PDA

View Full Version : Questions on I-16's, props and Zveno combinations?



XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 07:32 AM
For the life of me, I haven't found any reference to I-16's or other Polikarpov fighter series aircraft using constant speed props. Could anyone shed any light on this? From what I've read, the AV-1 propeller replaced the earlier V-25 propeller on late production of the I-16 Type 10's. The AV-1 prop could be changed hydraulically by the pilot during the flight. The older V-25 prop could only change pitch while on the ground. The AV-1 was standard on later I-16's Type 18 (M62 engine & 4 x 7.62mgs), Type 24 (M63 engine, 4 x 7.62mgs), Type 27 (M62 engine, 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannon + 2 x 7.62mgs) & the Type 29 (M63 engine, 2? x 7.62mgs + 1 x 12.7mg + 6 x RS-82 rockets). Not complaining though, reckon it is balanced out by being unable to start a failed engine, using a dive. Also, with the expected release of the TB-3 and parasite fighter combinations. Which Zveno combination is being modelled. There were a number of them using various versions of TB-3 mother ships and I-5 (two on the tops of the wings) and I-16 Types 4 & 5, I-Z (underneath the wings) fighters. I'm assuming the "Zveno-6 SPB", the only combination used in combat, is the one being presented. If, as used by the 63rd Bomber and 32nd Fighter Regiments, during operations in 1941, will this mean that we we will see the TB-3-4AM-34RN carrying two I-16 Type 5's loaded with bombs under each wing? Regardles of what is used, will be awaiting it with anticipation and think it is good to see. Thanks in advance to any answers to my queries.

XyZspineZyX
07-13-2003, 07:32 AM
For the life of me, I haven't found any reference to I-16's or other Polikarpov fighter series aircraft using constant speed props. Could anyone shed any light on this? From what I've read, the AV-1 propeller replaced the earlier V-25 propeller on late production of the I-16 Type 10's. The AV-1 prop could be changed hydraulically by the pilot during the flight. The older V-25 prop could only change pitch while on the ground. The AV-1 was standard on later I-16's Type 18 (M62 engine & 4 x 7.62mgs), Type 24 (M63 engine, 4 x 7.62mgs), Type 27 (M62 engine, 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannon + 2 x 7.62mgs) & the Type 29 (M63 engine, 2? x 7.62mgs + 1 x 12.7mg + 6 x RS-82 rockets). Not complaining though, reckon it is balanced out by being unable to start a failed engine, using a dive. Also, with the expected release of the TB-3 and parasite fighter combinations. Which Zveno combination is being modelled. There were a number of them using various versions of TB-3 mother ships and I-5 (two on the tops of the wings) and I-16 Types 4 & 5, I-Z (underneath the wings) fighters. I'm assuming the "Zveno-6 SPB", the only combination used in combat, is the one being presented. If, as used by the 63rd Bomber and 32nd Fighter Regiments, during operations in 1941, will this mean that we we will see the TB-3-4AM-34RN carrying two I-16 Type 5's loaded with bombs under each wing? Regardles of what is used, will be awaiting it with anticipation and think it is good to see. Thanks in advance to any answers to my queries.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 01:44 PM
I liked the comment "starting a failed engine in a dive".

The I-16/I-153 's should have that ability in FB.

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 01:49 PM
First off, bump!

Hank_Himmler wrote:
the AV-1
- propeller replaced the earlier V-25 propeller on
- late production of the I-16 Type 10's.

The AV-1 prop
- could be changed hydraulically by the pilot during
- the flight.

So this is practically a fixed prop.

The older V-25 prop could only change
- pitch while on the ground.

And this is a variable one.

The AV-1 was standard on
- later I-16's Type 18 (M62 engine & 4 x 7.62mgs),
- Type 24 (M63 engine, 4 x 7.62mgs)...

<hr>A. S. Did the I-16 have a variable-pitch propeller?

N. G. On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VISh [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons, the capabilities of this system were rarely employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it.<hr>http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

hmm /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif . I also heard of a variable pitch prop on the I-16 that just got 2 settings. Maybe that's the AV-1. Could be "fixed" in the patch /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . But IIRC it was similar in the 109Es... but 3 settings. This would need some work, too.

Not complaining though, reckon it is
- balanced out by being unable to start a failed
- engine, using a dive.

wait for the patch /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also, with the expected
- release of the TB-3 and parasite fighter
- combinations. Which Zveno combination is being
- modelled. I'm assuming the
- "Zveno-6 SPB", the only combination used in combat,
- is the one being presented. If, as used by the 63rd
- Bomber and 32nd Fighter Regiments, during operations
- in 1941, will this mean that we we will see the
- TB-3-4AM-34RN carrying two I-16 Type 5's loaded with
- bombs under each wing?

I checked the screenshots in the Development Updates and found out that it must be AM-34RN engines /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif . BTW that TB-3 with 2 I-16 on is as fast as 275km/h or so on the deck. Hmm Type 5...


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%; filter:glow[color=#33CCFF, strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 02:42 PM
For some reason I would expect a realism based sim from Moscow made from piles of information to have this kind of thing correct from the start.

Killer versatile I-16's with special armor and structure. Then there is talk of the FW's made N00b by lowering the bar for a half degree or so of view that was there by documents and told no, won't happen. Everyone, Fly VVS and Be Happy.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 08:23 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
Then there is talk of the FW's made N00b
- by lowering the bar for a half degree or so of view
- that was there by documents and told no, won't
- happen. Everyone, Fly VVS and Be Happy.
-
-
- Neal

The fw190 whinners have good data but bad interpretated


"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
07-14-2003, 09:43 PM
Yes, the FW company don't know what 3 degrees is. Actually, I think Oleg stated 3,3.

Or maybe you don't know?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 11:22 AM
Thanks for the info Willey, much appreciated. I'm waiting to see what the patch brings. The I-16 Type 5 was one of the earlier versions, armed with 2 x 7.62mm ShKAS mgs and powered by a 710 hp M25 engine. Could do 457kph, so it was pretty much similar performance to later versions, although it suffered more at height. Also saw service in Spain and China. As for Zveno combinations, right now I'm looking at a picture of a TB-3-4M-17F with three I-5 biplanes on the wing. The article I'm reading mentions I-16's under the wings in addition to this load. The TB-3 takes off with the full load aboard, and can launch all and retrieve some in mid flight. Apparently in all their years of experimentation, they never had a serious accident or fatality! Wonder if our computer flyers will achieve the same results. Bye for now.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 01:34 PM
Re-joining the TB-3 must be c00l. It's something like hanging on a tanker in modern jets /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I like such things.


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%; filter:glow[color=#33CCFF, strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:26 PM
Yeah, I'll give a go, but will be sure to stack it initially. The I-16's will hook up similar to those US Sparrowhawk biplanes did to their airships between the wars. Absolutely no way to get those I-5's back on board the top of the TB-3's wings and fuselage. The ruskies gave up on mounting fighters on the top wing as they were more trouble than they were worth, what with the time taken to mount them and the occasional wheel bump into the TB's wings.

XyZspineZyX
07-15-2003, 02:29 PM
I-16's did not rejoin the TB-3 to the best I remember any article saying. There was a recapture trial (I think at least one time successful) but it was not done that way in practice during wartime. The whole reason for launch from the TB-3 was to get the I-16's aloft with bigger bombs than was possible on their own and to add range to the I-16's which was done. IIRC, the I-16's carried 250kg bombs and did destroy a very difficult bridge, maybe some other targets I don't know.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 11:43 AM
Yes WWMaxGunz, you are correct on that score, the I-16 Type 5's used at Constanta, Romainia on 1 August 1941, were released at about 40 kilometres from the target. They dive bombed shipping and attacked rail yards, then flew back to Odessa. In their next mission on the 3rd, they were released 15 kilometres from the same target. More attacks between the 10th and 13 August on the bridge over the Danube, at Cernavoda. Another attack at Constanta on the 17th. A mission on 18 September, destroyed the bridge over the Dnieper, near Zaporozhye. Also used in the Crimea in October, with the last mission on the 22nd of that month. From what I've read, the Zveno method was largely discontinued once longer ranged bombers became available. However, where precision was required, it was found that the I-16's could get results against bridges and the like, where Il-4's and Pe-2's had earlier failed. Guess, its akin to why the Ju87 was a better precision dive bomber, then the larger Ju88. Before the war, the hook on in midflight was used on the "Zveno-Aviamatka" project. The existing hooks on the two I-16 Type 5's were strengthened by two additional struts to the side of the canopy frame, for just this purpose. Like you said, this recovery method was never used in combat. On the first mission, the I-16's were fitted with specially built 95 litre drop tanks to get them back to their base at Evpatorija. Yes, they hit their targets and all got back safely.