Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Coalcat1 on June 12, 2014, 06:34:29 AM
-
I have never understood why we have the Finnish brew in the first place. I know in reality there is no way it can climb like it does in game, turn like a KI43, roll like a 190, keep in control at 600+mph, do a 180 and hold all of its E, and take damage like a jug. Therefore my wish is that it is replaced with an accurately modeled, like most AC in game, F2A. But at this point, I wouldn't mind if the B239 was nerfed to the point of being able to accurately represent the F2A, because they are pretty much the same AC.
:salute Coalcat1
P.S there was no particular reson I'm posting this, just been seeing a lot of brews in the MA doing things that are very unrealistic allowed only by our F22 superbrew.
-
Brewsterophobia?
They dont kill you unless you really wanna be killed. End of the story.
-
I have never understood why we have the Finnish brew in the first place. I know in reality there is no way it can climb like it does in game, turn like a KI43, roll like a 190, keep in control at 600+mph, do a 180 and hold all of its E, and take damage like a jug.
Could you please either stop posting these nonsensical claims about the Brewster, or put up with some actual data showing that it is indeed overmodeled the way it is. Not at least to determine what "accurately modeled" really means. How about a film of you doing a 180 in a brewster and holding all your E? :)
-
I know in reality there is no way...
Hear that, everyone? Coalcat knows. Who needs specific documentation indicating what's wrong with the flight model. Coalcat KNOWS.
I have never understood why we have the Finnish brew in the first place.
Probably because it was the only model that was actually significant to the war. The F2A-3 and British B-339s were underpowered and overweight, and were also overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The Dutch 339s were actually much closer in performance to the 239, but had little impact because they were overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
....turn like a KI43...
At least if you want to believe Wikipedia: "After the first few engagements, the Dutch halved the fuel and ammo load in the wing, which allowed their Buffaloes (and their Hurricanes) to stay with the Oscars in turns." Considering the B-239 was even lighter than the Dutch 339s...
-
Though I do think the Brewster we have in AH is not representative of what most of us think we have based on early war experience, I'll hesitate to say that the B239 in is that far out of line in terms of the flight model. If AH could add in an early war variant, ya know the heavier and less powerful version, then maybe the more truer colors of what we read about will be shown in practice in AH. But then again, which aircraft actually lives up to its label be it cursed or blessed in AH as it was in the real deal? Few, if any.
It is difficult for many to accept what it can do in AH thanks to the press/testimony it gets from the experience it had early in WWII against the Japanese. The Brewsters were handed their back sides by more experienced Japanese pilots, equal/superior aircraft, and better logistics and tactics. As we all know, the Finn's used them splendidly against the Red Horde though most of us know it was due to superior Finnish tactics vs an over confident and lazy Soviet air force than it was to the prowess of the B239. :aok
-
I have never understood why we have the Finnish brew in the first place. I know in reality there is no way it can climb like it does in game, turn like a KI43, roll like a 190, keep in control at 600+mph, do a 180 and hold all of its E, and take damage like a jug. Therefore my wish is that it is replaced with an accurately modeled, like most AC in game, F2A. But at this point, I wouldn't mind if the B239 was nerfed to the point of being able to accurately represent the F2A, because they are pretty much the same AC.
:salute Coalcat1
P.S there was no particular reson I'm posting this, just been seeing a lot of brews in the MA doing things that are very unrealistic allowed only by our F22 superbrew.
Feel free to produce documentation showing we have incorrectly modeled the Brewster.
Here is a pretty decent thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317636.0.html) which contains some of the differences between the F2A and the B239.
-
I don't compare the Finnish Brew to the F2A. I compare it to what is in the MA and how it performs relative to those aircraft. I feel the plane should and does turn sharp enough to hit itself in the butt. Where I always find myself scratching my head is its apparent ability to make those turns with little to no loss in energy. It pulls off turns that make a Spit16 pilot jealous. The HP to Weight ratio doesn't bear out how quickly it seems to accelerate after making those hard turns. Since we are all (I hope) in the same virtual enviornment, this leads me to believe something is wrong with the drag model of the aircraft. I haven't done any wind tunnel testing but, looking at the plane, I wouldn't think it is what you would call a "slick" bird. I feel the plane accerates very similar to a spit which has a MUCH better HP/weight ratio when it should accelerate much like a FM2.
I did a little digging and found some HP numbers off the Internet (I know) so pleas correct if I got them wrong. Then I went to the hangar and loaded the planes with 25-30 minutes of fuel (MA 2.0 burn) and came up with the following "combat" weights to try to keep things even. Now I know this doesn't take all kinds of other factors into account (drag, wing loading, prop efficiency and so on) but it's a good indicator of what a plane should be able to do. There's no replacement for sheer power.
Brew-950hp. 5401lbs. 5.68lbs per HP
FM2-1350hp. 7286lbs 5.39lbs per HP
Spitfire 16-2200hp 8574lbs 3.89lbs per HP
Based on my MA experience while flying various Jugs for probably close to a decade, I find it as difficult to pull away from a manuvering Brew as I do a Spit16. While pulling away from a manuvering FM2 seems to be no problem.
What does this prove? Nothing really. But it hasn't helped me stop scratching my head or cursing to myself when a Brew does a 90-180 degree turn and stays latched to my 6 for ten plus seconds before I can start to pull away.
There's something "fishy" about the Brew and there is a large part of the community that thinks so.
-
I don't compare the Finnish Brew to the F2A. I compare it to what is in the MA and how it performs relative to those aircraft. I feel the plane should and does turn sharp enough to hit itself in the butt. Where I always find myself scratching my head is its apparent ability to make those turns with little to no loss in energy. It pulls off turns that make a Spit16 pilot jealous. The HP to Weight ratio doesn't bear out how quickly it seems to accelerate after making those hard turns. Since we are all (I hope) in the same virtual enviornment, this leads me to believe something is wrong with the drag model of the aircraft. I haven't done any wind tunnel testing but, looking at the plane, I wouldn't think it is what you would call a "slick" bird. I feel the plane accerates very similar to a spit which has a MUCH better HP/weight ratio when it should accelerate much like a FM2.
I did a little digging and found some HP numbers off the Internet (I know) so pleas correct if I got them wrong. Then I went to the hangar and loaded the planes with 25-30 minutes of fuel (MA 2.0 burn) and came up with the following "combat" weights to try to keep things even. Now I know this doesn't take all kinds of other factors into account (drag, wing loading, prop efficiency and so on) but it's a good indicator of what a plane should be able to do. There's no replacement for sheer power.
Brew-950hp. 5401lbs. 5.68lbs per HP
FM2-1350hp. 7286lbs 5.39lbs per HP
Spitfire 16-2200hp 8574lbs 3.89lbs per HP
Based on my MA experience while flying various Jugs for probably close to a decade, I find it as difficult to pull away from a manuvering Brew as I do a Spit16. While pulling away from a manuvering FM2 seems to be no problem.
What does this prove? Nothing really. But it hasn't helped me stop scratching my head or cursing to myself when a Brew does a 90-180 degree turn and stays latched to my 6 for ten plus seconds before I can start to pull away.
There's something "fishy" about the Brew and there is a large part of the community that thinks so.
None of this conjecture is true. In one of these whine threads I get fed up enough to run tests and allowed the whiner to pick the other plane. I tested it against the Fw190D-9. The B239 did literally nothing special. It bled E like a stuck pig compared to the Fw190D-9, power on or power off. It has no magical climb abilities, it is slow as crap. It does have some strengths of course, but the whines about it are completely unhinged. It is no more of a threat than the FM2 ot A6M3.
-
Guys im pretty sure this thread is a troll. I just wanted to say that i read something the other day saying that the most kills credited to one airframe durring WWII was 40 something and it was a b-239. Go finnish ground crews!
The f2a3 brewster would perform dramaticaly worse than the b239 in AH. My figures are rough but the f2a3 brewster weighed about 25% more than the b239, and it had about 100hp less than the b239. 25% weight difference on the same airframe type is HUGE when it comes to perfomance. Just look at the performance gap between the spitV and the seafire in AH. The spitV has the 14th smallest sustained turn radius in game. The Seafire? 37th. And im pretty sure the weight difference between those two spits is nowhere near 25%.
-
I just checked something. On the ingame e6b the b239 25% fuel weighs 4900 lbs, the f4f 25% fuel weighs 7300 lbs :O
-
It is no more of a threat than the FM2 ot A6M3.
I believe it is a much bigger threat than either and I'm sure I'm not in a minority. You have your opinion. I have mine.
-
In the history of all the Brewster threads, no one has ever been able to produce any documentation suggesting the plane is not modeled correctly in Aces High.
-
See Rule #4
-
Just did a quick test to see if the b239 really accellerates like a spit16. On the deck 25% fuel not using wep.
Spit16 150 to 225mph indicated = 16.3 seconds
B239 150 to 225mph indicated = 21.3 seconds
For obvious reasons the F22 was not included in the test.
Five second difference and that was only to 225mph.
And that's not opinion.
-
Here's what I was talking about. Found it on the wikipedia.
After evaluation of claims against actual Soviet losses, aircraft BW-364 was found to have been used to achieve 42½ kills in total by all pilots operating it, possibly making it the highest-scoring fighter airframe in the history of air warfare
-
I believe it is a much bigger threat than either and I'm sure I'm not in a minority. You have your opinion. I have mine.
Yeah, but the stats support me. Your opinion may be your opinion, but it is also factually wrong.
Tour 172, LWA:
A6M3: Kills: 535 Deaths: 834 K/D: 0.64
B239: Kills: 988 Deaths: 1471 K/D: 0.67
FM2: Kills: 1479 Deaths: 1509 K/D: 0.98
-
LilMak, one only need to look at the comparison performance charts to see it is not possible for the Brewster to accelerate like a Spit 16. Those charts are generated from the flight model engine of the game and are absolutely representative for those models in the game. No opinions needed.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/planeperf.php?gtype=0&pw=2&p1=101&p2=86&submitButtonName=Generate+Chart
-
Not saying that Lilmak is right. Far from it. BUT...this is comparison of top speed, NOT acceleration of any kind, thus it doesn't have much bearing. One could use the same kind of chart to claim that the Spitfire XVI has no acceleration advantage over the P-51D, when in fact it out accelerates the heck out of the Mustang on the low end.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=86&p2=0&pw=2>ype=0)
LilMak, one only need to look at the comparison performance charts to see it is not possible for the Brewster to accelerate like a Spit 16. Those charts are generated from the flight model engine of the game and are absolutely representative for those models in the game. No opinions needed.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/planeperf.php?gtype=0&pw=2&p1=101&p2=86&submitButtonName=Generate+Chart
-
Not saying that Lilmak is right. Far from it. BUT...this is comparison of top speed, NOT acceleration of any kind, thus it doesn't have much bearing.
You have to click on "climb rate". Climb rate is a result of excess power, as is level acceleration... :old:
-
keep in control at 600+mph the only way i've ever gotten a brewster to get even close 600mph was to dive straight down,don't remember what the speed was when the wings ripped off.
-
I am with LilMak on this one. There must be an error in the drag. I don't think the error is definable by anyone testing it in the game. It could be the error comes in at speed since drag is proportional to the square of the velocity.
I don't think any of us have the parasitic drag coefficient in our back pocket and i don't think HTC does either for these early war planes.
These things did not have self-sealing gas tanks either.
-
I am with LilMak on this one. There must be an error in the drag. I don't think the error is definable by anyone testing it in the game. It could be the error comes in at speed since drag is proportional to the square of the velocity.
I don't think any of us have the parasitic drag coefficient in our back pocket and i don't think HTC does either for these early war planes.
These things did not have self-sealing gas tanks either.
Well thats pretty vague so Im going to assume that you agree with him when he says that the b239 accelerates like a spit. I find it difficult to understand why you agree with that when the test results I posted in this thread show that the b239 accelerates much worse than a spit16.
-
I don't think the error is definable by anyone testing it in the game. It could be the error comes in at speed since drag is proportional to the square of the velocity.
That would be quite testable. Just conduct high speed deceleration and e-retention tests.
-
That would be quite testable. Just conduct high speed deceleration and e-retention tests.
And compare them against what?
-
Just a question to others who may know more about Finland's roll in the air war in WWII. Why was Finland replacing the Brewster with the G model 109s as fast as they could. Was it a manufacturing problem in producing enough Brewsters or was it because the 109Gs was superior planes? :headscratch:
-
Yeah, but the stats support me. Your opinion may be your opinion, but it is also factually wrong.
Tour 172, LWA:
A6M3: Kills: 535 Deaths: 834 K/D: 0.64
B239: Kills: 988 Deaths: 1471 K/D: 0.67
FM2: Kills: 1479 Deaths: 1509 K/D: 0.98
Those numbers are about as comprehensive as using my thrust to weight calculations for the entire flight model.
-
Two things.
1) No one has ever presented any data to show the modeling is incorrect. Quite the opposite, actually.
2) I see a lot of wild claims, but have not seen any films to bolster said claims.
No point in anyone getting all worked up about this. It is all in the numbers. Just show some valid data.
-
Two things.
1) No one has ever presented any data to show the modeling is incorrect. Quite the opposite, actually.
2) I see a lot of wild claims, but have not seen any films to bolster said claims.
No point in anyone getting all worked up about this. It is all in the numbers. Just show some valid data.
And the Wiki says:
Fighting against the Brewster B-239
. . . If he is on your 6, all you have to do is fly away from him.
-
Just a question to others who may know more about Finland's roll in the air war in WWII. Why was Finland replacing the Brewster with the G model 109s as fast as they could. Was it a manufacturing problem in producing enough Brewsters or was it because the 109Gs was superior planes? :headscratch:
Yes the 109g is a superior fighter. The brewsters were only replaced when they wore out. They started the war with only 44 of them, by the end of the war there were only half a dozen of them still servicable, but the were in service until the end of the war. I don't think Finland manufactured any fighter airplanes, I think they were all imported. So they couldn't have replaced their brewsters with brewsters if they wanted to.
-
I don't think the error is definable by anyone testing it in the game.
So how did you notice it?
-
And the Wiki says:
Fighting against the Brewster B-239
. . . If he is on your 6, all you have to do is fly away from him.
That's good advice provided you're not in something that's actually slower than a b239.
-
And the Wiki says:
Fighting against the Brewster B-239
. . . If he is on your 6, all you have to do is fly away from him.
Easy, send me a film of a Brewster catching you from your six and I will be happy to post what is found.
Before you send it. Make sure the Brewster is not in a 1G dive. Make sure you are not trying to climb. Others things apply, but should be common sense.
-
Yes the 109g is a superior fighter. The brewsters were only replaced when they wore out. They started the war with only 44 of them, by the end of the war there were only half a dozen of them still servicable, but the were in service until the end of the war. I don't think Finland manufactured any fighter airplanes, I think they were all imported. So they couldn't have replaced their brewsters with brewsters if they wanted to.
Thanks :cheers:
-
Make sure the Brewster is not in a 1G dive.
The lowest drag is a 0g dive.
-
Could you please either stop posting these nonsensical claims about the Brewster, or put up with some actual data showing that it is indeed overmodeled the way it is. Not at least to determine what "accurately modeled" really means. How about a film of you doing a 180 in a brewster and holding all your E? :)
No but I have seen it and a squadie has a recording of it I believe... I'll check with them
-
What we need is to make a distinction between different AC and have the addition of the lower performance USMC Buffalo for inclusion in early pacific scenarios. That should end all the arguments.
-
keep in control at 600+mph the only way i've ever gotten a brewster to get even close 600mph was to dive straight down,don't remember what the speed was when the wings ripped off.
From my tests it's around 670mph, tell me that's realistic....
-
The lowest drag is a 0g dive.
Not sure what you are saying FLS? Drag is a function of velocity.
-
No but I have seen it and a squadie has a recording of it I believe... I'll check with them
A squadie having a film of what was happening to you is not going to be accurate. The film has to come from you, if it was happening to you. Has to do with updates from the server.
-
A squadie having a film of what was happening to you is not going to be accurate. The film has to come from you, if it was happening to you. Has to do with updates from the server.
It was him who was killed by the brew, was flying along side him, watched a stratospheric brew come down at 450 to 500mph, turn around and only lose about 50 to 75 mph...
-
Guys im pretty sure this thread is a troll.
If this was aimed at trolling, I would call out the pilots who fly them, but I did not, in order to get my point across.
-
It was him who was killed by the brew, was flying along side him, watched a stratospheric brew come down at 450 to 500mph, turn around and only lose about 50 to 75 mph...
Film?
-
Not sure what you are saying FLS? Drag is a function of velocity.
You are thinking of parasitic drag which is only part of the total drag. It's fun to speculate but it's easy to get confused when only thinking of part of a complex interaction.
Parasitic drag is the main part of drag at your highest speed. At lower speeds and while turning, in other words as AOA increases, the larger part of total drag is induced drag.
If there was a problem with parasitic drag then the top speed would be wrong. If induced drag is wrong how is the climb rate correct?
It was him who was killed by the brew, was flying along side him, watched a stratospheric brew come down at 450 to 500mph, turn around and only lose about 50 to 75 mph...
A huge altitude advantage converted to speed. It would be a problem if that didn't happen.
-
You are thinking of parasitic drag which is only part of the total drag. It's fun to speculate but it's easy to get confused when only thinking of part of a complex interaction.
Parasitic drag is the main part of drag at your highest speed. At lower speeds and while turning, in other words as AOA increases, the larger part of total drag is induced drag.
If there was a problem with parasitic drag then the top speed would be wrong. If induced drag is wrong how is the climb rate correct?
A huge altitude advantage converted to speed. It would be a problem if that didn't happen.
He lost almost NO E in the turn... Even spits have a problem doing that...
-
He lost almost NO E in the turn... Even spits have a problem doing that...
We are still waiting for the film. :aok
-
He lost almost NO E in the turn... Even spits have a problem doing that...
I believe you mean to say that he lost little speed in the descending turn. He traded E for E but lost a lot of E descending.
-
Coalcat's mad because my brew can slam his F4U :neener:
-
No, he lost almost no e, he dove contined for a bit, then did a full 180, and lost very little E, staying above 400
-
It's all still pointless arguing without the film...
-
No need for any drama. A film is all that is needed. Without that, there really is not much to be done or said.
A film contains the information we need to validate the flight model is doing what it was designed to do.
-
No, he lost almost no e, he dove contined for a bit, then did a full 180, and lost very little E, staying above 400
He dove with a huge E advantage, leveled out and turned and still had some E advantage. You see why film showing hard numbers would be more indicative of a problem?
-
Easy, send me a film of a Brewster catching you from your six and I will be happy to post what is found.
Before you send it. Make sure the Brewster is not in a 1G dive. Make sure you are not trying to climb. Others things apply, but should be common sense.
sorry Skuzz.....
but common sense....is just not quite so common anymore. :neener:
-
Someone could easily just film themselves doing a 180 degree reversal in the Brew at high speed. Then film some other plane doing that. Then look at the films to see if there is any major difference. If there is not, then there is nothing wrong with the Brew right? :bhead
-
sorry Skuzz.....
but common sense....is just not quite so common anymore. :neener:
It was my caveat to cover for my lack of being able to express all the possible variables which could encompass flight dynamics in any given situation as it transitions from one moment to the next. :)
-
This thread almost makes me want to fly that God awful B-239. :devil
-
Ive learned that the only Brewster's you should hate are the ones you find in Cesspool lake(DA).
-
Well, the Finnish Air Force clearly showed that the Brewster was good enough to be a lethal weapon in the hands of an experienced pilot. yes they met a lot of older aircrafts but have in mind that they still where up to the same enemy as the 109:s. And obiviosly where later soviet planes like the beloved La-7 not so superior to the Brewster that they could eleminate the difference in pilot skill btw the La- and the Brewster pilot.
In the hands of a good pilot and against an unwary or foolish opponent the Brew can be deadly. I for example got my only 262 kill in a Brew, a guy that was stupid enough to try a head-to-head with me and i won the lottery.
-
This thread almost makes me want to fly that God awful B-239. :devil
Me too! The green and brown camo one with the rhino head on the side.
-
Ok I will bite, I tried to find documentation on the Brewster last year to end this argument, of all the books and documents I could scrounge up, I could only find information on the F2A not the B-239. Biggest thing is the Finnish and Dutch do not have any information on it, let alone the US. As for the Finnish, their tactics of to engage when they want too and disengage was an advantage that makes the B-239 look godly with its kill ratio (kills well into 1944). Topic of "airframes" comes up, yes the B-239 shot down some La-5s even, again the tactics didn't change for the Finnish and Russians didn't learn.
I searched up and down and couldn't find the data, I have no opinion on the B-239 because I would assume HTC has data I can't find to support otherwise. I contacted quite a few places even put some money up buying documents in hope to end this futile argument, in the end I have nothing to show for it.
If you want to make a difference instead of whining, buy books like I did, and show the data you have, and let others compare and give opinions, if you are right - HTC would probably change it, however he put his money up and got the data, I see nothing here saying otherwise, nor films or any technical information.
Its mostly hearsay.
-
Ok I will bite, I tried to find documentation on the Brewster last year to end this argument, of all the books and documents I could scrounge up, I could only find information on the F2A not the B-239. Biggest thing is the Finnish and Dutch do not have any information on it, let alone the US. As for the Finnish, their tactics of to engage when they want too and disengage was an advantage that makes the B-239 look godly with its kill ratio (kills well into 1944). Topic of "airframes" comes up, yes the B-239 shot down some La-5s even, again the tactics didn't change for the Finnish and Russians didn't learn.
I searched up and down and couldn't find the data, I have no opinion on the B-239 because I would assume HTC has data I can't find to support otherwise. I contacted quite a few places even put some money up buying documents in hope to end this futile argument, in the end I have nothing to show for it.
If you want to make a difference instead of whining, buy books like I did, and show the data you have, and let others compare and give opinions, if you are right - HTC would probably change it, however he put his money up and got the data, I see nothing here saying otherwise, nor films or any technical information.
Its mostly hearsay.
Finnish flight test data has been posted to these forums by Finns. It matched what we have in AH.
I have tested it. What coalcat is claiming is flat out wrong based on his misjudging enemy E states and actions. It literally cannot do what he is claiming it does in AH.
-
The fact that there isnt much documented about the Brewsters operational history isnt a surprise given the fact that it wasnt US or RAF pilots hwo scored the kills. 99% of all flight documentaries are produced in US and UK and are almost only about events that involves these two countries. there is a lot of remarcable flight history that never becomes documentaries because they wherent accieved by US or UK pilots. How many have for ex heard about the "Biafra babies"?
-
The fact that there isnt much documented about the Brewsters operational history isnt a surprise given the fact that it wasnt US or RAF pilots hwo scored the kills. 99% of all flight documentaries are produced in US and UK and are almost only about events that involves these two countries. there is a lot of remarcable flight history that never becomes documentaries because they wherent accieved by US or UK pilots. How many have for ex heard about the "Biafra babies"?
Wait.. Jello Biafra?
-
Finnish flight test data has been posted to these forums by Finns. It matched what we have in AH.
I have tested it. What coalcat is claiming is flat out wrong based on his misjudging enemy E states and actions. It literally cannot do what he is claiming it does in AH.
Reminds me of the Marine air wing at midway, on the after action report stated zeros were doing 450 mph or faster, climbed without end, could stop on a dime and out turn everything. The only funny thing to come out of it was they all mentioned "zeros lite up on the first hits".
-
Wait.. Jello Biafra?
This is a Biafra Baby, their opponent was MiG-17.
(http://www.kevlange.se/MFI9_10.JPG)
-
SaaB MFI-17, they had Tunnans there too so they weren't against the MiG-17s alone.
-
Keep in mind the AH models are only as good as the inputs of the plane's characteristics that can be found.
If the brew is as good as it is in AH why did the Navy dump them so fast after loosing so many? If the brew is based on the Finland model, what did the Fin's takeout to reduce the weight from the Navy version?
-
Keep in mind the AH models are only as good as the inputs of the plane's characteristics that can be found.
If the brew is as good as it is in AH why did the Navy dump them so fast after loosing so many? If the brew is based on the Finland model, what did the Fin's takeout to reduce the weight from the Navy version?
44 of the F2A-1's (were they 1's? or 3's?) were delivered to Finland and given the designation B-239. The Navy removed the tail hook, life raft, catapult harness, and the telescopic sight. The engine was replaced with a 905HP Wright R-1820-G5 radial. Finland got the empty weight down to around 3900 pounds (correct me if I am in error Wmaker), from the original empty weight of approximately 4700 pounds (I think that is correct).
NOTE: The F2A-1 only had a 950HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-34 engine. The F2A-2 had a 1200HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-40 engine.
-
44 of the F2A-1's (were they 1's? or 3's?) were delivered to Finland and given the designation B-239. The Navy removed the tail hook, life raft, catapult harness, and the telescopic sight. The engine was replaced with a 905HP Wright R-1820-G5 radial. Finland got the empty weight down to around 3900 pounds (correct me if I am in error Wmaker), from the original empty weight of approximately 4700 pounds (I think that is correct).
NOTE: The F2A-1 only had a 950HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-34 engine. The F2A-2 had a 1200HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-40 engine.
and THAT is the model of Brewster most of us here in AH attach the lackluster label to. It would be very nice to have the heavier and less powerful F2A's to show the differences in the flight models. Shaving 800-1000 lbs off the wing load and increasing the power output by 25% on a plane that size is going to make a huge difference in certain flight attributes.
If the frame is already in AH, wouldn't modeling the flight be minimal if all that is needed to be done is model the weight and engine??? It isn't like starting from scratch. I don't know just what goes in to modeling the flight attributes, but if the chassis is already here then why not? Especially on a model as controversial as this??? Having the F2A for EW scenarios would be a very good thing because obviously the B239 isn't representative of the pig the Dutch, British, and USN flew in the PTO.
-
and THAT is the model of Brewster most of us here in AH attach the lackluster label to. It would be very nice to have the heavier and less powerful F2A's to show the differences in the flight models. Shaving 800-1000 lbs off the wing load and increasing the power output by 25% on a plane that size is going to make a huge difference in certain flight attributes.
If the frame is already in AH, wouldn't modeling the flight be minimal if all that is needed to be done is model the weight and engine??? It isn't like starting from scratch. I don't know just what goes in to modeling the flight attributes, but if the chassis is already here then why not? Especially on a model as controversial as this??? Having the F2A for EW scenarios would be a very good thing because obviously the B239 isn't representative of the pig the Dutch, British, and USN flew in the PTO.
Exactamundo!!! +1000
If we can have umpteen billion 109's, why not another version of the Brewster?
Please HTC, give us the dog Buffalo in addition to the Finn Brewster. No more whining about it being overmodeled and we can then run a proper Midway scenario.
-
Having the F2A for EW scenarios would be a very good thing because obviously the B239 isn't representative of the pig the British, and USN flew in the PTO.
Fixed.
To reiterate: The 339s used by the Dutch were NOT pigs. See the quote I posted earlier in the thread, but it just took halving the fuel and ammo load to get it to turn with the Ki-43.
-
My guess is that its pretty accurate. When it first came out I was always finding them on my 6 after a merge where I expected them to be too separated to be an immediate threat and I was paying attention to other cons. After that happened a few times I just adjusted my expectations...all happy now.
-
You guys have missed one key fact........my Brewster.....its powered my magic and can do all the the tings stated in this post. I can take off 100% fuel and make it to 20K in 1 min. I then arm my single AIM 9 and take out whole groups of bombers. I also have emergency RATOs just in case I need to get out of a fight in a hurry. Im sorry coalcat I should have told you sooner. :noid
-
SaaB MFI-17, they had Tunnans there too so they weren't against the MiG-17s alone.
This is a little off topic
Its a MFI-9, the little brother to the -17. And no, they did not have J-29:s. SwAF used Tunnan in Congo (Katanga) early -60, Biafra is a part of Nigeria and the war was btw 67-70.
But to go back to topic: Air war isnt won by the one with best number in the fact sheet. Aircrafts are part of a system of system and all has to work out well in order to win.
In the case of the Brewster so must it be the dream for the AH top ace wannabe. Be a top scorer in an F4U or something like that is one thing. But the day someone become the No 1 ace flying the Brewster i think he have earned the best pilot title. that would be an accivemenet.
-
I've been fooled by Brewsters when trying to judge their E more than any other plane. I don't know if it's modeled wrong or it just hides it's E fantastically well, but it does have a habit of making tight turns and staying with you in a zoom. :headscratch:
-
This is a little off topic
Its a MFI-9, the little brother to the -17. And no, they did not have J-29:s. SwAF used Tunnan in Congo (Katanga) early -60, Biafra is a part of Nigeria and the war was btw 67-70.
Sorry, I stand corrected.
I should always remember to post when sober...hard to do when one's a drunk. :D
-
44 of the F2A-1's (were they 1's? or 3's?) were delivered to Finland and given the designation B-239. The Navy removed the tail hook, life raft, catapult harness, and the telescopic sight. The engine was replaced with a 905HP Wright R-1820-G5 radial. Finland got the empty weight down to around 3900 pounds (correct me if I am in error Wmaker), from the original empty weight of approximately 4700 pounds (I think that is correct).
NOTE: The F2A-1 only had a 950HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-34 engine. The F2A-2 had a 1200HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-40 engine.
Basically yes. Just couple of things. G5-Cyclone had a maximum output of 1000hp. And it is a bit of myth that "Finns reduced weight" because technically Brewster corp. before delivery removed all Navy property from the F2A-1s before delivery to bring them to "B239 spec", not Finns (I know you said that Navy did it, just a general comment for rest of the readers). Finns actually added weight to B239 a bit by installing pilot armor and .50 cal in the place of the .30 cal. It was the "Americans" (Brewster Corp.) that added majority of the weight, rather than "Finns" that removed it, by developing F2A-1 into F2A-3. After all, the much heavier F2A-3 was basically on the drawing board when B239 were already being shipped to Finland.
-
Did more flight testing again in it, was able to get it to 597mph for almost a minuet before it lost its vert, thus, if I added more fuel, I would have gotten it up to 600+ and would have been able to keep it together for around 20 secs. or so. Also got around a constant 4k climb at less than 150mph...
-
Skuzzy and Wmaker thanks for answering my question.
As long as AH's weight and horsepower match Wmaker's numbers then there is not much more can be made of this since the drag coeficant would be unknown. It would be easy to get these numbers mixed up with the engine swap outs and the changes made.
Wmaker, the wiki states the Fin's were successful against the Russian fighters. What do you attribute this success against the Russian planes? Better training?
-
Did more flight testing again in it, was able to get it to 597mph for almost a minuet before it lost its vert, thus, if I added more fuel, I would have gotten it up to 600+ and would have been able to keep it together for around 20 secs. or so. Also got around a constant 4k climb at less than 150mph...
You filmed it of course, right?
-
450-400 power on
47.56: Fw190D-9
7.56: Brewster
400-350 power on
NA.NA: Fw190D-9
11.84: Brewster
350-300 power on
NA.NA: Fw190D-9
29.53: Brewster
450-400 power off
6.69: Fw190D-9
3.51: Brewster
400-350 power off
7.44: Fw190D-9
5.18: Brewster
350-300 power off
8.38: Fw190D-9
5.62: Brewster
300-250 power off
9.47: Fw190D-9
6.87: Brewster
250-200 power off
10.41: Fw190D-9
8.31: Brewster
200-150 power off
10.43: Fw190D-9
9.50: Brewster
Fw190D-9 retains energy much better than the Brewster.
-
My only real complaint about the brew is that it seem to be able to take quite a lot of damage. Not at the BS level of the Yak3, but still one of the sturdiest planes.
-
My only real complaint about the brew is that it seem to be able to take quite a lot of damage. Not at the BS level of the Yak3, but still one of the sturdiest planes.
I might add that Bozon has done extensive testing of the said discrepancy and he's filmed it all. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, Bozon.
-
450-400 power on
47.56: Fw190D-9
7.56: Brewster
400-350 power on
NA.NA: Fw190D-9
11.84: Brewster
350-300 power on
NA.NA: Fw190D-9
29.53: Brewster
450-400 power off
6.69: Fw190D-9
3.51: Brewster
400-350 power off
7.44: Fw190D-9
5.18: Brewster
350-300 power off
8.38: Fw190D-9
5.62: Brewster
300-250 power off
9.47: Fw190D-9
6.87: Brewster
250-200 power off
10.41: Fw190D-9
8.31: Brewster
200-150 power off
10.43: Fw190D-9
9.50: Brewster
Fw190D-9 retains energy much better than the Brewster.
You have proof that this is true in game, correct? If so, show the recording.
-
I might add that Bozon has done extensive testing of the said discrepancy and he's filmed it all. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, Bozon.
He is probably right, but it isn't an aspect of the Brewster, it is caused by the damage model favoring small aircraft. Since all aircraft have the same number of damage sections on things like wings and fuselages it is easier to drill through a single section on a P-38 than on a Yak-3 because your rounds are easier to concentrate on the P-38's inner wing than the Yak's. On the Yak you "waste" damage by hitting adjacent damage areas more often than you do on the larger planes. The B-29 has single damage areas that are larger than the entire Yak-3.
You have proof that this is true in game, correct? If so, show the recording.
:rofl
From all those years ago? No. Do your own tests and post them. You lied about the speeds you are getting and maintaining and are upset on being called out on it. I have no such worries because I know if anybody duplicates my tests they will get very similar results. I know this because I didn't fake my tests.
-
He is probably right, but it isn't an aspect of the Brewster, it is caused by the damage model favoring small aircraft. Since all aircraft have the same number of damage sections on things like wings and fuselages it is easier to drill through a single section on a P-38 than on a Yak-3 because your rounds are easier to concentrate on the P-38's inner wing than the Yak's. On the Yak you "waste" damage by hitting adjacent damage areas more often than you do on the larger planes. The B-29 has single damage areas that are larger than the entire Yak-3
Oh...I don't deny or admit a thing. All I'm saying that in these discussions in general everything should be thoroughly tested and/or verified with primary sources/data, regardless of the plane. Everything.
And, for the record, the best single improvement to AH IMO would be a totally new state of the art damage model for aircraft.
-
I did not lie, in a 20k dive on 25% fuel it will reach 597 mph for almost a minuet before it took any damage. With full fuel, it could get over 600 easly and sustain no damage, as I took the damage pulling out of the dive too hard. Now skuzzy, may I ask you to lock this thread, it has degraded too far at this point... The personal attacks and all...
-
I did not lie, in a 20k dive on 25% fuel it will reach 597 mph for almost a minuet before it took any damage. With full fuel, it could get over 600 easly and sustain no damage, as I took the damage pulling out of the dive too hard. Now skuzzy, may I ask you to lock this thread, it has degraded too far at this point... The personal attacks and all...
Why is it so hard to send a film?
-
Like I said, I didn't record that first of all, secondly, I can't since my computer has a problem with the internet, making it almost un-useable for said action. I am working on getting the film I mentioned a while ago
-
The personal attacks and all...
As long as you don't post single evidence about what you are saying (film?), you really don't have any leverage to squeal that you are being personally attacked.
-
Like I said, I am working on the film right now, just asked a squadie for the film to be posted
-
Like I said, I am working on the film right now, just asked a squadie for the film to be posted
Great!
Not turning blue here though....
-
Why not go off line and run some flight tests then film and post them or send them to AH. I did try the full fuel thing at 20k and did get the brew up to 592mph but could not recover from the dive and the Brewster came apart. I don't even fly these things but this posting about it got me to wondering.
-
The Brewster loses parts at 595 and is compressing and only responsive to trim.
Anyone have documents showing this is incorrect?
Coalcat's assertions are not supported by testing.
-
http://www.mediafire.com/download/wf39b283eg19tjx/brewtest.zip
here is a film to back that up.
never got above 3k climb rate, so dont know where that 4k rate coalcat claimed came from.......
The Brewster loses parts at 595 and is compressing and only responsive to trim.
Anyone have documents showing this is incorrect?
Coalcat's assertions are not supported by testing.
-
I might add that Bozon has done extensive testing of the said discrepancy and he's filmed it all. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, Bozon.
Not in the case of the Brew. It is not extreme enough and the brew is not common enough to make lazy me do it. In the case of the Yak3 I saved a few films and one that I even sent to HTC. It is probably true that the AH damage model gives some advantage to small planes that make the effectively tougher than the pure dry numbers.
A new damage modeling is the correct remedy, but that is a major work that will not yield a large influx of players, so I perfectly understand HTC putting it low on their todo list. A more practical approach is probably some modification to the hit-points of a section according to some function of its area. The amount of damage a section can take is anyway a very rough modeling decision that is not based on exact documentation, unlike top speed, climb rate, roll rate etc.
-
*Indiana, Let go....
*coalcat
-
thus, if I added more fuel, I would have gotten it up to 600+
No.
-
I would have gotten it up to 600+
I can get them up to 690. :aok
-
Going back to the original post, maybe 600 mph could be a rough estimate, as I tested the Brewster offline in a dive at 564 mph and besides the stress sound indicators it flew flawlessly.
I viewed the trail it left as I pulled out of the dive and zoomed skyward and started to roll over, and I could see how these flight characteristics seem to be excessive. The keyword for me is seem. Being in a fight against one or two of them and the "seem" becomes larger. But there are a number of things that I can not comprehend in game. The number one being the seeming ability of a co alt spitfire to 180 flat turn and remain on the 6 o'clock of a plane flying faster than a spitfire's level flight speed.
I do however know about E state. It just "seems" that some planes excessively maintain their E state through multiple maneuvers.
Overstating the actual properties and sighting that flight characteristics are inaccurate does muddy the water. Therefore, if there is anything for HTC to test in the case of the Brewster, I would not focus on the dive speed, but possibly look at other effects such as blackout Gs, compression/ aileron response, etc.
Coalcat, I am sorry you went out on that limb, but there are many of us who are sitting on that same limb waiting to see if it can bare the weight. Unfortunately, there are those that are rooting for you to go farther out ......
Post what future films that you can, and let go of speed aspect of your observation..... I would also, pay attention to trails from planes in film that might explain a great deal.
-
For what it is worth, I am suspicious of its high speed handling as well. I just have nothing to gainsay it as being inaccurate. Without supporting evidence that it is wrong I really can't justifiably object to it.
What I have yet to see any evidence of is things like coalcat's claim of holding 587mph for a full minute or other's claims of it doing 400mph, pulling a hard 180 degree turn and, still at 400mph, running their <insert fast, late war fighter> down.
-
yall dont fly it enough thats all there is to it.
-
For what it is worth, I am suspicious of its high speed handling as well. I just have nothing to gainsay it as being inaccurate. Without supporting evidence that it is wrong I really can't justifiably object to it.
What I have yet to see any evidence of is things like coalcat's claim of holding 587mph for a full minute or other's claims of it doing 400mph, pulling a hard 180 degree turn and, still at 400mph, running their <insert fast, late war fighter> down.
I never said it will hold 597 for a minuet in level flight, I said it was in a dive, now quit putting words in my mouth
-
I never said it will hold 597 for a minuet in level flight, I said it was in a dive, now quit putting words in my mouth
Ok. 597 for a minute in a dive is hard to believe as well due to how shallow the dive would need to be. If the dive were steep it would hit the ground before the minute was done.
It is possible that there are bugs with the aircraft. We have seen certain examples in the past (C-47s and A6M3s flying much faster than they ought to at very high altitudes, fixed by HTC when shown), but we need evidence to support that. I know that at speeds below 500mph that the Brewster decelerates much faster than the Fw190D-9, indicating that it has significantly higher drag. There may be a bug at higher speeds. Film is really needed.
-
First of all, like I said, I climbed to over 20k and timed it to be around 50 secs or so. My E6B said I reached a top speed of 597 and held that for a minuet and only ripped apart due to my error of pulling out of the dive to hard at 2k
-
At 600mph you travel ten miles in one minute. That is 52,800ft. To manage 50 seconds of 597 speed from between 20,000 and 30,000 you'd need a pretty shallow dive to accelerate to that speed and hold it for 50 seconds.
-
Ok. 597 for a minute in a dive is hard to believe as well due to how shallow the dive would need to be. If the dive were steep it would hit the ground before the minute was done.
It is possible that there are bugs with the aircraft. We have seen certain examples in the past (C-47s and A6M3s flying much faster than they ought to at very high altitudes, fixed by HTC when shown), but we need evidence to support that. I know that at speeds below 500mph that the Brewster decelerates much faster than the Fw190D-9, indicating that it has significantly higher drag. There may be a bug at higher speeds. Film is really needed.
Inertia. The brewster decelerates very fast compared to other planes for the same reason that it sucks in a ballistic climb compared to other planes. Because it's very light.
-
The interesting overall point of all of this is the perception, real or not of all the small airplanes performance in AH. My WAG is the small planes drag model is in error in the way they assign a value to the drag coefficient or its equivalent constant AH uses to simulate drag. Without wind tunnel test you have to do something.
My additional WAG is they use frontal area where data is not available to generate an equivalent drag coefficient. It is the assumption that frontal area drag assignment works on these older planes with less attention paid to skin friction that may be misguiding small plane modeling. In addition and maybe most proable is Cowling drag on radial engine planes may be much higher on these older models than anticipated . Again my WAG and I have zero information to support this.
Here is a good explanation of drag.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html (https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html)
-
yall dont fly it enough thats all there is to it.
Yep pretty much, if they flew it for awhile in the MA they'd realize the only things it does well is maneuvering, handling and going slow, catching on fire and getting the pilot wounded. Just like the plague of n1k2 whines twelve years ago. The whines of the n1k2 being a "ufo" were all from players witnessing somebody else in a n1k2 doing ufo things. I do wonder why it was the n1k2 and now the 239 that garner so much whining.
-
First of all, like I said, I climbed to over 20k and timed it to be around 50 secs or so. My E6B said I reached a top speed of 597 and held that for a minuet and only ripped apart due to my error of pulling out of the dive to hard at 2k
My film does NOT support that.......................Ai lerons shed well before that.
I fly the Brew quite a bit, I have NEVER been able to do the things people claim it can do.
NOT
-
Inertia. The brewster decelerates very fast compared to other planes for the same reason that it sucks in a ballistic climb compared to other planes. Because it's very light.
That isn't what coalcat and others claim. They claim it has magic E retention and such.
-
That isn't what coalcat and others claim. They claim it has magic E retention and such.
I've flown it a lot in MA, one of the things I noticed early on is that it handles well in a high speed dive, BUT you better make your shots count in the dive because as soon as you level out that bandit is going to rapidly shrink into a dot on the horizon. And like flying a zeke, don't chase anybody up a zoom climb unless you think you have a chance of shooting him before he get's out of gun range.
-
Did I say it was a vert dive? It was at about 20 degrees after getting up to full speed in level flight
-
y'all don't fly it enough that's all there is to it.
How about a new You Tube video from you on the Brewster. It is about time for a new film from you anyway I always find them very entertaining. :aok
-
Did I say it was a vert dive? It was at about 20 degrees after getting up to full speed in level flight
You won't hit 597mph in a 20 degree dive.
-
Skuzzy, I request that this thread be locked, it has gone too far.
-
Skuzzy, I request that this thread be locked, it has gone too far.
Why cry foul on the thread? First you make claims about the brew and now the thread,which is overmodeled,the thread or the brew?
You made claims without proof,then when asked for film you used some excuse as to why you cant supply the film. Others come along with proof of testing and you say"I didnt say that I said this".
The only way this thread has gone too far is in it's refute to your claims,I knew they were off base simply because you seem to be confussed about the differences in "E" and speed but thats another topic for another thread.
:salute
-
Why cry foul on the thread? First you make claims about the brew and now the thread,which is overmodeled,the thread or the brew?
You made claims without proof,then when asked for film you used some excuse as to why you cant supply the film. Others come along with proof of testing and you say"I didnt say that I said this".
The only way this thread has gone too far is in it's refute to your claims,I knew they were off base simply because you seem to be confussed about the differences in "E" and speed but thats another topic for another thread.
:salute
:aok :aok :aok :cheers:
-
Why cry foul on the thread? First you make claims about the brew and now the thread,which is overmodeled,the thread or the brew?
You made claims without proof,then when asked for film you used some excuse as to why you cant supply the film. Others come along with proof of testing and you say"I didnt say that I said this".
The only way this thread has gone too far is in it's refute to your claims,I knew they were off base simply because you seem to be confussed about the differences in "E" and speed but thats another topic for another thread.
:salute
Ok like I said, not much is about the brew anymore on this thread, that is why I am requesting that it be locked
-
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/30874/1184887-ibtl_2.gif)
-
Coalcat is not known for his brains in the squad but thats just the way we like him :uhoh :devil :ahand
-
Coalcat is not known for his common sense in the squad but thats just the way we like him :uhoh :devil :ahand
Quote fixed
-
I did these tests myself and all the Brewster was said to be able to do turned out negative. It did go to about 580 mph from a dive of 25,000 feet for about 10 seconds starting from 150mph.
I decided to begin pulling out about 3 seconds after hearing airframe stress and decided to do the E retainment test. Starting from 400mph I did a 180 degree turn (not sure how many G's, but there was plenty loss of peripheral vision) and ended up losing 50mph.
I do not have a film ATM, but I could easily do another test and post it later with details of how I carried it out, if you all want.
:salute
-
Feel free to produce documentation showing we have incorrectly modeled the Brewster.
Here is a pretty decent thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,317636.0.html) which contains some of the differences between the F2A and the B239.
If you don't like the challenges to your FMs, why not just show us where can we find data that shows you got it right?
-
[snip]do a 180 and hold all of its E
I think you killed some of your credibility with this phrase. It's a classic excuse people use when they don't understand the geometry of flying. Feel free to fight out your case for the Brewster nerf, that is not my concern. My only issue is this phrase and it's regular use to explain things people don't understand due to their lack of research into basic acms.
One does not simply 180 and hold all one's E into Mordor!
-
If you don't like the challenges to your FMs, why not just show us where can we find data that shows you got it right?
Before they've been shown any data that they've got it wrong?
-
I did these tests myself and all the Brewster was said to be able to do turned out negative. It did go to about 580 mph from a dive of 25,000 feet for about 10 seconds starting from 150mph.
I decided to begin pulling out about 3 seconds after hearing airframe stress and decided to do the E retainment test. Starting from 400mph I did a 180 degree turn (not sure how many G's, but there was plenty loss of peripheral vision) and ended up losing 50mph.
I do not have a film ATM, but I could easily do another test and post it later with details of how I carried it out, if you all want.
:salute
I tried too, I made it to about 560, but I had no real control over about 525ish, the plane came out of the dive with trim. 600+ with total control myth busted.
-
How about a new You Tube video from you on the Brewster. It is about time for a new film from you anyway I always find them very entertaining. :aok
thought about it today but I just love the ki43 so much but Ill get back in it and do some shows....then hop in the MA with it again.
-
Before they've been shown any data that they've got it wrong?
Why would that matter?
Obviously this has been a repetitive topic and several times htc has been here to defend the FM but without data to back it up that I'm aware.
They'd save themselves some time and effort by just telling us where to find the "correct" data.
It's not like Brew performance specs is classified info. Any other sim who wanted it would have it already. So what's the problem?
They don't have to argue this point again and we get to let it go whether we want to or not. win/win/lose
-
-snip-
And, for the record, the best single improvement to AH IMO would be a totally new state of the art damage model for aircraft.
Amen
-
Why would that matter?
Obviously this has been a repetitive topic and several times htc has been here to defend the FM but without data to back it up that I'm aware.
They'd save themselves some time and effort by just telling us where to find the "correct" data.
It's not like Brew performance specs is classified info. Any other sim who wanted it would have it already. So what's the problem?
They don't have to argue this point again and we get to let it go whether we want to or not. win/win/lose
A lot of work goes into building source data. Putting it out there in the open would be essentially doing their competition's work for them.
That said, there are only so many actual sources and we know many of them. In the case of the B239 it is Finnish sources and it matches everything wmaker has shown us that he has. Nobody has yet to produce anything that says otherwise. Putting out unsupported claims that something is off isn't how it works. You must provide the support. I've done it in the past and gotten changes implemented, you can do it too.
-
. . . In the case of the B239 it is Finnish sources and it matches everything wmaker has shown us that he has.
Was this information posted here or the internet somewhere? Can't seem to find performance data. Do you remember where you saw the information?
-
Somebody needs to make a barklay camo skin for the brewster.
http://hyperscale.com/2007/features/f2a1barclayjv_1.htm
-
thought about it today but I just love the ki43 so much but Ill get back in it and do some shows....then hop in the MA with it again.
:aok
-
And the Wiki says:
Fighting against the Brewster B-239
. . . If he is on your 6, all you have to do is fly away from him.
That's all you have to do. Go into a shallow dive and extend away.
ack-ack
-
That's all you have to do. Go into a shallow dive and extend away.
ack-ack
That works..... After the Brew hovers on your 6 for about 6-10 seconds at 600 yards.
Perhaps it is modeled correctly. I have no reason to doubt that except to measure it against what I know about every other plane I encounter in game. All I've done to compensate for its perceived (rightfully so or not) amazing performance is to fight against it with an extra margin of speed. I basically consider it a Spit16/8 that doesn't have the same top speed and that works for the most part.
-
My method for handling the brew is to terminate with extreme prejudice.
If some twit has the gall to up one, he's getting a burst of .50's in the cockpit.
-
Was this information posted here or the internet somewhere? Can't seem to find performance data. Do you remember where you saw the information?
wmaker has, over the years, posted a lot of it.
As I explained, HTC does not post their info for business reasons.
-
I really do think there is a problem with assumptions HTC made that does not linearly apply to the smaller, older, radial engine planes. The smaller and older the plane the bigger the error. Has to be in the assumptions associated with the drag coefficient since weight, engine specs I am sure have been checked many times.
Someone had posted HT used his small plane to compare the performance model but that thing is slick as pond scum when compared to planes like a brewster.
-
Well,
I have to cheese at my own observations :D Took the F4F thru the same 20k dive and stress sound pull out maneuver and it flew 30 miles faster before the stress sound engaged when I then reduced throttle and rpms, pulled on yoke and she swung skyward with barely a wink of an eyelash.
Maybe it is the pilot stuff trim, engine speed, amount of pressure on yoke??? Anyhow, Wildcat went to 598, but did shake, at that point I pulled up.
Going back to do some more extreme stuff with the Brew and see what occurs....... (writes letter for wife...just in case, it's in my upper jacket flap pocket).
{edited after second flight comparison}
I played chicken with the sea (not to be confused by Charlie), from 20k in Brewster this time 20 mph faster than before at 585 mph and observed the same shakey behavior as Wildcat, all else was the same except this time I did have significant blackout when pulling up.
I have to conclude that my assumption of the stress sound indicating redline performance for the plane seems to be distorted (not accurate in film viewer) therefore I do believe that the person (virtually) flying the plane and knowing its limitations does add to variations. However 15 mph more would most likely involve some good trim management, correct fuel load, altitude start and angle of decent (not saying impossible).
It is just that the most amazing things that I have perceived about the Brewster have been more in line with its handling.
-
The wildcat is a different story, the thing is built like a tank but it shouldn't do this.
-
I have no idea if the Brewster is modeled correctly or not. All I know is that it doesn't even seem close to an F2A-3 Buffalo, and I want something more appropriate for early war Pacific scenarios.
-
The wildcat is a different story, the thing is built like a tank but it shouldn't do this.
You can post your Wildcat documents along with the film that supports your Brewster assertions.
-
I did not lie, in a 20k dive on 25% fuel it will reach 597 mph for almost a minuet before it took any damage. With full fuel, it could get over 600 easly and sustain no damage, as I took the damage pulling out of the dive too hard. Now skuzzy, may I ask you to lock this thread, it has degraded too far at this point... The personal attacks and all...
How did you reach 20K on 25% fuel? I just tried it. At best climb, the Brewster has about 10 minutes of flight time with 25% fuel. You would have to average 2000FPM climb, which the Brewster cannot do once it reaches about 18,000 feet the climb rate drops like a rock.
I made nearly 19K feet before fuel was exhausted. Best true speed, in a vertical dive, reached 540MPH with the engine dead from no more fuel. I did not try to pull out of the dive.
If you are not using the default arena settings, then all of this is a moot point.
-
How did you reach 20K on 25% fuel? I just tried it. At best climb, the Brewster has about 10 minutes of flight time with 25% fuel. You would have to average 2000FPM climb, which the Brewster cannot do once it reaches about 18,000 feet the climb rate drops like a rock.
I made nearly 19K feet before fuel was exhausted. Best true speed, in a vertical dive, reached 540MPH with the engine dead from no more fuel. I did not try to pull out of the dive.
If you are not using the default arena settings, then all of this is a moot point.
I can't speak to coalcat, but when I am testing performance I set fuel burn as low as it will go so that weight is consistent through the tests. IIRC that is something like 0.01% or 0.001% fuel burn.
-
I can't speak to coalcat, but when I am testing performance I set fuel burn as low as it will go so that weight is consistent through the tests. IIRC that is something like 0.01% or 0.001% fuel burn.
This is pretty much standard when conducting performance tests.
-
My only complaint on the Brewster is that it can fight on like a Duracell rabbit, even when stitched full of 20mm's, when it should burn like a Zeke (also a small plane).
-
Well, taking it to 25,000 feet with 50% fuel did not yield much. In a steady state -1G dive, the best speed I could reach was about 370MPH true +/-2.
In a full vertical drop, the plane would trim itself before reaching 510MPH +/-5 and even if I rolled it over and tried to continue, the pilot would black out.
The only way I could get passed 525MPH was to shut off the engine and go vertical.
I'll test from 25,000 feet to see what speed can be attained with the engine shut off.
What I am trying to do is verify the plane can actually reach 600MPH. From there, we can dig into the documentation and structure of the plane.
-
How did you reach 20K on 25% fuel? I just tried it. At best climb, the Brewster has about 10 minutes of flight time with 25% fuel. You would have to average 2000FPM climb, which the Brewster cannot do once it reaches about 18,000 feet the climb rate drops like a rock.
I made nearly 19K feet before fuel was exhausted. Best true speed, in a vertical dive, reached 540MPH with the engine dead from no more fuel. I did not try to pull out of the dive.
If you are not using the default arena settings, then all of this is a moot point.
I was in the DA at the high alt bases, got a 15k start. I am now done posting on this thread.
-
I was in the DA at the high alt bases, got a 15k start. I am now done posting on this thread.
Thank you. Just trying to figure out how to get this plane to 600MPH, as I have not been able to get close to that yet.
What trim settings? Default? Combat trim off or on?
-
Skuzzy the TA terrain will let you airspawn at 20k or 30k and save some time. You will have less drag at 0g than at -1g.
-
Personally I haven't ever really tested Brewster's max. dive speed in AH because I probably can count the times I've been over 500 mph in the MA in it with two hands. Considering how light and draggy Brewster is, it is always simply a gigantic waste of E.
The primary reason why I haven't tested it is that we are then arriving to the regime of the flight envelope where it is practically impossible to get info on unless some kind of standard modelling practice would be introduced for all planes for example where flutter would start after going certain percent past VNE for all planes. Only recently I've noticed more planes having lower speeds where flutter occurs (Hurricanes got a new flight model with the new shape and are an example of this).
The point is one can't just single out a single plane no matter what it is as far as how well they hold up in dive IMO unless they are all reviewed.
That said, I don't think any sane person would take "standard issue" Brewster anywhere near 500 mph in real life. NACA tested F2A-3 was diven to rather high mach numbers but they specifically over balanced the ailerons to prevent flutter.
-
I have no idea if the Brewster is modeled correctly or not. All I know is that it doesn't even seem close to an F2A-3 Buffalo, and I want something more appropriate for early war Pacific scenarios.
The B-239's performance shouldn't be close to the F2A-3, the performance is much more closer to the F2A-1 (with less weight due to the removal of the naval gear).
ack-ack
-
Still no flim from the brewhiners. But we all knew there wouldn't be.
-
This is coming from the person who thought this wasa big troll attempt :rofl I told you all I do not have the film, but my squad CO does, and is unwilling to post it. As stated before, I am done posting on this thread, this being my last post here.
-
This is coming from the person who thought this wasa big troll attempt :rofl I told you all I do not have the film, but my squad CO does, and is unwilling to post it. As stated before, I am done posting on this thread, this being my last post here.
Why won't your squaddie post it or let you post it?
