Was the brewster ever carrier based???

[Stiglr]

I'm kind of curious to why HTC didn't include the F2A-3 in the first place. I feel like a bit of an bellybutton making this kind of comment about something i've never done but, 'how much work could it take'? The B-239 was essentially a stripped down F2A-3 wasn't it? Wouldn't it be even EASIER to find information (weights etc) on the American version of the aircraft? Adjust the weights, add the tail hook into the 3D model, get Greebo to make another fantastic skin, and voila? Somehow I imagine it wouldn't be quite that simple, but...

Well, pretty much, it IS that simple (and I'm developing both a B339 Brit export and a Navy F2A3, Midway-era, for use in Target:Corregidor and Target:Rabaul). You have to do the research to find the cosmetic differences, and model those... like, f'rinstance, the Navy F2A3 has a floor vision port that other versions lack. The cockpits have a few differences, too, especially if you go into instrumentation... ooops, sore subject here in AH... sorry...  

The real differences, as people have stated, are in the flight models: especially the weight, and where it's distributed, any differences in the engines and armament...

There's not a huge difference in the 3D model, besides the skins...

[5PointOh]

Yay Stigls back 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Me I'm just happy we got Brewster in general. I thought I wouldn't like it at first try but now I fly 90% of my sorties with it.

Can be frustrating when late war birds run but when you catch them turning oh boy it's fun.

[Wmaker]

I'm kind of curious to why HTC didn't include the F2A-3 in the first place. I feel like a bit of an bellybutton making this kind of comment about something i've never done but, 'how much work could it take'? The B-239 was essentially a stripped down F2A-3 wasn't it? Wouldn't it be even EASIER to find information (weights etc) on the American version of the aircraft? Adjust the weights, add the tail hook into the 3D model, get Greebo to make another fantastic skin, and voila? Somehow I imagine it wouldn't be quite that simple, but...

Actually, the F2A-3 was a totally different variant with a different engine, a few inches longer fuselage and bigger tanks. The cockpit would need a new gunsight (possibly could be taken from the existing Navy birds, tho), different seat armor, etc. Still, of course, it could be done using the B-239's shape. The wings are basically identical, for example. As far as the references goes, there is/were enough information to model all variants if the need be. But it still takes time, time that HTC didn't have as they were in the process of updating the terrain engine at the same time. Anyway, the B-339 -variants saw far mode action than the F2A-3 ever did and should be a priority as far as Brewster variants go. Of course, if there's a desperate need for CV-Brewster, then F2A-3 could be added...but I can't really see "a need" there no matter how hard I look.

[Demetrious]

First off, your name is kind of ironic. Just pointing that out.

Uh.... a greek name? How so?  

Demetrious wrote, some time ago:

Interesting quote there.... so "fairness" only applies to American pilots? Hmmmm....

I see I was overly ambiguous. Let me clarify my point.

Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.

Yes, that is very historical and all, but who's going to bother playing it?  

First off, your name is kind of ironic. Just pointing that out.
Second, HTC focuses on historic realism of PLANES, not on the ARENAS.

 

So THAT'S why the P-40E in the game has War Emergency Power, eh? Because it's so historical.

Not that I think that's a bad thing, mind you, but it does highlight the fact that the arena's are the domain of cartoon aircraft, and the value of any aircraft there is purely invested in the aircraft's characteristics itself. Now we're not going to get the F2A-2 in there, because the B-239 is already in, it's a capable ship, and it's very similar in performance to the F2A-2. (I don't know if "historically deployed" is an HTC criterion for inclusion in the cartoon war.) And we won't get the F2A-3 because it's such a dog that it's nigh useless, and nobody except perhaps the occasional drunk two-weeker is going to touch that thing when the B-239 is sitting right next to it.

Now that leaves us with scenario uses, and we've already covered that.

[caldera]

Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.

 And we won't get the F2A-3 because it's such a dog that it's nigh useless, and nobody except perhaps the occasional drunk two-weeker is going to touch that thing when the B-239 is sitting right next to it.

Good point.  That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11.  Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.

[Stiglr]

Demetrious wrote:

Since the F2A-3 only participated in one battle in the Pacific, at Midway, then there's only one historical scenario that HTC could make for it- and given the incredibly laughable performance of the F2A-3, the side flying them would be slaughtered in a matter of seconds.

Yes, that is very historical and all, but who's going to bother playing it?

Maybe those who actually ARE interested in history, and don't want to be "gifted" a better plane by revisionists who think Americans always have the most-est, best-est, ueberest aircraft in every situation.

Also, you know an intelligent scenario designer might know something about the concept of "handicapping" so a point structure could be devised to make it worth some players' while to fly the crappy little Buffalos... and maybe kill the odd Val or Kate before being overwhelmed by Zeros.... y'think?  :wink:

Also, the Navy Buffalo might be used in any number of plausible "what-if" scenarios of the period. Having a historical focus doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a "re-creationist".

*Anything's* better than another silly arena where the Zeros are fighting other Zeros, with a Spitfire or two  appearing "over Midway" for grins and giggles....

[waystin2]

Good point.  That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11.  Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.

Hey don't leave out my C.202!  LOL

[caldera]

Hey don't leave out my C.202!  LOL

Love the 202, it's a fun plane.  109 E4 is a blast too. 

[waystin2]

Love the 202, it's a fun plane.  109 E4 is a blast too. 

One of these days I am gonna have to spend time with Uncle Emil!

 

[caldera]

One of these days I am gonna have to spend time with Uncle Emil!

 

Most fun of the 109s, IMO.  Prepare to be ganged.     




 

[Demetrious]

Good point.  That's why nobody flies planes like the P-51B, La-5, F4U-1 or P-47 D11.  Not everybody prefers the best plane for the job.

Maybe those who actually ARE interested in history, and don't want to be "gifted" a better plane by revisionists who think Americans always have the most-est, best-est, ueberest aircraft in every situation.

Oh, I see. I'm just a knuckle-dragging AMURRRECUUNN who is whining becuase his factions planes aren't TEH MOST UHBER.

So let's ignore this post or this post where I'm defending the Brewster Buffalo as a highly capable fighter, or this post (last one on page) where I defend the I-16 and I-153 as capable and dangerous performers in their own right, or this one (bottom of page again) where I frown upon my countrymen for dissing P-39s and P-40s that the Russians put to spectacular good use, or this thread in the training forum were I ask for help with funny stall issues in the P-40, which was (and is) one of my favored mounts in this game.
 
The reason I oppose the F2A-3 is because everything I've read has indicated that the F2A-3 was at such a performance deficit that it was essentially a suicide crate. I freely admit I don't have hard evidence to present at the moment (I'd find it for this post but I don't have the time,) but the impression I've gotten is that with the 1,000 pounds or so of added weight from all the fuel, the wet wing, and various other tacked-on equipment, the aircraft couldn't even perform a simple loop. I don't see how such an anemic aircraft could hold it's own against a Gloster Gladiator, much less anything in the AH lineup short of a C-47.

EDIT:

I was tremendously amused by all the before/after Brewster threads. Before: "lol the Brewster is a dog so worthless lol." After: "OMG the Brewster keeps on killing me omfg HAX!!1!" I'm aware of the trend. But I'm not pleased at all by this habit of pinning any argument made- for or against (!) an American bird on "American 'we're so awesome' revisionist history."

[Nemisis]

Uh.... a greek name? How so? 


So THAT'S why the P-40E in the game has War Emergency Power, eh? Because it's so historical.

Name is ironic because it was held by kings and scholars. Probably going to get an edit, but you did ask. I was going to let it go with the coment.


If the P-40E didn't have WEP, then let HTC know, and provide material that proves you correct. Can't guarantee that all the info out there will be correct. Just look at wiki.

As to you oppinion that no one wants the F2A, it would get use because it is avalable on the carrier. If it has simmilar turn rates, firepower, and ammo loads, but sacrafices some in the verticle, then it will still get use.

The B-239 was never operated by the USN and the F2A-2 was never operated in combat.

I know, but the B-239 is a close relative of the F2A. It is very simmilar, if not identicle, to saying that in place of  the F4F in scenarios and snapshots, we should give them the FM2.

[Stiglr]

Demetrious wrote:

The reason I oppose the F2A-3 is because everything I've read has indicated that the F2A-3 was at such a performance deficit that it was essentially a suicide crate.

So, a plane has to be capable to be included then?  Even if it was representative over a certain period of time? So, you'd never want to see a Blenheim, for example? Or a Battle?  Or a LaGG-3?

Well, that seems to buy into the "ueberplane" mentality you took so much linespace to rail against...

Ever occur to you that a lot of people don't really consider the Winter War and Continuation War to be important parts of WWII, and thus the Finnish Brewster service might not interest them much? Horses for courses. I'm sure there are also some who wouldn't care if NO Buffalo of any version were included in the planeset.

By the way, I'm not specifically suggesting YOU have ueberplanitis... but a lot of people who fly online certainly DO.

[Sonicblu]

Did the brewster ever see combat with the a6m? If it did what was its success at shooting down the zero?