"I-16 vs Bf-109s in SCW" Topic

Hi

A friend of mine and I were arguing the relative merits of the I-16 vs the Bf-109B during the SCW.

Per my understanding the I-16 faired petty well against the 109 during the period. Later versions of the 109 would knock the snott out an I-16 in 41, but in 36 the I-16 was a petty good fighter.

He has been playing around with CY6! SCW and breaks between the plane types, make the 109 much more powerful that I think it was historically. The 109 being rated at a B4 +2 R1 vs I-16 A3(-) +3 R0.

From what I have read the I-16 5 & 6 (SCW period) where only about 16 mph slower than a 109. Also nothing I have read gives me any indication of poor agility at speed.

BF-109 B-2 (with 3 lmgs) 298 mph.
I-16 (with 2 or 3 lmgs) 282 mph

So I was arguing the I-16 should be rated A4 +3 R0 (the early models had structural issues) and maybe the (-) factor, with climb and dive being inferior to the 109.

Can anyone point me to any sites or web pages that can confirm or deny this argument?

--Tom

As an avid CY6! player, I think his interpretation of the 109 B-2 is pretty spot on. Your argument for the Rata appears to be supported:

link

Hi

I can do the math, but I have no idea how that works in "Game speak" for these rules.

The I16 has a better initial turn radius, a slightly better sustained turn, climb and acceleration are close enough. It loses out in dive acceleration and ultimate dive speed. Has better guns and takes a LOT less damage.

The big maneuverability problem is that at both slow and high speed stall. It kills pilots in this venue. And it isn't predictable. It might, in a turn, suddenly stall and "tumble" on a line drawn from the outside stab tip through the inside wingtip (a characteristic it shares with the later P39). If it doesn't do it this way, it MIGHT snap inverted and spin inverted needing several thousand feet for even a great pilot to get out of it.

How his works in your rules, dunno.

Rocky

Hi Rocky

Seem like a push on guns, the Bf-109-2 had 3 lmgs, but the center gun overheated and jammed, while the I-16 5 had only 2 guns anyhow.

I had read that the I-16 was actually petty forgiving in a spin and recovered quite easily.

link

But was twitchy and could be put into a spin easily, with too much input on the controls.

But your assessment seems to confirm my take.

Just an FYI in CY6! example: B4+2 the first letter is sustained turn factor with A being tighter than B. The second digit is max speed in hexes, nominally 100 mph per, but my suggested rescaling for SCW @ 75 mph (for a better game when all planes are slow anyhow). the +X value is an abstracted agility of the plane reflecting yaw, pitch and roll rates. Higher rates, more agile. The (-) says at speed agility fall off.

Does any of your data show a fall off in agility at speed?

--Tom

Rocky where can you get Canvas Falcons?

Hi

Currently out of print. We did the layout on a specialzed page layout industrial engine and have to translate from that platform to current PC based stuff.

Agility at speed, tom is sort of backwards.

One issue with the I16 was that it was killing so many pilots in ordinary peacetime flying that the pilots went on strike! In SOVIET RUSSIA. At low speed, it would pitch up, drop a tip and spin in. The "solution" was to have the original test pilots show up at individual units and do a demo of "correct" flying trusting that no pilot would admit that another, even a test pilot, was his "better".

The problems were never fixed.

The 109s landing problem was simpler and not deadly. The DH leading edgs slots also gave a combat advantage. The short version is that with most planes, approach the limits of high speed stall, pull a little more AOA, and it goes. Most pilots NEVER pull as much G as they can in this situation. Like the 116, as one example, the spit would pitch inverted and spin some 5000' before recovery was possible. At low altitude, the spit got outturned by 109s because the 109 doesn't stall in this situation. Trying to pull more AOA, the slots pop out and nothing happens as far as pitch, and therefore, stall.

Agility really isn't quite the issue. So, i can toss out the details, but I won't try to address your game. I cannot imagine playing the 30s in 100mph increments. In essence all planes move 2!

Rocky

Rocky: I cannot imagine playing the 30s in 100mph increments. In essence all planes move 2!

I agree. Some Mustangs players addressed that problem by changing the game scale from '1 speed point = 100 mph' to '1 speed point = 100 kph'. That gave more granularity wrt speed comparisons, but still left the 1930s planes severely under-armed in terms of a game design that was optimized for 1944 air combat. I may try boosting firepower the next time I fool with that design.

Hi

We fly KOREA in 30mph increments, I cannot imagine 62mph increments for the 30s either, now everyone moves 3 or 4!

Rocky

Rocky, Mustangs is balanced so that planes with speed of 3 or 4 give a good game, but 2 is too slow. I'm just getting started at CY6, don't have an informed opinion about those rules yet.

I've tried Mustangs and Messerschmitts a couple of times and thought it was a detailed flight simulation, but more work to play than I really like. It's a matter of personal taste. If I understood aircraft performance as thoroughly as you do, I might not be able to enjoy a simple fast-play game like Mustangs.

Hi

Our usual thursday night game from 7 to 10 plays two or three scenarios.

The "kill sheet" does all the work.

And the wheeled stands.

R

The 109B hadnt the quite the engine for the vertical fight and it hadnt the manouverability for the turning fight.
The later 109's were all over Ratas because they could slash in, take a squirt and climb out. Then rinse and repeat as the Rata flailed about below them.

Of course htere are now people who have flown I-16's – eg see link and much more interesting cmoparison was done here a few eyars ago – link

Basically in the SCW vs the 109B the I-16's were the better aeroplane – better climb, more manouvreable and tougher – although somewhat slower. Arguably the Condor Legion had better trained pilots and developed better tactics – link

However it should also be remembered that the aircraft were poles apart in terms of their development lives – the 109 was the fore-runner of "modern" low win fighters, while the I-16 was (IMO at least) the tail end ("ultimate evolution…)of a lot of WW1-era technology.

So the ability to improve the 2 designs was vastly different…as shown by their fates in WW2.