The I-16 Thread

[BeastyBaiter]

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.

 

 

Not true. The windshield deflects nearly all the air flow around the pilot, thus it shouldn't be any noisier than a similar closed cockpit plane. How do I know? I ride a motorcycle. Our windshields work on the same concept. A bike with a windshield has a whole hell of a lot less wind noise around the rider.

 

In regards to the I-16's performance, I think it will do ok in the right hands. It's true it won't be able to compete in terms of speed and that will be a real problem. But it can turn and that's something we can work with. The firepower also shouldn't be a problem. Those dinky MG's won't be ripping wings off often, but they'll kill a lot of engines I think.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Does not have to mean much tbh. If I open the small side window in my Ls-4 in midflight the windnoise is loud and clearly noticeably. When going 160+ km/h with open window it's very loud and noisy even.

 

Sure air has better chances escaping a completely open cockpit liek the I-16 has, yet flying at 350-400+ km/h there should definetly some terrific noise.

[samson]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2015 by samson

[Fliegenpilz]

Does not have to mean much tbh. If I open the small side window in my Ls-4 in midflight the windnoise is loud and clearly noticeably. When going 160+ km/h with open window it's very loud and noisy even.

 

Sure air has better chances escaping a completely open cockpit liek the I-16 has, yet flying at 350-400+ km/h there should definetly some terrific noise.

 

I don't think so. My gliding club has a Ka-6b with an open canopy, with which I fly now and again. Sure, it is a bit noisier, but not as much as one might think. 

 

The thing is, in a motorized plane - especially in warbirds - the main source of noise comes from the engine. Surely the air streaming around the plane adds up to the noise, but it is topped by the engine (as far as my experience goes).

 

By the way, you can fly the Lagg-3, Yak-1 and La-5 with your canopy open, too. I don't expect it to be any louder in the I-16. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well Ka-6 is a bit slower than the Ls-4b Had a 3 1/2 hour fight last year with temperatures of 42C here in germany were I had to keep the side window open threwout the flight (and hold my hand outside) in order to not melt away in the cockpit and my memory tells me it indeed was quite noisy.

 

Agree it won't probably be more noisy ingame than a Lag or Yak with open canopy.

Edited March 14, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Not true. The windshield deflects nearly all the air flow around the pilot, thus it shouldn't be any noisier than a similar closed cockpit plane. How do I know? I ride a motorcycle. Our windshields work on the same concept. A bike with a windshield has a whole hell of a lot less wind noise around the rider.

 

In regards to the I-16's performance, I think it will do ok in the right hands. It's true it won't be able to compete in terms of speed and that will be a real problem. But it can turn and that's something we can work with. The firepower also shouldn't be a problem. Those dinky MG's won't be ripping wings off often, but they'll kill a lot of engines I think.

 

Depend of people I suppose, I sometimes forgot to close my canopy while flying Soviet planes and I find the noise to be pretty unbearable.

[Jade_Monkey]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow the game is starting to look very realistic

[Yakdriver]

...those are Photos...

 

Airworthy

• I-16 Type 24 White 45/N30425, Commemorative Air Force, Texas, USA
• I-16 Type 24 White 28/N1639P, Military Aviation Museum, Virginia, USA
• I-16 Type 24 CM-249/EC-JRK, Fundación Infante de Orleans, Madrid, Spain
• I-16 Type 24 Red 4/NX7459, Flying Heritage Collection, Washington, USA
• I-16 Type 24 9/D-EPRN, private owner, Germany
• I-16 Type 24 34/RA-1561G, private owner, Russia
• I-16, Military Aviation Museum, Virginia, USA

[Jade_Monkey]

 

...those are Photos...

 

 

it was a joke

[Finkeren]

I actually had to look twice to be absolutely shure it wasn't a shot with the new summer textures

[Feathered_IV]

Whatever, new desktop wallpaper for me. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I preferr this one

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I preferr this one

I thought time traveling was something exclusive to War Thunder.

Edited March 15, 2015 by GrapeJam

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The germans already had F-2s and F-1s during Operation Barbarossa. Those were upgraded to F-4 in the following events and units have been supplied exclusively with F-4s during the operation. So no time traveling

 

Ishaks were even used well beyond as ground atatck aircraft until the appearance of the IL-2.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Err, I'm sure the 109 in your pic is the G2, because it has the heavy thick frames that I hate so much. =)

Edited March 15, 2015 by GrapeJam

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Err, I'm sure the 109 in your pic is the G2, because it has the heavy thick frames that I hate so much. =)

I16 was still operational when G2 entered service..

[I./JG1_Baron]

I-16s were withdrawn from service in 1944.

[Jade_Monkey]

I preferr this one

Other than the landing gear being down on the 109, i love this pic!!

[Feathered_IV]

Lol, 109 noobs.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Even than the 109 is probably faster than the Ishak Had only one good pitcure of the cockpit while taxiing on grudn, that's why the landing gear is down

 

I certainly could do better but didn't want to spent hours on this one

[Chuck_Owl]

Other than the landing gear being down on the 109, i love this pic!!

 

The magnetos being off and the oil & fuel pressure being at 0 too

Edited March 16, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

109 is de beßt plaine in ze woarlt. 109 dos no need any oil or fuel pressure to fly.

 

Glad you didn't notice the speedometer indicating 0km/h..oops

[Chuck_Owl]

109 is de beßt plaine in ze woarlt. 109 dos no need any oil or fuel pressure to fly.

 

Glad you didn't notice the speedometer indicating 0km/h..oops

 

Ha ha is that contest of "Find what's wrong with the Picture"? 

[Finkeren]

The primary thing wrong with that picture is, that the I-16 is right in the sights of a 109. That will not happen in BoM.

[[TWB]80hd]

The primary thing wrong with that picture is, that the I-16 is right in the sights of a 109. That will not happen in BoM.

 

[Finkeren]

LOFTs WIP-shots inspired me to make another of my little 'finger paintings' on my daughters iPad.

 

I also posted it in the appropriate forum here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15070-finker-painting-part-iv-migs-over-moscow/?p=244063

 

But I thought this might be a proper place for it as well:

 

[sallee]

LOFTs WIP-shots inspired me to make another of my little 'finger paintings' on my daughters iPad.

I also posted it in the appropriate forum here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15070-finker-painting-part-iv-migs-over-moscow/?p=244063

But I thought this might be a proper place for it as well:

image.jpg

Wow the game is starting to look very realistic.

[Finkeren]

I wish I could do clouds as well as the game

Edited March 17, 2015 by Finkeren

[Brano]

I-16s were withdrawn from service in 1944.

 

From roughly 1600 I-16s that were in frontline units on 22.6.1941 only ~240 survived Barbarossa onslaught.There was no serial production in 1942 to replace losses.Several IAPs serving with ishaks were moved to secondary theatres (Karelia,Baltic and Black Sea Fleet,Caucasus).They were not present in first line front units in times of Stalingrad battle.Those few IAPs kept using them untill the pool of available repaired airplanes has been exhausted.

 

102nd IAD PVO of Stalingrad with its 629.IAP equipped with ishaks and 651.IAP with I-153 had roughly not more then 80 crafts (nr. varried depending on loses and inability to replace end of production life aircrafts).Collection was one that any todays museum would pay fortune for.These old machines were hastily sent to Stalingrad PVO from other PVOs districts - kind of scratching bottom of the barell for soviets.You could find production models spaning from 1936 to 1940 in there.

 

There were barely few dozens I-16s left in 1944.And one rarity.In 1945 in Manchuria there were really some last few pieces left in Far East Front.Mostly as training planes,not used in combat ofcourse

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

I can't wait to have that same open canopy wind in your face experience they did so well in RoF. The I-16 is going to be fun! 

Edited March 18, 2015 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[=69.GIAP=VLADI]

I can't wait to have that same open canopy wind in your face experience they did so well in RoF. The I-16 is going to be fun!

Fully true, RADKO!

[Dakpilot]

Just to perk this thread up a bit

 

A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, was the I-16 a great deal less capable than the Messerschmitt?

 

N. G. All the basic types of I-16, the type-10, -17, and –21, were less capable in their technical and tactical characteristics than the Bf-109E, but not by much. Of course, the older types, the -4 and -5, were not comparable.

The I-16 types -28 and -29 were superior to the Bf-109E. They were capable of the same speed and in maneuverability, in the vertical plane, the Ishak surpassed the E model.

 

A. S. This is strange. In any reference book you look at it says that the speed of the I-16 types -28 and -29 at 3,000 meters altitude is on the order of 440—460 kmh, and of the Bf-109E--570 kmh. And you say they are the same? And that the I-16 was superior in vertical manoeuvre? This is news.

 

N. G. It was the rare pilot who sought to fly at maximum speed in maneuver combat and even rarer was the pilot who achieved it.

 

In principle, the I-16 could easily and quickly attain a speed of 500 kmh. The E model was quicker, but not by much. In combat there was no practical difference in their speed. The dynamic of achieving top speed of the I-16 was explosive, especially with the M-63 engine. This was its second unique quality, after horizontal maneuverability. It could out-accelerate all other then-existing Soviet-produced fighters, even the new types. The Yak-1 was the closest to it in this capability, but even it fell somewhat behind.

The “Messer” could dive well and get away. The I-16, with its rather large nose, could not develop 530 kmh in a dive. But it must be said that in combat, if we had to disengage, them from us or we from them, we always managed to do so.

 

A. S. How did you disengage, with a dive or in the vertical?

 

N. G. As the situation permitted. One or the other.

 

A. S. So when Hero of the Soviet Union V. F. Golubev and Hero of the Soviet Union A. L. Ivanov write in their memoirs that the I-16 was not outclassed as a fighter until the end of 1942, then they are not lying? This is not propaganda?

 

N. G. They are not lying.

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

Interesting tidbid Dak. Sounds about right. It practical terms the speed difference between the I-16 and Emil was propably negligible in a dogfight (not at all so in a chase or ambush) People tend to forget, that even the type 24 had a significant advantage in power loading over the Bf 109s right up to F4, which finally surpassed it, so the I-16s initial accelleration was likely very impressive.

 

Among the 1941 VVS fighters the I-16 was also the one that came closest to challenging the Bf 109s climb rate at lower altitude (The MiG-3 likely outclimbed it at altitude)

 

It's gonna be intersting to see how it'll perform in BoM. As long as it's allowed to dogfight, I'd expect it to be quite deadly in the hands of pilots who can handle it.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Finkeren

[Dakpilot]

I predict a lot of complaining about " unrealistic energy retention"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Freycinet]

Bf-109 pilots on the Eastern Front would never get themselves suckered into a dogfight with I-16s. There is a reason why the Germans said 'hunter plane' (Jagdflugzeug) instead of fighter plane. I-16s couldn't do much against fast, slashing attacks from 109s. The death-kill ratios bear it out: they were slaughtered.

[Finkeren]

Bf-109 pilots on the Eastern Front would never get themselves suckered into a dogfight with I-16s. There is a reason why the Germans said 'hunter plane' (Jagdflugzeug) instead of fighter plane. I-16s couldn't do much against fast, slashing attacks from 109s. The death-kill ratios bear it out: they were slaughtered.

They were. But the loss rates among I-16 pilots were no worse than for the ones who flew the new fighter designs. I think that says something about both the I-16 and the pilots who flew it.

[KaC_Furias]

data extracted from wikipedia for type  24 :

 

Performance *

 

• Maximum speed: 525 km/h (283 kn, 326 mph) at 3,000 m (9,845 ft)
• Range: 700 km (378 nmi, 435 mi (with drop tanks))
• Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
• Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)
• Wing loading: 134 kg/m² (27 lb/ft²)
• Power/mass: 346 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

 

 

*Shavrov 1985

 

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Bf-109 pilots on the Eastern Front would never get themselves suckered into a dogfight with I-16s. There is a reason why the Germans said 'hunter plane' (Jagdflugzeug) instead of fighter plane. I-16s couldn't do much against fast, slashing attacks from 109s. The death-kill ratios bear it out: they were slaughtered.

 

Agreed but I think in the artificial simulator world where not all of the pilots are as disciplined as those in the Luftwaffe's fighter ranks at the end of 1941... we'll see a much more even exchange between the two.

 

I predict a lot of complaining about " unrealistic energy retention"

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Exactly!

 

The biggest problem the I-16 has is that it "doesn't look fast". Its got that flat nose, big radial engine, the wings almost start immediately and the open cockpit. It doesn't look fast but its surprisingly fast.

[Feathered_IV]

As long as I can catch a Heinkel or an Opel, I'm fine with it.

[Finkeren]

The biggest problem the I-16 has is that it "doesn't look fast". Its got that flat nose, big radial engine, the wings almost start immediately and the open cockpit. It doesn't look fast but its surprisingly fast.

Well, the general design of the I-16 mimics some of the record setting racing planes of the 1930s, so to people at the time it propably did look fast, especially early in the career, when retractable landing gear wasn't common (and at that time it actually had an enclosed cockpit) it propably looked like an exceptionally clean design with no external bracing and thin cantilever wings.