Which is the better airplane?
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
I don't know. Which one carries more cargo?
You need to define what you mean by "best." You also need to remember that those tables don't show a lot of information, like behavior near stall.
You need to define what you mean by "best." You also need to remember that those tables don't show a lot of information, like behavior near stall.
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
I would say airplane A if we are just talking about responsiveness and level of pilot input during rolling maneuvers.
This isn't a trick question right lol?
This isn't a trick question right lol?
- Thread starter
- #4
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Not a trick question. You are correct, with those limitations.
Airplane A: Brewster B-339 Buffalo
Airplane B: Spitfire Mk. 1
Airplane C: Curtiss Hawk 75A Mohawk IV
Airplane A: Brewster B-339 Buffalo
Airplane B: Spitfire Mk. 1
Airplane C: Curtiss Hawk 75A Mohawk IV
DarrenW
Staff Sergeant
Well I'll be, that little pudgy fighter can really zip around like crazy!
GregP
Major
I have not seen any fighter with a roll rate that slow in any data I have reviewed. The only one that even approaches these slow rates is a Hawker Typhoon.
But, I was looking at "Spitfire" and "Clipped Wing Spitfire," not a Spitfire I. Not saying you are mistaken. I'm saying I have not seen these data before.
Also, at 390 mph, you need to have more than 24 lbs of stick force required ... or you can say it is very light on the ailerons! I'd want something around 50 lbs or more at that speed for a piston fighter, or a really strong wing! Something like an Fw 190 wing.
But, I was looking at "Spitfire" and "Clipped Wing Spitfire," not a Spitfire I. Not saying you are mistaken. I'm saying I have not seen these data before.
Also, at 390 mph, you need to have more than 24 lbs of stick force required ... or you can say it is very light on the ailerons! I'd want something around 50 lbs or more at that speed for a piston fighter, or a really strong wing! Something like an Fw 190 wing.
Shortround6
Major General
Did you mean B-239?
SOme of the B-339s weren't much lighter than the F2A-2.
The later ones may have rolled almost as well as the early ones, however extra weight in the wings may have slowed the roll response. However the lower power to weight ratio, while having nothing to do with roll would affect climb/acceleration which would also come under "response".
In training flights they may not have been carrying full fuel or full (any?) ammo even if guns were present.
- Thread starter
- #9
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Flight tests at Farnborogh showed that the Buffalo was far more maneuverable than the Spitfire Mk1. The Spitfire could engage and disengage at will due to its superior speed, but the tests showed that even the B-339 version of the Buffalo was not only a delight to fly but a serious dogfighter as long as the altitude was not very high. No wonder the Finns both loved it and were so successful with it.
The Mohawk IV was no slouch, either, capable of giving the Spitfire I a very hard time. The RAF was impressed enough that they sent the Mohawk IV's to India where they fought the Japanese successfully until replaced - in late 1943!
Both of the American aircraft were considered to have downright superb handling characteristics, not only in roll rate but with elevator and rudder effectiveness as well.
The test results helped spur the British to improve the ailerons on the Spitfire, introduced on the Spitfire V; they were metal rather than fabric and of an improved shape. Anyone recall in Wing Leader where JEJ's unit arranged to fly their Spitfire II's to the factory to have the new metal ailerons installed - without seeking higher authority's permission? Or Cocky Dundas complaint over the radio, "I say Dogsbody, we don't all have metal ailerons." when he could not keep up with the modded Spit II's?
This is from the book "Flying to the Limit" which summarizes RAF flight testing in WWII.
They were impressed with aspects of the Buffalo and the Mohawk, but not the Airacobra. And when the Mustang Mk1 showed up, it blew them away. It could almost maneuver with a Spitfire, even before the ailerons were improved. And it was faster than just about anything.
The Mohawk IV was no slouch, either, capable of giving the Spitfire I a very hard time. The RAF was impressed enough that they sent the Mohawk IV's to India where they fought the Japanese successfully until replaced - in late 1943!
Both of the American aircraft were considered to have downright superb handling characteristics, not only in roll rate but with elevator and rudder effectiveness as well.
The test results helped spur the British to improve the ailerons on the Spitfire, introduced on the Spitfire V; they were metal rather than fabric and of an improved shape. Anyone recall in Wing Leader where JEJ's unit arranged to fly their Spitfire II's to the factory to have the new metal ailerons installed - without seeking higher authority's permission? Or Cocky Dundas complaint over the radio, "I say Dogsbody, we don't all have metal ailerons." when he could not keep up with the modded Spit II's?
