Light fighters alternatives, 1935-1945 (7 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

Reminds me more of an M.S. 405 variant.

Now that you mention it..................smeared liberally with Brie cheese.

 

[topspeed]

Yep....................similarly laid out concepts.
Propeller in the front.
Engine right behind.
Rudder and elevator at the rear.
Cockpit somewhere in-between.
Low wing.
Retracting landing gear.
Yep. Similar
View attachment 902325
1920. Fully retracting landing gear interlocked with drooping leading edge and drooping trailing edge/aileron for variable camber.
Fully enclosed cockpit (with zero forward vision, or rearward).
Monocoque fuselage (not the first).
Cantilever wing (not the first)

If I close one eye and squint a lot how many planes can I claim trace back to this one?

Are you saying these both look as far from Mustang as possible ?

 

[SaparotRob]

Now that you mention it..................smeared liberally with Brie cheese.

Smeared liberally with something.

 

[SaparotRob]

Are you saying these both look as far from Mustang as possible ?

View attachment 902331

Other than the radiator intake, it doesn't look like a Mustang.

 

[Shortround6]

Another model.

Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

 

[topspeed]

Another model.
View attachment 902333
Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

It clearly shows how much NACA and american aviation and aerodynamic research had advanced..and how good that Hornbach born american aeroplane designer was.

In 1943 Finnish state aeroplane factory VL designed a fighter with similar wing area as CAO 200...but as they had Early DB engines available the top speed was drawn officially to 685 kph albeit one polar was above 700 kph....like Mustang and Messerschmitt 109 G-10.

 

[Elan Vital]

Another model.

Quite possible not accurate. It does almost make the Hurricane look svelte.
never seen a good explanation of where the wing guns go, given the leading-edge slats, the landing light, landing gear and the propeller arc.
Many of publish performance figures may be estimates. Prototype never got guns? Hitting max speed at 6000 meters with a 3250 meter engine takes a bit of explaining?
French pixie dust?

The CAO 200 (LN 60 designation prior to the nationalization of Loire-Nieuport into the SNCAO) was the successor of the LN 161 that had competed against the MS 405, this time meant for the new program from 1937 which led to the Morane-Saulnier MS 450, Arsenal VG 33 and Dewoitine 520. Some of its features are thus reminiscent of the LN 161.

Philippe RICCO (the author of the books on Bloch aircrafts) wrote an article on it and its derivatives in issue n°235 of the magazine Avions, but unfortunately I don't have it and it is out of stock, so I'm limited to 1-page extracts.

Quoting the small article on it by Aviadrix, test pilot Michel Detroyat described it as "as easy to pilot and as maneuverable as the Morane 406, but considerably faster".

Reportedly, the performance actually achieved by the prototype powered by the HS 12Y-31 instead of the intended 12Y-51 were:
- maximum 535 kph without and 552 kph with exhaust thrust, 446 kph at sea level
- climb time of 5' 35" to 4600m, 4'50" to 4000m, 6'15" to 5000m and 7'50" to 6000m

Admittedly, the similarly ungainly LN 161 also was a better climber and faster aircraft than it looks at first glance. Regardless, the CAO 200 was not considered particularly better than the D520 and VG33 which were more mature in development, so only an experimental series of 12 aircrafts was ordered. Derivatives were the single seat naval fighter CAO 1000 and the CAO 500 floatplane.

Other than the extensive use of leading edge slats, the other notable design characteristic was that the monocoque part of the structure (metallic tubes covered in aluminium skin) was welded instead of being riveted.

There are these holes which may indicate the location of the wing guns(1 per wing):