Breguet's Aircraft ID Challenge #157

[Varese2002]

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/Breguetcontesttext_aangepast.jpg

Breguet's Aircraft Challenge #157

To hold on the fire for the Breguet Aircraft Challenge here is a decidedly more difficult, but interesting one. The first one who comes up with the family name of the designer of this machine catches one point. [There are no extra points for first names etc. :blush: ] Incidentally the machine dates from 1914..................within the rules of the Breguet Challenge.

Kees

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/BreguetChallenge157.jpg

Scoreboard at the start of #157:

28.3 Varese2002
14.6 Dave_Kent
11.5 Rbailey
9.3 Rod Filan
8.3 YavorD
7.0 Breguet
6.1 joegertler
6.0 Eric Goedkoop
5.6 ercoupepilot
5.5 EdStevens
5.4 Colin A. Owers
5.3 Cruze
5.0 JohnMacG
4.1 bshatzer
4 greenknight
3.7 dpolglaze
3.4 Ross Moorhouse
3 Gilles
2.7 Berman
2 Tom L
1.2 Ransom E. Olds
1 Peter Zambori
1 Gregoire
1 cubsfan4life
1 austin08
1 Cliff
.8 Machinbird
.4 Vilkata
.2 Paul_J._Fisher

Previous challenges are on http://www.earlyaviator.com/br.challenge/

[EdStevens]

I'm guessing it was never built, since I have no idea how they would have constructed the wings, let alone the ducted turbofan engines!

[berman]

As a guess, it was a design study by Caproni who later built a single ducted fan aircraft in the 1930's called the Stipa.

[Varese2002]

I'm guessing it was never built, since I have no idea how they would have constructed the wings, let alone the ducted turbofan engines!

Rejoice, it was partly built at least. There is evidence of that in photographs :) Will show these when the Challenge ends ..................

Kees

[Varese2002]

Just to make this one more enjoyable another picture of this mystery plane.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/BreguetChallenge157_2.jpg

Kees

[Breguet]

Not to be a kill joy as this is certainly a fun machine but....

The rules (see Challenge #8) are as follows:
The thread remains "Breguet's aircraft ID challenge #...... (not through any vanity but just so we know what to look for and what we are tracking).
The score board must be copied to the beginning and end of each thread so that we know where we are.
The aircraft must have been built AND FLOWN during the '14-'18 war.
The photo must show the whole aircraft - from whatever angle, or at least 2 views of a 3 view drawing (photo by preference).

[Varese2002]

Okay I see. This ends this one, as it presumably was not built completely and not flown because of that.

Kees

[Breguet]

Oh no you don't get off that easily :mad: ! Tell us more about this unusual beauty! :D

[Dave_Kent]

Hello Breguet:

I joined the Challenge somewhere in the mid 20s, and although I recall the occasional reference to the rules, I must admit I never really thought about them until now. I would like to explore the rule, “The aircraft must have been built AND FLOWN during the '14-'18 war” for the purposes of clarification, in case I get another chance to submit machines for consideration.

I see 3 aspects in this:
1. Built AND flown during
2. During the ’14-’18 war, considered as being a period of time
3. During the ’14-’18 war, considered as being an expression that the machine in question must have some relationship to the conflict.

Working backwards, if point 3 above is accepted as true, then a number of machines which have been used, would now be considered ‘illegal’. Aircraft, probably primarily American, such as the Curtiss M flying boat, Partridge-Keller Bi-plane, etc. would no longer be permitted, and the focus of the Challenge would narrow, and in some cases the quiz-master may be required to justify how he/she believes the selection meets the intent.

What would you have us do?

The second point concerns the date range we consider. By strictest interpretation, it could be July 28, 1914 to Nov. 11, 1918. This being from the first declaration of war until the Armistice. An end date of June 28, 1919 is also supportable, being the date of the Treaty, which ended the war. In practice, we have been using something more like Jan. 1, 1914 to Dec. 31, 1918, though even here there has been at least one exception.

So again I ask you to draw the lines.

Finally the phrase, ‘built and flown during’. As the rule reads, both events must happen within the time period decided on above for the machine to qualify. Thus, aircraft, which were built prior to the start of the period but flew during the war, such as those impressed into service, would be excluded. Likewise, any machine designed and built during the period for service, but which did not make their first flight until after the period would be excluded. Technically, I suppose, machines, which failed to achieve flight, or were designed specifically not to fly would also not quality.

I think the point comes down to ‘built AND flown’ versus ‘built OR flown’ with perhaps some degree of latitude on the term ‘built’ to allow for machines to be completed after the period.

Again, your direction please.

Sorry for the above, but it is the unfortunate nature of rules.

Dave

[Rbailey]

It never pays to look too closely at the rules. I hope Breguet keeps them fairly loose, but some clarification of the time frame might be in order. But I think some of the most interesting have been those that were not connected with the actual hostilities.

[Varese2002]

Our discussion of the rules comes almost on a philosophical level where the following questions can be asked:

did the War (named Great War or First World War after that war was ended) start all of a sudden on a certain date ?


What is defined as flight? Some planes have crashed when only having "rolled" on the ground, and never did anything afterwards


What is a finished and built machine?


I am in favour of more liberal rules, where common sense is the rule. 1950 jet planes are surely out of order and so is the Leonardo da Vinci Ornithopter, but a machine designed / built in 1913 seems an acceptable choice. Maybe a machine which was designed in 1918 and realized in 1920 is an acceptable choice too.

As Rbailey said in his piece, if the rules are too strict the fun will be out of it and the Challenge will come to a full stop.

Kees

[Rod_Filan]

I too misinterpreted the rules. My thinking was basically "flown during the years 1914-1918", not as its stated: built and flown during the '14-'18 war.
ie: Zodiac airship Spiess. Although it was built and flown during 1913, it was last flown in January 1914. Certainly there are other examples to be found in past challenges that would be "outside of the rules"...

Strictly interpreted, any a/c of which construction started before 1 Aug 1914 should be rejected from consideration. Simply said, there's an argument to be made for any a/c built before the war, yet flown during the war, as being off-limits. IMHO clarification of the rules are needed here.

Cheers
Rod

[berman]

In my opinion, I would like to the range of aircraft to cover the period of
1900 to 1920. These would have to be aircraft that were built not proposals.

[Breguet]

IMHO there must be some connection to the wartime period. If the plane was designed by nov 1918 but didn't fly till later then it qualifies, similarly if it was designed in whatever year but flew in the period then it qualifies. So I guess, for me, the rule comes down to Daves point 3 rather than 2.

The built and flown (well lets face it it must have been built to have flown :D ) rule was put in to stop some of the wierd and wonderfuls that never got of the drawing board from being included (as interesting as they are many people may not have access to information on these rather esoteric creations and I wanted to keep this thread as accessable as possible to the average forumite).

As for Varese's point I think we should go for the initial definitions of flight ie wheels or skids off the ground so that the entire construction is in the air unsupported by outside influences, such as cranes etc.

The last thing I want to do is kill off such a wonderful thread. So what I've said is not gospel - if the forum collective wants to take this in different directions so be it! :)

[Varese2002]

To finish of this Challenge I would give the information available (to me) about this construction.

The pictures show the machine of Léon Arsène Brissard which probably was one of the most advanced machines in that time. The pilots (almost) sat in a fully closed cockpit, possibly because the machine was made for a planned flight to the North Pole.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/A938347646.jpg

A very serious effort was made to build the machine as shown in the two pictures presented, which give the state of finish at 1 May 1914.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/A9378464.jpg

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/A93747464.jpg

It is not known at the moment (more research is needed) what happenend after 1 May 1914. Possibly - or almost surely - Brissard was requested for the forces to fight.

What is known is that he survived the war and as an inventor at least got one French Patent No. 502.043 published on 1 May 1920.

As you can see on the pictures the machine (possibly the "ducted fan") acquired a French patent (brevet), possibly of a special category, before the war (1913 ?). I am searching for that one.

The term Brevété S.G.D.G means Breveté sans garantie du gouvernement. Which means literally that the patent is granted, but the government will take no action to protect the rights of the patentee on infringement of the patent. The patentee must act accordingly.
The text on the picture also says that it was patented outside of France.

If there is someone on the Forum who wants to know more about this undoubtedly interesting machine (decidedly within the rules of Varese) he should present himself at
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/RuedelaRoquette.jpg
at best around 1 May 1914.

Kees

[Breguet]

What an incredible visionary the man must have been, so far ahead of his time. One wonders why he never pursued his ideas further. I also wonder if Caproni knew of this design when he built his Stipa.

[Varese2002]

To make things easier I did a search on Google Earth for Paris, 188 Rue de la Roquette. It is most likely a beautiful place in the neighbourhood of a big parc.

Look at the special mark I made at Google Earth on house No.188 (I don't know how to include this here, to direct you automatically to the right place :blush: )

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/RuedelaRoquette_188.jpg

Kees

[Breguet]

Is it the long building inside the 'U'?

[Varese2002]

What an incredible visionary the man must have been, so far ahead of his time. One wonders why he never pursued his ideas further. I also wonder if Caproni knew of this design when he built his Stipa.

There was also Henri Coanda :) a Rumanian working in France who came up with a sort of "ducted fan" machine. (Avion turbopropulsor) Around 1910. Actually completely built and possibly somewhat flown (I am writing from memory, so this is no exact information !).

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/coanda_aeroplane.jpg

In Rumania there is a replica of the machine presented here (http://muzeu.mapn.ro/colectii.htm).

Kees

[Varese2002]

Is it the long building inside the 'U'?


Maybe, perhaps one of our Parisians will have a look :)

Kees

[Tom L.]

There's a skylight visible in ceiling of the "under construction" photos, and I can make out a skylight on the red-roofed building in the rear of the address that appears to conform in construction to the earlier, interior shots...this is good stuff!:)

[Breguet]

I'd love to know if the coanda flew and how well. I wonder that why the turboprop line of investigation was continued with - not powerful enough engines with a good power/weight ratio perhaps?

[Tom L.]

I'd love to know if the coanda flew and how well. I wonder that why the turboprop line of investigation was continued with - not powerful enough engines with a good power/weight ratio perhaps?Here's an article on scratchbuilding the Coanda with some interesting info.
Coanda "Jet" in 1/72nd scale, by Gabriel Stern (http://www.internetmodeler.com/2007/january/aviation/Coanda.php)

[Breguet]

Thanks for that. The cowl looks like someone stuck a cup on the plane's nose - still a great looking machine though.

[Dave_Kent]

Hello:

Based on the comments from Breguet and others I would like to suggest the following framework as a guideline to quiz-masters.

There would be 3 categories of machines:

1. Core

These are completed machines which have some connection to the conflict. I would suggest that a minimum of 50% of a quiz-master’s submissions fall in this category. This meets both the original intent of Breguet, as I understand it, and will help to keep the Challenge accessible to the average Forumer. This category may still have some odd birds, but many will simply be lesser known, not totally obscure.

2. Peripheral

These would be completed machines of roughly the same period, some flexibility here, and need not be connected to the conflict. This group would include some pre/post war military items, private and civil aircraft. Many of the American types we have used would fall into this group. I would suggest an upper limit of 25% of a quiz- master’s submissions.

3. Out There

These would be real attempts at flying machines, or machines that fall outside the other categories, but which the quiz-master believes will be of interest. Again I suggest an upper limit of 25%.

I do not think any auditing or policing is required. Each quiz- master will judge for themselves where their selections fit.

Comment?

Dave

[Varese2002]

About the Coanda 1910 "propeller-less" machine, the following text quoting from article Coanda (http://www.deltawing.go.ro/history/coanda.htm)

Henri Coanda's Coanda-1910 was a revolutionary aircraft in many ways. First and foremost, it is now being recognized as the first jet engine aircraft, making its first and only flight on 16 December, 1910. Coanda's aircraft was the first to have no propeller. This was 30 years prior to Heinkel, Campini, and Whittle who have been considered the "fathers" of jet flight. Missing financial support, Coanda did not pursue further development of his "reactive" aircraft. Other innovations of this aircraft included these many firsts:

wings made with steel leading edges instead of wood


movable slats on the forward wing edge to increase lift


the wing profile had a strong chamber


the two wings were of different lengths and the upper wing was set ahead of the lower wing which was shorter. This reduced the aerodynamic interference between the two surfaces. This was later termed Sesquiplan and reinvented 10 years later where it was applied in Fokker, Breguet, and Potez aircraft


gasoline and oil were stored in the upper wing thus reducing the fuselage size and thus drag


The engine was the real innovation, though, and it is lost to the aircraft industry that development was not further pursued in 1910. Coanda's "air-reactive engine" was housed under a cowl and was comprised of a 50 hp Clerget four-cylinder in-line, water-cooled, gasoline-powered engine rotating at 1000 rpm. Through a gearbox, the engine turned a compressor at 4000 rpm. An obturator (a device that opens and closes similar to an iris in a camera) remotely-operated by the pilot was found in front of the compressor to regulate the flow of air into the compressor. The compressor exhaust entered two ring-shaped burning chambers located on each side of the fuselage. The gasoline engine's exhaust and additional fuel was also ported into the chambers. The combustion of this mixture exhausted from the chambers down the steel-sheeted plywood sides of the Coanda-1910 producing a thrust of 220 kgf, much greater than would be available from the gasoline engine and a propeller alone

He performed the first reactive flight on 16 December 1910, but the flight ended in an accident because the aircraft sideslipped, fell, and burned.During this flight Coanda discovered the Coanda effect which is considered now the basis for the short take off aircraft. After the plane took off, Coanda observed that the flames and burned gases exhausted from the engine tended to remain very close to the fuselage. For a long time this phenomenon of the burned gases and flames hugging the fuselage remained a great mystery which he explored by exchanging opinions with specialists in aerodynamics around the world.

Henri Coandă was in my opinion a very gifted designer, who made great scientific inroads with the so-called Coanda effect, but to suggest that this was the first jet plane preceding the work of Caproni, Heinkel and cohorts more than 20 years is stretching the credibility.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/Coandaadvertisement.jpg

If you look at this contemporary advertisement you will see that the Aeroplanes Coanda was talking about Aeroplanes sans hélices.

If you are interested read the article about Coanda in the book of Leonard Opdycke French aeroplanes before the greeat war.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h179/Varese2002/Coanda1910machine.jpg

Kees

[Rbailey]

Regarding Dave's suggestions about the rules, I think they are pretty good, but I would suggest that Breguet's other rule that there must be a photo of the whole machine or 3-view drawing, and not artist's conception, be followed. That would mean that design concepts and partially built projects would not be acceptable. If we accept pre-1914 aircraft, they should have done significant flying in 1914 to be eligible, and anything first flown after 1918 should at least have been largely constructed before the end of that year. And I would call them guidelines. But this is Breguet's contest, he should have final say in the rules and the authority to disqualify an entry that he thinks is outside the intent of the contest.

[Dave_Kent]

I certainly agree on a photo or proper 3 view being reqyured.

I am personally open to items like 157 where a serious attwmpt was made to build the machine, but will happily go with Breguet;s decision.

Dave

[Breguet]

Hi all,

My main thing is to keep the thread going - especially after all the effort you guys have put into it! Like Dave and others I don't mind the odd, but very innovative and interesting one, like this challenge, as long as they don't begin to predominate. I agree about the change to 'guidelines' rather than 'rules'. I also feel, like rbailey, that there must be a large connection to the WW1 period.