The I-16 Thread

[KaC_Furias]

Hi all, 

 

 

I think it's time to talk a little about the  i-16

 

I found this video that around 1: 05 the 2nd shows the i-16 entering spin  deliberately. 

 

Guess  the ishak will amaze us:

 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Ishak will be underdog in regard to its level speed and certain areas in performance, but fairly good climb performance along with good turn radius and amazing roll rate ... can be a truly interesting combination. 

 

Plus Rata could carry some rockets and maybe one we will have will have an unlock of two 20 mm cannons. 

[Finkeren]

In a low level furball it will reign supreme, otherwise it'll be all but useless.

 

That's the short version.

[[TWB]80hd]

Since rifle caliber MGs seem to be pretty effective in BoS compared to other "sims", at least when you hit important things with them, I am actually looking forward to seeing how it does with the 4 ShKAS at somewhat close convergence.

[Finkeren]

120 rounds per second should be uncomfortable for any plane to be on the recieving end.

[Freycinet]

Oh yeahhhhh, my green lasers, I want them back! Felt like a TIE fighter in that one...  :-)

And let us not forget that it was a truly historical plane in the history of combat aircraft: The first ever low-wing monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage. The Soviets were really ahead in aerodynamics in the early 1930's. 

[Bussard_x]

That are some nice manouvres to get a 109 of your tail.

[Wulf]

Wow ... I guess the I-16 doing the turns over the train would be the one modeled in the original sim.

[LukeFF]

They called it a rat for good reason! 

[Finkeren]

I for one think that they got the I-16 fairly right in terms of performance and maneuverability in the original IL-2. What they didn't get right was the fact, that the plane was inherently unstable and had to be flown like balancing on a knifes edge. It was by no means an easy aircraft to fly, even if it was a lot less advanced than WW2 era fighters.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

120 rounds per second should be uncomfortable for any plane to be on the recieving end.

 

Yeah, if the plane stays within 100 meters long enough for the I16 to actually do damage.

 

Problem is it'll never be long enough, thanks to the I16's pathetic speed.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, if the plane stays within 100 meters long enough for the I16 to actually do damage.

 

Problem is it'll never be long enough, thanks to the I16's pathetic speed.

Its not pathetic. Its just outdated machine, that is why there was LaGG and Yak to replace them.

 

I 16 will simply require altitude advantage, but that should not be such a great problem as it is a well climbing aircraft. 

[KaC_Furias]

Very interesting interview :

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

 

 

an excerpt :

 

"A. S. What was your general impression of the I-16?

 

N. G. The I-16 was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting 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. I loved this fighter."

[ShamrockOneFive]

The I-16 Type 24 in IL-2 1946 was startlingly dangerous even in what appeared to be lopsided matchups with far superior aircraft. I wouldn't write it off. Especially if the cannon armed variant is available. A disciplined Bf109 pilot will probably be able to avoid them most of the time but if you get sucked into a fight... they were very very dangerous. I expect more of the same.

[Scarecrow]

The I-16 was the first plane I learned to fly back when I first got Forgotten Battles years ago. I can't wait to die in her again

 

Also pilots win dogfights not planes and it's true because no matter what plane I fly I still can't shoot worth a damn.

[Feathered_IV]

I remember doing quite well against emils when the weather was favourable. If you stayed just underneath the cloud deck you could force the 109s to come in on a flat path where you could get a good angle on them and remove some of their advantages. Even some of their appendages.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm pretty excited about all of the new planes... we're getting some classic iconic types added to the mix. The I-16 is definitely one of those classic types. I'm pretty certain I won't care too much except to be able to fly it around. Should be a ton of fun!

[Finkeren]

N. G. The I-16 was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting 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. I loved this fighter."

The more I think about it, the more the I-16 sounds like the Fokker DR.1 in RoF.

 

Just think about it: Very small, compact and lightweight design, sturdy construction, slow compared to the opposition, quite tail heavy and notoriously unstable, able to do incredibly tight maneuvers, very sharp stall and easy to spin but recovers practically by itself, very demanding to fly and only mastered by dedicated pilots hell bent on learning its quirks.

 

The main differences between the RoF Dr. 1 and BoM I-16 would be in climb rate (where the Dr. 1 excells and the I-16 is just average) and roll rate (the I-16 has the Fw 190 beat by more than 150% there where the Dr.1 is pretty hard to roll at all)

 

 

PS: I wonder if it will be posible to map the I-16s landing gear control to an actual hand crank?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Finkeren

[No601_Swallow]

PS: I wonder if it will be posible to map the I-16s landing gear control to an actual hand crank?

 

Don't give the devs ideas! We've already got three sets of controls just for elevator (and stabilizer) trim... 

[Finkeren]

At the bare minimum they oughta make it a slow press-and-hold control like the Bf 109 flaps.

[=LD=Penshoon]

The I-16 didn't have any flap control right, what about trim? Did it have any prop pitch control? Constant speed or variable speed prop?

[Finkeren]

The I-16 didn't have any flap control right, what about trim? Did it have any prop pitch control? Constant speed or variable speed prop?

I'm pretty sure the Rata had pneumatically operated flaps similar to the Yaks. That means quick deployment and only one setting.

 

IIRC it had fixed trim taps similar to the 109 but without the adjustable stabilizer.

 

As for props: The very earliest I-16s had fixed pitch props but (I think) from type 5 they had first variable pitch and then later a standard two-bladed constant speed propeller, which is easily recognisable by the 'fatter' more bulbous spinner. The type 24 that we're getting had CSP, and its engine operation will likely be somewhat similar to what we have on the La-5 minus the extra boost. The Shvetzov M-63 is essentially a precursor of the La-5s engine.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Don't give the devs ideas! We've already got three sets of controls just for elevator (and stabilizer) trim... 

 

This is how gear mechanism looked like : 

All my key bindings are already occupied, I hope nothing more sophisticated for Ishak landing gear will be introduced ...

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

In a low level furball it will reign supreme, otherwise it'll be all but useless.

 

That's the short version.

 

Luckily, a lot of what goes on on-line is low-level furballs.

[Finkeren]

Luckily, a lot of what goes on on-line is low-level furballs.

Maybe the LW pilots will wisen up?

 

One thing I hope to experience online in BoM is a bunch of over-confident LW players in shiny Bf 109F2s getting dragged into a turn fight on the deck with I-16s, realizing 'Holy ****! We're getting killed!' Extending away only to be bounced by MiG-3s screaming down from above

 

I know that won't be how it'll play out most of the time, but a guy can dream..

Edited March 11, 2015 by Finkeren

[Brano]

Till the end of 1941 there was 50/50 split in destroyed VVS fighters inbetween I-16 and "new generation" (LaGG,MiG,Yak).That speaks for that from weapon platform pilot-machine,pilot is the most important.

As mentioned before,I-16 in good tactical position=height/energy advantage,could deal with emil.Morevimportant it was good enough weapon platform to deal with stukas and heinkels.It did a great job in transition period of 1941 till VVS could be reequipped with more advanced machines.

[[TWB]80hd]

I made the mistake, early on in Aces High, of trying to fly the I-16 like a Zero...  however, I did shoot down a Spitfire Mk XVI as part of my learning process hahaha...

[Finkeren]

You are of course right Brano, but the relative 'good' combat record of the I-16 (by 1941 VVS standards) propably wasn't due to the qualities of the I-16 itself. Rather I think it was a mix of two factors:

 

1. The I-16 was at the end of its development potential and most of its problems (those that could be fixed) had been solved long ago. The design was basically as good as it was gonna get. The 3 new fighter designs all suffered teething problems, some more than others, and their performance suffered accordingly.

 

2. Most VVS fighter pilots were well trained in flying the I-16 and many had years of experience on the type. They knew how to fly it effectively and how to handle its quirks. On the other hand pretty much all pilots were newbies on the new and more advanced designs and had at most been flying them for a few months. While none of the new designs were necesarily 'harder' to fly than the I-16, they were very different and we know, that the transitioning wasn't easy, and hence the performance of the inexperienced pilots severely limited combat effectiveness.

 

No matter how we look at it, the I-16 was an obsolete design by 1941, and it was up against some of the most advanced high-performance aircraft in any air force at the time flown by experienced pilots with superior tactics. There was no way the I-16 could've survived in service for longer than it did.

 

MP in BoM might be a different story, but that's mostly due to the fact, that a lot of players flat out refuse to fly their aircraft to its strengths, and therefore the I-16 might have a fighting chance.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I made the mistake, early on in Aces High, of trying to fly the I-16 like a Zero...  however, I did shoot down a Spitfire Mk XVI as part of my learning process hahaha...

I can only surmise that the pilot of the Spit was either having a cup of tea, a ham sandwich or having a quick snooze

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I 16 will simply require altitude advantage, but that should not be such a great problem as it is a well climbing aircraft. 

Then you look at the planes that it is going up against: BF 109.

 

B.F.1.0.9

 

I don't think the I16 has meaningful climb rate advantage(if any) when going up against the 109.

[Brano]

You are of course right Brano, but the relative 'good' combat record of the I-16 (by 1941 VVS standards) propably wasn't due to the qualities of the I-16 itself. Rather I think it was a mix of two factors:

 

1. The I-16 was at the end of its development potential and most of its problems (those that could be fixed) had been solved long ago. The design was basically as good as it was gonna get. The 3 new fighter designs all suffered teething problems, some more than others, and their performance suffered accordingly.

 

2. Most VVS fighter pilots were well trained in flying the I-16 and many had years of experience on the type. They knew how to fly it effectively and how to handle its quirks. On the other hand pretty much all pilots were newbies on the new and more advanced designs and had at most been flying them for a few months. While none of the new designs were necesarily 'harder' to fly than the I-16, they were very different and we know, that the transitioning wasn't easy, and hence the performance of the inexperienced pilots severely limited combat effectiveness.

 

No matter how we look at it, the I-16 was an obsolete design by 1941, and it was up against some of the most advanced high-performance aircraft in any air force at the time flown by experienced pilots with superior tactics. There was no way the I-16 could've survived in service for longer than it did.

 

MP in BoM might be a different story, but that's mostly due to the fact, that a lot of players flat out refuse to fly their aircraft to its strengths, and therefore the I-16 might have a fighting chance.

Ofcourse,as a design,it was obsolete.But as I said,as a 2-component weapon platform (pilot/machine) it was capable to do its job till the end of 1941.I agree with what you have described in more details about pilots/experience etc.Those were the reasons why I-16 performed well and helped VVS in cruicial phase of war.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Man, I can't wait to fly that tubby little thing!

[Finkeren]

I don't think the I16 has meaningful climb rate advantage(if any) when going up against the 109.

It doesn't. Not even against the Emil.

 

The I-16 is not a poor climber, it's sort of on par with the early production Yak-1. It's just that the 109 is at the very top of the league in this regard.

 

That doesn't mean that an I-16 won't find itself with an altitude advantage from time to time, or that a superior pilot in an I-16 won't be able to extend away from an inexperienced 109 pilot who tries to climb too steep.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It doesn't. Not even against the Emil.

Not sure how accurate that is but :

 

While this is only E-3, and we will enjoy a lovely E-7 (The only 109 which I truly enjoy and consider well looking, Emil) which might be different, although its 109 E-7, not 109 E-7/N so I doubt it will have DB601N engine. That one will be reserved for 109 F-2.

 

It is also worth noting that I 16 Type 29 was a bit heavier than Type 24.  

I don't see any huge differences between 109 E and I 16 Type 24 in case of climb rate. Though the level speed will be completely different story and Ishak will be here totally outclassed. 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Not sure how accurate that is but :

 

While this is only E-3, and we will enjoy a lovely E-7 (The only 109 which I truly enjoy and consider well looking, Emil) which might be different, although its 109 E-7, not 109 E-7/N so I doubt it will have DB601N engine. That one will be reserved for 109 F-2.

 

It is also worth noting that I 16 Type 29 was a bit heavier than Type 24.  

I don't see any huge differences between 109 E and I 16 Type 24 in case of climb rate. Though the level speed will be completely different story and Ishak will be here totally outclassed. 

 

You take any soviet comparison with non soviet planes chart with a grain of salt, non Soviet planes in Soviet chart run on anything but maximum power.

 

I've checked Kurfurst's site and the emil actually climbed slightly faster than the I16.

Edited March 11, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Finkeren]

I wouldn't trust that chart. Kurfurst.org puts the 109E-3s climb rate at almost exactly 1000m/minute right up to 4000m which equals more than 16m/s, almost as good as the F (not surprising since the E-3 is somewhat lighter than the F).

Edited March 11, 2015 by Finkeren

[YSoMadTovarisch]

And to make it worse, if WT's modeling is accurate, there's no pitch trim and the plane pitch up a lot with speed, the engine also cut out under negative G so you're gonna need to do a downward roll or lose a lot of energy. Breakup speed is also very low.

 

So in short, making diving attack in the I16 is gonna be a real bitch.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

You take any soviet comparison with non soviet planes chart with a grain of salt, non Soviet planes in Soviet chart run on anything but maximum power.

 

I've checked Kurfurst's site and the emil actually climbed slightly faster than the I16.

E-3 has two curves, one on normal engine power and one on 5 minute emergency power (at least thats how it is presented).

Normally I would agree with you, that taking any tests of foreign equipment has to be put into consideration with a grain of salt, due to combat usage and lack of knowledge of the equipment.

 

However,  in 1940 the Third Reich sold to the Soviet Union several examples of their military aircraft; 

All of them were thoroughly studied in the USSR.

 

 

I see no reason why VVS, knowing they are behind Germans, would not test it as much as possible. Especially as machine was not captured with any damage but was factory fresh. 

 

Emil could climb better, certainly, but all I'm saying is that there is no big difference in climb performance between the two. 

Edited March 11, 2015 by =LD=Hiromachi

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I'd like to know what kind of fuel was used in Soviet test.

 

Pre-lend-lease the highest fuel grade the Soviets produced was 78 octane fuel, the Emil's engine ran on B4 87 octane fuel.

 

Anyway, here's the E3's performance chart, the I16 has no advantage in climb time.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

Edited March 11, 2015 by GrapeJam

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Anyway, here's the E3's performance chart, the I16 has no advantage in climb time.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109E_Baubeschreibung/109E3_Baubeschreibung.html

This is correct. 109 E-3 makes 5000 m in 4.9 minutes. I-16 Type 24 is credited with 5.2 min to same altitude.