Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Panzzer on July 26, 2008, 06:34:54 PM
-
After updating the F6F-5, HTC has some time off to prepare the next plane to be announced... the Brewster!
For Pyro: The Thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,52235.0.html) :)
-
Blah, I can imagine at least 196 and 1/2 planes which should be modeled ahead of Brewster.
-
(http://aviationartstore.com/images/photo_d520_inflight.jpg)
-
I.A.R. 81c or the D.520.
-
After updating the F6F-5, HTC has some time off to prepare the next plane to be announced... the Brewster!
For Pyro: The Thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,52235.0.html) :)
I agree :aok
-
You know what would be funny? What if after all the threads begging for the Buffalo, HTC gives us the over-weight and underpowered F2A and NOT the stripped-down Brewster 239 people are thinking about. :D
-
Argh, is that a Dewo? I can't help it...bad memories from WW2OL about that plane. Well, about every plane in there actually.
-
Well I hope we get the Brewster. That will at least shut the Finns up, and we can finally do a proper Midway. :noid
-
Bring on ALL 40-43 aircraft!!!!
:salute SO SICK OF UBBER RIDES! :salute
-
(http://aviationartstore.com/images/photo_d520_inflight.jpg)
Ultimate hangar queen?...
-
I have lost my faith, it will never come.
-
I have lost my faith, it will never come.
Nah... They just can't do it. And if they can, HTC gives us the over-weight and underpowered F2A and NOT the stripped-down Brewster 239 people are thinking about
, which wouldn't shut us Finns up, and we still couldn't do a proper Midway. :devil
-
Ultimate hangar queen?...
Nah, it would be used a lot more than the Spitfire Mk I, Hurricane Mk I, D3A1 or B5N2. It has a 20mm Hispano in the nose.
-
OH, the D.520
Heck no it would not be a hanger queen, think it has 20mm and two .30's in each wing.
Small and nimble, humble speed like most early war fighters.
Short legs, but a alright bird i think, and most stated it turned fairly well.
-
Bring on ALL 40-43 aircraft!!!!
:salute SO SICK OF UBBER RIDES! :salute
Me too! Flew yesterday for the 1st time in better part of a year. Had one sortie in a D9. All the rest in mid-war planes: Ki61, P39, oh, F6F (oops)
-
Ultimate hangar queen?...
i think it will fill gap in midwar and be flown as much as a spit
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/dewoitine_d-520.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/m/dewoitine_d-520-m.gif)
Specification
Powered by a supercharged 678kW Hispano-Suiza 12Y45 engine, the D.520 was armed with an engine-mounted HS-404 20mm cannon and four wing-mounted 7.5mm MAC machine-guns. The wing was a single-spar structure with duralumin skinning. Ailerons were fabric-covered and flaps pneumatically operated. The fuselage was an all-metal monocoque structure and the wide-track undercarriage legs retracted inwards into the wing profile
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 2677 kg 5902 lb
Empty weight 2123 kg 4680 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 10.2 m 33 ft 6 in
Length 8.6 m 28 ft 3 in
Height 2.57 m 8 ft 5 in
Wing area 15.97 m2 171.90 sq ft
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 534 km/h 332 mph
Ceiling 10500 m 34450 ft
Range 1540 km 957 miles
Plus several countries flew this bird
Operators: France, Luftwaffe, Regia Aeronautica, Bulgaria, Rumania, Free French Forces.
-
i think it will fill gap in midwar and be flown as much as a spit
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/dewoitine_d-520.jpg)
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/m/dewoitine_d-520-m.gif)
Specification
Powered by a supercharged 678kW Hispano-Suiza 12Y45 engine, the D.520 was armed with an engine-mounted HS-404 20mm cannon and four wing-mounted 7.5mm MAC machine-guns. The wing was a single-spar structure with duralumin skinning. Ailerons were fabric-covered and flaps pneumatically operated. The fuselage was an all-metal monocoque structure and the wide-track undercarriage legs retracted inwards into the wing profile
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 2677 kg 5902 lb
Empty weight 2123 kg 4680 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 10.2 m 33 ft 6 in
Length 8.6 m 28 ft 3 in
Height 2.57 m 8 ft 5 in
Wing area 15.97 m2 171.90 sq ft
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 534 km/h 332 mph
Ceiling 10500 m 34450 ft
Range 1540 km 957 miles
Plus several countries flew this bird
Operators: France, Luftwaffe, Regia Aeronautica, Bulgaria, Rumania, Free French Forces.
IIRC luftwaffe flew d250s that they captured once the occupied france, but only for training purposes.
-
:rock :rock :rock
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/BWinAH.jpg)
... and it's no DEWOthinggamadoo or sumpthin :P
-
:rock :rock :rock
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/BWinAH.jpg)
... and it's no DEWOthinggamadoo or sumpthin :P
:rofl :aok
-
Yes please, bring the Brewster into AH! :aok
Blast from the past:
(http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/200700.gif)
(http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/130201.jpg)
Loose Rivets (http://www.jtsystems.demon.co.uk/duma/images/cartoons/looserivets/)
Camo
-
Idk, I found this off that thread....
The Brewster company went under during the war, almost 55 years ago. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find performance data on an aircraft like the Buffalo after all that time?
