Talk:IAR 111

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spoof?[edit]

This is surely a spoof!! Or is it?Petebutt (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is not! 89.136.167.81 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory[edit]

This article is contradictory. It says it is a carrier plane, then it says it has no landing gear. A carrier plane always has a landing gear, to handle the hard landings on a carrier deck. Indeed they have heavier landing gear than land-based planes. Then it says it takes off from the sea surface, but carrier planes don't do that. There's nothing in the article that says it is amphibious either, to handle such a situation. Indeed, there's no pontoons on this thing, so landing in the water would submerge the air intakes (as seen in the references, where intakes are shown in the pictures), flooding the engines, so it'd never take off. Just look at ekranoplanes, which have high set engines just to prevent such a situation, and they have flying boat hulls, not carrier plane airframes. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "carrier" they mean that it carries a self-propelled payload. The plane doesn't have air intakes -- the things on the bottom surface are floats and payload. The article and sources all agree it's rocket-propelled. 108.235.137.184 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is plane is in "development" stages still. There is very little technical data available about it and lots of suspicion that it will never be completed, or operational. The makers are very secretive about it (either because they want to maintain a competitive advantage or because there's very little to show, you're free to speculate) but the very idea of a supersonic seaplane sounds absurd. This is not an IAR plane or project (not manufactured or designed in the IAR Brasov factory, they no longer make planes) and I find it puzzling they're allowed to use the IAR tag, legally. This "plane" is not supposed to take off/land from an airplane carrier, the term "carrier" in the article refers to it's supposed ability to carry the Haas rocket to high altitudes. References showing this is supposed to be a seaplane:

http://www.rumaniamilitary.ro/tag/iar-111-excelsior
http://www.gandul.info/magazin/supersonicul-romanesc-iar-111-excelsior-testat-deasupra-marii-negre-simulare-cu-aparatul-de-zbor-video-8811280 (see embedded animation, official ARCA video)

There are a few problems easy to spot about this project, that make me think this is purely a publicity stunt:

the need for a "mothership" rocket carrier to have supersonic capability; designing a supersonic plane is notoriously difficult, so unless you absolutely have to, you don't go supersonic; the ARCA team never stated why the plane needs to have march 1.5 and 2.5 speeds
the need for sea take off and landing; same logic applies - seaplanes are large, clumsy, slow planes and have niche applications; unless you absolutely need to, you don't want to take off and land from the sea; there's only one supersonic sea plane design that I am aware of, Convair F2Y, and the US military made it a sea plane because they were looking into having it launch from submarines.

The only reasonable explanation for both design choices is that ARCA wanted publicity, of which they got, plenty.

109.99.230.8 (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this say the thrust-weight ratio is 110?[edit]

99.43.252.75 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)This is manned, and acceleration of 970.2m/s or 99g, will kill anyone. This is a typo. Must have been 1.10. This must be fixed. Thanks!99.43.252.75 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]