Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Sorry if you're mad - but I was thinking of the Kinner Sportster, not the Porterfield so John got it. The side questions are just for fun.

If you'd like to ask the next question, be my guest . . . 

bondoman wrote:

bondoman wrote: Audi made a five cylinder inline spark ignited engine. The claim as I recall was a shorter car. I had a 3 cylinder Bug for a while: broken plug. It's the 1936 Porterfield 35-70 Flyabout, for sure. well I'm kind of PO'd because I answered the original ?? correctly before the caveats started to come in, but go ahead,

bondoman wrote:

Audi made a five cylinder inline spark ignited engine. The claim as I recall was a shorter car. I had a 3 cylinder Bug for a while: broken plug. It's the 1936 Porterfield 35-70 Flyabout, for sure.

well I'm kind of PO'd because I answered the original ?? correctly before the caveats started to come in, but go ahead,

Bless you, my son...

It's now your question.

Well, Beech was trying to develop the Morane Saulnier Paris Jet, which went nowhere, but Cessna also tried to market a 4 seat version of their successful trainer the T-37.  It was designated the 407.  Given the T-37's reputation as one of the most ear-shattering planes around, I can imagine that might have had some role in the 407 never being successful...

-Bret 

I grew up in Fallbrook, I used to fly my commercial manuevers over a mesa above Murrieta. My friend who flies in Sport Biplanes at Reno (Phantom) used to practice up there too. Doesn't look the same now though.

-Bret 

jeaton01 wrote:

No, I sold it about 10 years ago.  I used to commute from a farm strip near Woodland to Rancho Murieta when I had an office there.  At the time it was cheaper to fly it than driving a car that far.  Probably is one of the few 140's that was IFR legal.  I think it's somewhere in Texas now.

No, I sold it about 10 years ago.  I used to commute from a farm strip near Woodland to Rancho Murieta when I had an office there.  At the time it was cheaper to fly it than driving a car that far.  Probably is one of the few 140's that was IFR legal.  I think it's somewhere in Texas now.

I can't wait for the next one . . .

So John, do you still have zero juliet echo?

Drat! 

Yes, I can see the resemblance, just kind of blown up a little.  I have plans for the Sportster in 1/6 scale for RC.  Looks like it was a fun airplane.  One of my friends did the plans when he scratch built a model of it.  Unfortunately the model met its demise some years ago while doing a loop, the battery bailed out through the open cockpit and you might say everything else went "downhill" from there.

New question later today.

jeaton01 wrote:

Kinner Sportster

Right!  That's the answer I was looking for!  It looks an awful lot like the early Yak, don't you think?

-Bret 

Kinner Sportster

No, it's not the Porterfield . . .

Like the Rearwins, which used the Ken Royce engines they manufactured, this plane was built by the same company that made the engine.

That 5 cylinder in the Audi was transverse mounted - it was an issue of how wide the car was and how much engine could they get. I remember the B rally cars (Killer Bees) in the eighties - that Audi was a monster. I watched Bobby Unser race it up Pike's Peak. The exhaust pipe was a big rectangle coming out the middle of the car with flames shooting out everytime he lifted the throttle. We were photographing it for Audi and Michelin. Its an amazing sight to see with no gaurd rails and sheer drop-offs.

bondoman wrote:

Audi made a five cylinder inline spark ignited engine. The claim as I recall was a shorter car. I had a 3 cylinder Bug for a while: broken plug. It's the 1936 Porterfield 35-70 Flyabout, for sure.

Audi made a five cylinder inline spark ignited engine. The claim as I recall was a shorter car.

I had a 3 cylinder Bug for a while: broken plug.

It's the 1936 Porterfield 35-70 Flyabout, for sure.

dodged that bullet.....

Yes, Bret.  LeBlond was renamed Ken Royce, after Ken and Royce's father bought Leblond.

John, very good answers. The engine question, the wildcard, is obviously very complicated and a lot of odd balls have existed. When I was a kid we had a 5 cylinder diesel Merc. Inlines are a little different. Harmonics, firing order, counter balances, bank angles et al.I didn't realize that Warner made a 5 jug engine. I thought they were all 7. For a good explanation of how a radial engine works, check out:http://www.radialengines.com/faq_section/index.htm#q2

The Szekely was the 3 cylinder I was thinking of - I think the cable was standard equipment even on cubs. Who would want to have a cylinder pop off and hit you in the face? # cylinder Anzani was another.

As for the main question - you are right, a lot of planes of the time fit the bill. But this one is a single seat, 5 cylinder radial powered plane that looks a *lot* like that Yak. And it wasn't powered by a Ken Royce (Le Blond is basically the same engine, right?) or the Warner . . .

jeaton01 wrote:

I'm thinking that any one of several light US aircraft might fit this.  The Ryan PT-22 with the Kinner is one, but there is also the Aeronca LC and the Culver Dart, powered by Warner, LeBlond, or Ken Royce 5 cylinder radials.  The reason for the odd number of cylinders in a single row radial is that there is a single throw on the crankshaft, and a four stroke radial will make two revolutions to fire all of its cylinders.  It's easier to get the valve timing and ignition timing done mechanically by firing alternate cylinders.  1,3,5,2, 4 is the firing order.  The 3 cylinder radial that was most common, even though it was pretty much a disaster, was the Szekely.  One of my uncles learned to fly in a Curtiss Junior powered by the Szekely, and he had a cable attached to all of the cylinder heads to keep them from going through the pusher prop when they broke.  I kid you not.   There was a six cylinder 4 stroke radial, the Curtiss Challenger, and it has fooled some people because there was no main bearing between the two throws of the crankshaft and at first glance it can appear that all six of the cylinders are in line, but they are not.  It is a twin row 3 in front 3 in back radial.  It wasn't a good engine because of the lack of the middle main, but it did power some Curtiss Robins. It is possible to have 5 cylinders in an inline 4 stroke engine, Mercedes had a diesel with 5 cylinders.  I suspect it had irregular timing, like the Wisconsin V-4 industrial engine that used the same crank as an inline engine.  Two cylinders fired 180 degrees apart as is normal, but the other two were 90 and 270 degrees in interval.  It was not a smooth running engine. With two stroke engines, any configuration is possible.  Detroit diesel sold I3, I4, I6, V8 and V12 cylinder versions of the V-71 series diesels.

I'm thinking that any one of several light US aircraft might fit this.  The Ryan PT-22 with the Kinner is one, but there is also the Aeronca LC and the Culver Dart, powered by Warner, LeBlond, or Ken Royce 5 cylinder radials.  The reason for the odd number of cylinders in a single row radial is that there is a single throw on the crankshaft, and a four stroke radial will make two revolutions to fire all of its cylinders.  It's easier to get the valve timing and ignition timing done mechanically by firing alternate cylinders.  1,3,5,2, 4 is the firing order.  The 3 cylinder radial that was most common, even though it was pretty much a disaster, was the Szekely.  One of my uncles learned to fly in a Curtiss Junior powered by the Szekely, and he had a cable attached to all of the cylinder heads to keep them from going through the pusher prop when they broke.  I kid you not.  

There was a six cylinder 4 stroke radial, the Curtiss Challenger, and it has fooled some people because there was no main bearing between the two throws of the crankshaft and at first glance it can appear that all six of the cylinders are in line, but they are not.  It is a twin row 3 in front 3 in back radial.  It wasn't a good engine because of the lack of the middle main, but it did power some Curtiss Robins.

It is possible to have 5 cylinders in an inline 4 stroke engine, Mercedes had a diesel with 5 cylinders.  I suspect it had irregular timing, like the Wisconsin V-4 industrial engine that used the same crank as an inline engine.  Two cylinders fired 180 degrees apart as is normal, but the other two were 90 and 270 degrees in interval.  It was not a smooth running engine.

skybolt2003 wrote:

Cute as a bug it was – my question is about an aircraft that was it's contemporary and shared many of it's salient features. One of its distincitive features was its radial engine. Most multi-cylinder engines, like V's or boxers have an even number of cylinders while radials have odd number. Most single row radials are either 7 or 9 cylinder affairs for smoothness. This one, like the Yak had a 5 cylinder powerplant. Pretty unusual (there was at least one 3 cylinder radial as well). Name this plane and its engine. Super bonus points if you can tell why a radial uses odd numbers. More bonus points, but not super bonus if you can come up with a 3 cylinder radial.   -Bret

 Don't know of any aircraft, but I did find that a German company named Konig made a 3 cylinder radial.  It's now called Zanzottera.

As to why radials have odd cylinders, I had never thought about it before, but thinking about the geometry, having an even number of cylinders would require that pairs of cylinders would be opposite one another and they would tend to buck each other.  With an odd number of cylinders, nothing opposes anything else.

 I guess I answered the bonus questions, but not the main one.

 Bill

Cute as a bug it was – my question is about an aircraft that was it's contemporary and shared many of it's salient features. One of its distincitive features was its radial engine. Most multi-cylinder engines, like V's or boxers have an even number of cylinders while radials have odd number. Most single row radials are either 7 or 9 cylinder affairs for smoothness. This one, like the Yak had a 5 cylinder powerplant. Pretty unusual (there was at least one 3 cylinder radial as well).

Name this plane and its engine. Super bonus points if you can tell why a radial uses odd numbers. More bonus points, but not super bonus if you can come up with a 3 cylinder radial.

-Bret 

jeaton01 wrote:

And this time the Duck has come down, as Groucho would say, as Bret has written the magic word.

Well, you see jeaton, down here in south Louisiana, we have vast wetlands where Americn waterfowl come down for the winter, and when a big fat mallard "comes down" to your blind, all nice and easy with his wings spread out, making a perfect target, and Tom T shoots him with his Brazilian-made $50.00 12 gage single-shot shotgun, we eats him for suppa, with various vegetables, greens hot fresh made bread and potatoes. 

So when the duck "comes down" here we are in for a nice mid-winter treat!.

Tom

skybolt2003 wrote:

jeaton01 wrote: Well, I think I can hear the brain cells frying out there.  I neither duck hunt, nor have any congress with a canard.  Look closer to Bret's first guess, and think less aggressive. Less agressive - Yak UT-1, radial engine single seat trainer?    -Bret

I think I feel a hangover coming on.

And this time the Duck has come down, as Groucho would say, as Bret has written the magic word.

It was Yakovlev's first design produced in series, beginning in December 1936 and ending in 1940, 1,241 were built.  It was designed as a sport plane and used as an advanced trainer for fighter pilots.  The UT-2 primary/advanced 2 seat trainer went into series production a few months after the UT-1.  Both had Shvetsov M-11 5 cylinder radials.  Here is a picture of the one in Yakovlev's museum, from their web site, below is the 1/72 model I built earlier this year from the Pavla kit in front of the UKAR  kit of the Tupolev ANT-25.  Neomega did a 1/72 kit in resin also.  I think it is "cute as a bug". 

jeaton01 wrote:

Well, I think I can hear the brain cells frying out there.  I neither duck hunt, nor have any congress with a canard.  Look closer to Bret's first guess, and think less aggressive.

Less agressive - Yak UT-1, radial engine single seat trainer? 

-Bret 

 If Bret's "right track" was Russian, the name "Lavochkin" still lives as NPO Lavochkin, the successor organization, a Russian manufacturer active in aeronautical design and engineering.

They had a series of radial engined aircraft, including the La -5, La-7,  and the La-126.

Otherwise, the Polikarpov I-16 radial-engined fighter had a similar plan form to the I-17, but in profile, the I-17 was much sleeker.

Now after Polikarpov's death death on 30 July 1944 at the age of 52, his OKB was absorbed into Lavochkin, so it could be said his name lives on indirectly.

So do you duck hunt?

Tom

The Curtiss P-36?

It's planform was shared with the P-40 and there still is a Curtiss-Wright Corporation.

Tom

bondoman wrote:

It's the LaGG-1 -NO STUPID:IT"S NOT A RADIAL!!! In the penalty box with me!!! GOOD QUESTION!!!

No time to think anymore about this today.

-Bret