Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources ;)

Its not that simple that there would be some magical figure like turn time, you have to tweak all parameters of the plane and all the data result from the mathematical model of the plane. There are a lot of them, so if you tweak one you can get a perfect sustained turn time, however you can pork climb characteristics. But anyway I hope that DT will update soviet fighters models to reflect real-world data a bit better according to credible sources.

I found something in the archives of simhq forums. I know that its almost a decade old, but it may be useful. Unfortunately its only turn performance.

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.ph...1284449/1.html

"Maybe" even earlier than the La-5?

First prototypes of the I-185 were built with experimental and unreliable engines (M-90, M-81), and these flew unspectacularly in 1941. There were very few M-82 and M-71 prototypes flying all the way through 1942. Limited field trials didn't even start for the I-185 until almost 1943. By then, fighter squadrons had already seen plenty of combat with their LaGG-3s and La-5s. The La-5 was already in full production, with incomplete LaGG-3 airframes being converted in the factory, and more LaGGs that already saw service were being converted at service depots.

The Yaks and Lavochkins were good aircraft, doing the job, had further development potential, and have long since been available in numbers by the time two or three I-185s were even beginning to see limited service. Late fatal crashes of the I-185s certainly didn't help their cause at this stage, either.

Also, the Yakovlevs and Lavochkins were made predominantly of wood and other non-strategic materials, particularly the LaGG-3/La-5 which was sort of a "stressed 'wooden' skin construction" if you will, with even the fuselage stringers themselves also being made of wood. The Yak was more of a conventional mixed construction. The I-185 on the other hand used a lot of aluminium in it's construction, especially in the wings. This was yet another strategic consideration that made the aircraft impractical for the VVS at the time.

The I-185 was an outstanding fighter aircraft, however, potentially the best the VVS could have fielded. If the Soviets weren't under the kind of pressure they were enduring from 1941 through 1943, they might have had the luxury of time and resources to properly develop the I-185 alongside the Yak-1 and La-5. But they didn't, and that's how it played out.

To suggest that it would make the sim "more realistic" to include, and further address an aircraft that flew in prototype form only and never saw any actual combat, is a contradiction. The point here is just accept and enjoy the I-185 for what it is. It's a beautiful airplane, it's fun to fly, and it goes like stink.

It's worth noting that historically, prototype aircraft have been dynamically better fliers than their full production, field service counterparts, due to the simple fact that they tend to be much lighter than they would be if they were laden with field hardware (radios, armor, and other field modifications and adaptations that add weight).

Actually they flew like 10 combat missions strictly over the soviet controlled territory and mainly in the free hunt/ BnZ mode.

I'm not suggesting it was a good idea to include it let alone to make it so uber.
In the game it is very competitive against the best 1945 planes in every respect (excl jets, of course).

It is clearly overmodelled, turns too well for that wing loading and specs of the real i185 support this observation. It doesn't overheat as badly as in real life, you can fly @110% for ridiculous amounts of time. The engine is just as reliable as merlin or BMW801, although in the real life they needed servicing or replacement every 5hrs or so.
And the fact that some servers add this plane to 1942-1943 maps doesn't help either. If you fly any 42-43 plane on such servers you will be at a significant disadvantage.

As I said, "Limited field trials..." - read the post. They were still only the same two or three original M-82 and M-71 prototypes, however, and saw no actual combat, i.e. they never fired thier guns in anger at another aircraft.

I agree that it's performance may be a bit over the top in the sim, but (again) being that it flew in prototype form only, and (again) most prototypes tend to fly better than their production counterparts anyway - at least initially, this is something that I'm willing to accept, personally. Besides, talking of "reaslitic", it would not be so to include the I-153 in combat with anything else, because IRL it never saw combat with anything else. There are no instances of direct comparison with anything else in a real-world, wartime, combat environment situation, as opposed to sterile data on a sheet of paper, or test pilots delightful comments after a controlled test flight or uneventful CAP well behind friendly lines. Having said that, I think it's reasonable to expect that the I-185 probably won't get the sort of attention you might think it deserves. It would be nice if it did, but with the amount of effort required in such work, it would also be reasonable to expect that there are higher priorities in order right now...

It's a simple choice to either not fly servers that include the I-185, or to fly an I-185 yourself. Might be a bit limiting or unfair, but that's how it is, so there you go.

They flew 10-11 real combat missions and shot down or damaged one plane, the only limitation was to fly over soviet controlled territory to make sure the plane will never be captured by Germans. Obviously they didn't risk entering a TnB fight - strictly high speed passes. They never encountered FW190s during these combat trials. It's in that article I mentioned.

I think the weapons of soviet planes should be rectified too.
My observations, although they might be subjective. Please correct me if Im wrong.

7.62mm ShKAS: it should consume ammunition more quickly. But in exchange, it should do more damage.
12.7mm UB: it should do more damage. It was the most effective weapon of its class. According to the site linked below, it was almost as powerful as an MG151/15.
20mm ShVAK and B20: their ammunition should be weaker. The 20x99R cartridge was one of the weakest of its class

There is a site that perfectly describes the differences between various WW2 guns:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Interesting stuff here! Be assured, that it had been recognised. :)

EDIT: hm... my posting was in fact aimed for the other thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32576, but also here is intersting info.

I've been reading over that report and I haven't found anything that talks about missions flown where actual combat took place, or of any aircraft being shot down. Can you point out specifically where this is detailed? I'd be interested in reading about it.