Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Krusty on February 22, 2006, 01:20:06 PM
-
The original batch of F2A's were sent to the Navy in June 1939. After receiving a small number of planes out of 54, the reamining 44 were immediately rejected and sold to Finland. These aircraft remained in service until 1944, equipping squadrons No. 24 and No.26.
This original batch had only a 950hp Wright XR-1820-22 Cyclone radial.
Now, consider that the following
P40B: Engine: Allison V-1710-33 (-33?) - 1090hp
Brewster: Engine: Wright Cyclone XR-1820-22 - 950hp
P40B: Normal loaded weight: 7,352 lbs. (AH2 stats page)
Brewster: F2A-3 max takeoff: 7,159lbs. (closest version I could find, subtract a few hundred lbs for armor to get an idea of weight)
P40B: Fuselage type: low-drag, inline engine, streamlined fuselage
Brewster: Fuselage type: high-drag, blunt radial engine, bulky fuselage
P40B: Wing area: 236 sq ft.
Brewster: Wing area: 208.9 sq ft.
I conclude:
P40B: lower drag, higher power, larger wing area, about equal weight.
Brewster: higher drad, lower power, lesser wing area, about equal weight.
Thus, once again proving the Brewster was not the best thing there was. Turning is dependent on many things, but 2 very important things in determining rate of turn include surplus power and wing size. The P40B, bad as it is in AH, actually beats the Brewster in these two areas.
Compared to the FM2,
Engine: P&W R-1830-86 Twin Wasp -- 1,200hp
Max Takeoff: 8,762lbs.
Fuselage type: semi-streamlined radial
Wing area: 260 sq ft.
So the FM-2 has more wing area, more horsepower, and less drag than the Brewster. Hell, it has more wing area and more horsepower than the P-40B!!!! It's a bit draggier than the P40B, being a radial engine, but the cowling is more streamlined than the Brewster's, as is the tail of the fuselage (just by eyeballing it). It is about 1000 lbs heavier, but this does not handicap it much, it seems.
It seems to me that the P40B is a better replacement for the Brewster than the FM-2 is. The P40B is still better than the Brewster, and the FM-2 is ever still better than the P40B.
In WW2 Finland it was the pilots, the targets, and the situations that gave this plane a high kill ratio. It wasn't its performance.
We don't need to sub the FM-2 for brewster because it's far far better than the brewster ever was.
I thought about this while fighting Yeager in his P40B, and then did some stats checking on various planes.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Compared to the FM2,
Engine: P&W R-1830-86 Twin Wasp -- 1,200hp
Max Takeoff: 8,762lbs.
Fuselage type: semi-streamlined radial
Wing area: 260 sq ft.
FM-2 used a 1350hp Wright Cyclone, not a P&W.
I agree with your conclusion, FM-2 is FAR FAR FAR too good to sub for the Brewster.
-
Did it? I must have pulled the stats for an early FM-2... let me do some more pulling
EDIT:
1,350hp Wright R-1820-56 "Cyclone 9" -- yep, you're right!
-
Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?
-
Well.. hell! Even the P40B is too good to sub for the brewster!!
Much as I love the Fins and the Fin/Rus map setup, there's really nothing we can suggest that won't piss the Fins off. :P
I'd personally suggest, after looking up these stats, that the P40B (even though better) is fairly close, compared to the other planes AH has. You'll be hard-pressed to find anything worse than the P40B. SBD, perhaps? Only it's got a tail gun, question is -- will that tail gun matter? Can folks even get kills with it? Is it a non-issue?.
EDIT: The A6M5b has similar speeds, going by the AH charts, but it's got cannon which put it into another bracket entirely, and I doubt the Brewster could turn that well. Remember that even though slightly heavier, the later models had a 1200hp engine and it was still 100% unacceptable vs the Japanese aircraft, this when the P39 was used through most of the war, and the P40 was used through most of the war -- the Brewster was instantly rejected. That means it couldn't even compete with the zeros (or hell, Ki4x series, either).
The only solution is for HTC to model the Brewster. LOL Maybe after the B17 is redone??
-
Whats wrong with the SBD compared to the Brewster? Yes the SBD had the higher rated 1200 hp Cyclone that the F2A-1 lacked, but it weighs a good 2000 lbs more. In defense of the underpowered Brewster, I understand the Finns stripped a good deal of weight out of the birds and made them better performers than they were when recieved?
-
And really when it comes to the FA2-2 it depends on POV. I've seen it described as "very nimble" and a fine plane. Not "instantly rejected" as you say. I take most sources with a grain of salt unless they are quoting actual test data and even then I'd like to see original paperwork. Not some author's opinions with doctored data written to sell books.
According to the Naval Historical Center the problem with the F2A-2 was the landing gear and maintenance problems, not performance.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?
Good point. One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA. Not necessarily the one we're running this week, but the traditional FinnRus set.
I suspect that the original sub of the FM2 for the Buffalo was made without a whole lot of thought. Back then the FM2 was a less-well-known plane than it is now, and someone had good evidence that the Finns' Buffalo was a stripped-down hot rod version of the pathetic creature the British in Malaya and the Americans at Midway got slaughtered in. Whatever, it worked, and has worked very well over the years. The FM2 is the anti-Hurri IIC.
So, it's one of those "Sound of Thunder" Ray Bradbury issues.
- oldman
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Good point. One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA. Not necessarily the one we're running this week, but the traditional FinnRus set.
I suspect that the original sub of the FM2 for the Buffalo was made without a whole lot of thought. Back then the FM2 was a less-well-known plane than it is now, and someone had good evidence that the Finns' Buffalo was a stripped-down hot rod version of the pathetic creature the British in Malaya and the Americans at Midway got slaughtered in. Whatever, it worked, and has worked very well over the years. The FM2 is the anti-Hurri IIC.
So, it's one of those "Sound of Thunder" Ray Bradbury issues.
- oldman
Crud, I stepped on a bug. Meh, big deal, what could possibly go wrong?
-
there is a good article on the FM-2 in the april issue of "flight journal" it's titled the wilder wildcat.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Which makes your point even more strongly. I've always said the FM-2 was too uber to sub for the Brewster, the problem is, what do we use instead?
Why cant the F4F wildcat sub for the Brewster?
-
Originally posted by Oldman731
Good point. One of the things to be cautious about is fooling around with what is probably the best-liked plane set in AvA.
- oldman
I'd say it was the best liked setup of the CT. It remains to be seen if it's the best liked setup of the AvA. Since the name change, and the addition of the RPS , the popularity of this setup may not be the same as it was in the past.
Plus why sub at all ? Theres no subbing allowed in any of the PTO's. Run it with the historical time of our planeset, or don't run it at all. Or allow subs for other setups.
Storch said......... "there is a good article on the FM-2 in the april issue of "flight journal" it's titled the wilder wildcat."
I just happened to read that artical at lunch today. It was pretty interesting.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Why cant the F4F wildcat sub for the Brewster?
It could, and I have suggested that several times. The only real issue there is the 6x50cal where the Brewster only had 4x50cal.
-
Too beat to even try to reason with some of you...
I'll just quote myself...
Originally posted by Wmaker
FM-2 isn't close to a Brewster. Nor is a Hurricane IIC close to the Hurricane IIB's which the finns faced. I truly hope people here can figure out the difference between 12x.303s or 2xberezins/2xShwaks and 4 Hispanos.
Also, at least in the lower alts Brewsters were actually faster than the Hurricane Mk.II which surface quality deteoriated rather quickly in harsh front conditions. Brewsters' manufacture quality was (considering the Corsair-epsode) surprisingly good and they retained their performance very well. Granted, in the Lappland War which was fought against the germans during the spring of '45 they started to be worn out after close to FOUR years of combat flying and 1 year of peace time service. Few of them even served couple years after the war.
