# Brewster F2A Buffalo or P-39 Airacobra?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 21, 2006)

Both these planes were considered bad dogfighters by our American pilots. 

Maybe in our hands they were, but they still could fight and weren't just Obsolete, Natural Airborne Targets.

Imagine you were on some Pacific Island and the Radars tell you that there are Enemy Boggies aproaching to attack your base, and you were faced with the task of Dogfighting perhaps a Zero, Jack, Tony, Hayate, or Shiden and had no other planes on hand but the Buffalo and the Airacobra, which would you pick to intercept the incoming enemy in the air? 

And if you want you could pick the plane would want to fly in the European Theater. There the planes and combat situations would be differant than in the Pacific. They did their best in Finland and Russia. 



This is a secret ballot. So don't be scared to say what was the Best out of the Worst of WWII. 

Though I am sure the Russians and Finns would disagree! 

Me? I voted for the Buff. It's Victory Ratio of 26:1 was higher than the P-39's ratio in the Russian-Finnish war when they both fought each other. 

The P-39 did have a good Kill/loss ratio but it still didn't match the amazing Brewster Buffalo which almost beats any WWII fighter kill ratio!


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 21, 2006)

U should be model specific in ur poll sw............


----------



## book1182 (Apr 22, 2006)

If your looking at American use then you would have to go with the P-39. It gave the pilots somewhat of a chance. It is also the better known of the two aircraft. If you look at foreign use then I think it becomes a toss up. The Soviets loved the P-39 but the Finish used with good effect the Buffalo. I would go with the P-39 just because I would have liked to have flown one in the ground attack role. That 37mm cannon would have been put to good use with me.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 22, 2006)

Personally, I'd take a lightened P-39Q, strip it of some armor of course to increase the speed and maneuvering. Heh, I really doubt a Japanese aircraft is going to stand very long under four .50 cals AND a 37mm gun.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 22, 2006)

dude, the Finnish had a different version of the Buffalo, it was the B-239 export version, more agile and with a better power to weight ratio
specify the model


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 23, 2006)

Lets not forget the Buffalo had a 2:1 kill ratio over the Japs at Singapore and Malaya when flown by the inexperianced pilots of the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and NEIAF. Not a bad effort in my books!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 25, 2006)

Looks like the P-39 is way ahead.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Apr 26, 2006)

Wildcat said:


> Lets not forget the Buffalo had a 2:1 kill ratio over the Japs at Singapore and Malaya when flown by the inexperianced pilots of the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and NEIAF. Not a bad effort in my books!


the Finns had a (i think) 18:1 kill ratio, the highest kill ratio in the war
using B-239 Buffaloes


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 26, 2006)

Sweet.


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 26, 2006)

Yes the Finns achieved an incredable kill rate with the Buffalo, it just seems to me that alot of people forget or don't know about the efforts and achievements made by the hopelessly outnumbered and out classed pilots at Singapore and Malaya. Not forgetting most of the Jap pilots were veteran's compared to the highly inexperianced defenders.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2006)

gotta vote for the bell aircraft it was built 10 miles away


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 26, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> the Finns had a (i think) 18:1 kill ratio, the highest kill ratio in the war
> using B-239 Buffaloes



The kill rate was 26:1...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 26, 2006)

Even sweeter.


----------



## helmitsmit (Apr 27, 2006)

I vote for the p39 purely on speed, firepower and looks


----------



## lonestarman63 (May 4, 2006)

I do not know much history about the F2A except from reading the book from and i cannot spell his name right the ace from japan subor saki i think not sure sorry about the spelling but he recalls in one fight with the buff , fired in a turn took out the buff and said that was that the plane was help less , more less it has been 30 years ago when i read the book , so that is what i base my vote on


----------



## PipsPriller (May 27, 2006)

Wildcat said:


> Lets not forget the Buffalo had a 2:1 kill ratio over the Japs at Singapore and Malaya when flown by the inexperianced pilots of the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and NEIAF. Not a bad effort in my books!



Where on earth did you get that outrageous figure from? Is it based on claims? In actual fact the F2A suffered a loss rate of 1:1.7 overall, and a 1:3 against the Japanese fighters Ki-27 and Ki-43.


----------



## Wildcat (May 28, 2006)

From the book Buffaloes Over Singapore which includeds a list of enemy aircraft claims and credits as well as Buffalo loses. Plus I believe more Buffaloes were lost due to accidents and general inexperiance by the pilots then due to actual combat. Could you tell me where you got your figures from? This subject interests me and would love to find out more.


----------



## PipsPriller (May 28, 2006)

I thought it may have been either Buffaloes or Bloody Shambles.

Either book are a good source for Buffaloe losses, but then need to be balanced against the loss list contained in the back of Hata and Izawa's 'Japanese Army Air Force Fighter Units'.

By the by if you are a lover of the Vultee Vengeance you should get your hands on the book 'Vengeance', by Peter C Smith (if you ahven't already done so). It cover it's history very well, including the RAFF units.


----------



## Wildcat (May 28, 2006)

Yeah I'am aware of the Vengeance book and hopefully will be getting my hands on it soon. Thanks for the added info.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 20, 2006)




----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 20, 2006)

While I have read a couple different bio's from Jap aces they said their most favored opponents they loved to see was the P-39 (b/c it was easy to kill in their minds) I would have to say that I would take a P-39 over a Buff any day.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 22, 2006)

It had a tough time shooting down high flying bombers.


----------



## lonestarman63 (Jul 22, 2006)

Just what i have read from the subro saki is the buff is helpless 
yet that might have been because of the pilots in the buffs.
And for ground support the 39 is for sure the best between the two.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 23, 2006)

yet that might have been because of the pilots in the buffs.

And also perhaps, because the Zero was a very remarkable plane. It wasn't until the P-38 came along that the Allies had something that was a good match for the Zero.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 23, 2006)

Posted this before...

In the late Summer of 42' the 39th FS was flying P-39s and doing quite well, at that point the USAAF had about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over the Japanese while flying the P-39 (and P-40) some of the great Pacific P-38 aces (Danny Roberts, Buzz Wagner, Tommy Lynch) did well in the P-39. When the P-38 entered the scene, the 39th (and other units) started an effective slaughter of the Japanese in the South Pacific.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 24, 2006)

So did George Welch. But he preffered the P-38 to the P-39 for it's long range.


----------



## JeffK (Jul 28, 2006)

The 2 Aircraft were in slightly different time frames, the Buffalo entering Service testing by the USN in 1938 and squadron service in mid 1939.
The P-39 was only ordered by the USAAC in mid 1939 and production started in August 1939 so the P-39 had the benifit of the rapidly evolving technology and engines.
I think the Buffalo was a better Fighter, until wieghed down with extra armour and the 50cal replaced by .303.

But if you wanted a Fighter Bomber, the P-39 was the better machine.


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 28, 2006)

I'd take a P-39.

But only with the turbocharged engine that was never implemented.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 28, 2006)

P39. If you can't win the fight, at least you can survive it. With the engine behind the pilot, your odds are better. Plus, if all else fails just shove the nose down, throw the throttle against the wall and run like hell!

Don't think the buff could run away from a fight.


----------



## MP-Willow (Aug 3, 2006)

I would have to take the P-39 

The Russians used it quite nicely. I tink that the Jap pilots in the beginning were capable of taking on any aircft put against them.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 6, 2006)

P-39 for me. Wasn't there a Russian Ace who got most of his kills with the P-39?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 8, 2006)

Alexander Pokryshkin was he. 

Here is a painting of his fighter.






