Most Successfull ARR plane ?

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

Maybe Victor knows more, but from what i know is something like that: 225 kg. bomb launcher of IAR 81 was deleted in a period when 81 was used more in fighter missions - against USAAF for example, for clear reasons. 50 kg. bomb underwing launchers are deleted or carried suplementary fuel tanks... When all (or almost) where up graded to 81 C standard, were all 81, no more 80.
Maybe if we use rocket prijectile from underwing launchers... But this is just another "what if".
I think "G" was more successfull in straffing, if were used planes with underwing gondolas. And bombs, for ground attack.
Do not forget main tank position in 80/81 fuselage - in front of the pilot, like in Spit case, a verry disatvantageous one.

Iama

Edit: and, when i say more - about Victor info's - maybe he can provide us something about IAR 81 usage in Eastern front. Because 81 was developed for acting like Stuka, a wish plane for ARR.
I make just simply conclusions, base in what i read.

This post has been edited by Iamandi on January 07, 2005 09:27 am

I think IAR 81 ( or 80 rearmed) was better suited for ground supports than Bf-109
for 2 reasons. Armed ( as standard in '44) with the 2 X 20mm Mausers ( with impact explosion shells) a deadly weapons.
The radial engine protect better the pilot from ground fire. And if bullets hit it, the engine could run with out 2 or 3 cilinders damaged.( as Lt. Gulan experienced ).

And speaking of fuel tanks both plane could be hit under the belly from the ground no matter of position of the tanks.

But like someone said the ground attacks were dangerous for all kind of planes even for special protected like Hs-129, Il-2 etc.

Ok. Its like you say.
Not to good chances, even for Hs or Il. Specially to rezist to some direct hits. I posted some days ago a topic dedicated to "shield" of IAR 80 / 81. No posts, no details, but maybe in future....

Iama

You are grossly generalizing. I think it is safe to say that some airplanes were much more vulnerable than others to light AAA. The IAR-81C did not have 10% of the protection the Hs-129 had and the chances to survive in a Hs-129B2 were far greater. Take the example of adj. av. Zamfir who was shot down three times in a day during the heavy fighting of 1943 and survived. Also, the fact that it had two engines instead of one dramatically increased its survivability. Furthermore, the pilot in the Hs-129 had a much line of sight of the battlefield than an IAR-81C pilot did and better chances to hit its targets.

I can give you many examples when the intervention of Hs-129Bs from the 8th Assault Group won the day for the soldiers on the ground. That is effectiveness. I can't really think of many ground support missions of the IAR-81s that had similar results. I would be surprised if they were any at all. Destroying horse-drawn carts and trucks on the road isn't what I would call effective ground support. The IAR-80 was a great plane in 1940 and it is something to be proud of, but let's not exagerrate its capabilities.

If we were to compare the pilot protection and the fuel tanks, I would rather be in a Bf-109 than a IAR-80.
From the interview with general Dobran:

or from the report of cpt. av. Constantin Enea, CO of the 2nd Fighter Group (IAR-81Cs), in late 1944:

Hs had more kilo's of armour than Il. Somebody know some statictical things... at what distance, from what calibre, at what side offered protection this armour?

Iama

I heard the Germans were going to equip the Romanian armed forces with Panther Panzer's V tanks and with Focke Wulf
190F-8 Fighter bombers (such as this one), in late 1944.

This however never happened since Romania switched sides, and so therefore part of this equipment went to Hungary instead.

I wonder how the Fw's would have performed, a big ' + ' for them being that they were such a good aircraft, but a small ' - ' because the Romanians did not have experience with Focke Wulfs,..(Hungarians did), and only with 109's.

This post has been edited by Der Maresal on January 14, 2005 07:36 pm

Attached Image