Yeah I love flying the Buffalo - it’s pretty fun to fly. The Buffalo also wasn’t too bad - the Finns and Dutch did well with the Buffalo; only the British and Americans didn’t do too well with it.
The reason being that the Dutch and the Finns bought export (non-navalised) versions of the Buffalo, that weighed over 1/2 a tonne less that the US version.
Many factors. The British and Commonwealth air forces in Malaya and Burma lacked early warning systems, plus they were outnumbered. The Buffaloes were not inferior to the Ki-27 flown by the JAAF, but the latter had almost twice the numbers and they were flown very aggressively. This led to the second problem: pilot quality. Most of the British and Commonwealth pilots were inexperienced, barely out of flight school, whereas many JAAF pilots had combat experience. The only time I know of where US forces flying Buffaloes met Japanese forces was in Midway, where Marine pilots went up against Japanese carrier pilots. Same factors apply except for the early warning systems. The Marine pilots were outnumbered, did not have the attitude advantage, and inexperienced compared to Japanese carrier pilots, many of whom were seasoned by the previous six months of combat.
The US sold their original order of 44 B239's (F2A-1) to Finland, because the salesmen at Brewster had sold the US Government on the idea of the improved version, the B339 (F2A-2), before the orignal order had even been completely filled. Some of the planes weren't even assembled yet, so the parts were boxed up and sent off along with the already completed planes. It was that orignal order, and none more, that the Fin's used to hold off the Russians in The Continuation War.
Against poorly trained Soviet pilots in out of date Polikarpovs with no radios. A Gloster Gladiator would’ve done just as well. The Buffalo was a heap of shit.
A figure made more impressive by the fact that the Finns lost more to accidents and airframe failures than to enemy actio n. The Finns loved the B239 and B339, calling it the "Heavenly Pearl", and only retired it from Frontline service in early 1944, moving it to second line and training units until 1948.
@@thethirdman225 The Continuation War was from 24th June 1941 thru to Sept 44. And the Russian opponents improved both in planes and experience, yet the Finns held them off until Stalin finally realised they would cost him too many troops he needed badly in Operation Bagration to kick the Nazi back into Germany. So he offered the Finns acceptable terms to end that war.
@@brettpeacock9116 This doesn't invalidate what I said. Furthermore - and this is tangential to my original point - Stalin's treaty with the Finns had more to do with defeating Germany than it did with continuing a war with Finland. Germany was the main game. BTW - and this is very important - Russia =/= the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union =/= Russia. The two are not interchangeable.
None was at midway. Most far east pilots were bad trained on the Brewster. The ones captured by Japanese loved this plane, big problem was maintaince on the Buffalo.
@@yourstruly4817 that is true but they were fast and had better maneuverability than a lot of older aircraft like the buffalo and in 1944-45 even finnish buffalo were kind of being replaced by more advanced aircraft. so not bad really for an outdated airframe at the end of its operational lifespan.
Some sources suggest that after Soviet Union disbanded (with access to Soviet era archives) cross referencing the archives actually added a couple of kills for Finnish tally.
@@bobjk3455 Ju-87 introduced '36 Top Speed 183.4 kn, F2A introduced Apr '39 Top Speed 279 kn (241kn A-1). The Ju-87 has no advantage against a Buffalo, maybe controllability in a dive. You're not just wrong you're very wrong.
In its original form, the F2A-1, was the only American fighter that could stand toe-to-toe with a Japanese Zero. There is even a confirmed kill of a Zero by one. Unfortunately, it was the only meeting known, between the two aircraft.
Finlands F2A-1's were good tactical fighters and did what they were supposed to do. British and Dutch 339's were overarmored and underpowered (due to US export limitations). The few F2A-2 were good, only they didn't have a lot of protection..... the F2A-3 were scout fighters, built for range, not competitive speed or maneuverability. As carriers received radar the scout fighter concept went away and they were given to the Marines as a temporary fighter until F4F Wildcats became available....but the Japanese didn't wait.
The Brewster Buffalo, beat the F-4F Wildcat in a fly-off. The USN felt the F-4F had more potential so they asked Grumman to continue to improve on the design of the F-4F. Mean while the USN provided money for Brewster to start initial production, that was cancelled a several months later.
P 36 (Hawk 75 in export version) is one of my favorites, radial engine, very fast climb, the later models with higher hp engines could actually take on BF 109, French had several aces flying Hawk 75 in Battle of France
When Pappy Boyington says that the Brewster Buffalo was a treat to fly and could turn in a barrel until the engineers ruined it I'm gonna believe him , ugly plane or not ......
One thing I find decidedly annoying about war game sims is that aircraft are flown very unrealistically at low altitudes and the program does not bite you. You maneuver like that at low altitudes and reduced speeds you are going to get into a stall/spin and die with no do-overs (so in reality you don't). Altitude is your friend, the ground should scare the crap out of you. But everyone wants to fight low and slow.
And where do you think the Commonwealth aircraft corporation was located Richard,? 2 , my grandfather was shot down over Darwin by the Japanese piloting a wirraway, I didn't realise the were a 2 man plane so either they scrambled , but when I asked him he looked at me and said coldly we do not discuss that so I don't know the full story but I do know from his brothers that he list a few friends in combat over Darwin, I do know he did say wirraway, he was injured and never flew again,
Hey Book... do you use the sights, or just look over the telescopic sight with VR? I have a very hard time judging distances and am considering an Oculus S. I've heard that depth perception is significantly improved with VR, and you can aim by sighting the tracers into the target.
I've gotten one single kill with the telescopic sights - a long-range snipe of Shakawkaw (I think) as he ran away. Other than that, it's pretty useless. I wing it instead, and yes, the depth perception helps. It's especially good in the F2A because of the combination of nose and wing-mounted guns. You can see the convergence point in 3D space. I HIGHLY recommend the Rift S. It's amazing. War Thunder's VR support it almost perfect. If you have a computer that can supersample the Rift S (run it at a higher-than-native resolution) it can look pretty great. Not as crisp as a monitor, but far more immersive. There's nothing like looking up through your canopy at a 109 rotating overhead in a scissor.
Sorry for the long post and numerous questions. What are the sensitivity settings you use for your joystick? I have the t1600m as well, but your turns look much smoother without any shudders or snap rolls. Do you use thrustmaster software or just the in game settings? For reference every time I get into a rolling scissor and am following the bogey up, my p-38 shutters and sort of bobs up and down then it eventually snap rolls to the right or left. When I crest over the top of a loop, the p-38 is smooth while combat and takeoff flaps are deployed, but when I retract flaps the plane starts to shudder and shake and when I try to pull out of the dive the plane will roll to either side and I hit the ground. In flat scissors when I am pulling hard in a horizontal turn, same thing, the plane shudders, reaches its max AOA and then rolls to the ground, forcing me to recover and lose the fight. I changed the roll sensitivity and it seemed to help but now my roll is even slower (not good in p-38J15 or G-1) and I cant find the middle ground. Also how is the flight model different from Il2 to war thunder for the p-38. I am eventually moving over to il2 but wanted to know if the il2 p-38 feels more like the J15 or LO.
Sounds like you’re not using flaps enough. The trick with the P-38 is to realize that the plane is designed to fly with combat flaps in any kind of turning engagement. The 38 had fowler flaps; unlike other flaps, they function like extensions of the wing, sliding back and out as they go down. These flaps increase lift without adding as much drag as other flaps, and they are stronger since they are not angled into the airflow to the extent other flaps are. You can see them on page 50 of the P-38 manual, here: akvictoria.by/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/P-38-Lightning.pdf. The P-38 had a “combat maneuver flaps” setting (which you can see on page 51 of that manual), which would lower the flaps about half. The manual recommends using this below 250 MPH; in practice in War Thunder I use it up to about 300 MPH. They’ll break not far above that. In ANY turning engagement below 300 MPH, the rule is, if you’re pulling on the stick, you want flaps. The plane won’t want to turn without them. The flaps lower the stall speed and increase lift, greatly increasing your turn rate and reducing stalls. The only time I have flaps up in combat is when I know I’m not turning, such as when I am putting the nose down for airspeed or chasing someone, or, of course, when I’m going too fast. If you listen for it, you can hear my flaps going in and out constantly in a rolling scissors. I don’t use any Thrustmaster software. Pitch sensitivity is set at 67% in War Thunder. Roll is 100%. My squadmates Dobs and Dawger fly with 100% pitch as well as roll. I dislike the P-38 in IL-2. I haven’t had much time in it - just enough to know it’s outclassed by the much more fun P-51 - but what time I had with it was very disappointing. It is great for a turn or two, but then it falls off and wallows. It doesn’t seem to have the power it should have historically, with those two big Allison’s pulling it around This is all subjective, of course, and everyone has their own opinion of what their favorite WWII plane was really like, but IL-2’s P-38 certainly doesn’t seem to match the kinds of abilities I’ve read about in histories and memoirs. For example, it can’t do a rolling scissors because before too long the nose will just mush out and stop moving. A mushy stall is a characteristic of the real P-38, but I find it hard to believe it would happen so soon. Combat flaps seem to introduce more drag than they should, too. The War Thunder P-38 has its own quirks. For one thing, it’s prone to snap stalls if you aren’t using flaps, as you’ve found, when it should more accurately mush out and the nose should drop. Also, the L’s dive flaps function more like dive BRAKES, which is not accurate - they broke up the airflow to prevent compression and provided an upward tendency for the nose, but they didn’t slow the plane down appreciably. But I find on the whole that War Thunder’s P-38 fits with my expectations based on my reading more than IL-2’s does. The real-life 38 was complex and often caused new pilots to get task-saturated, but when flown correctly it was surprisingly nimble and could tango with 109s at lower altitudes and hold its own. Also, in IL-2 you have to hold down the flap button to make the flaps go up or to make them go down beyond maneuver. This is not accurate. The P-38’s lever was set to one of four presets by the pilot: up, closed, maneuver (half down), and down. The pilot would select the position (up, maneuver, or down) and the hydraulics would move the flaps to that position without then pilot having to keep his hand on the lever. At any time the pilot could select “closed” and the motion of the flaps would stop at whatever point they were at, thereby allowing the pilot to choose more granular positions than the three presets. In Il-2, you can select combat flaps with one click, but to bring the flaps back in you have to hold the button down. Annoying, and detrimental in a fight when you want to transition between positions quickly. I love flying the P-51 in IL-2, but IL-2 itself is disappointing to me because it’s VR performance is terrible compared to War Thunder’s, and its spotting in VR is unrealistically bad (several of my squadmates are real pilots and verify that IL-2’s spotting in VR is far poorer than real life). War Thunder’s spotting isn’t realistic, but it at least works. I jump in IL-2 every so often, usually when War Thunder is dead or overrun by zombers, but usually end up more frustrated than not.
You really need to try the P-36g, it is a great turning plane. I love to fly it against zeros, they don't expect that they are going to have a good fight on their hands and usually lose. You can laugh in the face of 109 who want to turn fight, just a great fun little plane. GTO-goat
I stopped worrying about the F-35 when I read the book Hornet, by Orr Kelley, about the making of the F/A-18. It's the exact same thing. Tons of political opposition, tons of worry about cost and that it wouldn't be able to do the mission it was meant for, and MASSIVE teething issues that looked like they might sink the whole program (like a tail spar that routinely cracked). Turned out to be an excellent fighter in the long run. Also: th-cam.com/video/5ogvPFwW6U0/w-d-xo.html
At a glance the boomerang is similarly stumpy looking to a buffalo, not the same aircraft at all though. Both have interesting stories behind their development although quite different
@@IdahoBookworm If we’re taking about the RAF and Commonwealth Buffalo fighters sadly yes. Ironically the Dutch Air Force was smarter not to turn the Buffalo into such a fat lady which in turn they scored some kills against Japanese fighters.
Also you use the eyetracker... or how you call it. You are quite Bad at aiming. ;) whats up? The brewster is far more effektiv if you hit something with it.
admit it the F2A-3 Buffalo is indeed a good aircraft for boom & zoom just please dont dogfight german Bf-109, go for the Bf-110 or Me-110, also try to land in the damn aircraft carrier because it is a naval aircraft not a god damn P36, the aircraft carrier is way better for landing fast (if you dont hit the command tower)
This is great, but it's a videogame. Not reality. I'm not going to go into details as to why this airplane SUCKED, but the pilots who flew it against Zeroes were almost invariably massacred.
