A very puzzling pair of would-be pre-war French bombers

[galgot]

Yes indeed maybe it's just the "guns" are pointing 45 to 60 degrees to the right, not 90°.
Funny thing is that they seems to be pointing up a little bit.

As much as the tailplane/fins/rudders and wing root arrangements matches the AB.80, the fuselage is clearly not the same.
Even the rear part. Same builder, but all new fuselage maybe.

 

[Stargazer]

Trying to advance further still on the subject, and the usefulness of the offset cannon suddenly hit me, thanks in part to a photo montage I did of the A.B.80's wing onto the derelict airframe, and also galgot's great diagram.

Supposing we fit the wings of the Bordelaise A.B.80, it becomes clear that the only way the cannon will not endanger the propellers is by offsetting it, so that the propeller turns at a distance behind it. The turret in galgot's diagram was swivelled right 90° from the aircraft's main axis. If you swivel it to the left, however, it can't go any further than 70°. This seems to be a perfectly feasible configuration this way. I have attempted to modify galgot's diagram, however crudely. I hope my point is understandable enough this way.

(NOTE: I've introduced some slight dihedral in the photo montage)

 

[sienar]

One thing I havent seen commented on yet is the wing of the second example on the left. The skinning is either absent or its glazed, which is really strange.

I dont think the cockpit is overhanging on the sides. It looks like a bit of an illusion caused by the chipped paint and it doesnt look that way on the second example.

 

[Archibald]

Browsing Google books I've found that the lone AB-80 had been scrapped in 1935, its performance were bad. GTX however of a Potez related aircraft is interesting: Henry Potez and Marcel Bloch were best friends in the world at the time. The third man in the team being François Chirac, the very father of Jacques Chirac, a future president of the French republic (born in 1932). This trio had all kind of dirty deals in the troubled era of the Front populaire and nationalisation of the aircraft industry.

 

[Hood]

Skyblazer, I mentioned the AB-22 in my post on p.1, for the concept appears to be very similar. Many thanks though for providing the details on how the 75mm gun was fitted, I had not come across that.

Initially I was skeptical about it being the AB-80, but looking at the wind tunnel model its clear there are similarities (the tail planes match almost exactly, the bracing to the fuselage might also be identical, though it looks thinner it might be due to the angle of the photo).

However, the clincher for me is the description of the wing structure from the CANE site (translated): "The wing... consists of four longitudinal members with standard U-shaped soles and a lattice core formed by stretched U-shaped bending secured by the presence of triangulated pairs, themselves same constituted by stretched U or omega marrying the shape of the profile." [my italics for emphasis]
This matches 100% the description of the wing root that we can see in the photo.
The majority of the forward fuselage is different, though the AB-80 did have external ribbing too.

The big snag is that only one AB-80 was built, so these can't be AB-80s.
The Société Aérienne Bordelaise was nationalized in 1935 and in 1936 became part of SNCASO. However, the SAB LH-70 was a joint project with Lorraine-Hanriot, is it possible that this company developed its own spin-off of the older AB-80?
The other mystery is why two were converted, surely one testbed would have been enough?

I wonder which model of 25mm cannon was planned for the 'fighter' version of the AB-80 and whether what we are looking at is a triple 25mm mount?

 

[Stargazer]

Skyblazer, I mentioned the AB-22 in my post on p.1, for the concept appears to be very similar. Many thanks though for providing the details on how the 75mm gun was fitted, I had not come across that.

Yes, and I must admit I had to search for more info after you mentioned it because I couldn't remember that version. I've actually found a photo of the AB-22 showing the large porthole and the cannon coming through it. I'm attaching it below (there was also an article with several pics in the June 1982 issue of Wings, apparently, but I don't think I have this one). Have you noticed there is a similar hole in the front fuselage of our mystery plane? Though it could just indicate a door that's missing, I think it's interesting to note.

"The wing... consists of four longitudinal members with standard U-shaped soles and a lattice core formed by stretched U-shaped bending secured by the presence of triangulated pairs, themselves same constituted by stretched U or omega marrying the shape of the profile." This matches 100% the description of the wing root that we can see in the photo.

Indeed! Brilliant find.

The big snag is that only one AB-80 was built, so these can't be AB-80s.
The Société Aérienne Bordelaise was nationalized in 1935 and in 1936 became part of SNCASO. However, the SAB LH-70 was a joint project with Lorraine-Hanriot, is it possible that this company developed its own spin-off of the older AB-80?
The other mystery is why two were converted, surely one testbed would have been enough?

These can't be AB-80 types, indeed, but it doesn't mean they were not started under the "Bordelaise" company or derived from one of their types.

Browsing Google books I've found that the lone AB-80 had been scrapped in 1935, its performance were bad. GTX however of a Potez related aircraft is interesting: Henry Potez and Marcel Bloch were best friends in the world at the time. The third man in the team being François Chirac, the very father of Jacques Chirac, a future president of the French republic (born in 1932). This trio had all kind of dirty deals in the troubled era of the Front populaire and nationalisation of the aircraft industry.

I've done a lot of researching these past two days, first to try and determine which companies might have had a hand in these aircraft, and secondly to understand a little better the complicated history of all those nationalized companies (the fact that several online sources are sketchy at best, when not contradictory, doesn't help.) The aeronautical activity of Dyle & Bacalan became the SAB circa 1929 (while keeping its previous name for railroad production). In 1935, Marcel Bloch and Henri Potez buy out the company, which is renamed SASO (Société Aéronautique du Sud-Ouest), under which the Bloch MB 200 and 210 are produced.

Now that is a particularly interesting element because not only the mystery aircraft have design elements from Potez, but the bracing of the fuselage panels is completely similar to that which can be found on the early Blochs (MB 130, MB 200). Remember what I wrote early in this thread, about the fact that it wasn't beyond Bloch to conveniently "omit" parts of his legend that he doesn't wish to be reminded of? The "dirty deals" you are talking about (like for instance, maybe providing armed aircraft to the Spanish government) would be completely in line with this. And since we are talking about a 1935 takeover (and before SASO then becomes part of SNCASO in 1937), this is right at the same time as MB 200 production AND the Spanish Civil War.

 

[galgot]

Bloch did sold armed planes to the Spanish Republicans ? Didn't know that, interesting thnks.
So that is why maybe he had good connections with the communists, and was protected by the French communists prisoners while in the camps.
Back to Chirac connection, a big part of Dassault fortune was done also during the long time of J.Chirac as mayor of Paris. Dassault made big money in housing ...

Anyways sorry for OT

 

[Archibald]

I've done a lot of researching these past two days, first to try and determine which companies might have had a hand in these aircraft, and secondly to understand a little better the complicated history of all those nationalized companies (the fact that several online sources are sketchy at best, when not contradictory, doesn't help.)

I did the same recently for France Fights On... and yes, it is an absolute nightmare. The Front Populaire was nice and respectable, but as far as aviation goes, they had Frantz Kafka at the controls. They made a huge mess of the aircraft industry. SNCA- and geography.

 

[Stargazer]

Bloch did sold armed planes to the Spanish Republicans ? Didn't know that, interesting thnks.

NO, NO!! I didn't say that! I said that he may have done so, and that if he did, chances are he would have made every effort to erase all tracks of his efforts (and hidden or destroyed the airframes). It's only SPECULATION!

 

[galgot]

Bloch did sold armed planes to the Spanish Republicans ? Didn't know that, interesting thnks.

NO, NO!! I didn't say that! I said that he may have done so, and that if he did, chances are he would have made every effort to erase all tracks of his efforts (and hidden or destroyed the airframes). It's only SPECULATION!

Ok then sorry.

 

[Stargazer]

Although the A.B. 80 has always been considered as the basis for the unidentified aircraft, I have found the L.H. 70 makes a much more likely candidate.
The dimensions, shape of the fuselage, position of the wing and thickness of wing root all point to the L.H.70.
I'm attaching a photo of the L.H. 70, flipped horizontally to be in approximately the same angle as the mystery aircraft.
By cutting out the wings and fitting them onto the photo, we get a much more convincing match that the A.B. 80 was.
On top of that, there actually were TWO of it built.

My theory also fits nicely with The Wikipedia entry about the L.H. 70 :

The exact date of the LH.70's first flight is not known but it was between May 1932, when two examples were reported as under construction at Bordeaux-Merignac and January 1933, when one LH.70 was at Villacoublay where Descamps demonstrated it to S.T.I.Aé officials. At the same time the other LH.70 was at Bordeaux undergoing modifications. At Villacoublay modifications to the LH.70 required a redetermination of the centre of gravity. It was back in Bordeaux early in 1934, but soon returned to Villacoublay where, after three months, Deschamps once again demonstrated it to the S.T.I.Aé. It did not succeed in the competition for a production contract, which was won by the Bloch MB.120, and no more were built. Their history after this is not known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorraine-Hanriot_LH.70

 

[TomcatViP]

iMOHO putting Bloch in a position that would be ahead of the leftist (not comunist) Front polulaire elected governement in the 1930's is a stunning mistake. Most governing forces in France were shy supporting Spanish democrats to the point that most French built aircraft that saw some service in Spain were pushed across the border in secret. There was no rationalization or mass effect to the point that the new re-born Luftwaffe was able to gain superiority quickly with above average airframe only. Those years were terribles and saw a very divided society (France). Opposition was not shy of publicly threatening the Blum gov of a coup if his gov would have supported the Spanish elected gov. This mark historically the end of his governement and the slow decay for France down to the dark hours of collaboration.

To my knowledge (very unreliable), Bloch (Dassault) did not support politically the Spanish uprising. Rationally, Even if the money was somewhat there, most importantly there was no support among French political elite past a slight margin of them to do so.

Please if you are from the South west of France, remember that many Spaniards died in horrendous conditions locked in concentration camp set on the Atlantic beach front (a very unhostpitaliary place to stay with women and children, exposed to strong winds, chilly weather and harsh conditions.


But Make no mistakes, this was not true for all airplane manufacturer. Some were supportives and did manage to outflank the rules imposed by the French parliament.

Last but not least, the picture of the fuselage remind me of a transport plane (Fr navy - 22 pax (?)) that went into service in very scarce number (single vertical tail)

The modifications, twin small rudder, gull wings, could be the result of an attemps to open the field of fire (twin rudder were very popular in France until Douglas proved with the DB-7 that single tail were in fact better).

 

[GTX]

it becomes clear that the only way the cannon will not endanger the propellers is by offsetting it, so that the propeller turns at a distance behind it. The turret in galgot's diagram was swivelled right 90° from the aircraft's main axis. If you swivel it to the left, however, it can't go any further than 70°. This seems to be a perfectly feasible configuration this way. I have attempted to modify galgot's diagram, however crudely. I hope my point is understandable enough this way.

I think the propeller interference issue is less of a concern if the proposed engine installation was similar to the Potez 65/62 series with the engines lower down on their own stub mounts (see below). in this situation the turret guns could fire over the arc of the propellers.

 

[TomcatViP]

You read my mind: that's the very one I was thinking of!

 

[Stargazer]

I think the propeller interference issue is less of a concern if the proposed engine installation was similar to the Potez 65/62 series with the engines lower down on their own stub mounts (see below). in this situation the turret guns could fire over the arc of the propellers.

Indeed! Very good remark! Though if the aircraft were reconditioned from the L.H.70, considering they kept the original wing (as the wing root implies), it is more likely that they kept the two original engines too. Still, it's a possibility that can't be excluded.

iMOHO putting Bloch in a position that would be ahead of the leftist (not comunist) Front polulaire elected governement in the 1930's is a stunning mistake. (...) To my knowledge (very unreliable), Bloch (Dassault) did not support politically the Spanish uprising. Rationally, Even if the money was somewhat there, most importantly there was no support among French political elite past a slight margin of them to do so.
Please if you are from the South west of France, remember that many Spaniards died in horrendous conditions locked in concentration camp set on the Atlantic beach front (a very unhostpitaliary place to stay with women and children, exposed to strong winds, chilly weather and harsh conditions.
But Make no mistakes, this was not true for all airplane manufacturer. Some were supportives and did manage to outflank the rules imposed by the French parliament.

I don't think I ever said such a thing as what you are suggesting... I said "maybe providing armed aircraft to the Spanish government". The term "maybe" suggests that this was only A HYPOTHESIS. In that hypothetical scenario, I was suggesting that IF Bloch and Potez had built an anti-guerilla type of aircraft for the Spanish government to crush the Nationalist uprising, they might have made every possible effort to keep that dubious contract hush-hush later on, in the light of the Republican takeover (they were primarily businessmen, and anything that could endanger later contracts was not a good idea). ANOTHER HYPOTHESIS is that if he modified these aircraft for the Nationalists, they ALSO would have made every possible effort to erase all trace of their existence when his company was nationalized under a Socialist government in France! Whichever camp they MIGHT have built these aircraft for (IF they did), they probably didn't have time to deliver them, and it was not in their best interest to keep that unsuccessful chapter in their company history. I hope this clarifies my ideas a little bit.

 

[Archibald]

iMOHO putting Bloch in a position that would be ahead of the leftist (not comunist) Front polulaire elected governement in the 1930's is a stunning mistake. Most governing forces in France were shy supporting Spanish democrats to the point that most French built aircraft that saw some service in Spain were pushed across the border in secret. There was no rationalization or mass effect to the point that the new re-born Luftwaffe was able to gain superiority quickly with above average airframe only. Those years were terribles and saw a very divided society (France). Opposition was not shy of publicly threatening the Blum gov of a coup if his gov would have supported the Spanish elected gov. This mark historically the end of his governement and the slow decay for France down to the dark hours of collaboration.

To my knowledge (very unreliable), Bloch (Dassault) did not support politically the Spanish uprising. Rationally, Even if the money was somewhat there, most importantly there was no support among French political elite past a slight margin of them to do so.

Please if you are from the South west of France, remember that many Spaniards died in horrendous conditions locked in concentration camp set on the Atlantic beach front (a very unhostpitaliary place to stay with women and children, exposed to strong winds, chilly weather and harsh conditions.

I disagree.

Hmmmm...

I do know that Marcel Dassault has some bad press as some kind of excentric, right-wing, nationalist, gaullist industrialist selling Mirages to the entire world, with a touch of corruption here and there.
his biographies, however, show quite a different, complex human being behind he facade.
Marcel Bloch, for a start, was quite unrecognizable when compared to post-war Marcel Dassault. Then again, he got a taste of Buchenwald death camp where he nearly died and was saved by communists.

what surprised me (doing research for FFO) was that at the time, Marcel Bloch and Henry Potez, while big "marchands de canons" (war industrialists) were actually Radical-Socialistes (Rad-soc), which mean they were close from Pierre Cot and Le Front Populaire. They supported the moderate left ! So it wasn't a surprise they send some aircrafts to the Spanish Republic.

Folks: it is perfectly known that France sold 144 aircrafts of all kinds to the Spanish republic. The trick was that they shall carry no defensive or offensive weapons. Which at the time was no big issue: removing a couple defensive machine guns here and there, as forthe bomb racks, they were primitive, as were the visors. The spanish just re-armed the aircrafts with their own machine guns and build some bomb racks, and voilà.

 

[Hood]

Skyblazer,
I must admit I had the same thoughts regarding the possibility of them being the two L.H. 70s. I had discounted it because of the engine location, but we can't be sure that the engines were not moved into the lower position a la Potez/Farman fashion. In fact if the engines were moved it may well explain why a twin-tail was fitted (propwash/directional control issues plus the C.G. issues of the original design).
Also given the original colonial policing role intended for the L.H.70 it is possible that after their unsuccessful trials that they were used in some kind of fixed/limited traverse sideways armament trial. Perhaps work was never finished or only one finished before the idea was abandoned and they sat out the rest of their lives in the dump awaiting disposal.

The last curious question is why the Germans would have moved these two large hulks (and presumably other airframes?) to Chiévres in Belgium.

Lark's history of Chiévres is not accurate. The Belgians had begun construction in 1938/39 and indeed it saw some use as an active airfield by the Luftwaffe in 1940 and until 1943 KG3 used the airfield until at least early 1943. The airbase was rebuilt and extended by the Luftwaffe both in 1940 and 1941. Also of interest, it was used by the Corpo Aereo Italiano's Fiat BR.20M Cigogna and Cant Z.1007bis bombers in 1940 as well. [Note that a Key Forum post refers to C.A.I., these are the initials of the Italian force.). I can find no mention of a specific Luftwaffe aircraft dump at Chiévres however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%C3%A8vres_Air_Base
http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/airfields/chievres.htm

 

[TomcatViP]

Folks: it is perfectly known that France sold 144 aircrafts of all kinds to the Spanish republic. The trick was that they shall carry no defensive or offensive weapons. Which at the time was no big issue: removing a couple defensive machine guns here and there, as forthe bomb racks, they were primitive, as were the visors. The spanish just re-armed the aircrafts with their own machine guns and build some bomb racks, and voilà.

Not to make a debate on that subject here but:
- Sending de-militarized fighters to Spain was not something that was easily dealt in a single jolt. The variety of equipment made the necessary work even more difficult (See the large list of imported French aircraft on Wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Spanish_Republican_Air_Force )
- At the onstage of WWII, when France was in the fight against Nazi Germany, the AdlA faced the same problem with a variety of equipment absent from their fighter. Bloch did face for example an acute lack of gun and radio that urgently needed to be fitted in their 152s. The problem was so acute that deliveries were late, in-service airplane were not fully servicable etc... So, imagining that you could have send a demilitarized aircraft across the border and re-equip them in a blink of an eye out of any "big issue" is inherently wrong.
- The supposed political acquaintance of Marcel Bloch/Dassault is of no effects here when laws were voted (and enforced). With 144 French airframe from several manufacturer in Spain, it will be hard to speak about any "Big business". Those times were different when dealing with the number of airframe sold.



Back to topic, the colonial aircraft is a good lead.

 

[richard B]

I hope this link is new here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_A%C3%A9rienne_Bordelaise

The puzzling object could be the "turret bomber"

A pity , no source is given for this type ...

 

[Archibald]

Skyblazer,
I must admit I had the same thoughts regarding the possibility of them being the two L.H. 70s. I had discounted it because of the engine location, but we can't be sure that the engines were not moved into the lower position a la Potez/Farman fashion. In fact if the engines were moved it may well explain why a twin-tail was fitted (propwash/directional control issues plus the C.G. issues of the original design).
Also given the original colonial policing role intended for the L.H.70 it is possible that after their unsuccessful trials that they were used in some kind of fixed/limited traverse sideways armament trial. Perhaps work was never finished or only one finished before the idea was abandoned and they sat out the rest of their lives in the dump awaiting disposal.

The last curious question is why the Germans would have moved these two large hulks (and presumably other airframes?) to Chiévres in Belgium.

Lark's history of Chiévres is not accurate. The Belgians had begun construction in 1938/39 and indeed it saw some use as an active airfield by the Luftwaffe in 1940 and until 1943 KG3 used the airfield until at least early 1943. The airbase was rebuilt and extended by the Luftwaffe both in 1940 and 1941. Also of interest, it was used by the Corpo Aereo Italiano's Fiat BR.20M Cigogna and Cant Z.1007bis bombers in 1940 as well. [Note that a Key Forum post refers to C.A.I., these are the initials of the Italian force.). I can find no mention of a specific Luftwaffe aircraft dump at Chiévres however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%C3%A8vres_Air_Base
http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/MilltaryPics/airfields/chievres.htm

The problem with the LH-70: it lacks the twin fins !

 

[GTX]

The puzzling object could be the "turret bomber"

Yeah, but what if this wiki entry was made after the photo surfaced and the discussion began?

 

[Stargazer]

The puzzling object could be the "turret bomber"
A pity , no source is given for this type ...

I noticed that one as well but thought little of it, , because whoever "updated" Wikipedia obviously did it using the original online discussions as a basis.
I think it's not a very serious way of doing things, considering the Dyle et Bacalan/SAB connection and proper history of the aircraft have not been confirmed this far.

The last curious question is why the Germans would have moved these two large hulks (and presumably other airframes?) to Chiévres in Belgium.

I have a feeling that the muck and wear on parts of this aircraft could indicate that they had spent some time under water. Which made me think that perhaps they had been dumped into a river at some point, possibly for fear that the Germans might get their hands on them — or, even prior to that, that the Front Populaire government, after taking over, might have found about a contract that might have been judged unsavory?

Although I DO agree with what Archibald said about Potez and Bloch's leaning towards the moderate left at that time, though I also keep in mind that arms dealers think of their profit first and foremost, and it's not beyond them to provide adverse camps with material if there's money to make in it.

So, imagining that you could have send a demilitarized aircraft across the border and re-equip them in a blink of an eye out of any "big issue" is inherently wrong.

The official version was that the aircraft were sent without ordnance and combat equipment. But if you read the period papers, you can read another story altogether... I'm translating from the right-wing L'Express du Midi, in their August 9, 1936 issue:

The Midi Socialiste invites us not to insist so much on the aerial side of things. Here then! Could it be, by chance, that the truth might hurt them? It wouldn't come as such a surprise. (...) we shall therefore continue to look into the "suspect" movements of airplanes over Toulouse skies. We know, for instance, that in the evening of the day before yesterday, three heavy bombers and seven fighters were transfered from Francazal to the Air France airfield in Montaudran. Both armament and ammunitions for these aircraft were wrapped up inside each of them.
And yesterday morning, Spanish aviators arrived in Toulouse to take delivery of these aircraft, which will probably have left Montaudran for many hours when these lines get published. (...)
Today, six Potez 570* aircraft took off from the Air France airfield, the last two between 6 and 7 A.M. They are powered by two Hispano engines, and equipped with two machine guns at the front, two at the rear, and perhaps two underneath.
Also from Francazal, two nights ago, four Dewoitine 372 types, and four more of the same this morning.
All of this the "Midi" could not deny, since it is strictly accurate.

But the non-political Le Figaro also stated in its August 10 edition something similar:

Following by 24 hours the departure of eight Dewoitine monoplane fighters, six heavy multiplace twin-engine Potez 570* combat types have left the airfield at Francazal for some unknown destination. "Each aircraft carried four machine guns paired in front and rear turrets." The last aircraft took off at sunset.
The presence in Toulouse of several Spanish aviators coinciding with these departures evidently led, within aviation circles, to the suppositions one is entitled to imagine.
No official details have been provided so far as to the purpose of such a squadron-like take-off.

*Both articles make the same mistake on the designation (calling the Potez aircraft "570", when we know them to have been 540 and 542 types) and both describe aircraft that had their machine guns on board already (L'Express even adds the ammunitions as part of the package, which seems logical).

Now we know of course that officially, the French government could NOT say that they furnished armed aircraft... but it wouldn't be the first time that eye witnesses would tell a story that is quite different from the official one. So yes, I do believe like you that "imagining that you could have send a demilitarized aircraft across the border and re-equip them in a blink of an eye out of any "big issue" is inherently wrong." I do believe that the aircraft came with everything in them neatly packed.

 

[Stargazer]

The problem with the LH-70: it lacks the twin fins !

Not a problem. Not only we know that the L.H.70's development was complicated, and that it had to be returned to the factory to re-evaluate its center of gravity, but we also have a trimotor being turned into a twin with a huge turret, two factors which profoundly modify both the location of the CG and the airflow. The twin tails are therefore a logical consequence of thus modifying the aircraft. Not such a big deal in my opinion, and certainly not the most difficult part.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Skyblazer:
Great effort to put things into perspectives. Thanks. I don't want to derail the debate so I won't pursue this interesting discussion but, if you are a reader of Le fana, they made a good serie about the French built airplane being smuggled across the border during the Spanish civil war. Very informative.

 

[galgot]

Regarding the poor state on the paint, could be that these planes where tested like in 1937/38, then abandonned (not surprising), and stayed outside a few years, until the advansing germans found it in 1940,
that's enough time for the paint to wear like that.
Also, i think i've read somewere that the germans did recover any prototypes they found of interest at the fall of France, and brought them to Germany for studying at Rechlin or by manufacturers. If these hulk where seen as enough unusual and worth studying, maybe they where on their way to Germany and Chievre was a transit or a collecting point for such things... Dunno, just guessing.

 

[Sherman Tank]

The two planes definitely look like they've been sitting there for a while.

Since we're pretty sure the photo is from a Belgian airfield, could they not be a Belgian design? They're vaguely reminiscent in some ways of the LACAB Doryphore.

 

[galgot]

Ok… Sorry gonna be OT again, but…
these French 30-40’s bombers are already so ugly they look ridiculous, now add a battlecruiser turret…
and now learning there was one kind of named "Doryphore" and Belgian…
Can’t help, reminds me of this :
http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Major%20Howdy%20Bixby.htm
One of my internet fav page.

 

[iverson]

it becomes clear that the only way the cannon will not endanger the propellers is by offsetting it, so that the propeller turns at a distance behind it. The turret in galgot's diagram was swivelled right 90° from the aircraft's main axis. If you swivel it to the left, however, it can't go any further than 70°. This seems to be a perfectly feasible configuration this way. I have attempted to modify galgot's diagram, however crudely. I hope my point is understandable enough this way.

I think the propeller interference issue is less of a concern if the proposed engine installation was similar to the Potez 65/62 series with the engines lower down on their own stub mounts (see below). in this situation the turret guns could fire over the arc of the propellers.

To me, the modification looks like it was intended as an aerodynamic test bed, rather than as a functioning turret. If so, the "barrels" might be dummies intended for measuring drag, interference with airflow over the wing, etc. The previously mentioned Loire 30 seems to have served in a similar role, becoming the Loire 301 with a very similar turret. See:

https://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.php?ID=3751&ID_CONSTRUCTEUR=836&ANNEE=0&ID_MISSION=0&MOTCLEF=

https://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.php?ID=9574&ID_CONSTRUCTEUR=836&ANNEE=0&ID_MISSION=0&MOTCLEF=

Also note that the neighboring fuselage has been widened to the same curved form, even though it lacks the turret shape.

I first saw the photograph in the post "EnigMarc N°55 : Société Aérienne Bordelaise AB-80" (http://forum.avionslegendaires.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6271&start=0&sid=a144bf9861dcd18e9831a9b5f8f6a8af), which seems to be a dead link. But the writers there concluded that this was a proposed turret fighter version of the AB.80 BCR, armed with 25-mm cannon.

 

[GTX]

To me, the modification looks like it was intended as an aerodynamic test bed, rather than as a functioning turret. If so, the "barrels" might be dummies intended for measuring drag, interference with airflow over the wing, etc. The previously mentioned Loire 30 seems to have served in a similar role, becoming the Loire 301 with a very similar turret. See:

https://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.php?ID=3751&ID_CONSTRUCTEUR=836&ANNEE=0&ID_MISSION=0&MOTCLEF=

https://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.php?ID=9574&ID_CONSTRUCTEUR=836&ANNEE=0&ID_MISSION=0&MOTCLEF=

I agree

 

[Archibald]

Premier vol le 25 septembre 1934

Coincidentally the same month as the SAB aircraft. So maybe the turret is a strong possibility. Makes some sense.

 

[riggerrob]

Hello!

Another French "monster" - Loire 30, with truly giant nose turret.

Source: Aviation Magazine.

Very similar turret, it it was a turret in this case...

———————————————————————
Hah!
Hah!
Looks like a Douglas Dolphin flying-boat got its head stuck in a cookie jar.

 

[Jemiba]

As this topic came up again, I had another look at the beginning of this thread and a crazy idea came into my head,
maybe by the help of a good cup of glogg:

- That turret probably wasn't capable of firing to the sides, not to mention backwards.
- The photo quite probably was taken during the early stages of WW II, after the French surrender.
- Stargazer mentioned armoured parts on those two aircraft and hinged doors, suggesting rapid loading/unloading of troops.
- Those aircraft have many similarities to well known French types, without really matching one.
- Many of the French bomber types were already obsolete at the beginning of WW II, so no really wothwhile
assets anymore, but probably available for any task, that could have improved the situation.
- The tactical worth of attack gliders was already proven by the Germans with the capture of Eben Emael.
- To my knowledge, the French airforce didn't have any attack gliders/transports then.

Could it not be, that two (or more) obsolescent aircraft of a principally obsolescent type were converted to a kind of attack
transport, maybe glider ?
Armour for protecting the troops inside, a turret firing forward for countering the defenders during the landing ?
Hinged doors to allow for a quick exit of those troops ?

Stargazer already started along these lines, regarding it as an attack transport. On second thought, he may have been closer to
the solution, than we thought at first. Delete the engines and that turret has quite a good arc of fire, especially after touch down.
No possiblity for shooting up ? What for, on the ground ?
I have no idea, what the target of such an attack could have been on the German side, the Fuehrer Headquarters
may be too far fetched ... but bridges or other strategical important points may fit.
We know of modifications to Gotha Go 242 gliders for an attack on Scapa Flow, or Bücker Bü 181 with four Panzerfaust
anti-tank weapons. But desperate ideas of already nearly beaten countries may not have been a privilege to Germany.

 

[galgot]

Maybe...
What I find strange about that turret is that the guns looks small calibre, yet that turret is really big for these small guns. i would expect such a big turret for a 20mm at least,
but these guns look small.
Also doesn't seems to have a large vertical slit that would make the guns have a lot of elevation movement . I mean on the pict, seems the guns can't aim much further up than that. That would fit with using these guns just once landed , firing for defending unloading troops , like your assault glider idea, not need to fire much up.

 

[starviking]

Maybe...
What I find strange about that turret is that the guns looks small calibre, yet that turret is really big for these small guns. i would expect such a big turret for a 20mm at least,
but these guns look small.
Also doesn't seems to have a large vertical slit that would make the guns have a lot of elevation movement . I mean on the pict, seems the guns can't aim much further up than that. That would fit with using these guns just once landed , firing for defending unloading troops , like your assault glider idea, not need to fire much up.

However, the guns would need to be be capable of being aimed - and there is no apparent way of sighting these guns to do that.

 

[galgot]

! Indeed, unless there is a hole in the turret on the other side from which to aim...
These things would be blind firing.
So are these really gun turrets ?...

 

[Hood]

If it was a glider (which I'm not convinced of) it doesn't strike me as being particularly lightweight or aerodynamic enough. The centre section shows the wing is quite tall, the upper surface of the wing sits proud of the fuselage decking and to make it worse has that lump of a turret/barbette thingy in front of it. This is going to have the gliding characteristics of a brick. Also, we're talking about 1938-40 as a ballpark for when this was made/converted, no glider was that big then, just look at the effort it took to develop the Hamilcar. Even the Soviets with their love of assault assaults didn't think about stripping off engines from old bombers. So I'm not buying into the glider argument.

Also, I really can't see where the hinged doors for assault troops are, to my eyes all I can see is a standard airliner type access door with a porthole. The large squares further forward are probably just fuselage panels.

 

[Jemiba]

What I had in mind, actually is a modification from another type. If it was a glider, I don't know, for an
assault transport a powered aircraft probably would have been as useful. The only example of a transport
glider derived from powered aircraft, that comes to my mind, is the Douglas XCG-17.
Saw too late, that Stargazer already had this idea, too, but to my opinion, a makeshift assault transport/glider,
converted from a bomber, as the basic structure may have been more robust, seems to be a plausible explanation.
You may be right about the standard doors, if they were regarded as suitable for a one-way mission, they probably
wouldn't have been changed. A low glide ratio would not necessarily disqualify it, I think, the Slingsby Hengist for example,
was critised for still being too much of a sailplane, IIRC. The characteristics of the gun turret seem to point to a use
similar to the machine gun , which could be fitted to the DFS 230, for fire support on the ground and not as a defensive
weapon in flight.
A question, that could be interesting is, if the French army or airforce would have contemplated a mission at all, that could
have needed an aircraft of the described type, as it probably wouldn't have been just the initiative of one or a handful of
officers.
All this only is an idea, but the identification still is missing, so thinking out of the box may be helpful, I think.

 

[Sherman Tank]

Also, I really can't see where the hinged doors for assault troops are, to my eyes all I can see is a standard airliner type access door with a porthole. The large squares further forward are probably just fuselage panels.

Yeah, I really, really don't see these alleged hinged doors either. It looks like ordinary paneling to me.

 

[klpchn]

I have also noticed that the one in the back is missing a turret

 

[NostraThomas]

According to http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww1/ab80.html this aircraft was a "Корпус AB.80 превращенный в ДОТ", which when translated to English is "AB.80 case turned into a bunker".