WesWorld

[SIZE=4]Loire-Nieuport LN.190 Épouvantail / TNAC Hunlika[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]General characteristics[/SIZE]
Crew: 2 (pilot, gunner-spotter)
Length: 12.5 m (41 ft)
Wingspan: 18 m (59 ft 1 in)
Height: 3.75 m (12 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 39 m² (409 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,700 kg (5,952 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,000 kg (8,818.5 lb)
Powerplant: 2 × Dietrich-Lorraine DL-411 (licensed Argus As 411), 592 hp (441 kW) each

[SIZE=3]Performance:[/SIZE]
Maximum speed: 400 km/h at 2,600 m (248 mph at 8,000 ft)
Range: 700 km (434 mi)
Service ceiling: 8,000 m (27,550 ft)
Rate of climb: 8.5 m/s (27.9 ft/min)
Wing loading: 102.5 kg/m² (21.5 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 110.25 W/kg (0.067 hp/lb)

[SIZE=3]Armament:[/SIZE]
- 4 × 7.5 mm machine guns (or 2 × 12.7mm MGs) mounted in the wing roots
- 2 × 23mm HS.406 cannon in nose
- 20 × 10 kg (22 lb) bombs
- 8 × 50 kg (110 lb) bombs or rockets under wings



[SIZE=3]Development[/SIZE]
Following an exchange of correspondence between Loire-Nieuport's chief engineer at AIAI (Atelier Industriel de l'Aéronautique d'Indochine) and TNAC in 1940, the French and Thai governments agreed to cooperate on the design of an aircraft for light bombing, mid-ranged reconnaissance, aerial policing, and counter-insurgency duties. Many of the initial specifications for the plane were derived from an unfilled 1937 French Army request for a light counter-insurgency aircraft for use in Africa, although the design evolved substantially. The driving requirements were a low overall cost of construction and operation, high reliability, all-weather rough-field operation in "hot-and-dry" and "hot-and-wet" climates, protection from ground-based small arms fire, high loiter time, and a modest weapons load.

Design work started in November 1940, preceding the formal announcement of the collaboration effort, announced in December at the Paris Air Show. Design work largely took place at TNAC's design shop in Bangkok and AIAI's newer facility in Saigon, although some time was lost due to the lack of a wind tunnel in the region. The fuselage and empennage design originated from an earlier (1938) Loire-Nieuport proposal, while Thai designers worked out much of the main wing, which shared a visual similarity to the similarly-sized Focke-Wulf Fw.189. By August 1941, both AIAI and TNAC began construction of the initial prototypes. The French-built IA.30 prototype flew first on September 3rd, 1941, followed by the Thai-built prototype several days later. Testing uncovered a number of shortcomings which were addressed with the second set of prototypes in December 1941. Loire-Nieuport built several prototypes of their own in metropolitan France in October 1941, and suggested a number of further changes to the landing gear, wing and empennage design based on their initial testing. Official acceptance trials with the third set of prototypes began in March 1942 in Thailand and April in French Indochina and metropolitan France and Indochina. The Armee de l'Aire quickly accepted the design and ordered it into production by August 1942. (Acceptance data for Thailand is not known at this time.)

[SIZE=3]Design[/SIZE]
The resulting aircraft, designated the Épouvantail ("Scarecrow") in France and the Hunlika in Thailand, featured a mid-mounted wing with two IAIA-manufactured DL-411 V-12 inline (license-built Argus As-411) engines turning three-blade propellers. The two crewmen sat in tandem, with the pilot sitting in a raised position behind the bombardier-observer. Although provision was made for a third crewman to operate a defensive machine-gun from an aft hatch-style mount, this required the removal of the armour plate behind the pilot. Armament included two 23mm Hispano-Suiza HS.406 cannon mounted in the nose and two to four lighter machine guns in the wing roots. Eight 50kg bombs or eight air-to-ground unguided rockets could be carried on the under-wing weapons rack, and underbelly mounting points could carry twenty 10kg light bombs.

As the designers tried to minimize production costs and mitigate possible maintenance issues, many features of the aircraft revolved around eliminating potential points-of-failure. The initial designs featured fixed main landing gear and a non-retractable tailwheel, although this configuration resulted in particularly poor ground-handling behavior. Efforts to fix this issue finally resulted in use of retractable tricycle landing gear, which allowed for both better ground-handling characteristics and airborne performance, albeit at the loss of the desired mechanical simplicity.

Although the initial Franco-Thai design work focused on design for hot-and-wet climates by eliminating, where possible, construction materials prone to rot or rust, the aircraft also proved suitable for desert operations with minimal modification, mainly in the installation of sand filters for the engines.

Many traditional aspects of aerial performance, such as speed and rate of climb, were not strongly emphasized due to the intended mission profile. When clean, with no external stores, the aircraft could achieve just over 215 knots and a climb rate of 8.5 meters per second. Specially-designed Fowler flaps, another concession of simplicity to performance, enhanced the short-field takeoff and landing capabilities. However, in terms of loiter time, the Épouvantail excelled: with the engines throttled back to their most efficient setting at 85 knots at under two thousand meters, the plane could achieve over eight hours of endurance on its internal fuel, even with a full load of external stores. At low speeds and low altitudes, the aircraft had a very tight turning circle, and had a very stable flight, particularly below one hundred knots.

An interesting product of design collaboration, that should meet both nations' need for light bombing and policing aircraft. While of limited use in contested air space, it should do well in patrolling over jungle or desert. It certainly is far more capable than ancient biplanes or trainer hand-me-downs that might otherwise be used in such a role.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
An interesting product of design collaboration, that should meet both nations' need for light bombing and policing aircraft. While of limited use in contested air space, it should do well in patrolling over jungle or desert. It certainly is far more capable than ancient biplanes or trainer hand-me-downs that might otherwise be used in such a role.

I agree. In a conflict with enemy aircraft present, this plane will be easy prey for roaming enemy fighters. However, the French at least foresee the potential of some low-intensity insurgencies (such as the 1937 Rif-Atlas insurrection) in the future, and this sort of aircraft has the basic capabilities to carry out all of the major roles in such a conflict. Without fighter opposition, even a pokey, older aircraft can make a serious impression on an enemy.

Why build a high-tech bomber to do a low-tech job?

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine
Why build a high-tech bomber to do a low-tech job?

Cuz it's cool, and the industrialists can line their pockets easier.

No, it's easier for the industrialists to line their pockets by selling the low-tech COIN aircraft to the air force at the price of a high-tech bomber.

"But General, it's a highly specialized aircraft, with long loiter time..."

There's other factors at work here, though. The Épouvantail can be sold as an export aircraft to small countries which may not be able to afford a whiz-bang high-speed ground-attack bomber, or perhaps would prefer to make their money stretch farther. And the French, at least, want to buy quite a lot for use in Africa, where bone-headed simplicity, ease of maintenance, and numbers make the difference, not the ability to fly at 400mph at twelve thousand meters with 5,000 pounds of bombs.

A very interesting aircraft and one that will probably do well on the export market in general. Smaller nations like the latest shiny toys but for those procurement departments with their heads screwed on and looking at the balance sheet this design ticks all the boxes.

I almost wish I had something similar for the RAF to use in Africa.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
I almost wish I had something similar for the RAF to use in Africa.

Loire-Nieuport would be delighted to send a few (when the time comes) for demonstration to the RAF.

It makes an interesting comparison to the historical Caproni 310 series of aircraft. Useful when there's not a real war happening, but otherwise not great. It really comes down to whether you can afford a two-tier air force, or simply buy more first line types. Similar arguments are being made today with respect to things like armed Super-Tucanos for COIN.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It makes an interesting comparison to the historical Caproni 310 series of aircraft. Useful when there's not a real war happening, but otherwise not great. It really comes down to whether you can afford a two-tier air force, or simply buy more first line types.

Buying more first-line types to police the extensive regions of the French Empire in Africa and the Far East would be quite inefficient. Too fast, too much bombload for the job and insufficient loiter time to acquire the target and stay on it. Far more cost effective to buy a dedicated aircraft and do the job right and concentrate the first-line aircraft where they are needed.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Buying more first-line types to police the extensive regions of the French Empire in Africa and the Far East would be quite inefficient. Too fast, too much bombload for the job and insufficient loiter time to acquire the target and stay on it. Far more cost effective to buy a dedicated aircraft and do the job right and concentrate the first-line aircraft where they are needed.

But in a real war you've got lots of aircraft and personnel which aren't very useful... There isn't generally a correct answer to the question.

It's interesting you note that faster aircraft are worse, speed is actually pretty good in being able to rapidly respond to events.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Buying more first-line types to police the extensive regions of the French Empire in Africa and the Far East would be quite inefficient. Too fast, too much bombload for the job and insufficient loiter time to acquire the target and stay on it. Far more cost effective to buy a dedicated aircraft and do the job right and concentrate the first-line aircraft where they are needed.

But in a real war you've got lots of aircraft and personnel which aren't very useful... There isn't generally a correct answer to the question.

As I said at the start, this ISN'T an aircraft for a "real war." I don't care a whit about how it will work in a "real war" because that isn't what we designed it to do. This is an aircraft to give a basic functional, modern, multi-role air asset to regions that wouldn't otherwise have them - places like French Equatorial Africa, Tchad, Senegal, etc. It's based on the French experience of fighting the recent Rif-Atlas War in Morocco, where light aviation assets played a critical role in defeating the insurgency and restoring civil order. The experience of the British post-WWI in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the experience of the French in Africa, the Irish Civil War, and the experience in all the little Wesworld wars all point to the useful contribution even small aviation forces can play as a force multiplier in these sorts of situations. I'm just taking it to the next logical step of actually designing an aircraft to do the mission, rather than just reusing ill-maintained, unsuitable and out-of-date gear from frontline units.

For the further record, here's my notes on how I intend to deploy these aircraft.

Quoted

Escadrille de Police et de Surveillance (E.P.S.)
- 6 patrol aircraft
- 1 liaison aircraft

An E.P.S. is designed to provide basic reconnaissance and air support for ground-based units in rural regions. It has six patrol aircraft suitable for use as light bombers or strategic and tactical reconnaissance in regions with limited support infrastructure. A liaison aircraft is attached to the escadrille to provide further flexibility in working with civil authorities and ground forces.

Quoted

Equatorial Africa Command
- 3x in Tchad (N'Djamenna, Sarh, Abeche)
- 3x in Niger (Niamey, Arlit, Zinder)
- 1x in Ghana (Accra)
- 2x in Cote d'Ivoire (Abidjan, Yamoussoukro)
- 2x in Guinea (Conakry, Kerouane)
- 1x in Senegal (Dakar)
- 4x in Mali (Bamako, Tombouctou,Sikasso, Gao)
16x escadrilles total

North Africa Command
- 3x in Algeria (Tamanrasset, Laghouat, Tébessa)
- 4x in Morocco (Meknes, Rabat, Fez, Taza, Tanger)
- 1x in Tunisia (Medinine)
8x escadrilles total

Indochina Command
- 8x in Indochina (Phnom Penh, Saigon, Da Nang, Vinh, Hanoi, Vientiane, Luang Prabang, Battambang)
8x escadrilles total

Other Commands
- 1x in French Guiana (Cayenne)
1x escadrilles total

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

But in a real war you've got lots of aircraft and personnel which aren't very useful... There isn't generally a correct answer to the question.

It's interesting you note that faster aircraft are worse, speed is actually pretty good in being able to rapidly respond to events.

Pilots can always be reassigned, and retrained, if necessary. And the aircraft, well, I suspect a use could be found for them. But as Brock has noted, the aircraft isn't intented to fight against a first line opponent, but rather deal with brushfire conflicts in the colonies.

In such a scenario, speed is not necessary, but rather loiter time. As the French found in Algeria, jet fighter bombers do no good when hunting rebels in the mountains - and acquired hundreds of Skyraiders and T-28 Fennecs to do the job of COIN interdiction. These are the very same aircraft that the US would use in Vietnam, and eventually replace with the A-37.

And yes, the US also used many of its first line aircraft in Vietnam. But given its willingness to develop aircraft such as the A-37, the OV-10 and other COIN types, it recognized the limitations of the F-4 Phantom in Charlie-hunting missions.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Pilots can always be reassigned, and retrained, if necessary. And the aircraft, well, I suspect a use could be found for them.

I forgot to comment on this. Yes, I actually have some ideas for how the aircraft could be used in a "real war". (Incidentally, I dislike the use of the term "real war": all wars regardless of size are real. We mean to say "extended war between major powers" instead, I think.) The planes could, of course, work as light bombers, but their main role would be reconnaissance, filling in the gap between the battlefield support aircraft (Storch, Lysander) and the strategic reconnaissance aircraft (photo Spitfires and Mustangs, F5 Lightnings, etc).

Additionally, the aircraft could be easily reconfigured for dual controls, with a pilot trainee sitting in the gunner's nose position, to allow the plane to serve as a multiengine advanced trainer. I've actually given some thought to building this as a variant, incidentally - it's a sensible use for an existing airframe.