-
We don't need any films. What we need is as much of the Brew modeled in AH performance data as we can find.
Any test you do is only testing HTC design assumptions which may be dead on but without the Brew's original test data, we are all in a pile of apples and oranges.
-
If it is a constant occurrence in the MA of the miraculous things the Brew does. Why can't you get a few friends into the DA, all running film, and duplicate the miraculous Brew things? At some point BrewBannor will change to BrewHulk, and you will have it on film.
-
A lot of work goes into building source data. Putting it out there in the open would be essentially doing their competition's work for them.
That said, there are only so many actual sources and we know many of them. In the case of the B239 it is Finnish sources and it matches everything wmaker has shown us that he has. Nobody has yet to produce anything that says otherwise. Putting out unsupported claims that something is off isn't how it works. You must provide the support. I've done it in the past and gotten changes implemented, you can do it too.
I doubt hiding the source data is all that big of an inconvenience for the competition, assuming they were looking for it on the AH BBs in the first place.
Second, any competitor with a mind to creating accurate FM's is not going to trust the AH BBs.
And last, if any competitor cared so little as to trust a BB post when modeling their flight sim, it wouldn't matter if the data they stole from AH was the best you could find, their entire game and FM is going to be such a joke as to completely remove them from the "competition" category.
There is no valid reason to hide the data from us.
Judging solely from wikipedia, I don't get the impression the Fins did any extensive flight testing on those aircraft. They apparently did brief, rudimentary flight tests before quickly sending them off to squadrons.
I can believe that because it was not an excessively cautious time period and because the Buffalo was an established a/c and likely delivered with plenty of flight test data as purchased.
This suggest what data is available, may come from combat reports and experience which is not an ideal source by itself.
-
This suggest what data is available, may come from combat reports and experience which is not an ideal source by itself.
Your conclusion totally false.
It has been discussed before on this BBS and I've listed the documents that had the biggest amount of technical info regarding the plane and those docs were produced by Brewster Corp. and not produced by FiAF. Finnish Air Force ran performance tests (speed and climb) which confirmed that figures given by Brewster Corp. were accurate. Also, flight testing was done for Finnish delegation in the United States (three seperate airframes) to confirm the performance of the aircraft before the purchase.
It is pretty silly conclusion that anecdotal info could somehow be turned into a flight model...just as silly as the thought that most data of an aircraft that is produced in the United States would be authored by an entity in Finland.
-
There is no valid reason to hide the data from us.
There is no valid reason to produce source data that cost HTC time and money.
Speed and climb rate are available for every AH aircraft. That's their published data.
-
Dive to max speed followed by maximum Immelman and dive for max speed again in 2 planes, starting with the brew.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/vx2wzaje9mbld2y/2014Brew.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/download/vx2wzaje9mbld2y/2014Brew.ahf)
-
<snipt>
This suggest what data is available, may come from combat reports and experience which is not an ideal source by itself.
We (HTC) NEVER use anecdotal information to model anything. NEVER. This type of rumor is absolutely baseless and without any merit.
This is the type of posting which gets people banned from our board. It wastes our time and muddles any chance of having a decent discussion. It is useless, baseless, derogatory speculation.
Dive to max speed followed by maximum Immelman and dive for max speed again in 2 planes, starting with the brew.
http://www.mediafire.com/download/vx2wzaje9mbld2y/2014Brew.ahf (http://www.mediafire.com/download/vx2wzaje9mbld2y/2014Brew.ahf)
Does me no good. I need to ban mediafire links from our board. That site is notorious for delivering viruses, spyware, and malware. It also strips all the debugging data we have embedded in our films.
-
<Paddling>
Does me no good. I need to ban mediafire links from our board. That site is notorious for delivering viruses, spyware, and malware. It also strips all the debugging data we have embedded in our films.
What website do you recommend us to upload AHF's to then, instead of mediafire?
-
This is coming from the person who thought this wasa big troll attempt :rofl I told you all I do not have the film, but my squad CO does, and is unwilling to post it. As stated before, I am done posting on this thread, this being my last post here.
Well when you started this thread with this:
I have never understood why we have the Finnish brew in the first place. I know in reality there is no way it can climb like it does in game, turn like a KI43, roll like a 190, keep in control at 600+mph, do a 180 and hold all of its E, and take damage like a jug. Therefore my wish is that it is replaced with an accurately modeled, like most AC in game, F2A. But at this point, I wouldn't mind if the B239 was nerfed to the point of being able to accurately represent the F2A, because they are pretty much the same AC.
salute Coalcat1
P.S there was no particular reson I'm posting this, just been seeing a lot of brews in the MA doing things that are very unrealistic allowed only by our F22 superbrew.
I assumed that you weren't being serious.
-
It also strips all the debugging data we have embedded in our films.
How would they do that? After all this would mean they are changing the content of the ahf, which should be difficult to do without wreckign that file alltogether without any superior knowledge of your .ahf format :headscratch:
I checked one of my films uploaded there, it's exactly identical with the original, no alterations
-
How would they do that? After all this would mean they are changing the content of the ahf, which should be difficult to do without wreckign that file alltogether without any superior knowledge of your .ahf format :headscratch:
I checked one of my films uploaded there, it's exactly identical with the original, no alterations
You are right. Not every upload has been encoded to play on regular video players. That does not stop the virus/spyware/malware payloads form being delivered.
What website do you recommend us to upload AHF's to then, instead of mediafire?
I did not make any recommendation. They can be emailed to us in native format, or, if applicable, uploaded to our "Films and Screenshots" forum.
-
In any case, there were no surprises during my test. The Fm2 accelerates faster in a dive to the deck than the Brew, retains energy better through a hard Immelman, regains more speed via unloading in a dive back to the deck, and holds onto said excess speed longer than the Brew. The P-51D btw, absolutely blows both planes away in all these performance variables.
-
Thank you for taking the time to do the tests.
-
In any case, there were no surprises during my test. The Fm2 accelerates faster in a dive to the deck than the Brew, retains energy better through a hard Immelman, regains more speed via unloading in a dive back to the deck, and holds onto said excess speed longer than the Brew. The P-51D btw, absolutely blows both planes away in all these performance variables.
Again these test are not comparing alternate sources of test data. Apples and oranges.
-
Again these test are not comparing alternate sources of test data. Apples and oranges.
The point was seeing if the Brew could do anything other planes in AHII can't do. It seemingly cannot.
-
The point was seeing if the Brew could do anything other planes in AHII can't do. It seemingly cannot.
Seemingly?
But you're right, the subject was how the brewster performs versus other planes in the game, in addition to turning 180 without loosing speed. ie. turn like a ki43, roll like a 190, take as much damage as a p47, accelerate like a spit. Suffer no control degredation at speeds over 600mph.
-
Seemingly?
But you're right, the subject was how the brewster performs versus other planes in the game, in addition to turning 180 without loosing speed. ie. turn like a ki43, roll like a 190, take as much damage as a p47, accelerate like a spit. Suffer no control degredation at speeds over 600mph.
I assume you are being sarcastic, as I have not been able to validate any of those claims about the Brewster, at all.
I would welcome a film showing all that.
-
Again these test are not comparing alternate sources of test data. Apples and oranges.
The point is that the Brewster in the game is modeled correctly. If any one believes other wise all they have to do is post documents proving it.
If you believe it acts out of the ordinary... climbs like a rocket, turns like zero, and hits like a Tiffy, please post films showing this.
Other wise it's all hearsay and pretty much BS.
-
. . . If any one believes other wise all they have to do is post documents proving it. . . .
Exactly, what we need is real plane documentation, not more meaningless test and films in AH.
To challenge the model we must question the inputs and more importantly, the assumptions HTC made on this plane's model. The inputs from the real plane performance, weight and HP is most likely correct unless they have the wrong engine assigned to the plane they choose to model as an example.
-
Exactly, what we need is real plane documentation, not more meaningless test and films in AH.
The tests mentioned in this thread weren't meaningless at all.
Because they were not intended to prove that the B-239 is being modeled absolutely correctly to real life performance in any way.
They were conducted to see if the absurd claims about in game performance ("climbs like a 109K", "loses no E in a 180° turn", "goes X mph" and so on") had any substance to them.
-
Exactly, what we need is real plane documentation, not more meaningless test and films in AH.
To challenge the model we must question the inputs and more importantly, the assumptions HTC made on this plane's model. The inputs from the real plane performance, weight and HP is most likely correct unless they have the wrong engine assigned to the plane they choose to model as an example.
Remind me why we must question this? No one has posted a problem with the Brewster.
Have you considered questioning your own assumptions about the flight model? Remember leaving out induced drag?
-
I'm guessing every plane in the game can dive to the deck at ~500 mph, rev and unload, and temporarily have speed well in excess of the top level deck speed of just about any plane in the game. FM2 seems to do that better than the Brew, P-51D seems to do it better than either.
-
Exactly, what we need is real plane documentation, not more meaningless test and films in AH.
To challenge the model we must question the inputs and more importantly, the assumptions HTC made on this plane's model. The inputs from the real plane performance, weight and HP is most likely correct unless they have the wrong engine assigned to the plane they choose to model as an example.
You must produce the evidence of incorrect behavior and the documentation to support that claim. Saying "There might be something wrong, I don't know, but somebody ought to check into it." is "concern trolling" and is not a valid way of making inquiries.
Nobody has ever produced a film of the Brewster doing anything unexpected. There have been lots of claims, and a lot of lazy thinkers have latched on to those claims, but magically not one of these incidents have ever been filmed.
-
You must produce the evidence of incorrect behavior and the documentation to support that claim. Saying "There might be something wrong, I don't know, but somebody ought to check into it." is "concern trolling" and is not a valid way of making inquiries.
Exactly, and said trolling could be started about every plane in the game if the "troll" wants to. There's nothing in the way Brewster performs or weighs for example that would warrant it.
-
I always thought the issue was people comparing the Brewster B-239 with negative history of the model used in Midway and the one used by the RAF/CW in the CBI.
If we agree that there is a significant physical differences in these versions and we already have a modifiable model why can't we get another one modeled after the more sucky Brewsters and call it good?
-
I always thought the issue was people comparing the Brewster B-239 with negative history of the model used in Midway and the one used by the RAF/CW in the CBI.
If we agree that there is a significant physical differences in these versions and we already have a modifiable model why can't we get another one modeled after the more sucky Brewsters and call it good?
I would love to see the F2A-3 modeled. Its historical use doesn't really justify it, but the ongoing drama and fury about the B239 does justify it.
-
If we agree that there is a significant physical differences in these versions and we already have a modifiable model why can't we get another one modeled after the more sucky Brewsters and call it good?
I've said this before but...I doubt even that would end it, it could even add to the fire. Based on the comparison that I've done to the technical specs, for example light loaded F2A-3 isn't all that far off of a F4F-4 (power loading is actually better and wing loading is heavier but not by much) and will still have much better control harmony and roll rate for example. The reasons why Brewster was eventually canned are mostly elsewhere than in strict flight performance, which is the emphasis here.
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. 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 B239's were 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 similar 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.
-
For what it is worth, I am suspicious of its high speed handling as well. I just have nothing to gainsay it as being inaccurate. Without supporting evidence that it is wrong I really can't justifiably object to it.
You've been suspicious about this before and I've replied to you before: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674)
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.
Further 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.
*regarding all three controls
From Conclusions:
The controls of the Buffalo are definitive improvement on those of the Hurricane and Spitfire.
-
I assume you are being sarcastic, as I have not been able to validate any of those claims about the Brewster, at all.
I would welcome a film showing all that.
Not being sarcastic, he said seemingly cannot, where I would've said the brewster demonstratively cannot do any of those things claimed in the first post of this thread.
-
You've been suspicious about this before and I've replied to you before: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,329072.msg4311674.html#msg4311674)
Further 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.
*regarding all three controls
From Conclusions:
The controls of the Buffalo are definitive improvement on those of the Hurricane and Spitfire.
Yes, but as you noted, nobody took the Brewster to 500mph, let alone past it. The test data simply isn't there. Just seems unlikely that Brewster, with no prior experience in aircraft, would have lucked into a design less impacted by speed than the Spitfire, Fw190, Bf109, A6M, Ki-84, N1K, P-47, P-38 and so on and on.
-
You must produce the evidence of incorrect behavior and the documentation to support that claim. Saying " . . .
Exactly! AH films just are not the answer in this case and the best I can tell the performance data to pin down the drag coefficient doesn't exist.
HTC model's assumptions made to fill in missing information is the question.
Now we could toss in a bag of bucks and have modern day test ran on the old bird and put this thing to bed once and for all. There may be out there a historical research project that did test and older warbird of a different model that might could be used to test HTC's model assumptions.
I will say this again, I have zero proof the AH model is wrong but I know from past experience any assumption carries a risk of error. One should always try to eliminate assumptions conscionable or not.
-
For my last post on this thread, I will say I would be fine seeing the F2As the US used. Lower the B239s ENY to 10 or 15 and I'll be happy.
-
For my last post on this thread, I will say I would be fine seeing the F2As the US used. Lower the B239s ENY to 10 or 15 and I'll be happy.
Its usage and capability don't remotely justify an 10 of 15 ENY. By usage it ought to be about ENY 35.
-
By the way it's used, it's a hard kill, and shouldn't be so. Therefore it should have a higher ENY
-
By the way it's used, it's a hard kill,
And that's probably why it's actually one of the great victims of the MA, with a current yearly true A2A K/D of 0.76. That's rank 55 out of 71 fighter planes.
-
Yes, becouse when people see a brew, I rightfully gets ganged,picked and HOed all at once.
-
I would love to see the F2A-3 modeled. Its historical use doesn't really justify it, but the ongoing drama and fury about the B239 does justify it.
Having little interest in the MA and being more of a scenario guy, I think it is historically justified by 2 very iconic things and that is the battle of Midway and RAF/Commonwealth use alongside the Flying Tigers in Burma.
Take it for what it's worth because I want to see the A5M and KI27 added as well, LOL.
-
Having little interest in the MA and being more of a scenario guy, I think it is historically justified by 2 very iconic things and that is the battle of Midway and RAF/Commonwealth use alongside the Flying Tigers in Burma.
Take it for what it's worth because I want to see the A5M and KI27 added as well, LOL.
