Jump to content

SNCAC Nc.1070 & Nc.1071, Late tier french bomber


CaID
 Share

Should the NC.1070 be added to the game?  

159 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the NC.1070 be added to the game?

    • Yes
      131
    • Yes, as prenium/gift/events vehicles
      25
    • No
      3
  2. 2. Should the NC.1071 be added to the game?

    • Yes
      130
    • Yes, as prenium/gift/events vehicles
      25
    • No
      4


france_flag_by_think0-d563k6e.jpg

 

i would like to suggest 2 prototype of french bomber that is oddly design and could fit well in the late tier. the Nc.1070 and his jet variant, the Nc.1071

004.jpg

 

NC 1070
 

Spoiler

nc1070-1.jpg

France was still occupy when the Marine national started the clandestine project to design a dive-bomber, torpedo-bomber and anti-submarine bomber. a lot of design and test started as soon the liberation of France in 1944. the SNCAC took over the project of Marine National and designed a plane under the designation of So.1070 and later Renamed Nc.1070. the plane had Impressed the French navy who ordered 15 plane in 1945, 12 was to be land based and 3 to be used on aircraft carrier. finally the oder was reduced at 3 plane then the third plane was cancelled in 1946. the first flight of the Nc.1070 happen the 23 Mai 1946 and after about a year of test flight, the plane had disinfection of the landing gear and land on his belly and damaged the plane. the damaged plane was never repaired due to a lose of interest and the focus on the conversion of the other Nc.1070 into the Nc.1071.

 

The Nc.1070 was armed with two HS 830 30mm cannon in the front and two Mg 151/20 in a rear turret. the plane was powered by two Gnome et Rhône 14R-25 of 1600 hp in two long nacelle in each side of the plane. the central nacelle was ended by a turret with the twin 20mm. the plane could carry up to 800kg of bomb, rocket or torpedo. the plane could reach 578 km/h with a climbing of 10m/sec.

sncac-nc-1070.png

General characteristics

  • Crew: Three
  • Length: 10.20 m (33 ft 6 in)
  • Wingspan: 20 m (65 ft 7 in)
  • Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)
  • Wing area: 50 m2 (540 sq ft)
  • Empty weight: 7,850 kg (17,306 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 10,700 kg (23,589 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × SNECMA 14R 14 cylinder two-row air-cooled radial engine, 1,200 kW (1,600 hp) each

Performance

  • Maximum speed: 578 km/h (359 mph; 312 kn)
  • Range: 3,400 km (2,113 mi; 1,836 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 9,950 m (32,640 ft)

Armament

  • Guns: 2x 30mm HS 830 fixed in the fron, 2x 20mm Mg 151/20 in the rear turret
  • Bombs: up to 800kg of bomb/rocket/deepcharge or 1x torpedo.

 

 

 

MGCSrVy.jpg

 

 

4458L.jpg

 

NC. 1071

 

Spoiler

 

181_e_10.jpg

the Nc.1071 was a conversion of the Nc.1070 into a jet-bomber. the conversion was odered the 23 october 1947 at the cost of 100,000,000 franc. the modernized Nc.1070 was soon renamed Nc.1071. due to the too high cost of the Nc.1071, it was clear that the plane wouldn't be ordered. but it was considered important to do the test of the twin-jet bomber. the Nc.1071 flew for the first time the 12 octover 1948 between Toussus-le-Noble and Bretigny. the plane revealed some default wich was quickly resolve. the plane flew really well exept for the vibration in high speed. after flying at the speed of March 0.7, the plane was showing damaged around the engine due to the air-presure. because of the lack of interrest of the plane, the plane was never repaired and sent to the engineer school of Rochefort to train the new mechanic.

sncac-nc1071-1948-france.gif

General characteristics

  • Crew: Three
  • Length: 10.75 m
  • Wingspan: 20 m
  • Height: 4.60 m
  • Wing area: 50 m2
  • Empty weight: 7 980 kg
  • Max takeoff weight: 13 750  kg
  • Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Nene 101 Turboréacteur of 2 350 kgp

Performance

  • Maximum speed: 800 km/h
  • Range: 1 000 km
  • Service ceiling: 13 000m

Armament

  • Guns: 2x 30mm HS 830 fixed in the front, 2x 20mm Mg 151/20 in the rear turret
  • Bombs: up to 2000kg of bomb/rocket/deepcharge or 1x torpedo.

 

 

 

personally i think the Nc.1070 could fit well in tier IV (Br 4.7) and the Nc.1071 in early tier V (Br 7.3)

 

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.1070

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.1071

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.1070

http://www.avionslegendaires.net/avion-militaire/sncac-nc-1071/

http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/sncac_nc-1070.php

Edited by CaID
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 19
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open for Discussion.:salute:

 

I have to admit that is one strange but cool looking plane.:D

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SAUBER_KH7 said:

Open for Discussion.:salute:

 

I have to admit that is one strange but cool looking plane.:D

 

a french Canberra and P-38 at the same time

 

it would be nice to have a native french bomber in tier 4. even if the load is a bit light.

Edited by CaID
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5.0 and 6.7 is where id put them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that France is quite an interesting tech tree and that I plan to do everything I can to get to the Vautour, this aircraft would be amazing as my first jet. It would be like having the Heinkel 180, but with a strange design and French!

 

+1

Edited by SilvioBerluscon1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, blockhaj said:

5.0 and 6.7 is where id put them.

https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Canberra_B_Mk._II

 

the Nc.1071 have nearly the same load, nearly the same speed but with a better offensive armament and a good defensive armament as the Canberra B Mk II. if i compare it, i would put just lower in the BR. for the 1070, i think it's a bit slow and lightly loaded for a bomber. it will make a easy prey in too high BR. 5.0 is the very top i could see it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, CaID said:

https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=Canberra_B_Mk._II

 

the Nc.1071 have nearly the same load, nearly the same speed but with a better offensive armament and a good defensive armament as the Canberra B Mk II. if i compare it, i would put just lower in the BR. for the 1070, i think it's a bit slow and lightly loaded for a bomber. it will make a easy prey in too high BR. 5.0 is the very top i could see it.

The engines of the 1071 are worse than the canberra and the bombload is nowhere near the same. Besides its not maneuverable at all and cant outaccelerate anything.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SilvioBerluscon1 said:

Given that France is quite an interesting tech tree and that I plan to do everything I can to get to the Vautour, this aircraft would be amazing as my first jet. It would be like having the Heinkel 180, but with a strange design and French!

 

+1

wait to see the grognard. so ugly, it look like a beer can which someone had walked on. but it's awesome.

Just now, blockhaj said:

The engines of the 1071 are worse than the canberra and the bombload is nowhere near the same. Besides its not maneuverable at all and cant outaccelerate anything.

4.400lb vs 6000lb. it's not so different. and the 1071 have defensive armament who still deal a lot of damage. the 1071 is also a dive bomber who can carry the rocket, the french have some awesome rocket on the narval. imagine 2000kg of them.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like a plane meant to be put into a box.

 

so i'm for both. +2 there.

 

so those HS 830 cannons... 30mm Hispano-Suizas? and how strong are they? are they closer to MK 103s or MK 108s?

 

now for BRs. now these are both bombers and aren't likely to be classed as attackers or anything, but people are going to want to use them.

soo...

for the NC.1070 i'd say a BR of 4.7-5.3.

and for the NC.1071 i'd say 6.7 at least to start. its max speed is limited and it probably can't turn for crap but there's always idiots who'll try to head-on 30mm cannons expecting to come out on top.

and they both have IL-28 levels troll aft gunner.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

it looks like a plane meant to be put into a box.

 

you are not far from the truth. they are made for the navy and their shape may be design for fitting into a aircraft carrier.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

so those HS 830 cannons... 30mm Hispano-Suizas? and how strong are they? are they closer to MK 103s or MK 108s?

Its the original name for the Defa.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I have conflicting sources about these two planes (although said sources could help get an idea of the performance)

Namely :
NC.1070 :
Max speed is at 6900m (https://www.aviafrance.com/s-n-c-a-c-nc-1070-aviation-france-1522.htm)
Rate of climb is 9.8m/s to 4000m
Wing loading is 157 kg/m² empty, 216 kg/m² at max

NC.1071 : 
Rate of climb is 13.33 m/s to 4000m
Max speed is achieved at 6000m
No rear turret (replaced by an observer, makes sense from the "blueprint"), forward armament is 2x20mm
Bombload is not increased over NC.1070

Wing loading is 159 kg/m² empty, 275 kg/m² at max
Was tested from an aircraft carrier (MN Arromanches), so probably had an arrestor hook

Source http://www.luftfahrtmuseum-hannover.de/images/wehrmann/SNCAC NC.1070 1071.pdf
https://www.aviationsmilitaires.net/v2/base/view/Variant/12380.html
https://www.aviationsmilitaires.net/v2/base/view/Variant/12379.html

Note: it seems quite probable that the prototypes didn't fly armed, even more so considering they were always considered very mediocre performers. 

 

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...