Yeah, the game is a game, but the historical stuff I mentioned is all true and kinda interesting, don't you think? Especially how well the Finns did with it. Also the fact that the ones that fought the Zeros were F2A-3s, and overburdened with extra gas, armor, and ammo to the loss of performance (the Finns flew F2A-1s). And Eric Brown's comment was kinda interesting, right? I mean, no one's saying this plane was better than the Zero, but it's fun to learn that there's more nuance than the laughingstock image it usually has.
@@IdahoBookworm Sir, all I hear on these threads is yappery about how this plane flew in Finnish service. ONE SUCCESS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS PLANE WAS A FAILURE. The Finns fought Soviet conscripts who couldn't fly a kite without written instructions. NOT JAPANESE PILOTS WITH FIVE YEARS' COMBAT EXPERIENCE. Read Warbird Forum: look for VMF-221's fight over Midway. Look for when the Dutch, R.A.F. and R.A.A.F fought the Japanese in this aircraft. The Marines called this plane 'the flying coffin', and and the Dutch, Brits and Aussies flew the exact same Buffalo type the FINNS flew. The Zeroes hacked the Dutch Buffaloes out of the sky in three days: from 30 planes to five. No.21 Squadron, RAAF, got into a brawl with nine Zeros; all twelve were shot down and their pilots killed. Over Rangoon 18 RAF Buffaloes fought 27 Zekes: only TWO Buffaloes returned and both were write-offs. Yes, the Finns were very successful. In the same plane.
@@benlaskowski357 Dude, chill. This is not a topic worth getting worked up about. No one holding a gun to your head and saying you have to like an aircraft from the 1930s. You are also not required to make a policy decision right now about whether or not the Navy should purchase the Brewster Buffalo. The value of the Buffalo is also not of political or religious significance. And its relative merit or lack thereof does not threaten whatever planes you hold a fondness for, which remain just as good as they always were. There’s no need to pick a side or act like there are sides at all. Just enjoy the interesting, nuanced history. Life is better when you don't treat non-dogmatic things as if they are dogmatically important.
@@IdahoBookworm Yeah, well, that's all I hear about this fighter. The Brewster company was run essentially by a couple of crooks who only wanted to make money. They made a killing. By selling pilots a deathtrap.
No. As designed it was a capable aircraft for it's time. The Americans couldn't leave it alone, however. They overloaded it till it couldn't fly with armor, self-sealing tanks and extra ordinance. The Finns didn't and figured a way to increase horsepower by simply reversing a cylinder ring. The one time an american Buff met a zero, the Buff came back and the Zero didn't. The kill ratio in Finnish service was 33 - 1 flying against the same soviets that later neutralized the vaunted Luftwaffe. Had the Americans et al simply left it as designed they would have noticed a marked improvement. Even a P-51 will suck if you overburden it, any aircraft will.
🇺🇸: this has got to be the worst aircraft i have
🇫🇮: (sees buffalo) SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!
Until the F-14 Tomcat the Buffalo had the highest kill ratio in squadron use . . . with the "sporterized" Finnish version.
Yeah I love flying the Buffalo - it’s pretty fun to fly. The Buffalo also wasn’t too bad - the Finns and Dutch did well with the Buffalo; only the British and Americans didn’t do too well with it.
@@Mechanized85 British and Americans seemed to fail due to bad tactics and with British poor maintenance.
Don't forget New Zealand too, we have some fighter aces in buffalo.. it is legendary aircraft
The reason being that the Dutch and the Finns bought export (non-navalised) versions of the Buffalo, that weighed over 1/2 a tonne less that the US version.
Many factors. The British and Commonwealth air forces in Malaya and Burma lacked early warning systems, plus they were outnumbered. The Buffaloes were not inferior to the Ki-27 flown by the JAAF, but the latter had almost twice the numbers and they were flown very aggressively. This led to the second problem: pilot quality. Most of the British and Commonwealth pilots were inexperienced, barely out of flight school, whereas many JAAF pilots had combat experience.
The only time I know of where US forces flying Buffaloes met Japanese forces was in Midway, where Marine pilots went up against Japanese carrier pilots. Same factors apply except for the early warning systems. The Marine pilots were outnumbered, did not have the attitude advantage, and inexperienced compared to Japanese carrier pilots, many of whom were seasoned by the previous six months of combat.
@@Mechanized85 Design problem of British and American airmen?
USA sold many Brewsters to Finland during WW2 because of they didn´t really could fly this plane. The Finns liked it and really could use it well.
The US sold their original order of 44 B239's (F2A-1) to Finland, because the salesmen at Brewster had sold the US Government on the idea of the improved version, the B339 (F2A-2), before the orignal order had even been completely filled. Some of the planes weren't even assembled yet, so the parts were boxed up and sent off along with the already completed planes.
It was that orignal order, and none more, that the Fin's used to hold off the Russians in The Continuation War.
🇫🇮: Shut up and take my money!!
Hahah, love the “smoke vs smoke” engagement lol good job! Great video as always.
Actually Finlands brewsters kill ratio is 33/1
Against poorly trained Soviet pilots in out of date Polikarpovs with no radios. A Gloster Gladiator would’ve done just as well. The Buffalo was a heap of shit.
A figure made more impressive by the fact that the Finns lost more to accidents and airframe failures than to enemy actio n. The Finns loved the B239 and B339, calling it the "Heavenly Pearl", and only retired it from Frontline service in early 1944, moving it to second line and training units until 1948.
@@thethirdman225 The Continuation War was from 24th June 1941 thru to Sept 44. And the Russian opponents improved both in planes and experience, yet the Finns held them off until Stalin finally realised they would cost him too many troops he needed badly in Operation Bagration to kick the Nazi back into Germany. So he offered the Finns acceptable terms to end that war.
@@brettpeacock9116 This doesn't invalidate what I said. Furthermore - and this is tangential to my original point - Stalin's treaty with the Finns had more to do with defeating Germany than it did with continuing a war with Finland. Germany was the main game.
BTW - and this is very important - Russia =/= the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union =/= Russia. The two are not interchangeable.
@@brettpeacock9116 Remember too, that the Red Army air force used its best types against the Luftwaffe. The Finns were a second tier consideration.
None was at midway. Most far east pilots were bad trained on the Brewster. The ones captured by Japanese loved this plane, big problem was maintaince on the Buffalo.
Wrong. VMF221 flew them in defense of Midway...and were wiped out by Zeros.
@@PoochAndBoo you are spot on, sir.
lol@those jokers flying through with the red, white and blue smoke.
tell that to the finns who did very very well with it, heck they even shot down some german ju87s in the lapland war.
34 aces and 434 wins by 44 Buffalo`s in three year. Hard to beat.
Ju 87s were easy targets if they weren't escorted by fighters
@@yourstruly4817 that is true but they were fast and had better maneuverability than a lot of older aircraft like the buffalo and in 1944-45 even finnish buffalo were kind of being replaced by more advanced aircraft. so not bad really for an outdated airframe at the end of its operational lifespan.
Some sources suggest that after Soviet Union disbanded (with access to Soviet era archives) cross referencing the archives actually added a couple of kills for Finnish tally.
@@bobjk3455 Ju-87 introduced '36 Top Speed 183.4 kn, F2A introduced Apr '39 Top Speed 279 kn (241kn A-1). The Ju-87 has no advantage against a Buffalo, maybe controllability in a dive.
You're not just wrong you're very wrong.
In its original form, the F2A-1, was the only American fighter that could stand toe-to-toe with a Japanese Zero. There is even a confirmed kill of a Zero by one. Unfortunately, it was the only meeting known, between the two aircraft.
that American. in Filpino hands was match for the earlier zeros.
The Dutch also had some successful encounters with Zeros.
Finland tells a different story…!!!
Finlands F2A-1's were good tactical fighters and did what they were supposed to do. British and Dutch 339's were overarmored and underpowered (due to US export limitations). The few F2A-2 were good, only they didn't have a lot of protection..... the F2A-3 were scout fighters, built for range, not competitive speed or maneuverability. As carriers received radar the scout fighter concept went away and they were given to the Marines as a temporary fighter until F4F Wildcats became available....but the Japanese didn't wait.
The Brewster Buffalo, beat the F-4F Wildcat in a fly-off. The USN felt the F-4F had more potential so they asked Grumman to continue to improve on the design of the F-4F. Mean while the USN provided money for Brewster to start initial production, that was cancelled a several months later.
