Aircraft Trivia Quiz

rangerj wrote:

A drill sgt. told this story while we were having a few cold glasses of milk at the NCO club. He was ordered to assist in teaching a company of brand new WAC recruits close order drill. He forgot just how new they were and while getting them "formed up" gave the order "ladies pick up your dress". They all did exactly as ordered.

I bet that was embarassing!

In July of 1957 an new transcontinental (CA to NY) flight record was set. Who was the pilot and what was the aircraft type? The publicity landed the pilot on a very popular "game show" (at that time). What was the name of the game show? Bonus points if you can name the wingman.

rangerj wrote:

That is a good start WD. John Glenn was the pilot. Now what about the specific variant of the aircraft and the game show.

rangerj wrote:

B-58?  John Glenn is a Marine.

Jeebus wrote:

rangerj wrote: B-58?  John Glenn is a Marine. Doh

Who also flew F-86 Sabre Jets for the US Air Force in Korea as an exchange pilot.  His plane had the side art "Mig Mad Marine" painted along the left fuselage side, plus his wife's name.

Darwin

Project Bullet involved two Vought F8U-1P photo reconnaissance versions of the Crusader.  John Glenn was the primary pilot and his wingman was Navy Lt Charles Demmler, (who damaged his air refueling probe and had to make an emergency landing in New Mexico.)  Glenn appeared on the TV show Name That Tune.

I'll open the next question up to anyone who wants to ask one.

Darwin. O.F.

yardbird78 wrote:

Project Bullet involved two Vought F8U-1P photo reconnaissance versions of the Crusader.  John Glenn was the primary pilot and his wingman was Navy Lt Charles Demmler, (who damaged his air refueling probe and had to make an emergency landing in New Mexico.)  Glenn appeared on the TV show Name That Tune. I'll open the next question up to anyone who wants to ask one. Darwin. O.F.

kay, my question: Name two Polish RAF aces

rudy_102 wrote:

kay, my question: Name two Polish RAF aces

OK, then this string is open to anyone asking the next question!

Including me

And so, and if no one objects, and I may go next, how many aces did the RAF American Eagle squadron have, and who were they?

  Tom

Hints:

1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves were not amongst them
2. They flew British airplanes.
3. This was during WWII

Is this right T_T and this where i got the info http://acesofww2.com/Eagle_Sq/eagleSq.htm

Gentle "Don"

'Dominic Salvatore Gentile  
 (2 w/133sq) * * * * * *

23.83 - 22 (+ 6 OTG)
 
 Duane Willard Beeson
 (POW 5apr44) * * * * *

19.5 (+ 4.5 OTG, ? w/71sq)
 
 "Goody"

James Alexander Goodson
 (POW 15jun44) * * * *

15 (+ 15 OTG, 0 w/133sq)
 
 "Don"

Donald James Mathew Blakeslee  
 (2 w/133sq) * * *

14.5   (+ 2 OTG)
 
 George Carpenter
 (POW 18apr44) * *

13.83 (+ 4 OTG, 0? w/121sq)
 
 John Joseph Lynch
 13 (1 w/71sq)
 
 "Red" "Mac"

Carroll Warren McColpin
 (5.5 w/71sq, 2 w/133sq)

12   * * * * * *
 
(Bill Dunn - The 1st American Ace of WW2)
 "Billy" "Poppy"

William Robert Dunn
 (3 w/ 406th FG & 2 FTG)

10.5 (5.5 w/71sq) *
 
 "Steve"

Spiros Nikolas Pisanos
 (became a US citizen in
UK during the war. A 1st)

10 (0 w/71sq. Greek) *
 
     

  "Gus"

 Gregory Augustus Daymond    
 (was originally credited as
the 1st US Ace of WW2)

7 (all w/71sq) *
 
 "Gord" "Pete"

Chesley Gordon Peterson
 * * *

7 (6 +3prob & 6dam w/71sq)
 
 Reade Franklin Tilley 7 (0 w/121sq) *
 
 "Dixie"

Richard Lear Alexander
 (POW 30may44)

6 (2 w/133sq.) * *
 
 Roy Williams Evans (POW 14feb45)

6    (1 w/121 sq) *
 
 Selden Raymond Edner  (POW 8mar44)

5 (all w/121sq.) *
 
 "Barry"

Jackson Barrett Mahon
 (POW 19aug42, Dieppe)

5 (4 w/121sq.) * *
 

You got it gun!

Sorry I took so long to get back.

Make it one where we don't get into the "spitting contest" like they seem to enjoy getting into on Trivia 2, O.K.?

If this string gets too long, tell me and I can start another for those of us who do not care to have tedeous reference guides that we paid out big bucks for as some seem to be into.

