Aircraft Trivia Quiz

simpilot34 wrote:

Bingo Bondo! lol Clever answering! Floor is yours! Cheers "An instrument rating is a piece of paper saying you have had enough training to know when to stay on the ground."-Unknown

Bingo Bondo! lol Clever answering! Floor is yours!

Cheers

"An instrument rating is a piece of paper saying you have had enough training to know when to stay on the ground."-Unknown

That, my friends is ART!  

Fantastic answering method, Bondo, and a big ol'  

I also don't want to limit people's ability to research, just promote actual research. Google and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources for anything! If I ask something obscure about Japanese aircraft, I don't want you to just google it and get the answer from wikipedia or some other random website. Instead, go to j-aircraft.com or some other reputable website, and hunt around in their astounding resources. You're guaranteed to learn something, and chances are, find something you're interested in learning more about.

In response to trivia being art, I totally agree, however an important aspect of the art is a question's answerability. I refer you to my Pe-8 question a few months ago: there were multiple layers of information available, though some of it depended on a certain amount of prior art. It was not googleable, but was very researchable. Asking questions that are both obscure and impossible to research is not fair, and I would submit that many of the recent questions have been just that, reminiscent of the scam that was run early on between two (long-gone) posters.

Also, questions that are opinions or not provable one way or another or that do not have a set answer are also not good art and tend to build resentment amongst members. I would refer Everyone WAY back to the first page to check out Tom's guidelines, as they set the tone well. Again, just my , coming from an engineering background. (If you can't prove it with acceptable sources, its not usable!)

EDIT: Now that I think about it, (and went back to the first page myself), I remember that the scam problem wasn't on this site... Sorry for the confusion.

datzuh

P

The giveaway is the color, nothing like it!

Simpilot: Kettering?

cardshark_14 wrote:

If y'all want more complicated, less 'googleable' answers, why don't we just all have a gentlemen's agreement not to use google... Personally, if I don't know an answer, I don't research it, I sit back and let someone else have the fun of answering...Its only when a question sits for long periods of time on something obscure that I will look it up to keep the quiz alive.  Also, if you want us to tell you what a picture is, don't upload it to photobucket with the answer as the file name...we can't help but see the answer. I'll get off my now.

If you watch Jeopardy, endless amounts of usually impossible "questions" contain clues in the categories, or "answers", presented.

And trick questions, well thats another form.

I recently won a bar trivia night with the answer to the question "How many soldiers are in the photo of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima".

But my point is there's little or no way to limit the resources involved or involvable.

I think the value is in the give back. Let's say a guy says, "I know the answer to that, I was a crew chief on KC135's", and right away three others want to know when, where, what.

Or I google Brabazon because I want to know if my guess is right, and I see "comparable aircraft", which since it's gonna be my turn, gives me an idea.

Remember how Tom used to do a whole string on one theme? It helped to ken where he was coming from, plus it was fun to follow the line of thought.

I'm glad we're having this discussion because I don't know the answer and value others thoughts, but I wouldn't want to limit peoples ability to research.

Bill

chris hall wrote:

The counter-argument is that this is supposed to be fun, and maybe a test of our research skills, and not a competiton for 'who's got the best reference library', especially if the contents of those libraries are not always reliable, verifiable, or in English.

I'm not saying that I use things other than google to find answers, or that I have 'the best reference library' , I'm just saying that if I don't know the answer, or at least have a good hunch, I'll let someone else to teach me a thing or two, rather than ruin a perfectly good question by googling. However, if someone poses a question about something so obscure that NO ONE knows it and the quiz stalls for days on end, I will go hunt it up, just to keep the ball rolling. I don't think a question should not be googleable without prior knowledge, but it also shouldn't stall the quiz, as has been happening in the past few weeks. The riddle form that we started with way back when is one of the best IMHO.

Ditto chris! Whether or not you know the answer right away or not, and with modern technology, how you get the answer is irrelevent. Now since I got the last question right, I think its time to move on to the next question. Which is another 'Wuddat?:

Cheers

The counter-argument is that this is supposed to be fun, and maybe a test of our research skills, and not a competiton for 'who's got the best reference library', especially if the contents of those libraries are not always reliable, verifiable, or in English.

It's possible to pose challenging questions using reference material found on the internet. Google-able questions don't have to be easy. You have to kow what question to ask Google!

Plus, Google-able questions keep things flowing. And the occasional  question that can be researched and answered quickly is no bad thing. In the days before the internet it often came down to luck. Any question is easy if you happen to know the answer!

It is a bit of a give-away when the file name of a picture contains the name of the subject, though. It only takes a second to check this, and there are ways round the porblem, if you think about it, even if, as often happens with obscure aircraft, there are only a few piccies available.

Cheers,

Chris.

If y'all want more complicated, less 'googleable' answers, why don't we just all have a gentlemen's agreement not to use google...

Personally, if I don't know an answer, I don't research it, I sit back and let someone else have the fun of answering...Its only when a question sits for long periods of time on something obscure that I will look it up to keep the quiz alive.  Also, if you want us to tell you what a picture is, don't upload it to photobucket with the answer as the file name...we can't help but see the answer. I'll get off my now.

See, try googling this, it's a little harder:

first surface victim of japanese suicide plane attack

The heavy cruiser HMAS Australia was the first allied ship to be hit by a kamikaze attack. wiki-wiki, too easy.

Cheers

okay...this might be might not be a googled reference. 

 What was the ship that was struck by the first kamikaze attack?

Yessssssss it was Leonardo da Vinci! Well done S_Karrde You got it first. The floor is yours.

Sorry for the late reply, I am in Oz so the time diff is a killer. I was up till almost 3am our time waiting for replies, and had to get some sleeep. So all yors S_Karrde!

Cheers

bondoman wrote:

Just my two bits, but it helps to put the question together in a way that doesn't Google straight up. Not implying anything, but that's what I did and it was too easy. Tom used to be really good at that. Bill

I've just recently had a conversation about this with people around me. The tool of the internet is most definitely a factor in question formulation. It must be considered. And, I do when at bat. And I know others here have that in the forefront of their thinking here. These phenomenon add to the dynamics of the game and is a testiment to some fine intellects that we rub shoulders with here. (in a cyber sort of way)

Keep-A-goin' ! 'Luv this thread!

Just my two bits, but it helps to put the question together in a way that doesn't Google straight up. Not implying anything, but that's what I did and it was too easy. Tom used to be really good at that.

Bill

S_Karrde wrote:

simpilot34 wrote: YAYYYY!!!! I got one! Here's my question: Who said, "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been and there you will always long to return."? Cheers And I think its da Vinci

di Amaldo Mussolini? Benito's Brother...

simpilot34 wrote:

YAYYYY!!!! I got one! Here's my question: Who said, "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been and there you will always long to return."? Cheers

And I think its da Vinci

chris hall wrote:

Brews wrote: As curious as the Brabazon was, it was a bit of a wacky trip for the British aircraft industry to be working on a civil airliner while the war was in full swing, and DH, for one, were too overloaded to work on a jet fighter. As it turned out, the Vampire only just missed seeing action. Not really. From late 1943, it was clear which way the war was going to go, the only question was would it end in late 1944 or eary 1946. No new-design aircraft would be in production and service by then, and there would be limited need for new high-performance combat aircraft in a post-war environment. However, the British civil aviation industry was in a sorry state. The most advanced aircraft was probably the Short Empire flying boat, and the Yanks had gone and built gurt long runways all over the place. So HMG set up a committee to discuss and develop aircraft for the post-war world, and to keep the workers in the British aviation industry in jobs (governments did that sort of thng in those days, remember). Sadly they forgot that there would be several thousand war US surplus transport aircraft, and their production lines, ready and able to take up such post-war demand as ther was. Finally, remember that the Brabazon was the only really big failure of the Brabazon Committee. Relative successes, at least, included the DH Comet, the Bristol Britannia and the DH Dove. In post-war America, Convair and Lockheed would have been overjoyed with that sort of success rate. If you want a real example of how state intervention can bu**er up a civil avaiation industry, look at France. Cheers, Chris.

WELL SAID, Chris! WONDERFUL comments.

Uhhh... Simpilot34, Question please!

simpilot34 wrote:

It is parts of the XC-99. The cargo version of the B-36. Cheers, simpilot34

The floor is yours!

I've heard that before.....da Vinci, wasn't it?

YAYYYY!!!! I got one! Here's my question:

Who said, "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been and there you will always long to return."?

Cheers

If any of you are able to pick up Bill Gunston's "Giants of the Sky", I recommend it highly.  Not only is there a huge amount of information on the Brabazon (and many other interesting projects, for that matter), there's a trace of wit that is missing from many other straight informative texts.  He takes several jabs at a number of the projects he covers, and the govermental circumstances around their creation.  He has quite a bit to say about the inter-war British aviation industry, and one or two things to say about the Brabazon as well.

I always thought the engine arrangement was my favorite part of the aircraft.  Yeah, it has eight engines, but it doesn't look it- almost like the props are too small for the airframe.  It's vaigely reminicent of the interwar Tupolev designs (ANT-20, etc.).

As for the XC-99 (as indeed that's what it is)- awesome stuff.  I'm totally stoked that it's finally undergoing restoration, and at a museum that's within driving distance whenever I want to go.  I can't wait to see that sucker parked next to their B-36.  I'm even planning a trip down there to see the restoration hangers as soon as I get time.  Good stuff.

Okay.  I'm done rambling now.

Brews wrote:

As curious as the Brabazon was, it was a bit of a wacky trip for the British aircraft industry to be working on a civil airliner while the war was in full swing, and DH, for one, were too overloaded to work on a jet fighter. As it turned out, the Vampire only just missed seeing action.

Not really. From late 1943, it was clear which way the war was going to go, the only question was would it end in late 1944 or eary 1946. No new-design aircraft would be in production and service by then, and there would be limited need for new high-performance combat aircraft in a post-war environment.

However, the British civil aviation industry was in a sorry state. The most advanced aircraft was probably the Short Empire flying boat, and the Yanks had gone and built gurt long runways all over the place. So HMG set up a committee to discuss and develop aircraft for the post-war world, and to keep the workers in the British aviation industry in jobs (governments did that sort of thng in those days, remember). Sadly they forgot that there would be several thousand war US surplus transport aircraft, and their production lines, ready and able to take up such post-war demand as ther was.

Finally, remember that the Brabazon was the only really big failure of the Brabazon Committee. Relative successes, at least, included the DH Comet, the Bristol Britannia and the DH Dove. In post-war America, Convair and Lockheed would have been overjoyed with that sort of success rate. If you want a real example of how state intervention can bu**er up a civil avaiation industry, look at France.

Cheers,

Chris.

Lucien Harpress wrote:

....which probably makes this the quickest correct answer yet.  It is the Brabazon, and I'm just hoping somebody releases a 1/72 kit of it eventually.  Perhaps if I write a letter to Revell Germany...

As curious as the Brabazon was, it was a bit of a wacky trip for the British aircraft industry to be working on a civil airliner while the war was in full swing, and DH, for one, were too overloaded to work on a jet fighter. As it turned out, the Vampire only just missed seeing action.

It is parts of the XC-99. The cargo version of the B-36.

Cheers, simpilot34