IAR80, etc., - Handling characteristics?

Due to the canopy opening system: on rails - if the rail was a little "strmba" (dammaged) the canopy would no open thus keeping the pilot inside. It's shape also gave a contructive solution so instead to open it like in the 109 you open it like in the stang, thunderbold, spit...

Thanks. Were there any other planes with sliding canopies? Did all of them have bubbled canopies?

Thanks. Were there any other planes with sliding canopies? Did all of them have bubbled canopies?

The problem with the IAR80 canopy was that it was badly thought. At the bottom of each of the front forward corners of the canopy there was a ring. This ring was meant to slide on a corresponding rod on either side. There was also a third ring on rod at the rear end of the canopy. If any of the three rods was bent for any reason (and the rods did not look terribly stong), the rings would snag, thus the canopy would not be able to slide back.
Many aircraft used sliding canopies (Spitfire, Hurricane, Thunderbolt, FW190 and many others). However, they did not use this "ring on rod" system but rather a more efficient "roller on rail" sistem. In any case, they all had either an explosive release system (FW190), a mecanical release system (Spitfire, Hurricane, Thunderbolt, Mustang) or the pilot was simply provided with a crowbar to break the canopy (Spitfire). The IAR80 did not have any kind of quick release system or even a crowbar.
HTH
Radu

Was the "ring on rod" system the only option for the opening of the bubbled canopy of IAR-80? I have always thought that it is the frame of the canopy that gives the opening system, not the whole structure.

As explained above, the rings are attached to the canopy frame and the rods are attached to the fuselage. The rings (along with the canopy of course) slide over the rods which guide its travel. It is a bit like putting a ring on a finger. These "rods" are the prominent tubular things visible along either side of the cockpit opening in photos. Sliding the canopy back (which was done manually, there was no crank) was the only way to open it.
HTH
Radu

Apparently I did not make myself understood. My question was whether a "roller on rail" system was technically feasible for the frame of the bubbled canopy of the IAR-80.

The opening mechanism, as described by Radu, has no connection to the 'bubble style' of the canopy. It has to do with the bottom edge of the cockpit canopy frame, which was straight. Thus, a 'roller-on-guide' style system would have been feasable on the I.A.R. 80's canopy.
A proper comparison would be with a railway car. It doesn't matter what the flatbed railway car transports, as long as the rolling mechanism ('railway-wheels-on-rails') is the same.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 08, 2005 04:21 pm

Carol I,
The "roller on rail" system was technically possible in the case of the IAR80, but I have no idea why it was not used. (For example the canopy rail of the FW190 is inside the cockpit as well). However, that is not the issue, even the rail system could get jammed or damaged. The fact that there was no quick release system in place is the puzzling issue here.

Here is a link to some photos of the full size replica from the Aviation museum.
http://cartula.net/modules/xoopsgallery/vi...AV&id=Iar_80_09
In this photo, you can see the right-side rod and ring. You can clearly see that if that rod was damaged, the ring would snag. There were three such rods and rings, so the odds of that happening were quite high.
More here
http://cartula.net/modules/xoopsgallery/vi...mName=Iar-80MAV
More here:
http://cartula.net/modules/xoopsgallery/vi...bumName=album08


HTH,
Radu

I see the left and right side assemblies.
Where was the third one? I dont' have my references handy.

Gen. Dénes

It's in the back of the canopy upper position ( hiden in the fuselage).

Starting with the nr 241 (IAR 80C) was used for quick release an hidraulic piston mounted in the backside of the canopy.

So, it appears that it is not the bubbled shape of the canopy that prevented the pilots to escape from the burning cockpit, but rather the technical solution chosen to slide the canopy or even the absence of a backup release system.

Yes, you're correct.
Actually both technical issues represented a problem, separately.

Gen. Dénes

If it wasn't a rail-bubled canopy you wouldn't have that system :] so it is related to the technical solution chosen for the bubled canopy. Anyway, the main fault in my opinion is not desinging a safety/emergency feature like other aircraft had.

If it wasn't a rail-bubled canopy you wouldn't have that system :] so it is related to the technical solution chosen for the bubled canopy. Anyway, the main fault in my opinion is not desinging a safety/emergency feature like other aircraft had.

Now I understand, but I was rather surprised to read you earlier saying that the fault was the shape of the canopy.

As I mentioned:

In summer '44 a lot of IAR81 C pilots were saved by chute. Probably the hidraulic piston was a real solution for opening the canopy in emergency.

I think the bigest problem was not how was opened the canopy.
The front fuel tank was a big problem ( like with Hurricanes in Batlle of England)
A burning fuel tank in the front of the cockpit was real pain no matter how fast you try to get out .
For Bf-109 and P-51 was adopted a better solution (for fuel tank position).

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 09, 2005 08:55 am