Military Review

Combat aircraft. The winged horse for Dracula

157

World war is when almost the whole world is at war. In the First, it so happened that neighbors clung to each other's throats with and without it. And in World War II, there was also a practice when states that pursued their goals entered the war.


So it happened with Romania. Now I will not give an assessment of the plans of Antonescu and his puppet king Mihai, but the fact: Romania climbed into the war on the side of Germany against the USSR and naturally got through the horns.

But the brave Romanian warriors seemed to have fought. Fought and the Romanian Air Force. In general, what constituted a flying gypsy camp, proudly referred to as the Romanian Royal Air Force, is the topic of a separate and very humorous article. And now we’ll talk about the plane, which was the highest achievement of the Romanian design idea and which fought the whole war, from bell to bell.

Naturally, his fate was not easy. This fighter fought against the Allies, and against all: Soviet, American and British pilots. And after the coup, he fought quite normally against the German and Hungarian.

In short, it was just the gunman who ripened everywhere. Of course, he was far from the “Devatin D520”, about which I wrote earlier, the Frenchman managed to fight at the same time on both sides of the front, but the Romanian plane also worked out quite well.

Combat aircraft. The winged horse for Dracula

But when it comes to battles in the air, then 95% of the audience remembers the Messerschmitts, Fokke-Wulfs, Yakovlevs, Lavochkins, Mustangs, Zero. But really less well-known models fought in the sky.

This is the brainchild of the Romanian aviation industry, the IAR-80 fighter, we’ll talk about.

It is clear that Romania of those years (we are simply silent about modernity) could not be attributed to the leading aviation to the powers. However, they developed and built the aircraft themselves.

Developed - this, of course, is a little drawn out for fangs, because the Romanians simply adapted something already invented for themselves. That is, they bought licenses and then they themselves tried to build something.

Mostly Romanians were friends with the French (aircraft engines) and the Poles (everything else). At their huge factory by that standards (5 people) in Brasov, the Romanians built planes quite normally, covering half the country's needs for aircraft. The rest was bought, the benefit of the oil-bearing country was not observed problems with money.

In general, licensed Polish fighters of the PZL company were building in Brasov until they realized that they were not just falling behind, but falling behind catastrophically.

And when the concept came, a decision was made on its own to build a modern fighter: a monoplane with retractable landing gear.

For the Romanian design school - really a feat.

A group of designers, Ion Grosso, Ion Kocheryanu, Georgiu Zotta and Georgiu Vilner, accomplished this feat. And the plane was designed and built.

The heart was a real hot Romanian engine IAR-K14-II, a 14-cylinder, air-cooled, take-off power of 900 liters. from. Only a specialist could find the difference with the French Gnome-Ron 14K Mistral-Majeure, which was licensed by IAR. But such is the fate of all good motors - to be copied.

Then began the fun of Romanian designers.

To protect two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 403 liters and an oil tank of 18 liters, Romanian designers placed them behind the engine. Yes, a double star is a good additional protection, I agree.

But the cockpit with the pilot turned out to be so far assigned to the tail that the pilot saw practically nothing in front of him. And the most difficult thing to pilot IAR-80 was ... take off!


But really, the chassis was made retractable into the wing, the racks were closed by shields, the tail crutch was fixed. Suspension struts were oil.

Of course, the Romanian team did not bother with the development or purchase of synchronizers. A rather thick and durable wing was designed, in which four Belgian FN-Browning machine guns of 7,92 mm caliber were equipped with 2440 rounds of ammunition per barrel. For 1937, it was enough for itself "for life".

While engineers and designers were working on the project, the state itself decided that IAR would ... nationalize. What was done in 1938 no less elegantly than the French pressed their airlines. There was someone to learn from, I agree.

The new company became known as RAIAR, and Vizier Gross was appointed director. By the way, no one really protested, because money flowed from the budget, and this, as you know, is only welcome.

And in April 1939, the IAR-80 made its first flight. And it showed quite decent results for that time: at an altitude of 4 m, the aircraft accelerated to 500 km / h, gained altitude of 510 m in 5 minutes, and the maximum flight altitude was 000 km.


Military pilots rated the aircraft very positively, with the exception of takeoff. The review was really just disgusting, which led to several unpleasant incidents.

However, both at the plant, and in the design bureau, and, most importantly, in the military ministry, they were well aware that the rearrangement of the engine, tanks and cockpit was actually the construction of another aircraft. That is, to start all over again.

That is why the Romanian chiefs decided to make a knight's move: to invite experienced French pilots as testers.

Michel Detrois, a test pilot, known as a participant in many racing competitions, arrived from France. Detrois worked as a test pilot at the Moran-Solnez company and the Moran-Breguet-Vibot association. A very experienced pilot, by the way, is the only foreigner to win the US national championship in 1936.


In the first flight, Detroit was unable to take off and crashed the IAR-80, having rolled out of the runway. After the repair, the Frenchman managed to curb the Romanian horse and make several flights.

Noting just a terrible review, Detroit still gave a relatively positive review, since the plane was really frisky and had good maneuverability. That is, according to the French expert, the IAR-80 was a modern aircraft with one big drawback - a review and a not very powerful engine.

The Romanian command did just that. Having decided that all aircraft with a similar layout had such problems, the military decided to neglect the review. In addition, at that time a more powerful IAR-K14-III S-36 engine with a take-off power of 930 liters was already ready. from.

In addition, they slightly increased and strengthened the wing (by 0,5 m2), increased the capacity of the tanks to 455 liters, and made the cabin lantern lockable.

And by the end of 1940, a new plane began to enter the troops. The first batch consisted of 50 cars, on which the retraining of Romanian pilots began.


And in 1941, the first modification appeared. A new IAR-K14-IV S-32 engine with a capacity of 1000 hp appeared. True, it was heavier, had to strengthen the entire nose. All IAR-80 fighters released at that time (95 units) were returned to the factory in Brasov for re-equipment.

A more powerful engine allowed the installation of two more machine guns in the wings, bringing up to six. Plus, under the wing behind each landing gear, a bomb holder for a 50 kg bomb was installed. Aircraft with such modifications received the designation IAR-80A.

Romanian pilots prepared for operation “Barbarossa” together with German colleagues. In anticipation of the attack, the 8th air group (an analogue of our air regiment, consisting of only three squadrons) was relocated to border airfields and on June 22, 1941 began carrying out combat missions.

Further to the 8th joined the 7th air group, and as part of the 4th air fleet Luftwaffe Romanian pilots ensured the advance of the 3rd and 4th Romanian armies, first through the territory of Bessarabia and then through Ukraine.


IAR-80 was fought on the Eastern Front until 1944, when they began to be replaced everywhere with the Bf-109G.

But most of the Romanian Air Force was engaged in the protection and defense of the main asset - oil fields. The 1st, 3rd and 4th groups were engaged in this.

The war showed some weakness in the armament of the IAR-80, especially in operations against the Soviet IL-2. A rifle machine gun with a good supply of ammunition is good, but aircraft booking has also grown.

“By popular demand”, the pilots at the company created the IAR-80V modification, on which the pair of 7,92 mm caliber machine guns closest to the wing root was replaced with large-caliber 12,7 mm machine guns. In addition, the aircraft equipped with suspensions for two fuel tanks of 100 liters. every. Flight range increased from 730 to 1030 km.


And the third, the latest modification of the IAR-80C, entered service in 1943. The whole difference from the “B” was that the 12,7 mm Belgian Browning was replaced with a 20 mm Romanian-made Ikaria gun.

No, a miracle did not happen. "Ikaria" is a licensed MG-FF gun, which in German version did not shine, and even in Romanian and even more so. But it was the IAR-80Cs so armed that took part in their most illustrious battle.


In general, Romanian pilots fought quite well in their skies. And they caused inconvenience to the Allied aviation working in the Ploiesti oil fields. To remove the Romanians from heaven once and for all, it was decided to smash the fighter base in Popesty-Leorden.

On June 10, 1944, more than a hundred P-38J Lightnings of the 15th air wing of the US Air Force headed for Popesty Leorden.


Once again, I must say. The Americans had long wanted to destroy this base, but they never managed to catch the Romanians by surprise. It so happened that the Romanian pilots fought back every time quite successfully.

Soaring at night from the Italian aerodromes, the Lightings planned to be above the aerodrome at around 8 in the morning. And calmly bomb. We walked at a very low altitude so as not to be detected. We walked confidently.

The trouble was that the Germans did not spare the radars for the allies, and the German "Freyas" and "Würzburgs" quite calmly spotted the Americans. Being quite sure that they were not found, the American pilots did not closely monitor the sky. But in vain.

That morning, 26 out of 38 aircraft ready for take-off were at the airport.


All of them took to the air and, knowing the course and altitude of the Americans, took an advantageous position. And then they staged an unsuspecting Yankees uniform battle. 26 versus 100 - this is not very small if there is an advantage in height and stealth.

Romanians shot down 24 Lightning at the cost of three of their aircraft.

On August 1, 1943, the IAR-80 and their pilots virtually died during Operation Tidal Wave. The purpose of the operation was the destruction of the largest possible number of facilities in Ploiesti and the disruption of oil supplies to the Axis countries.

228 B-24 Libererator bombers rose from airfields in Italy and, accompanied by the Mustangs, went to targets in Ploiesti. However, a very strong headwind made its own adjustments, and the Mustang escort could not accompany their bombers with fuel until the end of the route.


53 downed Liberator and 660 dead crew members were very spoiled by the already more than modest success of American aviation.

On August 20, 1944, Soviet troops crossed the Prut, and the dictator Antonescu was overthrown. Four days later, Romania declared war on its former ally, Germany, and the Romanian troops came under the command of the Red Army. The country's air forces became part of the 5th Soviet Air Army of the 2nd Ukrainian Front and in fact immediately began to fight against their now former allies.

When the war ended, the "winners" returned back to Romania.


And further, until 1949, IAR-80 of all modifications served as fighters of the air force of now socialist Romania. Then they were replaced by La-5 and Yak-9 (it was necessary to put them somewhere!), And it turned out that in the end there were no aircraft left, even for stories.

However, this attitude was in the entire social camp, to my greatest regret. What is on display at the War Museum in Bucharest is nothing more than a mock-up, similar to our mock-ups at Monino. Alas.

A total of 220 IAR-80s of all modifications were built. Say a little? For Romania - a lot. And in general, where is Romania and where is the aviation industry?

A very decent result, frankly speaking.

The plane, to be honest, was very good. Yes, a sore spot is a take-off review. Yes, "I blinded him from what was." But this machine fought quite well with Soviet and American planes, shot down the "Fortresses" (and it had to be able to!) And turned out to be extremely tenacious.

In general, a very, very worthy aircraft came out at Romania Aeronautics Industry.

LTX IAR-80A


Wingspan, m: 10,52.
Length, m: 8,97.
Height, m: 3,60.
Wing area m: 15,97.

Weight, kg:
- empty aircraft: 2 110;
- normal takeoff: 2 720.

Engine: 1 x IAR 14K III C32 x 1000 hp

Maximum speed, km / h: 485.
Cruising speed, km / h: 424.
Practical range, km: 730.
Maximum rate of climb, m / min: 670.
Practical ceiling, m: 10 500.

Crew, person: 1.

Armament: Six 7,92 mm Browning FN machine guns.
Author:
157 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. polpot
    polpot 2 July 2020 18: 12 New
    18
    Thank you, a good article with a great sense of humor.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 2 July 2020 18: 25 New
      +3
      At the end, one could add: "Ai nane-nane!"
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 July 2020 19: 55 New
        -1
        Quote: Pessimist22
        At the end, one could add: "Ai nane-nane!"

        "Young, handsome, let me tell fortunes, they'll hit you right away or not right away."
  2. Revolver
    Revolver 2 July 2020 18: 29 New
    +1
    Romanians are proud to be descended from the Romans, from the time of the empire. But only during the time of the empire, Romania was the very remote province where thieves and request... no, for this word, modernists can be banned, so let's say "women of a difficult fate, modest workers of the intimate front."
    Although Australia was for Britain the same remote province with the same population growth path. And nothing, it has become quite a normal civilized country, to which many would like to move, including from the same Romania.
    1. Free wind
      Free wind 2 July 2020 19: 30 New
      26
      In Romania, there was a kingdom of Dacia. The Dacians, tribes related to the Thracians, very thoroughly ruffled the nerves of the Romans. About the fact that somewhere thieves and mamzels were exiled I hear for the first time. Mamsels in Rome were used in the tail and mane. the Romans did not differ in Puritan views. Maybe if it completely comes out of consumption, and then it seems easier for her to turn her head off, or to sell potatoes to drip on some local ranch wassat . There are also criminals in Rome, there are many mines of quarries, slaves are always needed, and even gladiators were not refused in the arenas.
      1. Alf
        Alf 2 July 2020 19: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Free Wind
        There are also criminals in Rome, there are many mines, there are always slaves,

        Constant staff turnover.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 2 July 2020 22: 31 New
        +6
        Quote: Free Wind
        was the kingdom of Dacia

        The Dacians defeated the Romans under the emperor Trajan, and thoroughly genocide, so much so that they disappeared from the pages of history.
        Quote: Free Wind
        There are also criminals in Rome, there are a lot of mines, slaves are always needed, and in the arenas they didn’t refuse gladiators

        As for the sale of slavery, in Rome, the system of criminal penalties was regulated in detail by laws.
        For example, murderers were executed, in particular, fed animals in arenas. Only those who were not a free citizen of Rome were crucified on the cross. Only slanderous debtors were sold into slavery. And all sorts of pickpockets, burglars, or whatever they were called there in Latin, if it did not draw to the tower, they were expelled from the metropolis to remote provinces.
        Quote: Free Wind
        Mamsels in Rome were used in the tail and mane. the Romans did not differ in Puritan views.

        As for women of a difficult fate, working in official brothels, or as they were called then, Lupanaria, is legal. And getters serving the upper strata of society are also normal and somewhere even prestigious. But independent entrepreneurship in this profession (such as the current station) was not encouraged by the authorities. As, however, almost always and everywhere. And punished, as a rule, by expulsion.
        1. Free wind
          Free wind 2 July 2020 22: 49 New
          +7
          Well, Ducky is to blame. After the defeat in the 1st Dacian war, where 30 legions covered himself with glory. The leader of the Dacians Decibel surrendered weapons and swore allegiance, but began to make tricks, And I remember in 105 the second Dacian war began. Well, they were completely riddled, only 500 thousand were sold to slaves. Then it went to many Roxalans and Dacians, and so on.
    2. Ryaruav
      Ryaruav 2 July 2020 23: 58 New
      +1
      they generally associate themselves with the Dacians as modern Moldovans
  3. Free wind
    Free wind 2 July 2020 18: 38 New
    +5
    I have never even heard of such an airplane. Sitting behind a half-ton of gasoline doesn’t really smile.
    1. val43
      val43 2 July 2020 19: 20 New
      17
      And sitting next to a half-ton of gasoline smiles very much? Do not forget that in this case, the gas tank is pretty well protected from both the back and front hemispheres. Wing tanks are much more vulnerable ..
  4. Undecim
    Undecim 2 July 2020 19: 00 New
    30
    The author is obviously trying to create a new literary genre - technical historical humor. The truth in the pursuit of humor misinterprets the facts.
    “By popular demand”, the pilots at the company created the IAR-80V modification, on which the pair of FN-Browning 7,92 mm machine guns closest to the wing root was replaced with large-caliber 12,7 mm machine guns.
    Machine guns were 13,2 mm caliber - Browning FN.
    And in general, the author’s frivolous style for this case is not very out of place, if only because the Romanian IAR 1939, soared in 80, was an all-metal monoplane with a retractable landing gear and a closed cabin.
    For information, the Yak-1 that took off a year later was mainly wooden and linen.
    1. ohka_new
      ohka_new 2 July 2020 19: 16 New
      11
      I will add logical inconsistencies. First, the author writes: "But the brave Romanian warriors seemed to have fought. The Romanian Air Force also fought. In general, what the flying gypsy camp, proudly called the Romanian Royal Air Force, was like, is a topic for a separate and very humorous article." Then a full turn: "In general, the Romanian pilots fought in their skies quite well."
    2. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 2 July 2020 20: 45 New
      +5
      The author loves to humor
      Of course, the Romanian team did not bother with the development or purchase of synchronizers.

      Where with such a dense line-up of the nose of the fuselage "tulle" four machine guns with ammunition?
    3. lucul
      lucul 2 July 2020 21: 13 New
      -1
      if only because the Romanian IAR 1939, soared in 80, was an all-metal monoplane with a retractable landing gear and an enclosed cockpit.
      For information, the Yak-1 that took off a year later was mainly wooden and linen.

      So what ? The mosquitoes out there were also wooden - but the Germans could not keep up with them))))
      1. Sergey M. Karasev
        Sergey M. Karasev 4 July 2020 07: 15 New
        +2
        On "Mosquito" the tree was not easy: balsa. Very lightweight and durable at the same time. In the aircraft industry, it looks much better than our pine tree.
    4. Elturisto
      Elturisto 2 July 2020 22: 26 New
      +3
      For information, there was an I-30 all-metal with 3 guns.
    5. Revolver
      Revolver 2 July 2020 22: 37 New
      +6
      Quote: Undecim
      And in general, the author’s frivolous style for this case is not very out of place, if only because the Romanian IAR 1939, soared in 80, was an all-metal monoplane with a retractable landing gear and a closed cabin.
      For information, the Yak-1 that took off a year later was mainly wooden and linen.

      Whether the Romanians had their own lumen, or in Germany they bought for oil, but they, it seems, were enough. It would be quite luminous in the USSR, Yakovlev would immediately make Yak-3, and Lavochkin La-9. But since the deficit, they were squandered as best they could, from the canvas or plywood they made the Yak-1 and LaGG-3.
      1. Oleg Bykov
        Oleg Bykov 24 August 2020 23: 44 New
        0
        And the Romanians had enough luminos for as many as 220 pieces
  5. Mooh
    Mooh 2 July 2020 19: 02 New
    -1
    Roman has a talent for making birds heat from ugly ducklings. Either the French will be praised, then here is the Romanian. What will happen when it comes to the Italians?
    The plane is quite ordinary, besides problems with visibility, there were enough flight problems, I met the opinion that the IAR-80, in principle, was not capable of maneuverable aerial combat, and the late I-16 was better in everything except the maximum speed.
  6. svp67
    svp67 2 July 2020 19: 13 New
    +8
    Alas, in 1941 the whole power of the Romanian Air Force was not able to break the only Soviet Soviet regiment opposing them ... on the I-16.
    1. Liam
      Liam 3 July 2020 08: 31 New
      +4
      Quote: svp67
      Alas, in 1941 the whole power of the Romanian Air Force was not able to break the only Soviet Soviet regiment opposing them ... on the I-16.

      Refresh your knowledge.
      The Red Army has concentrated significant forces of the Air Force in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. In Bessarabia, at the airfield of Bolgrad, there were 67 fighter aviation regiments, and at the airfields of Bulgerik-Ialoven there were 68 and 82 air regiments. In Chisinau, there were 20 air divisions, which included 55 IAP (Balti airfield), 45 BAP (Tiraspol airfield) and 2 parachute regiments. In Bukovina, at the airfields in the vicinity of Chernivtsi there were 87, 187 and 149 IAPs. Also in this area were 86 BAP, 224 PBB and 4 parachute regiments. In total, the Red Army had at its disposal in Besarabia, Northern Bukovina and Transnistria 840 bombers and 960 fighters. Here you can add 240 reconnaissance aircraft and approximately 2500 paratroopers.
      1. svp67
        svp67 3 July 2020 09: 18 New
        +3
        Quote: Liam
        Refresh your knowledge.

        Thank you ... But you, as always, keep silent and miss that a joint German-Romanian grouping acted against this grouping of the Soviet Air Force, where each was assigned a role. The Romanians with all their "might" were unable to resist the skillful actions of the only aviation regiment
        1. Liam
          Liam 3 July 2020 10: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          Thank you

          Please.
          Quote: svp67
          The Romanians with all their "might" were unable to resist the skillful actions of the only aviation regiment

          Undoubtedly, it will not be difficult for you to confirm your statements with more specific data. For example, the number of this air regiment, where it was based, and list the parts of the entire Romanian aviation that operated specifically in the sector of this regiment and not anywhere else. Well, and share the results of the confrontation - the number of those shot down destroyed on the ground etc
          1. svp67
            svp67 3 July 2020 11: 27 New
            +5
            Quote: Liam
            For example, the number of this regiment,

            67 IAP
            Quote: Liam
            where was he based

            Airfield Bolgrad
            Quote: Liam
            list the parts of the entire Romanian aviation that operated precisely in the sector of this regiment

            Directly in the first attacks on the airfields of Bolgrad and Bulgaria, attack planes of the 1st Bomber Flotilla, namely Savoy-Marketi S-79B bombers from the 71st and 72nd squadrons, were to take part
            To accompany them, IAR 80 fighters from the 8th Fighter Group of the 1st Fighter Flotilla stood out.
            Losses vary, but the Romanians could not complete the tasks, having lost their bombers and fighters ...
            The only aircraft of the 22st squadron that survived the June 71 sortie was the flagship Savoia Marchetti SM.79B No. 5.
            1. Liam
              Liam 3 July 2020 16: 09 New
              -3
              Quote: svp67
              Losses vary

              And you bring them. That hesitate.
              Quote: svp67
              but the Romanians were unable to complete the tasks, having lost their bombers and fighters

              So did not complete the tasks or
              Alas, in 1941 the whole power of the Romanian Air Force was not able to break the only Soviet Soviet regiment opposing them ... on the I-16
              ?
              Quote: svp67
              The only aircraft of the 22st squadron that survived the June 71 sortie was the flagship Savoia Marchetti SM.79B No. 5.


              Airfield Pogoanele-Buzau.

              At 2.45, the engines of the SM-79 bombers of the 1st bomber group are launched. The first to take off is No. 5 71st Squadron (call sign Mihai), which is controlled by the group’s commander himself, Lieutenant Commander Comsha Liviu. Due to the soft ground, the plane crashes when taking off. 13, but the crew was not injured. After a twenty-minute delay, the planes of the 72nd squadron take off (call sign Romeo). Due to the sudden stop of the left engine, aircraft No. 12 forced to return. The annoyed chief adjutant pilot Iohan Kirya did not restrain himself and burst into tears. The rest 9 bombers crossed the Prut at 4.03, heading for the enemy airfields in Bolgrad and Bulgarik. Over the target they were attacked by the Soviet I-16 and a hot battle ensued over the airfield. The crew of captain Konstantin Stoensku shot down 2 I-16 fighters in this battle.

              “While over Bolgrad,” flight mechanic Nikolay Kirstea recalled, “we opened the bomb bays. After dropping the bombs, I moved to firing point No. 3, under the fuselage, and immediately the enemy plane, attacking us from the bottom right, flew right in front of me. fired a burst of 20 rounds until he crossed over to the left. There he was received by Sergeant Gheorghe Mitroy, firing from a side machine gun. A long, well-fired burst and the enemy plane crashed in flames. Bullets whistled at my head again, indicating that we were Two fuel tanks were riddled with bullets and the spilled gasoline literally flooded the fuselage. I jumped up and cut off the fuel supply from the punctured tanks ... "The battle continued and gunner Gheorghe Mitroy shot down another I-16. This was a great achievement considering the fact that the bombers flew without fighter cover. According to Soviet data, the pilots of the 67th IAP shot down four enemy aircraft in battle, but there were no losses of their own!

              Of the four take-off planes of the 72nd squadron (Romeo), only three were bombed at the airfield in Bulgarica: at 4.45, when the planes were heading for Bolgrad, the compound was attacked by several I-16s. Cover fighters immediately entered the battle, but since there were only four of them, they were quickly pushed back. A pair of Soviet fighters attacked No. 11, located on the right side of the connection. Bullets pierced the fuel tank, damaged the dashboard of the co-pilot and the bomb drop mechanism, easily injuring the flight engineer. In response, one of the attackers was shot down, and the second refused further attempts to attack the bomber. On this experience of the crew did not end. During the battle, the bomb drop mechanism was damaged and had to land with two bombs in the bomb bay. Fortunately, nothing happened. As it turned out later, 9 shells hit the plane, but none of them were incendiary. Junior Lieutenant Ioan Craceoanu, flying an airplane No. 20, confirmed the victory of a friend over I-16. The crew of Jonah himself also distinguished himself, having damaged several aircraft on the ground with machine-gun fire. As a result of this raid alone, according to Romanian data, 15 enemy aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Due to the darkness, aircraft No. 18 took off later and, not finding a connection, headed for the target under cover of the IAR-80 link. When passing over Bulgerik's airfield, he was attacked by an I-16 six. Two I-16s were pushed back by fighters.

              The remaining red-star fighters attacked a lone bomber throughout the entire Bulgarik-Bolgrad section. As a result, the bomber received 29 hits, both fuel tanks being broken. One of the attackers decided to attack the bomber in the forehead, but the Romanian pilot laid a steep turn and the gunners managed to bring down the Soviet fighter. The bombers of the 1st bomber group landed between 5.05 and 5.30. Of the 9 aircraft participating in this raid, 2 were lost, as well as 10 people flight personnel
              1. svp67
                svp67 3 July 2020 20: 50 New
                +5
                Quote: Liam
                Of the 9 aircraft participating in this raid, 2 were lost

                Don't confuse "hot" with "flat".
                The Romanians were given a specific task to suppress and destroy our airfield center, with an air regiment based there. According to the standards used by the Germans, they had enough forces and means for this. The fact that they had technical failures was not an agreement on the time of the meeting of fighters and bombers, as they INDEPENDENTLY planned the air raid itself. This is an indicator of their "power". They managed to "catch" our air regiment still sitting at the airfield. They could not only destroy it on the ground, but also prevent them from taking off to repel an air raid, for which they paid with losses. They did not fulfill the task assigned to their Air Force. Here is the criterion of their power
                1. Liam
                  Liam 3 July 2020 21: 14 New
                  0
                  You somehow smoothly switch to the "lyrics" ... and here are the documents for you.
                  The second wave. The same day-22.06.

                  BA-MA, RL 7/471



                  Secretly, for command only

                  Telegraph station:

                  Unit Name: GTBT

                  Current number: 0617

                  Accepted Date: 22.6. 1941, at 22:00 Sent Date: 23.6.1941/00/35, at XNUMX:XNUMX



                  Telegram Headquarters, Colonel Bassenge

                  1) Ground situation:

                  Dobrogea:

                  On the Black Sea coast without any special incidents. Artillery firefight in Tulce (Tulcea) and Isakce (Isaccea).

                  Prut Front:

                  The bridgeheads east of Galati were captured at Oancea, Fălciu and Stanilesti.

                  Northern Bukovina:

                  Strong enemy resistance southeast of the city of Chernivtsi. The use of [enemy] tanks.

                  Overall impression:

                  Strong enemy resistance in Northern Bukovina. On the Prut Front there is weaker resistance, the probable retreat of certain enemy units.

                  2) Air situation:

                  In addition to certain short flights of reconnaissance aircraft over the river. Rod, the enemy dealt only one air strike, using four aircraft for this. The purpose of the strike was a railway bridge over the river. Putna, 20 kilometers north of Fokshany 1. The attack was not successful. The bombing was allegedly carried out with a dive.

                  Romanian air corps operations:
                  ...........

                  At 11:15, 13 Potez-63 aircraft took off, accompanied by 12 He-112 aircraft. Purpose: Bolgrad airfield, which had from 15 to 20 single-engine aircraft. On earth, 10 to 12 aircraft were destroyed. There was a strong shelling by anti-aircraft mounts and the opposition of enemy fighters. Losses: two POTES-63 did not return from operation.

                  At 11:45, 9 IAR-37 planes took off together with 8 pcs. He-112. Purpose: Izmail airfield. There are tents and barracks at the airfield. The effectiveness of the operation is in doubt. There was an air battle with about ten enemy fighters, of which one was shot down. Our losses: one IAR-37 was shot down and one IAR-37 made an emergency landing on our territory.

                  12:10 Strike at ground targets with 9 LOS aircraft accompanied by 6 Hurrican fighters. Target: Bolgrad airfield. It was not possible to establish the effectiveness of the raid in connection with the air battle that took place. 4 enemy aircraft were shot down by our fighters. Our losses: 2 pcs. LOS.

                  Result [overall]: down approx. 5 enemy fighters I-16 (Rata), approx. 20 destroyed on the ground

                  Our losses: 8 aircraft were shot down, 5 pcs. made an emergency landing or are damaged.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 3 July 2020 21: 39 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Liam
                    Result [overall]: down approx. 5 enemy fighters I-16 (Rata), approx. 20 destroyed on the ground

                    Our losses: 8 aircraft were shot down, 5 pcs. made an emergency landing or are damaged.

                    It is a pity there is no our data. Since about the loss of the enemy, you can SO think of that mother do not grieve.
                    And so, for June 22 in the regiment’s lists only TWO dead pilot ....

                    In total, on June 22.06.41, 67, the 13th IAP destroyed 16-117 enemy aircraft in 2 sorties, losing XNUMX of its aircraft. Six enemy pilots who jumped with parachutes were captured. The pilots distinguished themselves: Maklyak, Ragozin, Novitsky, Kurochka, Ermak and others.
                    Something like this...
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 3 July 2020 21: 53 New
                      +1
                      I don’t discuss who shot down or didn’t shoot down. About how all the parties considered the enemy’s losses in the war, they wrote kilotons of materials, including on this site.
                      I just show that your lightweight statement about how one 67 IAP stopped all the Romanian aviation without straining, does not correspond to reality. On that theater of operations was not only one 67 IAP but many others still. And how it stopped, it can be seen from the reports. all hundreds of kilometers of front-airdromes, train stations, warehouses in Chisinau, Tiraspol, Izmail, Akkerman, etc., etc., were bombed with great strain and without any special losses. And this happened every day. And 67 IAP (and others) didn’t This was hindered, but was mainly occupied by the defense of its own airfield, and not by the cover of troops, warehouses, transport hubs.
                      We have a different idea of ​​what the fighter aircraft should do.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 3 July 2020 22: 01 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Liam
                        I just show that your lightweight statement about how one 67 IAP without straining all the Romanian aviation stopped-

                        You are again trying to pass off YOUR thoughts as strangers. I just argued that the Romanian Air Force with all its power could not crush our air regiment
                        Quote: Liam
                        .Romanians without much stress and without much loss bombed everything in a row on hundreds of kilometers of front-airfields, train stations, warehouses in

                        No, here you are wrong, with their payroll, they suffered heavy losses, they didn’t have thousands of aircraft on their equipment, not even a thousand.
                        Quote: Liam
                        We have a different idea of ​​what the fighter aircraft should do.

                        No one denies that we had a mess, but the conversation was about the "power" of the Romanian Air Force, but it turns out that it was not very ... And the fact that their bombers flew somewhere out there, except airfields, this is not the merit of their mythical "power". This is the merit of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 3 July 2020 11: 12 New
        +4
        Quote: Liam
        The Red Army has concentrated significant forces of the Air Force in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. In Besarabia, at the airfield of Bolgrad, there were 67 fighter regiment,

        64 I-16, of which 38 are combat-ready. Pilots are prepared for flights only in the afternoon at PMU (as with all other OdVO air regiments, except 131 IAP - but it sits already in Krivoy Rog).
        Quote: Liam
        and at the airdromes of Bulgerik-Ialoven there were 68 and 82 air regiments.

        Something I don’t see these regiments in OdVO and KOVO.
        There is
        - 69 IAP (Odessa) - 70 I-16, of which 50 are combat ready.
        - 168 IAP (Kolosovka) - 61 I-16, of which 35 are combat ready.
        - 5 bap (Akkerman, Kulevcha) - 35 SB, of which 22 are combat ready.
        Quote: Liam
        There were 20 air divisions in Chisinau, which included 55 IAPs (Balti airfield),

        54 I-16, of which 39 are combat ready.
        Quote: Liam
        45 BAP (airfield Tiraspol)

        54 SB, of which 27 are combat ready. And 5 Pe-2 without crews.
        Completely forgotten:
        - 4 IAP 20th Garden: Grigoriopol - 71 I-16 (30 combat ready) and Chisinau - 60 MiG-3 (22 combat ready).
        - 211 bap (Kotovsk) - 18 Su-2, of which 12 are combat ready.
        Quote: Liam
        In Bukovina, at the airdromes near the city of Chernivtsi, there were 87, 187 and 149 IAPs.

        87 IAP - this is KOVO, Tarnopol - 61 I-16, of which 51 are combatants. And 4 MiG-3 without crews.
        187 IAP is the CALL, Baranavichy.
        149 IAP is KOVO, 67 I-16 and I-153, of which 46 are combat ready. It is part of the 64th IAD, which is in the formation stage.
        Quote: Liam
        In total, the Red Army had 840 bombers and 960 fighters at its disposal in Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Transnistria.

        We should not consider aircraft, but crews ready for simultaneous departure. And then there were already 962 aircraft in the OdVO Air Force, and only 482 could fly into the air at a time. Some regiments had more equipment than crews, while others (forming) had more crews than equipment.
        1. Liam
          Liam 3 July 2020 16: 42 New
          0
          I did not set out to scrupulously calculate how much and what was there, but only answered the user for a post about allegedly one IAP holding everyone back.
          Discrepancies in the names of aerodromes are quite possible. Often, the same aerodrome was called A on one side and B on the other.
          The area of ​​interest to us (from the Black Sea to Chernautsi) is 600/700 km. Approximately like from Moscow to St. Petersburg. Therefore, talking about 1 air regiment that decided everything lightly is a bit presumptuous
          1. svp67
            svp67 3 July 2020 20: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: Liam
            Therefore, to talk about 1 air regiment which decided everything lightly, slightly presumptuously

            No, you read something strange written.
            Where did I say about the DID account? Show. I had a conversation that their air force could not fulfill the task of blocking and destroying our only air regiment, count in the "greenhouse conditions" of the first hours of the war and this is the clearest indicator of their power
            1. Liam
              Liam 3 July 2020 21: 00 New
              0
              Quote: svp67
              our only aviation regiment

              It seems that you are not particularly aware of what forces were on that theater and how events developed.
              Airfield Ziliste-Buzau, 0 hours 5 minutes.

              "A terrible roar broke the silence of the night, and the walls of the hangars shook so that they seemed to be about to collapse," recalled Lieutenant Mircea Nicolau. All 200 German He-111 bombers of the 4th German fleet and 27th flotilla under the command of General Belke took off and headed to the East. There was an indescribable noise, a fantastic performance that cannot be forgotten. After the German planes took off, at 12.30, we began to prepare too ... "

              3 hours 50 minutes.

              The 5th bomber group, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Paul Landmann, out of 17 He-111H3 aircraft, the 78th, 79th and 80th squadrons took off to bombard airfields in the Chisinau and Tiraspol area, station and railway junction. Each aircraft carried 4 kg and 250 16 kg bombs. Accompanied by 50 He-27 and Bf-112E fighters of the 109th and 5th fighter group, at 7 o’clock in the morning, Romanian He-4N111 bombers crossed the Prut. Airplane, board number 3, with a crew of lieutenant Mircea Nicolaou - crew commander, junior lieutenant Ion Padureanu and lieutenant Sorin Tula - a gunner (since he was assigned as a duty officer, he could not fly, but volunteered), was the first Romanian plane dropping bombs on Tiraspol airfield, on which the aircraft of the 45th BAP were based. "Tiraspol appeared in the distance," recalled Lieutenant Sorin Tulya. Airfield facilities, warehouses and hangars were visible. We dropped half of the bombs, avoiding hitting the strip, which we planned to use soon. We headed to Chisinau and, from a height of 500 meters, struck the railway siding, which had trains with ammunition and troops. The blast wave was so powerful that the plane was thrown up. At 5.20 we landed. " Bombs dropped by Romanian planes destroyed 12 Soviet planes on the ground.


              The airfield of Ramnicu Sarat, 3 hours 35 minutes.

              To attack the airfield Izmail Karakliya He-112 fighter squadrons take off under the command of the captain of captain Virgil Trandafirescu. Over the target, the host ordered by radio to attack the airfield from south to north, where a system of Soviet aircraft was visible. Some I-51s began to fly across the airfield, but were attacked by a closing pair of He-16. Junior lieutenant Theodor Moscu, diving on the take-off I-112s, shot down one Soviet fighter and announced two more shot down in the ensuing air battle. His plane was seriously damaged and Moscu was forced to leave the battle. He landed at Ramnik Sarat at 16. Led by Moscu, adjutant Pavel Konstantin, confirmed two and one likely victories for his leader
              .
              1. svp67
                svp67 3 July 2020 21: 54 New
                +2
                Quote: Liam
                and how events developed.

                You will forgive, but now it’s not customary to believe one side, but it’s customary to compare the data of both sides ...
                You didn’t bring the document from the source to the end, and there is such an interesting phrase ...
                The commander, followed by Lieutenant Dan Skurt and Adjutant Nicolae Iola, attacked the aircraft just at the moment when they began to taxi to take off. Manoliu destroyed one plane, and the second, three-engine (!?!), set fire to Skurtu.

                I’m wondering what three-engine aircraft was then equipped with our aircraft ...
                So, the belief in these stories is not very high
                1. Liam
                  Liam 3 July 2020 22: 02 New
                  0
                  And here it is. In the reports of Soviet pilots at the beginning of the war, you will also find many bizarre descriptions of enemy aircraft. The sides (especially ordinary pilots) were not particularly aware of how the enemy aircraft were "correctly" called, how many engines there were, etc.
                  My screen-about the fact that the Romanians fought not only in the strip 67 IAP as you claimed. And not particularly this IAP stopped them
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 3 July 2020 22: 06 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Liam
                    And here it is.

                    This suggests that someone may "lie as a witness ..."
                    Quote: Liam
                    The parties (especially ordinary pilots) were not particularly aware of how the enemy aircraft were "correctly" called, how many engines there were, and so on.

                    Everyone has been, and therefore always requires a cross-comparison of the information of both parties
                    Quote: Liam
                    My screen-about the fact that the Romanians fought not only in the strip 67 IAP as you claimed. And not particularly this IAP stopped them

                    This regiment did not allow itself to be destroyed and survived to disband after the Victory of the 45th year.
                    Once again I will try to convey to you the idea that the Romanian Air Force did not fulfill the task that they were entrusted with, although the Germans really hoped for it ...
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 3 July 2020 22: 14 New
                      0
                      Quote: svp67
                      This regiment did not allow itself to be destroyed.

                      Already on October 1, 1941, due to the loss of aircraft and pilots, the regiment was withdrawn from the front for retrofitting

                      Quote: svp67
                      Romanian Air Force did not complete that task

                      The Romanian Air Force (like everyone else) had the task of providing ground operations from the air. At that time, they coped with this task.
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 3 July 2020 22: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        Already on October 1, 1941, due to the loss of aircraft and pilots, the regiment was withdrawn from the front for retrofitting

                        It’s a common practice at that time in our Air Force, but it’s unusual that the regiment was able to survive to be completed even in OCTOBER for 41 years, having accepted the battle at the forward airfield on June 22.06.41, XNUMX.
                        Quote: Liam
                        The Romanian Air Force (like everyone else) had the task of providing ground operations from the air. At that time, they coped with this task.

                        Where the Luftwaffe was operating, by the evening of June 22.06.41, XNUMX, our combat-ready aviation units at the advanced airfields were no longer there, they were either destroyed or were forced to leave for alternate airfields. The Romanians could not achieve this.
                        And besides, our bombers already at night from the 22nd to the 23rd made several raids on the cities of Romania. Moreover, their ground forces were first stopped and thrown back at almost all points back beyond the border line ... So, the Romanian Air Force could not fulfill the support of their ground forces.
                      2. Liam
                        Liam 3 July 2020 22: 45 New
                        0
                        Quote: svp67
                        So, the Romanian Air Force could not fulfill the support of its ground forces.

                        Undoubtedly, that is why by the middle of July the Red Army was already beyond the Dniester
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 3 July 2020 21: 41 New
          +2
          BY SIGNAL "ARDYALUL" RUMANIAN AVIATION JUNE 22, 1941
          The Romanians themselves, summarizing the data obtained by the intelligence and received from the ground forces, counted on June 22 their aviators only two shot down aircraft and 37 destroyed on the ground.

          Are you by any chance citing the "victorious" reports of the valiant Romanian pilots not from this article?
  • Fitter65
    Fitter65 2 July 2020 19: 20 New
    +6
    Developed - this, of course, is a little drawn out for fangs, because the Romanians simply adapted something already invented for themselves.
    Well, what exactly is drawn?
    The fact that In the design of the aircraft, part of the components and assemblies of the Polish PZL P.24 fighter, built on the IAR under license, was used.(this is from another source, well, let's just remember about the Tu-4-one in general on the basis of which license?
    Powerplant: 1 × air-cooled IAR K14 licensed version of the Gnome-Rhône Mistral Major 14K, Romanian-made.
    But from the history of the history of the creation of the I-16- fighterThe aircraft was installed: the English Bristol Jupiter engine, licensed in the USSR as the M-22, then the American Wright R-1820 Cyclone [en] *, produced under the license as M-25, and after refinement it received the designation M-62 and M- 6And here, in general, everything is purely our GREAT, GRUSIAN.According to the project, the engine was capitulated by the Townend ring, which was replaced by a NACA hood for type 4, but starting with type 5, the water hood was usedLook for a wing profile yourself?
    Well, for fun, comparable with the Yak-1 release of 1940?
    Romanian-Mass, kg:
    - empty aircraft: 2 110;
    - normal takeoff: 2 72
    Yak-1 - empty aircraft: 2445kg
    - Normal takeoff weight, kg 2950
    That is, the Romanian plane came out easier. + 1
    IAR 80- It was an all-metal monoplane with a closed cockpit (and this is in backward Romania) +2
    Yak-1- The design of the fighter is mixed: the fuselage frame is a truss welded from steel chrome-force pipes with internal cross braces, which is a single unit with the engine. Above and below the cab, the frame was profiled with plywood garrots to give it a streamlined shape. Covering the bow duralumin, tail - linen... As Ostap Bender said: .. "don't slap your ears on your cheeks!"
    Once again read the highlighted ... Yes, the Romanians in terms of engine power lost IAR 14K III C32 x 1000 hp against M-105PA in 1020. Romanian has a Max speed at an altitude of 560 km / h at 7000 m. You have something "Maximum speed, km / h: 485."By the way, the Yak-1 has only 472, and at an altitude of 5000 m - 569 km / h, well, it seems like it is cooler, but how much could that Yak fly at maximum? In armament IAR-80 Shooting and Cannon: 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20/4 × 7,92 mm FN
    Bombs: 1 × 225 kg
    Here, of course, I misled this weaponry of a slightly late modification of the aircraft, well, so let's compare. First IAR-80 six 7,92 mm Browning FN machine guns. The Yak-1 looks more serious than the 1 × 20 mm ShVAK gun / 2 × 7,62 mm ShKAS machine gun. But already at a later modification, the Yak-1 has a 1 × 20-mm ShVAK / 1 × 12,7-mm UBS machine gun, until the end of the war the weapons did not change. And what pulled by teeth? Option number 1 you described, option number 2 2 × 20 mm (0,787 inches) from the MG 151/20 gun and 2 × 7,920 mm (0,312 inches). Yes, the Romanian did not work out as massive as that of Jacob. The capabilities of the countries are not comparable, but in backward Romanians, an all-metal fighter, and our Yak-tree-linen. By the way, for the sake of interest about the Polish PZL P-24 on the basis of which IAR-80 was supposedly created and created, the aircraft was developed in 1932, went into production in 1933. Our I-16 which went into production in 1934. Moreover, given the armament of the PZL P-24, two 20-mm Oerlikon FF guns and two 7,7 mm machine guns, the maximum speed, km / h-430 and comparable to I-16 type 4 (1934) ground speed, km / h 346, Speed ​​at an altitude of 2000m -362km / h armament 2 × PV-1. And who was then king of fighters? Moreover, we take into account that the PZL P-24 chassis is not removable. So the Romanians came very creatively to what they had (and not of very poor quality) and made the plane level. By the way, even the UK was releasing at the same time Hurricane Mk IA which was inferior to the Romanian IAR-80 in all respects, well, maybe, in addition to the mass of a second volley, there were still 8 machine guns ...
    1. lucul
      lucul 2 July 2020 21: 10 New
      +1
      So the Romanians came very creatively to what they had (and not of very bad quality) and made the plane level.

      So what ? What could he oppose such a special Yak-1? In a straight line, the speeds are almost the same, the climb rate of the Yak is -1 higher, the turn time is most likely for the Yak also better (there is no data on Romanian), the roll speed on the Yak will be better, the climb for a combat turn will also be better on the Yak.
      So what is so worthy of this iar-80?
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 2 July 2020 22: 13 New
        -3
        Quote: lucul
        So the Romanians came very creatively to what they had (and not of very bad quality) and made the plane level.

        So what ? What could he oppose such a special Yak-1? In a straight line, the speeds are almost the same, the climb rate of the Yak is -1 higher, the turn time is most likely for the Yak also better (there is no data on Romanian), the roll speed on the Yak will be better, the climb for a combat turn will also be better on the Yak.
        So what is so worthy of this iar-80?

        The fact is that the given characteristics of the Yak-1 aircraft in reference books are the characteristics of a licked sample ... in wartime, Soviet industry mass-produced Yak-1 with more modest characteristics due to poor fitting of parts, poor-quality painting ... it’s well written in the memoirs of mechanics and pilots that the arrived factory car in the aviation regiments was sorted and reassembled anew by cogs. And after assembly, the assembled car was flown over by the most experienced pilot of the regiment.
        See for yourself on iar-80 a good overview of the rear hemisphere due to the teardrop-shaped cockpit of the pilot, which was reached on the Yak-1 only at the end of 1941 in the modification of the Yak-1B. And according to the recollections of pilots who fought in the early Yak-1 during flights at high speeds and heavy loads, the cockpit lock wedged ... so the pilots flew with the cockpit open, and this is a decrease in speed.
        The review of the rear hemisphere in the early Yak-1 was much worse.
        Often, to facilitate the machine, the radio was removed from the Yak-1, one of the machine guns was removed, i.e. really flew only with the 1st UBS.
        Yak-1 1940 release
        1. lucul
          lucul 2 July 2020 22: 16 New
          -6
          See for yourself

          These are all trifles. Actually, the Yak-1 was second only to Me.109 and Spitfire.
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 2 July 2020 22: 23 New
            +1
            Quote: lucul
            See for yourself

            These are all trifles. Actually, the Yak-1 was second only to Me.109 and Spitfire.

