HTC Overmodeled the Brewster!

[Wmaker]

<Shrug> It's the exact same Motor in the F3F-3  ...some how the B-239 version it makes 50hp more power and does it indefinitely.

So now you are saying that it should have 950hp but you were just saying in this thread that it should have only 850hp? Which is it?

Hypothetical HP your #113a "It's a Guess" document has to say.  

If you start dismissing clear evidence without any real Brewster-specific evidence on your part, you are just making yourself look stupid. Pyro/HTC has the whole document and has modeled the plane accordingly. If you start calling Brewster Corp. on inflation of data you have to be able to prove it.

There could be number of reasons why an engine was run on different boost settings as the time went on. Some got their recommended power settings reviewed. Also 850hp is the continuous setting and as such is mentioned in the literature and in many Internet sources. This case seems to be very clear to more or less anyone but you.

Either way....the plane didn't fly around like a Bee on its max take off setting of (8-950hp) 100% of the time.. actually it didn't do it for more than 5 mins!

AH is full of planes that weren't supposed to run their max. military setting indefinitely either and they do it in AH. Brewster is no different in this respect. That is how HTC chose to model these planes in general. Deal with it.

This has all been gone over previously and yet you just doesn't seem to grasp it.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject on this thread as you aren't gonna get any of it anyway and I'm sure the rest of the readers have enough data to make up their own minds.

[Nathan60]

Perk it.

[Slade]

HiTech - thanks for modeling the Finn Brewester as you have.   

[Megalodon]

So now you are saying that it should have 950hp but you were just saying in this thread that it should have only 850hp? Which is it?


If you start dismissing clear evidence without any real Brewster-specific evidence on your part, you are just making yourself look stupid. Pyro/HTC has the whole document and has modeled the plane accordingly. If you start calling Brewster Corp. on inflation of data you have to be able to prove it.

There could be number of reasons why an engine was run on different boost settings as the time went on. Some got their recommended power settings reviewed. Also 850hp is the continuous setting and as such is mentioned in the literature and in many Internet sources. This case seems to be very clear to more or less anyone but you.


AH is full of planes that weren't supposed to run their max. military setting indefinitely either and they do it in AH. Brewster is no different in this respect. That is how HTC chose to model these planes in general. Deal with it.

This has all been gone over previously and yet you just doesn't seem to grasp it.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject on this thread as you aren't gonna get any of it anyway and I'm sure the rest of the readers have enough data to make up their own minds.

Yet you cant explain away the 5 other planes that had the same motor that never made the HP the Awesome Finns did.  

I would say it maybe had 85% of it original estimated HP....maybe  

Your motors were used and came from DC3's in where... India? When did Brewster AC corp test to get these figures since that model of the engine was never put in the Brewster?  They Didn't.

That's why your document says Estimated.  


 
 
Edit: The Martin AC who actually tried the motors was not as generous:

http://www.marylandaviationmuseum.org/pdf/B10_spec.pdf

Same with the Grummie's

Function: Carrier-borne fighter
Fuel Type:                       Fuel Cap.:585       Fuel Cons.: 357 (89pr hour)
Load: 100kg
Veh. Wt.:empty: 1490kg           max: 2175kg
Crew:1
MNT:7
Runway Min:take-off:   550m/landing:   550m  type:paved (carrier)
Powerplant:1 x Wright R-1820-22 , 708kW (850hp)
 
Length: 7,06m             Height: 2,84m           Wingspan: 9,75m
Speed: max:425kph cruise:241kph stall:120kph   Tr.Mov:964    Comb.Mov:42 (12)
Ceiling: 10120m                                     Range: 1577km

Armaments:
2 x 7.62mm MG (2 x 500 rnds)

"Though the Navy could no longer dispute the fact the biplane was a lost cause, they still clung to the hope that, at least while the monoplane was being perfected, they could have a two-winged fighter of comparable performance. Since Grumman had been able to improve upon the F2F, they were asked to perform a similar task on the new ship. On March 6, 1936, Grumman received a contract for their fourth biplane fighter design, the XF4F-1. This one was to utilize an experimental Wright XR-1670 engine. Grumman suggested that the performance sought from the new design might be achieved by installing a supercharged 850 hp Wright R- 1820-22 on the F3F."

"With the F3F-1 now in service, and being well liked by its pilots, Grumman proposed that the last aircraft of the order be delivered with a more powerful Wright R-1820-22 Cyclone producing 850 hp."

[SmokinLoon]

Alrighty then... it seems as if we have a few focus points in explaining how the Finns were able to do so well vs the Soviets during the Winter War.

First, lots of thought and planning went to "how" to combat a vastly numerically superior enemy.  It appears as of the Finns decided to steer more towards winning the air war vs trying to go toe to toe in all aspects (namely scaling back/eliminating offensive bombing campaigns).  Good call I do believe.  So they focused on the air to air war (how to beat Soviet fighters and bombers).

Second, they determined that they needed to minimize casualties in order to maintain longevity of their forces. Best way to do that and still deal losses to the enemy is to minimize the Soviet's chance of attacking and maximize their own chances.  In practice, it appears as if the "only from the six" angle of attacks were used against enemy fighters (maneuver until a firing solution is earned) and the split S dive attacks vs bombers to minimize defensive fire capability.

Third, a concentrated effort was made in gunnery training.  And then some more effort was made in gunnery training. And then some more. Quite possibly more gunnery training and practice before combat than actually during combat.   

I was able to find a few other online sources that echoed the articles posted by Wmaker.  Lots of generalizations.  Good stuff I had not read before.  Now I know more of the "how".

   

[Megalodon]

Powerplant:1 x Wright R-1820-22 , 708kW (850hp) is a typo it should read
Powerplant:1 x Wright R-1820-22 , 708kW (950hp)

That is all,

[Karnak]

Megalodon,

If the B-239 is hitting the correct speeds and climb rates, what does it matter if it is 950 or 1000?

[Wmaker]

Megalo_something.....

I'm drunk,but you certainly make a good laughinstock!  

[morfiend]

Powerplant:1 x Wright R-1820-22 , 708kW (850hp) is a typo it should read
Powerplant:1 x Wright R-1820-22 , 708kW (950hp)

That is all,

  Hmm, I thought our brew had the R-1820-G5 version.   Megalodon,what rpm and manifold pressure are they using to get these ratings?

  I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about the brew's performance,as long as you dont try to turn with it,it's not that difficult to defeat. A few days ago Rowdy1 was in the TA in his brew and I was flying the Ki84,he couldnt touch me until I started turning with him.


  YMMV.



   

[skribetm]

Great discussion everyone, lots of valuable information learned.
It seems to me the the Brew is the Soviet's version of the Zero.
Only that they don't have the P-40 w/c could run away ..

Instead they turned and burned with their Yak-3, Mig-3 and LaGG-5.

They got spanked!

Finns flew the finger-4 and baited them by having two of those fly ahead and lower,
with the other two flying rear and higher.

It's peculiar though, Finns are Axis(allied w/ GER) but got an Allied plane(although "obsolete.")


I'm just pondering in amazement how the Finns managed the slaughter. 32:1 KDR is better than the F6-F record in the Pacific.

If the Marianas were a Turkey Shoot, what did the Soviets get?

[bozon]

Megalodon,

If the B-239 is hitting the correct speeds and climb rates, what does it matter if it is 950 or 1000?

It means it has too little drag.

[SmokinLoon]

Great discussion everyone, lots of valuable information learned.
It seems to me the the Brew is the Soviet's version of the Zero.
Only that they don't have the P-40 w/c could run away ..

Instead they turned and burned with their Yak-3, Mig-3 and LaGG-5.

They got spanked!

Finns flew the finger-4 and baited them by having two of those fly ahead and lower,
with the other two flying rear and higher.

It's peculiar though, Finns are Axis(allied w/ GER) but got an Allied plane(although "obsolete.")


I'm just pondering in amazement how the Finns managed the slaughter. 32:1 KDR is better than the F6-F record in the Pacific.

If the Marianas were a Turkey Shoot, what did the Soviets get?

Somewhere there is a list of what aircraft the Soviets lost in the Winter War.  I've seen it but now cant find it.  The I-15 and I-16 were much of the fighter force (the Buffalo was a contemporary fighter and certainly not inferior), and I don't remember which bomber suffered the largest losses (IL DB-3?), but either way what the Finns did was maximize their own ability to inflict damage and minimize their chances of taking casualties.

The ground war is fascinating to read about.  The Finns were able to use company sized yet highly mobile forces to delay and ultimately stop entire divisions of Soviet ground forces from advancing.  I know their "shoot-n-scoot" tactics were studied in depth by NATO forces and were put in to practice for use against the Soviets in case of a ground war in East Europe.  My cousin graduated from West Point (US Army Military Academy) in 1996 and one of his classes was designed specifically on small unit tactics and the Finns and their tactics against the Soviets made up about half of the "how to" lessons (special mention was made of Wingate's Chindits vs the Japanese, too).       

[zarkov]

<Shrug> It's the exact same Motor in the F3F-3  ...some how the B-239 version it makes 50hp more power and does it indefinitely.

 

When the Finns got their B-239's, they "fixed" the engines.

Basically a field-mod.

[zarkov]

Somewhere there is a list of what aircraft the Soviets lost in the Winter War.  I've seen it but now cant find it.  The I-15 and I-16 were much of the fighter force (the Buffalo was a contemporary fighter and certainly not inferior), and I don't remember which bomber suffered the largest losses (IL DB-3?), but either way what the Finns did was maximize their own ability to inflict damage and minimize their chances of taking casualties.

The Finns received their Brewsters too late for them to fly it in the Winter War.

They flew it in the Continuation War.

[zarkov]

BTW - there is an excellent article on the Brewster B-239 and why it performed so well in Finnish hands (and why it was a dog when flown by the USMC, the RAF, the Dutch and everyone else) in:

http://www.atomagazine.com/details.cfm?ProdID=78

But, in a nut-shell:

1)  The Finns had a very professional air force
2)  They had about a year to familiarize themselves with the B-239
3)  The Soviet air force had gone through a massive purge which had totally f'ed it up
4)  The Finnish front was considered a bit of a side-show at first as far as the Soviets were concerned

But by the time 1943 rolled around, the B-239 was clearly obsolete which is why they got 109G-2's from the Germans (they lightened those as well so performance was a little bit better than the German version...but they also "locked" the engine so that it was WEP-incapable - this was done in order to prolong engine life).