LACAB Projects and Prototypes

hesham said:
... we can say, it was ET.1 or ET.2 ?,
Click to expand...

Not without evidence.

At the moment, we have no published mention of any such ACAZ designation. Nor do we have proof that Bill Gunston wasn't simply referring to the T.1, T.2, or T.3 two-seater tourers.

My sense is that any hypothetical or theoretical designation sequences should be in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section. Am I alone in this conclusion?
 
Apophenia said:
My sense is that any hypothetical or theoretical designation sequences should be in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section. Am I alone in this conclusion?
Click to expand...
No you're not :)
The last thing we want to do here on SPF is to manufacture dubious speculative information not strongly flagged as such. There are enough dubious sources as it is.
 
Apophenia said:
My sense is that any hypothetical or theoretical designation sequences should be in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section. Am I alone in this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Of course I agree with that,but the T.1 or T.2 were NOT a light trainer at all ?!,so Mr. Bill Gunston
was very specifically to distinguish it from T series.
 
hesham said:

Of course I agree with that,but the T.1 or T.2 were NOT a light trainer at all ?!,so Mr. Bill Gunston
was very specifically to distinguish it from T series.
Click to expand...

Okay, "NOT a light trainer at all ?!" Since your style there seems to indicate absolute certainty, can you provide evidence?

Any kind of certainty about obscure firms like ACAZ would be most welcome. Do you have an exact quote from Gunston?

I would be the first to agree that an aircraft like the T.2 is better described as a 'tourer'. However, similar lightplanes have often been described as 'trainers' - even by you in the past, my dear hesham. Anyway, we can debate usage and nomenclature but actual evidence must always trump :)
 
My dear Apophenia,

certainly Mr. Gunston had his reliable sources,we can assume that,it may be JAWA or a Germany book talked about aircraft year by year in this early period ?.

Its appearance didn't like a trainer at all,and may I can solve this clue,by Renard's list,the R-5 was aircraft for ACAZ from 1920,so we could suppose that,it was the light trainer,designed and built before formed or found the company ?!.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    743.4 KB · Views: 18
  • 2.png
    2.png
    53.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Yes, the T.1 was O-BAFK (and the T.2 was O-BAFM/OO-AFM).

On the usage of trainer vs tourer, I seem to be unable to make my point clearly enough. As such, I will retire from the field.

[Edit: Or not ...]
 
Last edited:
hesham said:
Its appearance didn't like a trainer at all,and may I can solve this clue,by Renard's list,the R-5 was aircraft for ACAZ from 1920,so we could suppose that,it was the light trainer,designed and built before formed or found the company ?!.
Click to expand...

OK we close this case,but I want to explain something,

the aircraft in number "1" is from the video,it was the T.1 of 1923,BUT the
Renard R-5 was not displayed in any where,and the aircraft was in 1920 ?!.
 
Just for the info :
.Avion A.C.A.Z. T-2 ..... fut un des tous premiers *avions de tourisme *
entiérement metalique dans le monde.

source : page111 (annexe2) Les Avions Renard- Andre Hauet
 
Thanks lark. Good to see the original. There are plenty of claims on the internet that the ACAZ T.2 was "the first all-metal airplane". Your Andre Hauet quote makes clear that this Renard/Allard design was the first all-metal tourer.

There is a simple explanation for the elusive 'Renard R-5' designation. No direct evidence has emerged that this designation ever existed. In March 2015, c460 posted a list of Renard technical files. The title is: Liste Numerotee des dossiers d'etude et de Fabrication A. Renard (Numbered List of A. Renard Study and Manufacturing Files).

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ing-r-s-v-stampe-et-renard.19607/#post-243475

Column 1 is listed as N°; column 2 as Objet du Dossier

Unfortunately, c460 mentioned that "[f]ile numbers generally [my emphasis] correspond to the R designations, and this document explains the gaps before R-16 and between R-17 and R-30". Taking that word "correspond" quite literally, hesham concluded that the designation "Renard R-5" could be inferred from: "5 Avion ACAZ (Zeebrugge) (1920)".

To my mind, Arjen then cleared this up with his statement "No exact match to the R designations, then. I think file number 5 simply refers to the ACAZ T.2 - which, to my knowledge, was never referred to as R.5".

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ing-r-s-v-stampe-et-renard.19607/#post-306614

However, those who prefer to make up their own minds can take a closer look at c460's Brussels Air Museum Magazine (no.65, 1990) file:

I have typed out the key section below (adding in an abréviation du numéro and hyphen to each listing for clarity):
"...
N° 4 -- Moto avec cadre en Dural et moteur 2 temps
N° 5 -- Avion ACAZ (Zeebrugge) (1920)
N° 6 -- Hydroglisseur à aile marine (brevet)
N° 7 -- Avion RSV 32-90 (1921)
N° 8 -- Avion RSV 26-180
N° 9 -- Moteur RENARD 5 cylindres 120 CV (1923); en série, ch. de Louvain
N° 10 - Avion chasse Epervier, construit en 2 exemplaires 1er à Deurne, 2e à SABCA
N° 11 - Avion RSV quadriplace 32-90 Bis
N° 12 - Outillages (presse, etc.) pour fabrication en Dural ..."

So, listing N° 4 refers to a Duralumin-framed motorcycle; N° 7 to a patent application; and N° 12 to machine tools. Numbers 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 all refer to built aircraft types with known designations - the ACAZ T.2; RSV 32-90; RSV 26-180; Renard Type 2; and RSV 32-90 Bis, respectively.

I hope this demonstrates that there was no absolute correlation between the numerical listings and Alfred Renard's 'R' series designations. Each number on that list simply pertained to an 'Object in the Folder'.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom