IAR.80C vs D.520C

[vikingBerserker]

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]

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]

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]

for true was not faster the romanian

 

[Colin1]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Why is that - national pride?

Was just thinking that

 

[JoeB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tzaw1]

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]

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.

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]

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