Gen. Dénes
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > ARR - Romanian Royal Aeronautics > Questions about IAR-80/81 types |
| Posted by: dragos January 12, 2012 04:33 pm |
| Some questions for those more knowledgeable in ARR: 1) Was IAR-81A ever used as intended (ground attack plane) or just used as IAR-80B? There were only 10 of this variant? 2) What is the story of IAR-81B ? Were they used as fighters only under the designation of IAR-80C? 3) Was IAR-81C ever armed with bombs for use on ground attack missions or was used only as fighter? When did IAR-81C entered service? |
| Posted by: Radub January 12, 2012 07:08 pm | ||
1) There was no I.A.R.81-A This was meant as a 81 armed with 13.2 FN Browning machine guns. They were planned but none were produced. 2) There was no I.A.R.81-B This was mant to be a 81 armed with 20mm Ikaria MG FF cannons. They were planned but none were produced. 3) There is ample photographic evidence that most (if not all) I.A.R.81-C left the factory equipped with bomb-carrying equipment. However, they were never used as dive-bombers (and there is no record of such) and the under-fuselage bomb carrier was often removed (although some survived all the way to the scrap-heap thus equipped). The main problems with using the 81-C as a bomber was that the heavy armament and ammunition increased the wing load to such an extent that adding bombs would actually bring the wing load factor beyond what was deemed "safe". There is an official report stating that. The first I.A.R,81-C, No.301 was completed in January 1943. No.302, the next airframe, was completed in March 1943, at which point production switched over to I.A.R.81-C only. No.301 was used for a number of tests after it was completed and it joined Esc.61Vt in the summer of 1943. No. 302 joined Esc.59Vt. during ther summer of 1943 also. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: dragos January 12, 2012 07:38 pm |
| Thanks for answer. So the only IAR which was employed as ground attack aircraft was the original IAR-81, armed with 6 7.92 MGs and bombs, correct? What about the variants of IAR-80: A, B and C. Which of these did exists and were operational? |
| Posted by: Dénes January 12, 2012 07:40 pm |
| C'mon Dragos, this is basic stuff! Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos January 12, 2012 08:26 pm |
I admit, my ARR knowledge lacks  The ARR section of the site is Victor's stuff |
| Posted by: Radub January 12, 2012 09:07 pm | ||
Yes, only the six-gun I.A.R.81 was ever used as a dive bomber. I.A.R.80-A was a fighter with 6x7.92mm machine guns. I.A.R.80-B was a fighter with 4x7.92mm + 2x13.2mm machine guns. I.A.R.80-C was a fighter with 4x7.92mm machine guns and 2x20mm Ikaria MG FF cannons. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: dragos January 12, 2012 09:51 pm |
| And two more questions: 1) Were there any notable differences between IAR-80 A, B and C models except armament? Any armor upgrades or performance boost? 2) Was there any difference between IAR-80C and IAR-81C except the unused bomb rack for the latter? Thanks! |
| Posted by: Radub January 12, 2012 10:33 pm | ||
1. The main external difference between the A,B and C was the weapons, the different weapons had different access panels. Some changes happened during the production run of the B types when the fuselage was extended by 70mm ahead of the firewall strating with No.200 and then the wings were extended to 11 metres starting with No.212. Then during the production run of the C-types, starting with No.251 a second oil cooler was added in the left wing. The engine stayed the same all the way through, so as the increased firepower made the machine increasingly heavier, there was a drop in performance. The 81-C was the pinnacle where a reasonably good balance was struck between firepower and engine power. 2. The 80-C and the 81-C were quite different. The 80-C had a bigger punch with 4x7.92mm machine guns and 2x20mm MG FF cannons, but it had less ammunition on board. The 81-C had 2x20mm MG151/20 cannons and 2x7.92mm machine guns but could carry more ammunition. The MG FF and the MG151/20 were very diffent, with the latter being better and less prone to jamming. Also, the MG151/20 protruded much more out of the wings. Also, the 81-C was fitted with an internal armoured glass panel n the windsceen that gave it a bit more protection. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: dragos January 13, 2012 07:46 am |
| Many thanks Radu! And the last questions: when did 81-C entered service ? |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino January 13, 2012 07:59 am | ||||
Radu just answered to that question 
|
| Posted by: dragos January 13, 2012 08:04 am |
| Sorry, I didn't look back |
| Posted by: Radub January 13, 2012 09:02 am | ||
The first I.A.R.81-C joined operational units in the summer of 1943. They were produced at a n average rate of approximately 10 per month after March 1943 - there were months when less or more were produced as well as two months when none were produced at all. After completion, each airframe spent a few weeks (up to six/eight weeks) undergoing "reception" flights and tests. Production ceased in May 1944 when the factory was damaged in the USAF bombing. So, the I.A.R.81-C entered "operational service" in small numbers in the summer of 1943, but it became available in significant numbers only in the late half of 1943/first half of 1944. Radu |
| Posted by: Petre January 13, 2012 06:44 pm |
| From the large garden of the InterNet : http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2005/01/stuff_eng_profile_iar80.htm http://rumaniamilitary.wordpress.com/tag/iar-81/ |
| Posted by: dragos January 13, 2012 07:52 pm | ||
On many links you can find info about IAR 81A or IAR 81B but the info is misleading. It is not mentioned that they were only planned, never produced, as Radu said. |
| Posted by: sebipatru January 14, 2012 05:57 pm |
| I also have 2 questions 1 How many IAR 80/81 were actually built? As far as i know the serie numbers reached 450 but many machines were upgrated and after received a new number. 2 I've read somewhere that iar 80 C were patrolling over Black Sea with the 2 50 Kg bombs even late in the war as an antisubmarine measure. Is it true? Have a good day all of you! |
| Posted by: Radub January 14, 2012 09:24 pm | ||
A total of 450 airframes were contracted by the SSA and all of them were built but not all reached operational status. Some were destroyed in the USAF bombings on the factory. None were "re-numbered". But even if we were to give some kind of credence to this hypothesis that they were "re-numbered", that would be a case of "same Mary with a different hat". The actual number of airframes would remain the same, no matter how you re-label them. The only airframes that were upgraded were those converted to I.A.R.80-M or I.A.R.80-DC, but they kept their serial numbers. I am not aware of any reports (or stories) of I.A.R.80-C ever carrying bombs-they were fighters, not bombers. I am not even sure they could carry bombs. The wing carriers were plumbed to carry drop tanks but they were not fitted with the arming equipment for the bombs. Radu |
| Posted by: lancer21 January 15, 2012 09:17 pm |
| May i kidnap this topic for a second with a question about an IAR-80 "variant"aswell , please. I know it's only a small detail but it drove me nuts for years. It's about IAR-80 Nr.1, in it's very early production representative form in 1940. This IAR-80 is different from the rest in having , firstly a different configuration of the cooling slots behind the engine ( i think they're closer to the prototype Nr.0) , then the different shape of the engine cowling , there was the prototype one , then this one on Nr.1, which is roughly similar to the production one used on every IAR-80 to 450 , BUT it doesn't seems to be "rounded" around the engine at the bottom , and of course the production one which is "rounded" at top and bottom. Also the adjustable cooling gills don't seem to have the cutouts for the exhaust . Finally there is no fairing for the oil cooler outlet (oh i have a question about that too, later on ). Now the detail thas drives me nuts is the cockpit windshield. I've got so far 3 pictures , which i believe show IAR-80 Nr.1 in it's initial form: First one is from the old " ROMANIAN AERONAUTHICAL CONSTRUCTIONS" 1974 edition , there are two small IAR-80 pics there . As you can see, if you magnify the picture ,although the image is grainy, you can swear the windshield side panels have a different shape than any production IAR-80. Now i suspect this picture comes from the IAR-80 manual , of which there are plenty of extracts in the SAM book by Radub . (btw this picture also appears in HISTORY OF ROMANIAN AVIATION book, year 1984 , which when i was a kid i actually ripped it from that book -had it borrowed it from a military library- and probably it's still back in RO where i used to live ...) Second one is from "ROMANIAN AERONAUTICS IN WW2", it looks to me that in that picture Nr.1 does not have the radio mast . And of course the windshield shape is covered by the wingtip in this picture! Third picture is from IAR-80 TMA book, you can clearly see the non standard cooling slots , simple carburettor intake, early type of landing gear with the one piece closing cap at the top (not articulated , like in production aircraft etc .) MY question is , if that FIRST picture showing the aircraft from side , seemingly unpainted , except the rudder (taken from the old 1974 book ) is indeed from the IAR-80 manual , would you Radub or anyone else would be able to and want to share it here in a better resolution, so that hopefully we can have a better look at the cockpit windshield shape details? Or is there anything else in the manual about this non-standard windshield configuration ? That would be great , many thanks for your time. Oh, the pictures . Btw , i hope it's ok to post them here as far as copyright goes , they are not mine , all copyright goes to the authors/publishing houses of these books etc etc . I hope it's ok to post them still , because they're used to show some details which are very, very hard otherwise to picture . PS: hmm...look like all i can post are links to my images at imageshack. Here goes http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/iar80n13001.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/iar80n12001.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/iar80n1001.jpg/ |
| Posted by: Florin January 16, 2012 01:43 am |
| I hope I am not asking something already answered in the Forum before... What kind of armor had the IAR-80 or IAR-81 ? Talking about WWII airplane armor, at one end of the scale I would place the Mitsubishi A6M "Zero", and at the other end of the scale I would place the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and the Ilyushin Il-2 "Shturmovik". |
| Posted by: Radub January 16, 2012 09:19 am |
| Lancer 21, A lot of your questions are answered in the SAM Publications book. The "cooling gills" were used on the machines fitted with a second oil cooler in the left wing. These could be (and were) retrofitted to any version. The outlet for the oil cooler was under the fuselage behind the supercharger intake, partially covered by a box-shaped fairing. The prototype and the serial machines were radically different. Your third photo shows the prototype after it was modified (and it was modified many times). There are a multitude of photos that show exactly how the windscreen and engine cowl looked on the production machines. The photos you linked are all retouched to various degrees. I recommend that you seek and trust clear and unretouched photos. Florin, The I.A.R.80/81 did not have much in the way of amour. The backrest of the seat was armoured as well as the headrest. These offed protection from the back against small to medium calibre rounds or shrapnel. The I.A.R.81 added an amoured glass panel in the windscreen for added frontal protection. Hth Radu |
| Posted by: lancer21 January 16, 2012 10:29 pm | ||
Thanks for your kind reply Radub. I did read the SAM book countless times and stared at every pic , and i believe one can have a relatively good image of the production aircraft's particulars (coolings slots , radiator exhaust fairing etc etc .) after reading it. But it's that initial configuration of IAR-80 Nr.1, that i'd like to know/see more about. I guess, like any other normal reader, i can only go by what it is in the several books published on the subject that i have. Don't have the possibility to look for other pics somewhere else , but in the books and on the net. Hence my questions here. So if there will be anything new coming out about that initial IAR-80 Nr.1 configuration ( 1940-41) , it's eagerly anticipated. If i may, another little question . At page 18 in your book there is a pic of IAR-80A Nr.75 on it's nose . Now if you look at the RIGHT wing , close to the leading edge and near it's attachment to the fuselage there is an oval opening for "something" there. Looks very similar in shape with the intake for the oil cooler (which is on the LEFT wing on the leading edge , as clearly seen in pics , drawings etc ). Now , one can see that mysterious "something " also at page 31, on IAR-80 no.145, according to the text (black shape right under the exhaust). I can't see that "something " shown on any drawings. I might be wrong , but it seems it was present only on IAR-80 and IAR-80A types , unless i missed something . So , if i may , any idea what is that " opening " for on the top of the wing ? Many thanks.  |
| Posted by: Florin January 17, 2012 03:00 am | ||
Thank you. I read in an article that the radial (star) engine offered better protection from frontal attack, compared with in-line or V-type engines. Obviously, should be due to the geometry of the star engine. |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino January 17, 2012 04:36 am | ||
I don't think that is relevant what type of engine better protect the pilot in frontal attack. The armoured windscreen is the main protection in that matter. In the summer '44, both romanian and germans used the radial engine fighters ( IAR 80/81 and FW 190) to attack the american bombers and the inline engine fighters ( Bf 109) were used to attack the escort fighters. For attacks, the advantage of the radial engine versus inline engine is the cooling sistem. The radial engine used the air for cooling and you can not damage it The inline engine used the water cooling sistem wich is easy to damage. A radial engine could still functioning if one or more cylinders were hit, but the inline engine could seize if cylinders housing or cooling sistem is hit. |
| Posted by: Radub January 17, 2012 11:12 am | ||
Florin, The arrangement of the cylinders does not really make any difference when it comes to protection for the pilot against a frontal attack. Irrespective of the type of engine, a bullet or cannon round would need to travel through a lot of metal and moving parts to reach the cockpit, and at that stage all that makes the difference is luck. Either way, you have a problem. As Cantacuzino mentioned, the difference is made by the type of cooling. Radial engines are air-cooled and in-line engines are water-cooled. The idea is that you need to fire a lot of bullets at an engine (any type of engine) to stop it, but all it takes is one single bullet in a coolant pipe to seize an in-line engine. As anyone who ever drove a Dacia knows, you can still drive with one dead cylinder, but if you get a leak in the radiator, it is over. Radu |
| Posted by: MRX February 01, 2012 09:08 pm |
A beautiful picture with IAR-80, unfortunately with a low resolution. |
| Posted by: Dénes February 01, 2012 09:56 pm |
| This is a German PK photo. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: MRX February 02, 2012 09:44 pm | ||
Seriously? Fantastic. Prove it. C MARIVS |
| Posted by: Radub February 02, 2012 10:14 pm | ||||
This is part of a series of photos taken by PK in IAR Brasov and some of those photos were published in Aripi Romanesti and the Romanian edition of Adler. I need to take them one by one but if you are interested I may be able to tell you the actual issue in which they were published. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: MRX February 03, 2012 07:19 pm | ||||||
It seems that you both are right. Seems to be a picture of PK Stachelscheid. This is part of a series of photos taken by PK Stachelscheid in Romania and published in Aripi Romanesti in 1943 and 1944. Marius      |
| Posted by: Radub February 03, 2012 07:48 pm |
| They are the photos I was talking about. "P.K." stands for "Propaganda Kompanie" and "Stachelscheid" is the name of the actual photographer who took the photos. HTH Radu |
| Posted by: lancer21 February 03, 2012 08:53 pm |
| Great stuff, many thanks for sharing MRX! |
| Posted by: MRX February 04, 2012 02:38 am | ||
Radu, I realized it. Before posting pages from the magazine I had done some research on Mr. Stachelscheid and I found some pictures of her on bundesarchiv. Anyway, thanks for you've shown me "Aripi Romanesti" magazine. In Der Adler, I still found nothing. By the way, congratulations for your book. A great job. Marius |
| Posted by: MRX February 04, 2012 02:43 am | ||
Anytime, with pleasure. Marius |
| Posted by: Dénes February 04, 2012 08:35 am | ||||
I saw the contact copies of the original negatives in the German archives (Bundesarchiv) in Koblenz. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub February 04, 2012 08:59 am | ||
A number of photos of IAR printed in Adler were taken at the same time - some are the same, some are different. When PK took these photos, they became "stock" and were made available to any official publications across Axis countries. Some were also published in Italian magazines as well as newspapers. The same happened with Romanian SMP photos. Thanks for your kind words about the book. Radu |
| Posted by: MRX February 04, 2012 09:13 am | ||||||
Seriously? This is really a very important information. These pictures, with good quality, would have been excellent for Radub and his book about IAR-80. Thank you very much, Denes! Marius |
| Posted by: Pitomnik October 31, 2012 10:51 am |
| nice found from "Pitomnik" airfield ! Ammo hatch from IAR 80   |
| Posted by: Pitomnik October 31, 2012 12:52 pm |
One more hatch from IAR 80 !    |
| Posted by: muggs October 31, 2012 01:14 pm |
| Are you planning on selling these ? Donate them to some museum ? |
| Posted by: Pitomnik October 31, 2012 01:26 pm | ||
I still have not any serious offer . |