i 153 in real
 

just a precise details about the i 153 in real:
in 1941 the i 153 can turn a loop in 13 or 15 seconds even though the me 109 e can do the same in 20 seconds
the last engines of the 153 had 1000 horsepower...in fact in 1941 the 153 was not as obsolete as we can think...and in the game it is not as outclass as we can think
like say a veteran:to be shoot down in the 153 ,u must be sit on a hedgehog!!!!
others precise details a few i 153 had four 12,7mm machine guns(i 153bs)in the game it is the i 153p with an experimental weapons of two 20mm guns

Fous la I-153 putain de merde putain putain putain fils de salope! Putain! Casse-toi! Putain...putain...putain de merde! Pu...etc.

Ok, so I only know like seven or so words of French, so Zatoichi, no! Bad, very bad. You know you don't say things like that about the I-153. It's a good looking little bird, and you have to show it respect. :cool:

They were saying that about the LA-5 last night. :-x

Fools on I-153 goddamn f u c k i n g whore f u c k i n g son of bitch! Damn! Get out! Damn ... damn ... f u c k i n g shit! Pu ... etc..

wow...now i know how to rubbish talk in french...lol:rolleyes:

I know that one! :-P

I love seeing 153s these days. They go down so easily under cannon fire. They turn on a dime but are so flimsy and slow. Anyone who gets in one can expect increased attention from regular players too.

Yeah... Why damn & curse the funny little bugger? Just shoot it down.

I had a 1v1 with the other day. cant remember who against but it was in sim. and i dont know if i really sucked or he really rocked but he tore me up in it.

/edit i was a spit ix

The most satisfying online kill is when you catch a 153 at the top of it's loop and cut him in half from point blank range.. Shooting the wings off B-17's is a close second tho..

I would second that. I think in third place would b dropping bombs on an opponent who is seconds away from capturing an airfield. I love bombing in capture airfields, requires a touch of skill without the aiming guide you get on strike

Anyone come across Snowman and his mates in i153's packing rockets? Complete with teenage commentary? PITA.

Don't recall that snowman guy. If someone is gobby on mic I usually stick iPod on. To be honest don't get a lot of that on bop though. I can't stand the chat you get in modern warfare.

+1
i love shooting them down, they are so pretty when they're in flames i remember working one with wookie and coordinator only the other night good times

What the i153's or the pre pubescent babble!!!

Worst ' babbler' award I think should go to, not mentioning any names directly, sounds a bit like Bister Marney!!!

I like it when they aren't even down and just the percussion disintegrates them!

Concussion ;)

Both.

Seen the name. Ain heard the babble.

I know what you mean. I have seen people drop out of lobbys when he stars babbling. If you had a wingman like that in the war you would see to it that he had an "accident" back at base that kept him out of the air

Percussion! as in detonates upon actuallly impacting them whilst still in the air whilst airborne rather than the concussion if it hits the ground first and they happen to be in the vicinty! Sorry should have maybe made that clearer!

Didn't know that was possible.:)

I've done it a fair few times. Rather than following them in, just lift the nose and 'chuck' the bomb at them in an arc fashion is the best way, just make sure you clear quick!!!!

i never understood the discussions about the i153, i16 or the hurri...
just ignore, or bnz them.
if u try to outturn them...

SIR, U FAILED IN SIM-GAMES !!!

i never insult u!!!!!!!
do u know the sound of my voice?
before insult a guy try to know who say what?
i hate the la5 i just say putain de la 5!it is not an insult!!!!!!
i translate the nice words of zatoichi:putain fils de salope:****,son of bitch!!!!!!!
i never insult your mother!!!!respect my mother!!!!i never insult u!!!respect me!!!u are luky zatoichi cause i respect the rules of the forum...if i want to say all i think about u even the evil should be scandalized!!!!!!!
i will not go in this forum for a long time,i m scandalized!!!!!
a last thing zatoichi try to learn the french language before say a bullshits,i hope u are not french cause your brain must be repair if u are french....
bye bye!!!!

ehhhhhh, first of all I wasn't insulting you. I was mimicing what I hear all the time from you and Varcus. Particularly ironic is your hatred of the LA5 when you're renowned/infamous for flying the I-153. Which was my point.

'Putain' means 'bitch'. Whenever I shoot either of you down that is all I hear. Not "putain de la 5" or "putain de spitfire". It's safe to assume that's directed at me. I don't take it seriously anyway. It's pretty much a staple of online gaming, though it's something I would never partake in if I used my mic.

I don't think that was needed watch what you say in this forum, even if it is in another language.

Translating foul language is not helpful.

i explain u :in the french language we say a lot of"merde"or a lot of "putain"when we speak together .we say this word a lot ,it is the same when the englishs or americans say "f..k"when they speak togheter
u seems mistake the french expression"putain de.."or "putain merde..."(we say it in the job,and even in family and day by days...)with the french word "une putain"(une putain is a girl who do sex for money and "putain de or putain merde " is a french expression,the difference is the "une"which the same of the "a" or "an" in english....i understand u can mistake it because of french language is difficult...but never insult my mother in public!!!!i can do the same in a private message and for sure i will be more bad than u....

Really? Because when you shoot down Varcus or vice versa I never hear the inevitable "putain". Really, really strange huh?

And as I already pointed out I wasn't insulting you, I was mimicking you.

if u can hear and understand what the others french expressions or words varcus say me or i say him u should be surprised!!!the la5 is a very good plane fast and very good in tights turns and it is very hard to shoot down it because of it,i m nervous when i meet this plane (putain de la5)but i m not angry against the player who use it just against this plane!i respect this plane in same time,i respect the player who use it ,the la 5 is (in my opinion) better than the spit in tight turns and for a player as me (not too good)it is hard to shoot down it with a spit...varcus used a spit in the game not a la5...

A friend of mine 3 doors down is Irish. I mean Irish as in he immigrated her 20 years ago and his entire family is in Ireland. He goes there at least once a year. He has a heavy accent, which is cool. His favorite swear word is f**k. When he gets worked up, every other word is f**k. I asked him about this and he said everybody in Ireland uses it. Not a lot of other swear words, just that one. It's their favorite word and nobody takes it wrong. If you ever watch Bravehart you'll notice the Irish guy uses it constantly. It doesn't bother me used in a certain context. However, it bothers the hell out of me being called nasty names, especiallly by a teenager!!! I've heard Olife and Varcus and I can't understand a word they say. Every now and then I've heard everybody use it online, including myself, and I've never taken it personally except once. I guess getting your ass handed to you pisses everybody off sooner or later, some just worse and faster than others. So what the f**k, have a good time anyway and just ignore them. Humoring them works real well too. I saw the humor in the post, Olife didn't.

Your right about the Irish, you should watch the film "In Bruges" for an example. Colin Farrel and Brendan Gleeson break the record for number of f%%ks in a film. Its so prevelant they put a special feature on the DVD called f@@cking Bruges where they put them all in a 2 minute flurry. Really funny.

Anyway I reckon you guys should settle this online. Spitfires at 3000 yards at dawn

Right.... So sticking to the original post. Thank you Olife, for giving some information on the I-153 Chaika. You saved me some time. :P

I think this thread needs some pictures of pleasent ladies please ;)

The I-153 couldn't have been totally obstelete in WW2 as the Fins used them against the Soviets with some success.

It should be noted that the I-153 could be out-turned by the Finnish B-239 Buffalo (or "Sky Pearl" as the Fins called it) easily and could be matched in turns by the Fokker D-21. Voth of these were monoplanes.

The D-21 was 3 MPH slower than the I-153 at 285 MPH and made up the bulk of the Finnish fighter force.

The I-153 still holds the airspeed record for a bi-plane at 288 MPH to this day.

However, the later I-153's 1,000 HP was well short of the 1,200 HP of the Finnish B-239 and P-36 fighters it faced. And definately well short of the power outputs of Luftwaffe fighters and bombers.

Standard I-153 engine was a licence built copy of the US Wright Whirlwind and made 950 HP

The Finnish licence built Fokker D-21 made 836 HP with the Centaurus engine and only 750 HP with the later Wasp Junior engine.

The I-153 was close to obstelete when it appeared in 1938 and it was obselete by 1941.

The I-153, like it's I-16 counterpart used the R-1820 Wright Cyclone (Soviet designated M62); not the Wright Whirlwind. The Brewster Buffalo, also used the Wright Cyclone in the early models, which were the same models as what the Finn's used as their "Buffalos". Some changes were made, but that's what they were sent. So I don't see how the Finnish Buffalo's could out maneuver the I-153 biplane with the same engine?

The Fokker planes, I'm not all that familiar with, so I can't say about that. But the I-153 Chaika used the Wright R-1820 Cyclone, not the Whirlwind.

Also, quick little side note. I-16s were used all the way till 1945, in limited numbers. And also, the Russian/Finn "Winter War" was nothing but two nations with already obsolete planes fighting one another. That is, until Yaks came along. :D

There is camera footage of a Finnish Buffalo glued to the tail of an I-153 during the Continuation War.

During RAF evaluation, it was noted that the B-339 Buffalo could esily out turn the Gloster Gladiator.

To quote one US Navy Ace, "Pug" Anderson, "The Buffalo could turn a circle inside a phone booth".

The original B-139 flew with a 950 HP engine in 1938.

The B-239 and B-339 versions used 1,100 and later 1,200 HP engines.

RAF Buffaloes flew with second hand Whirlwind engines sourced from US airline companies, reconditioned (badly) by Brewster and then fitted to the fighters. The engines were originally 850 HP and uprated to 1,100 HP by boring them out. Unfortunately the oil pumps were for 850 HP engines and the BUffalo earnt its notoriety not from combat losses but through sudden engine failures in on patrol or in combat.

IL-2 Forgotten Battles faithfully re-creates all the sudden oil pressure and power loss hastle that real RAF, Commonwealth and Dutch pilots faced.

The Directors of Brewster went to jail over this, when their profiteering was discovered.

The Buffalo was the only Allied fighter that could out turn a Zero or Oscar.

Note that the Fins paid in gold and received brand new engines with their B-239 versions.

I've flown B-239s against I-153s in IL-2 FB and it isn't a problem to turn inside them.

The P-36 can't, having pretty much the same mediocre handling of the P-40

The Finnish built Gloster J-8A Gladiator is totally outclassed by the I-153 in acceleration, speed and handling.

The Finnish Fiat G-50 "Frecia" tends to suffer from the usual Italian reliability that plagues their motorcycles even today. I'm yet to fly one long enough to complete a mission without somethng electrical or mechanical screwing up, so I'd predict that it wouldn't fare well against the I-153.

As the D-21 isn't in the game, which is a shame, so only pilot's accounts are available.

It is strange how the Finnish B-239s won most of thier encounters with the Yak and La.

Several of my sources agree, that the only engines the Finnish Buffalo's used were R-1820-G5's which came in with 950hp, not 1100hp. (Same as the B-139.) None of the Finnish Buffalo's were Whirlwinds, only Cyclones. The Finn's after allying with German, were cut off of American parts, and had to due to capturing Russian M62-63 Radial Engines, which were still American Wright R-1820-34 Cyclone copies. There's no mention of Whirlwinds being used in Finnish Buffalo's that I can find in any of my books, or sources on the internet. No American Buffalo's were powered by Whirlwinds either.

I've flown both in 1946, and they're both fairly equal in acceleration. The only engines the Finnish Buffalo's were equipped with, were R-1820-34 and -40s (like their American counter part). Wright Whirlwinds are only like at their best R-975 9 cylinder at 300-450hp. No 1,100 or 1,200 hp.

I've just checked, yes you're right, Cyclones.

The B-239 was 1,100 HP and some 1,200 HP.

The B-139 had a top speed of 292 MPH, whilst the B-239 and B-339 both made 324 MPH in level flight, the same as a Hurricane.

The B-139 didn't have the full length "Green House" canopy.

It has the best visibility for any fighter I've flown in WW2 sims so far, with the Bf-109 being probally the worst I've experienced.

The Fins regard the Buffalo with the same affection as the British have for the Spitfire. It was regarded as their best fighter even after they received Bf-109s.

The I-153 is a most interesting aircraft to look at, I have a model kit of one, and 3 are still flying today.

Where are you getting this 1,100 and 1,200 hp from? All I've found, in all my sources is 940-50hp for all three of them (Buffalos). There is no Cyclone, that powered a Brewster Buffalo in WW2 on the Finnish side; that pumped out 1,1-1,200hp. They were all either R-1820-34 which pumped out either 940-50hp, just like the I-15bis, I-153, and I-16 M62-63 Engines.

no probs pleasure is mine
others technicals performances of the i 153:

-max speed at 4600 meters of altitude:444kms per hour
-time to climb up at 3000 meters of altitude: 3 minutes
-combat range:470 kms
-empty weight:1452 kilos
-loaded weight:2110 kilos
-wingspan:10 meters
-length:6,17 meters
-height:2, 80 meters

From the dedicated website "Annals Of The Brewster Buffalo", which has everything from the RAF evaluation tests in July 1940 to pilot's combat reports through to statistics. Lists of Commonwealth Buffalo aces are also given.

The Buffalo was the most successful fighter of WW2 with a 40:1 kill to loss ratio. The Fins managed a 38:1 kill to loss ratio and the Commonwealth pilots still managed a 2:1 kill to loss ratio.

Against the A6M Zero it enjoyed a 1.39:1 kill to loss ratio.

The Fins manufactured their own engine parts and other spares for the Buffalo and also fitted bigger cylinder bores in line with Wright's own improvements.

Note that the Humu (Reckless) flew with a 950 HP engine taken from an I-153and was found to be underpowered compared to the 1,100 HP Cyclone.

The P-36 A-3 had a 950 HP engine, whilst the ex-French Airforce "Cauldron" P-36 A-4 aircraft, bought from the Nazi's, were powered by 1,100 HP engines.

One unusual feature of a Buffalo, which is never found on any other fighter, is a seperate cargo hold and seperate passenger space under the pilot.

The maximum range of a Buffalo is 1,065 miles without drop tanks or 10.5 hours in the air.

The "F" word came into existance, in the English language in 1872, according to Whitely's Oxford Dictionary of Swearwords and Expletives.

It is a Police charge sheet abreiviation and stands for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" which one would be charged with if caught with one's pants down in a brothel during a police raid.

The offence came onto the statute books in the UK in 1872, as part of the government's on going moral campaign to stamp out prostitutution in the UK.

Until then, patrons of brothels were allowed to go free and uncharged during a police raid.

Prisoners in the cells would ask each other what they were in for and one could be in jail, awaiting trail, for f**king.

Its use in films and plays set before this date are historical language errors, in the same way as the Sherif Of Nottingham, in Kevin Costner's Robin Hood film, telling someone to come and see him at 12:30.

There are many urban myths about the word's origin, this is the true origin.

You do realize, that the only Buffalos that were sent to Finland, were F2A-1's which were powered by R-1820-34 Cyclones that were only 940-50hp. The British Commonwealth, Dutch, and the American serviced Buffalo's were later powered by the R-1820-40 that had the 1,1-1,200hp engines because after Finland allied with Germany, America quit sending Buffalo parts to Finland, and they were forced to use the Russian M-62-63s that were the Soviet copies of the R-1820-34 Cyclones. There's no way Finland could have been given later modeled Buffalos because of their alliance with Germany.

So once again, the only Buffalo's Finland owned were the 44 F2A-1s that had the -34 Cyclone which only had 940-50hp. There's no where that I can find in my books, or the internet that say the Finnish manufactured their own Cyclone type engines. They did however take the spare parts off ruined/crashed I-153s and I-16s that would fit with their Cyclone engines.

EDIT: See, you're looking at the -2 and -3 Buffalo's which had the 1,1-1,200hp. Both of which were terrible because Doolittle was pushing for high octane fuel (high leaded gasoline), and also because they were fitted with more junk. That's the reason the Finnish had such a great success with the Buffalo was because they didn't mess around with adding stuff. They more or less just skeletonize'd the damn thing for lighter weight, while the Americans at Midway had heavier Buffalos.

The Fins also received a number of Belgian B-239s, with the more powerful engines, that the Germans had discovered still crated up.

A number of these also saw service with the Luftwaffe as advanced trainers and one was found, and photographed, on an airfield in Luftwaffe markings.

The original Buffaloes may have came with 950 HP engines, but the Fins did increase the performance of the engines, as they did with the Moraine Ms-406, Fokker D-21 and other aircraft in their possesion.

The Fins were already manufacturing Bristol Centaurus engines and manufactiring Blenhiem IV bombers throughout the Continuation War.

The Fins had examples of the more powerful Cyclones in their possesion, from the P-36 A-4, and simply fitting the their own manufactured spare cylinders and pistons was performed.

One problem that the 1,100 HP Cyclone engine was plagued with was oil leaking past the oil rings of the top 3 cylinder pistons and fouling the spark plug when the engine was flown inverted or under negative G. It is documented, on the Annals of the Buffalo website, that the Fins solved this by simply inverting the oil rings on the top 3 pistons on the 1,100 HP engines.

As only the 1,100 HP and 1,200 HP Cyclone engines suffered from this problem, it proved that the Fins had upgraded their engines to a higher power output.

The only difference between the 950 HP, 1,100 HP and 1,200 HP Cyclone engines is the cubic capacity.

So I checked out that site on the Buffalo, that you provided, and I found several mistakes in it that several of my books, and sites I've looked at contradict.

First off, the R-1820-34 and R-1820-G5 are NO different from one another. If the guy who had written that had bothered to look deeper into the engines, he would have realized, that any plane, engine, whatever that is sent from the US or any other nation to another nation is never designated the same as it originally was. There is no difference between the -34 and -G5 besides designation.

Secondly, these Belgian Buffalo's were never sent to Finland by Germany, and were not "crated up". What they were, was Buffalos that had been sent by the US to Belgium, but before they could get into combat were captured, where only two were recorded as making the trip to France before their collapse under the Nazi Blitzkrieg. The captured Buffalos were then used as either scrap metal, or used as trainers. Some were even sent to Vichy French in the Med.

Third, his report of the Battle between Brewsters, Yaks, Las, and LaGG's is incorrect. The actual dogfight, there were four Buffalos gunned down, not two. Where Three Yak-1s and two LaGG-3s were downed. The La-5s held their own just fine, and all them made it back home.

We've already had a mix up with the Vindicator and Sea Wolf, and I think this is just another mix up.

and now for something completely different

thanks to explain it ,i didn't know it...

The 38:1 kill to loss rate against Soviet aircraft of all types still proves a mega-point.

No other Finnish piloted fighter type came halfway close to this.

Between 1942 and 1943 one BUffalo squadron, with just 18 Buffaloes, managed to achieve 274 confirmed kills for the loss of just 2 Buffaloes through Soviet action, of which was shot down killing the pilot and one was written off when it crash landed at base.

The I-153, whether flown by Fins or Russians, was hopelessly outclassed by modern high speed bombers such as the SB-2M, Blenhiem II, Blenhiem IV, etc. with the latter being simply able to throttle up and leave pursuing I-153s far behind. The I-153 makes 288 MPH and the Blienhiem makes 293 MPH.

A fighter need to be at least 100 MPH faster than a bomber that it is dealing with. Being slower or just about able to match speed makes it an easy target for a bomber's gunners.

With modern bombers being faster and able to out perform the I-153 at altitude (and the I-16), the only other roles open to the I-153 were as a dogfighter and ground attack fighter-bomber.

Most bombers it faced could simply fly high and out of reach.

As a dogfighter it lacks the performance at altitude and the speed to deal with the fighters it faced, apart from Finnish Gladiators, Bulldogs and D-21, German Hs-123 ground attack aircraft.

The I-15 and I-15 Bis may have performed well against other bi-planes such as the He-51 over Spain, but by 1941 it was just a dinosaur fighter in a changing world, only outclassing similar dinosaur fighters and bombers flown by both the Fins and Russians. The premise for creating the I-153 as a dogfighter was flawed because by 1938, the age of the high speed maneuverable monoplane was beginning.

As for ground attack, the only other bi-plane to carry rockets was the Fairey Swordfish.

Apart from being an easier target for enemy FlaK, bi-planes do perform better in ground attack roles than faster monoplanes with less agility. Short take off and landing is also an advantage.

The reason why Russian planes seemed so outclassed, was because in the 30s, Russia put more effort in their biplane designs than monoplane designs. The reason why? Because during the 30s, Stalin and the rest thought that Biplanes were the way of the future because of their amazing maneuverability, and agility. The USSR, saw monoplanes as basically obsolete before they even really got going.

Same goes for many French planes as well. The reason the MS 406 and other French fighters were slow, was because though they were monoplanes, they wanted to keep that good maneuverability and agility going that many biplanes had. Same goes with Italy, and that's why we have the Fiat CR. 32-42 also.

Britain also thought biplanes would still be important, and actually the first designs of the Hawker Hurricane was actually a Biplane design.

It was Germany and the US, who started putting more work into the Monoplane structure/design, and that's why it seems like they outclassed most of their allies and enemies.

So I see.

No it isn't it's one of the urban myths. There are examples of the word dating back way further than that..

earliest appearance of current spelling is 1535 -- "Bischops ... may **** thair fill and be vnmaryit" [Sir David Lyndesay, "Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits"]

All of the acronyms are urban myths. There's loads of them.
When he was compiling the first dictionary Dr Johnson excluded the word, and **** wasn't in a single English language dictionary from 1795 to 1965.

The earliest version on record is recorded in the OED 2nd edition and cites 1503, in the form fukkit;

I wanted to make this point too, but I'm Irish and have already been stereotyped in this thread. I rarely curse, even rarer with that word, and was prepared to argue the point but the lady across from me just this minute uttered it 4 times in one sentence down the phone, so I think I'll just go because this thread is so for off topic.

Good information on one of the games most marmite aircraft though.

Correct! Isn't QI brilliant!!!!!

I love QI but didn't get the info there (didn't know they'd done ****!) I got it from an Etymology book. I like to know my word derivations.