            Only the Yak-1B, which became the Yak-3 in 1943, was not inferior to Me. 109E, late modification of Me. The 109F was already faster. Yak-1, Yak-7 on aggregate characteristics released in 1941-1942 were inferior to Me. 109 and Spitfire and even the iar-80.
            1. Ryaruav
              Ryaruav 3 July 2020 00: 05 New
              +1
              about the Romanian car, you’re wrong. The Yak-7 was better, especially at altitudes up to 3000 m, but we didn’t need it yet
              1. Vovk
                Vovk 3 July 2020 12: 06 New
                +1
                Quote: Ryaruav
                about the Romanian car, you’re wrong. The Yak-7 was better, especially at altitudes up to 3000 m, but we didn’t need it yet

                If you are talking about the YAK-7B of later versions, then yes, it was better.
                But the early modifications of the Yak-7A and Yak-7B could not compete with the Romanian car due to the fact that they were a quick alteration of the "training desk" (twin) of the Yak-7, because of the sealed, but the remaining second cabins were clearly heavier than the Yak- 1.


          2. Fitter65
            Fitter65 4 July 2020 09: 00 New
            +2
            Quote: lucul
            These are all trifles. Actually, the Yak-1 was second only to Me.109 and Spitfire.

            Of course little things !!! By the way, do you know how the I-26's climb rate was measured during the tests ?! Yes, and the "Romanian" had radio communications from the beginning ... And by the way, Hitler's Germany and its allies did not have Spitfires in service. Well, so, we are looking in a country that is not the richest, not industrially developed, not rich in aluminum and other other things, which does not have a strong design school, they created an airplane at the level of world standards ... But our quack-quack-patriots for some reason started over mock it ...
            1. hohol95
              hohol95 4 July 2020 20: 22 New
              -1
              What else did the military industry of the "Romanian Empire" produce?
              In addition to the IAR-80 fighter and the dive based on it, the IAR-37 reconnaissance and the R-2 tank.
    2. KERMET
      KERMET 3 July 2020 12: 43 New
      0
      If you compare koi with I-16, then at least compare with I-16 type 5, which had a more comparable engine in power with the PZL P-24
      1. Fitter65
        Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 24 New
        0
        Quote: KERMET
        If you compare koi with I-16, then at least compare with I-16 type 5, which had a more comparable engine in power with the PZL P-24

        No, let's compare the release weather.
        1. KERMET
          KERMET 4 July 2020 10: 44 New
          0
          Well, but judging by the indicated maximum speed of 430 km / h, you mean the serial P.24F equipped with a smaller diameter Gnom-Ron 14N.07 engine with a power of 970 hp. and which was armed with two guns and two machine guns. And this is the 38th year, whatever one may say. Model P.24B or C is also the 38th.
          And the first flight of I-16 type 5 is indicated in 1934, i.e. same as for type 4.
    3. Oleg Bykov
      Oleg Bykov 25 August 2020 00: 01 New
      0
      You'd better compare it with the mentioned Not - 112, which was also in service with Romania. Naturally, given the year of release of the modification
  • Vovk
    Vovk 2 July 2020 19: 31 New
    -1
    Quote: Undecim
    For information, the Yak-1 that took off a year later was mainly wooden and linen.

    It was made of wood and linen, not from the fact that the aircraft designers of the USSR were lagging behind in design technology, no, they were simply prohibited from using scarce materials such as duralumin and aluminum in the design. Whoever violated this ban - thrown into prison "for embezzlement of folk funds." All aluminum went to diesel engines. In the pre-war period, the USSR aircraft designers were tasked with making aircraft cheap in cost, mass-produced and with modern characteristics at that time. Project "Ivanov" was from the same opera - the result was a non-attack aircraft and a short-range non-bomber SU-2, among the fighters the nimble Yak-1, the iron LAGG-1, the tactical bomber Pe-2 converted from a long-range fighter ... and only the Il-2 in the first time it was completely all-metal, but not for long, its tail was still then made of wood.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 2 July 2020 20: 10 New
      +8
      Quote: Vovk
      they were simply forbidden to use scarce materials duralumin and aluminum when designing

      How interesting. Tupolev aluminum bombers, Tupolev boats - aluminum, transport Li-2 - aluminum, tank engine - aluminum (why?), but the fighters didn’t, it was aluminum that ended on them. So comrade Stalin did not like fighters, he simply could not eat.
      1. lucul
        lucul 2 July 2020 21: 00 New
        +3
        How interesting. The Tupolev bombers are aluminum, the Tupolev boats are aluminum, the transport Li-2 is aluminum, the tank engine is aluminum (why?), But the fighters didn’t, it was aluminum that ended on them.

        And what's interesting?
        Fighters planned WHAT series to produce? There it was enough to compare the planned number of aircraft for release, with the capabilities of aluminum plants, and that’s all.
        In addition, the wooden La-5FN cleared the sky from the Messers.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 2 July 2020 21: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          Fighters planned WHAT series to produce? There it was enough to compare the planned number of aircraft for release, with the capabilities of aluminum plants, and that’s all.

          Have you tried to compare? The production of aluminum in the USSR in the 40th and the release of fighters in the same year?
          1. lucul
            lucul 2 July 2020 22: 03 New
            +5
            Have you tried to compare? The production of aluminum in the USSR in the 40th and the release of fighters in the same year?

            And what is there to compare?
            “Aluminum famine” had a negative effect on the production of military aircraft - in 1941, at best, they planned to get 90 thousand tons of “winged metal” for the whole country, with the need for only the aviation sector of 87 thousand tons. It was not clear where to get another 20 thousand tons for other needs.

            Compare with Germany:
            For comparison, we cite data for Germany, which from 1937 to 1939 increased its total aluminum output from 120 thousand tons to 192 thousand tons. And in 1941, the Germans generally managed to melt a record 324 thousand tons! This was one of the secrets to the success of German aviation - aluminum simply had a lot

            Taken from here
            https://topwar.ru/165875-strategicheskij-resurs-aljuminievyj-golod-sovetskogo-sojuza.html
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 3 July 2020 02: 27 New
              +1
              Quote: lucul
              Compare with Germany

              Why do you need Germany?
              Quote: lucul
              case for the whole country to get 90 thousand tons of “winged metal”

              How much aluminum is needed per fighter (given that the engine still has a default engine?) Ton? Two, taking into account the waste? In the 40th year, Germany released 1868 messers, how much, 4 thousand tons extra? Because of 5% of the Soviet output of aluminum, all the fuss?
        2. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 3 July 2020 00: 10 New
          -2
          la-5fn not only with Messers, but confidently resisted the Focke-Wulfs, though only up to 3000 m
          1. fighter angel
            fighter angel 6 July 2020 12: 04 New
            -1
            And what was so outstanding about the “fores”? They also found a "wunderwaflu" for me!
            Both "Lavochkin" and "Yakovlev" beat them, and beat them very confidently.
            And not only up to 3.000, but up to 4-5.000 km.
            All Soviet fighter pilots unanimously declared: "WITH FV-190 AIRBORNE COMBAT IS MUCH EASIER THAN WITH MESSER !!!"
            Except for the "forehead", "forehead" - not terrible, in terms of angular velocity our La and Yak were in no way inferior to him, despite his "agility".
            So "Messer" is indicative and defining, but there was more talk about "FV-190" ...
            It was his Angles who were afraid, but he didn’t make such an impression on our fighters. Because there was something to oppose.
            Heavy, armed, high-speed, but inert and inferior in vertical maneuver and turn time to Soviet fighters, he went to the Eastern Front as a "killer" of our strike vehicles, and he had to get involved in fights with fighters only in favorable conditions.
        3. Octopus
          Octopus 3 July 2020 02: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          wooden La-5FN cleared the sky from Messers

          How interesting. What was La-7 doing in the sky, chasing the Siberian Cranes?
          1. fighter angel
            fighter angel 6 July 2020 12: 05 New
            -1
            octopus
            No need to jerk.
            La-5 started, and La-7 ended the rout of the Luftwaffe.
      2. Liam
        Liam 2 July 2020 22: 32 New
        +5
        Quote: Octopus
        How interesting

        The author somehow technically circumvented the results of the fighting of the Romanian fighters on the Soviet-German front. He told only about the battles with the allies. Perhaps because the results of the battles do not give much reason to scare. During the summer and fall of 1941, Romanian pilots declared about 600 shot down and destroyed at airfields with single own losses
        1. Ryaruav
          Ryaruav 3 July 2020 00: 13 New
          +1
          Yes, the Romanians shot down a cloud of r-38 lightning in 1944 when this car had a speed of 660 km h funny
        2. hohol95
          hohol95 3 July 2020 08: 15 New
          +1
          BY SIGNAL "ARDYALUL" RUMANIAN AVIATION JUNE 22, 1941
          The results of the Romanian aviation on the first day of the war looked impressive. The crews announced the destruction of more than 60 Soviet aircraft. In addition to the aforementioned air victories, one shot down was recorded on their accounts by side gunners Marine Nicolae, Vikshoryan Vasile, Ioan Lungu, George Bucur and Ioan Chumetti. Romanian aviators were also credited with a large number of destroyed armored vehicles and trains. Satisfied with the work of his "flyers", General Antonescu noted the most distinguished in order No. 1 of 15.07.41.
          However, the numbers indicated in the winning reports were far from reality. The Romanians themselves, summarizing the data obtained by the intelligence and received from the ground forces, counted on June 22 their aviators only two shot down aircraft and 37 destroyed on the ground. According to Soviet information, 23 aircraft were lost in the range of Romanian aviation at airfields and in air battles, and defending fighters and anti-aircraft gunners managed to shoot down 8 aircraft: Blenheim (No. 36), two SM79 (No. 1 and 17), two PZL -37 (Nos. 206 and 214), two “Potesa-633” (Nos. 1 and 19) and 1 IAR-37 (Nos. 22). It should be borne in mind that in relation to their losses, the information of the Soviet side needs a certain correlation, since some of them were inflicted by Luftwaffe units operating with the Romanian allies for the same purposes.

          Put out the candles on the candelabrum ...
    2. Fitter65
      Fitter65 4 July 2020 09: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: Vovk
      Project "Ivanov" was from the same opera - the result was a non-attack aircraft and a short-range non-bomber SU-2, among the fighters the nimble Yak-1, the iron LAGG-1, the tactical bomber Pe-2 converted from a long-range fighter ... and only the Il-2 in the first time was completely all-metal,

      Can I tell you about the IRON LaGG-3 right away? If you are not in the subject about this plane, then I will give you an example of the Luftwaffe ace No. 2 Geghard Bakhorn, who remembered that in 1942 on the Stalingrad front he "spun a merry-go-round" with a single LaGG for 40 minutes, no one else did not knock down. Good "duck"!, 40 minutes from 109 to spin the carousel. 249 IAP received LaGG-3 in February 1943, before that the regiment flew on the Yak-1. Read the memoirs of N.M. Skomorokhov, about his first battle in LaGG-3 against 6 "Messers" ... Pe-2 was a dive bomber, we do not have such kind of aviation as tactical. There is Front-line aviation, which is divided into several types of aviation:
      bomber;
      fighter-bomber (tactical fighters);
      assault;
      fighter;
      intelligence;
      auxiliary (transport and special)
      About Su-2, so as not to write under-attack and short-range bomber I advise one to read these publications.
      There is also a monograph on the Su-2 in the Aviation and Time magazine.
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: Fitter65
        About Su-2 so as not to write about it [b] under-attack aircraft and near under-bomber [/ b] I will advise one to read these publications.
        There is also a monograph on the Su-2 in the Aviation and Time magazine.

        From the memories of pilots and navigators 135BBAP.
        At the beginning of the war, we had to storm the enemy, but the SU-2 was not an attack aircraft, it was flashed with all kinds of small arms from the ground. The only armor was only between the Pilot and the navigator-shooter in the form of an armored back. The loss to the regiment was so great from the fire from the ground that it caused the crews to remove the armored shells from the wrecked cars and put them on the floor ...
        When the Su-2 designer once arrived at the regiment, and to the reproaches of the combat crews, how to storm the enemy’s positions in low-speed, slightly armed and without armor ... he did not answer.
        Without fighter cover, the SU-2 was easy prey for an attack from the lower hemisphere, so many crews cut a hatch under the navigator-gunner and inserted an additional machine gun there.
        The last 6 SU-2s in the regiment were lost in the Battle of Stalingrad. The regiment completely switched to IL-2.
        The opinion of the pilots about this aircraft: its mission is an artillery spotter.
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 28 New
          +1
          Quote: Vovk
          At the beginning of the war, we had to storm the enemy, but the SU-2 plane was not a ground attack aircraft, it was flashed with all types of small arms from the ground.

          And who is to blame that the plane began to perform tasks for which it was not created? IL-4 was also not well suited for launching assault strikes, but was it ?!
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 29 New
            -1
            Quote: Fitter65
            Quote: Vovk
            At the beginning of the war, we had to storm the enemy, but the SU-2 plane was not a ground attack aircraft, it was flashed with all types of small arms from the ground.

            And who is to blame that the plane began to perform tasks for which it was not created? IL-4 was also not well suited for launching assault strikes, but was it ?!

            That is why he was a short-range attacker and a near-bomber.
            1. Oleg Bykov
              Oleg Bykov 25 August 2020 00: 14 New
              0
              It was a popular concept in the mid to late 30s. Alas, the British had to suffer at the Battle, too
        2. Fitter65
          Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 51 New
          0
          Quote: Vovk
          Without fighter cover, the SU-2 was easy prey for an attack from the lower hemisphere, so many crews cut a hatch under the navigator-gunner and inserted an additional machine gun there.
          The last 6 SU-2s in the regiment were lost in the Battle of Stalingrad. The regiment completely switched to IL-2.
          The opinion of the pilots about this aircraft: its mission is an artillery spotter.

          Quote: Vovk
          Without fighter cover, the SU-2 was easy prey for an attack from the lower hemisphere, so many crews cut a hatch under the navigator-gunner and inserted an additional machine gun there.
          The last 6 SU-2s in the regiment were lost in the Battle of Stalingrad. The regiment completely switched to IL-2.
          The opinion of the pilots about this aircraft: its mission is an artillery spotter.

          So when creating the Su-2, it was somehow implied that it would operate under the guise of fighters ... This is an aviation version of the use of the Su-76 and Su-85 as tanks.
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 4 July 2020 11: 08 New
            -2
            So when creating the Su-2, it was somehow implied that it would operate under the guise of fighters ... This is an aviation version of the use of the Su-76 and Su-85 as tanks.

            I recommend reading about the planes of the "Ivanov" project, about how the party elite of the USSR wanted to get a "cheap people's" plane that would be an attack aircraft, a close-range bomber, a reconnaissance officer, an artillery spotter and could fight fighters. And as in their fantasies of the party elite of the USSR, the enemy would not have air defense cover from the ground, but from the air Air cover ... and all on foreign territory and with little blood.
            1. Fitter65
              Fitter65 4 July 2020 11: 23 New
              0
              Quote: Vovk
              I recommend reading about the planes of the "Ivanov" project, about how the party elite of the USSR wanted to get a "cheap national" plane that would be an attack aircraft, a close-range bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft, an artillery spotter and could fight fighters.

              So read carefully what was wanted under the "Ivanov" program and WHAT was created.
              1. Vovk
                Vovk 4 July 2020 12: 21 New
                -2
                Quote: Fitter65
                Quote: Vovk
                I recommend reading about the planes of the "Ivanov" project, about how the party elite of the USSR wanted to get a "cheap national" plane that would be an attack aircraft, a close-range bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft, an artillery spotter and could fight fighters.

                So read carefully what was wanted under the "Ivanov" program and WHAT was created.

                Because of these fantasies of the "Ivanov" program, the crews of combat vehicles, in fact, artillery spotters of the SU-2, went to attack and bombard enemy positions well-covered by air defense from the ground and by fighters from the air and suffered unjustified combat losses. About the actual failure of the fighter program, when raw fighters are urgently adopted: the maneuverable, but not fast Yak-1 and the LAGG-3 iron. Instead of developing the AR-2 bomber designed for a heavy bomb load, the Pe-2 tactical bomber converted from a heavy fighter is being adopted. When the departure of one AR-2 regiment was equal to the departure of 3 Pe-2 regiments. When a specially designed two-seater Il-2 attack aircraft was sawn into a single one, and then at the front, after the first battles, it was converted into a two-seater in the regiments by installing a regular barrel in the fuselage, plus a pair of two DA machine guns. Or the regiments of the outdated SB-2 trained for night bombing were melting away by order of the day of daytime battles. And when were the IL-4 sent to bomb crossings during the day without fighter cover? And when the fighters did not cover the ground forces from the air, they were not accompanied by attack aircraft, bombers ... but were engaged on the order of the STORM OF TANK columns. I read about it. You read.
                1. Fitter65
                  Fitter65 4 July 2020 14: 58 New
                  0
                  Quote: Vovk
                  the crews of combat vehicles, in essence, SU-2 artillery spotters, attacked and bombed enemy positions of well-covered air defense from the ground and fighter aircraft from the air and suffered unjustified combat losses.

                  They walked because there was an order, this time. Secondly, the main purpose of the Su-2 was a close (light) bomber, that is, this aircraft was supposed to hit the target both on the front line and in the near rear. Analogs in the West
                  Fairy "Battle" (born Fairey Battle) - British single-engine all-metal light bomber.
                  ... How about such a miracle as the Valtee A-31/35 Vengeance attack bomber? And what about the A-20 twin-engine attack aircraft? By the way, "Bettles" were used almost like our Su-2s ... Yes, a counter question, and who should carry out the bombardment of enemy positions well covered by ground air defense?
                  Quote: Vovk
                  When the departure of one AP-2 regiment was equal to the departures of 3 Pe-2 regiments.

                  And here are other comparisons When solving the combat task of destroying small-sized, hardly-vulnerable targets, the Ar-2 dive bomber was superior in efficiency to the BB-22PB bomber by almost 5,5 times, Pe-2 by 1,4 times, and German Ju88A-4 by 1,3 times. It turns out that even Ju88A-4 exceeded ... True, they were released (Ar-2, not Junkers) as many as 200 units, and Su-2-only 893.
                  Quote: Vovk

                  Because of these fantasies of the "Ivanov" program, the crews of combat vehicles, in fact, artillery spotters of the SU-2, went to attack and bombard enemy positions well-covered by air defense from the ground and by fighters from the air and suffered unjustified combat losses
                  in the final report of the 66th air division for 1941, the combat losses of the Pe-2 are defined as 1 loss per 32 sorties, while the Su-2 had 1 sorties per 71 loss.

                  Having made about 1941 sorties on the Su-5000 in 2, the Soviet Air Force lost all the 222 of these aircraft in the battle and was missing, that is, one loss fell on the departure 22,5. At the same time, the average combat irretrievable losses of Soviet bombers in 1941 amounted to 1 aircraft on 14 sorties, that is, there were more times in 1,61. When you do not rely on rezun's books when writing comments, you better take a look at what they write in "Corner of Heaven", well, or in those books that I gave as an example.
                  1. Vovk
                    Vovk 4 July 2020 16: 00 New
                    0
                    Having made about 1941 sorties on the Su-5000 in 2, the Soviet Air Force lost only 222 of these aircraft in battle and went missing, that is, one loss accounted for 22,5 sorties. At the same time, the average combat irrecoverable losses of Soviet bombers in 1941 amounted to 1 aircraft per 14 sorties, that is, they were 1,61 times more. When you do not rely on rezun's books when writing comments, you better take a look at what they write in "Corner of Heaven", well, or in those books that I gave as an example.

                    It will be necessary to go to school №37 in Kharkov in the museum 135BBAP-SHAP in which I was a guide and "tell" about this statistics and in letters of veterans, the kingdom of heaven to them, this statistics must be "entered".
                    So here is the real statistics, for 5 sorties 1 car was lost, for 10 sorties the crew. During June-July 1941, all the vehicles of the regiment were lost. The hero of the Soviet Union, posthumously, a veteran of the Finnish war, Katya Zelenko just died when she shot down one Me-109 on the SU-2, and the second Me-109 rammed when her heavily wounded navigator shot out on a parachute. Just a couple of planes carried out the order, without fighter cover, delivered to the entire regiment.
                    No need to contact me with fake statistics in my hands the real 135BBAP-ShAP received from veterans. I read the letters of veterans written in Soviet times and I conducted excursions in the school museum on the 1st floor.
                    1. Fitter65
                      Fitter65 5 July 2020 02: 38 New
                      0
                      Quote: Vovk
                      It will be necessary to go to school №37 in Kharkov in the museum 135BBAP-SHAP in which I was a guide and "tell" about this statistics and in letters of veterans, the kingdom of heaven to them, this statistics must be "entered".

                      Come on in and make a problem.
                      Quote: Vovk
                      It’s the same as sending a regiment to Po-2 in the bomber variant during the day, attacking without attacking fighter cover to attack enemy positions

                      There were experts who sent and TB-3, in the day flights. Misuse of technology is always fraught.
                      Quote: Vovk
                      the armor on the plane is only the armored back between the pilot and the navigator-shooter, the plane was stitched from nose to tail with conventional infantry weapons - rifles and machine guns.

                      So it’s practically on any plane, the lack of booking. And if there was an article about IAR-80, and not about Su-2. hi
                    2. Oleg Bykov
                      Oleg Bykov 25 August 2020 00: 24 New
                      0
                      Rezun you quote, which the Su-2 with "Keith" compared
                  2. Vovk
                    Vovk 4 July 2020 16: 23 New
                    -1
                    whether because there was an order, this time. Secondly, the main purpose of the Su-2 was a close (light) bomber, that is, this aircraft was supposed to hit the target both on the front line and in the near rear.

                    I will explain if so far if it is not clear. It’s the same as sending a regiment to Po-2 in the bomber version in the afternoon, attacking without attacking fighter cover to attack the enemy’s positions, similarly to SU-2. I recall that the armor on the plane is only the armored back between the pilot and the navigator-shooter, the aircraft was stitched from nose to tail with conventional infantry weapons - rifles and machine guns. The speed and maneuverability of the SU-2 with full armament was not the same as on the IL-2. Hence there were such terrible losses in cars and crews. The heroic crew on the SU-2 flew almost to suicidal missions.
                    The purpose of the SU-2 is an artillery spotter, in this he was good (good visibility, comfortable cockpit, walkie-talkie), but not in the role of attack aircraft and close-range bomber intended for him by the Ivanov project.
                    Even on Po-2, SB-2 regiments operated at night. And when this rule was violated, there were gigantic losses in cars and crews.
            2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Vovk
        Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 23 New
        0
        Pe-2 was a dive bomber, we do not have such kind of aviation as tactical.


        Tactical (front-line) bomber - a bomber with a smaller radius of action, designed to strike in the operational rear of the enemy.

        The Pe-2 was not used as a dive bomber due to poor crew training, it bombed like a normal bomber from horizontal flight at high speed, a bomb load of 600 kg was considered normal, up to a maximum of 1000 kg. Classic tactical (front-line) bomber
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Vovk
          Classic tactical (front-line) bomber

          But, first of all, the dive- that there were no trained crews is another conversation. Tactical, front-line, aerodrome defense aircraft - this is verbiage. The main purpose of this aircraft was to strike from a dive, for which it was designed.
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 48 New
            -1
            When in the shelves they began to take off brake lattices and automatic devices for taking them out of a dive, he ceased to be a dive pilot and became a tactical (front-line) bomber.
            And during the manufacturing process at aircraft factories in the middle of the war, dive equipment was not put at the request of the front.
            And initially it was designed as a long-range heavy fighter, so it had a bomb load like on the IL-2.
            1. Fitter65
              Fitter65 4 July 2020 11: 31 New
              0
              Quote: Vovk
              And it was originally designed as a long-range heavy fighter,

              Oh thanks for telling me. And then there is not a word about it.



              1. Vovk
                Vovk 4 July 2020 11: 37 New
                -1
                And it was originally designed as a long-range heavy fighter,
                Oh thanks for telling me. And then there is not a word about it.

                Well then, you should understand the difference between remaking a long-range heavy fighter into a dive-bomber (which was later remade and used as a tactical (front-line) bomber) and the originally designed bomber-bomber Tu-2.
      3. Vovk
        Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 27 New
        -2
        Can I tell you about the IRON LaGG-3 right away? If you are not in the subject about this plane, then I will give you an example of the Luftwaffe ace No. 2 Geghard Bakhorn, who remembered that in 1942 on the Stalingrad front he "spun a merry-go-round" with a single LaGG for 40 minutes, no one else did not knock down. Good "duck"!, 40 minutes from 109 to spin the carousel. 249 IAP received LaGG-3 in February 1943, before that the regiment flew on the Yak-1. Read the memoirs of N.M. Skomorokhov, about his first battle on LaGG-3 against 6 "Messers"

        The flight qualities of LaGGa-3 could only be corrected in 1943, thanks to the titanic work done by Gorbunov. But the measures taken were not enough, the plane again lagged behind the German fighters. The aircraft with the M-105 engine was armed with a 23-mm cannon and a heavy machine gun, while developing a speed of up to 618 km / h. But for the winter of 1943/44. this was completely insufficient. They managed to improve radically flight qualities by putting the M-82 star-shaped engine on the plane, as a result of which the LaGG-Z / M-82 first appeared, and then the La-5 fighter,
        1. Fitter65
          Fitter65 4 July 2020 11: 11 New
          0
          Quote: Vovk
          the measures taken were not enough, the plane again lagged behind the German fighters.

          Opana, a new revelation! So, by the way, our planes until the end of the war were catching up, and in terms of Vmax, they did not surpass them until the end of the war.
          Quote: Vovk
          They managed to improve radically flight qualities by putting the M-82 star-shaped engine on the plane, as a result of which the LaGG-Z / M-82 first appeared, and then the La-5 fighter,

          Do you really think that the person who read





          plus a few more monographs of various publications and authors, don’t believe Wikipedia for the sake of this issue I don’t touch at all, so do you really think that the one who read this is not aware of the creation of La-5? wassat
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 4 July 2020 11: 30 New
            -1
            Quote: Fitter65
            plus a few more monographs of various publications and authors, don’t believe Wikipedia for the sake of this issue I don’t touch at all, so do you really think that the one who read this is not aware of the creation of La-5?

            If you read monographs, articles, memoirs about the creation of La-5.
            Why then argue that Lagg-3 in 1941-1943 was "so" a wonderful and maneuverable aircraft that Lavochkin urgently began to remake it for the M-82 engine using the help of Polikarpov. And the factories for the manufacture of Lagg-3 were already going to be given to Yakovlev for the Yak-1. And Lavochkin was already given the position of plant director instead of the chief designer.
            And about the fact that LAGG-3 was an iron in maneuvering combat ... so this is the opinion of ordinary pilots who had to use the landing flaps to have at least some maneuverability in control.
  • Vovk
    Vovk 2 July 2020 19: 51 New
    -9
    Quote: MooH
    the late I-16 was better in everything except top speed.

    Of course, it is better to raise the chassis - the pilot how many times manually rotated the handle of the lifting mechanism?
    The open cockpit in the I-16 fighter at the beginning of the war was archaic even by the standards of the USSR.
    And what a wonderful radio station there was, with frequencies floating even when flying in a straight line.
    And the best engine drove metal shavings with oil, which reduced its already reliable.
    But the crutch, which didn’t be removed, ate speed, which was already not enough?
    A fighter that could not even dive to catch German planes.
    And this is all in the latest modification.
    At the beginning of the war, the I-16 in the latest modification was already a frightening fighter, even by the standards of aircraft manufacturing in the USSR.
    Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about the "flying coffins" on which Soviet pilots were buried. About what "flying coffin" was meant clearly?
    The pilots had no choice; they fought on what the country could give.
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk 2 July 2020 21: 36 New
      +2
      Quote: Vovk

      Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about "flying coffins"

      And what is it that he, so competent, did not raise questions before the People's Commissariat of the aviation industry, before the Design Bureau, but immediately spoke about coffins?
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 2 July 2020 21: 40 New
        0
        Quote: Krasnoyarsk
        Quote: Vovk

        Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about "flying coffins"

        And what is it that he, so competent, did not raise questions before the People's Commissariat of the aviation industry, before the Design Bureau, but immediately spoke about coffins?

        These questions were raised by his predecessor at the post - Smushkevich Yakov Vladimirovich, for these questions and criticism of the Soviet aircraft industry, he was arrested and appointed Rychagov.
    2. Alf
      Alf 2 July 2020 22: 29 New
      +6
      Quote: Vovk
      Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about the "flying coffins" on which Soviet pilots were buried. About what "flying coffin" was meant clearly?

      But didn’t Levers push the decision to train the fighter pilot in three months? The pilot will not succeed in such a period. Yes, Ishak was a strict machine, but, again, the plane does not create a designer from the ceiling, but according to the requirements of the Air Force. They wanted the Air Force to get an unstable, but very maneuverable fighter with rear centering, Polikarpov did. Why blame the mirror?
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 2 July 2020 22: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Vovk
        Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about the "flying coffins" on which Soviet pilots were buried. About what "flying coffin" was meant clearly?
        But didn’t Levers push the decision to train the fighter pilot in three months? The pilot will not succeed in such a period. Yes, Ishak was a strict machine, but, again, the plane does not create a designer from the ceiling, but according to the requirements of the Air Force. They wanted the Air Force to get an unstable, but very maneuverable fighter with rear centering, Polikarpov did. Why blame the mirror?

        Leverage was a combat pilot on the I-16, and as I recall, he pushed it after the fighting in Spain retraining experienced pilots with I-15 bis и And-153 "Seagull" on I-16 for three months. It was quite real. But who really could correct in the documents the training of pilots on I-16 for 3 months - a very good question.
    3. Alf
      Alf 2 July 2020 22: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Vovk
      But the crutch, which didn’t be removed, ate speed, which was already not enough?

      IAR-80 also did not remove the crutch.
      Quote: Vovk
      And what a wonderful radio station there was, with frequencies floating even when flying in a straight line.

      It’s true, but let the shitty walkie-talkie, but released by its industry, which was created from scratch in some 20 years, but Telefunken stood on the hood, was not found in Romania.
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 2 July 2020 22: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Vovk
        But the crutch, which didn’t be removed, ate speed, which was already not enough?

        IAR-80 also did not remove the crutch.
        Quote: Vovk
        And what a wonderful radio station there was, with frequencies floating even when flying in a straight line.

        It’s true, but let the shitty walkie-talkie, but released by its industry, which was created from scratch in some 20 years, but Telefunken stood on the hood, was not found in Romania.

        Pilots did not use this walkie-talkie because of this (floating frequencies). It was considered a harmful thing, removed for weight loss. Alas, subsequent battles showed that high-quality communication in aerial combat is half the success in it. Therefore, the Romanians put Telefunken radios on their planes, at that time it was considered high-tech among the radios around the world.
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 3 July 2020 01: 30 New
        +3
        Quote: Alf
        Quote: Vovk
        But the crutch, which didn’t be removed, ate speed, which was already not enough?

        IAR-80 also did not remove the crutch.

        The Bf 109 did not have a crutch at the back, but a wheel. And it was NOT removed. Nevertheless, almost until the end of the war (before the appearance of the Yak-3 and La-7), the "thin" had an advantage in speed and vertical maneuver over everything that the Red Army Air Force could oppose them in almost the entire altitude range.
      3. Liam
        Liam 3 July 2020 09: 04 New
        +7
        Quote: Alf
        It’s true, but let the shitty walkie-talkie, but released by its industry, which was created from scratch in some 20 years, but Telefunken stood on the hood, wasn’t found in Romania

        Must possess very non-standard thinking that would consider that a non-working but native walkie-talkie is better than a working but imported one.
      4. Fitter65
        Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 02 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        It’s true, but let the shitty walkie-talkie, but released by its industry, which was created from scratch in some 20 years, but Telefunken stood on the hood, was not found in Romania.

