Cheers....we learn as we progress.I guess you don't.
Cheers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cheers....we learn as we progress.I guess you don't.
Cheers.
Let me ask you without horns and a tail.....does this not look to you more Mustang than an I -16 ?Are you saying that the Cao 200 predates the P-51A, or that its design led to the P-51A?
If english is not your 1st langauge it is easy to type something that can be taken in the wrong context by English only speakers. No offense indended, just trying to clarify what you are saying.
If you are sayinf it predates the P-51A, Then I agree, if you are saying the design led to the P-51A I respectfully disagree. Many designs designed for the same pupose resemble each other in detail, and it would be a poor designer that did not look for successful features of older designs to incorporate into there new design.
Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.Let me ask you without horns and a tail.....does this not look to you more Mustang than an I -16 ?
No but they claim it was a Loire 161 decendant. I don't see any similarities...but a P-51A is almost a spitting image...from certain angles.Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.
As for your idea thant is landing gear may have influnced the FW 190's landing gear design, that is inaccurate, the prototype FW 190 first flew in June of 1939, And the design was completed at least a year before then, and the Germans would have evaluated the 2nd prototype at least a year after the FW 190 prototype flew.
Using your logic does that mean that the Loire-Nieport LN.401 design was the forrunner of the CAO 200 because it uses a liquid cooled V-12 engine, and also employes auxilery vertical tail surfaces?
![]()
Loire-Nieuport LN.401 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The CAO 200 is from 1938.Of course it looks more like a P-51A than an I-16 mainly because it has a Liquid cooled V-12 engine, not an air cooled Radial engine. Again common end goals with simalure equipment and technolagy of the day often resault in simelure design solutions.
As for your idea thant is landing gear may have influnced the FW 190's landing gear design, that is inaccurate, the prototype FW 190 first flew in June of 1939, And the design was completed at least a year before then, and the Germans would have evaluated the 2nd prototype at least a year after the FW 190 prototype flew.
Using your logic does that mean that the Loire-Nieport LN.401 design was the forrunner of the CAO 200 because it uses a liquid cooled V-12 engine, and also employes auxilery vertical tail surfaces?
![]()
Loire-Nieuport LN.401 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Compare the KI-60/KI-61 to the He100.The Ki-61 is much closer in appearance to the P-51. The Hien was a lithe, sleek fighter. The CAO 200 looks to me more like a Brewster interpretation of the Mustang.
Holy crap...it is the miracle that It was designed in 102 days. Well recorded historical fact:You do realize that the Prototype of the P 51 ( the NA-73X) 1st flew on October 26th 1940, and the design was started in 1938? Before the CAO 200 1st flew or was revieled to the world. They just look somewhat alike, just like most 4-door sedans of the same era look very much alike.
If you don't see that then I am done, beleive what you will.
But rudder is similar...nothing like Hurricane...in fact canopy is very similar too but rounded. Also the radiator is semiburied..much more like in Mustang than in Hurricane.FWIW
If looks are an indicator, then the nose/engine section back to the wing leading edge looks like the Hurricane (ff 1935), the cockpit canopy looks like a cross between the Bf109C/D (ff early-1938) and the Hurricane, the aft upper fuselage section in front of the tail looks like the Hurricane. The main wing planform and horizontal tail surfaces do not look like any of the above or the P-51.
The main wing planform does look like that of the LN.162 & LN.163.
CAO.200
View attachment 902268
Also the Yak-1 ( 3, 7 and 9 ) lineage is pretty clearly derived from CAO 200.
![]()
Yakovlev Yak-1 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LG door pretty similar...and wooden tail like in Hurricane and in CAO 200.
Lagg-3 is sorta alike as well...bet all these designers visited the Paris show in 1938.
![]()
Lavotškin LaGG-3 – Wikipedia
fi.wikipedia.org

Well I try to think these designs must be somehow interrelated as one of our top aces said he shot down 2 Mustangs in june 1944....and they are proven to be Yak-9s. So it would be very easy to understand that they both derived from a same aeroplane from 1938.
Neither of them is derived from the French aircraft.So it would be very easy to understand that they both derived from a same aeroplane from 1938.
So what is the concept behind these aircraft? In what ways does the Polikarpov's I-17 (TsKB-19), which was demonstrated in Paris in 1936, differ from it?Not exactly same...but similarly laid out concepts.
There was a huge difference in Mustang radiator duct compared to everything that went before it and some extent, after it.Also the radiator is semiburied..much more like in Mustang than in Hurricane.