Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Well thats a relief- hate to think I'd driveen it into the ground.

The country is indeed the USA-definately should have mentioned that part.

The aircraft is indeed the "christmas bullet" - there were actually 2 prototypes that both crashed on their first flight , killing their respective pilots. There is a story that the second pilot , after inspecting the structureless wings of the second prototype refused to take off in it, only to be talked into making the flight by Dr. Christmas himself- who must have truly been a salesman second to none in his persusive abilities. 

The engine was a modified Liberty V-12 that was sectioned in half creating a lighter V-6 version of that famed motor- and Christmas himself was reprimanded for destroying this unique prototype motor in the second crash.

Pleased to pass the baton onwards,

Keith

Reference- AAHS Journal from the mid sixties.

hudskit wrote:

Prefer answering them to asking them methinks...  Name the most promising paper project of the 1917/1918 crop of fighter prototypes that included a total overall design patent . Bonus- name the unique engine specially modified for this aircraft- of which at least two prototypes flew. Keith

My first question is whose (what nationality) fighter prototypes is this one among?

There were more then one player in the fighter arena in 1918.

Tom

P.S.

For your information, one "escape clause" in this thread is that if no one gets "the right answer" answer after a week at the most, and the questioner does not choose to "switch the question" at that time, the next question is open to anyone who wants to participate, including me.

I made that rule so no one could kill off this thread by deliberately positing a hypothetically impossible question and just waiting for everyone to "give up and walk away"

On the other hand, if someone seeks to monopolize the string by continued "switching" to unreasonable questions then I reserve the perogative to "bail in" and ask normal questions to get things going again, simply ignoring those that require a special and unusual knowledge of something that rarely if ever flew, especially if they were never model kit subjects. Personally, I prefer those that actually involve a plane that also is a model aircraft subject as that assures something more "in line" with the purpose of this website as well.

OK?

Looks like I've killed another thread. This design made it's designer quite wealthy for that period of time- payments totalling about $100,000 dollars or so(about 1 million bucks or so current value) and had a less than stellar record- 2 prototypes -2 first flights- 2 crashes-and 2 dead pilots.

Hope this helps,

Keith

Prefer answering them to asking them methinks...

 Name the most promising paper project of the 1917/1918 crop of fighter prototypes that included a total overall design patent . Bonus- name the unique engine specially modified for this aircraft- of which at least two prototypes flew.

Keith

You have it right, Keith.  The Bonanza has been in continuous production since 1947.  Not all those years have been profitable for Beech, but for prestige and pride in company the Bonanza assembly line has never stopped.  More than 17,000 have been built.

Now you have to ask the next question.

Hmmmm...if you include the civil market the Bonanza has been around forever- I think it first flew in the late 40's and is still in production- I saw a new at Reno a few years back.

Keith

I'd have to venture the Lockheed Hercules on this one.

Regards, Keith

Thanks for the clarification Tom.  I just wanted to be sure about how the thread worked before I threw that out there.  I'll have an answer for another one later on.  I guess John gets the next one since he actually posted an answer.

Mac

Screaminhelo wrote:

O.K....I believe that I have the right answer but I have to admit to stumbling upon it on the web while researching the more common designation.  With respect to the intent of the thread I won't post but I wanted to say Good one Bill! Mac

Just to clarify, Mac, "stumbling" on the right answer in no way violates "the intent of the thread", it only offers you the main challenge of deciding if you can think of a good question for the next one if you get it right.

The intention of this thread is simply to stimulate dialog, research, and encourage those who may have some very interesting tid-bits of knowledge to share it with us, thus all of us benefitting form a general "talent pool" here, spanning both age and national bounderies.

Notice that if the forum's question didn't "plant the seed" in your brain, you probably would not have noticed this particular model in your other research about the same plane.

There are "no holds barred" for how you can come up with the answer to the questions here, this is so we don't get an air of "exclusivity" or "elitism" here that would make any and all new-comers feel unwelcome. You can even "blind guess" more then once (please avoid "flooding", "hogging" the forum, of course) if you like to see if you got the answer if no one else seems to be getting it.

Honestly,the only reason I can think of for not answering a question if you feel you might have discovered the right answer, is if you feel you will not be able to pose the next question, as that actually is in fact the real challenge here.

OK?

