Brewster Buffalo - what is the verdict?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

PFVA63 said:
Here's a graph that I put together along time ago (that I have recently tried to clean up a little) that shows wing loading vs gross weight for a number of WWII type fighters.................................
Click to expand...
Thank you. That is a lot of work.

I am sorry for any confusion but I switched gears there a bit.
The Buffalo (and the other aircraft) had about 4 things going on that were often in conflict.
We have the square footage of the wing (lift) and most of the time we ignore the airfoil.
We have drag (and Buffalo was champ at this and not in a good way)
And we have thrust (power).
and we have weight.

"The Buffalo was on the small side for a plane of it's size and type."

Carrier plane of the late 30s. designed in 1935 first carrier landing in April 1938.
Production planes started to show up in June of 1939. After the US Navy had ordered the conversion of the XF2A-1 to XF2-2 standards.
The F2A-1 had a bigger wing than the French, German and Italian land planes which meant more weight and drag.
British had their own problems getting fighters out of small fields what with the variable pitch/constant speed prop being the work of Devil Worshipers. Solved by using really big wings
The Buffalo also started with a not very powerful engine. That 950hp was at take-off and it was only good for around 800hp at 16000ft. The direct drive and small high rpm prop didn't help. Solved with the F2A-2 and the 339 series but at the cost of around 280-300lbs of engine and propeller weight.
Please note that the later engines increased low altitude power fairly well, high altitude (16-17,000ft) not so much.
The British planes and the French and German planes had lower drag than the Buffalo. They didn't have good power at take-off but they hit peak power at around 11-13,000ft depending on engines (British were at 16-17,000ft)
Japanese were sort of unknown at this time but the A5M was known to be a fixed gear monoplane.

US did their usual trick of adding a lot weight with guns and ammo. The Buffalo with one .30 and three .50s was carrying about 470lbs of guns and ammo and that is with 200rpg for the .50s.

For a carrier fighter trying to carry 450-500lbs of armament (and 160 US gal [133imp] of fuel) the Buffalo was a bit small. The engines the Foreign buyers got, perhaps because the US would release the G100 series for export but not the G-200 (?) or perhaps there simply weren't enough G200s to be had (?). weren't exactly up to snuff on the world stage even if they were running right. G-200s used the same bore & stoke and just about everything else was different. The 1100hp for take-off only lasted to 1500ft after which the power dropped off.

The Hawk 75 with Wright radial engines used a bigger wing and carried a less armament weight and didn't have to land on carriers. They probably would have either broken the landing gear or punch the landing gear out the top of the wings.
The British planes with their big wings turned out to be able to operate off carriers (after changing the props and few other things). An eight gun Hurricane was carrying less armament weight than a Buffalo.
 
Excellent discussion, gents.

Yeah, Brewster was a mess. Two of its CEOs/whatevers went away for corruption. And allegedly plant security permitted the Germans to infiltrate the place...thank goodness it was Brewster rather than Boeing or North American or Grumman!

I have never known an F2A pilot who disliked the aircraft in its various flavors. Among the most enthusiastic was Kiwi ace Geoff Fisken (later in P40s) who liked the Buff for its .50 calibers and dive performance. But his previous ride was the Vickers Vildebeest, so you can allow some interpretation!

Marion Carl said he would've done as well in an F2A at Midway as he did in his F4F, and Boyington enjoyed flying the Brewster.

However, any efforts at a Stalinist type of rehabilitation of the F2A and TBD in context of their time & place have been marginal!
 
tomo pauk said:
Any takers?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately a lot of what is written about the Buffalo is rubbish.
I am not saying that the Buffalo was a good plane, just that many of the explanations/stories are rubbish

From the article linked to.

Only 11 of the 54 F2A-1s produced went to the USN – the remainder were modified and sold to Finland, where they were highly successful in combat against the Red Air Force throughout the Continuation War of 1941-1944. This was partly due to their good reflector gunsights and reliable armament of four .5-inch heavy machine-guns.

