Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Well, at least I have a life of my own, with something to do- other than building models and asking trivia questions that are so out of place, like about WW1 era stuff instead of more MODERN things- which is why I know how to recall facts without resorting to having to look it up :)

Of course- a photographic memory helps too :)

Thanks

bostonbruins34 wrote:

They were all inflight refueling capable, although the MiG 19 never used the system.

Well, what I had in mind was that they were all used for zero-length-launching experiments, but fitted for IFR will do, since by no means all 1950s fighters were.

Your turn, Boston!

Cheers,

Chris.

For all of you who may really want to know-

The 747-100 had no strobe lighting of any kind on its' airframe when originally delivered. You can see this if you ever watch the movie Airport 77.

Also, the original -100 series aircraft had white position lights at each outboard section of it's stabilizers trailing edges,  which have since been removed- in favor of the tailcone strobe light, that is standard from the -200 on to the 400 version.

thank you

Well, that was truly fascinating, TISAC. If you pm me with your snailmail addy, I'll send you a tin of Humbrol 11 Silver. You can paint a model 747 with it, and then watch it dry. This can take weeks.

Would be significantly more interesting than your question - and its answer.

Cheers,

Chris.

BTW, its, the possessive of it, has no apostrophe. I'm surprised that, with your photographic memory, you didn't know that, since you must have seen the written word in context.

It seems that some type of argument always comes up in threads like these.  Someone doesn't like the way things are run, and subsiquently muddies the waters when things aren't done in the way he or she see's is best.  If anyone here remembers, the same thing happened with Blackwolf's quizzes from a while ago.  Do you see any more of those?  I didn't think so.

When this degrades to personal insults and mud-slinging, that's when the fun of the quiz (which is what it was INTENTED for, no more no less) evaporates.  

People, PLEASE do not take things like this personal.  If you don't like the way things are run, IGNORE it.  Take your complaints elsewhere, or even set up your own thread and run it however you see fit.

And to everyone else, the same is true- just ignore it.  Adding gasoline to a fire is never a good way to put it out.

So can everyone please just let this whole matter drop?  I didn't come here to see a p*&#sing match, I came to relax, have some fun, and maybe learn a thing or two.

So, with that being said, can we continue with the original topic, minus the insults?

Anyway, I'm done. 

Absolutely! Well said, my friend. There is enough stress and strife in our world all ready. Let's not ruin a perfectly good thread, and quite a few perfectly good friendships.

Have fun or don't. Its your choice, but please, if you choose not to be friendly and have fun, do it elsewhere. Thank you to all of you in advance for continuing to be civil. 

On a lighter note, 

Bostonbruins34, well done with the answer. What do you have for us next? Chris, that was a great question, I didn't know about the zero-length takeoff tests.

Cheers,
Alex

O.K.  "I" fought in every theatre of war during WWII. I am a shoulder wing monoplane and have tricycle gear. I fought under at least 9 country's flags during the war, including the Vichy French. I have 3 designations (not counting variants) and 2 names...

1.What are my names and why the difference?

2.What are the 3 designations and why the difference? 

It's probably a bit easier than most.

Thanks!

hmm, sounds like one of my favorite aircraft, the Havoc.

A-20 Havoc series
DB-7 series (Douglas Bomber 7)
Douglas Boston series

used by:

USAAF
VVS
RAAF
RAF
SAAF
IJAAF
RCAF
FRAR & Vichy France
Brazil
Netherlands

how'd I do? 

bondoman wrote:

And don't forget the P-70

and the Havoc Turbinlite! What a way to find the enemy at night ... aerial searchlights! Can't trust radar, you know?!

bostonbruins34 wrote:

You killed me!!! That was less than 5 minutes!!! I guess I'll have to come up with something a bit more difficult. I thought maybe I gave it away with my Boston Bruins 34 screen name. For the second part of the questions do you remember why there were different names and designations? Either way it's your shot!!!

IIRC, the French and British were far more interested in the DB-7 than the US. However, following major improvements, the US then bought it as the A-20. It was a great question that I just happened to know. The A-20 is very high up on my list of favorite aircraft, and favorite kits.

bondoman wrote:

Shark, we small minds eagerly await a ?? Try and make it abt the B747 so we can all participate.

LOL! A question, eh...Unfortunately I know very little about 747s...

EDIT: Ok, this aircraft could mount anywhere between 0 and 22 (quite possibly more) fixed, forward firing machine guns after field modifications. It was also tested with a 75mm cannon installation. Later in its career, its designation was changed for political reasons. What is it?

Brews wrote:

bondoman wrote: And don't forget the P-70 and the Havoc Turbinlite! What a way to find the enemy at night ... aerial searchlights! Can't trust radar, you know?!

And then there's the Havoc-Pandora... An Intruder modified to pull a LAM, or Long Aerial Mine, then drop it into German bomber formations...

cardshark_14 wrote:

Brews wrote:  bondoman wrote: And don't forget the P-70 and the Havoc Turbinlite! What a way to find the enemy at night ... aerial searchlights! Can't trust radar, you know?! And then there's the Havoc-Pandora... An Intruder modified to pull a LAM, or Long Aerial Mine, then drop it into German bomber formations...

That's another weapon that was more dangerous to its users than the enemy. You've planted the seed of a trivia question. All I have to do now is to earn the right to ask it:)

Brews wrote:

I didn't think it would be it. I also thought of the Whiff factor .. and I suppose 22 Vulcans would be reasonable :)

Oh man, when I first read that, I instantly thought of an Avro Vulcan, then realized you were talking about the guns...Bondo, there's an idea for you: a V-bomber gunship!

Mitsubishi Ki-67 Hiryū had a 75 but I am not a reader of Japanese names so Hiryu vs. Taiyo is not meaningful.

The Mitchell of course carried a 75, the French one from earlier wars I think, but it only ever got renamed the Mitchell II.

A V-bomber gunship is an impossibility. It's hard for me to explain why I know this, but a gunship is a manifestation of intra-arm coordination, and the RAF would never have been able to bring their crews down to the thicker air for such a thing. Why on earth the Blackbuck missions descended to 10,000 feet only to attack Port Stanley is kind of, well, old school.

But the airframe would have to be the Victor, if not TSR.2, as they seemed to be pretty long winded and adaptable to a range of missions.

I think you may be referring to the Tupolev Tu-2, which kinda fits the requirements. First, it started life as the ANT-58, since, at the time, Tupolev was out of favour with Stalin, and held as a political prisoner by the NKVD. However, when he was released, aircraft from his design bureau started to be named after the bureau chief - hence Tu-2.

My sources suggest that the Tu-2 was test-fitted with a 57mm anti-tank gun (not a 75mm one) and that one version was fitted with no fewer than 88 fixed, and forward-and-downward-firing, SMGs. If they tested a version with 88 MGs, chances are they teted  one with 22 MGs along the way.

The problem with this concept was that you had to get within SMG range of the other guy to be effective...and he was armed with rifles....

An I close? I have a couple of possible B747 questions lined up if I am! :)

And I like the idea of a ground-attack version of the Avro Vulcan. Anyone who's left on the ground after the attack gets to flee in terror at the sound of four Olympuses on full throttle and in close proximity! Almost worth waddling down to Howleys (my main LHS) to engage in a spot of whiffery.

Cheers,

Chris.

Re: the Death Vulcan-

Glory. The recoil from the 25 pdr. (couldn't be a 75mm since that's a continental weapon or US) would have upset the tea service prepared by the EO/ Navigators downstairs  as they brought it up the ladder to the FO's upstairs. Something just not quite right about that, and look out for penguins on the way.

FW 200. The 200-px penguin eckserminator carried a PAK 75 in a dorsal gondola manned by orcas in a saline environment that had a wide sweep of fire, offsetting the .22 caliber rifles (less than a score) layed at the disposal of the Quisling Norwegian army officer (there was only ever one) in the glass chin turret.

Sorry, been to the tipple a few.

The plural of Olympus would be Olympi, surely.

All V-bombers were used at low-level, the strain of which on the airframe was why the Valiant was phased out of service so soon.

I'm going to throw C-47 into the ring ... though I know not what it might have been redesignated as (apart from AC-47, and that only had 3 fixed machine guns, and they weren't forward-firing).

This is a good question, thanks for the stimulation!