Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: YamaRaja on February 18, 2012, 08:49:04 PM
-
Why does this plane perform like it does in AH?
I know it has the bigger motor put in a few Brewsters in Finland.
But it did not turn or climb or accelerate like it does in AH.
The only thing it was sucessful against was some inferior Russian planes. This while using tactics developed in the Pacific and in flights of 4 Brews attacking together.
It failed in the Pacific theater.
Second Lt. Charles S. Hughes, whose Buffalo was forced to retire at the start of the raid due to engine trouble, had a ringside view of the aerial combat:
The Zeros came in strafing immediately afterward. I saw two Brewsters trying to fight the Zeros. One was shot down and the other was saved by ground fires covering his tail. Both looked like they were tied to a string while the Zeros made passes at them.
I have been reading accounts like this:
Second Lt. Charles M. Kunz reported that after successfully downing two Val bombers, he was attacked by Japanese fighters:
I was at an altitude of about 9,000 ft, and shoved over in a dive trying to shake the plane on my tail until I was about 20 feet from the water. I was making radical turns hoping the pilot couldn't get steadied on me. I glanced out of the rear and saw that it was a [Mitsubishi A6M Zero] fighter. I continued flying on a rapid turning course at full throttle when I was hit in the head by a glancing bullet. After he fired a few short burst he left as I had been in a general direction of 205 degrees heading away from the island. My plane was badly shot up... In my opinion the [Zero] fighter has been far underestimated. I think it is probably one of the finest fighters in the present war. As for the F2A-3, (or Brewster trainer) it should be in Miami as a training plane, rather than used as a first line fighter.
While the remarkable Finnish accomplishments in the Buffalo are undeniable, aviation historian Dan Ford points out that Stalin's purges and recent expansion of the Soviet Air Force resulted in many new, inexperienced pilots while simultaneously discouraging combat initiative. The result was pilots who failed to scan the airspace behind them, and also Soviet air formations that held their positions in defensive circles while the diving Finnish pilots picked them off one-by-one. The Soviet fighter aircraft used in the early years on the Finnish front also included some obsolescent models such as the Polikarpov I-15 and I-153. After the end of hostilities, Karhunen, the captain and commander of the 3rd flight of LeLv 24, recalled:
"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."[48]
Only 44 B-239's were built. The increased horsepower gave it more performance but did not make it a better turn fighter.
It should not be the best turn fighter in the game because it wasnt the best turn fighter.
It is however the most over modeled plane in the game.
Yama
-
agreed! It was an awful plane in real life.
-
Only 44 B-239's were built. The increased horsepower gave it more performance but did not make it a better turn fighter.
Nope, it was the removal of hundreds of pounds of naval and other unnecessary gear from the aircraft before export that did that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some issues with the Brewster's flight model, but turning wise I really don't think so. This was a plane that could and did turn with I-153 biplane fighters over Karelia.
-
You can't compare the Brewster in US service with the one that the Finns used as they were very different planes. The empty weight of the 239 which we have should be around 3700 lbs. The F2A-3 which was in the US inventory had an empty weight around 4700lbs (according to America's 100K).
I have a few issues with the Brewster as well, but claiming a problem by siting the US service record is comparing apples to oranges.
-
You can't compare the Brewster in US service with the one that the Finns used as they were very different planes. The empty weight of the 239 which we have should be around 3700 lbs. The F2A-3 which was in the US inventory had an empty weight around 4700lbs (according to America's 100K).
I have a few issues with the Brewster as well, but claiming a problem by siting the US service record is comparing apples to oranges.
I also cited comments about the B239 in particular. It was NOT effective in combat with even mid war fighters like the Lagg 3.
Read the whole post.
Why do many in the forum read half a post, form an opinion and respond in kind.
"While the remarkable Finnish accomplishments in the Buffalo are undeniable, aviation historian Dan Ford points out that Stalin's purges and recent expansion of the Soviet Air Force resulted in many new, inexperienced pilots while simultaneously discouraging combat initiative. The result was pilots who failed to scan the airspace behind them, and also Soviet air formations that held their positions in defensive circles while the diving Finnish pilots picked them off one-by-one. The Soviet fighter aircraft used in the early years on the Finnish front also included some obsolescent models such as the Polikarpov I-15 and I-153. After the end of hostilities, Karhunen, the captain and commander of the 3rd flight of LeLv 24, recalled:
"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."
The acceleration, climb rate and energy maintaining ability are also factors in its over modeling.
Yama
-
Just wait untill WMaker sees this... He won't be pleased with you saying something negative about his Brewster lol
-
Second Lt. Charles S. Hughes, whose Buffalo was forced to retire at the start of the raid due to engine trouble, had a ringside view of the aerial combat:
The Zeros came in strafing immediately afterward. I saw two Brewsters trying to fight the Zeros. One was shot down and the other was saved by ground fires covering his tail. Both looked like they were tied to a string while the Zeros made passes at them.
Yama
Here's the AAR you took that from: http://www.midway42.org/aa-reports/vmf-221.pdf (http://www.midway42.org/aa-reports/vmf-221.pdf)
Ok first off, as other say - Finland's Brewsters are no where compared to American/British Buffalo's, you fail to take into account of Pilot experience and flight levels. For example the pilots coming off the Japanese carriers were some of the highest trained pilots in the world, with years of flight training, experience and some had air combat experience in China.
The Japanese Carrier pilots were world class trained, I remember reading the numbers - one in (hundreds?) finished flight school. In retrospect - the American navy had the only pilots close in class to this type of skill level, although not quite as experienced - there's plenty of evidence of this.
Some pilots claimed the Zero flew 450mph, other's said it was lost before it even left the ground - the pilots were scared and completely out numbered - think about fighting a horde, do you think 100 on 30 is fair to judge the quality of the aircraft?
Problem is you can't account for equal skill, for example one of the German Aces in the Desert war "Star of Africa" once found over a half dozen P-40s flying in a lufbery circle, which was a defensive circle to help friendly aircraft protect each other's 6. Instead the Ace shot down a number of the P-40s as the Tactics and Pilots failed to understand skill and tactics have changed.
Ok if thats a bad example - Look at the Thach Weave, It proved that no matter how invincisible an aircraft can be, two F4F's covering each other could eliminate the Zero's threat.
The Pilot training in Japan didn't last, in 1942 there was a serious shortage of pilots as well as going into 1943, this training method of taking one in 50? hundred? proved to be a serious problem - it wasn't until late 1943/44 when Japan was able to start cranking out fighter pilots with the same skill level as American navy Pilots in 1941/1942 - and if you look at the books - Japan could not compete with the sheer numbers of pilots America was producing by day.
If you look at Rangoon for a good example of what good experience tactics and pilots can do, it goes to show even with a crappy plane the pilots came out better then they should of.
Now I am not putting down the defenders at Singapore or Midway, the Brewster only failed as much as the training, experience and aircraft was.
They fought hard and lost a losing battle.
-
What do you mean? Its acceleration is crap. Sure, it turns well, but that is all that it does.
-
What do you mean? Its acceleration is crap. Sure, it turns well, but that is all that it does.
Dives like a LW monster, can kill you from 800 out, can hang on the prop to practically zero airspeed and still shoot you on the face, has the best low-speed handling characteristics in game while the only one what can even come colse is the A6M3.
-
The Finns had much more going for them then crappy Russian fighters. Not all Russian planes were obsolete and the B239 continued to serve in the Fin airforce even after new Russian fighters entered - and with continued success. This was due to a combination of the Fin version of the Brewster being lighter than the carrier version and in particular the very high skill level of the Fin pilots. I know some American find it hard to accept, but in 1942 US pilots did not enjoy superior training, did not develop tactics yet and completely lacked any combat experience, hence were not as good as some other air forces. Early operations in the ETO were also not that impressive and only after year they gained experience, tactics were improved and they started to gain the clear upper hand. Of course, no pilot will land and say that a Jap had clubbed him like a noob baby seal - he'll blame the plane. Even if that is true that the Brewster was inferior to the Zero, it was also the pilots. You can also find some similarities in the P-39 story, reputation and export success.
-
its easier to fly then the zero since it basically does not stall. . . has fantastic flaps, 4x golden bbs, dives forever, docile high speed, docile low speed. Sure it lacks top speed by a lot and does not regain e super fast. . .but it does not need much.
I usually skip brewsters, i can keep one pinned forever, but its not fun.
-
The thing that bothers me about the Brew in game is that it seems to never loses E, and seems to get to top speed faster than a top fuel dragster. I can't count the number of times I've come screaming in a dive in my Jug doing nearly 300mph only to watch a low energy Brew do a climbing 180 degree turn and then stay with me as I continue to try dive away. Seems hard to fathom that a plane with a 100+mph slower top speed, 1/2 the HP, and 1/2 the weight could ever get a shot off on me when, at the start of the engagment I was already nearly at the Brewsters top speed and accelerating in a dive the whole time. Eventually, I will pull away in these situations, but not before they pepper me with .50s. It's not like a quick snapshot either. It feels like they're hangin back there like I'm towing them with a bungee chord. I don't have this problem with zeros, hurris, or even the spit16. Only the Brewster. Just seems fishy.
-
Would love to see films of all these "fishy" engagements......... I have no trouble at all dieing in a Brew. :salute :salute
NOT
-
The original post is full of factual errors and unvalid conclusions, much more than I have energy to adress.
This misconception below seems to be a popular one and surfaces often so I'll refute it here.
The only thing it was sucessful against was some inferior Russian planes. This while using tactics developed in the Pacific and in flights of 4 Brews attacking together.
Here are few aireal victories of the Brewster during the last summer of the Continuation War:
17.06.44, 16.45-17.45, P-39
17.06.44, 17.20-17.25, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, La-5
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 07.45-09.05, Pe-2
18.06.44, 10.50-11.30, La-5
14.07.44, 15.15-16.50, Yak-9
14.07.44, 16.00-16.30, Yak-9
15.07.44, 11.35-12.55, LaGG-3
16.07.44, 13.10, La-5
16.07.44, 13.17, La-5
27.08.44, 09.30-11.15, P-40
Source:
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/sih18/sih18kansi.jpg)
http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/ (http://www.kolumbus.fi/kari.stenman/)
...it is also good to remember that many of these victories were scored while being significantly outnumbered and by the summer of '44, Brewsters obviously were starting to be rather war weary. So saying that it wasn't succesful against later Soviet types is complete nonsense. Not that this matters either way when it comes to how Brewster is modelled in AH. Why things happened in real wars how they did isn't a good way to gauge simulated performance of any aircraft.
-
The acceleration is horrible, climb is horrible, armament is horrible so what are you complaining about? I love the brewster because it suits my style of play which is low and slow on the deck. I hate high altitude fights dunno why I just dont like them. I dont know how many times Ive lost a kill in a brewster because my enemy simply extended and I was pedaling along behind him at 250 to 300.
-
another issue with comparing the real characteristics of any plane and the way it acts in game is the difference in fighting styles.
in real life you didnt hang around at alts between 2-5,000 feet as a general rule. you got your donut as high as you could and stayed as fast as possible. speed and alt were always your friend and your advantage to any enemy of inferior attitude or speed. if you get in over your head you want the alt/speed to run or if you cant egress with the plane then you want to bail out with some chance of survival.
in game keep it low alt and mid to slow speed. (this is where the brew excels it has the advantage and the range on those 50's gives it a reasonable chance to down a faster pilot after the over shoot). few have the patience to climb to the nose bleeds and nobody really cares about bailing with a chance of survival cause the ride ends once you have bailed anyways, and if your a runtard by nature then you take anything in game including a hurri or a zero before you take up a brew.
the brew has an envelope of authority in which it excels in game, more than it could ever hope to in real life, we have the ability to practice to exploit this evelope because of limitless lives and countless fresh planes.
we also have the ability to train under these specific circumstances by continuously choosing to fly under these conditions without orders from others to fly differently than what and where we want.....think of how well some players can stall fight with a 51....do you think those who flew the 51, a high alt high speed long range interceptor/escort plane, in WWII would ever be given the opportunity to test the plane under those conditions? 120mph or less under 2,000 feet, or do you think your commanding officer would have screamed bloody murder at the first pilot who attempted to stall fight on the deck? even if the pilot was successful, if he didnt have a damn good reason for doing what he did, ie running from a superior force and getting caught low etc, do you really believe he would be allowed to practice on a continuous and regular basis, enough that is to get truly proficient at it, this type of flying style?
i would love to read any real life AAR from WWII that describes a battle of multiple planes lingering at dirt eating alt at speeds of 250 mph or less while mixing it up with multiple enemy con's....it didnt happen cause every pilot of every nation all state the same rule, alt and speed equals life. a lost wing at 15,000 feet gives you time to bail, a lost wing at 1,500 feet means no one will have to dig a grave for you the planes impact will bury you for them.
