Talk:Polikarpov I-16/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article

The article is well written, and most of the info (which is very detailed) doesn't contradict anything I've read anywhere else. There is one serious mistake- it is common knowledge among aviation enthusiasts that the I-16 (subject of this article)was the world's first Italic textall metalItalic text cantilever-winged monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear. The article, on a regular basis, refers to it as being made of wood (this was only true of the early prototype/ mock-up). I've corrected the mistake wherever I saw it, but I could have missed it. For the above information I cite the book by Enzo Angelucci, Italic textIllustrated Encyclopedia of Military AircraftItalic text, Edison, Chartwell: 2001. Most credible aviation-related sources will also agree with this, and I think the sources of the article should be checked.

That's not correct. All I-16s were of mixed construction. (per Liss, Shavrov, and Maslov) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I-16 has a metallic structure, but fuselage section is wood covered. All I-16 structural parts are build on chromium steel, according to Fundacion Infante de Orleans I-16 book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.181.150 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Detroit-Lockheed YP-24 was a low-wing, retractable-gear fighter, and it came out in 1931. It had a wooden wing and a metal fuselage. Only one was built.<"revolution in the Air", by Richard Allen, 1964> ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppercollins (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of captured aircraft

I'm not going to get into a symantics battle here. The Germans did not use the I-16 in general usage, or anything other than testing, if we are going to use this definition as usage, then both the British and American Air Forces used every German and Japanese model. Units captured from the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War were handed off to Nationalist forces, not used by the Germans themselves. Yes, the Finnish very much used the captured fighters, but in small numbers, but they were used in a2a combat on a regular basis until replaced by more modern aircraft.

--Evil.Merlin (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Be so kind and read carefully Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Discussion about captured aircraft before making changes in this (or other) articles. It would be nice to hear your opinion about issues raised there like aircraft with nationality markings and serial code (like TS439 on He 177 captured by RAF) or Stammkennzeichen (like DM+HC on UTI-4 or CD+SZ on I-16 captured by Luftwaffe). Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death when discussing the German Aircraft of WW2 and should be no different, else we would have to count just about every make and model of German and Japanese aircraft as flown by the Americans. Flying captured aircraft as hacks or as testing aircraft to find the aircraft's weaknesses and such is NOT using the plane for the purpose which it was designed. I can list over a dozen Fw 190's with American markings on them, but it does not mean the Fw 190 was flown as a combat aircraft in WW2. See the disucssion in the Fw 190 article for more info. Just because they wore colours and markings doesn't mean much other than the folks flying them didn't want to get shot down when testing or fooling around. Kinda like the markings OO L on the Fw 190 captured by American forces which they kindly repainted orange. Maybe change the section from Operators to Primary Operators to better match the right side infobox--Evil.Merlin (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a compromise, due to the proclivity of captured I-16s being used by foreign powers, make mention of that in the body of the text. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

Never the less, it still doesn't change the fact that the Luftwaffe didn't use the I-16 in combat. Just like the US didn't use the Fw 190 in combat. I'm fine with mentioning that a number of I-16's were captured and tested by the Luftwaffe however. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Be so kind and read carefully Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Discussion about captured aircraft before making changes in this (or other) articles. It would be nice to hear your opinion about issues raised there like aircraft with nationality markings and serial code (like TS439 on He 177 captured by RAF) or Stammkennzeichen (like DM+HC on UTI-4 or CD+SZ on I-16 captured by Luftwaffe). And be so kind to discuss there, not here or in Yakovlev Yak-9 article. Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I-16 in spanish service

The number of I-16 dispatched to the Republican Military Aviation is not accurate : 155 type 5 and 6 and four UTI-4 arrived in 1936/37, and 121 type 10 in 1938. The republicans started production late in 1938, but only 4 "supermoscas" saw active service ; another 10 were almost finished but not delivered, ans 35 more were in various degrees of production when the war ended. Vilkin (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Updates

As I finish my Russian translations I will be updating the page with a lot more information. I have about 200 pages worth of I-16 information to finish up and will add as needed. Let me know if there are specifics you want me to add to the article please. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish produced I-16 flew after war. No spanish produced I-16 flew in Spanish Republican Air Forces —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.181.150 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Variants

Sorting out the I-16 variants is a truly Sisyphean task because of a wide disagreement between sources, and I have a hard time figuring out which one is the most accurate. Thoughts? - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Type 24

type 24 haven't 20 mm guns only 7.62, the 20 mm were on Type 17 and 27--80.181.227.30 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC) also the other data were wrong--80.181.227.30 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The specs for Type 24 in text and Specifications section still don't match. This is embarrassingly bad. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

and matching the IJNAF's Mitsubishi A5M Claude

How can A5M possibly match i-16? look at the characteristics of both aircrafts! A5M doesn't even have retractable landing gear. And yeah, before adding that nonsense again, please at least find a source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I-16 versus Bf 109

I delete part of the section where I-16 is compared to Bf 109 - that is not referenced and at least disputable - with parts referring to Drabkin book. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Polikarpov I-16/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't know why this was rated start class. It's fairly well done. It has a lot of information, the organization is good, the writing is pretty good. It has a very nice variants section and references, though one is written in Cyrillic, so I have no idea what it says.M Van Houten 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)