PDA

View Full Version : Buffalo can be more agile then I-16?



XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:47 PM
I read all this crying post from LW players about the russian "superplanes" and i' m a little tired of it ( how you can say that afther this patch?). Now the russian has a very "poor" I-16, the LA5FN is finnally a "normal" plane, ect ect. Now they are talking about de Lagg3 1941 and the P-39 like uberplanes i think in the end the VVs pilots will fly on paperplanes to be even with LW.
Anyway i never read a word about the big performance of BF109 G2 ( that plane can fly afther two 37mm shoot of my P-39) or the 300 bullets (minimum) you need to shoot down a FW190 A5 or the insuperable dive speed of that plane in all versions.

Well Oleg may be the flying modells are right, but i have a question to you: how can be a Buffalo more agile then I-16? i knew this plane flew like a stone and the engine was realy poor. I know the finnish were entusiastic about that plane and the shooted down lot of russian planes on the north front, but it looks to good right now. i can belive that plane can be better in boom and zoom vs a I-16 but more agile sounds strange too me.
Sry i have no documents to prove this just only my experience in to the game and sry for my poor english.

best regards

5SA_Albe

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 01:47 PM
I read all this crying post from LW players about the russian "superplanes" and i' m a little tired of it ( how you can say that afther this patch?). Now the russian has a very "poor" I-16, the LA5FN is finnally a "normal" plane, ect ect. Now they are talking about de Lagg3 1941 and the P-39 like uberplanes i think in the end the VVs pilots will fly on paperplanes to be even with LW.
Anyway i never read a word about the big performance of BF109 G2 ( that plane can fly afther two 37mm shoot of my P-39) or the 300 bullets (minimum) you need to shoot down a FW190 A5 or the insuperable dive speed of that plane in all versions.

Well Oleg may be the flying modells are right, but i have a question to you: how can be a Buffalo more agile then I-16? i knew this plane flew like a stone and the engine was realy poor. I know the finnish were entusiastic about that plane and the shooted down lot of russian planes on the north front, but it looks to good right now. i can belive that plane can be better in boom and zoom vs a I-16 but more agile sounds strange too me.
Sry i have no documents to prove this just only my experience in to the game and sry for my poor english.

best regards

5SA_Albe

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 02:30 PM
Basically I agree with you, Albe.
But I am quite sure that there's nothing you (or anybody) can change here.

Now prepare to be ridiculed as a "biased fanboy noob"...

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 02:40 PM
Well i don 't realy care about that, i would like just to have a ansower to my question and i know it 's almost impossible to have it directly from Oleg...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Best regards

5SA_Albe

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 03:01 PM
SA5_Albe wrote:


Albe, I think you should use facts instead of feelings. I don't think Buffalo is more agile than the I-16 in FB, but if you do we cannot solve this difference of opinion any other way.

I have good numbers of the B-239 preformance in the RL, so if you make some tests in FB we can have a comparison?

It may be correct or not, but that is the only way to know the 'truth'. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:13 PM
Thank you for ansower Jippo!

It 's no only my sensation, when i play on-line on a I-16 type 24 ( and i used and use a lot of that plane and i know it) if i meet a buffalo with the same altitude i have no possibility to win: it turn , climb, dive better then me. Before the patch the buffalo was agile too but if we had the same altitude no problem for I-16. Anyway if you want we can have a test togheter on-line afther my vacation.
I come back the 1st of Settember and you can contact me on my squadron site on forum:
www.ciaoscricciolo.it/5Stormo (http://www.ciaoscricciolo.it/5Stormo)

or send me a e-mail here:

brindellone55@hotmail.com

best regards

5SA_Albe

ZG77_Nagual
08-19-2003, 04:15 PM
Be interested to hear the stats - Buffalo, like the p39, is a plane the American 'party line' slams as being junk. It's nice to see some different opinions.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:20 PM
Yep. Something`s changed with the Buffalo. I`ve been on the net many times and never been shot down by a Buffalo (often never seen them) prepatch.
Today, I was chased upside down and everywhere in a Hurri and ultimately shot down. Don`t know if this is realistic or not, but the Buffalo has suddenly increased it`s performance abilities.


"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:40 PM
yep, the Buffalo found some Horsepower it looks like !

you have now a CHANCE against the red Tchaika, Ishak, Yak, LaGG, Warhawk fleet.
AND you have the powerfull armament.

AND i love the fact that this is the ONLY plane with a CSP that can overriew its engine ! i "think" thats a realistic feature. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i couldnt overriew any other CSP plane so far in FB

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 04:47 PM
b239 is noway as agile as the i16 and i153, they still can outturn the b239 slightly at least now the b239 can get a kill on a i153 and i16 before they couldnt you would be an instant dead man even with an alt advantage.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:29 PM
Here is a data I gathered from different sources, not sure how accurate it is:
====================================
Finnish Brewster F2-A1 (Model 239)

Length: 8.05 m.
Wingspan: 10.67 m.
Wing Area: 19.40 sq m.
Wingload: 117.84 kg/sq. m.

Weights:
Empty: 1770 kg.
Gross: 2286 kg.
Max. take-off: 2640 kg.

Engine: Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone 9-cylinder radial engine
Take-off Power: 950 hp.
Powerload: 2.40 kg/hp.

Top. Speed: 434 km/h @ SL
Top. Speed: 498 km/h @ 5490 m.

Initial Climb: 933 m/min.

Service Ceiling: 10,065 m.

Max.Range: 2,470 km.

Armament:
Two wing mounted 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine guns
One 7.62mm (.30 caliber) and one 12.7mm (.50 caliber) fuselage mounted machine guns

====================================
I-16 Type 24 (this is a mistake - should be Type 28)

Length: 6.13 m.
Wingspan: 9.00 m.
Wing area: 15.54 Sq. M.
Wingload: 124.9 kg/sq. m.

Weight:
Empty: 1,490 kg.
Take-off: 1,941 kg.

Engine: M-63.
Take-off Power: 1000 hp. (Some sources state take-off power as 1100 hp)
Powerload: 1.94 kg/hp.

Max. Speed: 410 km/h @ SL
Max. Speed: 462 km/h @ 6,360 m.

Turn time at 1,000m: 17-18 sec.

Climb to 5,000m: 6 min.

Service ceiling: 9,700 m.

Range: 440 km.

Armament:
2x7.62mm MG (ShKAS).
2x20mm cannon (ShVAK)

Two 100 kg bombs.
====================================

It looks like B-239 had slightly better wingload, worst powerload, probably worst climb (not sure now) and roll rates (I-16 was very good at roll) and about same turn rate (some sources said - I-16 Type 24-28 were capable of doing 16-17 sec. sustained turns, there is a study of turn rates of heavier US F2A-3 - this one could do sustained turn at about 19-20 sec, so I would imagine A-1 would do somewhat better) - the only advantage Brewster had was higher speed.

I also believe that if Finish P-239 Brewster was US model F2A-1 - this mean - no armor glass, pilots armor and protected fuel tanks, also the plane in the game seems to have some armor - it stand well against small caliber MG fire. I have also read that planes were shipped to Finland with either iron sights or some British telescopic sights, but those were replaced by Finns with some variant of Revi. Don't forget - Brewster also had weaker armament.

Of course better tactics could compensate for a lot of its shortcomings, but this plays both ways.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 06:38 PM
in 1.1 i can outturn a buffalo easy in an i-16.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 07:11 PM
stop the freaking whinning in both vvswhinners and the lufwhinners

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

MicroSoft Most Wanted
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/the-aztek-eagles/oleg.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 07:19 PM
My numbers are below yours so we can have an easy comparison. Were there is no "my" number we have the same figure:



Bogun wrote:
- Here is a data I gathered from different sources,
- not sure how accurate it is:
- ====================================
- Finnish Brewster F2-A1 (Model 239)
-
- Length: 8.05 m.
- Wingspan: 10.67 m.
- Wing Area: 19.40 sq m.
- Wingload: 117.84 kg/sq. m.
-
- Weights:
- Empty: 1770 kg.
- Gross: 2286 kg.

"dry" weight with out pilot and gasoline 2020kg

- Max. take-off: 2640 kg.

2415kg

-
- Engine: Wright R-1820-G5 Cyclone 9-cylinder radial
- engine
- Take-off Power: 950 hp.

1000hp

- Powerload: 2.40 kg/hp.
-
- Top. Speed: 434 km/h @ SL

428kmh (for BW-366, for others may vary)

- Top. Speed: 498 km/h @ 5490 m.

480kmh at 4750m (for BW-366, for others may vary)

-
- Initial Climb: 933 m/min.

810m/min, about 8min to 5km and 12min to 7km

- Service Ceiling: 10,065 m.
-
- Max.Range: 2,470 km.

operational distance 1350km (inc reserve), maximal operating time >4 hours

- Armament:
- Two wing mounted 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine guns
- One 7.62mm (.30 caliber) and one 12.7mm (.50
- caliber) fuselage mounted machine guns

Later 4 12.7mm MG's


- ====================================
- I-16 Type 24 (this is a mistake - should be Type 28)

- Engine: M-63.
- Take-off Power: 1000 hp. (Some sources state
- take-off power as 1100 hp)

Interestingly Finnish tried to equip Brewsters with M-63 engines, but the try was unsuccesful because the engine performed much worse the original Wright engine. In test bed engines provided the same power as the Wright, but their performance worsened along as the height increased due to worse charger and propellor. In my book (Lent√¬§j√¬§n N√¬§k√¬∂kulma 2) it is said that the maximum output of the M-63 was 915hp. Be it so or not Brewster with Wright engine performed better than with M-63.

- Powerload: 1.94 kg/hp.
-
- Max. Speed: 410 km/h @ SL
- Max. Speed: 462 km/h @ 6,360 m.
-
- Turn time at 1,000m: 17-18 sec.
-
- Climb to 5,000m: 6 min.
-
- Service ceiling: 9,700 m.
-
- Range: 440 km.
-
- Armament:
- 2x7.62mm MG (ShKAS).
- 2x20mm cannon (ShVAK)
-
- Two 100 kg bombs.
- ====================================
-
- It looks like B-239 had slightly better wingload,
- worst powerload, probably worst climb (not sure now)
- and roll rates (I-16 was very good at roll) and
- about same turn rate (some sources said - I-16 Type
- 24-28 were capable of doing 16-17 sec. sustained
- turns, there is a study of turn rates of heavier US
- F2A-3 - this one could do sustained turn at about
- 19-20 sec, so I would imagine A-1 would do somewhat
- better) - the only advantage Brewster had was higher
- speed.

B-239 could do 7 sec 180 degree turn from 350kmh(not sustained.) Advantages of Brewster were also extreme sturdiness, as we are talking about a carrier plane that is significantly bigger than for example 109. BW was also very nice plane to fly that had harmonous controls (compared to overly sensitive I-16 this was a big plus) and wasn't prone to stall in to spin even in very tight turns.If one wanted to spin BW one had to give full rudder when it stalled. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also definate plus was the better powerplant propellor combination and better boom & zoom cabability including better dive.

One definate thing on the minus side for I-16 in the comparison was the inaccuracy of the armamentdue to extremely heavy firing mechanism combined to the very sensitive flying controls.



- I also believe that if Finish P-239 Brewster was US
- model F2A-1 - this mean - no armor glass, pilots
- armor and protected fuel tanks, also the
- plane in the game seems to have some armor - it
- stand well against small caliber MG fire.

Finnish B-239 had seat armor for the pilot and no armored glass. Self sealing were suggested but not installed. Also when considering the DM-effects against light MG, remember the size of the plane as there is lot's of aluminium to be holed.

- I have
- also read that planes were shipped to Finland with
- either iron sights or some British telescopic
- sights, but those were replaced by Finns with some
- variant of Revi.

They all had T.h.m.40 reflector sights. (copy of Revi 3c) They were shipped without all US. Navy equipment that had originlly been installed, and this included the sights too.


-jippo



Message Edited on 08/19/03‚ 06:20PM by Jippo01

Message Edited on 08/19/0306:21PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 08:39 PM
Hi Jippo01,

I have assembled data from many different sources, that could explain some discrepancy in numbers.
Finnish Brewsters had some really heavy equipment removed (compare to F2A-1) - like landing hook, life raft etc. but in my calculations I did not use Max. take-off weight of 2,640 kg for any calculations (I used gross weight 2,286 kg) - I believe Max. take-off is the weight with additional fuel tanks to achieve maximum possible range. Finns found even normal fuel load of B-239 excessive for the condition planes were used.

You are right - there are a references to Wright R-1820 G-5 Cyclone engine used by the Finns was rated at 1000 h.p. for take off, 850 h.p. at 1800 m, and 750 h.p. at 4600m, but a lot state 950 hp. About M-63 - the difference in horsepower is probably related to the engine rated altitude.
Also familiarity of finish mechanics with the maintenance and tuning of the engines could account for some lost poweroutput. New Zealanders flying I-16 now rated M-63 power as 1100hp.

You are correct about I-16 handling - by all account it was unforgiving airplane - along with early MiG-1 it was the hardest plane to master. After those two Russian pilots considered even Cobra easier to fly. Only later versions of I-16 with heavier M-62,63 engines were easier to pilot because of the moved CG. Still, I believe, hands-off flight was not possible.

Interesting about Brewster's armament. I thought Finns kept .30. Also at some point .50 machineguns were so shot up, worned-out - Finns were trying manufacture their own barrels as the replacement. It didn't work too well. Another interesting thing about Brewster armament - Finns purposely set it for higher dispersion, to have higher chances to hit something in front ( on this forum some want just the opposite for MG of P-47). I believe wing machineguns were not pointing at same conversion point.

Good point about dive. Sure zoom climb of Brewster was better too.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

---------------
Ilsa: "That was the day the Germans marched into Paris."
Rick: "Not an easy day to forget. The Germans wore grey, you wore blue."
Ilsa: "Yes. I have put that dress away. When the Germans march out, I'll wear that dress again."

- Casablanca, 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-19-2003, 10:25 PM
I don 't know how it was in reality but in the game the buffalo now is much better then I-16type 24 in evrything: better turn, better speed, better dive, better climb evrything!! I don 't think this is correct but anyway if you want make a test in a normal dogfight and you will see it.

best regards

5SA_Albe

BTW: i don 't know why somwone is talking about I-153 here, of course a biplane is more agile then a Buffalo, i'm talking about I-16 type 24 vs buffalo.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:50 AM
I'm sure that whatever changes done to the brewster are an improvement, even if not perfect.

In FB1.0 the B-239 was deficient in every regime I tried compared to performance data. I haven't tried playing it yet in 1.1, but I'm glad if it has gotten better.

http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 03:14 AM
I tested the climb and sustained turn rate, to see whazzup.

Climb to 5000m (100% fuel, 100% power, summer, noon)

Object viewer: 7:10
I got: 7:23

Sustained turn rate at 1000m

No reference
I got: 18 seconds

So the climb rate appears to be accurate now. The sustained turn rate is about 18 seconds, which makes it roughly equal to I-16 (maybe a tiny bit worse). This seems reasonable by what I've read from Finnish pilot reports.

