Jump to content

Talk:IAR 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Come on!

[edit]

"...it still could compete under certain conditions with more modern aircraft such as the Lockheed P-38 Lightning."-Technically true but disingenuous, with the "certain conditions" being if the P-38 was loaded with bombs and didn't see the IAR 80.--172.190.26.107 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a link that disproves that can you post it?Articseahorse (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense shouldn't require verification. If that is what Wikipedia requires, then that is an indictment of this place. The IAR 80 was a decent enough little aircraft, but we needn't exaggerate its attributes or effectiveness. Perhaps the source provided could illuminate what exactly these "certain situations" were. My guesses would be a heavy bombload or the P-38 pilots having fallen asleep.--172.190.44.148 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IAR 80 enjoyed success against the P-38 when the P-38 was outnumbered, loaded with bombs and flying at or below 100 meters/yards altitude in a narrow valley, according to Herbert "Stub" Hatch, such as on 10 June 1944 when the P-38s were supposed to be attacking the Ploesti oil refinery complex. If the P-38 was free to fight with its usual zoom-and-boom energy tactics, the IAR 80 would not fare so well. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese pilots flying Ki-43s considered the P-38 easy meat (as per a post-war interview with a survivng ace) so it isn't so hard to see - and if they were going to Ploesti they would have been carrying lots of fuel, not bombs since they were supposed to be escorting the heavy bombers. The P-38 was limited in dive speed from mach tuck, was heavy on the controls, had a poor climb rate, had poor cockpit visibility and would not have been able to use its speed advantage as it was attempting to stretch its range. A sitting duck in other words, and the reason they were pulled from ETO as soon as possible (these problems resulted in pilots overstressing their engines to compensate, giving it a further reputation for unreliability). That said, the IAR 80 was already obsolete so it wouldn't have been a cakewalk but of all the fighters the US used in the ETO/MTO, the P-38 was probably the only one the IAR-80 would have stood a chance against.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NiD.29 (talk • contribs)
BTW comparing it to the Bf 109, Spitfire or Hurricane is a laugh - it might have been comparable to some of the earliest marks but certainly not to any that were contemporary to the IAR 80. NiD.29 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P-38s were deadly to Japanese airplanes—just ask Yamamoto's widow. Japanese fighters such as the Ki-43 were unable to respond if they were "bounced" by P-38s using zoom and boom tactics. P-38 pilots were instructed to avoid a turning fight with any other fighter aircraft as they all could turn a tighter circle. Turning a tight circle was not what the P-38 was made for... It was made for fast flying and far shooting.
You are incorrect regarding the P-38s on 10 June 1944. They carried a bomb load to drop on Ploesti. The mission was not in support of heavy bombers. You are also incorrect about climb speed and visibility: the P-38 was superb in climbing and had a 360 degree range of vision horizontally unlike the IAR 80 which was unable to provide vision to the rear. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yamamoto was in a Betty - hardly a relevant aside and while plenty of Ki-43s did get shot down, it is telling that in the words of a Japanese pilot the P-51 was unbeatable and the Corsair a huge challenge but he didn't hesitate to take on Hellcats and he severely dissed the P-38). The P-38s wing was high and with the engines and booms severely restricted visibility downward and to the sides. The P-38 was an perfectly good interceptor but it was not an escort fighter, which it sucked so badly at that the US replaced it as soon as possible (had it been used in that role shortly after it first flew it would have been a different story as compared to early Bf 109s etc it was a good performer, but by '44 was past its prime). The duration of the flight dictated lower speeds to conserve fuel, and so would be vulnerable, having discarded their only advantage. With mountains masking them, the IAR 80s were doing the bouncing and while that tactic works well when used offensively, doesn't work as well for the defensive.
Don't confuse the propaganda for truth (our boys had to know they had the best aircraft, even when they didn't). What I said came from a respected book on the P-38 that had support (and a forward) from major Lockheed people. Not that this has much to do with the IAR 80, which was 50 mph slower than a Hurricane and probably more comparable to the PZL P.24, P-36, I-16 or Ki-27 and beating a P-38 was quite an acheivement (but doesn't belong in the intro).NiD.29 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese pilots didn't hesitate to fly their planes into the sides of ships either, but P-38s shot them down in droves. What one Japanese pilot thought about the P-38 doesn't speak quite as loudly as the hundreds upon hundreds of pilots who didn't didn't get the same chance thanks to the P-38.--172.190.25.8 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations please

[edit]

This article reads well, however for most sections there are few or none citations to the extensive list of sources in "References". Please improve this. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on IAR 80. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IAR_80&oldid=1198516308"