SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Aircraft Trivia Quiz

728105 views
7409 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Saturday, September 16, 2006 4:41 AM
Next clue: the aircraft that was copied was Tank's most famous aircraft, but it took a long time to capture an example.  This helped give birth to the intermediate aircraft.  The jet aircraft grew out of this, and had a similiar initial sales history...
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Friday, September 15, 2006 6:33 AM
 navypitsnipe wrote:

the Hindustan Aeronautics HF-24 Marut is the direct link. I'm not sure about the indirect link but i believe it has to do with the Ta 183 

You have the first aircraft, so well done!  However, no and no, for the second and third aircraft.  Nice try though, for thinking of the Pulqui II, which was the other post-war Tank design.  However, to my knowledge, Tank had no input into the intermediate aircraft, except having his design copied/inspired.

Clue?  the intermediate aircraft was a prop, but the aircraft used was a jet.  The intermediate aircraft, was based on earlier design, itself based on earlier design, itself based on a design which was cancelled at the last minute, even though the single pre-production aircraft did wonders.  These earlier aircraft looked in many ways similiar to the Tank design that the 4th aircraft, the intermediate, copied key parts from.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: USS Big Nasty, Norfolk, Va
Posted by navypitsnipe on Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:40 PM

the Hindustan Aeronautics HF-24 Marut is the direct link. I'm not sure about the indirect link but i believe it has to do with the Ta 183 

40,000 Tons of Diplomacy + 2,200 Marines = Toughest fighting team in the world Sis pacis instruo pro bellum
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:42 PM
During the 1971 India-Pakistan war, two aircraft of India had designs originating from Kurt Tank.  One was direct, the other, has a conveluted trail back to him, via an aircraft that was inspired and/or copied from a design of his.

Name:
The direct link aircraft
The indirect link aircraft
The intermediate aircraft, that provides the link for the 2nd aircraft to the original Tank design.

Clue: Sanskrit for the first
Clue: "thank heaven for the navy!" for the second
Clue: The navy saves the day for the third

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by wdolson2 on Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:54 PM
 osher wrote:
William Dunn?


Bingo.  Your turn.

His book is pretty interesting.  He was wounded immeditately after getting kill # 5.5 and spent nearly a year recovering.  By the time he recovered, the USAAF claimed him and they put him in the 9th AF flying P-47s.  He was hurt again when a 500lb bomb came loose on take off and blew up under his P-47 during the take off roll.  Tore the plane apart, but he only had some cuts on his face and a piece of the canopy ended up in his eye.

He ended the war in China and got stuck there for quite a while after the war.

As an appendix to his book, he compares a bunch of allied fighters, since he flew most of the single engine fighters at one time or another.  He said the Rolls Royce Merlins always ran smoother than the Packard ones.  He wasn't too impressed with the P-51, though he admitted if your mission was long range bomer escort, it was the best plane for that role.

Bill
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:43 PM
William Dunn?
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by wdolson2 on Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:14 PM
 T_Terrific wrote:

The first American pilot to achieve ace status after America's formal declaration was the U.S. Navy pilot "Butch" O'Hare, the same one they named the Chicago O'Hare Airport after.

However this does not omit possible aces in the American Eagle squadron in  Britain as well as the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China like David Lee Hill who achieved ace status on 29 Jan 1942 after downing his fourth Nate and a Sally.

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]



Note I said first American citizen.  He wasn't a mamber of the US military at the time he achieved ace status, though he flew combat with US forces later.

It wasn't David Lee Hill.  This person achieved ace status before Pearl Harbor.

Bill
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:10 AM

 wdolson2 wrote:
I'll toss out an easy one.  Or it should be easy...

Who was the first American citizen to achieve ace status in World War II?

Bill

The first American pilot to achieve ace status after America's formal declaration was the U.S. Navy pilot "Butch" O'Hare, the same one they named the Chicago O'Hare Airport after.

However this does not omit possible aces in the American Eagle squadron in  Britain as well as the AVG (Flying Tigers) in China like David Lee Hill who achieved ace status on 29 Jan 1942 after downing his fourth Nate and a Sally.

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by wdolson2 on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:29 PM
I'll toss out an easy one.  Or it should be easy...

Who was the first American citizen to achieve ace status in World War II?

Bill

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:53 AM

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Osher.

I was wondering if you were referring to the Manchester/Lancaster/Shackelton progression, but until you "narrowed it down" for us, i.e., engine configuration, the list could have been exhaustive.

Now we wonder what Bill has in mind for us Whistling [:-^]

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 7:16 AM

To answer comments on my questions:

My thinking is to initially provide a broadbrush approach, with just the minimum to get the answer.  In this instance, I deliberately said radical layout, but added the rider of 50 years, rivals, and the undercarriage.  Now, if someone could have found a different aircraft that met all those criteria, naturally, I would have agreed, and passed it over.  However, I wanted it to be a challenge, and, personally, I can't think of any aircraft that met all those criteria, except the Avro Manchester (actually, that's the correct answer, but I accepted Lancaster, as it's part of the same family).

Was it too hard?  I like to slowly add clues, to gradually make it more obvious.

For those wondering about the question, and answer, it's like this:

Roy Chadwick in England, and Ernst Heinkel in Germany, both had remits for heavy long distance bombers (the Germans also wanted theirs to dive bomb, but that's another story).  Both designers had access to new engines which were coupled, in England the Vulture, which was 2 Merlins driving a single shaft, whilst the German engine was composed of two DB600 engines.  The idea was to reduce drag, etc, by having a single engine housing, and propeller, but in that housing, a twin engine.  Both aircraft had problems with their coupled engines, especially over-heating.

Roy Chadwick re-designed the Manchester, as it was now known, in to the Lancaster, with 4 Merlines.  The Germans meanwhile, refused to give up on a good idea.  The He-177 'Greif' was, in the end, a failure, with few successes, and disliked by it's crews, as well as losing many to mechanical failure.  I believe that the Lancaster could carry more than any other bomber in WWII, most famously, the Upkeep and Grand Slam bombs.

In 1944, the Lincoln bomber was produced, as an updated version of the Lancaster, seeing active service (although I believe not used operationally) in WWII.  Other versions of the Lancaster were: the Lancastrian civil passenger version of the Lancaster; the York, which had a redesigned fuselage; the Tudor, a much altered passenger version of the Lincoln; and the Ashton, a jet powered airliner version of the Tudor.  Not bad for a bomber of WWII!

However, in 1949 came the Shackleton, which would last until 1991.  It was basically a Lincoln with a new fuselage section, but retaining the mainplanes, undercarriage, etc.  The Shackleton was also a bomber, initially, but I don't believe it was ever used as one, although it retained the capabilies of one until the end.  The Mk.III had the tricycle undercarriage.

Thus, from the Avro Manchester, which was a lacklustre aircraft, due to a radical attempt to reduce drag, one has a family of aircraft, from long-range sea patrol to jet airliners, to heavy bombers.  A truely remarkable acheivement of Roy Chadwick, who was sadly killed in an Avro Tudor.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:28 AM

 wdolson2 wrote:
Lancaster and He-177?  Bill

Exactly!  Well done!

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by wdolson2 on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:46 AM
Lancaster and He-177?

Bill

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:33 AM
Is this too difficult?  This aircraft does exist, and there are flying exaples today.  The second incarnation of this aircraft is the most famous, and almost everyone has heard of it.  There was a follow-up incarnation, which was similiar, and then another, much later, which, whilst retaining a bomb bay, bomb-aimers position, etc, wasn't used as a bomber.  The 3rd variant of this last incarnation was originally designed as a tail dragger, but was changed to a tricycle undercarriage.  It was this 3rd variant that last flew operationally in 1991.  In addition, there were other incarnations, for freight and/or passengers.

As for it's rival, it struggled on, until finally, it was realised it was too much of a liability.  Many of it's problems are associated with it's radical engine layout.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:59 AM

Radical engine design

Yes, this aircraft did start as a tail-dragger bomber, and yes, in it's final incarnation it had a nosewheel/engine nuncelle undercarriage.  Yes, it did last for 50 years, with the first incarnation flying in 1939 (in service 1940 or so), and the last flight in operational guise in 1991.  One final clue: the name changed several times, and it appeared in all sorts of roles.  However, unlike the Hart/Hurricane, it was much easier to see the linage.

For this quiz, I need both aircraft, the two rivals, who had this same radical engine layout.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: Buffalo NY
Posted by Thehannaman2 on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:15 AM
TOM HAS SPOKEN!

Justen

"The distance between genius and insanity is measured only by success."

Member IPMS Niagara Frontier. "The BuffCon Boys."

IPMSUSA Member 45680 

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted by T_Terrific on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:05 AM
 osher wrote:

Two bombers, two countries at war with each other..  In both countries the designers tried the same radical layout.  Both had problems with this layout.  One changed the layout, and ended up with a design that last 50 years.  The other struggled on with the original layout.

What were the two aircraft?

Clue: the aircraft that survived went from being a tail-dragger, to eventually a tricycle undercarriage in it's last incarnation.

                                   Sign - Off Topic!! [#offtopic]

My comment is, as usual, is that your description is too broad/vague, and in fact, and there again I can think of more then one example that might fit this description.

In fact, I am somewhat skeptical because as far as I know, there are no bombers in history that carried on for "over 50 years" that in a "final configuration" went on to a tricycle landing gear.

The only bombers in history that have carried on that long are the Boeing B-52 and the Tupolov Tu-95, and they have neither been the tail-dragger type, but the tricycle configuration for the Bear, and the "bicycle" configuration for the BUFF.

For Example:

  1. "Radical layout" in WWI can simply mean a monoplane, which "changed" would revert to a biplane.
  2. "Radical layout" in WWII can be a flying wing, which changed reverts to the usual wing/fuselage/tail configuration.
  3. "Radical layout" during the cold-war period could be either the canard-wing concept, or the variable-aspect (swing) wing, which changed reverts to the usual layout again.

Or are you talking about engine layout/type? This can mean pusher instead of tractor, counter-rotating propellers instead of standard single props, jet turbine,vs. turbo-prop, and the list goes on almost forever, Osher.

When I originally posed my question to you-all, Osher , the actual answer I had in mind was the Mitsubishi Zero and the Hughes H-1, but I realize that there can be more then one naswer to any question like this given a different nationality's perspective, so I do request that you either clarify your question, narrow down the time-frame, etc., or accept a broader input as possibilities.

OK?

Tom Cowboy [C):-)]

Tom TCowboy

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.”-Henry Ford

"Except in the fundamentals, think and let think"- J. Wesley

"I am impatient with stupidity, my people have learned to live without it"-Klaatu: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

"All my men believe in God, they are ordered to"-Adolph Hitler

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Monday, September 11, 2006 2:42 AM

Two bombers, two countries at war with each other..  In both countries the designers tried the same radical layout.  Both had problems with this layout.  One changed the layout, and ended up with a design that last 50 years.  The other struggled on with the original layout.

What were the two aircraft?

Clue: the aircraft that survived went from being a tail-dragger, to eventually a tricycle undercarriage in it's last incarnation.

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by Matt90 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 5:03 PM
WOW! I just can't believe that!
''Do your damndest in an ostentatious manner all the time.'' -General George S. Patton
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by rudy_102 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 4:23 PM
Take it away, osher (Again!!! Tongue [:P]). Let's get ready for another tuffie......
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:56 PM
Easy!  Pepsi, and it was a Concorde.  Didn't they have a phase of painting things in Pepsi colours?
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by rudy_102 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:55 PM

Ok, let me think..........

Which soft drink company painted an Anglo-French airliner, and what was the name of that airliner (hint: the airliner was supersonic, I'll slap you if you don't get this part right away!!Tongue [:P])?

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:51 PM
 rudy_102 wrote:
So it's my turn?
Yep!  Found this video on the internet about the One-Wing Eagle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1aKxAN7bAs
Amazing stuff!  Talk about 'The Eagle has landed'!
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by rudy_102 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:47 PM
So it's my turn?
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:10 PM
 rudy_102 wrote:
Are you sure it's an Eagle, and not a F-18? I've seen a pic of one landing after a mid air in which the wing was torn off a little bit past the wing fold.

Close enough!  It was an F-15 Eagle.  Here's the picture:


For more info, try this link:
http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Ontario, Canada
Posted by rudy_102 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:03 PM
Are you sure it's an Eagle, and not a F-18? I've seen a pic of one landing after a mid air in which the wing was torn off a little bit past the wing fold.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:00 PM
 Matt90 wrote:
Is this the story about how the pilot avoided a mid-air collision, even though the computer models clearly showed the planes hitting each other?
Nice try, but no!  The aircraft showed the results of what happened.  No one disputes what happened initially.  It was the actions the trainee pilot too afterwards that the computer said was impossible.
  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: New Jersey
Posted by Matt90 on Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:37 PM
Is this the story about how the pilot avoided a mid-air collision, even though the computer models clearly showed the planes hitting each other?
''Do your damndest in an ostentatious manner all the time.'' -General George S. Patton
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: Edgware, London
Posted by osher on Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:30 PM
Think more, a pilot doing an extrodinary procedure, in response to an extrodinary event involving an A-4 Skyhawk.
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: USS Big Nasty, Norfolk, Va
Posted by navypitsnipe on Sunday, September 10, 2006 2:02 PM

put it into a flat spin? a knife edge?

 

40,000 Tons of Diplomacy + 2,200 Marines = Toughest fighting team in the world Sis pacis instruo pro bellum
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.