Aircraft Trivia Quiz

telsono wrote:

How about the Blackburn Triplane... Mike T.

Good guess. But no. The airplane I'm thinking of was operational aboard a bona fide "flat-top". ie; aircraft carrier.

Was it the Mitsubishi 1MT, a triplane torpedo bomber used on the IJN Hosho, which oddly enough was designed by a Mr. Herbert Smith formally of Sopwith?

They used to make a kit of this one, that I built as a younger kid.

Tom T

What did I do, flabbergast Mr. Trexx?

I do confess using a Yahoo search to verify the exact name and manufacturer of the actual aircraft, since I built the kit over 40 years ago, a couple of details were fuzzy.

Here is the link:

http://smmlonline.com/articles/hosho/hosho.html

Just go to the fourth paragraph down, or do a "Ctrl-F", and chop in "triplane".

Key to the search was remembering it was a torpedo bomber.

It is too bad there are no on-line pictures of it, not even the kit's box-top.

Tom T

Well, since it has been five days, if there are no objections, I can posit a question for you-all.

Since you guys like tough ones, here goes:

This aircraft which actually flew as a prototype for quite some time, had it's motors powered literally using the steam driven turbine.

Now as for hints:

1. As you all know, I prefer subjects that there is a scale model of. This plane can actually be modeled by modifying an existing kit without too much trouble.
2. The energy source for making the steam was considered exotic, if not controversial at the time.
3. The conventionally powered models of this aircraft served their purpose very well for their time.
4. It was a big airplane.

Tom T

Obviously Lucien got it!

Have fun doing the next question.

Tom T

P.S.

I am guessing your problem might be in regard to the steam turbine.

That was a "curve ball" I deliberately tossed.

For your information, in order to convert nuclear fission to usable energy, it is necessary to have a steam turbine hooked up to the reactor coolant/steam loop.

This in turn would be connected to an electrical generator, which puts out power to the electric motors which would turn the props.

They actually made small, light turbines just for this as far back as WWII in Nazi Germany. There is no doubt that we used that technology, as well as other information we captured.

If you carefully look at the small picture under my handle, you will see it is of a nuclear power plant. It so hapens to be the 1150MW Callaway plant in Fulton, Missouri, which is one of three I worked on as a engineer.

This plant is a Westinghouse PWR, which is a larger version of those used in our nuclear navy, including the atomic submarines.

That is how I happen to know about this kind of stuff, although I doubt you can get this amount of details from any reference material for the NB-36H, because as the time all of this stuff was a "top secret" kind of thing with the Cold War, and all, you know. 

T_Terrific wrote:

What did I do, flabbergast Mr. Trexx? I do confess using a Yahoo search to verify the exact name and manufacturer of the actual aircraft, since I built the kit over 40 years ago, a couple of details were fuzzy. Here is the link: http://smmlonline.com/articles/hosho/hosho.html Just go to the fourth paragraph down, or do a "Ctrl-F", and chop in "triplane". Key to the search was remembering it was a torpedo bomber. It is too bad there are no on-line pictures of it, not even the kit's box-top. Tom T

YES!

The Mitsubishi, MT-1 is the correct answer!

Sorry folks for my delay. I couldn't get back to the site because after very busy Friday, my computer went "ka-put". It took the I.T. people a few days to get it rolling again.

I thought it was the modified Peacemaker you were talking about.  VEEEEEEEEEERRRY sneaky of you.  I wasn't aware that the reactor was connected to the engines in any way, shape, or form- I was under the impression that it carried a static reactor that really didn't "do" anything.  You learn something old every day!

Alrighty, on to the question:

Many Luftwaffe aircraft carried nicknames- the He 177 "Greif", the Do 335 "Pfiel", The Ju 290 "Seeadler", the He 111 "Spaten", etc., etc., etc.

Would this be the Me 261 Adolfine, an upscaled Bf 110?

Lucien Harpress wrote:

I thought it was the modified Peacemaker you were talking about.  VEEEEEEEEEERRRY sneaky of you.  I wasn't aware that the reactor was connected to the engines in any way, shape, or form- I was under the impression that it carried a static reactor that really didn't "do" anything.  You learn something old every day! Alrighty, on to the question:   Many Luftwaffe aircraft carried nicknames- the He 177 "Greif", the Do 335 "Pfiel", The Ju 290 "Seeadler", the He 111 "Spaten", etc., etc., etc. Which aircraft was named in honor of Hitler himself?

It's been my understanding the reactor was a proof of concept for safely operating a nuclear reactor while airborne and was not 'hooked' up to the propulsion system of a B-36 at all.

cardshark_14 wrote:

Would this be the Me 261 Adolfine, an upscaled Bf 110?

DAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNG dude!  That was QUICK!

I need to come up with some tougher questions, I think. 

In any case, that is correct, the Me 261 Adofine.  Ironic that the aircraft named in Hitler's honor is one of the least-known Luftwaffe aircraft.... 

The floor is yours, cardshark.  However, if you choose to go for bonus points, tell how the Me 261 is related to the Olympic Games.... 

Thanks Mike! I just happened to know that one off the top of my head. That was a GREAT question! IIRC, wasn't it supposed to carry the olympic torch from berlin to tokyo? Maybe not. I don't remember for sure...

This twin-engined World War II era aircraft was designed in the US, but also flown by the Netherlands, England, and Australia. It was used as a patrol bomber, in Search & Rescue, and in ASW. Its bombays had an interesting characteristic, which while odd, makes sense given the aircraft's overall design.  There is a new-tool kit of this airplane soon to be released.

ok heres my guess

either the martin mariner or the grumman widgeon

possibly the goose

trexx wrote:

It's been my understanding the reactor was a proof of concept for safely operating a nuclear reactor while airborne and was not 'hooked' up to the propulsion system of a B-36 at all.

Yes, there are those who go by the "official" sanitized story, so as to minimize the apparent risk to the public if the darned thing crashed or developed a coolant/steam leak.

If you think about it Trexx, it does not make sense to have an operating atomic reactor with it's pump driven coolant loop, producing tons of horsepower in heat in an airborne platform, and not do anything with it, when hooking a turbine/generator set to is is a very simple matter, as well as running the power cables to each engine, which would be far simpler then the typical hydraulic and fuel lines.

This version was good press to placate the public (yeah, those Air Force guys really didn't use the reactor's power output while operating it?) as well as throw off Russian spies in the U.S. at the time.

This is not unlike the disinformation regarding the "flying saucers", which until recently exposed on a NOVA/PBS special were thought to be Sci-Fi fiction novel "hype". As it turns out, the Germans actually had them successfully operational, which was captured by the Russians who freely intruded our airspace off-and-on all during the Cold War Years.

You might consider subscribing to an outfit like the Military Book Club, which in addition to having a lot of the nice Osprey publicaltions, as well as others for the scale modeller, is now getting various sorts of then top-secret Cold War expose's in print. It can be an eye-opener.

As a for instance, I literally had a Korean War vet emphatically deny that the top secret mission called "Operation Broken Reed" ever occured. This was a top secret mission where we flew some spies inbehind Chinese lines under the cover of a crashed B-29 crew to assess Chinese military strength. The veteren who wrote this book had to break his vow to lifetime secrecy to write this book.

To underscore his "expetise" in knowing that this newly revealed writing is false, in his adamacy, he told me how he was amongst the U.S. Army veterens at the slugfest during the Chosin Reservoir campaign. I still fail to see how his position as a U.S. Army grunt qualified him to be "in the know" regarding a top secret mission prdered by President Truman.

My impression is that he "knew it was false" was because he is still stuck in the official mentality, repeating the rhetoric as told to him by the Government, without considering the possibility of this occuring as a factor as well. Also, he kind of a belligerant attitude regarding "Those guys who wrote books who weren't really there", failing to hear my comment that this book was written by a veteren.

As the famous Fench author Voltaire once wrote, "None are so blind as those who can see but will not see".

Cheers

Tom T

YEAH!

The Bell X-5 prototype first flew in 1951. It used variable swept wings.

what aircraft company originally designed and built 80% of a prototype during the last days of world war two?   good luck!

heres a pic for those who don't know what i'm talking about

 just so you know i'll won't check this until tomorrow

That would be Messerschmitt. The P.1101:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_P.1101

An impoortant difference between the X-5 nd the P.1101 was that while the X-5's wing geometry could be varied in flight, the P.1101's wings could only be altered on the ground.

Cheers,

Chris.

Grumman designed the F10 F, which reportedly first flew in 1948, entering official flight trials in 1952.

I think that Vickers also tested a small scale version of Barnes Wallis' swing wing design at Predannack airfield in Cornwall, UK, sometime in the late forties or early fifties. This was the design which was later named the "Swallow".  

dang you people are good

chris hall you're up

OK, folks - nice and simple - what's this:

and what important modifications to the original design were needed to make it airworthy?

Cheers,

Chris. 

chris hall wrote:

OK, folks - nice and simple - what's this: and what important modifications to the original design were needed to make it airworthy? Cheers, Chris.

A headless chicken converted into a banana slicer?

Just what in-the-flippen' heck is THAT!? ...wheels are turning...

chris hall wrote:

OK, folks - nice and simple - what's this: and what important modifications to the original design were needed to make it airworthy? Cheers, Chris.

Isn't that the Curtiss Duck?

I think I can recall that it was used by Curtiss in his legal battle with the Wrights as one of a few designs that could have flown before the Wright brothers built their airplane if it had had a proper engine and a few design elements.

I think they added control surfaces, landing gear, a new engine, and a modern propeller. 

Good one, the only time I had ever seen this before was in Unconvetional Aircraft 

Curtiss Duck (or Curtiss-Goupil Duck, to be precise) it is!

The original design dates from the 1880s, and was to be fitted with floats and a steam engine. No steam engines with apropriate power/weight ratios were, of course, available, so it stayed on the drawing board. It did, however, feature wing-warping for lateral control, and Glen Curtiss used it as evidence against the Wrights in his lawsuit, to argue that they were not the originators of this form of control.

To this end, Curtiss built one of these in 1917. He fitted it with a 100hp petrol engine, which solved the power/weight problem. It was originally fitted with floats, as per the original design, but with weight and drag of these, it was barely able to hop, Re-fitted with a conventional wheel u/c, however, it flew quite successfully.

Curtiss, of course, still lost his suit.

All things Duck here:

http://mainescenery.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=beacon&action=display&thread=1190392868

Your turn, Matt!

Cheers,

Chris.

Thank you! Since the last question was an identify, let's keep this up.

What is it?