taffy2jeffmorgan Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Not only is the I-16 fun to fly for the more experienced pilot, but it's such a user friendly aircraft for the new comer.It's perfect for honing the skills needed for take off and landing, it's also a good gun platform and excellent for skip bombing, it's a pity that this little beauty was not available from day one with BoS. " A lot of us would have got our wings earlier ! So I would advise all new comers to BoS/BoM to fly the I-16 in all scenarios, because it will make the transition to other more powerful and not so user friendly aircraft much easier . Cheers. JM.
BlitzPig_EL Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Interesting observation, as the real I-16 was a difficult aircraft to fly, had very high landing speed, and in general was not regarded as a novice friendly aircraft.
taffy2jeffmorgan Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 Historically that is correct, but nothing could be further from the truth in BoS, would you agree ?
ShamrockOneFive Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I don't know... the I-16 handling is familiar to me because of IL-2 1946. The differences are there certainly but there is a certain familiarity so I sort of knew what I was expecting. The Yak-1 is friendlier in terms of handling... the LaGG-3 is more difficult and the I-16 is ok if flown around basically but in combat its a bit of a handful when you get closer to the edges of the envelope.
Finkeren Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I won't get a chance to fly the I-16 until this afternoon, but I must say, that from what I've read here on the forums, the Rata in BoM does seem to handle a bit on the easy side compared to historical sources. However: One thing has occured to me. Could it be, that the I-16s historical reputation as a difficult aircraft to handle was mainly due to its extremely effective controls which would've made it prone to 'over-handling' by pilots who were used to much slower biplanes with sluggish or asymetrical controls? In any case: The I-16 is one of the few examples in BoS, where the devs have actually been able to do research on still flying (or rather: restored) examples of the plane they were about to model and talk at length with pilots who still fly them. IIRC the 5 or 6 restored Ratas are pretty close to the original configuration, and even though such aircraft never get flown to the edge of their envelope, you can likely still learn a good deal about their handling from modern pilots. 2
reve_etrange Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 However: One thing has occured to me. Could it be, that the I-16s historical reputation as a difficult aircraft to handle was mainly due to its extremely effective controls which would've made it prone to 'over-handling' by pilots who were used to much slower biplanes with sluggish or asymetrical controls? Maybe so... "I flew a lot in an I-16. People said the I-16 was a very difficult plane to handle but I had no problems – that made the guys envious." -Anna Timofeyeva-Yegorova, Over Fields of Fire
Potenz Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 would be great to have the Po-2 and the Fieseler Storch as trainers, also for recon missions
ShamrockOneFive Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I won't get a chance to fly the I-16 until this afternoon, but I must say, that from what I've read here on the forums, the Rata in BoM does seem to handle a bit on the easy side compared to historical sources. However: One thing has occured to me. Could it be, that the I-16s historical reputation as a difficult aircraft to handle was mainly due to its extremely effective controls which would've made it prone to 'over-handling' by pilots who were used to much slower biplanes with sluggish or asymetrical controls? In any case: The I-16 is one of the few examples in BoS, where the devs have actually been able to do research on still flying (or rather: restored) examples of the plane they were about to model and talk at length with pilots who still fly them. IIRC the 5 or 6 restored Ratas are pretty close to the original configuration, and even though such aircraft never get flown to the edge of their envelope, you can likely still learn a good deal about their handling from modern pilots. Maybe so... "I flew a lot in an I-16. People said the I-16 was a very difficult plane to handle but I had no problems – that made the guys envious." -Anna Timofeyeva-Yegorova, Over Fields of Fire Thing is... that sounds about right on both accounts. The controls are sensitive and its easy to depart from normal flight. Handle it properly and it flies fairly easily without a lot of fuss. Overdo it and you've departed and are spinning. I've spun the I-16 in a few times looking for the edge of the envelope. It's a REALLY fun fighter to be in but when you get to the edge of flight with it... its a knifes edge that you're balancing on.
Finkeren Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) I tried out the I-16 for a couple of hours today, and I definately think it feels 'right'. It's not quite as easy to handle as I was led to believe and definately has quite sensitive controls that can easily flip you around if you aren't careful. Still there is no denying that it's a tremendeously fun little fighter. I'm not sure I enjoy fighting in it that much, it's much too slow to really be useful, let alone dangerous, in any situation, but it's perfect for sightseeing, aerobatics and generally having a good time. Wouldn't mind having one of these to fly around in for real Edited July 11, 2015 by Finkeren
Guest deleted@50488 Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I've seen it going really high, as high as it would require oxygen for the pilot. Does it bring a bottle ?
Finkeren Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I've seen it going really high, as high as it would require oxygen for the pilot. Does it bring a bottle ? Yes, the I-16 was always designed to carry oxygen supply. Open cockpit has no influence on the oxygen system.
unreasonable Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Thing is... that sounds about right on both accounts. The controls are sensitive and its easy to depart from normal flight. Handle it properly and it flies fairly easily without a lot of fuss. Overdo it and you've departed and are spinning. I've spun the I-16 in a few times looking for the edge of the envelope. It's a REALLY fun fighter to be in but when you get to the edge of flight with it... its a knifes edge that you're balancing on. I cannot help thinking that departing normal flight might be your best bet when the 109s come calling....
Y-29.Silky Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 I tried out the I-16 for a couple of hours today, and I definately think it feels 'right'. It's not quite as easy to handle as I was led to believe and definately has quite sensitive controls that can easily flip you around if you aren't careful. I think it's very easy to handle, the only thing I found difficult was that if you pushed it in a turn too fast, it can roll over. Otherwise, I don't know, it's a pretty easy bird to fly and I've already got a large share of kills in it in MP. It's especially good at 6000m! I was able to climb up to 6k in a few minutes at a consistent 250kph, then keep that speed up there. I was so annoying to the 109 pilots, they just dove away after a while.
Freycinet Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Great that we now have a plane that will force the 109 jockeys to fly their mount correctly. There was a reason why the Germans called it "Jagdflugzeug" (hunting airplane) and not fighter: stalk your prey, pounce quickly, that's how they did it.Not endlessly windmilling about...
Finkeren Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Great that we now have a plane that will force the 109 jockeys to fly their mount correctly. There was a reason why the Germans called it "Jagdflugzeug" (hunting airplane) and not fighter: stalk your prey, pounce quickly, that's how they did it.Not endlessly windmilling about... +100! If you are having trouble in the 109 taking on a plane that does 250 km/h at 6000m, you're doing something wrong. 2
unreasonable Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Somewhere in my pile of WW2 books I remember seeing a quote from a 109 pilot saying that they had trouble with the I16s at first because they approached them too fast. My take on that is that a fractional snap-shot with F2's armament is not very effective, even if you get on target in a BnZ, which is hard against a rapidly turning, slow plane. So they needed to track the target I16 for a little while to get kills. IIRC Shaw's book on ACM says that the superior aircraft only needs about a 20% speed advantage to control an energy fight, in which case the 109 should have no trouble unless it gets suckered into a head-on pass.
Bullets Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Difficult fighter to fly doesn't always mean how it handles in the air. I don't understand why everyone is jumping on that bandwagon. From what i can research versions of it were considered difficult because of the fast landing speed, weak brakes, poor visibility (Possibly from the earlier sliding cockpits), oil always on the cockpit. I also read that controls were light and effective and that it was spin over if you pull to hard on stick back (both I have experienced in the sim) I personally think its modelled very well! Its a delight to fly and rewarding when you do actually shoot one of those pesky 109's that has been zooming on you for ages down.
Y-29.Silky Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) +100! If you are having trouble in the 109 taking on a plane that does 250 km/h at 6000m, you're doing something wrong. Unless it's a Yak/190 who flies with his landing flaps down 100% of the time (ahem devs)... Otherwise yes, so tempting! If you're thinking.. "Ahaaaa! An Ishak! Much fodder for my cannon! I'm hungry for potatoes! Guten Tag Knight's Cross!" ... You're gonna have a bad time.. Edited July 12, 2015 by Y-29.Silky
Bullets Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Also for people interested here is a very nice white skin for the i16! http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/3169-skiny-dlya-obshego-polzovaniya-i-16-tip-24/
Finkeren Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Unless it's a Yak/190 who flies with his landing flaps down 100% of the time (ahem devs)... Otherwise yes, so tempting! If you're thinking.. "Ahaaaa! An Ishak! Much fodder for my cannon! I'm hungry for potatoes! Guten Tag Knight's Cross!" ... You're gonna have a bad time.. I certainly hope you can get the Yak and Fw 190 to do more than 250 km/h IAS at 6000m.
andyw248 Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 High landing speed might have been an assessment from around 1934 when there were still many biplanes around which had considerably lower landing speeds. The I-16 as modeled stalls at ~145 - 150 kph with gear and flaps down, which leads to a final approach speed of ~195 kph. That's about the same landing speed as the 109; from this perspective the landing speed of the I-16 seems high indeed, considering that the 109 is otherwise a much sleeker and faster aircraft.
Finkeren Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 True andyw248. Measured as a percentage of top speed, the landing speed of the I-16 is very high. If the Bf 109G2 was to land at the same fraction of its top speed, it would be destroyed on impact.
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