PDA

View Full Version : Take-off in Brewster?



XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:35 PM
The Brewster post-patch, seems to take-off VERY easily now. Just a little rudder, flaps and throttle and she seems to say goodbye to the ground within 100 metres. Now I know there are some aircraft that can do this, but I would imagine that the Brewster, with its stubby wings would take some work to get airborne. Does anyone know if this is accurate?

It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/hurriformation.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:35 PM
The Brewster post-patch, seems to take-off VERY easily now. Just a little rudder, flaps and throttle and she seems to say goodbye to the ground within 100 metres. Now I know there are some aircraft that can do this, but I would imagine that the Brewster, with its stubby wings would take some work to get airborne. Does anyone know if this is accurate?

It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/hurriformation.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:42 PM
Salute

Brewster had wingloading of only 25 lbs per Sq/ft of wing area. Very low, comparable to I-16.

A 109G6 has wingloading of 40 lbs per sq/ft as a comparison.

A 190D9 has wingloading of 48 lbs per sq/ft as a comparison.

So I don't think a real short takeoff run is impossible.

If climbrate is same as it was in 1.1b, then that IS a problem... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Cheers Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 08:55 PM
Thanks Buzzsaw. I don't have a problem with it, I was just wondering if it was accurate.
BTW It climbs like a ...like a ...ummm....trained climbing monkey....with a rocket pack. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Is that not correct?

It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/hurriformation.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:06 PM
Translation from Finnish book "Lent√¬§j√¬§n n√¬§k√¬∂kulma II" (Pilots point of view):

"Take-off itself was a quick procedure. Tail lifted itself up after run of 30 metres, it pulled only slightly and direction was easy to hold. BW took off at speed of 120km/h. Total run distance was 140-160m, time 8-9s, and there was no need to use flaps during takeoff"

Ok, tail doesnt rise after 30m, but take-off speed and time is correct. I'd say take-off is overall correct enough.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 09:07 PM
It was originally designed as a naval plane, so it was meant to use a short runway.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:07 PM
I trust the finns.

If anyone knew how to fly these planes these gentlemen did.

Also if its a pilot handbook, it should be quite accurate.

Stop speculating in silly things like wingloadings.

Read facts and performance data.. such as takeoff distance quoted by pilots.

The plane will takeoff at its actual distance, no matter what wingloading you may find out.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

/Petter_Gul
CO, Flygflottilj 16
#1 Swedish Virtual Squadron
http://www.f16vs.tk
_________________________

"Slider.... You Stink..."

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 10:09 PM
I agree,I love the Brewster.

47|FC
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-6.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 11:04 PM
The B239(!) is "getting there"

www.f19vs.tk (http://www.f19vs.tk)

The ABSOLUTELY #1 Scandinavian VS *wink Petter_Gul*

http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif