Aircraft Trivia Quiz

osher wrote:

Maybe we should have a rule: the winner has a week in which to post a new question, else, it goes to the floor? If so, here's a question, from a documentry I saw a few months back, hope it's of interest: These two countries were allies, and both produced aircraft that looked very similar, and using similar engines.  Indeed, the first country even sent the other designs, but, they were never used.  Instead, the second country, just used some photographs as a design idea, but developed different engines, and bodies, even if, at a distance, they looked the same.  What's more peculiar is that, two rivals, in the second country, both managed to make engines and airframes that were unique, but still, at a distance, looked like the original from the first country.  I believe I'm right in saying that, of the second country's two designs, only one flew, and then just in prototype form, before both projects were abandoned. Now try and name all 3 designs!

it almost sounds like youre referring to three aircraft from three different countries, actually.  First was the P-51 Mustang.  Second was the Martin Baker MB.5, and third was the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation CAC-15 "Kangaroo".  All three look similar, the second and third look close enough that they could have been built by the same company.  Both of those used the Rolls Royce Griffon engine.  But they also both flew as well.

osher wrote:

Maybe we should have a rule: the winner has a week in which to post a new question, else, it goes to the floor? ----snipped---

That is one of the rules. See Page one of this forum, "Post-edit":

/forums/1/567093/ShowPost.aspx#567093

Tom T

Maybe we should have a rule: the winner has a week in which to post a new question, else, it goes to the floor?

If so, here's a question, from a documentry I saw a few months back, hope it's of interest: These two countries were allies, and both produced aircraft that looked very similar, and using similar engines.  Indeed, the first country even sent the other designs, but, they were never used.  Instead, the second country, just used some photographs as a design idea, but developed different engines, and bodies, even if, at a distance, they looked the same.  What's more peculiar is that, two rivals, in the second country, both managed to make engines and airframes that were unique, but still, at a distance, looked like the original from the first country.  I believe I'm right in saying that, of the second country's two designs, only one flew, and then just in prototype form, before both projects were abandoned.

Now try and name all 3 designs!

That is absolutely correct. 15 were made and ended up with the Navy. The bonus question is that A man named Mike Dilliion who's company builds what are considered the best reloading presse's, owns one. But his is a Super Pinto with the J-85 and tip tanks from a Mitsubishi MU-2. Quite a little rocketship. Your up!

Mike

MQM107 wrote:

There were at least three entries into the competition, Cessna,  Beech, and who was the third?   Mike

If I remember right it was the Temco TT-1 jet.  It was doomed from the start because it was supposed to have the GE J85 engine, and instead it flew with another engine that had something like one THIRD of the intended power that the J85 would have had....

There were at least three entries into the competition, Cessna,  Beech, and who was the third?

Mike

MQM107 wrote:

Well to tell the truth I should have recused myself from answering this question as I am a 30 year veteran of Beech Aircraft. Heck I even remember the entry Beech had into what was won by the Cessna (brand X) T-37. So on that note ' what was the other contender for that ( the T-37) award? And just for extra points (not needed to be judged correct) if you are a reloader of ammunition, what is significent (SIC) about this airplane.   And for everyone who didn't see Beech in this plane, just think model 18 on steroids and you will.   Mike

I have seen this one, its in a museum in Wichita.  It was called the Beechcraft Jet Mentor, also known as the Beech Model 73.  First flew in 1955, it used a lot of parts from the T-34 Mentor, like the vertical tail.  It was actually not a bad design, flew with one engine and was quite economical as jets went back then.  But only one was completed and that one now sits, needing a complete restoration, on the field across from Boeing.

Well to tell the truth I should have recused myself from answering this question as I am a 30 year veteran of Beech Aircraft. Heck I even remember the entry Beech had into what was won by the Cessna (brand X) T-37. So on that note ' what was the other contender for that ( the T-37) award? And just for extra points (not needed to be judged correct) if you are a reloader of ammunition, what is significent (SIC) about this airplane.

And for everyone who didn't see Beech in this plane, just think model 18 on steroids and you will.

Mike

Brumbles wrote:

I thought there was a Douglas look about this one.

As did I!

No wonder I couldn't find a photo of the twin tail Havoc. This one does have a Beechin' tail.

Get it? Beech,... Beechin',.... Uh, never mind!

Wikipedia confirms Mike's answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XA-38_Grizzly

I never think of Beechcraft as building military aircraft, especially not combat planes.  I thought there was a Douglas look about this one.

Beech Aircraft XA-38 Grizzly.

Mike

I think you're right Brumbles.

I found that two Douglas DB-7A, Havoc II's were converted to the twin tail configuration after France ordered them with the bigger Wright R-2600 engines in order to provide more stability. It didn't really improve anything, so they were reconfigured to the common single tail.

I dunno ... but I WANT one! 

Could it be based on the A-20 Havoc?   

Ok, well we have seemed to hit a slump again. Have to keep kick starting this thing!!!!!

Here's the next one then:

Whaddat?

ok, I guess we'll just give the answer on this one. 

In 1966, an F-8D Crusader launched a paper airplane from the speedbrake well at 50,125 feet indicated.  They put the airplane into the air brake well, pumped the boards shut before startup, and then launched it at that altitude.  Squadron was VF-13....my dad was a jet engine mechanic/plane captain with that squadron on the Shangri La.  You can read about it a little bit on http://www.f8crusader.org/ under "records set by the Crusdader".

 Incidentally, this same squadron was once again on CV-38 Shangri-La the following year, in the Med, when they were having trouble with a Russian trawler.  Back in the cold war days, the Russians would use old trawlers as spy ships, intercepting radio communications and such.  They would shadow our carriers, and often times harass them.  A favorite tactic of the Russians was to get in the way when the carrier was trying to turn into the wind to launch aircraft.  This particular time, the trawler gave Shangri-La a bit of trouble.  VF-13 loaded 13 rolls of toilet paper into the speedbrake well once again.  From the same website I listed above:

 Cleanest Bomb Attack On Soviet Vessel - Med, about May 1967. 13 rolls toilet paper (unused) loaded into speed brake well (I liked that speed brake). Hard right off cat, gear up, opened boards over trawler maneuvering to force carrier to turn. No medal, but no hack either.

I also recall a time my dad told me about a long time ago, it was the same scenario, and they loaded bags of flour into the speedbrake well.  Pilot made low-level pass and dropped the flour right down the smokestack. 

mojodoctor wrote:

I thought I had run across reading something the other day stating that a person flew a paper airplane while at the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro, but I can't find it now. I take it that my flight on top of Half Dome at 8,800+ ASL feet isn't high enough? ;)

No sir, that isnt it.

wow, I didnt think this would stump everyone.....ok, time for a hint.  When I say "launched", I dont mean that the paper airplane was thrown from someone's hand.  It was launched by one of its real-life brothers.....

I thought I had run across reading something the other day stating that a person flew a paper airplane while at the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro, but I can't find it now.

I take it that my flight on top of Half Dome at 8,800+ ASL feet isn't high enough? ;)

mojodoctor wrote:

In 1981, I chucked a paper airplane off the top of Half Dome in Yosemite, and I flew my kite the same day. Does that count? :) Astronauts flew paper airplanes in an experiment aboard the International Space Station that flies at a minimum altitude of 173 miles above the Earth's surface. Does that count? ;)

haha nope, I didnt even think of that...

I am talking about the highest altitude that a paper airplane was launched into the atmosphere, as in outside.

In 1981, I chucked a paper airplane off the top of Half Dome in Yosemite, and I flew my kite the same day. Does that count? :)

Astronauts flew paper airplanes in an experiment aboard the International Space Station that flies at a minimum altitude of 173 miles above the Earth's surface. Does that count? ;)

No idea of height but this video is from the 30th floor of a building in NYC!

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/12/Paper-Airplane-NYC-424925.html

OK, lets see how far we can get with this one.....

What is the highest altitude that a paper airplane has been launched from?