Certainly much more accurate than in 1.0.

http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 04:42 AM
The Buffalo was supposed to have been extremely agile and a joy to fly aerobatics in. It was dog-like in other respects.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 06:42 AM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- I tested the climb and sustained turn rate, to see
- whazzup.
-
- Climb to 5000m (100% fuel, 100% power, summer,
- noon)
-
- Object viewer: 7:10
- I got: 7:23
-
- Sustained turn rate at 1000m
-
- No reference
- I got: 18 seconds
-
- So the climb rate appears to be accurate now. The
- sustained turn rate is about 18 seconds, which makes
- it roughly equal to I-16 (maybe a tiny bit worse).
- This seems reasonable by what I've read from Finnish
- pilot reports.
-
- Certainly much more accurate than in 1.0.
-

I get also somewhat 18, most of the time 19 for BW. I-16 is clear 18. The difference in the wingloading of these two is marginal, same applies to the power. Brewster being slightly in disadvantage with power to weight. Brewster should also have a clear slow speed advantage in handling. It was after all a carrier fighter. I-16 was not really appraised for this quality.

Brewster _does not_ outturn I-16 in the game nor in the reality (in sustained turns).

If you're getting hammered online in a pure level turning fight by brewster in I-16 you really have to try harder. If the fight contains vertical element you're just facing your destiny. If you're talking about a fight against AI it has little to do with the aircraft performance, you really have to address your complains to the AI department.

In FB 1.0 Brewster also decided to blow around 650 km/h which was not largely advertised. The Brewster has been clearly improved in the patch, it had a sustained turn of around 23-24 s in 1.0 which made it a very good turner in FW, P-47 class. If it now makes a tough opponent to the traditional turn fighters, it is because they finally started getting it right not vice versa. FB 1.0 is no reference to the real aircraft performance. It is currently also no UFO just a good slow agile fighter.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 07:09 AM
Buffalo just got it turning ability, and dive right in 1.1b.
In 1.0 it had ridicilous slow speed handling. So it is just about right. FM was way off generally in FB 1.0.

I-16 still outurns Buffalo, which is right. But marking is not so big as in FB 1.0.

And Buffalo is very close to its datasheets imho.

-Masi

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 10:33 AM
I think that SA5_Albe like most of Allied players is quite unconfortable with the new patch.

I guess this is due to the wrong abit we have had during this months of training on the original planes.

As far as the I16 is concerned, I remember that this uber plane was able to take great DF with late german planes as well, before patch.

Now seems that everything is going to be as real as it should be.

My sugestion for VVS player is to have much more training on the new flight models that IMHO seem to be more realistic...and to start to consider that the early VVS planes were not so great compared to early LW planes.
This was totally wrong before patch.


S!*Umaydie*

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:01 AM
Dogfights, B-239 vs I-16 are now a real thrill and that's what makes for a good time.

Not to mention the I-16 prior to the patch,unbelievably UBER./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Choocky

http://www.f19vs.tk/

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 11:25 AM
What is all that "UBER I-16" rant ?

Only because some lamer wasn't careful enough and got shot down by an I-16 while flying a late-war 109G ?

Now since the original version of "IL-2 Sturmovik" and now in "Forgotten Battles", I am constantly able to kill fighters while flying a ground attack mission online in an IL-2. Then according to your logic here, IL-2 is "Uber" ?
Pffft!...



Message Edited on 08/20/0310:27AM by FPS_Stierlitz

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:07 PM
FPS_Stierlitz wrote:
- What is all that "UBER I-16" rant ?
-
- Only because some lamer wasn't careful enough and
- got shot down by an I-16 while flying a late-war
- 109G ?
-
- Now since the original version of "IL-2 Sturmovik"
- and now in "Forgotten Battles", I am constantly able
- to kill fighters while flying a ground attack
- mission online in an IL-2. Then according to your
- logic here, IL-2 is "Uber" ?
- Pffft!...
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/20/03‚ 10:27AM by
- FPS_Stierlitz

Could be! haven't tried it yet since the patch.

As for the I-16 it's perfect now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



F19_Choocky

http://www.f19vs.tk/

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:13 PM
The I16 was overdone in 1.0 and Brewster was worse than irl. When both of these issues got solved in the patch the relative performance change seems big in the beginning.

Brewsters were superior to the I16 in just about everything except sustained turn and it was nearly the same anyway. Brewster could pull the 180 degrees in 7 seconds though so it could get a firing solution in a turn. 450 kills and under 20 combat losses in the finnish front where the main adversory in the early war was a I16 say something about the relative performance of these planes. Thanks for the data Jippo /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-possu.

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 01:40 PM
nt

Message Edited on 08/20/0306:40AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 02:34 PM
I think the problem was more with the I-16 then the 239. As most of us know in FB the I-16 could darn near climb with the late model planes of both sides. Which in return they had to tone it down.

I do not recall many or any post about the 239 being undermodelled or over for that matter, so you may be noticing the change from the toned down model of the I-16 with the patch.

If you look back to FB if the I-16 remained the way it was they wouldn't of had to make any other version of planes.

As for the 153 its a bi-plane they can turn and climb under stall rates which was a form of combat used during the war. You will never out turn them in any fighter for while your in a tail spin they just roll over and go the other way flying at 80km is nothing for them.

May you not become a dirt torpedo.

PlatinumDragon...

XyZspineZyX
08-20-2003, 05:09 PM
Hello Bogun.

My numbers were strictly for Finnish BW's (of which different comfigurations also existed, like BW-371 without wing armament etc...), so it the numbers may be different what are published about Brewsters in general. And as we know, even historians writing books make mistakes or have incorrect information. There may be errors in my numbers. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

For the Wright engine I have 100hp at SL and 800hp at the altitude of 4900m in the combat setting, while the nominal power in respective altitudes was only listed at 850hp and 750hp. And it is true that Finns may have had some difficulty tuning M-63's, captured planes and engines seem to never reach their published specs even in the cases when they do it in the airforce they were originally serving.

MG's were originally Colt manufqactured ones, but I believe there were few different models of weapons installed. At least the .30 wing MG's were replaced by Finnish LKK 42 MG (.50 cal) by the year 1943 in all Brewsters except one. Also I've read about mentioning of having convergence point at 300m. Interesting comment from one WW2 FiAF veteran when he was shown the FB was about the guns, he was wondering about the very large dispersion of the weapons and told that in RL the bullets went exactly to the aiming point and not all over the sky like in the game. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

A very good reference of the experiences of the Finnish pilots in WW2 is available also to english speaking public at:

Virtualpilots History section. (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/)

I just have to advertise it because it just is so good. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Check it out if you are interested about the Finnish experiences in the war. Especially Hans Wind's lectures are suberb stuff, and very specific about fighting with BW.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:33 AM
I have been i vacation for 10 days and afther this time i can say the Buffalo is a uberplanes. Before the patch just a few finnish pilot used that plane , but now lot of Axis pilot use it and look how many kills they have with it,are all of them become aces in so short time? At the same time nobody is now using the I-16 becouse if you have a Buffalo in your room you are a death man. Also the dammage profile look strange: sometimes if you hit that plane with 2 bullets the buffalo exploded, but sometimes you can hit it with 200 bullets and nothing happen, it looks like the FW190. Last thingh: the engine takes a long long time to go in overheat at 110%.
I know the finnish had good time with the Buffalo on the east front, but that plane looks now too good like the I-16 was before the patch. I could say the Buffalo is much better if you compere with the I-16 prepatch becouse go faster and has no the engine problems then I-16 had but the same agility.
Anyway i see the Axis pilots are happy about this e they don 't care if the flying model is real or not but please stop talk about VVS UFO becouse right now you have a UFO too.

Best regards

Albe

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:46 AM
Salute Jippo

I would be interested in seeing your figures and original documents on the Brewster.

The problem with the Brewster is the climbrate.

See this thread here for tests and discussion:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzziv


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:51 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- Yep. Something`s changed with the Buffalo. I`ve been
- on the net many times and never been shot down by a
- Buffalo (often never seen them) prepatch.
- Today, I was chased upside down and everywhere in a
- Hurri and ultimately shot down. Don`t know if this
- is realistic or not, but the Buffalo has suddenly
- increased it`s performance abilities.
-

AFAIK, the finnish Buffalo pilots were advised to BnZ the I-16 (that was too dangerous in turning fights, but climbed slower) while they found the Hurricane their worst opponent as the considerd they could both outturn and outclimb them (I don't know the hurricane version they compared the Buffalo to).

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 03:30 PM
The Finns ordered their Buffalos from the US, but surprisingly, they didn't get everything. The radio was missing, they had to put into the Browning factory to get machine guns, etc... They basically stripped the plane of everything! Whatever they thought it didn't need, for example, Really heavy armor, was taken off. They left a little on, but not too much. Without the extra load, the plane flew like a beauty.

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
http://interzone.ath.cx/pics/booshsig.jpg

<center>Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW<center>
http://proudbirdswing.tripod.com/proudbirds.htm

http://www.escadrila54.com/logo_sm.jpg

<center><marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"The ProudBirds..Flying High and Proud..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee>

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:22 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- The Finns ordered their Buffalos from the US, but
- surprisingly, they didn't get everything. The radio
- was missing, they had to put into the Browning
- factory to get machine guns, etc... They basically
- stripped the plane of everything! Whatever they
- thought it didn't need, for example, Really heavy
- armor, was taken off. They left a little on, but not
- too much. Without the extra load, the plane flew
- like a beauty.
-

This may explain why the Finns found the Buffalo far better than the soviet Hurricanes. I thought it was strange, as the first US pilots in Britain, when the first Eagle squadron, to which the British gave Buffalos as they thought the US pilots would be pleased to have american planes, was created found it so bad that, after asking to get other planes, they even delibarately crash-landed some to accelerate the re-equipment with Hurricanes (a fact known and encouraged by the british squadron leader of this unit).

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:41 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Jippo
-
- I would be interested in seeing your figures and
- original documents on the Brewster.


