Polykarpov I-16

[pkassak]

Hi all simmersdudes
here is another project, again something from VVS aircraft park.
So far Zamex did the tech. drawing...any comments? (wing will be added by rivets soon

[Otterkins2]

I always found this a very strange aircraft. Open cockpit and huge engines, but the Germans found them easy targets in spite of their nimble flight characteristics

[x4btr]

You've merged together here the various details of different versions of the I-16 which do not belong together. This makes for a sort-of generalised non-variant of the aircraft.

Trying to avoid a shameless plug, if one were to head over to LuLu.com and search for "I-16", one would find there an up-to-date volume on this aircraft, complete with new scale plans, colour & markings data and other technical details. If you wish to make a serious profile of an I-16, it would be worth a look.

[gamary]

The Pilawski book or the Osprey? (Sorry if I've mispelt the author's name )

[pkassak]

Sure it is mixture of all variants that is how we do templates...switchable on/off
Once I decide for camo, I try to put on only those that belongs to the chosen version.

[x4btr]

The Pilawski book or the Osprey? (Sorry if I've mispelt the author's name )

Most certainly not the Osprey title!... (Osprey on LuLu?.. how odd that...?)

Sure it is mixture of all variants that is how we do templates...switchable on/off
Once I decide for camo, I try to put on only those that belongs to the chosen version.

Pkassak, you'll find if you take a good look at some correct reference material that one simply cannot approach the aircraft in this way. At least not in any useful way that I can think of....

[pkassak]

Why not? It had two different engines AFAIK, but wing and the fuselage was all the series the same as well as wing and tail. Am I right? or totally wrong ?

[gamary]

Most certainly not the Osprey title!...

Tell us more, then. I know almost nothing about the I-16, except that it's fun to fly in IL-2, so I can't really judge the books.

(The only element I do have to judge the books is the cover, and the Osprey cover is nicer. I've always enjoyed aviation art, sorry! )

We should have a book review section here, so people can tell us what they've thought of what they've read. My last ideas for "reviews" weren't that successful, though...

[pkassak]

GaM....Osprey aviation elite, aces, units series sucks! Those books are rubbish from profile point of view as well as from point ofinformation inside...Although it vary from author to author, but in general there is not much space given to cover the subject in detail....

[gamary]

GaM....Osprey aviation elite, aces, units series sucks! Those books are rubbish from profile point of view as well as from point ofinformation inside...Although it vary from author to author, but in general there is not much space given to cover the subject in detail....

Well, as you say, it depends on who the author and illustrators are.

Also, keep in mind that we have a big advantage for profiles: internet and Photoshop. The people who did profiles a few years ago had much more limited access to information, knowledge and opinions. And for the ones who were using airbrushes, well... you can't afford to do very accurate profiles with it, because it's too time-consuming. Photoshop is a life-saver!

Of course, this only applies to the earlier Osprey books.