I-16 fighter copied widely and early

tomo pauk · Jan 22, 2020

Main idea is that Polikarpov I-16 fighter gets copied (with or without licence agreement) by other countries, let's say before 1937. Of course, the countries will use, when possible, their engines, guns and radios on their copies. Possible counties might include Sweden, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Argentina, Siam, plus 'major' countries.
Who should be jumping at opportunity, who might get the most of it in least of time? Who should take notes and pass on opportunity? Changes for fighter development in 'major' countries? Useful modifications to the basic I-16 design?

Kevin J · Jan 22, 2020

Any decent designer would tell his boss that he could do something better. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

Snautzer01 · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
Any decent designer would tell his boss that he could do something better. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

The I-16 was when it came into service the best fighter around. So any decent designer would have been very interested. Big problem would be convincing the brass that bi plane era was over.

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

Snautzer01 said:
The I-16 was when it came into service the best fighter around. So any decent designer would have been very interested. Big problem would be convincing the brass that bi plane era was over.

We had the Vickers Jockey 1930
Vickers Jockey - Wikipedia with fixed undercarriage followed by the Vickers Venom 1936
Vickers Venom - Wikipedia
neither of which entered service.

swampyankee · Jan 23, 2020

A lot of those countries had pretty minuscule aviation industries; designing a successful leading-edge aircraft could be beyond their corporate skills.

Buying I-16s or buying a production license for them could be a better route.

Snautzer01 · Jan 23, 2020

tomo pauk said:
Main idea is that Polikarpov I-16 fighter gets copied (with or without licence agreement)

tomo pauk · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
Any decent designer would tell his boss that he could do something better. It doesn't happen. Sorry.

There is no jury that decided who was actaully a decent designer and who was not. Once past that, there was a lot of aircraft factories and/or countries that have had either no designers, or whose designers were 5 or 10 years behind the curve. So going with an aircraft that is as modern as it gets and that works can shave a lot of most precoius comodity - time.

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

tomo pauk said:
There is no jury that decided who was actaully a decent designer and who was not. Once past that, there was a lot of aircraft factories and/or countries that have had either no designers, or whose designers were 5 or 10 years behind the curve. So going with an aircraft that is as modern as it gets and that works can shave a lot of most precoius comodity - time.

By the mid 30's even the Japanese were producing decent designs. So tell me please just which countries do you have in mind? China went for the fixed wheels Hawk on 75, so obviously not them.

tomo pauk · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
So tell me please just which countries do you have in mind?
...

Really??

GrauGeist · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
So tell me please just which countries do you have in mind?

How about Sweden, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Argentina and Siam for starters?

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

GrauGeist said:
How about Sweden, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Hungary, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, Argentina and Siam for starters?

Netherlands has Fokker D. 21, so no.
Siam and Argentina, Hawk 75 fixed undercarriage, so no.
Czechoslovakia has Avia, so no.
Yugoslavia and Belgium, Hurricane, so no. Belgium, Renard too.
Romania PZL then IAR 80.
Norway, P-36.
Hungary and Sweden, Re 2000.
Switzerland and Spain Me 109.
Why go to the expense of copying, when you either have design teams, or the number you want is so small that the copying cost is too high.

tomo pauk · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
Netherlands has Fokker D. 21, so no.
Siam has Hawk 75 fixed undercarriage, so no.
Czechoslovakia has Avia, so no.

Fokker D.21 has a fixed U/C so it is a step behind the I-16, plus it is a lated design.
Hawk 75 with fixed U/C - same.
Avia biplane fighter - now that was a great fighter. Avia B-35 is too late, and has fixed U/C.

GrauGeist · Jan 23, 2020

I-16 first introduced into service in 1935.

The first of any Hawk 75 variants was first introduced into service in 1938.

The Fokker D.XXI was first introduced into service in 1938.

And we're talking about the I-16's revolutionary design for it's time...tossing any Avia out there before the B.35/B.135 is stepping backward. Besides, the B.35 was a prototype with 3 made, the B.135 (basically a B.35 with metal wings) only saw service with the Royal Bulgarian Air force starting in 1940.

And all three types listed above were all accepted at least three years after the I-16 was already in service

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

GrauGeist said:
I-16 first introduced into service in 1935.

The first of any Hawk 75 variants was first introduced into service in 1938.

The Fokker D.XXI was first introduced into service in 1938.

And we're talking about the I-16's revolutionary design for it's time...tossing any Avia out there before the B.35/B.135 is stepping backward. Besides, the B.35 was a prototype with 3 made, the B.135 (basically a B.35 with metal wings) only saw service with the Royal Bulgarian Air force starting in 1940.

And all three types listed above were all accepted at least three years after the I-16 was already in service

I'm not denying that the I-16 was innovative but for fighters slower than 300 mph, a loss of 9 mph is nothing compared to the gain in manoeuvrability and climb with the fixed undercarriage. How fast exactly were the first I-16 's? 20 mph faster than biplanes? Is that critical?

tomo pauk · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
I'm not denying that the I-16 was innovative but for fighters slower than 300 mph, a loss of 9 mph is nothing compared to the gain in manoeuvrability and climb with the fixed undercarriage. How fast exactly were the first I-16 's? 20 mph faster than biplanes? Is that critical?

Talk 30 mph faster than biplanes. If that does not sounds much, this is about the speed disadvantantage Hurricane had against Bf 109E, or Spitfire V vs. Fw 190s, or late Fw 190As vs. Tempest.

michaelmaltby · Jan 23, 2020

Soviet Volunteer Group - Wikipedia
Both the I-15 and I-16 were well combat proven

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

tomo pauk said:
Talk 30 mph faster than biplanes. If that does not sounds much, this is about the speed disadvantantage Hurricane had against Bf 109E, or Spitfire V vs. Fw 190s, or late Fw 190As vs. Tempest.

Polikarpov I-16
Read this. I don't think it was all that fast for its time.

GrauGeist · Jan 23, 2020

The IJN's KI-27 held air superiority until the I-16 appeared.

KI-27's max. speed was 290mph, the I-16's was 320mph - a difference of about 30mph...

Kevin J · Jan 23, 2020

tomo pauk said:
Talk 30 mph faster than biplanes. If that does not sounds much, this is about the speed disadvantantage Hurricane had against Bf 109E, or Spitfire V vs. Fw 190s, or late Fw 190As vs. Tempest.

The Hurricane I did not have a 30 mph speed disadvantage with the Bf 109E when using 100 octane fuel. The Bf 109E figures are for 1 minute with the radiator closed below 15000 ft the engine would overheat. The Hurricane I figures are for 5 minutes and it was faster below 15000 feet. The Hurricane II could compete in speed with the Bf 109E above 15000 feet.

tomo pauk · Jan 23, 2020

Kevin J said:
Polikarpov I-16
Read this. I don't think it was all that fast for its time.

Gloster Gladiator: 100 HP more with it's Mercury vs. I-16's M-25A or B engine, yet 20-25 mph slower. One wonders how much faster the I-16 would've been with 840 HP Mercury on board and closed canopy.
Avia B-534: 100 HP more, again 20-25 mph slower.

GrauGeist said:
The IJN's KI-27 held air superiority until the I-16 appeared.

KI-27's max. speed was 290mph, the I-16's was 320mph - a difference of about 30mph...

Dave - the 320 mph figure is on English-language Wikipedia. Soviets give max of 470 km/h (292 mph) for latest versions, powered by M63 engine.

Kevin J said:
The Hurricane I did not have a 30 mph speed disadvantage with the Bf 109E when using 100 octane fuel. The Bf 109E figures are for 1 minute with the radiator closed below 15000 ft the engine would overheat. The Hurricane I figures are for 5 minutes and it was faster below 15000 feet. The Hurricane II could compete in speed with the Bf 109E above 15000 feet.

Hurricane II received the world's best engine of 1940 to compete with Bf 109E, yet even the Hurricane II came in short by 20 mph.
Here is how it looked for the people in the know in May 1940: link. 30-40 mph disadvantage is stated - now we know why RAF went with Merlin XX engine on the Hurricane.

I-16 fighter copied widely and early

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Honourably banned

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Honourably banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Colonel

Banned

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Banned

Creator of Interesting Threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads