Hi folks,
An aircraft I've always liked the look of was the Romanian I.A.R. 80/81 series. It always looked like it had so much potential if only it had a better engine (at the most it had a 14 cylinder radial giving around 1,025 hp) - so what if it was developed further?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpages.ru%2Fdraw%2Fiar80a.gif&hash=4463c15fa8a773fab29154f5ee29e8ccda9b8a25)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fipmsstockholm.org%2Fmagazine%2F2005%2F01%2Fimages%2Fprofile_iar80_08.jpg&hash=215cba4d36f911d4bc0d24bdd846ded61412a23a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.webkits.com.br%2Fnews%2Farticlefiles%2F282-Foto%25201.jpg&hash=278c6b09046899cf5336054c392d80ba9a4d30c3)
Maybe a new engine - say a BMW 801 (1,600 hp - 2,000 hp) or even something like a Jumo 213 (1,725 hp - 2,020 hp)? Perhaps even something Russian - say a Shvetsov ASh-82FN (1,850 hp)?
Armament was as follows:
IAR-80: 4 to 6 Browning FN 7.92mm Machine Guns, or 4 Browning FN 7.92mm Machine Guns and 2 Browning FN 13.2mm Machine Guns.
IAR-81: 6 Browning FN 7.92mm Machine Guns or 4 Brownings and 2 Mauser {or Ikaria} 20mm Cannons.
This is fairly good, though one could always add some 30mm Mk-108s for anti-bomber work - probably in gondolas like the Me-109s.
Other ideas?
Regards,
Greg
I like the idea. As Romania was an Axis satelite nation, I'd think a German engine would be the only plausible option as attractive as the Svetsov might be.
I've had similar feelings toward the Czech Avia B.135 fighter. It had a ton of potential, but its engine and light armament were letdowns. If only they could have gotten Merlins for it.
QuoteI'd think a German engine would be the only plausible option as attractive as the Svetsov might be.
Ah, but remember that Romania switched sides in late 1944. As such they may have access to Russian engines.
Some aircraft such as this IAR 81C even carried changed national insignia and flew against the Germans:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fipmsstockholm.org%2Fmagazine%2F2005%2F01%2Fimages%2Fprofile_iar80_09.jpg&hash=7bf3f23c8fc6a2016493d391e5313d8e321aad34)
Regards,
Greg
That machine just cries "Reno!". Schvetsov gets my vote....or how about something from Nakajima or Mitsubishi???....those engines had a small diameter, and when built properly from appropriate materials were fantastic engines.
Great aircraft isn't it.
Daryl J.
QuoteThat machine just cries "Reno!".
Reno racer - didn't think of that! In that case I suppose anything goes - Bristol Centaurus radial engine, 2,480 hp anyone? What about a Wright R-3350 (up to 3,700 hp!!!)
Regards,
Greg
Quoteor how about something from Nakajima or Mitsubishi???.
It's a little far, but I supposed so - maybe some IAR 80s were sold to Japan for evaluation? Maybe a Nakajima Homare (1,330 - 1,800 hp) or Mitsubishi Kinsei ((1,000 hp - 1,700 hp) or Mitsubishi Ha 112-II radial engine (1,500 hp) or even Mitsubishi Kasei (1,400 -1,800 hp).
Another option would be to avoid the radial/annular radiator look altogether and go with a straight in-line V/inverted V-12 - say a DB605 or DB603. After all the Italians did it with the Macchi C.205, Fiat G.55 Centauro and Reggiane Re.2005.
Regards,
Greg
Wasn't there a trials one built with a Jumo 211?
Not sure - I haven't seen anything.
Another idea though - how about a jet variant (say a Jumo 004 or BMW 003) with the engine mounted Yak-15 style?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fvi%2Fthumb%2F3%2F32%2FYak-15.gif%2F766px-Yak-15.gif&hash=7e08cb8dd1608c681d49ca280394a9b7a49fa831)
Regards,
Greg
Further to the Jumo 211 idea - apparently an attempt was indeed made to fit one. One 1220 hp 211Da was taken —complete with cowling and ring radiator— from a SM.79 and fitted to an IAR.80 in 1942. The concept was abandoned after the first test flight however, when the in-flight vibrations proved to be so bad that the engine was idled and the plane landed, never to be flown again.
Regards,
Greg
QuoteFurther to the Jumo 211 idea - apparently an attempt was indeed made to fit one. One 1220 hp 211Da was taken —complete with cowling and ring radiator— from a SM.79 and fitted to an IAR.80 in 1942. The concept was abandoned after the first test flight however, when the in-flight vibrations proved to be so bad that the engine was idled and the plane landed, never to be flown again.
ISTR that they also tried the engine and cowling from a He-112 and that worked much better.
On a different tangent:
Of course, while they're on the Axis side, there's always a chance of using BMW801s from "scrapped" Fw-190s.
Yes, the Japanese engines are far out; impossible actually, in a real world....but this is Whiffery. :D From what I hear through the grapevine from the Warbird circuit is that the Japanese engines are remarkably reliable and efficient.
