The Ongoing Mystery Aircraft Thread Part Deux.

[Green]

Just gonna post PM's photo and mine here together for comparison..

Same photo? Same aircraft?

[Green]

Same photo? Same aircraft?

Seems to be? Even the prop is in the same position.

Unfortunately it's erroneously(?) captioned as the Levasseur P.L.7...

(From a Jane's publication)

[pomme homme]

Well, I have to assume that the error rests with the caption to the photograph in the Jane's publication. If not, then someone had better report the manufacturer, albeit rather belatedly, to the French trading standards authorities - because this photograph is taken from the manufacturer's advertisement! In the absence of a correct identification, I'll post the advertisement - and thus the identification - in the morning.

[lefty]

This is the site I'm referring to -

http://www.aviarmor.net/aww2/aircraf...sseur_pl14.htm

We await with interest !

[Green]

Here's another - different source. Must be an error that occurred in the 60's? As Lefty says, the big reveal will be interesting!

[Baragouin]

Good morning to everybody!
....If it isn't a PL7 what is it then? I await with interest PH's response....
Cheers
BG

[pomme homme]

...... I'm now wondering whether the error - or maybe it was actually carelessness or even recklessness - occurred much longer ago than the sixties!

The aeroplane whose image I posted is described, in the manufacturer's advertisement, as the Levasseur PL 9 ET, which was a lower powered, trainer derivative of the PL 5 (thus had anyone attributed the image to this, I had intended to concede). That advertisement appears below.



However, as a result of further research I found a manufacturer's advertisement for the Levasseur PL 7. This also appears below. And if I'm not much mistaken, that seems to use the same photograph as did the advertisement for the PL 9!



If I'm correct in saying that the same image appears in both advertisements, I can only deduce that someone in Levasseur's advertising department either (a) had an aircraft identification skill deficiency or (b) had available to him only an incomplete photographic library of the company's products or (c) assumed that Levasseur aeroplanes looked so alike that no-one would notice if he used an incorrect image for the advertisement caption or (d) didn't give a damn about the accuracy of the advertisement being placed! Now who was it who said that 'all Levasseurs look pretty much alike'?

So if it is the consensus that the ubiquitous photograph actually depicts the Levasseur PL 7, then the cigar must go to lefty.

[pomme homme]

Hmm, I think that I need to dine on a good helping of humble pie. If the PL 9 was a derivative of the PL 5, then whatever aeroplane appears in the Levasseur advertisement for the PL 9 doesn't have that genealogical line. The PL 7 has to be the obvious candidate. No wonder only six examples of the PL 9 sold - if Levasseur appeared to be offering a three place reconnaissance biplane, armed with a torpedo, to train pilots to land fighters on a carrier!

[lefty]

Same problem as today, Mike - you just can't get the staff............and lay off that humble pie -it's not appetising at all - I should know.......

For the record, here's the PL.9 !

[richard B]

If I believe an "Aviation Magazine" which described all the Levasseur ( two pages for the PL-7 , with much text ), the challenge bird is :

LEVASSEUR PL-7 No 17 " "de 16,50 mètres" , renforced version , and with a 3-blades prop .

I hope this will help ...

( BTW , the cigar is for me , don't it ?)

[lefty]

Richard, with respect, I think you'll find a few of us sussed out the PL.7 in some of the preceding posts. The naming system is complex, but the '16.5 metres' refers to the adjusted wingspan to allow the aircraft to use the carrier lifts - originally at 18 metres they were too big !

Anyway, cigar or not, (and I had to give those up) I'll carry on with another floater, surprise, surprise......and I mean the one in the foreground.

[Moses03]

Breguet H-U3.

Edit: Intial post went AWOL. When I try to edit I get a blank page.

[lefty]

Yes, the edit function has exploded dramatically ! I will have another go - like most early Breguets, this machine appears to have several designations - (those Gauls!) - I have it as the 200hp Canton-Unné B.2, but am sure you are right too !
Can't offer you a beer either, because if I do the entire post gets wiped. ICKIE !!!..................

[dan_pub]

AFAIK, Breguet H-U3 is the name of the plane, and Salmson-Canton-Unné B2 is the name of the engine. 200hp indeed.

[Moses03]

I found several photos across the net that looked like the floater and they all said "H-U3"!

Moving along then with another Navy experiment...

[Green]

Any connection to the Berliner Joyce OJ?

[Moses03]

Any connection to the Berliner Joyce OJ?

It is, and with a special kind of flap...

[Moses03]

Welp, was looking for the XOJ-1 to be precise. Over to Green since he offered up the right make and model to a point.

XOJ-1 1931 = $35,000; POP: 1 with full-span Zap flaps on both wings [A8359].

[Dev One]

Hmmm, wondered if they were Zap flaps, but have not had time to research the aircraft. I think they rotate first then slide rearwards ?
Presumably the ailerons were enhanced with the additional layer.
Keith

[Moses03]

Keith- Here is the article I pulled the photo from.

http://cybra.p.lodz.pl/Content/6349/AER_56_5.pdf

[Green]

Thanks Moses. Sorry, I had a "boy-look" when looking at Aerofiles.

A floater...

[lefty]

That, sir , is a Hanriot HD3 C2. Testing flotation gear with mixed success - no wonder the crew look a bit apprehensive !

[Green]

Nicely done lefty, all yours mate.

[Dev One]

Keith- Here is the article I pulled the photo from.

http://cybra.p.lodz.pl/Content/6349/AER_56_5.pdf

Thanks Moses, interesting read, I had not realised the mechanism was so simple & effective...wonder why its not been used very often.
Keith

[lefty]

Here's one for the twin-boom specialists -