I.A.R. 80/81

[NARSES2]

Just on cue A-Model have announced 4 IAR kits in 1/72, IAR 80, IAR 80A, IAR 80B and IAR 80Bopi ?

[Arc3371]

IAR-80Bopi? A mislabeled IAR-81?

[NARSES2]

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 ?

[Arc3371]

No, Bopi is divebomber (short for Bombardement Picaj IIRC)

[jcf]

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.

[NARSES2]

No, Bopi is divebomber (short for Bombardement Picaj IIRC)

Thanks for that clarification sir 

[jcf]

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

[DaFROG]

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

[jcf]

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.

[Hotte]

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 
Why not a MC 200 or MC 202 in Greek colors ?

Hotte

[Hotte]

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 
Henschel Hs 126 already were before the war at the Greek Air Force!

Hotte

[ptdockyard]

I am interested in the backstory.......

Dave G
The PT Dockyard
http://www.ptdockyard.com

[Zero-Sen]

[NARSES2]

Very interesting 

[jcf]

Very cool. 

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.