SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Aircraft Trivia Quiz

728407 views
7409 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2015
Posted by dcaponeII on Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:05 AM

Like I said.  The first bombers to have unrefueled intercontinental range.  Are you looking for more detailed answer?

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:03 AM

Both had the capability of bombing the Soviet Union from home bases in the US?

This originated from the threat perceived by start of the Cold War & the USSR's first neclear test in 1949?

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:57 AM
Getting a lot closer. This has to deal with having intercontinental range.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    December 2015
Posted by dcaponeII on Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:52 AM
Both were the first bombers built that had true intercontential range without refueling.
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:50 AM
The second one is very close to what I was looking for. This has to deal with why they originated.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    December 2015
Posted by dcaponeII on Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:47 AM

Engines in a pusher configuration?

They were in competition with one another to replace the B-29?

Northrop got screwed by Convair?

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:41 AM

Ok. New Question:

What makes the Convair's B-36 and Northrop's X/YB-35 similar? (origin wise)

The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:12 PM
Good story mojo, I love these planes and building a model from scratch for fun--any stories about them are great to hear :)

I mailed the Smithsonian and they sent back partial plans for the plane to let me know there was a lot of info info available if I wanted to order it.

Warhammer got it first though, good job!

Mil got the bonus points though, for presentation and thoroughness, so you get a cookie :)

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:50 PM

the question seem's to have been answered, but for the bonus ones;

a) As Warhammer has stated. If I remember correctly a cure for this was not proposed in the early days & if one had been provided after manufacture, it would have been to expensive to carry out.

b) As mojodoctor points out, the Shell/Monsanto JP7 was developed to have a high flashpoint because of the high operating temperatures expected. JP7 was also substituted as hydraulic fluid for control of the burner nozzles & could be subject to temperature somewhere in the region of 400c.

c) Due to the high flashpoint of JP7, elctrical ignition was ruled out & ignition was acheived by chemical means using Tri-ethyl borane (TEB). The TEB tank was stored onboard the A-12/SR-71, as it was required for burner ignition during flight.

Point of interest - another chemical (A-50?) was introduced into the fuel on operational flights to reduce the RCS of the burner plumes.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Shell Beach, California
Posted by mojodoctor on Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:39 PM

To add a bit here, it doesn't matter that it leaks sitting on the ground because JP7 fuel is not ignitable simply by tossing a match. But what is needed on the plane because it isn't easily ignited,.... ?

While a member of the Civil Air Patrol in 1974, we were given an extensive tour through the facility at Beale AFB, California and we asked about the danger of all that leaking fuel. Hmm, I'm not going to be the one to test that theory!

We got to eat breakfast with the flight crew, attend their 'suiting up', look through a hanger with an 'A' model all opened up, and look into the cockpit of a 'C' model. They also took us into their bunker for a question and answer session, go out on the perimeter of the runway to watch it's launch, and wait around until it landed later that day. Very cool stuff!

Matt Fly fast, fly low, turn left!
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:17 PM

Here is my guess:

The fuel leaks out of the fuselage because the panel joints are not water-tight on the ground and rubber fuel tanks could not be used due to the extreme temperatures from friction while cruising at altitude. The hear of the friction was needed to expand the panels and make them seal.

A wild guess for the other parts: a refueling receptacle is needed to refuel the lost fuel after take-off?

The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:29 PM
Shoot, why did I open my big mouth :P

Because I can never follow my own rules, here is a multi-part one but you only need the 1st part.

To someone who didn't know, what alarming situation occurs around a parked SR-71 (and it's relatives) ? bonus points but not needed: a) why does this happen b) why does this not matter and c) because of b), what is needed on the plane?

Mil will know this without even needing a second breath, but I'm not sure about others.
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:32 AM
That is correct bertman. I did not see your earlier post. Sorry. Your turn.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Friday, November 28, 2008 10:06 PM
"Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control ordered the incomplete JG1 destroyed " -- from the faithful wiki

that what you are looking for? people might not be mentioning it since it's been mentioned already :/
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Friday, November 28, 2008 7:46 PM
Technically, this flying wing was never flown. It exceeded inter-war limitations and was broken up.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Friday, November 28, 2008 3:20 PM
I can't seem to find any pictures of true flying wings from Junkers, this is the closest I got saying he at least thought up the J 1000.


