen's Double Fighter Knight for anyone who actually wants to have some idea what the Finns thought about their opponents.
-
I guess I suddenly felt compelled to explain myself a bit further...
My problem is ,that only in Finn hands ,against the Russians did it do any good at all . One version vs 1 enemy , It is a bad machine . Against anyone else in any other hands it was slaughtered .
Hlbly, it was the above quote which I mentioned to be good example of a clueless and ignorant comment about the Brewster. It is ignorant most definately. It clearly shows that you've read the populistic description/view of the plane and it's history and you just ran with it without anymore thinking or research. It shows that you aren't very well aware of the odds the plane faced in the Pacific/SE Asia and therefore you just assumed that it must have been such a bad aircraft because it did "poorly" (whatever that means).
Also, it is bad idea to judge a plane based on is operational record alone without taking a look at the technical/physics side of things. The operational record is actually totally irrelevant. The only way to have an accurate picture of a plane's performance is to look into its technical properties.
Now, when I hear the same baseless comment about 20th time, I've gotten to a point where I bluntly call it as I see it, clueless and ignorant.
It's funny, if someone said that to me, I'd be embarassed and would go back and studied the subject more to make sure it wouldn't happen again.
-
F2A-2 didn't see combat and F2A-3 saw far too little combat to be a viable addition.
F2A-3 saw more than enough combat to be included, particularly in the defence of Singapore. I'd like to see it just because it made some Kiwis aces during a period of intense combat against a numerically and technically superior enemy who was also vastly better organised.
If you've read "Bloody Shambles" you'd know that the biggest problem facing RAAF and RNZAF pilots was their British commanders, and the US who supplied the F2As with "timed" DC-3 engines. In other words the engines were worn out when they were installed in the airframe.
As you've already pointed out one can't blame the aircraft for poor tactical and strategic decisions.
-
F2A-3 saw more than enough combat to be included, particularly in the defence of Singapore. I'd like to see it just because it made some Kiwis aces during a period of intense combat against a numerically and technically superior enemy who was also vastly better organised.
Given the sorry state of current IJA/IJN planesets, you really wouldn't get much benefit from it. The only thing you'd have to fly against would be A6M2s.
-
Don't care. I want it for my reasons, not yours.
-
Perfectly understandable.
-
F2A-3 saw more than enough combat to be included, particularly in the defence of Singapore. I'd like to see it just because it made some Kiwis aces during a period of intense combat against a numerically and technically superior enemy who was also vastly better organised.
The Brewsters in the defence of Singapore were B339s, not F2A-3s.
-
What Krusty was talking about in English is that the early Soviet pilots with little experience did not know how to turn fight, even if they did know how to return to base.
LOL! That sounds like 95% of the AH players.
ack-ack
-
.........
i AM really that dumb sometimes...
-
The Brewsters in the defence of Singapore were B339s, not F2A-3s.
The B339E and F2A-3 were identical when they went out the factory door. The British "improved" them by making them heavier. For all intents and purposes and F2A-3 "would do" for a B339E allowing both a navalised and land based version to be modelled.
-
The B339E and F2A-3 were identical when they went out the factory door.
No they were not. They had different engines for starters. B339 is a B339 and F2A-3 is an F2A-3. AFAIK, F2A-3 fought in exactly two aireal combats.
-
No they were not. They had different engines for starters. B339 is a B339 and F2A-3 is an F2A-3. AFAIK, F2A-3 fought in exactly two aireal combats.
One: Midway.
-
One: Midway.
On 10th of March, F2A-3s of the VMF-221 shot down a Japanese flying boat. This was roughly three months before the start of the Battle of Midway.
-
Dear Lord, I had no idea this thread was plowing on!
On 10th of March, F2A-3s of the VMF-221 shot down a Japanese flying boat. This was roughly three months before the start of the Battle of Midway.
Baaaah, everyone knows that vulches don't count. :D
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
No they were not. They had different engines for starters. B339 is a B339 and F2A-3 is an F2A-3. AFAIK, F2A-3 fought in exactly two aireal combats.
Were too. The B339s sent to the RAF weren't delivered with the specified engine and the airframe was the same initially but modified after delivery.
-
Were too. The B339s sent to the RAF weren't delivered with the specified engine and the airframe was the same initially but modified after delivery.
B339 was essentially an export version of the Brewster's (then) upcoming F2A-2. The production of the first 339s (Belgian order) started April '40. The B339s for Britain were produced starting from May '40. In August, the production was momentarily switched to F2A-2s. January 21st, the first F2A-3s are ordered and the delliveries started in July '41. More than a year after the production of the British order started.
Jukka Raunio also mentions it as "an alternation" of the F2A-2. F2A-3 also feautred additional fuel capacity which neither F2A-2 nor B339s had. All F2A-2s and B339s could carry 160gals like the B239 but the F2A-3s could carry 240gals.
Source: Francis Dean's America's Hundred Thousand, Pilots View Point II by Jukka Raunio
Like I've said, F2A-3 is a F2A-3 and B339 is a B339. No point what so ever to talk about them under the same designation, especially with a wrong one.
-
Both the Japanese and the Dutch pilots thought the B-339C/D (based on the F2A-2) that was used in the East Indies in 1942 was a decent little fighter. The Dutch did very well in it considering the campaign itself was disastrous, and its combat there only lasted a few months total.
Personally I think the B-339 we have in AH is close enough that it does not warrant another model to represent the Dutch Brewster.
The B-339E "Buffalo" (it was an RAF term) used in Burma and Singapore? well, two things here: First of which is, who wants one for the MA? answer: nobody. The Finns don't want it (why would they???) and nobody else would use it. So it would be used only in a few SEA setups.
I dont see it (any more varients added that is) happening anytime soon.