 | 
11-28-2004, 10:34 AM
|
#16 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | There we go 
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | 
|  | |
11-28-2004, 11:05 AM
|
#17 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country:  | no IL-2??
__________________ 
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
11-28-2004, 11:09 AM
|
#18 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Since when was it a fighter lanc....
JCS, you can edit your poll If you go up to the first post you should see the button "edit". If you click that you can edit your poll 
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-28-2004, 03:26 PM
|
#19 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass the I-16 was still the worlds first "modern" fighter, you can't deny that.......... | Nope. It was very innovative in 1934. But by 1936 when it went to battle in the Spanish civil war, it was about an equal match for the Italian C.R.32 byplane, and it was serously outclassed by the Bf-109. It never dominated the skies anywhere.
=S=
Lunatic | |
| | |
11-29-2004, 10:15 AM
|
#20 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | It was the first fighter with a retractable undercarriage, and just because it wasnt match for the 109's it doesnt mean it wasnt the worlds first modern fighter. The only reason It had little battle success is because there were no wars for it to fight in at the time, had it been actually fighting in 1934 it would have been far superior.
lanc statement IS correct, he never said it was the best.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-29-2004, 12:49 PM
|
#21 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | actually whilst technically the Bf-109 outclasses the I-16, the I-16 gave the german pilots such a shock as it was so much better than they expected that they were orderd not to fight them  .......................
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
11-29-2004, 02:15 PM
|
#22 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Yep, I find that hilarious
On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-29-2004, 02:49 PM
|
#23 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese It was the first fighter with a retractable undercarriage, and just because it wasnt match for the 109's it doesnt mean it wasnt the worlds first modern fighter. The only reason It had little battle success is because there were no wars for it to fight in at the time, had it been actually fighting in 1934 it would have been far superior.
lanc statement IS correct, he never said it was the best. | No argument there.
BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.
=S=
Lunatic | |
| | |
11-29-2004, 02:53 PM
|
#24 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Yep, I know
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-30-2004, 12:58 PM
|
#25 | | Master of Ewes
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 19,959
Country: | Quote: |
BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.
| did he say it wasn't?? if anything he said it was.............
__________________
"Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy." | |
| | |
11-30-2004, 02:14 PM
|
#26 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass Quote: |
BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.
| did he say it wasn't?? if anything he said it was............. | I just pointed it out because hand cranking was a significant and lengthy task. I don't think he mentioned it was hand cranked. | |
| | |
11-30-2004, 02:18 PM
|
#27 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese Yep, I find that hilarious
On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed | Last sentence
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-30-2004, 03:01 PM
|
#28 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese Quote: |
Originally Posted by cheddar cheese Yep, I find that hilarious
On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed | Last sentence | My bad. | |
| | |
12-16-2004, 09:23 PM
|
#29 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 46
| I-16 Type`s 28-29 in fact was equivalent of Bf-109E... 
p.s. LaGG-3 and La-7... 
__________________  | |
| | |
12-17-2004, 10:25 AM
|
#30 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | LaGG-3 
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 PM. | | |
