Société des Avions Marcel Bloch (MB) designations

[Grey Havoc]

MB.120 was a colonial police transport high-wing monoplane,enlarge version of MB.110,powered by three 300 hp

Looks like it was so successful that they expanded the roles a bit:

Bloch MB.120: Sept Jours de Joie.

This rugged all-metal trimotor won an early 1930s contract of the French government for a transport/police aircraft to be employed in their colonial territories. Six of the eleven produced were ope…

elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com

I suspect that the growing procurement chaos in France at the time precluded more examples being bought.

 

[PhR]

Thanks for the link with the drawing of the MB 95 Hesham

But I don't think that the TU speaks about the MB 81. Because MB 95 is a derivative of the MB 81, and (as said in the TU's article ) MB 41 is a "derivative" (foreshadow) of the MB 95.
The MB 41 is described as a "cabine fermée" (enclosed cockpit) in the TU's article. The MB 81 don't get an enclosed cockpit.

So

MB 80 --> MB 81 (one open seat and one enclosed bunk) --> MB 95 (two open seats) --> MB41 (x enclosed seats)

I tried to find the origin of this strange designation MB-95. I was not able to find it. I think it is simply a legend. This designation does not seem to have been used by Marcel Bloch.
You can refer to Aéro Journal n° 59 June/July 2017 p.55.

 

[hesham]

I tried to find the origin of this strange designation MB-95. I was not able to find it. I think it is simply a legend. This designation does not seem to have been used by Marcel Bloch.
You can refer to Aéro Journal n° 59 June/July 2017 p.55.

I think not,here is a proof from TU magazine 171.

 

[PhR]

I think not,here is a proof from TU magazine 171.

Just a clarification: it's me who wrote this in TU magazine some years ago. From that time, I tried to look for the origin of this MB-95 designation, and finally concluded that it was probably a mistake, but I don't know from whom it comes.

 

[hesham]

Just a clarification: it's me who wrote this in TU magazine some years ago. From that time, I tried to look for the origin of this MB-95 designation, and finally concluded that it was probably a mistake, but I don't know from whom it comes.

A surprise,are you Charles Claveau ?,I find also this ?!,

Bloch MB.81S et MB.95, Dujin DA7279 (198x)

 

[PhR]

A surprise,are you Charles Claveau ?,I find also this ?!,

Bloch MB.81S et MB.95, Dujin DA7279 (198x)

No, I am Philippe Ricco. The text you have presented from TU magazine was a complement to Charle's chronicle about French manufacturers. I provided the photo to illustrate the 2-seater derivative from MB-81. More recently, I have published a history of MB-81 in Aéro Journal, with other photos showing this version modified in Syria.
I also provided some documents when Jean-Pierre Dujin designed this model. The plans were drawn by A.J. Roy.

 

[Deltafan]

No, I am Philippe Ricco. The text you have presented from TU magazine was a complement to Charle's chronicle about French manufacturers. I provided the photo to illustrate the 2-seater derivative from MB-81. More recently, I have published a history of MB-81 in Aéro Journal, with other photos showing this version modified in Syria.
I also provided some documents when Jean-Pierre Dujin designed this model. The plans were drawn by A.J. Roy.

I think the whole forum will be interested to know that we have another famous French aviation author among us (if you want)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/introduce-yourself.12/page-28

 

[PhR]

Early designs

SEA-1
SEA-2 two-seat reconnaissance and fighter aircraft that did not fly
SEA-3 three-seat reconnaissance aircraft which did not fly
SEA-4
SEA-5

Hi all,
I have plenty of comments on this list. You will soon have more information about this manufacturer: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/les-avions-marcel-bloch.42831/

I just start by the first ones:
SEA I (with roman number) two-seat reconnaissance aircraft. One built.
SEA II two-seat reconnaissance and fighter aircraft that did not fly
SEA III three-seat reconnaissance aircraft which did not fly
SEA IV C2 two-seat fighter, derived from SEA II. More than 100 built.

And that's all!
Marcel Bloch left the SEA company in 1918 and did not participate to the next SEA developments. He sold its participation to his friends Henry Potez and Louis Coroller. They continued with SEA V and VI. In 1919, Potez created his own company and his first aircraft was the Potez VII, derived from SEA IV.

 

[PhR]

Société des Avions Marcel Bloch

MB 30 eight-seat twin-engined communications aircraft project (not built)
MB 301 became the MD.311
MB 303 became the MD.315
MB 304

I continue with some complements about the family of Flamant, premises of Dassault:
MB 30 covers 4 different projects
- MB 30-1 bombing and navigation school and training aircraft -> Became MB 301.
- MB 30-2 colonial police aircraft -> Became MB 302.
- MB 30-3 flight school and liaison aircraft -> Became MB 303.
- MB 30-4 mail transport aircraft. t -> Became MB 304.

MB 301 became MD 311.
MB 302 never built.
MB 303 became MD 303. 1 built.
MB 304 never built.
MB 305 civil transport. Never built.
MB 310 sanitary or 10-passenger transport. Never built
MB 311 colonial sanitary and transport with Mars engines. Never built.
MB 315 idem with Argus engines. Never built.
MB 316 8-passenger transport with Mars engines. Never built.
MB 317 idem with Argus engines. Never built.

 

[PhR]

MB 462

Never heard of it. Maybe a confusion with Breguet 462?

MB 690
MB 730
MB 900 became SO.90, under which designation it was built
MB 1030 also known as S.O.30, under which designation it was built

I apologize, but for me, these are all wrong. I never heard of MB 690 and 730. Maybe another confusion with Breguet.
SO 30 and SO 90 started directly under these designations. They were never Bloch 900 or 1030.

 

[Stargazer]

Never heard of it. Maybe a confusion with Breguet 462?

I apologize, but for me, these are all wrong. I never heard of MB 690 and 730. Maybe another confusion with Breguet.
SO 30 and SO 90 started directly under these designations. They were never Bloch 900 or 1030.

Interestingly, these are not listed in my personal Excel file. You are quoting from an old post of mine and more research has been done since then. It is unfortunate that the wrong list remains, so I'll remove it for the time being. Thanks!

 

[hesham]

MB.1030 was a low-wing twin engined light transport monoplane,later developed into SNCASO SO.30

You are right,sorry for this mistake,the MB.1030 was later became BA.30,which
led to Flamant.

TU 158.

 

[Stargazer]

You are right,sorry for this mistake,the MB.1030 was later became BA.30,which
led to Flamant.

TU 158.

There is a BIG difference between what you wrote "later became" and what the text actually says: "An aircraft designated MB-1030 is said to have been studied in 1939 at Bordeaux Aéronautique, but this author has no details about that study. The project may have been the same as the one designated BA-30, which was to later beget the twin-engine Flamant."

 

[hesham]

There is a BIG difference between what you wrote "later became" and what the text actually says: "An aircraft designated MB-1030 is said to have been studied in 1939 at Bordeaux Aéronautique, but this author has no details about that study. The project may have been the same as the one designated BA-30, which was to later beget the twin-engine Flamant."

Of course,but we can say it's very nearly the truth,because MB.1030 had been
developed during German occupation,and a big possibility they were the same,

Liaison - AIR LEGEND

airlegend.fr

​

 

[PhR]

Not really sure. I did not find documents mentioning a MB 1030 project, but as we know the existence of MB 1020 and 1040 in 1940, we can reasonably suppose that a MB 1030 have been probably studied at the same time.
I also found mention of possible relation between MB 1020 and BA 20, but based on the documents I have consulted, it seems that BA 1020 and MB 20 are independent.
We know that there is no relationship between MB 1010 and MB 10. There is no evidence of any link between MB 1020 and MB 20. So I see no reason to confirm that any link may exist between a hypothetical MB 1030 and the MB 30, which led to Flamant family. Charles Claveau expressed a personal hypothesis some years ago in TU magazine. His objective was to ask if any reader had complementary information to provide, but take care to don't transform it in truth.

 

[hesham]

To be sensible in this designation,

Bloch MB 800 ----- Aka SNACSO SO.80
Bloch MB 900 ----- Aka SNACSO SO.90

that means,there was Bloch 900.

 

[PhR]

To be sensible in this designation,

Bloch MB 800 ----- Aka SNACSO SO.80
Bloch MB 900 ----- Aka SNACSO SO.90

that means,there was Bloch 900.

Bloch MB 800 ----- Aka SNCASO SO.80 -> yes, MB 800-P to be more precise (cf Fana de l'Aviation n° 333 August 1997)
Bloch MB 900 ----- Aka SNCASO SO.90 -> no, never ! It's a pure invention. (cf. Tu n° 245 May-June 2009)

 

[PhR]

From Ailes 1936,

here is a Bloch MB.260.

This is a typo for the Bloch 160.

 

[hesham]

This is a typo for the Bloch 160.

Maybe that right,but generally the designation MB.260 was really existed as I know.

 

[PhR]

Maybe that right,but generally the designation MB.260 was really existed as I know.

Marcel Besson? Maurice Brochet? Maybe. But not Marcel Bloch.