Brewster F2A Buffalo or P-39 Airacobra?

[kool kitty89]

Since the Finns (and Russians) had Hurricanes I'd expect it's a Rolls.


And I've done some more reading on export B-339's and most were fitted with R-1820-G105 engines rated for 1,100 hp (the F2A-2 used the 1,200 hp R-1820-40), but they were used engines and almost never produced this power (usually closer to 950 hp), and to make things worse many of the fuel pumps were inadequate ones for Hornet engines, so fuel starvation could occur above 10,000 ft. The did carry twice the ammo as the F2A-2 (500 rpg instead of 250) but there's no point in adding ammo if you can't bring you're guns to bare. Note these were lend-lease a/c and Brewster was having trouble since no money was being paid up-front.

The single exception to the poor engines of the B-339 was for the second half of the Netherlands' order:

From: Brewster 339 in Netherlands East Indies

However, the Wright Cyclone engine was at that time in short supply, and the Dutch government was forced to cut its Brewster order to only 72 planes. There were two separate batches delivered. The first 24 Brewsters delivered to the Netherlands East Indies were powered by Dutch-supplied 1100-hp Wright R-1820-G105 engines, some of which had been taken from DC-3s operated by commercial airlines and reconditioned at the Wright factory. These aircraft were assigned the Dutch serial numbers B3-95 through B3-118. The second batch of 48 aircraft were powered by 1200 hp Wright R-1820-G205 engines purchased directly from Wright. These planes were re-designated Model 339D by the company, and were assigned the Dutch serials B3-119 to B3-167. The two batches were otherwise identical.

The Finns engines were also used but had been refurbished and was a R-1820-G5 rated for 950 hp (1000 hp 5 min emergency, 850 cont.) which it did make and which was the same power as the F2A-1's engine (well matched to the lighter airframe), plus the Finns modified the engine to improve oil circulation. They also bought their a/c up front and were not lend-lease.


What they should have done with the F2A-2 (for a proper F2A-3) was lighten the internal fuel capacity (particularly in the wings) to 70% (back to about the F2a-1'S 160 gal with self-sealing tanks) and improve self-sealing tanks, add provisions for drop tanks (2x 40 gal) on the wing racks, keep ammo load the same as in the F2A-3 (1300 rounds total), improve pilot armor to protect shoulders/arms (the most effective plate placement is a triangle piece the same size and shape as the roll-bar fitted to the roll-bar, along with seat armor for the pilot) and add armor glass to windscreen, add other upgrades (improved electrical systems etc, weight negligibly affected) add more powerful engine if possible.
These changes should keep empty weight the same (if not lower than the F2A-2, though a heavier engine may change this) and empty equipped weight should be similar, takeoff weight max load (clean) should be similar to the F2A-2, range (clean) will be less, but max range should be about the same with drop tanks, and max take-off should be similar to the F2A-3. (~1,600 mi, but drop tanks give the option to dump excess load when necessary).
So altered it could have been a good plane with improved fuel and pilot protection and ammo load with performance similar to the F2A-2, and better with an engine upgrade. Though it didn't really need a more powerful engine as 1,200 hp for a ~6,000 lb take-off weight is quite a bit, and more powerful engines may not have been available at the time, plus the R-1820-40 had good altitude performance. The decrease in internal tankage alone should take off ~500 lbs.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

And I've done some more reading on export B-339's and most were fitted with R-1820-G105 engines rated for 1,100 hp (the F2A-2 used the 1,200 hp R-2800-40)

KK89,

Where did you find the info that any F2A's were outfitted with R-2800's?
I've never heard that before.
All I've ever heard or seen was that they had one variation or another of the R-1820 and I think I saw somewhere where some were fitted with R-1830's.

R-1820-G5 was made for export. I think it was specified by the Finn's because it was the closest match to other european versions of that engine already in service, but don't quote me on that.

I agree with you on the points about the F2A-2, except you forgot the addition of the R-1820-56 engine, which made 1350HP (and with that extra power, a 4-bladed prop probably would've been a nice addition, as well).



Elvis

[kool kitty89]

Sorry, 1820-40. I fixed it. Also, most of those figures are from JoeB's site.

JoeB's site supports the (almost) 2:1 kill ratio, but not for the Buffalo Mk.I with the commonwealth, but with the B-339C/D (the D had the 1,200 hp R-1820-G205 engine) with the Dutch. From: Brewster 339 in Netherlands East Indies

The Brewsters were completely outclassed by the Japanese fighters which opposed them. The Model 339C and D were inferior to the Japanese Zero in speed, maneuverability and in climb rate. During three months of combat, 30 Brewsters were lost in air combat, 15 were destroyed on the ground, and a number were lost in accidents. 17 pilots were killed in action. Against these losses, Dutch Brewsters claimed 55 enemy aircraft destroyed, a victory-to-loss ratio of almost two to one.

On the other hand he also says this about the Buffalo Mk.I: Brewster Buffalo Mk I

Many official British historical sources blame the loss of Malaya and Singapore largely on the Buffalo's poor performance. However, the picture is not entirely that of an unmitigated disaster, and many Buffalo-equipped units gave a good account of themselves before they were overwhelmed by superior Japanese numbers. Accurate figures on the combat losses of British Buffalos are difficult to come by. Approximately 60 to 70 Buffalos were lost in air combat, 40 were destroyed on the ground, twenty were lost in various non-combat related accidents, four were transferred to the Dutch, and six were evacuated to India. Commonwealth Buffalo squadrons claimed at least 80 kills, and some units may have achieved a 2-to-1 kill ratio.

So the 2:1 was for individual units, and the overall air to air kill:loss would be 1.14-1.33:1 in favor of the Buffalo.


And the Buffalo could out-dive (both in acceleration and dive limit) the Zero, Oscar, and Nate. (and Hurricane) Though the Wildcat, P-39 and P-40 could out-dive the F2A in most models.

[Elvis]

I think its a safe bet that just about anything could outdive the early Japanese planes.
Those planes were built to dogfight, WWI style, so they were built lightly with quick reacting controls.
The downside of building light, is the airframes didn't seem as strong as the heavier Allied planes.
One F4F tactic was to get a Zero on your tail, then go into a dive, with the Zero keeping hot pursuit.
At a certain point, the Wildcat pilot would steepen the dive.
The F4's airframe could handle the added stress, but when the Zero pilot tried to hold pursuit, the manuver would rip the tail right off the airplane.

One thing that gets me about the Buff was how large the control surface was on the vertical stabilizer.
It's like half the tail!

...and no prob on the typo. I figured it was either that, or you were going to revel me with some eye-opening info I was heretofore unaware of.

That actually reminds me of something else, but I'll save it for another thread.

BTW, when you stated "Overall Kill ratio" were you including the Finn's record in there?




elvis

[kool kitty89]

The Zero had a similar tactic in the reverse aganst the Wildcat: the Zero pilot with a Wlidcat in persuit would enter a climb and wait for the Wildcat to stall out and then pounce...

Didn't work too well aganst the hellcat!
YouTube - Dogfights: " F6F Hellcat " 2 of 5

[kool kitty89]

Some good pictures of the F2A here: Brewster F2A Buffalo
and here American airplanes: Bo - Bu

That second one has pictures of the "dazzel camoflauge" shown earlier.


And on the same site they have Bell's stuf too: American airplanes: Bell

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Some good pictures of the F2A here: Brewster F2A Buffalo
That second one has pictures of the "dazzel camoflauge" shown earlier.

I always thought that paint scheme had a cool "Art Deco" look to it.
Quite fitting, considering the time.
That scheme actually goes back to WWI and was used on ships.
It was said that the crazy lines broke up the ships colouring and profile, when viewed at a great distance and it was harder to tell what was floating out there.




Elvis

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Elvis

It was said that the crazy lines broke up the ships colouring and profile, when viewed at a great distance and it was harder to tell what was floating out there.

[Elvis]

Ol' Graeme tryin' to put one over on me, eh?

Ya, don't fool me! I know a hot dog cart when I see one!





(hehe, just kidding. Its hard to tell from such a small pic, but it looks like there's either one or two boats there. I seem to remember the QE was painted up similarly, during the war...or was that the QM?).




Elvis

[kool kitty89]

I see 2... But there could be some smaller ones there blending in...

[Wildcat]

I say 1.

[kool kitty89]

Why 2 conning towers then?

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Its hard to tell from such a small pic

Yeah, it's not a good photo. It comes from this book...



The answer is one. It simply describes it as a warship cleverly camouflaged with false bows painted on the side.

Maybe someone can identify the warship?

[Smokey]

Originally Posted by Elvis

One F4F tactic was to get a Zero on your tail, then go into a dive, with the Zero keeping hot pursuit.
At a certain point, the Wildcat pilot would steepen the dive.
The F4's airframe could handle the added stress, but when the Zero pilot tried to hold pursuit, the manuver would rip the tail right off the airplane.

Saburo Sakai claims that he used a dive tactic against pilots in F4Us which involved drawing the F4U pilot into following hi, down in a dive, then pulling up at the last minute. The pilot of the heavier F4U could'nt pull up in time and crashed into the ground. So that was the other side of the coin with having a lighter airframe structure

[MacArther]

Saburo Sakai claims that he used a dive tactic against pilots in F4Us which involved drawing the F4U pilot into following hi, down in a dive, then pulling up at the last minute. The pilot of the heavier F4U could'nt pull up in time and crashed into the ground. So that was the other side of the coin with having a lighter airframe structure

Yeah, but the F4U would also be able to stand the stress of a high speed pull out. If I remember correctly, Japanese planes, especially the Zero and KI-43 often risked ripping their control surfaces or wings after pulling out of a high speed dive because they were built so light.