Brewster B-239 and the I-16

[Widewing]

This same Finn modelers site has a page for the P-47M, with some interesting photos.
http://www.pienoismallit.net/galleria/referenssi_5705/


My regards,

Widewing

[Guppy35]

Talk about timing.  You can now pre-order Osprey's book on Finnish Brewster aces

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846034817/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=16ECCKGF4Q1Y1TRFAC5R&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

[Saxman]

Those B-339s built to British requirements gained quite a bit of weight. Additional armor, self-sealing fuel tanks, additional radio gear, armored windshield and other equipment raised the weight by more than 800 lb over the B-239. Many of the RAF aircraft were delivered with commercial grade engines that were not engineered for a military aircraft operating at high power settings for long periods. These engines consumed a great deal of oil. The Finns discovered that reversing the oil scraper rings cured this, but the Brits and Dutch never figured this out. Power fell off quickly above 10k, and there wasn't enough fuel pressure for flying higher than that with manually operating the primer "wobble pump".

All of these things conspired to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Brewsters.


My regards,

Widewing

Basically though, having a separate model for the F2A-3 would satisfy all three: US, Commonwealth, and Dutch.

[Widewing]

Basically though, having a separate model for the F2A-3 would satisfy all three: US, Commonwealth, and Dutch.

Not really. The F2A-3 was substantially different from the B-339. It had far greater fuel capacity and the fuselage elongated forward of the wing to offset the CG shift. It was also powered by a 1,200 hp engine and about 15 mph faster than the B-339s.

The B-339 was based upon the F2A-2, or should I say that they had a common root.

In theory, the weight of the B-239 could be jacked up to simulate the B-339. However, the F2A-3/B-439 would require increasing weight, fuel capacity (this Brewster had greater range on internal fuel than the long-legged A6M2) and power. Technically, the model would require stretching the fuselage (8").


My regards,

Widewing

[pipz]

Talk about timing.  You can now pre-order Osprey's book on Finnish Brewster aces

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846034817/ref=s9_simp_gw_s0_p14_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=16ECCKGF4Q1Y1TRFAC5R&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

I have a whole bunch of those Osprey books and I have to say not many impress me.
they always seem to read like this.......
Four Brewster took off at noon and made no contact
they landed one hour later
Four Brewsters took off again at three one had engine problems and landed
The three others made contact with no results
they landed at five.
They took off again at six....blah blah blah

I think they just copy the combat reports.Theres seldom any life to them.Of course I will keep buying them in hope that the next one will be a gem.After I read half of it Ill ask why I dont listen to myself more often <G>

ehhh just my two cents
Pipz

[Saxman]

Not really. The F2A-3 was substantially different from the B-339. It had far greater fuel capacity and the fuselage elongated forward of the wing to offset the CG shift. It was also powered by a 1,200 hp engine and about 15 mph faster than the B-339s.

The B-339 was based upon the F2A-2, or should I say that they had a common root.

In theory, the weight of the B-239 could be jacked up to simulate the B-339. However, the F2A-3/B-439 would require increasing weight, fuel capacity (this Brewster had greater range on internal fuel than the long-legged A6M2) and power. Technically, the model would require stretching the fuselage (8").


My regards,

Widewing

Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.

[Guppy35]

Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.

Only if we're going to be that nit picky.  Considering how much substituting has to go on right now, I'd rather live with this particular Brewster in an early war PTO scenario then to have guys flying F4Fs instead.  Sometimes you gotta let the look and the history come alive a bit more

They are just cartoon airplanes after all.

[Karnak]

Problem being that this one removes the normal Japanese advantage leaving them in a very weak position.

[Die Hard]

The Brewster served longer and made more of a difference in Finland than anywhere else. This is the right model.

[Widewing]

Either way, the 239 we have is too capable to adequately substitute for the 339 and F2A-3s that the Allies used against Japan.

The difference in performance between the B-239 and B-339 was not so much as to be an issue in a scenario. The reasons the Brewsters fared poorly at Singapore and Rangoon had more to do with circumstances and high level leadership than the actual fighters. Hurricanes showed an equally dismal result.

Had the AVG flown Brewsters, they still would have spanked the Japanese.


My regards,

Widewing

[Karnak]

The Brewster served longer and made more of a difference in Finland than anywhere else. This is the right model.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it appropriate to Pacific settings.

Widewing,

Unless I am mistaken, the Brewster is ripping Hurricanes a new one in the AH beta right now.

[Widewing]

Problem being that this one removes the normal Japanese advantage leaving them in a very weak position.

The A6M2 out-performs the B-239, except for pure speed down low. That said, a combination of P-40s and B-239s would make the Zero drivers sweat (as they should). Now, if we can get HTC to look at the P-40B (it's modeled on P-40C performance without the benefit of the external fuel tank and bomb rack), that would fix what is wrong with the early war plane set.


My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Agreed, but that doesn't make it appropriate to Pacific settings.

Widewing,

Unless I am mistaken, the Brewster is ripping Hurricanes a new one in the AH beta right now.

It does, and should.... Better turn and speed....


My regards,

Widewing

[Baumer]

I thing that strikes me odd with the B-239 is how resilient it seems to be.

As I understand it, the self-sealing fuel tanks were removed by Brewster before they were shipped over seas. I've scored hits on them in the beta that would "appear" to have been sufficient to get an A6M2 burning but the "Brew" just kept on flying. For an aircraft that weigh's less than an A6M2, it's a very tough airframe, but that's just my impression given the limited combat in the beta.

Can someone confirm (widewing/finns) that the B-239 did not have self-sealing fuel tanks?

[Karnak]

The A6M2 out-performs the B-239, except for pure speed down low. That said, a combination of P-40s and B-239s would make the Zero drivers sweat (as they should). Now, if we can get HTC to look at the P-40B (it's modeled on P-40C performance without the benefit of the external fuel tank and bomb rack), that would fix what is wrong with the early war plane set.


My regards,

Widewing

The problem I see is that the marginally superior turn rate of the A6M2 won't remotely make up for the inferior durability and guns when put against a mix of Brewsters and Wildcats/Hurricanes.  I don't think it will make the A6M2 drivers sweat, I think it will utterly dominate them and make them burn.