Most Successfull ARR plane ?

IMO, it's impossible to find it out.

Lt. Col. Dénes

I thought that the I.A.R.-80 had some flaws in it's design. Like the pilot seat was placed to back, resulting in a lower visibility and so one. So for me only it's availability and the pilots have made the diference.

88-mm,
The IAR-80 did have some flaws, but was a good fighter at the begining of the war. It could have been one of greatest fighters of war. Had Germany given Romania the Engine from the FW-190A-8, as Romania in fact requested. With the more powerful engine the IAR-80 would have made short work many P-51 Mustang's instead of the other way around!!!........

Thank You

Not quite so. Even if a more powerful engine would have been available, it could have not been fitted straight to the airframe and release the airplane for combat.

The airframe of the I.A.R. 80 (including the strengthened fuselage of the Polish P.Z.L. P.24, originally powered by a 900 HP engine) was not designed for high speeds and large G forces. Therefore it should have been redesigned to suit the new powerplant, the increased fuel quantity, etc. Of course, all the design work
could have been done by the I.A.R. engineers, in co-operations with the Germans. But this is already a 'what-if' scenario...

Col. Dénes

Denes,
I have faith in IAR that it could successfully installed the BMW 801 engine, on the IAR-80. It Would have have a top speed of around 600 kph(According third axis forth ally p263). You should not be so quick to dismiss Romanian potential or to forgive Germany for being such a poor ally to Romania.


Thank You

Of course, the BMW radial could have been attached to the I.A.R. 80 airframe. It's only a matter of proper engine mounts and a slightly new cowling.

However, the problem lies with the airframe, as I noted above. It was not designed to be propelled by such a powerful engine and thus being exposed to lots of stress. It's a matter of pure engineering, not political correctness or wishes...

I did clearly note that in my view the I.A.R. design team could have handled a new airframe design, that would have suited the powerful BMW radial (or the I.A.R. 1500 engine). Production capacity and available of primary materials is another question, though.

Wasn't it rather the other way around?

Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 25, 2004 07:27 pm

Wasn't it rather the other way around?

Col. Dénes

Col. Denes,
With all do respect, I strongly disagree with you. Germany was a horriable ally to Romania. Have you forgot about the Vienna Arbitration in which Germany ordered Romania to surrender large sections of land to Bulgaria, Hungary and the USSR! Germany giving licence production rights to Hungary, while denieying Romania licence production rights similar weapons systems such as T-21 and T-22 tanks. Romania was never given close to enough weapons to hold its own on Eastern front and yet despite everything that Germany did to Romania. Romania remianed Loyal to Germany until the Soviet army was at its door-step. Other nations such as Hungary remained loyal because Germany occupied them.

Thank You

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 26, 2004 05:46 am

Wasn't it rather the other way around?

Col. Dénes

Col. Denes,
With all do respect, I strongly disagree with you. Germany was a horriable ally to Romania. Have you forgot about the Vienna Arbitration in which Germany ordered Romania to surrender large sections of land to Bulgaria, Hungary and the USSR! Germany giving licence production rights to Hungary, while denieying Romania licence production rights similar weapons systems such as T-21 and T-22 tanks. Romania was never given close to enough weapons to hold its own on Eastern front and yet despite everything that Germany did to Romania. Romania remianed Loyal to Germany until the Soviet army was at its door-step. Other nations such as Hungary remained loyal because Germany occupied them.

Thank You

And, do not forget the big nomber of soldiers and material send it on the Eastern front, from Hungary and Bulagaria... Of course, a Romanian Army with a lot of man died and wounded in years of war, is not an allied like those who protect life of his mans.

Iama

You are wandering of topic here.

1. Messerschmitt Bf 109G- best fighter in Romanian AF, scored most kills, flown by most of Romania's top aces, the one ARR fighter that could equal the American P-51D Mustang.

2. IAR-80 & IAR-81- effective ground support aircraft, scored second most kills, inflicted huge losses on American B-17, B-24 and P-38 Lighting's, workhorse of the ARR in WW2.

3. Henschel Hs 129- excellent ground support aircraft, inflicted many losses on Soviet armor. Best tank buster of the war.

4. Messershmitt Bf 109E- scored many kills in first have of the War, fought extremly bravely at the "Battle of Stalingrad".

5. Junkers Ju 87D- excellent dive bomber and close-support aircaft, inflicted huge losses on the Soviet Army.

6. Hawker Hurricane MK.1- shoot down many Russian aircraft during the 1941 campaign. Excellent bomber killer.

7. Junkers Ju 88- best medium bomber in the ARR during WW2. Extremly versatile

8. Heinkel He 112- ok fighter, scored a few kills, misused as ground attack aircraft.

9. Heinkel He 111- good medium bomber, second only to Ju 88 as bomber.

10. Messerschmitt 110G- good night-fighter, even better bomber killer, use hindered by the Germens.

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on January 06, 2005 08:00 am

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an effective ground support aircraft, as it wasn't really suited for the task.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an effective ground support aircraft, as it wasn't really suited for the task.

Maybe he want to say - was an effective straffer (?***) - i think this was an almost dedicated use after 23 Aug. 1944, in Western Camapign. Edit: Campaign.

Iama

This post has been edited by Iamandi on January 06, 2005 09:18 am

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an effective ground support aircraft, as it wasn't really suited for the task.

Victor,
While I agree with you that IAR-80 & IAR-81 were not ideal for the ground attack role. I still feel that they gave a good account of themselfs in the ground attack role. Many times aircraft forced to perform task to which they are not ideally suited to. Infact one say I would that the IAR-80 & IAR-81 were not ideally suited for air combat from mid-1942 on, yet the IAR-80&81 continued to shoot down emeny aircraft long after they were considered obsolete. This speaks alot for bravery and skill of our Pilots during our nations most desperate hours!!.....

Thank you

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on January 06, 2005 09:26 am

The IAR-81C employed in ground attacks was very vulnerable to Axis AAA and several pilots were lost in these actions that they weren't equipped to do. The dive bombings were too few to actually evaluate its effectiveness (although some good results were obtained on several occasions), but because it could not dive to lower altitudes than the Ju-87, it was obviously less accurate.

Victor,
Of course the IAR-81 was vulnerable to AAA fire, what aircraft wasn't? However as you have already stated on several occaisions it was effective in the close-support role, so how was the IAR-81 not effective in ground support. I do however, agree with you that the Junkers J-87 Stuka was a superior ground attack aircraft and dive bomber.

Thank You

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on January 07, 2005 07:19 am