SNCAC (Centre) NC-140 high-altitude tandem-engine bomber project


Fight for yor Right!
14 January 2007
Reaction score
Hi all,

if you can help...
...I need the technical data for the french project Centre N.C.140!

Thanks Maveric

I think Maveric is looking for the SNCAC NC.140 which was the F.1040 (not F.140) in the Farman system.

Mav -- some NC.140 specs from --

Bomb load: 3000 kg, Maximum Speed: 600 km/h, Range: 3000 km, Ceiling: 12000 m (note that ceiling is higher than pressurized NC.130)

I'm guessing that the dimensions are similar to the NC.130.

NC.130 Span: 16.63 m, Length: 11.75 m, Height: 4.84 m, Wing area: 40.30 m2, Weight: (Max T/O) 4500 kg, Service ceiling: 10600 m
Hi Justo and Apophenia,

thanks to all of you, but Apophenia is right...

I think the N.C.140 is an Farman idea, 4 powerplants in tandem configuration under the wing, similar to Farman F.220 Series.

Thanks Maveric
hello maveric

I have an article from Jean Liron in Aviation Magazine, a long time ago.
The NC 140 was a study derived from the F 223 and proto was to be
construted in 1940
3200 kgs bombs as far as 3200 kms
I have no scanner, but if you want a copy let me know ,I could send you.
Hi Maveric

There's a little more about these aircraft on ,
( Le Fana de l'aviation ) No 389 ( April 2002 )
it includes a drawing of the NC 140.
NC for Nationale Centre.

Source : Le Fana de l'aviation (Michel Borget ) 2000.

hello shallow
The jean Liron's article is more complet
All carasteristics
Three view drawings.
Dear Boys and Girls, although there has been a little discussion in the more generic fora, here is an article in French about the SNCAC Centre NC-140 high altitude bomber "project"; I think it deserves its own topic. The design combines the Farman/SNCAC NC 223-type braced semi-cantilever wing and tandem-engine nacelle arrangement with a new circular section fuselage. The cockpit implies a pressure-vessel for 4 crew embedded in the nose. The massively blended wing-root fairings appear to form a duct around ¼ of the propellors' diameter but I don't know the purpose of such an arrangement. In comparison to the NC 223.3 and NC 223.4, the engine radiators have been relocated to the vertical pylon bracing the engine nacelle to the wing......

The SNCAC Centre NC-140 was abandoned in favour of the smaller, more modern NC-150......

The article comes from the 15th September 1965 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
This twin-push-pull layout seems so good, why was it so rarely used? (not in any WW2 4-engine mass-produced one I think)
Why was it seldom used?
Probably because if the front engine develops a fire you'll likely lose the rear one too and end up in a bad situation with both engines out on same side.
Plus, I'd guess that cooling the rear engine was problematic.
This layout for aircraft propulsion fell into disuse as performance increase, notably engine power and propeller efficiency, when the engines were mounted close together the forward propeller disrupted the rear propellers airflow causing the latter to be inefficient. This was not a problem when the propellers were spaced well apart such as on opposite ends of the fuselage i.e. The Dornier Do335.
Echo the above two posts...
There's also a logistical problem, as you need to carry two lots of spares, for the tractor
and pusher engines, and of course the propellers will be different too.
Also, the arrangement of the engines in strut mounted nacelles is more draggy than
wing mounting, but to do that the pusher engines need to be mounted at the trailing edge,
which can mean more structural weight, along with aft movement of the CG, or forward
within the wing, which solves the CG problem, but then you need extension shafts,
meaning more complexity, possibly more weight, or at least no weight saving, and again,
more spares.
In addition, in designs such as the SNCAC NC-140, the engine nacelles are usually used to
house the main undercarriage, which makes them larger than they really need be, again,
more weight, drag, etc.


Similar threads

Top Bottom