So, I'm in the CT...

[AutoPilot]

I about fell outa my chair when I logged on last night to find 19 !! ppl in CT!!

I have been doing my best to get more people into the CT,to bring it back to what it use to be.A lot of players don't even know what the CT is so i try to show them the way.

Is the squad night still Thursday at 10?If so i will try too bring some more people in with me.

[Grits]

Originally posted by storch
are those B239 numbers or are they the overweight F2A?  

Those numbers ARE for the overwheight F2A-3 which had a 1200 HP engine. The F2A-1's that the Fins got only had the export rated 950 HP engine and its actual top speed was only 298 MPH. So we have a plane that is nearly 30 MPH faster and climbs almost 1000 FPS better subing for the B-239.

The FM2 is by far the WORST[/b] sub used in the CT. The F4F-4 is still too good to sub for the B-239, but its a hell of a lot closer than the FM2.

[KONG1]

TC,

I didn�t �blatantly accuse� you of vulching - I witnessed it and asked you why.  You responded first with denial, second with �bite me�, third with �mind your own business�. Then you come in the forum whining about how nobody fights you right and misrepresenting my communication with you.

Don�t get me wrong, I�ve seen much poorer behavior on many occasions and never said a word. Thing is�I was surprised and taken aback. You see, I know you�re a good stick, a trainer, a long time player, and have left your teenage years behind. I had attributed you with a greater level of maturity and character than I was witnessing.

Sorry, my mistake, won�t happen again.

[Sundiver]

Originally posted by Swager
Please do not believe anything you hear over the global channel.  95% of the muttonheads yappin on there have NO idea what they are talkin about.

LOL, believe me I know. I'm pretty much one of the CT plank owners back when it was a fun place to be. I never meant to create a monster with my post, I was just curious as to why someone would consider the Hurri as having no place in the planeset.

Then again, JG knows me well enough to know I'd much prefer a Yak 9U.

[storch]

Originally posted by Grits
Those numbers ARE for the overwheight F2A-3 which had a 1200 HP engine. The F2A-1's that the Fins got only had the export rated 950 HP engine and its actual top speed was only 298 MPH. So we have a plane that is nearly 30 MPH faster and climbs almost 1000 FPS better subing for the B-239.

The FM2 is by far the WORST sub used in the CT. The F4F-4 is still too good to sub for the B-239, but its a hell of a lot closer than the FM2. [/B]

does anyone actually fly the FM2?  also, If I may politely ask, are you currently menstruating?  you sure do come off as grouchy lately.

[storch]

Originally posted by KONG1
TC,

I didn�t �blatantly accuse� you of vulching - I witnessed it and asked you why.  You responded first with denial, second with �bite me�, third with �mind your own business�. Then you come in the forum whining about how nobody fights you right and misrepresenting my communication with you.

Don�t get me wrong, I�ve seen much poorer behavior on many occasions and never said a word. Thing is�I was surprised and taken aback. You see, I know you�re a good stick, a trainer, a long time player, and have left your teenage years behind. I had attributed you with a greater level of maturity and character than I was witnessing.

Sorry, my mistake, won�t happen again.

aghhh, cough, cough, cough, psst KONG, some of us age but refuse to mature, be kind to a young at heart old geezer

[Grits]

Originally posted by storch
does anyone actually fly the FM2?

I do, its a monster. The real question should be, is it the best sub for the B-239? Even the Hurricane I is a better sub, but the Finn's already have that one. Actually, the best sub performance wise to the Brewster would be the P-40b, but I understand why the FM2/F4F is used since they are radial engined Navy planes.

also, If I may politely ask, are you currently menstruating?  you sure do come off as grouchy lately.

LOL...no, I have always hated the FM2 sub for the Brewster, it just happened to come up in the same thread that I .squelch'd you. No hard feelings eh?

[Slash27]

Originally posted by storch
are those B239 numbers or are they the overweight F2A?  

Do you have any stats you can post on the B239? Im at work and dont have access to my books. At one time I was going to stop using the FM-2 as the sub and switch to the F4F-4. But then I ran across some numbers on the B239 that seemed close enough to the Fm-2 to justify using it. I was kind of surprised.

[storch]

Originally posted by Slash27
Do you have any stats you can post on the B239? Im at work and dont have access to my books. At one time I was going to stop using the FM-2 as the sub and switch to the F4F-4. But then I ran across some numbers on the B239 that seemed close enough to the Fm-2 to justify using it. I was kind of surprised.

I have, however I'll need to look them up.   from memory the climb rates were about equal and the FM2 was 12-15 mph faster.  the big difference was in the guns the B239 has two .30cals and two .50cals.  excluding top speed the best sub might actually be the 202, but who's asking (wishful thinking on my part I suppose).  any how the FM2 is really an F4F-3 which was arguably the quintessential wildcat variant.

remember that the Brewster model was also exported to the english and the dutch for use in the far east as the model B339 which was also heavier than the original B239.  the important info pertains to the B239.  perhaps our Finnish friends can provide some useful numbers on this obscure yet important little fighter.

and as final note the Finns also received several of the Arsenal VG-33 from france.  this capable aircraft attained decent speed and climb for it's day as well as being well armed with 4 M.G.s and a single 20mm. cannon.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by storch
any how the FM2 is really an F4F-3 which was arguably the quintessential wildcat variant

I was under the impression the FM-2  Wildcat was its own beast built by General Motors. 200 or so more HP than the F4F-4 and a larger vertical stabilizer.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Slash27
I was under the impression the FM-2  Wildcat was its own beast built by General Motors. 200 or so more HP than the F4F-4 and a larger vertical stabilizer.