In early 1937, Bell Aircraft presented a revolutionary fighter design to the USAAC, the P-39 Airacobra. Incorporating machine guns and the most powerful cannon available, the new design by Robert Woods, utilized many revolutionary design features. The all-metal, low wing, monoplane design utilized a centrally located engine in the fuselage, a feature which enhanced maneuverability. A nine foot shaft ran through the cockpit to drive the propeller. Wood's design was the first fighter to incorporate a forward tricycle landing gear, which gave the P-39 pilot great visibility while on the ground. The first prototype flew in 1938. Equipped with a supercharged Allison water-cooled V-12 rated at 1,150-HP, the prototype performed admirably. It exhibited a top speed of 390-MPH, and an amazingly quick rate of climb. Unfortunately for the Airacobra, the USAAC decided to eliminate the supercharged engine from the project, a move which would relegate the Airacobra to the distinction of being America's forgotten fighter of WW II. Without the supercharger the P-39's performance at altitude was inferior to most of the adversaries it would face. In 1941 lend-leased Airacobras went into battle with the RAF, but were quickly withdrawn from front line duty. Many of these, and many others eventually found service with the Red Air Force. In fact the Soviets ultimately received more than half of the 9,500 aircraft produced. Alexander Pokryshkin was the second highest scoring Soviet ace of WW II with fifty-nine victories. Forty-eight of these were achieved why flying the Aircacobra. Pokryshkin was a great leader who inspired others who flew under his command. He joined the Red Air Force in 1933 and attained his first victory (over a Bf-109E) in June of 1941 while piloting a Mig-3. He was a great tactician, and a student of fighter tactics. On one occasion his unit attacked a flight of sixteen Ju-87s, and Pokryshkin bagged four. While flying in the Caucasus region he became well known to his German adversaries, who would radio, "Achtung! Der *** Pokryshkin in der luft!" when they realized he was airborne. Shot down on 4 occasions, he was made squadron commander of the elite 16th Guards IAP. Considered the father of Soviet fighter tactics, thirty pilots under his command would go on to be awarded the coveted "Hero of the Soviet Union" medal. The P-39 also was in service with several units in the Pacific early in the War. Lacking sufficient range to be used for many escort missions, and deficient in dog fighting against the superior Japanese aircraft they faced, the P-39s were relegated by the USAAC to ground attack missions. The aircraft was withdrawn from front line service as more capable P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s became available. In spite of the deficiencies of the P-39, a derivative design, the P-63 Kingcobra, was one of only nine designs evaluated by the USAAF in 1942-43 to be put into production. Although similar in appearance the P-63 was actually a totally new design. It was not produced in any great quantity, and two hundred of these aircraft were modified into "Flying Pinballs," and were used to train B-17 gunners.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 9, 2006)

Wow. How many kills did Alexander Pokryshkin get?


----------



## MacArther (Aug 9, 2006)

> Alexander Pokryshkin was the second highest scoring Soviet ace of WW II with fifty-nine victories



There ya go, seems ya might have missed it (I know I did 2 times).


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 12, 2006)

How many kills did he get with the P-39?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> How many kills did he get with the P-39?



59

WW II ACE STORIES


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 13, 2006)

Thats amazing.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 6, 2006)

I found a cool paint scheme for the buffalo just recently, and decided that this would be the only topic that it would fit into, so here it is...


----------



## Wildcat (Sep 7, 2006)

I reckon I've seen that before. Do you have any info about it Mac?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Sep 7, 2006)

I'd use the P-39 on ground attack missions, just like the russians did, and if there were any stukas I could have a field day.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 7, 2006)

From what I remember, it was a Stateside plane...beyond that, I don't know.
I THINK I got the picture fromWINGS PALETTE - Brewster B-239/339/F2A Buffalo


----------



## Le Stuka (Sep 14, 2006)

P-39 purely because of the 37mm cannon and the looks. In the ground attack role I would use it any day!


----------



## JF3D (Sep 18, 2006)

P-39 with the 20MM and 4 fifty's. the 37MM wasn't that good a gun. the 20 had better ballistics, better ROF and more rounds. The 39's used to fly over the mountain range (Stanley's?) in PNG and come screaming down on the JAF on the north side of the island. When they had the height and speed, they did OK. It's when they got caught low and out of energy is when they got clobbered. The guy who ordered them without turbo/supercharger's should have been made to walk naked covered in honey through grizzly bears during mating season.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 18, 2006)




----------



## Marcel (Sep 20, 2006)

My choice is the buffalo, but more because of the de-navalised, heavier armed B-239, which the Fins used. They showed that with some small modifications, the small plane could match anything the Russians could throw at it, agains overwhelming odds. I always wonder how the Fins could do so well with planes that were, eh, not so good in other theatres. Not only the Brewster, also with the ms406, Fokker DXXI, Bleheim, Fiat G50 etc. Maybe if they had some P39, they would have put it in good use as well.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2006)

Interesting camo scheme. Reminds me of the camo scheme for the 1970s and 1980s F-16 and F-18, where the cockpit was painted on the lower fuselage too. Makes for some confusion in the heat of maneuvering of which way the aircraft is banking. The Brewster camo seems to take that to extreme. Perhaps effective against enemies making snapshot glances, but likely fails for more general effectiveness.

Either that or they intended to hide them in crop circles. I'm just making this stuff up anyway.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 22, 2006)

I may be mistaken, but I think the Buff really had a cockpit in the belly. It was there so the pilots could aim at the ground targets if they used bombs. I have a model of a US Navy Brewster Buffalo that has the bombardier window. I'm not really sure if the Finns kept that feature in their Buffs or not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 22, 2006)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I may be mistaken, but I think the Buff really had a cockpit in the belly. It was there so the pilots could aim at the ground targets if they used bombs. I have a model of a US Navy Brewster Buffalo that has the bombardier window. I'm not really sure if the Finns kept that feature in their Buffs or not.


Not true - look at the pilot's manual we have in the tech library. There were 2 small windows in the fuselage at the pilot's feet below control cables. It was there to give a view below the aircraft but if you look at the pilot's manual there is little room there...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 22, 2006)

Yeah, I guess cockpit is the wrong word. But I can't seem to find the tech library on here.When I tried the search on the Aircraft database for Brewster Buffalo, it wouldn't give me a thing. Unless you mean in the photo albums? 

I found some other pictures on the net that show two differant kind of belly bombardier windows on the Buff. And one of the versions seems to be a single window on the belly, not two.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 22, 2006)

I'll be dang. Interesting Soundbreaker. I think you may be on to something.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 23, 2006)

Have to build my model to find out!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2006)

This is out of the pilots notes for the Mk I

3. The pilot is seated just forward of the approximate midpoint of the fuselage. He is protected from flame in the
engine compartment by a fire wall which isolates him from the forward nose of the aeroplane. He is protected by
armour plate from a cone of gun fire originating forward of the aeroplane. A sliding canopy constructed of
transparent Plexiglas shelters his head and shoulders and permits him full view in all directions except downward.
*View in a downward direction is obtained through four Plexiglas windows mounted just under the pilot’s knees.*
The pilot’s seat support tubes are designed to carry a sheet of armour plate on the aft side.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/buffalo-mk-i-4912.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2006)

Here's a shot of the cockpit, you could see the rudder pedals, a bombidar smaller than a pigmy would be the only one who could fit under there!!


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2006)

Certainly its not Bombadier station, but what is the structure. Sure looks like cockpit framing! And it's not 4 bloody pieces of plexiglass. Flyboy, what year is your manual. I didn't think plexiglass was brought to market in time for mass aviation manufacturing. Is plexiglass and perspex one and the same? If not, what the differences in their properties?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2006)

Nevermind. Answered my own question. Perspex is a European trade name for plexiglass. They are one and the same.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2006)

Here's another diagram. No cockpit lattice work structure on this one either. I'm going back to my original premise I think. I did find on another archive site that the Buffalo underwent some camoflage schemes that were concocted by a graphic artist in 1940. The Navy performed tests and confirmed that they did not contribute towards their goal. These camo schemes looked like the one in this thread and others appeared to have that same disruptive patter that you often seen on the sides of ships to ward of submarine attacks. I have read that they were of dubious value too.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 23, 2006)

Found it.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 23, 2006)

I Incorrectly termed the Pilot as the Bombardier. I read in the Tamiya instructions manual that when the Buff was carrying bombs, the pilot would look down at the window at his feet, and then he could see the ground target underneath, and that gave him better accuracy to be able to drop his bombs on it. So, he was kind of doing what a bombardier would be doing, aiming at the target with bombsight and not with his gun sight or by eye. 

I'm imagine the window made it easier for ground attack missions. In the documentary "Thunderbolt!" they said how it was trickier for the P-47 pilots to hit the target without a bombsight. It required more experience to bomb without it. 

The only downside is a bullet being shot from below you might have an easier time passing through the glass in the belly and hitting you than it would have if it was all metal plated there.


Oh and Matt, sorry to take so long to get back. The first manual I found on google search and it's a blue print for making a wooden model Brewster Buffalo. The other one is a Tamiya instructions manual for the 1/48 Brewster Buffalo. Tamiya is a pretty acurate company so I imagine the window is correct. But they could have made a mistake on this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2006)

If you look at the manual posted and other drawings of the Buffalo, there was noting below the seat - an empty cavity and that is common with a lot of aircraft of the era. As far a a round going through the glass, the seat was armoured and even if the glass was removed I would guess the thickest the skin would be in that area is about .040.

