Aircraft Trivia Quiz

oops too little too late. lol

congo79 wrote:

Hah, i know this one. This is the TU-134 Sh /Sh stands for Shturman - navigator

That's the one! Bomb/nav trainer for Soviet and Russian AF bomb crews. Presumably they're cheaper to operate than Bears, Backfires and Blackjacks.

Your turn, Congo!

Cheers,

Chris.

Brews wrote:

It says "Aeroflot", but it has a honking big TFR, I'd guess, by the similarity of the radome to an F-111. My guess is a trainer for Su-24 radar operators/ pilots.

Close but no cigar. BTW, I transliterate the Cyrillic lettering on the side of the fuselage as 'Sofrino' the name of a famous monastry about 60km outside Moscow, known for the iconography it produces.

Cheers,

Chris.

It says "Aeroflot", but it has a honking big TFR, I'd guess, by the similarity of the radome to an F-111.

My guess is a trainer for Su-24 radar operators/ pilots.

Nah, the worst aircraft ever to go into production, by pretty much any criterion, must have been the Tu.144. Talking of which - next question - what's this:

and what was/ is it used for?

Cheers,

Chris.

The Bermuda it is.  Considered by some to be possibly the worst aircraft to ever go into production.

 I did read that some Bermudas may have been sent to Burma and may have seen combat as level bombers.  The thing was so unsafe they didn't dare try using them as dive bombers.

 Bill

wdolson2 wrote:

The plane in question did go into limited production and served with a foriegn service (briefly).  A second foreign service ordered some, but were unable to take delivery.  Bill

Hi Bill,

would you be thnking of the Brewster SB2A Bermuda?

This dive bomber, which was orderd by the USN as a backup for the Curtiss SB2C (itself a less-than-wonderful machine), but by the time it arrived on the scene, found the Helldiver performing the task adequately, and the whole dive bomber concept somewhat obsolescent, anyway.

It was ordered by the Brits and the Dutch, but the latter, by the time it was in production, in 1941, were in no position to buy, much less operate, it. The USN foisted off the 162 aircraft that the Dutch had ordered on the USMC , who used them as trainers.The Brits, when evaluating it, came to the conclusion that it was "entirely unsuited for combat operations", and used the 740-or-so examples that they ordered as target tugs and ground training airframes for fitters and mechanics.

Cheers,

Chris.

wdolson2 wrote:

...question:  Many times when a new aircraft program is under way, especially when war is looming on the horizon as was the case in the late 30s, an aircraft program will have a back up from another manufacturer as insurance.  This aircraft was a back up for a new carrier aircraft program.  When the main project ran into trouble, they didn't go with the back up though.  What was this back up program aircraft and why didn't it see service instead of the original.  The original did eventually see front line service, but much later than originally planned...

The BV-122? It started out as a carrier born airplane but then changed into something entirely different (revised requirements...) and it was a back up for the navalized Bf-109... I believe.

The Vengence was developed to a British specification for a dive bomber.  As far as I know, no navy ever operated it.

 1500+ were built, so I wouldn't call the Vengence a limited production plane.

 Bill

The Airabonita lost out in a head to head competition with the F4U.  It never was seriously considered as a back up to the Corsair. 

The plane in question did go into limited production and served with a foriegn service (briefly).  A second foreign service ordered some, but were unable to take delivery.

 Bill

The third motor ran a lot of critical things.  I read the story of one of the test pilots.  The APU stalled in flight and they couldn't land until they got it restarted.  I can't recall if the APU powered the landing gear motors or the flaps, but it was something critical.

 Here's my question:  Many times when a new aircraft program is under way, especially when war is looming on the horizon as was the case in the late 30s, an aircraft program will have a back up from another manufacturer as insurance.  This aircraft was a back up for a new carrier aircraft program.  When the main project ran into trouble, they didn't go with the back up though.

 What was this back up program aircraft and why didn't it see service instead of the original.  The original did eventually see front line service, but much later than originally planned.

Bill 

chris hall wrote:

wdolson2 wrote: YFM-1 Airacuda Well done! A classic example of 'seemed like a good idea at the time...' http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Prototypes.html Your turn. Cheers, Chris.

OMG!
That was the first plane that came to mind! I didn't put it down as a guess because it's only a two motored job. Or so I thought!? I never knew it used a third engine! DANG!

wdolson2 wrote:

YFM-1 Airacuda

Well done! A classic example of 'seemed like a good idea at the time...'

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Prototypes.html

Your turn.

Cheers,

Chris.

Milairjunkie wrote:

Was the 3rd engine for developing Electricity or Hydraulic pressure? Help??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Yes, it was an APU, but without the APU, several flight- and mission- essential systems wouldn't work. These included the flaps, fuel pumps, undercarriage and, should the pilot somehow and nevertheless get the plane back on the ground, the brakes. 

Was the 3rd engine for developing Electricity or Hydraulic pressure?

Help?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 

trexx wrote:

Hmmm the Germans made a three motored job that had two wing nacelles with a motor each and a fuselage installation as a third driving a massive blower for supercharging... but what was it's intended use? I dunno... Hmmm

The plane you're thinking of was the Dornier Do.217P. In some respects, the plane I'm thinking of was similar in concept - only two of the three engines were used for propulsion, but the third was still essential, since several of the systems it powered did not have manual over-ride, and were essential for safe flight and effective mission performance.

Cheers,

Chris.

dcaponeII wrote:

I think if you check the Jumo engined SM 79 only had two engines.  They had enough extra power that they didn't need the third engine.  This makes it not a trimotor even though the type certainly was.

Oh

Tom

I would guess the Junkers Jumo 211 D 1,220 hp engined version of the Savoia Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero as made under license in Romania.

The British Hurricane pilots had a not so nice label for it due to the fact it was hard for them to approach with the guns mounted in its' "hunchback".

I would guess.

Tom T

My progress so far;

I have managed to narrow it down to German, Italian or Soviet, but none are a dead cert.

Good question by the way.