Here is a scan for Lent√¬§j√¬§n N√¬§k√¬∂kulma by Jukka Raunio (Forssan kirjapaino 1993):

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/BW.jpg

The book is a made out of testflight records available in Finnish museums, overall very high quality and accuracy. (I have some reports of other planes which match word to word, but unfortunately not for Brewster. Anyway I trust it is absolutely correct. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

In any case, here are some original Brewster documents for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.hut.fi/~ssipila/brewster/brewster-350.pdf
http://www.hut.fi/~ssipila/brewster/brewster-353.pdf


And as I said earlier I have not tested the Brrewster ingame.


-jippo



Message Edited on 09/01/0306:32PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 04:48 PM
Boosher-PBNA wrote:
- The Finns ordered their Buffalos from the US, but
- surprisingly, they didn't get everything. The radio
- was missing, they had to put into the Browning
- factory to get machine guns, etc... They basically
- stripped the plane of everything!


US Navy stripped everything that was theirs out of the planes. Planes were originally made for navy but then sold to Finns and navy took √¬≥ut everything that was theirs. Finns added the armor, sights, etc. with their own equipment.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 09:47 PM
Salute Jippo

The question is: What aircraft weight, fuel load and power settings were these figures obtained at?

If by the way, the Brewsters had weapons added as well as gunsights and armour, then they would weigh more than when they arrived from the manufacturer, and would perform worse than the stock versions.

I did some tests on the FB Brewster.

I used the figures from the original manufacturers documents which you posted links to.

Here are the performance figures listed:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/b239.jpg


As you can see, the climb figures were obtained at normal power and at 5014 lbs weight.

They were obtained with only one .50 calibre and one .30 calibre Machinegun carried, plus only 110 gallons of fuel, instead of the normal fully loaded 160 gallons plus three .50's and one .30 which would weigh 5276 lbs. See below:

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/b239_weights.jpg


Ie. the aircraft was tested at 68% fuel load.

I did my tests with the fuel load set at 75%, and with the ordanance load set at 'Empty'. I did the climbtest at 100% power. (not 110% and no WEP)

I followed Ian Boys Beta Testers procedure of doing the climb, which requires starting at Sea Level at 300 kph.

The historical aircraft had the following performance:

2:00 minutes to 5,000 ft

6:00 minutes to 15,000 ft


My tests had the following result:

1:24 to 5,000 ft

4:48 to 15,000 ft.


This clearly indicates to me that the Brewster is overmodelled in its climbrate.


RAF74 Buzzsaw


Message Edited on 09/01/0308:50PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:02 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Jippo
-
- The question is: What aircraft weight, fuel load
- and power settings were these figures obtained at?

The plane is the BW-366. The take-off weight is not know in this case, but the Finnish tests I have read about different planes are usually flown with full fuel load and ammunition in standard (not specially prepared) plane. Typical take-off weight of thus loaded BW was 2415kg, and the plane in the test "..must have been between 2300-2400kg."

Manifold pressure was 93cmHg and rpm 2100, which is the 850hp setting at sealevel. I would like to remind that the maximum power was 1000hp, so there is still quite a difference to that. climbing speed in this test was 220kmh IAS at SL reducing to 180kmh at 5000m.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:09 PM
Salute Jippo

Additionally, checking your chart, which shows Meters per second climbrate, it lists approximately 12.8 meters per second, which translates to 2519 ft per minute, comparable to the figures on the Brewster company document.

Which would again confirm that the Brewster climbrate is too high.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:10 PM
Albe and RAF74 ->

Again find out PROPER SOURCES. Albe has none so U R talking only about "I feel like"... I also feel like that U whine cause U are used to too good Russian early war planes. In all documents it is stated that the early war Russian planes were badly outdated. Also the LAGG3.


RAF74 is still relaying on a single document. Like I said earlier, consult Virtualpilots ry. for some REAL FINNISH DOCUMENTS about Brewster's performance. What U R just posting here is some original manufacturer documents. Those documents are worth s**t when Brewster was changed with heavy hand in Finland.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:14 PM
Salute Porta

Obviously you are not reading this entire thread, or you have a comprehension problem.

Look several posts above in the thread.

There you will see additional original documents, posted by a Finnish Squadron member who actually takes care to present facts.

His document clearly support my contention that the Brewster climbs too well.

Perhaps you can contribute something else besides opinion to this discussion and actually post some data.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:03 PM
RAF74 ->

I gave U some valuable sources in this post and the under the other title. Pls. use them and don't underrate me and what I post here. I didn't say U R wrong but only reminded U that your evidence is too weak.

Don't take it personally RAF74, but U R the one with the problem here. Not me. Comprehend yourself better and get the facts from the places I gave U. After all U R the one interested about the details of Brewster's climb rate...not me.

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 11:54 PM
Salute Porta

Actually I spent some time carefully researching the subject of its climbrate, and then did several hours of testing and then posted the results.

Whereas you have put forward ZERO in the way of documentation, instead preferring to make generalized statements insisting that there are documents out there which prove the existing climbrate is correct.

If so, produce them.

Otherwise you replies are worthless.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 01:52 AM
Salute Jippo

Thankyou for your information, however I still have questions.

Can you give me a link to all the test documents or post them, showing weights of the aircraft, armament installed and fuel loaded etc?

The reason I ask is that your figure of 2300 - 2400 kgs for the Finnish test aircraft, suggesting that as fully loaded with fuel and four .50 calibre MG's does not fit with what is known about the weight of the Brewster fully loaded when it arrived from the factory.

The standard model as delivered weighed at 2398 kgs with three .50 calibres, one .30 calibre and only 110 gallons of fuel loaded.

If it was loaded with full fuel of 160 gallons, it would weigh 2489 kgs. If it had the extra .50 calibre instead of .30, then it would weigh 2516 kgs.

If the Finns added armour, which did not come with the aircraft from the factory, then it would weigh even more.

So I am wondering whether the test was done at lighter weight or without some guns?

Posting the documents would resolve that question.


Thankyou RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/02/0312:53AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:27 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
-
- As you can see, the climb figures were obtained at
- normal power and at 5014 lbs weight.
-
Buzzsaw, I would like to point out that you say the figures were "obtained". They actually were calculated and the planes were stripped before being sent. The tests done by the Finns are logically a more reliable source.

Looking at the charts that Jippo has posted, the plane in FB is not that far off. The climb time to 3000m is shown around 4 min. (It's hard to read off the chart since it is not lined). When I tested the climb capabilitlities in FB with 100% fuel and weapons. I got a time of 3min 49 sec., about 23 seconds faster than the object viewer, but in keeping with the chart Jippo posted. When I took it up to 5000 meters, the time was 9min.14 sec. at 240 kph. This is actually slower than Jippo's chart.

That was with 100% power, 100% prop pitch and 240kph climb speed. Like you, I started at sea level in the QMB's Crimea map at 300kph.

The object viewer's take-off weight of 2415kg is heavier than the 5014lb weight used in the calculations , but if you beleive the charts posted by Jippo are accurate then the plane's performance in FB is not that far off. I agree with you that it would be interesting to see where the figure for take-off weight in FB comes from since this is an area of discrepancy.




http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/rcafpost.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 05:50 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Jippo
-
- Thankyou for your information, however I still have
- questions.
-
- Can you give me a link to all the test documents or
- post them, showing weights of the aircraft, armament
- installed and fuel loaded etc?


I already said that I do not have the documents, just a book which is compiled from them.

"(FiAF) Brewster weights with all the equipment, armed and with engine oil 2020kg. Added with pilot and 300kg of fuel the typical take-off weight would be 2415kg."

All the FiAF planes were typically tested with full fuel and ammo. Why should they have not done it in this case? That would kind of ruin the comparison wouldn't it?

- If the Finns added armour, which did not come with
- the aircraft from the factory, then it would weigh
- even more.
-

American navy equipment was removed in the factory. That includes armor, Finnish armor was then added. The planes were heavily modified compared to what US. Navy had.

Please pay attention to what I write, I feel like I have to repeat things. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 10:32 AM
I find I can turn fairly well against the brewster in my p40 but the killer is it can greatly out roll me so after two or three scissers it has me.Now if the roll on the p40 was more accurate I think it would be very even.

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:11 AM
Salute Albe! I respect your point of view, but disagree with you strongly. Before the patch BW had NO CHANCE in dogfight with I-16. And I mean no chance regardless of the tactic you choose (only execption being surprise). Patch made things more balanced, because now both planes can use their advantages.

Response to your post title is: BW still isn't as agile as I-16! If you don't believe this, we can test it in Hyperlobby. However victory for BW is now POSSIBLE, if pilot will fly tactically correctly, and this is realistic. In my opinion, however, I-16 STILL has the overall edge especially in horizontal turn fight. Also the shooting stability of I-16 and the damage model are both superior to Brewster.

T_Rom

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 11:53 AM
S!

Again speculation has started. While ago i spended too much time speculating of 60 old aircrafts and today i'm going to spend my time to something elsehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just posting this once...

Anyway, i've seen original documents of FAF BW and 1.1b seems to be modelled after them.

(i don't have those documents but if interested you can ask them from our squads commander LLv26_Reinman. He has direct access to museum where those documents are archived, becouse he works in FAF)

Pay attention of the motor which finnish Brewsters used. Pay also attention of modifications what they made. Finnish plane was very differend than original buffalo.
Sad that we don't have correct instruments in cockpit and that vaisala gunsight but at least now the bird flies allmost like they told in books.

Before 1.1b, fast zoom and then runaway was only possible tactics against any plane. Now almost all historical tactics are usefull. Still the most used "dive away" doesn't reach the same effect as in books and real dive speed tests. But you just can't get everything... so let's be happy with this.

I understand that people are wondering about BW's changes, but instead of speculations, lets wait for those who have done their homework about brewsters and those who have original test flight reports of FAF brewster.

Hopefully they'll come here and share their data.

EDIT: just saw that jippo posted this graph:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/BW.jpg


This is scanned from tests of finnish Brewster. Check it out and compare to 1.1b Brewster. Those tests are made with full combat load. It is also easy to ask from author of that book (i have asked via my friend)







Message Edited on 09/02/0311:10AM by LLv26_Sami

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 03:06 PM
How all of you can be so sure the flying model of the I-16 and the Buffalo are correct now becouse those two planes are even ( there are not but this is another question)? The flying models change evry patch and in a big way ( i tink FB is only another patch of the old IL2). I suppose is more correct to say: in the game the planes FOR THE MOMENT fly in this way try to do your best to fly them in a correct way. Please don 't tell me they fly like they flew in the WW2 becouse afther 6 or 7 patch i can 't belive that.
The axis has finnaly a agile plane like the I-16 and Hurry and thats good becouse make the game more even, but i 'm free to say i don 't belive it was like this in reality.
Anyway i 'm ready for a test with that guy ( sry i forgott your nick) in HL.

best regards

5SA_Albe

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2003, 04:14 PM
learn to fly!

http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/bender.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 12:29 PM
Brewster climb rate may be bit too high (but only a very very small margin), but certainly she is not the only bird having this problem.. Like LA-7..

Imo the FM of The Brewster is about right.. however it is the game that still has some issues .. mostly about Energy bleeding.. you can turn the stick as hard as you can without loosing E, and Brewster is certainly not the only plane, that "Suffers" from this..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:14 PM
Regarding the Hurricanes alleged "agility", i took the liberty of posting this link:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html#enemymeth ods

Reading that,you will find out that FAF agreed with your opinion that the I-16 is a very nimble and agile opponent, but the Hurricane and Spit wasnt very impressive below 3000 meters. Nuff said, read it yourself. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Homines quod volunt credunt



SA5_Albe wrote:
- How all of you can be so sure the flying model of
- the I-16 and the Buffalo are correct now becouse
- those two planes are even ( there are not but this
- is another question)? The flying models change evry
- patch and in a big way ( i tink FB is only another
- patch of the old IL2). I suppose is more correct to
- say: in the game the planes FOR THE MOMENT fly in
- this way try to do your best to fly them in a
- correct way. Please don 't tell me they fly like
- they flew in the WW2 becouse afther 6 or 7 patch i
- can 't belive that.
- The axis has finnaly a agile plane like the I-16 and
- Hurry and thats good becouse make the game more
- even, but i 'm free to say i don 't belive it was
- like this in reality.
-
- Anyway i 'm ready for a test with that guy ( sry i
- forgott your nick) in HL.
-
- best regards
-
- 5SA_Albe
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:47 PM
Albe, if U think Brewster sucked that bad, explain this:

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fighters.html

Most of those Finnish losses were also due to accidents.

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2003, 04:48 PM
Here is the correct link:

http://www.sci.fi/~ambush/faf/fighters.html#ryysteri

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 02:16 AM
Albe,

I generally don't point at the pilot's skills when people make comments about relative performance, but in this instance, since I can't duplicate your results, I'm going to have to agree with the others: if you are having this much trouble in the I-16 it is quite possibly your skills, not the plane. I tried both head to head after seeing your post. The I-16 will still easily take the Brewster in a turn fight. When flying in the Brewster it is a bit more challening. The I-16 out turns the Brewster in my tests. The Brewster has been improved and the I-16 has been made a little less awesome, but the I-16 still turns better. It is easy to snap into a nasty spin with the I-16, but that was true in real life as well. In the original FB, getting a good I-16 on your tail was almost always fatal, because the sustained turn rate of the Brewster was low in the sim. Now, you have a fighting chance.

If I were to point at one aspect that might be off it would be that the I-16 is prone to overheat more rapidly than the Brewster during hard turns at full throttle in the dogfights I've had. I can't say whether the overheating is correct for both, one, or neither; but I was surprised by it.

As for whether the turn rates are correct for the I-16: at first glance they match what I read about the type 18's in Ghordon and Khazanov's "Sov. Combat Aircraft of the 2nd WW." ""While take-off performance was enhanced and take-off run reduced, the greater wing loading increased the landing speed...and up to 18 seconds were required to complete a full turn." (I get about 17 seconds in the sim.) Type 24 is faster, but it should also be limited by wing loading I suspect. I get about 17 seconds with it turning also.

For comparison I get a little less than 18 seconds sustained with the Brewster. The Brewster is easier to hold at the limit than the I-16. The Brewster was known to have forgiving handling. I suspect that is the difference you are experiencing (because I see it as well.) The I-16 is harder to hold at its limits and is easy to snap roll and spin. If you are in a tight turn fight with another maneuverable plane, that is enough to get you killed. Is the balance perfect? I don't know, but it doesn't look it could be that far off to me. It looks more accurate than what we originally had. I know in previous versions I could turn the I-16 better than the numbers I'm reading in the books.

Your sources about the Brewster being like a "stone" are incorrect. It was underpowered for the weight of the variants the US flew and had trouble with warmer climates, but it was lighter in Finnish service, and the climate was more hospitable. Also, the Pacific Brewster combat pitted green Allied pilots against the best early war Japanese pilots (men who were not replaced as the war progressed.)