Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Was it the first use of air conditioning on an aircraft?

Cheers, Richie

Here's a question that I think won't be too hard.

The Boeing 247 had a system for giving the passengers fresh air. What was it and why was it unusual?

Brews wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself. So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response. OK? Tom Tom, I don't think this is ok at all. You might have had (or seen) problems with "secret codes" in the past, but you are inferring that Chris Hall is doing this with someone, and that is a slur on his character. Thanks for starting this thread, but I'm deeply offended by this aspersion on a friend of mine, with whom neither I, nor anyone else, would be "tag-teaming". I'm sorry you did that. Bruce

Bruce, thank you for openly stating your position to me, I am sorry that I offended you, as I expalined to Bill, it was only meant to be sarcasm, not intended to be read literally, and for your misunderstanding, I do apologize and regert hurting anyone's feelings.

Now I am going to work on getting my digital photo situation in order.

Thank you again for your understanding.

Tom

bondoman wrote:

T_Terrific wrote:  bondoman wrote:  T_Terrific wrote: Well, since it is obvious from his non-answer that Chris is at a loss for another question, I guess I might as well go ahead and posit the next one. In WWII many radical things were tried. In this case, there were not one, but two instances that the U.S.armed services befuddled the enemy by successfully adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for another branch of the U.S. military. What were these two instances, and what were the aircraft and the campaigns they were involved in? Hint: Due to a bestselling book and three Hollywood productions, one instance is much more widely known then the other. Tom I guess I don't understand. It seems to me that Chris has a question in place, with that photo, and we're working on it.  Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh Sahib, your humble swervant begs of you a thousand pardons . I am only a simple Ameican fool who cannnot generally read except for plain English. What I stupidly read where Bondo said: "Good job, Chris. On to you." That is normal English for "Your turn". So Master Chris answers: "Wuddat?"-Here we non-British idiots see this as an expression of confusion or disconcern. We are not as adept at reading minds as you two obviously are. So as the blundering simpleton you-all know me to be, I saw Bondo turn the question over to Chris, and Chris pass. When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself. So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response. OK? Tom   No, it's not ok, because now that the situation is clear you could gracefully give Chris his turn rather than all this caustic invective. You used to run a great game, but you in your own words took a break, now you are back, thats wonderful and if you are going to lay claim to the thing maybe it's time to remind the new guys of how you want it to go, but enough with the cynicism. Bill Edit at 9.27 pm. I'm confusing this thread with Brain44, who did indeed run a great game with a tremendous amount of effort. As for you Tom, going back up this thread is a little disheartening, you've lit into people before with the same complaints. I reread the "rules" in your original post and I don't see any problem here. This is supposed to be fun, not a place to offend people. Wuddat, whodat wheredat was introduced by me some time ago to be funny, it's a form of shortspeak I learned from a relative who I enjoy talking to, and I'm amused someone else picked up on it, but it seems pretty plain on the face of it. I see where Chris has handed over the question to you, which was big of him, and I'll just say that I've been verbally slapped around over the years by much more frightening characters than the likes of you, so don't bother because I don't care.

Thank you explaining the situation to me, Bill.

In fact I had a very bad year last year, it started off with a broken right shoulder socket, which was shortly followed by breaking four toes in my left foot, and I am feeling a bit cranky with residual pain, which can tend to limit my objectivity at times.

Inasmuch as it seems that I have unintentionally and inadvertantly caused offense and confusion, with my sarcasm (not cynicism this time, Bill, although I do have a cynical personality), I am more then willing to withdraw the question, if that will help, or actually, your answer was in fact "dead-on":

 So, if no one minds, you would obviously have the next go at it.

In fact at Torch the U.S. forces took a cue from the Doolittle raid, and actually launched P-40 Tomahawks off U.S. carriers., straight into battle.

Tom

jeaton01 wrote:

simpilot34 wrote: OMG it's a...a....a... FLYING PENGUIN!!!!!! LOL ,Stepson would love that photo! Loves penguins. Yes, let's get on with the show. Where were we? Cheers, Richie And I'll bet his feet are happy too!  On with the entertainment, everybody.  Tom just has a little crust that comes out once in a while and is best passed over.

LMAO Yes his feet are definately happy, they get a break from walking!!

Cheers, Richie

simpilot34 wrote:

OMG it's a...a....a... FLYING PENGUIN!!!!!! LOL ,Stepson would love that photo! Loves penguins. Yes, let's get on with the show. Where were we? Cheers, Richie

And I'll bet his feet are happy too! 

On with the entertainment, everybody.  Tom just has a little crust that comes out once in a while and is best passed over. 

chris hall wrote:

I'm a little confused about these references to secret codes. The only secret codes in which I have engaged since the early 1980s can be found here: http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Penguin_Sounds_audio.aspx I'd like to think that Tom misinterpreted the situation, and intended no ill-will. Lets get on with asking and answering silly questions about silly flying machines: Cheers, Chris.

OMG it's a...a....a... FLYING PENGUIN!!!!!! LOL ,Stepson would love that photo! Loves penguins. Yes, let's get on with the show. Where were we?

Cheers, Richie

I'm a little confused about these references to secret codes. The only secret codes in which I have engaged since the early 1980s can be found here:

http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Penguin_Sounds_audio.aspx

I'd like to think that Tom misinterpreted the situation, and intended no ill-will. Lets get on with asking and answering silly questions about silly flying machines:

Cheers,

Chris.

Brews wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself. So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response. OK? Tom Tom, I don't think this is ok at all. You might have had (or seen) problems with "secret codes" in the past, but you are inferring that Chris Hall is doing this with someone, and that is a slur on his character. Thanks for starting this thread, but I'm deeply offended by this aspersion on a friend of mine, with whom neither I, nor anyone else, would be "tag-teaming". I'm sorry you did that. Bruce

Cheers, Richie

T_Terrific wrote:

When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself. So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response. OK? Tom

Tom,

I don't think this is ok at all. You might have had (or seen) problems with "secret codes" in the past, but you are inferring that Chris Hall is doing this with someone, and that is a slur on his character. Thanks for starting this thread, but I'm deeply offended by this aspersion on a friend of mine, with whom neither I, nor anyone else, would be "tag-teaming".

I'm sorry you did that.

Bruce

In April/ May 1942, the USS Wasp, on two occasions, ferried a total of 111 RAF Spitfire Vcs to Malta. Flying Spitfires, with a take-off speed of about 75mph asi,  off a deck as large as the Wasp, was no big deal.

To prevent the ship from going unneccesarily into harm's way, the aircraft were launched from a position just north of Algiers, and flew the rest of the way, with slipper and, IIRC, underbelly tanks fitted. However, on the first occasion, Axis intelligence noted the approach of the aircraft to Malta, and the Luftwaffe laid on a ground attack mission on Malta to co-incide with the Spitfires' arrival. A large proportion were destroyed. The second mission, hhowever, was more successful.

Would I be thinking along the right lines?

Cheers,

Chris.

Thanks John thats an interesting looking forum. I tossed in my straw boater, we'll see if she sticks.

Sorry to go OT again, but wiki says this a/c had aluminum wings.

Tom- the obvious Pacific Theater answer would be the Doolittle raid, but they were usaac so I'm sure I'm wrong.

Atlantic- I know P-40s could/ were launched from escort carriers. Did this occur at Torch?

One more picture of the Bonney Gull.  It did fold up on its first flight causing the expiration of the inventor.  The Wings of Peace Forum has discussed it at some length.

chris hall wrote:

Well, I thought my question was still in play, but if someone else wants a go, it's no big deal. If anyone's interested in the answer, it's the Bonney Gull: http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/bonney_gull.php an interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful approach to prove the Wright brothers and their predecessors wrong. Cheers, Chris.

T_Terrific wrote:

bondoman wrote:  T_Terrific wrote: Well, since it is obvious from his non-answer that Chris is at a loss for another question, I guess I might as well go ahead and posit the next one. In WWII many radical things were tried. In this case, there were not one, but two instances that the U.S.armed services befuddled the enemy by successfully adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for another branch of the U.S. military. What were these two instances, and what were the aircraft and the campaigns they were involved in? Hint: Due to a bestselling book and three Hollywood productions, one instance is much more widely known then the other. Tom I guess I don't understand. It seems to me that Chris has a question in place, with that photo, and we're working on it.  Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh Sahib, your humble swervant begs of you a thousand pardons . I am only a simple Ameican fool who cannnot generally read except for plain English. What I stupidly read where Bondo said: "Good job, Chris. On to you." That is normal English for "Your turn". So Master Chris answers: "Wuddat?"-Here we non-British idiots see this as an expression of confusion or disconcern. We are not as adept at reading minds as you two obviously are. So as the blundering simpleton you-all know me to be, I saw Bondo turn the question over to Chris, and Chris pass. When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself. So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response. OK? Tom

Bill

Edit at 9.27 pm. I'm confusing this thread with Brain44, who did indeed run a great game with a tremendous amount of effort. As for you Tom, going back up this thread is a little disheartening, you've lit into people before with the same complaints. I reread the "rules" in your original post and I don't see any problem here. This is supposed to be fun, not a place to offend people. Wuddat, whodat wheredat was introduced by me some time ago to be funny, it's a form of shortspeak I learned from a relative who I enjoy talking to, and I'm amused someone else picked up on it, but it seems pretty plain on the face of it.

I see where Chris has handed over the question to you, which was big of him, and I'll just say that I've been verbally slapped around over the years by much more frightening characters than the likes of you, so don't bother because I don't care.

Chris,

 The first picture you posted looked like some kind of kid's toy.  It didn't have the engine installed and the cockpit looked over sized.  Going back and looking again, I see a person standing next to it, but it wasn't obvious on 1st blush.

 That may have been where the confusion came from.

 As far as using other service's aircrat, I read the question as what planes were pressed into service by other branches.  There was the SBD/A-25, the  SB2C/A-25, the A-29/PBO/Hudson, the B-25/PBJ.

USAAF aircraft were frequently moved by carrier.  Several CVEs were used as aircraft ferries and sometimes the planes were launched by catapult.

Bill 

T_Terrific wrote:

telsono wrote: I would guess that one situation would be. Douglass SBD Dauntless used by the USAAC as the A-24 Banshee in Java and the early New Guinea campaign. The North American B-25 Mitchell used by the US Navy and Marines as the PBJ Mitchell during the Pacific Campaign. Mike T.  Close, Mike- As a further hint- you got one aircraft and one theater right- The B-25 and the Pacific Theater. Now you just gotta figure out which occasion. The other time was in the Atlantic Theater, but oddly eough, much less well known. Remember, the key phrase is "adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for [or as if they were functioning with] another branch of the U.S. military". Further hint: As you might imagine, in both occasions the U.S Navy was involved, and in both occasions, the type of warship that the U.S. used the most effectively then and now was involved, both of them being surprise raids, the second one also involving a major U.S/Allied invasion. The first instance was classified as a surprise raid, mostly with psychological impact, more then material damage. For the second occasion, the USAAF's most widely used fighter aircraft type was involved. Tom

Yes Chris, I thought your question was still in play!? I wouldn't have gotten it anyway but yes i feel yours was still in play.

I think the other answer to the 'current' other question would be the P-40 and me thinks they were launched during the 'Torch' landings. If thats not it they also launched P-47's from a carrier on some operation.

Cheers, Richie

Well, I thought my question was still in play, but if someone else wants a go, it's no big deal. If anyone's interested in the answer, it's the Bonney Gull:

http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/bonney_gull.php

an interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful approach to prove the Wright brothers and their predecessors wrong.

Cheers,

Chris.

telsono wrote:

I would guess that one situation would be. Douglass SBD Dauntless used by the USAAC as the A-24 Banshee in Java and the early New Guinea campaign. The North American B-25 Mitchell used by the US Navy and Marines as the PBJ Mitchell during the Pacific Campaign. Mike T.

Close, Mike-

As a further hint- you got one aircraft and one theater right-

The B-25 and the Pacific Theater. Now you just gotta figure out which occasion.

The other time was in the Atlantic Theater, but oddly eough, much less well known.

Remember, the key phrase is "adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for [or as if they were functioning with] another branch of the U.S. military".

Further hint:

As you might imagine, in both occasions the U.S Navy was involved, and in both occasions, the type of warship that the U.S. used the most effectively then and now was involved, both of them being surprise raids, the second one also involving a major U.S/Allied invasion.

The first instance was classified as a surprise raid, mostly with psychological impact, more then material damage.

For the second occasion, the USAAF's most widely used fighter aircraft type was involved.

Tom

bondoman wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: Well, since it is obvious from his non-answer that Chris is at a loss for another question, I guess I might as well go ahead and posit the next one. In WWII many radical things were tried. In this case, there were not one, but two instances that the U.S.armed services befuddled the enemy by successfully adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for another branch of the U.S. military. What were these two instances, and what were the aircraft and the campaigns they were involved in? Hint: Due to a bestselling book and three Hollywood productions, one instance is much more widely known then the other. Tom I guess I don't understand. It seems to me that Chris has a question in place, with that photo, and we're working on it.

 Ooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh Sahib, your humble swervant begs of you a thousand pardons .

I am only a simple Ameican fool who cannnot generally read except for plain English.

What I stupidly read where Bondo said: "Good job, Chris. On to you."

That is normal English for "Your turn".

So Master Chris answers: "Wuddat?"-Here we non-British idiots see this as an expression of confusion or disconcern.

We are not as adept at reading minds as you two obviously are.

So as the blundering simpleton you-all know me to be, I saw Bondo turn the question over to Chris, and Chris pass.

When  I established this forum, I never intended it to be an exclusive tag-team private forum for two members who have a special secret code-speak  between themselves, as this is obviously unfair to others like myself.

So therefore, I presently feel that the forum was opened, whether intentionally or not by Chris's non-response.

OK?

Tom

No penguins were involved in the design or production of this aeroplane - though if you thought seabird, you'd be on the right track....

Here's another piccy, this time with the engine fitted and the wings extended:

Cheers,

Chris.

chris hall wrote:

Wuddat?

An early American attempt at a folding wing naval fighter.

Might it be the "Penguin Folding Wing"??

I would guess that one situation would be.

Douglass SBD Dauntless used by the USAAC as the A-24 Banshee in Java and the early New Guinea campaign.

The North American B-25 Mitchell used by the US Navy and Marines as the PBJ Mitchell during the Pacific Campaign.

Mike T. 

T_Terrific wrote:

Well, since it is obvious from his non-answer that Chris is at a loss for another question, I guess I might as well go ahead and posit the next one. In WWII many radical things were tried. In this case, there were not one, but two instances that the U.S.armed services befuddled the enemy by successfully adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for another branch of the U.S. military. What were these two instances, and what were the aircraft and the campaigns they were involved in? Hint: Due to a bestselling book and three Hollywood productions, one instance is much more widely known then the other. Tom

Further hint:

It does not involve this aircraft:

Tom

Well, since it is obvious from his non-answer that Chris is at a loss for another question, I guess I might as well go ahead and posit the next one.

In WWII many radical things were tried.

In this case, there were not one, but two instances that the U.S.armed services befuddled the enemy by successfully adapting one service's aircraft types to essentially function for another branch of the U.S. military.

What were these two instances, and what were the aircraft and the campaigns they were involved in?

Hint:

Due to a bestselling book and three Hollywood productions, one instance is much more widely known then the other.

Tom

Wuddat?