Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian Bf 109 G with Galland hood/Erla Haube, information about their use
Agarici
Posted: May 29, 2016 04:33 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Radub @ May 29, 2016 08:42 am)

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.
.......

- 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.
....

HTH
Radu


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?


This post has been edited by Agarici on May 29, 2016 09:29 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: May 30, 2016 05:59 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (Agarici @ May 29, 2016 04:33 pm)


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?

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.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: May 31, 2016 06:02 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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.

Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 31, 2016 06:03 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: May 31, 2016 07:28 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (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...

Dénes


OFF-TOPIC:

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".

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 01, 2016 11:40 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
lancer21
Posted: August 21, 2016 12:02 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 2883
Joined: September 04, 2010



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.

Many thanks!

This post has been edited by lancer21 on August 21, 2016 12:14 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted: August 21, 2016 04:27 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4356
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 21, 2016 09:57 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



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?

Thank you!
PMEmail Poster
Top
lancer21
Posted: August 21, 2016 10:21 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 2883
Joined: September 04, 2010



Hi Agarici,

Here is a discussion and some great reconstruction drawings on the subject of inline engined IAR-80:
http://www.cartula.ro/forum/topic/12165-iar-80-db/

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!
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: August 26, 2016 11:52 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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.

QUOTE (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:
http://www.cartula.ro/forum/topic/12165-iar-80-db/

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!

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...?

HTH
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 26, 2016 12:02 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
lancer21
Posted: August 26, 2016 08:34 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 73
Member No.: 2883
Joined: September 04, 2010



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).

Many thanks.

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?
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: August 27, 2016 07:53 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



QUOTE (lancer21 @ August 26, 2016 08:34 pm)

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).


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.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on August 27, 2016 07:53 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 27, 2016 08:50 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (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).

Many thanks.

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?


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!
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: August 27, 2016 09:04 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



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.

HTH
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Agarici
Posted: August 27, 2016 10:03 pm
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



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...

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 27, 2016 10:04 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
Radub
Posted: August 28, 2016 07:37 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1670
Member No.: 476
Joined: January 23, 2005



Thanks Agarici. My interest in aviation is mostly technical. Unfortunately, I do not know anything about Bendas.
Radu
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) 1 [2] 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0262 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]