I-16 Appreciation Group

[ShamrockOneFive]

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.

 

If you enjoyed flying the I-16 in IL-2: 1946 then you'll like it basically just as much here. If anything, I think I like it more here than in old IL-2. Not sure why except that this I-16 feels a little less twitchy. Whatever the case... its hilariously fun to just crank it around but it will still bite you big time when you overdo it.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Flying this thing always feels like trying to walk around on a big ball, always a balancing act.

[unreasonable]

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.

 

Good points - I agree that these types of monoplanes - together - changed the bomber/interceptor balance towards the interceptors. 

 

I do not agree with (I-16 and Bf 109 "basically") - the Hawker Hurricane was made to meet a 1934 Air Ministry requirement. The Curtis P-36 project was started in 1934. The French D.500 was made to a 1930 specification (still had fixed gear). There is an evolutionary process here.

 

It seems fairer to say that the aircraft designers and manufacturers of all the nations capable of sustaining an aircraft industry were all looking at similar ideas during the same period. Hence my feeling that the term "revolutionary" is being miss-used in referring to the I-16 specifically. If someone can show me a document where aircraft designers are saying "Gosh, why did we not think of that" I would agree that it was revolutionary.

 

What is unique (AFAIK) about the I-16 compared to contemporary fighters is it's extreme design, with the too short body. This is true both comparing to contemporary biplanes and monoplanes. Only the Buffalo comes close.

 

Since this feature makes the plane unstable, it will tend to revolve around pitch and yaw axes, so it is revolutionary after all.

Edited September 28, 2016 by unreasonable

[Cybermat47]

Since this feature makes the plane unstable, it will tend to revolve around pitch and yaw axes, so it is revolutionary after all.

 

Did you think that was punny? 

[Pirlouit]

 

 

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

 

Same thing here ! All these closed canopy planes make me feel claustrophobic

And the I16 is the only plane  in which I manage to survive (at some degree..) in MP

 

Still have regularly the problem of being heavily challenged by some BF109 in flat turns... I beg this shouldn't happen, so I must do something wrong but I don't know what (should I use flaps or reduce engine or something ?). Help would be appreciated

[Pirlouit]

 

 

I do not agree with (I-16 and Bf 109 "basically") - the Hawker Hurricane was made to meet a 1934 Air Ministry requirement. The Curtis P-36 project was started in 1934. The French D.500 was made to a 1930 specification (still had fixed gear). There is an evolutionary process here.

 

Yes, I agree with you. And we could add the French Morane-Saulnier MS-405/406 which flew for the first time 2 months after the BF109

[Finkeren]

Good points - I agree that these types of monoplanes - together - changed the bomber/interceptor balance towards the interceptors. 

 

I do not agree with (I-16 and Bf 109 "basically") - the Hawker Hurricane was made to meet a 1934 Air Ministry requirement. The Curtis P-36 project was started in 1934. The French D.500 was made to a 1930 specification (still had fixed gear). There is an evolutionary process here.

 

It seems fairer to say that the aircraft designers and manufacturers of all the nations capable of sustaining an aircraft industry were all looking at similar ideas during the same period. Hence my feeling that the term "revolutionary" is being miss-used in referring to the I-16 specifically. If someone can show me a document where aircraft designers are saying "Gosh, why did we not think of that" I would agree that it was revolutionary.

 

I think we should set the I-16 apart from the others mentioned here. Work on the designs that would lead to planes like the Hurricane, Bf 109, MS. 405 etc. all started within a very short timespan in 1934-35. Right around the time when the I-16 entered service with the VVS. That might be a coincidence, but the I-16 really was the first of its kind, and its uniquely compact design can perhaps be attributed to inspiration from some of the racing plane designs of the early 1930s, which also emphasized a very compact airframe and short fuselage, but which quickly proved impractical and was dropped from the slightly newer designs. 

[Brano]

Untill Type 10 it had closed canopy with unusual forward sliding. Open canopy has been introduced with Type 10 onwards. Soviet prewar fighter planes doctrine was about cooperation of nible but slow biplanes with less maneuverable but faster monoplane fighters to reach better efficiency when dealing with different air combat situations. That's why Polikarpow introduced I-153 biplane,which was by nowdays judgement a step back,but in those times it was considered OK. Btw I-153 was more recent design then I-16. Fortunately Tchaika's rather poor performance against Japanese fighters over Chalkhyn-gol made Soviet leadership to reconsider their tactics which led to famous "1939 fighter competition" from which came I-200,I-301 and I-26 prototypes of future MiG-3,LaGG-3 and Yak-1 types.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

It's a good aircraft vs the e7 I would recommend people set up a i16vse7 server. The first few fights we had we shocked our oponent, it's got a great climb rate so use it

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I was today flying on WoL and against anything above E-7 its hopeless. I mean I could dodge for long but end result is usually the same if pursuer is persistent enough. 

Cool little bird anyway

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

With its roll rate and general nimbleness, I find that when flying the I-16 you are 99% at fault if the enemy lands even a single bullet on you. If you keep the speed high and take the opportunities to climb, the visibility helps you see the enemy at all times so it's easy to time the evasive and hit back with a counter-attack when they overshoot.

 

On the rare occasions when I've found myself 1000m above Bf-109s in the I-16, I could run riot diving, shooting them up while they struggled trying to climb, then running back up to safety, rinse and repeat. Most of the time I take the 4 x ShKAS armament because I can't quite aim the ShVAKs well enough to make the hits count (same for the Spitfire's Hispanos, which I am destined to struggle with sooner or later).

 

The I-16 is one of the few planes with which going balls-in through a furball becomes a viable alternative.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

With its roll rate and general nimbleness, I find that when flying the I-16 you are 99% at fault if the enemy lands even a single bullet on you. If you keep the speed high and take the opportunities to climb, the visibility helps you see the enemy at all times so it's easy to time the evasive and hit back with a counter-attack when they overshoot.  

It's always big words, but reality is that for the most time you fight more than one opponent and that means you have to divide attention to more than one opponent. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I definitely agree, but the visibility makes it easier.

 

All in all it's obviously not a modern weapon in its core because it performs best when under attack, which is a pretty dangerous and in many ways passive way to fight. No wonder the Soviet military moved onto Yaks, Lavochkins and Airacobras as soon as it could, but in a flight simulator environment where killing and dying are means of entertainment it has value.

 

I'm looking forward to pitting the Ishak against the Midway Japanese fighters, it should be extremely tough but exciting.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Oh well, its hard for the most part. Soviet aircraft dont offer such comfortable ways of exiting combat, you can just pull and climb away. But Lagg/La-5 offer good roll rate and firepower, Yak-1 overall performance. MiG-3 is a killer, though I have yet learn to fly it. 

Only P-40 is Pityhawk  

 

I dont know the feeling, but know many pilots who complained about enclosed canopies. Complained a lot as it limited their visibility and head movement. In some cases (like I-16 or A5M) it led to removal of enclosed canopy in favor of windscreen only. 

[Monostripezebra]

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Go balls deep and take Red "camo" ... if it can be called camo

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The broken doors on both aircraft add a nice touch to it.

[Feathered_IV]

The broken doors on both aircraft add a nice touch to it.

 

[Brano]

With the side doors ripped off it looks like racing car of 1930s :D

[Monostripezebra]

true I-16 fans need elbow-room

[Cybermat47]

Every time I cold start an I-16, I think to myself "wow, this thing has doors?!", because I forget every time

[Asgar]

Dito

[Bando]

So THAT'S the sound I hear every single time I take this plane up to speed.

I could not figure out what it was.

 

Note to self:

Close them freaking doors!!!!!