Tom

jeaton01 wrote:

Mac: I don't know what you mean by not answering because of the "intent", but with your lead I found a designation of the B-24 that may be the answer, but I have to say I have been unable to find it referred to by that designation when used by the US.  It's just a process of elimination answer that by rights should make you the person with the correct answer, not me. LT3-30 is my guess.

I initally thought your guess was LB-30, but I see now you typed LT3-30, but since you mention the B-24, I think LB-30 is what you meant.

 According to this site: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b24_5.html  the Liberators diverted from the RAF were designated LB-30 when in USAAF service and were not called B-24s.  I have no idea why, but I think you got it.  You're next.

 Bill

Screaminhelo wrote:

O.K....I believe that I have the right answer but I have to admit to stumbling upon it on the web while researching the more common designation.  With respect to the intent of the thread I won't post but I wanted to say Good one Bill! Mac

Mac:

I don't know what you mean by not answering because of the "intent", but with your lead I found a designation of the B-24 that may be the answer, but I have to say I have been unable to find it referred to by that designation when used by the US.  It's just a process of elimination answer that by rights should make you the person with the correct answer, not me.

LT3-30 is my guess.

O.K....I believe that I have the right answer but I have to admit to stumbling upon it on the web while researching the more common designation.  With respect to the intent of the thread I won't post but I wanted to say Good one Bill!

Mac

Not the Hudson and not the P-38.  As far as I know, there were only a couple of Model 322 export models, which were rejected by the RAF because they had the turbos stripped out making them gutless wonders.

 Somebody did get very close to the actual answer, but not quite there...

 Bill

Wow- this is a toughie. I know they later recieved the initial dutch order of B-25's -and a smattering of re-routed LB-30's -hmmmm- how about the ever so elegant Hudson? Of course it was known as the a-28 or a-29 depending on engine type- but that's gonna be my final guess.

Good show- and a tough question for sure,

Keith

T_Terrific wrote:

Was this aircraft a "close relative" to the ones diverted to the AVG in China? Tom

No, it wasn't a Curtiss product.

 Bill

Was this aircraft a "close relative" to the ones diverted to the AVG in China?

Tom

hudskit wrote:

-I'll venture a guess that you're discussing the A-20/ DB-7 series- and I think the japanese ended up capturing a flyable one of these diverted aircraft. Regards, Keith

Nope, sorry.  When in USAAF service, the A-20 was always designated as such.

Bill 

-I'll venture a guess that you're discussing the A-20/ DB-7 series- and I think the japanese ended up capturing a flyable one of these diverted aircraft.

Regards, Keith

Both the Demon and Buffalo were used in the DEI campaign, but the Demon was not used by the US and the Buffalo was only used by the USN and USMC under the Navy designation F2A.

 This was an aircraft which was introduced to the Pacific Theater in a US combat unit.  The Buffalo and Demon were both in use by the Dutch and/or British before hostilities started.  An even earlier version of this airplane was already in combat use in the European Theater (in small numbers) when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Bill

OK, let's try this one.  In the dark days after Pearl Harbor, the US was desperate for aircraft to try and stop the Japanese.  A batch of aircraft were diverted from an RAF order and sent to the Pacific where they saw combat, the majority being used in the closing phases of the Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies.  After a few months, the survivors were given back to the RAF.

 For some odd reason, the official US military designation for this aircraft was not a standard one.  They used the manufacturer's designation for the aircraft.  Later models of this aircraft in US service had a standard designation.  This service was the Pacific combat debut for this aircraft.  

 What was this aircraft's designation while serving as a stop gap?  (And to answer the most bvious guess, no it's not that P-400.  That was an odd designation, but it is not the manufacturer's designation for the aircraft.)

Bill 

wdolson2 wrote:

It appears that he's looking for a Russian fighter, and he did says series.  The Yak is the biggest series I can think of.  Yak 1-9 were all similar airframes with progressively better equipment.  Bill

You got it, Bill! The next question is all yours!

wdolson2 wrote:

It appears that he's looking for a Russian fighter, and he did says series.  The Yak is the biggest series I can think of.  Yak 1-9 were all similar airframes with progressively better equipment.  Bill

I think you may have it, Bill.

Yak-1    8,700

Yak-3    4,848

Yak-7    6,339

Yak-9   16,769

Total    36,656

Yak-11   4,566

Total:   41,222

It appears that he's looking for a Russian fighter, and he did says series.  The Yak is the biggest series I can think of.  Yak 1-9 were all similar airframes with progressively better equipment.

 Bill