Weird French Bomber I.D

Nothing found AFAIK

I’d forgotten about this one. Is it still an enigma or has something conclusive turned up on any of the other fora where the erudite were being bamboozled by it?

If it were a civilian airliner that “turret” on top might just be the solarium for the wealthy first class passengers to sit and smoke their cigars and drink their cognac.
It is so ugly with its rectangular fuselage that maybe the design group were happy to leave it wrecked or partially unassembled and just ran away to join the Foreign Legion to hide from their shame. Or they could have relocated to Paris and opened a dress salon. Who knows?
Ssculptor

You people are hilarious. Acres of discussions about the minutae of Ju-52, Ju-52/m, Ju-52/3m, and nobody seems to have noticed that it’s not a Junkers at all. My guess is Caproni, though I’m not at all sure. But I am sure that’s not an Iron Annie cockpit roof.

I’m not a ‘you people’, thank you, any more than I presume you’d like to be lumped with a bunch of others.

It is a Ju 52/3m with a cover over the cockpit. Your credibility for rudely dismissing other views would be worth something if you offered some precision other than another (less likely) manufacturer and no actual type.

It is a Ju 52/3m, because the dihedral, slotted flap, type and shape of port engine cowl and nacelle, and the distinctive instrument ‘mast’ on the top of the nacelle is evident and all fit the Ju 52/3m and don’t fit any Caproni (or other type) I’m aware of.

I’ve also flown in the Junkers Ju 52/3m of Lufthansa after it was ‘de-Caidined’. And interviewed the chief pilot of the Lufthansa Heritage Flight of the time and undertaken a photo survey of the aircraft and published the results in Warbirds Worldwide some years ago, not to mention a fairly detailed examination of numerous other Junkers Ju 52s in a number of countries – but of course I may be wrong. I’ll happily revise my view when enumerated evidence is presented that show the above is incorrect. However I also find John ‘Aeroclub’ is pretty smart at the aircraft ID game too, so I’d have to have good evidence to disagree with him myself as a rule.

Regards,

Well, Flying Pencil, I desperatedly try to design a plane for Japan to catch the US carriers missed at Pearl Harbor… the BS-6000NN4 could be a first step into the right direction…:D

Besides all jokes, there is a French site dealing with “our” aircraft, really calling it “fighter version of the SAB 80″… and btw providing me the long-time-searched-for SAB 80 picture!!:):eek::eek::)

See here (and scroll down):
http://forum.avionslegendaires.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6271

Best regards, RT

All these war plane experts here and no one knows what it is?

Why, its the FARMSNCAO BS-6000NN4 Battle Plane!

Inspired by the “underwater curiser” Surcouf (pictured below), it was decided to make an airplane with similar firepower (for its size), make it able to land on water and submerge too.
Unfortunately France surrendered before the first 2 prototypes could be finished.

I understand that it has a cockpit cover on, but having spent time in the late Martin Caidin’s Auntie, I say it’s way too high and narrow to be a Junkers. The Ju-52’s greenhouse has a pronounced downward slope as well, which this doesn’t have. I’ve used cloth cockpit covers, on my own aircraft as well as others, and they conform to the shape of the cockpit.

You people are hilarious. Acres of discussions about the minutae of Ju-52, Ju-52/m, Ju-52/3m, and nobody seems to have noticed that it’s not a Junkers at all. My guess is Caproni, though I’m not at all sure. But I am sure that’s not an Iron Annie cockpit roof.

It’s not a good photo but do look at the Junkers ailerons and it appears to have a cover over it’s cockpit. It is a 52.3m.

John

+1 LOL

Uh??

You people are hilarious. Acres of discussions about the minutae of Ju-52, Ju-52/m, Ju-52/3m, and nobody seems to have noticed that it’s not a Junkers at all. My guess is Caproni, though I’m not at all sure. But I am sure that’s not an Iron Annie cockpit roof.

If it was based on the CA-600, then very extensive alterations were made in the course of producing the mock-up because:

– the CA-600 rear fuselage is much less deep
– the CA-600 does not have tail plane support struts
– the CA-600 wing roots are lower and no sign of the position of these is evident in the picture of the mystery aeroplane
– the cockpit and nacelle of the CA-600 is completely different

and so probably it would have been easier to create a mock-up from scratch than use a CA-600 fuselage for the purpose. But having said that, one can’t dismiss the possibility that you advance, Moze, and your theory is at least as attractive, if not more so, than those hitherto posted!

Apologies for not posting this earlier, but this info was posted on TOCH by ‘Jeanba’ back in August:

I think there was a reference to this aircraft in a french TV program called “L’Histoire de l’Aviation”.
Unfortunately, the test pilot did not explicitely named the aircraft but said that it had a tank turret and was nicknamed “100 partout” (“one hundred everywhere”) because max speed was 100 kph, so was minimum speed, and the oil temperature (in degrees celsius) and the ceiling (in meters).

Sounds like winning design…

That’s taken ugly to a whole new level – looks like it though.

Hi,

Long time lurker here and this is my first post.

I had a theory to submit on the mystery French Bomber. I too thought this was a Farman design initially but think they might be mockups based on the SNCAO CA-600. Obviously not a perfect match but seems the closest of anything submitted so far.

My 2 cents anyways,

Moze