Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on June 25, 2009, 11:22:08 PM
-
With the beta out, I took the opportunity to wring out the Brewster and I-16.
Both are going to be fun.
Speed @ SL 50% fuel
B-239: 280 mph
I-16: 275 mph
A6M2: 270 mph
Hurri I: 262 mph
Speed @ 16k 50% fuel
B-239: 303 mph
I-16: 302 mph
Turn radius and rate, full flaps, 25% fuel
B-239: 329 feet @ 22.5 degrees/sec
I-16: 382 feet @ 21.8 degrees/sec
A6M2: 315 feet @ 25.1 degrees/sec
Hurri I: 364 feet @ 23.3 degrees/sec
The Brewster's sustained turn radius measures second only to the A6M2, and it's close enough to make it a very even match. While the I-16 doesn't turn as well, its agility is excellent, with slightly better acceleration and climb rate than the Brewster. Both aircraft have excellent outward vision, with the I-16 being as good as they come... No canopy frames.
In terms of guns, the four .50 cals in the Brewster seem more effective than the same gun package in the FM-2 and P-51B. This is due to having two of the guns in the cowling, with their natural concentration of fire. Typical of the .50 cals, they shoot flat. In contrast, the I-16 with two cannon and two MGs is more lethal, but the cannon's ballistics are not great. Plus, they have very limited ammo.
These two fighters will hold their own in the late war arenas, if flown to their strengths. In the early war arena, both will very tough adversaries. The Brewster will eat up the Hurricanes. As is the case with the A6M2, it would be a mistake to get into a turning contest with the Brewster if you are flying something like a Bf 109E or F, Spitfire, P-39, P-40 or F4F-4. All four of these will be hard pressed by the I-16 as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
About the results I thought I'd see after flying both today.
I expected the I-16 to be a good little turn fighter but once I dropped the flaps on the Brewster I was in total awe. I was glad most people in the beta arena hadn't caught onto the use of the Brewster's flaps yet. :) The I-16 by comparison didn't seem to give an overwhelming edge with flaps use and felt a little unstable in the stall buzzer. In fact I felt it's turn rate got slightly worse with the flaps out.
While the climb rate on the I-16 was clearly superior to the Brewster I thought the relative speed of the Brewster was better than what your test results show.
I didn't actually test or measure anything. These were just my initial perceptions furballing in the middle of the main island.
-
Agreed on the unstable comment regarding the I-16. Felt like the little rudder didn't help. Brewster turned far better then I thought it would. Both fun little birds.
-
I took a little time to look at endurance and climbrates which compliments your data pretty nicely...
I16...
2.0 Fuel Burn
16 minutes @ 100% (67 Gallons)
25 minutes @ 100% and two 20.5 gallon droptanks
Guns Type 24 4x7.6mm ShKas 750 rpg
Type 28 2x20mm ShVak 90rpg + 2x7.6mm ShKaks
Type 29 1x12.7mm UBS 230 rpg + 2x7.6mm ShKaks
Hard Point Options 8 x RS-32 Rockets and 2 x 20.5 Gallon Droptanks
Climbrate 4234 lbs @ 130 mph
1k 3200
5k 3470
10k 2860
15k 2850
20k 2360
23k 2020
25k 1650
Brewster...
2.0 Fuel Burn
42 minutes @ 100% (160 Gallons)
Guns Package 1 2 x M2 50 cals 400 rpg
1 x M2 50 cal 200 rpg
1 x 30 cal 600 rpg
Package 2 2 x M2 50 cals 400 rpg
1 x M2 50 cal 200 rpg
No Hardpoint Options
Climb Rate 5100lbs @ 140 mph
1k 3050
5k 2950
10k 2350
15k 2275
20k 1860
23k 1440
25k 1125
Disclaimer: Most of this data should be accurate to a couple percent and is intended to give rough ideas to the performance and capabilities of the planes. Climbrate was done with fuel burn rate set to zero and around half a fuel load. Accuracy is guaranted to be better than broad side of barn....
-
In terms of guns, the four .50 cals in the Brewster seem more effective than the same gun package in the FM-2 and P-51B. This is due to having two of the guns in the cowling, with their natural concentration of fire. Typical of the .50 cals, they shoot flat.
I'm too busy to test beta right now but there might be a different and little known explanation for the better fire power. I told about that to Pyro but I don't know if it's modeled to the new plane. Check if the wing guns have much higher rate of fire than the fuselage guns?
-
Brewster is pretty much exactly what I thought it would be. Those lively ailerons feel great! :) The speed on the deck agrees to the mile to my calculations. Only thing that was a bit of a surprise was the amount of slipping during turns...needs quite a bit of foot work to counteract that compared to most AH's fighters. In real life clean coordinated turns could be done using only rudder or ailerons.
-
Comparison between few Ah fighters with F4F-3A and F2A-3 thrown in:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Comparison_ver2.jpg)
Those speeds for the I-16s are speeds for the production planes. Pyro seems to have modelled the speed on the deck after pre-production Type 24. The series aircraft were found to be slower than that according to Yefim Gordon & Dmitri Khazanov. The speeds listed for the I-16s on my table come from Yefim Gordon's & Keith Dexter's I-16 book.
Brewster speeds I extrapolated from Finnish flight test which was flown at continous (850hp) setting:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/BW_speeds.jpg)
Currently Brewster does not have it's WEP-setting but it seems to be doing the WEP-speed on the deck with Take-off setting (AH-continuos, 950hp) only.
-
So far I must say I like both airplanes. Best of all they really duel each other out really well. The Historical recreations including the two should be awsome. We'll see how it works out. I'll say this already however and that is I like the 235 more then the FM2. I think the 235 handles better.
-
9
239
I think the I-16 is great. Exactly what an early war tool should be... Wings and guns, nothing else to spoil it.
-
Sorry I screwed up the weight of the F2A-3 in that table. That weight is for F2A-2, not -3.
-
Found both planes to be fun. Brewster is a fun little plane. I 16 is great on the verticals. Now a Hinkle biplane for a good threesum.
-
I-16 firing times (for anyone running without ammo counters):
4x 7mm : wing guns 30", cowl 17".
1x .50 + 2x 7mm : 14.5" + 17"
2x 20mm + 2x 7mm : 6.5" + 17"
I-16 weights breakdown:
25% of fuel = 100 lbs
DT + their fuel = 52 + 188 = 240 lbs. No extra weight over a clean cfg once DTs dropped.
4x7mm ammo = 176 lbs. Empty = 3649 lbs
1x50 + 2x7 ammo = 74 + 58 respectively = 132 lbs. Negligible weight, no use dumping either ammo as ballast. Empty = 3642 lbs
2x20 + 2x7 ammo = 93 + 58 = 151 lbs. Empty = 3781 lbs
So the 4x7 and 2x7+1x.50 are essentially the same plane, as far as weight goes. The 20mm package adds just 140 lbs or so.
-
Had the chance to play around with the I-16 in the beta arena, in between bursts of lag.
It seems the ultimate beginner plane. Sure you may not get kills, but you can evade death until you run out of fuel, and it's literally a point-and-click (or "point-nose, go-there") plane.
So I wanted to read up a little on it. Found half a dozen different resources on line, some differing info, wanted to pick folks' brains.
What's our in-game deck speed? Top speed seems to be 9.8k historically (???), so what do we have there?
A number of sources list the Type 24 top speed as 304 mph at 10k, a lot list it as 326mph at 10k-ish (9,845 ft). One reference breaks it down, listing M-62R engine, 1000hp (many Type 24 had 900hp M-63), as 326 @ SL, 304 @ 10k, 286 @ 14,765ft.
Doing a bit more reading, I really think the E-retention in-game is out of whack in a big way. It's basically a flat surface slamming directly into the wind (look at the nose!) with short, stubby, inefficient propellor blades (only 2, at that), and yet repeatedly I've seen it dive well past 400mph in the beta arena (4-5 occasions, separate planes/pilots) and hold that speed for a very long time. Found a reference referring to fights with Bf109Es that stated among other things: "In combat, the Bf 109 could escape from the I-16 in a dive since the stubby fighter had a terminal dive speed of 530 km/h (330 mph)." I don't know about that terminal speed... Can anybody confirm? I'm sure it has one, and it's probably less than the 450mph they've been diving in the beta arena. I'd really like to point that out to HTC, if it's the case, but need better info.
Supposedly: "The cannons adversely affected performance with the 360° circle time increasing from 15 seconds in Type 5 to 18 seconds." I wonder if that holds true in-game... I only tried out the 20mm version, naturally hehehe, The one time I took 4x 7mm I ran out of ammo with no kills.
I found a couple of references to the Type 5 being the most produced with 3000+ built, but this is a very early type, and probably most of those were during/after the Spanish Civil War. What was the most common type in WW2 (1939+)? One webpage listed the Type 24 as having just under 1000 built, and the Type 28 being a Type 24 with the wing guns changed, so I don't know if they are counted in that total or separately.
-
I got into a very long turn fight with another Brewster (<S> Santaana), had my flaps waaay out and was having a blast. Then I got rammed by somebody trying to pick me, knocked my tail feathers off. Plane pitched up, I kept the throttle full... Floated down and landed like a helicopter, plane settled right side up pretty as you please. I think I fell at least 500 feet, maybe more! :rofl
-
I had a spectacular low speed crash in an I-16- some Finn took a wing off, and I tumbled in, ripped off the tail, then the other wing, then one gear strut, and rolled over on the canopy, sliding to a halt in a stand of trees. It's interesting to fight at speeds low enough to survive unscheduled departures. ;)
-
I got into a very long turn fight with another Brewster (<S> Santaana), had my flaps waaay out and was having a blast. Then I got rammed by somebody trying to pick me, knocked my tail feathers off. Plane pitched up, I kept the throttle full... Floated down and landed like a helicopter, plane settled right side up pretty as you please. I think I fell at least 500 feet, maybe more! :rofl
:lol
On another topic, the I16 is looking to have a bleak future with the poor fuel consumption...
-
:lol
On another topic, the I16 is looking to have a bleak future with the poor fuel consumption...
I think it can make a good NOE defense plane, and you will see it a lot on CV vs land base battles.
---
I have only a little time in it yet, but to me it seems the I-16 is way more stable than I would have expected, both from what I have read as well as watching original footage of that plane in action.
The B-239 is a low-speed monster. May become the dread of all A6M5's in latewar :)
I'm pretty sure particulary the Brewster will see a lot more sustained usage after the novelty wears off than the P-39
-
It feels like the same sort of artificial stability that the F4U isn't supposed to have at departure. The I-16 does have a pretty loose departure, so it's not completely uncharacteristic.
-
So far I must say I like both airplanes. Best of all they really duel each other out really well. The Historical recreations including the two should be awsome. We'll see how it works out. I'll say this already however and that is I like the 235 more then the FM2. I think the 235 handles better.
yea i thouhgt i very funny, the fm2 will now have to run and B.And Z.
-
I sort of wish HTC had made a separate B-239 and F2A-3, rather than just making it a single aircraft with gun packages. The F2A-3 had a good deal more weight than the 239 so we've really got sort of a hybrid with the US gun package (granted, it had an extra 200hp as well, but nowhere near enough power increase to make up for it). The result is a sprightlier Brewster than the USMC, RAF and Dutch actually had against the Japanese.
-
I've had the stall buffet occur a few times, but has anybody spun out or dropped a wing in one yet? :uhoh
EDIT: referring to the brewster this time
-
I sort of wish HTC had made a separate B-239 and F2A-3, rather than just making it a single aircraft with gun packages. The F2A-3 had a good deal more weight than the 239 so we've really got sort of a hybrid with the US gun package
What US gun package?
Finnish Brewsters had two weapon layouts. Originally with 3 x heavy and 1 x light MGs, which was upgraded to 4 x heavies.
-
I had a spectacular low speed crash in an I-16- some Finn took a wing off, and I tumbled in, ripped off the tail, then the other wing, then one gear strut, and rolled over on the canopy, sliding to a halt in a stand of trees. It's interesting to fight at speeds low enough to survive unscheduled departures. ;)
I do that in the 38G on the deck all the time. Managed it nicely in the Brewster too. Way too low and slow, plowed into the water, both wings and tail came off. Then Bat came in and rammed me and he broke up the same way and we were both sitting there in the water having a good laugh at that tough little bird :)
-
The I-16 speed limit is above 550TAS. No broken parts and I couldn't snap anything off by ham handing it around either. Couldn't even get the airframe to creak.
-
I've had the stall buffet occur a few times, but has anybody spun out or dropped a wing in one yet? :uhoh
EDIT: referring to the brewster this time
Yes, during some stall fighting with Batfink. flaps hanging out and stalled it and dropped a wing. Easy to recover though.
-
I ventured into the Beta arena tonight and flew a single sortie on furball island. Shot down a pair of I-16s and a 109F. The I-16s really had nothing for the Brewster close-in. However, they are tough little fighters, sucking up a great deal of .50 cal ammo before going down. The 109F had an altitude advantage. He tried to suck me up into a climbing flight, but I wouldn't play his game. Instead, I dogged his low six until he came down. After a couple of minutes, the 109F had lost his E advantage. Even with flaps out, the 109F was completely outclassed in a stall fight. Slow and dirty, the 109 pilot could not use his advantage in the vertical and never had a chance.
I think the "BREW", as its icon says, will be one of the dominant fighters in the early war arena, and can hold its own in the others as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I haven't had so much trouble with brewsters in the I-16 that I'd put it as being out of contention in a knife fight. I haven't gotten much 1:1 time (too many interruptions), but from what I've seen, the only clear dominance the Brewster has on the I-16 is pure flat turns.
-
What US gun package?
Finnish Brewsters had two weapon layouts. Originally with 3 x heavy and 1 x light MGs, which was upgraded to 4 x heavies.
Actually there was three weapon layouts:
1. Original: 3x 12,7mm Colt (MG 53-2) + 1x 7,7mm Colt (MG 40)
2. 4x 12,7mm Colt
3. 2x 12,7mm Colt + 2x 12,7mm Lkk/42 (derivate of 13,2mm FN-Browning, not a copied Colt)
Firepower wise the third layout was about 50% more effective than the second because here in Finland the Colts were set for 550 rpm (factory default) while the LKk/42 did 1000-1100 rpm. The LKk/42s were also in the wings (no synchronisation) so the increased rate of fire was fully utilized.
For the details see Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti 4/2007-3/2008 "VKT 12,70 LKk/42 - ei mikään Coltin kopio" by Pentti Manninen. I sent some documention on this to Pyro but I don't know if the third layout is modeled.
-
I think the "BREW", as its icon says, will be one of the dominant fighters in the early war arena, and can hold its own in the others as well.
I move that they change the icon from "BREW" to "BUFF". That way the average MAer will shoot at it from dead six instead of trying to HO it.
-
I move that they change the icon from "BREW" to "BUFF". That way the average MAer will shoot at it from dead six instead of trying to HO it.
Just got done playing with her for the first time in the Beta arena.
Very stable, incredibly agile and superb rate of roll at all airspeeds, dives like a brick, controls remain responsive even at high speeds, her flaps may be as good as the Corsair's, solid gunnery package, VERY long range. E retention appears to be very good, at least with flaps up. Her only two weaknesses are speed and sustained rate of climb.
I'm calling it now: Perk on the Brewster in EARLY WAR ARENA.
-
I say, I say, that was a joke son...referring to the buffs, tail-guns, dead-six and all that. :D
You can't perk the Brewster, because it is not faster than every single farking plane in EW arena, and how are you going to compensate all the Finnish aviation fans for perking their favorite plane, and its k/d is less than 97.5 to 1...so obviously it does not need to be perked and people who complain about a given aircraft doing every single thing better in a dogfight are just whiners, and Shaw is just an old fogey when he says pilots would give their left nut for double-superior performance... :noid
Just got done playing with her for the first time in the Beta arena.
Very stable, incredibly agile and superb rate of roll at all airspeeds, dives like a brick, controls remain responsive even at high speeds, her flaps may be as good as the Corsair's, solid gunnery package, VERY long range. E retention appears to be very good, at least with flaps up. Her only two weaknesses are speed and sustained rate of climb.
I'm calling it now: Perk on the Brewster in EARLY WAR ARENA.
-
:lol
On another topic, the I16 is looking to have a bleak future with the poor fuel consumption...
You can fly using only internal fuel for defensive fighting. However, for offensive flights, you will need to load the drop tanks. This will provide a 25 minute endurance, or a maximum radius of 2 sectors. A practical radius is 1 sector with about 10 minutes of combat in the target area.
On the other hand, the Brewster has an endurance of 47 minutes and a maximum radius of 4 sectors.
My regards,
Widewing
-
In terms of guns, the four .50 cals in the Brewster seem more effective than the same gun package in the FM-2 and P-51B. This is due to having two of the guns in the cowling, with their natural concentration of fire. Typical of the .50 cals, they shoot flat. In contrast, the I-16 with two cannon and two MGs is more lethal, but the cannon's ballistics are not great. Plus, they have very limited ammo.
These two fighters will hold their own in the late war arenas, if flown to their strengths. In the early war arena, both will very tough adversaries. The Brewster will eat up the Hurricanes. As is the case with the A6M2, it would be a mistake to get into a turning contest with the Brewster if you are flying something like a Bf 109E or F, Spitfire, P-39, P-40 or F4F-4. All four of these will be hard pressed by the I-16 as well.
My regards,
Widewing
Just as well they are not modeled as the ones in Singapore.
Based off this book
http://www.amazon.com/BUFFALOES-OVER-SINGAPORE-Brewster-1941-1942/dp/1904010326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246119831&sr=8-1
they could not out turn any of the Japanese fighters & the guns jammed all most as soon as they pulled the trigger it got so bad a squadron leader refused to up his plane for fear of being killed.
-
I haven't had so much trouble with brewsters in the I-16 that I'd put it as being out of contention in a knife fight. I haven't gotten much 1:1 time (too many interruptions), but from what I've seen, the only clear dominance the Brewster has on the I-16 is pure flat turns.
There are several areas where the Brewster is superior. Turn radius is the most noticeable. However, its ailerons are superior providing great roll rate at all speeds. Aileron control at low speeds is outstanding, perhaps the best in the game. The I-16's all or nothing flaps don't do much to help it compared to the B-239's 5 position flaps. You can close the margin between the two somewhat by taking the 3 gun option in the I-16 Type 29 configuration (two 7.62mm and one 12.7mm). This reduces the turn radius by 26 feet and increases turn rate by 1 degree per second. Most will find the trade-off in lethality to be unacceptable.
Another area favoring the Brewster is stability at the limit. It is much easier to fly at the limits than the I-16, especially using flaps.
On factor that draws things closer to equal is fuel load. A fully fueled B-239 is less agile, and the match-up closes down to only a minor advantage in turn radius. I found 50% fuel adequate for flying the B-239 one sector to a fight, whereas the I-16 will need to take the drop tanks to do the same.
The single greatest issue facing the I-16 is that the Rata can't fly and fight for very long before fuel becomes a critical factor. Dead stick I-16s will be a common sight.
Dive tests show that the Brewster accelerates a bit faster in a dive and holds the resulting energy better. Both can attain speeds in excess of 550 mph TAS, but the B-239 gets to that speed a couple of seconds sooner. Its controls are also slightly less stiff at that velocity. That's all good, except that the airframe begins to groan around 560 mph and you can break the elevators if you load more than a couple of Gs. Even without dynamic loading, the elevators shred at about 575 mph, with the ailerons following soon after. Very similar to what happens to the A6M2, without the severe control stiffening of the Zero. In comparison, the I-16 suffers no failures, but begins to groan at a similar speed to that of the Brewster. The I-16 can recover using trim. Both will exceed 600 mph before impacting the ground or ocean.
I also measure speeds at 20k and 25k. Fuel was 100% for I-16, 50% for B-239 (about equal endurance).
20K
I-16: 293 mph TAS
B-239: 303 mph TAS
25K
I-16: 282 mph TAS
B-239: 295 mph TAS
A6M2: 315 mph TAS (as a reference)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks Widewing.
-
It feels like the same sort of artificial stability that the F4U isn't supposed to have at departure. The I-16 does have a pretty loose departure, so it's not completely uncharacteristic.
I know, it's wiki, but perhaps the I-16's reputation for instability is undeserved:
"Wind tunnel testing suggested that TsKB-12 with its short tail would enter an unrecoverable flat spin, but real-life trials were necessary to confirm this. Since Cyclone engines were rare it was decided to risk the M-22 prototype for this purpose. On 1 March and 2 March 1934, Chkalov performed 75 spins and discovered that the aircraft had very benign stall behavior (dipping a wing and recovering without input from the pilot when airspeed increased) and intentional spins could be easily terminated by placing controls in the neutral position. The stories of vicious spin behavior of the I-16 perpetuated in modern literature is unfounded (perhaps extrapolated from Gee Bee experience). In fact, the I-16's stablemate, the biplane Polikarpov I-153, exhibited much worse spin characteristics."
-
I am finding it odd that in this game the BREW has no vices.. I was in a light P-47N, 6 guns, light ammo, 50% fuel, and a brewster I engaged at below 5K chased me all the way to 20k and stayed on my six, dove with me from 20k to the deck, never leaving 1K distance (often inside 600 yards, I was being shot at many times). In fact the only thing it couldn't do was keep up when I went level.
I think it's TOO stable across-the-board. The US Navy called it an "unstable" plane, and the heavier models "unmanuverable"... But to me this is a super zeke with 4 MGs instead of 2 cannons.
Doesn't feel right.
-
Well, what else would you expect from a model of the F2A/F4F/F6F family that's been stripped of all ballast?
-
Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.
In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.
Again, it just doesn't feel right.
-
I am finding it odd that in this game the BREW has no vices.. I was in a light P-47N, 6 guns, light ammo, 50% fuel, and a brewster I engaged at below 5K chased me all the way to 20k and stayed on my six, dove with me from 20k to the deck, never leaving 1K distance (often inside 600 yards, I was being shot at many times). In fact the only thing it couldn't do was keep up when I went level.
I think it's TOO stable across-the-board. The US Navy called it an "unstable" plane, and the heavier models "unmanuverable"... But to me this is a super zeke with 4 MGs instead of 2 cannons.
Doesn't feel right.
I have never seen any reference to the F2A-1/239 being unstable.
Those navy pilots who flew the F2A-1 thought it to be a vice-free fighter with outstanding maneuverability. The Finns agreed completely. Navy pilots even thought that the F2A-2 was still a pretty sweet little fighter once airborne. Only the F2A-3 received poor reviews. In many respects, the -3 was a markedly different airframe than the -1.
In case you missed it, the F2A-1 was a model B-239...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.
In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.
Again, it just doesn't feel right.
Ballast keeping things stable sounds like safety in inertia, iow from unexpected and/or uneven forces applied to the plane. Do you need/benefit from that in the perfectly still air of AH?
Do you know for sure that the CoG moved fwd, and excessively so? You've looked at the blueprints and actually checked what the items we know for sure that the FAF removed had this effect?
That the FM2 is a 44 bird, versus the Brewster 239 being from 39 is no guarantee of anything..
The wingload, powerload are both valid points, if they are as you say. But stability - how do you quantify this exactly? -- nm on that one, see above.
-
Ballast keeps things stable... Stripping the frame can alter the flight dynamics in very negative ways. Removing armor can make the nose heavy, removing radios, rafts, etc, all can make the nose extremely heavy.
In here folks were testing it against FM2s... It totally owns FM2s in all aspects, was the concensus, which historically should not be the case. The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.
Again, it just doesn't feel right.
Some of this is incorrect. The B-239 has a lower wing loading and a much higher rate of roll. The FM-2 climbs better, accelerates faster and is faster over much of the altitude range. If the FM-2 gets into a stall fight with the Brewster, it will lose. Thus, it must use its better vertical performance and speed advantage (better than 20 mph at sea level).
If people are in the habit of yanking and banking in the FM-2, the Brewster will exploit that mindset just as a Zero would. The I-16 will give the FM-2 a bad time as well.
My regards,
Widewing
-
So Krusty had to be doing something wrong for a Brewster to stick with his 47N in a fast dive and zoom...
-
So Krusty had to be doing something wrong for a Brewster to stick with his 47N in a fast dive and zoom...
I'd love to see a film, but there's no film viewer for the Beta that I know of....
Inasmuch as the Brewster can dive up to at least 560 mph without breaking anything, the P-47N won't get far ahead. As to climb, if he used WEP the Jug would leave the B-239 behind. Without using WEP, the Brewster can keep up to about 10k. Also, if he was climbing at too steep of an angle, it could be the cause. Like the Zero, the B-239 climbs at a low speed, but steep angle. A high speed climb, of around 1.5k a minute would leave the Brewster way behind rather quickly.
It reminds me of P-40 pilots in the 5th AF, who used a shallow high speed climb to get away from a swarm of Ki-43s.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I did a little offline testing of the P-47N and B-239.
I took a P-47N with 50% fuel, 8 guns with the smaller ammo load (267 rds per gun) and a B-239 with 25% fuel.
I took off and climbed to 3k. At 285 mph, I engaged auto-climb and allowed the fighters to climb to 20k. What I discovered is that in MIL power, the P-47N climb rate is less than the B-239 until around 18.5k, where the Brewster's climb rate equals that of the Jug. However, the P-47 is climbing at 164 mph IAS vs 140 mph IAS. So, if both use auto-climb, the Brewster get to 20k first, but the P-47 puts some distance between the two.
Times in minutes:seconds.10ths of seconds were...
Brewster: 6:17.31
P-47N: 7:10.67
If the Brewster matched the P-47's 164 mph IAS, it still climbed at a greater rate, but only up to 17k.
If the P-47N used wep... It simply checks out from the Brewster.
Same parameters as above, the Jug took...
P-47N WEP: 4:46.87
I did dive tests as well. While the Brewster dives very well, the P-47N accelerates faster and can attain speeds that would rip off the Brewster's elevators. But, if the dive is too shallow, the Brewster can dog it for a long time.
So, Krusty probably didn't use much WEP while trying to out-climb the Brewster. Likewise, he didn't push the dive fast enough to either force the Brewster to pull off power or damage the aircraft.
Indeed, the P-47N would have a bigger problem with 109E, or C.202. Why? Miserable climb rate without WEP.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I do that in the 38G on the deck all the time. Managed it nicely in the Brewster too. Way too low and slow, plowed into the water, both wings and tail came off. Then Bat came in and rammed me and he broke up the same way and we were both sitting there in the water having a good laugh at that tough little bird :)
Heh, we ended 20 yrds apart looking both quite similar to a cuban cigar. Not sure if either of even fired a shot that fight but it lasted long enough before the water cherry picked us.
The brewster is a dominant force in the beta arena. I-16 more of a novel toy, very fun. Both of them stand no chance vs a furballing B26 I did discover. Any well aimed attack with the 26's nose guns is enough to damage either plane considerably. In defence the B26 can just nose down a fraction and pull away from them. Any attempt to chase the 26 results in laser tail gun volleys at a target that cannot close with you. Landed two kills in the b26 before the new patch stutters stopped me playing. One I-16 and one Brewster.
-
Indeed, the P-47N would have a bigger problem with 109E, or C.202. Why? Miserable climb rate without WEP.
My regards,
Widewing
So Republic needed to go back to the drawing board? :huh ;)
Truly the silly penny have been dropped in the stupid machine. Methinks the flight-model likes the light-wingloaded crates a mite too much. Anyway, good as excuse as any for please give us the P-47M! plea. :rock
-
Heh, we ended 20 yrds apart looking both quite similar to a cuban cigar. Not sure if either of even fired a shot that fight but it lasted long enough before the water cherry picked us.
The brewster is a dominant force in the beta arena. I-16 more of a novel toy, very fun. Both of them stand no chance vs a furballing B26 I did discover. Any well aimed attack with the 26's nose guns is enough to damage either plane considerably. In defence the B26 can just nose down a fraction and pull away from them. Any attempt to chase the 26 results in laser tail gun volleys at a target that cannot close with you. Landed two kills in the b26 before the new patch stutters stopped me playing. One I-16 and one Brewster.
:lol
-
I took a P-47N with 50% fuel, 8 guns with the smaller ammo load (267 rds per gun) and a B-239 with 25% fuel.
So, Krusty probably didn't use much WEP while trying to out-climb the Brewster. Likewise, he didn't push the dive fast enough to either force the Brewster to pull off power or damage the aircraft.
Indeed, the P-47N would have a bigger problem with 109E, or C.202. Why? Miserable climb rate without WEP.
I had taken the 6 gun option, and fuel state by the time I got to the fight was less than 50%. I was using WEP in the climbs, spiral climbing, level climbing, attempting wingovers with flaps, anything I did the brewster just had its nose glued to me and peppered me as I tried to get a gun lock on it.
With this loadout and weight, my performance was notably better than a D-40.
The wing loading on the FM2 is compared to the official F2A weights, not this super-lightened semi-frankenstein (?) we have in-game.
-
Another passage from the book I have about the planes in Singapore.
(http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/70cfe4b2ee.jpg) (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)
-
Krusty, why didn't you use the + 85 mph the P47N can do to gain an advantage on the Brewster?
If you are looking for vices on the Brewster, it's in the speed where you find them.
-
The 1944 FM-2 has better wing loading, HP loading, stability, than the 1939 Brewster, and yet somehow HTC models the BREW as superior.
Bollocks. There is info regarding the wingloading posted to this very thread and you still choose to repeat these kind of inaccuracies. What source says FM-2 has a better wingloading than Model 239?? Please name your source. I bet you can't, because you have none. You are once again making things up as you go.
Weight/Wing areas presented on this table match Game's and AHT's data:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Comparison_ver2.jpg)
-
I had taken the 6 gun option, and fuel state by the time I got to the fight was less than 50%. I was using WEP in the climbs, spiral climbing, level climbing, attempting wingovers with flaps, anything I did the brewster just had its nose glued to me and peppered me as I tried to get a gun lock on it.
With this loadout and weight, my performance was notably better than a D-40.
The wing loading on the FM2 is compared to the official F2A weights, not this super-lightened semi-frankenstein (?) we have in-game.
Krusty, a friend of mine (Erik Shilling) was an AVG pilot. At Chennault's request, he flew a mock engagement with an RAF B-339 at Rangoon in November of 1941. They took off together and climbed out side by side. Leveling off, the Brewster turned right and the Tomahawk turned left. After a few minutes, they reversed and merged directly over the runway. The instant their wingtips passed, the fight was on.
Shilling entered the merge at well over 400 mph, the B-339 considerably slower. Shilling pulled into a 3g, 45 degree chandelle, zooming up high and around on the Brewster. Typical of his experience flying Spitfires, the RAF pilot hauled the Brewster around in a punishing turn, nearly level. At that instant the fight was, in a realistic sense, over. Shilling was high above with lots of potential energy, while the Buffalo had scrubbed off much of its speed. The RAF pilot realized that he had been had as he saw the shark-mouth Tomahawk diving straight at him. He attempted to evade in every manner he could think of. This included cutting power and dropping flaps. Nothing worked, as Shilling would simply go vertical, roll and come right back in (textbook high yo-yo). He had the Brewster pinned down and there was nothing its pilot could do about it. Finally, Chennault called an end to duel and both landed.
My conversations with Erik revealed that he knew that the Brewster could out-turn his Tomahawk. He also knew that it climbed better. Shilling's big advantage was speed. His Curtiss was faster than the B-339. He also knew that the RAF blokes would rely on their training and concentrate on a turning fight (which cost them dearly against the Japanese). He exploited his advantage and dominated the more agile fighter.
One may ask, why was Shilling asked to fly the duel when there were pilots available who would become great aces? Chennault selected Shilling because "he was my best pilot. Shilling could out-fly anyone in the organization. That is why I picked him to build and pilot our photo ship (a modified Tomahawk). I knew Shilling could fly deep into Japanese air space, take the photos and get back."
The point Krusty, is that you have to avoid the strengths of the enemy and exploit the strengths of your aircraft. Your P-47N should have easily dominated the Brewster if you avoided trying to maneuver with it. Don't fight the way the other guy fights best. If you found yourself low and got bounced by the Brewster, there's little you can do except evade and build E. I've executed a perfect diving bounce on a 262 while flying an SBD in the DA. That doesn't mean the SBD is a "Frankenstein". It means that the 262 driver was not paying attention, and his decision to burn off his E was a bad one.
If you wish, we can go into the TA. I'll take a P-47N, you can fly the Brewster. We'll do a standard merge. I'll demonstrate my point.
The B-239 is not a super plane. It is highly maneuverable, with superior ailerons and light control forces. It's rate of climb is good for its genre, but inferior to almost all types encountered in the LWAs. Its great weakness is its lack of speed. Max speed at its best altitude is no more than 305 mph. Many of the late war fighters can do well over 400 mph at that height. Even the A-20G is faster on the deck; about 40 mph faster.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Thanks for that widewing, enjoyed reading it alot. You are priveledged to have such friends. Your point also, clearly proven that an empty B26 can evade and/or destroy both the I16 and brewster, unless starting from considerable disadvantage or prone to suicidal tactics.
-
Thanks for that widewing, enjoyed reading it alot. You are priveledged to have such friends. Your point also, clearly proven that an empty B26 can evade and/or destroy both the I16 and brewster, unless starting from considerable disadvantage or prone to suicidal tactics.
There's few things more entertaining than taking a big old bomber into a furball and chewing up the mob with it. When exiting the mob, slow fighters like the Brewster and I-16 can't overtake the B-26, so they line up like ducks behind it.... Too bad that there's no film viewer for the Beta. I'd love to see that film.
My regards,
Widewing
-
One thing that has frustrated me to no end is the very very poor signal to noise ratio regarding the Brewster fighter aircraft during the history of this BBS. There are guys
like Widewing and Squire that actually have objectively looked at the specs of the said aircraft and compared it to the rest of the planeset and then, have actually sacrificed a few moments to think (again, objectively) how it would/should compare to the said planeset.
Many others have basically read that F2A-3 was overweight and that many of them were lost in a single engagement against the IJN. They then just parrot the only thing they have read/heard every time the word "Brewster" comes up without ever really involving any thought process what so ever into the equation.
Correcting these individuals would almost be a full time job. Therefore I've mostly just given up and let the clueless be...well, clueless.
-
Brewster, I would have gone to war in one happily.
-
In regards to the P-47N fight I had, I did level out to build up speed, but the second I tried to use that speed (loop, yo-yo, high turn, whatever) the brewster was instantly there, and could hang on its nose indefinitely (never losing aim at me) while I did whatever manuver I was attempting. While the range was often 600-800 yards, I was avoiding death, but even using the speed, the only thing I could do was "disengage" -- could never use the speed because the BREW could simply float at all alts at any angle.
EDIT: That is what I did. I disengaged, and left the fight area. BREW couldn't follow, broke off and turned around.
-
WMaker: Mathematics.
Brewster had 208.9 square feet of wing area.
Wildcat had 260 square feet of wing area
(F4F-4 in this example, FM-2 has same wing)
Brewster (F2A-3) weighs (fully fueled) 7159 lbs max, and your weight listed is barely over the "empty" weight of 4732lbs (2146kg).
Wildcat weighs (max) 7952 lbs, but I don't know if that counts external tanks or not. Using F4F-4 numbers here. I know FM-2 a little heavier, but don't have the numbers in front of me. Even assuming this is all internal weight, that gives us:
7159 divided by 209 equals 34 lbs per square foot for the Buffalo
7952 divided by 260 equals 30 lbs per square foot for the F4F-4
The HP loading is much better on the FM-2 because of the improved power and the WEP settings. (1350hp as compared to BREW 1000 hp in-game, and 1150 I think for the F2A3 model)
The FM-2 has a much larger wing, more horsepower, and in general this should equate to better handling in a tight turning situation. More area, more lift, more power to keep the plane in the air.
-
WMaker: Mathematics.
Brewster had 208.9 square feet of wing area.
Wildcat had 260 square feet of wing area
(F4F-4 in this example, FM-2 has same wing)
Brewster (F2A-3) weighs (fully fueled) 7159 lbs max, and your weight listed is barely over the "empty" weight of 4732lbs (2146kg).
Wildcat weighs (max) 7952 lbs, but I don't know if that counts external tanks or not. Using F4F-4 numbers here. I know FM-2 a little heavier, but don't have the numbers in front of me. Even assuming this is all internal weight, that gives us:
7159 divided by 209 equals 34 lbs per square foot for the Buffalo
7952 divided by 260 equals 30 lbs per square foot for the F4F-4
The HP loading is much better on the FM-2 because of the improved power and the WEP settings. (1350hp as compared to BREW 1000 hp in-game, and 1150 I think for the F2A3 model)
The FM-2 has a much larger wing, more horsepower, and in general this should equate to better handling in a tight turning situation. More area, more lift, more power to keep the plane in the air.
Umm . . .
You realize our Brewster is NOT the F2A-3? Therefore your math is entirely irrelevant.
-
No, I stated previously my comparison is to the F2A, and I'm also somewhat dubious about how much the airframe was "stripped down" for the Finns.
Several folks have pointed out that with this completely modified BREW we can't use it for anything BUT the Finnish front. Can't be used at Midway, can't be used anywhere in the PTO (SEA, where it had a noticable showing for a while). The plane can't be used for anything except in this one setup.
It is nice the Finns got a plane they've been longing for for ... what? ... 10 years now. However the usability of the plane by the AH community for many setups is nonexistent.
-
Considering we often use Bostons skinned as Japanese bombers, this Brewster will be quite good enough, imo.
There is always the option to make further models or different loadout options, such as the mosquito with or without a bomb bay.
-
Except in the case of the F2A being used against the Japanese, it had no advantages and was decimated instantly. We use the Finn-version and all of a sudden it's as capable as a zero (more so than the 5b!).
It would be like the FW190 fighting against zekes and out-turning them, to spin an example.
-
And he's off and running...
-
Krusty, like stated so many times before already, this Brewster is the despised "buffalo".
Maybe you can ask HTC to make the long nosed buffalo version for PTO.
-
Krusty, like stated so many times before already, this Brewster is the despised "buffalo".
Maybe you can ask HTC to make the long nosed buffalo version for PTO.
AFAIK the airframe dimensions between the 239, 339 and F2A-3 are more or less identical. The difference is in weight and equipment.
That being said, I'd been pushing for a separate F2A-3/339 ever since Pyro started asking for data on the 239. The physical model is the same, how much more work would it be to include a version with the numbers plugged in for the heavier F2A/B-339?
-
Did anyone else see this coming?
-
AFAIK the airframe dimensions between the 239, 339 and F2A-3 are more or less identical.
Yes.. more or less. F2A-3 had the same engine as F2A-2, but it was set forward 9 inches due to balance (CoG) issues. Thus the longer nose.
-
In regards to the P-47N fight I had, I did level out to build up speed, but the second I tried to use that speed (loop, yo-yo, high turn, whatever) the brewster was instantly there, and could hang on its nose indefinitely (never losing aim at me) while I did whatever manuver I was attempting. While the range was often 600-800 yards, I was avoiding death, but even using the speed, the only thing I could do was "disengage" -- could never use the speed because the BREW could simply float at all alts at any angle.
EDIT: That is what I did. I disengaged, and left the fight area. BREW couldn't follow, broke off and turned around.
I notice a certain hyperbole that you use whenever you discuss a fight you had with a manuverable aircraft. I think you just don't really know how to use speed as a tool, thus the slower, more manueverable aircraft is "instantly" in position the momement you try to do anything but run away. Your quoted rant could easily be one of your anti-Spitfire XVI rants if you just change the name of the enemy aircraft. You claim as fact that the enemy aircraft does things that are demostratably impossible if you are accurately describing E states and manuevers. I think you are misreading situations and/or not successfully accomplishing the manuevers ylu are attempting.
-
Brewster (F2A-3) weighs (fully fueled) 7159 lbs max, and your weight listed is barely over the "empty" weight of 4732lbs (2146kg).
What??? :huh
I've already mentioned in this thread that the weight of the F2A-3 in my table is actually the weight of the F2A-2. Not that it had any bearing with your original argument I was answering to, the moment you typed "1939 Brewster". F2A-3 is NOT "a 1939 Brewster", Model 239 is so that is the one we're talking about, that is the one that's in the game. YOU claimed that FM-2 has a lighter wingloading than a 1939 Brewster. Model 239 is "a 1939 Brewster" F2A-3 is NOT. Why are you suddenly saying this was about the F2A-3? It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you aren't making any sense at all. And btw, even though I had F2A-2 T/O-weight in place of the F2A-3 T/O-weight, none of those Brewster weights I listed are "barely over 2146kg" they are both way over it, when talking about a/c-equipment.
<sigh> This is depressingly futile. I feel like I'm talking to a wall of bricks.
-
Except in the case of the F2A being used against the Japanese, it had no advantages and was decimated instantly. We use the Finn-version and all of a sudden it's as capable as a zero (more so than the 5b!).
It would be like the FW190 fighting against zekes and out-turning them, to spin an example.
Perhaps you are just being deliberately obtuse....
F2A-1/B-239 This is what the Finns received (44 of them) and what we have in the game.
F2A-2/B-339 This is what the RAF flew over Singapore and Rangoon.
F2A-3/B-439 This is what fought at Midway. Most of the Marine F2A-3s at Midway were shot down or damaged, but they were grossly outnumbered and the Zeros came in with a big altitude advantage. F4F Wildcats involved in the same fight didn't do any better than the Brewsters.
Here's some links to Dan Ford's material on the various Brewsters:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Come on Krusty. Let it go. You are trying way too hard on this one. Trust the guys who did all the research. Fly the thing and have some fun. Sometimes you just gotta let it go. It's like you are looking for something to be mad at.
It's a Brewster Buffalo for heaven's sake. It's not a world beater. But it's going to be fun, and there is no reason it can't fly in Dutch, RAF, or USN markings too.
-
Perhaps you are just being deliberately obtuse....
F2A-1/B-239 This is what the Finns received (44 of them) and what we have in the game.
F2A-2/B-339 This is what the RAF flew over Singapore and Rangoon.
F2A-3/B-439 This is what fought at Midway. Most of the Marine F2A-3s at Midway were shot down or damaged, but they were grossly outnumbered and the Zeros came in with a big altitude advantage. F4F Wildcats involved in the same fight didn't do any better than the Brewsters.
Here's some links to Dan Ford's material on the various Brewsters:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/eagle.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/midway.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/pappy.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/faf.htm)
http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm (http://www.warbirdforum.com/saga.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
Didn't the B-339 have added modifications done that left her significantly overloaded compared to the F2A-2? I want to think they gave it a less powerful engine.
-
Didn't the B-339 have added modifications done that left her significantly overloaded compared to the F2A-2? I want to think they gave it a less powerful engine.
Those B-339s built to British requirements gained quite a bit of weight. Additional armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, additional radio gear, armored windshield and other equipment raised the weight by more than 800 lb over the B-239. Many of the RAF aircraft were delivered with commercial grade engines that were not engineered for a military aircraft operating at high power settings for long periods. These engines consumed a great deal of oil. The Finns discovered that reversing the oil scraper rings cured this, but the Brits and Dutch never figured this out. Power fell off quickly above 10k, and there wasn't enough fuel pressure for flying higher than that with manually operating the primer "wobble pump".
All of these things conspired to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Brewsters.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Dan Ford links to a Finn modelers BBS that has many photos of the only existing B-239. Our Finn friends may know of this site, but if not, here's a link: http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/referenssi_3090/ (http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/referenssi_3090/)
My regards,
Widewing
-
This same Finn modelers site has a page for the P-47M, with some interesting photos.
http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/referenssi_5705/ (http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/referenssi_5705/)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Talk about timing. You can now pre-order Osprey's book on Finnish Brewster aces
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846034817/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=16ECCKGF4Q1Y1TRFAC5R&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294
-
Those B-339s built to British requirements gained quite a bit of weight. Additional armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, additional radio gear, armored windshield and other equipment raised the weight by more than 800 lb over the B-239. Many of the RAF aircraft were delivered with commercial grade engines that were not engineered for a military aircraft operating at high power settings for long periods. These engines consumed a great deal of oil. The Finns discovered that reversing the oil scraper rings cured this, but the Brits and Dutch never figured this out. Power fell off quickly above 10k, and there wasn't enough fuel pressure for flying higher than that with manually operating the primer "wobble pump".
All of these things conspired to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Brewsters.
My regards,
Widewing
Basically though, having a separate model for the F2A-3 would satisfy all three: US, Commonwealth, and Dutch.
-
Basically though, having a separate model for the F2A-3 would satisfy all three: US, Commonwealth, and Dutch.
Not really. The F2A-3 was substantially different from the B-339. It had far greater fuel capacity and the fuselage elongated forward of the wing to offset the CG shift. It was also powered by a 1,200 hp engine and about 15 mph faster than the B-339s.
The B-339 was based upon the F2A-2, or should I say that they had a common root.
In theory, the weight of the B-239 could be jacked up to simulate the B-339. However, the F2A-3/B-439 would require increasing weight, fuel capacity (this Brewster had greater range on internal fuel than the long-legged A6M2) and power. Technically, the model would require stretching the fuselage (8").
My regards,
Widewing
-
Talk about timing. You can now pre-order Osprey's book on Finnish Brewster aces
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846034817/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=16ECCKGF4Q1Y1TRFAC5R&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294
I have a whole bunch of those Osprey books and I have to say not many impress me.
they always seem to read like this.......
Four Brewster took off at noon and made no contact
they landed one hour later
Four Brewsters took off again at three one had engine problems and landed
The three others made contact with no results
they landed at five.
They took off again at six....blah blah blah
I think they just copy the combat reports.Theres seldom any life to them.Of course I will keep buying them in hope that the next one will be a gem.After I read half of it Ill ask why I dont listen to myself more often <G>
ehhh just my two cents
Pipz
-
Not really. The F2A-3 was substantially different from the B-339. It had far greater fuel capacity and the fuselage elongated forward of the wing to offset the CG shift. It was also powered by a 1,200 hp engine and about 15 mph faster than the B-339s.
The B-339 was based upon the F2A-2, or should I say that they had a common root.
In theory, the weight of the B-239 could be jacked up to simulate the B-339. However, the F2A-3/B-439 would require increasing weight, fuel capacity (this Brewster had greater range on internal fuel than the long-legged A6M2) and power. Technically, the model would require stretching the fuselage (8").
My regards,
Widewing
Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.
-
Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.
Only if we're going to be that nit picky. Considering how much substituting has to go on right now, I'd rather live with this particular Brewster in an early war PTO scenario then to have guys flying F4Fs instead. Sometimes you gotta let the look and the history come alive a bit more
They are just cartoon airplanes after all.
-
Problem being that this one removes the normal Japanese advantage leaving them in a very weak position.
-
The Brewster served longer and made more of a difference in Finland than anywhere else. This is the right model.
-
Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.
The difference in performance between the B-239 and B-339 was not so much as to be an issue in a scenario. The reasons the Brewsters fared poorly at Singapore and Rangoon had more to do with circumstances and high level leadership than the actual fighters. Hurricanes showed an equally dismal result.
Had the AVG flown Brewsters, they still would have spanked the Japanese.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Brewster served longer and made more of a difference in Finland than anywhere else. This is the right model.
Agreed, but that doesn't make it appropriate to Pacific settings.
Widewing,
Unless I am mistaken, the Brewster is ripping Hurricanes a new one in the AH beta right now.
-
Problem being that this one removes the normal Japanese advantage leaving them in a very weak position.
The A6M2 out-performs the B-239, except for pure speed down low. That said, a combination of P-40s and B-239s would make the Zero drivers sweat (as they should). Now, if we can get HTC to look at the P-40B (it's modeled on P-40C performance without the benefit of the external fuel tank and bomb rack), that would fix what is wrong with the early war plane set.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Agreed, but that doesn't make it appropriate to Pacific settings.
Widewing,
Unless I am mistaken, the Brewster is ripping Hurricanes a new one in the AH beta right now.
It does, and should.... Better turn and speed....
My regards,
Widewing
-
I thing that strikes me odd with the B-239 is how resilient it seems to be.
As I understand it, the self-sealing fuel tanks were removed by Brewster before they were shipped over seas. I've scored hits on them in the beta that would "appear" to have been sufficient to get an A6M2 burning but the "Brew" just kept on flying. For an aircraft that weigh's less than an A6M2, it's a very tough airframe, but that's just my impression given the limited combat in the beta.
Can someone confirm (widewing/finns) that the B-239 did not have self-sealing fuel tanks?
-
The A6M2 out-performs the B-239, except for pure speed down low. That said, a combination of P-40s and B-239s would make the Zero drivers sweat (as they should). Now, if we can get HTC to look at the P-40B (it's modeled on P-40C performance without the benefit of the external fuel tank and bomb rack), that would fix what is wrong with the early war plane set.
My regards,
Widewing
The problem I see is that the marginally superior turn rate of the A6M2 won't remotely make up for the inferior durability and guns when put against a mix of Brewsters and Wildcats/Hurricanes. I don't think it will make the A6M2 drivers sweat, I think it will utterly dominate them and make them burn.
-
Agreed, but that doesn't make it appropriate to Pacific settings.
It had such a minuscule role in the Pacific that I don't see how it is at all relevant. In my opinion it should only have Finnish markings, and not be used as a substitute for anything.
-
Problem being that this one removes the normal Japanese advantage leaving them in a very weak position.
Except that the Japanese due to lack of Ki-43 always have Zekes which gives them an advantage they really didn't have all the time. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather fly this bird painted RAF or Dutch in "Rangoon" scenario then flying an F4F. Somehow the immersion factor goes out the window otherwise.
Frankly I don't care that much about a small performance difference, when the look is so much more important for me in a scenario.
-
It had such a minuscule role in the Pacific that I don't see how it is at all relevant. In my opinion it should only have Finnish markings, and not be used as a substitute for anything.
I don't even know where to begin to refute this. Shall we start with the Dutch, RAAF or RAF?
What is really cracking me up is folks getting this worked up about a new early war bird, as if somehow it's going to tip the balance in a scenario or the arenas.
-
Except that the Japanese due to lack of Ki-43 always have Zekes which gives them an advantage they really didn't have all the time. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather fly this bird painted RAF or Dutch in "Rangoon" scenario then flying an F4F. Somehow the immersion factor goes out the window otherwise.
Frankly I don't care that much about a small performance difference, when the look is so much more important for me in a scenario.
My point stands if we are talking Ki-43s instead of A6M2s. The very significantly better turning ability of the Finnish B-239 compared to the B-339 and B-439 outs the Japanese in a significantly worse position than was historically the case.
-
My point stands if we are talking Ki-43s instead of A6M2s. The very significantly better turning ability of the Finnish B-239 compared to the B-339 and B-439 outs the Japanese in a significantly worse position than was historically the case.
That's all well and good. But would you instead sub the F4F like they did in the last Rangoon Scenario instead of letting the Brewster participate?
That makes no sense to me. The correct look is far more important then the minimal performance difference. I'd rather look out my canopy and see correctly skinned Brewsters then F4Fs
-
That's all well and good. But would you instead sub the F4F like they did in the last Rangoon Scenario instead of letting the Brewster participate?
That makes no sense to me. The correct look is far more important then the minimal performance difference. I'd rather look out my canopy and see correctly skinned Brewsters then F4Fs
I'd like to see Ki-43s and B-339s. :P
-
I don't even know where to begin to refute this. Shall we start with the Dutch, RAAF or RAF?
Yes lets... In-service numbers, service longevity and operational effectiveness (kills of IJNA/IJAA aircraft).
In December 1941 the British had only about 150 serviceable Brewsters left in operational service, defending Burma, Malaya and Singapore, and they were beset with problems. By February 1942 most of them had been destroyed and the few surviving Brewsters were converted into advanced trainers. The RAF/RAAF/RNZAF Brewsters claimed 80 kills on Japanese aircraft, mostly bombers. All other nations (America included) had less than 100 Brewsters in wartime service, only 21 U.S. Brewsters saw action. Just over 500 Brewsters of all models were built, less than half were servicable in WWII and even fewer saw action and they managed to kill even fewer Japanese aircraft.
Against the backdrop of WWII these numbers are statistically negligible. Only in Finnish service did the Brewsters have any noticeable effect whatsoever on the war. The 44 Finnish Brewsters shot down 477 Soviet aircraft and a few Germans for the loss of 15 of their own.
-
Yes lets... In-service numbers, service longevity and operational effectiveness (kills of IJNA/IJAA aircraft).
In December 1941 the British had only about 150 serviceable Brewsters left in operational service, defending Burma, Malaya and Singapore, and they were beset with problems. By February 1942 most of them had been destroyed and the few surviving Brewsters were converted into advanced trainers. The RAF/RAAF/RNZAF Brewsters claimed 80 kills on Japanese aircraft, mostly bombers. All other nations (America included) had less than 100 Brewsters in wartime service, only 21 U.S. Brewsters saw action. Just over 500 Brewsters of all models were built, less than half were servicable in WWII and even fewer saw action and they managed to kill even fewer Japanese aircraft.
Against the backdrop of WWII these numbers are statistically negligible. Only in Finnish service did the Brewsters have any noticeable effect whatsoever on the war. The 44 Finnish Brewsters shot down 477 Soviet aircraft and a few Germans for the loss of 15 of their own.
Great. Lets lose the Ta152 and any number of other birds because there weren't many of them.
Why would you deny the skinners and the scenario folks the chance to use a Brewster. That makes no sense at all. There is now this nicely done model of the Brewster. Why not use it?
-
You know what is funny? The I-16 is nearly as agile as the Brewster. Very nearly as fast (2 or 3 mph slower), climbs better than the B-239 and is armed with a pair of cannons.... No whines about that one.
This all stems from the misguided view that the Brewster could not possibly be as capable as it is. This in turn is due to 60 years of brainwashing. 20 F2A-3s were chewed up at Midway, out numbered 2 to 1, attacked by better fighters with an altitude advantage. Not one of the Marines involved had ever flown a air combat sortie before that. They had no training on how to fight and defeat the Zero. Yet, they managed to get to the bombers and make several attacks before being pounced on by a mass mob of A6Ms. Most people forget that five F4F-3s were also in that group, and they did no better than the Brewsters. Those F2A-3s and F4Fs were credited shooting down 10 Japanese aircraft, with 1 probable and 3 damaged. In exchange, they lost 12 Brewsters and 2 Wildcats.
Not bad when you consider that they were fully engaged with Japanese bombers when attacked by a superior force, with altitude. We should also consider that these were the cream of Japanese naval fighter pilots. The bulk of the Brewster pilots lost were Marine reserve pilots, mostly 2nd Lt types with limited time in fighters.
People remember the comment of one surviving pilot, Captain Philip Renee White, who stated that "any commander sending pilots into combat in F2A's should consider them lost before they leave the ground." In his post-combat report, White estimated that the Zero had a top speed of 450 mph. Another pilot thought the Zero's rate of climb exceeded 5,000 fpm. Typical of inexperienced pilots in their first combat.
What they never read about was that the F4F was vilified in after action reports as well. Dan Ford has written, "the pilots knew that F2A was being phased out from active service and used as a trainer, which made their criticism fierce. However, the F4F was also criticized; one of the recommendations was that both F2A and F4F should be withdrawn from combat units and 'retained for use at training centers only'. Lt. Col. Ira L. Kimes claimed that F4F 'is hardly better in combat than is the F2A-3 type'". The fact is that there is little doubt that the results would have been the same had these Marines been flying F6Fs or F4Us.
Let's say we select 20 low-time AH2 pilots. We put them in B-239s. Their mission is to attack large formations of D3a and B5N bombers. Once engaged, they are attacked by really good air to air squad, say the Muppets in A6M2s. The Muppets are several thousand feet higher. Any doubt of the outcome? Would noobs blame the airplane? Probably. However, we should rightly believe that the tactical situation, greatly exacerbated by the quality of the enemy pilots created the result. Had the noobs been in Spit16s they still would have been slaughtered.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I'm looking forward to the Hurri, Spit, and Zeke drivers complaining about the Brewster. The thing hasn't even been released and people are whining. :rofl
The I16 and, in particular, the Brewster will change the furball in AH, relax and enjoy it gents.
-
Widewing,
I have no issues with the Brewster's performance as a B-239. I just don't think it is appropriate for settings other than Finland vs Russia (or minorly Finland vs Germany) as it is very close to the A6M2 in manueverablility, almost as fast, far more durable, has better guns and has excellent high speed handling for diving.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.
-
I'd like to see Ki-43s and B-339s. :P
I'm all for the K-43 and another model Buffalo should they decide to. The more they can add to the early war plane set to expand the accuracy of scenarios, the better it will be.
But if all we have is the B-239, denying it scenario use outside of Fin Rus would be silly.
-
Great. Lets lose the Ta152 and any number of other birds because there weren't many of them.
Whoa, hang on there..
-
Whoa, hang on there..
LOL thought you might notice that :)
I trust you also got my point :aok
-
hehe
-
This all stems from the misguided view that the Brewster could not possibly be as capable as it is. This in turn is due to 60 years of brainwashing. 20 F2A-3s were chewed up at Midway, out numbered 2 to 1, attacked by better fighters with an altitude advantage. Not one of the Marines involved had ever flown a air combat sortie before that.
Yikes
-
Great. Lets lose the Ta152 and any number of other birds because there weren't many of them.
Why would you deny the skinners and the scenario folks the chance to use a Brewster. That makes no sense at all. There is now this nicely done model of the Brewster. Why not use it?
Yeah, the Ta 152 is being used a lot in scenarios is it? My point exactly.
Oh I'm sure the Brewster will be used in many scenarios... With blue Von Rosen crosses on them facing Ratas and whatever Soviet bombers we might get in the future.
Here's the hard facts: The Pacific Brewsters in service with the European colonial forces were so troubled with technical issues that they simply cannot be included in the game in a realistic manner. No matter how accurate the performance, since HTC does not model mechanical failures and guns jamming the Brewster will never be portrayed realistically in any scenario and will always have an unhistorical advantage. In U.S. service it was involved in one action, ONE. This does not justify the time and resources needed to research and model a separate version.
-
Yeah, the Ta 152 is being used a lot in scenarios is it? My point exactly.
Oh I'm sure the Brewster will be used in many scenarios... With blue Von Rosen crosses on them facing Ratas and whatever Soviet bombers we might get in the future.
Here's the hard facts: The Pacific Brewsters in service with the European colonial forces were so troubled with technical issues that they simply cannot be included in the game in a realistic manner. No matter how accurate the performance, since HTC does not model mechanical failures and guns jamming the Brewster will never be portrayed realistically in any scenario and will always have an unhistorical advantage.
By that argument we shouldn't have the Ki-84 and N1K2, which were plagued by shoddy workmanship and poor materials. Landing gear in both aircraft were notorious for snapping, and both experienced frequent problems with their engines.
-
Probably should have started a new thread for this issue in regards to the B-239 it is a minor flaw that probably is not worth going in to however I thought I would point it out. When the empty shell casings fall out of the B-239 from the fuselage guns they drop out of the wheel wells at two locations instead of the one slot under the left wing.