-
I think that what makes folks dubious about the AH flight model for the Brewster is that it seems able to reverse 180 degrees after a merge and still be within 200 yards of the other plane which is still flying straight having not turned at all.
I'm not saying that it is wrong, I don't know. It feels wrong though, but we don't base flight models on feelings...
-
i would love to read any real life AAR from WWII that describes a battle of multiple planes lingering at dirt eating alt at speeds of 250 mph or less while mixing it up with multiple enemy con's....it didnt happen cause every pilot of every nation all state the same rule, alt and speed equals life. a lost wing at 15,000 feet gives you time to bail, a lost wing at 1,500 feet means no one will have to dig a grave for you the planes impact will bury you for them.
Willie Reschkes encounter 3 152 v 2 Tempest low slow on the deck is one from memory.
This is a short exerpt straight from wiki. His book has a longer account.
We reached the position at an altitude of 200 metres, just at the moment when both Tempests after diving started climbing again. Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Stattler, on our side, was hit and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky ... The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops ... The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre-by-metre on the Tempest and after a few circles, I had reached the most favourable shooting position ... I pressed my machine gun buttons[10] for the first time ... I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn ... I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross hairs and could not have missed, but my machine guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest.
-
I really like fighting against the Brewster and these are generally the sort of fights that I enjoy the most.
My only complaint is the existence of the non Finnish skins which belong to a different model of the aircraft if what everyone is saying about it is true.
-
Willie Reshkes encounter 3 152 v 2 Tempest low slow on the deck is one from memory.
This is a short exerpt straight from wiki. His book has a longer account.
We reached the position at an altitude of 200 metres, just at the moment when both Tempests after diving started climbing again. Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Stattler, on our side, was hit and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky ... The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops ... The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre-by-metre on the Tempest and after a few circles, I had reached the most favourable shooting position ... I pressed my machine gun buttons[10] for the first time ... I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn ... I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross hairs and could not have missed, but my machine guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest.
that cool :aok thanx for that...
but the funny thing is that your example IS the exception that proves the rule!!!
anyone who stall fights, rolling scissors or luftburries learns rather quickly that you NEVER or at least as rarely as possible, engage any german iron and then continue to turn left....the torque roll of all german iron will aid the pilot in any maneuver to the left and allow him to gain speed and position on allied rides whose torque roll is to the right. if the tempy had rolled right then his torque roll and handling characteristics would have given him the advantage over the 152 who would have spent his time fighting between stalling out due to throttling down to turn or torque rolling over into the trees....it would have been a much different encounter had the tempy pilot had 100's of hours of stall fighting practice at treetop level in a cartoon environment without risk of death. i only know and understand the basic idea of torque and its positive applications on the german iron because of so many many hours of flying and dieing and then re-uping to try it all again.
-
The one aspect of the B-239's performance that I am somewhat skeptical of is its high speed handling. Most aircraft from WWII had significant handling issues as speed reached past 400mph. I find it a bit hard to believe that Brewster stumbled on a design in the 1930's that lacked any of those vices.
-
The entire war was not fought at 30K over Germany...
-
i would love to read any real life AAR from WWII that describes a battle of multiple planes lingering at dirt eating alt at speeds of 250 mph or less while mixing it up with multiple enemy con's....it didnt happen cause every pilot of every nation all state the same rule, alt and speed equals life. a lost wing at 15,000 feet gives you time to bail, a lost wing at 1,500 feet means no one will have to dig a grave for you the planes impact will bury you for them.
That reminds me of the real 80th FS's mission on Nov 2, 1943 to Rabaul. They were escorting low-level B-25s from the 345th BG, so they couldn't be up at altitude with the other P-38 squadrons. They arrived at the target at 8000ft and saw many Japanese below. The CO led the squadron down to attack a group of Zeros at 4000ft and started the fight. I'm too lazy to type up the whole description of the fight, but here's some excerpts from the 8th FG history book that depicts the low-levelness.
"Another Zero closed in on the B-25s at 1000 feet and Schriber gave chase. The Zero pressed closer to the water - just off the surface before Schriber got into range behind him - and began to turn, apparently trying to force his P-38 pursuer into a dangerous maneuver. However, the Zero pilot may have been paying too much attention to his adversary because his wing caught the wave tops and he cartwheeled into the water before Schriber could fire a shot.
Schriber was able to climb to 4000 feet and noticed all the Zeros he saw were below him. He made lazy eight turns and dived at single Zeros whenever they presented a suitable target."
"...At 1000 feet the P-38s engaged the Zeros and a wildly turning fight developed. DeGraffenreid fired at a Zero on Hailey's tail, then Hailey would fire at another Zero, then both pilots would fend off head on attacks.
One of the Zeros decided to hold course and DeGraffenreid opened fire at 450 yards. LT Mark Casper was behind DeGraffenreid's P-38 and saw the two fighters blaze away at each other. Just as the Lightning and Zero passed, Kasper saw the Zero explode."
"...Continuing down to 900ft, [Hill] saw 15 to 20 Zeros diving then peeling away from the B-25s. Hill caught one peeling up and fired a long burst from 60 degrees deflection and blew it to pieces. As Hill pulled up his fighter was hit in the starboard wing and engine, and after he feathered his engine he was accompanied to base by Schriber and Hanover."
The entire war was not fought at 30K over Germany...
:aok
-
The one aspect of the B-239's performance that I am somewhat skeptical of is its high speed handling. Most aircraft from WWII had significant handling issues as speed reached past 400mph. I find it a bit hard to believe that Brewster stumbled on a design in the 1930's that lacked any of those vices.
From Report No.B.A.1689. (July, 1941), Handling tests on Buffalo (Brewster A.S.430):
Ailerons
Tests in the speed range from approach glide to 400 m.p.h. showed the ailerons to be exceptionally effective: they are crisp and powerful, and the stick forces are not too light at low speeds nor too heavy at the greater speeds. The pilots considered them to be a definite improvement on the Hurricane and Spitfire fabric covered ailerons.
....
Elevator
The elevator was tested at speeds between 80 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h.; the response and feel were found to be excellent. At 80 m.p.h. the response is exceptionally good and the stick forces are not too small. The weight increases steadily with speed but even at 400 m.p.h. the stick force is not unduly large and the response is still very good.
Pyro has this document.
