login   |    register
World War II
Discuss WWII and the era directly before and after the war from 1935-1949.
Hosted by Rowan Baylis
REVIEW
Polikarpov I-16 Type 29
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,581 posts
AeroScale: 12,794 posts
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2007 - 09:41 AM UTC


Here's a First Look at Eduard's great little Type 29 - the last in the line of Polikarpov's stubby little fighter.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!
TedMamere
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2007 - 06:48 PM UTC
Hi Rowan!

Thanks for the review! The I-16 in Rumanian markings looks particularly nice...

Jean-Luc
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,581 posts
AeroScale: 12,794 posts
Posted: Monday, August 13, 2007 - 06:56 PM UTC

Quoted Text

... The I-16 in Rumanian markings looks particularly nice... Jean-Luc



Hi Jean-Luc

I agree - but, if I do build this for our VVS Campaign, I won't be able to use them. I'll probably go for "White 1" with the blue fin and mystery slogan.

All the best

Rowan
CaptainA
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Indiana, United States
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,116 posts
AeroScale: 2,269 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 05:55 AM UTC
I have never built, or even purchased one of the numerous I-16s. I always thought they looked kinda cool though.

So should I break down, buy one, and clear all my other ongoing projects to build one?
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,581 posts
AeroScale: 12,794 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 09:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I have never built, or even purchased one of the numerous I-16s. I always thought they looked kinda cool though.

So should I break down, buy one, and clear all my other ongoing projects to build one?



Hi Carl

They're great little kits - I thoroughly enjoyed building the original Type 10 release:







All the best

Rowan
betheyn
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#019
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: October 14, 2004
KitMaker: 4,560 posts
AeroScale: 2,225 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 11:42 PM UTC
Great review Rowan and I do like a couple of those camo schemes.
Now do I risk the wrath of the Beloved and go and buy one, after I promised her I wouldn't buy any for a while .
Andy
CaptainA
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Indiana, United States
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,116 posts
AeroScale: 2,269 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 11:46 PM UTC
Maybe next trip to the LHS.
Tarok
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Victoria, Australia
Joined: July 28, 2004
KitMaker: 10,889 posts
AeroScale: 174 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:02 AM UTC
Great review, Rowan. I agree with Jean-Luc, that Romanian scheme looks awesome.

QQ... why, in '42, were the Soviets still using a twin blade prop? Forgive my limited knowledge on the subject, but surely if they had changed to a 3 bladed variable pitch prop or even turbo-prop (were these around then?) they would have got the performance bonus they were looking for instead of making the aircraft lighter by removing half the armament?

Thanks again for a great review of a snappy looking lil' plane

Rudi
Merlin
Staff MemberSenior Editor
AEROSCALE
#017
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,581 posts
AeroScale: 12,794 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 02:42 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Great review, Rowan. I agree with Jean-Luc, that Romanian scheme looks awesome.

QQ... why, in '42, were the Soviets still using a twin blade prop? Forgive my limited knowledge on the subject, but surely if they had changed to a 3 bladed variable pitch prop or even turbo-prop (were these around then?) they would have got the performance bonus they were looking for instead of making the aircraft lighter by removing half the armament?

Thanks again for a great review of a snappy looking lil' plane

Rudi



Hi Rudi

I think the simple answer is that the I-16 had really reached the limits of its design potential. It was already hamstrung by critically short range - hence the fitting of external fuel tanks at last on the Type 29 - and a larger, thirstier engine would only have compounded the problem, along with all the redesign work needed to cope with shifting the weight of gravity etc.

There was actually an attempt to produce a totally new aircraft developed from the I-16. The I-180 featured a similar rear fuselage and wing, but a completely new front fuselage for a twin-row M-88 radial engine with a 3-bladed propeller. The aircraft was basically a killer; the first prototype crashed on its maiden flight and despite some further development, it was deemed far too dangerous to ever go into service.

An improved new design - the I-185 - followed and showed definite potential, but Polikarpov had fallen from favour with the Soviet authorities following his behaviour at the time of the I-180 crash and the I-185 never went into production.

All the best

Rowan