Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,157
- Mar 26, 2007
Fokker T.V perhaps?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Engines look Italian maybe?
- Thread starter
- #4
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,157
- Mar 26, 2007
I know but some were captured. perhaps nose rebuild?
fubar57
General
Looks like a Fokker but I can't narrow down the model.
Geo
Geo
I didn't mean the nose glass but the cockpit conopy.
fubar57
General
Yep...too much canopy. I saw 1/72 T.ix with what looked like a lot of glass in the canopy but the photo was too small.
Geo
Geo
- Thread starter
- #9
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,157
- Mar 26, 2007
Ahhh i see what you mean. You are right
Taking a more detailed look at the image. It certainly looks European; it has obvious Western European features; the conventional layout of mid wing, twin engined , twin fins, lengthy glazed canopy makes it look a little conventional in appearance for a French design, although that is a generalisation albeit supported by the typical oddball appearance of French bombers of the era. It looks like it has Italian style nacelles, but Italian aircraft of the period were largely (although not all) mixed media, metal, wood and fabric and this is all-metal by the looks of things, although the mainplanes might be wood - hard to tell. Its unusual nasal glasing makes it look Dutch, but this appears unique. Is the leading edge strip of the glasing solid? Was it intended for a moveable gun? If so there are no fittings and the centre strip is too wide to be open to the oncoming airflow. It's certainly not a turret, like the Boulton Paul Overstrand - no visible areas for movement of the nose glasing. There appears to be a cut out window for the bomb aimer aft of the front glasing in its belly and forward of the external bomb racks. These are of unusual disposition as they look like they could carry very small bombs only. Its also hard to tell whether there is internal stowage capacity for bombs or whether it carried its entire load externally.
There also appears to be a circular aperture just aft of the nose glasing, a camera port is most likely. A bomber/reconnaissance type or is the camera for photographing the target area after bomb release? Most likely the former. Looking at the shadow on the ground, it looks like considerable care has been taken at streamlining, yet still being functional, the lengthy canopy glasing contains two, maybe three personnel; pilot, radio operator, rear gunner - the shadow shows no other appendages along the fuselage - that is assuming there is a rear cockpit gun, which is likely. This makes it rather lightly armed; a rear moveable gun and possibly a nose gun? The Helmeted cowls suggest streamlining measures, so the machine was designed with speed in mind, although an external bomb load increases drag, which does suggest that the bombing role is possibly light attack rather than level bombing, also supported by the fact that the bombs carried cannot be very big. I'm thinking a crew of three or four - one further in the nose for the camera and bomb aiming. A 'multi-role' machine, reconnaissance light bomber?
Taking a closer look at the nose, there does appear to be a large boxy object in the extreme nose that reaches in height up to the fuselage glasing just aft of the nose glasing; the camera, I think, which leads me to suspect the machine might not have been designed with a nose gun in mind, otherwise the fellow in front is leaning rather uncomfortably over the camera to fire the gun. This is also supported by the fact that there are no fittings visible for the mounting of a nose gun. So, one gun only for rear defence? Again, this supports my theory that this machine was designed for speed -note also flush rivetting in place round the nose. This makes me think that perhaps the aeroplane was designed with reconnaissance as its principal role and light bombing as secondary; the bomb racks do look like an add-on. Below the wing box could contain fuel cells - a strategic recon platform, perhaps?
Another notable feature is the pitot tube is mounted quite away from the nose into an ideal position for undisturbed airflow for accurate readings. The shadows suggest a elliptical fin shape with tailplane mounted on top of the rear fuselage. The mid mounted wing looks tapered in shadow, but is relatively thin chord with nacelles long enough only to contain the undercarriage, not protruding aft of the wing trailing edge. The undercarriage is completely enclosed, not protruding below the nacelles, which was a typical feature of the time, so having a completely enclosed undercarriage again points to a 'speed machine'. The air intakes under the engine cowls are unusual, a smaller forward one and larger after one; Is the bigger one suggesting a supercharger, perhaps?
Its obviously fitted with radio equipment, although no other avionics visible apart from the HF aerial on top of the canopy. Unusual that there is no DF acorn fairing visible; the DF loop could be in the canopy glasing, perhaps not fitted at all? A medium to long range modern machine would likely have DF and this, to all intents and purposes is a very modern by contemporary standards, machine.
All-in-all, a clean looking aeroplane with obvious drag reduction measures carried out in its design, light in defensive armament and warload, with typical appearance for what a 'high performance' machine of the mid to late 1930s would look like.
There also appears to be a circular aperture just aft of the nose glasing, a camera port is most likely. A bomber/reconnaissance type or is the camera for photographing the target area after bomb release? Most likely the former. Looking at the shadow on the ground, it looks like considerable care has been taken at streamlining, yet still being functional, the lengthy canopy glasing contains two, maybe three personnel; pilot, radio operator, rear gunner - the shadow shows no other appendages along the fuselage - that is assuming there is a rear cockpit gun, which is likely. This makes it rather lightly armed; a rear moveable gun and possibly a nose gun? The Helmeted cowls suggest streamlining measures, so the machine was designed with speed in mind, although an external bomb load increases drag, which does suggest that the bombing role is possibly light attack rather than level bombing, also supported by the fact that the bombs carried cannot be very big. I'm thinking a crew of three or four - one further in the nose for the camera and bomb aiming. A 'multi-role' machine, reconnaissance light bomber?
