Aircraft Trivia Quiz

@Milairjunkie:

Is your last question:  Production period was in the 1920s

                                                         or

                                  Total aircraft production numbers were in thre range of twenty or more.  It looks like note remain.

?  

@GUNNER59:

Production numbers in the twenty's - I've also changed the original post.

More....

This aircraft was a low wing with a single engine & the engine was part of the reason it wasn't a success, not that there was anything wrong with the engine?

Even more...

This aircraft first flew in the 1930's.

Gee Bee R-1.  Not a military aircraft (your usual contestant) but it does seem to fit the hints

roony

Gee Bee R-1. 

No, not the R-1.

The aircraft in question was indeed military & it could be said that there was some similarity in it's design to Granville Brothers Aircraft's products in general (look at the name of the company & think why Gee Bee's were called Gee Bee's).

BV 141

The engine caused it to fail because the engine wasnt available in the numbers needed for full scale production. Low wing monoplane of unconventional design built in the 1930's.

Not the BV 141, but the reasons for the failure of the aircraft in question are similar & some of the parties involved in / with the BV 141 were likewise involved.

He 100 Single engine low wing monoplane. Held a speed record for a while. Official reason for failure was the ME-109 was chosen over it. 25 were built. The fatal accident involved was the primary designer Walter was killed in a car accident during the design process. His brother took over the design work and finished it later that year (1937)

Spot on, the He 100!

One advanced feature was the evaporative cooling system, which caused some issues,

The DB 601 was in short supply thanks to the 109 & 110 (similar story to the BV 141)

Like the Gee Bee, brothers were involved in the design of the He 100, Ernst starting the design & his twin brother taking over after his death in a car accident.

Again, like the BV 141, The RLM were involved in the decision making & Ernst Udet had something to say about both; 

This aircraft was made by a company with the same name as a particular test.

It used major parts from mainline naval fighters.

One of the unusual features was very similar to an unsuccessful idea by another company.

1 was built and the project was cancelled.

(PhillB if you get this in less than 24 hours i wont be happy lol)

I think you are looking for the Rockwell XFV-12 vertical take off fighter project.  Meant to be a supersonic competitor to the Harrier it used the nose of the Skyhawk and the engine intakes of the F-4 Phantom.

It used the thrust augmented wing concept which had already failed on the Lockheed XV4 Hummingbird and was unable to take off vertically.

Dammit, you did that just to spite me lol.

Im sure you're a walking aviation encyclopedia.

Yes it was the Rockwell XFV-12,

The test with the same name is the Rockwell Hardness Tests.

Over to you Phil.

She Who Must Be Obeyed puts it down to a misspent youth dividing my time equally between aviation and girls and a determination since i retired to keep as far away from gardening as possible!

For a change this time, I'm looking for a person who holds a now disputed Guinness Book of Records citation for an aviation related record.  Other people had previously held the record though, unlike our subject, they had been equipped not to be in contention.

The "unpure" paper aeroplane launched by Joe Ayoob - "unpure" because it was "constructed" with a strip of sellotape?

No.  It is generally accepted that there have only been four holders of this record, each a different nationality.

This is one record where the holders had no preparation time and the current holder can't remember setting the record!

From the first time the record was set until the third, there was less than 3 years.  From the third to the fourth time was two months short of 28 years.  The record holder I'm looking for is still alive and, whilst like the others, had no intention of seeking the record.

The record is unlikely to be broken again.

Height of fall without a parachute (& surviving)?

Vesna Vulovic's holds the record at 33,330 ft, although I'm not sure who's disputing it.

Correct., though there is some dispute which I only found when checking the background.  Whilst this is on Wikipedia, I assume there is some truth that a dispute exists even if the basis is for dispute may be spurious.  See en.wikipedia.org/.../Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

I thought about her. I wasnt sure though. The dispute comes from the fact that people claim the saw the aircraft intact up until only 100m or so off the ground, which would disprove the record.  But still im not sure if shes eligable for the record since she was still in a section of the aircraft when she was found, so technically she didnt fall on her own, she was carried down by a section of the aircraft...But of a tricky one though.

It's interesting that, whilst the Czechs have pretty much opened up everything from the Communist years to scrutiny, the events surrounding the downing of the aircraft are shrouded in murky rumour, speculation and myth.

Either way, the fact that she survived is amazing.

Not a record to be envied!

This aircraft was a failed derivative of an aircraft series which was in service for over 40 years, the aircraft series was in turn developed from a notable aircraft which was both groundbreaking & unfortunate.

Less than 10 of the derivative in question were fully completed, it's post ultimately being taken over by an aircraft with similar origins.

The aircraft series which this derivative was from also has another unsuccessful derivative based on it? 

Are we in Nimrod AEW territory?

PhilB

Are we in Nimrod AEW territory?

Interestingly enough, the MR4's possible replacement, the Boeing P-8 is also derived from an airliner (B-737).

Having lived part of my life in Stockport, had many visits around the Woodford factory and having been friends for more years than I care to remember with Harry Holmes, one time Marketing Manager for Hawker Siddeley/BAe Manchester and now, in retirement, a noted AVRO/Hawker Siddeley historian, the execution of the MRA4 and the closure of Woodford and Chadderton has been an act of political and economic vandalism which I hope the UK won't one day regret.

QUESTION

Now, keeping up the theme of derivatives, this type was developed by the seeming prime customer as a larger version of a type for which it had been the largest customer.  The type was initially built in a joint venture with two other participants, one being the manufacturer.  After evaluation that customer didn't place the expected large order, but kept the aircraft it had tested.

Penny numbers were ordered by the other participant and two air forces before production ceased.

Some years later production was reopened for a further 8 years for a variety of customers though it was 11 years after the line re-opened before the last example was delivered.

Ready Room!

I noticed that it was missing for a few hours & thought it had disappeared all together

Sorry about that! There was a little lag between moving some of the threads and the new category going live. All of the trivia threads are gathered in the Ready Room now.

Tim