Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Cajunn on March 19, 2009, 03:57:03 AM

Title: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Cajunn on March 19, 2009, 03:57:03 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/I-16_Moscow.jpg/800px-I-16_Moscow.jpg)

Role    Fighter
Manufacturer    Polikarpov
First flight    30 December 1933 (TsKB-12)
Introduced    1934
Retired    1950s (Spanish State)
Primary user    Soviet Air Force
Produced    1934-1943
Number built    8,644



Specifications (I-16 Type 24)



General characteristics

    * Crew: One
    * Length: 6.13 m (20 ft 1 in)
    * Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
    * Height: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
    * Wing area: 14.5 m² (156.1 ft²)
    * Empty weight: 1,490 kg (3,285 lb)
    * Loaded weight: 1,941 kg (4,279 lb)
    * Max takeoff weight: 2,050 kg (4,519 lb)
    * Powerplant: 1× Shvetsov M-63 air-cooled radial engine, 820 kW (1,100 hp) driving a two-blade propeller

Performance

    * Maximum speed: 525 km/h (283 kn, 326 mph) at 3,000 m (9,845 ft)
    * Range: 700 km (378 nmi, 435 mi (with drop tanks))
    * Service ceiling: 9,700 m (31,825 ft)
    * Rate of climb: 14.7 m/s (2,900 ft/min)
    * Wing loading: 134 kg/m² (27 lb/ft²)
    * Power/mass: 346 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)
    * Time to altitude: 5.8 minutes to 5,000 m (16,405 ft)

Armament

    * 2 × fixed forward-firing 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in upper cowling
    * 2 × fixed forward-firing 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons in the wings
    * 6 × unguided RS-82 rockets or up to 500 kg (1,102 lb) of bombs

Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on March 19, 2009, 06:19:11 AM
People are going to ride you and tell you to do a search.

Me, ill just agree and say again, we need this plane and every other early war bird, before perks and "ubber" rides have any meaning.

period.  :salute
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Bruv119 on March 19, 2009, 06:29:32 AM
great little plane,  loads manufactured,  very long service record,  has 20 mm rounds,

a good fun rusky ride to compare with the spit 1 , hurri1, a6m2 and emil. Will be a good addition to the game IMO.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Ghosth on March 19, 2009, 06:48:00 AM
Would love to see all the early war birds. If we had a full stable EW arena might actually get some more use.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Scherf on March 19, 2009, 07:05:01 AM
+1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Slade on March 19, 2009, 07:16:00 AM
+ 1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Noir on March 19, 2009, 07:19:00 AM
that'd be fun !!! +1  :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: frank3 on March 19, 2009, 07:39:12 AM
They actually kept being produced untill '43?
I thought Polikarpov factories would have their hands full churning out more modern aircraft
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Easyscor on March 19, 2009, 09:03:24 AM
Yes please.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Anaxogoras on March 19, 2009, 09:27:55 AM
They actually kept being produced untill '43?
I thought Polikarpov factories would have their hands full churning out more modern aircraft

Quantity has its own quality.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Noir on March 19, 2009, 09:33:01 AM
Quantity has its own quality.

Yah I think they were basicly trying to field as much planes as they can, switching the polikarpov line to other aircraft models had a price measured in time.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Puck on March 19, 2009, 10:18:01 AM
плюс один
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: waystin2 on March 19, 2009, 10:30:47 AM
Two enthusiastic thumbs up for the I-16! :aok :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Anaxogoras on March 19, 2009, 10:35:44 AM
Aces High players seem to think that every pilot in the war got the best aircraft available not long after it entered service... Maybe that's because they tend to choose the best aircraft available in the arenas and rarely branch out.

Alongside the I-16, the VVS were still using aircraft like the I-153 well into late 1942.  The Yak-1 and LaGG-3 served alongside the La-7 and Yak-9U.

The use of obsolescent aircraft wasn't restricted to Russia.  For example, the P-39 was still in service in 1944; so was the P-40.

If you were a combat pilot in WWII, you might have been assigned one of these aircraft.  In fact, the odds are that you would not have been flying the latest and greatest, as the older types often made up a majority of available aircraft.

So, yes, bring on the I-16.  It's an absolute must for the early and mid-war planesets. :)
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Wmaker on March 19, 2009, 10:50:30 AM
Alongside the I-16, the VVS were still using aircraft like the I-153 well into late 1942.

FiAF met I-153s over the Gulf of Finland well into 1943 too. :)
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Anaxogoras on March 19, 2009, 11:27:17 AM
It doesn't surprise me, but I didn't want to overstate the case. ;)
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Wingnutt on March 19, 2009, 11:56:54 AM
looks like it belongs in a happy meal.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Ranger45 on March 19, 2009, 12:10:40 PM
I agree, they need to fill up the early war plane selection, this one, the IAR-80, the P-36 Hawk.  There is a whole list and we have plenty of late war rides.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Helm on March 19, 2009, 03:37:19 PM
As Captain Piccard would say:   ...."make it so" !!



Helm ...out
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Wmaker on March 19, 2009, 05:39:00 PM
Now that it looks like Brewster is coming. I really really would like to see the I-16 soon. They'd make very fun special event and AvA-setups.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Noir on March 19, 2009, 06:11:57 PM
looks like it belongs in a happy meal.
:rofl
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Cajunn on March 19, 2009, 06:14:51 PM
They claim that it was equal to the early model BF109's and it also seen action against the Zero's as China had some in the war against Japan.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Puck on March 19, 2009, 10:10:05 PM
They claim that it was equal to the early model BF109's and it also seen action against the Zero's as China had some in the war against Japan.

They claim it is faster than an F-22, turns better than a G-164B, and carries more firepower than an F/A-18E.

It is purdy though.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Tilt on March 20, 2009, 05:03:03 AM
The wierd thing is that looking at its rate of turn, size and general manouverability it would fare better in AH than it did historically.

The 20mm variants were by no means the most common.

However there are many accounts of combat between 109's (E & F's) where the I-16 constantly enabled the pilot to out manouvre the 109 but never had the speed to extend or disengage.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: frank3 on March 20, 2009, 07:31:13 AM
Just noticed something about its service-ceiling (31,825 ft), is this correct? It seems rather high for such a small fighter (small wings aswell).
And the pilot must've been coooold in that open cockpit at those alts :D
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Bruv119 on March 20, 2009, 08:31:01 AM
Just noticed something about its service-ceiling (31,825 ft), is this correct? It seems rather high for such a small fighter (small wings aswell).
And the pilot must've been coooold in that open cockpit at those alts :D

pffft   it was fine he had ample vodka.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: splitatom on March 20, 2009, 08:33:26 AM
People are going to ride you and tell you to do a search.

Me, ill just agree and say again, we need this plane and every other early war bird, before perks and "ubber" rides have any meaning.

period.  :salute
acualy i dont think this plane has been requested in a long time

great addition need a soviet early war plane
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Rich46yo on March 20, 2009, 08:50:39 AM
That would be fun, buzzing around in that little thing. Count my  :aok for the I-16.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Cajunn on March 20, 2009, 07:00:18 PM
Just noticed something about its service-ceiling (31,825 ft), is this correct? It seems rather high for such a small fighter (small wings aswell).
And the pilot must've been coooold in that open cockpit at those alts :D

I think what they were getting at was it could fly at that altitude, but I doubt it did as most of the pilots that flew the little fireball took off part of the canopy and I'm doubting it had oxygen.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Enker on March 21, 2009, 10:03:00 PM
Hmmm, didn't the I-16 have the flaperons? In IL-2, the flaps go down, as well as the ailerons, somewhat akin to the elevons on nowadays.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: texastc316 on March 22, 2009, 12:21:38 PM
another one I'd really like to see  :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: TonyJoey on March 22, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
+1 :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Dan216TH on March 24, 2009, 07:15:57 PM
+1 :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Bino on March 24, 2009, 08:54:20 PM
+1  :aok

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,217829.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,217829.0.html)

Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: ShrkBite on March 25, 2009, 10:27:25 PM
i dont know what this means but.....+1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Enker on March 26, 2009, 04:17:50 PM
Bring on the flaperons!

+1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: BaldEagl on March 26, 2009, 04:29:55 PM
Finally.  Someone else besides me who wants this.

 :aok
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: kilo2 on March 26, 2009, 11:54:13 PM
add it please looks weird but russian planes rock :rock
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on March 27, 2009, 12:23:43 AM
I would like this, however ya'll must understand the fuel is VERY limited. I-16 Type 24 only has 248 miles, 435 with Dt's. I-16 Type (1-18) only has 500.

So if you had the more speedy type 24's you would loose range, for speed and guns.


Most likely a close base defense fighter, would be hard pressed to take it to the enemy, and return home with a runing engine. But the lil sbo can turn on dimes.

muwaha, just remodel the Rv8 and add guns, done.  :lol
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Wmaker on April 02, 2009, 08:45:57 AM
Hmmm, didn't the I-16 have the flaperons? In IL-2, the flaps go down, as well as the ailerons, somewhat akin to the elevons on nowadays.

The early types had flaperons (or drooping ailerons). They were replaced with traditional split flaps from Type 10 onwards. When I-16 is going to be introduced in AH it's most likely that we are going to get one of the later variants.

I-16 in flight in an old soviet era film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYKD4oD49l4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYKD4oD49l4)

Nice snap rolls. :) Would be a fun plane to fly for sure.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Qrsu on April 02, 2009, 04:06:37 PM
+1!

Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: StokesAk on April 02, 2009, 04:28:53 PM
+1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Wmaker on April 02, 2009, 05:41:20 PM
They were replaced with traditional split flaps from Type 10 onwards.

Actually, I have to correct myself a bit. The flaps actually accompanied the drooping ailerons from Type 10 onwards, they didn't replace the them...until in the Type 24 (which is the one we are most likely getting) according to some sources.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Lukanian-7 on April 03, 2009, 03:56:40 PM
Dig it :aok

+1
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: kvuo75 on June 11, 2009, 02:33:41 AM
Worth the 2 month bump -- sue me  :D

at least the photo the OP posted is still showing :)
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: SmokinLoon on June 11, 2009, 05:50:08 PM
Good call.  The AH2 Gawds are smiling down upon you.   :aok   


 :D


It should be a fun little plane, kind of like the La5's little brother with its lack of range, good speed, good turn, and dual 20mm cannons. 

I'm curious as to what gv they are going to add.  Any bets as to if it is the M4A3 Sherman or perhaps the British Cromwell?
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Rich46yo on June 11, 2009, 06:30:54 PM
Quote
I'm curious as to what gv they are going to add.  Any bets as to if it is the M4A3 Sherman or perhaps the British Cromwell?

Possibly another HVY tank. A Break thru tank like the IS-2 (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/IS-2-44.jpg)

It would make sense, flesh out Soviet armor, balance the Tiger, and be hard to kill with IL-2s. Even the T-34 is hard to kill compared to other tanks with the 37mm guns of the IL-2. You have to come in and high angles and shoot one or two well placed salvos as a heavy trigger finger will only obscure the top armor you have to shoot thru.

I think the IS-2 would be a great addition. So would a tank destroyer.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: Cajunn on June 11, 2009, 06:55:38 PM
Possibly another HVY tank. A Break thru tank like the IS-2 (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/IS-2-44.jpg)

It would make sense, flesh out Soviet armor, balance the Tiger, and be hard to kill with IL-2s. Even the T-34 is hard to kill compared to other tanks with the 37mm guns of the IL-2. You have to come in and high angles and shoot one or two well placed salvos as a heavy trigger finger will only obscure the top armor you have to shoot thru.

I think the IS-2 would be a great addition. So would a tank destroyer.

I would really like to see the Panther, but any addition would be good!
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: texastc316 on June 11, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
my very uneducated guess would be a british tank, if any.
Title: Re: Polikarpov I-16
Post by: vonKrimm on June 11, 2009, 10:26:50 PM
my very uneducated guess would be a british tank, if any.

to respond to this hi-jack:

1) see my sig.

2) BT-5 or BT-7 would be nice too