Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Lessee:

1. Well, it's main intended purpose was to be the "Final Solution" for all racers, essentially "wiping them all out", thus ending the sport altogether, essentially collapsing America's lead in aviation. A very draconian plot concocted by none other then a collaberation of the notorious Dr. Totenkopf and the bitter illegitimate son of Baron Manfred von Richthofen, Herr Furz Richthofen
2. It's most famous pilot was none other then The Great Waldo Pepper, who looked remarkably like none other then Robert Redford, to whom Richthofen's son lost face to in a post-war air show.
3. The modernized rebuild (since extensive government specified modifications) still flies as the U-2 Spy Plane.
4. It's crash got it out of the way so the Gee Bee no longer looked so bad, and it's driver went on to fame and fortune. This frustrated Totenkopf so badly he went forward with his plans to destroy the earth, which were thwarted by none other the the now famous "Sky Captain".

How did I do?

Which were more fun, these or the real answers?

Tom

What was the origin of the name of the Laird "Solution" air racer"? Laird was asked to build a racer for Lee Shoenair in just a little over 3 weeks.  This plane was then called the Laird Solution.

The name of it's most famous pilot? Jimmy Doolittle

The name of it's modernized, rebuilt version? The Laird "Super Solution"

The the modification/ enhancement that caused it's premature retirement from air racing and how did that resultant crash set the path for the emergence of the mighty Gee Bee to legendary status? Retractible landing gear, which failed to lower during a test flight, so Doolittle had to belly land it.  The aircraft was too badly damaged to be repaired in time so Doolittle piloted the Gee Bee R-1 at the Nationals.

Wow...

Completely right on all points.

And now onto T's question.

Keith

And now onto Espins answers - all of which are right on except the first...

It was named the "Solution" as a tongue in cheek response to the previous years winner- the 1929 Travel Air "Mystery Ship"- as such it was the "solution" to the previous years "Mystery"....

great job on a fast answer, Keith

hudskit wrote:

And now onto Espins answers - all of which are right on except the first... It was named the "Solution" as a tongue in cheek response to the previous years winner- the 1929 Travel Air "Mystery Ship"- as such it was the "solution" to the previous years "Mystery"....   great job on a fast answer, Keith

Ya, I couldn't remember what the reasoning was behind the original name.  LOL

That essentially what the masses of men and machines we called the Mighty Eighth we threw at the Gemans did for our society.

Personally, I have nothing but respect for those veterens I occasionally meet who came back with "bragging rights" from essentially what was a war of attrition for both Germany and Japan.

Tom " border="0" width="25" height="23" />

Tom- this perhaps skirts several issues as well as using the clarity of hindsight- 1) if you follow the timeline of aircraft development the B-17/B-24 series was a natural choice for creating a bomber force in the concepts of Douhet et al:- if you look at the appropriations that did unfortunately influence many purchasing desicions-instead of the truly advanced B-17 the useless B-18/B-23 family of twin engine bombers was purchased-which other than an almost unbelieveable ability to float for days if ditched provided no service in WW2 beyond those of basic stateside patrol or training duties- as well as many others. The open checkbook of the Air Corps prewar enabled them to put in orders for advanced aircraft such as the A-20 and B-25 that were able to bulwark our pacific defenses literally just in time during the opening days of WW2 .

The horsepower created by the late war engines was truly un-imaginable in the early days of the war- and these significant gains  combined with more advanced aerodynamics enabled the more impressive loadcarrying capabilities of the last year and a half of the war for these fighters-but this was also being reacted to- with the next generation of heavy duty haulers being powered by the mighty R-4360-aircraft such as the Skyraider/ mauler series as well as that large Vultee bird etc.... and if you review the success of the "fighter bomber" used by the Axis/Allied forces up to that point in the war beyond a slow but sure displacement of the deicated ground attack aircraft and single engine bombers used by these airforces little else was occuring- so such a leap as replacing heavy bombers with fighter formations would not have been practical or sensible at that time or any other (Read B-52 into this)-and aren't the Germans constantly criticized for never developing a heavy bomber for the battle of Britain /Russian front scenarios? Not to mention if the Americans had introduced the next generation of technology such as the B-29 in the German theater (had it been needed)-the usefulness of the large long range bomber would have been reaffirmed again- I think what you see is more a a technology lag as that first generation of heavy bombers reached the end of it's usefulness as the second generation of fighters began to hit their stride.