-
that cool :aok thanx for that...
but the funny thing is that your example IS the exception that proves the rule!!!
anyone who stall fights, rolling scissors or luftburries learns rather quickly that you NEVER or at least as rarely as possible, engage any german iron and then continue to turn left....the torque roll of all german iron will aid the pilot in any maneuver to the left and allow him to gain speed and position on allied rides whose torque roll is to the right. if the tempy had rolled right then his torque roll and handling characteristics would have given him the advantage over the 152 who would have spent his time fighting between stalling out due to throttling down to turn or torque rolling over into the trees....it would have been a much different encounter had the tempy pilot had 100's of hours of stall fighting practice at treetop level in a cartoon environment without risk of death. i only know and understand the basic idea of torque and its positive applications on the german iron because of so many many hours of flying and dieing and then re-uping to try it all again.
another issue with comparing the real characteristics of any plane and the way it acts in game is the difference in fighting styles.
in real life you didnt hang around at alts between 2-5,000 feet as a general rule. you got your donut as high as you could and stayed as fast as possible. speed and alt were always your friend and your advantage to any enemy of inferior attitude or speed. if you get in over your head you want the alt/speed to run or if you cant egress with the plane then you want to bail out with some chance of survival.
in game keep it low alt and mid to slow speed. (this is where the brew excels it has the advantage and the range on those 50's gives it a reasonable chance to down a faster pilot after the over shoot). few have the patience to climb to the nose bleeds and nobody really cares about bailing with a chance of survival cause the ride ends once you have bailed anyways, and if your a runtard by nature then you take anything in game including a hurri or a zero before you take up a brew.
the brew has an envelope of authority in which it excels in game, more than it could ever hope to in real life, we have the ability to practice to exploit this evelope because of limitless lives and countless fresh planes.
we also have the ability to train under these specific circumstances by continuously choosing to fly under these conditions without orders from others to fly differently than what and where we want.....think of how well some players can stall fight with a 51....do you think those who flew the 51, a high alt high speed long range interceptor/escort plane, in WWII would ever be given the opportunity to test the plane under those conditions? 120mph or less under 2,000 feet, or do you think your commanding officer would have screamed bloody murder at the first pilot who attempted to stall fight on the deck? even if the pilot was successful, if he didnt have a damn good reason for doing what he did, ie running from a superior force and getting caught low etc, do you really believe he would be allowed to practice on a continuous and regular basis, enough that is to get truly proficient at it, this type of flying style?
i would love to read any real life AAR from WWII that describes a battle of multiple planes lingering at dirt eating alt at speeds of 250 mph or less while mixing it up with multiple enemy con's....it didnt happen cause every pilot of every nation all state the same rule, alt and speed equals life. a lost wing at 15,000 feet gives you time to bail, a lost wing at 1,500 feet means no one will have to dig a grave for you the planes impact will bury you for them.
I guess that the source of this type of thinking is that people constantly have to explain away the poor performance of... well, primarily, the P51 and the P47 at low altitudes, as that's not where these aircraft fought. Or that, in a broader sense, the primary source of our romanticism of air combat is the escort of the bomber streams in 44/45 at 25,000' over Germany. The thing is... the ETO, or the Western Front, or whatever your perspective forces you into the habit of calling it, was not World War II... it was a singular theater with a set of characteristics that, along with the other theaters, were unique to what the circumstances dictated. Aerial combat was not the same over western Europe as it was over Africa as it was over Russia, as it even was over the Pacific... even though you may be led to believe that they all were identical as the classic 'USAAF vs. Luftwaffe' air war is to an extent almost all that's discussed on these boards. However, even in the case of that microcosm, fighting in the weeds did happen. Nap of earth, rolling or flat scissors, lufberries, etc. weren't terms invented here, you know... they were invented by the airmen who used those tactics, primarily invented during the Second World War, and used by airmen of all countries in all theaters.
The thing is, in this discussion, we're not even talking about the 'western' war. We're talking about Russia. 30,000' should not even be in your vocabulary. This war was not focused around strategic air forces in this war that could get up to that altitude, drop their loads and fly home safely. The Eastern war was down and dirty, both the Luftwaffe and the VVS focused on close ground support with divebombers and guns to achieve tactical success. Escorting divebombers that have to get within hundreds of yards of their targets pushes operations down... thousands and thousands of feet. Using fighter aircraft from fighter units to strafe troops (something all sides did) pushes it down further. Sometimes (oftentimes even) aircraft on these missions met others and the result was tree dodging at 120 mph. Yes, it really happened, and above Karelia, or Ukraine, or Eastern Prussia, it happened a lot.
-
From Report No.B.A.1689. (July, 1941), Handling tests on Buffalo (Brewster A.S.430):
Ailerons
Tests in the speed range from approach glide to 400 m.p.h. showed the ailerons to be exceptionally effective: they are crisp and powerful, and the stick forces are not too light at low speeds nor too heavy at the greater speeds. The pilots considered them to be a definite improvement on the Hurricane and Spitfire fabric covered ailerons.
....
Elevator
The elevator was tested at speeds between 80 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h.; the response and feel were found to be excellent. At 80 m.p.h. the response is exceptionally good and the stick forces are not too small. The weight increases steadily with speed but even at 400 m.p.h. the stick force is not unduly large and the response is still very good.
Pyro has this document.
Control forces are only one of the problems that were encountered at higher speeds. In AH the Brewster can dive well past 500mph and there is little perceptible difference from being at 200mph. Of prop fighters, only the P-51 shares this trait.
I'll note that the you posted document is not specific about stick forces other than to say the ailerons are a lot better than the cloth ailerons on the Spitfire and Hurricane. It doesn't indicate that they should be radically better than the metal ailerons on the Spitfire though.
-
Control forces are only one of the problems that were encountered at higher speeds.
What are these problems that you would expect to be there? It said that the ailerons are effective though out vast speed range which is true in AH.
In AH the Brewster can dive well past 500mph and there is little perceptible difference from being at 200mph.
Hmm...again I don't know what exactly you are expecting. I have to say that I disagree that there isn't a clear difference, although as far as virtual combat goes I have only been over 500mph just couple of times. Taking a light plane up to those speeds is huge waste of E.
I'll note that the you posted document is not specific about stick forces other than to say the ailerons are a lot better than the cloth ailerons on the Spitfire and Hurricane. It doesn't indicate that they should be radically better than the metal ailerons on the Spitfire though.
It says more about the ailerons on other parts of the doc but as far as Spits ailerons go they are known to get stilff at high speeds no matter the material where as Brewster's ailerons stayed light.
Final statement on the controls from the same document:
General
There is no tendency for any control to oscillate snatch or take charge at any speed. The pilots considered that with this aeroplane a definitive advance had been made in fighter controls.
