Very weird unidentified flying boat... Can anyone help?

[Stargazer]

I can add a tiny bit of information regarding the photo of that unknown aircraft.

Thanks for this.

The only clue that was given is, that on the back of the photo was written „No 3“ which might suggest, that this was the third attempt of whosoever and which could be a hint that this is of French origin.

Sorry but I'm not following you. What is it that makes you think of a French origin here?
The way "number" is written? True, we French write "N°" while Americans prefer "#" or "No." and the Russians have their own character "№"... but is that sufficient to establish an origin? Especially if it's handwritten? (is it?) I'm not so sure.

 

[fabulousfour]

Thanks for this.

Sorry but I'm not following you. What is it that makes you think of a French origin here?
The way "number" is written? True, we French write "N°" while Americans prefer "#" or "No." and the Russians have their own character "№"... but is that sufficient to establish an origin? Especially if it's handwritten? (is it?) I'm not so sure.

I‘m not sure as well!
Of course this wasn’t meant as a fact, that „No 3“ must be of French origin.
It was just a suggestion of Bernd Heller, that the way „No 3“ was written might indicate that the aircraft is French.
But how about „No 3“ is the third aircraft construction of somebody?

 

[Nicknick]

A German would have written ''Nr.'' btw.

 

[Hood]

How would a French Canadian write "No."?

I feel this is semantics though and not getting us any nearer. No.3 could mean anything - could be the third photograph in a series for example. Shame that there wasn't a name on the back.

 

[Stargazer]

No.3 could mean anything - could be the third photograph in a series for example. Shame that there wasn't a name on the back.

Absolutely!

A German would have written ''Nr.'' btw.

Thanks for adding to the list! ;-)

It was just a suggestion of Bernd Heller, that the way „No 3“ was written might indicate that the aircraft is French.

By the way, a Frenchman would NEVER use the lower quote; it's always " "... so "N° 3" would be the French way of writing it.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

Sorry but I'm not following you. What is it that makes you think of a French origin here?
The way "number" is written? True, we French write "N°" while Americans prefer "#" or "No." and the Russians have their own character "№"... but is that sufficient to establish an origin? Especially if it's handwritten? (is it?) I'm not so sure.

It wouldn't be sufficient, but maybe it would at least give a hint at the context.

However, I am not sure it's a very solid hint, as the "Numero" ligature was quite popular in German too:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numero-Zeichen
It probably was falling out of fashion in Germany in the 1930s, but the term "Numero" is still in the online Duden as "obsolecent" today:

https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Numero
There, the abbreviation is listed as "No.", so its use doesn't suffice to rule out a German(-speaking) person labelled the photo, at least.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[fabulousfour]

Absolutely!

Thanks for adding to the list! ;-)

By the way, a Frenchman would NEVER use the lower quote; it's always " "... so "N° 3" would be the French way of writing it.

The lower quote comes from my keyboard, not from the photo. ;-)
I used the quotation marks only to emphasize this part.

 

[Michel Van]

The Picture has a E-mail address.

I mail him, sadly no reply...

 

[fabulousfour]

I will try to contact Bernd via PN at the Flugzeugforum.
Just noticed that he wasn‘t online there for a while.
Let‘s see ….

 

[fabulousfour]

Sorry to tell, that I didn‘t get an answer from Bernd until now.
Also, he hasn‘t been online at the Flugzeugforum for 6 weeks now.
I fear, this mistery has to be solved by ourselves.

If I do get an answer from Bernd later on, of course I will post it here.

 

[fabulousfour]

I‘ve got an answer from Bernd now, this is the back of the photo.

Hope it helps to identify the aircraft, the underlined „o“ should exclude some languages.

 

[Stargazer]

I‘ve got an answer from Bernd now, this is the back of the photo.
Hope it helps to identify the aircraft, the underlined „o“ should exclude some languages.

Still, it could be the type number in a series, the construction number of the aircraft, or quite simply the number in a series of numbered photos... So without any other clue and no additional photos, it's bound to remain a mystery for quite a long time...

 

[Grzesio]

Still, it could be the type number in a series, the construction number of the aircraft, or quite simply the number in a series of numbered photos... So without any other clue and no additional photos, it's bound to remain a mystery for quite a long time...

Yes, this number can mean just anything. E.g. when photos were manually copied with an enlarger in a photo studio, ready prints were often marked with a handwritten order number at the back to avoid confusion.

 

[fabulousfour]

Bernd has sent me a better scan of that kite where you can see more details.
What we can see now, that at least parts of that plane probably are covered with corrugated skin (wing, horizontal stabilizer and rudder).
There seems to be a kind of railing in front of the wind screen.
The concept of the plane reminds me of the Tupolev MDR-2/ANT-8, but of course this is not that type.

Comments welcome.

 

[Stargazer]

I'm thinking more and more about a hydroglider instead of an aircraft.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Notice how all the tail surfaces have control surfaces with the tip being movable full span? That might be something to look at as it is common to only some aircraft manufacturers. Also, is it possible that it might be some sort of early WIGE type aircraft rather than a true airplane?

I also don't think the fuselage goes full length to the tail surfaces. It looks like they are held on by a tube frame assembly.