I don't think FM-2 is a good sub for the Brewster. I also do think that when the plane set just isn't there an RPS might not be such a good idea. But whining about the horrible unjustice which the FM-2 supposedly represents almost leaves me speechless. FM-2/Hurri2C is a very close match up.
It would be awesome to have a real Brewster in the game with Ratas and Tchaikas to fly against. Just the maneuverability of those planes would send the fan factor through the roof!
Few facts:
- FM-2 was chosen for it's superficial resemblance and it had the same gun package
- P-40B wasn't chosen as it was inline engined plane no recemblance what so ever
- P-40B was used by the soviets and thus given to their planeset
- La-5FN was only used in small numbers in the finnish fron only in the end of the continuation war. In the summer of '44 La-5/5Fs, Yak-9s and P-39s were the backbone of the aireal offensive in Stalin's Fourth.
- La-5FN is clearly superior to the La-5 it subs (and it both out runs/out turns both G-2 and G-6)
- Yak-9T subs Yak-9/9D their armament is very different
- Hurricane 2C subs Hurricane IIB and IIA and is a good match for the FM-2
- FM-2 was taken as a sub in Fin-Rus -times when there wasn't any RPS and La-5FNs and Yak-9Ts were in use
I DO think that RPS is bad idea with this plane set because the early war planeset just isn't there. BUT obviously panzzer and the other CM's were in
"a dare if you do/dare if you don't -situation". If they wouldn't have continued with RPS in the Finland -map a major crying/moaning/whining would have ensued and the results of continuing it can be seen here...major crying/moaning/whining. Personally, I would have wanted to fly 109Gs against the "too good" La5FNs the whole time.
This image some people are trying to paint that "the finns" somehow collectively made this "evil biased plot" to include the "too good" Brewster "so they could win easier" is quite entertaining. Personally I'm quite tired of hearing "the finns this, the finns that -generalations". What if I would start saying "americans here do this/that"?
What (and here I go...) "the finns" want in this came than anything is the real cute Brewster to fly...even if it means flying it against hispano equipped Hurricanes only.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
This image some people are trying to paint that "the finns" somehow collectively made this "evil biased plot" to include the "too good" Brewster "so they could win easier" is quite entertaining. Personally I'm quite tired of hearing "the finns this, the finns that -generalations". What if I would start saying "americans here do this/that"?
The only reference to"Finns" in this thread is about how the "Finns" Buffalo is modified from the American F2A. If your accusing Americans of trying to paint some evil Finnish plot.............. Then I would suggest you are already saying "americans here do this/ that.":lol
-
the FM2 is way too uber for a sub but it is not way to uber for the planeset. I don't think that there would be too much difference between the killing ability of the HurriIIb with 12 .303x333 rpg and the hurriIIc with 4 20mmx182rpg. the result would be the same if the thing floated as if it were helium filled. that's my complaint, well that and the kill a guy in china from miami 20mm hissos but the .303s are just as lethal.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
The only reference to"Finns" in this thread is about how the "Finns" Buffalo is modified from the American F2A. If your accusing Americans of trying to paint some evil Finnish plot.............. Then I would suggest you are already saying "americans here do this/ that.":lol
Yep,
About the "finns-thing"...I made the comment based on several threads on this forum on a longer period (and the implication to "not just this post" is pretty clearly evident IMO). Just remember how you answered to Blauk...how for finns it's about winning and so on...
EDIT/And no, I'm not trying to accuse americans of anything they just happens to be the biggest national group flying this sim so it emphasized my point...which is that "not all the finns are the same, think the same and so on. And I thought that was pretty clearly evident in my post too. Either I should brush up my english or.../EDIT
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
- Hurricane 2C subs Hurricane IIB and IIA and is a good match for the FM-2
That is a most excellent point and a take on the argument that I never even considered until you said it.
To argue Hurri IIc this or Fm-2 that after reading Wmaker's post is completely senseless. It is left at either keep both and enjoy yourself or take both out and neuter the entire RPS planeset for this theater.
Let's stop constantly searching for ways we're not having fun and just start enjoying the game.
Laugh all you want, it truly is that easy.
-
Thank you Bug!
Finally!! At least ONE soul who sees how silly this whole FM-2 -episode is!! :)
I agree that the current plane set is fairly balanced and in that sence the RPS can work. But in the light of authensity and the fact that I don't like flying subbed planes myself I'd really like to see Finland run with the late war set alone (summer '44). Then the plane set would be more authentic. Though in AH2 it's significantly harder for the 109s than it used to be during AH1 days.
Obviously, THE BEST solution would be to have all the correct planes available.
-
Originally posted by TheBug
Let's stop constantly searching for ways we're not having fun and just start enjoying the game.
Laugh all you want, it truly is that easy.
Always wondered why this is so hard.
-
Originally posted by Grits
It could, and I have suggested that several times. The only real issue there is the 6x50cal where the Brewster only had 4x50cal.
The f4f is even worse than the fm2 -- it has the same wing area as fm2, less weight (closer to the brewster), and 50% **more** guns!
STILL far too good to sub for the brewster.
-
As a small note: I might have made some sort of "Fin" reference, but if I did it was not meant to intone some sort of "conspiracy" (lord knows we have enough of those!), it was simply in passing.
As far as Hurr2c and FM2 complimenting each other: perhaps each other, but NOT the rest of the planeset. The Hurr2c hispano guns are at least 2x as powerful as the 12x303cal that the IIB had. In AH, the hispano round takes 3 50cal rounds to equal, and I believe it is 3 or more 30cal/303cal to equal the 50cal. So that means if you had a Hurr2c with only 1 gun enabled (all other 3 shot away) it would still be more powerful than a fully functioning Hurr1 with 8x303cal guns. In fact, even with just 1 Hispano working, you'd need to further add at least 1 more 303cal to the Hurr1 to equal the hitting power, at LEAST one.
Then add in the fact that you have 4 of the guns, and 1 hurr2c packs a punch more than 4x as strong as the hurr1 with 8 smaller guns.
It doesn't match. Performance, perhaps, but it's like saying "Oh, the ta152C is like the 190D, so we can sub them" -- might fly the same but BAM the punch is greatly enhanced.
FM2, I can see WHY it was originally chosen, but I'm saying it no longer HAS to be chosen for tradition's sake. This is not to change what we have, this is to start the change for NEXT TIME. Perhaps one should be less concerned with looks and more so with performance. It might lead to a much better balance.
So, the FM2 and the Hurr2 are both too good, it balances the field, right? Wrong. They're not the only planes in the set. Hurr2c is competitve in the late war because of its "instant-kill no matter what the angle" feature. This unbalances the planeset in the beginning and the middle of the time frame. FM2 might be good because it's used later in the RPS, but that screws everything over early in the RPS. P40B is a good plane. It's not entirely horrible. However, when compared to a 1944 FM2 it's dog meat plain and simple. Same for P40E. Hell even the 109F4 has a bit of trouble with the Hurr2c. Heck, with a firepower that didn't start showing up in fighters until late '43 and '44, the Hurr2c in early '42 totally overwhelms anything else.
So for discussion's sake, these two planes being complementary with their "being too good for a sub" status does not make things even. It just makes things worse for both sides, instead of one side or the other.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The f4f is even worse than the fm2 -- it has the same wing area as fm2, less weight (closer to the brewster), and 50% **more** guns!
STILL far too good to sub for the brewster.
50%? wouldnt be more like 20% more guns?
-
FM2: 4 50cal guns
F4F: 6 50cal guns
It has 100% of the FM2, then 50% more.
-
i cant help myself :)
FM2: 4 ea 50cal guns = 25% per gun = 100%
F4F: 6 ea 50cal guns = 16.6% per gun = 100%
F4F has two more guns than FM2, each gun is 16.6% then then the F4F has 33.2% more guns :noid
-
Negative, when comparing something you use the whole, then add on top of that the percentage of the "whole" it has above that.
So by saying "50% more" you're really saying "has 150% that of" (in this case, "... of the FM2").
-
So, the consensus is that both the FM2, and the HurriIIc are ridiculously uber relative to the planes they are subbing for, are a good matchup performance-wise, and make for good fights, which you wouldn't have otherwise due to the many aircraft that are absent from the planeset?
If I understood correctly, and this is in fact what some of you are saying, I'm in agreement.
Plus, I'd fly crappy bipes on karelia, just because I'm fond of that map. ;)
-
ok, so I cant confuse you with that how bout this??:cool:
FM2 4 x50cal w/ 430 rpg = 1720 rds
F4F 6 x50cal w/ 240 rpg = 1440 rds
also Hanger setup shows you can setup F4F with 4 50cals. maybe the 6 gun option could be locked out?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As far as Hurr2c and FM2 complimenting each other: perhaps each other, but NOT the rest of the planeset.
You truly sometimes leave me speechless...almost.
I don't remember a single Hurricane Mk.I pilot during the Fin/Rus days in the CT crying bloody murder because the plane they were flying was so horribly out classed by the treaded La-5FNs and Yak-9Ts. FM-2 was there then, so were P-40s and Hurri2Cs.
With your logic we'd have perfect balance when we'd have many plane choises on both sides but they would all use the same generic FM.
There isn't a complete balance in plane performance in the MA or in other AvA setups either and yet people fly in them.
There will ALWAYS be the best plane (depending on the task) for both sides. It's everyone's choise wether they up a Hurri2C or P-40B / FM-2 or Hurri1.
Sometimes if people would just type less and fly more the AvA would be much more fun...
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
You truly sometimes leave me speechless...almost.
....
Sometimes if people would just type less and fly more the AvA would be much more fun...
Sorry bout that. I'm just here for the argument;) and to pull Krusty's chain:p
I could care less what planes are used, i can without a doubt sux in all of them equally
-
Wmaker, if I make you speechless, that's your problem :)
I don't care WHICH plane is the best. You said it, some side will always have the best plane. But there's a difference between the best plane being a spit14 in a 1941 BOB setup and a spit1 in a 1941 BOB setup.
Sure, there will always be a best plane. No arguments there.
Yes, the old setup (non-RPS) had Hurr1s, but the Hurr1s weren't flown by 95% of all players on that team, scoring 80% of all kills for that team :cool:
There's a difference with rolling plane sets and just plain old scenarios. No, don't blow a gasket because I say this: Sometimes things have to be balanced. In a full rps you have to take into consideration how it's going to play out. In a plain 1-off setup you don't have to worry as much because the other planes will carry the setup.
I'm not saying anything other than the following:
- Hurr2 is overpoweredin Fin/Rus, big time.
- FM2 has no real place in Fin/Rus in general.
- I'm all for the Brewster, because nothing else subs for it, but I think folks will not use it once they realize how bad it flies.
I'm not saying anything like the following:
- I'm against rolling plane sets.
- I'm against substituting planes for other planes.
- I hate what you've done this setup.
So, basically, I'm not sure why you're speechless. I'm just having fun with a discussion on aircraft in the AvA.
Cheers :aok
-
Originally posted by Krusty
P40B: Normal loaded weight: 7,352 lbs. (AH2 stats page)
Brewster: F2A-3 max takeoff: 7,159lbs. (closest version I could find, subtract a few hundred lbs for armor to get an idea of weight)
You have to subtract quite a lot, typical take-off weight 2415kg (5320 lb) with 300kg (660 lbs) of fuel. Source and more info:
http://hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/faf/brewster.html
-
Correct modelling aside, it still is beyond all comprehension what the Finns did with rejected, obsolete, underpowered fighters with refurbished DC-3 engines.
In all other conflicts Brewsters were massacred (apparently, I din't really do the research). The Finns also were massivly outnumbered. Still the Brewster B-239 has the best K/D of ALL fighters in WWII.
In the face of all that, exactly how good was the Finnish Brewster? I would like to know.
As for the 'subbing' argument, please all shut up and enjoy the scenario.
-
"In the face of all that, exactly how good was the Finnish Brewster? I would like to know."
41 aerial victories were achieved with BW-393,
36 aerial victories achieved with BW-364.
Note: By only those two planes.
Note2: They were Navy planes to begin with and much of that equipment was removed so the power to weight and wingloading were very good despite the weaker engine.
Even with Brewster it was not advisable to combat I-16s but to use "pendulum" tactics.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html
-C+
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Yep,
About the "finns-thing"...I made the comment based on several threads on this forum on a longer period (and the implication to "not just this post" is pretty clearly evident IMO). Just remember how you answered to Blauk...how for finns it's about winning and so on...
EDIT
I see your point, on that post. I did mention the Finns refering to the FM2 as a sub. So I do offer an apology. It wasn't posted to imply you guys were doing something evil. It was meant to be an example to the poor LW dribble thats been going around this board. I got caught up in the fun. My comments about winning have nothing to do with anybody. This game rarely plays out like the actual war. You can't expect it to and or you will be pissed all the time. Your English is fine. My Finnish sux.:aok
I think Bugs got it right. Just fly and try to have fun. Squelching 200 helps, maybe I should stay outta here too.:D
-
Some Brewster links:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
-- http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm)
Captain Hans Wind's lecture... among others about enemy planes.
He bases his experience and comments on flying with Brewster... check what he thinks of Hurricanes ;)
Wind's lecture - enemy planes part (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html#enemymethods)
A bit higher on teh same page below "Solo Fighting":
"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames." ;)
Brewsters to Finland (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/BWtoFAF1.htm)
An article (http://www.chuckhawks.com/brewster_buffalo.htm) beginning with.. "Quite possibly the best Air Force of the Second World War..."
-
My problem isnt the Brewster/FM-2 substitution as much as the other more close matches that we dont get to use as a sub. The 110c as a sub for the Ki45 is the one that comes to mind first. The 110c is the FAR better sub for the Ki45 than the FM-2 is for the Brewster, it has been requested, and only on very rare occasions has it been done. The reason has usually been "we dont like substitutions" or "its not close enough", yet we have the FM-2/Brewster which everyone admits is a poor sub, hell its flying as Axis and its an Allied plane. You could even make (IMO) a better argument for the 190A-5 for the Ki44 than the FM-2/Brewster, but we would never see that one.
I'm not saying remove the FM-2 as it does play well against the Hurri IIc, I guess I'm wondering why we sub the FM-2 for the Brewster but dont do other more accurate substitutions.
-
perhaps HTC will eventually model gladiators, CR42s, brewsters, bells, curtiss hawks, moscas and ratas. they would play great on this map and hopefully on the upcoming Med/NAfrica map.
-
I'd love to fly CRs or Curtisses or P39s.
-C+
PS. "The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane"
Pekuri's Brewster was allegedly shot down by a Hurricane so it was not totally helpless ;)
-
Hurricane 2C subs Hurricane IIB and IIA and is a good match for the FM-2
I went in there today to try out this RPS.All i ran into was enemy Hurri-2's Ho'ing every chance they got.That crap is so funny,like you cannot out manuver someone in a Hurri-2.The only person i saw who was playing 1/2 way decent was Oldman.<<>> Oldman in your p-40
-
Hey Finns,
Question on the Brewster 239:
Weren't a few of them re-engined with engines out of DC-2's or DC-3's?
Thought I remember reading that somewhere.
Also as to Storch's post - would LOVE to fly a Gladiator against Italian CR's in a early war Med scenario or a Curtiss Hawk III against Japanese KI-10 PERRY's in an Early China-War scenario. One can only hope HTC will get there one day.
-
Jester, don't hate me for saying this... but....
Two weeks...
:cool:
-
Hey Krusty, I'll raise ya 38.6% ;)
-
Originally posted by Jester
Weren't a few of them re-engined with engines out of DC-2's or DC-3's?
Thought I remember reading that somewhere.
They were all equipped with DC-3 engines.