What was the worst Aircraft of WWII?

Originally Posted by bronzewhaler82

The Poles had a fighter called a PZL P.11 with a gull-wing design that they used against the Germans during the invasion - it was a pretty crappy fighter so the poles designed another fighter but because it was a 'secret' operation the only prototype was shot down by Polish AA guns cos they'd never seen one before and assumed it must have been a kraut - that has to rate among the silliest things to happen during wartime!

My point being the P.11 has to be one of the worst planes as with the Russian I-153 biplane (early design leading to Polikarpov I-16 a much better fighter!)

The I-153 was built after the I-16 and a more advanced aircraft. If FM are anything close in IL-2FB Sim, then I can tell you I-153 can do circles around the I-16 Rata.

[Crazy]

The I-153 can do circles around a lot of the early planes (Early=1939)

[bronzewhaler82]

Its true Biplanes are more manouvarable than monoplanes but that doesn't mean they are better - i'm sure an I-16 could make short work of the I-153

[kiwimac]

I-153



Technical details

Constructed by: Nikolai N Polikarpov.

Type: Single-seat fighter (15bis and 153 fighter-bomber).

Powerplant: (I-15) one 700 hp Svetsov M-25 (Wright "Cyclone"), (I-15bis) 750 hp M-25B, (I-153) 1 000 hp M-63, all nine-cylinder radial piston engines.

Dimensions: Span 9,13 m, (I-15bis) 10,21 m, (I-153) 10 m; length 6,29 m, (I-15bis) 6,33 m, (I-153) 6,17 m; height 2,92 m, (I-15bis) 3,0 m, (I-153) 2,82 m.

Weights: Empty 1 180 kg, (I-15bis) 1 305 kg, (I-153) 1 440 kg; maximum loaded 1 370-1 422 kg, (I-15bis) 1 900 kg, (I-153) 2 010 kg.

Performance: Maximum speed 360 km/h, (I-15bis) 370 km/h, (I-153) 430 km/h;
rate of climb some 765 m/min;
service ceiling 10 000 m, (I-15bis) 8 000 m, (I-153) 10 700 m;
range 720 km, (I-15bis) 450 km, (I-153) 480 km.

Armament: (I-15) four (sometimes two) 7,62 mm DA or SjKAS machine-guns in the fuselage; (I-15bis) same as the I-15 plus two 50 kg bombs or six RS-82 rocket projectiles; (I-153) same as the I-15 but with 75 kg bombs.

History: First flight (TsKB) October 1933, entered service in 1934, (I-15bis) entered service in 1937, (I-153) entered service in 1939.
Used by: Finland (captured Soviet aircraft), China, Soviet Union, Spain (both sides).

I-16



Technical details

Specifications (I-16 Type 24):
Engine: One 1,000-hp M-62 radial piston engine

Weight: Empty 1,475. kilos.,
Max Takeoff 2,060. kilos.

Wing Span: 8.9 ms.
Length: 6.088 ms.
Height: 2.17 ms.

Performance:

Maximum Speed at 3,048 ms: 490 Kph
Ceiling: 9,470 ms
Range: 600 kilometres

Armament:
Four 7.62-mm (0.3-inch) Sh KAS machine guns (Two in forward fuselage; two in wings)

Up to 200 kilos of bombs or six RS-82 rockets on underwing racks

Although the I-16 was faster, it was both less manouevrable and more unstable in flight. The I-153 seems to have carried the heavier armament so all things being equal perhaps the I-153 would have come out on top.

my 0.23c

Kiwimac

[cheddar cheese]

cool

[SINKA]

[bronzewhaler82]

The I-16 Unstable? is it true that it had a habit of stalling in flight but....i bet the I-153 wasn't stable enough to physically ram enemy aircraft out of the sky and remain airbourne itself...the I-16 could and did it was incredibly tough and stable

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's very true.................

[Archer]

Stability for aircraft doesn't mean how structurally sound/strong the airframe is. Its got to do with aerodynamic force acting on the plane and the likes and not being able to fly into another plane and continue flying.

Examples:
The SB2C Helldiver had unsatisfactory low-speed stability, it was unstable in high-speed dives, and

Each of the twelve Helldivers would carry a 1,000 pound bomb in the internal bomb bay, a 260 pound fragmentation bomb under one wing and a droppable wing tank under the other wing. The drop tank weighed substantially more than the 260 pounder so it was anticipated that the Helldivers might be a bit unstable on takeoff.

The P-51D had pretty bad directional stability when the spin was taken off of the B/C versions and a bubble canopy was added due to the lost keel area, so they put on a dorsal fin to provide for better directional stability.

And specific to the I-16:

The aircraft soon proved to be rather difficult to fly - it was almost unstable under all three axes, and had to be flown with ceaseless attention.

From http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/aircraft/i16.htm

In actual fact, the I-16 became quite unstable and required more attention from the pilot since it reacted to the slightest handling. Nevertheless, the I-16 boasted an excellent airspeed.

http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/I-16.htm

First some comments on planes involved in this conflict. The main Soviet fighters in Mongolia were Polikarpov I-152 biplane (I-15bis in Russian parlance) and Polikarpov I-16 Type 10 monoplane (better known as the Rata). According to "mutual support" doctrine the more agile biplanes had to engage enemy fighters so that monoplanes could simultaneously bust the bombers. You certainly wonder why it wasn't the other way round. The cause was in unstable flying characteristics of I-16--it simply could not hit anything smaller than a decent two-engined bomber. I'd like to quote the book Fighters of WW II edited by David Donald (Grange Books 1998, p 132): "Trying to bring guns to bear on another aircraft needed great skill and concentration... Any prolonged air combat, or tight turns, needed great skill and experience if the aircraft (I-16) was not to flick and spin." Such teamwork between mono- and biplanes had functioned in Spain and (not so well) in China, where biplane losses were already higher.

http://www.danford.net/nomon2.htm

Without knowing anything about the I-16, I would assume it was unstable if Google found many sites when the search words are "I-16 unstable", or else there's a very large misunderstanding.

[Hot Space]

Woman:



36-26-36

I'm in a silly mood today

Hot Space

[GermansRGeniuses]

yes i can tell...

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think we all can........................

[bronzewhaler82]

Archer i don't know enough about the I-16 to argue any further points, i'll bow to your superior knowledge on this one - i must admit i had heard the I-16 was a bitch to fly but i didn't know the extent of the problems it encountered - i shall sit corrected


cheers

[bronzewhaler82]

Just as a general point of interest - is it true that the reason the Americans so stubbornly insisted on daylight bombing raids was because they said that you could bomb better in daylight cos you could see the target? if thats true wouldn't the Norden bombsight have iradicated that problem? i heard it knew exacly where the target was gonna be as it took the aircrafts speed etc etc to calculate when they'd be over a target - and does anyone know where the expression "drop the bomb right in the pickle barrel" did they actually manage that or is it just a daft expression? Please don't tease me too harshly if i got it stupidly wrong! i don't know much about the subject

[Hot Space]

Originally Posted by GermansRGeniuses

yes i can tell...

Hot Space