Sokol1 Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 PS: I wonder if it will be posible to map the I-16s landing gear control to an actual hand crank? Ah, that "realistic" 42 or so turn (key press) needed in i-16 (F4F) of il-2:FB - that people automatize in one press with keymapper (TARGET e cia). People already complain that (CloD) Bf 109 three position landing gear (up-neutral-down) is too "complicated"... 1
[TWB]80hd Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Down on the deck, everything I have ever seen gives a significant advantage to the I-16 type 24 over the 109E-3 (AND the E-4, for that matter)... that's at military power and below 2.7km give or take. It's not a massive advantage on the deck, but it's a big deal in certain situations... at roughly ~2.7k or so, the 109E turns the tables with a slight advantage, which appears to equal out once again by 5km, which is why the total time to climb to 5km is very close... however that does not tell the entire story.... and in any engagement where both fighters are both Co-E and Low-E, way down in the weeds, that climb and/or acceleration could play a not insignificant role in determining who does what next. The Emil can certainly outpace the I-16, no question... but don't overlook other factors like the SA benefits the I-16 enjoys! I'm really looking forward to these engagements! Edited March 11, 2015 by [TWB]80hd
-TBC-AeroAce Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not going to be loving the i-16s funny tube gun sight but apart from that it should be fun
Finkeren Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not going to be loving the i-16s funny tube gun sight but apart from that it should be fun The tubular collimator sight was only used on the early versions and had long since fallen out of use by 1941. Our type 24 most likely will have a standard reflector sight similar to that found in the other fighters.
=LD=Penshoon Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not going to be loving the i-16s funny tube gun sight but apart from that it should be fun Shouldn't it have a PAK reflector sight? Looking at the pic from the DD t certainly looks to have it:
CUJO_1970 Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I expect the I-16 will be a blast to fly, but more challenging than what we had in the original IL/2.
[TWB]80hd Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 AH HA! Here it is folks, incontrovertible photographic proof that Emil outclimbs Rata!!! 4
YSoMadTovarisch Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Down on the deck, everything I have ever seen gives a significant advantage to the I-16 type 24 over the 109E-3 (AND the E-4, for that matter)... that's at military power and below 2.7km give or take. It's not a massive advantage on the deck, but it's a big deal in certain situations... at roughly ~2.7k or so, the 109E turns the tables with a slight advantage, which appears to equal out once again by 5km, which is why the total time to climb to 5km is very close... Wat? E3's speed at SL: 500km/h. I16's speed at SL: Highest figure found: 427km/h. however that does not tell the entire story.... and in any engagement where both fighters are both Co-E and Low-E, way down in the weeds, that climb and/or acceleration could play a not insignificant role in determining who does what next. That's cool. Whatever the I16 does, the emil only need to keep in level flight, and with the I16's pathetic armament mean that it can take some hit(actually alot) and still be combat effective. The Emil can certainly outpace the I-16, no question... but don't overlook other factors like the SA benefits the I-16 enjoys! SA advantage? Open cockpit? Thanks to that open cockpit you're gonna to turn your volume all the way down otherwise it will kill your ear, so there's goes your hearing already. And the emil's cockpit vision is actually fairly decent.
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Wat? E3's speed at SL: 500km/h. I16's speed at SL: Highest figure found: 427km/h. From : "Soviet Combat Aircraft of WW2 - Volume 1 - Single-Engined Fighters" Its slightly faster than you indicated but not much, and as said, difference in speed is huge. Whatever the I16 does, the emil only need to keep in level flight, and with the I16's pathetic armament mean that it can take some hit(actually alot) and still be combat effective. Unless there will be a cannon armed version in form of unlock, which I think there will but we cant be sure until we see it.
Finkeren Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I honestly don't see the I-16s armament as that pathetic. There's only a slightly smaller volume of fire than a Hawker Hurricane Mk.1.
YSoMadTovarisch Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) I honestly don't see the I-16s armament as that pathetic. There's only a slightly smaller volume of fire than a Hawker Hurricane Mk.1. Err it's actually less than half the volume of fire the Hurricane Mk1 had. 1800 x 2= 3600 rpm. And I'm not sure the 1800 rpm is already synchronized. 8 x 1150 = 9200 rpm. Unless we're talking the 4 guns version, but still knocking out a plane in one pass without giving enemy enough time to react is extremely difficult with rifle caliber(especially with it's extremely poor high speed flight characteristic) and I don't think the I16's gonna be able to get another chance. Edited March 11, 2015 by GrapeJam
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Why would you assume Type 24 had two machine guns only ? Since Type 10 the standard was four Shkas machine guns. And yes, most likely it wont be enough to knock out enemy aircraft. Unless you set him afire.
[TWB]80hd Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Wat? E3's speed at SL: 500km/h. I16's speed at SL: Highest figure found: 427km/h. Sorry, my bad, was expanding on the climb conversation from earlier in the thread... I should have clarified (and will edit) That's cool. Whatever the I16 does, the emil only need to keep in level flight, and with the I16's pathetic armament mean that it can take some hit(actually alot) and still be combat effective. Go ahead and see how that works out for ya keepin level flight hahaha... 4 ShKAS should be decent against fighters... and the 2x ShKAS + 2x ShVAK vs 2x MG17 + 2x MG/FF match up... well, people in MG/FF glass houses shouldn't throw stones SA advantage? Open cockpit? Thanks to that open cockpit you're gonna to turn your volume all the way down otherwise it will kill your ear, so there's goes your hearing already. And the emil's cockpit vision is actually fairly decent. Touche on the wind noise, for sure! And the Emil's cockpit certainly beats the G2!
