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/