Even aircraft like the Corsair, which was far more popular with warbird enthusiasts than the despised and denigrated Buffalo, suffers from a lack of data. Francis Dean has done as much research into World War II fighters as any author in our times. As just one example of the problems he encountered in trying to gather data for his tome "America's Hundred Thousand" Dean states that no F4U roll rate data could be found above 290 mph IAS.
Cry in your beers if you must, but I strongly suspect that we will never see the Brewster in AH simply because there is not enough reliable, documented flight dat in existence to allow HiTech to create a viable flight model.
-
I think the Brewster would be a lot better addition than the Dewotine...
-
Dunno how the Luftwaffe faired against them, but the Regia Aeronautica operating CR.42s and CR.36s had a lot of troubles with the D.520 despite their numerical superiority.
-
I'm sorta baiting for someone to prove me wrong. I'd never heard of the plane till someone mentionned it in a thread much like this one. Gonna go read up on it. Personaly though, I think the Finns deserve the Brewster way more than the tiny number of french players do the D520.. As far as I can tell anyway.
-
Both the Finns and the Frenchmen could unite behind Curtiss Hawk 75 :aok :aok :aok ... the export model of P-36 :salute
...but Brewster would still kick its butt ;)
But frankly, I would support just about anything and everything for the early-mid war set (1939-1942)
-
See htc, the people now want early birds. ;)
yes to the He-111 and brewster! :rock
-
See htc, the people now want early birds. ;)
yes to the He-111 and brewster! :rock
Now? Nah.. people allways want early birds.
I want I-16 and I-15.
-
Shouldnt this thread be in the wishlist forum?
-
I have lost my faith, it will never come.
keep that reverse psychology up Mipoikel and it might happen.
Personally would like to see yak3 or I16.
-
Here's the old quote angelsandair resurrected:
Frankly, you silly, delusional twits, I don't see how it's possible.
The Brewster company went under during the war, almost 55 years ago. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find performance data on an aircraft like the Buffalo after all that time?
Even aircraft like the Corsair, which was far more popular with warbird enthusiasts than the despised and denigrated Buffalo, suffers from a lack of data. Francis Dean has done as much research into World War II fighters as any author in our times. As just one example of the problems he encountered in trying to gather data for his tome "America's Hundred Thousand" Dean states that no F4U roll rate data could be found above 290 mph IAS.
Cry in your beers if you must, but I strongly suspect that we will never see the Brewster in AH simply because there is not enough reliable, documented flight dat in existence to allow HiTech to create a viable flight model.
Twits.
angelsandair,
Since Brewster Model 239 was included in the vote for a new aircraft after this quote was written I can't really see how this is relevant in anyway. Pyro and HTC sure seems to think it's possible to model Brewster with enough degree of accuracy...
...but I'll address the arguments in the quote anyway...
So, since there's is no roll rate data for the F4U above 290mph IAS, how can it be in the game? ;) We know it's Vne at most alts is higher than that. :) In one roll rate thread (from 2004) Pyro said that he hasn't seen any (numerical?) roll rate data for La-5...and yet we also have that aircraft in the game.
Good, fairly accurate educated guesses can be made about lot of things. In case of La-5's roll rate, other aircraft with similar design can be looked at for reference and subject aircraft's structures can be studied which both help to arrive to a good conclusion.
And unlike Shuckins assumes, very accurate data and handling charateristics describtions actually exist in a report supplied by the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation to Finland with the Brewsters. Mr. Jukka Raunio has extensively quoted that document in his book Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Pilot's Viewpoint II) and Camo has send this information to Pyro. Only thing that really is missing is (again) numerical roll rate data but there are some describtions about how Brewster rolled which can be taken into account.
The following and a lot more data is available about the Brewster 239:
- Structural limitations (IIRC -4/+9 G, don't remember the safety coefficients off hand, can be found from the document I mentioned)
- Reliable speed/climb curves
- Stall speeds (clean/"dirty") /airfoil data /lift coefficient
- Extensive CoG-data
- Accurate handling characteristics describtions (not just pilots anecdotes, they are based on the test pilot's reports)
- Accurate fuel consumption figures
- The obvious technical specs (wing area, hp, weights)
...I'd guess the above alone is enough to model an aircraft to AH2's FM-engine.
-
Nice, the replys start with squeaking and then comes a hijack...
-
I'm sorta baiting for someone to prove me wrong. I'd never heard of the plane till someone mentionned it in a thread much like this one. Gonna go read up on it. Personaly though, I think the Finns deserve the Brewster way more than the tiny number of french players do the D520.. As far as I can tell anyway.
Well, when it comes to French planes, M.S.406 had more impact, more were build (1000+ vs 900+), and it has seen more combat as well (used by Finns also).
Either way, Brewster, MS406 and D520 should all be low priority. They'd be ok for few selected scenarios, but otherwise, typical hangar queens.
There are huge gaps in Russian, German (bombers) and Japanese sets which should be filled first (IMHO).
-
That sums it up well enough, thanks Barbie.. Sorry for derailing, Mora.
-
Say good-bye to the La-7 :rock :rock :rock
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.
The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.
These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).
So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.
When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.
Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).
Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.
My regards,
Widewing