# IAR.80C vs D.520C



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2009)

IAR.80C *:Name:* Dewoitine D.520C
30ft 3in (9.22m)* :Length:* 28ft 3in (8.6m)
29ft 10in (9.09m) *:Wingspan:* 33ft 6in (10.2m)
12ft 6in (3.82m)* :Height:* 8ft 5in (2.57m)
1 *:Crew:* 1

4,850lbs (2,200Kgs) *:Empty weight:* 4,489lbs (2,036Kgs)
6,570lbs (2,980Kgs) *:Loaded weight:* 6,129lbs (2,780Kgs)

1 x IAR K14-1000A radial 1,025hp (764kW) *owerplant:* 1 x Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 inline 930hp (690kW)
2 x 20mm MG151; 4 x 7.92mm FN mg *:Armament: *1 x 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404; 4 x 7.5mm MAC 1934 mg

342mph (550kph) *:Max speed:* 332mph (535kph)
2,504ft/min (763m/min) *:Rate of climb:* 2,820ft/min (860m/min)
454 miles (730 Kms) *:Range:* 777 miles (1,250 Kms)
31,200ft (9,500m) *:Service ceiling:* 33,000ft (10,000m)

27.1lb/sq ft (132.35Kg/sq m)* :Wing loading: *34.2lb/sq ft (167Kg/sq m)
183sq ft (17sq m)* :Wing area:* 172sq ft (15.97sq m)
0.136hp/lb (224W/Kg) *ower/mass:* 0.156hp/lb (257W/Kg)


----------



## Micdrow (Jul 29, 2009)

Ok I think I have the poll made Colin, check it out and see if it works for you


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2009)

The duplicate thread's gone too - thanks Paul


----------



## Micdrow (Jul 29, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> The duplicate thread's gone too - thanks Paul



Actually I think Joe got rid of the duplicate


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 29, 2009)

Micdrow said:


> Actually I think Joe got rid of the duplicate


lol whoever - thanks


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 29, 2009)

Dewoitine D.520C for me because it was *almost* as good as the ME-109 and it was the best French Fighter. P.S I also like the way the Dewoitine D.520C looks.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 29, 2009)

imho 550 km/h was not actual speed of IAR 80C. the wing load for IAR is for near empty load, i've some doubt also for power/mass data.
so w/o chek data i think best fighters vs fighters dewoitine (it's also a older model of IAR), for ground attack i think best IAR


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 29, 2009)

I'll got for the IAR because of the radial engine vs water cooled and larger fiew power. 

I do find it interesting that Romania also used the D 520.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> imho 550 km/h was not actual speed of IAR 80C. the wing load for IAR is for near empty load, i've some doubt also for power/mass data.
> so w/o chek data i think best fighters vs fighters dewoitine (it's also a older model of IAR), for ground attack i think best IAR


Sorry Vincenzo
but do you have any sources to corroborate this? Something other than 'in your opinion' or some 'doubts'.
I was pretty damn careful in putting the spec face-off together


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

Romania don't used Dewoitine.
My source came on looking with google everyone can works

http://www.aspera.ro/dl/benczeandreiiar80.pdf
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum good place for research on romanian in ww 2
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ks/strezahuzum/IAR-80.htm


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> Romania don't used Dewoitine.
> My source came on looking with google everyone can works


Google? You might want to raise your bar slightly, Romania took delivery of around 100 D.520s


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

I believe both aircraft are pretty evenly matched. Both having advantages over the other.

I find it hard to choose (also in part to me honestly not really knowing much about these two aircraft), but I think I will have to go with the IAR.80 because of its radial engine (and an illogical dislike for the D.520 ).


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Google? You might want to raise your bar slightly, Romania took delivery of around 100 D.520s



need not stop a first results

EDIT sorry i confuse it with MB 151

2nd EDIT i've confuse but also dewoitine was not in service in romania


----------



## parsifal (Jul 30, 2009)

after my unfortunate experiences with french cars Im going to vote for the IAR 80...if the French build aircraft like they built my old Peugot, not wonder they lost


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

parsifal said:


> after my unfortunate experiences with french cars Im going to vote for the IAR 80...if the French build aircraft like they built my old Peugot, not wonder they lost



My friend says the same thing about his as well!


----------



## imalko (Jul 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> .... Romania took delivery of around 100 D.520s



To my knowledge Romania didn't use D.520, but Bulgaria did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 30, 2009)

Good match up.

I'd take the D.520. Lighter wing loading for the IAR.80C but better power loading for the D.520 due to a lighter airframe. I like the IAR.80C armament. I'd bet the D.520 could accelerate better and it has a higher climb rate, range and service ceiling. Both are very cool looking aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

imalko said:


> To my knowledge Romania didn't use D.520, but Bulgaria did.


I am aware of an article
(and am currently trying to find the source) that the Romanians used at least one squadron on the Eastern Front


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2009)

imalko said:


> To my knowledge Romania didn't use D.520, but Bulgaria did.



Romania was supposed to receive some D.520s that the Germans captured, but they never received them. I believe Bulgaria received 120 and Italy received 50 to 60 of them. All together Germany captured about 250 D.520s and another 60 or so were built under German occupation.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

unlucky there are many false info around the net, and not only, on planes, and on all, specifically on not anglosaxones planes


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 30, 2009)

According to _Combat Aircraft of WWII_ by Bookthrift page 13:

"In 1942 the Luftwaffe seized 411, passing many to Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria."

It lists the Users as being: Bulgaria, France, Italy (RA), Romania.

also:

_Aircraft Profile 135 - Dewoitine D 520 _ page 13

"The Romanian Air Force was allocated a small batch of D.520s which saw action on the Eastern Front alongside that air force's Bf 109E's."

However, I will admit I cannot find a pic of one, nor can I find which Romanian "unit" flew them.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> According to _Combat Aircraft of WWII_ by Bookthrift page 13:
> 
> "In 1942 the Luftwaffe seized 411, passing many to Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria."
> 
> It lists the Users as being: Bulgaria, France, Italy (RA), Romania.



need put this book in not only list


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

The D.520
I had some trouble choosing with this one, in the end it was the 

power:mass
rate of climb and 
service ceiling 

advantages held by the French fighter that won the vote. I don't think there's anything in it, the Romanian fighter is faster and punches harder; in a furball I just don't think either set of advantages would be decisive. When the idea swam into my head I didn't realise it was going to be that close.

Is there any reason why I can't see who voted for what, or is that something I should have configured when I set the poll? I don't recall configuring it on my other polls.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

for true was not faster the romanian


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> for true was not faster the romanian


Yeah, again
where are you getting this from?
I have the IAR.80A at 316mph and the C at 342mph for a significant drop in range over the A model


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

for source can see my topic number 10.
a part that, the A and C have same engine GR 14K C32 (on licence), there was not a redesign of aircraft, the C was a bit more heavy there are no reason that C can up speed 40 km/h. (the 550 km/h data it's for prototype imho for reengined protptype with jumo)


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 30, 2009)

Go to the bottom of the page
IAR 80/81

This one's easy enough
I.A.R. 80 - fighter

If you scroll down in here
Modeller's Guide to IAR 80/81 Variants

you'll find this, near the bottom

_IAR 80C - 241-250 Serie 
This is a final major production variant with increased armament and other modifications dictated by the operational use of the type. Initially designed as BoPi variant, this batch has been issued as fighters in order to reinforce the defences against American heavy bombers. 

There has been confusion in various publications about type designation of this series. Planned as BoPi variant, these aircraft were referred to as “IAR-81B" in some official documents. However, study of different photos shows that the designation painted on the fin was “IAR 80C”.

Armament was increased again, this time with two ICARIA (licence-built Oerlikon) 20 mm calibre cannon replacing the 13.2 mm guns with 120 rounds per gun. The four 7.92 mm Brownings were retained, with 1,600 rounds of ammunition. 

Drop tanks could be carried. _


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Go to the bottom of the page
> IAR 80/81
> 
> This one's easy enough
> ...



Jason Long is in wrong 

in aviastar someone a noted the error

the third it's agree with me 558 km/h was for a prototype with jumo engine, 528 km/h for prototype on GR engine and prototype are lighter and faster of a real fighter,


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jul 31, 2009)

The obvious choice for me is the I.A.R. That plane fought all kind of planes throughout the war and hold its own. I don't know much about the D.520C, but I'd have an I.A.R. over a dozen D.520C's .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Konigstiger205 said:


> The obvious choice for me is the I.A.R. That plane fought all kind of planes throughout the war and hold its own. I don't know much about the D.520C, but I'd have an I.A.R. over a dozen D.520C's .



Why is that - national pride?  

It seems based on performance data the only thing the IAR could have over the 520 would be armament and turning performance and that is even questionable based on power loading. The slight speed advantage might be nullified if the 520 could accelerate quicker and that would be my guess based on the 500 pound weight difference.
I like to the looks of the IAR better but I think the data speaks for itself. I would like to know the roll rate for both aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Jul 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why is that - national pride?


Was just thinking that


----------



## JoeB (Jul 31, 2009)

On no Romanian Dw.520's "Third Axis Fourth Ally" by Mark Axworthy goes into exhaustive detail on all foreign a/c supplied to Romania, and those produced in Romania, in WWII period, and no Dw. 520's. "Rumanian Aces of WW2" by Denes Bernad, using mainly Romanian sources, and giving lots of detail of orders of battle, not just ace stories, also makes no mention of Romanian Dw's. A French language 'profile' type book I have attributes statements about Romanian Dw's to confusion with ones delivered to Bulgaria by way of Romania. Negatives are hard to prove, but I think we can basically treat it as fact: no Romanian Dw.520's.

Joe


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jul 31, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Why is that - national pride?



To be honest I'm not very proud of my country as it is now, but I'm pretty damn proud of the flyboys back then and of the I.A.R.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 31, 2009)

For every book I come across that says they did, I find one that says they did not.

None of the ones that said they did list a unit number and cannot find a pic of one in Romanian colors where as I can find them in Bulgarian, German, and Italian colors.. I'm kinda leaning towards they did not.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2009)

Konigstiger205 said:


> To be honest I'm not very proud of my country as it is now, but I'm pretty damn proud of the flyboys back then and of the I.A.R.



Well the IAR was a good aircraft but based on the information here I think the D.520 was slightly better.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 31, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> For every book I come across that says they did, I find one that says they did not.


Rather than just take the number of books, I'd also consider the authors. Axworthy and Bernád are two the top experts on the WWII Romanian military (as a whole in Axworthy's case) and AF (in Bernád's case). If those two authors don't mention it, while presenting all kinds of other details about Romanian a/c procurement (Axworthy) and OOB's (Bernad) that outweighs, IMO, a profile type or general WWII a/c book written not using Romanian sources those two authors extensively use, that says otherwise. Also both books I have by French authors on the D.520 say the same thing, Italy and Bulgaria, with one of the two saying the Romania idea came from a/c transiting Romania for Bulgaria. 

Bernád posts pretty often at 12 o'clock high forum, so you might start a thread there and he could probably give you more idea of the particular original sources he used, but I personally would take it as pretty much a fact that Romania didn't operate D.520's.

Joe


----------



## snafud1 (Aug 3, 2009)

I found this. No mention of D520 in Rumanian service.http://niehorster.orbat.com/031_rumania/_airplanes.htm


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 4, 2009)

> No mention of D520 in Rumanian service.


Because D520 wasn't used by Romanian Royal Aeronautics.
There are in French, German, Italian and Bulgarian AF.

Data for IAR 80: WorldWar2.ro - IAR-80/81
Discussion about "romanian D520": WorldWar2.ro Forum -> Romanian Aviation Myths

D520 was considerably better than IAR 80.


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 4, 2009)

Tzaw1 said:


> Because D520 wasn't used by Romanian Royal Aeronautics.
> There are in French, German, Italian and Bulgarian AF.
> 
> Data for IAR 80: WorldWar2.ro - IAR-80/81
> ...


Seems pretty clear there were no D.520s in Romanian service, it would be remarkable if they had been and not one source named a single squadron that operated them or where.

Data sources on the IAR.80, there's plenty of them, here's another:

Industria Aeronautica Romana IAR 80 81

I wouldn't go so far as to say the D.520 was 'considerably better' than the IAR.80 although I would (only personally) give it the edge in a fight.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2009)

were either aircraft protected by armour, and if so, which ones had the better scheme???


----------



## Colin1 (Aug 4, 2009)

parsifal said:


> were either aircraft protected by armour, and if so, which ones had the better scheme???


I'll dig around
but you'll need to wait until I get home


----------



## Tzaw1 (Aug 4, 2009)

speed @ 5000 m: IAR 80C 485 km/h vs. 550 km/h D520
climbing at 5000 m: 7' vs. 6'41"
max. operational ceiling: 10 000 m vs. 10 250 m
range: 730 km vs. 890 km
max. range: 1330 km vs. 1540 km

Armament: 2×20 mm + 4×7,92 mm vs. 1×20 mm + 4×7,9 mm. 
But... since January 1944!

If we will compare earlier versions of IAR 80, i.e. A and B, are then comparison will be on the advantage of D520. Only climbing will be better (IAR 80A) or slightly better (IAR 80B).

IAR 80A was operational only in February 1941, about one year after D520. In this time D520 would have new, better versions.

I know nothing about protecting of fuel tanks at both machines. About armour IAR 80's only so much, that it was worse than soviet planes.

Discussion about max speed IAR 80 here: WorldWar2.ro Forum -> IAR 80 max speed question...


----------



## SVEN_SS (Sep 21, 2012)

*iar80*
Considered one of the best fighters in 1939, a report of the Luftwaffe major that tested it in March 1941 said:

"Take off and landing are very good. It's 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf-109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent, although the long nose reduces the visibility. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf-109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs."


----------

