Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jimson on March 12, 2013, 02:52:35 PM
-
Take the B239, add a bunch of weight, reduce the elevator authority and give us a dog Brewster we can use in the pacific that won't start wars on the BBS LOL
-
The export versions of the F2A-2 (B-339 series) would be more appropriate since they saw more action with the RAF/Commonwealth and Dutch East Indies air forces than the F2A-3 (Midway only) saw combat with the USMC.
ack-ack
-
I agree. AH could certainly use a more accurate representative of the Brewster Buffalo in EW scenarios. The hot rod currently in AH may be representative of what the Finnish has (a lightened and more powerful F2A-3 version).
It appears as if HTC could easily add in the -2 and give it some added weight based on the the extras that the "Buffalo Mk I" has that was not on the parent frame (pilot armor, extra fuel tanks, etc), and give it the less powerful engine. Each country that received the Brewster apparently got something different than the original base model for whatever reason. The British got a heavier and less powerful version and the Dutch got a lighter and equally powerful version. The Belgians got something yet. One thing for sure though is the B239 currently in AH is a bit much for EW scenarios in the south PTO.
-
The hot rod currently in AH may be representative of what the Finnish has (a lightened and more powerful F2A-3 version).
Please SmokinLoon, do yourself a favor and finally actually read something about the B239. You keep posting the same inaccuracies over and over again.
F2A-3 came after the B239 and had 200hp more, not less.
-
Please SmokinLoon, do yourself a favor and finally actually read something about the B239. You keep posting the same inaccuracies over and over again.
F2A-3 came after the B239 and had 200hp more, not less.
Hmm. So the B239's the Finns received were not left over F2A-2's that were made lighter (lighter frame/more powerful engine)? The -40 engine being 1100 hp vs the -G5 being 950 hp. How much lighter was the B-239 vs the F2A-2/3?
I didnt drink the Brewster kool-aid like some did (reference Jim Jones in case you're unfamiliar with that idiom. I'm quite surprised at how many are not familiar with it but yet use it freely). I'm sure glad you're on the up-n-up regarding the Buffalo. It isn't me you need worry about campaigning to have the current version nerfed', I'm just vouching for an accurate EW Buffalo, so go piss on your own leg. :ahand
Why so serious?
-
The B-239 is the export version of the F2A-1 and not the F2A-2 or the F2A-3. The B-339B/C/D/E used by Belgium (only 20), RAF/Commonwealth and the Dutch were the export versions of the F2A-2.
ack-ack
-
Wmaker.
Do you believe that the plane we have in game is in fact superior to the plane used early in the war by the USMC at Midway or by Commonwealth units in Burma?
-
Wmaker.
Do you believe that the plane we have in game is in fact superior to the plane used early in the war by the USMC at Midway or by Commonwealth units in Burma?
The B-239 (F2A-1) was superior in terms of maneuverability to the B-339 exports used by the RAF/Commonwealth and Dutch air forces and the F2A-3 used by the USMC at Midway.
ack-ack
-
I'm not up on all the different versions. Just would like to see one that would provide a more reasonable sub for the F2A-3 and the B339
-
I'm not up on all the different versions. Just would like to see one that would provide a more reasonable sub for the F2A-3 and the B339
Oh dont worry, the Brew-meister himself will be along soon enough to re-educate everyone. Have no fear.
Does someone have a printed source on the weights, engine outputs, and the differences between what was ordered and what was delivered? For instance, evidently what the RAF ordered and what they received were to different things, yes?
-
I'm not up on all the different versions. Just would like to see one that would provide a more reasonable sub for the F2A-3 and the B339
A reasonable subsitute for the F2A-2 would be either the B-339B, B-339C, B-339D, or B-339E.
For instance, evidently what the RAF ordered and what they received were to different things, yes?
Not really. Most of the changes to the B-339E were done in accordance to purchase orders, which made the B-339E significantly altered than the B-339s sold to Belgium, France and the Dutch.
ack-ack
-
I'm not up on all the different versions. Just would like to see one that would provide a more reasonable sub for the F2A-3 and the B339
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/img163_zps23db9f3b.jpg)
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/img164_zpsd38a0458.jpg)
-
I'm not up on all the different versions. Just would like to see one that would provide a more reasonable sub for the F2A-3 and the B339
My gut feeling says there won't be another Brewster coming for quite a while but if I had to select one to be added it would be a 339 with Dutch default markings. It would have 100hp power at sea level and would weigh roughly 800lbs more. RAF has enough fighters and there's none under Dutch flag. F2A-3s only flew that one ill-fated engagement.
