Early IAR fighters vs. PZL

The P.Z.L. P.24E in ARR service had only a pair of 7.92 mm MGs, quite inadequate for 1940...

Gen. Dénes

So there were no major differences in armament.
The speed and range seem pretty close too.
The only reasons left for that choice, in my view:

1. Interalliance political choice. Built under Polish licence.
2. No risk choice. The book says many foreign airforces used the PZL. Probably it had a kind of "F-16 myth" built around it.
3. Maybe easier to handle, better visual etc. ?

I personally think the IAR had potential. Not that I'm a great specialist or something, but I noticed its aerodynamic low-wing airframe. Certainly a better design. I guess better engine and more research into armament would have made it quite a fighter for those days.
Maybe with the money spent on that PZL licence...

The P.24 was exported to Bulgaria (12 pcs.), Turkey (40 + 20 locally built), Greece (36 pcs.) and Rumania (5 + 25 locally built). Hardly a 'best seller'.

The gull-winged P.Z.L. fighters were notorious for inadequate visibility, due to the wing configuration.

You're not alone with this assumption. However, it's hard to tell what was realistic back then [consider the available powerplant(s) and the time factor, too, not only aerodynamics] and what was only wishful thinking...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 22, 2005 01:19 am

That is 50 kills for the P.11fs and 10 for the P.24Es. But these are probably overclaims.

We must take that the PZLs stopped the developement of the local designs, when the license for the P.11f was bought. I believe that more investment in local designs would have paid up later.

IAR had potential. But...
P.11b were presented first time in Romania during "Patronului Aviaţiei" air meeting, which was organized 20th July 1934 in Pipera airfield - just some days after arrival of the Polish aircraft. During the meeting took place interesting air fight between IAR-16 (lt. Papana -very experienced pilot, test-pilot of IAR) and PZL-11b. And - according to the observers - apart from higher speed of IAR, Polish fighter was better, mostly thanks to its manoeuvrable.
In addition - You couldn't spent too much money on PZL licence. P.11f licence costed nothing, P.24E licence - 100 000 zlotys (cost of one plane without engine, about).

This post has been edited by woj on March 22, 2005 07:55 am

In additon to what Woj wrote, I must add that several countries showed interest in the P.Z.L. fighter designs during the Thirties, firstly on the P.11, and afterwards on the P.24. On most cases, inferior fighters were selected instead, mostly due to political rather than purely technical reasons. The list is impressive and reveals to which extent the Polish firm could have progressed... Portugal, Spain, Yugoslavia and even France!
To this must be added the advise, made to the Spanish Republican government by a Russian engineer (!!), after the outbreak of the Civil War, to buy the P.11C in a sizeable quantity in order to boost the fighter component of the government A.F. This story is proved by a document recently found in the Russian archives and published by Sergei Abrosov.

Ruy

...Argentina, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Sweden, Turkey... (P.11 only)

Yes, Woj, I know the list is very loooooooooong!
However, I didn't included Greece and Turkey for fairly obvious reasons, since both countries ended up buying P.Z.L. fighters (Ok, not the P.11 but the P.24).
The cases of Portugal, Spain and Yugoslavia are quite specific because all reflected the strong pressure made by the British Foreign Office in order to favour British companies... as a matter of fact, P.Z.L. "lost" to the same company in all the three countries (competing also against a Belgian branch of a U.K. firm in the first case and against American and German tenders in the second)! And Portugal could have been the first foreign user of the P.24, if the government had showed more interest in the matter - at least, the pilots were interested...

woj, the P.11 was indeed a great aircraft in the 30s, probably the best around, but the devolopement of Romanian aircraft would have resulted in more experience for Romanian designers and probably better locally produced aircraft. Poland and Czechoslovakia had a powerful aircraft industry because they did not import as much as Romania did.

Victor,

We are talking here of horses of totally different colours, as the saying goes... Czechoslovakia had much more than that: the country inherited most of the former K.u.K heavy industries, steel works, etc. The industrial fabric of the new Czechoslovak state in 1919 was the best amongst the smaller European countries born out of the Great War. By the mid 1930's, Czechoslovakia was exporting weapons (from pistols to aircraft and heavy artillery) all over the world, from Latin America to China. They exported more rifles and LMG's than any other European continental country, France and Italy included. Their only competitor was Germany.
As for the P.11, it was certainly one of the best fighters around... but in the first half of the Thirties. It started to show its limits when a new generation of cantilever monoplanes begun to appear, but that is another story.

Ruy

This post has been edited by Ruy Aballe on March 27, 2005 01:04 pm

An IAR 14, I beleive

I hate photos with front views of aircraft...

Gen. Dénes

Imho , while i'd very much would have liked fighters like IAR-15 to be series built, i think despite what some peoples believe ( PZL was a mistake driven by corruption etc etc) PZL-11 was a better choice at the time. Apart from having a very durable all metal contruction , it could be dived at 600km/h! ( doubt the IAR-15 can do that , or last as long as the PZLs did)

Keep in mind that when PZL-11B was chosen (340km/h), the IAR-12/13 were only good for 330km/h.
The F is credited with 360km/h while the contemporary IAR-15 , depending on sources, 352-375km/h, but again , PZL has a much more durable and sturdy construction.

I don't know about PZL-24 though, it is said that IAR offered a modern low wing retractable gear project (father of the IAR-80 ?) in competition with PZL-24, but then PZL-24 was readily ( sort-of ) available. Still fortunately the IAR eventually built their modern fighter, but it took 5 years to enter service. ( the PZL-24 was very late in the end anyway , but that's another story).

BTW can i ask , does anyone know if IAR-15 have a tail-wheel or a tail-skid ? ( rough drawings online show it with both-and in the best pictures of it, from Jane's, you can't see the lower tail clearly ! argh!)

Thanks.

While just browsing youtube, i found something that bewildered me: starting from 0:25 in this video, there is what appears to be footage of one of the early IAR fighters! I'm not sure what it is though, it has a radial engine and initially thought it's IAR-16, but it's not quite that looking closely. It appears to remind more of IAR-14, but with a radial engine!
So, any idea what type is it?! Many thanks!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SK-k176uG0

It is indeed the I.A.R.16.
Radu

Thanks Radub!

This post has been edited by lancer21 on February 09, 2014 09:42 am