PDA

View Full Version : IAR 80



jenikovtaw
05-17-2004, 07:32 AM
Has anyone else noticed that this plane is very much like the 190?

Engine sounds the same. It handles very similarly, except for slower roll rate, and slower speed.

Anyway, its a funny plane to fly, its so little and everyone always dismisses it, but its quite deadly, especially the cannon-armed model.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

jenikovtaw
05-17-2004, 07:32 AM
Has anyone else noticed that this plane is very much like the 190?

Engine sounds the same. It handles very similarly, except for slower roll rate, and slower speed.

Anyway, its a funny plane to fly, its so little and everyone always dismisses it, but its quite deadly, especially the cannon-armed model.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

F19_Olli72
05-17-2004, 07:44 AM
I recently started to try it out in QMB, i like it very much so far. Great view all around except for the corners of the cocpitbars. Looking forward to try it online as soon as Greatergreen is up and running again.

http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/Forgotten%20Battles/cloudtut/sig2.jpg (http://www.screenshotart.com)

Jasko76
05-17-2004, 07:45 AM
Actually, I enjoy this little bird a lot! It's very elegant, reminiscent of 1930's Hughes racers. Yup, it does sounds like a Fw 190, but sounds in Il2 are sub-par, no need to repeat ourselves since it will not be fixed.

As for handling, I don't think it reminds me of Fw 190 - on contrary, it turns very well but the roll rate is less than stellar.

All in all, a fine little fighter!


Regards,

Jasko
http://www.zoro.hr/filipovic/filipovic-slike/sarajevo-16.jpg

Formerly known as Rajvosa

Bula
05-17-2004, 08:14 AM
The IAR 80 and 81 are great little planes. The 81a in the game is inaccurately modeled in many respects (bomb-carrying capacity, armament, etc.), but Oleg has promised to remedy this in the forthcoming patch.

As for the engine sound: yeah, it does sound like the 190. Perhaps 1C couldn't find any audio recordings of the IAR 80 series' Gnome-Rhone radial engine and just used what they thought was the next best thing?

JtD
05-17-2004, 08:46 AM
The IAR is very different from the FW 190 as far as handling is concerned. I have a lot of fun with it. :-)

However, I often overestimate the planes capabilites. I get shot down more often in the IAR than in any other plane. :-(

What's wrong with the bomb? A book of mine says exactly the same.

ELEM
05-17-2004, 09:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bula:
As for the engine sound: yeah, it does sound like the 190. Perhaps 1C couldn't find any audio recordings of the IAR 80 series' Gnome-Rhone radial engine and just used what they thought was the next best thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't find audio recordings of ANY of the engines. They are all synthesised.

I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as member!

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v107/Elem_Klimov/I-16_desktop.jpg

CraigNT
05-17-2004, 09:34 AM
I've read up on this plane and it seems that when the Luftwaffe sent Romania a couple He-112's the romanians tested them out as replacements for their IAR 80's... low and behold, the IAR came out ahead and they kept them as their front-line fighter until the Bf-109's became avaliable. Plus their paint jobs are very cool!
cheers, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

jenikovtaw
05-17-2004, 11:01 AM
Doesnt IAR80 look like modern aerobatics planes?

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/manuel/images/le-bourget-1/su-29-2.jpg

roughly at least.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

Magister__Ludi
05-17-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
Has anyone else noticed that this plane is very much like the 190?

Engine sounds the same. It handles very similarly, except for slower roll rate, and slower speed.

Anyway, its a funny plane to fly, its so little and everyone always dismisses it, but its quite deadly, especially the cannon-armed model.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, IAR-80 handling in AEP exhibits the same problem as Fw-190: an hypersensitive elevator that immediatly cause a spin. This was not the case for neither planes. IAR-80 was an excellent early war turnfighter. However IAR-80 is depicted as the worst early war turnfighter. 360 degree turn time for IAR-80 was 18 sec, which was top performance among "fast" early planes ("max speed higher than 450kmh at sea level" category of fighters). In AEP it has only 21 sec!! but this is not surprising since 109E4 also has 21 sec turn time (18 sec in real life), and they were judged as having the same turn performance in tests done by LW.

In '41 campaign when pitted against Ratas, IAR-80 found no problem in outturning Ratas. Try this in AEP! I remember reading how a Romanian ace (Lungulescu if I remember correctly) having two Ratas behind him close enough to allow them to open fire (so an attempt to outrun them was impossible) outurned them in a tight circle (having the enemy fighters behind him) and downed both. Also from pilot accounts the Ratas cought fire extremely easy, at first MG hits Rata pilots were forced to jump. Romanian pilots considered Ratas inferior machines. I don't think Romanian pilots can be accused of bias towards indigenous equipment since the same pilots considered IAR-80 equal or even inferior to the new Soviet fighters encountered from summer of '42.

