Questions about IAR-80/81 types

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

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/

This post has been edited by lancer21 on January 15, 2012 09:26 pm

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".

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

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.

This post has been edited by lancer21 on January 16, 2012 10:30 pm

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 17, 2012 03:01 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.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on January 17, 2012 07:22 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

A beautiful picture with IAR-80, unfortunately with a low resolution.


This post has been edited by MRX on February 02, 2012 09:11 pm

This is a German PK photo.

Gen. Dénes

Seriously? Fantastic. Prove it.

C MARIVS

Seriously? Fantastic. Prove it.

C MARIVS

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

Seriously? Fantastic. Prove it.

C MARIVS

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

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

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

Great stuff, many thanks for sharing MRX!