SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Aircraft Trivia Quiz

728409 views
7409 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Monday, December 21, 2009 5:11 AM

In an unusual twist, the American aircraft was called the Seagull, until the USN adopted the RN name.  The American aircraft was delivered in 1943, and scrapped in 1944.   Both aircraft were for use on board ships, both were single engine, twin seaters.  The American aircraft were never used in their intended role, and soon scrapped.  The British one only had a handful built before sense came into being and the project cancelled.

There was a 3rd aircraft of the same name, a bi-plane flying boat, with 2 engines, and 3 crew.  It too was a failure, with just 2 built, but, a famous fictional pilot flew one.

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Columbia Gorge
Posted by brain44 on Monday, December 21, 2009 9:59 AM

Curtiss Seamew?

 

Brian  Cowboy

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Bernard Books (The Shootist)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Monday, December 21, 2009 6:13 PM

Well, not just the Curtiss, but, yes!

There was the 1928 Supermarine Seamew, which was discarded for the Walrus.  Biggles was supposed to have flown a Seamew.  Just two were built.  Then, the Curtiss Seamew, built at a time when Curtiss couldn't seem to anything right!  The Royal Navy, despite being short of aircraft, were so unimpressed that basically used for second line duties, before scrapping them very quickly.  The aircraft was first called the Seagull, but the American Navy changed it to the Seamew name bestowed on it by the RN.  Then, in the 1950's came the Short Seamew, designed to be a cheap rugged aircraft for anti-submarine work.  Often, when airframes are forced to accept an engine which is radically different from the original, it can make, or break, the airframe.  The Seamew was supposed to be Merlin powered, but was forced to accept a Mamba turbo-prop.  Was this the reason for it's failure?  Sadly, the only man who could get it to perform, died flying one.

If I ever see a new aircraft called the Seamew, I'll bet on it being a failure...

Over to you Brian!

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Columbia Gorge
Posted by brain44 on Monday, December 21, 2009 7:26 PM

Ok, here we go.......

The 1955 specification that gave rise to  this aircraft included the ability to fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at Mach 1.7 with a range of 1,150 miles.   Contracts for preliminary studies were issued to 3 major aircraft companies.  The program died in 1956. The program was reinstated in 1957 and one company was awarded a contract for two prototypes. At the time, an order for 480 aircraft was anticipated.  This aircraft went through considerable evolution, owing to its cutting-edge technology and changes in requirements. The eventual design was shown to  officials in early 1959, and was given it's name following a contest for suggestions. Production numbers were radically curtailed and the program was officially cancelled later of that year.

Brian  Cowboy

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Bernard Books (The Shootist)
  • Member since
    October 2009
Posted by Macktheknife on Monday, December 21, 2009 7:49 PM

The XF-108? IIRC it was in that time frame but I'm not sure if it fits exactly.

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: Columbia Gorge
Posted by brain44 on Monday, December 21, 2009 8:04 PM

Wow, Mack, that was quick!  The XF-108 is correct! 

The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed American design for a long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft to defend the United States and Canada from supersonic Soviet bombers.  A very high performance, long-range interceptor had been proposed by the USAF as early as 1952, but formal development of what became known as the Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental (LRI-X) was not approved until 20 July 1955. The specification was laid down on 6 October, calling for an aircraft that could fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at a speed of Mach 1.7 (1,122 mph/1,795 km/h at that altitude) with a range of 1,150 miles (1,840 km). It was to have a two-man crew, at least two engines, and a powerful radar. Contracts for preliminary studies were issued to North American Aviation, Lockheed, and Northrop. Of the paper designs, the North American proposal, dubbed NA-236, seemed most promising. Political and budgetary difficulties led to the cancellation of the program on 9 May 1956.

After considerable confusion, the program was reinstated on 11 April 1957 and North American was awarded a contract for two prototypes. The designation F-108 was issued, also known as Weapon System 202A. North American's company designation was NA-257, although it was basically identical to NA-236. At the time, Air Defense Command anticipated an order for 480 aircraft.

The resulting design went through considerable evolution, both owing to its cutting-edge technology and continual redefinition of the USAF requirements. In addition to the F-108's interceptor role, North American proposed it as an escort fighter for the Strategic Air Command's XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber, which NAA was also developing. The F-108 was intended to share the Valkyrie's General Electric J93 engines and some other subsystems. By that time, however, it was unlikely that it would have served in that role. SAC had lost any interest in the escort fighter concept and, in any case, the F-108's range was at best marginal to accompany the B-70 all the way to its target and back.

The eventual design, which was built as a full-sized XF-108 mock-up shown to Air Force officials in early 1959, was given the name "Rapier" on 15 May 1959 following a contest by the Air Defense Command asking airmen for suggestions. Production numbers were radically curtailed and the program was officially cancelled on 23 September of that year. North American kept refining the design through 1960 in hopes that the program might be revived, but it never was. Testing of the radar and missiles developed for the aircraft continued, intended for the Lockheed YF-12 program, but that, too, was ultimately cancelled, and no Mach 3 interceptor has yet been built in the U.S.

The F-108 had a very large "cranked" delta wing, with a 58° sweep angle at the leading edge and wingtip extensions of about 40°, with a 4° anhedral. There were fixed ventral stabilizers on the wings, mounted at mid-span, and a tall all-moving vertical tailfin, supplemented by two ventral stabilizers that extended when the landing gear retracted. Although some earlier versions of the design had had separate tailplanes and later forward canards, both were abandoned in the final design. There were two General Electric J93 turbojet engines, also used in North American's XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, in the fuselage; USAF requests for an alternate installation of the Pratt & Whitney J58 later used in the SR-71 came to naught. The engines were fed by side-mounted intakes with a shape very similar to the later North American A-5 Vigilante.

The large fuselage and wing had nine tanks for a total of 7,109 gallons (26,911 liters) of JP-6 fuel, giving an estimated combat radius of some 1,271 mi (2,033 km), which could be extended by in-flight refueling. Top speed was estimated at 1,980 mph (3,190 km/h), about Mach 3, at 72,800  ft (22,200 m). It was stressed for +5.33/-3.00 g.

The aircraft had a crew of two, a pilot and a weapon systems officer (WSO), in tandem cockpits. Each had an escape capsule designed to completely enclose each crewman in the event of emergency, permitting safe ejection even at extreme speeds and altitudes. The WSO in the rear seat had no flight controls.

Over to you!

Brian  Cowboy

"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people and I expect the same from them." John Bernard Books (The Shootist)
  • Member since
    October 2009
Posted by Macktheknife on Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:02 PM

I've been racking my brain all afternoon for a good one, but unfortunately the holiday season seems to be frazzling my brain. So, this one should be a bit easy :)

 

This aircraft was a joint Euro/US flight-testing program. In the early '90s it made some notable advancements in high-AoA and post-stall flight. One of the craft was destroyed, and one is now a museum piece.

  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Utereg
Posted by Borg R3-MC0 on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 4:57 AM

I think it is the Rockwell-MBB X-31. I saw it flying once, at the Paris airshow, it was amazing!

  • Member since
    October 2009
Posted by Macktheknife on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 12:02 PM

Yup! Over to you.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, December 28, 2009 11:50 AM

BUMP Time

  • Member since
    January 2009
Posted by F-8fanatic on Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:40 PM

anyone?

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, January 11, 2010 4:52 AM

No takers. OK,

This turbojet engine was used in 3 aircraft in afterburning & non afterburning fitments, it has been fitted to both military & civillian aircraft in versions ranging in output from approx. 10,000lbf to 40,000lbf. Only 4 now fly although there are far more in service.

Name the engine & the only aircraft that has had the luxury of flying with afterburning & non afterburning versions?

  • Member since
    January 2009
Posted by F-8fanatic on Monday, January 11, 2010 8:42 PM

I'm going to take a guess and say the Pratt & Whitney J57 turbojet.  It's civilian designation was the JT-3D, and it powered a lot of military aircraft, like the F-8 Crusader, F-100 Super Sabre, B-57, B-52, A-3 Skywarrior, U-2, and F4D Skyray.  It also powered the 707, DC-8 and the Chinese Shanghai Y-10 airliner.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, January 11, 2010 8:54 PM

Nope, it was only used in three different types of aircraft.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 11:57 AM

Milairjunkie

No takers. OK,

This turbojet engine was used in 3 aircraft in afterburning & non afterburning fitments, it has been fitted to both military & civillian aircraft in versions ranging in output from approx. 10,000lbf to 40,000lbf. Only 4 now fly although there are far more in service.

Name the engine & the only aircraft that has had the luxury of flying with afterburning & non afterburning versions?

Would it be the Rolls-Royce Olympus? If so, I think the only one to fly with and without AB was the Vulcan.
It powered the Vulcan, TSR-2, and Concorde. Only 1 Vulcan is flying, which has 4 engines, and there is a marine version of the Olympus that is used to power several ships.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:07 PM

Right on the money, the R.R. / Bristol Olympus - over to you.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:47 PM

This well-known aircraft took part in an "aviation first" for Canada on the birthday of its pilot.

What is the aircraft's name, the date and significance of the "aviation first" in question, and the name of the pilot?

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Saturday, January 16, 2010 8:30 AM

Mike Domb is Canada's youngest qualified pilot, he gained his ticket on his 14th birthday in a Cessna 150 or 152?

Long shot I know.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Monday, January 18, 2010 1:03 PM

Think "silver" in relation to the a/c name.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, January 18, 2010 1:35 PM

CT-133 Silver Star is as much as I can find.

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:27 AM

Aug. 2, 1909, the pilot's 23rd birthday.

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Grand Bay, New Brunswick ,Canada
Posted by MECHTECH on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:58 AM

It wouldn't be Glenn Curtis Flying the Silver Dart in Cape Breton Island with Alex. Bell?

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:36 AM

Close... you got the a/c right.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:45 PM

A.E.A Silver Dart / Aerodrome number 4, 2nd August 1909, John McCurdy, Canada's first passenger flight?

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • From: Tulsa, OK
Posted by acmodeler01 on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:59 PM

You got it.

I knew it would take some digging, but I didn't mean for the question to be that difficult.Oops

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:40 AM

Cheers.

Name 4 Western, Supersonic aircraft which flew with "all moving" vertical stabilizer's?

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Grand Bay, New Brunswick ,Canada
Posted by MECHTECH on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:25 AM

B1-B Lancer, SR-71 Blackbird, F-22 Raptor & F-117 Stealth ????

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:47 AM

B1-b  - regular vertical stabilizer (although it has slab horizontal stabilizer / tailplane),

F-22 - as above,

F-117 - has neither a vertical or horizontal stabilizer as such.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:59 AM

Four I know of are the X-15, RA-5 Vigilante, SR-71, and BAC lightning.

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    September 2009
  • From: Frisco, TX
Posted by B17Pilot on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:05 PM

Is it  the X-1, X-15, SR-71, and BAC lightning

  

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.