I think the primary goal of that glass was to give the pilot a little downward visibility. It might of been used for reference if they were going to drop bombs from the aircraft (something I think was done little with the Buffalo).


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 24, 2006)

...so what is the diagramed cockpit lattice type structure. Back to the camo theory?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 24, 2006)




----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2006)

The Airacobra because its faster and carries a better array of weaponry.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 24, 2007)

I'll play...P-51 Mustang!  

Seriously, I voted for the Brewster.

Sure, the Peanut Special was the fighter with the bomber engine, but there's a reason the Navy picked it over the F4F.
Pilots who test flew both planes mentioned that the F2A just seemed to go through the paces much easier than the Grumman.
The only thing the Grumman seemed to do better than the Brewster was go straight down (and if any of you remember, that's exactly how Navy pilots used the plane to defeat Zero's during the war).

Wanna get away from a Zero? Point the nose of the Brewster _up_.
I've got a magazine somewhere that did an article on that plane in the mid 90's and they quoted a 3060 fpm climb rate for the F2A.
I belive that equals or maybe even slightly bests a Zero.

...and there's the legacy of the Finn's, too.

The P-39 was a good plane and it seemed almost purpose-built for the way the Russian's thought of how to use their air arm, but I still think the F2A / B-239 would be a better dogfighter.



Just my $0.02





Elvis


----------



## renrich (Nov 24, 2007)

The Japanese at Midway must not have known about the dogfighting prowess of the Buffalo because there were no Buffaloes left of the ones that went up to intercept the first raid and I don't believe the Buffs were credited with any kills. I hope you guys counting on that 37 mm in the nose of the P39 are getting close and are good shots because the 37mm usually jammed after the first shot or so. You would be lucky if you were flying the P400 with it's 20mm except you had no oxygen so couldn't get too high even if the P400 could get there. The Buffalo did have a good climb rate and a lot of range.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 25, 2007)

Yeah, I've been hearing about this for years.

This situation is like if you'd bought a brand new Mazda Miata.
Nice little sports car. You can have some fun with it on a twisty road once in a while, but take it out to a race track (road course) and flog around there a few times as fast as you can...then have a professional Formula One driver take a few laps in it.

Who do think is going to post the faster lap times?


I think we're seeing the same thing with the Japanese pilots.






Elvis


----------



## renrich (Nov 25, 2007)

I am not sure that I am answering a question that has been asked but the quality of the USN and Marine pilots at Midway was quite high. They had not had a lot of battle experience but they were well trained with their AC and well trained in deflection shooting which was not common in the other air forces of the world. Apparently because of the inferiority of the Buffaloes none of them escaped from being kills although the Wildcats in the same force achieved some success. Fortunately for him, Marion Carl was in a Wildcat. If I am not mistaken the Marine Wildcats at Midway and at Wake were F4F3s instead of the poorer performing F4F4s on our carriers.


----------



## Elvis (Nov 27, 2007)

There's training and there's experience.
Training can only prepare you.
Experience, well that's a completely different ball game.

I'm not sure which version of the F4F was used at Midway. You may very well be correct on your assumption.

Either way, I'd still take the Buffalo over the Aircobra.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

The P-39D-1 had a 20mm and oxygen equipment and a belly shackle for bomb or tank. (up to 141 gal)

It seems the later models of the M4 cannon were more reliable and the Soviets liked it in a dogfight. Though it would be almost useless aganst a Japanese fighter. Although the 20mm could only hold 60 rounds compared to 30 for the 37mm. (a 37mm round being about 5x as powerful- certainly overkill on a Zero, but a one-hit kill aganst a Fw 190 or Bf 109)

The Soviets also didn't much use the P-39 for ground attack (the cannon being rather poor on armour with only 20mm penetration at 450 yards). They did ocasionally use it to strafe, but it was the USAAF which realy used it for ground attack.

The Russians actualy used it for top cover for Il-2's and such, the P-39 having better altitude performance than many Soviet fighters and better range as well. (their oppinion of the P-40 wasn't so high though)


Only the F2A-1 and B-239 were the only versions to excede 3000 ft/min at normal load. The F2A-1 also lacked armor and both lacked self-sealing tanks. They were much lighter than later models though and much more agile.

The F2A-2 was the fastes and overall best performer with good altitude performance with a 2-sped supercharger and 1,200 HP R-1820-40. Climb dropped to 2500 ft/min at normal power. Wing loading also increased, but ammo load increased larger tanks with modest self-sealing were added and bomb racks were added.


All models (to my understanding) except the prototype had the framed glazing on the belly to provide a limited downward view. 

The F4F also had belly bindows with one small porthole-like window on either side of the cockpit floor.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 28, 2008)

I'll stick with the P39...better firepower and armor although I have to give credit to the Buffalo...the Finns turned it into a deadly weapon.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

But just imagine what the Finns would have done with P-39s... Though the did have some 109s but these were mostly early models iirc and the altitude performance of the 109 wasn't much needed on the eastern front. In contrast the P-39D-2 could do 380+ mph at ~10,000 ft (critical altitude for WEP of 1,320 for climb 1,480 hp max) The the N had simialar performance but the P-39Q was even faster (with wing gun-pods removed) almost touching 400 mph at a similar critical altitude, though it dropped to ~380 mph at 16,000 ft where hp dropped below 1,100 hp.

And the Finns' Brewsters (as they called them, that ant the "Pearl of the Sky") had armor but non-sealing tanks. But even with "allison armor" I think the P-39 is at a disadvantage in survivabillity due to the liqud-cooled engine which was more volnerable to the rear than most (though the radiators were less volnerable than the P-51s') and I wouldn't want to be flying one if the engine caught fire!!! 

The F2A also had better climb and better altitude performance with a variable speed supercharger. (though I'm not sure if the Finn's models had these) it could certainly climb and turn better than most P-39 models. And many pilots preferred their Brewsters to Bf-109s; the B-239 being a "gentleman's plane" while the Bf-109 was a "killing machine."


And if it came down to a finnish B-239 aganst a Russian P-39, I'd go for the Finn as the pilot is going to be, most likely, of significantly higher skill.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 1, 2008)

One other thing that the Brewster _may_ have over the Airacobra is the fact that the russian M-63 is a license built Wright Cyclone R-1820-G5...same motor used in the Buffalo.
Thus, the Finn's could (and did) use some of the motors from wrecked Russian aircraft to replace worn out engines in the Buff's.


Elvis


----------



## Elvis (Mar 1, 2008)

kool kitty89,






In the middle picture, which shows the underside of the F4F, what are the oval shaped "deals" near the root of the wings?



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

The development of both a/c was troublesome though, the F2A with Brewsters poor management of the company and the alterations made to the P-39 at the USAAF's insistance.

The original XP-39 had a longer wing with 236 ft2 (more room for fuel/weapons, better lift:drag, lower wing loading and more room for growth), a taller canopy (adequate head room for pilots over 5' 8"), a shorter rear fusalage (providing good handeling), and of course the turbocharger mounted in a ventral position with a small belly intake scoop.

The USAAC "streamlined" the P-39: shortening the wings -cutting wing area down to 213 ft2- and reduccing fuel capacity (as well as weapons capacity turn ability and climb), added a lower profile canopy (resulting in poorer visibillity and being very uncomfortable for anyone over 5' 8" and eliminated the turbo to switch to the small carburetor scoop aft of the canopy.

Thus the P-39 had any chance taken away from it to become a good fighter with the USAAF. They already had a much more capable multirole low-level fighter in the P-40 and better suited to the support and attack role than the P-39 with the P-40's rugged construction.


That said I'd take the Brewster since I couldn't fit into a P-39, being 6' 2.5" tall... My prefrence woulf be the F2A-2, better all-around performance than any other model: the fastest and the best altitude performance with decent armor and modest self-sealing tanks. Climb and turn rate was somewhat lower than the Finn's model anf the F2A-1, but still better than most P-39s and dive was better as well ammo load. It out performed most P-39s above 15,000 ft and certainly out maneuvered the Airacobra. Max range of the F2A-2 was at least twice the P-39's (on models without drop-tanks), though I wouldn't want to enter combat with more than a 50% fuel load. And the F2A may not have been as tough as the Wildcat (though not bad for its size) it was a small target and had a radial engine opposed to the P-39. 4x .50 cal guns would be suficient to take out a P-39 as well and I dont think the 37mm cannon would be much use aganst a more maneuverable target like the F2A. The F2A also had excelent visibillity and a telescopic gunsight (on US a/c), while the P-39's was above avrrage but the large peice of framing to the rear 1/3 of the canopy presented a blind spot,


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

The "deals" look like intakes of some kind, I'm not sure.

