IAR 80 - Design

Design

• Description: Low wing monoplane fighter with conventional control surface layout.
• Fuselage: The fuselage is circular in cross section, turning to egg shaped behind the cockpit where it incorporates a ridge-back. The general fuselage layout bears a certain resemblance to the F4U, but was based on the Polish PZL P.24.
• Wings: The wings are rectangular, the trailing edge tapers very slightly towards the front. Small flaps run from the fuselage to a point about 1/3 along the span, where oversized ailerons start and run out to the rounded caps on the wingtips.
• Other details: The canopy was of the bubble type, sliding to the rear to open, a quite modern design at the time. The cockpit is relatively far to the rear, over 1/2 of the way back from the nose. Tail-dragger landing gear were used, with the main gear wide-set and retracting inward, and the tail "gear" being a simple skid that did not retract.

The design was a true mix of features. The tail section was inspired directly from the P.24, and was of semi-monocoque construction. 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 just behind the engine, 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 bomber, in service with the ARR at the time, as the design team did not have the time to complete wing design studies. As a result, the profile was less favorable for higher speeds, but gave the aircraft more maneuverability.

The cockpit's interior, instruments, and gunsight were almost entirely imported from foreign suppliers. This effort to aggregate a fighter from various sources was, again, a result of the authorities' indifference during the pre-war years and the last-minute demand to IAR to produce a front-line fighter.

The aircraft was considerably more modern than the Polish designs, and the team finally had a design that could beat PZL's best.

Considered one of the best fighters in 1939, a report of the Luftwaffe major that tested it in March 1941 said:

"Take off 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."