I should conduct more tests but often in the MA it feels like brewsters dive a bit too well and hold their e much longer than
I would expect (compared to the I-16). Sadly all I have is anicdotal information, "pilot A says a f4f could out dive a brewster", etc..
main question...
Unlike the P51 or Me 109s or many of the more 'famous' planes of WW2, there doesn't appear to be much information on the filght characteristics of the finish version of the arplane. furthermore, there are almost no finish Buffalows in exsistance today. What sources have people found?
If you don't have any data, maybe you should have started by doing some testing. If you think Brewster dives too well or holds E too well, why don't you test it against that I-16 for example. Allthough I suggest testing against planes with western airscrews at first because just by looking at the primary source data on I-16, it's pretty clear that its prop efficiency must have been quite poor.
Obviously testing against hard data on the Brewster is a better way to go but you could have at least done the above before starting one of these threads again.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit the theories, instead of theories to suit facts." (Sherlock Holmes)
Thank you Tango! A voice of reason.
The problem just is that threads in this forum usually have such a poor signal to noise ratio that the voice of reason seems to get lost into the mindless blah blah blah.
I wish most people would at least try to approach these topics with some sort of analytical thinking.
The most popular line of thought in here seems to go like this...
Witch? Wood? Wooden Witch! BUUUURRRN!
B-239s may have had one engine, but that engine wasn't necessarily what the Finns put into it. Remember they were scrambling for anything they could, similar to the AVG. I think they put the engines from a DC-3 in them, or some other transport?
Model 239 had 1000hp G5 Cyclones from beginning to the end if we don't count couple experiments with Soviet M-62/63 engines. F2A-1 had a 940hp -34 variant of the Cyclone. -34 was a military variant and therefore was under the export ban.
Saxman, the 339 was an export version of the F2A3.
Incorrect. B339 is "export version" of the F2A-2.
239s would have less horsepower and less efficient props than the F2A2s.
"less efficient prop"? The 239s prop had a smaller diameter but it doesn't make it any "less efficient" per se. 239s had to harness 200hp less power so I'm sure that the actual prop efficiency coefficients were very comparable.
Also, the Brewster was supposed to be somewhat unstable,
Hmm...everything I've read says exactly the opposite.
From British Report No.B.A.1689. (July, 1941),
Handling tests on Buffalo (Brewster A.S.430):
"Banked turns with one control fixed: Excellent turns with very little sideslip can be done on ailerons alone. Sudden application of the ailerons increases the rate of entry and also the sideslip on going into a turn and during the recovery. More use of control is always needed to recover than enter."Brewster was rather directionally unstable until Pyro fixed it in the latest version. It is very nice and stable gun platform now as it should be, apart from the slight tendency for the combat trim to trim it tail heavy. Therefore I toggle combat trim once to trim the plane and then dial in negative elevator trim manually.
Before being shipped to Finland, the pilot armor, the self-sealing fuel tanks, and the tail hook were removed. Note that the Finns themselves restored the pilot armor once they received them.
<sigh> The integral 80 gallon wing tanks were never protected, on any of the Brewster fighters. F2A-2 and F2A-3 had other protected tanks though. Krusty, these kind of facts simply aren't that hard to double check. If you are uncertain of something it's better left unposted. Makes for less noise and more signal.
