Roland Payen projects and prototypes

[Apophenia]

Hello. How can I read this patent?

Search: Brevet n°729.568, 26 juillet 1932, Robert Sauvage, Roland Payen

 

[hesham]

Hello. How can I read this patent?

http://acversailles.free.fr/documentation/08~Documentation_Generale_M_Suire/Reportages/Personnes/PAYEN_Roland/Roland_Payen.pdf

 

[Tim52413]

Search: Brevet n°729.568, 26 juillet 1932, Robert Sauvage, Roland Payen

For some reason, I can't find exactly the patent. I found an article about Roland Payen's planes.

 

[Tim52413]

I found the patent itself (https://patents.google.com/patent/FR729568A/en?oq=fr729568a), but it is not possible to read it. Maybe there are other ways? I had the same problem with the Kolko's aircraft patent (https://patents.google.com/patent/FR825657A/fr?q=825657&language=FRENCH).

 

[PhR]

Here is this famous patent:

 

[Tim52413]

Here is this famous patent:

Thank you very much.

 

[Tim52413]

I have a question about the SP.230 project. I looked at its dimensions and noticed one strange thing: the width of the fuselage in the cockpit area is 50 centimeters at its widest point. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of weird. Could this project have been a scaled-down layout?

 

[Tim52413]

Here is this famous patent:

It was supposed to fill the voids of the fuselage with helium and hydrogen... A strange decision.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Roland Payen et l’aile delta – aeroVFR

www.aerovfr.com

 

[Tonton-42]

Hi,

Roland Payen et l’aile delta – aeroVFR

www.aerovfr.com

Pa.100 replica not flyable. Visible at Musée Delta (Athis-Mons) ...

Musée Delta (Athis-Mons) — Wikipédia

fr.wikipedia.org

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musée_Delta_(Athis-Mons)

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Monsieur PAYEN | musee-delta

museedelta.wixsite.com

 

[Tonton-42]

I do not know if this link has already been published but it allows to see what should be the Pa.100 at the beginning and what unfortunately was following the refusal of approval by A. Herbemont who prevented his participation in the "Deutsch" cup ...

http://jnpassieux.fr/www/html/Pa100.php

 

[Deltafan]

I have a question about the SP.230 project. I looked at its dimensions and noticed one strange thing: the width of the fuselage in the cockpit area is 50 centimeters at its widest point. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's kind of weird. Could this project have been a scaled-down layout?

Because of the engine which hides it, the profile drawing does not allow us to see what is the exact width of the fuselage in its highest part.
In the same way, the top photo does not allow us to know whether the width of the fuselage, hidden by the thickness of the wing, corresponds exactly to that of the cockpit. Perhaps it is more important.
In any case, it seems that the builders were instead considering a width of 80 cm (even if it is possible that, after the fact, an "8" was drawn over a "5" on the drawing).
Perhaps also, if there were errors in the known drawing, the wind tunnel model (Photo from Fast Facts issue 65, page 21, Ferdinand C W Kaesmann article) corrected them.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/roland-payen-projects-and-prototypes.1455/post-372466

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/5-png.623440/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/6-png.623441/

 

[Tim52413]

Because of the engine which hides it, the profile drawing does not allow us to see what is the exact width of the fuselage in its highest part.
In the same way, the top photo does not allow us to know whether the width of the fuselage, hidden by the thickness of the wing, corresponds exactly to that of the cockpit. Perhaps it is more important.
In any case, it seems that the builders were instead considering a width of 80 cm (even if it is possible that, after the fact, an "8" was drawn over a "5" on the drawing).
Perhaps also, if there were errors in the known drawing, the wind tunnel model (Photo from Fast Facts issue 65, page 21, Ferdinand C W Kaesmann article) corrected them.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/roland-payen-projects-and-prototypes.1455/post-372466

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/5-png.623440/

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/6-png.623441/

That is, it is impossible to use these drawings and drawings from the patent without alterations. Did I understand correctly? In order for the drawing to make sense, is it necessary to expand the fuselage to an acceptable width with unchanged wings? Or the dimensions themselves in the drawings are incorrect and it is worth starting from the size of the motor (the diameter of the motor is 940 mm).

 

[Deltafan]

That is, it is impossible to use these drawings and drawings from the patent without alterations. Did I understand correctly? In order for the drawing to make sense, is it necessary to expand the fuselage to an acceptable width with unchanged wings? Or the dimensions themselves in the drawings are incorrect and it is worth starting from the size of the motor (the diameter of the motor is 940 mm).

Well, You definitely have the art of asking questions to which I don't have the answer...

I would say yes to the first question, yes to the second and no to the third.

But only the authors of the drawings could answer you correctly.

Maybe, one solution would be not to have a straight fuselage between the engine and the cockpit, but a fuselage which would widen between the engine and the cockpit, before this width naturally then decreases in both cases. Without guarantee...

 

[Tim52413]

Well, You definitely have the art of asking questions to which I don't have the answer...

I would say yes to the first question, yes to the second and no to the third.

But only the authors of the drawings could answer you correctly.

Maybe, one solution would be not to have a straight fuselage between the engine and the cockpit, but a fuselage which would widen between the engine and the cockpit, before this width naturally then decreases in both cases. Without guarantee...

I apologize for such questions. I understood your answer.

 

[topspeed3]

What was the advantage of these weird Payen concepts ?

 

[martinbayer]

Looking cool?

 

[Justo Miranda]

What was the advantage of these weird Payen concepts ?

short wingspan for racing planes

 

[topspeed3]

Almost no visibility needed for take off and landing.

Is this a canard ?

 

[Deltafan]

What was the advantage of these weird Payen concepts ?

Aerodynamic drag...

But, as recognized by Roland Payen at the time, his concept required speed, and therefore power, which was not available at the time.
Furthermore, while ground tests and straight-line flights above the runway showed that there was no takeoff stability problem for the Pa.101 (if we believe its pilot of the time, probably due to the air flows generated by the radial engine which was much more powerful than the original in-line engine of the Pa.100 project), there were some for the Pa.22, which gave it two modifications of the fin. The flying models of today's aeromodellers have the same problem. Certainly aware of this stability problem well before, this must be why Payen was considering counter-rotating propellers as jet systems for his projects. But, in both cases, the engineers he used (Baudot for the contra-rotating propellers, Mélot for the jet system) did not provide him with a reliable or functional system.

Almost no visibility needed for take off and landing.

Is this a canard ?

What other than a canard ?

But indeed, visibility (too...) was a problem with this concept. The problem was further aggravated on the Pa.101, with a not planned oversized radial engine compared to a fuselage initially planned for an in-line engine with much smaller dimensions (Pa.100). This visibility problem was the reason for the Pa.101's accident upon landing during these straight line tests above the airfield runway.

That said, in the search for speed at this time, others limited the visibility of their competition aircraft in order to limit drag, such as, for example, Caudron with the C.561 of 1936 or the older Dewoitine HD- 412 and Bernard HV-220 of the Schneider Cup...

 

[PhR]

Almost no visibility needed for take off and landing.

Is this a canard ?

View attachment 739797

Hello,
for me, this is not a canard:
a canard is a plane with elevator control surfaces on the front. This is not the case of Payen concept. On the front, you have a small wing, with aileron control surfaces. The big triangle on the back side is a classic tail, with elevators. It is the same formula with big triangular tail than the one used by some pioneers and WW1 planes, such as Levavasseur Antoinette or Etrich Taube for example.

 

[Deltafan]

Hello,
for me, this is not a canard:
a canard is a plane with elevator control surfaces on the front. This is not the case of Payen concept. On the front, you have a small wing, with aileron control surfaces. The big triangle on the back side is a classic tail, with elevators. It is the same formula with big triangular tail than the one used by some pioneers and WW1 planes, such as Levavasseur Antoinette or Etrich Taube for example.

Well, here's an answer that's been making me think since I read it...

What is the source of this definition for a canard?

Personally, even if it is not of the same technical degree, which I do not deny (and for which I do not have sufficient technical knowledge to really judge) I remain more basically with this one (even if Wikipedia is not necessarily an absolutely reliable source):

In aeronautics, a canard is a wing configuration in which a small forewing or foreplane is placed forward of the main wing of a fixed-wing aircraft

Canard (aeronautics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can then discuss the notion of "small", when the span of the "front wing" is greater than that of the "rear wing", so perhaps we (at least I) could speak of "small" (or at least "smaller") area...




After a "quick" (a few hours... and as I read, very, very, quickly, I could have missed the term in certain passages of articles ) check in all my sources, indeed, almost all authors never use the term "canard" for the front wings of Payen planes (you, Nicole, Roux, Pelletier, Zichek and others, , especially pre-war French journalists).

But there are rare exceptions, and among them, not the least:
Roland Payen himself uses, at least once, the term "canard" in his writings (Description of the Pa.100, Pilote Privé n°85 February 1981, page 43). Same thing for Alain Yves Berger in the description of the Pa.225 (Pilote Privé n°88 May 1981, page 48). (See the two photos at the bottom of the page)

As do the comments from the Delta Museum (which was directed by Roland Payen).
https://museedelta.wixsite.com/musee-delta/roland-payen

Roland Payen, while working in the design office of a certain Romulus Bratu, filed on November 13, 1931, with his friend Robert Sauvage, (industrial paints craftsman who provided him with financial assistance) a first patent of invention called “AVION AUTOPLAN” relating to a strange device comprising a large ogival wing (which will, from 1948, be called DELTA due to its similarity in shape with the 4th letter of the Greek alphabet) and front planes then called Machutes , later “Canard”.

At the beginning of 1935, the pilot Jean Meunier, a former engineer with René Couzinet, resumed testing, at Etampes Mondésir, of Pa. 101. In March and April, several straight lines were flown, the plane took off in less than 100 meters with its Outurquin propeller, at around 160 km/h and at low incidence, the machute flaps being lowered by a few degrees.

It was on April 17, 1935 that the first real flight was made, without flight authorization being granted. This delta, which in fact is a "canard delta", was the first to fly in the world, despite the refinement of technical services, that this type of aircraft was contrary to the laws of aerodynamics "known to the era” and was of little interest.

Robert Gaillard cites the term only once (in Les cahiers du RSA, issue 226, March-April 1999, page 38, about the Pa.100):

It is a real delta-canard derived from the patent

Cahier du RSA N° 226

4 Éditorial par Jean Pottier6 Sécurité par Gérard Maurel7 Le RSA-Belge est en deuil8 Sun’n Fun par Xavier Méal15 Le JAR FCL par Catherine Dartois17 Une réplique du Piper Vagabond par André Bréand19 Coucou ! le Toucan nouveau est arrivé par José Pocino22 Le Cordouan, un Mignet pas comme les...

www.rsafrance.com

In all his numerous publications on Payen planes (in English or German), Käsmann only uses the term once (Flug Revue, July 1995, page 77) :

The Pa 22/2 shows the typical Payen design with delta wings and large canard surfaces. (photo bottom)

However, in two articles from Pilote Privé Alain Yves Berger indicates:

- "it is a revolutionary wing (that of the SP-230) for its time and which consists of a main wing with a triangular plan shape with rounded extreme angles and a canard plan. This one is of a surface and of a scale such that, comparing it to current achievements, we would rather call it "front wing" than canard plan" (Private Pilot n°47, January 1981, page 47. Photo bottom)

And (for the front wings of Payen aircraft in general)

-"the front wing (which was not really a canard in the idea of our young designer)" (Pilote Privé n°89, June 1981, page 52. Photo bottom)

For sources on Pilote Privé :

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/roland-payen-projects-and-prototypes.1455/post-359156

In the end, I'm somewhat confused...

 

[PhR]

I agree that there is no common definition of "Canard", so Payen's formula can be included or not, based on the sensitivity of each reader.
What I tried to underline is that the Delta part of Payen's "Flechair" planes is in fact an oversized triangular elevator, not really a wing as usually defined.

 

[Deltafan]

I agree that there is no common definition of "Canard", so Payen's formula can be included or not, based on the sensitivity of each reader.
What I tried to underline is that the Delta part of Payen's "Flechair" planes is in fact an oversized triangular elevator, not really a wing as usually defined.

OK, thanks a lot for your answer

 

[Nik]

Perhaps a periscope arrangement was considered, per the famous trans-Atlantic crossing ??

Whatever, visibility etc resembles the infamous GeeBee racers too much for my peace of mind...

 

[Deltafan]

Perhaps a periscope arrangement was considered, per the famous trans-Atlantic crossing ??

Whatever, visibility etc resembles the infamous GeeBee racers too much for my peace of mind...

This one ?

Not convinced it would have been so catastrophic.

Unlike the GeeBee or the Payen Pa.101 and others (Payen or not), the cockpit is not very far from the leading edge of the front wing.

 

[hesham]

Also from my dear Tophe,

Payen Pa.150 Otarie.

 

[martinbayer]

I agree that there is no common definition of "Canard", so Payen's formula can be included or not, based on the sensitivity of each reader.
What I tried to underline is that the Delta part of Payen's "Flechair" planes is in fact an oversized triangular elevator, not really a wing as usually defined.

Please spell out explicitly and in detail exactly which definition of the term "wing" you are referring to here.