SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Aircraft Trivia Quiz

728384 views
7409 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Northern California
Posted by trexx on Friday, February 15, 2008 5:45 PM

 congo79 wrote:
Yeah, i forgot to mention the wingtips, but the difference between the XB-70 and TSR.2 was that TSR`s tips were fixed, while XB-70 where moveable and if i`m not mistaken, they were activating at high speed to increase the stability.

Yes. The outer wing panels of the XB-70s could be drooped downward. It was to increase lift and thus overall range. Air was scrunched between the wing tips and engine nacelle. The idea existed only in theory previously.

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Friday, February 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Nope. Try other manufacturers.
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Tucson
Posted by cardshark_14 on Friday, February 15, 2008 4:05 PM
Me, I'm leaning towards something in the Dauntless family tree...a BT-1, maybe...
Never trust anyone who refuses to drink domestic beer, laugh at the Three Stooges, or crank Back In Black.
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Friday, February 15, 2008 3:42 PM
OK so here are two new clues. The engine was Wright Cyclon GP-1820 G-7 at 750 h.p., and the other thing is that a second plane was tested by USSR`s Navy pilots and it was fitted with floats and weels, thus becomeing an amfibian.
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Friday, February 15, 2008 3:26 PM

Probably. I couldn't find anything with a radial that might suit. The closest seemed to be an SB-2M or something.

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Friday, February 15, 2008 3:19 PM
Wow, one day and no answers! Do you need a new clue?
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:03 AM
OK, sorry for the delay, but i just came home, so here`s the question. This fighter was designed in 1937 and can be accepted as a predecessor of a famous WW II bird. One of the prototypes was tested in the USSR in 1938-39 as a competetor to the famous I-16. Even though it proved to be superior than the Rata /with almost identical engines/ he didn`t won. Oh and the big clue - it was two-seated. Name that plane
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:05 AM
Yeah, i forgot to mention the wingtips, but the difference between the XB-70 and TSR.2 was that TSR`s tips were fixed, while XB-70 where moveable and if i`m not mistaken, they were activating at high speed to increase the stability.
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 6:48 PM

Correct, its all your.

The afterburning Olympus (modified) was later to find use in Concorde.

The similarity was the downturned wing tips, used in the XB-70 to generate compression lift, but in the TSR.2 to avoid main wing anhedral, to give smoother airflow over the tailplanes.

Pictured here beside the inferior machine that it was cancelled for, which was in turn never purchased;

 

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:55 PM
This should be the BACK TSR-2, and his engine /if i`m not mistaken/ became father to the Harrier engine /Olympus, right/!
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 5:27 PM

Cheers;

This aircraft is an advanced (for its day), twin seat, twin engine, supersonic attack aircraft which first flew in the 60s. Its engines suffered not inconsiderable problems early in early flight, these problems would eventually be resolved & the engine would become the basis of the powerplant for a unique aircraft.

The aircraft bore a certain rather obvious similarity to the ill fated XB-70, although the particular similarity did not serve the same purpose.    

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Dorset, UK
Posted by chris hall on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:48 PM
C-5 is right - but the Tausendfuessler is nore fun! Your turn, Junkie!
Cute and cuddly, boys, cute and cuddly!
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:34 PM

1) An-225

2) 32

3) C-5 Galaxy (1968 / 28 wheels)

Weather 3) is correct or not, here is an interesting fact (sorry to say its straight from Wiki);

The volume of unusable space in a C-5's tail assembly (aft of the ramp) is larger than the available cargo space of a C-130 Hercules

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Tucson
Posted by cardshark_14 on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:20 PM

Hey Brews,

I figured as much.  If its right, go ahead and take the question, as I don't have anything ready, and I don't want to be poaching...Wink [;)] 

Never trust anyone who refuses to drink domestic beer, laugh at the Three Stooges, or crank Back In Black.
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:12 PM
 trexx wrote:

 cardshark_14 wrote:
Ar 232 had 25...two rows of 11, a nose wheel, and two main gear

 

'that's gotta be it.

That's the one I was thinking of, but if it's right, congratulations.

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:10 PM
 chris hall wrote:

Of course - you're north of the 49th Parallel - otherwise a Starkbierfest would feature watered down British Heineken, at best! Propeller [8-]

Off-topic, but there are PLENTY of good beers in the US ... mainly from micro-breweries, and Seattle is a beer-Mecca.