Tom T

Stephan Wilkinson wrote:

Far as I'm concerned, if you can't answer the question from personal knowledge, as a point of honor don't bother trying.  My mother-in-law can Google well enough to find out the size of Richthofen's underwear or the plug gap on an F2G Corsair.  what's the skill in that? Stephan

I prefer to use a combination of experience, recollection of information as received from others, as well as from my broad reading.

I seek to limit my topics to those that can be reasonably verifiable, i.e., through a commonly available and convenient source to all, not just a few.

If there is a website that has the information, in my opinion, so much the better, as it helps me show clear documentation to prove my point.

As for your mother-in-law, Steve, in fact it sounds as though she has above-average intellegence as well as research skills, and she would be more then welcome to join in here if she desires to, providing that with her ability she would find it both interesting and challenging.

Tom T

Stephan Wilkinson wrote:

"...experience, recollection of information as received from others, as well as broad reading..." is the definition of "personal knowledge."  I'm not saying it's unfair to look up exactly how many victories Richard Bong has, I'm just saying it's unfair and pointless to take a question that you don't have the faintest idea what the answer is, and in 10 minutes of Internet research become a bogus expert. Stephan

I'm right there with you, Stephan. What's the point of a trivia game if you look up the answers, or even worse, CALL SOMEBODY! Kinda silly, isn't it?

You see, there's a difference between a 'game', and a legitimate question requiring research. If all you do is google something up while playing the game, then that defeats the entire purpose. Now, if you answer a question, and there is a dispute over the correctness of the answer, then THAT is the time to consult the experts.

But then some people just don't get it... 

Steve and Scott,

Well said.

Darwin, O.F.

scottw76051 wrote:

You see, there's a difference between a 'game', and a legitimate question requiring research. If all you do is google something up while playing the game, then that defeats the entire purpose. Now, if you answer a question, and there is a dispute over the correctness of the answer, then THAT is the time to consult the experts. But then some people just don't get it...

This is where you and I disagree Scott.

The two times I "called the expert" was in order to see if this was an "legitimate question", that is, one that there really is an answer to. In both cases form my experience and recollection, neither question "added up", so that was when I called someone and found out that I "was not alone"!

The first was when Bill asked a "loaded question", i.e., one that could not be correctly answered by anybody because nobody really knows who is the first plastic model airplane kit maker in the U.S. Notice, when I challenged him on this he changed the question to a more honest one, i.e., who were the first plastic airplane kit makers in the U.S., and what were they.

Now Scott, I detect some possible resentment on your part because I also questioned the legitimacy of yours also, and maybe you and others here are "old buddies" and therefore cannot stand someone who "dares to question your question", but in fact I did initiate this forum, and if a question looks "funny" to me, I feel I have the right to inquire about it.

I mean you seem "all bent outa shape" and Bill seems to be OK with this-why are you so touchy and he is not?

Notice, I honestly and openly questioned you about it, not "sneak mailing" to others trying to undermine your credibility. If you can't handle being questioned about your question, then that tells me that you might have a problem in really backing up your answers. And if you can't back up your answers with any other documentation for anyone else, then anybody can come in here say anything is so and keep the forum tied up for weeks with a bogus question. I mean, before I ask a question, I ensure my "ducks are in a row" OK?

Really if there are those who are "shooting from the seat of the pants" with arbitrary questions, and I make them uncomfortible by objective questioning, then I do not feel that is my problem.

Now if there are some few here who want to "run away" with this forum with some little cutsie "inside questions" that are of fuzzy origin, and you resent me possibly "monkey wrenching" this type of thing, OK, I'll stop bothering you all, but I would have thought this could have been kept on a more open basis for others to join in what should be simply a fun thing, and not be resented beacuse they had the ability to look up the answer.

Later

    Tom T

T_Terrific wrote:

scottw76051 wrote: You see, there's a difference between a 'game', and a legitimate question requiring research. If all you do is google something up while playing the game, then that defeats the entire purpose. Now, if you answer a question, and there is a dispute over the correctness of the answer, then THAT is the time to consult the experts. But then some people just don't get it...  This is where you and I disagree Scott. The two times I "called the expert" was in order to see if this was an "legitimate question", that is, one that there really is an answer to. In both cases form my experience and recollection, neither question "added up", so that was when I called someone and found out that I "was not alone"! The first was when Bill asked a "loaded question", i.e., one that could not be correctly answered by anybody because nobody really knows who is the first plastic model airplane kit maker in the U.S. Notice, when I challenged him on this he changed the question to a more honest one, i.e., who were the first plastic airplane kit makers in the U.S., and what were they. Now Scott, I detect some possible resentment on your part because I also questioned the legitimacy of yours also, and maybe you and others here are "old buddies" and therefore cannot stand someone who "dares to question your question", but in fact I did initiate this forum, and if a question looks "funny" to me, I feel I have the right to inquire about it. Notice, I honestly and openly questioned you about it, not "sneak mailing" to others trying to undermine your credibility. If you can't handle being questioned about your question, then that tells me that you might have a problem in really backing up your answers. And if you can't back up your answers with any other documentation for anyone else, then anybody can come in here say anything is so and keep the forum tied up for weeks with a bogus question. I mean, before I ask a question, I ensure my "ducks are in a row" OK? Really if there are those who are "shooting from the seat of the pants" with arbitrary questions, and I make them uncomfortible by objective questioning, then I do not feel that is my problem. Now if there are some few here who want to "run away" with this forum with some little cutsie "inside questions" that are of fuzzy origin, and you resent me possibly "monkey wrenching" this type of thing, OK, I'll stop bothering you all, but I would have thought this could have been kept on a more open basis for others to join in what should be simply a fun thing, and not be resented beacuse they had the ability to look up the answer. Later       Tom T