The one kit I regret never buying was LTD's IAR-80. :(
Daryl J.
The Romanians tried to get a license for the BMW 801
QuoteQuoteThat machine just cries "Reno!".
Reno racer - didn't think of that! In that case I suppose anything goes - Bristol Centaurus radial engine, 2,480 hp anyone? What about a Wright R-3350 (up to 3,700 hp!!!)
Regards,
Greg
Both are waaay too heavy for the airframe, never mind the diameters, Hercules or R-2800 would be more viable.
Jon
Something different (and not necessarily to scale):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FIAR-80J.jpg&hash=331d08e44a06ebdd0cf210098ae516c2e4744609)
Regards,
Greg
Both aircraft are nice, dont know how realistic the DB IAR-80 is since the Jumo powered IAR-80 was a failure IRL
Just on cue A-Model have announced 4 IAR kits in 1/72, IAR 80, IAR 80A, IAR 80B and IAR 80Bopi ?
IAR-80Bopi? A mislabeled IAR-81?
Quote from: Arc3371 on August 09, 2009, 05:53:45 AM
IAR-80Bopi? A mislabeled IAR-81?
No idea, thats why I put the ? I wondered if there was a two seat trainer version built/planed and Bopi was similar to the Italian Biposti ?
No, Bopi is divebomber (short for Bombardement Picaj IIRC)
Quote from: apophenia on August 08, 2009, 06:03:13 PM
I suspect that the Jumo 211-powered IAR 80's problem was of being under-engineered. Adapting a bomber engine to a fighter with few changes is always going to be riff with peril.
In other words, horse-for-courses -- the Avia S-199 was called a 'Mule' for a reason! So, taking a leap ... if the Bf-109 was fine with a DB601 but sucked with a Jumo 211, odds are that the reverse would be true for the IAR.80.
Technically speaking the Jumo 211 was not a
bomber engine, it just happened that it was more commonly used in bombers.
Quote from: Arc3371 on August 09, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
No, Bopi is divebomber (short for Bombardement Picaj IIRC)
Thanks for that clarification sir :thumbsup:
Quote from: apophenia on August 10, 2009, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on August 09, 2009, 09:19:18 PM
Technically speaking the Jumo 211 was not a bomber engine, it just happened that it was more commonly used in bombers.
Jon, point taken ... the Jumo 211 was used on fighters. Off the cuff, all the successful 211-equipped fighters I can think of were twin-engined. Of course, the Ju-88C derived from a bomber (and outshone by the 213-engined 'G). And the Ta-154 prototypes had Jumo 211Fs (as stand-ins until Jumo 213s were available) although "successful" and 'Moskito' don't really go together all that well.
So, lots of successful single-engined fighter designs with Jumo 210s or 213s but I can't think of one with a 211.
More to do with the availability of the DB engines rather than any inherent failings of the 211.
A larger point about aircraft piston engines is that, with the exception of heavy-oil/diesel engines, for the most part they
were not designed specifically as bomber or fighter engines, Yes, various marks/dash numbers were tailored to particular
roles however, the basic design was not that specialized.
Jon
vibrations could be aerodynamic (I'm no expert but the side view shows the nose to be a different shape, obviously, and the propeller to be in a different place) or due to resonance or engine mounting.
If the 211 had a significantly different operating RPM than the original engine it may have run into a resonant frequency of the airframe, alternately the new engine mounts I imagine would be required my have resonated.
Just a thought, propeller design adn/or gearing differences can also cause vibrations whic may resonate
Well an SM.79R engine and cowling attached to an aircraft that was basically an extemporized design to begin with (a PZL 24 aft fuselage monococque mated to a welded-tube sheet-aluminum covered forward fuselage) is asking for problems.
Quote from: apophenia on August 11, 2009, 09:38:51 PM
A Greek P.24/Macchi C.202 hybrid. The markings are alternative-reality Greek Fascist (I've got a back story but its a bit long and convoluted for this section).
Cool :o
Why not a MC 200 or MC 202 in Greek colors ?
Hotte
Quote from: apophenia on August 13, 2009, 01:33:30 PM
Thanks Hotte.
I was playing with a What If starting from the Greek P.24s. The C.202 would make a good future replacement for my Alternative History back story though!
Or german machines! Bf 109 E and JU 87 B :rolleyes:
Henschel Hs 126 already were before the war at the Greek Air Force!
Hotte
I am interested in the backstory.......
Dave G
The PT Dockyard
http://www.ptdockyard.com
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52935965409_b1e48b8305_o.jpg)
Very interesting :thumbsup:
Very cool. :thumbsup:
In "real world" terms the vertical stabilizer and rudder would need to be increased in area for both stability in yaw and control because of the increased side area. Which is pretty much standard on floatplane conversions of landplanes.
Very nice triplex-boom 80G; like ancestor of Pond-Racer! :wub: :thumbsup:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52980037168_f029e3c162_o.jpg)
I like it :thumbsup: