what is the source? i'm 100% sure has not F in june. (Osprey Luftwaffe Fighters unit in Medit it's the source for conversion from september and 1 staffeln at time)
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I./JG 27 moved to Ain-el-Gazala from 21/April/41 and had some Fs on the books at that time.
I accept that they were not fully converted until much later in the year.
Steve
what is the source? i'm 100% sure has not F in june. (Osprey Luftwaffe Fighters unit in Medit it's the source for conversion from september and 1 staffeln at time)
1. First I think a Bf 110C1-4 could outrun and outdive the I-16 at any altitudes!
The Performance of the Bf 110C1-4 was at SL 440-465km/h and at altitude 4,5km 525-560km/h, also the Bf 110 was much faster in a dive.
First. Soviet Me-110C-4 ran from 442 km/h at SL to 525 km/h at height
I-16 "standard" Type 24 440 km/ at SL and 489 at height.
That mean Me-110 could not easily outrun the I-16 with M-63 up to 2700m height, first alt of recovery being ~ 2400m.
Secund. Considring much higher P/W nominal ratio of the I-16 1879/ 920-950 = 1.98 kg/hp (compare to the 109 K!!) even 1,71 for short runs, and poor one (3.2 kg/hp) for the 110, it could not even outdive the I-16 each time it lost speed for turning. (At 250 km/h Bf-110 was a good turner from NII-tests.) The acceleration gamma mainly depends on F/m relationship on first stages even downwards, and only later from weight.
That mean from 250 km/h speed I-16 would probably catch a Me-110 because it would reach ( about 400-500 km/h ?) in a shorten time than the ponderous german plane, and before the latter could invert the tendency of the speed growing gradient.
The Bf 110 had the edge and could outclass the Huricane MkI at the BoF and to my opinion the Hurricane was much better then the I-16.
As usual, your opinion is not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments. Some other opinions are:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hurricane-vs-bf-110-a-16112-2.html#post434308
Would you mind to explain ud the reasons that led your opinion to consider that the Hurricane was a better, even a much better plane than the I-16.
2. The Bf 109E performance at SL was 475-500km/h and at altitude 550-570km/h. We had this issue a while ago at this thread
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/dewoitone-520-question-32212-7.html
As for previous thread, the conclusion of this one is far from be done. I would ne back there soon. I keep 440 - 460 at SL.
The Bf 109E was much faster at any altitude as the I-16 it also could outclimb and outdive the I-16.
Even considering official german Flugzeugdatenblatt, i would't say that Bf-109 was much faster from 0 to 2700m alt, again.
About outclimb, i have serious doubts,
the I-16 type 18 was reaching 5000 m in 5.4 min,
the type 24 in 5.8,
type 28 in 5.55 min all at nominal regime.
It was 6.3 for the 109E at same conditions, 5.8 with 5 min forçage
I can't see why do you think that the 109E was able to outclimb the I-16.
Maybe your opinion again...
As usual, your opinion is not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments. Some other opinions are:
I can't see why do you think that the 109E was able to outclimb the I-16.
Maybe your opinion again...
Secund. Considring much higher P/W nominal ratio of the I-16 1879/ 920-950 = 1.98 kg/hp (compare to the 109 K !!)
Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109.[17] The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, or Emil, on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), the more streamlined Bf 109F Friedrich could hit 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.[17] 17.^ a b Drabkin 2007 p. 142.
First and foremost Hitler, Stalin and even Saddam Hussein are dead now. It's a chance that people are free to express their opinions.MY opinion is people are allowed to have opinions and woe be to him who can't accept that.
But saying that a Ford T is faster or not, than a Ferrari Testarossa is a matter of knowledge and physical quantities, not opinions.
Are you saying that the I-16 was better than the Bf 109K? Or is that just your...ummmm, opinion?
I only say that I-16 always had a very high P/W ratio, that was equalized or beaten by the 109 only 10 years later.
How do you explain this for a generic explanation on Wiki?
Polikarpov I-16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The wiki's I-16 reaches 525 km/h, not 450-470. If you think that wiki is the best of the sources after that, it may be only your own opinion...
Were there I-16 in 1918?Please tell us more about the amazing, wonderful, obviously superior to any other machine in the air from 1918 - 1952, trail-blazing I-16 Rata. I want to learn.
About how amazing, wonderful and obviously far superior was the I-16 Mosca to the Me-109 with the Jumo 210, you can always ask to Miguel Angel Sanz, leaving near Paris, ask him by phone/mail or read his book. Or to Andres Fierro Menu leaving in Madrid, if you're practicing spanish. By the way ask (specialy for DonL) to Fierro about I-16 vs Hurricane, since he flew both of them. Or read Mark Hannah's Tim Wallises articles and testimonials since you've overslept to ask directly to them.
I-16/M-25 was certainly outperformed by the 109/DB-601. I-16/M-62 and M-63 reduced the gap, and at low alts, ie east front conditions, the Rata as you called it, was not as much overclassed as you imagine in your prejudices and others clichés.
In fact, the important is not to have an opinion, but to see haw is it justified/argued.
Regards
I would say that there is no chance that the UK USA and France would align with Russia, Stalin was loathed by them. In which case the risk increases as the nations of Central and Eastern Europe align with Germany.
First. Soviet Me-110C-4 ran from 442 km/h at SL to 525 km/h at height
I-16 "standard" Type 24 440 km/ at SL and 489 at height.
That mean Me-110 could not easily outrun the I-16 with M-63 up to 2700m height, first alt of recovery being ~ 2400m.
Secund. Considring much higher P/W nominal ratio of the I-16 1879/ 920-950 = 1.98 kg/hp (compare to the 109 K !!) even 1,71 for short runs, and poor one (3.2 kg/hp) for the 110, it could not even outdive the I-16 each time it lost speed for turning. (At 250 km/h Bf-110 was a good turner from NII-tests.) The acceleration gamma mainly depends on F/m relationship on first stages even downwards, and only later from weight.
That mean from 250 km/h speed I-16 would probably catch a Me-110 because it would reach ( about 400-500 km/h ?) in a shorten time than the ponderous german plane, and before the latter could invert the tendency of the speed growing gradient.
As usual, your opinion is not sustainted by any convincing or "valuable" arguments. Some other opinions are:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aviation/aviation/aviation/avi...tml#post434308 (Hurricane vs.Bf-110)
In the smaller campaigns of the Phoney War it was well documented that kill ratio of Bf110's v Hurricanes was no worse than around 1:1, and the recent very well documented book "Battle of France Then and Now" gives individual a/c fates showing a Bf110 v Hurricane kill ratio around 2:1 in favor of the 110 in that larger campaign; and the 110's ratio v Spitfires of Fighter Command during the Battle of France (the British fighter contingent in France itself was all Hurricanes) was also > 1.
I would recommend getting and reading the book I mentioned, "Battle of France-Then and Now" by Peter Cromwell. Then you can see the level of detail he provides for all the AF's records.
The points you raised aren't so relevant, IMHO. With a book as detailed as Cromwell's, there's no reason to start with reports of total losses to all causes and try to figure out which ones might have been to air combat, Cromwell covers it case by case.
Same goes for counting stuff like shared victory claims, etc. The Cromwell books tells you when, where and how individual a/c were lost. Of course there is some ambiguity on a few losses, but I think the count I quoted is basically accurate. And anyone with any experience in counting losses in WWII (or other air wars, for that matter) knows that it's pointless to assess the success of fighters by counting what they claimed. So the fact that D 520 units claimed a certain kill ratio is by itself meaningless, likewise the claimed ratio's by Hurricanes or 109's in the France campaign. Although that said, the claims of the French units do not seem particularly excessive relative to actual German losses, as mentioned in the post above comparing the D 520 claims v 109's to the apparent actual 109 losses to 520's.
As others mentioned, German fighter unit and a/c records for this period of the war are typically pretty complete. Other books besides Cromwell's focusing on BoF, for example Brian Cull's "Twelve Days in May" which focuses on the RAF Hurricane units in the campaign combat by combat, give similar results to Cromwell as far as Hurricane v 109 (around 2:1 kill ratio in the 109's favor, similar to its results v the D 520).
It's faster at altitude and near the same at SL, better Service ceiling, more range, better gun plattform through the much better stability, dives faster, good turner!Would you mind to explain ud the reasons that led your opinion to consider that the Hurricane was a better, even a much better plane than the I-16.
As for previous thread, the conclusion of this one is far from be done. I would ne back there soon. I keep 440 - 460 at SL.
About outclimb, i have serious doubts,
the I-16 type 18 was reaching 5000 m in 5.4 min,
the type 24 in 5.8,
type 28 in 5.55 min all at nominal regime.
It was 6.3 for the 109E at same conditions, 5.8 with 5 min forçage
I can't see why do you think that the 109E was able to outclimb the I-16.
Maybe your opinion again...
Climb times to 4 km:
Bf 109 E 4.4 min, Spitfire 5 min, Hurricane 5.6 min, Curtiss 5.2 min.
Its main opponent in the sky of 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109. The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, or Emil, on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–470 km/h (279-291 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–570 km/h (347-353 mph), the more streamlined Bf 109F Friedrich could hit 600 km/h (372 mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for an eventual new attack. Meanwhile Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.
Orginal quotes from AlteaIn fact, the important is not to have an opinion, but to see haw is it justified/argued.
Soviet army and VVS were taken by surprise in 1941, exactly as americans in Pearl Harbour.
German archives are far from being complete, there are lacking some pages from war diaries and complete account with units diary losses-deliveries balance is not made.
False i think, they were practicing exactly the same mug's game as Stalin did. Just awaiting Hitler to be exhausted enaugh by war (on the opposite side), to plant him a masterful stab in the back, at opportune moment. Even appeasers like Chamberlain.
False i think, they were practicing exactly the same mug's game as Stalin did. Just awaiting Hitler to be exhausted enaugh by war (on the opposite side), to plant him a masterful stab in the back, at opportune moment. Even appeasers like Chamberlain.
And what about Churchill "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" ?
No doubt that in case of a major risk of collapse, the SU would have Lend Lease much faster than you image, especially if germans were to be near Bakoo's petrol oilfields, or Iran's boarder!
First and foremost Hitler, Stalin and even Saddam Hussein are dead now. It's a chance that people are free to express their opinions.
But not according to you. While you post all manner of YOUR opinion, you attack and make fun of others who express their opinion. Was that your point discussing the people you have hanging on your wall?
I only say that I-16 always had a very high P/W ratio, that was equalized or beaten by the 109 only 10 years later.
This is so ridiculus, I'm getting a stomache ache. The Bf 109 didn't beat the I-16 until 1943 - if at all????
The wiki's I-16 reaches 525 km/h, not 450-470. If you think that wiki is the best of the sources after that, it may be only your own opinion...
Heres a hint: When reading things, especially research (real important!) use a dictionary. Start with the word "generic".
Were there I-16 in 1918?
About how amazing, wonderful and obviously far superior was the I-16 Mosca to the Me-109 with the Jumo 210, you can always ask to Miguel Angel Sanz, leaving near Paris, ask him by phone/mail or read his book. Or to Andres Fierro Menu leaving in Madrid, if you're practicing spanish. By the way ask (specialy for DonL) to Fierro about I-16 vs Hurricane, since he flew both of them. Or read Mark Hannah's Tim Wallises articles and testimonials since you've overslept to ask directly to them.
I-16/M-25 was certainly outperformed by the 109/DB-601. I-16/M-62 and M-63 reduced the gap, and at low alts, ie east front conditions, the Rata as you called it, was not as much overclassed as you imagine in your prejudices and others clichés.In fact, the important is not to have an opinion, but to see haw is it justified/argued.
Regards
Can Japan make a move against Russia without oil from the US, or elsewhere ?
Either they have to do a radical about face in China, to reopen trade with America, or they have to take the oilfields in east Indoneasia, etc., which would open a Pacific war.
As much as the Japanese Army may have wanted and planned for a war with Russia, they knew they couldn't invade without a steady supply of oil.,
Of course with junior officers starting the conflict in China and Hitler at odds with his Army, such strategy is a remote possibility.
How about Hitler takes Western Europe, but stays away from Italy (as an ally), England and the US while sticking to the Mien Kampt scenario. Japan could be given the conquered European countries' colonies in the East for oil and other resources in return for a second Soviet front.