Unknown designations from the ACAM website: what to make of them?

[Jemiba]

Why,why we are always so harry to judge,and get a decisions,who said it was a imaginary story,

Well, if you have a look at our "Fake aircraft and aircraft projects" thread, you have the reason.This forum
is read by quite a lot of people and I think, it is often admitted as a kind of reference. So we should be
rather careful with declaring something as a "real" project, as long, as we don't have reliable sources.
I wouldn't count Wikipediaas such and if someone claims something to be a real project on another site
or elsewhere neither. Please remember that inglorious story about the "He X/He 536" or whatever it was
called.
I had a look at the Messier site quite often, too. You're right, it's a great source, but please be careful with
it! I'm sure, that not every designation there can be regarded as a project in its own right. Sometimes
it may be internal designations of the designing company and maybe internal designations from Messier itself.
You know, I would love to find a Morane Saulnier "MS.080", but still yet, I have to say, that there's no evidence
that there was an aircraft project with that designation. Just as an explanation: It is dated 1943, the time of the
French occupation. So, maybe it was a development of a ski landing gear for the MS.406 of the Finnish airforce ?
To make it clear, the latter is just pure speculation, written here as an example !
But I think, it's necessary to be prudent with claiming the discovery of "unknown projects". That doesn't mean,
that we shouldn't search, as there still are masses of them undiscovered. But if you have a look a this very forum,
you'll notice, that the times of bonteous harvests have more or less gone and really new discoveries are in most cases
the result of really deep digging, as thankfully often demonstrated by certain members. And there actually are lots of
fakes or misleading things around, so a good deal of scepticism is advisable, I think. And yes, I did go wrong just
recently with it in the case of that very weird tri-plane, which Stargazer identified. So, I will try to take it as a lesson
and if I don't believe in the authenticity of a type/project, I'll say, why, to my opinion it doesn't seem right or unplausible.
That isn't a refusal, just an instigation for further research by those, who believe in it.

 

[hesham]

Yes my dear Jemiba,


I agree with you in many points,but we can't claim we know all projects,or all
of this unknown aircraft are inhouse designation,I accept that may be Morane-
Saulnier MS-080 internal design,but what about Levasseur PL-109,I know all
aircraft and projects developed from PL-10,from PL-101 up to PL-108,but we
must confess that the PL-109 is a new one,and not internal design.


So when they said Loire-Nieuport SNCAO LN-43 was a project from 1939,we should
trust on them,and you know many books and magazines speaks about companies
of aircraft,and we discover later,that there is many projects never mention in them.

 

[Jemiba]

We can search IF it was a project and IF we find evidences, we can actually call
it a project for an aircraft. But as long, as we cannot prove it and that means, as long
as we haven't found it mentioned in several different trustable sources, we just can ask "Was there
really a project designated XYZ ?" I know quite well, that there will always be a twilight zone,
because if you find it mentioned in two books, you cannot be sure, that the author of the second
one hasn't simply copied it from the first. And worse it is with websites, I think. And there may be
the problem, that an author, that is highly esteemed by one, is disregarded by another.
But that's, what a forum like this one is for: To open a discussion and to be open for results,
that perhaps are different from what we thought at the beginning.
What certainly isn't that good is to state "Here's a project, we didn't knew before and it's authentic,
because it can be found in this book/on that site". Judging the book/site may take a while and to
my opinion it's better to start with scepticism, instead of being unwary. There are too many sites
coming up with new "projects" of German flying saucers and the like every! And often they even can
refer to eyewitnesses ...
Would be a pity, if we would end like this, I think !

 

[lark]

Well spoken Jens !

 

[hesham]

My dear Jemiba,


Mr. George Messier's site was speaking about the aircraft and projects,which he
get order to delivery a landing gear,his point is to know the reader which was those
aircraft and projects,so he told us simply what was them,of course he didn't lie or
mention a fake designation,he recorded every aircraft as the companies requested
from them,so all of those aircraft and projects are real.


As I told you before,we can't say about any companies of aircraft;that we know all
of its projects or all of its variants,believe me that's impossible,even the books which
spoke about single company,such as; Nieuport 1909-1950,you can discover anther
variants or projects after that didn't mention in this book.

 

[Jemiba]

Pretty sure, that acompany ordering a landing gear, not necessarily have to say for which
aircraft it is needed. Pretty sure, that Messiers didn't need this information, as companies
today don't need them either. They just need precise data, not more not less. And if a landing
gear was ordered for, say "aircraft A", but designation was then changed to "aircraft B", this
change not necessarily is reflected in the Messier files.
But to keep it short: We are aviation enthusiasts, not professional historians. Nevertheless we
should at least try to adhere to the rules of scientific methods and this demands some reluctance
with regards to new discoveries. Otherwise we may easily find ourselves in the role of the gutter
press, claiming "Life on Mars !", when scientists just said, that the possibility of life cannot be
ruled out completely.

 

[hesham]

Pretty sure, that acompany ordering a landing gear, not necessarily have to say for which
aircraft it is needed. Pretty sure, that Messiers didn't need this information, as companies
today don't need them either. They just need precise data, not more not less. And if a landing
gear was ordered for, say "aircraft A", but designation was then changed to "aircraft B", this
change not necessarily is reflected in the Messier files.

OK my dear Jemiba,


but that's not the fact,the fact is the companies asked George Messier to design
a landing gear to a defined models,and they named it,George Messier only mentioned
it as they ordered,again he never named those aircraft and projects,but their companies
did that,the responsibility came on those companies,and of course they knew more than us
and anybody else their products and their designations.


The conclusion is; they are a real designations,but obscured from us and authors,and
I repeat that,not all projects we know them,even the books which speak on a one company.

 

[Jemiba]

Yesterday I eventually got "Morane Saulnier. Ses avions ses projets" by Henri Lacaze and, although still
yet I could only browse through quickly, I think, the problem with those MS designations is solved:
The "0X0" numbers (060, 080) were allocated to wind tunnel models, at least one of them, which belongs to
the MS.560/570 series is shown.
More about this book soon !
And no, of course we don't know all projects ! This forum would be useless then ! But not every abbreviation
of a company followed by a number was a valid designation for an aircraft or project.

 

[Stargazer]

I do agree with Jens, we must be very careful with ANY document we find IF it is the only source for a designation.

Typos have always existed for instance. Numbers could be allocated to test aircraft or wind-tunnel models that did not reflect an actual model or project number.

Still, as hesham rightly pointed out, the Messier list is an invaluable source of information, and is probably trustworthy for the most part.

Here is a link to an Excel (.xslx) file I made of the lists that appear on the ACAM website. Please note that the lists that are online do not claim to be complete.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4LO0AxwkkdkdDh4Wk1sYlhVemM/edit?usp=sharing