I'm quite sure that no matter which version would be added people would be surprised that it isn't the toxic waste what the historical myth describes it to be and would scream that both the current AH plane (B239) and the what ever new variant are both overmodelled due to their pathologic inability to dig/research the history a bit deeper. The later version in AH would certainly have a larger turning circle than B239 but it wouldn't be the absolute dog many here are expecting.
The reason why Brewster has gotten the reputation it has is largely due to one Nation's trauma after that famous aerial engagement where Brewsters and F4Fs got clobbered by the Japanese escort fighters. In the populistic history writing Brewster has practically received all the blame and the other factors like the lack of combat experience of the US pilots and the significant numerical advantage of the Japanese are completely ignored.
Also the reason why Brewster was later rejected by the Navy has very little to do with the way it would fly and perform in AH. Here I list some of the actual reasons:
As Greebo explained Brewster Corp. wasn't exactly a well managed company. Brewster Corp's separate selling organization called Miranda Brothers was a source of problems. They had been found guilty of illegal arms trade in the spring of '40 although that particular incident wasn't connected to Brewster Corp. As Greebo largely said, this selling organization made the Co. of the Brewster Corp. sign deals which they didn't have the production capacity for. As the orders and the company grew fast they took on labor force which was bit on the shady side and due to this even sabotages occurred. In one of these incidents F2A-2's arrestor hooks had been deliberately weakened. I'm sure you can imagine that something like that didn't exactly add Brewster's points in the eyes of the Navy.
All the above happened largely after the Brewster which AH was delivered to Finland.
Then there were the technical problems which made F4F better suited Naval fighter:
- Brewster's landing gear didn't withstand carrier use well. They tended to collapse quite easily and the fact that the take-off weight kept creeping up with the later variants didn't exactly help either. This wasn't a simiilar problem when operating from land bases. There were couple gear collapses in Finnish use but not many.
- The wing was a single piece unit with a single continuous spar. When damaged it was very hard and slow to repair and it really could not have been made foldable without more or less complete redesign.
- Those self sealing tanks which already have been mentioned.
- F4F was more rugged airframe and based on my experience that is the case in AH. Again, only my subjective view regarding the matter. If someone doubts it, you can test it.
- Twin wasp generally was more favored as the fighter engine over the Cyclone in the US military circles.
-
It would have 100hp power at sea level
Probably, you meant 1000hp.
I have since done a little research. Due to modifications ordered by both the RAF and USN, the weight of those Brewster versions increased, reducing the maneuverability and climb rate considerably.
The Finns were resourceful and made some modifications to the engine that improved oil flow, among other things.
Though they added some pilot armor, their version had tail hooks and life rafts removed etc, so their planes may have never increased in weight like the other versions.
The Finns also decided to make do with what they had, whereas the British simply shuttled the Brewster off to far flung theaters and the US foisted it onto the poor Marines, never really attempting to much address any of the shortcomings.
I have also learned that many of the export versions that ended up in CBI were shipped with second hand transport plane engines.
Other things to consider are that the Brewster was plagued by over heating problems that were exacerbated in hot tropical climates and not as big of an issue in the colder climates the B-239 operated in.
Also one must look at the respective opponents. The Finns never fought the fast, nimble Japanese fighters and I suspect a lot of their kills came against such aircraft as the I-15 and early I-16's.
Midway was the first engagement for the Marine fighter pilots, so yes, they were inexperienced.
Basically we have all the ingredients for a perfect bbs shiitestorm, meaning that everyone is correct to some degree.
I don't know if all the above considerations can account for how well the B-239 performs in AH against the Japanese Zero.
I have held my own against Zeros in the Brewster, and I frankly suck as a pilot.
I find it hard to believe that even the Finnish version would turn so well with the Zeke, but I don't believe it is over modeled to the degree that some here think.
Regardless of the reason, the B-239 will never be accepted as a reasonable sub for either the F2A3 or the B-339, and we basically have an aircraft that fits only in a Continuation War scenario.
Therefore, I would like to see a version with a flight model based on a significantly heavier aircraft at least.
-
I find it hard to believe that even the Finnish version would turn so well with the Zeke, but I don't believe it is over modeled to the degree that some here think.
The A6M2 is a slightly better turner than the B-239, though that slight advantage can be over come depending on the pilots. To paraphrase Pappy Boyington about the F2A-1, "Not real fast, but the little son-of-a-squeak could turn and roll in a phone booth." The F2A-1 was well liked by the USN/USMC pilots that flew it because of its maneuverability.
ack-ack
-
Probably, you meant 1000hp.
I meant that 339D had 100hp more than B239. Sorry about that.
Other things to consider are that the Brewster was plagued by over heating problems that were exacerbated in hot tropical climates and not as big of an issue in the colder climates the B-239 operated in.
Yep, but this won't come into play in AH in any way.
Basically we have all the ingredients for a perfect bbs shiitestorm, meaning that everyone is correct to some degree.
If everyone would just look at the technical properties that matter in AH when comparing aircraft, a lot of the arguments that are caused from taking anecdotes as gospel wouldn't happen.
I find it hard to believe that even the Finnish version would turn so well with the Zeke, but I don't believe it is over modeled to the degree that some here think.
Well I think this is a good example why people tend to jump into conclusions that can easily be the wrong ones. In this comparison there are still two pilots involved, usually unknown fuel amounts, etc. ...and in the end, if the 'wrong' plane seems to be performing better than the other how do you off ahdn know which one (or both?) is wrong?
A6M2 Zeke in AH weighs ~200lbs more at normal take off weight than the weight given in most sources (including Francillon). Also I'm a bit auspicious of the very nasty departure characteristics compared to many other fighters considering that Zero used airfoil that was basically derived from the NACA airfoils that most WWII fighters used. And when talking about the history/anecdotes, when in the air and with planes working Brits didn't really do all that bad against the Japanese. In the end they were simply fighting an overwhelming odds at the time.
That said, I truly wouldn't mind a 339D for example. I'd really would like to be able to compare the two Brewsters in AH very much. My hunch just tells me that there's a slim change for that to happen. If they were planning multiple variants they most likely wouldn't have accepted skins from other services than Finnish Air Force for the B239.
Who knows, hopefully I'm wrong.
-
I think much does boil down to experience and tactics.
Not being a particularly skilled virtual pilot I really can't address the over modeling contentions. I don't have a problem with the B-239 here, but being that the Battle of Midway, while only one battle, was a very significant one in the Pacific, I'd like to be able to have both of the American fighters that were involved and whether right or wrong, few accept our Brewster to be even close to what the Marines flew there.
I don't expect that many would find it acceptable in an early Burma scenario against KI27 and Ki43 subs either.
The record that all Brewster versions of any nation had against the Japanese in RL is rather dismal, and it's difficult for many to believe that the plane itself was adequate and only failed due to bad piloting.
"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 record that all Brewster versions of any nation had against the Japanese in RL is rather dismal, and it's difficult for many to believe that the plane itself was adequate and only failed due to bad piloting.
Initially, the RAF/Commonwealth forces did okay with the Brewster when the main opponent was the Ki-27 and the Brewster was able to get into a good intercept altitude and position but as Wmaker pointed out, increasing numbers of Japanese planes and newer ones like the Ki-43 making their appearance overwhelmed the RAF/Commonwealth Brewster pilots. Taking into account other facts like poor training, inexperience in both pilots and ground crew and the myriad of issues with the B-339E itself, just adds more reasons why the Brewster didn't have a "winning" record.
The Dutch had a better time in the Brewster, though not by much. Because the Dutch flew the B-339Cs and B-339Ds which were lighter than the B-339Es flown by the RAF/Commonwealth forces, it had a better record against the Ki-43 and A6M2 than the B-339E did. Like with the RAF/Commonwealth forces, attrition played a major role with a large number of the Dutch Brewsters being destroyed on the ground. The Dutch also used the Brewsters as ground attack planes, which accounts for some of the 30 lost due to being shot down and several accidents due to either mechanical malfunction or pilot inexperience.
ack-ack
-
Black eye in first battle, fighting aircraft that were superior in almost all ways, with pilots who all had more combat time. Landing gear that couldn't function to needed continued carrier operations, no folding wing's to store more. "and no drop tanks? cant remember if early versions of f4f's had Dt's"
It is not hard to see why the navy went with the f4f, to me the folding wings for space alone would be a reason, but if your aircraft cant land with a decent amount of success then how long would it be before the carrier would have to return to port or await more fighers to fly out to replenish those lost simply in carrier landings alone.
Still i would like to see this A/C someday, just like any other. :rock