SO-4060 Super-Vautour

Archibald · September 15, 2006, 01:19:49 PM

In the middle of the 50's, the Vautour replacement program started. Its successor were two be twin-jet, supersonic fighters. Only two constructors could followed this program, the SNCASO and Dassault.
The new fighter had to fulfill three missions
- land-based/long-range fighter (C for Chasse)
- naval fighter (M for Marine)
- nuclear strike (this come later...) (A for attack or B for bomber)

The Mirage IV was proposed in the three variants, but only the A was produced.

The SNCASO SO-4060 was its competitor (both were powered by the Atar-9 at 6000 kgp). It had swept wings... and of course was also proposed in the three variants.
What is interesting is that a prototype of the heavy fighter variant was started in 1956 but never finished.
From the book "les avions de combats francais 145-1960" by Jean Cuny, here's the four variant (including the first prototype powered by the less powerful Atar-101)

Enjoy!

Archibald · September 29, 2007, 03:29:37 AM

Time to resurect this thread. Le Fana de l'aviation October 2007 edition has an article on this machine, with some (gorgeous) color profiles by Alanqua.

Never realised that the SO-4060 had been in competition with the Mirage III for a multirole supersonic interceptor. The Mirage won because it was much less expensive and flew before the SO-4060 01 prototype was finished.
The SO-4060 would have been much too expensive for the AdA... but I realised something while reading the article.

The SO-4060 could have been the Rafale of its time. I mean, variants were drawn for the interceptor, naval fighter and nuclear bomber roles... on the other hand the Mirage III coudn't be navalised because of its very high landing speed, and it was too small for a strategic role.

This mean that, with a strong will of having a common aircraft for both the Aeronavale and AdA (this happened in 1987 with the Rafale), the SO-4060 would have beaten both Mirage III and Mirage IV.

Even if its performances were lower than the Mirage IVA, this one was always considered as an interim solution (pending the arrival of land- and submarine -based missiles in the late 60's).
Range shouldn't be a problem if the AdA agree to change Vautours into tankers...

There would be three variant of the SO-4060
- two-seat land based interceptor for the AdA
- single-seater for the aeronavale
- nuclear strike for the AdA.

Considerig the path followed by the Mirage III in OTL, we can also imagine a recon variant, two-seat trainer, and other goodies added over the years).

Lawman · September 29, 2007, 06:29:17 AM

One possibility might be a tie-up of Nord, Breguet and Sud Aviation - i.e. Aérospatiale, but with Breguet added. Add to this, a close tie-up with De Havilland, who they had good relations with, and Vickers, English Electric, and Hunting, as happened to form BAC. This would leave a very close relationship between both Aérospatiale and BAC, perhaps giving the Caravelle a new lease on life, instead of the BAC-111. It might even allow a common fuselage with the HS Trident, with the Trident being built as a 120-140 seater, to complement the 80-100 seat Caravelle. They are both to use modified RR Medways, with versions in the 10-14,000lb range for both.

Following the disastrous 1957 Sandys white paper, it is recognised that it was a massive mistake, and the SO-4060 is selected as the best basis for immediate Anglo-French joint development. The French government is very concerned at the possibility of Dassault becoming the sole provider of combat aircraft, thus giving them a total monopoly. Dassault's offer of the Mirage III is too good to give up on, so they agree to buy them for the AdlA, but simultaneously develop the SO-4060 with Britain. The new aircraft is to use new British engines, and form the basis of a series of new aircraft, for general fighter duties (EE Lightning being used for interceptor duties in the UK, Mirage III in France), strike and recon, including carrier use. Dassault push for cancellation of the new aircraft, in favour of more Mirage derivatives, i.e. Mirage III, IV and V effectively. The French government, however, is keen to maintain its close development ties with the UK, so sticks with the SO-4060.

Zen · September 30, 2007, 12:13:09 PM

Oh my this looks interesting, can it be SNCASO had the right design, at the right time.....only to be beaten by Dassault?

I can tell you what certain people in the Air Ministry post Sandystorm would've said..."too much like a fighter", which is the same comment they gave Hawkers on their designs.

I'd need some figures to estimate its ability to operate from carriers.

Archibald · October 01, 2007, 01:36:50 AM

Well, they were beaten by Dassault because they were public firm with heavy bureaucracy, when Dassault reacted very quickly to each requirement shift (and the AdA changed its requirement very quickly, as quickly as the RAF in the 50's

).

This explain why they were beaten.

Zen, I'll give you Le Fana datas on naval SO-4060s ASAP

They are a bit crude (only dimension and weight). There was aparently two variants of the naval SO-4060 (the 4060M and 4062)

ysi_maniac · October 01, 2007, 06:35:59 AM

I like these profiles, keep posting

Archibald · October 02, 2007, 05:33:36 AM

From top to bottom, these four profiles represent

- SO-4060 prototype (Atar 101G , 10 000 Ibs of thrust)
- SO-4060 long range interceptor for the AdA (two seat, AAMs on the belly)
- SO-4060 M (naval variant with hook)
- SO-4060 nuclear bomber (Mirage IV competitor).

I've build a SO-4060 from a Mirage IV body (sounds very ironical isn't it ?) some months ago, and poste some pic of it on this forum.
I have to improve it (the nozzle area is rather difficult to build with these curves, and the canopy I've used is crap, a nice 2000 canopy from Heller would look better)

Archibald · October 09, 2007, 06:39:50 AM

QuoteOh my this looks interesting, can it be SNCASO had the right design, at the right time.....only to be beaten by Dassault?

I can tell you what certain people in the Air Ministry post Sandystorm would've said..."too much like a fighter", which is the same comment they gave Hawkers on their designs.

I'd need some figures to estimate its ability to operate from carriers.

Here we go for the figures. According to Le Fana de l'aviation there was two variants of the naval SO-4060
- SO-4060M (Marine) was a stock SO-4060 fitted with arrestor hook and catapult gear. It become too heavy, so a smaller and lighter variant was drawn

- SO-4062. As said before, a smaller /lighter SO-4060.

Specs were

4060M 4062

Span 11.7 m 10.4 m
Length 19.1 m 17.5 m
Empty weight 9815 kg 8625 kg
MTOW 16935 kg -----

Engines were Atar 9C in both case, giving 6000 kg of thrust each. Blowned flaps were considered in spring 1957 for the SO-4062 (another interesting connection, maybe with the Buccaneer ?)

ysi_maniac · October 09, 2007, 08:20:37 AM

QuoteI have to improve it (the nozzle area is rather difficult to build with these curves, and the canopy I've used is crap, a nice 2000 canopy from Heller would look better)

For the nozzle I would suggest nozzles from PM's Su-21 (Su-15 in fact). IMHO it is easy to find in eBay for a few euros.
http://www.moduni.de/product_info.php/prod...401/language/en

Zen · October 09, 2007, 08:39:27 AM

Quote
4060M 4062

Span 11.7 m 10.4 m
Length 19.1 m 17.5 m
Empty weight 9815 kg 8625 kg
MTOW 16935 kg -----

So for ease of comparison with UK designs we'll change that to Imperial measurements.

Span 38.4ft, 34.12ft
Length 62.7ft, 57.41ft
Empty 21,600lb
MTOW 37,257lb

Key thing we need is wing area IMO.

Certainly is growing on me.

Interesting side question, did they ever look at a variant scaled to a single large engine?

Archibald · October 10, 2007, 02:12:17 AM

Hmmm haven't see it, maybe I should try Cuny books... stay tunned!

They never considered a single engine variant.
But if you want to imagine a single-engine SO-4060, there's a top-view of the
SO-4062 (in le Fana de l'aviation) which really looks like a single-engine drawing... (its a pure coincidence).

Hmmm I think I understand your thinking Zen

... you want to replace the two
15 000Ibs-thrust Atars by a single TSR-2 Olympus engine (30 000 Ibs) no ?

Zen · October 10, 2007, 03:45:22 AM

Among other options yes, trying to think of cheaper variants as it where.

Consider a scaled single engine version using either a single Atar or Avon, perhaps a good alternative to the Crusader and Etendard?

The twin or large single engine gets rather close to a sort of French Phantom or P1121.

Yes I do think theres quite some scope for 'what if' variants derivable from this design.

Hmmmm....DH rather did lack a decent successor the SeaVixen until the DH127 in the early 60's, they have this gap as it where, between the DH110, and the DH117 in the 1950's. Considering the flaws in the DH117 and the size, they must have been concerned about what would succeed the DH110, few at that time would think the Sea Vixen would serve into the early 1970's.
If I read this correctly the SO 4060 is in the right time to attract DH's interest. SNCASO has the design staff available clearly, that DH did'nt (the Super Venom), so if a cross channel collaboration is going to happen, the mid-to-late 1950's seems ideal.

DH is somewhat well suited since its Christchurch site is on the Channel. Where was SNCASO based?

One might imagine for a moment a 'transmanche' aircraft corporation?

However there is a certain something about the SO4060, that brings to mind Hawkers work on the P1103 and the later P1125.

Glosters is out of the game with the death of the 'thin wing Javeline', but perhaps SNCASO could change that?

Saro has their hands full with the P177.

Archibald · October 11, 2007, 08:34:55 AM

QuoteAmong other options yes, trying to think of cheaper variants as it where.

Consider a scaled single engine version using either a single Atar or Avon, perhaps a good alternative to the Crusader and Etendard?

The twin or large single engine gets rather close to a sort of French Phantom or P1121.

Yes I do think theres quite some scope for 'what if' variants derivable from this design.

Hmmmm....DH rather did lack a decent successor the SeaVixen until the DH127 in the early 60's, they have this gap as it where, between the DH110, and the DH117 in the 1950's. Considering the flaws in the DH117 and the size, they must have been concerned about what would succeed the DH110, few at that time would think the Sea Vixen would serve into the early 1970's.
If I read this correctly the SO 4060 is in the right time to attract DH's interest. SNCASO has the design staff available clearly, that DH did'nt (the Super Venom), so if a cross channel collaboration is going to happen, the mid-to-late 1950's seems ideal.

DH is somewhat well suited since its Christchurch site is on the Channel. Where was SNCASO based?

One might imagine for a moment a 'transmanche' aircraft corporation?

However there is a certain something about the SO4060, that brings to mind Hawkers work on the P1103 and the later P1125.

Glosters is out of the game with the death of the 'thin wing Javeline', but perhaps SNCASO could change that?

Saro has their hands full with the P177.

Good point in having a SNCASO / De Havilland cooperative effort!

SNCA basically mean " Public Firm - Aircraft Maker" (or something like that, excuse the poor translation).

Then, add -SO, -SE, or -N for geography : the "Front Populaire" of 1936 dismantled private aviation firms, then build huge conglomerates on a geographic pattern (sounds crazy no ?)

In southern France were two huge groups, two SNCAs, one in South-west, other in South-east.

South-west = Sud Ouest = SNCA SO (mainly in Toulouse, among others)
South-East = Sud-est = SNCA SE
North = Nord = SNCA N

The SNCASE had strong links with DH, because they build no less than 247 Vampire FB-5 under licence. Then they build Sea Venoms for the Aeronavale.
After that, they logically considered licence-building of Sea Vixens (according to Jean Cuny) but this never materialised as the Vautour IIN took over the all weather interceptor role.

This was the SNCASE, when builder of the 4060 was SNCASO.
But we are lucky,

because the two firms merged on 1st March 1957, giving birth to Sud Aviation, which is rather well-known thanks to the Caravelle airliner.

Then Sud Aviation took over Nord aviation in 1970, giving birth to Aerospatiale, now part of EADS...

So, thanks to takeover of SNCASE in 1957, there would be good links between Sud Aviation and De Havilland.
Even better, British backing of the SO-4060 would probably help against Dassault, and 1957 budget cuts (not only GB had problems this year!

)

So having a cooperative effort based on SO-4060 would be cool.

Zen · October 11, 2007, 02:25:51 PM

Indeed!

We need a better name than Super Vantour, my French being rusty (Je sui's desolate).

Archibald · October 12, 2007, 12:22:21 AM

Name already found!

"Jaguar", "Concorde" and "Tornado" names have been selected because they are similar in French, English (Concorde, Jaguar) plus German, Italian for Tornado

This mean that our SO-4060 need an English-French word. For me, "Cyclone" seem obvious... What do you think about that ?

I've find SO-4060' wing area : 50 square meters. The smaller SO-4062 (for the aeronavale, after the SO-4060M became too heavy) only had 40 squarre meters.

Now, let's go for the engines!

The SO-4060 prototype had Atar-101 with 10 000 Ibs of thrust.
All others were planed with Atar-9 (14 000 Ibs) or even Super Atars
(17000 to 20 000 Ibs).
The Super Atar (or M-28) never materialised, so, as the Mirage III, the SO-4060 would have been sligthly underpowered.

This, unless Rolls Royce help a bit... I mean, Rolls had a lot of Avon derivatives or Super Avons on the bench in the late 50's. I think about RB-106, RB-122,
RB-133 or RB-146.
This would be perfect for our SO-4060, giving the machine a power similar to the Phantom

And, icing on the cake, we can easily set up a cooperative effort between SNECMA and RR.

In 1959, SNECMA gave 10.9% of its shares to Pratt &Whitney, and they earned a right for licence-building of all P&W engines (from J-75 to TF-30, among others).
We can imagine that this agreement would be between SNECMA and Rolls Royce in our ATL.
This mean that the Mirage G (among others mid-60's Mirages prototypes) would be powered by a RB-168, not a TF-306E. I can't see any problems, both engines beeing rather similar in size and power.

If we summarize the whole discussion we have for some days now,

it give an interesting alternative history, to say the least.

1953
The "great carrier agreement" between France and Great Britain.
It include
- Cooperative effort between SNCASE and De Havilland, for licence building of Sea Vixens (at least at the beginning... )
- Two Centaurs carriers for the french navy (Let's say Centaur and Albion)
- "1952 carrier" and PA-52 (Clems) are merged into a 42 000 ton, anglo-french ship

1956
The Suez Crisis ( fought with the same carriers and aircrafts, including Sea Vixens hunting Egyptians Il-28

) strengthened Anglo-french relations.

1957
Merging of SNCASE and SNCASO into Sud Aviation. Cooperative effort with De Havilland is strengthened, this time for a SO-4060 derivative.

1958
- The Cyclone program start. De Havilland and Sud Aviation will produce a heavy, naval fighter rather similar to the Phantom, powered by RR Avon derivatives.
- "10 year agreement" between SNECMA and RR.