No, I don't have any "old buddies" here, as you can easily see, I am new to the board. And no, I certainly don't resent being questioned. I have supreme confidence in myself and welcome any challenge you can present, however lame and pathetic it may be. I meant nothing by what I said other than EXACTLY what I said; that it is somewhat embarrassing to yourself to google up answers when participating in a trivia "game". It is even more embarrassing  for you to admit that you are actually calling Burns and taking minutes away from someone else's life to answer a trivia question on an internet site . I am not the only one who obviously feels this way, as I can tell every time I run across something you post. A firestorm of criticism, ridicule and derision typically follows you like a hungry puppy everywhere you go on this board. You whine like a child when a post doesn't fit your silly little paradigm of what it should be. You are paranoid to the point that it is well beyond pitiful. Instead of playing the game like everyone else, you try to manipulate everyone to play the game the way YOU want it to be played. Guess what? We ain't playing it your way. So you just keep playing your own little games in your own little mind, and you keep believing that you're the only one who's right, and we'll keep snickering about it. Deal?  

T_Terrific wrote:

The first was when Bill asked a "loaded question", i.e., one that could not be correctly answered by anybody because nobody really knows who is the first plastic model airplane kit maker in the U.S. Notice, when I challenged him on this he changed the question to a more honest one, i.e., who were the first plastic airplane kit makers in the U.S., and what were they.

I never had any intent on asking a loaded question.  It was my error for not asking a question that was worded accurately.  When people were struggling with the question, I clarified.

Now Scott, I detect some possible resentment on your part because I also questioned the legitimacy of yours also, and maybe you and others here are "old buddies" and therefore cannot stand someone who "dares to question your question", but in fact I did initiate this forum, and if a question looks "funny" to me, I feel I have the right to inquire about it. I mean you seem "all bent outa shape" and Bill seems to be OK with this-why are you so touchy and he is not?

Silence does not equate to agreement.

Since you're sort of dragging me into this, I guess I'll speak up...

Tom, I don't know you.  I've been on many mailing lists and a few forums.  Sometimes somebody gets off on the wrong foot, but then settles in and turns out to be a fine person.

In my opinion, you seem to be taking this trivia thing too seriously.  We're just sitting around quizzing each other about modeling and aircraft subjects.  I can only speak for myself, but I don't have my ego wrapped up in this.  If I get stumped by a question, so what?  I look forward to somebody enlightning me.

I did find it odd that you would go to the trouble to call people about a question.  Especially people who aren't your friends.  Then you acted defensive like we were going to doubt you had called John Burns.  His phone number is easy to find.  He runs an ad in every issue of the IPMS Journal.  I've talked to him too, though it was a few years ago.

I didn't do a very good job of phrasing the question and it ended up too difficult.  I tried giving some hints and clarifying when I realized this.  The impression I got from you was that you assumed I was doing this deliberately to trip people up, or something else nefarious.  The cigar is just the cigar.  I had no nefarious motive.  I don't really care enough to argue about it (and I can argue quite actively when I do care).

" Deal"?  

Just to set the record straight for myself as well, I do not make deals with schoolyard bullies, moles, trolls, would-be barnyard roosters, or anyone else that has an obvious "chip on his shoulder" for me to knock off.

I am not necessarily referring to anyone in particular here, but if the shoe fits someone, you know my personal policy.

  Tom T

wdolson2 wrote:

Now that I've said my piece, I'm going to drop this.  I might continue to contribute to the trivia, but I'm not interested in arguing about the answers. Bill

Neither am I Bill, and I wish to thank you for our candid statement.

In my feeble attempt to apologize, I have sent you a PM, instead of tying up this forum with all sorts of non-applicable/off-topic "dirty laundry".

  Tom T

"moles"? You are obviously a very bitter and paranoid old man, and for that I truly feel sorry for you. I am also sorry you have to send me private messages accusing me of being from some other group that is out to get you. Do you really think you're that important?

Tom, I hope that you are able to get a hold on yourself, or get help to do it. Your angst and psychotic paranoia is going to get unhealthy in a hurry if you don't find some way to curb it.