- Thread starter
- #61
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Brewster F2A Buffalo or P-39 Airacobra?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
Attachments
Konigstiger205
Staff Sergeant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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,
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
Senior Master Sergeant
The "deals" look like intakes of some kind, I'm not sure.
Do you see the windows in the belly?
Do you see the windows in the belly?
Oil cooler air intakes.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Senior Master Sergeant
P-39 gets my vote.
Two things to stay away from...
An ugly woman, and an ugly airplane, especially one built by Brewster.
TO
Two things to stay away from...
An ugly woman, and an ugly airplane, especially one built by Brewster.
TO
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
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
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
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.
