Polikarpow I-16

Discussion in 'Aircraft & Aviation' started by DN, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. DN

    DN Member

  2. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    Isn't this the airplane that led to a revolt by the Russian pilots? That is they became refuseniks due to the fact that I-16 was just plain too dangerous to fly...., guess Uncle Joe convinced those who were left that it was a pretty good ride compared to being a deadman or a long ride to a gulag....,

    Best, Gil
  3. Peter the Ingrate

    Peter the Ingrate New Member

  4. Leif Oh

    Leif Oh Member

    Boris Safonov's aircraft

    I've got this model. Could anybody explain what the little thingamujig above the headrest is? Directional antenna? Gun camera? Or what?

    Also, this is the aircraft flewn by Russian ace pilot Boris Safonov (of fame from a recent poll on this site). Capricious, uncomfortable (in arctic conditions!), and out of date as the aircraft may have been, he didn't die in it, but in an American P-40, with a notoriously unreliable engine...

  5. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    I think it's the gun camera mounting - I'd have to do some checking to be sure though. The I-16 can't have been all that bad to fly since it stayed in service for a long time and ended up as a ground attack fighter - not a role for aircraft with difficult handling characteristics.

    I think it was the MIG-1/3 which really was disliked by the Russian pilots.


  6. Leif Oh

    Leif Oh Member

    After reading the review of the flight characteristics, I'll have to take back my remarks about capriciousness - they were based on very common characterizations of the Polikarpov I-16, and clearly not quite accurate.

    Interesting to read also that the I-16 compared very favourably indeed to e.g. a Hurricane!

    Thanks for all of the links above, they really are very good. - L.
  7. and the build is outstanding
  8. DN

    DN Member

    I also think it was Mig1/3 that was a "bad" one.
    But this build :shock:
  9. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    The engine used was an M-25, a copy of the Wright Cyclone R-1820 series. Same as used in the B-17...., Halinski's design is ingenious and is no small feat unto itself.

    The I-16 was badly received at first by Russian pilots and they did refuse to fly it. It was the first low wing, retractable landing gear aircraft in the World and like the GeeBee (which it has a strong resemblance to) required crossover training for pilots used to the docile handling of medium powered biplanes. The F4U Corsair had the same problems in the beginning an nearly missed being carrier qualified. A two cockpit version solved the problem.

    Best regards, Gil
  10. Maurice

    Maurice Member


    I rate that build as "not fair" ... certainly not to this lesser mortal. :cry:

    Gee Gil

    It would take a fortnight to straighten out the mis-information you've packed into that second paragraph.
    How do you do it, what's the secret, obfuscating minds want to know.

  11. Gil

    Gil Active Member

    Gee Maurice,

    it would be nice if you could be a little less snide and cynical and join in with the rest of us in a more civil manner. I think the way you treat people is not justified in any manner and certainly doesn't belong on this site. You might want to rethink your interpersonal skills as regards posting here. I for one am sick and tired of your attitude. If you don't have something constructive to say please say nothing at all.

    Best regards, Gil
  12. Leif Oh

    Leif Oh Member

    Gil, about the engine: The minute I got my hands on the kit and saw the engine, I was thinking about you and your engine design. Now you tell me that this is a copy of a B-17 engine. Very useful! Means a shortcut, doesn't it. Definitely worth buying the kit for the engine if anybody has started on such a big project as the B-17.

    Do you think it might be used as a basis for a two-row engine, such as for the Liberator, as well?

  13. Maurice

    Maurice Member


    Humour is not cynicism and I decline to modify my use of humour.
    If you post mis-information you should expect to be taken up on it.
    Any further comment "off forum" please.

  14. Leif Oh

    Leif Oh Member

    OK guys, points taken, respectively.

    On the matter at hand, the Polikarpov, I just wanted anybody interested to know about a very quick review I made yesterday about the two readily available models there are of the Polikarpov. (A reply in that thread indicates that there's also a third model by Fly, although I don't know if that is available at present.)

    The review as such is nothing, but at least I collected the valuable links given in this thread in one place, so they are readily available.

    Although the Halinski model is a work of art, and well worth the money (particularly if you consider the number of hours you should be prepared to invest in building a model of this kind), this should not reflect badly upon the very gracious free offering by the Kartonowe Modele people, who have made a very good model too. If you intend to make a "semi-quick" build in 1/33 or 1/48, I'd go for that one.

    Another point I'd like to make is that the Halininski model of course easily will stand - and even benefit from - a doubling in scale. I know I scanned it to a scale of 1/16, and one day, no other projects interfering (Hah!), I'll give it a shot.

    Anything less than that, and I would not be able to do the degree of detail and finish justice at all. To encourage the wary, the Polikarpov is such a small aircraft that every part easily fits into A4 size even at a scale of 1/16. (You will have to rearrange parts, of course, but that's part of the fun!)

  15. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    No please. You miss the point entirely. Change the way in which you handle interpersonal relationships or don't post at all.

    Best regards, Gil
  16. Gil

    Gil Active Member


    From what I can tell the engine used an M25 series engines which are not exact copies of the R-1820 but look like them externally. I purchased the model last night. It could form the basis of a twin wasp but it would be a stretch. Pratt and Whitney's R-1830 cylinder heads differ enough to make it questionalble. The number of cylinders per row would need to be reduced to 7 also. Right now I'm interested in the way Halinski designed the engine..., it might prove to be a frustrating construction effort. We'll just have to see.

    Best regards, Gil

Share This Page