Do you see the windows in the belly?


----------



## Graeme (Mar 1, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The "deals" look like intakes of some kind, I'm not sure.



Oil cooler air intakes.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 1, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The "deals" look like intakes of some kind, I'm not sure.
> 
> Do you see the windows in the belly?


Yes, I see the windows.
I wasn't aware those existed on the F4F. I thought that was only something particular to the Brewster.

------------------------------------------

Graeme, thanks for the answer. I should've known!

------------------------------------------

Kool Kitty89,

I think the reason the P-39 lost its 2-stage supercharger is because of a little thing called the Rolls Merlin.
The US government deemed it cheaper and quicker to simply build those under license rather than continue to spend money and time developing the Allison.
Seemed the Alli got the short end of the stick all through the war, since several tests were made on P-40's with 2-stage supercharged Alli's making in excess of 1600HP, yet most were relagated to the 1295HP model (exception being the 1475HP P-38's w/ GE electric superchargers).
The "non-turbo'd" P-39 you mentioned _should_ be those powered with the single stage supercharger.
I don't think any Turbocharged Alli's ever made into combat.



Elvis


----------



## ToughOmbre (Mar 1, 2008)

P-39 gets my vote.

Two things to stay away from...

An ugly woman, and an ugly airplane, especially one built by Brewster.

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2008)

ToughOmbre said:


> P-39 gets my vote.
> 
> Two things to stay away from...
> 
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

Tyhe allison got a 2-stage supercharger (albeit only a primative one at first, w/out intercooler and other such advancements as the Merlin-61) by the end of the war V-1710's had advanced superchargers available, though some of these (particularly those used on post-war P-82s) were more probematic than the Merlin.

The simple 2-stage supercharger (auxillery supercharger) sucessfully raised the critical altitude to ~23,000-25,000 ft (~21,000 ft for WEP) and such models were used in all production P-63A/C's the C's engine was particularly powerful with 1,500 HP WEP and 1,800 HP with water injection at SL. 

It was the USAAC's policy of relying on turbo chargers (as they saw the advantage over conventional superchargers) for high altitude performance and had Allison focus on low-altitude superchargers for all else. Thus the V-1710 go a late start on development of other designs.

The V-1710 also used an integral single-speed supercharger, ulike the 2-speed supercharger of all but very early (Mk.I-III iirc) single-stage Merlins. The single stage supercharger could be tuned for higher critical altitudes with the disadvantage of restricted throttle setings down low (to prevent overboost). For example the V-1710-81 that powered the P-40M/N and P-51A, actually gave higher performance at medium altitudes and similar performance at 20,000 ft as the Merlin engined P-40s. It was limited to 1,200 hp for takeoff but at 5,000 ft it could produce its full WEP of 1,480 hp which could be maintained up to 10,400 ft. Millitary power of 1,125 hp could be produced up to 17,500 ft, and the engine was still making 836 hp at 25,100 ft.

With this engine the P-51A could actually outpeform the early P-51B of the same time period (give or take a couple months) at medium altitudes. With 415 mph at 10,400 ft in WEP, and 408 mph at 17,500 ft in Mil power. Range was about the same with the same fuel load. With 67" boost the P-51B was about equal at these altitudes, granted the A was lighter with a lighter engine, and no intercooler and acompanied ducting but the V-1710 had ~10-15" less boost at critical WEP altitude. Even at 25,100 ft the P-51A was making a respectable 395 mph with 836 hp!

See: Mustang (Allison Engine) Performance Trials http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51a-1-6007.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51b-engdiv-na-flighttestdata.jpg


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

I think the F2A's a nice lookin' little fighter, at least as good as the F4F, and agressive looking from the nose. But what do I know, I think the P-47 looks better than the P-51 and the Fw-190A-9 looks better than the D-9...

At least I don't think the Lanc looks better than a B-17! Or think most WWII French bombers look good. Though the Amiot 351 series and (to a lesser extent) the LeO 451 weren't bad looking.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 2, 2008)

I hadn't realized that either the F2A or F4F had belly windows until I played Il-2 Sturmovik (1946 DVD: entire collection up to 1946 addition). The F2A certainly has a more substantial vewing area.

From what I've seen and read all but the XF2A-1 had the window there. A side note: Brewster sold the prototype to the Finns along with the B-239's. Note: aldo, it is incorrect to refer to the Finns B-239's as Buffalos, they were active before the RAF even named the a/c and the Finns simply called the a/c the "Brewster" or "Sky Pearl."

We can't go looking at them now and comparing since there's only one intact surviving: 
From Wikipedia:


> Surviving Brewster Buffalo are extremely rare, as their construction quality was generally poor, and most were quickly dispatched to foreign military service. It was long thought no intact Buffalo remained, but during Summer 1998, a Finnish B-239 (serial no. BW-372) was discovered in a Russian lake, Big Kolejärvi, about 50 kilometers from Segezha, Russia. This aircraft was identified as one of the 44 Model 239s sold to Finland during the Winter War.
> 
> On 25 June 1942, BW-372 piloted by Lieutenant Lauri Pekuri was in a formation of eight Brewsters that encountered a mixed squadron of Soviet Hurricanes and MiG-3s. In the clash, seven Soviet aircraft were damaged. Lieutenant Pekuri shot down two Hurricane fighters (he had to his credit 18 kills, including seven Hurricanes) but his fighter was hit by heavy cannon fire from a MiG-3 and he was forced to ditch the burning Brewster in Big Kolejärvi lake. Pekuri survived with minor injuries and managed to walk 20 km to the Finnish lines.
> 
> The aircraft was recovered from the lake in 1998, and after extensive negotiations with Russian officials, it was finally transported to the United States. The Brewster fighter finally reached the Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Florida, on 18 August 2004. After discovering the historic nature of the aircraft, original plans to restore and display it as an F2A from the Battle of Midway were quickly dispensed with. The museum plans to reassemble the Brewster and display it exactly as it came from the lake in Russia. Damage caused by enemy fire and subsequent crash landing will not be disturbed. As near as possible, it will be fully authentic and original and instantly recognizable as a Finnish Air Force B-239 at a point in time when it made its last flight in hostile skies and settled to the bottom of the lake.





Another interesting note is that the F2A is the only American built fighter aircraft using a radial engine and with a conical prop spinner to see service in WWII.


----------



## Graeme (Mar 2, 2008)

Another 'glass-bottomed' Brewster was their SB2A-2 dive bomber..


----------



## Elvis (Mar 2, 2008)

KK89,

Sounds like we're in agreement.

Here's something; The Last Flight of BW-372

Its a computer generated thing, but kinda cool to watch.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 2, 2008)

Aparently belly windows were somewhat common in USN carrier a/c.

I'd probably take a P-40 (depending on model), or maybe a Hurricane over either though. One problem with the Hurricane Mk.I the Finns had (but disliked) was that the 8x .303 (or 7.92 mm) guns were virtualy useless aganst an Il-2's armor though the oil-cooler could be disabled (and the gunner killed) this might stop the completion of a mission. The Brewster was slower than the Hurricane but had a longer fireing time with .50's being better suited to the role. (plus the nose mounted guns were more acurate -no convergence zone-) The B-239 could out-climb the Hurricane I and had similar Maneuverabillity, albeit lower top speed. The P-36's (Hawk-75) that the Finns had also only had RCMG's. Aganst most russian fighters and many twin-engined bombers RCMG's could be decently affective. Even worse with only 4x .303's (or 7.92 mm) of the Finns' Gladiators, though I'd still take it over an I-153 or I-16, who would want want an open cockpit in that climate!

Another thing to note on the F2A's guns is that on all production models (as far as I know) had ammo gauges for the nose guns, one of the few (if not only) a/c in WWII to have one. In this manner pilots would know just how many rounds were left in there nose guns, though they still had to guess for the wing guns.

