I-16 Appreciation Group

[LittleJP]

Anyone? Gotta love the thing, no one expects the I-16 at 7000m!

 

With its tiny profile, it's amazingly fun to dodge a bounce and score a quick hit by snapping back with your amazing agility and popping off a quick 2x ShVAK burst.

[Finkeren]

One of, if not the most important fighter designs of the 1930s.

 

And such a cute little ball of fun

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

My favourite plane. If there are low clouds hanging, u can fish for 109s popping down from the cloud coverage looking for "easy prey"... give them enough line and they'll make a mistake

[LittleJP]

I would love if we had a Spanish civil war focus, where we can take on He 51s with our I-16s :D

Edited September 26, 2016 by LittleJP

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I'd settle with a remake of the Finnsh Gulf and Karelia

[Cybermat47]

When you're in a 109 under 1000 metres, and those things show up above you... just run.

[unreasonable]

One of, if not the most important fighter designs of the 1930s.

 

And such a cute little ball of fun

 

Cute, absolutely ... important?

 

I would say it was a more a throwback to early WW1 design philosopy; unstable, quick turning but not very fast.   Something like a Sopwith Camel with a wing missing.  

[LittleJP]

Well, it was the first monoplane with retractable landing gear and enclosed cockpit, and the design was done in 1934, and was the world's fastest by its time of its release. It wasn't as good for high g stuff vs other interwar planes/biplanes at the time, so I'd argue it was in fact a movement in precisely the opposite direction. By 1941/2 though, it was a little outclassed, but it's still dammed fun.

[Asgar]

One of, if not the most important fighter designs of the 1930s.

 

Excuse me? I think you're looking for the Bf 109

appreciation thread

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Guys, this is not a peeing competition. Let's just celebrate the little donkey ok?

[[TWB]80hd]

Cute, absolutely ... important?

 

I would say it was a more a throwback to early WW1 design philosopy; unstable, quick turning but not very fast.   Something like a Sopwith Camel with a wing missing.  

 

It was a cantilever, low-wing monoplane with retractable landing gear... but wait, there's more: It was the first of its kind to reach series production.

 

You can't look back on a revolutionary machine such as this or you'll get hung up on the open cockpit...  if you look at it from the context of the era, it was the first of its kind and a portent of many things to come.

 

That it was not as advanced as the machines that followed in the design chaos of the inter-war years leading up to WW2 only makes sense.

[unreasonable]

Well, it was the first monoplane with retractable landing gear and enclosed cockpit, and the design was done in 1934, and was the world's fastest by its time of its release. It wasn't as good for high g stuff vs other interwar planes/biplanes at the time, so I'd argue it was in fact a movement in precisely the opposite direction. By 1941/2 though, it was a little outclassed, but it's still dammed fun.

 

By 1937 it was outclassed, by 1939 it was completely obsolete, which is why the USSR was desperately trying to replace it when WW2 started with the German/Soviet invasion of Poland.

 

I agree it is fun, though.

Edited September 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[Trooper117]

I must admit... I like flying that little donkey

[unreasonable]

It was a cantilever, low-wing monoplane with retractable landing gear... but wait, there's more: It was the first of its kind to reach series production.

 

You can't look back on a revolutionary machine such as this or you'll get hung up on the open cockpit...  if you look at it from the context of the era, it was the first of its kind and a portent of many things to come.

 

That it was not as advanced as the machines that followed in the design chaos of the inter-war years leading up to WW2 only makes sense.

 

What I am talking about is the design as a fighter, rather than the technical aspects of undercarriage etc. This thing was still made to turn, not for speed and ease of use: perhaps it might have been a better aircraft if the fuselage was slimmer but six feet longer. 

 

As for being "revolutionary" - I think this word is overused. I have no doubt that lots of other designers were looking at the same technical advances at the same time:  while the I-16 may have been first I very much doubt that aircraft designers were all rushing around saying "enclosed cockpit, retractable gear, why did I not think of that?". More likely they were going to their governments and saying "Now will you let us build what we have been proposing..."

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, its not easy to fit retractable landing gear. It took quite a few years to do so, especially with hydraulic or other mechanisms which added lot of weight to the airframe and created issues of how to accommodate those in the wing and how to strengthen wing structure. 

 

Also, before stating what I-16 was designed for I think it would be best to actually look up for original requirements. I'm sure VVS set some kind of requirements that new aircraft had to meet. 

[[TWB]80hd]

I guess the Me-262 was nothing special either since everyone else was already trying to put jets into production anyway =/

[unreasonable]

Also, before stating what I-16 was designed for I think it would be best to actually look up for original requirements. I'm sure VVS set some kind of requirements that new aircraft had to meet. 

 

I am sure that they did, but that does not mean that we cannot use our common sense. Why otherwise would you design a plane with such an extreme wingspan/length ratio? (1.47) It is much stubbier than the  F4F where the need to fit in carriers may have restricted the length, or the Brewster Buffalo (1.37).

 

Seems to me that it was designed with turning as the key to combat success in mind - hence my point about it being a backwards looking design - despite the areas in which it was technically first.

 

(Sopwith Camel = 1.49 )

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, Me-262 is like a big hit. Sometimes however even small and thin things could be revolutionary like a townend ring that led to drastic decrease of drag, as formerly radial engines had cylinders uncovered by anything which really wasnt aerodynamically clean solution at all. Then townend ring was followed by long-chord NACA cowling. 

Ability to raise a landing gear not only improved the aerodynamics but also allowed for greater diving limits and other things. 

 

 

 

Seems to me that it was designed with turning as the key to combat success in mind - hence my point about it being a backwards looking design - despite the areas in which it was technically first.

 

 

At the time when it was designed skies were dominated by biplanes and that did not change for another couples of years which also should be taken into account.

Edited September 26, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Finkeren]

Cute, absolutely ... important?

 

I would say it was a more a throwback to early WW1 design philosopy; unstable, quick turning but not very fast. Something like a Sopwith Camel with a wing missing.

Completely disagree. Making fighters deliberately unstable to increase maneuverability is a design philosophy that has been employed many times throughout history, it's not specific to WW1.

 

Also, the I-16 was not slow for its time. It was absolutely designed for the two things that would define many of the successful WW2 designs: Speed and climb rate.

[unreasonable]

For me, to be revolutionary in terms of combat aircraft, something would have to change the way in which air battles (air-air, air-ground, whatever) were fought, not incrementally improve performance. The I-16 did not do this.

 

Interrupter gear - essentially allowed fighter combat to happen.

Jet engine - yes, because it eventually allowed speeds above the sound barrier and made an entire branch of propulsion obsolete for military fighter aircraft.

Radar - yes because it allowed, for the first time, detection and eventually even engagement beyond visual range.

Guided missiles - yes.

Fly by wire and computer control - yes since it will make pilots obsolete.

 

You may have your own favourites. 

 

Completely disagree. Making fighters deliberately unstable to increase maneuverability is a design philosophy that has been employed many times throughout history, it's not specific to WW1.

Also, the I-16 was not slow for its time. It was absolutely designed for the two things that would define many of the successful WW2 designs: Speed and climb rate.

 

At the time the I-16 was developed, the trend was towards making more stable aircraft that were easier to fly. Looking at WW1 lessons, the Fokker DVII was such a success largely for this reason. The Camel, in the hands of experienced pilots, was a fine fighter but it killed an awful lot of learners in accidents. 

 

Much more recently, aircraft have been made unstable again, but only because there now exist technologies that enable pilots to control the aircraft. Canards, fly by wire, vector thrust etc. Look at WW2 designs and point out one that was deliberately designed to be unstable. Off-hand, I cannot think of one.

 

As for climb rate and speed - sure, when first launched it was good, but my point is that it could have had a more stretched fuselage at the same (or almost the same) weight and surface area, and had the same climb rate and speed, and been much easier to fly.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, you can have stability and maneuverability either. In fact that is best combination for any dogfighter because it gives fighter pilot a precision he needs. IMO this instability is actual flaw of I-16. 

 

The other monoplane, that actually was at specific time faster and better climbing was PZL P.11, though it did not have retractable landing gear. I-16 is neat, I just dont think its rough handling was an advantage in any way.

[Lusekofte]

German fighter escorts hided behind and close to bombers when I 16 attacked until the 109 came. The 109 A and B with fixed two blade had better performance in speed at some altitudes but the I 16 compared well to them, they where just too few . Excellent plane, squadrons converting from it to Mig 3 and LAGG reduced their kill rate during late 41 and early 42

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

For me, to be revolutionary in terms of combat aircraft, something would have to change the way in which air battles (air-air, air-ground, whatever) were fought, not incrementally improve performance. The I-16 did not do this.

 

But then you negate a lot of important changes in aerodynamics engineering, since not every aircraft was designed for combat purposes. Civilian or sports aviation also influenced the way machines were designed. 

[unreasonable]

Well, you can have stability and maneuverability either. In fact that is best combination for any dogfighter because it gives fighter pilot a precision he needs. IMO this instability is actual flaw of I-16. 

 

The other monoplane, that actually was at specific time faster and better climbing was PZL P.11, though it did not have retractable landing gear. I-16 is neat, I just dont think its rough handling was an advantage in any way.

 

That is what I have been trying to say.... try too hard to get a very maneuverable aircraft going for instability and you get something that is hard to fly well. Like a Camel, or an I-16.

But then you negate a lot of important changes in aerodynamics engineering, since not every aircraft was designed for combat purposes. Civilian or sports aviation also influenced the way machines were designed. 

 

I am not negating them at all, I am trying to come up with a useful meaning for the word revolutionary that is relevant to the core of what the machine is actually for.

