Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Oh! Lookie! COLOR!

NOTE: Folded out wind generator in front of the fin!

trexx wrote:

I know! It's a turbo-prop version of the F-84....   Republic XF-84H (XF-106) Thunderscreech  Republic XF-84H (XF-106) Thunderscreech  Check out the "T" Tail! This plane was dang high performance, but simply, too loud

You got it. Theres an article about it at Air & Space Magazine in the History of Flight 

Wow!  Is there a kit or conversion for that sucker??  I don't usually tackle jets, but this might be as close as I get...I want one!  

Trexx, well done, buddy!  That was a new one to me! 

osher wrote:

Well done Roadkill!  Yes, indeed, the B-50 was basically a B-29 with new engines, and some other new bits.  Yes, sometimes a new engine can make a whole new aircraft (Hawker Typhoon became the Tempest, Handley-Page Hampden became the Hereford), but, in this instance, it was to get funding, primarily, that the name was changed.  Over to you...

Just to pick a nit...  The Tempest was derived from the Typhoon, but they had the same engine (Napier Sabre).  What was different was the wing. 

 Bill

An entire kit:

http://www.anigrand.com/AA2059_XF-84H.htm

cardshark_14 wrote:

Wow!  Is there a kit or conversion for that sucker??  I don't usually tackle jets, but this might be as close as I get...I want one!   Trexx, well done, buddy!  That was a new one to me!

Take a look at this

http://www.anigrand.com/AA2059_XF-84H.htm 

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/xf84hbd_1.htm 

What is this...? It is historically significant...

Yes this is an AIRPLANE!

Name it.

..And country of origin.

wdolson2 wrote:

osher wrote: Well done Roadkill!  Yes, indeed, the B-50 was basically a B-29 with new engines, and some other new bits.  Yes, sometimes a new engine can make a whole new aircraft (Hawker Typhoon became the Tempest, Handley-Page Hampden became the Hereford), but, in this instance, it was to get funding, primarily, that the name was changed.  Over to you... Just to pick a nit...  The Tempest was derived from the Typhoon, but they had the same engine (Napier Sabre).  What was different was the wing.

Understandable error, though, Bill, as I wouldn't mind laying a small wager that Mr Osher was thinking of the Typhoon, which had a RR Vulture, compared to the Tempest, which had the Napier. However, I think there were slight airframe changes as well, because the Bristol Centaurus radial could be fitted to the Typhoon and Tempest, but not the Typhoon. 

trexx wrote:

What is this...? It is historically significant...

France - Baroudour (sp)

Brews wrote:

trexx wrote: What is this...? It is historically significant...   France - Baroudour (sp)

You have the correct country of origin.

It's not a "BAROUDEUR" however.

It's named after it's designer, and he was quite a talented gent. The cockpit layout wasn't the only exotic thing about this plane.

Is that the Leduc 021 I see?  (Powered by the quite nifty ramjet which comprised the fuselage.)

It's either that, or the 010 or 022.  Definitely a Leduc, though. 

It's the 021.

 Earlier versions had solid noses, and the pilot had to look out through little portholes in the side of the engine intake to see where he was going.

 Landing must have been fun!

If you're looking for other unique features, the 022 had a little turbojet in the tail which enabled the aircraft to take off under its own steam, and accelerate to the speed at which the ramjet could be fired up.

Cheers,

Chris.

Lucien Harpress wrote:

Is that the Leduc 021 I see?  (Powered by the quite nifty ramjet which comprised the fuselage.) It's either that, or the 010 or 022.  Definitely a Leduc, though.

Lucien Harpress! YES. Correct!

It's as wonderful as it is strange... (imo).

Ludec, has an incredible story of perserverance and triumph. He missed out on big chunk of aviation technological advancement thanks to being in a Nazi prison. But he really "took off" once freed to do what he did best.

...since the country of origin has been named, I'll let you off the hook for not reiterating!

 PS: Great photos and support comments, Chris Hall!

Here's some interesting, related ones too:

Now this is something you don't see everyday!

I love this shot.

There's a simple elegance to it... (imo)

Nice, thin wing for that era!

During this era of development, I notice that these exotic jobs try one major technology at a time. The tried and true is married to some latest development to learn about the new idea(s). ie; This ram-jet powered airplane had straight wings!

Now, what's the next humdinger?

Yeah, the reference I used had the 021 pictured, but labelled it as the 010.  I did a quick google search just to be sure, but to be safe I listed all three designations. 

I don't think anyone forbade "shotgun" answers.... 

But I digress.  On to the question.

It concerns some interesting flight characteristics of the Polikapov I-16.  After takeoff, it was not uncommon to see these little beasts bob up and down in the air for a while before finally settling into a stable flat cruising attitude.  My question is:  Why did this happen?
 

Lucien Harpress wrote:

Yeah, the reference I used had the 021 pictured, but labelled it as the 010.  I did a quick google search just to be sure, but to be safe I listed all three designations.  I don't think anyone forbade "shotgun" answers....  But I digress.  On to the question.   It concerns some interesting flight characteristics of the Polikapov I-16.  After takeoff, it was not uncommon to see these little beasts bob up and down in the air for a while before finally settling into a stable flat cruising attitude.  My question is:  Why did this happen?