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Northern California
Posted by trexx on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:55 AM

 cardshark_14 wrote:
Ar 232 had 25...two rows of 11, a nose wheel, and two main gear

 

'that's gotta be it.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Tucson
Posted by cardshark_14 on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:29 AM
Ar 232 had 25...two rows of 11, a nose wheel, and two main gear
Never trust anyone who refuses to drink domestic beer, laugh at the Three Stooges, or crank Back In Black.
  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Dorset, UK
Posted by chris hall on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:59 AM

Of course - you're north of the 49th Parallel - otherwise a Starkbierfest would feature watered down British Heineken, at best! Propeller [8-]

Anyway, your first answer is right - the An.225 has 32 undercarriage wheels. However, the An.124 has only 24, and the aircraft I'm thinking of, which was much smaller than the An.124, but still quite big for its day, had more than this.

Cheers,

Chris.

Cute and cuddly, boys, cute and cuddly!
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:43 AM

Mass ... yes. I just unpacked my four Loewenbraeu steins in preparation for starkbierfest.

My initial stab at this question would be the Antonov 225, with perhaps the An 124 or Arado Ar 242 being the previous holder. I have no clue!

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Dorset, UK
Posted by chris hall on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:12 AM
 Brews wrote:

The colony deserve a Mass of gin for their efforts.

....

Over to you. 

Thanks Bruce. That would be a Mass each, I assume?  With lunch? Make a Toast [#toast]

Right:

1) Which aircraft currently has the most wheels in its undercarriage?

2) How many wheels is this?

3) how many more wheels does it have than the previous holder of the record for number of undercarriage wheels?

Cheers,

Chris.

 

Cute and cuddly, boys, cute and cuddly!
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:46 AM

The colony deserve a Mass of gin for their efforts.

I was, indeed, thinking of the Lavochkin S-75 / SA-2 Guideline, and the Operation was indeed Desert Storm.

Over to you. 

  • Member since
    February 2004
  • From: Weymouth, Dorset, UK
Posted by chris hall on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:51 AM
 Brews wrote:

My question is this:

During which military operation was the last success of a Lavochkin machine over a Grumman fighter?

Hi Bruce,

I'm thinking that the SA-2 Guideline SAM system was based around the Lavochkin  S-75 Dvina missile. Among the operators of this system was Iraq, under Saddam. In Desert Storm, on 21st January 1991, the USN lost Tomcat Bu/No.161430 to SAM-2 fire over Iraq. Both crew ejected safely, with the pilot being recovered by US special forces and the RIO being captured by the Iraqis and held as a POW.

The S-75 is capable of Mach 3 at burnout, while the maximum speed of the Tomcat is only Mach 2.34 at high altitude.

The Colony were up all night researching this one! Smile [:)]

Cheers,

Chris.

Cute and cuddly, boys, cute and cuddly!
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:17 PM

Too far east, and too early.

Hint: The Lavochkin was faster. 

  • Member since
    December 2015
Posted by dcaponeII on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:59 PM
I'd guess Korean war vs an F9F Panther.  But if you need more detail than that I don't have a clue.  You know it could actually be in Indochina vs a French Bearcat.  That would have been more recently than the Korean war.  I'll go with French Indochina.
  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 6:24 PM

It bears at least a passing resemblance to the Westland Lysander.

My question is this:

During which military operation was the last success of a Lavochkin machine over a Grumman fighter?

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:49 PM

You got it Brews! And here are some pics, the first two are the prototype

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Man that`s an ugly bird, but after all it served well!

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Posted by Brews on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11-I and KB-11-II and IIA Fanzan

The users were Bulgaria and Yugoslavia (1947 - 1958)

(Caproni)

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:22 PM
OK, so here`s the new question: This plane was built in a factory owned by a famous aircraft producer but in a foreign country. This plane was a rece/light bomber. The flight testing of the prototype, which acquired the name "Quazimodo" /it realy was an ugly plane/, began in 1940. The test pilot mentioned two major shortcomings in the design, so the craft was reenginered and the second prototype was tested in 1941. The plane was used by the country of it`s origin during WW II and after its end part of them were sold to a neighbour country where they lasted till 1958. Name that plane.
  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: VARNA, BULARIA
Posted by congo79 on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:34 AM
Oh, and some other things i forgot. The tesbeds for the radars were renamed to TU-134LL /letajushaja laboratorija-flying lab, actually all Soviet testbed aircraft were called LL/. That craft was used in Aeroflot also as trainer for the long flight navigators /for proper usage of the RSBN and RSDN radio navigation systems/. The TU-134 Sh is definitely much cheaper to use than the big birds since, if i`m not mistaken, it carries 8 bomber crews for training. And now to the point, i`m still at work so give me few hours to get home, so i`ll be able to put the next question in.
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.