Aircraft Trivia Quiz

osher wrote:

Interesting subject this!  The Westland Wapiti was first flown in 1927, and served in Asia in WWII.  Again in Asia, the Hawker Hart was from 1926, and saw combat service (and the Hurricane derivative certainly did!) I've been looking up bi-planes, and it's amazing how many were still entering service in the mid 30's, just when the prototype Spits, Hurris and 109's were just starting to fly.

I wasn't thinking of either of those.  The Hart doesn't appear to have served in any combat role in the Pacific or Asia.  The Wapiti was used in an anti submarine role, which I suppose qualifies as combat.  The plane I was thinking of was used in a combat role as a front line combat aircraft (though not for very long).

If nobody has any other guesses, I will say you got it with the Wapiti, even though that wasn't what I was originally asking about. 

Interesting subject this!  The Westland Wapiti was first flown in 1927, and served in Asia in WWII.  Again in Asia, the Hawker Hart was from 1926, and saw combat service (and the Hurricane derivative certainly did!)

I've been looking up bi-planes, and it's amazing how many were still entering service in the mid 30's, just when the prototype Spits, Hurris and 109's were just starting to fly. 

The original question said "Allies", not American.  The aircraft I was asking about was not American.

 Bill 

The NAF/Hall PH was derived from the 1914 Curtiss flying boat, later the 1915 Felixstowe.  As a PH it first flew in 1929, and was used on combat duties until 1944

 The Corsair was also a 1920's design, again dating back to WWI, but it wasn't I believe used in combat

According to my encylopaedia no other aircraft which first flew in the 1920's served in combat for America.

espins1 wrote:

hmmm... my first instinct is the Boeing P-12

 Sorry.

The P-12 was a "newer" airplane than this one.  It first flew in 1929.   The last P-12s were out of front line service everywhere by 1940 and the last ones were retired from training units in 1941.  In 1941, the remaining P-12s were handed over to either technical schools, or the Navy for use as targets.  I have not seen any reference to any ever seeing combat.

 Bill 

OK, let's try this one:

This aircraft was quite possibly the oldest Allied combat aircraft to see combat against Japan.  The first flight for the aircraft prototype was 1926.  Some of the first version of this aircraft were rebuilt to a newer version standard in the 1930s and were still in service when the Japanese attacked in December 1941.  From what I can tell, these may have been the only 1920s airframes to see combat in the Pacific.

 It's hard to guage the right difficulty with this quiz.  Hopefully this is just about right.

 Bill 

You got it, Bill.  I saw the engine at Silver Hill some years ago, and even took a picture of it.  The YJ-93.

Your turn..

John

Wasn't it slated to use the engines from the B-70?  I may be misremembering.

 Bill

New question:

Had the Boeing SST been built, what would it have used that had already flown in a bomber?  This is a major part, not an instrument or accesory.

jeaton01 wrote:

Thanks for the neat photos.  I'd like to put them on my website.  Are they public domain?  John

Here are the two web sites I mentioned above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-88_Voodoo

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/4707/XF88B.htm

Thanks, Scott.  I'll put up a new question this evening.

John

Well done John!  We've got a winner! 

I can send you the links to the two sites where I got the photos.  The first one was from wikipedia.  The other two came from a website I found at work yesterday.  I'll have to get that off my laptop.

Ok, you're up! 

 It is the McDonnell XF-88B, a test project based on the first try at the Voodoo.  Had an Allison XT-38 turboprop in front, Westinghouse J-34's in back.   My reference is US Army and Air Force Fighters 1916-1961, the old Harborough book, pp.109 and 252.

Thanks for the neat photos.  I'd like to put them on my website.  Are they public domain? 

And to all, sorry about the untimeliness of my earlier post(s), I hadn't figured out how the forums worked yet.  I'll try to do better.

John

Here are 2 more pictures.  I'm surprised there haven't been any "nibbles" yet.   

This aircraft is powered by two turbojets and a turbo prop.  It is believed that this aircraft actually reached Mach 1.0, the first aircraft fitted with a propeller to do so.  It was developed as a test bed for supersonic propellers.

Ok gentlemen.... here's a new one for you.  What is this? 

espins1 wrote:

T_Terrific wrote: Who set the land plane speed record of 296mph in 1932, and what plane was he flying and at what event? Tom It was Jimmy Doolittle flying the Gee Bee R-1 in the Shell Speed Dash. Oh, and his unprecedented feat was taking flying a twin engined medium bomber (along with 15 others) off the deck of an aircraft carrier.

I am not sure where jeaton's response is coming from. I am guessing he might have meant to post his reply at a different forum

In any case, unless someone objects, it appears obvious you have the next go at it espins.

Tom

CH-46?

maybe H-34

I don't know which fighter used the K-14, but I do think the Dayton-Wright RB-1 Racer was the first with cantilever wing and retractable gear.  It also had a variable-geometry wing, as it could vary its camber full span (no sweepback, though!).  It was way ahead of the times in 1920.

On the internal ducting for the turbosupercharger, would not the P-43 satisfy the requirements, and be before the P-47 as it was what the P-47 was developed from?

I would never have guessed the F-14 was used in Viet Nam, and I am of that generation.  Amazing that it was there. 

T_Terrific wrote:

Who set the land plane speed record of 296mph in 1932, and what plane was he flying and at what event? Tom

It was Jimmy Doolittle flying the Gee Bee R-1 in the Shell Speed Dash.

Oh, and his unprecedented feat was taking flying a twin engined medium bomber (along with 15 others) off the deck of an aircraft carrier. 

Hints:

He was one of the few pilots that actually flew this aircraft type and lived to tell about it.

This pilot went on to perform an unprecidented feat that has yet to ever be repeated in history, during WWII.

Lotsa Luck

Tom

 Hmmmmmm-No one to say I am right or wrong?

Well, from my research, since the Canadian DeHavilland company does not a website dedicated to documenting its aircraft, and like the Nash Metropolitin, the Beaver's history tends to be brief and borderline on obscurity, with only the few who personally owned and loved it knowing all sorts of off-the-wall stuff, and unless anyone really knows the answer and/or objects, I suggest we move on with a new question:

Who set the land plane speed record of 296mph in 1932, and what plane was he flying and at what event?

Tom

Was it the Alvis Leonides engine model?

Tom

That covers it.

Here is a trivia question. I might be grinding the coffee a little fine here. 

The DHC-2 Beaver was built with the P+W 985 engine. 450 HP for Take off power.

Later on the PT6 turbine led to the Turbo Beaver.

What other engine piston engine was also test fitted to the Piston Beaver when the Brits were looking to buy some - they eventually used the good old 985. 

I am loosing my internet ( they are taking down the sat dish even as I type) so someone else post a question to keep the thread going.

It was generally applied to the Mk Vs with clipped wings for better low altitude performance.  I think it applied to some Mk IXs that got the same modification.

 I believe the engine was modified for low altitude performance at the cost of high altitude performance.  The clipped wing Spits had poor performance at higher altitudes.  I believe it also changed the stall characteristics and made them tougher to fly.

 If that's the correct answer, someone else can post the next question.  I don't have any great ideas and I'm not reading this forum all the time these days.  (Busy with other stuff at the moment.)

 Bill

I knew a fellow who flew the CF-104 in Europe - 600 Kts down a valley at night navigating with radar  and stopwatch  - They figured if the "Balloon Went Up" it would probably be a one mission war. BIG Brass ones! The mind boogles!

Just a real fast one as I am about to lose my internet for a few daze.

What Mk of Spitfire was nicknamed 'Clipped, Cropped, and Clapped'?

What were the basic mods to the A/C and why were they made?

What was the big downside to the mod? 

Those who have read "Wing Leader" and "The Big Show" will have no problem with this one.

That was a great question.  Those crafty canadians...  I love aircraft (Such as the P-38, all time fave) that are desined for one role then fill so many.  Facinating stuff...  Hopefully sharkbait brings on another toughie!

                                                  -graham
 

Not to hijack the thread but, isn't it interesting how so many aircraft wind up performing in roles they weren't really designed for?  (P-38 to name one....). 

Great trivia question mykroft, I enjoyed that one.  So Sharkbait, you got somethin' for us? 

sharkbait nails it.

 The CF-104 got 20mm cannon in the early 70's when they stood down from the nuclear strike role and became conventional strike aircraft. They never were equipped with air to air capable radar units, having a pure air to mud set instead. They were equipped with US owned and controlled nuclear weapons in their role (A distinction shared with the CF-101 Voodoo's when operating with the AIM-2, although Canada at least owned the CF-101's secondary weapon, the AIM-4 Falcon missile)

Why we never bought Thuds, I don't know. Since they were designed for the nuclear strike role. Maybe the Gov't was bribed (We wouldn't be the only ones that happened to over the F-104). 

CF-104 as a Tactical Nuke delivery system replaced the Canadair Sabre.

In the event of War with the Big Bad Ruskies 

A) Launch the fleet low level high speed into the heaviest anti aircraft fire the world has ever seen - Maybe 1/2 come back

B) Re Arm and launch those. Maybe 1/2 come back.

C) Repeat B

D) Close up shop and go home no more airframes left.