The IAR 80 was a Romanian World War II low-wing monoplane, all-metal monocoque fighter and ground-attack aircraft. When it first flew, in 1939, it was comparable to contemporary designs being deployed by the airforces of the most advanced military powers such as the Hawker Hurricane and Bf 109E. Production problems and lack of available armament delayed entry of the IAR 80 into service until 1941. It remained in frontline use until May 1945.
Development
In order to ensure that the Royal Romanian Air Force (FARR) could continue to be supplied with aircraft in time of war, the government subsidized the creation of three major aircraft manufacturers in the 1920s and 1930s. The first was Societatea pentru Exploatări Tehnice (SET) which was formed in Bucharest in 1923. Next came Industria Aeronautică Română (IAR) which set up shop in Brașov in 1925. Finally there was Întreprinderea de Construcții Aeronautice Românești (ICAR), which was founded in Bucharest in 1932.
In 1930 the Romanian government issued specifications for a new fighter. Although the government was not anticipating bids from its own aircraft industry, IAR produced several prototypes in response to the tender.
The contract was eventually won by the Polish PZL P.11. The FARR purchased 50 of a modified version called the P.11b, all of which were delivered in 1934. A second contest was also fought between the newer IAR 14 and PZL P.24 designs, and once again the PZL design won a contract for another 50 aircraft.
Although IAR's own designs had not entered production, they nevertheless won the contracts to build PZLs and Gnome-Rhone 14K engines under license. As a result of these and other licence contracts the company had enough money to fund a design studio even if its designs never went into production.
Despite losing to PZL, an IAR design team led by Ion Grosu continued work on fighter designs. He was convinced that the low-wing design of the IAR 24 represented a better design than the PZL gull-wing design, which was often referred to as the "Polish wing". Once again the team studied the new PZL fighter looking to incorporate its best features into a new aircraft, and the result was the IAR 80.
Design
Description: Low-wing monoplane fighter with conventional control surface layout. Fuselage: The fuselage was circular in cross-section, turning to egg-shaped behind the cockpit where it incorporated a ridge-back. The general fuselage layout was based on the Polish PZL P.24. Wings: The wings were tapered with rounded tips, the trailing edge angled very slightly forwards. Small flaps ran from the fuselage to a point about 1/3 along the span, where the ailerons started and extended out to the rounded wingtips. Other details: A bubble canopy was fitted, sliding to the rear to open, providing excellent visibility except over the nose due to its rearward position. A conventional tailwheel landing gear was used, with the main gear wide-set and retracting inward, with a non-retractable tail skid.
The semi-monocoque tail was copied directly from the P.24. The fuselage from the engine back to the cockpit was new, consisting of a welded steel tube frame covered with duralumin sheeting. The wings were mounted low and were of the same design as those used on the early IAR 24, which had competed with the P.24.
According to one source, the wing profile was taken directly from the Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bomber, in service with the FARR at the time, as the design team lacked the time for wing section studies. As a result, the profile was less favorable for higher speeds, but gave the aircraft more maneuverability. This is highly unlikely as the contract for the SM.79B licence was signed on October 1, 1938, roughly one year after the I.A.R. 80 prototype was completed.
The cockpit's interior, instruments, and gunsight were imported from foreign suppliers. This effort to aggregate a fighter from various sources was a result of the last-minute demands for a frontline fighter.
A Luftwaffe major who tested it in March 1941 had this to say about the IAR 80:
"Takeoff and landing are very good. It's 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf 109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent, although the long nose reduces the visibility. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs.