Author Topic: Why the Brewster? (Read 1781 times)

Grits · « **Reply #15 on:** August 20, 2004, 02:47:09 PM »

I'm not so sure I agree with that Storch, the RAF model B-339 wasnt all that much different from the B-239 (IE better than the F2A) and it got slaughtered by the A6M2 just like the F2A did. I think the pilot quality on both sides of the Finn conflicts had more to do with it than the plane performance.

DipStick · « **Reply #16 on:** August 20, 2004, 02:55:34 PM »

I'm thinking it'd be similar to a F4F but could be wrong. It does have alot of "character" and I know I'd fly it some. It's fun to fly in IL2-FB.

Howitzer · « **Reply #17 on:** August 20, 2004, 03:06:38 PM »

Well I guess I asked because I would like to see something with a medium ENY... perhaps of 35 or something. Maybe a plane that could hold its own against late war fighters, but not something people are afraid to fly in combat. I just didn't see many folks flying it in the MA. Thanks for the posts and the links guys, good discussion!

Grits · « **Reply #18 on:** August 20, 2004, 03:10:19 PM »

Other than the 6 x .50's the F4F-4 is pretty close with the Export Brewster being a tad better in every performance catagory, but only having 2x .50 and 2x .30 guns. If there was a way to restrict the 6x .50 gun option the F4F-4 would be a great standin, but the lethality of the 6x .50's is too much.

Xjazz · « **Reply #19 on:** August 20, 2004, 03:22:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
Other than the 6 x .50's the F4F-4 is pretty close with the Export Brewster being a tad better in every performance catagory, but only having 2x .50 and 2x .30 guns. If there was a way to restrict the 6x .50 gun option the F4F-4 would be a great standin, but the lethality of the 6x .50's is too much.

FAF Brewster had first 3*.50cals and 1 .303cal. Later on with 4*.50cals.

BlauK · « **Reply #20 on:** August 20, 2004, 03:51:25 PM »

Why the Brewster?....

Because one just arrived in USA, Pensacola Museum:

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/9434527.htm

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30267

Why not in AH as well?

Grits · « **Reply #21 on:** August 20, 2004, 04:54:24 PM »

One of my friends is the head paint tech at the restoration shop in the Naval Aviation Museum here in Pensacola.

Greebo · « **Reply #22 on:** August 20, 2004, 05:21:14 PM »

I've been doing some reading on the F4F recently and one thing that caught my eye was some USN pilots prefering the Brewster F2A-1 to the F4F-3. They reckoned it was more maneuverable and more responsive to the controls than the Wildcat. The Buffalo had a fragile undercarriage though and a tendency to snap roll when pulling out of dives. This may have had much to do with the Navy's preference for the F4F.

The F4F-3 was in turn a better performing plane than our F4F-4. The 4 gained folding wings and an extra pair of guns which added a lot of weight with no extra power.

Grits · « **Reply #23 on:** August 20, 2004, 05:47:21 PM »

You are correct Greebo. The F4F-3 was quite a bit better performing than the F4F-4 and some were a little upset at the loss of performance, but Coral Sea showed the dire need for more numbers of VF planes on CV's and that made the extra weight of the folding wings worth it. I have also seen the mention of some prefering the F2A over the F4F. I think with the tactics and numbers used at Midway, a whole squad of F4F's wouldn't have done any better than the F2A's did and much of the myth of the F2A's total uselessness is a result of that one event. The CAF at Guadalcanal had vets from Midway (Marion Carl) and by that time had developed tactics better suited to fighting the A6M2's. Surely the F2A was not a world beater, but on the other hand was probably not as bad as conventional wisdom would lead you to believe.

DipStick · « **Reply #24 on:** August 20, 2004, 09:23:28 PM »

It'd be fun. Like to see the 4 50's version. Think that'd be neutered enough for a 'slow' plane.

CurtissP-6EHawk · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2004, 11:11:53 PM »

The Brewster to the Finns were like the ZEROs to the Japs.

Grits · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2004, 11:41:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Greebo
This may have had much to do with the Navy's preference for the F4F.

Man, I missed this the first time I read the post. The reason the F4F gained favor was not mainly from performance of the plane, but the long and eventually terminal problems Brewster had with fulfilling orders. Brewster was always behind in delivery and this led the Navy get cold feet and bring back the F4F project in large part due to their confidence in Grumman being able to deliver every plane they promised they could. Better to have 100% of your second choice plane than 60% of your first choice.

Howitzer · « **Reply #27 on:** August 21, 2004, 12:21:23 AM »

Still seems like it would be lunchmeat in the MA, but sounds great for scenarios and such.

B17Skull12 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2004, 02:20:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Howitzer
Still seems like it would be lunchmeat in the MA, but sounds great for scenarios and such.

i would fear camo and his ubber finn perklie.

oboe · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2004, 08:33:38 AM »

Here's an interesting statistic for you. I read somewhere the Brewster actually produced more aces per airframe than even the P-51 Mustang. I'm sure its owed all to the low production numbers and the phenomenal success the Finns had with it. But I think I also read somewhere the Dutch had better than a 1:1 kill ratio with it in Java/Sumatra before their forces were overwhelmed.

I'd like to see it in the game someday. I find the F4F plenty manueverable and sturdy as a brick house - the F2A would be even more manueverable but much less rugged and hard hitting with only 4x.50s. Not sure it had self-sealing fuel tanks?

Plus there are some awesome skinning opportunities with this plane. I'd like to see someone of Greebo's calibre go wild with early USN schemes, Dutch, Finnish, and RAF SE Asia patterns...