Author Topic: Russian (Read 2653 times)

Sandman · « **on:** December 01, 2005, 05:56:33 PM »

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bnagy/houstonApr2002Pics/I16.jpg

Panzzer · « **Reply #1 on:** December 01, 2005, 07:20:50 PM »

Yes, please. I-16 "Rata" would be useful in early war Eastern front scenarios (heck, they were still in use in 1943).

Debonair · « **Reply #2 on:** December 02, 2005, 12:52:01 AM »

IIRC, Rata's were in active units until 1945, when that last I-16 group was converted to the P-63.
I remember finding this info when I was leaning about Kinga Cobras, so I'm not sure what they were doing with I-16s in 1945, I only cared about what happened afterwards. Maybe I-16 at that point was just an advance trainer.
They certainly weren't using them to run down 190s.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/George_Mellinger/soviet_order_of_battle.htm
888 IAP fighter regiment.

Karnak · « **Reply #3 on:** December 02, 2005, 01:29:27 AM »

I would like to see the I-16-21 added. It would make for a very different fighter experience. If I recall it was the last fighter intentionally designed to be unstable until the F-16, but of course the I-16 pilot had no computer to keep it under control.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #4 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:20:09 AM »

but a good pilot could make it turn on a dime with nine cents change.

frank3 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 02, 2005, 07:49:57 AM »

It seems like the I-16 must've been very fast? I mean, just look at the size of that engine! It's even bigger than the one being squeezed into the 190's!

SMIDSY · « **Reply #6 on:** December 02, 2005, 07:56:05 AM »

it was obsolete by the beginning of the war. it was slow by early war standards. but it was alarmingly fast for an open cockpit.

frank3 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 02, 2005, 08:02:23 AM »

I'd also think it would have an high torque, because the fuselage is so short

Or at least the pilots would experience trouble flying straight for long periods of times

croduh · « **Reply #8 on:** December 02, 2005, 08:10:08 AM »

Omg it's soo ugly!

frank3 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2005, 08:17:47 AM »

That's the Russian tactic, scare their enemy to death

Oleg · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2005, 08:22:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
It seems like the I-16 must've been very fast? I mean, just look at the size of that engine! It's even bigger than the one being squeezed into the 190's!

Actually I-16's engine has almost exactly same size (in diameter) as La5's engine and only slighter larger than 190's engine. It just looks so big because of small length of airplane (~6m) and lack of "smoothing".

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
I'd also think it would have an high torque, because the fuselage is so short
Or at least the pilots would experience trouble flying straight for long periods of times

Never read about any problems with torque.

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** December 02, 2005, 10:47:30 AM »

Remember, the I-16 entered service in 1932. It was a low wing monoplane with retractable landing gear.

Take a look at what the Americans, British, Germans, Italians or Japanese were putting into service in 1932. Fixed gear biplane fighters.

The I-16 was far ahead of it's time, but was obsolete by the time WWII started.

Still, the I-16-21 could do better than 300mph and has two 20mm cannon for armament. It would score some kills in AH.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 02, 2005, 11:04:28 AM »

Weren't I-16s used by the Chinese AF against the Japanese?

Also they were definately used in Spain against the Me109s of the Condor Legion.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #13 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:40:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frank3
That's the Russian tactic, scare their enemy to death

as opposed to the english, who would blind their enemies with luxury.

Krusty · « **Reply #14 on:** December 02, 2005, 04:43:48 PM »

No, the Brits just smile at the enemy, who recoil in terror at the dental hygene....