Brew and I-16 Climb Rate

[humble]

My understanding is that Savonov continued to fly the I-16 occasionally until his death, normally on solo afternoon hops antagonizing germans by flying over there airfields. I'm constantly amazed at just how ignorant some folks are. The I-16, 239 (and Hawk75) were all very competitive for there time and very capable vs other early war fighters. Pilot skill and circumstance was normally the determining factor in air combat, especially during the 39-42 time frame. An excellent example is the success that VVS units had with lend lease planes. These were normally given to units with experienced pilots capable of exploiting the planes flight charateristics.

[Saurdaukar]

Browsing through Wikipedia you wouldn't. However...

109E w/DB 601: 1,100 hp
109K w/DB 605DC: 2,000 hp
Increase in power from E to K: 81%

I-16 Type 4 w/M-22: 480 hp
I-16 Type 30 w/M-63: 1,000 hp
Increase in power from Type 4 to 30: 108%


The time lines can't be compared, but the I-16's performance increased significantly over its service life. So did its weight and armament.

1.)  Your power rating on the M-63 engine is incorrect.  

2.)  You are comparing apples to oranges by citing the first production version of the I-16 and the fourth (beginning with the B model) production version of the 109.

-The first production I-16 was the Type 4.  It was fitted with the M-22 engine developing 480HP.
-The last production I-16 was the Type 30.  It was fitted with the M-63 engine developing 900HP, not 1,000HP.

-The first production Bf-109 was the B model.  It was fitted with a Jumo 210D developing 660HP.
-The last production Bf-109 was the K-4.  It was fitted with a DB605 developing 2,000HP.

The 108% power increase you are claiming for the I-16 is actually 87.5%.  Your figure is inflated by 20.5%.

The 81% power increase you are claiming for the 109 is actually 203%.  Your figure is deflated by 122%.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt by not rounding up, your net error (or 'gross' error - little finance humor for you) is 142%.

[Die Hard]

1. It is correct for the Type 30. Its engine was uprated.

2. The I-16 Type 4 and 109E were the first major production models. There were more I-16 Type 4's produced than Bf 109A, B and C's put together. However, you could argue for the 109D with the DB 600A engine of 960 hp.

[-aper-]

The I-16 was put back into production in 1941 and was produced until 1942. How is that a useful comparison when trying to determine the number of I-16's still in service in 1943?

I-16 was not put back into production in 1941. The main aircraft factory which produced I-16 was Factory N21 in N.Novgorod. In 1939 it received the order to switch production from I-16 to new Polikarpov's fighter I-180 but due to some very paticular problems with I-180 and M-88 engines it continued to build I-16 in 1940 and only a few I-180 were built. In October 1940 it was orderded to stop the I-180 program and I-16 production and start building LaGG-3. It was made in a pretty short period of time. In the end of January 1941 the first LaGG-3 was built and from this moment not a single I-16 went out of the gate of the factory. According to factory report they built 80 I-16 Type 29 and 256 Uti-4 trainers in January 1941 from parts already built in 1940.

The other aircraft factory N153 in Novosibirsk produced only 19 I-16 Type 24 and 404 Uti-4 trainers in 1941 and from the middle of 1941 was also switched to LaGG-3 production.

There was the third factory N458 in Rostov a former truck factory which was converted in 1939 into aircraft production. But they built only Uti-4 trainers: 356 in 1941 and 83 in 1942 after evacuation to Baku city.

There were no any other aircraft factories in Soviet Union that produced I-16.

...where is the Type 30 which was produced in 1941-42?

I-16 Type 30 has never existed. You might mixed it up with I-180 with M-88 engine or experemental Pashinin's fighter I-21 with M-105 engine.

[Die Hard]

Strange then that so many online sources claim it was. Perhaps they are just copy and pasting the same bad info.

[-aper-]

Strange then that so many online sources claim it was. Perhaps they are just copy and pasting the same bad info.

It would be nice then to see from these sources some more info about I-16 Type 30, some technical data, drawings, photos, production history etc.

[Die Hard]

Yes, that would be nice.

[Saurdaukar]

1. It is correct for the Type 30. Its engine was uprated.

2. The I-16 Type 4 and 109E were the first major production models. There were more I-16 Type 4's produced than Bf 109A, B and C's put together. However, you could argue for the 109D with the DB 600A engine of 960 hp.

1.  Source?
2.  Define "Major production models" please.

Or, alternatively, you can cease arguing for the sake of argument, which you seem to making a habit.

[Die Hard]

Kettle, meet Pot.

[Saurdaukar]

Kettle, meet Pot.

Operational kettles in August 2009 exceed operational pots by approximately 142%.

Your comparison is invalid.

[Die Hard]

You may bicker over the exact numbers all you want, but do you really deny that the I-16's performance increased significantly over its service life, as did its weight and armament?

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Granted the type 29 has less weapons than the 28, i would say false, upto those types "type 16" it was a increasement in power and weight"

So...yes and no.

[Die Hard]

First production model
Type 4 armament: Two machineguns.
Type 4 weight: 3,305 lbs.


Last production models (excluding the mythical Type 30)
The Type 28 and 29 were the last single-seat I-16s in production in 1940-41. The 28 was the fighter. The 29 was the fighter-bomber.

Type 28/29 armament: Two machine guns and two 20 mm cannons / two machine guns, one heavy machine gun, rockets and bombs.
Type 28/29 weight: ? /4,662 lbs.