Jump to content


Photo

Polikarpov I-185 misconceptions

I-185

156 replies to this topic

#1 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:11 PM

So, I've seen a lot of misconceptions about this aircraft come to surface from the War Thunder community during the past week or so. A lot of myths about the aircraft are starting to become much more prominent and I'm just worried that these myths will start to be passed off as common knowledge or facts between members of the community. So that's the point of this topic basically: to dispel as many myths, misconceptions and straight flat-out lies about the aircraft as possible.

Now first off, I'm not in any way, shape, or form defending the flight model of the I-185 that we have currently in-game. In fact, if you've talked to me before, you would know that I'm pretty quick on calling out the I-185 as a UFO and probably the worst flight model in the Russian tree currently. However, this has nothing to do with the real-world misconceptions that I'm about to list out.
  • The I-185 is a paper plane.
I honestly find it ridiculous how many times I've had to clarify what exactly a "paper plane" is and why the I-185 was not one. A paper plane is a design that simply never got past the blueprint stage. This means no prototypes or production airplanes.

The I-185 was a design that had at least 5 prototypes(3 prototypes, if you only count the actual airframes used), almost all with different engines - M-90, M-81, M-82, M-71, and a final 'standard settler' prototype with another M-71 engine. The M-90, M-81, and initial M-71 all shared the same airframe.
  • The I-185 has made up performance numbers.
Well, not quite. The I-185 that we have in-game is supposedly the prototype fitted with the M-82A engine. However, it actually has the speed performance of the 1941 M-71 prototype, and a climb rate that is significantly better than even the 1942 'standard settler' model of the airplane. However, there are performance numbers available for all of the I-185 prototypes that flew, and saying that Gaijin has to completely fabricate performance numbers for the I-185 in order to make a flight model for it is a flat-out lie.
  • The I-185 was a garbage plane and an utter failure in real life.
A complete lie and I'm really getting tired of hearing this one. The I-185 prototype models with the M-82 and M-71 engines were both some of the best performing piston engined fighter aircraft in Russia, and possibly the entire world at the time of its design and test flights.

The problem with the plane was that the M-71 was an underdeveloped engine that was extremely unreliable, and the M-82 engines were already needed for the production of the Lavochkin La-5 which was already being planned for. This combined with the fact that the I-185 utilized considerably more duralumin than the La-5 and was not quite as simple to switch production to as the La-5(essentially a LaGG-3 airframe with an M-82 engine) made Russia go with the design of the La-5.

In short, the I-185 was NOT rejected due to performance.


If I forgot any points that you guys would like me to address, please let me know and I'll add it. I'm making this topic quite early in the morning and I'm a little tired, so I can't be sure that I remembered to put everything that I originally intended to write.

Source: Soviet Air Power in World War 2 - Yefim Gordon

Edited by CrouchingWalrus, 04 March 2014 - 10:41 PM.

  • 31

#2 Alighierian

Alighierian

    Oberstleutnant

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,958
  • 25 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:21 PM

well, let me ask the bottom line; is the current performance historical, or close to?


  • 6

w47Rf7e.png  jvpg.png    QlfWbbk.png


#3 _TomokoAnabuki

_TomokoAnabuki

    the Folgore scrub

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,777
  • 153 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:23 PM

is it at the moment historically tiered, (ergo does it fight what it fought IRL if it would have entered production)


  • 0

uu2NUKM.png

Fuso Sea Sorties Ships Sunk: III, Assists: IIIII I


#4 weetle

weetle

    Pilot officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 660
  • 63 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:24 PM

It's a prototype, and therefore should be a premium.


  • 43

WT_sig183_zpsc3f931e7.jpgWT_sig192_zpsd55e6b12.jpgWT_sig38_zps46e8612a.jpg


#5 Feher_Keresztes

Feher_Keresztes

    Air commodore

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505
  • 58 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:25 PM

"Once upon a time there was a plane, called I-185. It was very succesful..." 8/s :lol:

 

Thanks! I don't need any bedtime stories, I live without them for more than 20 years.

 

Even Russian websites say that plane was a failure. It killed it's tester pilots.

 

And I said earlier: That plane shouldn't be in game.


  • 20

In WW2 B-17s were escorted by P-51s, now in game P-51s are escorted by B-17s...

 


#6 JG53_Amirul

JG53_Amirul

    Officer cadet

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 464
  • 18 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:27 PM

Really funny, it outdives, sometime outclimb even my tier 4 bf-109 G6, and still it wasnt over performing? oh another thing every single russian prototype go non premium.While german prototype as gaijin said it should be premium. you know? thats a real bad idea


  • 16

SkREEEEEE!! SkREEEEEE!!! SkREEEEEE!!!!!!(Cliff Racer sound}

150px-24211237.png.jpgh098iljn6u9gdars57l2b4mnu2_combine_image


#7 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:40 PM

well, let me ask the bottom line; is the current performance historical, or close to?

Waaaay overclimbing(partially due to unrealistic forsazh/WEP), it's too fast by about 15 kph at all altitudes 6000 meters and below(I'm not sure about speeds at higher altitudes), it doesn't stall with combat flaps deployed, and it acts as if it had hydraulically boosted ailerons. 

 

I'd say the flight model is definitely more than a bit "off" currently, to say the least.

 

is it at the moment historically tiered, (ergo does it fight what it fought IRL if it would have entered production)

Tiering by years, it's probably about right, as the M-82A I-185 probably would have gone into production and service somewhere around late 1942/early 1943, had it actually happened.  

 

Tiering by performance, atm it's way too good for a 4.0 battle rating.  Although once the flight model gets fixed, it should be much more balanced.

 

It's a prototype, and therefore should be a premium.

I'm pretty sure that there was only one FW-190 D-12 made.  That's on Germany's main Focke Wulf line, and I don't hear too many people complaining about that......just saying.

 

"Once upon a time there was a plane, called I-185. It was very succesful..." 8/s :lol:

 

Thanks! I don't need any bedtime stories, I live without them for more than 20 years.

 

Even Russian websites say that plane was a failure. It killed it's tester pilots.

 

And I said earlier: That plane shouldn't be in game.

Lots of planes ended up killing test pilots due to catastrophic failures in the early stages of their design.  Just look at a plane like the Me-163.  The plane entered production and saw combat service, and yet it still ended up killing more German pilots than the number of B-17s that it shot down.


Edited by CrouchingWalrus, 04 March 2014 - 01:43 PM.

  • 16

Thank from 2 Users:

#8 Feher_Keresztes

Feher_Keresztes

    Air commodore

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,505
  • 58 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 01:53 PM

The Komet had more copies than I-185, and didn't cancelled due to engine failures.

 

But if we have I-185, XP ufos, why don't we have Me 262 HG series, Ta-183 or Go 229? These planes are on the release tree and I don't understand why there is difference between prototypes and prototypes.

 

 

There is also He 177, Do 335 which alreday flew. These planes should be higher priority than wind blown paper designs.

 

Re. 2005 G-55 also have more sense to be in game,


  • 4

In WW2 B-17s were escorted by P-51s, now in game P-51s are escorted by B-17s...

 


#9 GeneralKrizmuz

GeneralKrizmuz

    Flying officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 834
  • 90 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 02:01 PM

Really funny, it outdives, sometime outclimb even my tier 4 bf-109 G6, and still it wasnt over performing?

 I-185 will always outclimb your G-6 but it will never outdive it. Which makes sense for anybody...should make sense.

 

Seriously if you find it so hard to deal with I-185s fly it and you will instantly find 1,2,3 big flaws. I-185 is slow, it can't turn and dive for example.


Edited by GeneralKrizmuz, 04 March 2014 - 04:17 PM.

  • 2

pgQ9aKB.gif


#10 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 02:07 PM

The Komet had more copies than I-185, and didn't cancelled due to engine failures.

But if we have I-185, XP ufos, why don't we have Me 262 HG series, Ta-183 or Go 229? These planes are on the release tree and I don't understand why there is difference between prototypes and prototypes.


There is also He 177, Do 335 which alreday flew. These planes should be higher priority than wind blown paper designs.

Re. 2005 G-55 also have more sense to be in game,

Well, the I-185 that we have in-game never had any catastrophic engine failures. This was the M-71 engine that had these problems, and if you had bothered to even glance at the content of my topic, you would know that.

The Me-262 HG II never even flew to my knowledge, the Ta-183 and the Me-262 HG III were both never built, and there is no real reliable data for a Ho-229(only test flights were on something like 70% power, to my knowledge). So only a couple of those planes that you listed are actual "prototypes", and not just designs on paper. And hell, even fewer of them actually flew or have reliable test flight data for building a flight model.

I don't disagree that mass produced and significant aircraft should take priority over prototypes. I've even stated multiple times that I don't even think prototypes should be in the game...

Edited by CrouchingWalrus, 04 March 2014 - 02:34 PM.

  • 8

#11 NebukadnezarII

NebukadnezarII

    Pilot officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 692
  • 57 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 02:15 PM

i have only one problem with superprototypes...they suddenly become mass produced ingame...


  • 35

#12 Buffbeard

Buffbeard

    Flying officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 727
  • 43 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 02:58 PM

I never claimed any of those things. You should not reply only to the arguments that are easy to counter. Although you are correct in your counter to those arguments.

Thing I always claim is: If the I16 and I185 were as good IRL as they are in game, there would have been no World War 2. The german invasion would have been stopped within a couple of months. The planes are so good especcially vs realisticly behaving planes (across all tiers they overperform but thats a sidenote) that it has become utter fantasy.

The plane has become an example to point to the Russian Bias and an example to point out Russians being easy mode planes for Aces. Its hard to counter these 3 arguments, there is no reason nor any reasonable explanation why they should still be overperforming after a year. There is only 1 reasonable explanation which is Russian Bias, and the blame is on Gajin.

The I185 is a monument to the persistent flaws in the game. A disgrace to the developer, and has been for so long its unexplainable.


Edited by Buffbeard, 04 March 2014 - 02:58 PM.

  • 15


#13 Cpt_Branko

Cpt_Branko

    Marshal of the Air Force

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,554
  • 261 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 03:28 PM

I never claimed any of those things. You should not reply only to the arguments that are easy to counter. Although you are correct in your counter to those arguments.

Thing I always claim is: If the I16 and I185 were as good IRL as they are in game, there would have been no World War 2. The german invasion would have been stopped within a couple of months. The planes are so good especcially vs realisticly behaving planes (across all tiers they overperform but thats a sidenote) that it has become utter fantasy.

 

First, I-185 is overperforming, no doubt about it.

 

Second, it should not be ingame in my book, since it was never really a service aircraft (on the other hand, it is not a "paper plane" and cannot be used as justification that paperplanes should be ingame), and it certainly shouldn't be in regular tree.

 

Third, you can't judge fighter quality based on "what happened", you can judge it based on "how it performed" versus "how it performs" in game. By your theory, Battle of France should have ended with a massive massacre of German Panzers by superior French and British armour, because the tanks in a 15v15 simulator simulation were decisively better... and we all know how that one ended in reality.


Edited by Cpt_Branko, 04 March 2014 - 03:29 PM.

  • 8

#14 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 03:43 PM

I never claimed any of those things. You should not reply only to the arguments that are easy to counter. Although you are correct in your counter to those arguments.

Thing I always claim is: If the I16 and I185 were as good IRL as they are in game, there would have been no World War 2. The german invasion would have been stopped within a couple of months. The planes are so good especcially vs realisticly behaving planes (across all tiers they overperform but thats a sidenote) that it has become utter fantasy.

The plane has become an example to point to the Russian Bias and an example to point out Russians being easy mode planes for Aces. Its hard to counter these 3 arguments, there is no reason nor any reasonable explanation why they should still be overperforming after a year. There is only 1 reasonable explanation which is Russian Bias, and the blame is on Gajin.

The I185 is a monument to the persistent flaws in the game. A disgrace to the developer, and has been for so long its unexplainable.

Now first off, I'm not in any way, shape, or form defending the flight model of the I-185 that we have currently in-game.  In fact, if you've talked to me before, you would know that I'm pretty quick on calling out the I-185 as a UFO and probably the worst flight model in the Russian tree currently.  However, this has nothing to do with the real-world misconceptions that I'm about to list out.

 

I'd really appreciate it if you chuckleheads would read the topic before posting from time to time   ;)


  • 11

#15 Buffbeard

Buffbeard

    Flying officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 727
  • 43 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 03:59 PM

Touche


  • 0


#16 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:00 PM

i have only one problem with superprototypes...they suddenly become mass produced ingame...


I completely agree.
  • 6

#17 Aerobane

Aerobane

    Bring all your P38s to me :33

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373
  • 104 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:03 PM

Yeah well it sure as hell is not how it should be either. outdiving/running corsairs? U kidding me?


  • 0

g4axD.png

forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/138064-shinten-seiku-tai/


#18 Aerobane

Aerobane

    Bring all your P38s to me :33

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373
  • 104 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:06 PM

I'd really appreciate it if you chuckleheads would read the topic before posting from time to time   ;)

I'd appreciate you actually providing a counter argument rather than just calling everyone stupid ;)

 

you see, Gaijin did not have to fabricate performance numbers to make the FM. but they did so anyway.


  • 0

g4axD.png

forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/138064-shinten-seiku-tai/


#19 NebukadnezarII

NebukadnezarII

    Pilot officer

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPip
  • 692
  • 57 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:11 PM

i have only one problem with superprototypes...they suddenly become mass produced ingame...

about what i said. dont worry. i will say that to all prototypes ingame. the d13/d12 appear in higher numbers than the actual mass produced d9.

 

and thats why the MM should consider certain amounts of certain planes. there is little to no sense in meeting more then 5 i185s in one match just like there is little to no sense meeting teams full of d13/12 or even better me163 while they face f80C. well that is part of a another discussion but you all see where this is going. people like to have it easy. nothing wrong with that but matches shouldnt be turned into sealclub fests because of some FOTM that is being sued an abused.


  • 0

#20 CrouchingWalrus

CrouchingWalrus

    Squadron leader

  • Ground Forces Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,389
  • 92 Thanks

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:15 PM

Yeah well it sure as hell is not how it should be either. outdiving/running corsairs? U kidding me?

It doesn't.... And pls don't cite Jingles as proof because his mini-rants aren't always sources of gospel truth..
  • 11



Reply to this topic



  



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users