PDA

View Full Version : Brewster and I16 in FB and IRL



XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 01:43 PM
I think it would be really important to bring manual prop ctrl to i16:s if it didn't have that autopitch what it now has in FB. Also .50 cal mg:s SHOULD bring it down instead of just making a tingly sound. IRL finnish pilots shot I16:s down with brewsters but since u have the very stable, non-malfunctioning firing platform with auto pitch and plasma guns and extremely good E maintaining its a feat to do in FB. Then again in FB the Brewster is 50 km/h too slow on the deck and bleeds E if u sneeze. Also its funny trying to hit anything with it since it fires all over the place http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I dont know these planes real attributes but it seems I16 has more firepower, is more stable to shoot, conserves E better, turns tighter and is pretty much indestructible. If this is realistic then Russian pilots had to be the absolute worst in aviation history to lose so many planes against so few finnish brewsters. The official count with brewsters is 446 kills and 22 losses and the losses include those shot down by AAA... u do the math and tell me if brewster is correct in FB.. I-16 too for that matter. I think it should be possible to start it in midair.

Opinions/data anyone?

I just want it to be realistic.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 01:43 PM
I think it would be really important to bring manual prop ctrl to i16:s if it didn't have that autopitch what it now has in FB. Also .50 cal mg:s SHOULD bring it down instead of just making a tingly sound. IRL finnish pilots shot I16:s down with brewsters but since u have the very stable, non-malfunctioning firing platform with auto pitch and plasma guns and extremely good E maintaining its a feat to do in FB. Then again in FB the Brewster is 50 km/h too slow on the deck and bleeds E if u sneeze. Also its funny trying to hit anything with it since it fires all over the place http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I dont know these planes real attributes but it seems I16 has more firepower, is more stable to shoot, conserves E better, turns tighter and is pretty much indestructible. If this is realistic then Russian pilots had to be the absolute worst in aviation history to lose so many planes against so few finnish brewsters. The official count with brewsters is 446 kills and 22 losses and the losses include those shot down by AAA... u do the math and tell me if brewster is correct in FB.. I-16 too for that matter. I think it should be possible to start it in midair.

Opinions/data anyone?

I just want it to be realistic.

XyZspineZyX
07-16-2003, 02:02 PM
I'm sure Oleg is aware of this.. and should be addressed in the patch.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:05 AM
In campaing I usually kill 3-5 bf109s/mission (have not fought Brewsters (Im not on that front) in my i16 (realistic everything, cockpit on... etc) My squadron suffers very few casualities in the i16 to... Compared to the German side at least.

But few are lost to enemy aircrafts.
Some losses are rather funny-looking vertical landings by the AI... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Seems to be an I16 thing??)


With the Brewster I kill far less i16's (or anything) but one reason to that may be the fact that the finnish map is hardly playable on my PC http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Still, I do consider meeting an i16 in the Brewster an relative easy kill

I think it may be rate of fire that makes the i16 a bit superior??


***

And to restart an stopped engine in midair just use the autopilot on/off!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 01:51 AM
I don't have much trouble shooting with the Brewster. I can down a couple of I-16's each time out in campaign mode (if they don't latch onto me first). I agree that its sustained turn rate seems a bit low relative to the I-16's, and probably needs a bit of tweaking.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 03:12 AM
I-16s are tough opponents in FB, but I regularly shot them down in my Brewster in the offline Finnish campaign. Just get close and aim for the pilot or engine. The Brewster MGs are effective - I even sawed the wing off a Pe-8 once!

In FB it is not enough to just sit level on someone's six and spray MG fire. You have to close in, and take slight angles to pick out the weak points of the plane. Then things start happening for you.

Also, nothing can turn with an I-16, especially a Brewster that bleeds energy in sustained turns. So don't follow the I-16 all the way through its dives and turns. Stay high and pick attacks that keep your speed up. Force it down to the ground where it can't wriggle all the time. Then line it up and blast it from close range.

S! FourShades

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:05 AM
Thanks for the input guys but maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough: u will always win an ACE ai brewster with either version of I16 if u make a qm duel.
I took on 3 brewsters (all seasoned online pilots) with just me flying the i16. Brewsterpilots had teamspeak so they could even use team tactics and still I shot them all down. I retired away from their field and they got up again. I shot all three down again. We started with head on pass with equal E both runs with brewsters flying in formation so this is not a vulching story. So i killed 6 brewsters in one flight and this does not mean I am more skilled (i know those pilots and they shoot me down in df often.), I16 is just too easy and has only one weak spot and that is neg-g (which u can avoid easily with that rollrate) Brewster on the other hand suffers from several weak points as I mentioned in the first post.

IRL then again brewster was able to take I16:s on with very few losses and I suspect that either brewsters attributes are too weak or I16 is too strong. My guess is that brewster is modelled correctly more or less but the I16 is NOT correctly modelled.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 09:46 AM
It already known that the I-16 has a bug concerning small arms fire and will be addressed in the patch.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:41 AM
I take it u mean .50cal mg's "small arms" or how is this related? I've seen 12.7mm mg's and what they do at 100 meters, i wouldnt call them small arms /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It's also terribly hard to make pk to an i16 pilot, even thought 12.7mm does go through an armored seat in most cases.. it shields well from 7.62mm ammo though but the kinetic energy level of the bullet is WAY different. well hopefully we get the patch soon and see whats what. There are still several things in my thesis that i would like to have a second opinion on.. anyone?

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 11:23 AM
TurboPorsas wrote:
- My guess is that brewster is modelled
- correctly more or less but the I16 is NOT correctly
- modelled.
-
-

I agree. I-16 was unstable and very hard plane to fly. Its laboratory-like flight characteristics could have been something close what we see in game but in RL there was many other weaknesses in I-16 and I-153 which made these planes quite poor planes and easy to catch fire.

Or maybe russians were simply incredibly poor pilots/tactics.

----

UglyKid has made quite extensive research about BW vs I-16. You could try to find it from ORR if you are interested.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:02 PM
I agree with all of you, in that the I-16 is overmodelled and guess this will be addressed in the next patch. For the record though, in light of combat experience gained from the Spanish Civil War, the Soviets introduced a flat 8mm section of armour plate behind the back of the headrest, in all subsequent production of I-16's, starting with the Type 10 in January, 1938. This armour was sufficent to stop the 12.7mm Breda round used by the Italian CR.32 fighters. In my personal experience of fighting the Rata's using a Brester (15 kills in as many missions), is not to attack from directly behind, but allow a slight deflection of say 10 to 15 degrees and try for fueselage, or best of all, cockpit hits. Have also had success in concentrating fire on one part of the I-16's wing and blowing a portion of it off.
Best of luck.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:14 PM
TurboPorsas wrote:
- I take it u mean .50cal mg's "small arms" or how is
- this related? I've seen 12.7mm mg's and what they do
- at 100 meters, i wouldnt call them small arms /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif It's also terribly hard to make
- pk to an i16 pilot, even thought 12.7mm does go
- through an armored seat in most cases.. it shields
- well from 7.62mm ammo though but the kinetic energy
- level of the bullet is WAY different. well hopefully
- we get the patch soon and see whats what. There are
- still several things in my thesis that i would like
- to have a second opinion on.. anyone?

This subject has already been beaten to death several times.
I am 100% sure Oleg and Co are aware of it by now.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>