SNCAO was a short-lived company originating from the nationalization of Loire-Nieuport and Breguet factories. It had design studies in Issy-les-Moulineaux (former Nieuport), using even numbers (200, 400...), and in Saint-Nazaire (former Loire), using odd numbers.
- CAO.200 fighter, 1 built
- CAO.30, ex LN.30 pusher flying-boat, 2 built
- CAO.300, series version of CAO.30, none built
- CAO.400 observation (T3), two Lorraine Algol, not finished
- CAO.500 seaplane fighter project
- CAO.600 carrier-borne torpedo and dive bomber, two 14M engines, 1 built
- CAO.700 four-engine bomber, 1 built
- CAO.720 four-engine transport aircraft project
- CAO.810 single-engined dive bomber project
- CAO.900 two-engine high-wing amphibian
- CAO.1000 carrier-borne fighter project
See also this thread on CAO projects:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=6867.0
CAO.200 was a single seat low-wing fighter prototype,developed from Loire-Nieuport LN-60,powered by one 860 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51 engine CAO.30 was ex LN-30,a two-seat parasol wing trainer flying boat,powered by one 280 hp Salmson 9ABa radial pusher engine CAO.300 was a developed version of CAO.30,powered by 320 hp Hispano-Suiza 9ABa radial pusher engine CAO.400 was a three-seat inverted high cantilever wing army co-operation and observation monoplane,in T3 contest powered by two 430 hp Lorrain 9N engines,never completed CAO.500 was a single seat low-wing float seaplane fighter Project,took many components of CAO.200,powered by one Hispano-Suiza 12Y or 12 X engine,in HC.1 tender CAO.600 was a three-seat high inverted gull wing torpedo bomber and recce monoplane,had a twin tail fin,powered by two 680 hp Gnome Rhone 14M engines,prototype CAO.700 was a five-seat mid-wing heavy bomber monoplane,of all-metal construction and twin tail fin,powered by four 1140 hp Gnome-Rhone 14N-48 or N-49 engines,prototype CAO.700M was torpedo bomber Project version,powered by the same engines,and could carry two torpedo CAO.710 was a second prototype,powered by four 1320 hp Gnome-Rhone 14 R-2/3 engine,but these engines must drive more propellers large diameter,had to extend the wingspan and increase the wing area,soon abandoned CAO.720 was a low-wing 22 passenger medium transport/airliner monoplane,had a single-tail fin and the fuselage was of circular section,the aircraft was to cross at 8,000 m,about 50 % completed but cancelled in 1940 CAO.730 was a project for a twin-engine stratospheric transport aircraft derived from the CAO-720.
CAO.800 was a two-seat low-mid-wing dive bomber monoplane Project,in BP.2 category,had twin tail fin,powered by one 890 hp Hispano-Suiza 12 Y engine,based on LN-411 CAO.810 was developed from CAO.800,the shape of tailplane monoplane biderive,it is characterized by a fuselage in the shape of a camel's back,this shape was because the bombs were carried in the hold and the cockpit was raised to improve the pilot's visibility,estimated speed of 535 km/h,powered by the same engine as above CAO.900 was a 18 passenger transport amphibian flying boat monoplane Project,had a hull aircraft topped with a monoplane wing attached to the fuselage by a hut,the wing had a part rectangular central which carried both 650 hp Gnome-Rhône 14 M engines placed at the leading edge, and parts trapezoidal external,these external parlies wore balancing balloons CAO.1000 was a single seat seaplane fighter Project for A80 Program,developed from CAO.500,with a folding wing reducing its lateral dimensions to 4.60m,with the same engine,had estimated speed of 542 km/h CAO.1100 was unknown Project CAO.1200 maybe a single seat fighter Project,need confirm CAO.1300 was unknown Project CAO.1400 maybe a single seat fighter Project,need confirm
As I'm currently updating all my Nieuport/CAO data charts, I'm left with a few questions:
Do we have any idea what CAO 100 may have been? Could it have been assigned to the LN-10 before the odd/even allocations system was established? We know that the LN-30 became the CAO-30, so the LN-10 could have become CAO-10 (at least on paper). CAO 100 could have been skipped altogether, but also reserved for a possible production version that didn't materialize (like CAO-300 was for CAO-30).
Was there really only one CAO 200? An old chart from Aviation Magazine claimed that 13 had been built, but only one flown.
Do we have info on the engine type planned for the CAO 720? We know that the first aircraft was 50% complete by 1940, and that 900 aircraft were meant to be procured before the German occupation put an end to the program, so it seems more than likely that the engines had already been decided upon.
Would the CAO 1000 have used the same engine as the CAO 200 and 500? Both used the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, and the CAO 1000 was supposed to be developed from both projects.
Is there any evidence of projects CAO 1100 to 1400 having existed? These designations have been mentioned here, but with no apparent article or document to back them up.
Do we have period documents refering to CAO projects by just the letter prefix N-? The Messier projects index contains very interesting references to N-200, N-400 T3 and N-600 C1, all in 1938. Since the list also includes NiD, LN and CAO designations, these suggest a possible transitional use of the prefix "N" on its own for what later became "CAO" (although the CAO 600 was an AB3, not a C1).
Has anyone ever seen a picture of the CAO 400 project? It's the only one that I can find no picture of (along with the CAO 800, but that must have been rather similar to the 810).
For me, based on some testimonies, two CAO.200 were built. The second one was painted hurriedly for static presentation at Aviation show. Unfortunately, the paint was so difficult to strip that they finally gave up and scrapped this second prototype.
13 built: of course not. Only 2 were ordered. Maybe a confusion with VG.33?
1- Your suggesting is very logical,but no confirm.
2- Only two prototypes were built from CAO.200.
3- I think it was powered by four 1320 hp Gnome-Rhone 14 R-2/3 engines.
4- For CAO.1000,may it used the same engine of CAO.500.
5- There is no evidence about SNCAO 1100 to 1400,that's only my speculations,but in
Docavia 38,they preserved these designations for future uses ?.
6- How you get those designations,the George Messier's site is broken,I have a copy of it,
but your references are very close to be a Nieuport,then SNCAO,and N.600 was a misprint
and they meant N.500 or CAO.500
7- No picture is survivor to CAO.400 as I think !.
Thanks. I knew about the large unbuilt LN-30 flying boat of course. My (wrong) assumption was that there had been two allocations of the designation LN-30, the second one becoming CAO 30, I don't know what led me to believe such a thing...
I know, and I've perused it of course... However, I do not quite agree when you say that the designations LN-160 and LN-161 are wrong... Although I couldn't find the former anywhere, it is an established fact that all three LN-161 prototypes carried different company names on their tail... N° 01 was a "Nieuport", N° 02 was an "SNCAO", and N° 03 was a "Loire-Nieuport"... Besides, an unbuilt version was designated LN.162.
For me, based on some testimonies, two CAO.200 were built. The second one was painted hurriedly for static presentation at Aviation show.
13 built: of course not. Only 2 were ordered. Maybe a confusion with VG.33?
How you get those designations,the George Messier's site is broken,I have a copy of it,
but your references are very close to be a Nieuport,then SNCAO,and N.600 was a misprint
and they meant N.500 or CAO.500
I made two captures of the Messier website at different times, and turned them into an Excel file.
Here are all the Nieuport-/Loire-Nieuport-/SNCAO-related entries:
As you can see:
All Nieuport Delage "NiD-" entries go back to the years 1928-1931.
All Nieuport "N-" entries are from the years 1934-1938.
All Loire-Nieuport "LN-" entries are from the years 1936-1940.
All SNCAO entries (none of which carries the "CAO" prefix here) are from 1937-1941.
I can accept the notion that the Messier database could hold a few typos. In fact I have found a few (on the spelling of some names), but they are the exception, not the rule. If the company held in its records no less than TEN entries for Nieuport types with the "N-" prefix, with no Delage, Loire or SNCAO involvement, I refuse to see it as a typo. Instead, it most likely indicates that at some point after nationalization, and before the CAO system was normalized, Loire-Nieuport projects were designated as "LN-" while Nieuport-only projects were designated as plain "N-".
Now I've purposely highlighted the entries that do not seem to fit designations we've been familiar with. Allow me to address them in chronological order:
N-121 C1 (1933): This clearly refers to what we know as the Ni-D 121 C1 of 1932. The name Delage was dropped when the company was made a part of the S.C.A. in 1930, so it makes sense that the "D" should be dropped.
N-140 (1934): Most certainly refers to what we usually call the Ni 140 carrier-based dive-bomber of 1935.
N-150 (1935): Probably refers to the unbuilt Ni 150 which was tested in the Eiffel wind-tunnel in 1934. This indicates that the project was still in the works a year later, which makes sense if the project eventually evolved into the LN-20.
N-160 (1935 and 1937): Of course, that is the Ni 160 fighter prototype of 1935.
N-161 (1938): It's the Ni 161 of 1936. It shows that both the Ni 160 and 161 were still under development in 1937-38.
SNCAO-60-C1 (1937): This can only be what we know as the LN-60, an optimised version of the Ni-161.
N-10 (1938): Was that the LN-10 (itself redesignated from the Loire 240)? Probably, unless it has something to do with the undocumented CAO 100...
N-200 / LN-200 C1 (1938): Now this one is a little more tricky. Assuming that these two designations from the same year refer to the same aircraft, could it be a development of the LN-20? Very unlikely, since it flew only in 1939. Besides, the LN-20 is a C3, not a C1. Therefore we can conclude that these two designations actually refered to what we know as the CAO 200 C1, also flown in 1939. The puzzling element here is that the CAO 200 is supposed to have been redesignated from "LN-60", but here we can clearly see that it was also known as the LN-200!
N-400 T3 (1938): This is of course what we know as the CAO 400 T3. Some sources even call it the "LN-400", which was assumed to be a mistake, but now who knows? It seems that between 1936 and 1938, all three designators N-/LN-/CAO- could apply to the same projects!
N-600 C1 (1938): This could be related to what we know as the CAO 600... except the latter is an AB3, not a C1! A change in mission is possible, but turning a 3-crew attack bomber into a single-seat fighter is a radical departure... The other possibility, of course, is that the N-600 was related to the LN-60, which happened to be a C1.
LN-105 (1939): Last but not least... This apparently mysterious designation was likely related to the LN-10. And indeed, if we go through the history of that airplane, there was a projected landplane version of the LN-10 with a Messier cowled landing gear and retractable tail wheel. Therefore it makes perfect sense that it must have been its designation.
To conclude... There doesn't seem to have been a clearcut separation as to whether projects were Nieuport, Loire-Nieuport or SNCAO. Several designations existed at the same time for the same aircraft depending on the sources (and possibly which facility produced them). What the above has established, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Nieuport projects of the 1930s, which we often designate as "Ni" were also found as "N-"... and that the whole thing was such a mess that I can understand why SNCAO would want to harmonize the whole thing into one single, coherent system!
N-200 / LN-200 C1 (1938): Now this one is a little more tricky. Assuming that these two designations from the same year refer to the same aircraft, could it be a development of the LN-20? Very unlikely, since it flew only in 1939. Besides, the LN-20 is a C3, not a C1. Therefore we can conclude that these two designations actually refered to what we know as the CAO 200 C1, also flown in 1939. The puzzling element here is that the CAO 200 is supposed to have been redesignated from "LN-60", but here we can clearly see that it was also known as the LN-200!
N-600 C1 (1938): This could be related to what we know as the CAO 600... except the latter is an AB3, not a C1! A change in mission is possible, but turning a 3-crew attack bomber into a single-seat fighter is a radical departure... The other possibility, of course, is that the N-600 was related to the LN-60, which happened to be a C1.
LN-105 (1939): Last but not least... This apparently mysterious designation was likely related to the LN-10. And indeed, if we go through the history of that airplane, there was a projected landplane version of the LN-10 with a Messier cowled landing gear and retractable tail wheel. Therefore it makes perfect sense that it must have been its designation.
I agree with all your suggesting,and fr N-200 or LN-200,I assume that it was a single seat projected version (C.1)
of LN-20,for this program,the Air Ministry decided at the middle of it,to be C.2 and not C.3,so it's possible to do
this.
Also for N-600 C1,I suppose it was labelled at first to development of LN-60,which later became CAO.200,about
Nieuport and its designation numbers,it looks like a little bit of SPAD,it means the number "5" was always referred
to a transport,postal or racer,and for LN-105,that is impossible to be developed from LN-20,because there was a
concept NiD-102 as single seat fighter project,so the logical estimation is to be a transport aircraft.
Do we have info on the engine type planned for the CAO 720? We know that the first aircraft was 50% complete by 1940, and that 900 aircraft were meant to be procured before the German occupation put an end to the program, so it seems more than likely that the engines had already been decided upon.
Hi Stargazer. Don't take too much credits to approximate designations used by an external supplier which is not always fully aware of the precise designation used by the original manufacturer. Loire-Nieuport and SNCAO has edited internal rules that were pretty well followed internally.
This is not always the case for other manufacturers.
You are confusing it with SNCASE.
The SNCAO was subcontracted to assemble LeO 451 series in Nantes-Bouguenais. Their design office located in Saint-Nazaire was never in charge of any evolution of LeO 451. The company was dissolved in 1940.
You are confusing it with SNCASE.
The SNCAO was subcontracted to assemble LeO 451 series in Nantes-Bouguenais. Their design office located in Saint-Nazaire was never in charge of any evolution of LeO 451. The company was dissolved in 1940.
SNCAO was involved only in production of LeO 451 in Nantes-Bouguenais. Their design office located in Saint-Nazaire was never in charge of any evolution of LeO 451. LeO 455 arrived too late for SNCAO, which was dissolved.
SNCAO was involved only in production of LeO 451 in Nantes-Bouguenais. Their design office located in Saint-Nazaire was never in charge of any evolution of LeO 451. LeO 455 arrived too late for SNCAO, which was dissolved.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