It should also be noted that the Finn's planes, being early models, were likely built to a higher quality than those produced after the start of WWII. (Particularly the late export Models ie B-339E AKA Buffalo Mk.I) The Finns also made modifications to the engines to improve reliabillity and performance (improved oil circulation by inverting cylinder rings), as well as they didn't have to worry about the gear collapse that carrier based craft did. (neither did other land-based models).


In addition to the friendly handeling of the Brewster the cockpit was also roomy and well organized. (and of course, visibillity was excelent)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

Oh and I forgot about the VL Humu, though it was a copy and only a single built. (with much subtitute materials due to shortages, similar in construction to the Myrsky)


----------



## Elvis (Mar 3, 2008)

Humu was wood/metal composite Finn copy of B-239.
Wood used because of the high number of craftsman in that coutry and the vast amount of wood available.
Also, engine was same as russian M-63, so any downed aircraft that had salvagable engines could be swapped out for the Wright 1820's, once they reached TBO.
I think the Finn's never went through with the Humu program because the Russians ended up winning that battle before production could commence.
I'll have to research that article I have, again, and I see if that's mentioned.

Nice pic, btw. Thanks for posting that.



Elvis


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Oh and I forgot about the VL Humu, though it was a copy and only a single built. (with much subtitute materials due to shortages, similar in construction to the Myrsky)



What are those engines in front of the Brewster? Do you know? The one on the left looks like a DB601, and the one on the right looks like a V-1710.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

It probably id a 601. I dont know about the right one, maybe a russian engine.

And as for an indigenous Finnish fighter, the Myrsky II was better than the Humu and it's only major problems were with the wooden construction in wet climates. It had 4x 12.7 mm guns concentrated in the nose as well giving good acurate firepower. it was a good 20-30 mph faster than the B-239 as well and climbed as well, though wing loading was somewhat higher. Plus the Myrsky was in production by the time the Humu prototype was ready and the Humu turned out to be heavier than the Brewster as well. Although the Myrsky did have some structural problems as well (mostly in high speed maneuvers) I doubt the Humu would have been much better at this and in most respects it was a decent a/c, although outclassed in 1944 it was still better in some ways than the Me 109's the Finns had received. (wider track landing gear and better low-medium speed aneuverabillity, better visibillity, tougher engine, longer range, armament debatable)


----------



## claidemore (Mar 3, 2008)

Judging by the bolts on the valve covers, that would be a Merlin engine beside the DB.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 4, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> What are those engines in front of the Brewster? Do you know? The one on the left looks like a DB601, and the one on the right looks like a V-1710.



Black engine is a Junkers Jumo 211.
Blue engine is either a Rolls or Packard Merlin (I'm leaning towards Rolls).



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 4, 2008)

Since the Finns (and Russians) had Hurricanes I'd expect it's a Rolls.


And I've done some more reading on export B-339's and most were fitted with R-1820-G105 engines rated for 1,100 hp (the F2A-2 used the 1,200 hp R-1820-40), but they were used engines and almost never produced this power (usually closer to 950 hp), and to make things worse many of the fuel pumps were inadequate ones for Hornet engines, so fuel starvation could occur above 10,000 ft. The did carry twice the ammo as the F2A-2 (500 rpg instead of 250) but there's no point in adding ammo if you can't bring you're guns to bare. Note these were lend-lease a/c and Brewster was having trouble since no money was being paid up-front.

The single exception to the poor engines of the B-339 was for the second half of the Netherlands' order: 

From: Brewster 339 in Netherlands East Indies


> However, the Wright Cyclone engine was at that time in short supply, and the Dutch government was forced to cut its Brewster order to only 72 planes. There were two separate batches delivered. The first 24 Brewsters delivered to the Netherlands East Indies were powered by Dutch-supplied 1100-hp Wright R-1820-G105 engines, some of which had been taken from DC-3s operated by commercial airlines and reconditioned at the Wright factory. These aircraft were assigned the Dutch serial numbers B3-95 through B3-118. The second batch of 48 aircraft were powered by 1200 hp Wright R-1820-G205 engines purchased directly from Wright. These planes were re-designated Model 339D by the company, and were assigned the Dutch serials B3-119 to B3-167. The two batches were otherwise identical.



The Finns engines were also used but had been refurbished and was a R-1820-G5 rated for 950 hp (1000 hp 5 min emergency, 850 cont.) which it did make and which was the same power as the F2A-1's engine (well matched to the lighter airframe), plus the Finns modified the engine to improve oil circulation. They also bought their a/c up front and were not lend-lease. 


What they should have done with the F2A-2 (for a proper F2A-3) was lighten the internal fuel capacity (particularly in the wings) to 70% (back to about the F2a-1'S 160 gal with self-sealing tanks) and improve self-sealing tanks, add provisions for drop tanks (2x 40 gal) on the wing racks, keep ammo load the same as in the F2A-3 (1300 rounds total), improve pilot armor to protect shoulders/arms (the most effective plate placement is a triangle piece the same size and shape as the roll-bar fitted to the roll-bar, along with seat armor for the pilot) and add armor glass to windscreen, add other upgrades (improved electrical systems etc, weight negligibly affected) add more powerful engine if possible.
These changes should keep empty weight the same (if not lower than the F2A-2, though a heavier engine may change this) and empty equipped weight should be similar, takeoff weight max load (clean) should be similar to the F2A-2, range (clean) will be less, but max range should be about the same with drop tanks, and max take-off should be similar to the F2A-3. (~1,600 mi, but drop tanks give the option to dump excess load when necessary).
So altered it could have been a good plane with improved fuel and pilot protection and ammo load with performance similar to the F2A-2, and better with an engine upgrade. Though it didn't really need a more powerful engine as 1,200 hp for a ~6,000 lb take-off weight is quite a bit, and more powerful engines may not have been available at the time, plus the R-1820-40 had good altitude performance. The decrease in internal tankage alone should take off ~500 lbs.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 8, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> And I've done some more reading on export B-339's and most were fitted with R-1820-G105 engines rated for 1,100 hp (the F2A-2 used the 1,200 hp R-2800-40)


KK89,

Where did you find the info that any F2A's were outfitted with R-2800's?
I've never heard that before.
All I've ever heard or seen was that they had one variation or another of the R-1820 and I think I saw somewhere where some were fitted with R-1830's.

R-1820-G5 was made for export. I think it was specified by the Finn's because it was the closest match to other european versions of that engine already in service, but don't quote me on that.

I agree with you on the points about the F2A-2, except you forgot the addition of the R-1820-56 engine, which made 1350HP (and with that extra power, a 4-bladed prop probably would've been a nice addition, as well).



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 11, 2008)

Sorry, 1820-40. I fixed it. Also, most of those figures are from JoeB's site.

JoeB's site supports the (almost) 2:1 kill ratio, but not for the Buffalo Mk.I with the commonwealth, but with the B-339C/D (the D had the 1,200 hp R-1820-G205 engine) with the Dutch. From: Brewster 339 in Netherlands East Indies


> The Brewsters were completely outclassed by the Japanese fighters which opposed them. The Model 339C and D were inferior to the Japanese Zero in speed, maneuverability and in climb rate. During three months of combat, 30 Brewsters were lost in air combat, 15 were destroyed on the ground, and a number were lost in accidents. 17 pilots were killed in action. Against these losses, Dutch Brewsters claimed 55 enemy aircraft destroyed, a victory-to-loss ratio of almost two to one.



On the other hand he also says this about the Buffalo Mk.I: Brewster Buffalo Mk I


> Many official British historical sources blame the loss of Malaya and Singapore largely on the Buffalo's poor performance. However, the picture is not entirely that of an unmitigated disaster, and many Buffalo-equipped units gave a good account of themselves before they were overwhelmed by superior Japanese numbers. Accurate figures on the combat losses of British Buffalos are difficult to come by. Approximately 60 to 70 Buffalos were lost in air combat, 40 were destroyed on the ground, twenty were lost in various non-combat related accidents, four were transferred to the Dutch, and six were evacuated to India. Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons claimed at least 80 kills, and some units may have achieved a 2-to-1 kill ratio.



So the 2:1 was for individual units, and the overall air to air kill:loss would be 1.14-1.33:1 in favor of the Buffalo.


And the Buffalo could out-dive (both in acceleration and dive limit) the Zero, Oscar, and Nate. (and Hurricane) Though the Wildcat, P-39 and P-40 could out-dive the F2A in most models.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2008)

I think its a safe bet that just about anything could outdive the early Japanese planes.
Those planes were built to dogfight, WWI style, so they were built lightly with quick reacting controls.
The downside of building light, is the airframes didn't seem as strong as the heavier Allied planes.
One F4F tactic was to get a Zero on your tail, then go into a dive, with the Zero keeping hot pursuit.
At a certain point, the Wildcat pilot would steepen the dive.
The F4's airframe could handle the added stress, but when the Zero pilot tried to hold pursuit, the manuver would rip the tail right off the airplane.

One thing that gets me about the Buff was how large the control surface was on the vertical stabilizer.
It's like half the tail!

...and no prob on the typo. I figured it was either that, or you were going to _revel_ me with some eye-opening info I was heretofore unaware of.

That actually reminds me of something else, but I'll save it for another thread.

BTW, when you stated "Overall Kill ratio" were you including the Finn's record in there?




elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 15, 2008)

The Zero had a similar tactic in the reverse aganst the Wildcat: the Zero pilot with a Wlidcat in persuit would enter a climb and wait for the Wildcat to stall out and then pounce...

Didn't work too well aganst the hellcat!

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIz9I7GG-Ps_


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 20, 2008)

Some good pictures of the F2A here: Brewster F2A Buffalo
and here American airplanes: Bo - Bu

That second one has pictures of the "dazzel camoflauge" shown earlier. 





And on the same site they have Bell's stuf too: American airplanes: Bell


----------



## Elvis (Apr 22, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Some good pictures of the F2A here: Brewster F2A Buffalo
> That second one has pictures of the "dazzel camoflauge" shown earlier.


I always thought that paint scheme had a cool "Art Deco" look to it.
Quite fitting, considering the time.
That scheme actually goes back to WWI and was used on ships.
It was said that the crazy lines broke up the ships colouring and profile, when viewed at a great distance and it was harder to tell _what_ was floating out there.




Elvis


----------



## Graeme (Apr 22, 2008)

Elvis said:


> It was said that the crazy lines broke up the ships colouring and profile, when viewed at a great distance and it was harder to tell _what_ was floating out there.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 22, 2008)

Ol' Graeme tryin' to put one over on me, eh?

Ya, don't fool me! I know a hot dog cart when I see one!


 


(hehe, just kidding. Its hard to tell from such a small pic, but it looks like there's either one or two boats there. I seem to remember the QE was painted up similarly, during the war...or was that the QM?).




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 22, 2008)

I see 2... But there could be some smaller ones there blending in...


----------



## Wildcat (Apr 23, 2008)

I say 1.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 23, 2008)

Why 2 conning towers then?


----------



## Graeme (Apr 23, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Its hard to tell from such a small pic



Yeah, it's not a good photo. It comes from this book...





The answer is one. It simply describes it as a warship cleverly camouflaged with false bows painted on the side.

Maybe someone can identify the warship?


----------



## Smokey (Apr 23, 2008)

Elvis said:


> One F4F tactic was to get a Zero on your tail, then go into a dive, with the Zero keeping hot pursuit.
> At a certain point, the Wildcat pilot would steepen the dive.
> The F4's airframe could handle the added stress, but when the Zero pilot tried to hold pursuit, the manuver would rip the tail right off the airplane.



Saburo Sakai claims that he used a dive tactic against pilots in F4Us which involved drawing the F4U pilot into following hi, down in a dive, then pulling up at the last minute. The pilot of the heavier F4U could'nt pull up in time and crashed into the ground. So that was the other side of the coin with having a lighter airframe structure

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MacArther (Apr 23, 2008)

> Saburo Sakai claims that he used a dive tactic against pilots in F4Us which involved drawing the F4U pilot into following hi, down in a dive, then pulling up at the last minute. The pilot of the heavier F4U could'nt pull up in time and crashed into the ground. So that was the other side of the coin with having a lighter airframe structure



Yeah, but the F4U would also be able to stand the stress of a high speed pull out. If I remember correctly, Japanese planes, especially the Zero and KI-43 often risked ripping their control surfaces or wings after pulling out of a high speed dive because they were built so light.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2008)

Smokey said:


> Saburo Sakai claims that he used a dive tactic against pilots in F4Us which involved drawing the F4U pilot into following hi, down in a dive, then pulling up at the last minute. The pilot of the heavier F4U could'nt pull up in time and crashed into the ground. So that was the other side of the coin with having a lighter airframe structure





MacArther said:


> Yeah, but the F4U would also be able to stand the stress of a high speed pull out. If I remember correctly, Japanese planes, especially the Zero and KI-43 often risked ripping their control surfaces or wings after pulling out of a high speed dive because they were built so light.


I don't know how often he did this or how successful Sakai really was by diving away from an F4U, but I could tell you unless you have target fixation you're going to know your limits in a terminal velocity dive.

As far as pulling wings off of a zero, not going to happen - they are a one piece structure. The Zero's structure was light and strong, it was able to handle aerodynamic loads. What it couldn't handle was having holes shot through it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 23, 2008)

Same for the Ki 43, though both the Zero and Oscar had structural problems if they exceeded their max allowable dive speeds, which were low compared to allied planes. (410 mph for the Zero iirc) This wasn't due to G loads though, but high aerodynamic loads from compressibility. This happened to most contemporary a/c as well, but at considerably higher speeds. (though on some planes like the Hurricane for example, usually hit terminal dive before never exceed speed due to the thick wings, the Max dive speed being ~450 mph while the never exceed speed being closer to 490 mph)
But reaching these speeds in the first place wouldn't be all that likely for the Zero/Oscar due to the light airframe and proportionally large ant thick wings. (for their weight)

And of course, some a/c were limited by control reasons in compressibility, not structural concerns, the P-38 probably being the best example. (though once control was lost the increasing speeds would lead to disintegration, particularly as nose-down trim was a usual result, causing excessive -G loads in some cases)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Same for the Ki 43, though both the Zero and Oscar had structural problems if they exceeded their max allowable dive speeds, which were low compared to allied planes.


That is the case for any aircraft. When operated within its design parameters both aircraft were actually very strong and were easily able to withstand the traditional plus 6 minus 3 Gs if not a bit more.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 23, 2008)

Yes, the only thing was that the Zero and Oscar had max allowable dive speeds around 50-100 mph lower than the average allied fighters. More if you include fighters entering in late '43.

But almost any allied fighter will out-dive either anyway though... Except the Hurricane and some older planes being used by China etc. (like some Biplanes and the P-26) And even the Hurricane would win i a prolonged dive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yes, the only thing was that the Zero and Oscar had max allowable dive speeds around 50-100 mph lower than the average allied fighters. More if you include fighters entering in late '43.
> 
> But almost any allied fighter will out-dive either anyway though... Except the Hurricane and some older planes being used by China etc. (like some Biplanes and the P-26) And even the Hurricane would win i a prolonged dive.


Agree - but I think that was due to more structural limitations than compressibility. Even with the Zero's wing I think you're going to have to be pretty high to reach a critical mach number.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 24, 2008)

Smokey,

Interesting ancedote. I don't recall ever hearing that one before.
Thanks for posting that.



Elvis


----------



## Juha (Apr 24, 2008)

IMHO
P-39N or Q was better than Brewster B.239.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah, but that plane was more than 4 years newer!


----------



## Juha (Apr 25, 2008)

Hello Kool Kitty!
I know, I know, but the question was: 
"Imagine you were on some Pacific Island and the Radars tell you that there are Enemy Boggies aproaching to attack your base, and you were faced with the task of Dogfighting perhaps a Zero, Jack, Tony, Hayate, or Shiden and had no other planes on hand but the Buffalo and the Airacobra, which would you pick to intercept the incoming enemy in the air?"

Now Jack, Hayate and Shiden means late war, so P-39Ns and Qs are legitime choices and because of that I would chose them over Brewster. Modified like Soviet usually did, for ex wing guns removed for lightness.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 25, 2008)

But by 1944 (at the latest) the P-39 and Brewster had been almost completely phased out in the PTO. The P-40 filling in the gaps when lacking better a/c. Particularly with the commonwealth inventory where the B-339's and Hurricanes were replaced by it in most cases.

But assuming they were still there in in that time frame.

As a pure interceptor the P-39 was certainly better, particularly against bombers, as it's speed would allow evasion of the escorting fighters, which is more important than dogfighting them anyway. The later variants also had a much better climb rate than any of the Brewster versions. (the best climber would probably be an F2A-2 with half fuel load to be fair, since the F2A-2 had more than 2x the range than the P-39 on internal fuel. And the F2A-2/B-339 also carried ~60% more fuel than the earlier F2A-1/B-239)

Even with the added weight of the F2A-2 and even with the lower rated engine of the B-339 the Brewster had better power loading and wing loading than most P-39 models. On top of this the Brewster a/c had a high lift airfoil. (common for Navy a/c) According to Russian and Finnish testing of sustained turns at ~1,000 m the B-239 had a turn time of ~14 sec, while the P-39 was 18-20 sec, depending on model. (the P-39Q w/out wing guns and with 4-blade prop had the best time at ~18.5 sec) The P-39D/D-1/P-400 would have been the most common in the Pacific in the '42-43 period.

However if we're talking about the commonwealth B-339E, Buffalo Mk.I, not all aircraft were up to spec (constructed rather hastily, and sometimes with substitute parts), as sometimes parts were missing and often the fuel pump was not powerful to operated effectively above 10,000 ft. (the proper pump was sometimes replaced with a smaller one for a P&W Hornet engine) They were fitted with external self sealing tanks, and some pilot armor, but lacked head armor (as did many P-39's), reflector sights, and armor glass wind screens.

They required a lot of modification to become fully combat ready. If fully modified to good working order (not very likely to achieve completely) it was a decent a/c, albeit a bit heavy for its 1,100 hp take-off engine. (if working properly) It also carried a heavy ammo load of 500 rpg (for fuselage .50's), compared to 250 rpg on earlier models, of course this added more weight.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 26, 2008)

KK89,

That turn rate you quoted for the F2A, was that for a 360 degree turn?
I thought I recently saw a 7 second turn rate posted in another thread.
Was that for a 180 degree turn?
Can't remember the thread off-hand. Maybe the Hurri vs. F4F thread?
Just curious, because I remembered a quicker time being quoted.

I know the test pilots liked the Brewster better than the Grumman, during the '38 Naval trials, (partly) because it seemed more nimble.
How that translates to the P-39 I don't know.
I still say the F2A over the P-39, because the P-39's overall rep seemed more to do with the ground attacK role than a fighter role (only what I've heard, over the years) and I agree with you on the F2A-2, but I still think they should've put the more powerful "-56" version of the Cyclone (along with a _properly modified_ propeller to expound that extra power) in that plane.
I bet the extra 150HP would've offset the weight gain the "-2" incurred.



Elvis


----------



## Juha (Apr 26, 2008)

Elvis 
it was me who gave the following in from Raunio's book:
"Brewster Model 239
Sustained 180deg at 350kmh (IAS) at 2000m 7sec, no wonder that Finns liked the plane."


----------



## Elvis (Apr 26, 2008)

Juha said:


> Elvis
> it was me who gave the following in from Raunio's book:
> "Brewster Model 239
> Sustained 180deg at 350kmh (IAS) at 2000m 7sec, no wonder that Finns liked the plane."


THAT'S IT!
Thanks Juha.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 26, 2008)

It was on the P-40 vs 109 thread.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 27, 2008)

Elvis said:


> KK89,
> I know the test pilots liked the Brewster better than the Grumman, during the '38 Naval trials, (partly) because it seemed more nimble.
> How that translates to the P-39 I don't know.
> I still say the F2A over the P-39, because the P-39's overall rep seemed more to do with the ground attacK role than a fighter role (only what I've heard, over the years) and I agree with you on the F2A-2, but I still think they should've put the more powerful "-56" version of the Cyclone (along with a _properly modified_ propeller to expound that extra power) in that plane.
> ...



The US used the P-39 mostly in ground attack duties, and seemed to prefer the P-40 overall. (maneuverability being about equal, but easier to fly, 50%+ more range, better bomb load, slightly slower in level flight and climb, better overall armament)

The Soviets used it as a fighter: interceptor, escort, etc. Particularly for top cover for Il-2's. It had better "high" altitude (medium altitude by most standards; 15,000 ft); performance than many contemporary Soviet fighters. (particularly pre '44)



I'm not sure why Brewster didn't use a more powerful engine. (there were more powerful versions than the -56 model. (eventually topping out just over 1,500 HP) But I don't think adding more power would have cured the F2A-3's problems. It was overweight and this exacerbated the landing gear problem, in fact making the gear unreliable even in land based service. The armor had nor been efficiently configured on most US and commonwealth models either with the head and/or sholders often being exposed. (the Finns found an excelent layout though) 
Even the F2A-2 was pushing abit much weight (the gear had been improved but the weight gain had negated this), and it probably would have been best to keep the fuel capacity to that of the F2A-1 and keep take-off weight below 6,000 lbs. At that weight 1,200 hp would have been very good, though range would be ~900 mi (compared to 1,400-1,500 mi of the F2A-2/3) but provisions for drop tanks to the wing racks could have helped this. Plus 900 mi was already a bit more than the F4F's 800 mi max clean range. 

Some export models, the Dutch B-339D's, got 1,200 hp R-1820-G-205 engines which roughly equivelent to the -40 model of the F2A-2, these engines came directly from Wright and were not refurbished like many of the R-1820-G-105's used. Thus these a/c would have had considderably better performance than the -G-105 powered models.


----------



## Elvis (May 1, 2008)

KooKitty89 said:


> Some export models, the Dutch B-339D's, got 1,200 hp R-1820-G-205 engines which roughly equivelent to the -40 model of the F2A-2, these engines came directly from Wright and were not refurbished like many of the R-1820-G-105's used. Thus these a/c would have had considderably better performance than the -G-105 powered models.


I had to do a little research into the differences between the 105 and 205 G series engines.
The only thing I could find (in the short time I took to do this) was that the G205 was 100HP more powerful than the G105, however, nothing was ever stated that that difference was due to the fact that the 105's were a refurbed engine.
I get the feeling the HP difference would've been the same whether the 105's were new or refurbed (my thinking is that the 205 was an improved version of the series).
Also, I noticed something interesting, in that during my research, I found that J.Baugher had written the following, concerning the Dutch 339C's and D's - "_The Dutch Model 339C and D were quite similar to the British Model 339E, but did not have the oval opening panel of the British model._
Is that "oval opening panel" the glass windows seen at the bottom of the aircraft in some of the drawings?


Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Yes but the thing was that many of the 105's used were second-hand and were not even producing their 1,100 hp rated power, hoever this may also have been due to the improper fuel pressurization pumps sontimes found on the Buffalo I (less powerful pumps for P&W Hornet engines) which caused fuel problems above 18,000 ft and sometimes as low as 10,000 ft. While the G-205's were new engines from the factory, just like the US F2A's.

There was one article I reas that said thst many of the G-105's used performed about the same as the G-5's (1,000 hp takeoff) used on the B-239. Though the Finn's engines seem to have been in better condition, or it may have just been the modifications (inverting cylinder rings to improve oil flow) and the cold climat that made them more reliable. That and the planes themselves were built at a time when Brewster was still on farly good terms quality and management wise.


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

From what I found, the 105's were "refurbed".
I take this as meaning that upon getting them back, Wright tore them all down, did a quick wash, threw a ring, bearing and gasket set in them and sent them on their way.
Unless the cylinders were really bad, they should've been performing as designed.
I understand all of those engines didn't have a whole lot of time on them, though, so I kinda find that hard to believe.
My research also noted that most of those engines came out of DC-3's, so maybe they weren't designed from the onset to work much above 18,000 feet (I think a DC-3 tops out at around 22,000 feet, if I'm not mistaken).
Personally, my thinking is that those planes were probably being converted over for military use and part of the conversion was to give them fresh powerplants, regardless of how many hours their current engines had on them.
Suddenly, Wright (or the USAAF, anyway) finds themselves saddled with a whole bunch of older model, low hour engines.
_Gee, what shall we do with those?_  
Something also tells me the 105's and 205's were sub-varients of the 5 varient of the G series engines, thus all those "5's".
That's just my opinion, though. Nothing to back it up other than a hunch.

That's an interesting notion about flipping over the piston rings to improve oil flow.
Can you post the link where you read that. I'd like to see it.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 3, 2008)

Those are export designations, the G's that is, sometimes they're export specific and sometimes they have 2 designations (1 domestic, 1 export) iirc, but those cases weren't as common.

You're right on the altitude ratings for the engines (not sure for the 205), but the fuel pressurization problem would reate separate issues.

For the F2A-2 however with the -40 engine which had a high critical altitude (950 hp at 26,000 ft iirc), a high altitude carburetor was fitted as well. (hence why the F2A-2 could manage ~340 mph at 26,000 ft)

I'm not sure if this was retained on the F2A-3 since top speeds are listed for only up to 16,500 ft, though this may be for lack of data.


----------



## Elvis (May 3, 2008)

Kool Kitty 89 said:


> Those are export designations, the G's that is


The following is an excerpt from that oh so famous write up of Wright engines from 1937...

"_The Wright G Cyclone Series represented the latest aircooled aircraft engine developed by the company. Although of the same displacement (1,820 cubic inches) as the F and the F-50, the G Series engines incorporated many refinements and improvements in design principal. Among them was a new cylinder which has a cooling fin area of 2,800 square inches against 1,000 square inches in other Cyclone models. Advancement in foundry technique in the Wright Aeronautical foundry, made possible the casting of cooling fins on the G cylinder head as closely spaced as the teeth on a comb and nearly two inches in depth over the combustion chamber. Cylinder barrels were of Nitralloy steel, nitrided to obtain a cylinder bore with a surface with three times the wear resistance of ordinary heat-treated cylinder barrels. Five large nitriding furnaces were installed to accommodate the daily output of Cyclone G cylinders. More accurate fuel control and the improved cylinder heads on the G Cyclone engine permitted a rating of 1,000 hp at take-off with a weight in certain models of 1.07 pounds per horsepower and fuel consumption of .43 pounds per horsepower at cruising speed. 

Other features of the design and construction of the G Series Cyclones were automatic lubrication of the valve gear from a built-in system devoid of all external lines or tubes, mechanism for the operation of two-position hydro-control and constant speed propellers, an accessory section provided with the driving mechanism necessary to meet all of the requirements of modern military and civil transport service, the dynamic damper counterweight which counteracts torsional vibration at all crankshaft speeds and removes all restrictions in the operating range, full pressure baffling of the cylinders, improved oil seals and refinements in the supercharger and induction systems to increase altitude performance. 

The G Cyclone was produced in four geared models and their direct drive counterparts. These were the Cyclone GR-1820-G1 rated at 940 hp for take-off, 825 hp at sea level, and 850 hp at 3,000 feet; the Cyclone GR-1820-G2 rated at 1,000 hp for takeoff, 810 hp at sea level, and 850 hp at 5,500 feet; the Cyclone GR-1820-G3 rated at 875 hp for take-off, and 840 hp at 8,700 feet; and the Cyclone GR-1820-G6 rated at 820 hp for take-off and 815 hp at 10,500 feet. 

The various G Cyclone models differ only with respect to the amount of supercharging applied. The G-1 has a blower gear ratio of 5.95 to 1; the G-2 a blower ratio of 7 to 1; the G-3 a blower ratio of 8.31 to 1 and the G-6 a blower ratio of 8.83 to 1. All the G Series engines are of the nine-cylinder radial aircooled type and have the following characteristics: bore, 6.125 inches; stroke, 6.875 inches; compression ratio, 6.45 to I; diameter, 54 1/4 inches; length, 43 1/4 inches; dry weight (geared) 1,163 pounds, (direct drive) 1,068 pounds. _"

Thus the G series wasn't neccessarily an import designation, just another varient of the 1820.




Kool Kitty 89 said:


> You're right on the altitude ratings for the engines (not sure for the 205), but the fuel pressurization problem would reate separate issues


Agreed. Fuel pressurization would be a whole 'nother can of worms.




Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 3, 2008)

Sorry, the letter names are used for almost all normal designations (civilian, export, and the company itsself) the pure numerical designations are for the US millitary. So while a new letter would designate a new design version, this wouldn't be reflected by the millitary models' designations. Same for the V-1710, and virtually all aero engines used in the US. 

Hence the major design changes that went on with the gearing of the early V-1710 for example (a couple times, to eliptical gearing, and then one with a stronger spur gear arrangement) the V-1710-33 of the P-40B/C (gearing rated for 1,100 hp), should have a new letter designation than the more powerful -39 of the P-40D/E (gearing rated for 1,600 hp), but it's more difficult to discern by the millitary designations, in less directly stated, since info on the letter blocks seem to be more common on web sites dedicated to engine data.


I found a good site with lists of lots of varients of US piston aero engins with power ratings designations weights size, but I can't seem to find it now.


----------



## Elvis (May 4, 2008)

Under military designations, varients of a number design are denoted by letter.
For instance, the grear change you mentioned in the V-1710, would have created a "-33*A*" or possibly what was orignally the V-1710-33, would become the V-1710-33*A*, making the model with the improved gear the V-1710-33*B*.
After the letter comes another number. Like with the M4 Sherman tank. you have M4, M4A, M4A-1, M4A-2, M4A-3, etc.



Elvis


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 4, 2008)

Yes but those letters are different than the letter series of the engine, there are also notations like on the R-2800-57C.

THe Manufacture's latter designation series denotes an new version of the engine, while progressive millitary designations are numerical.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Under military designations, varients of a number design are denoted by letter.
> For instance, the grear change you mentioned in the V-1710, would have created a "-33*A*" or possibly what was orignally the V-1710-33, would become the V-1710-33*A*, making the model with the improved gear the V-1710-33*B*.
> After the letter comes another number. Like with the M4 Sherman tank. you have M4, M4A, M4A-1, M4A-2, M4A-3, etc.
> 
> ...





kool kitty89 said:


> Yes but those letters are different than the letter series of the engine, there are also notations like on the R-2800-57C.



The numbers and all letters after an engine designation meant an attachment for a specific aircraft, a component that was different or sometimes even a different engine configuration.

Here's a Type Certificate Data Sheet for the R-2800. Read all the dash numbers and notes...

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/cf0f9435e20432008525676a006759e7/$FILE/ATTIAV5I/5E-8.pdf


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 4, 2008)

Weren't there also sometimes additions like 'W' to the designation for water injection? 

And for the series itsself from what I've read the manufactures designation (also used for civilian and export users) is with litters than addtional numbers for variants of the model. ie R-1820A, B, C, D, E, etc, and G-5, 105, 205, etc. With additional number/letter for specific excessories, or modifications.

But the USAAF (and USN, USMC) had separate numerical designations for the engines, ie R-1820-40, or V-1710-39, with additional letters or numbers for specific excessories or modifications.
For example, the V-1710-39 and -73 of the P-40D/E and K, were AAF designations for the V-1710-F3R and -F4R engines. (R for "right handed" iirc, clockwise when seen from the pilot's perspective)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Weren't there also sometimes additions like 'W' to the designation for water injection?


Yes...

And for the series itsself from what I've read the manufactures designation (also used for civilian and export users) is with litters than addtional numbers for variants of the model. ie R-1820A, B, C, D, E, etc, and G-5, 105, 205, etc. With additional number/letter for specific excessories, or modifications.


kool kitty89 said:


> But the USAAF (and USN, USMC) had separate numerical designations for the engines, ie R-1820-40, or V-1710-39, with additional letters or numbers for specific excessories or modifications.
> For example, the V-1710-39 and -73 of the P-40D/E and K, were AAF designations for the V-1710-F3R and -F4R engines. (R for "right handed" iirc, clockwise when seen from the pilot's perspective)


Correct as well.


----------



## Elvis (May 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Yes but those letters are different than the letter series of the engine, there are also notations like on the R-2800-57C.
> 
> THe Manufacture's latter designation series denotes an new version of the engine, while progressive millitary designations are numerical.


You're correct.
I was confusing manufacturer and military designations.
Sorry about that.



Elvis


----------



## warhawk (May 17, 2009)

I have models of both planes in 1/72nd, and both of them look cool to me... 8)


----------



## Csch605 (Mar 21, 2019)

Marcel said:


> My choice is the buffalo, but more because of the de-navalised, heavier armed B-239, which the Fins used. They showed that with some small modifications, the small plane could match anything the Russians could throw at it, agains overwhelming odds. I always wonder how the Fins could do so well with planes that were, eh, not so good in other theatres. Not only the Brewster, also with the ms406, Fokker DXXI, Bleheim, Fiat G50 etc. Maybe if they had some P39, they would have put it in good use as well.



The Finns armory training and maintenance was excellent. Pilot marksmanship was very effective. I guess when you have alot of targets and not much ammo you get good fast. P39 all the way though perfect blasting old Russian open air cockpit planes.


----------