  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Friday, November 28, 2008 8:23 AM
That is very close Jgonzales. The company and the man is right but not the plane. The G.38 was not a true flying wing.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    November 2007
  • From: Barranquilla, Colombia
Posted by Jgonzalez on Friday, November 28, 2008 8:02 AM

The Junkers G.38 by hugo junkers (1929)

or the Gotha Go.147 by Rudolph Gother (1936)

 

Proud to be Colombian!! The place where commercial aviation was born in America.
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Friday, November 28, 2008 12:27 AM

Leonardo da Vinci

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:22 PM
did this design fly? :)

Junkers designed the JG-1 but it never was completed
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:46 PM
That is also incorrect. This was designed earlier than that.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Leonardtown, Maryland
Posted by Greenshirt on Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:19 PM
 WarHammer25 wrote:

What was the first flying wing and who desinged it?

Arup S2, 1932; designed by Dr C. L. Snyder.  I consider his designs more a lifting body, not a flying wing but it was referred to as a flying wing.

YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxz1UF67EQI

GS

On the bench (all 72nd):

  • 7 Spitfires & Seafires
  • Wellington III
  • N-9H Navy Jenny

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:06 PM
That is incorrect bertman.
The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:22 PM
It was either a Horten or Northrop one... didn't they both look at each other's ideas at some point?

I'll go with the H1, but if it's not I'll enjoy being corrected :)
  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Thursday, November 27, 2008 3:17 PM

Thanks milairjunkie and a very good question. I never new the prototypes of the A-6 had tiltable nozzles. Learn something new everyday.

New question, should be a little easier: 

What was the first flying wing and who desinged it?

 

The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:38 PM

No issue, I wrongly took offence - should have put the brain into gear before letting the fingers do the talking. I do try to post questions that are not to bizzare, as I know myself how irritating an ongoing one can be.

I decided a short while ago to bin the multi-part jobs jobs, as they often seem to go onnnnnnnn.

I take back the Shamen reference & apologise for my earlier mis-interpretation.

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: SoCal
Posted by bertman on Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:05 PM
wow, I thought I put enough "this is my opinion don't take it too seriously if noone else does, not trying to cause a rukus" but guess not.

I really like your Q's mil, I have been a participant but I haven't in a few months after my first since when I did get a chance to join in it was a week long ordeal like this one.

I thought the whole "only 4 of the prototypes" was kinda obscure since no one was able to find those and sometimes prototypes are freakin' hard to find info on--which probably makes them good trivia Q's so I lose a point there ;)

Please continue and not let me derail this awesome thread, PM me if you have a comment.
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:06 AM

Yes WarHammer25, the Grumman Intruder / Prowler.

The first 4 of the 8 YA2F-1 prototypes had adjustable exhaust nozzles in an effort to reduce landing speed - but the concept was found lacking & deleted.

 Image:YA2F-1 tilting pipes NAN6-60.jpg

You may now see why I have been arguing the A/C & questions obscurity???

You turn WarHammer25.

  • Member since
    September 2008
  • From: North Carolina
Posted by WarHammer25 on Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:48 AM

I think I got it:

The A2F-1; the prototype of the A-6 Intruder. Its nozzles could tilt downwards.

The only easy day was yesterday - U.S. Navy Seals
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Thursday, November 27, 2008 7:47 AM

I feel I have provided additional, relevant information throughout the duration of this question, increasing the ease of which it may be correctly answered with. I also feel that I have responded to answers in a pretty prompt manner - it's not like I have asked the question, gone away & let it die.

Several answers have not considered some of the fact's provided, such as that it is subsonic, that is flew before the Harrier & other VTOLs, that is is not VTOL, that it come from a family of versatile A/C - some of which still serve, that is a carrier based A/C, or that the vectoring was proposed to ease carried handling.

I argue the fact that this is an obscure question, or that I have failed to provide enough information - come on, how many subsonic carrier A/C which flew in the early sixties are still in, or have very recently been in service.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.