PDA

View Full Version : Should F2A-2 be faster?? Sure looks that way.



mortoma
12-26-2004, 07:28 AM
You be the judge. Maybe the source here is incorrect?? If true then the Buffalo is much too slow and it should be as fast as the P-39D2, which is the fastest P-39 we have!!! Also this would make it faster than the P-40 and Wildcat!! But as it's currently modelled, I can't get it to go more than a hair over 400Kph. According to link below it should fly 458Kph at sea level, which would leave both the Hayabusas and Zeros standing!! Even if this is an ideal speed with no ammo and low fuel at standard conditions, it still would probably muster 435 or so under less ideal circumstances. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. Was the Brewster really that fast??

Check it out:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/f2a_buffalo.htm

mortoma
12-26-2004, 07:28 AM
You be the judge. Maybe the source here is incorrect?? If true then the Buffalo is much too slow and it should be as fast as the P-39D2, which is the fastest P-39 we have!!! Also this would make it faster than the P-40 and Wildcat!! But as it's currently modelled, I can't get it to go more than a hair over 400Kph. According to link below it should fly 458Kph at sea level, which would leave both the Hayabusas and Zeros standing!! Even if this is an ideal speed with no ammo and low fuel at standard conditions, it still would probably muster 435 or so under less ideal circumstances. Just scroll down to the bottom of the page. Was the Brewster really that fast??

Check it out:
http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/f2a_buffalo.htm

mortoma
12-26-2004, 07:43 AM
I take that back, it would only be AS fast as the P-40B down low, not faster. It would be slower than the P-39D2 down low and slower than the P-39D2 at all altitudes. But still way faster than a zero or Ki-43. I also think I found out what happened. I think Oleg just took the easy route and gave it the same engine performance as the Finnish version. And the Finnish version has always been too slow as it is. But the Finnish version was indeed slower than the A2, but still faster than what we got in the game..

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 08:00 AM
what u lack in speed u can make up for with incredible roll rate. at 210mph, it will roll about as fast as a 190. split-s manuvers are a snap at this speed. a zoom an boomer will have a very hard time gettin a snapshot off on u. speed is a dual edged sword. can work for or against u.

DuxCorvan
12-26-2004, 08:06 AM
Then I don't get it: if Buffaloes were so fast and manoeuvrable, why were they wiped out from the sky by Zeroes in Midway, and why was their loss rate so dismal?

Come on, they surely had a serious setback. If it wasn't speed, nor climb, nor dive, nor roll, nor turning, nor structural strength, why were they so inferior, and why were they scrapped in favour of Wildcats?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SkyChimp
12-26-2004, 08:09 AM
In manueverability and speed, the F2A-3 was considered on par with the F4F-3 - some say better.

F2A-3s got wiped out at Midway because their green Marine pilots with no combat experience faced battle-experienced Japanese pilots in much bigger numbers.

VF-29_Sandman
12-26-2004, 08:14 AM
they didnt realize back then like we do that trying to turn with the zero was suicide.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Then I don't get it: if Buffaloes were so fast and manoeuvrable, why were they wiped out from the sky by Zeroes in Midway, and why was their loss rate so dismal?

Come on, they surely had a serious setback. If it wasn't speed, nor climb, nor dive, nor roll, nor turning, nor structural strength, why were they so inferior, and why were they scrapped in favour of Wildcats?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think Skychimp explains it.
This is the same reason the P-40 got such a bad rap undeservedly.

airdale1960
12-26-2004, 09:38 AM
The Buffalo the Finns used was the lightweight original B-239/F2A-1 with a climb rate of 3,060 ft per min, but a top speed of only 301 mph at 17,000 ft, a good dogfighter. The F2A-2 Speed was 285mph at sea level, at 16,500 ft 323mph. A climb rate of 2,500 ft/min. The A6M2-21 was 331 mph at altitude, climb of 3,100 ft/min.
The Brewster gained weight with age. The Buffalo used at Midway was the F2A-3 overweight and sluggish, had a sea level speed of 284mph, at 16,500 321 mph, an even poorer climb of 2290 ft/min.
The top speed of the P-39Q was about 335 at 5,000 ft and 360 at 15,000 ft, no climb info.
The P-40/Hawk81 345mph at 15,000, climb 2,690 ft/min. My 25 cents worth.
I would like Ki-43 II and or III flyable. That is my suggestion. But Oleg, you are the man, it is your baby, your coice. C U L, airdale1960.

Willey
12-26-2004, 11:28 AM
It's definately too slow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>XF2A-2: On 22 March 1939, the USN ordered that the XF2A-1 be modified by replacing the engine with a 1,200 hp (894.8 kW) Wright R-1820-40 radial engine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F2A-1 / B-239 has just 950 hp. But it's lighter which makes it climb and especially turn better. The finnish B-239 were the lightest Buffaloes. Dunno what made it, but they lacked something they couldn't refit. In fact, it did have german instuments. Big error in FB. We fly a F2A-1 and not a B-239.

Also, the early Zeroes are too slow down low. The '2s just do 430-440 top, but they made 460 which is faster than a Wildcat, on par with the F2A-2 and a bit slower than P-40E model.

airdale1960
12-26-2004, 01:19 PM
Correction: The P-39Q specs should read P-39D. The P-40E had a top speed of 362 mph at 15,000 ft. Flying them all, I like the heavier feel of the Wildcat, I like the Grumman ironworks. Also, the Curtiss fighters, good energy in a dive. The F2A-2 does have a heavier feel than the B-239. I think C1 and the crew did a fine job.

Stiglr
12-26-2004, 02:23 PM
Amazing how everyone thinks air combat consists of sprints on the deck... and then they think turning is the deciding factor.

You can't have it both ways...and with both cases, you're wrong more often than you're right.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Amazing how everyone thinks air combat consists of sprints on the deck... and then they think turning is the deciding factor.

You can't have it both ways...and with both cases, you're wrong more often than you're right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's this got to do with anything?? My post is to question pure performance of an aicraft as far as speed, not the merits of any particular type or style of fighting. So what you're saying here has little relevance. As far as I'm concerned, if a plane is modeled it should go as fast as the real counterpart. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed that aircraft in question is in fact too slow by about 20Kph, maybe 30.

mortoma
12-26-2004, 08:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
It's definately too slow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>XF2A-2: On 22 March 1939, the USN ordered that the XF2A-1 be modified by replacing the engine with a _1,200 hp_ (894.8 kW) Wright R-1820-40 radial engine <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F2A-1 / B-239 has just 950 hp. But it's lighter which makes it climb and especially turn better. The finnish B-239 were the lightest Buffaloes. Dunno what made it, but they lacked something they couldn't refit. In fact, it did have german instuments. Big error in FB. We fly a F2A-1 and not a B-239.

Also, the early Zeroes are too slow down low. The '2s just do 430-440 top, but they made 460 which is faster than a Wildcat, on par with the F2A-2 and a bit slower than P-40E model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well whether or not the early Zeros are too slow is not provable. Any claims to the contrary are mostly just anecdotal hearsay. And the ones we tested during the war had better fuel put in them than the Japanese ones did. The F2A-2 however, has more credible documentation behind it as far as speed figures.
We'll never know for sure about the Zeros true performance.

p1ngu666
12-27-2004, 01:24 PM
RAF couldnt get theres to go past 300mph in a test.

could be production ones where abit ****, if i remmber the corsairs brewster made where little in number, and wherent well regarded by several authors.

GerritJ9
12-28-2004, 02:14 AM
The RAF Buffs had a less powerful engine than the F2A-2- 1100 vs. 1200 hp, and was also overloaded with extra equipment specified by the RAF. The KNIL B339Cs had the same 1100 hp engine, but were 250 kg lighter than the RAF Buffs. The KNIL B339Ds had the 1200 hp engine and approx the same weight as the Cs. The KNIL wanted 1200 hp engines for all the B339s they ordered, but they were not available, hence the first 24 were equipped with 1100 hp Cyclones. Originally the KNIL wanted to order 144 B339s with 1200 hp engines, but the engines were simply not available and the order was halved to 72.

ICDP
12-28-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mortoma:
Well whether or not the early Zeros are too slow is not provable. Any claims to the contrary are mostly just anecdotal hearsay. And the ones we tested during the war had better fuel put in them than the Japanese ones did. The F2A-2 however, has more credible documentation behind it as far as speed figures.
We'll never know for sure about the Zeros true performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God you really don't have a clue do you? I really love your comment that the Zero's tested by the US forces were boosted because of better fuel, ROFL.

All you do is whine that the Corsair is porked, no real data just your own incompetent flying ability to back you up. Now here you are jumping all over someone who dares to correctly point out that the A6M2 was actually faster in real life.

You are a typical biased whiner, make our planes uber and screw up the other planes.

GerritJ9
01-01-2005, 02:04 PM
After some back-to-back tests of both B-239 and F2A-2, I agree that the performance feels the same- speed, climb, dive and manoeuverability. The F2A-2 should be significantly faster in level flight than the B-239, but it isn't. Climb rate should be a bit lower, but it doesn't look that way.
I also tested both in QMB against four A6M2-Ns rated average. The F2A-2 loses out because of that hideous gunsight- the B-239's sight is MUCH better. Although performance feels the same, I can score kills relatively easily with the B-239, but can only cause occasional damage with the F2A-2. Since there is virtually no noticeable performance difference, I'll stick to the B-239. Perhaps it requires more practice to get proficient with the F2A-2's sight. If USN pilots flew the F2A-2 with that sight in combat, it's no wonder they achieved little with the Buff against the A6M2.