-
I've always suspected the light planes accelerates too good in a dive in AH2 . As an example I can stay with a p47 diving for a good couple of seconds in an 190a8, and also in other planes.
Also you kill easy @600 yards out in many planes which only makes it even easier in the dive to kill before you get out of range. In Real Life you did not do that without a good potion of luck.
For an example attacking a buff you normally opened up at 400 yards with mg151 according to "a view from the cockpit" only the 30mm mk103 allowed you to shoot at 600.
Fighter targets should stay below 300 yards to give a good % of damaging/shooting down the enemy fighter.
We tried these more realistic settings in Warbirds, but they turned back the old settings due to customer complaints :(
-
I think a Lancaster has good control at speed compared to the spitfires and hurricanes with fabric covered control surfaces...
-
Gravity affects all objects equally regardless of weight. Drag is the only limiting factor determining the terminal velocity of a falling object. At the start of a dive a light aircraft will easily be able to follow a heavier aircraft, especially if the former has better power loading. Only as speed picks up and drag increases will the heavier aircraft have an advantage in the dive. That is if the heavier aircraft doesn't also have a significantly worse Cd limiting its terminal velocity.
-
I think a Lancaster has good control at speed compared to the spitfires and hurricanes with fabric covered control surfaces...
What is your point?
-
I guess that the source of this type of thinking is that people constantly have to explain away the poor performance of... well, primarily, the P51 and the P47 at low altitudes, as that's not where these aircraft fought. Or that, in a broader sense, the primary source of our romanticism of air combat is the escort of the bomber streams in 44/45 at 25,000' over Germany. The thing is... the ETO, or the Western Front, or whatever your perspective forces you into the habit of calling it, was not World War II... it was a singular theater with a set of characteristics that, along with the other theaters, were unique to what the circumstances dictated. Aerial combat was not the same over western Europe as it was over Africa as it was over Russia, as it even was over the Pacific... even though you may be led to believe that they all were identical as the classic 'USAAF vs. Luftwaffe' air war is to an extent almost all that's discussed on these boards. However, even in the case of that microcosm, fighting in the weeds did happen. Nap of earth, rolling or flat scissors, lufberries, etc. weren't terms invented here, you know... they were invented by the airmen who used those tactics, primarily invented during the Second World War, and used by airmen of all countries in all theaters.
The thing is, in this discussion, we're not even talking about the 'western' war. We're talking about Russia. 30,000' should not even be in your vocabulary. This war was not focused around strategic air forces in this war that could get up to that altitude, drop their loads and fly home safely. The Eastern war was down and dirty, both the Luftwaffe and the VVS focused on close ground support with divebombers and guns to achieve tactical success. Escorting divebombers that have to get within hundreds of yards of their targets pushes operations down... thousands and thousands of feet. Using fighter aircraft from fighter units to strafe troops (something all sides did) pushes it down further. Sometimes (oftentimes even) aircraft on these missions met others and the result was tree dodging at 120 mph. Yes, it really happened, and above Karelia, or Ukraine, or Eastern Prussia, it happened a lot.
i did not mean to imply that those events "never" happened, just that they were rare as opposed to what we do in game. i almost never get above 12,000 feet, just to impatient to take the dull trip to gain alt.
thus in game we have had the ability to learn things that those real life pilots did not. they did not train for them, those that learned them learned the hard way and most would die in the process ending the experience, a fate we need not fear. do you think that Lancasters performed multiple lanc-stuka moves just to see if it could be done? in game they do it not because of a failure of the modeling, but because we can do fail re-do fail again and continue to re-do until we figure out the right way to accomplish what we are trying to do.
-
I dont know about how it's modeled, but it's one of the easiest kills in the game. Just dont enter a turning fight with it. Whatever you have for a plane, its going to be superior in almost every other aspect to a brewster.
Further, the way we often fight in AH has little to do with how it was done historically. The result being that you can not compare.
-
i did not mean to imply that those events "never" happened, just that they were rare as opposed to what we do in game. i almost never get above 12,000 feet, just to impatient to take the dull trip to gain alt.
thus in game we have had the ability to learn things that those real life pilots did not. they did not train for them, those that learned them learned the hard way and most would die in the process ending the experience, a fate we need not fear. do you think that Lancasters performed multiple lanc-stuka moves just to see if it could be done? in game they do it not because of a failure of the modeling, but because we can do fail re-do fail again and continue to re-do until we figure out the right way to accomplish what we are trying to do.
They were not as rare as you think... there's a reason Soviet combat aircraft had performance peaks around 10k.
-
I just try to relate the Brew to other planes in the game. They seem to pull off feats that no other plane seems to be able to do in the MA and it has something to do with E retention or acceleration or both.
-
They were not as rare as you think... there's a reason Soviet combat aircraft had performance peaks around 10k.
and this may be why the brew was so effective in that theater of the war......
-
The air war was generally fought below 15k in all theaters except western Europe.
-
I dont know about how it's modeled, but it's one of the easiest kills in the game. Just dont enter a turning fight with it. Whatever you have for a plane, its going to be superior in almost every other aspect to a brewster.
Further, the way we often fight in AH has little to do with how it was done historically. The result being that you can not compare.
Agreed. People who fly LW birds and die to a Brewster are people who fought the Brewster's fight, not their own.
That being said, I love the little thing.... :rock
-
Of prop fighters, only the P-51 shares this trait.
P-47? I don't find the Brewster's maneuverability, even at high speeds, to be very surprising. Read America's 100,000 and it seems as though it was a capable plane (for an interwar design) before the realities of the WWII air battlefield forced the Navy to drop all the extra weight on it. Obviously the Finnish success with it at its near-original weight supports that.
-
P-47? I don't find the Brewster's maneuverability, even at high speeds, to be very surprising. Read America's 100,000 and it seems as though it was a capable plane (for an interwar design) before the realities of the WWII air battlefield forced the Navy to drop all the extra weight on it. Obviously the Finnish success with it at its near-original weight supports that.
I remember reading a quote from an interview with Pappy Boyington, discussing among other things the Brewster Buffalo. To paraphrase, he said it was a "%$^# fine airplane, and would turn around inside a phone booth, before they loaded it down with all that &*$@ weight."
-
The air war was generally fought below 15k in all theaters except western Europe.
Strange how P-39s couldn't climb to the 30K Bettys over Guadalcanal.
Of course, they were below 15K, so you're right.
:banana:
wrongway
-
Strange how P-39s couldn't climb to the 30K Bettys over Guadalcanal.
Of course, they were below 15K, so you're right.
:banana:
wrongway
It wasn't that the P-39D couldn't climb to high enough altitude to get to the Bettys, most of the P-39s and P-400s were not fitted with oxygen systems. Those that were simply did not have the time to climb high enough (typically around 22k) before the G4Ms were long gone. Once at altitude, they didn't have enough fuel for a tail chase... And then, there were those pesky Zero escorts.....
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=113&p2=93&pw=0>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
Strange how P-39s couldn't climb to the 30K Bettys over Guadalcanal.
Of course, they were below 15K, so you're right.
:banana:
wrongway
gen·er·al·ly (jnr--l)
adv.
1. Popularly; widely: generally known.
2. a. As a rule; usually: The child generally has little to say.
b. For the most part: a generally boring speech.
3. Without reference to particular instances or details; not specifically: generally speaking.
-
Just wait untill WMaker sees this... He won't be pleased with you saying something negative about his Brewster lol
IBtFinn?
-
Just wait untill WMaker sees this... He won't be pleased with you saying something negative about his Brewster lol
When the negative things being said are nothing more than thinly veiled whines and not one person has been able to show the Finnish Brewster is incorrectly modeled, are you not surprised that Wmaker may become frustrated by all the B.S?
ack-ack
-
Very interesting post :aok
My question is though, weren't most P-39/P-400's at guadacanal delegated to air support roles during the fight? I remember reading a very interesting article that I believe was posted on the BBS that they were mainly hugging the deck straffing enemy positions... along with having their malfunctions with the 37mm tater gun :cry
-
IBtFinn?
FALE.
You lose 100 internets.
:D
-
When the negative things being said are nothing more than thinly veiled whines and not one person has been able to show the Finnish Brewster is incorrectly modeled, are you not surprised that Wmaker may become frustrated by all the B.S?
ack-ack
Has anybody "shown" that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled?
-
Has anybody "shown" that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled?
sigh *face meet my fat palm*
-
sigh *face meet my fat palm*
:rofl oh the irony.
-
Has anybody "shown" that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled?
Yes. Next?
-
Has anybody "shown" that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled?
There has been plenty of verifiable data posted on this very BBS to show that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled. Do you have any verifiable data that proves otherwise?
ack-ack
-
LOL.....My point is that there isn't enough data to prove the flight model is accurate or inaccurate.
-
LOL.....My point is that there isn't enough data to prove the flight model is accurate or inaccurate.
Apparently HTC feels differently, I'm pretty sure they have some defined minimum requirement for confirmed, verifyable data to base the FM on, or they wouldn't have considered it for addition to the game.
-
LOL.....My point is that there isn't enough data to prove the flight model is accurate or inaccurate.
How did you arrive to this conclusion?
The fact that you haven't seen "enough data" (I doubt you know enough about HTC's modelling process to know what is "not enough data" anyways.) doesn't mean that "enough data" doesn't exist.
There's just as much or more data available about the Brewster than there is for the rest of the planeset.
-
sigh *face meet my fat palm*
Why is your palm fat? Take a jog....
-
There has been plenty of verifiable data posted on this very BBS to show that the Finnish Brewster is correctly modeled. Do you have any verifiable data that proves otherwise?
ack-ack
I tend to stay away from these threads mainly because I have enough sourced information, however I know diddly squat about flight modeling or modeling them ing ame, only whats on paper is what I can assume is correct and give my opinon. From what we have on the Finnish Brewster,its almost identical to what most data I have for the Finnish brewster in some of my books, pretty sure someone translated and documented it well enough that HTC made a decision about it.
This being said, I have no reason to doubt the flight model is incorrect, although I believe its a witch hunt due to AAR's like Midway and Singapore that give the Brewster a bad rap that it should easily be "killed" by all aircraft.
-
I believe its a witch hunt due to AAR's like Midway and Singapore that give the Brewster a bad rap that it should easily be "killed" by all aircraft.
Based on threads about the subject during these last couple years after Brewster's inclusion, that's what it seems to be. So basically it is about lack of knowlegde regarding to the plane type, its variants and history and failure to put those historical events and their reasons into context.
-
This being said, I have no reason to doubt the flight model is incorrect, although I believe its a witch hunt due to AAR's like Midway and Singapore that give the Brewster a bad rap that it should easily be "killed" by all aircraft.
Agreed. This is the one problem I have with it. It is being used in settings it has no business being used in. Really we needed to have two models of the Brewster added, the B-239 used in Finland and then either a B-339E or an F2A3 for use in Pacific settings. I suspect that alone would have killed most of the whines as they'd have the sucky version they expect and it would be easier for them to understand that the Finnish version was very different in terms of handling.
-
Based on threads about the subject during these last couple years after Brewster's inclusion, that's what it seems to be. So basically it is about lack of knowlegde regarding to the plane type, its variants and history and failure to put those historical events and their reasons into context.
We had a similar situation after the Sherman Firefly was introduced years ago. The word of "Shermans had a weak gun that couldn't kill anything" or "It took five Shermans to kill one Tiger" was resulting in countless whines. Numerous times I tried to explain the difference between various Sherman models, and which types these phrases were referring too.... mostly to no avail.
-
Agreed. This is the one problem I have with it. It is being used in settings it has no business being used in. Really we needed to have two models of the Brewster added, the B-239 used in Finland and then either a B-339E or an F2A3 for use in Pacific settings. I suspect that alone would have killed most of the whines as they'd have the sucky version they expect and it would be easier for them to understand that the Finnish version was very different in terms of handling.
I think the models are to close to actually need to make them any different, simply use a different gun package if you want the different versions. When I mean to close, a hundred Horsepower and 30lbs less in armor hardly needs an entirely new flight model which takes months to build to be based on.
Unless there was a totally significant change in the structure of the aircraft or flight characteristics then sure a model can be done, but not likely since the Buffalo was recently added.
As Lusche says, I think people simply underestimate a decent stick in a buffalo and get chewed apart, I flew against it in the Rangoon Scenario in an A6m2 and had no problem out turning and shooting buffalo's down.
-
I think the models are to close to actually need to make them any different, simply use a different gun package if you want the different versions. When I mean to close, a hundred Horsepower and 30lbs less in armor hardly needs an entirely new flight model which takes months to build to be based on.
There's the disconnect, I think, because this quote from Soulyss on page 1 would seem to indicate that there is a much bigger difference between the planes than you state:
You can't compare the Brewster in US service with the one that the Finns used as they were very different planes. The empty weight of the 239 which we have should be around 3700 lbs. The F2A-3 which was in the US inventory had an empty weight around 4700lbs (according to America's 100K).