Ideally all WWII aircraft would be added. I didn't mean to imply that the F2A-3 didn't have a place in AH, just that it was lower priority than things like the Beaufighter, Wellington, Pe-2, Ki-44, Ki-45, J2M, P-51A, Bf109G-6/AS and Seafire Mk III.
-
By the way it's used, it's a hard kill, and shouldn't be so. Therefore it should have a higher ENY
the Brewster is only a hard kill if you're not very good.
ack-ack
-
the Brewster is only a hard kill if you're not very good.
ack-ack
Brews are like mushrooms. They grow in thick furbals where P-38s don't last long.
-
Brews are like mushrooms. They grow in thick furbals where P-38s don't last long.
Still doesn't the change the fact of my reply.
ack-ack
-
I've listed the documents that had the biggest amount of technical info regarding the plane and those docs were produced by Brewster Corp.
I haven't seen your documents so try not to make any assumptions as SOME people do.
Are you saying that the Brewster Corp produced flight test data on the B239? Before the Finns modified the a/c? Or after?
Finnish Air Force ran performance tests (speed and climb) which confirmed that figures given by Brewster Corp.
What figures? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the B239 was the result of modifications by the Finns and Brewster did not put out a version of this prior to the Finns purchase (or ever from my understanding.) So are you saying figures for the Buffalo matched the 239? Or they were extrapolated?
Also, flight testing was done for Finnish delegation in the United States (three seperate airframes) to confirm the performance of the aircraft before the purchase.
Three separate airframes? That doesn't sound like B239, and I'm guessing you would say so if one of them were a 239.
So here is a conclusion, everything you just said sounds like the data on the Brew is extrapolated from variants of the Buffalo and no extensive testing of a 239 was done. Which I have no problem with. I'm not sure if an accurate reproduction could be created that way, but then I haven't seen your data.
Mind posting the link to the posts?
It is pretty silly conclusion that anecdotal info could somehow be turned into a flight model...
I didn't state ANY conclusion. I especially didn't say that anecdotal info alone could be used. I related info that suggested a possibility.
I could care less if they used "anecdotal" info in their flight model as long as it is heavily balanced by some data. If enough pilots contradict data and say that an aircraft did poopdifrikkenloop in combat, then I say put it in there.
-
I haven't seen your documents so try not to make any assumptions as SOME people do.
Wmaker has been kind enough over the years to have posted all the data he's collected on the B-239. Just take some time to do a search of the forums and you'll find what he's posted.
Are you saying that the Brewster Corp produced flight test data on the B239? Before the Finns modified the a/c? Or after?
Brewster didn't sell the B-239 to the Finns without flight testing it first. Robert Winston conducted flight tests on the B-239 at the Brewster factory in Long Island, NY prior to the B-239s being shipped to the Finns. Brewster also had the flight data from the F2A-1.
What figures? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the B239 was the result of modifications by the Finns and Brewster did not put out a version of this prior to the Finns purchase (or ever from my understanding.) So are you saying figures for the Buffalo matched the 239? Or they were extrapolated?
The B-239 is the export version of the F2A-1 Buffalo. The USN at the time was replacing the F2A-1 Buffalo with the F2A-2, so the US agreed to sell Finland all of the USN's F2A-1s under the export name B-239. It also had all the naval equipment removed, as well as the self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor but the Finns added the armor back.
Three separate airframes? That doesn't sound like B239, and I'm guessing you would say so if one of them were a 239.
The Buffalo was produced in 3 regular production models and 5 export models.
Regular Production Models
F2A-1
F2A-2
F2A-3
Export Models
B-239 (F2A-1)
B-339 (F2A-2)
B-339C (F2A-2)
B-339D (F2A-2)
B-339E (F2A-2)
So here is a conclusion, everything you just said sounds like the data on the Brew is extrapolated from variants of the Buffalo and no extensive testing of a 239 was done. Which I have no problem with. I'm not sure if an accurate reproduction could be created that way, but then I haven't seen your data.
Your conclusion is based on incorrect data and derived without doing any research into the Brewster Buffalo.
ack-ack
-
Your conclusion is based on incorrect data and derived without doing any research into the Brewster Buffalo.
My conclusion was based on HIS comments. And thanks for repeating what I already admitted to.
Brewster didn't sell the B-239 to the Finns without flight testing it first. Robert Winston conducted flight tests on the B-239 at the Brewster factory in Long Island, NY prior to the B-239s being shipped to the Finns. Brewster also had the flight data from the F2A-1.
That's interesting, the "legend" I always heard suggested that the Finns bought Buffalos and molded them into a competitive fighting machine, but it was actually a product of Brewster in almost every respect except maybe an engine upgrade.
Just take some time to do a search of the forums and you'll find what he's posted.
You see the thing is, I don't really care all that much. I believe like some others believe, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't seem to abide by certain physics. And I trust my suspicions are confirmed when many others have the same suspicions.
And last but not least, I think it's perfect just the way it is. Don't ever change it.
-
We (HTC) NEVER use anecdotal information to model anything. NEVER. This type of rumor is absolutely baseless and without any merit.
This is the type of posting which gets people banned from our board. It wastes our time and muddles any chance of having a decent discussion. It is useless, baseless, derogatory speculation.
A. I NEVER said you did!!!!!!!!! The word is "suggests." It's not an accusation nor was it a condemnation in any way, shape or form!!!!!!!! It's ridiculous that you're offended by something that you SHOULD be giving slight consideration to, however minor.
B. I NEVER said "I heard"... or indicated in any way it was a rumor. Are you turning it into one?
C. Of the three adjectives you chose, one of them was right.... speculation. And it was nothing but respectful. It was not derogatory nor was it intended to be. Baseless and useless are yet to be seen.
You want to ban me, or threaten to ban me for a post like that because why????
You feel embarrassed or insulted for something trivial?
That's at least the second time you've threatened to ban me for making completely benign comments. So go ahead, perma-ban me from ah while your at it.
In the future you'd be wise to not mistake someones participation on these boards as an indication that they can't live without your product or contributing to your salary.
-
That's interesting, the "legend" I always heard suggested that the Finns bought Buffalos and molded them into a competitive fighting machine, but it was actually a product of Brewster in almost every respect except maybe an engine upgrade.
When the Finnish embassy in Washington D.C. received the green light from the Finnish government to purchase fighters from the US, the only Finnish stipulation that the plane be promptly available and compatible with 87 octane fuel. The Finns didn't choose a specific plane to order, the US presented the Buffalo as the plane meeting the requirements the Finns had stipulated and on what was available to sell to the Finns at the time.
You see the thing is, I don't really care all that much. I believe like some others believe, it doesn't feel right, it doesn't seem to abide by certain physics. And I trust my suspicions are confirmed when many others have the same suspicions.
If you didn't care, why did you post in the first place questioning what Wmaker said? If you had done any research, even a few minutes worth, you'd see that you are incorrect in your beliefs in the performance of the B-239 in real life and in game. It was already proven one of the claims of the Brewster's "incorrect modeling" was just a myth and the B-239, in-game, couldn't do what the OP claimed it could do.
ack-ack
-
A. I NEVER said you did!!!!!!!!! The word is "suggests." It's not an accusation nor was it a condemnation in any way, shape or form!!!!!!!! It's ridiculous that you're offended by something that you SHOULD be giving slight consideration to, however minor.
B. I NEVER said "I heard"... or indicated in any way it was a rumor. Are you turning it into one?
C. Of the three adjectives you chose, one of them was right.... speculation. And it was nothing but respectful. It was not derogatory nor was it intended to be. Baseless and useless are yet to be seen.
You want to ban me, or threaten to ban me for a post like that because why????
You feel embarrassed or insulted for something trivial?
That's at least the second time you've threatened to ban me for making completely benign comments. So go ahead, perma-ban me from ah while your at it.
In the future you'd be wise to not mistake someones participation on these boards as an indication that they can't live without your product or contributing to your salary.
So much irony.
-
A. I NEVER said you did!!!!!!!!! The word is "suggests." It's not an accusation nor was it a condemnation in any way, shape or form!!!!!!!! It's ridiculous that you're offended by something that you SHOULD be giving slight consideration to, however minor.
Who said I was offended? I was stating as strongly as possible we NEVER model based on anecdotal remarks.
B. I NEVER said "I heard"... or indicated in any way it was a rumor. Are you turning it into one?
Drawing a conclusion from, what you consider facts, starts rumors, whether you like it or not. That is exactly how rumors grow.
C. Of the three adjectives you chose, one of them was right.... speculation. And it was nothing but respectful. It was not derogatory nor was it intended to be. Baseless and useless are yet to be seen.
Your conclusion was based on incorrect information, making it both baseless and useless.
You want to ban me, or threaten to ban me for a post like that because why????
I did not say I want to ban you. I did not threaten you. I do not threaten. I do not have to. I simply stated a fact.
The bulk of people who think there is something wrong with the Brewster think it is an F2A-1, and not a B-239. They are very different planes. Until that is acknowledged and accepted, it is very difficult to have a discussion about the plane.
-
Who said I was offended? I was stating as strongly as possible we NEVER model based on anecdotal remarks...
...I did not say I want to ban you. I did not threaten you. I do not threaten. I do not have to. I simply stated a fact.
When you drew your howitzer, you pretty much let the cat out of the bag.
Drawing a conclusion from, what you consider facts, starts rumors, whether you like it or not. That is exactly how rumors grow.
Especially when you wig out after treating the data like it belongs to an F-22 instead of a forgettable, 75 year old, barelymissedbeingabi-plane .
Your conclusion was based on incorrect information, making it both baseless and useless.
Yea, moderate those things out of the boards why don't ya.
The bulk of people who think there is something wrong with the Brewster think it is an F2A-1.
I don't!
-
The bulk of people who think there is something wrong with the Brewster think it is an F2A-1, and not a B-239. They are very different planes. Until that is acknowledged and accepted, it is very difficult to have a discussion about the plane.
I'd guess F2A-3 actually as that is what was used by the Marines at Midway and thus the most familiar to Americans.
-
I'd guess F2A-3 actually as that is what was used by the Marines at Midway and thus the most familiar to Americans.
Yeah, it was the F2A-3 that was used at Midway. The B-339E was arguably even WORSE (IIRC, the British added even more weight). Boyington himself actually loved the F2A-1 and -2.
-
Yeah, it was the F2A-3 that was used at Midway. The B-339E was arguably even WORSE (IIRC, the British added even more weight). Boyington himself actually loved the F2A-1 and -2.
That's because he knew the Corsair was almost done and wanted people to love something else, lol.
-
Ok, an encounter I had with the Brewster came to me. I was in a Mossie VI flying in towards tank town when I saw a Brewster attacking a lower fighter up ahead. I continued to climb and was above him when I arrived, friendly was deceased. While I knew he had been BnZing I thought I had good E on him so I hit WEP (didn't have as much alt as I'd have liked on him) and dove, he saw me and dodged, which is what I expected. I am a fan of aggressive BnZ so I took it vertical with the intent of either roping him if he tried to follow me up or of just coming back down on him to hammer out more of his E. Well, he came up after me but he wasn't stalling out, he cut my corner and closed to about 600 yards, not enough to get me, but too close for me to come down on him and I was starting to stall out. Bah, misjudged his E.
I knew my Mossie out climbed him by about 500fpm so I converted to a wide spiral climb, but as slow as I was from the zoom I couldn't get my climb advantage out of the old girl (Mossies don't like low speeds) and I couldn't level out to gain speed without offering him a rather large target that he had now closed to within 400 yards of. He blew some E to try for a guns solution and lost ground for it, but I could tell my spiral was not going to pull this out. At this point we were probably at about 8,000ft, so I decided to disengage. I dropped my port wing and put my nose down, below and ahead of me I saw a formation of enemy B-24s at perhaps 4,000ft, interestingly from the third country. As I dove I looked back to see what the Brewster was doing and he was, as expected, gamely diving after me. He'd held with me through the zoom climb and the spiral climb, so he could hold with me in a dive, right? Well, my sleek airframe and 3250hp had other ideas. It wasn't even a contest as I opened distance rapidly, almost as though he were standing still. Looking ahead I altered my dive to an intercept on the B-24s and blew two of them away as I leveled off through their formation. Looking back the Brewster was far, far behind and dropping away. He turned and dove for ack or home shortly after that.
-
This little anecdote is a good segue into a thought I was having on the matter. While any actual flight testing whatsoever :bhead will reveal there is nothing the Brew does that many other planes cannot do, the extent to which lightly wing-loaded but underpowered planes can hang on the prop and menace more powerful planes zooming in the vertical AFTER pulling G in evasive maneuvers has always been an eyebrow-raising aspect of this game. The SpitV or any Zero can do this much better than the Brew of course, but I guess people don't think of them as dogs like they do the Brew.
Ok, an encounter I had with the Brewster came to me. I was in a Mossie VI flying in towards tank town when I saw a Brewster attacking a lower fighter up ahead. I continued to climb and was above him when I arrived, friendly was deceased. While I knew he had been BnZing I thought I had good E on him so I hit WEP (didn't have as much alt as I'd have liked on him) and dove, he saw me and dodged, which is what I expected. I am a fan of aggressive BnZ so I took it vertical with the intent of either roping him if he tried to follow me up or of just coming back down on him to hammer out more of his E. Well, he came up after me but he wasn't stalling out, he cut my corner and closed to about 600 yards, not enough to get me, but too close for me to come down on him and I was starting to stall out. Bah, misjudged his E.
I knew my Mossie out climbed him by about 500fpm so I converted to a wide spiral climb, but as slow as I was from the zoom I couldn't get my climb advantage out of the old girl (Mossies don't like low speeds) and I couldn't level out to gain speed without offering him a rather large target that he had now closed to within 400 yards of. He blew some E to try for a guns solution and lost ground for it, but I could tell my spiral was not going to pull this out. At this point we were probably at about 8,000ft, so I decided to disengage. I dropped my port wing and put my nose down, below and ahead of me I saw a formation of enemy B-24s at perhaps 4,000ft, interestingly from the third country. As I dove I looked back to see what the Brewster was doing and he was, as expected, gamely diving after me. He'd held with me through the zoom climb and the spiral climb, so he could hold with me in a dive, right? Well, my sleek airframe and 3250hp had other ideas. It wasn't even a contest as I opened distance rapidly, almost as though he were standing still. Looking ahead I altered my dive to an intercept on the B-24s and blew two of them away as I leveled off through their formation. Looking back the Brewster was far, far behind and dropping away. He turned and dove for ack or home shortly after that.
-
This little anecdote is a good segue into a thought I was having on the matter. While any actual flight testing whatsoever :bhead will reveal there is nothing the Brew does that many other planes cannot do, the extent to which lightly wing-loaded but underpowered planes can hang on the prop and menace more powerful planes zooming in the vertical AFTER pulling G in evasive maneuvers has always been an eyebrow-raising aspect of this game. The SpitV or any Zero can do this much better than the Brew of course, but I guess people don't think of them as dogs like they do the Brew
I beat Redbull's K4 using the Ki-43. You just have to be smart about timing, and hoard E like your life depends on it.
-
I beat Redbull's K4 using the Ki-43. You just have to be smart about timing, and hoard E like your life depends on it.
'cause it kinda does.
-
The SpitV can do this much better than the Brew of course
If the Brew driver manages his E through the first two turns, this statement is as incorrect as you can possibly get. The Brew will outturn, outhang, and out dive the Spit V completely. JUGgler and I ran the Brew vs all zekes, vs Spit V and Spit XVI and the Brew crushed them all from 10K down to the deck. He and I switched planes and even though JUGgler is a much better toon pilot than I am, I beat him repeatedly in the Brew except in the zekes
-
'cause it kinda does.
What does what?
-
The Brew works pretty well in low-alt, low-e fights around bases with a lot of fighters in the air. Under those circumstances u could catch figthers in a low E position and use the Brews turn capabillity to score. However you have to take the chanses that u get, its hard to manouver your plane to a good attack position so you often have to wait untill someone gets close enough. Ok, i suck as a fighter pilot but a Lw figther can do pretty much as it want against a Brew. Even if u can dive down on him u have 2-3 sec to shoot before he zooms away.
With good SA and if u use the turning capability to evade attackers u can stay alive for some time even against LW-fighters but the Brew pilot isnt exactly dictating the terms of the fight.
The only situation were the Brew have an actual advantage over LW-fighters like the p-51 is when the pony-pilot start to turn like a maniac. At that point the Brew is glued to his six and it easily stays there (until the pony stops turning of course)
-
What does what?
Your virtual life does depend on it.
-
The Brew works pretty well in low-alt, low-e fights around bases with a lot of fighters in the air. Under those circumstances u could catch figthers in a low E position and use the Brews turn capabillity to score. However you have to take the chanses that u get, its hard to manouver your plane to a good attack position so you often have to wait untill someone gets close enough. Ok, i suck as a fighter pilot but a Lw figther can do pretty much as it want against a Brew. Even if u can dive down on him u have 2-3 sec to shoot before he zooms away.
With good SA and if u use the turning capability to evade attackers u can stay alive for some time even against LW-fighters but the Brew pilot isnt exactly dictating the terms of the fight.
The only situation were the Brew have an actual advantage over LW-fighters like the p-51 is when the pony-pilot start to turn like a maniac. At that point the Brew is glued to his six and it easily stays there (until the pony stops turning of course)
Ummm, no.
-
I was referring to the SpitV vrs faster late war plane, not duels between Brewsters and other early-war planes. It is my perception that the SpitV is harder get on top of and stay on top than the Brewster. And also the extent to which lighter-loaded planes of all sorts can pull G and then match zooms with faster planes who did a gentle pull up is just weird.
It the Brew can beat the SpitXVI in the vertical then there IS something wrong with it.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=86&p2=101&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
If the Brew driver manages his E through the first two turns, this statement is as incorrect as you can possibly get. The Brew will outturn, outhang, and out dive the Spit V completely. JUGgler and I ran the Brew vs all zekes, vs Spit V and Spit XVI and the Brew crushed them all from 10K down to the deck. He and I switched planes and even though JUGgler is a much better toon pilot than I am, I beat him repeatedly in the Brew except in the zekes
-
The Brew will outturn, outhang, and out dive the Spit V completely.
That's no surprise, the brew handles better than spits at low speeds and high speeds. The spit holds E better though so If the spit pilot keeps that in mind instead of getting into a stall fight he should be able to fight on his terms. I would find it odd if the brewster accelerates faster in a dive than a spit since the spit accelerates much faster in level flight than the brewster.
-
I would find it odd if the brewster accelerates faster in a dive than a spit since the spit accelerates much faster in level flight than the brewster.
This too.
-
Somebody must've had a Brewie put a hot foamy stream into their cornflakes. There is zero need to tangle with the yappy dogs. If you're in proximity, carry some e. if not, no worries. The good thing about flying them: the fight comes to you
Anyway, I say that as a cartoon pilot with mediocre skills compared to the full range available here. My testimony: any fear that those things are somehow uber is a bit silly. That said, in a Finland FSO frame a few years back, a guy named BicWill and I had some real fun in the b239. Eventually, a Yak got me, but not before I'd gotten a kill and shot up a Yak and some of his ack. We were the only reps from our squad that night and fought through two sorties.
It's a hardy little thing, but hardly uber.
This whole thing looks silly and trollish. I won't back seat moderate but I think this kind of silliness deserves a bit of the wooden shampoo.
Harumph.
-
Are you saying that the Brewster Corp produced flight test data on the B239? Before the Finns modified the a/c? Or after?
What figures? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the B239 was the result of modifications by the Finns and Brewster did not put out a version of this prior to the Finns purchase (or ever from my understanding.) So are you saying figures for the Buffalo matched the 239? Or they were extrapolated?
Like I've said before, the myth that Finns somehow completely souped up the aircraft and did some massive modifications (I've heard this on this BBS many times) is exactly that a myth. Finns added pilot armor (around 70 lbs), later added .50 cal in place of the .30, replaced the carrier type tail wheel with a larger one and other smaller modifications that increased reliability. Weight of the armor and the .50 cal are accounted for in the weight of the AH Brewster.
For example speed at the continuous power setting was 1 km/h faster than what Brewster Corp. had promised. The point that I'm making is that this truly delighted Finns as G.50 and MS.406 for example fell short of what the manufacturer had promised. Brewster matched the manufacturer's data on three separate occasions: manufacturers own testing, the test flight arranged by Finns in the States and in test flights in Finland...and that data matches AH.
Three separate airframes? That doesn't sound like B239, and I'm guessing you would say so if one of them were a 239.
So here is a conclusion, everything you just said sounds like the data on the Brew is extrapolated from variants of the Buffalo and no extensive testing of a 239 was done. Which I have no problem with. I'm not sure if an accurate reproduction could be created that way, but then I haven't seen your data.
Three B239 airframes were tested in the United States out of the order of 44 B239s that were delivered to Finland. Clear enough now?
I didn't state ANY conclusion. I especially didn't say that anecdotal info alone could be used. I related info that suggested a possibility.
I could care less if they used "anecdotal" info in their flight model as long as it is heavily balanced by some data. If enough pilots contradict data and say that an aircraft did poopdifrikkenloop in combat, then I say put it in there.
Some understanding of physics and how they are applied in engineering sciences helps. You can't turn subjective combat reports into factual numbers that can be used in physics modelling, period. So even mentioning them in this context is silliness to the n'th degree.
---------------------
For those who like to read on how the Brewster arrived to Norway in crates, were assembled and test flown in Sweden and then flown to Finland, here's an excellent article: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/BWtoFAF1.htm (http://www.sci.fi/~fta/BWtoFAF1.htm)
-
If the Brew driver manages his E through the first two turns, this statement is as incorrect as you can possibly get. The Brew will outturn, outhang, and out dive the Spit V completely. JUGgler and I ran the Brew vs all zekes, vs Spit V and Spit XVI and the Brew crushed them all from 10K down to the deck. He and I switched planes and even though JUGgler is a much better toon pilot than I am, I beat him repeatedly in the Brew except in the zekes
This is all true except the "better toon pilot" part...
I always thought the Brew to be the easiest plane in the game. It creates mediocrity from ineptness, excellence from mediocrity and superb excellence from excellence. Then you just stop using it cause it is just too easy to use. I have no idea how things are now but when I was playing every "good" player tried it and in short order stopped using it cause it is virtually no challenge to use. Maker uses it cause he has legitimate Finnish interest in it but other than him I knew of no "good player" that would use it "regularly" due to it lacking any real challenge to be successful in.
The Brewster is a BEAST, and the easiest ride in the game.
IMHO
JUGgler
-
This is all true except the "better toon pilot" part...
I always thought the Brew to be the easiest plane in the game. It creates mediocrity from ineptness, excellence from mediocrity and superb excellence from excellence. Then you just stop using it cause it is just too easy to use. I have no idea how things are now but when I was playing every "good" player tried it and in short order stopped using it cause it is virtually no challenge to use. Maker uses it cause he has legitimate Finnish interest in it but other than him I knew of no "good player" that would use it "regularly" due to it lacking any real challenge to be successful in.
The Brewster is a BEAST, and the easiest ride in the game.
IMHO
JUGgler
While it may be adept in many areas, I think that it is still a decently easy plane to kill. The only times I was ever killed by a brew, was when I flown foolishly, don't fight the brew's fight, make it fight yours.
-
I always thought the Brew to be the easiest plane in the game. It creates mediocrity from ineptness, excellence from mediocrity and superb excellence from excellence. Then you just stop using it cause it is just too easy to use. I have no idea how things are now but when I was playing every "good" player tried it and in short order stopped using it cause it is virtually no challenge to use.
This is quote worthy.
Over the years a few Brew pilots I've beaten 1v1 while flying an A6M3 have claimed I had an unfair advantage because its a superior plane in comparision to the Brew. :headscratch:
The A6M3 has cannons with good hitting power but crappy ballistics. A6M3 also has a small (~20mph) speed advantage and slightly more signiificant climb advantage below 5K. Pilot wounds happen frequently when to pilots, assuming the plane doesn't decide to do a "Johnny Storm" impression when hit (i.e. "Flame On!!") :uhoh
Brew dives better, appears to retain E slightly better in a turn, has far more accurate armament and is built like a tank.
Turn rate is about the same.
At best they are evenly matched. In my mind the A6M3's disadvantages more than offset it's advantages when matched against the Brew.
All that said, killing Brews in a 110G is much more fun. :aok :D
-
The stats don't really bear that. Last full tour the Brew had a k/d of .67. To put this in perspective, the Ki-43 last tour had a k/d of .73.
Okay, I know what you are going to say now, the Brew is a plane often flown by noobs on base defense. It gets mishandled and vulched a lot.
However, the same is true *in spades* for the SpitXVI, and it has a k/d of 1.21 last tour.
It is no doubt a tough little target 1v1, but the stats prove it just isn't that effective in the MA. And I've never seen a Brew doing anything distinctly different from what other planes do. Now, I have seen all kinds of planes LIKE the Brew-light wing loaded, underpowered turners-pull a lot of G while still being able to retain enough energy to menace late-war engine monsters with being run down long enough to be shot or caught in the vertical. This raises my eyebrows a bit, but it is a game-wide thing that occurs with multiple planes, not just the Brew.
This is all true except the "better toon pilot" part...
I always thought the Brew to be the easiest plane in the game.
The Brewster is a BEAST, and the easiest ride in the game.
IMHO
JUGgler
-
The Brewster is a BEAST, and the easiest ride in the game.
If there were any truth to that, it would be much more popular and effective.
-
If there were any truth to that, it would be much more popular and effective.
Well, I understand where he is coming from. A lot of pilots, Jug flyers especially, get their jollies relying on geometry and deceleration to pwn the relatively unskilled flying "uber" rides. But the Brewster is just too tiny, too tough, rolls too well, turns inside it's own length, and-this is probably important-UNLIKE the Spitfire, it is harder for a noob to get in throttle trouble because they simply don't have that much thrust available.
-
Yes, but as you noted, nobody took the Brewster to 500mph, let alone past it. The test data simply isn't there.
As said, I really haven't tested it extensively. All I can say is that "controls remain effective throughout the speed range" certainly matches to what we have in AH. If controls are effective from slow speed flight to 400 mph (as tested by the Brits) the control forces are not very likely to hit a wall just past it. And as I said I wouldn't have any problem with having Brewster's max. dive speed (where starts flutter rip parts off) re-evaluated if the re-evaluation would be done to just about every fighter in the game. I don't have the game available to me right now but based on the reading I've done, and my experiences with A6Ms and I-16 for example tell me that Brewster certainly isn't alone here.
The problem is that finding this type of data for all fighters in the game can be very hard or impossible. Punishing planes which the data can be found for and leaving others as they are is not a good solution. Personally I consider it nitpicking if one starts being "suspicions" on the control at higher speed if a test report says "controls remain effective throughout the speed range" which is slow flight --> 400mph.
Just seems unlikely that Brewster, with no prior experience in aircraft, would have lucked into a design less impacted by speed than the Spitfire, Fw190, Bf109, A6M, Ki-84, N1K, P-47, P-38 and so on and on.
It is hardly that simple. Willy Messerschmitt for example is known for designing structures which had little allowance for higher G-loadings than specified. So he designed the elevator so that it would require a lot of force to move it at high speeds in low altitudes so that pilots wouldn't rip the wings off. Gneral consensus is that way less control force would have been sufficient. Brewster had 9G limit which is a lot for a WWII fighter. And it is true that sometimes excellent control harmony which the Brewster had truly was "accidental". P-36 for example had a longitudinal stability that was considered ideal for a fighter plane and was achieved basically accidentally. Designing aircraft was a lot different then than what it is now, sheer performance was paramount and any pilot ergonomy or comfort was mostly an afterthought at best.
-
I am not sure what the Buzz is about the Brewster, I flew it quite a bit as I mostly take up anything over 20 eny. However I have never flown it for an entire tour - one of the reasons is the Brewster simply doesn't excel any which way. I learned to use the C.205's climb rate and 400mph speed to really scare the crap out of P51 pilots at 14k, even managed #1 in fighters flying it. I generally flew the P-38J and Ki-84. The Brewster however, had some problems; for one I tried to cap an airfield at 6k, problem was when my friendlies disappeared, I couldn't exactly run home - got caught and shot down by a N1k that chased me down.
Once I managed to get a P-47 to commit to a turn fight with me, I bled off to much E and he ended up getting around on me, it was my fault for not retaining my E but I had to dive somewhat to get some E going and ended up caught.