P 36 (Hawk 75 in export version) is one of my favorites, radial engine, very fast climb, the later models with higher hp engines could actually take on BF 109, French had several aces flying Hawk 75 in Battle of France
Finnish Brewster pilots had one of the highest kill ratios of WW2 with that aircraft...
Because they got engineers that solved the problems of the plane
That final move?? Was that the low flying cartwheel trick?.lol
When Pappy Boyington says that the Brewster Buffalo was a treat to fly and could turn in a barrel until the engineers ruined it I'm gonna believe him , ugly plane or not ......
One thing I find decidedly annoying about war game sims is that aircraft are flown very unrealistically at low altitudes and the program does not bite you. You maneuver like that at low altitudes and reduced speeds you are going to get into a stall/spin and die with no do-overs (so in reality you don't). Altitude is your friend, the ground should scare the crap out of you. But everyone wants to fight low and slow.
It’s Not the worst fighter plane ever but definitely pretty close too it if we’re talking about World War II Era planes.
The landing gear folded a lot on carrier landings the marines only got them because loss of wildcats to Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
I just came across your channel. Great video dude. You earned a sub :)
No mention of the Russian Polikarpov flying rat?
And where do you think the Commonwealth aircraft corporation was located Richard,? 2 , my grandfather was shot down over Darwin by the Japanese piloting a wirraway, I didn't realise the were a 2 man plane so either they scrambled , but when I asked him he looked at me and said coldly we do not discuss that so I don't know the full story but I do know from his brothers that he list a few friends in combat over Darwin, I do know he did say wirraway, he was injured and never flew again,
Hey Book... do you use the sights, or just look over the telescopic sight with VR? I have a very hard time judging distances and am considering an Oculus S. I've heard that depth perception is significantly improved with VR, and you can aim by sighting the tracers into the target.
I've gotten one single kill with the telescopic sights - a long-range snipe of Shakawkaw (I think) as he ran away. Other than that, it's pretty useless. I wing it instead, and yes, the depth perception helps. It's especially good in the F2A because of the combination of nose and wing-mounted guns. You can see the convergence point in 3D space.
I HIGHLY recommend the Rift S. It's amazing. War Thunder's VR support it almost perfect. If you have a computer that can supersample the Rift S (run it at a higher-than-native resolution) it can look pretty great. Not as crisp as a monitor, but far more immersive. There's nothing like looking up through your canopy at a 109 rotating overhead in a scissor.
I really love the Brewster Buffalo! In “Aces High” it has two gun packages. I use the 4 x 50’s.
Hi
Kent, Would that gun arrangement be 2 in the nose and one in each wing?
I like it. =)
american planes with the jolly rodger just hit me the right way
Sorry for the long post and numerous questions.
What are the sensitivity settings you use for your joystick? I have the t1600m as well, but your turns look much smoother without any shudders or snap rolls. Do you use thrustmaster software or just the in game settings? For reference every time I get into a rolling scissor and am following the bogey up, my p-38 shutters and sort of bobs up and down then it eventually snap rolls to the right or left. When I crest over the top of a loop, the p-38 is smooth while combat and takeoff flaps are deployed, but when I retract flaps the plane starts to shudder and shake and when I try to pull out of the dive the plane will roll to either side and I hit the ground.
In flat scissors when I am pulling hard in a horizontal turn, same thing, the plane shudders, reaches its max AOA and then rolls to the ground, forcing me to recover and lose the fight. I changed the roll sensitivity and it seemed to help but now my roll is even slower (not good in p-38J15 or G-1) and I cant find the middle ground.
Also how is the flight model different from Il2 to war thunder for the p-38. I am eventually moving over to il2 but wanted to know if the il2 p-38 feels more like the J15 or LO.
Sounds like you’re not using flaps enough. The trick with the P-38 is to realize that the plane is designed to fly with combat flaps in any kind of turning engagement. The 38 had fowler flaps; unlike other flaps, they function like extensions of the wing, sliding back and out as they go down. These flaps increase lift without adding as much drag as other flaps, and they are stronger since they are not angled into the airflow to the extent other flaps are. You can see them on page 50 of the P-38 manual, here: akvictoria.by/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/P-38-Lightning.pdf. The P-38 had a “combat maneuver flaps” setting (which you can see on page 51 of that manual), which would lower the flaps about half. The manual recommends using this below 250 MPH; in practice in War Thunder I use it up to about 300 MPH. They’ll break not far above that.
In ANY turning engagement below 300 MPH, the rule is, if you’re pulling on the stick, you want flaps. The plane won’t want to turn without them. The flaps lower the stall speed and increase lift, greatly increasing your turn rate and reducing stalls. The only time I have flaps up in combat is when I know I’m not turning, such as when I am putting the nose down for airspeed or chasing someone, or, of course, when I’m going too fast. If you listen for it, you can hear my flaps going in and out constantly in a rolling scissors.
I don’t use any Thrustmaster software. Pitch sensitivity is set at 67% in War Thunder. Roll is 100%. My squadmates Dobs and Dawger fly with 100% pitch as well as roll.
I dislike the P-38 in IL-2. I haven’t had much time in it - just enough to know it’s outclassed by the much more fun P-51 - but what time I had with it was very disappointing. It is great for a turn or two, but then it falls off and wallows. It doesn’t seem to have the power it should have historically, with those two big Allison’s pulling it around This is all subjective, of course, and everyone has their own opinion of what their favorite WWII plane was really like, but IL-2’s P-38 certainly doesn’t seem to match the kinds of abilities I’ve read about in histories and memoirs. For example, it can’t do a rolling scissors because before too long the nose will just mush out and stop moving. A mushy stall is a characteristic of the real P-38, but I find it hard to believe it would happen so soon. Combat flaps seem to introduce more drag than they should, too.
The War Thunder P-38 has its own quirks. For one thing, it’s prone to snap stalls if you aren’t using flaps, as you’ve found, when it should more accurately mush out and the nose should drop. Also, the L’s dive flaps function more like dive BRAKES, which is not accurate - they broke up the airflow to prevent compression and provided an upward tendency for the nose, but they didn’t slow the plane down appreciably. But I find on the whole that War Thunder’s P-38 fits with my expectations based on my reading more than IL-2’s does. The real-life 38 was complex and often caused new pilots to get task-saturated, but when flown correctly it was surprisingly nimble and could tango with 109s at lower altitudes and hold its own.
Also, in IL-2 you have to hold down the flap button to make the flaps go up or to make them go down beyond maneuver. This is not accurate. The P-38’s lever was set to one of four presets by the pilot: up, closed, maneuver (half down), and down. The pilot would select the position (up, maneuver, or down) and the hydraulics would move the flaps to that position without then pilot having to keep his hand on the lever. At any time the pilot could select “closed” and the motion of the flaps would stop at whatever point they were at, thereby allowing the pilot to choose more granular positions than the three presets. In Il-2, you can select combat flaps with one click, but to bring the flaps back in you have to hold the button down. Annoying, and detrimental in a fight when you want to transition between positions quickly.
I love flying the P-51 in IL-2, but IL-2 itself is disappointing to me because it’s VR performance is terrible compared to War Thunder’s, and its spotting in VR is unrealistically bad (several of my squadmates are real pilots and verify that IL-2’s spotting in VR is far poorer than real life). War Thunder’s spotting isn’t realistic, but it at least works. I jump in IL-2 every so often, usually when War Thunder is dead or overrun by zombers, but usually end up more frustrated than not.
You really need to try the P-36g, it is a great turning plane. I love to fly it against zeros, they don't expect that they are going to have a good fight on their hands and usually lose. You can laugh in the face of 109 who want to turn fight, just a great fun little plane.
GTO-goat
So I just tried my (unspaded) P-36G yesterday, and yeah, wow, that thing does turn like a Zero. Looking foward to spading it out!
Youre right . Its actually my favourite plane!
Are those human or computer opponents?
Everyone in my highlights is always human. There's no joy in fighting A.I. :)
Something about the F35 reminds me of this plane.
I stopped worrying about the F-35 when I read the book Hornet, by Orr Kelley, about the making of the F/A-18. It's the exact same thing. Tons of political opposition, tons of worry about cost and that it wouldn't be able to do the mission it was meant for, and MASSIVE teething issues that looked like they might sink the whole program (like a tail spar that routinely cracked). Turned out to be an excellent fighter in the long run. Also: th-cam.com/video/5ogvPFwW6U0/w-d-xo.html
Bouton Paul Defiant: Am i a joke to you?
