Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

521 Excellent

About GrzeM

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Warsaw, Poland

Recent Profile Visitors

1,697 profile views
  1. But there was Gyor monitor (or more precise a gunboat) in Hungarian Navy post WWI.
  2. It is said that they will release Szent Istvan too!
  3. And a great photo of Turkish P.24 production:
  4. Another picture of the P.24/IAR 80 fuselage:
  5. Someone may have spare decals from the Special Hobby kit:
  6. P.24 fuselage from the Romanian spare parts catalogue: PZL P.11c fuselage from the factory manual (short stressed skin part "3", long frame/truss part "1" and "2"): PZL P.7a fuselage (long stressed-skin part, like in P.24). Note diagonal formers in the cockpit area, same as in the P.24.
  7. I think it is some misunderstanding here. I have proved, also with the clear photographs, that even the most advanced production P.24 examples featured different fuselage construction than P.11c. P.6, P.7, P.7a, P.11a, P.11b and all P.24 variants had long stressed skin (or semi-monocoque) fuselage section spreading from the tail to the windscreen (and including the whole cockpit area). This feature was also used in Romanian more advanced IAR 80/81 fighter, which was produced in Romania basing on the P.24 fuselage. See the photo: stressed skin fuselage ends just below the windscreen: Opposite, the P.11c (and P.11f) had the stressed skin section limited to the part between the headrest and the tail (as I showed on the big photo in earlier post). That's it. Of course the PZL.P24 third prototype and all the production P.24 examples shared many features of the P.11c, but these planes had not "p.11c fuselages" or "P.11a fuselages" but their own, new, P.24 fuselages, in some aspects similar to the P.11c, but in main construction feature (stressed-skin vs. frame/truss) more similar to the earlier P.7a and P.11a. That's the fact, not an opinion.
  8. Comparison of the P.11c and P.24 fuselages: P.24 (semi-monocoque are covered, classic frame/truss area uncovered). Cockpit area is semi-monocoque.The semi-monocoque part was almost identical in P.7a, P.11a and b, all P.24. PZL P.11c in similar state (note that cockpit area is frame/truss construction, semi-monocoque starts behind pilot's seat).
  9. Well, could you point to the source of that "generally accepted information"? Most popular schemes (this one from Andrzej Glass and Co.classic PZL P.11 monography) show the other version: I don't state that you are completely wrong, but what makes "P.11c fuselage" the "P.11c fuselage"? In the whole line of the PZL P. fighters the P.11c (and P.11f) was unique with only one feature: long frame (truss) construction in the area between headrest to the engine (as shown on the colour photo attached to my earlier post). The rest (P.6, P.7a, P.11a P.11b and all P.24) had the stressed-skin (semi monocoque) area from tail to the (approximately) control panel. So maybe outside look and geometry of the P.24 fuselage is really more similar to the P.11c, but really it is still the P.7a or P.11a fuselage lenghtened with 45cm truss insert between rear wingstruts and the control panel area - which makes it more similar to the P.11a fuselage in construction. I may be wrong, but I think that the P.11c engine was more lowered than the P.24 one.
  10. It's quite complex thing and maybe in a hurry I was not precise enough: the additional 45cm is not semi-monocoque area, but traditional frame section inserted between the stressed-skin (semi monocoque) tail and classical frame of the front with undercarriage legs, wing strut roots and engine mount. It is visible on the photos above, but maybe not very clearly. I'll try to indicate with colours on the photo soon. The stressed-skin fuselage section of P.24, P.11a and P.7a are more or less the same, excluding the fin and fairing behind the headrest/canopy.
  11. I'm sorry I don't have time to read carefully all posts in this thread but I clearly see that there is some confusion here. For sure P.11c and P.24 fuselages were different, both externally and in internal construction. P.24, like P.7a and P.11a had longer semi-monocoque (stressed skin) section, spreading from the tail to the (approximately) control panel/windscreen area. This can be clearly observed both on the photos and drawings (not on these Kagero book renders, which are wrong!). PZL P.7a, P.11a and P.24 have many horizontal lines of rivets on the fuselage sides under the cockpit and two diagonal lines of rivets in that area. These are rivets typical for stressed skin construction. Opposite, PZL P.11c has stressed-skin fuselage section shorter, from the tail to the headrest area. This can be observed both on the fuselage sides (no lines of rivets under the cockpit) and on the internal structure (obvious frames inside the cockpit). PZL P.11c internal framing attached to the semi-stressed section in four points: PZL P.24 fuselage: longer stressed-skin section (also seen from inside, with seat attached - no heavy frames!!!), 45cm long additional framing (between undercarriage leg and stressed-skin section), "normal" framing with undercarriage legs attached (same as in P.7a and P.11a): As you see - while it is not wrong to say that final version of P.24 was developed from P.11, it was for sure not developed from P.11c, but from P.11a (different fuselage!!!) AZUR have cheated with its P.11c - took P.24 fuselage and changed only the wide "hump" behind the canopy with the narrower one but left the P.24 internal and external structure of the cockpit area and the front fuselage. It is wrong. Also the AZUR wingroots are wrong for the P.11c. Speaking about Kobuz, again, I don't think the fuselage cames from the P.24 (especially in the prototype, which had serial number 8.129 of the production P.11c). Machine guns synchroniser for three-bladed propeller - I have no doubts it existed in Britain for Gladiators, but was it available in Far-Eastern Poland landing ground in September 1939 when the unarmed Kobuz prototype was armed? Maybe yes (maybe it was installed already in factory, before the war), but maybe not?
  12. If I build the existing Kobuz prototype (which was used operationally above Wielick by Henryk Szczęsny - two Heinkels shot down) I'd take productional P.11c (Rayski's 8.129), change the engine with Mercury VIII in smooth cover from the production P.50 and three-blade constant speed Hamilton-Standard prop. And add the closed canopy. Maybe I'd add the wheel spats. Nothing more. But it's an educated guess. I think there are no primary sources or accounts contradicting any detail of that version. But also P.24 wing is possible, while not confirmed.
  13. Well - not exactly. PZL P.50/I prototype really flew, while the P/50/II was almost finished, but without the engine. And while the P.50A (Mercury VIII) production has been started in 1939 (see the photo of the partially completed airframe with German soldiers) the G-R engined P.50B was only a project without even a flying prototype, moreover, there is no confirmation that any proper G-R engine ever reached Poland. 150 PZL-produced Bristol Mercury VIII engines for production P.50A planes were ready before the war (some were later sold by Germans to Finland AFAIK). Fact of use of the Mercury VIII on the Kobuz and first production P.50A is undisputable. What the cover of the G-R engine on P.50 looked like is a mystery. Not "Wielicka" but "Wielick".
  14. There is big problem with Kobuz, as the only existing example was the prototype, made of various parts of the existing airplanes rather than from scratch. And - that prototype was different than the final, production version. Unfortunately the documentation has been lost, and even the accounts are scarce and contradictory (they seem mix data of the prototype and the production version). There is no photo of this plane. In general idea of Kobuz was to mix P.11c fuselage with the P.24 wing and PZL P.50 Jastrząb engine (Polish produced Bristol-PZL Mercury VIII). But it was production version, never realised. The prototype was for sure different. From scarce accounts one can assume that the series produced P.11c fuselage was used, with series Jastrząb engine most probably with Jastrząb cover and propeller, and it had 4 machine guns. Nobody knows if the P.24 wing was used or P.11c one (both were ready available in factory at that time). Romanian sources give information that Henryk Szczęsny (who for sure flew Kobuz operationally in September 1939) flew to Romania on "P11" with 8.129 airplane serial number and non-standard engine number 8004 (typical for P.11c PZL-Bristol Mercury V had numbers in 4xxx range). But what it means it is still not precise. 8.129 before the war was non-standard PZL P.11c with stronger Mercury VI engine, personal airplane of General Ludomił Rayski, commander of Polish Air Forces from 1926 till March 1939. After Rayski's dimission in March 1939 his plane was no longer needed and most probably it was modified to become Kobuz prototype (timing is correct). But what was the scale of modification? It is possible that only the engine was changed for Mercury VIII, and the cockpit was covered (there is pilot's account that the cockpit was covered with canopy, but it didn't fit to the turtledeck so there were big apertures behind the pilot's head - I assume that P.24 broader canopy was fitted on narrower P.11 turtledeck, which explains the apertures). Was the P.24 wing used in prototype? Nobody knows. I belive it was not necessary, but possible. Number of machine guns used in combat is 4, what may suggest typical P.11 two in fuselage and two in wings (what suggests rather normal P.11c wing) or 4 mg's in wings (worse for airplane performance - heavier wing armament was disliked by the pilots, but may be explained with lack of synchronisation gear for three-bladed propeller). Engine was Polish-produced Mercury VIII (there were over 100 ready for P.50 Jastrząb). I belive that engine cover must have been smooth, like in series produced Jastrząb (Jastrząb prototype had bulged cover, but it's engine remained on the Jastrząb prototype in September 1939, so was not used on Kobuz. Smooth engine cover on production Jastrząb: Bulged engine cover on Jastrząb prototype: Propeller should be Hamilton-Standard. I don't belive French propeller used on Gnome-Rhone P.24 engines fit the Bristol. Wheel-spats - nobody knows, if these were applied on the prototype or planned for production airplane. That's it.
  • Create New...