Finkeren Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Err it's actually less than half the volume of fire the Hurricane Mk1 had. 1800 x 2= 3600 rpm. And I'm not sure the 1800 rpm is already synchronized. 8 x 1150 = 9200 rpm. Unless we're talking the 4 guns version, but still knocking out a plane in one pass without giving enemy enough time to react is extremely difficult with rifle caliber(especially with it's extremely poor high speed flight characteristic) and I don't think the I16's gonna be able to get another chance. 1800 x 4 = 7200 rpm actually, all I-16s after Type 10 and prior to 29 had wing mounted weapons IIRC. The type 24 definately had 4 x ShKAS. Not quite the same volume of fire as 8 x Browning M2 but in the same ballpark. Given that even after the DM modifications in 1.009 I can readily kill or severely damage a German fighter with one good burst from the 2 ShKAS on the Yak-1, I think the I-16 would still be deadly in a furball, especially when you consider, that the other fighters in BoM, with the exception of the P-40 are rather poorly armed as well: The MiG-3 2xLMG + 1xHMG, Bf 109F2 2xLMG + 1x15mm cannon, Bf 109E7 2xLMG 2x20mm (nominally heavy armament, but with low rate of fire, wing mounting and just 11 sec of fire) and MC. 202 2xHMG (propably also 2xLMG if modelled as series VII) Yes, there's no question that the I-16s armament is inadequate for anything other than a tight turnfight at slow speeds, but that's just not an uncommon sight in MP currently. Edited March 11, 2015 by Finkeren
[TWB]80hd Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I-16 Type 17 was able to mount 2x20mm ShVAK... I can't imagine they won't have it as an option (or the U-word) on the Type 24.
von_Greiff Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 AH HA! Here it is folks, incontrovertible photographic proof that Emil outclimbs Rata!!! +1 1
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I-16 Type 17 was able to mount 2x20mm ShVAK... I can't imagine they won't have it as an option (or the U-word) on the Type 24. True that. They were experimenting with cannons on several versions of the I-16. The I-16 Type 24 has 4xShKAS machine guns but that I doubt would stop the devs from giving us an unlockable Type 28 which is identical except for the ShVAK 20mm cannons in the wings. The armament with the 4xShKAS is weak but not pathetic and with the two ShVAK 20mm its very potent. That combined with the climb rate, turn rate, and roll rate have me thinking that people are severely underestimating what the I-16 can do. I remember this happened before and it will probably happen again when BoM comes out - it's a handy little fighter at the top of its game. It's obsolete and the performance levels have no where else to go but its a mistake to confuse its somewhat antiquated 1930s appearance as being anything but dangerous in the late 1941 time period. When flown well anyways... I expect the stall to be vicious.
Brano Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 It was easy to stall when mishandled,but recovery was very quick and not particulary complicated/dangerous.What will drive off many pilots is its lack of inflight trimmers.You will need exepctionaly gentle handling with the stick = precise joystick will be a must.What I am looking for the most is challenge to master this plane.And MiG3 as well
Fliegenpilz Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Shouldn't it have a PAK reflector sight? Yeah, it seems it does have one
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Zami, that looks great so far! Can't wait to see the progress as it goes along!
Elbows Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 What a cool little plane. I can't wait for these planes to flesh out the skies.
79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Oh I can wait til it's got a skin at least I was something of a compulsory collector of I-16 skins for old IL2. It was a difficult plane to skin well, and good skins were hard to come by, the best ones were by a guy called Kamikuza (shameless fan-plug). There should be plenty of nice schemes to nick. 1
heinkill Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 If I'm going to fly a crapplane, it should at least have decent unlocks: - ShVAKs - RS82 rockets - 12.7mm UBS underslung - FAB100s - skis, I want a skiable I-16 that will slide down slopes unless you throw out an anchor - turbocharged 500 km/h @ 28,000 feet - anchor (see 'skis' above) Also, cool I-16 photo of the day
1CGS LukeFF Posted March 13, 2015 1CGS Posted March 13, 2015 http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/13538-cozy-reading-room/?do=findComment&comment=243183 :)
sallee Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Isn't she. Something cartoonish abour her, but she's still gorgeous....like Jessica Rabbit.
Finkeren Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 All that detail work, and it's missing the cables used to raise the landing gear going from the wheels into the lower fuselage. Just kidding ofc. It looks awesome! Such detail on the engine block. I wonder if the DM will be constructed to allow us to have a lokk inside?
Phantom-103 Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 I think the Gee-Bee might be a "Distant" Cousin,Do you see some similarities ??
Finkeren Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) The Gee-Bee might have been the first, but the I-16 looks like a bunch of racing planes from the early 1930s. It's common to think of the I-16 as a slow, high drag design, but it was specifically designed for speed. Edited March 14, 2015 by Finkeren
I./JG1_Baron Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Jastrebok looks awesome. Keep in good work - dont forget on cables from undercarriage to fuselage, becouse Finkeren will do harakiri Edited March 14, 2015 by II./JG1_Baron
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Ah, that "realistic" 42 or so turn (key press) needed in i-16 (F4F) of il-2:FB - that people automatize in one press with keymapper (TARGET e cia). People already complain that (CloD) Bf 109 three position landing gear (up-neutral-down) is too "complicated"... As long as the winding time is modelled correctly like the Bf's flap crank it should be fine. Even if it was a single click on a hotas. I imagine you will have to keep the button depressed, however, to keep it winding like the flap crank.It was easy to stall when mishandled....You will need exepctionaly gentle handling with the stick = precise joystick will be a must.WhatSo my Fw experience will come in handy? Edited March 14, 2015 by HerrMurf
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now