1000 pounds less will make the b239 seem like a lot different plane, that's for sure.
-
There's the disconnect, I think, because this quote from Soulyss on page 1 would seem to indicate that there is a much bigger difference between the planes than you state:
1000 pounds less will make the b239 seem like a lot different plane, that's for sure.
Granted 1000lbs is a difference in weight, but how much performance is gained from this? enough to design another RV-8 with guns?
-
and with ALL that said...only 44 of this spec planed were produced....why is it in aces high2 and soo many other should be here first...and why dosnt it qualify other low production a/c...like the RE-2005
-
Butcher,
IIRC, it is the difference between 25lbs/sq.ft of wing loading and 34lbs/sq.ft of wing loading, along with the associated climb/acceleration loss. That is pretty significant. It goes from turning with A6Ms to being badly out classed by A6Ms, and when used in Pacific settings that particular match up matters.
and with ALL that said...only 44 of this spec planed were produced....why is it in aces high2 and soo many other should be here first...and why dosnt it qualify other low production a/c...like the RE-2005
Because it saw heavy use. Production numbers aren't the only thing that matters. How many kills did the Re2005 get? Did it even get 25 kills?
The B-239 got hundreds of kills in Finnish hands.
-
I am still waiting on films that support all these whines about uber-over modeledness.................. ...
NOT
-
I am still waiting on films that support all these whines about uber-over modeledness.................. ...
NOT
Don't hold your breath....
:P
(I've never seen anybody supply a film supporting a claim of such and such being overmodeled in AH, not the Brewster, not the Spitfire Mk XVI, not anything.)
-
I suspect that alone would have killed most of the whines as they'd have the sucky version they expect and it would be easier for them to understand that the Finnish version was very different in terms of handling.
I've had similar thoughts myself but then I arrived into a conclusion that it might even increase the whining because even the F2A-3 wouldn't quite match their own expectations due to the fact that the biggest reasons why F2A-3 was rejected by the Navy wouldn't show themselves in AH. I dare say that even the poorness of the F2A-3 has been greatly exaturated from the first pilot's statements after the unfortunate Midway encounter with the Zekes to this very day. I still think that the Wildcat was the better and overall more suitable fighter for the Navy but the reasons for that are mostly somewhere else than in the "poor" maneuverability of the F2A-3.
If F2A-3 would come to AH, people would quickly compare F2A-3 to F4F-4 and scream bloody murder when F4F-4 would only barely turn inside F2A-3 and in some cases not at all. They'd quicky forget that the more appropriate comparison would be about against F4F-3. After all, Wildcat got almost 1200lbs (!!) of weight added to it when version was switched from -3 to -4, sounds famillar doesn't it. ;) But for some reason, that increase in weight hasn't quite got the same press as the weight gain of the Brewster. :)
As I mentioned, the real reasons why Brewster was eventually rejected by the Navy have actually very little to do with Brewster's handling characteristics or its flight performance but that isn't widely known. What is widely known is the "Midway disaster". It was good "press/propaganda" (so to say) to blaim (relatively) small firm's plane instead of other factors that might have contributed to the defeat in the air when Japanese were running across the Pacific. That doesn't mean that I think that the US pilots did poorly but they truly had the odds stacked against them and had to pay the (ultimate) price for it. It wouldn't have mattered much even if they all would have been in F4Fs instead.
-
As I mentioned, the real reasons why Brewster was eventually rejected by the Navy have actually very little to do with Brewster's handling characteristics or its flight performance but that isn't widely known. What is widely known is the "Midway disaster". It was good "press/propaganda" (so to say) to blaim (relatively) small firm's plane instead of other factors that might have contributed to the defeat in the air when Japanese were running across the Pacific.
....well...except it isn't as if the British were clearing the skies of Malaysia with their Buffalos....
- oldman
-
If I ever have a stroke and lose the use of the left or right side of my body, I'll fly a brew. It is so easy barely 1 arm is required :aok
JUGgler
-
....well...except it isn't as if the British were clearing the skies of Malaysia with their Buffalos....
Yes? That goes along with my point. Considering the overwhelming odds they too had, they did very well.
-
If F2A-3 would come to AH, people would quickly compare F2A-3 to F4F-4 and scream bloody murder when F4F-4 would only barely turn inside F2A-3 and in some cases not at all.
I for one would LOVE to have the F2A-3....
-
It has been mentioned that the EW version of the Brewster is a bit different than the versions the Finn's had, with weight and engine power being the two biggest differences.
With that being said, I'd really like to see the EW versions put in to the game because the version currently in AH is being used in EW scenarios and is able to easily compete with aircraft that are supposedly superior in every way, at least as told by multiple historical documents and pilot testimony.
While the Brewster we currently have in AH may be a good representative of what the Finn's had, it certainly is not a good representative to what the RAF, RAAF, USN, US Marines, or other such sorry saps that had to use.
-
With that being said, I'd really like to see the EW versions put in to the game because the version currently in AH is being used in EW scenarios and is able to easily compete with aircraft that are supposedly superior in every way, at least as told by multiple historical documents and pilot testimony.
I got shouted down for pointing that out once. Something to the effect that it was better that the US pilots had a fighting chance against the A6M2s.
Oddly, when the shoe was on the other foot and it was F4U1s against A6M2s, all was right in the world as well and the Japanese side needed to just suck it up and deal.
-
Speaking of which, here it is again being used at Midway:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329323.msg4315782.html#msg4315782
-
Speaking of which, here it is again being used at Midway:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329323.msg4315782.html#msg4315782
I don't like the use of substitutions in general either but when you accuse others of bias and then conviniently forget the fact that A6M5b is also "too good" for Midway setup it kind of reveals your own bias/agenda.
-
I don't like the use of substitutions in general either but when you accuse others of bias and then conviniently forget the fact that A6M5b is also "too good" for Midway setup it kind of reveals your own bias/agenda.
No, the A6M5b shouldn't be there at all, nor the A6M3 Or the P-39 or P-40. Not sure why they enabled those.
-
No, the A6M5b shouldn't be there at all, nor the A6M3 Or the P-39 or P-40. Not sure why they enabled those.
Yep, but since they are, I don't see a point in raising issue over Brewster alone.
-
I agree more version's should be represented. It would give everyone a much better understanding of this A/C.
Think about it this way too, another early war carrier fighter. :rock :pray
Also consider the skill many pilots have in this game, i can imagine 450-500mph planes diving on zeeke's and betty's booming then zooming away.
