I-153: cheap or not?

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

...your complaining about a plane which in REAL LIFE had this advantage over all other planes of the time, and I think that since it's the ONLY advantage this plane has, it's fine they exploit it. ... I mean do you really think, that fighter pilots back in WW2 actually didn't use their planes advantages over their opponent? That's just what you have to do with the I-153 and going against it.

Dude, please stop citing real world examples. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject is vast, and I wouldn't dare compete with you on that playing field. But this discussion is about how the 153 fits in within the scope of online games, and not how it compares with other bi-planes of the era, tactics emplyed in it's use or how real pilots did with it. I know BoP is as realistic as we can get, but an online game is very, very, very different to an actual dogfight where you can lose your life.

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

Now, Seraph is correct. If you are going at 230mph in some plane, and you try and turn with a plane which is just going 150mph. Then the plane going 150mph is going to have the turning advantage because of it's slower speed. This doesn't just have to do with the I-153, but the I-16 as well. Try it sometime, fly against a I-16 and fly something like a Spitfire both planes must be at 100% throttle. Then you'll see which plane out turns the other. Turning radius has NOTHING to do with lift. Speed does because you need a certain amount of speed going over the wings (ie the amount of air being brought a crossed) so your plane doesn't stall and drop out of the air into some spin. The reason the I-153 has a better chance of staying in the air is because of its amount of wings; and the little air needed to actually keep it in the air unlike mono-planes which only have two wings, and stall much more than any biplane would.

Seraph stated "Actually.. both turn radius and rate of turn have nothing to do with lift, but a lot with speed." which is wrong. A plane's lift and turn rate are one in the same thing applied to different spatial axis. "Lift" is simply opposing gravity. If you take that force and apply it perpendicular to gravity it becomes turn (in conjunction with another forward velocity component).

Yes, I know a slow moving thing can turn tighter than a fast moving thing. That is obvious if you try and walk around a corner and then run around it. The forward component of the velocity is much greater, therefore a much greater centri-petal acceleration is required to match the turn of a slower object. And I'm sure we all know that you need a calender to time how long it takes to do a 180 in a jet.

But if you're trying to tell me that the I-153 can turn tightly because it's engine doesn't pull it forwards fast, and not because it has nearly double the upward (relative to the plane) force of a mono-plane, you're wrong.

If that were the case, the tight turning circle could be countered by simply dropping your throttle to match, and it would be a non-issue.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by InfiniteStates

Seraph stated "Actually.. both turn radius and rate of turn have nothing to do with lift, but a lot with speed." which is wrong. A plane's lift and turn rate are one in the same thing applied to different spatial axis. "Lift" is simply opposing gravity. If you take that force and apply it perpendicular to gravity it becomes turn (in conjunction with another forward velocity component).

Yes, I know a slow moving thing can turn tighter than a fast moving thing. That is obvious if you try and walk around a corner and then run around it. The forward component of the velocity is much greater, therefore a much greater centri-petal acceleration is required to match the turn of a slower object. And I'm sure we all know that you need a calender to time how long it takes to do a 180 in a jet.

But if you're trying to tell me that the I-153 can turn tightly because it's engine doesn't pull it forwards fast, and not because it has nearly double the upward (relative to the plane) force of a mono-plane, you're wrong.

If that were the case, the tight turning circle could be countered by simply dropping your throttle to match, and it would be a non-issue.

Right, speed matters but in the sense of lift as a function of speed, because how fast you're going affects the amount of lift. Biplanes can generate that upward force at much slower speeds. Other planes can fly that slow without stalling, but they won't turn as many degrees per second flying at minimum-radius speed. The biplane's full-g maneuver speed is most plane's flat-scissor speed.

IF you try to fight a biplane close up, the intelligent thing to do is rather than try to get an inside angle, to use lag pursuit, maneuvering outside its turns and rolling to stay out of its guns plane, until it either loses sight of you or overestimates your 3D turn rate and overshoots by turning too fast. Unfortunately, it takes a long time to do against a competent pilot, and often fails because it involves concentrating on evasion before attack.

I think the "they shall not pass" mission, sums up the polikarpov's usefulness as a defensive plane. Though it's I-16 in the mission, I-153 would have had similar performance in that situation, chasing bf-109's away, waiting for them to come back (and down from 3000m) and chasing them away again. Point defense. It did a great job for what it was faced with. But in the game, dogfight mode isn't really supposed to be about that. It would be more appropriate as a local air-superiority element in Strike mode.

They could make things more interesting by adding other biplanes, then people could have biplane battles. The Germans and British had plenty of biplanes too.

You know what would be a great new mode for IL-2: the one most air combat was centered around, escort/interception. One side has a bunch of bombers to protect, and the other side has to shoot down the bombers. For the p51's, fw190's and jets.