Da_Godfatha
01-01-2005, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Then I don't get it: if Buffaloes were so fast and manoeuvrable, why were they wiped out from the sky by Zeroes in Midway, and why was their loss rate so dismal?

Come on, they surely had a serious setback. If it wasn't speed, nor climb, nor dive, nor roll, nor turning, nor structural strength, why were they so inferior, and why were they scrapped in favour of Wildcats?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dutch had a 7 to 1 kill ratio in Java. They really liked the Buffalo. Lack of spare parts, and over run airfields finaly broke their back.

NORAD_Zooly10
01-01-2005, 03:35 PM
ICDP, have you heard about the fuel quality used by the RAF berfore the battle of Britain (British fuel)? FYI the fuel us Brits used was of a lower octane than the fuel the US sent over (100 octane iirc) which gave a performance boost, it seems your arguement is ever so slightly flawed or to say the least, uninformed.
~S~
Zooly

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 03:45 PM
NORAD_Zooly10 . . . .. the assumption YankWhiners make is when they read of a japanese plane being tested with higher octane fuel . . . . they automatically assume that it magically gave the japanese plane better performance

NORAD_Zooly10
01-01-2005, 03:51 PM
erm........erm....maybe it wasnt a good idea to get involved in this one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif. although my point was valid, the fuel quality can/does make a difference (maybe not to the extent that some people believe though)
~S~
Zooly

GerritJ9
01-02-2005, 03:21 AM
Fuel quality CAN make a difference- better combustion can give some extra hp. Simply assuming that one batch of 100 octane fuel is the same as another batch of 100 octane fuel ignores the chemical composition of the fuel. Octane number is an indication of the compression ratio a fuel will tolerate before detonation- the higher the octane number, the higher the compression ratio of an engine can be- and, in theory at least, the higher the engine's overall efficiency. Chemical composition affects the RATE of combustion among other things- which can improve hp.
It is therefore not impossible that using U.S. fuel rather than the fuel the Japanese used improved the performance of captured aeroplanes under test somewhat, but the improvement would not suddenly make the Zero 20 mph faster. To get the most out of the improved fuel, the engine would have to be adapted- compression ratio increased, combustion chamber shape altered, ingition timing altered etc. I very much doubt whether the engines fitted to captured aeroplanes would have been altered in that way- such alterations, to achieve the best results, would require many hours of dyno testing.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 03:40 AM
what higher quality & octane fuel can do mostly to an engine that isnt set for it is to help it run smoother

especially if that engine is running under some kind of boost control (as just about every WW2 fighter was)

is simply filling up the tank with higher octane gas going to make your motor more powerfull ?

maybe , a little bit , but however much it will come under the amount of "feck all"

the Yankwhiners love to jump all over this tho . . . . . in ignorance

ICDP
01-02-2005, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NORAD_Zooly10:
ICDP, have you heard about the fuel quality used by the RAF berfore the battle of Britain (British fuel)? FYI the fuel us Brits used was of a lower octane than the fuel the US sent over (100 octane iirc) which gave a performance boost, it seems your arguement is ever so slightly flawed or to say the least, uninformed.
~S~
Zooly <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The benefits from using higher octane fuel on an engine designed for lower octane fuel are small, the engine has to be retuned and adjusted to take benefit from the higher octane fuel. Simply putting higher octane fuel into ANY WWII fighter without also adjusting the engine (comression ratio/timing) will yield no dicernable speed boost. Yes the British (and Russians) received higher octane fuel from the US but the engines they were using it with had to be adjusted to take benefit. A lot of that higher octane fuel was required for use on lendlease US aircraft. The British and Russians did not just stop producing their own lower octane fuel, it was still required for use on a lot of their own aircraft designs.

This argument has been done to death on these forums, much proof has been posted to debunk this argument and still we have people posting that the A6M2 or Ki84 only got higher speeds because they used higher octane US fuel.

Your theory is easy to test, the next time your getting you car filled with gasoline get the higher octane super/premium fuel. You wont be getting any better performance unless you also get your comperssion ratio adjusted to accomodate the new fuel.

Regards

dannyworkman
01-03-2005, 12:16 AM
WUAF_Badsight
Please explain the term Yankwhiners.

p1ngu666
01-03-2005, 07:42 AM
didnt the british refine there own high octane fuels?

the oil maybe refined abit came from america tho probably