:rock
How history treats some a/c is unfair, i know for a fact some people in this game have the ability and skill to make almost any airframe dance in ways no one could imagine. Its the pilot, not the brick.
-
I hate to admit this, but the best way to settle this issue... if it indeed requires the hatchet... is to just add the dog that's the F2A-3, the hanger queen it will ultimatley end up being and all... but, at least it will most likely be a carrier enabled Brewster, so it has a chance of shedding the dust once in a while in the MAs.
-
I'm curious what was removed that lost the plane almost 20% of it's weight as well as how the engine made more horsepower on finnish 87 octane than it did with US high octane goodness.
-
I'm curious what was removed that lost the plane almost 20% of it's weight as well as how the engine made more horsepower on finnish 87 octane than it did with US high octane goodness.
This is what I don't understand, in the ETO the P-38 had a horrible problem flying with british 87 octane, one of the reasons the Japanese fighters in the Pacific never had any speed was due to this low octane as well.
Planes like the Ki-84 were tested after the war and reached well over 400 mph.
-
Good unbiased info on the Brewster with the various countries.
Annals of the Brewster Buffalo (http://www.warbirdforum.com/buff.htm)
ack-ack
-
This is what I don't understand, in the ETO the P-38 had a horrible problem flying with british 87 octane, one of the reasons the Japanese fighters in the Pacific never had any speed was due to this low octane as well.
Planes like the Ki-84 were tested after the war and reached well over 400 mph.
It wasn't just the octane of the fuel that plagued the P-38. Hell, the pilots were freezing their butts off in the cockpit for one. But I digress. The Brewster shouldn't suffer much of a penalty running low octane fuel, since the engine was designed to use it.
-
I'm curious what was removed that lost the plane almost 20% of it's weight
This has already been explained to you earlier in your own thread here by dtango and I've mentioned in several threads about the Brewster aswell: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316744.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316744.15.html) .
It's not that the finns reduced the weight, it's the US added a bunch of weight instead. According to Dean's AHT, empty weight of the B239 was only 3744 lbs. By contrast the F2A-3 empty weight was 4765 lbs. Where did all that come from? +280 lbs on the airframe, +547 lbs for a new version of the Wright Cyclone 1820 engine, +215 lbs for fixed equipment. The wing weight went up 172 lbs with no change in area. That's just empty weight.
Add the additional fuel and ammo etc etc. and voila you get 5276 lbs vs. 6906 lbs. Looking at the math, that's actually 23% lighter than the F2A-3.
F2A-3 came after B239, not the other way around.
as well as how the engine made more horsepower on finnish 87 octane than it did with US high octane goodness.
As Stoney said, the engine was specified to use it and could develop that 1000hp using 87 octane fuel. Even 80 octane fuel was accepted provided that you used lower power setting. Also, the German fuel that Finns used had a differed in the way the octane value was measured. One can't directly compare American values to German figures.
Spec chart for the R-1820G-5: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf)
-
As Stoney said, the engine was specified to use it and could develop that 1000hp using 87 octane fuel. Even 80 octane fuel was accepted provided that you used lower power setting. Also, the German fuel that Finns used had a differed in the way the octane value was measured. One can't directly compare American values to German figures.
Spec chart for the R-1820G-5: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf)
It's also worth noting that the American F2A's operated in the hot, humid south Pacific.... the Finn's B239's enjoyed cold dense air, which anyone who likes horsepower will tell you cold dense air is always better than hot, humid air. :)
-
This has already been explained to you earlier in your own thread here by dtango and I've mentioned in several threads about the Brewster aswell: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316744.15.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316744.15.html) .
F2A-3 came after B239, not the other way around.
As Stoney said, the engine was specified to use it and could develop that 1000hp using 87 octane fuel. Even 80 octane fuel was accepted provided that you used lower power setting. Also, the German fuel that Finns used had a differed in the way the octane value was measured. One can't directly compare American values to German figures.
Spec chart for the R-1820G-5: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/9d8387f8163ad7d98525670e0065ae06/$FILE/ATTZCGXO/TC154.pdf)
Is there any weight information on the guns they fitted?
-
I would'nt mind having the F2A-3. I Dont think it saw much service though. It may be good for scenarios.
-
Is there any weight information on the guns they fitted?
Yes there is, I'm sure that the weights for the Browning .50cal and .30 cal machine guns are rather easy to find: www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
-
Are the weights of the 30s vs the 50s accounted for in the weight differences between finnish and the US version?
-
Are the weights of the 30s vs the 50s accounted for in the weight differences between finnish and the US version?
F2A-3 was armed with four 50 caliber Brownings. I am not sure about the ammo loads, but if those are the same there wouldn't be a weight difference from the guns.
-
Weight of Browning .30 cal = 10 kg.
Weight of Browning .50 cal = 29 kg.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
A fat pilot would make up the weight difference between the two gun packages.
-
The weight differences and weights of the Brewster in general are modelled correctly in AH. 4*50cal load out is slightly heavier than 3*.50cal + 1*.30cal -setup.
-
Planes like the Ki-84 were tested after the war and reached well over 400 mph.
Tested with the placarded manifold pressures, hence it should achieve similar speed with Japanese wartime low octane fuel.
-
Is there any weight information on the guns they fitted?
Yes,if you check the link Ackack posted you'll find some imformation about the guns.
It appears they werent brownings but were Finish copies that fired at 1000 to 1100 rpm...... hmmm maybe the guns are undermodeled for rate of fire.... I didnt compare the weights to the real brownings but the article mentions the thin barrels causing issues with cracks so it's likely they were somewhat lighter.
:salute
-
Weight of Browning .30 cal = 10 kg.
Weight of Browning .50 cal = 29 kg.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm
A fat pilot would make up the weight difference between the two gun packages.
Ammo?
-
Ammo?
I was wondering that too. And what other equipment to mount the guns if any?
-
Ammo?
I think for the Ma Deuce, its around 25 pounds per 100 rounds linked.
-
I was wondering that too. And what other equipment to mount the guns if any?
"Gun" - Singular. The difference in armament was 3 x .50 cal and one .30 cal or 4 x .50 cal. so one .30 cal was replaced with a .50 cal.
The .50 cal had 200 rounds. the .30 cal had 600 rounds. The weight of the ammunition would vary depending on what type of round was used, but generally a .50 cartridge is 4-5 times the weight of a .30 cal cartridge.
A .50 API cartridge weighed 114 grams, so 200 rounds would weigh roughly 25 kilos with belt links. 600 rounds of .30 cal AP would weigh approximately 20 kg with links.