Questions re Polikarpov-fighters.

[Arsenal VG-33]

Hello Birgir,

There is a lot of questions, inside your post:

The wikipedia entry for the Polikarpov I-180, which is well sourced, names a number of projected developments of the I-16, that I have never seen mentioned before. As I understand it, these were attempts to re-engine the basic design with 14 cylinder, two-row radial engines. derived from the Gnome Rhone Mistral-Major (14K I presume). The are called I-161, I-162, I-163, I-164, and I-165.

Not exactly
http://i16fighter.narod.ru/mods/exp1.htm

The first I-161 (1935) was an experimental tip 4 plane with the M-22 engine intended to carry four ShKaS machines guns and four 20 kg bombs. Finaly the decision was made to use 20 mm canons instead.

The second I-161 (1937) was a lighter version intended to have a M 88 engine, but this work was nerver achieved

The number I-162 was never used

The first I-163 (1937) was a lightened version with a M 25 E engine and flaps instead of full lengh ailerons that could be lowered simultaneously on the serial I-16 tip 5 on that time.

The second I-163 had an oleo-pneumatic undercarriage retraction system instead of the standart hand-krank one.

The I-164 or I-16s was a long range escort fighter with extra tanks and a M-25V

None of the two I-165 escort fighter with the M-62 engine an all metalic wing and modified fuselage shape were never flown.

The I-166 was an extra light version (1383 kg at Take Off) with a M-25V engine and a modified NACA coml with adjustable rear slots. Trials were made in 1939

All theese versions were to remain purely experimental

These seem to be precursors to the second variation of the I-180, (mixed construction), represented by the second prototype. (I-180-2).

Does anyone have any info on these planes? or know of websites with more information about them?[/quote]

In russian only: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i180.html
Try with google translater

A related topic. The wikipedia authors relate M. Maslovs conclusions that the I-180 was cancelled for "irrational" reasons. That, over-awed by the Bf 109, the soviet high command cancelled the radial engined I-180 in favour of in-line engined aircrafts. (Lagg-3, Yak-1).
It is a a reasonable conclusion that the Soviet airforce would have been better off with a fully developed design (I-180), rather than immature designs that were not ready, (MiG, Lagg & Yak), although the expected performance was slightly lower.

In fact the MiG fighter (I-200) was a Polikarpov design too. It was designated “Samolet Kh” by Polikarpov before he was banished from its own design bureau OKO by Mikoyan and Gurevitch, when Polikarpov was outside during his travel with the soviet delegation in Germany. A great surprise when he came back...

One noticeable difference is that the M-88 engines seem to have had better altitude capability than the M-105. (Full throttle height of 7000m v. 5000m?) (The tactical significance is beyond my knowledge).

In the eastern front, this is a marqued disavantage, virtually all fight took place under 4000m.

The irony is that it seems that the factory (No 21 in Gorky) ended up producing +- 1000 I-16, type 24 & 29 fighters in 1940/1941. Why?

Could engine availability be the determining factor? It seems that in mid-1940, there where awful lot of applicants for the utilisation of the M-88 engines, (Ilyushin´s DB-3M bomber, Sukhoi´s BB-2 attack bomber, Tairov´s twin engined fighter, as well as Yatsenko´s I-28 project.) Was production-capacity awailable for the required engines. (As contrasted to great supply of Cyclone-derivatives from Perm, lacking applications.)

Unfortunately those engines (Gnome Rhone and derivatives) we suffering numerous problems and were poorly operational, even in France but they were all pratically resolved in late 1939 versions GN 14N. In the same time, russian leading engeeners of the zavod 29 working on the licenced M-87 and 88 were prosecuted and arrested due to the unsatisfactory work of the french engine. This decision on its turn dit not accelerate the devellopement of the soviet version.
Moreover, when Polikarpov was banished from the powerful state factory n°1 to the experimental factory n°51 (a simple empty hangar in the vicinty of the Khodinka airport) with a very reduced team wich, he had lost his experimental production facilities. Pre-series machines were build at very slow rate in factory 21 at Gorki, when despite official requests, the directors were trying as much as they could to help to the Pashinine I-21 fighter project, due to a local cheef ingeneer.



Sources :
http://i16fighter.narod.ru/index.htm

Polikarpov ‘s I-16 Fighter yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter

Polikarpov I 16, Maslov Armada Moscow, and its french version by José Fernandez Kytka editions

Last Polikarpov Fighters I 180 and I-185 Youri Gouglya Arkhiv-Press Kiev 1998


My opinion: Considering that I-18 reached 575 km/h without canopy and a wrecked unsatisfactory fuselage:
Yes, the virtual speed of 600 km/h was virtualy attained and considering the plane astonishing agility it was probably the best fighter in the world in 1940! But its developpement was too slow and it had no other improvement opportunities.
Polikarpov itself was working on the I-185 project since mid 1939.

Best regards