Brewster Buffalos in the German and Finnish AF

[fly boy]

i know the finnish had a bunch

 

[Marcel]

About the comparison of Britisch and Dutch Brewsters:
British Brewsters were all fitted with the 1100 hp Cyclone G-105A. the majority of the ML-KNIL aircraft had 1200 hp and the British had also been fitted with additional equipment bringing the weight of the aircraft to 2955 kg, about 265 kg (10%) more than the Dutch aircraft. Because of this for instance the rate of climb (at sea level) of the British version was just 3000 ft/min, very poor compared to the 4700 ft/min of the Dutch aircraft.

 

[renrich]

My source gives the 339D which went to the Netherlands as having a normal gross weight of 6094.5 pounds with the R1820-G105A with a one stage two speed supercharger producing 1100 HP at takeoff power. The Belgian models with the same engine were the lightest at 5436.9 pounds whereas the British models had a GW of 6112.2 pounds. The climb rate of 4700 fpm seems high. The 339-23s were a NEI order but 17 went to the RAAF. They had 1200 HP at takeoff power.

 

[Njaco]

Would the different climates in which they operated affect the performance?

 

[Elvis]

FWIW, my source lists an initial climb rate of 3060 ft./min. for an F2A-1 (B-239) and I'd think it would have the best climb rate out of any of the versions, due to its lighter weight.
I wish performance data for the HUMU existed.
It would be interesting to compare that to the B-239.
------------------------------------------

renrich,

I dont' want to skew this thread, so if you wanna discuss this further, maybe we could take it to the PM Zone.
However, in a final response to your last statement on this, I don't know what to tell you about the climbing ability of the P-40, but Bobby Gibbs did fly the P-40 for Australia during WWII and that was his comment I was quoting.
I wouldn't think he'd lie about something like that.
...and remember, I also stated that he never mentiioned a particular version of either airplane.
Could it be a comparison of a later P-40 to an early Spitfire?




Elvis

 

[renrich]

The rate of climb for the F8F is given as 4570 fpm at sea level. A Bearcat from a standing start could and did get to 10000 feet in 1.5 minutes. Those numbers make the 4700 fpm ROC for a Buffalo seem optimistic.

 

[Demetrious]

The rate of climb for the F8F is given as 4570 fpm at sea level. A Bearcat from a standing start could and did get to 10000 feet in 1.5 minutes. Those numbers make the 4700 fpm ROC for a Buffalo seem optimistic.

Indeed, sir. IIRC, the climb rate of the F2A Navy Brewster (the original, fairly light model,) was in the area of 3,000 feet, which was quite good for the era. Pilots described it as taking off from the ground "like a rocket."

I have to second the surprise at that Australian ace's insistence that the P-40 could out-climb the Spitfire. The P-40 was indeed shoddy at climb rate, and the Spitfire was well-known for it's rapid climbing ability- a combination of a light lean plane and those big, low-loaded wings (much like the Zero.) All I can figure is that Bobby Gibs was talking about a high-speed scenario, wherein the P-40's superior instantaneous turn ability and higher energy retention (because it was heavier) would allow it to zoom climb much better then the equivalent model years of Spitfires could hope for.

I can easily believe the comment about it out-turning a Spitfire, though. The P-36, the P-40's little brother, was a dedicated turn-fighter, and in fact was only narrowly edged out by the Spitfire in acceptance trials for the RAF. (The Brits wanted the Spitfire's better speed, which was a wise decision.) The P-40 gained a lot of speed while still retaining a lot of the P-36's inherent turning ability, which made it one of the better turning fighters of the war. Off the top of my head, the Spit could do a 360 turn in about 17 or 18 seconds, varying on model, the P-40 could do a 360 in about 20. That was a lot closer to the Spit then most other aircraft of the era, who could do a 360 in about 22-24 seconds. Given that, a P-40 "flown properly" could easily glue itself to a Spitfire's ass and stay there, using high and low speed yo-yo's and other such maneuvers. The Spitfire could easily beat the P-40 in the vertical, but it's substandard roll rate vs. the P-40's excellent roll would put it at a severe disadvantage in the horizontal scissors or the like.

They were pretty evenly matched, IMO.

 

[Mangrove]

Indeed, sir. IIRC, the climb rate of the F2A Navy Brewster (the original, fairly light model,) was in the area of 3,000 feet, which was quite good for the era.

Brewster Aeronautical Corporation. December 15, 1939. Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine).

113a. The Performance is estimated to be as follows:

Gross Weight (110 gals. fuel): 5014.1
[...]
Climb to 5000 ft. (Minutes): 2
Climb to 15,000 ft. (Minutes): 6

 

[Demetrious]

Brewster Aeronautical Corporation. December 15, 1939. Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine).

2500 feet a minute? Sounds about right. I vaguely recall the "overloaded" models had their climb fall to something like 2,000 feet a minute or worse.

 

[Elvis]

Mangrove,

Can you provide a link for those stats you posted, or is that a quote from a book?

Joe Baugher lists these stats for the F2A-1

"Powerplant: One Wright R-1820-34 Cyclone nine-cylinder single-row air-cooled radial engine, rated at 940 hp. Performance: Maximum speed of 311 mph at 18,000 feet, and a maximum speed of 271 mph at sea level. Initial climb rate 3060 ft/min. Service ceiling 32,500 feet. Maximum range 1545 miles. Weights: 3785 pounds empty, 5055 pounds gross, 5370 pounds maximum takeoff. Dimensions: Wingspan 35 feet 0 inches, length 26 feet 0 inches, height 11 feet 8 inches, wing area 209 square feet. Armament: Three 0.50 inch machine guns, one 0.30-inch machine gun. "

The magazine article I have on B-239 service in Finland reflects the same initial climb rate.

I think the rate of climb for the F2A-3 was somewhere around 2200-2400 ft./min.

Could you be thinking of the Grumman Wildcat, Demetrious?
I think the rate of climb for an F4F-4 was only 1950 ft./min.



Elvis

 

[renrich]

The problem with the numbers we see quoted is that various models had various engines and weights and the early models often had the best performance figures because they weighed less. The early F4F3 had a sea level climb rate of 3200 fpm. The F4F4 was lucky to get 2000 fpm because it weighed a lot more. AC with 2 speed, 2 stage superchargers might not climb as well as earlier models with 1 speed 1 stage superchargers at sea level but far surpassed the early models at altitudes above 10000 feet or so. Almost always, the AC that were relegated to secondary roles in the war were done so for good reasons, no matter what we might see on paper.

 

[Marcel]

My source gives the 339D which went to the Netherlands as having a normal gross weight of 6094.5 pounds with the R1820-G105A with a one stage two speed supercharger producing 1100 HP at takeoff power. The Belgian models with the same engine were the lightest at 5436.9 pounds whereas the British models had a GW of 6112.2 pounds. The climb rate of 4700 fpm seems high. The 339-23s were a NEI order but 17 went to the RAAF. They had 1200 HP at takeoff power.

Because of lack of engines, many Dutch B339's were equipped with 1200 hp engines, taken from KLM airliners. I can even tell you how many, but I'll have to look it up.

 

[Elvis]

The problem with the numbers we see quoted is that various models had various engines and weights and the early models often had the best performance figures because they weighed less. The early F4F3 had a sea level climb rate of 3200 fpm. The F4F4 was lucky to get 2000 fpm because it weighed a lot more. AC with 2 speed, 2 stage superchargers might not climb as well as earlier models with 1 speed 1 stage superchargers at sea level but far surpassed the early models at altitudes above 10000 feet or so. Almost always, the AC that were relegated to secondary roles in the war were done so for good reasons, no matter what we might see on paper.

Renrich,

Most of the climb rates I've seen for the F4F-3 are around the 2200-2300 fpm range.
F4F-4 and FM-1 are typically listed @ 1950 fpm.
Aeroweb lists a climb rate of 3650fpm for the FM-2.


Elvis

 

[renrich]

Elvis, from Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand," page 473, " The fastest and lightest Wildcat was the early F4F3 which touched 335 mph at 22000 feet. In addition the climb rate of the early F4F3 was over 3300 fpm at SL, very sprightly performance for the time. The heavier F4F4, in contrast, could make less than 2500 fpm at SL and, as the curve shows, this performance decreased rapidly at the higher altitudes to little over 1500 fpm in spite of using the two stage super charged engine." I have found that Dean has the most thorough study of US fighters that I have ever read. All of his info is backed up by graphs and charts from manufacturers and the AAF and USN. The problem with all this is that F4F3s are not all equal. They come with different engines with different super chargers with different amounts of armor and with different fuel tanks, etc.

 

[Mangrove]

Can you provide a link for those stats you posted, or is that a quote from a book?

That's a quote from a manual "Detail Specification For Model 239 Airplane Class VF (Single Engine)." An Finnish aviation museum has a copy of it. Notice the climb rate in the manual is estimated. Climb rate for VL Humu was about 13,3 m/s (from zero to 4000 meters in five minutes) or 2600 ft./min (VL Humu â€" Wikipedia). Humu operational weight was c. 2500 kg or 5500 lb.

 

[Elvis]

Mangrove,

Thanks for clarifying that.
I've read in the past that the Finns were initially excited about the prospect of using captured M-63's, but later found that they were crudely built and thus, not capable of the performance of the American built Cyclones those planes originally came with.
I didn't know that page existed, so it was cool seeing some actual performance figures on the HUMU (BTW, top speed translates to about 267 mph).
Thanks again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

renrtich,

Not saying that guy's figures are wrong, but those seem to be some very optimistic numbers.
If his are based on the USN and AAF official records, I wonder why everyone else lists much lesser performance fgures for those planes.
...interesting...

BTW, what does he say about the FM-2, in comparison to those figures you posted about the "-3" and -4" Wildcats?



Elvis

 

[Mangrove]

Can there be to much photos from BW-372?

Pylly-Waltteri at Tikkakoski (44 kuvaa) - FSnordic.net

 

[Marcel]

Can there be to much photos from BW-372?

Pylly-Waltteri at Tikkakoski (44 kuvaa) - FSnordic.net

Nope and don't forget the beauty in the back (D.XXI) 8)