Frankly the Brewster Hype is a little off, in a decent hands it flies like a Hurricane IIC, only difference is the bazookas vs 50 cals. I know a number of good pilots that will give you a fight, but its not only the Brewster; its every OTHER plane as well.
I'm seriously thinking people are giving it "mystical" status for no reason, its just a "Brewster".
-
If there were any truth to that, it would be much more popular and effective.
Perhaps it would be better to say the Brew is a beast if you play it's game i.e. close in, low speed stall fights below 5K.
Personally I think it is fun to fight in its element ....when I'm in a zeke. ;)
-
I usually fly lower than 10K, and I absolutely hate Brewsters, because they usually come in above 10K.
Once they latch on at close range, there's almost no way to shake them.
-
I usually fly lower than 10K, and I absolutely hate Brewsters, because they usually come in above 10K.
Once they latch on at close range, there's almost no way to shake them.
Why? almost anything can out run them. Its not like were talking the Spitxteen here. The Brew has to go about 15k just to break 300 mph. I dont know why were even having this conversation.
-
Why? almost anything can out run them.
Bold statement but not entirely true. Only if you have a good running start can you out run them in time to prevent taking hits. The brew lives off catching planes slow in a furbal. The answer of course is don't get caught slow.
-
Bold statement but not entirely true. Only if you have a good running start can you out run them in time to prevent taking hits. The brew lives off catching planes slow in a furbal. The answer of course is don't get caught slow.
I've been burned enough in that situation that I now make sure I have an extra margin of speed before I engage a Brew. Rather than treat it like an FM2 or a Zeke. I treat it more like a spit and that helps. It's only weakness seems to be its level speed which is somewhere around 300.
-
That only helps if you are engaging. That isn't where the danger lies, and where all the myths about the superbrews come from.
It's when they are engaging you that things get annoying, and stupid, and questionable.
If I had my way, all brews would be modeled to remove all your perks and disco you when you cross 10K
-
I've been burned enough in that situation that I now make sure I have an extra margin of speed before I engage a Brew. Rather than treat it like an FM2 or a Zeke. I treat it more like a spit and that helps. It's only weakness seems to be its level speed which is somewhere around 300.
As tested in this very thread, the FM2 gains more speed in a dive and retains it better than does the Brewster. In my anecdote I specifically described diving away from a Brewster that had matched E with me and was in close proximity. I left it behind so fast it never even got a decent long range shot on me.
-
Bold statement but not entirely true. Only if you have a good running start can you out run them in time to prevent taking hits. The brew lives off catching planes slow in a furbal. The answer of course is don't get caught slow.
That statement applies to all planes. To me it's simple, if I encounter a plane that is more maneuverable I don't go lower than it's altitude and I don't go lower than it's speed. Whenever I end up with a spitV or brew or oscar or zeke or hurri on my near six I know that I'm about to get what I deserve
-
I left it behind so fast it never even got a decent long range shot on me.
Good for you. I can't do that in a plane that's 40-100mph faster than an Fm2.
-
Good for you. I can't do that in a plane that's 40-100mph faster than an Fm2.
Me neither.
-
Good for you. I can't do that in a plane that's 40-100mph faster than an Fm2.
I was in a Mossie, not an FM2. It was another poster, FLOOB I think, who did flight comparisons between the Brewster and FM2.
I will grant that the Mossie is quite possibly the fastest accelerating piston engined aircraft in the game when it comes to a dive, but it isn't that far ahead of things the the Fw190D-9 or P-47s, if it is ahead at all.
-
If there were any truth to that, it would be much more popular and effective.
I didn't say it was the best. I said "beast" and the "easiest". The fact that it is not used all that much has more to do with the fact it can't run away. For most folks in the MA, speed is everything. The brew is not fast unless it has some alt to trade for the speed. It holds E extremely well, turning with it is effortless and takes very little (if any) thought or planning.
JUGgler
-
I didn't say it was the best. I said "beast" and the "easiest". The fact that it is not used all that much has more to do with the fact it can't run away. For most folks in the MA, speed is everything. The brew is not fast unless it has some alt to trade for the speed. It holds E extremely well, turning with it is effortless and takes very little (if any) thought or planning.
JUGgler
Actually it does not hold E very well at all being one of the lightest planes in the game. See Karnak's test. In fact I don't know if there are any fighters in the game that decelerate faster than the brewster. The average fighter in the skies of the MA weighs twice as much as the b239 so obviously they're going to hold on to their momentum longer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only fighters that are lighter than the b239 are the oscar and the I16.
-
Last night a brewster killed me with what seemed to be turbo-lasers. and then transformed into a tie-fighter....I dont have the film but i think it needs to be nerfed. Also, it could of been a dream :neener:
-
Last night a brewster killed me with what seemed to be turbo-lasers. and then transformed into a tie-fighter....I dont have the film but i think it needs to be nerfed. Also, it could of been a dream :neener:
(http://static.arstechnica.com/starwars/star_wars_ties_trench.jpg)
Picture taken during recent DA canyon fight hosted by "The Rowdy Ones".....the plane in the middle is Rowdy1 himself...or maybe it's Zero7?
-
Why don't we just wish for a new evil ankle biting fighter to complain about like the Boomerang. Guns setup like the spit9, slow as the Brew, and turns worse then the Brew or A6m. The hizookas and thousands of 303 will have everyone in here whining about being bottom picked by back shooters at 400-600. And who knows, maybe it will have magical dive capabilities and speed retention.
-
Wedge Hoed the tie fighter :(
-
Why don't we just wish for a new evil ankle biting fighter to complain about like the Boomerang. Guns setup like the spit9, slow as the Brew, and turns worse then the Brew or A6m. The hizookas and thousands of 303 will have everyone in here whining about being bottom picked by back shooters at 400-600. And who knows, maybe it will have magical dive capabilities and speed retention.
I think the Beau will also fill this bill, given its low top speed, low wing loading, and MAMMOTH ( beh-heh-heh-he-haw) firepower. The schvugs will kvetch over that one.
-
I predict the beau will be knocked down in large numbers.
Looks to be a highly inferior mosquito.
-
we need the Uhu
-
I predict the beau will be knocked down in large numbers.
Looks to be a highly inferior mosquito.
That is 100% irrelevant to whether it should be added or not.
-
That is 100% irrelevant to whether it should be added or not.
Nobody said it was. PJGodzilla said it would be an ankle biter the likes of the Brew, I predict otherwise.
-
Nobody said it was. PJGodzilla said it would be an ankle biter the likes of the Brew, I predict otherwise.
I'll give you my rationale:
Compare the power loading and wing loading of the Beau, whose weight ranges from about 15k to 25k for 503 sf of wing and 3200 hp, to the Seafire.
Now compare the firepower of the two.
Admittedly, there are potential missteps that could've damned the Beau's solid bones. For example, if the structural limits or control authorities are too low to withstand or generate the kind of g-loads dictated by the wingloading's promise of turn performance, you're limited by something other than the basic turn performance function. Likewise, if the power is insufficient to overcome the high induced drag generated at something like CLMax, you'll also be at suboptimal performance, turn-wise (and you could reverse the foregoing rationale for the case of stall-limited turn perf).
And your rationale for saying it'll suck is... what, exactly? I'll give you one right up front: this is a different kind of bird from most twins and most pilots will initially misuse it. Another reason: loaded, it'll be more like a bomber. But, empty...? It'll be more like a lightweighted A-20. No idea how well it takes damage... and it'll be a bigger target for the BnZs of the world.
Remember, I don't believe in magic. Knowledge is knowable, things can be understood and if they are understood well enough, they can even be used for predictive purposes. So tell me on what you base your prediction.
-
I'm expecting rather poor roll response due to sheer size and related inertial problems, that top speed is only 320mph from it's 2800hp also indicates a rather high drag coefficient, meaning it will zoom poorly, accelerate poorly, lose speed perhaps even faster than the brew, and add in induced drag from the turn, it will bleed E like a dump truck. Also of note, it's out climbed by the G4M.
Assuming combat weight of 20,000 lbs, wing loading is 39.76lbs/sqft, compared to the Me 410's atrocious 60.82 at max takeoff weight, and the Ki-43's excellent 27.99 at max takeoff weight. At typical weights, the Ki-43 has a wing loading of around 23lbs/sqft. In other words, the Beaufighter is right about in the middle of the spectrum. For comparison, a K4 with drop tank only has a wing loading of around 46.7lbs/sqft.
Don't get me wrong, it might be a moderately successful BnZer with that gun package (for a pass or two any way, with only 60rpg), but it's no hidden gem.
-
Don't get me wrong, it might be a moderately successful BnZer with that gun package (for a pass or two any way, with only 60rpg), but it's no hidden gem.
Only the early ones had 60rpg. Once they switched to Hispano IIs it was 250 or 300rpg as I recall.
-
Whats wrong with the Boomerang to join the ankle biter ranks? It fits in perfectly with them.
-
I'm expecting rather poor roll response due to sheer size and related inertial problems, that top speed is only 320mph from it's 2800hp also indicates a rather high drag coefficient, meaning it will zoom poorly, accelerate poorly, lose speed perhaps even faster than the brew, and add in induced drag from the turn, it will bleed E like a dump truck. Also of note, it's out climbed by the G4M.
Assuming combat weight of 20,000 lbs, wing loading is 39.76lbs/sqft, compared to the Me 410's atrocious 60.82 at max takeoff weight, and the Ki-43's excellent 27.99 at max takeoff weight. At typical weights, the Ki-43 has a wing loading of around 23lbs/sqft. In other words, the Beaufighter is right about in the middle of the spectrum. For comparison, a K4 with drop tank only has a wing loading of around 46.7lbs/sqft.
Don't get me wrong, it might be a moderately successful BnZer with that gun package (for a pass or two any way, with only 60rpg), but it's no hidden gem.
Your assumed weight is 4500 lbs over the empty weight. Most of that is fuel. Empty, the wing loading drops all the way to 30. Nobody will expect that on a twin. I agree on the drag, btw, but I'd be willing to bet that this thing's corner velocity is fairly low. What I said was that, low and slow, this thing will be a bear. I don't think it'll make much of a boom and zoom a/c. The speed is too low - but at a quarter fuel or less and at low velocity, this thing will be quite dangerous, given its snapshot and point ability. In that sense, it is like a twin Brew, not a danger unless you're also low and slow.
Otherwise, I stand by my original comment that the Beau will only be a danger in a similar way that the Brew is. Remember, the brew doesn't have one of the better k/d in the game. I would predict the Beau will be a similar threat and have somewhat attenuated threat potential as a pure fighter. Otoh, consider that a Beau can come in heavy, tool shed everyone, and then fight on the way out in a manner that many attack aircraft cannot.
As for roll, I'd need to see the inertia numbers but the engines are spaced quite closely to the roll center . The ailerons, however, stop well short of being "full span". This just in: the roll rate is indeed low-70deg/s.
Mind, I never said "uber" . I just said it will fill the bill.
Guess we need a few copies rolled out to see whether it will be a legit mudder or just cannon fodder for the faster birds. I note there is a war thunder forum topic on the Beau scourge, but this is, of course, highly dependent on the wt model.
In any case, I don't think I disagree with much of what you said. It Will be shot down in large number ( name the ah aircraft that isn't). However, I do disagree with your assertion that it might be a good bnz or that it won't be an ankle biter. It'll be an ankle biter that takes the whole damn leg, given the right e state of the quarry.
-
IIRC, empty typically means no guns, ammo, oil, radiator fluid, fuel, or pilot.
In either case if we use empty weight, the Spit V has wing loading of a mere 20lbs/sqft, and the Ki-43 has a wing loading of 18. A G-6 has a wing loading of 34lbs/sqft.
In any case, the beau's wing loading isn't especially low.
-
Mark V is 21 empty. You won't see MkV's in MA - much less any spits at 20.
As for 30 not being low, really? You mean the G-6 pilot who can't outturn a twin packing 4x Hispanos isn't going to crap his pants? This is all relative. You bounce a twin in the expectation of being able to dominate it . 5 pounds per hp? 30-34 psf? Most late war singles will match or overmatch on the power to weight and have higher wingloadings. Meanwhile, The Brewie range itself, 239-F2a3 fully loaded goes from 25 to 34. I'm not arguing that this thing is a Ki-43. However, it will likely have a better turn rate than most single seaters encountered in the MA: Pony, LA-7, all the 190s, late war 109s, Yak-9, etc. THe Spit XVI will still be able to outturn (at all but fully laden conditions) and outrun it. Thus, the Beau, to most guys running around in Ponys and Wulfs, will be yet another one of those low-umbrella specialists that its best to run through, if you visit at all.
I just sat through a thread where people were complaining about the A-20 for its combination of maneuverability and ability to soak up damage. The A-20s turn performance was questioned in that very thread. The A-20 has low structural limits and very similar empty and loaded weights and roughly 10% less surface area and less firepower and about 200 more hp - and people complain.
Now I've sat through this thread about a very inferior ankle-biter also about which people are complaining. It has better turn perf than the Beau but also a lot less firepower and about the same speed.
Guarantee: If we get the Beau, there'll be a thread complaining about it somehow being overmodelled - and it WON'T be because people are getting BnZ'ed by it.
-
I question that. It simply lacks the power to sustain a turn for long. Just a very rough estimate, but I'd say 1 turn may very well bleed it of 100 mph. A K4 could make 1 turn, and motor away.
It's likely going to be a threat only to planes like the C.200's, the Ki-61, and F6F. Maybe low F4U's.
where are numbers for the Mk V? I'd like to look into it a bit more.
-
I question that. It simply lacks the power to sustain a turn for long. Just a very rough estimate, but I'd say 1 turn may very well bleed it of 100 mph. A K4 could make 1 turn, and motor away.
It's likely going to be a threat only to planes like the C.200's, the Ki-61, and F6F. Maybe low F4U's.
where are numbers for the Mk V? I'd like to look into it a bit more.
I was referring to the Mark V Spit - the point being, subsequent Spits use the same wing and are heavier.
As for the sustained turn, again, its going to be very dependent on the loading. Light, the induced drag at higher bank angles will be significantly lower. 1600hp for 12500 pounds is an unimpressive power loading but 1600hp for 8000 pounds is not.