It will be very nice if IAR-80 will gain it's real life turn performance and handling (speed and climb are about right) but I've come to expect very little when it comes to real life turn performance for Axis and Soviet planes (American and British fighters are better portrayed, except Spitfire that has incorrect climb performance as altitude increases). In real life IAR-80 was amongs the best performing fighters of the early war years. With an engine upgrade and different control scheme it could remain competitive until the last day of war.

Magister__Ludi
05-17-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
Doesnt IAR80 look like modern aerobatics planes?

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/manuel/images/le-bourget-1/su-29-2.jpg

roughly at least.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indeed Su-26/31 series have a look similar to IAR-80.
IAR-80 had fine aerobatic performance and handling, helped by the large controls (at low speeds of course, at high speeds the controls were pretty stiff).

Other images with Su-26 and 31, I love those little planes (click on the images):


&lt;a href = "http://www.airliners.net/open.file/377259/L/"&gt;&lt;img src = "http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/9/5/2/377259.jpg" alt /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;a href = "http://www.airliners.net/open.file/377318/L/"&gt;&lt;img src = "http://www.airliners.net/photos/small/8/1/3/377318.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

Gibbage1
05-17-2004, 01:16 PM
No. I dont think so. I never fear an IAR-80. They are so slow, and have no firepower. They are also a lot more manuverable then a 190 and take less damage. Only similarity is they are both radial engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jenikovtaw:
Has anyone else noticed that this plane is very much like the 190?

Engine sounds the same. It handles very similarly, except for slower roll rate, and slower speed.

Anyway, its a funny plane to fly, its so little and everyone always dismisses it, but its quite deadly, especially the cannon-armed model.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post's are my asumptions only, and in no way linked to fact. I am not an official 1C, Ubi, or Russian Red Rocket spokesman.

"Most P-39's were sent to the Russians - so I guess that was an American secret weapon against our Russian allies."

Stan Wood, P-38 pilot who also flew the P-39.

Magister__Ludi
05-17-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
No. I dont think so. I never fear an IAR-80. They are so slow, and have no firepower. They are also a lot more manuverable then a 190 and take less damage. Only similarity is they are both radial engines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With current FM I'm not surprised that nobody cares about them. If they'll get the realistic turn rate, 18 sec - equal to real life Yak-1b/9 or Bf109E4/F4, then you'll start seeing a lot of complaints here on the forum.

F19_Olli72
05-17-2004, 02:16 PM
I care http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/Forgotten%20Battles/new/iar-80.jpg

http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Olli72/Forgotten%20Battles/cloudtut/sig2.jpg (http://www.screenshotart.com)

VW-IceFire
05-17-2004, 03:12 PM
I like it...I've shot down two fighters online with it and they were both La-7's. Pilots got careless or something http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Need to fly the 81 however...the cannon armament is a must. Its very nice, not remarkable in any one way but very nice to fly. Not surprising at all...a nicely designed fighter. Not very glorious compaired to a Spitfire but well designed.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

p1ngu666
05-17-2004, 05:14 PM
its the fw190 of **** planes, im sorry but it is.
it cant turn, u cant see over the nose, cannon armament, bombs
oh and does anyone else have a dodgy bit on the right had side of cockpit?:\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Josiv_
05-17-2004, 05:33 PM
Very nice shot Olli!

Giganoni
05-17-2004, 06:39 PM
I like the plane alot, have a Romanian campaign going atm. The 80's firepower is enough for early war..even bombers can be taken out easily.

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2004, 06:52 PM
Magister__Ludi:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In '41 campaign when pitted against Ratas, IAR-80 found no problem in outturning Ratas. Try this in AEP! I remember reading how a Romanian ace (Lungulescu if I remember correctly) having two Ratas behind him close enough to allow them to open fire (so an attempt to outrun them was impossible) outurned them in a tight circle (having the enemy fighters behind him) and downed both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Romanian "Ace?" What were the skill levels set for the I~16 pilots? This is a common mistake among amatuer computer dogfighters here who pay little attention to real life pilot training or experience or tactical leadership in the field (or memorize abstract factory numbers to 3 significant digits http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
05-18-2004, 06:13 AM
oh btw the varients of iar81 get fixed in next patch i think
we will have a A and a C, currently they are misslabeled or something

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!