P-38 Ploesti Bombing in Aftermath of Tidalwave

I don't think is only a problem of turn rate but also of altittude of fight and the power of engines ( boosted ). IAR 80 was better than Bf109E at low altitude in combat mockup made with the germans.
Under 100m level , IAR 81C with his 11m wingspan no doubts that could out-turn the 16m wingspan P-38 wich could only have some advantage with his combat flaps to slow the speed and been overpassed by IAR 81. On 10 june '44 the IAR 81C of 6thFG had all the advantage needed for best results: altittude, outnumber, coming from the sun and motivation ( protect their airfield).
But at higher altitude the obsolete engine of IAR 81 ( boosted from 3500 to max 7000m with only one stage recover compressor ) it's no match for P-38 and P-51.
But against the B-17 and B-24 bombers ( his mainly task) IAR 81C with the powerful pairs of 20mm Mauser guns was a deadly fighter.

lol - the P38 was a pig to fly in a turn fight.P38 main characteristics were speed/acc/power and deadly weapons in the nose.If a P38 started to turn fight against fighters such as IAR-80/81 it had no advantantage (only in terms of a turn fight), also the IAR's droped on the lightnings from higher altitude and surprized them.

During my search for the 23rd june movie I came across a statement from a P38 pilot saying that this bird was not for turn fighting and they could only count on its engines and armament to build up a combat tactic

What is your source for this? I doubt this is right, as I've heard from Rumanian fighter pilots themselves that they preferred to fly the Bf 109E to the I.A.R. 80.

Also, by simply taking the available engine power/weight ratio, the 'Emil' was superior to the 'optzeci'.

Col. Dénes

I said IAR-80 better than 109E in combat at low alttitude in a combat mockup. I don't remember the source. The contest was on Pipera airfield after we received the first batch of 109E in 1940.
And who said that bf-109 is best at turns at low altitude. His final weight is much higher then other similar planes ( IAR 80 and russian fighters IAK ).
And I know that the only IAR 80 victory against Bf-109G was at low alttitude.( Adj.Chera)
The romanian pilots preferred Bf-109 instead of IAR-80 simply because was a modern plane with injection fuel engine ( not obsolete carburetor engine), the higher speed etc. The modern war motto " Hit and run" was better suited to Bf-109 compare to old fashioned turn fighter IAR80.

Actually in reviewing the P-38 combat characteristics with twin engine effect which is not allways the best on dogfights ( asymetric prop thrust) and transport category yoke instead conventional fighter pilot stick I still think that was a powerful machine and well armmed machine who posed a great threat to any adversary fighter pilot at that time ...don't forget that the top scoring ace of USAA Maj.Richard Bong in Pacific theather shot down somany experienced Jap pilot with strong with powerful planes ....and it has a superb powerful climb and turn rate ...but of course it depends as well also on the pilot ....so either those were rockies, fel asleep , got hungry on the way to Roumania or simply didnt know what to do I still cant figure out a pilot sitting on IAR which didnt prove itself too much on the Russian theater ...on howcome the surprise effect would suddenly remain the single air to air advantage.....

Alex

This post has been edited by alexkdl on December 14, 2004 10:28 pm

Alex, Bong did not fight against Zeros using turnfight, if he would have tried he would have been dead since day one.Bong used P38' main characteristics: power and weapons.P38 was never a turn-fight plane.

As for the IAR-80's: they got the upper hand when they got into to battle: they had surpeize and altitude on their side, after the first pass the US pilots already lost the battle, also IAR80 was more manovrable at low alt in a turn fight then P38 which I say again WAS NOT MADE FOR TURN FIGHT.The US pilots were not rookies or asleep, they were ordered to attack at low level and they pay the price for their higher officer's bad tactic.

Here is a link to the American version of the events:
http://www.geocities.com/amyjo1.geo/hatch.html

The 71st Squadron pilots weren't all rookies:
2nd Lt. George Johnson Jr had claimed to that date 1 Bf-109 prob on 29 April 1944.
2nd Lt. Herbert Hatch (the one that claimed 5 IAR-80s that day) had claimed to that date 1 Bf-109 prob on 6 May 1944 shared with 1st lt. Richard Furr.

Not always the aircraft quality counts. Take for example the Bf-109s shot down by VVS I-16s in 1941.

I found the link about Herbert Brooks extremly interesting, I didnt have much knowledge about him and about his dogfights with the IAR's ....by now I know why BROOKS AFB in TEXAS is named after. In any case great piece of history. I agree with your comments regarding pilot / aircraft ratio. Last but not least I cant get a clue on why would 1st Ft Grp would paint on his fuselage 5 zwasticas instead 5 ARR markings after all Roumanians were never called by anoyone " Fritz's" or Nazzies

Thanks

ALex

This post has been edited by alexkdl on December 15, 2004 05:53 am

Total weight of I.A.R. 80A: 2,720 kg (later versions were heavier), wing span: 10.52 m, wing loading: 170 kg/sq. m., max. speed (at 5,000 m): 485 km/h, engine power 1000 HP.

Same data for the Bf 109E-3: 2,608 kg, 9.90 m, 159 kg/sq. m., 555 km/h, 1,175 HP.

To me, all the above essential data point to the fact that the Bf 109E was better than the I.A.R. 80.

That's irrelevant. In the same few days (23-25 Sept. 1944), 8 I.A.R. 81Cs were shot down by Luftwaffe Bf 109G-6s, for the reported loss of a single '109.

I believe there is more to it than mentioned above.

Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 15, 2004 01:32 am

Anyone have a picture with a foreign plane (non-romanian) with victory signs contaigning romanian markings? In dont know if i make myself understand...

Iama

I read some reports of US pilots claims over Romania - every time they shot down 109's, 190's and italian planes (over romania), so no wonder you see only zvasticas as victory signs - they were not able to id romanian planes.

Denes i didn't want to convince you the that the IAR 80 is better than Bf-109E. I only said it was probably better at turning at low altitude and also Lt.Balta in his memories said that IAR 80-81 was more maneuvrable than Bf-109( he flew a lot both planes at the Brasov IAR factory).
Why It's irelevant that an obsolete fighter ( IAR 80) with a good pilot could outmaneuver at low alttitude a better fighter Bf-109G and other rooky IAR 80 pilots shot down by experienced german pilots with Bf-109G. ( check the biography of those pilots involved in that fight over Turda and you will understand the difference ) ??

Yea. you've got a point...I thought that the Russians had ARR markings same as AAF but I may be wrong

Alex

If you would browse the 15th AF claims over Romania in 1944, you will only notice a handful of IAR-80. The distinction between a Fw-190 and an IAR-80 wasn't really easy to make in the dogfights (I don't have to tell how fast things happen, because you know better ). So, if it had a radial engine it was usually considered a "Nazi" Fw-190. Probably many US airmen didn't even know that Romania had an air force.

How true.
Once I was approached by a US historian, who wrote several books on the air war, asking me if I knew which Luftwaffe unit was involved in a dogfight with US fighters just north of River Danube, when one US airplane was shot down.
I told him I can find no trace of a matching entry in Luftwaffe claims. He then replied, maybe there were Bulgarians, or long-range Italian fighters (!). I told him no, I don't think so, but there is a matching Rumanian claim. He then replied: oh, yes, I forgot that the Rumanians had fighters, too.
No comment...

Col. Dénes