I-153: cheap or not?

[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?

[durangodoug]

Despite the speed of the plane and its two sets of wings, my biggest issue with the I153 is its guns. I cant remember if the plane has 2 or 3 guns on it, but they seem to be the best set of guns in the air. I've shot up several planes for several minutes with my P47(8x50 cals, but you guys know that). But the first time I flew against a I153 I was destroyed with just a burst of its guns. The cannons somehow find the worst possible spot in your engine and send bullets flying. I couldn't believe it so I kept trying to fight with the guy (I was in the 109G-2 by now) and he would kill me on on head on passes, deflection shots, anything. And I don't mind being shot down, but even with a hurricane on my tail I can last for a few seconds and try to get away, the I153 seemed to blow my engine on the first burst every freakin time. I started to target him specifically since he was tearing up my team, but I would start shooting from far behind to make him start to maneuver, then I'd rip off those wings with my cannons with the deflection shot. So yea in my opinion the I153 is pretty cheap, but lets be honest, a lot of the Russian planes are strangely strong compared to the rest.

My best way to shoot down an I153? get him as he's preoccupied with shooting down your teammate

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by durangodoug

Despite the speed of the plane and its two sets of wings, my biggest issue with the I153 is its guns. I cant remember if the plane has 2 or 3 guns on it, but they seem to be the best set of guns in the air. I've shot up several planes for several minutes with my P47(8x50 cals, but you guys know that). But the first time I flew against a I153 I was destroyed with just a burst of its guns. The cannons somehow find the worst possible spot in your engine and send bullets flying. I couldn't believe it so I kept trying to fight with the guy (I was in the 109G-2 by now) and he would kill me on on head on passes, deflection shots, anything. And I don't mind being shot down, but even with a hurricane on my tail I can last for a few seconds and try to get away, the I153 seemed to blow my engine on the first burst every freakin time. I started to target him specifically since he was tearing up my team, but I would start shooting from far behind to make him start to maneuver, then I'd rip off those wings with my cannons with the deflection shot. So yea in my opinion the I153 is pretty cheap, but lets be honest, a lot of the Russian planes are strangely strong compared to the rest.

My best way to shoot down an I153? get him as he's preoccupied with shooting down your teammate

It has twin MGs.

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

It has twin MGs.

I thought the I-153 had cannons?

Anyway I don't feel cheap when I use the I-153 in sim mode because I know how easy it is to combat against them. I don't play arcade so I can't comment there.

[Ancient Seraph]

Yep, 2 x 20mm ShVAKs.

[David603]

Originally Posted by jkerr419

Has anyone mentioned forcing them into a Negative G dive?

The I-153 has a great roll rate, so the pilot will just roll it on its back and then follow you down. That tactic will get you some breathing space though, so its worth trying if you need to escape from an I-153 on your tail.

[InfiniteStates]

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

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.

Ahh sorry - I couldn't see how lift was factored in, but I'm conditioned to think of velocity as a 2D vector, but obviously here it is 3D. So includes lift.