Frustrating.

[Irishratticus72]

I'm trying to win a 1v1, (full realism) flying a Donkey against an ace G6, I drag him down to the weeds, try to turn inside, snap reversals, I've tried everything, but can't get my nose on him long enough to put him down, I'm only using machine guns, no cannons. This is my white whale....... ?

Edited November 19, 2022 by Irishratticus72

[oc2209]

I feel your pain.

 

No, really. I just got my ass handed to me by a Spit V several times in a row.

[JimTM]

2 hours ago, Irishratticus72 said:

I'm trying to win a 1v1, (full realism) flying a Donkey against an ace G6, I drag him down to the weeds, try to turn inside, snap reversals, I've tried everything, but can't get my nose on him long enough to put him down, I'm only using machine guns, no cannons. This is my white whale....... ?

 

Have a look at the "Air Combat Guides" section of the IL-2 Sturmovik Resources post. Requiem's Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) Lessons are particularly valuable. Also, the last quarter of the "Aircraft and Vehicle Guides" section of the resources post will help you to understand the strengths and weaknesses of various planes.

Edited November 19, 2022 by JimTM

[Dragon1-1]

In case you don't feel like spending all day watching videos that never tell you exactly what you want, here's the thing: the 109 is fast. The I-16 is not. As such, the former can extend at will and there's not a damn thing you can do about it, short of killing it quickly, which is not doable with machine guns barring a lucky shot at the merge. Also, the G6 is somewhat heavy, but still has a massive power margin over an I-16, and if flown well, it'll control the fight. It's a late war German bird vs. an interwar Russian one. A 1:1 duel will definitely favor the former. No amount of BFM or gunnery videos will change that fact.

 

Nailing him with a 20mm cannon shot would probably be the only good way of dealing with it. Otherwise, the only way for an I-16 to defeat a G6 is for the latter to mess up, which the Ace AI generally doesn't do. IRL, you would very much like to avoid going up against superior aircraft in an I-16, and if you have to, you would want to have numerical superiority. The I-16, flown well, is a competent opponent for early war aircraft, but it gets left in the dust pretty quickly.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Is a Donkey an I-16? That's a new one for me.

 

There are some times where a 1v1 is just not going to be winnable. Especially with such a big disparity in performance. IMHO, if the goal is to practice for an online fight its rarely ever a 1v1... its nearly always going to feature other nearby elements. It's kind of a contrived situation. So, if you're doing it for the sake of 1v1, that's cool... some fights won't be winnable or easily doable without getting some lucky shot in.

[oc2209]

13 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Is a Donkey an I-16? That's a new one for me.

 

Yeah, I was slightly confused by the reference, but I pretended to be cool by not asking. I suspected he meant an I-16, though. Mainly because I couldn't think of another plane that would fit.

 

What I'm more curious about now, is if it was a G-6 Late for an opponent, or a regular G-6. In the former case, you could just evade him on the deck until his boost ran out, which would effectively turn him back into a regular G-6. But that would be tedious.

 

I tried against just a plain G-6:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It wasn't as difficult as I thought it'd be to lure the AI into a turn fight. My gunnery is laughable today, but I got him leaking enough that eventually he went down:

 

Spoiler

 

 

I was worried about the imminent tree collision, until I saw his sink rate.

 

Here's a close up of his damage:

 

Spoiler

 

 

The whole video would've taken ~13m, but I couldn't bear to upload that file size, hence the partitions. Between the radiator leaks and an oil leak, the G-6 was well and truly crippled long before he crashed; I could outrun him on continuous power, about 250 MPH. I ran out of ammo, though. I landed back at the nearest base (but accidentally bellied in because I forgot how long it took I-16 gear to descend), so if he wanted to strafe me, I was a sitting duck in the middle of the runway.

 

Also note how I nearly spin the I-16 into the ground on my first turn of the combat. Pulled too hard.

[FuriousMeow]

I-16 Ishak, or Donkey. At least according to wikipedia, and also vague memory.

[oc2209]

47 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

I-16 Ishak, or Donkey. At least according to wikipedia, and also vague memory.

 

Yeah, the Russian name. I'm sure I saw it in a book or five, but it didn't stick with me.

 

As nicknames go, I only know it as the Rata.

[oc2209]

Decided to test the AI in a manner similar to the I-16 versus a 109G-6. Because I'm a lousy I-16 pilot (if the AI hadn't served itself up to me on a platter, I wouldn't have been able to hit him at all), I decided to put myself in a 109F-4 versus a P-51B with the alternate engine, 50% fuel, and 150 octane with 81 inch manifold. I've done this matchup before, but not with the maximum fuel boost for the '51.

 

The AI can thus escape me at any time. In career, the AI seems smarter about exploiting speed advantages; possibly related to different behavior triggers based on our encounters never being 1v1 in career. In QMB, however, it squanders the advantage regularly. All you need to do, is bait him enough times to finally luck into an advantageous position (which also requires the AI to stay in a turn, rather than simply disengage immediately).

 

Spoiler

 

 

It also helps immensely that the AI is not turning the P-51 as tightly as it can turn in human hands.

[Eisenfaustus]

There are some configurations where I really struggle in qmb 1v1 ace ai:

in any P47 vs any 109

in fw 190 a8 vs spit ix 

in heavy fighters vs light Fighters (except p38)

[RossMarBow]

I-16 just isn't a very good plane

[Dragon1-1]

It was a very good plane... back in 1937. In 1941, it's been left in the dust. It still had its uses, but WWII was a time when four years were a lot in airplane design.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

109 should out turn rata but AI is not doing the best even in ACE level, rata should try force one circle.

If you are in tun fight, two circle fight , shift circle by unloading and force head on , try hit or dog and reverse.

AI overshot most attack making a mistake.

If you time good reversal you should have faster gun solution on AI. He can alsways extend and climb to attack you again. AI is not good in any scissors or staying in control zone (behind enemy 6 o clock). The ACE AI is not doing what the name ACE suggest. Remember speed is life altitude is life insurance. 

[Dragon1-1]

The problem is, AI will often extend away from you if it thinks it's a good idea. Speed is life, sure, but as I said, the 109 is more than a little faster than the I-16. Sure, if you can bait it into turning with you, you can win, but you basically have to go defensive and force an overshoot. The problem is the I-16's MGs, you need to hit the radiator or the pilot for them to do you any good in this situation.

[GasTeddy]

9 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

109 should out turn rata but AI is not doing the best even in ACE level,

 

In reality, Bf109 was able to outrun and outclimb I-16 with ease, but not to outturn it. Opinion based in tens of German and Finnish 109 pilots autobiographies.

[Trooper117]

I always found the best way to kill a 109 with the I-16 was to get it into a turn fight... it always worked with me.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

5 hours ago, GasTeddy said:

 

In reality, Bf109 was able to outrun and outclimb I-16 with ease, but not to outturn it. Opinion based in tens of German and Finnish 109 pilots autobiographies.

For sure outturn, 109 will win two circle turn fight, it will loose turn radius one circle fight.

Edited November 20, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[percydanvers]

That is a curious matchup. May I ask why you are trying to do this? I have a few white whales of my own so I can relate

[GasTeddy]

9 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

For sure outturn, 109 will win two circle turn fight, it will loose turn radius one circle fight.

 

The I-16 Type 5 was about 20 kph slower than the BF-109B (390 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL, 445 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), it had an inferior dive speed and early models suffered from wing structure failures during dives, although this was latter corrected (most I-16's the BF-109's confronted were latter production Type 5's and Type "6's") the I-16 remained a worse diver than the heavier and more aerodynamic BF-109's, the I-16 Type 5 had also a quite obtrusive cockpit (which is the reason why pilots usually flied with it open as well as because it's tendency to snap open when maneuvering) and a had more crude telescopic gunsight with a much smaller FOV than the BF-109's reflector sight, the BF-109's Jumo 210Da engine had a better performance than the I-16's M-25A at high attitude too.

 

The I-16-5 did however hold a few important advantages over the BF-109B, it had a noticeably better climb rate up to at least 5,000 meters (850 m/min to 3,000 meters and 701 m/min to 5,400 meters vs 612 m/min to an unspecified att), a better power-to-weight ratio (0,464 hp/kg vs 0,32 hp/kg both at combat weight), a lower wing-loading (103,7 kg/sqm vs 131 kg/sqm), had a better roll rate, was an overall smaller target and it's radial engine was overall sturdier than the BF-109's in-line.

 

Armament was comparable, the BF-109 carried more ammo and the I-16 had guns with a faster fire rate, the BF-109B was sometimes equipped with a third MG-17 that fired through the propeller hub but it was unreliable and sometimes damaged the engine, the I-16 guns sometimes suffered from jamming problems and sometimes they froze when flying at high attitude, both problems were eventually fixed, the former by putting the Shkas machineguns upside down and the latter by pouring engine exhaust fumes via plumbing to the gun mounts, some I-16's were apparently fitted with a third Shkas machinegun under the engine cowling.

 

All in all it could be said that the BF-109 could disengage by diving away but so could the I-16 by climbing higher (particularly at low attitudes), if the BF-109 dived away it would have a harder time climbing up to attitude again. The I-16 would also had an advantage in a horizontal fight while the BF-109 would had the advantage in a sustained vertical one, however in a short vertical engagement the superior power-to-weight ratio of the I-16-5 might be enough to keep up and/or catch up with the BF-109B (as combat experience showed, but that's another matter), also, pilots from both sides noted that, in general, the I-16 held most advantages over the BF-109 other than speed up to 3,000 meters while the BF-109 started to take the lead above that attitude.

 

The BF-109C was fitted with a slightly more powerful engine the Jumo 210Ga with direct injection which had an additional 20HP at take-off power and was also slightly more powerful at higher attitudes, it also had a superior armament, two over the cowling and two on the wings those changes however made the plane somewhat heavier, that meant that it was inferior to it's predecessor in most horizontal maneuvers while better at energy tactics due to it's better engine performance and slightly heavier weight, it also was slightly faster (420 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 470 kph vs 460-465 kph at best attitude). All in all it was the first BF-109 that had a better armament than "contemporary" I-16's (4 MG-17's vs 2 Shkas on Type 5 and 3 on Type "6"), and it held over them more or less the same exact advantages the B had, however only a handful (5?) were sent to Spain and shortly after they arrived the I-16 Type 10 made it to the front line (Early 1938).

 

Now the I-16 had regained armament parity with the best armed BF-109's (it carried 4 Shkas machineguns with a faster fire rate, but still a little bit less ammo) while it had received a more up to date reflector gunsight, a better structural integrity and a better climb rate and top speed than previous I-16's, now the difference of speed with the BF-109'Bs was narrowed even further (395 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 450-455 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), while they were not enough BF-109C's to replace them, so it's no coincidence that the arrival of the Type 10 was more or less coincident with an increase of BF-109's combat losses, only the introduction of the finger four tactics and more refined energy fighting tactics allowed the Condor Legion to still fight effectively, regardless by Mid 1938 the number of operational BF-109's was in it's lowest since the plane entered service in Spain.

 

Then the Condor Legion received a batch of 37 BF-109D's (Mid 1938) this model was designed to be able to mount with a much more powerful DB600Aa engine but due to the fact that this engine was scarce, it seems that most (if not all) BF-109D's sent to Spain were equipped with the same carbureted Jumo 210Da as the BF-109B's (although some of them may had been fitted with Jumo 210Ga’s as those used on the C variant), they were also considerably heavier and draggier than previous BF-109's and as such the top speed performance remained the same or slightly worse than the BF-109B, however the performance of the aircraft at high attitudes was still noticeably better than that of the I-16's which was to became the main asset of the Condor Legion from now on, at low attitudes they couldn't outclimb the I-16 and they could barely outrun them but up-high they hold a speed and even climb rate advantage as well as having enough space to dive away if they had to.

 

By September 1938 The Republicans had managed to illegally import several American built Wright - Cyclone SGR 1820 F-54 engines which were equipped with superchargers. This engine somewhat decreased the plane's performance at low alt but increased it by quite a big margin at high attitude, now the BF-109D's could still outrun (barely) but not outclimb the I-16 Type 10's with this engine even at high attitudes, it is unknown how many I-16's with this modification were built although it is thought that there were probably about a dozen, those modified planes cause a great deal of concern to the Condor Legion which saw them as a considerable threat, however they were too few of them and the Condor Legion still employed superior tactics and had overall more skilled pilots than the Republic did by that time.

 

By January-February 1939 a shipment of BF-109E's (around 40) was sent to Spain, by that time all major combat operations had ceased but they still were employed to strafe retiring enemy columns and airfields, the plane had a considerably superior top speed to the I-16's and previous BF-109's and was the first BF-109 that could outclimb them even at low attitude which left the I-16 with very few chances (like forcing the BF-109 in a horizontal turn fight), ironically, while I haven't managed to find any confirmed I-16 air victory over an Emil in Spain, there was at least one acknowledge loss by the Legion Condor to an I-15 whose pilot actually claimed to shot down two Emils during the engagement, but again that's another matter.

 

TL;DR Version: The BF-109 and the I-16 had, through most of the Spanish Civil War (until 1939) a comparable performance with one holding some advantages over the other that they could exploit to beat each other, however the Condor Legion had developed superior tactics and had overall better pilots. I also would add that it's pretty hard to compare the victory and loss claims done by both sides since they used a different system to classify combat losses and there was a significant case of over-claiming by both sides during the war."

 

During the Spanish Civil War the Aviazione Legionaria, the Condor Legion and the Nationalist Air Force claimed to shot dow around 450 I-15 combined... Which is a bigger number than the total of I-15 that were either built in or sent to Spain.

 

Bit later, when Operation Barbarossa was launched, contemporary 109 outclassed its Soviet opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and both in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. German pilots could hold the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for a new attack. Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.

 

Or maybe I'm just imaging things... 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by GasTeddy
Splelling msstakez... ;)

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

46 minutes ago, GasTeddy said:

 

The I-16 Type 5 was about 20 kph slower than the BF-109B (390 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL, 445 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), it had an inferior dive speed and early models suffered from wing structure failures during dives, although this was latter corrected (most I-16's the BF-109's confronted were latter production Type 5's and Type "6's") the I-16 remained a worse diver than the heavier and more aerodynamic BF-109's, the I-16 Type 5 had also a quite obtrusive cockpit (which is the reason why pilots usually flied with it open as well as because it's tendency to snap open when maneuvering) and a had more crude telescopic gunsight with a much smaller FOV than the BF-109's reflector sight, the BF-109's Jumo 210Da engine had a better performance than the I-16's M-25A at high attitude too.

 

The I-16-5 did however hold a few important advantages over the BF-109B, it had a noticeably better climb rate up to at least 5,000 meters (850 m/min to 3,000 meters and 701 m/min to 5,400 meters vs 612 m/min to an unspecified att), a better power-to-weight ratio (0,464 hp/kg vs 0,32 hp/kg both at combat weight), a lower wing-loading (103,7 kg/sqm vs 131 kg/sqm), had a better roll rate, was an overall smaller target and it's radial engine was overall sturdier than the BF-109's in-line.

 

Armament was comparable, the BF-109 carried more ammo and the I-16 had guns with a faster fire rate, the BF-109B was sometimes equipped with a third MG-17 that fired through the propeller hub but it was unreliable and sometimes damaged the engine, the I-16 guns sometimes suffered from jamming problems and sometimes they froze when flying at high attitude, both problems were eventually fixed, the former by putting the Shkas machineguns upside down and the latter by pouring engine exhaust fumes via plumbing to the gun mounts, some I-16's were apparently fitted with a third Shkas machinegun under the engine cowling.

 

All in all it could be said that the BF-109 could disengage by diving away but so could the I-16 by climbing higher (particularly at low attitudes), if the BF-109 dived away it would have a harder time climbing up to attitude again. The I-16 would also had an advantage in a horizontal fight while the BF-109 would had the advantage in a sustained vertical one, however in a short vertical engagement the superior power-to-weight ratio of the I-16-5 might be enough to keep up and/or catch up with the BF-109B (as combat experience showed, but that's another matter), also, pilots from both sides noted that, in general, the I-16 held most advantages over the BF-109 other than speed up to 3,000 meters while the BF-109 started to take the lead above that attitude.

 

The BF-109C was fitted with a slightly more powerful engine the Jumo 210Ga with direct injection which had an additional 20HP at take-off power and was also slightly more powerful at higher attitudes, it also had a superior armament, two over the cowling and two on the wings those changes however made the plane somewhat heavier, that meant that it was inferior to it's predecessor in most horizontal maneuvers while better at energy tactics due to it's better engine performance and slightly heavier weight, it also was slightly faster (420 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 470 kph vs 460-465 kph at best attitude). All in all it was the first BF-109 that had a better armament than "contemporary" I-16's (4 MG-17's vs 2 Shkas on Type 5 and 3 on Type "6"), and it held over them more or less the same exact advantages the B had, however only a handful (5?) were sent to Spain and shortly after they arrived the I-16 Type 10 made it to the front line (Early 1938).

 

Now the I-16 had regained armament parity with the best armed BF-109's (it carried 4 Shkas machineguns with a faster fire rate, but still a little bit less ammo) while it had received a more up to date reflector gunsight, a better structural integrity and a better climb rate and top speed than previous I-16's, now the difference of speed with the BF-109'Bs was narrowed even further (395 kph vs 405-410 kph at SL and 450-455 kph vs 460-465 kph best att), while they were not enough BF-109C's to replace them, so it's no coincidence that the arrival of the Type 10 was more or less coincident with an increase of BF-109's combat losses, only the introduction of the finger four tactics and more refined energy fighting tactics allowed the Condor Legion to still fight effectively, regardless by Mid 1938 the number of operational BF-109's was in it's lowest since the plane entered service in Spain.

 

Then the Condor Legion received a batch of 37 BF-109D's (Mid 1938) this model was designed to be able to mount with a much more powerful DB600Aa engine but due to the fact that this engine was scarce, it seems that most (if not all) BF-109D's sent to Spain were equipped with the same carbureted Jumo 210Da as the BF-109B's (although some of them may had been fitted with Jumo 210Ga’s as those used on the C variant), they were also considerably heavier and draggier than previous BF-109's and as such the top speed performance remained the same or slightly worse than the BF-109B, however the performance of the aircraft at high attitudes was still noticeably better than that of the I-16's which was to became the main asset of the Condor Legion from now on, at low attitudes they couldn't outclimb the I-16 and they could barely outrun them but up-high they hold a speed and even climb rate advantage as well as having enough space to dive away if they had to.

 

By September 1938 The Republicans had managed to illegally import several American built Wright - Cyclone SGR 1820 F-54 engines which were equipped with superchargers. This engine somewhat decreased the plane's performance at low alt but increased it by quite a big margin at high attitude, now the BF-109D's could still outrun (barely) but not outclimb the I-16 Type 10's with this engine even at high attitudes, it is unknown how many I-16's with this modification were built although it is thought that there were probably about a dozen, those modified planes cause a great deal of concern to the Condor Legion which saw them as a considerable threat, however they were too few of them and the Condor Legion still employed superior tactics and had overall more skilled pilots than the Republic did by that time.

 

By January-February 1939 a shipment of BF-109E's (around 40) was sent to Spain, by that time all major combat operations had ceased but they still were employed to strafe retiring enemy columns and airfields, the plane had a considerably superior top speed to the I-16's and previous BF-109's and was the first BF-109 that could outclimb them even at low attitude which left the I-16 with very few chances (like forcing the BF-109 in a horizontal turn fight), ironically, while I haven't managed to find any confirmed I-16 air victory over an Emil in Spain, there was at least one acknowledge loss by the Legion Condor to an I-15 whose pilot actually claimed to shot down two Emils during the engagement, but again that's another matter.

 

TL;DR Version: The BF-109 and the I-16 had, through most of the Spanish Civil War (until 1939) a comparable performance with one holding some advantages over the other that they could exploit to beat each other, however the Condor Legion had developed superior tactics and had overall better pilots. I also would add that it's pretty hard to compare the victory and loss claims done by both sides since they used a different system to classify combat losses and there was a significant case of over-claiming by both sides during the war."

 

During the Spanish Civil War the Aviazione Legionaria, the Condor Legion and the Nationalist Air Force claimed to shot dow around 450 I-15 combined... Which is a bigger number than the total of I-15 that were either built in or sent to Spain.

 

Bit later, when Operation Barbarossa was launched, contemporary 109 outclassed its Soviet opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and both in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. German pilots could hold the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for a new attack. Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.

 

Or maybe I'm just imaging things... 

 

Thanks, always good to learn some aviation history. You must know I was speaking about the game, types we use dogfighting each other. 

[GasTeddy]

6 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Thanks, always good to learn some aviation history. You must know I was speaking about the game, types we use dogfighting each other. 

 

Sure, you are welcome. I just wanted to point out how things were in real world during those days. Game is always a game and never 100% realistic. Some more, some less but never perfect.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, this is more or less what we're seeing. We have the F-2 and the E-7, both pretty much superior to the I-16 except for one circle performance, where the I-16's lighter weight works for it. Forming a defensive circle and baiting the 109s into turning with them is pretty much what the I-16's only option, other than bushwhacking the Germans while they're chasing something else.

 

IMO, it would be really interesting to see those early 109s duke it out with I-16s and I-15s over Spain. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

33 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 Forming a defensive circle and baiting the 109s into turning with them is pretty much what the I-16's only option, other than bushwhacking the Germans while they're chasing something else.

 

 

Yes , initial turn (break) will be tighter for i16 then when 109 try to follow, i16 pilot reverse and 109 mostly overshot , then i16 get into 109 control zone. But if 109 get into i16 circle , by good energy management,  and if  i16 try to out turn 109 it will loose turn rate fight. Trying pull harder to avoid 109 nose is lethal in i16, I saw i16 pilots do recognize loosing cues and  pull to hard , stalling the wing and spin.

[Dragon1-1]

Yes, although a multi-ship defensive circle will potentially address that, in that a 109 that manages to get into one I-16's circle with an energy advantage will expose itself to another I-16 while trying to get a shot at the first one. That said, if numbers are not a factor, a well flown 109 will typically take out the I-16, as long as it doesn't do anything dumb.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Defensive circle was used in WW1 , by two sitter pilots against german scouts,  never worked  well. Good 109 will fall from high, with speed advantage, attack and separate quickly. The commutation between i16  must be exceptional and knowing which target it pick is hard to predict in defensive circle. I16s need to  be close to have range to help. If 109 pilot do have tunnel vision and try to turn too much , this  mistake will cost. It's very hard to defense, attacker always has advantage.

[PB0_Roll]

Thing is, even ace AI is completey dumb in a 1 v 1, so as long as you don't allow her to shoot (because it shoots very well), it's quite easy to get the upper hand.

 

Get above her, dive on her, kill her.

 

Best way to achieve it is force her into a headon (that's you'll skilfully avoid at the latest instant), preferably from a slightly lower altitude so she's forced to dive on you. Never follow when she extends, build energy and force new headons if necessarry until you have enough potential energy to dive on her and get in guns range.

[DD_Arthur]

On 11/19/2022 at 8:31 PM, Irishratticus72 said:

 This is my white whale....... ?

 

When you're flying a bright red I16 in multiplayer, no one can hear you scream!!   

 

 

[Irishratticus72]

15 hours ago, percydanvers said:

That is a curious matchup. May I ask why you are trying to do this? I have a few white whales of my own so I can relate

Because, I could,  (not)

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

It's very hard to defense, attacker always has advantage.

Well, the circle gives them a better chance than any other tactic. That's all. If done right, a defensive circle can be effective, though it by no means compensates for the fact that the I-16 is a 30s plane trying to fight ones from the 40s. IRL, they took high casualties whenever German fighters managed to get into a fight with them.

 

AI can be fooled into a situation where the I-16 can kill it, even the G6, but that's purely because it's an AI and not a human. A human will know the basic facts about both aircraft and will simply fly in a way that the I-16 has no defense against. Human vs. human, the only chance the I-16 has is the 109 pilot making a mistake. It has to be a big mistake in order for the I-16 to be able to exploit it, because it has a weak engine, is draggy and, without mods, undergunned (with mods, superior gunnery is a way out, two 20mm cannons can kill a 109 even with a snapshot)

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

On 11/19/2022 at 3:31 PM, Irishratticus72 said:

I'm trying to win a 1v1, (full realism) flying a Donkey against an ace G6, I drag him down to the weeds, try to turn inside, snap reversals, I've tried everything, but can't get my nose on him long enough to put him down, I'm only using machine guns, no cannons. This is my white whale....... ?

No offense, but why should a Donkey defeat an ace in a G6? 

[Irishratticus72]

8 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

No offense, but why should a Donkey defeat an ace in a G6? 

It shouldn't, but then again, we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars.

[oc2209]

17 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

No offense, but why should a Donkey defeat an ace in a G6? 

 

For the same reason an Oscar could cause the death of Thomas McGuire, a 38-kill ace. Or how a P-51 could shoot down a 262.

 

10 minutes ago, Irishratticus72 said:

It shouldn't, but then again, we are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars.

 

Still no luck in baiting him into a turn fight?

[Dragon1-1]

52 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Or how a P-51 could shoot down a 262.

The P-51 wasn't as outclassed by the 262 as people seem to think. The only thing the 262 has is speed, the Mustang basically holds every other card. If the jet does anything but fly in a mostly straight line, it's easy prey, mostly a threat to bombers that can't dodge its shells (OTOH, flown right the 262 is pretty much invulnerable, so P-51s' victories usually happened on takeoff, landing, or on the ground). As for the Oscar, it was more comparable to a MiG-3 than to the I-16. Both Oscar and the MiG were undergunned, but still had areas where they could put their armament on target.

[oc2209]

4 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The P-51 wasn't as outclassed by the 262 as people seem to think. The only thing the 262 has is speed

 

Well, yeah, but that's true of pretty much any major mismatch in WWII. The faster plane was generally (I want to specify that, to avoid needless citations of exceptions) less agile in dogfighting terms than the slower plane, chiefly due to weight/wing loading.

 

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

As for the Oscar, it was more comparable to a MiG-3 than to the I-16. Both Oscar and the MiG were undergunned, but still had areas where they could put their armament on target.

 

MiG's top speed was near 400 MPH. On the deck, it was faster than an I-16 and almost as fast as an Oscar at their respective optimum altitudes.

 

So, no, I'm going to say the Oscar isn't remotely comparable to a MiG-3.

 

I would compare the Oscar more to the P-36 or the Hurricane. But for the purposes of this thread, an I-16 is close enough.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

Well, yeah, but that's true of pretty much any major mismatch in WWII. The faster plane was generally (I want to specify that, to avoid needless citations of exceptions) less agile in dogfighting terms than the slower plane, chiefly due to weight/wing loading.

There were other factors, though, such as roll rate, which the 190 could use to great effect. In most mismatches, fight could go either way depending on whether it went one or two circles. The 262 only had speed, it couldn't rate, it couldn't fight in radius, and it couldn't even roll worth a damn. Well, speed and firepower, if you account for its absolutely devastating four 30mm cannons in the nose. Although its opponents weren't exactly undergunned, either. The only way to win a dogfight with a 262 was to nail the opponent with a 30mm round to the face at the merge.

 

Either Oscar or Hurricane outperform the I-16 quite a bit, not to mention McGuire flew the P-38, which not exactly the G6, as far as dogfighting ability goes. Not a bad fighter, but still an early war design, far closer to the Oscar than the I-16 is to the G6.

[oc2209]

33 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

not to mention McGuire flew the P-38, which not exactly the G6, as far as dogfighting ability goes. Not a bad fighter, but still an early war design, far closer to the Oscar than the I-16 is to the G6.

 

Um... er...

 

P-38 has a top speed of over 400 MPH. About 85 MPH more than the Oscar.

 

I-16 can do 300 MPH, while a G-6 can do about 385.

 

The salient points of comparison are the same: a plane that's much, much faster than the opponent's, doesn't need to engage them at all. The faster plane can endlessly hit and run the slower plane when it does decide to engage.

 

Unless the faster plane's pilot makes a mistake that bleeds off too much speed. Then the slower plane actually has a handling advantage at low speeds, because it's almost certainly lighter.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

4 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

For the same reason an Oscar could cause the death of Thomas McGuire, a 38-kill ace. Or how a P-51 could shoot down a 262.

 

 

Still no luck in baiting him into a turn fight?

The p-51 isn't really all that inferior to an actual real-world 262, which is one stray API bullet away from bursting into flames.

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

The p-51 isn't really all that inferior to an actual real-world 262, which is one stray API bullet away from bursting into flames.

 

I don't recall saying the 262 was great and the P-51 was inferior. I wasn't trying to get into an argument on the relative qualities of both designs. Really don't care to recap the reasons why the 262's speed advantage was easily negated, which we already know if we know anything at all about the conditions it served under.

 

The point is that the 262 had a top speed significantly greater than the P-51, yet could still be shot down. That's it. The only reason I brought it up.

[Irishratticus72]

11 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

For the same reason an Oscar could cause the death of Thomas McGuire, a 38-kill ace. Or how a P-51 could shoot down a 262.

 

 

Still no luck in baiting him into a turn fight?

Nope, he just extends, and no matter how hard I beat the old beast, she just won't go any faster. Neither will the I-16.

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Unless the faster plane's pilot makes a mistake that bleeds off too much speed. Then the slower plane actually has a handling advantage at low speeds, because it's almost certainly lighter.

Speed is very useful, but it isn't everything. In particular, it doesn't help you with the "hit" part of "hit and run". You can't endlessly make your passes, for the simple fact you'll run out of fuel or ammo. Speed is also not I-16's only problem, it also has poor acceleration, unlike the other examples cited here. I-16 has no advantage there. In fact, aside from turn radius (not rate), the I-16 has no advantages over a G6.

 

Chances are, you'll have to turn at least a bit, since if you just fly in a straight line, you may get a few rounds up you tailpipe while extending, if you miss (unless you're in a 262, which can usually avoid that).

Edited November 22, 2022 by Dragon1-1