        Yes, there is no "market" here. Of course, it is very bad that your fighter is equipped with a high-quality, efficient radio station. Especially considering that your opponent either does not have a radio station at all, or is of such a quality that it’s probably better that they don’t ... I don’t argue that not everything we could do at the level, the Romanians couldn’t do much at all, but they had oil ... And thanks to this, they could buy both French engines and German radio stations - by the way, does it resemble anything?
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 July 2020 11: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: Vovk
      Of course, it is better to raise the chassis - the pilot how many times manually rotated the handle of the lifting mechanism?

      The Wildcat pilots look at the I-16 pilots with understanding. smile
      Quote: Vovk
      And the best engine drove metal shavings with oil, which reduced its already reliable.

      Judging by the reviews from Spain and the SPF, almost all the engines put on the I-16 suffered from this defect.
      Quote: Vovk
      Rychagov was just shot, taking into account his words about the "flying coffins" on which Soviet pilots were buried.

      For lying he was shot - for the systematic concealment of the facts of accidents in the Air Force entrusted to him and a complete mess in the ACC. And since Rychagov was a protégé of the IVS, the demand from him was "at the top level."
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 3 July 2020 13: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        For lying he was shot - for the systematic concealment of the facts of accidents in the Air Force entrusted to him and a complete mess in the ACC. And since Rychagov was a protégé of the IVS, the demand from him was "at the top level."

        Consider this situation.
        Leverage returns from the war in Spain, where at the end he saw:
        - Germans interact better in battle, that they have excellent radio communications;
        - Ordinary German pilots at the level of the best Soviet pilots;
        - The latest modifications of German aircraft are more reliable, better armed, fly faster, most of the engine control is given to a mechanical control unit and is controlled by one lever;
        - Air defense cover for each of the airdromes at the level of the cover of the division of ground forces;
        - excellent interaction of land and air forces.
        He returns to the USSR, receives Stalin's trust and only begins to stutter that the Germans are getting better ... how they shut up his mouth and talk about the fact that the Soviet weapons are the best and that the Soviet Red Army men are armed with modern weapons and will repulse such an enemy - that the war will be on foreign territory.
        Further, he obtains statistics on divisions and regiments on flight hours and sees that the best pilots fly 50 hours a year, when the Germans had an average novice had to fly at least 200 hours before they were put into battle.
        Leverage understands that with such a small number of flight hours of ordinary pilots, the future war will be the beating of the Soviet Air Force and orders a sharp increase in the number of training flights without any restrictions on the use of the capabilities of technology.
        He begins to seek improvement in air defense of airfields and gets the first stick that everyone lacks large-caliber machine guns DShK, 37 mm anti-aircraft guns and generally you have enough Maxim for machine guns to cover field airfields, and for stationary 4 mm 37 mm anti-aircraft guns .
        Pilots begin to fly intensively on airplanes, massive equipment failures and the death of pilots begin, Rychagov gets three-and-a-half ... for the extraordinary expense of motor resources and the death of pilots.
        He tries to change the charter for the pilots, switch to flying pairs of triples in flight, gets a stick - how dare you criticize the approved charter.
        He begins to deal with the quality of the manufactured aircraft, raises a wave, sticks to him again ... what you have the right to criticize the best modern Soviet weapons, people gave you the last to fly on the best that was made in the world.
        I think he understood why they removed the previous commander and tried to change something in the system until his arrest.
        But such rising people are always envious and denunciations showered ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 July 2020 14: 23 New
          +4
          Quote: Vovk
          Pilots begin to fly intensively on airplanes, massive equipment failures and the death of pilots begin, Rychagov gets three-and-a-half ... for the extraordinary expense of motor resources and the death of pilots.

          In the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On accidents and disasters in the aviation of the Red Army" dated 09.04.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, Rychagov was accused of not accidents during training, but a mess in the organization of flights, the lack of organizational conclusions on plane crashes along the Air Force and hiding information from management.
          The laxity and indiscipline in aviation is not only not suppressed, but as it is encouraged by the leadership of the Air Force that the perpetrators of accidents and disasters essentially go unpunished. The Air Force leadership often hides from the government the facts of accidents and disasters, and when the government discovers these facts, the Air Force leadership tries to cover up these facts, resorting in some cases to the help of the people's commissar of defense. So it was, for example, with the disaster in Voronezh, in relation to which Comrade Rychagov was obliged and promised to send a report to the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), but did not fulfill this obligation and covered himself with the authority of the People’s Commissar of Defense, who, without understanding the case, signed the “explanation "Glossing over all things."
          The same attempt by Comrade Rychagov to gloss over the lack of discipline and lack of discipline in the Air Force took place in connection with the grave catastrophe that occurred on January 23, 1941, during the flight of an aviation regiment from Novosibirsk via Semipalatinsk to Tashkent, when 3 aircraft crashed due to a gross violation of elementary flight rules , 2 aircraft crashed, killing 12 and injuring 4 people of the crew.
          In addition to Comrade Rychagov, the government learned about the breakdown of discipline and the lack of proper order at the Borisoglebsk Aviation School.
          The government also learned about violations of the Air Force’s decisions prohibiting skiing, in addition to the Air Force.

          Plus a mess with the search and rescue of pilots from crashed cars.
          What the collapse of manners in the Air Force came to shows an unprecedented fact for our aviation when a plane was lost in 29 air divisions under the control of Commander of the Second Lieutenant Comrade. Koshlyak M.V., and the division command and the leadership of the Air Force did not take serious measures to locate the missing pilot. Twenty days later, Lieutenant Koshlyak was accidentally found frozen in the cockpit. From the letters he left, it is clear that the pilot after landing was healthy, lived 8–9 days, the last letter he wrote on the 8th day after landing. The letter says that he was trying to find a settlement, but due to deep snow he was forced to return to the plane. Pilot Koshlyak died of hunger and cold. Since the plane of Comrade Koshlyak was accidentally discovered during a training flight near the village, it is clear that when the Air Force or Air Division 29 took elementary measures to search for an airplane, comrade The wallet would be saved.

          I’m wondering - did Rychagov really not understand that the country's leadership has at least two lines of information independent of the Air Force and the army as a whole on what is happening in the armed forces? And what if he does not report what happened, then the information will still reach the top - along the lines of the NKVD and VKP (b).
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 3 July 2020 15: 47 New
            -1
            In the Decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On accidents and disasters in the aviation of the Red Army" dated 09.04.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX, Rychagov was accused of not accidents during training, but a mess in the organization of flights, the lack of organizational conclusions on plane crashes along the Air Force and hiding information from management.

            As for hiding information from the leadership, look it was charged that he did not run a report to the party apparatus of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, but reported to his immediate superior, i.e. he was charged with observing the vertical of power ...
            Regarding "due to a gross violation of elementary flight rules" ... I often met such formulations when it was not the human factor that was responsible for the accidents, but a banal technical failure ...
            I do not bleach Rychagov, but in this way you can blame any commander in chief of the Air Force in the mess. In the initial period of the war, the mess was worse. And before the war, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks closed such an eye. But Rychagov and his wife were shot without trial, that means the case was unclean ... he was not a fool, he understood that they would report.
            Maybe the fact is that then the party nomenklatura again began to fight with the military nomenklatura for control, and the NKVD simply "poured kerosene" into the fire of the struggle. And Stalin decided to put the initiative military after Spain in "place".
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 July 2020 14: 23 New
          +4
          And as for the high accident rate - it was not necessary to shout about coffins, but give statistics: how many planes were lost due to factory defects, how many are standing on the ground due to the same marriage.
          Type:
          Between January 12 and March 13, nineteen M-7 engines were replaced on the I-16 and I-153 aircraft in the 62th Army, all of which were damaged due to manufacturing defects! The most common of these were scoring of the main connecting rod bushings and the appearance of chips in the motor. For comparison, over the same period, M-25 engines were replaced by 29 units, despite the fact that the Air Force of the 7th Army had more vehicles with M-25 than with M-62. Moreover, out of this number, nine engines were replaced due to the depletion of the resource, and four more due to damage received from enemy fire. In total, 46 M-62 engines were out of order during the war in the NWF Air Force, of which only three were repaired by workshops, and another 65 were received from industry. None of the engines were removed due to running out of resources or due to enemy actions. The main reasons were illiterate operation and factory defects.
          © slon_76
          IVS preferred numbers rather than emotions.
        3. Fitter65
          Fitter65 4 July 2020 10: 08 New
          0
          Quote: Vovk
          Leverage returns from the war in Spain,

          Just one such moment is the battle on the verticals, and the link of two planes our pilots began to use in this very Spain, the Germans (the same Melders) saw it, appreciated it. And why didn’t they evaluate this one?
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 4 July 2020 21: 40 New
            -2
            Quote: Fitter65
            Just one such moment is the battle on the verticals, and the link of two planes our pilots began to use in this very Spain, the Germans (the same Melders) saw it, appreciated it. And why didn’t they evaluate this one?

            An archaic system of three fighters, and not a couple in the USSR Air Force was before the change of the Charter.
            Failure to comply with the statutes during the war is a military tribunal.
            Changing the charter is a long military bureaucratic process.
            Ask the party nomenclature why this was not done before the war.
            Why the rational proposals of the veterans of the Finnish War and the Spanish War were "drowned" by the military and party bureaucracy.
            And some for their perseverance were either planted or shot.
  • Vovk
    Vovk 2 July 2020 20: 55 New
    +3
    Quote: Octopus
    How interesting. The Tupolev bombers are aluminum, the Tupolev boats are aluminum, the transport Li-2 is aluminum, the tank engine is aluminum (why?), But the fighters didn’t, it was aluminum that ended on them. So comrade Stalin did not like fighters, he simply could not eat.

    Well, Tupolev bombers, if you remember, were made from the first version of duralumin alloys in the 30s, fighters from earlier alloys with acceptable characteristics could not be made. Boats - was a small series.
    As for Li-2, do not forget that this is an alteration for the Soviet industry of the initially duralumin DC-3 lecumin machine. And as for the tank engine, I mentioned diesel engines, about tank B2 it was meant. There was a choice of either duralumin fighters or diesel engines for tanks - the tanks defeated.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 2 July 2020 21: 27 New
      -1
      Quote: Vovk
      There was a choice of either duralumin fighters or diesel engines for tanks - the tanks defeated.

      How interesting. That's enough for everything, but not for fighters. Right the meanness law.
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 2 July 2020 21: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: Octopus
        Quote: Vovk
        There was a choice of either duralumin fighters or diesel engines for tanks - the tanks defeated.

        How interesting. That's enough for everything, but not for fighters. Right the meanness law.

        There is remarkable literature on aviation in the USSR. Aircraft manufacturing in 20 volumes has been released for aviation schools. There it is painted in detail. For the production of duralumin and aluminum, a lot of electricity was required to solve a similar problem, and Dneproges was built ... but they were able to reach rated capacity only before the war itself. Therefore, duralumin and aluminum were not enough for all tasks ... so I had to choose either airplanes or tanks. Due to the lack of aluminum on B2 tank engines in the initial period of the war, part of the t-34-76 was equipped with de-accelerated gasoline aircraft engines.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 3 July 2020 02: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Vovk
          Due to the lack of aluminum for B2 tank engines in the initial period of the war, part of the t-34-76 was equipped with de-accelerated gasoline aircraft engines.

          How interesting.

          And why did the Soviet Union, since it has such problems with aluminum, put it on tank engines?
          1. Vovk
            Vovk 3 July 2020 09: 22 New
            0
            Quote: Octopus
            Quote: Vovk
            Due to the lack of aluminum for B2 tank engines in the initial period of the war, part of the t-34-76 was equipped with de-accelerated gasoline aircraft engines.

            How interesting.

            And why did the Soviet Union, since it has such problems with aluminum, put it on tank engines?

            Firstly, at one time I was also surprised why the last modification of the light BT-7M, medium T-34-76, heavy KV-1 and subsequent tanks were produced with diesel engines. Yes, and aircraft engine designers tried to design a good aircraft diesel engine. And he found the answer in his memoirs dedicated to the EP-2 bomber, the only production aircraft in the USSR with a diesel engine. The fact is that before the war the USSR had a fuel crisis, because equipment for the distillation of oil into gasoline and other fuel was still the time of Tsarist Russia, and because of sanctions, new equipment was not even sold for gold (new equipment was supplied only through the lenz line in the middle of the war) and its quality did not shine and it was not corny enough for all the military, industry, agriculture ... but the reserves of fuel oil and diesel were huge.
            And the second reason is commonplace, the B2 tank serial engine without scheduled maintenance could only work reliably for 50-70 hours. The problems were in the centrifugal oil air cleaner and in the cooling system of the diesel engine, which were solved in 1943-44.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 3 July 2020 15: 35 New
              +3
              Quote: Vovk
              stocks of fuel oil and diesel were huge.

              Yes, I heard this story. True, this is not true, the biggest problem of the mechanized corps 41 was just diesel.

              Speaking of mechanized corps. In Russia, it is customary to make fun of imperialists who could not get into diesel. So, in the mechanized corps of the 41st year there were 4 types of fuel: diesel, aviation gasoline, gasoline, naphtha (for tractors). Naturally, it is necessary at the same time, so that microworker works as intended.

              But this is not about that. OK, diesel explained. Aluminum why?
              1. Vovk
                Vovk 3 July 2020 16: 27 New
                +1
                Quote: Octopus
                But this is not about that. OK, diesel explained. Aluminum why?

                So the diesel engine in the tank from Aluminum was. And since the diesel tank’s engine life was only 50-70 hours, it took a lot of engines to overhaul ... The Germans drove about this - The Soviets had aircraft made of canvas and wood, but they found aluminum on the tank engines.
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 3 July 2020 17: 16 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Vovk
                  So the diesel engine in the aluminum tank was

                  I know.

                  How does this contradict my thesis "aluminum was found for everything except fighters"?
                2. Liam
                  Liam 3 July 2020 18: 19 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Vovk
                  So the diesel engine in the aluminum tank was

                  The Americans also produced Shermans with diesels. Did they also have aluminum?
                  1. Vovk
                    Vovk 3 July 2020 18: 53 New
                    0
                    Quote: Liam
                    Quote: Vovk
                    So the diesel engine in the aluminum tank was

                    The Americans also produced Shermans with diesels. Did they also have aluminum?

                    That's what I don’t know and did not feel with my hands. Can American tank experts enlighten us?
                    1. Liam
                      Liam 3 July 2020 20: 54 New
                      +2
                      Wikipedia reports that
                      Block material:
                      Cast iron
                      Cast iron
                    2. Octopus
                      Octopus 3 July 2020 22: 30 New
                      +3
                      Quote: Vovk
                      Can American tank experts enlighten us?

                      )))
                      Sherman's 4 main engine types
                      Two aluminum gasoline, Continental R975 and Ford GAA, steel petrol Chrysler A57 multibank, diesel cast-iron GM 6046.

                      For the sake of a sketch. If the Americans were not such impenetrably stupid creatures, their main tank engine would be the gasoline steel GMC 270.

                      What does this tell you?
                      1. Vovk
                        Vovk 3 July 2020 22: 46 New
                        0
                        Quote: Octopus
                        Quote: Vovk
                        Can American tank experts enlighten us?

                        )))
                        Sherman's 4 main engine types
                        Two aluminum gasoline, Continental R975 and Ford GAA, steel gasoline Chrysler A57 multibank, diesel cast iron GM 6046.

                        For the sake of a sketch. If the Americans were not such impenetrably stupid creatures, their main tank engine would be the gasoline steel GMC 270.

                        What does this tell you?

                        It says that the gas engine was better than the diesel engine in terms of time spent on maintenance, but only the diesel engine withstood the mileage until the engine was exhausted. So the Americans were looking for a compromise.
                      2. Liam
                        Liam 3 July 2020 23: 01 New
                        +2
                        If I understand my colleague correctly, his question is the following: why are Americans with luminescence using a shaft to make tank diesel from cast iron. And the USSR will make their diesel from luminium (with which it is strained), and not from the same cast iron of which there are many.
                      3. Vovk
                        Vovk 3 July 2020 23: 17 New
                        0
                        Quote: Liam
                        If I understand my colleague correctly, his question is the following: why are Americans with luminescence using a shaft to make tank diesel from cast iron. And the USSR will make their diesel from luminium (with which it is strained), and not from the same cast iron of which there are many.

                        This question can be answered briefly, the Americans had a stronger production culture ... i.e. good machine tools and staff allowing you to create products with high precision. We ourselves understand the production culture was lame, the staff was not experienced, the tolerances did not stand up to criticism ... well, two things to consider regarding a tank diesel engine 1) his ancestor was an aircraft engine 2) at first it was created for aviation ...
                        In general, tank diesel has a separate topic and this issue was considered there.

                        https://topwar.ru/116114-dvigatel-v-2-pobeditel-i-dolgozhitel.html
                      4. Octopus
                        Octopus 4 July 2020 00: 54 New
                        +2
                        This is amazing.

                        Vovk (Andriy) wrote the correct answer several times, but it seems that he does not quite understand this.

                        Three engine options for the WWII tank are specially designed (Japanese, Germans), aviation (USSR, USA, Britain) and automobile (twin, five) (USSR, USA, Britain). Naturally, aircraft engines - V-2, Wright, Ford, Meteor - were aluminum. It does not matter whether it is diesel or gasoline, the main thing is aviation, that is, as light as possible. Special and automobile were steel or cast iron, for the tank the extra 500 kg of weather do not. For a diesel engine, by the way, weight is good from the point of view of vibration loads.

                        The nuance is that the British or Americans really did not care more or less. But the USSR could not afford such an engine. There is no aluminum, far from everything is so simple with fuel, problems, to put it mildly, with precision equipment, there is no one to service - there are practically no diesels in the national economy. And, to be honest, this engine turned out to be lousy. Well, the USSR did not have engines from the word "in general", none of them went, automobile, tank, aviation.
                  2. Octopus
                    Octopus 4 July 2020 00: 34 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Vovk
                    It says that the gas engine was better than the diesel engine in terms of time spent on maintenance, but only the diesel engine withstood the mileage until the engine was exhausted

                    Hmmm.

                    Naturally, both diesel and gasoline engines withstood mileage until the exhaustion of motor resources, generally a little weirdly constructed phrase. Motor resource and determines the maximum mileage to kapitalki engine.

                    By the way, the lousy news is that
                    Quote: Vovk
                    And the second reason is the banal, tank serial B2 engine without scheduled maintenance could work reliably only 50-70 hours. The problems were in the centrifugal oil air cleaner and in the cooling system of the diesel engine, which were solved in 1943-44.

                    Problems, among other things, were in the Boshevsk fuel pump, which Bosch, for unknown reasons, stopped delivering at the most unfortunate moment.

                    So, the alternative gasoline engine M-17T, the T-28 and BT-7 engine, stably enough gave out 250 hours on the tank (and more than 400 on the stand). It also (too) made extensive use of aluminum, but in much smaller quantities, the same cylinders were steel.

                    Once again, by the way. Advanced comrades, like Alexei RA, will tell you that due to the sad situation with the 34-year T-41 motor resources, they were used in parts mainly as elements of landscape design - it was forbidden to ride them, since there were no spare engines. When suddenly it was allowed - suddenly it turned out that no one really knows how to do it. And the car - zealously capricious, frankly, with a hammer and such a mother was not worth approaching her.

                    B-2 is a disaster, one of the worst pre-war decisions among the rest of the monstrous pre-war decisions. Again, responsible comrades bought beautiful numbers, but forgot about the ravines.

                    So the Americans were looking for a compromise.


                    Not looking. The Americans didn't care at all.
                  3. Vovk
                    Vovk 4 July 2020 08: 57 New
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Not looking. The Americans didn't care at all.

                    I will give a part of the article devoted to "Sherman racing".

                    In 1943, the Americans conducted large-scale sea trials of "Sherman" of all types. In total, 40 tanks were admitted to them: 10 each of M4A1, M4A2, M4A3 and M4A4. The purpose of the tests was a run of 400 hours or 4000 miles, before the failure of the engine. The remaining tank units could be repaired an unlimited number of times.


                    By April 23, 1943, a total of 4 miles (2 miles on the highway and 16 miles on virgin lands) had passed the M215A8229, having worked 7986 hours and 1825 minutes. The fuel consumption of the M32A4 was lower than that of other Shermans: 2 miles per gallon (1,1 liters per 214 km) on the highway, and 100 miles per gallon (0,5 liters per 470 km) for virgin soil. On average, tanks consumed 100 quarts (0,81 liters) of oil per hour of engine operation. The tests ended on May 0,76th. By that time, the M11A4 had traveled 2 miles, having worked 22 hours 126 minutes. The average speed of the M2424A21 was the highest of all tanks that took part in the tests: 4 miles (2 km) per hour. M9,5A15,3 and M4A1 showed 4 miles (4 km) per hour, and M8A12,8 almost caught up with the diesel Sherman at a speed of 4 miles (3 km) per hour.

                    By reliability, the tank was in third place. The first engine failed after 75 hours of operation. Two engines worked all 400 hours, while one of them was in good condition, and the second was on its last legs. On average, the engines worked for 225 hours before the failure of the internal units. Worse GM 6-71 proved to be only engines R-975 (average life of 218 hours). Ford GAA (255 hours) and Chrysler A57 (240 hours) were more reliable. In terms of time spent on maintenance, the M4A2 came in second.

                    In July, six M4A2 were tested in the California desert on an even more difficult program. During the first 15 days of the run, 16 suspension springs, 45 bandages, one roller, three rollers and five track joints had to be replaced. Over the next 14 days, only two bandages and five suspension springs had to be replaced. The reliability of the chassis still left much to be desired, but became acceptable. In total, 9064 miles (14 km) were covered.

                    Tanks continued to race for survival. By the end of 1943, 20 cars were tested immediately: four M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4 and new M4E1 with an experimental engine. “Shermans” traveled on three types of pavement: fine loose sand, clay rocky soil and highways. As in previous tests, during the run, the repairmen could change any units, and only a breakdown of internal components and engine parts disqualified the car.


                    By December 27, all M4A1s (average mileage of 166 hours) and one M4A3 were out of order, but not a single car with a diesel engine. By February 18, the tests for the M4A2 were over. Three tanks went down after 276, 278 and 353 hours respectively, and one went 4295 miles in 403 hours and still remained on track. Of the M4A3, one car also remained on track, but with a rather modest mileage, since it had been under repair for a long time. Of the four M4A4, one tank broke down, and the M4E1 was removed from the tests - it was decided that the RD1820 engine would not go into a large series anyway.

                    By March 18, the tanks completed the test. The most reliable was again M4A4: out of four cars, three reached the finish line. Maintenance of the M4A4 engine also took the least time: 45 hours per tank. M4A2 was in second place, since the last M4A3 still broke, and did not overcome the required distance. However, it took 6 hours to service the GM 71-143 motor - more than M4A3 (110 hours) or M4A1 (132 hours). M4A2 also did not shine in the maintenance of the transmission group: it took 220 hours to take care of each tank (only M4A4 with 340 hours did more. By the time the suspension was serviced, the car was at the level of other Shermans: 205 hours. In total, 327 hours of mechanic work took 594,5 hours of the average Sherman’s diesel.

                    https://warspot.ru/15856-sherman-dlya-russkih-i-anglichan
                  4. Octopus
                    Octopus 4 July 2020 09: 21 New
                    0
                    That's right, thanks.

                    What is it for?
                  5. Vovk
                    Vovk 4 July 2020 10: 10 New
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    That's right, thanks.
                    What is it for?

                    Moreover, the Americans were still looking for a compromise regarding the choice of engine for Sherman - either gasoline or diesel. So to the end and did not decide for Sherman.
                  6. Octopus
                    Octopus 4 July 2020 10: 34 New
                    +2
                    They did not look for anything, and all the decisions were made back in the 30s, when a Wright star appeared on the M2 medium infantry tank. By chance, in general, I appeared, I wanted a lot of power, but there was no money at all, so they took a commercial engine, which was already in stock and was not needed so much by anyone. When the war began in earnest, he had to radically be cut.

                    In the 41st, when the mass production of the M3 Lee / Grant tank was launched, it became clear that Roosevelt’s appetites, together with the British tanks, did not correspond to the production capabilities of the Continental company, to which the production of these engines was transferred, as a result of which the Americans allowed demonization, requesting offers from of all three major American automakers.

                    GM's proposal was not a priori suitable for the American army - it still lacked a third type of fuel in tank units. (R975 at that time worked on 92nd gasoline). But the navy and the British, and then the Soviets, had diesel engines in high esteem, so the car found its niche.

                    As for the Americans, they most liked the Ford engine. At the end of the 43rd year, the Chrysler monster showed himself quite well, but the M4A1 (76) W HVSS with the R975 was produced until July of the 45th year.
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 July 2020 16: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: Vovk
    but the reserves of fuel oil and diesel were huge.

    According to the plan for 1941, the army was to receive only 46% of diesel fuel from the needs of peacetime. And the T-34 with HF had nothing to do with it - tractors were the main consumer of diesel fuel (95%).

    Avoiding gasoline in tanks was due to three reasons:
    1. Diesel fuel is trite cheaper.
    2. In circulation (transportation, refueling, march), diesel fuel is less fire hazard than B-70 / KB-70 aviation gasoline, on which T-26, BT, T-28 and T-35 went.
    3. The capacity of the People’s Commissar of the fuel industry, as you rightly noted, is not rubber. And in the late 30s NKTP needed to switch to the production of aviation gasoline with a higher OR. This could be done only by releasing the capacities occupied by the previous aviation gasoline - B / KB-70. So the army team would have to make room in every way.
  • Elturisto
    Elturisto 2 July 2020 22: 35 New
    -3
    Stop lying already.
    Smushkevich was shot because together with Tupol and Polikarpov they hid the real state of things in the aviation industry. The pilots eventually had to turn to the Central Committee.
    A gang of stupid idiots advocated biplanes and dragged the production of I-15Bis and I-153 knowingly unpromising, following the results of Spain. They didn’t shoot Polikarpov, and he managed to ditch Chkalov, his I-180 and spend precious resources on I-190 and I- 185.
    1. Vovk
      Vovk 2 July 2020 23: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: ElTuristo
      Smushkevich was shot because, together with Tupol and Polikarpov, they concealed the real state of things in the aviation industry

      It was much more difficult there. There was a big marriage in the development of the production of new aircraft, let's say, the directors of the USSR plants "did not like to master new" technologies and new production ... it was easier for them to carry out their next plan and drive low-quality aviation products and receive bonuses, and military representatives (subordinates, among other things NKVD) took these products in part.
      Smushkevich repeatedly raised the issue of the quality of the aircraft industry being produced, they hinted to him that he should be engaged in his military department ... the time has come and "scapegoats" were needed Smushkevich was shot, Tupolev was imprisoned ... the heads of factory directors and military representatives flew off.
      The time has begun to search for "pests" in factories.
      As for the I-15Bis and I-153 ... the problem was that the I-16 was mastered by the aircraft industry with great difficulty and there was no guarantee that it would be mastered to the end. To remain without fighter aircraft at all ... that’s why the production of the I-15Bis and I-153 fighters was dragged as completely mastered by the aircraft industry at that time, and as soon as it became clear that the I-16 was fully mastered in production, the production of biplane fighters ceased.
      As for Polikarpov and his I-180 and the continuation of I-190, the engine crew let him down, promised ... but they did not fulfill their obligations to the party ... they also sat down, but in sharashka. But the resources were spent not in vain, if you carefully study the drawings of the first LAGG-3 alteration in La-5, and especially in La-7 ... then it can be seen that many components and solutions were taken from I-180 and I-190. .. Lavochkin physically could not successfully think through all the technical solutions in such a short time. He was helped by Polikarpov.
      1. Alf
        Alf 3 July 2020 04: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Vovk
        About Polikarpov and his I-180 and the continuation of I-190,

        The I-190 could not have been a continuation of the I-180 for one simple reason, the 180th monoplane, and the 190th biplane.
        1. Vovk
          Vovk 3 July 2020 10: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: Vovk
          About Polikarpov and his I-180 and the continuation of I-190,

          The I-190 could not have been a continuation of the I-180 for one simple reason, the 180th monoplane, and the 190th biplane.

          Polikarpov began designing the I-190 only in the fall of 1938, while the design of the I-180 was completed by March 1938. Therefore, I-190 can be considered a limited alteration of I-180 for the biplane scheme, because and it was designed for the installation of the VMG from I-180.
          1. Alf
            Alf 3 July 2020 18: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Vovk
            Therefore, I-190 can be considered a limited alteration of I-180 for the biplane scheme,

            Bullshit, business, just add an extra pair of wings ...
      2. Elturisto
        Elturisto 3 July 2020 09: 40 New
        0
        Again, lies piled on lies ...
        1. Who else but the Air Force commander determines the technical appearance, tactics of application and needs of the Air Force? Who? In the end, Stalin and the Politburo intervened. Thanks to this, a technique was created that won.
        2. The production technology of I-16 did not present any problems already in 1935.
        3. Yes, but the engine drivers failed only to bring Polikarpov-a Yakovlev, Lavochkin and Mikoyan? (M-106).
        1. Vovk
          Vovk 3 July 2020 11: 39 New
          -1
          Quote: ElTuristo
          Again, lies piled on lies ...
          1. Who else but the Air Force commander determines the technical appearance, tactics of application and needs of the Air Force? Who?

          Do you think the commander of the Air Force and the commissions did not determine the technical specifications for the development of modern aircraft, but only the requirements for the aircraft under development were as great as the military’s Wishlist in terms of characteristics. The military were not fools, everyone understood. The aircraft industry of the USSR could not produce such serial cars. Therefore, they flew and fought on what happened.
          In the end, Stalin and the Politburo intervened.

          Are you so sure that Stalin and the Politburo were not aware of what was happening in the aviation industry? He was more than aware. Do not forget about the lobbying of many in the Politburo of their interests in industry. All the military, not only the pilots, "whined" about the quality of industrial products. The conclusions of the product commissions were in the form of a tone of paper, and what, were they all reacted to? There were opposite resolutions - to correct the identified shortcomings.
          And in this case, the figures in conventional accounting did not agree, a large number of resources were allocated, but few high-quality aircraft and engines were built. Which is better, to put all the Politburo and their proteges in the leadership ... or to make the scapegoat of the Air Force Commander, some directors of plants and designers?
          What do you think, why Stalin then got angry at Rychagov about the "flying coffins" ... but for this very reason ... nothing in the production of high-quality aircraft has improved ... they put the Air Force commander, put military representatives, put factory directors, put designers, planted "identified pest engineers" ... and with the quality of the aircraft, there were problems and remained.
          2. The production technology of I-16 did not present any problems already in 1935.

          The eternal problem with the engine (I already mentioned oil shavings), the problem with the chassis, the problems with the sight, the problem with the radio equipment, the later problems with the ShVAK guns.
          What do you think there were so many modifications of the I-16? From a good life?
          Yes, but the engine drivers failed only to bring Polikarpov-Yakovlev, Lavochkin and Mikoyan? (M-106).

          1) I-180 was designed for the future powerful engine. This is the heart of the car.
          2) You forgot how Yakovlev lobbied for his interests in the Yak-1, how he was simultaneously a designer and at the same time was the deputy people's commissar of the aviation industry for new technology, and how almost all modifications of the M-105PA went to him and how Pyatlyakov through the Central Committee struck this engine with difficulty for your "pawn". And how did Yakovlev rake all the resources for the M-105PA engines under his aircraft?
          As for Mikoyan and Lavochkin ... we read why then they turned off the production of AM-35 on the MIG-1 and MIG-3 in favor of the AM-38 IL-2, and how the LA-5 appeared with the AS-82.
          1. Elturisto
            Elturisto 5 July 2020 10: 18 New
            +1
            Again a lie. The main consumer of M-105 in 1940-41 was LAGG :). Yakovlev never engaged in the distribution of resources in the People’s Commissariat :)
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Vovk
              Vovk 5 July 2020 12: 44 New
              0
              Quote: ElTuristo
              Again a lie. The main consumer of M-105 in 1940-41 was LAGG :). Yakovlev never engaged in the distribution of resources in the People’s Commissariat :)

              We look since 1942. Isn’t it modest that M-105 engines went to Yaki?
              1. Elturisto
                Elturisto 6 July 2020 15: 37 New
                0
                Again nonsense. The start of production of these fighters in 1940, during 1942 many plants (Novosibirsk for example) were transferred from LaGG to Yak. Why even children know ...
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 3 July 2020 14: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: ElTuristo
      Smushkevich was shot because, together with Tupol and Polikarpov, they concealed the real state of things in the aviation industry

      According to the leadership of the Air Force, they went red-hot for two more reasons:
      1. Pass "Aunt Yu" to Moscow 15.05.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX
      2. An absolute mess in the 5th Directorate of the Main Air Force of the KA, because of which the program for modernizing the airfield network of 1940 was completely disrupted (because of which it had to be transferred to the NKVD in 1941). There such things were going on, for which even in more herbivorous times heads would fly:
      - airfields were designed deliberately smaller than required for new machines;
      - modernized airfields, obviously unsuitable for new cars;
      - the construction of facilities in OdVO and PribVO was carried out without projects and estimates, the search for sites was hastily performed according to external signs without sufficient study - as a result, the selected sites in many cases were unsuitable for use at operational airfields and landing sites, and the district command was forced from them subsequently refuse, which led to the useless spending of public funds and the failure to fulfill the plan for the construction of facilities;
      - building materials went where they were not needed, but where they were needed, they were planned to be limited to supply;
      - fuel tanks produced in one district were sent to another (OdVO), where there was the same plant, whose products, in turn, went to ZakVO, which also had a tank factory in Tbilisi;
      - the construction of collapsible hangars at stationary aerodromes due to the fault of the Aerodrome Directorate of the Main Air Force of the KA and the KEU of the Red Army went completely unsatisfactorily - dozens of structures were made, delivered to airfields and were in a state of mismanagement, while the aircraft due to the lack of hangars in ZakVO and ArchBO rot;
      - and at this time
      ... a number of senior officials of the 5th Directorate of the Main Directorate of the Air Force KA, led by early management Filatov and ex. Commissioner, now deputy. Andreenko’s administration, were engaged in the construction of their own summer cottages, using their official position to obtain building materials and spending official time on this.
      © Head of Department 2, Department 3 of the NPO of the USSR
      State Security Captain Avseevich
      1. Vovk
        Vovk 3 July 2020 16: 19 New
        0
        1. Pass "Aunt Yu" to Moscow 15.05.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX

        There is nothing even to say, the pass was authorized from the very top.
        2. An absolute mess in the 5th Directorate of the Main Air Force of the KA, because of which the program for modernizing the airfield network of 1940 was completely disrupted

        Logistics topics in the pre-war period and in the war period, this is generally a separate issue.
        I studied this question a little about the construction of facilities in the OdVO and PribVO ... so 90% of these objects were specially searched and successfully exploited by German teams during the occupation ... moreover, heavy bombers landed. They did not complain about the quality of work.
        As for official estimates, if you look at them, the state wanted to save a lot - nobody voluntarily went to the builders on such conditions, even Komsomol members ... hard and heavy construction work for thanks ... therefore there were unofficial estimates and this was not only in Air Force, many have sinned.
        It was more profitable to catch up with the guards of the NKVD.
        By the way, what happened, the NKVD began repairing, modernizing, building airfields in the western parts of the USSR at the same time ... and surprisingly, it didn’t finish work until June 22, 1941. As a result, the Germans simply shot most of the aircraft in several continuous raids on a few existing airfields, where there were planes of almost entire air divisions on the heap. For some reason, comrade Beria was not shot.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 6 July 2020 11: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Vovk
          I studied this question a little about the construction of facilities in the OdVO and PribVO ... so 90% of these objects were specially searched and successfully exploited by German teams during the occupation ... moreover, heavy bombers landed. They did not complain about the quality of work.

          So these are the objects whose modernization was recognized as justified. And how many were those on which work was started and then stopped due to the inability to get what you wanted?
          Quote: Vovk
          As for official estimates, if you look at them, the state wanted to save a lot - nobody voluntarily went to the builders on such conditions, even Komsomol members ... hard and heavy construction work for thanks ... therefore there were unofficial estimates and this was not only in Air Force, many have sinned.

          What do the official and unofficial estimates have to do with it? Work on a part of the airfields was carried out without any estimates and without projects at all. And when it came to "pieces of paper", it suddenly became clear that the work was being done in vain - the modernization of the airfield is either technically impossible or financially unjustified. At the Chisinau airfield alone, the state lost 500 rubles in this way:
          The construction of facilities was carried out for the most part without projects and estimates. Land acquisition was not completed in a timely manner, which led to aimless spending of public funds. So in July, 1940, by order of Major Makeev, the expansion of the Chisinau airfield was begun without a project and estimates, although its expansion was obviously inadvisable due to the large volume of earthworks. Makeev did not take any measures to a number of signals from the places about the expulsion of tenants and budgeting until September.
          Only on 10.IX.40 was a survey made and estimates were made, on the basis of which in October 1940, further work to expand the airfield was stopped as unprofitable. As a result, about 500 rubles were spent aimlessly through Makeev’s fault.
      2. Elturisto
        Elturisto 5 July 2020 10: 15 New
        0
        Very interesting comment. It turns out that there were even more problems in aviation.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 2 July 2020 21: 55 New
    0
    Really interesting car. Something reminds our LAGG, although with a different dvigunom.
  • Liam
    Liam 2 July 2020 22: 12 New
    +7
    A total of 220 IAR-80s of all modifications were built. Say a little? For Romania - a lot. And in general, where is Romania and where is the aviation industry?

    Very decent result, let's say directly
    .

    Especially when you consider that in fact IAR aircraft of all modifications were built 347 pieces (IAR 80: 171
    IAR 81: 176). The total number of produced vehicles with prototypes and TD-450. Lost in battles, accidents and TD-275.

    IAR 80/81 had many modifications, most of which the author (probably because of the dominance of the Petrosyansky region) has no idea.
    Basic version
    IAR-80 with 4 Belgian machine guns.

    IAR 80A - 6 German machine guns, with cockpit bulletproof glass and an armored back. The new motor is IAR K14-1000A, de 1025 CP. 90 pieces are issued with numbers 051-090, 106-150 and 176-180.

    -IAR 80B - with the addition of 2 13,2 mm FN machine guns. Improved protection of tanks and armor protection of the cockpit. Increased wing span to 11 m. 20 aircraft with numbers 181-200 were issued. Subsequently, 11 aircraft (nos. 201-211) will add 2 more tanks of 100 liters under the wings. Specifications:
    Lungime: 9,22 m; Anvergură: 11 m; Înălțime: 3,82 m; Suprafața aripii: 17 m²; Masă (gol echipat): 2135 kg; Masă (maxim): 2810 kg (2960 kg cu rezervoarele suplimentare); Motor: × IAR K14-1000A, 1025 cp (764 kW); Viteză maximă: 470 km / h la 4500 m; Autonomie: 1030 km la 4500 m; Armament: 2 × FN (Browning) 13,2 mm cu o rezervă de 300 de cartușe (2 × 150) / 4 × FN (Browning) 7,92 mm cu o rezervă de 1600 de cartușe (4 × 400).

    - IAR 80DC (dubla comanda) –with double control. Training aircraft for aviation schools.

    -IAR -81 - IAR-80A modification for bombardment from the peak. 2 underwing 50 kg bombs and 1 kg under the fuselage. 250 items with numbers 50 - 091, 105 - 151 and 175 - 231 were issued
    : Masă (maxim): 3070 kg; Viteză cu cele trei bombe acroșate: 470 km / h la 4500 m; Viteză de croazieră (la aceeași altitudine): 400 km / h (cu motorul în regim de 70% din puterea nominală).





    -IAR 81A – modification of IAR 80B. The stock of ammunition was increased 13,2 mm. Instead of 50 kg of additional bomb bombs with fuel. 29 items were issued with numbers 212 - 230 and 291 - 300. Characteristics
    : Masă (maxim): 3250 kg; Viteză cu bomba acroșată: 455 km / h la 4500 m și 370 km / h la nivelul mării; Armament: 2 × FN (Browning) 13,2 mm cu o rezervă de 350 cartușe (2 × 175); 4 × FN (Browning) 7,92 mm cu o rezervă de 1600 de cartușe (4 × 400); 1 bombă de 250 kg.

    –IAR 81B - 13,2 mm machine guns replaced with 2 20 mm Ikaria guns (Oerlikon license) of 60 rounds each. 50 pieces issued. Numbers 241 - 290. Features: Masă cu bomba și rezervoarele suplimentare (maxim): 3260 kg; Viteză cu bomba acroșată: 455 km / h la 4500 m și 370 km / h la nivelul mării; Timp de urcare la 5000 m în configurația vânător (fără bombă): 7 min 30 s; Armament: 2 × tun Ikaria 20 mm cu o rezervă de 120 lovituri (2 × 60), 4 × FN (Browning) 7,92 mm cu o rezervă de 1600 de cartușe (4 × 400), 1 bombă de 250 kg.

    –IAR 81C - Ikaria guns were replaced with 20 mm Mauser MG. 38 units with numbers starting from 301 were produced. Features:
    Lungime: 9,22 m; Anvergură: 9,09 m; Înălțime: 3,82 m; Suprafață portantă: 17 m²; Masă (gol): 2200 kg; Masă (maximă): 2980 kg; Motor: IAR K14-1000A, 1025 CP (764 kW); Viteza maximă: 550 km / h la 7000 m; Autonomie: 730 km; Plafon: 9500 m; Încărcătura aripii: 132,35 kg / m²; Armament: 2 × tun MG 151/20 cu o rezervă de 350 lovituri (2 × 175), 4 × FN (Browning) 7,92 mm cu o rezervă de 1600 de cartușe (4 × 400).



    IAR 81C modification using the Junkers Jumo 211 Da motor. I did not go into the series due to the events of August 23, 1944.

    .
    1. Liam
      Liam 2 July 2020 22: 28 New
      +3
      The history of the aircraft in numbers and dates:
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rumaniamilitary.ro/istoria-iar-ului-80-in-date-cifre-si-statistici/amp
  • The comment was deleted.
  • pytar
    pytar 2 July 2020 22: 48 New
    +9
    IAR-80 turned out to be very good, even by the middle, and especially towards the end of the war, it was already noticeably retreating along the technical characteristics, from its opponents. Romanians tried to modernize it. For example, they planned to re-arrange the front end by mounting a Jumo 211 engine.


    There was also a single and double version of the hydroplane. These IAR 80s operated over the Black Sea.

    The last in the line of modifications of the IAR-80 fighter is the IAR-81C, almost identical to the IAR-80C, on which instead of the Ikaria cannons there were more powerful German Mauser MG 151/20 of the same caliber. Bomb load of the IAR-81 type - with a central ventral suspension unit for one 250-kg bomb and underwing hardpoints for four 50-kg bombs.

    One IAR-81C was tested as a heavy interceptor and received a pair of 210-mm mortar Wfr.Gr.21, installed under the wing. However, the test results of Wfr.Gr.21 were considered unsuccessful, and a series of fighter with mortar did not take place. By the end of 1943, 161 IAR-81Cs were rolled out of the shops of the plant in Brasov, after which the production of the best Romanian fighter was discontinued. However, the IAR-80 and IAR-81 fighters continued to carry out military service, participating in the most difficult missions.
  • Ros 56
    Ros 56 3 July 2020 06: 18 New
    +1
    Yes, I must admit honestly, it was a smart airplane, maneuverable.
    1. Viktor Sergeev
      Viktor Sergeev 3 July 2020 08: 06 New
      +2
      And nimble for what year? I16 level, but less maneuverable. There is no speed, the engine is weak. He won’t even catch up with Pe2, and fighters like La, Yak can turn him around as you like.
      1. Left shot
        Left shot 7 July 2020 22: 24 New
        0
        Yes, what are Yak and La, what are you talking about. His I-16 would already spin as he wanted, because the engine, the speed is the same, and maneuverability is a much more correct weapon. I think that even the Seagull would spin it due to maneuverability, despite the fact that the speed is not much less. The same LaGG-3 - there is speed and weapons and much better horizontal and vertical maneuverability.
        Let me remind you that the Romanian has all the fireflies in the wings, which means putting the information at exactly the same distance and choosing ONLY it to open fire.
        And such as the MiG-3, Yak-1B, La-5 * with these aircraft did what they would like, a couple would have cut the crowd like a sheep’s wolf.
        The fact that the Romanians shaved the Britons at Lightnings - well, so the allies were overgrown with grease in a crowd of factories and residential areas to bomb.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 3 July 2020 08: 04 New
    0
    I can not imagine how it could fight with fighters. Neither speed, nor vertical maneuverability, so-so, slowly flying (for 1942 and older) airplane. Even against a bomber, he is not very strong in armament, and he could hardly catch up. How will an air defense plane go if the enemy has no cover or a target with a fool climbed down.
  • iouris
    iouris 3 July 2020 11: 59 New
    +1
    Not a horse feed. And what does Dracula have to do with it? The story is that the pilots of some countries had to fight on what was available. These were not always high-quality and safe "products".
  • hohol95
    hohol95 3 July 2020 21: 48 New
    +1
    Dear Roman !!!
    After such a brilliant article about the Romanian fighter IAR-80, do you think to take up an article about another ally of the Third Reich and its fighter aircraft?
    About such an ally as Slovakia! And the Avia B.534 fighter -

    Quite a "cute machine"!
    Since June 1941, the 11th and 12th squadrons (25 aircraft) participated in military operations against the USSR, flying to escort German reconnaissance and their own S.328 bombers. The main opponents of B.534 were I-16 and I-153, with which the Slovaks could fight on an equal footing, however, of the combat losses, almost half of the fighters were shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft artillery. By mid-October, only four aircraft remained in the 12th squadron, with the Slovaks claiming six credible victories.

    AIRWAR.RU
  • certero
    certero 4 July 2020 11: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Mikhailovich Karasev
    On "Mosquito" the tree was not easy: balsa. Very lightweight and durable at the same time. In the aircraft industry, it looks much better than our pine tree.

    Well, we do not grow balsa
  • aleks neym_2
    aleks neym_2 4 July 2020 11: 43 New
    0
    As Kozma Prutkov used to say: see the root. The nose is big, but the thin chassis is narrow!
  • Left shot
    Left shot 7 July 2020 14: 58 New
    0
    It is significant that even the Romanians beat in the sky of self-praised Britons.
  • moreman78
    moreman78 8 July 2020 12: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Free Wind
    Well, Ducky is to blame. After the defeat in the 1st Dacian war, where 30 legions covered himself with glory. The leader of the Dacians Decibel surrendered weapons and swore allegiance, but began to make tricks, And I remember in 105 the second Dacian war began. Well, they were completely riddled, only 500 thousand were sold to slaves. Then it went to many Roxalans and Dacians, and so on.

    Not Decibel, but Decibal!