Aircraft Trivia Quiz

OK, here's a potentially easy one.  This RAF aircraft had all of it's aircraft (at least originally) named for holders of the Victoria Cross.  What was the aircraft?  There is a clue in the choice of medal.  Hope this is an easy question!

(The big one)

Yes, the VC-10!  One thing, would it be OK to include text, as I can't see pictures at work, so couldn't tell what you were referring to?  Anyway, over to you!

No problem.

Vickers held a record for aircraft production against time, which was previously held by an American company.

What was the Aircraft & what was the record?

Consolidated Aircraft B-24, one every 55 minutes off the assembly line in Willow Run, MI

Brian 

brain44

Consolidated Aircraft B-24, one every 55 minutes off the assembly line in Willow Run, MI

 

Brian 

This was done by Vickers & happened before Willow Run got up to speed .

my bad!  I didn't read your question properly...........

Brian

The Vickers wellington?

Sorry I didn't say this before but the record was: constructed in 23 hours and 50 minutes, and took off 24 hours and 48 minutes after the first parts of the airframe had been laid down

A Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire?  Probably would be one of the Castle Bromwich plant ones I would guess, as the original factory was smaller and less well set-up for mass production, whilst Castle Bromwich was specially established to produce the Spitfire.

modeler#1

The Vickers wellington?

Yes, Wimpy LN514 it was.

Just a shame that it never saw service & was eventually scrapped!

The BBC showed a programme, about the record attempt, last year. Here is a link to their page about it. Unfortunately; the video clip may not be available to those outside the U.K. but the story is interesting, though. The link to the National Archives may work better but I am not sure.

BBC... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11107561

National Arhives... http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/theartofwar/films/workers_week.htm

What equipment is used for an emergency exit in the Hurricane and where is it stowed?

Hi guys,

I just happened to bop in and I noticed that this last post was made on April 1, and no one has chosen to answer, and even the writer seems interested, as he has offered no further clues or suggestions.

As stated on the fist page with the guidelines for this forum:

 "if no one can answer a difficult question within a five-day week, the forum is open to anyone who wishes to posit the next question"

So here is my next go at it:

Up until well into WWI did this famous aircraft genius discover a simple solution to a problem that had been plaguing seaplanes up to then.

Their biggest challenge, along with dealing with the drag of that water itself upon take-off, was in breaking the surface tension of the water.

This simple discovery fixed the problem, and it has been used by all nations that successfully designed and built seaplanes ever since.

What was the fix?

If you need a clue, simply study the hull/float configurations of early WWI seaplanes vs. those that came later, and it should be obvious.

As a bonus, name the aircraft genius.

Tom T

Since nobody can get it the anwser is: crowbar/right side of the seat.

I think you're referring to the hull step and I was taught that we should credit Archimedes. Or did you mean Glenn Curtiss?

Sorry for the delay in getting back!

You got it Tom Z2!

Yes it is the hull step.

One of your bonus guess answers was close.

It was not Glen Curtiss, but Dr. Dornier, the German aircraqft designer.

Tom T

That's not a bad answer, but I would have thought if the pilot were to use a practical tool, it would be a canoe paddle/right side of the navigator/gunners' seat.

If you like you can have second place for this one.

Tom T

F4U Corsair, yes the one with the nearly unique, anhedral inverted gull wing, was tested in a "funny" way: First the model makers made a 100% wooden wind tunnel model, then the fabricators made another model 100% of metal. This was done for a good reason. What was it?

Note: I got this story (REPEATEDLY!) from one of my aerodynamics professors when I was an undergrad in Aerospace Engineering.

I can think of several good reasons for a measured approach for this aircraft design.

Since this was to be the first production aircraft to exceed 400 mph, using the most poweful engine to be put ino a single-engine aricraft, the inverted gull-wing design was unconventional, so I would think its characteristics along with controls surface design/response would obviously warrant thorough testing.

Tom T

P. S.

I can't think of how the reason is not embedded in my S-W-A-Guess, unless it involves some detailed knowlege of aeronautics not available to the average scale modeler.

I mean, as an example, as you know the angle of the wing roots obviated the need for wing-root fairings, etc.

I literally got my trivia fram a nice historical work on WWI aircraft.

Tom T

Nope! Hint #1: Don't over-think it, but I said "model makers" and "fabricators", not "model makers and fabricators".

Note: I can give two more hints before the cat is out of the bag.

Just to be 100% fair, I should have mentioned that "a measured approach" had nothing to do with it; the shellac was barely dry when they started on the second model. Further there were NO changes, except for materials, between the two models.

I would assume the different groups were focused on different problems.  I believe the Corsair was the first plane to be made from welded aluminum.  The fabricators would be concerned about welds failing due to changes in air pressure across the surfaces in flight.

Temperature changes from air friction probably wouldn't be a significant problem at 400 mph, but it became a significant issue in the jet age.

Bill

Quite likely the second wind tunnel model was to prove out that spot welded construction would have the predicted low drag over riveted methods.

Second clue: The metal model was intensely studied by the aerodynamicists (my professor & storyteller being one), but it was never used in a wind tunnel.

1. The wood model was cheaper.

2. The metal model fabricators needed something to measure from.

3. Since it was for the Navy, they wanted to see if it floated.

Cute, but (1) part of the puzzle is why there were two dimensionally identical models in different materials; (2) I suspect that the metalworkers would've been insulted by the suggestion that they needed a wooden prototype (minor red herring: my grandfather was an ironworker at Griswold Manufacturing Co.); and (3) getting warmer.

Before the days of CAD design non-flying mock ups of the plane had to be built to ensure the parts would all fit together.  When I started at Boeing back in the 80s (not there anymore), I worked in the same building that housed all the 707 variant mock ups.  Some were complete, some only partial.

Bill

I'll throw in this as a lagniappe: THESE HIGHLY-SKILLED METAL WORKERS HAD NEVER MADE A MODEL AIRCRAFT BEFORE. (Not so much a clue as a "deobfuscation".)

Final Clue: COMPRESSIBLE FLOW.

(The first flight of an XF4U-1 was made on 29 May 1940; the first U.S. supersonic tunnel wasn't built until 1942! So how could you possibly test for compressible flow?)

And SOMEBODY please put this trail of breadcrumbs together; it's not that hard!