US Navy relinquished their spots in the production que and ordered F2A-2 aircraft to be delivered later. Maybe semantics but the Finns got planes as built brand new. They were not modified although there were differences.


The Buffalo's problems really began with the later export versions, especially the Brewster Model 339E, 170 of which were supplied to British and Commonwealth air forces. This was based on the US Navy's F2A-2, but was distinctly inferior, with a less-powerful engine (1,100hp compared to 1,200hp in the F2A-2).

Been over this before, the US was going to get G200 series engines. Foreign orders got G100s. Finns got the older G series.
Gs had aluminum crankcases, G100s had steel crankcases, G200s had a new stronger steel crankcase that was lighter (or no heavier) the G100s steel crankcase. You can't "tweek one engine and turn into a later version.
French were supposed to get G200s in their Hawks A-4s, first delivered April 8th 1940.

poor performance The real killer was that RAF-specified modifications, such as improved cockpit armour, had increased the aircraft's total weight by 900lb, despite the removal of naval fittings such as arrestor hooks and life rafts. Nominal maximum speed was reduced from 344mph to 330mph but, in practice, even this was rarely reached as Brewster frequently fitted reconditioned Wright Cyclone engines removed from Douglas DC-3 airliners instead of the specified 'new-build' engines.

The RAF wasn't specifying much of anything, except perhaps some armor and fuel tank protection (maybe they bought some P-39 cockpit heaters?) Their order of 170 aircraft followed the Belgian order for 40 aircraft which followed the US order for the F2A-2. The XFA2-2 was delivered in July of 1939 with the heavier engine and larger propeller. The US Navy was part and parcel of the weight spiral, The Dutch and British may have joined it but they did not start it. The engine was around 200lbs heavier than the earlier engine, split between the propeller reduction gear (the old G series could be fitted with a reduction gear for about 100lbs) the new steel crankcase (about 50lbs) and other stronger heavier parts.
The Bigger diameter, slower turning prop gained around or up to 80lbs, Different props were fitted to the different customers aircraft.
The USN was having trouble with the landing failing on the F2A-1s. There was some beefing up of the landing gear at this time.
But somehow this gets blamed on the British and their unnamed (except for improved armor [the F2A-1 had none, not hard to improve) specified modifications.

I really want to see the test reports for the 344mph Buffalo. Same test pilot that flew the XP-39 at 390mph before Langley wrecked it
USN F2A-2 with factory Fresh, G200, 1200hp engine was good for low 320s mph, at 5942lbs. (that weight is the same as a two gun fighter with 110 US gal of fuel).
The much heavier F2A-3 was about 5mph slower. However an F2A-3 with 4 guns and 180 gallons of fuel was 2 minutes slower to 20,000ft than an F2A-2 with two guns and 110 gal/fuel.

The re-conditioned G100 engines may not have been making rated power. But somebody was lying about the performance to begin with.
AHT does not have a breakdown for the weights of the export 339s. They do have weight break downs for the weights of 239 (Finnish) and the F2A-3.
When did the increases occur?
Wing went up 72lbs
Landing gear went up 68lbs
power plant went up 547lbs and we know where about 280lbs of that came from.

For the British and the Dutch it may have been question of getting planes with G100 engines in a few month or getting planes with G200 engines several months later.

USN traded some of their production F2A-2 que slots for later delivery. (?)

From the Annals of the Brewster Buffalo linked to above.

"I had to go off and clean the windscreen of oil. They had an engine in the hanger, and they said these [push-rod] valve springs are too strong. They were discolored. We didn't have any valve springs suitable, so they just stayed on. They tried to raise the rems from 2250 to 2500 to get more power, and that's what caused the trouble. I never had a failure, personally. The oil used to come out and drip off the power wheel? It would just get too hot and overflow. Everybody was faced with that problem. As soon as you went flat out, you see, as soon as the engine was at full throttle, this would happen. After the war started, we were told not to run at full throttle. We used to run along at 1800 rems, as smooth as you like, but if you went to 2500, these problems developed. But you had to use full throttle. The Japanese fighters were very good."