The F4F-3 and F4F-4 both used the 1200HP Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp two row 14 cylinder engine. GM built F4F-4's were called FM-1s'. The FM-2 had the lighter 1350HP Wright Cyclone R-1820 single row 9 cylinder engine, and a larger/taller verticle stablizer to counter the added torque of the more powerful engine.

The B-239 used a 950HP Wright Cyclone, which was an export version that did not feature WEP like the US F2A-1 that was rated the same at MIL and 1000HP at WEP.

[storch]

Originally posted by Grits
The F4F-3 and F4F-4 both used the 1200HP Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp two row 14 cylinder engine. GM built F4F-4's were called FM-1s'. The FM-2 had the lighter 1350HP Wright Cyclone R-1820 single row 9 cylinder engine, and a larger/taller verticle stablizer to counter the added torque of the more powerful engine.

The B-239 used a 950HP Wright Cyclone, which was an export version that did not feature WEP like the US F2A-1 that was rated the same at MIL and 1000HP at WEP.

yup utilizing the F4F-3 wing and fuslage adding the zero length 5" rockets hard points. what I didn't know was that the wright cyclone engine was used.  however the F4F-3 enjoyed much better performance than the F4F-4 did.    just read that the FM-2 was the Grumman XF4F-8 and was pretty much a lighter redesign of the wildcat.  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/fm2.htm

[TequilaChaser]

Originally posted by KONG1
TC,

I didn�t �blatantly accuse� you of vulching - I witnessed it and asked you why.  You responded first with denial, second with �bite me�, third with �mind your own business�. Then you come in the forum whining about how nobody fights you right and misrepresenting my communication with you.

Don�t get me wrong, I�ve seen much poorer behavior on many occasions and never said a word. Thing is�I was surprised and taken aback. You see, I know you�re a good stick, a trainer, a long time player, and have left your teenage years behind. I had attributed you with a greater level of maturity and character than I was witnessing.

Sorry, my mistake, won�t happen again.

no worries, kong.

edited: and yes I did deny vulching a plane, I done explained why I thought it wasn't a vulch, I even apologized afterward for it.  yes I did tell you to bite me and I told you, you shouldn't be sticking your nose in where it didn't belong.  

films say/show a whole lot, even what actually happens verses what I might say or what you might say happened.

ask Tbarone how things went after you logged.  I do not feel I misrepresented you in anyway shape or form in how I posted you acted verses what I witnessed this last visit to the CT.

it's all good, sometimes your the windshield, sometimes your the fly.........

until next time

TC

[Grits]

Originally posted by storch
y  just read that the FM-2 was the Grumman XF4F-8 and was pretty much a lighter redesign of the wildcat.  http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/f-types/fm2.htm

Yes, the FM-2 was the F4F-8, but Grumman did not want to take any production capacity away from the F6F so they did not build any, General Motors built them all as FM-2's. 4777 FM-2's were built, making it by far the most numerous Wildcat variant. The Wright Cyclone was chosen because it was a bit more powerful, a bit lighter, but more importantly it was tuned for low alt performance. Since the FM-2 was going to be on CVE's doing anti-submarine duty for the most part, they did not want the P&W R-1830, which even though rated at 1200HP, it was much better performing at high alt.

Here are some specs on the B-239

Brewster B-239 specifications
Wingspan:    10.67 m
Length:    8.03 m
Height:    3.66 m
Wing area:    19.4 m2
Empty weight:    2020 kg
Typical takeoff weight:    2415 kg (with 300kg fuel)
Engine:    950 HP Wright Cyclone R-1820-G5.
1000 HP with War Emergency Power (for 5 mins max).
Armament:    3 x 0.50 cal + 1 x 0.30 cal.
Later 4 x 0.50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns.
Max speed:    480 kmph at 4750 meters. 428 kmph at sea level.
Service ceiling:    9900 meters. Climb to 3000 meters 4 minutes 12 seconds, 5000 meters 7 minutes 10 seconds.
Range:    1350 km with 390 kmph cruise speed (full 600 liter fuel load), flight time 3 hours 30 minutes. Max flight time over 4 hours with lower speeds.

480kph is 298mph top speed, 428kph is 266mph on the deck. Climb 3000m is 4:12 which averages to 2160 fpm but I would guess initial climb rate is close to 2500fpm. Most if not all specs you can find on the Brewster are not for the Finn plane, but for the US version, the FA2-1 which had a more powerful engine, but had not yet had all the pilot armor and junk added to it. The Finns actually added pilot armor to thier planes. The F2A-1's top speed was 311mph   with deck speed being 271mph. Initial climb rate was 3060 fpm, but remember that the original Navy F2A-1 was more powerful than the B-239 and was not heavier.

Actually, the best match to the performance numbers and firepower of the B-239 is the P-40b. The Brewster no doubt turned and rolled far better than the P-40b, but in every other respect they are very close. Since the P-40b is an inline engine and looks nothing like the Brewster, and even though the F4F-4 has too much firepower and does not perform quite as well as the Brewster, the F4F-4 is still the best match to the performance of the plane the Finn's actually flew.