Polikarpov I-16. Decent enough, or just crap ?

I´m afraid I have always written the I-16 off as something obsolete and completely sub-standard. But was it really that bad ? Compared to other fighters in service in 1941.

 

I personally think it was a decent enough design, but that is considering it up against anything older than itself. It was supposed to be the first of a new generation, the low-wing monoplane fighter the Soviets lacked; when compared to other planes of that specification it falls drastically short. Especially when you put it up against fighters like the Spitfire and Me109, and by 1941 even the Fw190, it is dead meat.

As long as it had to fight only cheaper, older things, it was decent...

 

Well, in a dogfight, it did ok, but in terms of performance figures, lke speed, climb, etc - nope.

 

When if first entered service it was an extremely advanced aircraft-its appearance came as a much of a surprise to Western observers-t as the appearance of the MIG 15 over Korea would many years later. It was the first low wing monoplane fighter with retraftable undercarriage to enter service anywhere . in the world. The prototype was powered by a 450 hp engiine and had a max.speed of 234 mph.-the same as that of the Boeing P-26 which would enter service with the U.S.AC in 1934 , superior to that of the Bristol Bulldog, or the Hawker "Fury", bearing in mind that the I-16's prototype employed a 450 hp. motor, the same as the Buldog, v. a 600 hp. for he Boeing and a700 hp for the Spanish "Fury".-The second prototype, which employed a 712 Wright R-1820F3 "Cyclone" had a max. speed of 272 mph and the Type 6 which would see action in the Civil War was powered by a 730 hp M25, a Russian copy of the "Cyclone" and a maximum seed of 283 mph-When one takes into consideration the fact that the BF 109 E1 which the I-16" Rata" battled in Sopain in 1938 had a top speed of 290 mph , one realizes just how advanced for its day this stubby little fighter really was. In Spain, the Russian advisors and the Spanish pilots who were trained in the USSR employed the wrong tactics. Although the "Rata" was a pilot's airplane in every respect; it was not as maneuvrable as the Fiat CR.32 employed by the Nationals. Instead of employing the fighter's superior speed to their advantage, as USAAC and USN navy fliers would do with the "Zero" in the Pacific, Spanish Republican pilots tried to dogfight the CR.32 and invariably came in short. The I-16 was a superlative aircraft for its time, but l would say that by 1939 it was obsolescent, and technically not as complete as its Western counterparts...

 

I really have very little to add to that, just to reiterate really that the I-16 wasn't a bad plane, it was just obsolescent by the time of Barbarossa.

The only thing I've picked up from my books that hasn't been mentioned is that whilst it did feature retractable undercarriage, that undercarriage had to be hand cranked by pumping a handle in the cockpit around 100 times! It also apparently could be a bit tricky to fly as the short fuselage gave poor lateral stability, especially a tendency to swing on take off.

Aside from that at it's service entry it was fast, tough, heavily armed and all in all a pretty good performer, and against many aircraft in frontline service in 1939 it still compared reasonably favourably.

 

Oh yes! an article in one of William Green's magazines (l think it was the old "RAF Flying Review"!) included a description of the erratic take offs of these aircraft, due to the fact that the pilots had to hand-crank the undercarriage., thus the aircraft flew in a zig zag.. Good point..

 

I thought it was longitudinally unstable ?

Anyway, it was made like that on purpose. And this has actually been presented as an advantage and way ahead of its time. Another 50 years or so was to go by before this became common amongst aircraft designers ( there might be a reason for that though ).

 

I thought it was longitudinally unstable ?

You're right of course.....

 

Was it? because l have not come across any complaints in the rather abundant literature on the air war over Spain..

 

I always thought that plane looked halirius !

 

Im also surprised that it wasnt mentioned that these planes carried RS-82 missiles by 1939. In fact, these planes were one of the first to ever carry rockets.

20,000 of the I-16 planes were produced.

Sacaramouch, do you have any intel on the number of I-16s that served in Spain?

 

In WW1 some planes (Nieuports & Sopwith Pups, IIRC) were fitted with rockets to take on observation balloons. I'll post some pics when I get the chance...

 

That would be great Ricky!

 

Actually the RS-82 was a rocket, ( not a missile ) which reportedly had a high fragmentation head,,,

 

Definition of missile: A projectile that is propelled towards a target
My point is that a rocket is a missile

I never meant to say the RS-82 was in fact equipped with a 'smart' warhead

 

Definition of missile: A projectile that is propelled towards a target
My point is that a rocket is a missile


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, but that definition is somewhat misleading-because it also applies ito an arrow, a bullet or even a stone. or anything thrown in a general direction..which leads to confussion.. anyhow, you know am not trying to beat over the head over over this point-just trying to clarify. a point..

Regarding the number of Polikarpov I-16s in Spain -there were at at least 450 .Recent recent authorships claims i lower numbers, but they are in error. since they overlook many factors-The first serious research on the subject was donde by a Spanish author , Miguel Sanchis, who in the early 1950s wrote a well illustrated and well documemned book known as "Alas Rojas Sobre España" (Red Wings over Spain) -

Sanchis labored under certain disadvantages, as many documents were simply not available at the time, nevertheles, his researh was so meticulous that younger authors rightfully consider the book an incredibly accurate, pioneering work, even on the light of documents to which they access decades later.. .Those who have wrongfully claimed lower numbers do not take into consideration additional batches delivered, nor that the I-16 was also built under license in Spain in some quantity, and the fact that many Russian-built aircraft were assigned serial numers of other I-16s which had been previously destroyed in combat. or other causes in Spain :smok:
Best Regards!

 

Thanks!

 

I believe that the I-16 was one of the aircraft types slated for replacement when Barbarossa began; the Red Air Force got caught before they had time to bring in newer and better fighters. This obliged the Russian pilots to continue using the I-16 in combat, despite its being outmoded. BTW, "Rata", which means "rat", was the nickname given to the I-16 by those who flew against it; its own pilots called it the "Mosca", which means "fly".

 

"Mosca" (fly) was the name the Republicams gave to the I-16. Previously, Russian pilots called these stubby planes "Muschka", which means the same thing in their language The lack of information, bordering on ignorance Western nations had regarding Russian aviation is best described by thie following: when the I-16 appeared over Spain , unaware of their true identity they were dubbed " Boeing" . The I-15 was similarly referred to as "Curtiss", something which irked the Russian advisors to no end..However, when they introduced their twin engined SB-2s in Spain, they tried to hide their true origie by calling them "Martin"- There's an explanation here: Prior to the war, the Spanish AF had selected the Martin 139 (export version of the B-10) and acquired a pattern aircraft as well as a license. which was never taken up because of outbreak of the civil war.

 

That's interesting, since the B-10 was obsolete by the late 1930s.