Taking a closer look at the nose, there does appear to be a large boxy object in the extreme nose that reaches in height up to the fuselage glasing just aft of the nose glasing; the camera, I think, which leads me to suspect the machine might not have been designed with a nose gun in mind, otherwise the fellow in front is leaning rather uncomfortably over the camera to fire the gun. This is also supported by the fact that there are no fittings visible for the mounting of a nose gun. So, one gun only for rear defence? Again, this supports my theory that this machine was designed for speed -note also flush rivetting in place round the nose. This makes me think that perhaps the aeroplane was designed with reconnaissance as its principal role and light bombing as secondary; the bomb racks do look like an add-on. Below the wing box could contain fuel cells - a strategic recon platform, perhaps?
Another notable feature is the pitot tube is mounted quite away from the nose into an ideal position for undisturbed airflow for accurate readings. The shadows suggest a elliptical fin shape with tailplane mounted on top of the rear fuselage. The mid mounted wing looks tapered in shadow, but is relatively thin chord with nacelles long enough only to contain the undercarriage, not protruding aft of the wing trailing edge. The undercarriage is completely enclosed, not protruding below the nacelles, which was a typical feature of the time, so having a completely enclosed undercarriage again points to a 'speed machine'. The air intakes under the engine cowls are unusual, a smaller forward one and larger after one; Is the bigger one suggesting a supercharger, perhaps?
Its obviously fitted with radio equipment, although no other avionics visible apart from the HF aerial on top of the canopy. Unusual that there is no DF acorn fairing visible; the DF loop could be in the canopy glasing, perhaps not fitted at all? A medium to long range modern machine would likely have DF and this, to all intents and purposes is a very modern by contemporary standards, machine.
All-in-all, a clean looking aeroplane with obvious drag reduction measures carried out in its design, light in defensive armament and warload, with typical appearance for what a 'high performance' machine of the mid to late 1930s would look like.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
At first glance I thought it looked alot like a Tupolev SB 2M variant...interesting
Funny, Dave, I had a thought about Russian, but came to the conclusion it was too neat. I thought perhaps a derivative of the Illyushin DB3 family; there was a high altitude recon variant with a pressurised cabin up front, but no top glasing, like this, but the DB3s were low wing, not mid wing. It certainly looks a similar size to the SB family, but again, too clean in appearance. Undercarriage was single stalk and the wheels protruded out the rear of the nacelles on the SBs. Perhaps an Easter European manufacturer? Rumanian? Not Polish; doesn't 'look' Polish. Czech? Although doesn't resemble any known Czech designs...
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Don't rule out the possability of a Czech type...Avia built some types of the SB 2M.
And speaking of the 2M, they made quite a few varients with several different engine combinations.
Also, in looking at that photo, is that a torpedo rack there under the fuselage?
And speaking of the 2M, they made quite a few varients with several different engine combinations.
Also, in looking at that photo, is that a torpedo rack there under the fuselage?
Last edited:
It could be Czech, haven't ruled that out. It's not a derivative of the SB family though. Definitely not, too little in common structurally. It has twin fins, different undercarriage, the fuse is not circular in shape, the wing is too thin, the nacelles are not the right shape; they would have had to have redesigned practically the whole aeroplane.
The racks underneath appear to be two rows, rather than one and they look a little too close to one another to be able to carry two torpedoes, but too far apart to be for just one. You can see bomb mountings on the right hand aft bracket next to the second 'b' upright in the word 'bubu', suggesting individual bombs on each. These are also visible on the left hand forward rack. I'd say four bomb racks.
The racks underneath appear to be two rows, rather than one and they look a little too close to one another to be able to carry two torpedoes, but too far apart to be for just one. You can see bomb mountings on the right hand aft bracket next to the second 'b' upright in the word 'bubu', suggesting individual bombs on each. These are also visible on the left hand forward rack. I'd say four bomb racks.
I had a thought that it could be Swedish, perhaps a SAAB project related to the B.18, but that aircraft has a very Teutonic, almost 'Dornier' look to it, with an offset cockpit, though. The fuse of our mystery aeroplane is quite deep and the SAAB has a shoulder mounted wing, so not related, well, not as a direct derivative, anyway.
I'm stumped! 
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I am pretty much baffled, too...
It certainly looks like there's French, Dutch and Russian influence.
It certainly looks like there's French, Dutch and Russian influence.
I thought I might give a wee sketch a go; this is a possible interpretation of what we can see; it's a bit scrappy, mind and the wings and fin shape are purely hypothetical; the latter based on the shadow outline. Any thoughts/alterations?
Having looked at it again, I've lengthened the rear fuse a bit and it looks more in proportion...
Having looked at it again, I've lengthened the rear fuse a bit and it looks more in proportion...
Last edited:
