Interesting Find About I153

What's your grade in maths shiny metall ass with marks of a wet fart on it? Count again-> one inch=2.54cm, 12inches(1ft)=30.48cms hence 1m=3.28feet...
Even the underpowered Polish PZL P.11c (Bristol Mercury VI engine 630hp on takeoff) had a service ceiling of 8.000m=26.240ft so why wondering about a 1000hp monster-biplane?

 

this kind of discussions are soooo boring

btw, did i-15 have a 1000hp engine? world's crazy

 

@broz

1000hp A Shvetzov M-62 radial... a development of the M-25 (licencsed Wright Cyclone R-1820 33)-> supercharger changed, compression increased and also the octane number of fuel to prevent it from premature detonations and oops we have a 225hp more than the original engine (775->1000hp).

 

cool. Can that be made in my bike?

 

I have indeed flown red several times. I just tested the planes and did nothing to hamper the gold's war effort (loyalty there). In the course of my tests, I found that the I-153 and I-16 both had almost unlimited climb ability. Their maneuverability was also apparent. After my flights, I looked up the info to see if they are modeled reasonably; my conclusion: yes. Both the I-153 and later-model I-16's (later-model I-16's are the ones modeled in FH as the first I-16 came out in 1933 and was improved in the following years) were compact hot rods. By hot rods I mean that they were both sub 4500 lb (2050 kg) class aircraft with a 1000 hp engine. That is very good power loading, thus the great climb rate. Aeronautical engineers know that if you give a plane a more powerful engine, it does not significantly increase its level speed, but gives you a much better climb rate. Therefore, you can outrun the two Russian planes in an A6M but the I-153 and I-16 have power loading that is superior to the Japanese plane and allow them to outclimb the A6M. The turning of the I-16 seems to be modeled realistically as well. I-16 pilots had to be heavily trained how to use an I-16 because it was unstable in turns. This is evidenced on FH in the fact that you must turn an I-16 smoothly at a lower angle of attack to get a better turn rate or risk a snap spin.
There seem to be problems with the A6M's handling, though. Simple observation reveals ailerons that run almost the entire length of the wing. One would assume that rolling the plane would be very responsive and rapid. This is not the case on FH, however, and the control surfaces seem to be so rigid and stiff that it reminds me of when you turn the "Easy Flight" mode on in the setup panel. Even at low fuel levels and low speeds the A6M does not want to turn, and when you do turn it, it loses energy very quickly, especially in climbing turns. With its high-lift wing with very low wing loading, an A6M should turn like a dream. Instead, FH models it as a slow plane with terrible handling. I frequently find myself using trim tabs, elevator force and rudder to increase the plane's roll rate. American pilots exclaimed that you could fly a Zeke "with one finger" when they were evaluating a captured A6M2. On FH you must be very stiff with the controls to fly a Zero at all. This "easy flight" control problem is also evident in the Lagg-3, KI-44 and KI-43. You can't even turn fast enough to make one of these planes spin. Even with the stick pulled all the way back and the pilot "cheating" by holding down "k" for trim tab up, the plane will not turn fast enough to spin out, except at very low speeds.

 

you won't have enough money to fuel it

 

I don't mean to get into a thread that I really have no idea about...

But jesus-fucking-christ exec, calm the fuck down! They're just talking about a plane, everyone has their own opinions and you can't change that. You know just as well as I do that flipping out about nothing isn't going to do shit. You know the truth about it, just relish in the fact that you know better

 

Frog, I did say a meter is ABOUT 3 feet, I just dont care to waist my time to use a measuring system I dont use, I.E. I jumped off a 60 foot cliff today numorous times today, but do I care to convert that to meters? I think not, but America has been so generous to let us know that 3feet is close to 1 meter so we can say to ignorant pricks such as yourself "I jumped off a 20 meter cliff" and you could have a close enough Idea. I never complained of I15's speed, or even manooveribility, I SAID that its ridiculous that the thing can make it above 15k feet. Not to mention the early war rockets which regardless of given production dates I dont believe they were ever near that accurate. Infact Im sure they would be like the caseless 40mm munitions used on some variants of the ki44.

 

erlie rusion rocets are alot weeker slower and harder to aim the later american 8in havars. i almost never use rockets till fm2 comes out. becuse im use to aiming the havars and cant hit the weeker russions that u need to get a direct hit or 2 very near miss to kill an ack. on othet had ive seen pilots who can hit 1 trg per rocet without wasting any. its a patince dependnt skill really. some people cant land a rocket at all.

 

@allsop

60feet cliff is about 18.5 meters (and not 20-> I've jumped from such heights also so I know there's little difference between both... but You seam just boaring about it )... great jump but don't practice it too often cause I'm affraid Your shiny metal ass will get rusty after such practices And about I-153... 15kft is only 4700m (approx.) so it isn't ridiculous as it was the service celling of most WWI biplanes... and I153 was a 1937 design... (just to let You know- WWI ended wwith a cease fire on November 11th 1918).
BTW- I'm drunk again and happy with that fact too... bite my meaty muscled ass

 

Once again frog, you dont listen to word choice, just key phrases, I said "ABOUT" 20 meters, now rounding...you know how to do that right? Ok...18.5 meters is closer to 20 meters than 15 meters no? So the statement "about 20 meters" is accurate.....I rest youre case.

 

lol

 

lol

 

An amazing comment from someone who completely ignored someone's comment about 14km, construed it as 14k ft, proceeded to berate that person for their 'stupidity', then had the audacity to not even offer an apology for his mistake.



-glas-

 

Sorry mate but I really have to remind you something.
I don't exactly remember where I read it, but possibly you will find out

 

Lol!

Yeah I know, I really should heed my own advice some times

-glas-

 

Id say this thread is as good as dead, especially since the facts are ignored, especially on the "motherlands" craft. I dont ask for change, just acknoladgement. It will never happen.

 

Whats wrong with the 'motherlands' aircraft exactly.

The thread was raised by your friend who pointed out what he seen as problems with Russian aircraft but which, when he actually investigated the characteristics of those aircraft, found they were entirely correctly modelled.

What exactly is your point? Bearing in mind the post and title were in respect of the Chaika.....

-glas-

 

I think that squirl no longer wants to be assosiated with members of NMLS FB squad

 

And you're the only one who ignores all facts, so what's your point?
Do you have any facts to show?

airfax