Polikarpov I-16 produced by other countries

I agree about czech I-16 buy/production and it's also something i pondered about (and given that they build the HS-12Y engine, how about the I-17 with normal radiators?), as to Finland i am reading that there was a bit of reproachment by 1937, so maybe they can get the licence for it in exchange for something the soviets want, and coupled with imported R-1820 engines, it would be a more formidable machine than their Fokkers (and the soviets will really be kicking themselves in 1939-1940 faced with improved finnish I-16s). Wonder if it's possible to fit it with an R-1830 and improve it to something akin to the later I-180, and thus avoid the Myrsky debacle.

Poland and Romania? Certainly I-16 would be light years ahead of PZL-11 and even PZL-24, but as their relations with USSR were not terribly good this is a rather far fetched scenario. Perhaps getting some captured ones from Spain for evaluation would be too late to set-up and copy it to make a difference, and anyway i see it as a stopgap until the IAR-80 and PZL-50 are ready. Polish I-16 would probably be good for the 840HP Mercury engine, while the romanian one probably have to be redesigned to take a IAR-14K engine, against resulting in something akin to the I-180? Hungary could conceivably build a copy of I-16 with WM-14K engine too, probably equal to the Re-2000/Hejja in performance, maybe even a bit better.

As to Italy, i'll just have them build the Bf-109 earlier... but i guess what the hell, i guess we can have them copy both the I-16 before the war (and build it instead of the CR-42), and build the Bf-109E/F/G under licence too (instead of the wartime built G-50 and MC-200 and complementing the MC-202 and Re-2001 et seq.) Ouch for RAF!
 

Redbeard

Banned
EDIT: possibly one aspect of the I-16 that would immediately gather attention was its armament of 2 ShKAS machine guns, each with a rate of fire of 1800 rpm. This was significantly higher than most aircraft in the early 1930's, which usually only had 2 machine guns with a rate of fire of around 500 rpm. Some had 4, but even then that would only give a total of 2000 rpm, compared to the 3600 rpm of an I-16. I would not be surprised if the ShKAS, with its rate of fire and low 10.5 kg weight, was quickly reverse engineered by whichever country obtained one.

1800 rpm! Are you sure about that? To me it sounds like a meltdown of the barrels before the ammo is expanded.
 

Archibald

Banned
I second the 1800 rpm rate of fire, I saw it in Bill Guston book on WWII fighter aircraft.
The Front populaire was left-leaning, I wonder if the Armée de l'air could have I-16s manufactured under licence circa 1936-38.
 
as to Finland i am reading that there was a bit of reproachment by 1937, so maybe they can get the licence for it in exchange for something the soviets want, and coupled with imported R-1820 engines, it would be a more formidable machine than their Fokkers (and the soviets will really be kicking themselves in 1939-1940 faced with improved finnish I-16s). Wonder if it's possible to fit it with an R-1830 and improve it to something akin to the later I-180, and thus avoid the Myrsky debacle.

The Finnish trade relations with the USSR were quite wrought in the 30s, and both countries are likely to make decisions about weapons sales and purchases due to political reasons. I don't know how we could make the USSR offer the I-16 to Finland in 1935 when the Finnish Air Force was seeking a replacement for the Gloster Gamecock - the decision would have to come from the Soviets. I don't know if the Finns asked the Soviets for a tender (there were 26 made total) but only seven planes were offered for consideration IOTL: Fokker D.XXI, Gloster Gladiator, North American NA-16-15, Vought V-143, Dewoitine 510, Morane-Saulnier 405 and the PZL P.24. The final decision was made between the Fokker and the PZL P.24, and apparently the three most significant reasons for the decision were Finno-Dutch trade relations, the licence to the Bristol Mercury engine and the fact that the plane was structurally suitable to be built by the State Aircraft Factory. On balance, I think the Finnish soldiers would have been wary of buying Soviet even if the USSR offered the I-16 (the biggest hurdle, IMO) and it was seen as technically the best plane: distrust towards Moscow (generally, and in terms of a reliable delivery of goods, etc) and the low valuation of Soviet trade relations might have still made the Finns buy Western.

Generally, I think the biggest obstacle would be the Soviet Union selling some of its most advanced weapon technology to the Finns. Finnish military purchases from the USSR in the interwar were pretty much nonexistent (I couldn't name any significant deals off-hand), which I believe is mostly attributable to political reasons on both sides. Even if the USSR would sell the Finns military gear, it most likely would be leftovers from WWI rather than their newest and best stuff.

The more realistic possibility could be to get a Finnish I-16 copy, if (like was said above) a Soviet pilot would defect to Finland in the late 30s. Given the OTL timelines for domestic Finnish fighter projects, it is hard to see this copy to go into production before WWII breaks out, though. At best, we might see a handful of these copies in the Winter War, and maybe an entire production run of, say, 40-60 planes during the Continuation War, perhaps instead of the OTL Myrsky like you said, if the Finnish military has already committed major resources into the project by 1940.
 
Thanks for your insight into the finnish situation, yeah probably it's unrealistic for Finland to get a proper licence for I-16, and to just deviate a bit imo perhaps the Myrsky debacle can be avoided if the finns contract Fokker before the war to design for them on of those D-XXI derivatives with retractable landing gear (i know about the finnihs test with such gear on the XXI) and an R-1820 or 1830 engine, i know about Myrsky's structural problems, but i have not heard about such problems for D-XXI? So just base Myrsky on as much of the D-XXI airframe as possible.

As to Italy, i have to take back what i said about them building an I-16 copy, if they want to replace the CR-42 with a modern monoplane with a mixed easy to build (for Italy) structure, they have the Caproni-Vizzola F5, which is superior to I-16 anyway.
I was thinking again of Japan too, but same doubts apply, by the time a copy is available it will be too late to offer a significant advantage? It will have more firepower than Ki-27 and perhaps slightly better performance (depending on what engine will they use) but is it enough to justify the investment? Hmm... i don't know actually, i keep thinking of the I-180, if they put a Ha-25 or Ha-26 engine on the I-16 the result is again something akin to the I-180. THAT is certainly worth having instead of Ki-27.
 
Last edited:
...
As to Italy, i have to take back what i said about them building an I-16 copy, if they want to replace the CR-42 with a modern monoplane with a mixed easy to build (for Italy) structure, they have the Caproni-Vizzola F5, which is superior to I-16 anyway.

Perhaps the best short-term gain for the italians might be that they produce the copy of the I-16 instead of the Fiat CR.42. The new, monoplane fighter, powered by the A.74 engine, will make any new fighter needed to do well above 500 km/h in order to be worth buying. Meaning the OTL G.50 and MC.200 won't cut it. Thus Macchi goes with MC.201 (Asso-powered), Regianne with Re.2000, Caproni with Caproni Vizzola F.5 powered with either Piaggio radial (1000 HP) or Asso in-line engine; all for 1939.
 
1800 rpm! Are you sure about that? To me it sounds like a meltdown of the barrels before the ammo is expanded.
cooling thru the barrel at aircraft speed. Don't try it on a ground mount.


It had that high a rate of fire, which also impressive it was a rimmed cartridge. It was the best rifle caliber MG of WWII.
 
Top