I-16 vs Brewster....vewy vewy interesting

[straffo]

Just claim you forgot to use the British version of the spell checker.  That one throws all manner of letters into words.   Seem to really like the letter "u".

or use the french spell checker :

Juste calmi sou forgeait tau use thé Brightisme version off thé s'épelle checkup.  Chat aune thrombus ball manne off lettres oint tords.   Stem tau rallye lie thé lettre "u".

good luck understanding that gibberish

[SmokinLoon]

Hmm... I'm liking this attention HTC is giving the EW period of time.   

By the pics, can any of you Soviet aircraft/I-16 guru's tell which "Type" is pictured?  If HTC goes with the most produced version, it will have  dual (or quad) .30 cal MG's and dual 20mm (Type 17).  The Type 18 was a wee bit faster due to a 2 stage turbo-charger and it also carried to small fuel DT, but much fewer were produced.

Evidently, its calling card (vs other EW fighters) was a fast roll rate, a very good turn rate, average at best speed, and a nasty stall in slow turns. 

[Motherland]

The AH I-16 is a late model hybrid that can be configured for all the armament options the various I-16 models had in real life and that includes the version with 20mm cannons. It can also carry the six rockets.

The I-16 had a mixed construction. The wing was of all metal construction, the centre section was metal skinned and the outer sections and tail surfaces were fabric covered. The fuselage was a wooden structure which was then ply skinned.

The real life I-16 was highly maneuverable, very sensitive to the controls and only marginally stable. So a ham fisted pilot could find himself in a spin very easily. It was also quite tricky to land and there were a lot of accidents when it was introduced.

[Wmaker]

By the pics, can any of you Soviet aircraft/I-16 guru's tell which "Type" is pictured? 

Not a guru of any kind, but it seems to be a Type 29, the last production model. Normal armament consisted of two rifle calibre 7.62mm ShKAS mgs on the top of the cowl and one 12.7mm Berezina in the chin position. Greebo said it'll be a bit of a hybrid and will have the 2*7.62mm + 2*20mm armament option aswell.

[TonyJoey]

I'd probably take the I-16, but not having flown either, I can't really say which one would win.

[Shane]

May want to check some of your founding fathers documents a lot of the letter U used in words back then.

yeah, but we changed U into US.

)

[frank3]

yeah, but we changed U into US.

Haha nice one

I'm all up for the I-16! That open cockpit makes it easier for me to bail

[Rich46yo]

I'd probably take the I-16, but not having flown either, I can't really say which one would win.

Heres my take on it, this being the FAF 239 VS the SAF I-16s. The 239 was not necessarily the better aircraft, or, better by much. The FAF pilots were far superior, as were the tactics they used. Remember in our pacific war we avoided turn fighting the zeros like a plague. Well so did the Finns in their 239s vs the Ratas. The I-16 had compression issues in a hot dive. This may not mean that much in a game like AH, where there is always a faster fighter that can dive with you and out run you. But in actual war this is a huge advantage. Even in the game the runstangs and FW-run90s make full use of their "dive and run" abilities. In real life such an edge means life. To be able to break off at will is a huge advantage. At this point its necessary to say that the FAF had one of the most aggressive Doctrines of the war. They almost always attacked regardless of the numerical disadvantage.

As was the longer legs of the 239s. BTW the FAF had a small number of I-16s and thought well of them. They liked the 239s better but still thought well of the Ratas.

As far as guns go I'd have to give the edge to the 239s. They all had a 4th Browning 0.50 installed and 4 Yanks 0.50s is a premium early war package I believe. Even after the Ratas were given heavier guns I dont think the Soviets guns could compare with the 0.50s, "which btw the Finns liked so much they copied for their own use". It didn't hurt that the Finns were terrific shooters either.

Add to all this the Soviets didn't personally like flying high. Dont ask me why. Either they just didn't like it, liked flying in the clouds, or just weren't allowed to. But when against any Yank jabo, when you run into them and they have a lot of Alt. on you?, your probably going to have a problem in the energy fight that follows. That is if the enemy is disciplined and stays within his performance envelope. The P-40s of The Flying Tigers were another example. They used their superior roll rates, better dive abilities, and longer range of their 0.50s to max advantage.

Also dont forget the Rata faced JAAF in 1939 at the Nomonhan Incident and gave a good account of itself. Its hard to get an accurate picture of the large air war that accompanied that battle, both nations very secretive and Japan destroyed almost all its military records in 1945, but the Soviets ended up controlling the air and the JAAF was seriously depleted from losses. No doubt there was more Soviet aviation talent at Nomonhan then on the Finnish front just as there was more army talent "Zhukov" assigned to defend the vital Siberian resources.

So my guess would be the better Pilot would win, one who used his planes strengths to full advantage. I think the Brewster vs I-16 Rata could be one of the great match ups of the game.

[DaveJ]

So my guess would be the better Pilot would win, one who used his planes strengths to full advantage.

This is such a brilliant analysis.

[Rich46yo]

This is such a brilliant analysis.

This is such a brilliant addition to the thread.

Typical.

[Furball]

Just claim you forgot to use the British version of the spell checker.  That one throws all manner of letters into words.   Seem to really like the letter "u".

Or the American lazy version, which just removes letters at random so that it is easier for yanks to type.

[frank3]

Or the American lazy version, which just removes BRAINCELLS at random so that it is easier for yanks to type.

Corrected

[gpwurzel]

Harsh Frank, harsh, but made this callsign laugh  (my wifes american, I'm entitled lol...)

Wurzel

[DB603]

S!

 Add to this that the I16's had no radios or they were removed. Some sources indicate the components were glued on a piece of cardboard. Needless to say they did not last long. Also, the Russian pilots seemed to be very unaware of gun convergence in the beginning, many Finnish pilots mention this in their memoirs. I wonder if the longitudinal instability of the I16 will be modelled, it had a tendency to become VERY unstable in a tight turn and spin out or control. Very interesting times ahead for sure

[Wmaker]

Remember in our pacific war we avoided turn fighting the zeros like a plague. Well so did the Finns in their 239s vs the Ratas.

While pendulum tactics were preferred, to say that Finns avoided turn fighting "like a plague" with Brewsters couldn't really be much farther from the truth. Many kills were scored in melees where the whole fight degenerated into an unorganized furball. Also there were plenty of instancies where Brewster engaged one vs one and simply out flew the I-16 in a knife fight and shot it down. In some cases where Brewster pilot engaged I-16 in a turning fight and couldn't gain on it in a turn and had to disengage and extend.

BTW the FAF had a small number of I-16s and thought well of them. They liked the 239s better but still thought well of the Ratas.

Heh, well first of all there were only two I-16s and one I-16UTI operated by FiAF and they weren't used as combat aircraft at all. Overall they saw very very little use. Other four I-16s were captured but by June '43 their refurbishment was discontinued. I think that says quite a lot on how the plane was regarded in FiAF. Therefore, I'm curious where did you get this info from?

I've seen very few references on what FiAF pilots thought about the I-16. Here's some experiences from Curtiss Hawk pilot Jarl Arnkil:

- How was I-16 to fly?
It wasn't that bad, but landing was a bit tricky. I don't know why, maybe it was our fault coming in too low. Of course we used a lot of throttle then. I remember when we flew the 16 in Parola. It was a small airfield. My cadet mate Strömberg was making an approach and he was gliding in low. He noticed that the runway would not be long enough and went around. Then he made another attempt... He tried four times and each time he came in lower over the trees. Then flight master Jääskeläinen came and said that his next attempt would end in a bonfire. There was a field at the end of the runway and we had had a bonfire there. He said that the plane would go into the old bonfire and that's exactly what happened. The plane turned upside down on top of the ash pile.

I don't know if the approaches should have been flown differently, but that's what the Russians did even with airliners. They come in really low with a lot of power, like that Tupolev 134. I got all sweaty just looking at what they did.

- How did the I-16 perform?
The fuselage was quite short, so it was fidgety of course. It didn't really "swim". You had to steer it all the time.

- If you had flown combat missions with it, how would've it been compared to our planes?
Compared to Curtiss, it was poor.

- What was the worst thing
The overall behavior, it felt like you had to force it to fly.

"which btw the Finns liked so much they copied for their own use".

The Lkk42 was actually much more than just a .50cal copy. It had a RoF of 1200r/min for example. That's quite an increase in RoF compared to the standard Browning at the time.

Add to all this the Soviets didn't personally like flying high. Dont ask me why. Either they just didn't like it, liked flying in the clouds, or just weren't allowed to.

Actually used the same altitudes as the Finns during normal sweeps. The normal altitude to cruise at was around 4000-5000m. In Ilmari Juutilainen's Double Fighter Knight the Soviets were once found at around 7000m and Brewsters climbed to them to engage. Brewster didn't usually fly that high unless they were escorting bombers on photo recon missions. Sometimes Soviets were found lower, sometimes higher than Brewsters, one can't really say that they flew particularly low compared to the Finns.