(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/3773/scan127.th.jpg) (http://img218.imageshack.us/i/scan127.jpg/) (http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1125/scan144v.th.jpg) (http://img3.imageshack.us/i/scan144v.jpg/)
-
By that argument we shouldn't have the Ki-84 and N1K2, which were plagued by shoddy workmanship and poor materials. Landing gear in both aircraft were notorious for snapping, and both experienced frequent problems with their engines.
Indeed, for scenarios they are equally misrepresented. However, like the Ta they have MA appeal; the only Brewster (if any) that will see use in the MA is the one with the Von Rosen crosses.
-
Yikes
Although none of the Marine pilots involved in the Midway fight had fired a shot in anger previously, the senior officers had enough experience flying that most survived. Only two casualties were regular Marines. Most of the squadron's pilots were reservists, 10 of whom went MIA after being shot down. Their squadron, VMF-221, had formed in San Diego in July of 1941. After Pearl Harbor, the squadron size was increased by adding reservists and the unit was transferred to Ewa in Hawaii where they prepared to deploy to Midway. Saratoga delivered the squadron to the atoll on Christmas day, 1941. Gradually, the unit was being re-equipped with F4F-3s. The transition was slow due to the bulk of Wildcats being assigned to carrier squadrons. Replacements for those lost during the Coral Sea battle meant that six additional Wildcats slated for VMF-221 were transferred to carrier squadrons. Instead of having 13 F4Fs at Midway, they only had 7. Of those, only 6 were committed, with one undergoing an engine change at the time. One F4F and one F2A-3 were forced to abort and return to base with mechanical trouble.
On March 10, 1942, four of VMF-221's F2A-3s discovered a Mavis flying boat while on routine patrol. Capt. James Neefuss shot it down. Neefuss was not involved in the Midway battle, and it appears that he was transferred from the squadron prior to June.
One of VMF-221's Wildcat pilots shot down a Zero and damaged two others. He survived the fight and would go on to be the Marine's first ace. His name? Capt. Marion E. Carl. Like every member of VMF-221 who flew into combat that day, Carl was awarded the Navy Cross. At Guadalcanal, he would earn a second Navy Cross and finish the war with 18.5 kills. In addition to the two Navy Crosses, he was also awarded 3 DFCs and 13 Air Medals. Midway was Carl's first combat.
It is interesting that the original claims for the Marine Corps show VMF-211 totaled 19 kills. Post war examination shows that 10 were certainly downed, but it is hard to determine the true tally because several these Japanese went down on Midway and were claimed by AA gunners as well. Some of these may have been shot down by the Marine pilots, but it is impossible to determine with any certainty. Japanese records report that 9 Zeros failed to return. Surviving Marine pilots claimed 3 Zeros destroyed and 3 more damaged. No one knows if or how many Japanese aircraft were shot down by Marines who did not survive the fight. One investigator believes that 6 additional D3a and B5N types were probably shot down by the missing Marine pilots. Another historian attributes 3 to them.
As I stated previously, when you consider the difficulty and complexity of the tactical circumstances as well as the inexperience of the Marine pilots, they did better than one would think possible.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Impressive.
-
Yeah, the Ta 152 is being used a lot in scenarios is it? My point exactly.
Oh I'm sure the Brewster will be used in many scenarios... With blue Von Rosen crosses on them facing Ratas and whatever Soviet bombers we might get in the future.
Here's the hard facts: The Pacific Brewsters in service with the European colonial forces were so troubled with technical issues that they simply cannot be included in the game in a realistic manner. No matter how accurate the performance, since HTC does not model mechanical failures and guns jamming the Brewster will never be portrayed realistically in any scenario and will always have an unhistorical advantage. In U.S. service it was involved in one action, ONE. This does not justify the time and resources needed to research and model a separate version.
Die Hard seems an appropriate handle. So next time Rangoon is run, or a Midway scenario, you'd not allow the presently modeled Brewster to be used?
Based on your latest argument, the 262, 163, P51, P38 and any number of other birds that had teething troubles in combat should not be used as well because without their flaws they have an unhistorical advantage. Well there goes the scenario world, right out the window.
Again, that's just silly.
I gotta admit, I never saw the 'fear the Brewster' threads coming.
-
It's a good plane. The players like it. It's not mismodeled. It has a stable mate right out of the box. What's the problem?
-
The recurring complaint seems to be that it doesn't perform like a different model. :confused:
Oh, and that the other models weren't also added. Anything else?
-
I think this largely falls into the category of preconceptions. The Brewster (in any flavor) saw minimal combat in the PAC. The combat it did see was against overwhelming odds and short lived. These historical events shape our perception of the plane and its relative capabilities.
The British used the Buffalo in the defense of Crete in 1941 and 4 pilots scored 5 or more kills in that series of actions. The leading ace Geoff Fiskin went on to become the leading commonwealth ace in the PAC. The Dutch flew the 339 with reasonable success in defense of Java. Before the ground campaign was lost the Dutch had claimed 55 Japanese planes for the loss of 30 339's (in combat). In one of the largest actions the Dutch intercepted a force of 30+ bombers escorted by 20+ zekes, claiming 11 kills while suffering the loss of 4 339's.
We can look further to another similar plane the Hawk 75 to see the reality that these lesser known early war fighters were very formidable when well handled. While there are clearly potential performance variations the fundamental reality is as WW posted above. Relative pilot quality was the determining factor in the conflicts that shaped historical perception of the Buffalo....
-
Die Hard seems an appropriate handle. So next time Rangoon is run, or a Midway scenario, you'd not allow the presently modeled Brewster to be used?
Sure they can. Who am I to deny them anything? I'm saying HTC shouldn't bother making the B339, B439, F2A-2/3. It would be useless for anything but scenarios, and just as historically inaccurate as the B239 when limited by the Aces High framework. If it was my decision no further work should be done on this aircraft past the Finnish model.
-
Pilot's report on flying the I-16 by the late Mark Hanna. He was one of the most famous warbird display pilots in the world.
http://www.alpinefighter.co.nz/pages/i_16pr.html (http://www.alpinefighter.co.nz/pages/i_16pr.html)
-
Pilot's report on flying the I-16 by the late Mark Hanna. He was one of the most famous warbird display pilots in the world.
http://www.alpinefighter.co.nz/pages/i_16pr.html (http://www.alpinefighter.co.nz/pages/i_16pr.html)
I will say I like both the I-16 and Brewster quite a bit. They are fun, early war birds.
That said, after testing them for quite a bit I took my old Mossie up and good gods the engine power it has in comparison.
-
You really appreciate the full spectrum of warbirds' progress, just seeing a spit8 or P40 thunder around your I-16/Brewster :)
-
Co-alt mossie vs i-16 or brewster is close to outright murder :devil
-
That said, after testing them for quite a bit I took my old Mossie up and good gods the engine power it has in comparison.
I don't quite see what this has to do with the article I posted, but I think we'll agree that AH would be extremely boring if everyone would only want one and same aircraft in the planeset so that no other type would ever be seen. That said Mosquito is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built by a firm that is my all time favourite British aircraft manufacturer. More or less all De Havilland aircraft are very pleasing to the eye.
-
Too much "bumper sticker" history on the Brewster, and not enough hard history. I have stated in other posts about the single fight at Midway and its effect on the memory of the Brewster, if we judged the P-40 on the USAAC (and general US) success in the Phillipines, it would be just as shunned, if not more so.
The Dutch Air Force B-339C/D did reasonably well, before being over run, it was not the F2A-3, or the RAFs "Buffalo Mk.I" B-339E, both of which were quite a bit heavier.
The best versions in the PACIFIC were the Dutch B-339C/D, and those "modified" ie stripped down RAF and RAAF B-339Es, and looking at the records they didnt do any worse than a lot of early P-40 and Hurricane units in so far as the air to air tally, roughly 1-1.
I also would not say it saw "minimal" combat in the Pacific unless your talking about just the USA experience at Midway. Many of the campaigns it was involved in were several months duration, but sure, it did not see the years of service of other types.
Its never going to be remembered as a great fighter in the Pacific, for all the obvious reasons, it largely bore the brunt of the most disastrous campaigns (Malaya, East Indies), and the one sided, single sortie fight at Midway, and it was replaced by much sexier a/c with much more glory attached to them. It was never anything more than adequate on its very best day as a design, and was just as often a dissapointment, and the Allies wanted and needed types that were much more than that.
-
I don't quite see what this has to do with the article I posted, but I think we'll agree that AH would be extremely boring if everyone would only want one and same aircraft in the planeset so that no other type would ever be seen. That said Mosquito is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built by a firm that is my all time favourite British aircraft manufacturer. More or less all De Havilland aircraft are very pleasing to the eye.
That line didn't have anything to do with it, it was just an observation. My first line was a response after I had read the article.
I was just noting how getting used to one thing can change the perception of something else that you had been used to.
-
I was just noting how getting used to one thing can change the perception of something else that you had been used to.
Oh, rgr. My reaction will probably be very similar when I hop back into 109G-14 at times, won't probably be for a while though. :)
-
I'm looking forward to the Hurri, Spit, and Zeke drivers complaining about the Brewster. The thing hasn't even been released and people are whining. :rofl
The I16 and, in particular, the Brewster will change the furball in AH, relax and enjoy it gents.
Does either do anything better than an a Zeke except dive?
-
Widewing,
I have no issues with the Brewster's performance as a B-239. I just don't think it is appropriate for settings other than Finland vs Russia (or minorly Finland vs Germany) as it is very close to the A6M2 in manueverablility, almost as fast, far more durable, has better guns and has excellent high speed handling for diving.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.
Karnak, after all our arguments about SpitXVIs and such, it is a little unbelievable to me that you think the Zekes will too over-matched by what is (from your own mouth) still a double-inferior fighter. :D
-
Karnak, after all our arguments about SpitXVIs and such, it is a little unbelievable to me that you think the Zekes will too over-matched by what is (from your own mouth) still a double-inferior fighter. :D
How is it double inferior? It handles speed very much better, its guns are very much better, it is approximately as fast, it turns marginally worse at low speeds and far better at high speeds and it is much more durable. It turns well enough that I am skeptical that the A6M2 will be able to pull enough lead in a turn fight to hit with the Type 99 Model 1 cannons.
-
Does either do anything better than an a Zeke except dive?
Assuming you mean the B-239, it does several things better than the Zero. It's faster below 5k, much better roll rate and far more durable. And as you said, it dives better, without control stiffening. Add to that flat shooting Brownings.
The Zero climbs better and is faster above 5k. It has a slight advantage in turn radius and rate. It has two 20mm cannons, making it more lethal for close-in snap shots.
They are close enough to make the pilot the deciding factor.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Too much "bumper sticker" history on the Brewster, and not enough hard history. I have stated in other posts about the single fight at Midway and its effect on the memory of the Brewster, if we judged the P-40 on the USAAC (and general US) success in the Phillipines, it would be just as shunned, if not more so.
This is precisely the argument that I have been making....
All things taken into account, the Brewsters did a commendable job under the absolute worst circumstances.
My regards,
Widewing
-
This is precisely the argument that I have been making....
All things taken into account, the Brewsters did a commendable job under the absolute worst circumstances.
My regards,
Widewing
I, at least, have never been disputing that. I just don't think the B-339, B-339E and B-439 models were as responsive in all ways as the Finnish B-239s. I think they were significantly worse in at least two performance categories, namely turning and acceleration/climb. I imagine they rolled just as nicely and handled speed just as nicely though.
-
The Brewster and I-16 in the beta are currently more durable than intended.
-
My only argument / question is about it's durability.
It's lighter than an A6M2 at most fuel loads and "appears" much more durable than the zero. I know that there may be other factors in the beta arena that might influence my perception of damage sustained, but they just seem very resilient.
One area in particular I'd like to make sure I have my facts straight, is about the self-sealing tanks. According to the books I have, the self-sealing tanks were removed from the B-239 at the Brewster factory prior to shipment. Did the FAF put them back on the plane in service, or were they flown with regular metal fuel tanks? I would expect them to burn somewhat like an A6M2 if they had regular metal tanks in the wings.
-
The Brewster and I-16 in the beta are currently more durable than intended.
Rgr, thanks pyro. It was starting to seem that way. :)
-
My only argument / question is about it's durability.
It's lighter than an A6M2 at most fuel loads and "appears" much more durable than the zero. I know that there may be other factors in the beta arena that might influence my perception of damage sustained, but they just seem very resilient.
One area in particular I'd like to make sure I have my facts straight, is about the self-sealing tanks. According to the books I have, the self-sealing tanks were removed from the B-239 at the Brewster factory prior to shipment. Did the FAF put them back on the plane in service, or were they flown with regular metal fuel tanks? I would expect them to burn somewhat like an A6M2 if they had regular metal tanks in the wings.
Far as i can think, self-sealing tanks would not stop fire. The impact of the rounds into the fuel tank lights the fire. Self sealing tanks just slow down a fuel leak, ignition of contained fuel would be very similar at the time of impact. Possibly if anything, the SS tanks would put the fire out if it did not catch on the airframe. Just thinking, no info to back it up.
-
Thanks Pyro, they are great additions to the game! :aok
-
Far as i can think, self-sealing tanks would not stop fire. The impact of the rounds into the fuel tank lights the fire. Self sealing tanks just slow down a fuel leak, ignition of contained fuel would be very similar at the time of impact. Possibly if anything, the SS tanks would put the fire out if it did not catch on the airframe. Just thinking, no info to back it up.
I'm no expert to say the least, but from what I understand the bladder of the SS tanks also collapsed as the fuel was used up to prevent the buildup of fumes and help to prevent fires.
-
Here's a good WW2 video of self-sealing fuel tank demo.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1785081081357314567&ei=A6BKSvCGEI-SqAPTh7HXDw&q=self+sealing+fuel+tank&hl=en&emb=1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1785081081357314567&ei=A6BKSvCGEI-SqAPTh7HXDw&q=self+sealing+fuel+tank&hl=en&emb=1)
I don't think they would collapse on most planes, at least I know they don't on a B-17, B-25, FM-2 or B-24. However, reading the some aircraft manuals (I can't remember exactly which one's but I'll look it up) I've come across a CO2 pressure system to help with high altitude fuel pressure, that would definitely help reduce the fire hazard.
-
A6M5 Zeroes (earlier Zeroes?) pumped engine exhast into the fuel tanks to reduce the chance of fuel fires.
I'd not be surprised if other aircraft did that as well.
-
How is it double inferior? It handles speed very much better, its guns are very much better, it is approximately as fast, it turns marginally worse at low speeds and far better at high speeds and it is much more durable.
You know what double-superior means...superior in both turn performance and thrust/weight. They didn't make that the definition of double superior/inferior for nothing. These two are the core, other traits fall well behind these two as advantages in ACM. As well, the Zero has a higher top speed at most altitudes. The dive-handling on our Zekes is modeled so...optimistically that dive handling superiority hardly matters for anything except running away...you have to pretty much deliberately put the nose down with the coal poured on to get into real trouble with the Zeke, there is adequate warning, and pull out remain possible 'till damn near 400mph IAS!!!
The Brewster simply stands better than a snow-balls chance in Hell in a dogfight with a Zeke and can run away, that is all, that is all. Can't see how it ruins the scenario. (If having to fight the Brewster is not fair to the Zekes, then it is *really* not fair to the I-16s...)
It turns well enough that I am skeptical that the A6M2 will be able to pull enough lead in a turn fight to hit with the Type 99 Model 1 cannons.
Uh...Karnak? Are you feeling okay today my friend? Because it sounds like you just claimed it was impossible for an airplane with only slightly superior turn performance and iffy ballistics to get lead for guns solutions. Guess that must mean its *very* impossible for a K-4 to hit a Spit with the tater in a fight then. :D
-
The Brewster and I-16 in the beta are currently more durable than intended.
Thank goodness for that piece of info! I hit a BREW with 8x20mm rounds (from the new typhoon of course!) & watched it skate away. :furious
Thought HTC had done an Oleg on the Hispannios until now.
-
Uh...Karnak? Are you feeling okay today my friend? Because it sounds like you just claimed it was impossible for an airplane with only slightly superior turn performance and iffy ballistics to get lead for guns solutions. Guess that must mean its *very* impossible for a K-4 to hit a Spit with the tater in a fight then. :D
Read what I wrote again and you'll see I mader no such claim. I was specific about the type of fight in which the hit might not be possible.
-
That doesn't jive with what I've heard of the Brewster.. It's supposed to be on par with the zeke. The 99mk1 cannons are no comparison with the Brewster's 4x50 unless the measure is strictly a single 1:1 fight between a Brewster and Zeke-2. The Browning 50s compared to those limp 20mm... I mean come on :)
-
If you look at Tony Williams web site the .50 cal Browning has a gun power of 60, while the 20mm Type 99 has a gun power of 120. So with the two Type 97's in addition to the 99's the A6M comes out on top in firepower. Ballistics is another matter...
-
Moot, the 50 cal's rely on the energy, while the cannon shells are explosive, so range comes into the issue.
Not to mention the other side of the coin, - the ruggedness of the target....
-
From friday a week ago:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ryysterit3.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ryysterit4.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ryysterit1.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Ryysterit.jpg)
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/ryysterit2.jpg)
Sorry for the bit too high jpeg-compression...
A dream come true! :)
-
Wmaker, I am truly thrilled for you guys. I'm sure the Beta arena will be the focus during the "Mosquito Meeting".
Have fun gents!
My regards,
Widewing
-
Seems to me that the I16 out does the Brew in a turn fight.
-
Seems to me that the I16 out does the Brew in a turn fight.
Who did you fly against? I've tested both. The Brewster's turn radius is about 15% less than the I-16 with both having flaps out. I ate up a couple of I-16s without much effort. That reflected the quality of the pilots more than the airplane. Drop by the beta when the Finns are on.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Moot, the 50 cal's rely on the energy, while the cannon shells are explosive, so range comes into the issue.
Not to mention the other side of the coin, - the ruggedness of the target....
Yes, and the ballistics of those type1 cannons are...
-
... irrelevant if you get close enough.
-
Right.
-
Seems to me that the I16 out does the Brew in a turn fight.
Definitely not. I watched Larry do some really cool slow yo yo's the other day as he was killing me in various turney planes.
Brew will pretty much out turn anything.
You need to use the vertical in a the I-16. It may even be able to hammerhead. I chased someone up in a classic rope and instead of falling over on a wing and getting whacked I just hung there and raked him as he fell off.
Both are lots of fun but in LW MA they will get B n Z'd to death.
wrongway
-
I think the Brew does have the edge in a turnfight, but they are close enough that energy state, fuel loads, and initial moves will make the difference in a duel, not to mention the pilot. They are a really fun matchup, and both a/c are a hoot to zoom around in. A6M2 vs either is a ride as well.
"Both are lots of fun but in LW MA they will get B n Z'd to death."
-Thats alwats been true "on paper" but the reality of the LWA is something else, more often than not.
-
I took out the Brew for the 1st time today, you guys are right about it being better then the I16.
-
Very good read all, thank you.
I would just like to point out that this is a beta, and is more about getting peoples games working with the recent graphic additions and enhancements. Everything is subject to change.
So dont get too use to anything when it comes to flight models damage abilitys and such.
Play nice, and enjoy!
THANKS HTC! :x :salute
-
This is gonna be great! A zeke with .50s that can dive! The "BREW" is gonna be a hoot. Not sure what all the grief is about. No matter what the early record of the Brewsters might have been, the Finns whipped the holy living snot of the Reds with em with apparent ease. So unless there was some pre-war secret society of Finnish pilots that somehow made them supermen compared to the Russians, the modeling seems correct. I love to TnB and this will just be another fun ride. BnZ is for retards.
-
So unless there was some pre-war secret society of Finnish pilots that somehow made them supermen compared to the Russians...
I wouldn't dismiss that possibility...
(http://www.upsisu.com/imagery/winter-war-sisu.jpg)
-
I can't help but wonder how many of those 400,000+ MIA actually used that opportunity to head West.