[haitch40]

your missing the point i can get a spit to turn faster at higher speeds
the reason the i153 is so agile is because of its low speed as for the same angle at a lower speed you will turn quicker
however the main charaterisitic is the force the elivators make like f1 cars wings the higher the speed the more pressure they create to try and force the car in the ground the same applies to a plane but instead of forcing it in the ground they turn the plane the only limitation on agility is stalling when you turn therefore wings have a small roll but the main roll is the elivators
all that and im only 15 lol
ps if you dont agree say so but dont flame me

[Ancient Seraph]

Turn Radius = (Velocity*Velocity)/(11.26 *Tan (bank Angle)) , velocity in Knots, answer in feet.

Rate of Turn = (1092.95*Tan(bank angle))/ Velocity , velocity in Knots, answer in degrees/second

Now the bank angle you can achieve while maintaining a certain speed and altitude does depend on lift, but the turn radius and rate of turn are not directly influenced by lift. You're talking about the horizontal component of lift in a turn, which is a part of the force turning the plane. This depends on the bank angle. A higher lift component means that you can maintain a higher bank angle, and thus get a lower TR and higher ROT.
Still, the main reason the I-153 turns so tightly it can maintain a high bank angle at a low speed, with help of the added lift.
So in conclusion, the general rule to aviation forces is: everything affects everything. In this case TR and ROT are so small/big due to the low airspeed, which is made possible by the increased lift.
I advise everyone who doesn't have a Master's degree in Aerodynamics to not get too involved in the turning fysics of BoP. All of the above can be applied to a non-accelerated turn. If there's any acceleration, in any direction, involved, it gets a lot more complicated, especially with the G-forces involved.

P.S. @ Haitch: Sorry, but you're wrong . The elevators are mainly to get into a turn/climb/etc, but are not the driving force behind it. The F1 car wings are, like the name says, more like wings. Again, it's tricky to get into the fysics of elevators, mainly because they're there to make accelerations, which are hard to work with.

[haitch40]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

I advise everyone who doesn't have a Master's degree in Aerodynamics.

i want one lol

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by haitch40

i want one lol

I'm content with the basics I know.. too much theory there .

[haitch40]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

P.S. @ Haitch: Sorry, but you're wrong . The elevators are mainly to get into a turn/climb/etc, but are not the driving force behind it. The F1 car wings are, like the name says, more like wings. Again, it's tricky to get into the fysics of elevators, mainly because they're there to make accelerations, which are hard to work with.

my other theory was that it was the drag created by the elivators like if you run a car and break one side only it will turn. i will leave this thread now its too much of an argument
sorry for double post i relised i wanted to say this after i posted last message.

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

Turn Radius = (Velocity*Velocity)/(11.26 *Tan (bank Angle)) , velocity in Knots, answer in feet.

Rate of Turn = (1092.95*Tan(bank angle))/ Velocity , velocity in Knots, answer in degrees/second

These equations must apply to a specific plane, rather than general equations. Hence the constants, which are probably the result of wing equations for this specific plane. Otherwise, you mean to tell me that a plane's wingspan and surface area have no effect on it's ability to turn?

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

...You're talking about the horizontal component of lift in a turn, which is a part of the force turning the plane. This depends on the bank angle. A higher lift component means that you can maintain a higher bank angle, and thus get a lower TR and higher ROT.

LOL thank you. You just disproved your statement ("Actually.. both turn radius and rate of turn have nothing to do with lift, but a lot with speed."), and reinforced my argument that the 153 can turn tighter because it has more lift due to having 2 wings instead of 1.


EDIT: thus, making it a cheap plane to whore in online matches. I rest my case

[Ancient Seraph]

Originally Posted by InfiniteStates

These equations must apply to a specific plane, rather than general equations. Hence the constants, which are probably the result of wing equations for this specific plane. Otherwise, you mean to tell me that a plane's wingspan and surface area have no effect on it's ability to turn?


LOL thank you. You just disproved your statement ("Actually.. both turn radius and rate of turn have nothing to do with lift, but a lot with speed."), and reinforced my argument that the 153 can turn tighter because it has more lift due to having 2 wings instead of 1.


EDIT: thus, making it a cheap plane to whore in online matches. I rest my case

Agreed, that statement was incorrect in retrospect. Again, the general rule to aviation forces is: everything affects everything. Conclusion: you, Soviet and me were all right: you need low speed for the best turn, and high lift to maintain it.

P.S.: The formula goes for every plane, you'll just have to check if the airspeed and bank angle used can actually be maintained in a constant non-accelerated flight. E.g. you can't say 'A Spitfire has a turn radius of 14 ft if you fill in v = 30kt and bank angle = 80 degrees', because the Spit can't fly 30 kts with a bank angle of 80 degrees while maintaining altitude and a coordinated turn.
The constant was for conversion so the answers would be in knots and feet.

[jkerr419]

Has anyone mentioned forcing them into a Negative G dive?