Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Duel: Brewster Model 239 (Finland) vs I-16 type 24


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 12:00 AM

     I have acquired a couple books in the semi-recent past. At my age it

is hard to grasp actual time. :rolleyes:  Both books are loaded with aircraft

comparisons. Fighter Aircraft Performance of WW2 by Erik Pilawskii and

Duels in the Sky by Captain Eric M. Brown. Many of the duel outcomes

are a given. However I have found after reading both books that one

author is somewhat arrogant and opinionated by the aircraft of a nation

that he spent years in gathering exceptional information. The other

author appears more open minded especially since he piloted most of

the aircraft he writes about. Captain Brown is credited with flying 487

different aircraft and making the most carrier landing (2,400) of any

other pilot. The following comparison comes from Erik's book. I will

attempt to post the most provocative comparisons from these books

first,

     The following comparison comes from Erik's book, page 54:

Brewster Model 239 vs I-16 Type 24

     " Finnish Air Force "accounts" regarding the success of their various

aircraft types usually ring with the same hollow exaggeration as their

over-all victory claims. Nowhere is this more obvious than with the

Buffalo. The Model 239 was manifestly inferior to the Type 24 (its main

rival) in virtually every single category of aerodynamic performance,

usually grossly so. The Polikarpov was more rugged, better protected

and equally armed to boot. The idea that such an inferior combatant

was the progenitor of such "superiority" over their hated enemies is

factually bankrupt, and such claims as have resulted from these

fantasies must be laid to rest, Save for a profound disparity in piloting

competence there could only be one winner in this contest, and no

amount of propaganda can dispel this "inconvenient" truth.

 

Yes, I have been diving deep into my files since reading this. And yes

I have put much information together. I am not done yet, so have at it.

What are your opinions and hard core researched facts about this duel?

 

 

Let 'er Rip B)  :)



#2 Rick65

Rick65

    Registered Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 1 Month and 28 Days
  • 3 topics
  • LocationPerth, Western Australia

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:44 AM

Has your opinion of Pilawskii changed in a year? Posts 35 & 36

https://www.warbirds...-library/page-4



#3 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:24 PM

Hi Rick,

I had to go back and read Post #35 & #36. My opinion has not changed at all

about Mr. Pilawskii or his two books. He has done some exceptional researching

and has taken the enormous time to write down his findings and publish them.

That in itself is quite an accomplishment. He does have strong opinions that he

is not afraid to put in print. My intentions are to post these comparisons as long

as the interest is there and I hope not to venture too far off the path that RT has

started with his Duel Series postings.

 

Jeff


Edited by CORSNING, 14 February 2018 - 01:34 PM.


#4 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:18 PM

Aircraft          Model 239          I-16 Type 24

Delivered        3 quarter '39      1 quarter '40

Max. Power    950 hp./S.L.       1000 hp/S.L.

Norm. Load    2415 Kg             1882 kg.

Speed S.L      428 km/h            385 km/h

Speed Alt.      484/5 km.           426 km/h

Initial climb     762 m/min.         991 m/min.

Climb 5 Km.   7.17 min.            6.0 min.

Service Alt.    9,000 m.             10,300 m.

Power load    5.605 lb/hp         4.150 lb/hp

SEP               17.19                  27.02           Specific Excess Power

Turn time       15.8 sec.            16.5 sec.

Turn radius    195 m.                205 m.

Acceleration   8.1 km/sec.        8.9 km/sec.

Armament      4 x 12.7 mm      4 x 7.62 mm

Range            2253 km.           402 km.

 

Looking at the specifications and performance that Erik himself has provided on

pages 190 and 217 he contradicts his own statements.

1. " The Model 239 was manifestly inferior to the Type 24 in virtually

every single category of aerodynamic performance...."

2. " The Polikarpov was more rugged, better protected and equally armed to boot. "

   (The 0.5 in. guns with 1,500 rds. (B-239) vs. Type 24's 4 x 7.62 3,100 rds. can in 

    in no way be considered equal. The rate of fire of both makes the firing time very

    close, however the destructive power of the 50 caliber guns vs. the 7.62 mm. is

    devastatingly dramatic.)

 

From Erik's figures the B-239 had an edge in speed at all altitudes up to 5,000 m.

The turn time and distance that Erik posted plainly show that the Brewster could out-

turn the Type 24. I added the range figures from my research papers. In that area

the I-16 is not even close even with external drop tanks giving it a range of 698 km.

 

I would sure like to hear from Prince Herukulman on this matter. :)


Edited by CORSNING, Yesterday, 01:11 PM.


#5 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined 15 Years and 1 Day
  • 138 topics

Posted 14 February 2018 - 04:39 PM

Maybe Brown was simply comparing 4xmachineguns = 4xmachineguns. We know that the RAF testing showed no significant improvement between .303 and .5

Maybe I'm reading your chart wrong but it looks like the Type 24 had more power, less weight, better climb but much lower speed? Is that correct?

#6 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 29 Days
  • 13 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:11 PM

I'm back.

 

The Finns avoided dogfights generally. What I quickly read about topic was that starting from Fokker D.XXI, the FAF equipment dived and accelerated faster than the I-16. Generally FAF kept the tactical advantage on their side.

 

Regarding I-16:

"It was a difficult aeroplane for average pilots, being considered a “devil” for its delicate landing qualities, and because of its natural tendency to spin with the slightest of errors. It was an unstable aircraft, making it a tricky firing platform."

 

Also, previous Polikarpovs had mechanical gun triggers which caused trouble in shooting where you are aiming to, I do not know if it was still in I-16. Surely it had the pilot-operated landing gear.


  • CORSNING likes this

-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#7 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:14 PM

Hi Ricky,

Actually the first B-239s in Finland had 3 x 0.5 in. and one 0.30 in. (still superior to the

Mosca).

 

The Type 24 Mosca actually had 1,100 hp. for emergencies at low levels and take-off.

The Finnish B-239s were using DC-3 engines with 1,000 hp. The Russian aircraft rating

was probably in PS giving it more like 1,085 hp.

 

Ricky, you are not reading the chart wrong at all. You have to keep in mind that there is

way more involved than just simple power to weight ratio. The power to weight ratio of

an aircraft is just showing its potential. There is efficiency of the propeller, wind resistance

(drag) of the aircraft and power curve of the engine involved when it comes to acceleration

and climb.



#8 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:18 PM

Herakulman is right, the Brewster was a pilot's aircraft compared to the Mosca

having to be "flown with care continuously".


  • Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this

#9 Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 6 Months and 29 Days
  • 13 topics
  • LocationRiga, Latvia

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:30 PM

I am just guessing that there were not many Red Air Force pilots who could use the advantages of I-16, even less so who got in the right tactical situation (which would be catching the FAF planes in takeoff).


-<HR>-

Heräkulman Ruhtinas

Prince of Heräkulma

 


#10 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,732 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 6 Months and 30 Days
  • 191 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:39 PM

To support Prince Herakulman's statements:

     " The I-16 was a complicated aircraft, demanding in pilot technique. 

It could fall into a spin at the slightest "overhandling" of the stick. True,

one could recover quickly, whether from a simple or inverted spin. The

I-16 was very agile and could execute any maneuver."

 

To tell some of the rest of the story:

     Captain Brown's opinion of the only Russian aircraft that he was able

to fly went like this. "...the view ahead was terrible." " the cockpit was

narrow and uncomfortable." " The controls were all sensitive, and its

feather light ailerons gave a high rate of roll. The Rata was agile and

had outstanding zoom-climb capability." "...in acceleration was surprisingly

poor in the dive."

     " Its biggest shortcomings were the engine vibration, which made it a

poor gun platform, and its fragility against gunfire of even the lightest

weapons caliber."

     " The Rata was not easy to land. 'The brakes,...were usless."

 

On the plus side the Type 10 and on had self-sealing fuel cell material installed.


Edited by CORSNING, 14 February 2018 - 06:04 PM.

  • Heräkulman Ruhtinas likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users