I have no idea what was going on here. The G100 engines were never rated by Wright (or the FAA) at over 2350rpm and in fact they were limited to 1 minute at that speed. The G200s were rated at 2500rpm for take-off and 5 minutes (?).
As mentioned a bunch of times the two engines used different crankcases, different crankshafts, different vibration dampers, different cylinder barrels, different cylinder heads (both with more finning on the newer engine). Running the older engine at the higher rpm was definite abuse.
In another memoir the writer states that their engines were stamped at 1250hp on the builders plate. I sure wasn't there, but no factory spec sheet you can find today (or FAA type certificate) says 1250hp for the G200 engine let alone the G100 engine.

Make of that what you will.
 
I think there was a document on Ford's website that listed the differences between the F2A-2 and B-339E.
The B-339E had armor seatback and armour glass windscreen.
The Dutch were noted for scavanging RAF windscreens for their own planes when based in Singapore.
 
Hi,
Shortround, that is really interesting information that you posted. Thanks for sharing it.

With regards to a previous post of mine, I have cleaned up the Wing Loading graph that I had and added data on the Hawk 75 (export variant of the P-36) to show how it compares. In generalfrom the data that I have on the Hawk shws two options, one with a Wright Cyclone engine and the other with a Pratt & Whitney engine. In nthis data there also does not appear to be any weight included for armor or self-sealing fuel tanks etc.

I have added the two points for the Hawk on the chart in Red, since I believe that both variant may have been used (or at least ordered by) the French Armee d' Air. In general the wing loading of the Hawks fall very similar to the early F2A-1's and B239 which were also not initially fitted with armor or self-sealing tanks (though I believe that in Finland they may have added some form of armor later). As such the Brewster's wing size does not really seam to appear abnormal when compred the those Curtiss fighters either.

With respect to wing size and loading, the three planes that I have come across so far appear to be the French D-520, and the German Me-109 and FW-190s, where the French plane appears to have had only had about 171 sq ft of wing area, the Me-109's about 173 to 174 sq ft of wing area, with the FW-190 having about 197 sq ft (on a heavier aircraft than the F2A, D520, or Me-109 planes), if my data is correct.

Regards

Pat



PS. With regards to the drag of the F2A airframe, it is my understanding that it underwent alot of full-scale testing by NACA to investigate and reduce its appendage drag, and overall it is my understanding that it may have had as good as if not better overall drag characterisitcs as other similar radial engine airplane of the late 1930s/very early 1940s timeframe.
 
Yes and no.
The Hawk 75 A-1 (100 built) for the French used a P & W R-1830 engine rated at 950hp for take-off and 900hp at 12,000ft, single speed supercharger, four 7.5mm FN machine guns. seat back armor but no BP glass and no fuel tank protection.
The Hawk 75 A-2 (No 101-200) for the French had the first P & W R-1830 engine but late in the production run the engine was upgraded to 1050hp for take-off and 900hp at 12,000ft, six 7.5mm FN machine guns, armor not mentioned but it is hard to believe they left the seat armor out. 97th plane of this order arrived by the end of Sept 1939. The French had a problem with not having enough spare wings by Jan 1940. They had purchased, in money value the equivalent of 50 airframes of spare parts for the 200 hundred airplanes.
The Hawk 75 A-3 (another 135 ordered) started showing up in the Spring of 1940. These had P & W R-1830 engines rated at 1200hp for take-off and 1050hp at 7,500ft. Six guns. Gross weight 5692lbs. armor not mentioned.
The Hawk 75 A-4 (285 ordered) got the Wright R-1820 engines with two speed superchargers. Very similar to the engines in the F2A-2/3, 1200hp for take-off, 1100hp at 5,100ft and 1000hp at 15,000ft.

Now please note that the Hawks could hold up to 168 US gallons of fuel but were not cleared for acrobatics with that load. Normal gross (and CG) was figured at 105 US gallons.
French lost at least one plane when the pilot tried to do acrobatics with a fuel load of fuel (that same behind the seat tank that the P-40s had, except they didn't have the big Allison engine sticking out the front.)
No mention so far of any protection except seat back armor Normal gross weight for the A-3 was 5,692lbs. The A-4 normal was 5,750lbs, max gross was 6,662lbs so something is off as 60 US gallons is only about 360lbs. armor is 40lbs per sq ft if 1 in thick. or 4 sq ft for 6.35 mm armor. adjust as needed.
PFVA63 said:
As such the Brewster's wing size does not really seam to appear abnormal when compred the those Curtiss fighters either.
Click to expand...
Well the Hawk at about 13% more gross wing area. Net was even more.
The Hawk was also too light and the wings were not strong enough.
Long nose P-40s with four small guns in the wings gained about 150lbs in wing weight.
The guns in the Hawks were about 1/3 the weight of .50 cal, they carried 500 rounds per fuselage gun and 600rpg for the wing guns. Around 350 lbs of guns and ammo.
No body expected the Hawks to land on Carriers.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the additional info. I have updated my graph to correct the labeling of the RN aircraft shown on it, and I have also added a point (number 4 in red) to reflect the H75-4A @ 6,662 lb total weight.

In general I am not really trying to compare the F2A/Buffalo family of planes to any other specific plane, but rather just trying to show how they compare to several other similar planes from that era in general. To this end I added the H75, since it was a similarly sized monoplane US design to the F2A/Buffaloes from that era, but I had initially overlooked it since data for it was not included in the "America's 100,000" book.

Overall the point that I am trying to address about the F2A/Buffalo family with this graph is that sometimes on the internet or in books like "The World's Worst Airplanes" (I believe) you will sometimes see authors/commentors making the claim that the F2A and/or Buffalo had a "miniscule wing", but from the data that I have seen, and tried to represent in the graph below, it does not appear to me that the wing is under sized in comparison to other contemporary designs.

Here I realize that while the original F2A was designed for a fairly light weight and that weight ended up growing alot for later models, this does not appear to have been uncommon for for some of the other planes of that time frame (such as the F4F/FM family) and that even in its heaviest configurations the F2A/Buffalo wing loadings still appear to be similar to those for the late model F4Fs & FM aircraft etc. That is not to say that had the plane would not have benefitted from a bigger wing in its later variants, but rather just that the claims of a "miniscule wing" do not really seem to be based all that much in actually data, as far as I can see from the infromation that I have been able to review.

Regards

Pat

 
Hi PFVA63,

Thanks for the interesting graph. Lots to process there.

Just wondering, what reference are you using for those wing loading and gross weight data?

For instance, the P-47 progressed from a typical empty weight of 10,500 to 10,700, but its combat weight changed substantially. Gross weight from testing of early 'B' models was 12,550-12,650 lbs, growing to about 13,000-13,200 lbs in 'C' models and then to a combat weight of 13,200-13,300 lbs in the 'D' models.

Wartime tactical planning figures are even higher, with combat weights of 13,500 to 14,600 lbs given.


Also, did you swap the P-51B and P-47 positions in the chart? Unless I'm reading things wrong, you have the P-51B weighing in around 14,400 lbs gross weight, and the P-47 at 10,200 lbs. The P-51B weighed in around 8400-9350 lbs, depending on loading and period.
 

You are right in that a lot of internet (and print) writers go for sensationalism instead of facts.

The wing on the Buffalo was not that small, it just looks small compared to the big fuselage. And it is easy to blame the wing when you are using just a few paragraphs and 1 or 2 photos to illustrate with to cram all you argument in favor of "worlds worst".

However I will stand by my statement of it being small compared to what they wanted it to do. Which was different than what they started out to do.
The US navy was also fooling itself or being misleading for some reason.
You can find all sorts of weight charts for different missions for the Buffalo, the F4F and even the F4U with restricted ammo capacities, way less than full fuel (internal) and many times with guns taken out. Look for things like 2 gun bomber
Like you were really going to send F2As and F4Fs to strafe the Japanese fleet with only two .50 cal guns (with restricted ammo) and two 100lb bombs??????
And just using 110 gal of fuel???????

A late model Spitfire V with belt feed 20mm cannon and 4 .303 machine guns was carrying 649lbs of guns and ammo.
A US F3A-3 with full ammo was carrying 667lb of guns and ammo.
The Spitfire was carrying 612lbs worth of fuel. The F2A-3 was carrying 660lb with 110 gal and 960lbs if the tanks were full. (160 gal, forget the 240 gal nonsense you sometimes see.)
The F2A-3 had 1000hp at 13,500-14,000ft, not even the power of a 1939 Spitfire MK I.
The export Buffalos had less power, even if they were running right, but they were carrying somewhat less ammo. (about 120lbs worth).
But that is "test" power, standardized a 15 degrees C (59 degrees F) and not tropical weather even in January.

The Japanese Ki-27 had 780hp at 9,500ft and weighed 3410lbs without bombs or drop tanks with a 199.78 sq ft wing, 17 lb/sq/ft wing loading.
The Japanese Ki-43 I had 970hp at 11,150ft and weighed 4945lbs with full internal fuel and had a 230 sq ft wing. 21.5 lb/sq/ft wing loading.

The commonwealth pilots had been told they could out turn the Japanese, they could not.
They could not out climb them.
The Ki-27 could do 287mph or better anywhere from 9840ft to 16,400ft. It was slower.
The Ki-43 I was good for 298-306mph at those altitudes. If the 339 was running right things might be OK.
The 339 had a limited bag of tricks and if the pilot started wrong (tried to turn) his bag of tricks got smaller real quick.
The Japanese sacrificed payload (guns/ammo) to keep the planes small.

I would also view the 109T figures or suitability with a bit of suspicion.
The Performance figures are very close to the 109E but are done with the DB610N engine which was used in the 109F-2 and had more power than the engines used in the older "E"s.
Some of the "E"s got the later engine (rebuilds ?) or late Jabo versions. But there was a penalty for the bigger wing and weight, it is just often over looked with the increase in power.


An early F4F-3 with unprotected tanks was supposed to carry full internal fuel of 960lbs and about 800lbs of guns and ammo.
It also was using an engine about 300lbs heavier than the F2A-2 (and over 500lbs heavier than the F2A-1).
There was a reason for that 260sq ft wing.

I just went on longer than many books or articles on the "BAD" Buffalo do. It takes longer to explain (or try to) things in more balanced fashion rather than jump on easy 'reasons' that aren't.
 
Hi,
Thank you for pointing that out, I also previously swapped the F4U and F6F number as well. I have corrected them in the plot below.

Most all the data for US planes (except the Hawk) come from the book "America's 100,000", I will try and dig out my copy of the book later to confirm the values, but what I have used are;

USAAF
1 - P39L = 7,793 lb
2 - P40F = 8,678 lb
3 - P63E = 8,989 lb
4 - P51D = 10,176 lb
5 - P47D-40 = 14,411 lb

USN
1 - F4F-3A = 6,779 lb
2 - F4F-3 = 7,150.7 lb
3 - F4F-4 (early) = 7,426 lb
4 - F4F-4 (late) = 7,973 lb
5 - FM-1 = 8,050 lb
6 - FM-2 = 7,487 lb
7 - F6F-3 = 12,213 lb
8 - F4U-1D = 12,289 lb
.
For the other aircraft I will have to double check their source, but here are the numbers that I am currently using are;

RAF
1 - Hurricane MkIIC = 7,674 lb
2 - Spitfire MkVb = 6,619 lb

RN
1 - Seafire L MkII = 7,006 lb
2 - Fulmar MkII = 9,576 lb
3 - Firefly MkI = 14,020 lb

RA
1 - Re 2001 = 7,231 lb
2 - Fiat G55 = 7,760 lb

AdA
1 - D520 = 5,848 lb
2 - H75 (CW) = 5,692 lb (*)
3 - H75 (P&W) = 5,911 lb (*)
4 - H75A4 = 6,662 lb (**)
* data from Hawk 75 Spec on www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org
** based on weight provided by Shortround in a previous post

LW
1 - Me-109E4 = 5,875 lb
2 - Me-109T = 6,172 lb
3 - Me-109T2 = 6,786 lb
4 - Me-109G = 6,932 lb
5 - FW-190 = 9,731 lb
6 - Me-155 V2 = 12,100 lb

 

Thanks.
Appreciate the response.
 
Going by Wiki with a few notes.

"The new Brewster fighter had a modern look with a stubby fuselage, mid-set monoplane wings and a host of advanced features. It was all-metal, with flush-riveted, stressed aluminum construction, although control surfaces were still fabric-covered. The XF2A-1 also featured split flaps, a hydraulically operated retractable main undercarriage (and partially retractable tailwheel), and a streamlined framed canopy. However (as was still common at this time), the aircraft lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and pilot armor. Fuel capacity was only 160 US gal (610 L), stored in the fuselage. Powered by a 950 hp (710 kW) single-row Wright R-1820-22 Cyclone radial engine, it had a good initial climb rate of 2,750 ft/min (840 m/min) and a top speed of 277.5 mph (446.6 km/h). The aircraft was then tested in 1938 in the Langley Research Center full-scale wind tunnel, where it was determined that certain factors were contributing to parasitic drag. Based on the tests, improvements were made to the cowling streamlining and carburetor and oil cooler intakes, and the Buffalo's speed rose to 304 mph (489 km/h) at 16,000 ft (4,900 m) without any increase in power.[13][14][15] Other manufacturers took notice of this 10% increase in speed and efficiency, and wind tunnel tests became standard procedure in the US.[16] With only a single-stage supercharger, high-altitude performance fell off rapidly.[10] Fuselage armament was one fixed .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun with 200 rounds and one fixed .30 in (7.62 mm) AN Browning machine gun with 600 rounds, both in the nose. "

Notes on the bolded parts.
1. The tanks were actually integral. a very popular feature of American aircraft in 1930s. Why pay the weight penalty in separate tanks when you can just (with a little bit sealant) turn structure into fuel tanks? didn't work so well in practice even without other people tried shooting bullet holes in your aircraft.
2. I like the ONLY 160 gallons (US) part. That is 133 imp gallons and nobody except US single seat, single engine fighters were carrying more fuel in Dec 1939 or early 1940.
3. Everybody's high altitude performance fell off rapidly at high attitude, High being much over 16,000ft with the Merlin III being the champ of the time. The two stage supercharger in the F4F wasn't going to get sorted out until 1940/41 and it really wasn't that good (or there was a problem with the engine?)
4. Plane was designed for about 109lbs worth of guns and about 100lbs worth of ammo (60lbs of .50 cal and 40lbs of .30 cal).

And then the tinkering began.
Now keep in mind that Grumman was redoing the XF4F-2 at this time, it had flown at the end of 1937 but there were a lot of issues. In the fall and winter of 1938/39 it was going over a pretty extensive rebuild. The XF4F-2 had a pair of guns in the fuselage and could be fitted (never was?) with a gun in each wing. With the British sticking eight guns in fighters just using two was not looking very up to date.
So they (the Navy) added the .50 cal in each wing as as options. to the Brewster, But that added about 150lbs of guns and 120lbs of ammo and dropped the climb rate from 2750fpm to 2600fpm.
The Grumman XF4F-2 was getting new wings and went from 34 ft span and round tips to 38 ft and square tips and from 232 sq ft to 260 sq ft.
They also yanked the single speed speed single stage R-1830 which had a number of problems and tried the two stage two speed version. They also added fuel or at least the range went up by 100 miles. Grumman went from 4,046lbs empty to 5342lbs and from 5535lbs loaded to 7,002lbs loaded. (no armor no tank protection).

The Wiki article gets into a lot of nonsense about F2A-3 and extra fuel that is often repeated. The integral tanks in the Buffalo were the main spars. This made them hard to fit self sealing and very difficult to repair battle damage. On the other hand you can't really take them out. The F2A-3 got a self sealing 20 gallon tank in each wing and self sealing 40 gallon tank in belly of the fuselage. One of the main tanks was simply fitted with sealed cap and a notice not to fill the tank without the Squadron commanders orders. The other tank had the fittings for the reserve tap and the return line from the carb so it was simpler to leave that one alone. Take off and fly on that tank, then go through the 3 new tanks and then back to the original for landing if needed (reserve, not return cruise).
 
A few corrections if a I may?

3 - F4F-4 (early) = 7,426 lb
Checked my copy of AHT, this weight appears to be be one of those "trick" weights the Navy was so fond of. Only 4 guns and only 200rpg of ammo. Also only 110 gals of fuel.

4 - F4F-4 (late) = 7,973 lb
5 - FM-1 = 8,050 lb

The FM-1 took out two guns and went back to the 430 rpg ammo capacity. The extra ammo weighed more than extra guns did.

3 - Me-109T2 = 6,786 lb
one of my books says that is the maximum overload weight. The T-2s were given the same sort of under wing/fuselage rack as the Jabo 109Es had and would hold the 66imp gallon drop tank, four 50kg bombs or one 250kg bomb.


I Appreciate your work, I have no idea how to make a graph
 
FiAF B-239

the 360 deg. turning time for FiAF B-239 (with pilot's backarmour and bigger tailwheel, mass 2450 kg) at 1500 m was 17.5 sec. Source: Jukka Raunio: "Brewsterin kaartokyky - mitattu ja laskettu" in Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen Lehti 4/2011. And B-239 maintained its good maneuverability even at quite high speeds.

Wright R-1820-G5, t/o power 950hp at 2200rpm 104cmHg boost pressure at SL
Combat power 1000hp at SL, 800hp at 4900m, max 5min
Nominal 850hp at SL at 2100rpm 93 cmHg, 750hp 2100 rpm 86 cmHg at 4570m. 2-speed supercharger
3 blade Hamilton Standard constant speed airscrew diameter 2,74m blade travel 13-31 deg
T/o speed 120km/h. Best climb speed 220km/h IAS at low level, 180 km/h IAS at 5000m.Change to high gear at 3000m
Climb with nominal power and at 2275kg 6min to 4572m. At 2387kg 6.7 min.
Max speed 428 km/h at SL 480 km/h at 4750m (in fact a bit higher because of ram effect)
Stall speed clean c. 130km/h, with power on c. 120 km/h

And Brewsters were important component of the FiAF still in 1943. The Finnish Brewsters fought fierce air battles over the Gulf of Finland as late as in 1943, their opponents were e.g. 3, 4 and 13 GIAPs (Guards Fighter Regiments) of the Soviet Baltic Fleet Air Force. The tactics of the Russians were good, especially the protection of the bombers/ground attack planes was usually very well organized. Opponent aircraft types were I-153, I-16, LaGG-3, La-5, La-5Fs, Yak-1/7B, Pe-2 and Il-2.
In 1944 Bf 109G were clearly the fighter of the FiAF and Brewsters, Hawks 75s and MS-406s were secondary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

What is this?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Is it possible to access the MAG-23 War Diary online?
Replies
6
Views
496
CHen10
Explosive ammo for HMGs - what is the verdict?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
D
What aircraft is that plane and which nation? Not Germnay for sure.
Replies
6
Views
879
pb43
P
What is a TF-51H?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Tom Fey
T
Menu
Log in
Register