|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > ARR - Romanian Royal Aeronautics > Romanian Bf 109 G with Galland hood/Erla Haube|
|Posted by: Agarici May 17, 2016 01:07 am|
| Dear friends, I have a set of question for you regarding the aspects concerning the title of the topic (apologies if they were already discussed somewhere else). I hope our "aviation specialist" Radub, Denes, perhaps Victor can help. Thank you in advance!
1. Did the above-mentioned canopy represent a notable improvement (in visibility terms for the pilot, for example), or was rather more of a "style-related improvement"?
2. Were any G 6 models with Erla Haube built in Romania, at IAR Brasov? As far as in know, even (some) of the Romanian Bf 109 Gs delivered late in the war, on the (Romanian) Western Front, had "classical" hoods.
3. Is there any documentary/photographic evidence of ANY Romanian Bf 109 with Erla Haube, apart from that of the plane flown by Bazu to Foggia, in late August 1944? (by the way, was it a captured example?)
4. Are there any statistics regarding the Romanian Bf 109 with Erla Haube (before/after 23 August 1944)? Is it possible that they were ALL captured examples (instead of imported/licence built)?
I will remain in your debt
|Posted by: Dénes May 19, 2016 07:57 pm|
| Short answers:
1, yes, it was an improvement in side/rearwards visibility.
2, no. However, later refits were possible, as the canopies were interchangeable.
3, yes (see, for example, the attachment).
|Posted by: Agarici May 20, 2016 11:17 pm|
| Denes, thank you for the answers and especially for the awesome photo!
However, how come IAR didn't introduce the Erla Haube as standard in their Bf 109 production/assembly?
|Posted by: Radub May 21, 2016 06:43 am|
I.A.R. only received airframe kits, ready to be assembled. No manufacturing took place in Romania, the factory only assembled the parts that they received from Germany. The only exception are the larger bulges used on the G-6 aircraft, which were made locally. The "Vollsichthaube" was introduced after the original parts were delivered.
The ARR had a number of aircraft with Vollsichthaube that were captured during the westward campaign.
|Posted by: Agarici May 21, 2016 10:21 pm|
Thank you, Radub!
Two more questions for you (and Denes):
- From the total number of Bf 109 G 6 delivered officially (meaning not captured) to ARR, were there any manufactured in Germany, and not delivered in kits to IAR and assembled there? Any data about how many (of those German-made) had "Erla" canopies?
- I saw, in some articles/sources, the "a" suffix added to some 109 variants (for exapmple Bf 109 Ga 2 or Ga 4, if I recall it correctly). What was its significance, if there was any in particular?
|Posted by: Dénes May 22, 2016 08:27 am|
| Here's my take on these questions:
1, most Bf 109Gs used by ARR were delivered on their wings, namely in airworthy status.
2, the 'a' suffix after the sub-type letter means built, or assembled abroad (Ausland).
|Posted by: Radub May 22, 2016 09:40 am|
The Bf 109 used in ARR came through three main sources:
- Deliveries of German-made aircraft. These came from a number of factories such as MTT Regensburg, WNF and Erla. These planes were used in combat alongside with German units and sometimes even flown by German pilots. The losses and repairs were covered by the Germans. Some planes delivered in the late summer of 1944 had "Vollsichthauben" - the plane used by Cantacuzino for his diplomatic flight is a famous one.
- Ready-to-assemble kits supplied to the I.A.R. factory. These were G-4 and G-6 types. None had "Vollsichthauben."
- Captured aircraft. Some aircraft were abandoned on Romanian territory in various states of repair by the retreating Germans. Some were captured on Transylvanian, Hungarian and Czechoslovak airfields as the Romanian troops advanced. Some had "Vollsichthauben."
Technically it was possible to fit a Vollsichthaube to any type of Bf 109 with a little bit of work.
|Posted by: Agarici May 22, 2016 11:22 am|
Thank you very much, Denes and Radub! "Chapeau" for you knowledge in the field!
As I said, I am in you debt.
|Posted by: Agarici May 23, 2016 06:43 pm|
| Another related issue would be that of the variants of the G ("Ghe") in service in 1944. According to some authors (D. Bernard, T. Vasile, M. Robanescu) towards the middle of that year the Romanian 7 and 9 Fighter Groups had mainly the G 6 version. But still some photographic evidence (and colour profiles) suggest that around (and even after) August 1944 there were still some earlier types also in use. For example, I remember a story/anecdote about a captured German G 2 (or G 4) which was named after the lady friend of the former owner, and the name remained on its nose even after the plane was repainted with Romanian markings.
Now, more numbers and data-related, when the G 6 started to be delivered to ARR (from German manufacturers and from IAR)? Was there an uniformity in equipment in the 7th and 9th Groups from then on? And if not, why? For example, after the two groups coalesced, weren't there enough remaining (plus assembled at IAR and captured) machines for using exclusively this newer model for the available pilots?
And finally, weather reading the specifications of, for ex. G 2 and G 4 I fail (as an uneducated by-stander) to see any (visible) difference, was the pair of high caliber MG of the G 6 MUCH more effective than those of the former types?
|Posted by: Radub May 24, 2016 08:08 am|
| I am more interested in the technical aspects of the aircraft, so I defer to Denes and others for operational records.
The G-2 and G-4 were not obsolete by 1944, not by far. The MG 151/20 cannon (the Germans called it a "machine gun" though) was still a formidable weapon and used a wide array of ammunitions such as armour-piercing, incendiary, fragmentation, etc, and the armourers used to place them in sequences on the belt. So, a well-placed short burst of, let's say, sequenced armour-piercing / high-explosive / incendiary rounds could bring down anything in the sky at the time. As for speed, the G-4 was actually marginally faster than the G-6, albeit packing a lesser punch. So, in good hands, a G-2 or a G-4 could face on equal terms the Lavochkins, Yaks or Airacobras used by the Russians at the time.
The difference between the G-2 and G-4 was the radio. The G-2 used a FuG 7 radio whereas the G-4 used a FuG 16 radio, which was considerably lighter. The armament stayed the same for the G-2 and the G-4, respectively 1 x MG 151 20 mm heavy machine gun firing through the spinner and 2 x MG 17 7.92 mm machine guns above the engine.
Externally, the only visual difference between the G-2 and the G-4 was the point where the antenna cable entered the fuselage. On the G-2 the cable led to a large white ceramic insulator on the left top side of the fuselage, just above the radio hatch. On the G-4 the cable led to a transparent plexiglas disc on the left top of the fuselage just ahead of the tail fin.
Some Romanian Bf 109 G-2 and G-4 planes were also sometimes fitted with external armaments such as:
- MG 151/20 "gondolas" under the wing (R6 upgrade kit, making it a Bf 109 G-4/R6 for example)
- bomb racks under the fuselage (R1 and R2 upgrade kits, making it a Bf 109 G-4/R1 for example)
- 300 litre fuel drop tank under the fuselage (R3 upgrade kit, making it a Bf 109 G-6/R3 for example)
Later edit: You were asking whether the MG 131 used on the G-6 was that much "better" than the MG 17 used on the G-2/G-4? The G-6 used the MG 131 machine guns firing 13 mm high-explosive and armour-piercing rounds. It had a high rate of fire of 900 rpm, higher than that of the .50 Browning machine gun used on the Mustangs, at half the weight.
|Posted by: Dénes May 26, 2016 02:48 pm|
That is correct, the G-2 sub-type was also used in the "hot" Summer of 1944, particularly those assembled at I.A.R. Bv.
This is also correct (IIRC, the name was Marga).
I must check at home the date when the first G-6s entered ARR service.
The two Bf 109G-equipped fighter groups were merged in early September 1944, in anticipation of the anti-German and anti-Hungarian campaign. Later on, Gr. 1 vân. also joined, in early 1945. I cannot remember any G-2 being used by these two fighter groups after Sept. 1944.
Besides what Radu very thoroughly described, another visual difference between the G-2 ad G-4 sub-types is the main wheel design. If it was spiked, it was a G-2, if it was covered by a round plate, it was most probably a G-4. Of course, exceptions occurred.
P.S. Radu, could it be the reason why the Germans referred to the 20-mm (or 2-cm) MG 151/20 cannon as "machine gun", as originally the MG 151 had 15 mm calibre (the MG 151/15), hence the abbreviation? Also note that the '109s with two additional under wing gondolas with a 2-cm cannon each were called Kanonenboote, not MG Boote.
|Posted by: Radub May 26, 2016 08:02 pm|
| Hi Denes,
The wheels are not a "safe" identification feature. Wheels with spoked ot smooth hubs were used on both G-2 and G-4. Also the same can be said about "kidney"-shaped bulge ober the wheel well. If you have Prien and Rodeike's book, you can see plenty of examples of G-2 and G-4 with either wheels.
The only guaranteed identifier is the radio antenna wire.
Indeed, the MG 151 was technically a cannon, but officially it was designated a MG meaning "Maschingewehr".
|Posted by: Agarici May 28, 2016 02:01 pm|
| Thank you both, again (and again)!
According to "Messerschmitt Bf 109 in Romania", by Teodor Liviu Morosanu and Dan Melinte, Mushroom Model Publications, translated by Radu Brinzan and, according to the reviewer, "highly reccomended" (excerpts available on the internet here: http://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/spotlight-messerschmitt-bf-109-romania), the (first) Bf 109 Ga 4s (15 planes) were delivered to ARR early in the Summer of 1944, followed by the Ga 6 model, as follows: 10 (only 10?) in 1944, 21 in 1945, 12 in 1946 and 24 in 1947.
Three more questions:
- So, the Ga 2s were in fact Ga 4s, or the former (Ga 2) had been already delivered until/before the Summer of 1944? If so, how many?
- If the numbers presented in the book are correct, ALL the Romanian Bf 109 G 6s delivered before 23 August 1944 were of German origin? Apparently, some of them even had the Erla haube (according to the book, Bazu "american flag" 109 was the former "white 31" of Lt. Av. Dușescu).
- All the Romanian Ga 6s assembled at IAR until 1947 (!) were manufactured from kits of German origin, delivered BEFORE August 1944?
|Posted by: Agarici May 28, 2016 02:42 pm|
| Yet another thing, for all those who might be knowledgeable on the issue: were there, after August 1944 (or even before, after the Vienna Award/Dictat) any hostile encounters between ARR and Hungarian Military Aviation planes (of any type)?
As far as I'm aware, fortunately it was not the case (or more precisely I have't read of any) which is very strange given the state of conflict between the two parties.
How come was that possible, given also the (many) encounters between Romanian and German planes over Transylvania/Hungary?
By mid-late 1944 (and 1945) what planes used Hungarian Air Force (Magyar Légierő, right) as fighters? Similar Bf 109 Gs (what model)? Were the Re 2000 Héja still in use? What about the other branches of Hungarian Air Force (bombers, assault planes, reconnaissance)?
LATER EDIT: was there an official declaration of war between Romania and Hungary in/after August 1944?
|Posted by: Radub May 29, 2016 08:42 am|
All Bf 109 used by Romania were of German origin. There was no manufacture in Romania. The planes assembled in Romania arrived as "ready-to-assemble" kits made in Germany. The only thing that was done in Romania was to join the parts, plug in the sockets and tighten the screws. Think of them as giant Airfix kits. ;-)
It stands to reason that all the planes delivered by the Germans were delivered before 23 August 1944. After that date, since Romania and Germany were no longer allies, all deliveries stopped. The Romanians captured other Bf 109 on or after 23 August 1944.
As I said, please do not forget that there were three main "supply routes" by which ARR received Bf 109s:
1) Purchase - includes ready-to-fly and ready-to-assemble
You must keep in mind that there were a number of Bf 109 that were only leased to Romania. They continued to be owned by the Germans, even though they were decorated with Romanian markings. In as far as I know, Bazu's "diplomatic" plane with Vollsichthaube was such a lease.
The reason why so few planes "assembled in Romania" were delivered in 1944 is that they were assembled by I.A.R. in the Brasov factory. The Brasov factory was bombed by USAAF in April and May 1944 and it was incapacitated. After the May 1944 bombing, the Brasov factory effectively ceased to exist as a plane factory and when it reopened after the war, it opened as a tractor factory. All surviving airframes and tooling was moved to Caransebes and Arpasu where Bf 109 assembly continued at a much slower rate. However, a number of Bf 109 parts were destroyed or damaged beyond repair in the Brasov factory, therefore not all ready-to-assemble kits that Romania had received were assembled.
Dan Antoniu's book "Illustrated History of Romanian Aeronautics" lists the following numbers for the "DB 605-powered" Bf 109 (he also lists the Bf 109 E):
- Bf 109 G-2 ready-to-fly: 55 ordered, 32 delivered before 1944
- Bf 109 Ga-2 and Ga-4 ready-to-assemble kits: 235 ordered. 209 delivered in crates, containing 49 Bf 109 G-2 and 160 Bf 109 G-4. Later, an agreement was sought and obtained from the Messerschmitt factory to convert some of the G-4 to G-6 and parts were received from Germany for the conversion. Of these, 49 Bf 109 Ga-2 and 13 Bf 109 Ga-4 were assembled.
- Bf 109 G-4 ready-to-fly: 28 planes purchased and delivered in 1943
- Bf 109 G-6 ready-to-fly: 32 planes initially leased by the Germans in 1943. Losses and repairs were replenished by the Germans. Up to 149 Bf 109 G-6 were in ARR service, which also includes captured planes.
- Bf 109 Ga-6 ready-to-assemble kits: No Bf 109 Ga-6 kits were actually supplied by the Germans. The Germans supplied "conversion kits" to convert the already supplied Ga-4 into Ga-6. 62 Bf 109 Ga-6 were assembled.
So, here is a summary of the figures of planes delivered as ready-to-assemble kits, according to Dan Antoniu:
Of the 209 kits delivered by the Germans
- 49 Bf 109 Ga-2 assembled
- 13 Bf 109 Ga-4 assembled
- 62 Bf 109 Ga-6 assembled
- 37 destroyed in the USAAF bombing of the Brasov factory
- 48 left unassembled and used for spare parts
Dan Antoniu also listed all the known Bf 109 serial numbers, by type, in an appendix at the end of the book.
Some more detailed information can be found in Dan Antoniu's book "Romanian Aeronautical Constructions".
|Posted by: Agarici May 29, 2016 04:33 pm|
Both aspects mentioned by you are new to me. Thank you!
I had no idea that the effects of the American bombing of the IAR factories were so extensive. Was that the moment (April/May 1944) when the IAR 80/81 production also ceased? Was the ending planned before, or was it caused by the bombings?
|Posted by: Radub May 30, 2016 05:59 pm|
The I.A.R. Brasov factory was put out of operation by two USAAF bombings on 16 April 1944 and 6 May 1944. All production ceased at the I.A.R. Brasov factory after the May bombing. No decision had been taken to stop the production of the I.A.R.80/81 before that, but the plane was in a precarious position at that stage anyway. By 1943 the I.A.R.80/81 needed a more powerful engine to keep up with the much more advanced opposition and the DB 605 was considered, but the Germans were unwilling/unable to supply them because of their own front-line needs, yet discussions continued. After 23 August, there was no more hope of getting any engines from the Germans and there was no one else left to provide alternative engines to Romania. Also, you must keep in mind that the I.A.R. factory worked on an order/contract basis. The government placed orders and the factory delivered. So, when the factory was gone, there was no one there to fulfil orders. In other words, no decision needed to be taken to stop the production of the I.A.R.80/81, it just became impossible.
On 19 June 1945 the Petru Groza government issued a decree by which all war production was to be converted to peacetime production, which included converting the I.A.R. Brasov factory into a tractor factory. On 26 December 1946, the first tractor left the I.A.R. Brasov factory (now called Sovrom Tractor) - the tractor was called I.A.R.22. The factory was renamed UTB (Uzina Tractorul Brasov) in 1948. A workshop called ARMV 3 (Atelierul de Reparatii Material Volant 3) continued to operate in the tractor factory until 1959 when a new I.A.R factory opened in Ghimbav.
|Posted by: Dénes May 31, 2016 06:02 pm|
| I am not aware of any hostile encounter between ARR and MKHL (Hungarian) warplanes prior to the Rumanians' 23 August 1944 about-face. After Rumania unilaterally switched sides and declared war on Hungary in early September 1944 (I have somewhere the precise date), there were a few sporadic hostile encounters between warplanes of the two antagonistic parties. Rumanian '109s destroyed on ground a couple of Hungarian aircraft (Re.2000 and unspecified Focke-Wulf) parked on Szamosfalva/Someseni airfield in mid-September. In turn, Hungarian '109 pilots claimed a biplane that was later on identified as "IAR-38", as well as a "strangely painted " Bf 109G over North-Eastern Hungary, in December 1944.
I am not aware of any other victory claims by either side.
|Posted by: Agarici May 31, 2016 07:28 pm|
In March and October the same year Hungary, through Miklos Horthy, tried to do the same thing, but failed, or rather the Germans were quicker. And they found the sort of needed "political tools" in Hungary, in the form of the Arrow Cross Party and Szalasi puppet government, and (part of) the Hungarian military establishment. Getting back to him, the Regent went as far as promising the complete capitulation for the moment in which the first Allied unit would reach (Greater) Hungary soil. Why would he do that? For the sole reason of securing (at least in part, or for a while) the territories invaded or abusively occupied by Hungary during the war. That (and not the "Romanian file") would have been, according to the "treason" mythology and simplification series, the perfect, manual example, of treachery, given the fact that all that Hungary have gained (its position in Europe and the territorial expansion) was obtained with the direct support of Germany and Italy for both the country and its leader.
So much about "the Romanian betrayal".
|Posted by: lancer21 August 21, 2016 12:02 pm|
| Dear gentlemen,
If i may resume this discussion. I have gone again (and again!) through my available sources regarding FARR Bf-109Gs, already listed here. Still there are enough puzzles left, one of them being, what were really the plans regarding the manufacture of the Bf-109G in Romania? The french source (Hors Serie), and others before it (Axworthy), mention that the plans called for 465 fuselages and 530 engines from IAR in 1944-1945. Separately Hors Serie states that 250 of these should come from the IAR production line.
Now as recent information states that 235 Bf-109Gs arrived in crates and no parts for them were manufactuerd at IAR (except the revised MG-131 fairings later on), that means that the rest of the order up to 465 (230 airframes) should have been actually built at IAR in 1944-1945, right?
Back to the Ga-4 and Ga-6 airframes, i remember reading that when the hungarians started licence production of their Bf-109G, the initial airframes were assembled from german supplied kits, however as production continued more and more of the aircraft included hungarian build components until the plane was entirely manufactured in Hungary (if i'm not mistaken). They also built a lot of them, about 800 apparently in 1943/1944. Would love to know more details about hungarian Bf-109G production, maybe mr. Bernad could help us get more info on this subject when possible?
As to the romanian Ga-4 and Ga-6, is it certain that no romanian built components whatsoever were used in their construction? I'm asking because in mr. Antoniu's work, the Ga-2s assembled at IAR are listed with both their romanian and german Werk numbers, while the Ga-4 and Ga-6 are listed with romanian numbers only, so if no german Werk numbers are available then perhaps while many or most components were german, they were not regarded as complete aircraft per se, and given the hungarian production example above, it would have made sense for IAR to start manufacturing a gradually increasing number of components for these planes in anticipation of complete production of the airframe in Romania. Am i making sense?
Regarding DB-605 production in Romania, details of that are very scarce, i think Axworthy states that engine production was supposed to start in July 1944, any more details? I remember reading in an old romanian book called "Romanian aircraft factories in the interwar years" something about a rate of production of either 60 a month or 600 (!) a month, unfortunately i can't remember which, and also can't remember if the location of this engine factory was Caransebes or Copsa Mica- no doubt this being the dispersed engine factory from IAR Brasov.
In retrospect though and with a healthy dose of hindsight, it seems that a lot of time was wasted at a critical time with the Bf-109G licence production, especially the delays in converting the Ga-4 to Ga-6 (the slightly faster and lighter Ga-4 would have been more suitable to fight against the P-51 and P-38 anyway!), the germans were building 200 or more Bf-109G a WEEK at this time, probably would have been better to just stick with IAR-81 production beyond the 450 ordered for which everything was in place, but powered by DB-605 engines initially from Germany and then from IAR, and meanwhile just get say 150 Bf-109Gs already built from Germany than waste critical amount of time in assembling them in Romania (with the balance of DB-605A engines to 235 going to IAR-81). If they manage to get even just 75 or even 100 new or converted IAR-81/DB-605A by summer 1944, together with 150 Bf-109Gs this would be enough to re-equip with high performance aircraft and supply replacements (for a period at least) to at least four fighter groups which historically were still flying the totally outclassed IAR-80/81, or they were just beggining to convert to Bf-109G by August 1944. Surely, while the IAR-81/DB-605 would still be inferior to the P-51, they would still be able to take on roughly even terms the P-38, and the standard soviet aircraft then in service (Yak-9, La-5, P-39) But anyway, this is just some speculation on my part.
|Posted by: Dénes August 21, 2016 04:27 pm|
| Good and valid points, Lancer21.
At the moment I cannot answer your queries, as I am away from my references and documents. However, I am looking forward to reading other forumites' answers.
|Posted by: Agarici August 21, 2016 09:57 pm|
| A question: are there any cues/speculation (especially visual) about how a IAR 80/81 with a DB-605A would/could have looked like? Were there any studies regarding that, before an alleged/planned change of the engine? Was it possible (structurally), for the airframe to include the new engine?
|Posted by: lancer21 August 21, 2016 10:21 pm|
| Hi Agarici,
Here is a discussion and some great reconstruction drawings on the subject of inline engined IAR-80:
As for the possible look of the aircraft with a DB-605 engine, it actually just hit me, what if the nose of the aircraft no.326 would be shaped nearly identical to Bf-109G, sort of like the finns did with their Pyorremyrsky DB-605 powered fighter?! An IAR-81C with Bf-109G nose (without MGs of course) makes sense in many ways, that cowling has been specifically designed for the DB-605 engine, especially the supercharger intake, small air intakes behind the prop to help with cooling etc.). I say this because from the long dicussions online on the subject of inline engind IAR-80, posters say the airframe shown in the only photograph we have seems to be of the earliest type, taken in 1941 or 1942 and likely that particular aircraft is powered by a DB-601 (or Jumo-211).
But anyway, i digress yet again!
|Posted by: Radub August 26, 2016 11:52 am|
| Lancer 21,
You asked about the possibility to manufacture of DB 605 in Romania. Please keep in mind that by the summer of 1944, due to war-depleted economy, lack of factories and constant Allied bombing, Romania was no longer able to produce much of anything.
It is not possible to graft the engine cowlings from the Bf 109 (either DB 601 or 605) to the I.A.R. because of the different dimensions and shapes.
A logical supposition would be that it would be easier to fit the the I.A.R.80 with the cowlings from the Jumo 211-powered S.M.79 because in the beginning the 79 was powered by the same engine as the I.A.R., so the dimensions of the firewall had to be quite close. But we do not know that for sure either...
We do not have any proper solid information about the I.A.R.80 with in-line engine. All the information we have is frustratingly incomplete and all of it has been published. Maybe in the future will will get more info. New photos keep surfacing, so who knows...?
|Posted by: lancer21 August 26, 2016 08:34 pm|
| Thanks Radub for your valuable input.
To keep the IAR-80 subject short, as i see now you and others think the DB cowlings won't fit on the IAR-80, perhaps then, just as they did with no.13 (using a modified Jumo-211D cowling from JRS-79B), they perhaps did the same thing with no.326 in 1943, maybe using a Jumo-211F cowling from the JRS-79B1 to fit the DB-605 in it?
Back to the Bf-109G and it's engine subject, indeed you are right about the circumstances in 1944 (to add another critique, i'm surprised they didn't dispersed IAR after Tidal Wave and especially after the invasion of Italy in autumn 1943, they were expecting the american bombings, what did they thought that somehow they will ignore the largest local aircraft factory?), however i was curious what were the production plans (before the bombings).
PS: On a different note, there seems to be a lot of spam on the board, it's been like that for days, i realise that the mods could be busy temporarily but it makes the forum look deserted, i'm sure there must be a way members who are willing to could give a hand?
|Posted by: Radub August 27, 2016 07:53 am|
The I.A.R. company had a number of factories and workshops as well as mobile repair units. The Brasov site was the largest. After the Brasov site was put out of operation in the spring of 1944, the work continued at the Caransebes and Arpasu sites.
"Dispersal of production" was not an easy task. Please keep in mind that the resources were really limited. It was never easy to set up aircraft factories in Romania because all the machinery and many materials needed for aircraft manufacture were imported. However, the "market" for such valuable resources became very restricted after the war started. Romania could only rely on Germany for anything to do with aircraft production and as the war was coming closer to Germany the Germans were increasingly less able or willing to share such valuable resources.