This is from the book "Flying to the Limit" which summarizes RAF flight testing in WWII.
They were impressed with aspects of the Buffalo and the Mohawk, but not the Airacobra. And when the Mustang Mk1 showed up, it blew them away. It could almost maneuver with a Spitfire, even before the ailerons were improved. And it was faster than just about anything.
Yes, I meant the B-239. I agree that some of the B-339's were not very much different than F2A-2's.
- Thread starter
- #13
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
The chair I'm sitting in can do 390 mph if you drop it from high enough. My desktop computer probably would out-dive it, though. Both would leave my Ercoupe far behind.
The F2A-1 did not get massacred over Finland, where it was fighting against aircraft that mostly were of lower performance and often had vicious handling characteristics and open cockpits (one exception being the Tomahawk I).
The F2A-1 did not get massacred over Finland, where it was fighting against aircraft that mostly were of lower performance and often had vicious handling characteristics and open cockpits (one exception being the Tomahawk I).
True, but if you are in a dive what is the altitude you are rolling at?
- Thread starter
- #15
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
"True, but if you are in a dive what is the altitude you are rolling at?"
I would guess less than the one where you started.
I would guess less than the one where you started.
That would look great in the comments section of the report.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,020
- Jun 25, 2013
I think several things are going on here:
- Finland's weather was probably cold enough so that the Buffalo's engine cooling problems weren't an issue
- Soviet pilots were probably -- thanks to Stalin's purges -- not well trained.
- The Finnish pilots were highly motivated. Finnish nationalism predated the 1917 Revolution, and returning to Russian -- to be PC, Soviet -- control was not something anyone would welcome.
- In the Pacific theatre, the Buffaloes were probably facing some of the best-trained fighter pilots of the era, some percentage of who were combat veterans.
- Thread starter
- #18
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
All true! And the US used F2A's in only ONE engagement, Midway, facing an enemy not only well trained but flying airplanes that were better than the F2A in the VERY THINGS the F2A was good at, as well as much better climb rate.
If a Spitfire I pilot got tricked into a maneuvering combat with a B-339 he was toast, as the experience over Darwin later showed. But a Buffalo could not use that trick with a Zeke or a Oscar; it was their game, too.
The USAAF picked up a few orphaned Buffaloes and used them in Australia, for literally lack of anything else. I have never read any reports of combat with them.
I wonder how well an F2A fared in maneuvering combat with an F4F. You know there had to be some of those experiences.
A USMC WWII pilot I met said that his West Coast unit was madder than hell we they heard that they were stuck with the old F3F's while the East Coast Marine units got the new F2A. I kind of think the F3F-3 would have been better at Midway; while slower it had to turn at least as tight as the F2A and it climbed like a bat outa hell.
The attached is a miniature of a full sized print the Squadron Shop was selling for $1.50 a few years ago. I bought a few.
If a Spitfire I pilot got tricked into a maneuvering combat with a B-339 he was toast, as the experience over Darwin later showed. But a Buffalo could not use that trick with a Zeke or a Oscar; it was their game, too.
The USAAF picked up a few orphaned Buffaloes and used them in Australia, for literally lack of anything else. I have never read any reports of combat with them.
I wonder how well an F2A fared in maneuvering combat with an F4F. You know there had to be some of those experiences.
A USMC WWII pilot I met said that his West Coast unit was madder than hell we they heard that they were stuck with the old F3F's while the East Coast Marine units got the new F2A. I kind of think the F3F-3 would have been better at Midway; while slower it had to turn at least as tight as the F2A and it climbed like a bat outa hell.
The attached is a miniature of a full sized print the Squadron Shop was selling for $1.50 a few years ago. I bought a few.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't think the Brewster Buffalo or Spitfire MK I could do anything like 390MPH.
from NASA ACR No. 31>15
"Several aspects of compressibility phenomena were examined und e r flight conditions on the XF2A-2 airplane, which was subjected to a series of dives and pull-outs at speeds up to 550 miles per hour corresponding to Mach numbers up to 0.74."
from NASA ACR No. 31>15
"Several aspects of compressibility phenomena were examined und e r flight conditions on the XF2A-2 airplane, which was subjected to a series of dives and pull-outs at speeds up to 550 miles per hour corresponding to Mach numbers up to 0.74."
