Société Provençale de Constructions Aéronautiques

[hesham]

Whoa! Are you asserting (despite your "?." ending) that "the only logical estimation" must be to subsume an ambulance project with largely unknown attributes into a hydravion de course design 'series' with an entirely hypothetical designation?

That's the only possible hypothetical estimation,because if we look to SPCA,it had three different series (not two),and
everyone is tided enough,without any gaps,and the aircraft was from 1929,and as I said; there's no matching to any
earlier concepts,except this ?!.

 

[PhR]

That's the only possible hypothetical estimation

This is an oxymoron!

I propose an alternative hypothesis: it was probably the SPCA 471 (Type CDLXXI). This is at least as logical as yours.

 

[PhR]

In fact, I found a simpler explanation: it was just a version of SPCA 41T conversion for Sanitary usage, as seen attached.

 

[hesham]

This is an oxymoron!

I propose an alternative hypothesis: it was probably the SPCA 471 (Type CDLXXI). This is at least as logical as yours.

We are not here for argument only,but to find a solution,the concept was from 1929,and we recognized three
series used by the company,so we can analysis;
1- For Roman numbers,we know them all from Type I to IX
2- About Arabic numbers,we also know from Type 10 to 90
3- Considering the strange sequence numbered from "Hydravion de Course/1928" or generally Type 1 up to
Type 8,which was taken a weird and different prefix,we know them all also

Now we can ask ourselves,which one is this Ambulance aircraft,or related to be a version of it ?,can someone
answer us ?!.

 

[PhR]

We are not here for argument only,but to find a solution,the concept was from 1929,and we recognized three
series used by the company,so we can analysis;
1- For Roman numbers,we know them all from Type I to IX
2- About Arabic numbers,we also know from Type 10 to 90
3- Considering the strange sequence numbered from "Hydravion de Course/1928" or generally Type 1 up to
Type 8,which was taken a weird and different prefix,we know them all also

Now we can ask ourselves,which one is this Ambulance aircraft,or related to be a version of it ?,can someone
answer us ?!.

I fully disagree. We are here to share knowledge, information and data about projects and studies, not to invent history.
If there is no evidence of a designation usage, don't introduce it. Just indicate "unknown designation" and please consider that if nobody found records about a number or a designation, this is probably because it was never used.

 

[PhR]

Hi all,

I discovered that,Mr. Louis Paulhan and Mr. Marcel Pillard had anther series,and I will
try to track it;

HC-1 was a racer seaplane with float Project,powered by Farman engine
H-2 was a four engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1928,called Neptune
T-3 was a twin-engined, twin-float low-wing monoplane torpedo bomber seaplane,well known Type-20
H-4 was a four engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane Project of 1931
E-5 was a three engined parasol monoplane,recce and bomber seaplane,well known Type-10
E-6 was a three engined cantilever high wing monoplane Project of 1932,recce floatplane
E-7 was a twin engined transport seaplane,a military derivative of Hermes,or Type-60,in 1932/33
H-8 was a three engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1934

It seems you made a mistake: "E" means "Exploration" and the number indicates the number of crew members, not a rand in a list. There is also a project R-6. In addition, there are the SPCA types and the PP designation for Paulhan-Pillard.
The E-5 is the PP10, alias SPCA I or "Type 10".
The E-7 is the PP60, alias SPCA V "Hermes".
The T-3 was initially the PP20 alias SPCA II, rebuilt as BN4 in 2 copies after an accident.
A M-4 was also built: the Type 30 alias SPCA III.
The racer was probably the first sketches of the Bernard HV.41, initially designed by Jean Hubert, who worked simultaneously for Bernard, Schneider and SPCA. Your invented designation MR/HC increases confusion. SPCA multiple system is complicated enough, no need to add your hypothesis.
I don't have information about H-2, H-4 and H-8 projects. Where are they coming from ?

 

[hesham]

It seems you made a mistake: "E" means "Exploration" and the number indicates the number of crew members, not a rand in a list. There is also a project R-6. In addition, there are the SPCA types and the PP designation for Paulhan-Pillard.
The E-5 is the PP10, alias SPCA I or "Type 10".
The E-7 is the PP60, alias SPCA V "Hermes".
The T-3 was initially the PP20 alias SPCA II, rebuilt as BN4 in 2 copies after an accident.
A M-4 was also built: the Type 30 alias SPCA III.
The racer was probably the first sketches of the Bernard HV.41, initially designed by Jean Hubert, who worked simultaneously for Bernard, Schneider and SPCA. Your invented designation MR/HC increases confusion. SPCA multiple system is complicated enough, no need to add your hypothesis.
I don't have information about H-2, H-4 and H-8 projects. Where are they coming from ?

That's not all correct,the T-3 for SPCA-20 was four seat,also E-7 was not seven seat,R-6 is called E-6,now how come ?.

The name of the designations are from my speculation,but the aircraft themselves were in Docavia; Les Paquebots Volants
and TU magazine.

 

[Apophenia]

That's not all correct,the T-3 for SPCA-20 was four seat,also E-7 was not seven seat,R-6 is called E-6,now how come ?...

If the Hermès was not a 7-seater, how many did it seat? I see confusing online references to '4 crew' without any mention of passengers and of '4 passengers' without mention of crew numbers. No-one ever seems to just say what the total complement was.

As for the Paulhan-Pillard T 3s, they were indeed built as 3-seat torpedo-bombers. They only became 4-seaters when rebuilt for the Bombardier de nuit role.

Concepteur avec l'ingénieur Marcel Pillard, de l'hydravion triplace bombardier torpilleur Paulhan-Pillard T 3 - Le prototype a été construit par la Société Provençale de Constructions Aéronautiques (SPCA) à la Ciotat - Sera abandonné après un accident mortel

-- http://albindenis.free.fr/Site_escadrille/escadrille525.htm

On the R 6 project, where did the connection between the E 6 come from?

 

[PhR]

That's not all correct,the T-3 for SPCA-20 was four seat,also E-7 was not seven seat,R-6 is called E-6,now how come ?.

The name of the designations are from my speculation,but the aircraft themselves were in Docavia; Les Paquebots Volants
and TU magazine.

Please stop speculate! What you say is wrong. Please also buy the book about SPCA. You will have more details and explanations: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...onstructions-aéronautiques.28786/#post-302867
This book is mainly based on archives from SPCA company at La Ciotat and from various company actor families. There is a plan of R-6 among other projects.

 

[PhR]

Hi all,

I discovered that,Mr. Louis Paulhan and Mr. Marcel Pillard had anther series,and I will
try to track it;

HC-1 was a racer seaplane with float Project,powered by Farman engine
H-2 was a four engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1928,called Neptune
T-3 was a twin-engined, twin-float low-wing monoplane torpedo bomber seaplane,well known Type-20
H-4 was a four engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane Project of 1931
E-5 was a three engined parasol monoplane,recce and bomber seaplane,well known Type-10
E-6 was a three engined cantilever high wing monoplane Project of 1932,recce floatplane
E-7 was a twin engined transport seaplane,a military derivative of Hermes,or Type-60,in 1932/33
H-8 was a three engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1934

I try to correct your list:

1) Unknown designation: racer seaplane with float Project, powered by Farman engine (probably became Bernard HV41, designed by Jean Hubert)
2) Neptune: four engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1928
3) SPCA II/Type 20: initially designed as T3 (3-seat torpedo seaplane). Rebuilt as BN4 after an accident.
4) Unknown designation: four engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane Project of 1931
5) SPCA I/Type 10, category E-5 (5-seat Exploration seaplane)
6) Unknown designation: three engined cantilever high wing monoplane Project of 1932 for category E-6 (6-seat Exploration). Internally known as "Project E-6".
7) SPCA V/Type 60 "Hermes" twin engined transport seaplane, with a military derivative project in 1932/33, category E-7 (7-seat Exploration seaplane)
8) Unknown designation: three engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1934
9) Unknown designation: 6-seat recce seaplane project, category R-6.

 

[hesham]

I try to convince myself,but here is two things I object,

1- Some sources never mentioned that,the T-3 was a three seat,even before accident,and it was a four
seat from beginning ?.

2- In 1929 for Lightweight Ambulance aircraft competition,how come the SPCA 41T (with THREE ENGINES) was
involved ?!,of course not,may that's unknown Design as I think.

 

[Apophenia]

I try to convince myself,but here is two things I object,

1- Some sources never mentioned that,the T-3 was a three seat,even before accident,and it was a four
seat from beginning ?.

2- In 1929 for Lightweight Ambulance aircraft competition,how come the SPCA 41T (with THREE ENGINES) was
involved ?!,of course not,may that's unknown Design as I think.

1 - The T 3 was certainly a large enough airframe to accommodate four or more crew members. But loaded weight must be taken into account - all that airframe had to be hoiked aloft on the power of two Gnome-Rhône Jupiters. So, consider the possibility that the airframe was designed to fill a range of possible roles and was intended to be crewed accordingly.

For the daytime T 3 role, you would need a pilot, torpedo-aimer, and a navigator. The latter two crew members could double as gunners. A crew of four might seem desirable but would not be proposed were that not required by the official specification. On the other hand, a crew of three may simply have been dictated by the weight of torpedos.

Inflight photos of the aircraft show two gunners and two pilots. That arrangement would have better-suited the Bombardiers de nuit role and was obviously dictated by the Bn.4 specification.

2 - The bane of all procurement management offices are a littering of implausible submissions which have almost no chance of meeting the terms of the official requirement. And yet, companies make such submissions all the time. So, here, I invoke Occam's Razor - there should be no spontaneous "unknown Design" when a simpler alternative exists.

In the case of the SPCA 41T, the La Ciotat design office may have truly believed that the requirement would be best-served by a larger, more powerful airframe than was requested. Alternatively, perhaps SPCA's Paris HQ marketing department simply decided to pepper any and all RfPs with available brochures ... regardless of how far off their proposed offering was from a given specification. This too happens all the time.

 

[PhR]

The side view of SPCA R-6 extracted from this book: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...vençale-de-constructions-aéronautiques.28786/

 

[Stargazer]

I discovered that,Mr. Louis Paulhan and Mr. Marcel Pillard had anther series,and I will try to track it;

HC-1 was a racer seaplane with float Project,powered by Farman engine
H-2 was a four engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1928,called Neptune
T-3 was a twin-engined, twin-float low-wing monoplane torpedo bomber seaplane,well known Type-20
H-4 was a four engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane Project of 1931
E-5 was a three engined parasol monoplane,recce and bomber seaplane,well known Type-10
E-6 was a three engined cantilever high wing monoplane Project of 1932,recce floatplane
E-7 was a twin engined transport seaplane,a military derivative of Hermes,or Type-60,in 1932/33
H-8 was a three engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1934

Going over this topic I realize there are many preposterous assertions, but this one tops them all!
You are so desperate to find lost designations that you add a lot of fiction to the facts to achieve that result.
So here are the facts:

• The "E" in E5 (Type I) and E7 (Type V) was simply the letter prefix to designate an "éclaireur" (scout) plane carrying 5 and 7 people, respectively.
• The Type II was called the T3/BN4 simply because it carried 3 people in torpedo configuration, and 4 as a bomber.

There absolutely wasn't a "lost" series of designations. You have even made it clear that all the others are your own invention, but presented as a list like this with no question marks, it will mislead those who find it in Google. How many times do we all have to tell you that once you write something here, even hypothetically, it can be found via Google 48 hours later? We have a responsibility not to spread mistakes and nonsense!

Now you have included in you neat fake list a series of would-be projects. Do you have reliable sources for them?

• racer seaplane on floats, powered by Farman engine
• four-engined transatlantic flying boat called "Neptune" (1928)
• four-engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane (1931)
• three-engined cantilever high wing recce floatplane (1932)
• three-engined Transatlantic flying boat (1934)

The "Neptune" is fact. It was tested in model form at the ONERA. But what about the others?
You know, I'm like Agent Mulder... "I want to believe"! But I need to see sources. Documents. Articles. Clippings.
If these projects have existed, I'll gladly add them to my SPCA list, but I want proof.

 

[hesham]

Without any offense,we discussed that before,and of course I have
a reliable sources to all of them,They aren't NONSENSE,but I can't
reveil or publish them,because I put them in my book with more
details.

We can say after removed my speculations,

- It was a racer seaplane with float Project,powered by Farman engine,1928
- It was a four engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1928,called Neptune
T-3 was a twin-engined, twin-float low-wing monoplane torpedo bomber seaplane,well known Type-20
- It was a four engined transatlantic monoplane seaplane Project of 1931
E-5 was a three engined parasol monoplane,recce and bomber seaplane,well known Type-10
E-6 was a three engined cantilever high wing monoplane Project of 1932,recce floatplane (this designation was mentioned in the source as I wrote exactly)
E-7 was a twin engined transport seaplane,a military derivative of Hermes,or Type-60,in 1932/33
- It was a three engined transatlantic flying boat Project of 1934

 

[Stargazer]

In other words, you don't take into account the advice of other people, even when presented with facts...
So let me state these things again, WITH evidence.

• There were NO "E-5" to "E-7" designations. The chart from Aviation Magazine is very clear... "E" was for "Éclaireur", the figures indicate the number of seats (SPCA.10 E5, SPCA 50 E7, no hyphens). If you found an "E6", then it must have been a project for a six-seat scout. The "T" suffix was commonly used to indicate a transport/tourism version, but it may also be used for torpedo in some instances.
  
  
• The SPCA.20 T3-BN4 designation probably just indicated that the type could be used as a three-seat torpedo or a four-seat night bomber. You can see from the excerpt below that the aircraft was designed as a "T.3-B.N.4" from the very beginning. Also, in those days, the point was casually used as a separator, while the hyphen ("trait d'union" in French) was used as a connector. Note that the two codes here are connected with a hyphen; the aircraft had therefore a double mission, or at least was offered in prototype form to be able to perform both tasks.

Aviation Magazine rarely made mistakes or typos in those days; the only thing that annoys me in the chart is the indication that the SPCA 50 E7 was built, since other sources since have clearly indicated that it wasn't...

 

[hesham]

In other words, you don't take into account the advice of other people, even when presented with facts

Of course not,I edited that list here and in my book,also I removed all
my speculation about the designations,and made the title as this;

Racer it was a racer & experimental .............,powered ........

- To understand,I never made the arrangement of the list according to any
numbers,but according to the year of invention,such as,

E-5 was in 1928/29
E-6 was in 1930/31
E-7 was in 1931/32

 

[Arjen]

E-5 was in 1928/29
E-6 was in 1930/31
E-7 was in 1931/32

Other than gap(s) in designation series - what makes you think these designations bear any relation to reality? Sources that refer to E-5, E-6, E-7 would be a start.

I agree with Stéphane, even speculative designations need to be supported by some factual information, preferrably with source(s) mentioned.

What is presented without proof, can be dismissed without proof.

 

[hesham]

Other than gap(s) in designation series - what makes you think these designations bear any relation to reality? Sources that refer to E-5, E-6, E-7 would be a start.

I agree with Stéphane, even speculative designations need to be supported by some factual information, preferrably with source(s) mentioned.

What is presented without proof, can be dismissed without proof.

I mentioned the reason,why I don't reveil about my sources,nor sending
any more informations,hope to end this conversation in this subject please.

 

[Arjen]

In that case I hope you will understand why I reject the E-5, E-6, E-7 designations. Not supported by evidence.

 

[hesham]

OMG,again and again,that's not a series or sequence,but collection or
you say a group of Non-Standard aircraft and perojects,OK ?!.

 

[Stargazer]

I mentioned the reason,why I don't reveil about my sources,nor sending any more informations,hope to end this conversation in this subject please.

So what you're saying here, basically, is: "I write what I want and I don't have to justify it. Just wait and buy my book."
Allow me to remind you we have seasoned researchers here with huge credentials that are much more knowledgeable than any of us. Philippe Ricco (PhR) has published many books and articles in authoritative magazines... Yet he has never said to any of us: "I'm withholding information, buy my book"!

On my own modest scale (and also because it is a hobby, not a business) I like to share FOR FREE the results of my research, and even to prepare material for other forum members to peruse. So allow me to share here the current state of my S.P.C.A. research. Of course it can and will be improved... but when it is, I will make sure to remove all previous versions... something we all should be doing on this forum...

---

---

Please note: dimensions are approximate; aircraft displayed are not exactly to scale with one another.​

 

[hesham]

....

You don't know anything about my work,you only make misconceptions and false accusations about me,any author in the world before he release his book,he can't
reveil his sources in all or give full informations,but he will allow by small of it.

I want to inform you all,the reliable sources are the basis for any successful book,
and I depended on Docavia,A-Z magazine,TU magazine,Aviation Magazine,Ailes,
Aerophile,Aeronautica,Le Fana,Aero Journal,Anne Aeronautique,Avions magazine,
Document Aeronautique,L'Air Revue,Pegase magazine,Revue Aeronautique and
some Italian magazines,also with many numbers of books,such as; Les Ailes
Francaises & various Encylopedias,of course with some truthable sites.

 

[PhR]

Again, there is a lot of confusion about SPCA practices. French manufacturers don't always follow the same rules, sometimes they use multiple rules at the same period, and sometimes they simply don't apply any rule in their own designation system. So please, do not try to deduce designation just based on any "logic", this will invariably generate false information and fantasy.
During the period 1910-1920, most of French seaplane manufacturers did not assign any name or number to their production, but just distinguished their models by the manufacturer and power of their engines (FBA Le Rhône 80 cv, Tellier 200 cv,...).
After, some of them presented their production by the category for which it had been designed. This is the case of SPCA, even they used internally other designations (SPCA I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VII, VIII, IX, as well as PP 10, 20, 30, 60, etc.). Please note that THIS IS NOT A DESIGNATION, it is just a way to present their project and production to various public. I attach some examples of SPCA original documents: an advertisement presenting the well-known SPCA 20 just by the categories it was able to comply (T3 and BN4), and another example of official presentation to CEPANA (examination commitee) of a SPCA proposal in category E6.

Again, the internal SPCA designation for this E6-category seaplane is UNKNOWN. We don't even know if it was given a designation or not. But "E6" is not its designation, it's just its classification for submission to examination by the commission.

The fact that SPCA proposed their design for multiple "closed" categories, such as E5, E6 and E7 is not surprising. We know a lot of other such examples from other manufacturers, even sometimes proposing the same aircraft in multiple categories: Breguet 482 B4/B5, Breguet 693 B2/AB2, Bloch 170 AB2/A3, MB.210 BN4/BN5, Amiot 340-350 BR3/B4/A4 etc.

Please also note that this is a primary material, not just something written in a magazine or a book, regardless of the seriousness of the author.