They were called the wirraway in Australia, and we're built by the Commonwealth aircraft corporation
Umm wrong. Wirraway were built in Australia. Had a crew of 2. led to the boomerang fighter.
At a glance the boomerang is similarly stumpy looking to a buffalo, not the same aircraft at all though.
Both have interesting stories behind their development although quite different
The plane is well known here in Singapore for the wrong reasons.
Ha! Yeah, can't imagine it would be very popular :)
@@IdahoBookworm If we’re taking about the RAF and Commonwealth Buffalo fighters sadly yes.
Ironically the Dutch Air Force was smarter not to turn the Buffalo into such a fat lady which in turn they scored some kills against Japanese fighters.
Also you use the eyetracker... or how you call it. You are quite Bad at aiming. ;) whats up? The brewster is far more effektiv if you hit something with it.
It looks stubby
admit it
the F2A-3 Buffalo is indeed a good aircraft for boom & zoom
just please dont dogfight german Bf-109, go for the Bf-110 or Me-110, also try to land in the damn aircraft carrier because it is a naval aircraft not a god damn P36, the aircraft carrier is way better for landing fast (if you dont hit the command tower)
F4f is better
This is great, but it's a videogame. Not reality. I'm not going to go into details as to why this airplane SUCKED, but the pilots who flew it against Zeroes were almost invariably massacred.
Yeah, the game is a game, but the historical stuff I mentioned is all true and kinda interesting, don't you think? Especially how well the Finns did with it. Also the fact that the ones that fought the Zeros were F2A-3s, and overburdened with extra gas, armor, and ammo to the loss of performance (the Finns flew F2A-1s). And Eric Brown's comment was kinda interesting, right? I mean, no one's saying this plane was better than the Zero, but it's fun to learn that there's more nuance than the laughingstock image it usually has.
@@IdahoBookworm Sir, all I hear on these threads is yappery about how this plane flew in Finnish service. ONE SUCCESS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS PLANE WAS A FAILURE. The Finns fought Soviet conscripts who couldn't fly a kite without written instructions. NOT JAPANESE PILOTS WITH FIVE YEARS' COMBAT EXPERIENCE. Read Warbird Forum: look for VMF-221's fight over Midway. Look for when the Dutch, R.A.F. and R.A.A.F fought the Japanese in this aircraft. The Marines called this plane 'the flying coffin', and and the Dutch, Brits and Aussies flew the exact same Buffalo type the FINNS flew.
The Zeroes hacked the Dutch Buffaloes out of the sky in three days: from 30 planes to five. No.21 Squadron, RAAF, got into a brawl with nine Zeros; all twelve were shot down and their pilots killed.
Over Rangoon 18 RAF Buffaloes fought 27 Zekes: only TWO Buffaloes returned and both were write-offs.
Yes, the Finns were very successful. In the same plane.
@@benlaskowski357 Dude, chill. This is not a topic worth getting worked up about. No one holding a gun to your head and saying you have to like an aircraft from the 1930s. You are also not required to make a policy decision right now about whether or not the Navy should purchase the Brewster Buffalo. The value of the Buffalo is also not of political or religious significance. And its relative merit or lack thereof does not threaten whatever planes you hold a fondness for, which remain just as good as they always were. There’s no need to pick a side or act like there are sides at all. Just enjoy the interesting, nuanced history.
Life is better when you don't treat non-dogmatic things as if they are dogmatically important.
@@IdahoBookworm Yeah, well, that's all I hear about this fighter.
The Brewster company was run essentially by a couple of crooks who only wanted to make money. They made a killing.
By selling pilots a deathtrap.
No. As designed it was a capable aircraft for it's time. The Americans couldn't leave it alone, however. They overloaded it till it couldn't fly with armor, self-sealing tanks and extra ordinance. The Finns didn't and figured a way to increase horsepower by simply reversing a cylinder ring. The one time an american Buff met a zero, the Buff came back and the Zero didn't.
The kill ratio in Finnish service was 33 - 1 flying against the same soviets that later neutralized the vaunted Luftwaffe.
Had the Americans et al simply left it as designed they would have noticed a marked improvement. Even a P-51 will suck if you overburden it, any aircraft will.