 

Not every engineering change is revolutionary, and even a design change that may be revolutionary in terms of a narrow technical field, eg spark plugs, may be only incrementally relevant at the level of the ultimate purpose of the plane.

[[TWB]80hd]

Anyone? Gotta love the thing, no one expects the I-16 at 7000m!

 

With its tiny profile, it's amazingly fun to dodge a bounce and score a quick hit by snapping back with your amazing agility and popping off a quick 2x ShVAK burst.

 

It's one of my favorite planes to fly... learned to love it in IL-2 1946 early war campaigns and it's certainly got impressive visibility! 

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

I feel it's time to remind you all about the series of testflights that 1C posted on youtube during the BoS development...

And this

 

 

Ps.. dont forget to turn on subtitles

Edited September 26, 2016 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Just gonna leave that here: (Hope it comes someday as well)

 

[Y-29.Silky]

I still forget to close the doors before take-off.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I didnt know there were any doors until recently ... 

 

Anyway, I got to ask this ... how does anyone know exact speed and altitude in that thing when maneuvering ? I mean unless I duck its basically impossible to see control panel which in dives or steep climbs is sort of ... problematic. 

[Cybermat47]

I didnt know there were any doors until recently ... 

 

Anyway, I got to ask this ... how does anyone know exact speed and altitude in that thing when maneuvering ? I mean unless I duck its basically impossible to see control panel which in dives or steep climbs is sort of ... problematic.

 

Ducking is the only way, I'm afraid.

 

Certainly explains why so many were destroyed so early.

[J2_Trupobaw]

One of my favourites. Maybe because I'm RoF fossil still struggling to adapt to new 1940s techniques.

 

Cute, absolutely ... important?

 

I would say it was a more a throwback to early WW1 design philosopy; unstable, quick turning but not very fast.   Something like a Sopwith Camel with a wing missing.  

 

And no cannons . That's how it performs against planes it faced in WW2, not what it was when it first saw service mid-1930s. Compared to slow quick turning biplanes in service when I-16 was first deployed it was a FW-190.

When matched against 1940s types it fights like throwback to WW1. But, learning it limits and seeing what is to tight a turn in supposedly quick turning I-16 during WW1 gave me good insight on how to turn safely in Spad 13; it would be a quick turning but not very fast in WW2, too. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's without doubt the most fun to fly aircraft in the current plane set.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Its very easy to stall and sensitivity is extreme, normally I have only slightly reduced sensitivity but with this thing I switch it to 60 % or so. That thing stalls quickly, its also easy to recover but ... I prefer not to stall  

[ShamrockOneFive]

I went from being fairly "meh" about it to loving it. I spend a fair bit of time flying this in the single player campaign and I think I should fly it online a bit more.

 

It's so much fun to fly. Its not the performer it was in the early to mid 1930s but it does have snappy handling over 1941 Moscow.

 

The cannons add a huge extra punch too!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I want to try it with mgs only on multi, on singleplayer it is enough to sent 109 burning and you can even tackle one or two He-111s

[LittleJP]

I didnt know there were any doors until recently ... 

 

Anyway, I got to ask this ... how does anyone know exact speed and altitude in that thing when maneuvering ? I mean unless I duck its basically impossible to see control panel which in dives or steep climbs is sort of ... problematic. 

Generally, I just eyeball it. If I'm at a point where I worry about my altitude, I'm either so slow I can crash land safely, or rely on its inherent agility to get myself out of a bad stall.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Is the door tied to the canopy open control, or does it need a different one?

[Cpt_Cool]

Is the door tied to the canopy open control, or does it need a different one?

 

It is canopy open

[Gambit21]

It's without doubt the most fun to fly aircraft in the current plane set.

Haven't had time to fire it up yet - but looking forward to it. I have fond memories flying it in 1946 - Beowulf trying to shoot me down for 10 minutes straight while I evaded him pass after pass. Or flying through low clouds on the Kuban map. Good stuff. Can't wait to get reacquainted with it.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

For me, to be revolutionary in terms of combat aircraft, something would have to change the way in which air battles (air-air, air-ground, whatever) were fought, not incrementally improve performance. The I-16 did not do this.

 

Well, the 30s high performance monoplanes (I-16 and Bf-109 "basically") made biplanes and fixed landing gear fighters obsolete which was the main trending at the time, they also made the high speed monoplane medium-heavy bomber concept obsolete, as designs like the SB, SM.79, He-111, etc were envisioned in such a way that they wouldn't need escort because they were faster than biplanes fighters, and when these high performance fighters came the bomber concept had to be modified, with now more emphasis in defensive armament and service ceiling basically. And the I-16 was the first fighter of this kind.

 

This bomber issue is no small thing, think that in the 30s the bomber was considered one of the most powerful weapons of the time. The vision of bomber formations destroying cities while being immune to interception had a similar impact in the thinking of the time as nuclear missiles had in the Cold War.