If memory serves, the u/c on these aircraft was retracted by the pilot turning a handle in the cockpit. Kinda hard to do this while keeping a light, but steady, hold on the stick.

Cheers,

Chris.

Heh. You want the engineering/math/control strategies-nerd answer, or the human factor answer?

Engineering/math/control strategies answer - the I-16 was known for being incredibly sensitive to control inputs. This is because its control model is about as close to divergent as you can get. Divergent control can be boiled down to the classic marble stability example...

Human factor answer - If you leave the controls alone after pointing the nose up, it will bob due to your initial control input, but dampen down to steady flight...

More in a moment... 

Lucien Harpress wrote:

Yeah, the reference I used had the 021 pictured, but labelled it as the 010.  I did a quick google search just to be sure, but to be safe I listed all three designations.  I don't think anyone forbade "shotgun" answers...

France, Ludec AND Ludec Ram-Jet would've been acceptable!

The New Zealanders that restored FIVE I-16s had flying characteristic comments:

Paraphrasing:

"They are EXTREMELY LOUD" ... just a very short ejector pipe straight out and up from EACH of the exhaust valves, one for every cylinder.

"Quite a handful to fly... in control" The distance from trailing edge of wing and the leading edge of stabilizer is TINY...inheritly unstable! Makes 'em very manuverable though!

Ok, this can get really technical, so I wanted to think about the best way to explain it.

Marble Stability Example

A = Stable equilibrium. The ball moves back towards its equilibrium position when disturbed. If the valley is infinitely deep the system is said to be globally stable.
B = Unstable equilibrium. The ball moves away from its equilibrium when disturbed.
C = Neutrally stable equilibrium. The ball stays wherever it is placed.
D = Metastable equilibrium. The ball returns towards equilibrium as long as disturbances are not too large. The equilibrium is not globally stable because once the ball has crossed the unstable equilibrium (the peak), it is unlikely to return to the stable point.
E = Metastable equilibria with multiple stable states. The ball returns towards one or the other equilibrium depending on which side of the unstable equilibrium it is. The system is globally stable.

What It Means: 

If you place a marble on the outer surface of a circular path, a slight nudge will cause it to roll away from its intial position. This is divergent, meaning that it does not very much "want" to return to its initial state. Aircraft that are very sensitive exhibit this same behavior.

If, on the other hand, you place a marble on the interior surface of a circular path, a slight nudge will cause it to initially roll away from its position, but it will "want" to return to its initial position. This is convergent. Aircraft that are sluggish exhibit this behavior.

So, if the I-16 is very sensitive to small input, it will inherently respond quickly and with large magnitude. In order to correct for this, a pilot must compensate for this, in effect providing a dampening effect to the control model. The fact is, the I-16 control model is not actually divergent, but rather extremely "not convergent" In effect, the system has a dampener, but it will take a long time for the pitch oscillations to die out. This is why the I-16 could be flown by hand, and modern fighters can not be flown without 'fly-by-wire' controls. The F-16 and the like all have divergent control models that respond to quickly for a human to control.

He, he, he...

Let's take a minute to check out just how cool they are:

Nice explination, cardshark.  You gotta love real-world physics examples to explain tough concepts. 

The only ironic thing is that Chris got it way back in his first post- the landing gear was hand-cranked, and with the sensitive controls it was difficult to keep a straight-line flight while winding the handle 40-odd times.

(A cable cutter was actually standard cockpit equipment, used to cut the landing gear cable should it get jammed!)

Chris, the floor is yours!  (Nice photos, BTW trexx.) 

The F4F-3 and 4 had the same hand cranked landing gear.  It wasn't unusual for the plane to wobble from side to side after take-off.  The inherent lack of stability on the I-16 probably made the effect more pronounced though.

 Bill

This question has a similar theme to one of my earlier, but recent ones. I'm thinking of an aircraft wwhich had five engines but six propellers. It dates from the mid-1930s. And though it's designer was Italian, the aircraft wasn't.

One final thing. since the thing never actually flew (though it was designed, built and ground-tested), I suppose, on reflection, it wasn't really an aircraft. 

Cheers,

Chris.

Time for a clue - it was made in Russia, and not all the props pointed in the same direction!

Cheers,

Chris.

C'mon guys - I knew this one was going to be hard, but not that hard, surely? Time for another clue - it was a helicopter. And had seats for five lucky passengers.

Cheers,

Chris.

No takers? Then may I present to you the Isacco I-4 Helicogyr:

(check out the guy inspecting the rotor hub for scale)

Read all about it here:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/isacco.php

I'll think up an easier question later this morning.

Cheers,

Chris.

OK, let's try this one:

What is/ was the fastest ever bomber?

Your aircraft of choice has to satisfy the following criteria:

1) It has to have dropped iron bombs (i.e. not smart bombs or guided weapons) in anger.

2) It has to be a conventional manned aeroplane (so no orbital or sub-orbital spacecraft)

3) It has to have been designed ab initio as a bomber (so the F-4 doesn't count. I'd be willing to hear argument about the F-111 and the Fencer)

I don't know the answer to this question. I'd be interested to hear what people have to say.

Cheers,

Chris.