Things could have been different if Romania had its own engine manufacturer who designed and created their own engine. It never did and it still does not have such a resource to this day.
|Posted by: Agarici August 27, 2016 08:50 pm|
Connected to that, but also in a bit different development of the ideas connected to what could have been, how difficult would have been for IAR to develop a new/original/own design cowling for the licence-build engine, either of the two mentioned?
I'm talking in particular to an evolution similar to Fw 190 D (Dora) and Ta 152, which (at least for some - the majority of - versions) switched from a radial to an in-line engine, keeping the same style (even if not the exact measures/dimensions) of the engine cowling. I even red an article in which Dora was called "a fake radial-engine plane".
The reason behind opting for such a solution - in my mind, at least - could have been keeping similar aerodynamic features of the plane. Exactly how much were valued these type of arguments (aerodynamics) by the time of WW 2? Were by then the wind-tunnel tests with scale models of the prototypes already in use?
Thank you, and thanks Lancer21 for the very interesting link provided!
|Posted by: Radub August 27, 2016 09:04 pm|
| The engineers could have created a new engine cowling for the in-line I.A.R.80. but we just do not know much about it right now.
The FW 190 D was a superb conversion from radial to in-line and a true success. It was further refined to the Ta 152, which was even more impressive.
Believe it or not, the "wind tunnel" was born before powered flight. The Wright brothers had a wind tunnel. The Germans had wind tunnels (Google "Luftwaffe wind tunnels") including supersonic wind tunnels that were used for the V2 program.
|Posted by: Agarici August 27, 2016 10:03 pm|
| Hm, had no idea about that. Only the quite vague recollection about a piece of information, in a printed book/article about some IAR engineers testing a design (IAR 80, a later model?) in a wind-tunnel, somewhere in Romania or in France...
You, dear Radub, are a true mine of information regarding aviation. And fortunately for this forum, a still active one. Thank you again! By the way, no hints/tips about my question, from a different topic, regarding lt. aviator Bendaș? I know it is a delicate issue, but still...
|Posted by: Radub August 28, 2016 07:37 am|
| Thanks Agarici. My interest in aviation is mostly technical. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about Bendas.
|Posted by: lancer21 August 28, 2016 03:54 pm|
| Strangely, since i do like playing with what-if scenarios i too was thinking about an IAR-80 with an inline engine and an annular radiator, like say the complete Jumo-211 installation from Ju-88, or probably more suitable, from Ta-154. However as the FW-190D prooves, because the weight of the radiator would be at the front of the engine, it probably really needs the fuselage lengthened to restore balance, or some other pretty drastic aerodinamic changes (like Ta-152, which has the wings moved a bit forward if i'm not mistaken, which caused the structure of the front fuselage to be redesigned).
Btw, apparently one of the reasons the germans really liked annular radiators was because the length of piping for coolant and oil would be much reduced (hence vulnerability to damage reduced, or so was the theory), the compactness of the installation and as Agarici pointed, the fuselage and wings would be kept clean of bulky radiators and so on.
However as to IAR-80 with annular radiator this is a way too drastic redesign imo. As far as the actual inlined engined IARs for which we have information that they flew, better stick with the information available, since we could deduce that the modifications to no.326 were not extensive enough for the aircraft to be converted back to IAR-81C standard after testing the DB-605, it seems likely that it followed the configuration of no.13, i.e. perhaps engine cowling from a Jumo and single radiator under the nose, as i was suggesting previously, perhaps they used a Jumo-211F cowling this time? Interestingly that cowling looks quite similar to those fitted to DB-605 powered italian fighters like MC-205V/N, Re-2005, G-55 etc. In fact perhaps to even speculate about the looks of the no.326, perhaps it is worth analysing the engine cowling modifications between the aforementioned italian fighters and their previous DB-601 powered variants, the MC-202, G-50V, Re-2002 etc.
PS: Anyway, we are drifting further away from the Bf-109G discussion, perhaps the IAR-80 themed posts could be moved in a separate topic if they are of hindrance?
|Posted by: Radub August 29, 2016 08:57 am|
| The I.A.R. with in-line engine is, indeed, off-topic.