SNCASO (Sud-Ouest) SO.1070,SO.1071 & SO.1072 attack projects

[hesham]

Hi,

I don't know more about the SNCASO SO.1070 except
from my dear Tophe site,as it was attack aircraft,and
here is from that new site,the SO.1071 and SO.1072
variants.

http://aerophile.over-blog.com/

 

[Tophe]

The SO.1070 was better presented in my book "Forked Ghosts" (see below, for free at http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/Free_EoFG_MV.htm ).
It was a provisionnal drawing, just my guess from what I had read.

 

[hesham]

My dear Tophe,

it is amazing design,but do you think they switch the configuration
from twin boom to a normal shape in the variants (1071 & 1072) ?.

 

[toura]

hi Tophe
First the so 1070 has been studies by SNCASO
but after the program became SNCAC
Your drawing is SNCAC 1070
Bye

 

[toura]

Re
the SNCAC NC 1070 was a 2 engines plane
and after you have the NC 1071 2 jets plane
Bye

 

[Tophe]

hi Tophe
Your drawing is SNCAC 1070

No, the NC.1070 was (what I call a "triplex boom" design, with planes between the central pod and the lateral booms.
See http://www.hyperscale.com/2007/features/sncacnc107032fm_1.htm
(I am not sure the SO-1070 was so different, I mean: my drawing was not the NC.1070 )

 

[toura]

hi tophe
YES your drawing is not a triplex boom !
But perhaps differents studies ot the SO 1070 ?????????
BYE

 

[Jemiba]

We are struggling with a number of doublets amongst the designations of this era, I think.
I looked up again, but the probability, that the "1070" design simply was started by SNCASO
and later finished by SNCAC (my first thought) seems not very high to me, because those
companies didn't come together again before 1970.
Tophe, the aircraft you've drawn as "SO.1070" actually resembles extremely well the NC.1070.
If that was a triplex design, I'm not sure. The central fuselage reached further aft, than the
twin booms, but those were only connected by the tailplane, exactly as in your drawing.
Wouldn't in a triplex design the booms be connected to the fuselage by the tailplane, too ?
On http://www.acam.asso.fr/histo/premiers_equipements7.php, there's a reference
to a SO.1070, but without further explanation. And there was the Air Sud Ouest 1070, called
"Griffon", too, a type, that had no relation to our theme, but is often called "SO.1070" in several
sources and so could muddy the waters further ( Both companies had nothing to do with each
other, AFAIK !).
Maybe there were twin boom studies for the SO.1070, too, but it really would be a strange coincidence,
I think, if those would have looked so similar to that quite weird SNCAC design. So, I'm afraid, we are
in fact talking about mixed-up sources here, but I happily would be wrong in this case.

 

[toura]

my dear JENS
i've, a long time ago, read in a " fana de l'aviation" :
""following the "nationalisation" the Nieuport factories
became members of the SNCASO
(They studie the sncaso 1070")
but in 1945 ...a change.. the Nieuport factories was
transfered and became members of the SNCAC
( the so 1070, of course, became nc 1070)
................................
this is the evolution of the same plane !!!
Bye

 

[Retrofit]

Re
the SNCAC NC 1070 was a 2 engines plane
and after you have the NC 1071 2 jets plane
Bye

3V drawing of the NC 1071, from jean Cuny's book "Les avions de combat francais" Volume 2.

 

[Jemiba]

Ah, thank you Paul ! The mergers of the french aviation companies are
a long story on its own. I only knew, that both SNCASO and SNCAC ("Aerocentre")
were founded in 1936, so I saw no relation between them with regards to this
design. But the change of the design team from one company to the other is
a plausible reason. So, in fact SO.1070 and NC.1070 ARE the same type.

 

[toura]

Jens,
yes ! But I don't know what team studies the so 1070
of the begining of this articles !
In "le fana de l'aviation" I've see a photo of a model of the
Aircraft carrier PA 28 with on the runway a model of the
SO 1071 ,,,???
The same article than before.
Truly complicated..........
bye

 

[Retrofit]

Ah, thank you Paul ! The mergers of the french aviation companies are
a long story on its own. I only knew, that both SNCASO and SNCAC ("Aerocentre")
were founded in 1936, so I saw no relation between them with regards to this
design. But the change of the design team from one company to the other is
a plausible reason. So, in fact SO.1070 and NC.1070 ARE the same type.

Rush translation of Jean Cuny's book concerning the SO-1070/NC-1070 program:

"NC 1070: It was a multi-mission aircraft issued, as its competitor the Nord 1500, from the clandestine program dated 1943. This aircraft carrier-based bomber project was one of the projects retained under the "Re-armement Program" issued after the Liberation of France in 1944.
The SO-1070 project was carried out by the SNCASO Issy les Moulineaux's (Paris west surburb) design office (M. Pillon) already deeply specialized (in the type of aircraft) after the designs of carrier-based bombers such as the LN-40 and the twin-engine CAO-600.
This Issy les Moulineaux's factory was successively attached (depending) to Loire-Nieuport, then to CAO, before being attached to SNCASO. It will soon (mid-1945) been transfered to the SNCA du Centre, the aircraft being then redesigned NC-1070".

 

[toura]

Dear RETROFIT
Yes, you confirm that the NC 1070 was an evolution of
the SO 1070.
thanks

 

[Tophe]

Tophe, the aircraft you've drawn as "SO.1070" actually resembles extremely well the NC.1070.
If that was a triplex design, I'm not sure. The central fuselage reached further aft, than the
twin booms, but those were only connected by the tailplane, exactly as in your drawing.
Wouldn't in a triplex design the booms be connected to the fuselage by the tailplane, too ?

I am not sure I understand what you mean, Jens. Yes, the NC.1070 connected the booms to the central pod/fuselage (see below) and my hypothesis was that was a late re-inforcement, not in the preliminary SO-1070 design.

 

[redstar72]

It's very interesting to know HOW and WHY something which looks like enlarged 690-series Breguet (shown at the 1st Hesham's post) transformed into such a weird triplex-boom aircraft! ???

 

[Jemiba]

We learn something new everyday ! My lessons for today:
- Always have cunys books with you.
- Look carefully at the things, you've done long ago

Sorry Tophe, you're right of course and I even showed this additional tailplane in my
drawing and it's visible in Cunys drawing, too, as a dotted line. But I only had photos
of the 1071 at hand, and this type was a "conventional" twin boomer.

As a reason for the transformation, I could imagine the attempt to shorten the length
of the aircraft without complicated folding mechanisms. For which aircraft carrier those
types were envisaged, anybody know ?

 

[fockewulf261]

Are there any models of the SNCAC N.C.1070 out there? It looks like it would have been an effective GA aircraft and I can see where some dirivatives would have been developed.

 

[Jemiba]

The only derivative I know is the NC.1072, a jet powered nightfighter, mentioned by
Jean Cuny. Proportions of fuselage and booms were more back to normal, maybe
because no rear defence gun position was installed.

 

[Tophe]

The NC.1071 & 1072 were clearly derivatives of the NC.1070, which was a derivative of the SO-1070. But maybe there were actually different projects of SO-1071 & SO-1072, attack aircraft, as mentionned in the topic's title and first posts.

 

[toura]

My dear Jens
Aircraft carriers ???
Before 1940 we partially (50%)construct "Joffre" and "Painlevé"
never finished
1943 : we studie the "PA 25" IN CLANDESTINITY
1945 / we studie the "PA 28" Of which we have a model !
I hear somethings about a "Clemenceau" (not the one you know)
ALL THIS WAS ABANDONNED........
Bye

 

[Retrofit]

For which aircraft carrier those
types were envisaged, anybody know ?

Just after WW2, French Navy put in service four aircraft carriers:
The "Arromanches" (ex RN "Colossus") from 1946 to 1974 (211.25m; 17000 tons)
The "Bois Belleau" (ex USS "Belleau Wood") 1953-1960 (189.7m; 15800 tons)
The "La Fayette" (ex USS "Langley") 1951-1963 (185.9m; 15800 tons)
The "Dixmude" (ex RN "Biter") 1945-1966 (150m; 15125 tons)
None of them seemed to be able to operate aircraft as big as the NC-1070 (perhaps one of the reasons of the program cancellation).

Two aircraft carrier programs were launched between 1943 and 1946:
- The PA-25 from the clandestine program dated 1943.(Lifts capacity: 14.5m x 8.8m). Never ordered.
- The PA-28 "Clemenceau", ordered in 1947 but cancelled in 1949 (215m; 20110 tons; lifts capacity: 15m x 10m, 12 tons).
The NC-1070 and N-1500 were planned to be operated from those 2 last aircraft carriers.

 

[toura]

My dear Retrofit
YES. any projects or aircraft carriers in service have
possibility for such aircrafts
I've see on" des limbes de l'histoire (2) les portes avions-page 3"
2 photos of the model of the PA 28 with on the deck a model
of the NC plane !!??
Bye

 

[hesham]

Jens,
yes ! But I don't know what team studies the so 1070
of the begining of this articles !
In "le fana de l'aviation" I've see a photo of a model of the
Aircraft carrier PA 28 with on the runway a model of the
SO 1071 ,,,???
The same article than before.
Truly complicated..........
bye

From La FANA magazine 89,here is the NC.1071 Model and NC.1070 on aircraft carrier deck.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


I think we can split the SNCAC NC.1070 from this topic,to open a new one
in Postwar Aircraft Projects section.


Here is anther drawing to NC.1072,but differ a little from previous drawings.


http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/projet_PA28_et_avions_a_reaction_francais_embarques.pdf

 

[Jemiba]

At first, thank you for pointing me to hydroretro.net again, it's much to rare, that we can find new articles there !
Thanks to the authors, too, of course!
About splitting, I'm still not quite sure, with regards to the timeframe of the NC.1070to 1072 it certainly would be ok,
but I'm afraid, that the connection to the earlier SNCASO design could get lost. Actually, it was the same design,
that already was started during the war.

 

[Stargazer]

About splitting, I'm still not quite sure, with regards to the timeframe of the NC.1070to 1072 it certainly would be ok,
but I'm afraid, that the connection to the earlier SNCASO design could get lost. Actually, it was the same design,
that already was started during the war.

I absolutely agree. It wouldn't make sense to split in this case because the design started at SNCASO before 1945 and continued through SNCAC.

 

[hesham]

My dear Jens,


I agree with this,but when you compared the two aircraft,they were completely
different,we can put the SNCASO SO.1070 pre WW2,and SNCAC NC.1070 after
the WW2 sections,it's only my opinion.


Do you see the changes in the new drawing ?,it's not the resemble with old one.

 

[Jemiba]

For the designs at the start you're right, but if you have a look at Tophes first
answer, the change to the twin boom layout happened when it was still a SNCASO
design.
There are cases, where we have to see the division into "early" and "post war" designs
somewhat relaxed, I think. For German and Japanese there at least always is a clear
cutting line, but not generally so for other nations, where the design bureaus could work
uninterrupted, just think of the latest marks of the Spitfire/Seafire or P-51 Mustang.

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Jemiba.

 

[blockhaj]

Have anyone ever found the armament of these two? The internet mentions stuff such as 800 kg of bombs, rockets, depth charges and a torpedo, plus 2x 30 mm defa and 2x 20 mm mg 151, however no source seems to be original?