Lastly -I certainly hope that the need to destroy completely that perverse society known as the Third Reich is seen as a necessity of that time- for there are the twenty million or so ghosts of that conflict that would see it as so...

Airing a slightly different opinion,

Keith

hudskit wrote:

Tom- this perhaps skirts several issues as well as using the clarity of hindsight- 1) if you follow the timeline of aircraft development the B-17/B-24 series was a natural choice for creating a bomber force ...The open checkbook of the Air Corps prewar enabled them to put in orders for advanced aircraft such as the A-20 and B-25 that were able to bulwark our pacific defenses literally just in time during the opening days of WW2 .  Not to mention if the Americans had introduced the next generation of technology such as the B-29 in the German theater (had it been needed)-the usefulness of the large long range bomber would have been reaffirmed again- I think what you see is more a a technology lag as that first generation of heavy bombers reached the end of it's usefulness as the second generation of fighters began to hit their stride. Lastly -I certainly hope that the need to destroy completely that perverse society known as the Third Reich is seen as a necessity of that time- for there are the twenty million or so ghosts of that conflict that would see it as so...   Airing a slightly different opinion, Keith

Actually, I think both our essays compliment each other very well.

Mine was specific to Bill's dad's comment that a group of P-51's could have done the same damage with less risk of loss of manpower. My point was to emphasize the tendency to maximum man-usage, which included U.S. Navy single-engined aircraft often carrying a redundant third crew member in both the SBC-3 and the TBF (which were both eventually replaced by the single-engined multi-purpose Douglas AD-1 Skyraider that had a pilot only), just to boost the demand for numbers in the ranks.

Actually, first the Germans then the British (with their two-man Mosquito bomber that could carry a blockbuster bomb, obviating the continued need for Lancasters) showed how more could be done with less in the air.

Yes, I am aware that the development of the B-29 was leaked to the German heirarchy as a factor of intimidation, which also helped shorten the war.

Since I am somewhat of a B-17 fanatic, I also own a copy of the Osprey publication "Fortress of the Skies, The B-17 Flying Fortress in Combat", which is the history of the B-17 in WWII. You may not be aware of this but in fact, at first, because the B-15 was a flop, and they had a couple of very bad accidents with the prototype (Boeing Model 299), Congress nearly killed the entire project, and had they done so the USAAF in fact would have had no heavy bomber to enter WWII with. It was saved by a "behind-the-scenes" deal between Boeing exec's and a certain Air Corps general (the name escapes me at the moment), where Boeing actually went out on a limb for the USAAF, absorbing development costs by diverting funds from their airline development. The rest, as you know is history.

You may not know this, but Doolittle was instrumental in deciding to get more B-17's then '24's for the Eighth, since he and others felt it was a better airplane.

You know, the debate over the usefullness of a long-range stratigic bomber in these times of ICBM's, Cruise Missiles, etc, is still a topic of debate, especially since the "Cold War" is gone.

Pesonally, I see the big bombers as the USAF's equivalent of the USN's dreadnaughts, like the USS Iowa. Fun to have around and build models of.

OK?

Tom

P.S.

Did you know that the B-52's swept wing was a modification of the origional design due to "Operation Paperclip"'s acquisition of German swept-wing design development technology?

T_Terrific wrote:

P.S. Did you know that the B-52's swept wing was a modification of the origional design due to "Operation Paperclip"'s acquisition of German swept-wing design development technology?

Aye, hence the B-47 Stratojet and later the B-52... and heck, the F-86 Sabre as well.  All our early jets were straight wing designs until we were able to assimilate and evaluate all the German aerodynamic research. 

Who's turn is it to ask another question?

espins1 wrote:

Who's turn is it to ask another question?

Yours!

Tom

T_Terrific wrote:

espins1 wrote: Who's turn is it to ask another question? Yours! Tom

Doh!  Question incoming shortly. 

This aircraft is at the tap roots of the family tree of the P-40.  This aircraft was the first, low-wing monoplane pursuit design by this company.  It lost out to the Boeing P-26A, but did allow the company to gain much needed experience on monoplane designs.  This lead to several successful designs, the most successful and noteworthy being the P-40 series.  

Name this plane.

I believe you're thinking of the XP-31 Swift- a very handsome monoplane fighter that simply did not match that of the P-26 as well as being more expensive per unit purchased.

I'm curious about it being part of the lineage of the P-40- I had always thought that the P-40 owed it's lineage (thru the P-36 series) to the Northrup A-17. Designer Don Berlin (who worked for Northrup during this period) had borrowed the outer wing/ rear fuselage sections from this Jack Northrup designed aircraft -which helped expedite this design to enable it's completion in time for the 1935(?) competition with the P-35.

Of course if my guess of the Swift is wrong please disregard the rest!

incidently there is a very nice 1/72nd vacuform kit of the XP-31 that pops up on e-bay every once in a while.

Keith

Bingo!   

According to the Squadron/Signal Publications Aircraft #26 "Curtiss P-40 in Action":

"Ignoring the Curtiss Hawk biplanes, the family tree of the P-40 would seem to have it's tap roots in the XP-934 Curtiss Swift of 1932 vintage.  Although some experience in the low-wing monoplane type was gained when the company produced its famed Shrike series of attack planes, the Swift, or XP-31 as it was designated by the Air Corps, was their first low-wing pursuit design.  By one of those odd quirks, the Swift initially was powered by an in-line engine which gave way to a more poerful radial, just the reverse of the P-36 to P-40 design development.  The XP-31 was not successful with either engine and the design was soon abandoned (It did earn the dubious distinction of being the last U.S. pursuit plane with a fixed landing gear). The Curtiss Company's fortunes took a downward turn in the pursuit field when the Boeing P-26A was selected by the Air Corps over the XP-31."

The direct ancestor to the P-40 is of course the P-36, which in simple terms was a P-36 with an inline Allison engine in place of the radial engine of the P-36, and heavier armament and armor.   

Good job, you're up! 

Okay...back to air racing then...post war cleveland national air races.

At the end of the war most manufacturerers were cleaning out their yards of all older aircraft and selling them off to anyone with a checkbook....so...

Name the 2 prototype fighter aircraft (both of which were failed to enter production or even warrant further development ) that competed with a truly remarkable lack of success -and both were wrecked during preliminary heats and races.

Spot on with XP-40 Q- actually the second prototype version ended up sold as essentially salvage to Skip Zeigler to race in the '47 race. It didn't qualify fast enough to race in the final thompson race but due to some confusion on the Skip's part(some say intentionally) he took off anyway - if you can imagine 13 fighters taking off SIMUTANEOUSLY -mind you all of divurgent performances- with the P-39's leaping off the ground-closely followed by the Super Corsairs with the P-51's taking their usual stately take off roll- all from a lineup- you can imagine the effect of one more unexpected fighter taking off ! Unfortunately the story goes downhill from there for Skip- the motor coughed ,then froze and the XP-40Q crashed on some nearby railroad tracks irreparably damaged.

Currently available in 72nd scale by Pegasus and LF resins.

Good job Jeaton- for a hint on the other- it was also made by Curtiss and looked quite a bit like a thunderbolt...

Regards, Keith

Exactly right Brett- it too fufilled it's destiny as scrap metal with a frozen engine and the resultant fatal interaction with gravity.

It's somewhat interesting that both of these aircraft were signifiantly inferior to the aircraft that they were designed in competition against- ie the p-47,p-51 series of aircraft.

The floor's all yours, Bret

Great question about a little known airplane- I'll refrain from jumping in on this one too quickly...

cool plane tho...

Keith

In addition I'd like to point out that the air racing world lost a tremendous pilot and enthusiast with the loss of that pilot- who probably had one of the coolest paint jobs to ever grace a hawker Sea Fury on one of his airplanes-"Miss Merced".

Keith

Yup- you're right about the Signal sea fury- I forgot her name was chamged after Sherm Cooper purchased her. Furias was at my first Reno air races- 2002- when it made to the Gold by winning the Silver heat but then backed out when the winds really got heavy. I believe it's been for sale since then...shame-it's a great plane.

Glad to see another air racing enthusiast on the board- I have to admit I'm truly mystified that more modelers don't check out air racing- one day in the pits at Reno and you'll learn more about aircraft than years studying then in magazines. There is truly nothing like standing 20 yards away from an R-4360 when it starts up... or seeing them haul past at 450mph 25 feet off the ground ... or watching a Yak 9 (admittedly with an allison) trying to sneak by a Tigercatin the turns...

'nuff said...but if any modeler could give me some insight into the lack of interest in Reno racing I would appreciate it...

Keith

hudskit wrote:

Exactly right Brett- it too fufilled it's destiny as scrap metal with a frozen engine and the resultant fatal interaction with gravity. It's somewhat interesting that both of these aircraft were signifiantly inferior to the aircraft that they were designed in competition against- ie the p-47,p-51 series of aircraft. The floor's all yours, Bret

 Curtiss went out of business shortly after the war.  They had a tendency to stick with a basci design far past  its obsolescence.  The P-40 was behind the curve in 1941.  By 1945, it was a fossil.  The XP-40Q was an attempt to soup up the old design to get a plane that was competive with modern fighters, but it was pushing an old design too far.

The mess with the SB2C Helldiver also  put the company into a lot of trouble.  The problem stemmed from an unrealistic requirement on the part of the Navy to be able to fit two dive bombers on an aircraft carrier elevator that ended up with a plane that was too short to be stable.

Bill

skybolt2003 wrote:

Last time I was at reno was in the early 70's – life got in the way since then. A good friend races in the Sport Biplane class – Tom Aberle. His dad taught me to fly. He is currently fielding the Phantom which is kicking butt. I have a standing invitation to crew for him, but haven't been able to make it work. I do remember the last time I was at reno, they had some fuel problems _ Lloyd was in the slot and putting in the power, his enigine (still the Centaurus I think) went from full rich to autolean, and detonated, blowing a jug (cylinder) right out of the cowling. As I said before on this list –I've been cutting the wing tips off my models since I was a kid.

Air racing has never been my favorite subject, but a couple of tid bits, I know a guy in Germany who decided to do something about the lack of air racer models: http://www.xs-models.com/  When he started the company, he and I talked about the name.  He wanted a name that would reflect his obsession with quality and he chose XS for that reason.  I've seen a few reviews and they are positive.  It looks like they are imported into the US by Race Plane Decals RacePlaneDecals@aol.com.

 When I was in college, I knew Bill Destefani.  He was restoring Strega at that time.  He was also restoring a P-40 that I did some work on.  He was a fixture at the local warbirds airfield in Shafter, CA.  I'm a bit surprised he hasn't killed himself.  I always thought he was too reckless to fly a P-51 safely.

 When my sister was selling her house, I happened to be there when a real estate agent came by to show the house.  I looked at her card and saw the name Destefani, I figured she was either his mother or his aunt.  It turned out to be his mother.  She saw some models in the house and mentioned her son was into aircraft.  I had to restrain myself from telling her just how jealous of her son I was, though I did mention that I knew him.

Bill