PDA

View Full Version : F2A-2



HotelBushranger
04-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Does anybody fly this? I took it up for the first time a coupla nights ago, to get used to telescopic shooting (Fokker anyone?) and noticed it has got some pretty great performance. I would put it higher than the B-239. And even without looking down the sight, there is a rudimentary iron sights which is usable. So I wonder why noone uses this?

HotelBushranger
04-03-2006, 08:15 AM
Does anybody fly this? I took it up for the first time a coupla nights ago, to get used to telescopic shooting (Fokker anyone?) and noticed it has got some pretty great performance. I would put it higher than the B-239. And even without looking down the sight, there is a rudimentary iron sights which is usable. So I wonder why noone uses this?

JG53Frankyboy
04-03-2006, 08:51 AM
it saw never a battle !

in US service only the F2A-3 saw battle at Midway.

rnzoli
04-03-2006, 09:02 AM
the telescopic sight didn't work well with me, i rather took the F4F-4 instead for a dance...

NekoReaperman
04-03-2006, 09:48 AM
My favorite USN/USMC bird!


I tried to make a fictional campaign for it (wanted to fly it from carriers), but i gave up....

BrewsterPilot
04-03-2006, 10:24 AM
The B-239=F2A-1

The F2A-2 had ~300hp stronger engine.

3.JG51_BigBear
04-03-2006, 07:55 PM
The F2A-2 is really the pick of the litter in terms of performance. The F2A-3 that saw service with the Marines was similar to the B-339 we have in game. They had increased armour, ammunition and fuel capacity. They were heavier, had lower top speeds, and lower rates of climb. Still, the more recent literature on the Buffalo tends to show that even the B-339 was probably a decent fighter. The problem was really poor tactics, being totally outnumbered, and not having enough early warning to get to altitude before tangling with the Japanese.

VW-IceFire
04-03-2006, 07:57 PM
The masochist in me wants to make what is probably a 3 mission campaign flying the F2A-3 at Midway and getting slaughtered by Zero's.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
04-03-2006, 08:40 PM
Heck, you don't need to do that IceFire, all you need to do is load up a Dgen mission with any plane at Midway and it already happens. Loaded up a Dgen(since have switched to DCG) starting with some plane and the mission started with me and a wingman against an entire armada of Japanese aircraft bearing down on our airbase. How fun was that? Even on realistic settings if you wind up bailing over your own base you still can't progress, now how stupid is that? I can see that in real life. 'No, no, you bailed out over our base but didn't complete your mission objectives, sorry, we will call up the Japanese and ask them if they can restart their planes at the same time so we can do this over again.'

Nimits
04-03-2006, 09:12 PM
Well, that's why you don't play with "No Instant Success" on . . . it is not at all realistic (even if it is more difficult).

VW-IceFire
04-03-2006, 09:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by _VR_ScorpionWorm:
Heck, you don't need to do that IceFire, all you need to do is load up a Dgen mission with any plane at Midway and it already happens. Loaded up a Dgen(since have switched to DCG) starting with some plane and the mission started with me and a wingman against an entire armada of Japanese aircraft bearing down on our airbase. How fun was that? Even on realistic settings if you wind up bailing over your own base you still can't progress, now how stupid is that? I can see that in real life. 'No, no, you bailed out over our base but didn't complete your mission objectives, sorry, we will call up the Japanese and ask them if they can restart their planes at the same time so we can do this over again.' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As Nimits points out...No Instant Success should be set. Also most of my missions have all objectives as hidden so that if all you manage to do is survive..well thats ok!

GerritJ9
04-04-2006, 06:14 AM
The F2A-2 was the best all-round version of the Buffalo, together with its derivative the B-339D as supplied to the KNIL. Both had 1200 hp Cyclones as did the F2A-3; the B-239 (F2A-1) used by the Finns had 950 hp Cyclones, the Belgian B-339Bs, KNIL B-339Cs and the Commonwealth B-339Es had 1100 hp Cyclones.
Of the Belgian B-339Bs, one was captured in Bordeaux by the Germans in 1940; six were in transit on the French carrier "Bearn" and eventually were blown up by Allied saboteurs in Martinique. The remaining 33 were taken over by Britain, some of which ended up in the Mediterranean and a few of these were captured when the Germans invaded Crete, though little more than wrecks.
The RAF B-339Es were heavily overloaded with "necessary" equipment and as a result the performance suffered badly. Similarly, the USN deemed it necessary to give the Buffalo extra range which required extra fuel tanks to be built in, plus extra armour etc. Again, the result was a heavily overloaded aeroplane though slightly better than the B-339E thanks to its 1200 hp engine. Three of the RAF's Buffalos were sent to the U.K., the remainder were shipped to the Far East (Malaya/Singapore and Burma).
The KNIL originally ordered 144 Brewsters, but although Brewster could supply airframes, Wright could not supply enough engines and the order had to be halved. The KNIL wanted 1200 hp engines for all aeroplanes but had to settle for 1100 hp Cyclones for the first 24, the remaining 48 did receive the specified 1200 hp Cyclones. Due to different equipment specs, the Dutch B-339C/Ds were about 250 kg lighter than the RAF's B-339Es and therefore had better overall performance.
The F2A-2 was the fastest Buffalo variant with a top speed of 344 mph at 16,400 ft, closely followed by the B-339D; both were significantly faster than the A6M2 (and F4F-3). The B-339C had approximately the same top speed as the A6M2, the F2A-3's top speed was 321 mph, the B-339E's 313 mph and the F2A-1's 311 mph.
Reasons for the Buffalo's failure against the Japanese were not an inferior aeroplane overall, but lack of numbers, lack of a proper early warning system and above all improper and inadequate pilot training.
It should be noted that none of the three Buffalo variants in FB/PF can attain anything near their top speeds. Despite this, the Buffalo is my favourite aeroplane in the sim.

HotelBushranger
04-04-2006, 06:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Obviously

What about the Fokker? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Mr I-Know-Everything-About-The-KNIL ?!

GerritJ9
04-04-2006, 10:07 AM
As I mentioned elsewhere, the D.XXI was designed as a replacement for the Curtiss P-6E Hawks then in service with the KNIL. However, although the prototype was shipped to Java for testing, the aeroplane was rejected by the KNIL and returned to Fokker. One possible reason may have been lack of money- the KNIL had only a very limited amount available and nearly all of it was spent on building up the Glenn Martin B-10 bomber force. It was only in 1940, after the German occupation of Holland, that the KNIL received its first modern fighters- 20 Hawk 75A-7s which had originally been ordered for the air arm in Holland but which could no longer be delivered to their original purchaser. These 20 Hawk 75s were supplemented by 24 Curtiss-Wright CW-21Bs and 71 Brewster B-339C/Ds. Still later a further batch of 20 Brewsters was ordered, but these were never delivered- together with one B-339D, they all ended up in Australia. Externally these 20 B-339-23s were largely similar to the F2A-3, having the same longer forward fuselage section, but here again the engine shortage struck and they were fitted with 950 hp Cyclones, these being the only engines available. These 20 have been labelled B-439s, but this designation was never used by Brewster and is probably the result of some historian's imagination. They initially served with the USAAF in Australia and later on with the RAAF.

GerritJ9
04-04-2006, 10:22 AM
In the sim (and in real life), the F2A-2's biggest disadvantage is that hideous and almost useless telescopic gunsight. Tracking an opponent with it is much more difficult than with the B-239's or Buffalo Mk.1's reflector gunsights. Furthermore, apart from it being much easier to lose track of the target if it's manoeuvering wildly, it requires much more concentration- which allows somebody to sneak up on you while trying to score hits on one of his mates.
At Midway, the F2A-3s were equipped with this dreadful piece of scrap, while the F4Fs had reflector gunsights. Perhaps the answer to the heavy losses the F2A-3s suffered there partly lies in the gunsight: concentrate on a target to try and shoot it down, somebody else gets a chance to clobber you. Concentrate on who might be on your tail, you don't hit anything.

telsono
04-04-2006, 10:26 AM
A good help in understanding the problems that the Allies had in the initial phases of the war in the Pacific is the "Bloody Shambles" series by Chris Shores, et al. Many of the newer aircraft were being delivered as the bombs were falling. Pilots were hardly checked out on aircraft before they flew them. For example, the P-35A's flown by the USAAC were from an order for Sweden. They arrived in the Philippines in Swedish markings with metric guages in the Swedish language. The ground crews had no experience serving these aircraft as well.

More aircraft were lost to ferrying accidents and straffing on the ground then were lost in the air. As soon as the aircraft arrived they were thrown into action.

The Swordfish was considered antiquated, but the British in Singapore were still using the aircraft it replaced as a frontline torpedo bomber.

What aircraft that were available from the USA or Britain and could be bought and sent were used. A tremendous stopgate affair if there ever was one.

GerritJ9
04-04-2006, 01:32 PM
Peter Elphick's "Singapore: The Pregnable Fortress" makes clear that much of the blame for the lack of tanks, aeroplanes etc. lies with Winston Churchill. He simply refused to believe that Japan could and would go to war with the Allies despite all the warning signals changing from amber to red. As a result, requests for war material were denied, when it WAS available. Hundreds of tanks and aeroplanes (Hurricanes, Tomahawks etc.) were shipped to the Soviet Union in the period between June 22nd and December 8th 1941. Had some of this been diverted to the Far East the situation there would have been quite different. The Soviet Union would have managed without 100 Matildas or Hurricanes- but they would have been crucial to keeping Malaya and Singapore in British hands.
After Japan launched its attack on Malaya, it suddenly WAS possible to ship Hurricanes to the Far East, suggesting that they could have arrived much earlier than they did.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
04-04-2006, 07:02 PM
"No Instant Success"


The most stupid option ever to grace a GUI since..... well......