Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on August 01, 2009, 08:18:29 AM
-
Hello,
What is the climb rate for the new Brewester and I-16?
Thanks,
Slade
-
Hello,
What is the climb rate for the new Brewester and I-16?
Thanks,
Slade
It very much depends on altitude and weight. The easiest way to this if to go offline, take off and use Alt-X to set auto climb. Open E6B and monitor the sustained climb rate. Both climb well for their time period, with the I-16 being a bit better than the Brewster.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Messing around in the Brew the other day and set rate of climb to 2350 the IAS hovered around 100mph and the Brew climbed till I got bored... I think I stopped just shy of 20K. :aok
:salute
-
See Rule #4 (trolling)
-
ME-109 shot the I-16 out of the sky at such a high rate that even Joe Stalin ordered what was left of them out of front line service by the end of July of 1941.
Buahahahahahahaaha. Yeah, right.
I-16s were roughly 2/3 of whole VVS aerial strenght. Yup, they would surely take most of their planes out of operations.
Actually I-16s were flying in large numbers until late 1943, though there are reports of I-16s in front line operations until 1945 in VVS. Elsewhere some I-16s were flying until 1950s.
-
About half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943.
-
About half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943.
Only 240 I-16 were operational in the end of 1941, 75 in the end of 1942, 42 in the middle of 1943.
See Rule #4 (trolling)
Actually it was considering putting I-16 back into production due to urgent needs in fighter planes.
-
About half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943.
Rethink that one.
-
Only 240 I-16 were operational in the end of 1941, 75 in the end of 1942, 42 in the middle of 1943.
Actually it was considering putting I-16 back into production due to urgent needs in fighter planes.
"Operational" and "in service" are two very different definitions. The I-16 was put back into production in 1941 and was produced until 1942. In 1941 just over 2,000 I-16's were in service with the Soviet Air Force. More than 8,000 I-16s of all marks were produced in total. More than one and a half thousand of those were two-seater trainers that served until the 1950's. So I wouldn't say it is unreasonable to believe the claim that about half of the produced I-16s were still in service (at some point) in 1943.
-
Hmm... smells like a pen15 contest with little regard for actual information.
Yup - thats the smell, alright.
-
Here's Brewster's climb rate in AH tested with 50% fuel, zero fuel burn and highest power setting (950hp/104cmHg at sea level) available compared to the Finnish test flights with the BW-366 at continous power setting (850hp/93 cmHg at sea level) and 2300-2400kg flying weight:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Brewstercimbratejpg.jpg)
-
"Operational" and "in service" are two very different definitions. The I-16 was put back into production in 1941 and was produced until 1942. In 1941 just over 2,000 I-16's were in service with the Soviet Air Force. More than 8,000 I-16s of all marks were produced in total. More than one and a half thousand of those were two-seater trainers that served until the 1950's. So I wouldn't say it is unreasonable to believe the claim that about half of the produced I-16s were still in service (at some point) in 1943.
Actually 10,278 of all types of I-16 have been produced (please, see the table) , but the modern types were only I-16 Type 18, 24, 27, 28, 29 produced in 1939-41 with M-62 or M-63 engines. The total number of modern versions produced is 2,113 and the "hybrid" type of these versions is modelled in AH. You may also noticed that the production of I-16 was shutting down in 1941 as only 19 of Type 24 and 80 of Type 29 were built and the rest were Type-15 (Uti-4) two seater trainers. That is the reason why the operational (or as you wish "in service") numbers of I-16 reduced to 240 in the end of 1941 as I mentioned before. Sure I-16 played a significant role in 1941, but do not overestimate it as, for example, MiG-3 was produced in 3,000+ numbers in 1941. In 1942 the numbers of I-16 in service reduced to insignificant values and in 1943 the few squads which were still equiped with I-16 were re-equipped with new Yaks, LAs or P-39s.
(http://users.tpg.com.au/adslqurg/I-16_production.gif)
-
Just to clarify: "Operational" and "in service" are two different definitions. "Operational" mean the actual number of aircraft capable of being used operationally. In service includes aircraft grounded for various reasons like repairs or lack of fuel or simply stored in reserve. The Luftwaffe usually had hundreds of Me 262s in service at any point in time from late 1944 to early 1945, however at most 50 or so were operational at any one time.
-
Just to clarify: "Operational" and "in service" are two different definitions. "Operational" mean the actual number of aircraft capable of being used operationally. In service includes aircraft grounded for various reasons like repairs or lack of fuel or simply stored in reserve. The Luftwaffe usually had hundreds of Me 262s in service at any point in time from late 1944 to early 1945, however at most 50 or so were operational at any one time.
Yes, I understand your point. But it was me, who translated it from russian into english as "operational". In the book ("I-16 fighter plane" by Mikhail Maslov) it is written that the numbers of I-16 in squads reduced to 240 in the end of 1941. We can assume it's operational as further down it's written that approximately the same number of I-16 kept in squads up to the middle of 1942 as the losses were covered by the planes repaired/restored at workshops and delivered back to the squads. But to the end of 1942 only 75 I-16 left in squads and you can assume that at this point there were almost nothing left to repair/restore.
The example of Me-262 is not quite good due to the catastrophic situation in Germany and Luftwaffe in late 1944 - early1945 which was a main reason why it was hard to make squads operational especially if they were equipped with hi-tech jet planes.
It would be better to see, for example, how many Bf-109E left operational/in service in 1943.
-
It would be better to see, for example, how many Bf-109E left operational/in service in 1943.
If you care to wait a few hours until I get home, I can look this up in the applicable book.
-
The online comparison charts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php) have the I-16 and Brewster available. Just saying.
-
The online comparison charts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php) have the I-16 and Brewster available. Just saying.
Just note that this represents full internal fuel, something few will take for the Brewster. On the other hand, 100% fuel is essential for the I-16 if you want to fly out beyond visual range of the field you just left... ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
If you care to wait a few hours until I get home, I can look this up in the applicable book.
Surprisingly enough, it is rather tough to determine order of battle, by variant. Easily accessible information is lacking. Ill spend some more time on it tomorrow but, so far as I can tell, the last Emil's in operational, front-line service were with III/JG5, Luftflotte 5, in the Low Countries in mid-1942.
III/JG5 had a mixture of both 109E-7's and 109F's at that time. The serviceable 109's in that unit totaled 17. So, barring additional research, there appear to have been less than 17 Emil's deployed in mid-1942. I can find no accounts of the Emil's being deployed in 1943, at all. By 1943, in fact, most of the F model's had already been replaced by Gustavs; the sole remaining units flying a mixture of F's and G's, in mid-1943 were III/JG5 and IV/JG5, who appear to have been given the "upgrade snub" throughout the war.
Cliffsnotes: Bf-109E's in front-line service in 1943 = Zero.
EDIT: Widewing will be the one to confirm. :)
-
The online comparison charts (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php) have the I-16 and Brewster available. Just saying.
Thanks a lot Skuzzy! :) Didn't realize you had them up already!
Even though you got them up I had to do the test with 50% fuel as that corresponds to the conditions the manufacturer gave their specs and thus FiAF tested the plane with.
So my work wasn't all in vain :)
-
Surprisingly enough, it is rather tough to determine order of battle, by variant. Easily accessible information is lacking. Ill spend some more time on it tomorrow but, so far as I can tell, the last Emil's in operational, front-line service were with III/JG5, Luftflotte 5, in the Low Countries in mid-1942.
III/JG5 had a mixture of both 109E-7's and 109F's at that time. The serviceable 109's in that unit totaled 17. So, barring additional research, there appear to have been less than 17 Emil's deployed in mid-1942. I can find no accounts of the Emil's being deployed in 1943, at all.
Thanks for the info. Looks like Emils have gone even quicker than I-16s.
-
Aper, I'm not sure that comparison is valid either. The 109E may have been gone by 1943, but the 109 was not. In the case of the I-16 we're talking about the entire series, not just a specific sub-type. There may not be a completely valid comparison available.
-
Went back and reread what I saw on the I-16 in Russian Fighter Planes of WWII. It was the I-15 Biplane my mistake. However the I-16 is still inferior to even the 109-E4 and compares much closer to the P-40B.
-
Aper, I'm not sure that comparison is valid either. The 109E may have been gone by 1943, but the 109 was not. In the case of the I-16 we're talking about the entire series, not just a specific sub-type. There may not be a completely valid comparison available.
I disagree. Changes to the 109 throughout its service life were so drastic that I believe the distinction by variant is necessary.
Browsing through Wikipedia's article on the I-16, I dont see many huge changes by variant. By comparison, the 109E and 109K might as well be considered different aircraft. The only things they had in common were the fuselage and model designation.
I believe this is why so many 109's (and Spitfires, for that matter) are modeled in AH. The differences between the first production 109's and last war-time 109's are just as wide as the differences between the P-40B and P-51D.
-
Browsing through Wikipedia's article on the I-16, I dont see many huge changes by variant. By comparison, the 109E and 109K might as well be considered different aircraft.
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.
-
Aper, I'm not sure that comparison is valid either. The 109E may have been gone by 1943, but the 109 was not. In the case of the I-16 we're talking about the entire series, not just a specific sub-type. There may not be a completely valid comparison available.
From my point of view it's quite valid.
109E was in production approximately at the same time as late models of I-16 and approximately at the same time production of I-16 and Bf-109E was stopped. In two years both planes disappeared from the scene. If you want to take into consideration the earlier versions of I-16, you can assume that they disappeared earlier as well as earlier versions of Messerschmitt Bf-109B,C,D.
-
*dodges through the crapfest*
Just note that this represents full internal fuel, something few will take for the Brewster.
Actually, I've found 100% to be just about perfect. 75% cuts it a bit close. If this were WBIII, I'd probably take 85%.
-
Bf 109E production was not stopped. The production line was simply updated to the new Bf 109F model. The I-16 production line was stopped and had to be converted to something completely else. The change in production from 109E to F is more similar to the change in the I-16 production line from Type 4 to Type 5.
Btw. In your production table...
(http://users.tpg.com.au/adslqurg/I-16_production.gif)
...where is the Type 30 which was produced in 1941-42?
-
See Rule #4 (trolling)
To what data do you base these claims on?
-
Die Hard,
They were different generations of fighters though. As the Bf109 was just ramping up, the I-16 was at its useful end so comparing the Bf109E to the I-16-24 is reasonable as they are contemporaries.
-
It's a problem when you compare the end of production of one aircraft with the transition to a new model of another aircraft. In 1941 the 109E's were being replaced with newer F's, and and later G's, regardless whether they were still airworthy, while the I-16 had to be put back into production for two more years in 1941 and soldiered on until mid-1943. It is hardly a valid comparison in my opinion.
Bf 109E production switched to the F model between October 1940 and January 1941. 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?
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Strange then that so many online sources claim it was. Perhaps they are just copy and pasting the same bad info.
-
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.
-
Yes, that would be nice.
-
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.
-
Kettle, meet Pot.
-
Kettle, meet Pot.
Operational kettles in August 2009 exceed operational pots by approximately 142%.
Your comparison is invalid.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.