still pretty interesting considering that you can bearly
find any info on some planes like the SET XV, to name only one...Try a Google search..see what you will find
...nada!| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > The Interwar Period (1920-1940) > Early IAR fighters vs. PZL |
| Posted by: Iamandi December 15, 2004 11:20 am |
| Lets post some information here, begining with IAR 11, and so... Maybe some of you had pictures and accurate data. I write "vs." because PZL was choosen to equip our Air Force, not locally concepted planes. Iama |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 07:45 pm |
| I found these in an old but excellent book, Romanian Aircraft Constructions 1905-1974 : |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 07:46 pm |
| Iar 14 |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 07:47 pm |
| IAR 15 |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 07:48 pm |
| Iar 16 |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 07:49 pm |
| And a beautiful little plane, Set XV, it reminds me of Gloster Gladiator, lovely plane: |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 08:06 pm |
| Now the PZLs 11... |
| Posted by: woj March 21, 2005 08:07 pm | ||
I see... But - have you any answer? Woj |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 08:10 pm |
| And the 24: According to the specifications the PZLs were better than the IARs series 11-16 but but were plagued by technical problems. I remember a story of a Romanian engineer who built a home-made plane in mid 30' and simply humiliated the PZL 11s that tried to intercept him. |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 08:35 pm |
| On the other hand the two groups of PZL 11fs (Gr3VT and Gr4Vt of Flotila3 VT)fared pretty well against soviet i-15/bis/152/153 and even i-16 in the first stages of WW2 in east acheving at least 60 kills! I doubt that a IAR-15/16 would managed that... |
| Posted by: Dénes March 21, 2005 09:34 pm | ||
That book - although groundbreaking when originally published about 30 years ago - currently is dated. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 10:08 pm |
| It is old indeed , still pretty interesting considering that you can bearly find any info on some planes like the SET XV, to name only one...Try a Google search..see what you will find ...nada! |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 21, 2005 10:39 pm |
| Great info, but where are the weapons specs? The book says fighter aircraft, but what are they fighting with? Maybe the PZL was better equipped with higher caliber cannon or machinegun than the IAR... take care |
| Posted by: 109 March 21, 2005 10:57 pm |
| The IAR 11-16 series were all equipped with 2x7,7 mm MGs . As the book was published in the '70s this kind of info was still clasified  The PZL 11F had four MG while the 24 had two MG and two cannons , quite impressive for 1939. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 21, 2005 11:14 pm | ||
The P.Z.L. P.24E in ARR service had only a pair of 7.92 mm MGs, quite inadequate for 1940... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 21, 2005 11:53 pm | ||||
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... |
| Posted by: Dénes March 22, 2005 01:18 am | ||||||
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 |
| Posted by: Victor March 22, 2005 05:58 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. |
| Posted by: woj March 22, 2005 07:53 am | ||
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). |
| Posted by: Ruy Aballe March 22, 2005 02:06 pm |
| 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 |
| Posted by: woj March 22, 2005 03:15 pm | ||
...Argentina, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Sweden, Turkey... (P.11 only)  |
| Posted by: Ruy Aballe March 22, 2005 07:14 pm |
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...  |
| Posted by: Victor March 24, 2005 05:10 am |
| 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. |
| Posted by: Ruy Aballe March 24, 2005 11:39 am |
| 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 |
| Posted by: Victor January 18, 2011 06:59 pm |
An IAR 14, I beleive |
| Posted by: Dénes January 19, 2011 06:26 am |
| I hate photos with front views of aircraft... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: lancer21 August 08, 2011 10:07 pm |
| 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. |
| Posted by: lancer21 February 08, 2014 08:23 pm |
| 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 |
| Posted by: Radub February 08, 2014 08:48 pm |
| It is indeed the I.A.R.16. Radu |
| Posted by: lancer21 February 08, 2014 09:47 pm |
| Thanks Radub! |
| Posted by: Alexandru C. February 09, 2014 09:14 am | ||
Victor or someone else, do you know who are the people in the photo? Thanks, Alexandru |
| Posted by: lancer21 December 02, 2014 10:54 pm |
| Regarding these early IAR fighters, long time ago when i was back in Romania i have read the IAR 14 article in Modelism at the local library. Unfortunately can't remember much of what i read though i saw yesterday some pictures from that specific issue listed on sale on cartula.ro (which rekindled my interest again!). I also found out that Modelism did an article on IAR 15 and then IAR 16! To those of you lucky to have those issues, may i ask if you would want to relay just a very brief resume of the Modelism articles, what happened to these aircraft, especially IAR 15 (but also the others), when was it scrapped or lost? Apart from the well known pics of IAR 15 on the internet, there is also a new one (to me) of the modified aircraft in mr. Antoniu's Romanian Aeronautical Constructions with a new windscreen, rudder and bulged engine cowling, did it had an IAR K9 engine installed? Are there new pictures in that Modelism issue, if there are, would anyone be willing to scan even a few of them? Any other details of any sort that anyone have read and would wish to share about these early IAR fighters (IAR CV11, IAR 12, IAR 13, IAR 14, IAR 15 and IAR 16?), or even the SET XV? Many thanks. |
| Posted by: Florin December 04, 2014 03:42 am |
| According to information that I read once upon a time in Romanian language, in early 1930's Elie Carafoli reached through his own research and work the same type of aerodynamic wing profile (wing cross section) as the American engineers that worked in the same period at NACA. If I remember right, his research for aerodynamic wing profile was introduced in at least one of the I.A.R. prototypes built in the 1930's. P.S: I think this is the right topic, for who knows much more than me, to remind which was the the I.A.R. prototype sent to France for testing and never returned to us by the French. |
| Posted by: lancer21 December 08, 2014 07:35 pm | ||
| Something about SET-XV (or rather derived project?) i re-found, according to Jane's 1933, apart from the 340kph SET-XV fighter, there was also the SIMILAR (fighter biplane?) SET-XX, presumably a project at that time, but with altered upper wing and a Gnome-Rhone K-14 engine! Speed is estimated 380kph. No pictures were provided. Also, i found this on secretprojects.co.uk:
I know that SET-XX (or is it SET-20) is given as a twin engine 1938 project, but in my opinion, given the example of SET-10 and SET-X (two DIFFERENT aircraft), then it and this SET-XX could have been different projects. Anyone can shed more light about all this!? Also, regarding IAR-15, was it just one built, or according to other sources, SIX? And what about some sources talking about it being tested or equipped at one point with a 3 bladed propeller? Finally, you know the picture of it after aforced landing in Romanian Aeronautical Constructions by mr. Antoniu, that looks like a very neat belly-landing, but... where is the landing gear? IAR-15 has a fixed one, but one can't see any trace of it, nor apparent damage to the wing, did it had for instance a jettisonable landing gear (which might have happened in that case), or perhaps at one point it was tested with retractable landing gear?! Finally, was there an IAR-13? Because apparently, according to recent info (and again, i found in Jane's), the IAR-13 that we know was in fact called IAR-12, or am i completely mistaken on that one? Thanks for any input. |
| Posted by: Agarici December 12, 2014 12:11 am | ||
Question for those who have/had acces to/had seen the book: is the airplane from the photo a Romanian PZL 24 (E)? The roundels seem to be placed in 6 positions, which was atypical for Romanian airforce before 1941. Or was it a Greek plane (an F or G) - some of those having the blue-white-blue roundels on the fuselage? |
| Posted by: lancer21 December 12, 2014 03:41 pm |
| Pretty sure it must be a picture originally showing yellow cross markings that has been retouched, but i need to re-check Romanian Fighter Colours. The aircraft is definitely an E, it has 2-blade prop and the characteristic engine cowling shape, greek ones are different and have 3-bladed prop. PS: Yes, the original picture shows crosses and is from 1941, page 39. |
| Posted by: Taz1 July 14, 2015 08:23 pm |
| Of Topic I don,t want to open another topic I put a question here. Can somebody tell me if the where a plz plane crush in Campulung Arges in 1929 ? The pilot was from Pipera airfield. Thank you. |
| Posted by: Alexandru C. July 20, 2015 04:47 pm |
| PZL 11 was available for RRAF in 1934. Do you know the pilot's name? Maybe was another year. |
| Posted by: Alexandru C. June 12, 2020 07:45 pm | ||
Hi, The answer for this old question: Lt. Adrian Adamiu died on 26.09.1929 in Campulung, his colleague Lt. Alexandru Popisteanu was wounded. Regards |