Aircraft Trivia Quiz

The Hungarian Weiss WM 21 Solyom recon. biplane was a refined version of which airplane?

As a SWAG, I would guess the Fokker C.V

Tom

DOH! I guess it wasn't that hard, or you were a genious (latter i believe )

great job! next question?

jinithith2 wrote:

DOH! I guess it wasn't that hard, or you were a genious (latter i believe ) great job! next question?

Actually, just lucky. I just happened to stumble on this one not too long ago when I was checking into something else.

Now for a no-brainer:

By combining their most commonly manufactured two major marks that served in several nation's air forces (they were essentially looked the same, and frequently mistaken for each other, only with minor modifications), which aircraft was the most produced fighter in WW I for all sides?

Notice jinith, the challenge in this question is not to dredge up some almost completely unknown thing that flew for no known reason for some virtually unknown air force, that did practically nothing and has no scale model to boot, but to figure out "which one of the majors".

That means you gotta be quick to be the first, as well as lucky.

Tom

yeah the "which one of the majors" would have been a lot better than "pick from unknowns"...

I quick search on Google can get you the answer for the latter...

jinithith2 wrote:

Curtiss JN-4?

Nope.

Again, this was a fighter, the JN-4 was a trainer, although both this fighter and the JN-4 were used by the same country's air force, the difference in flight characteristics sometimes being disasterous (hint-hint).

Tom

Clue number two:

The basic identifyable difference between the two major marks of this fighter was that the early mark had a single Vickers machine gun, whereas the latter one had two.

The other main difference was that the latter mark's upper wings were not the same exact size and shape as with the earlier one, but slightly larger then the lower, with the aelorons being larger.

C'mon guys, don't be afraid. This is one of those "It can't possibly be that one". 

Tom

P.S.

If I gotta "switch the question" for this one I'm not gonna tell you guys the correct answer.

WW I must be about as popular as civil aviation, huh?

S.P.A.D. XIII, as in Eddie Rickenabcker.

jeaton01 wrote:

WW I must be about as popular as civil aviation, huh? S.P.A.D. XIII, as in Eddie Rickenabcker.

Very good Jeaton, you got one out of two of "their most commonly manufactured two major marks", what was the other one?

Tom

P.S.

About WW I being as popular as civil aviation, you might check into the action over at the forum titled "Flyboys Movie". It seems to be flushing out a lot of "closet enthusiasts".

Doh, I never read the whole question!

The S.P.A.D. VII, Tom.

jeaton01 wrote:

Doh, I never read the whole question! The S.P.A.D. VII, Tom.

That's OK.

If you didn't know, then someone else could go in "halfsies" with ya.

You go next

Tom

Jaypack55 wrote:

could it be the P-63 Kingcobras that were modified as AAA/aerial gunnery practice targets?

No, the target was in an Axis nation.

Well, perhaps this one is too obscure...

The job was Ploesti, and the airplane that finished the job was the P-38.  Many P-38's were lost but the refineries were substantially damaged.

Here is another one, hopefully it will attract more attempts:

This all-weather fighter had a trainer aircraft in its direct ancestry.

jeaton01 wrote:

Well, perhaps this one is too obscure... The job was Ploesti, and the airplane that finished the job was the P-38.  Many P-38's were lost but the refineries were substantially damaged. Here is another one, hopefully it will attract more attempts: This all-weather fighter had a trainer aircraft in its direct ancestry.

Not sure of the new question, but Ploesti and the P-38 was my guess.  However, I don't recall ever reading anything about a P-38 raid there, so I figured it was the wrong answer.  Oh well.

 Bill

Think you're on the right page but you're probably thinking of the F-94C starfire which was a development of the P-80/t-33 family.

Keith

Bill, there is no penalty for a wrong guess, and you would have been right.  Here is a web page that talks about the P-38's effectiveness in attacking Ploesti  If you google P-38 Ploesti you will get quite a few hits:

http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38-3.html 

Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of the B-17's and B-24's and the huge crews they carried into battle, but as the Japanese say, "Shikata ga nai", there is no other choice.  In 1942 there were B-17's and B-24's with enough range and payload, and the P-38 was not yet developed into the fighter bomber it became later in the war. 

Keith, you have written the right answer to the current question, the Lockheed F-94.  So you have the honors.

jeaton01 wrote:

Sometimes I wonder about the wisdom of the B-17's and B-24's and the huge crews they carried into battle, but as the Japanese say, "Shikata ga nai", there is no other choice.  In 1942 there were B-17's and B-24's with enough range and payload, and the P-38 was not yet developed into the fighter bomber it became later in the war.

My father has frequently commented on the same thing.  He has said that P-51s could have carried one 500 lb bomb and a fuel tank and for 10 men, 10 aircraft could deliver 5000 lbs of bombs on the target.  More tonnage than a B-17 usually carried.

 The P-38 had a lot of teething problems with Northern Europe's weather.  The cold, damp conditions tended to cause the oil in the turbos to jellify.  Lockheed eventually worked out the problem, but not until the J or L.

The strategic bombing campaign in Europe was not as successful as hoped.  It did tie down a lot of German fighters that could have been used elsewhere and did have some sucesses here and there, but overall the expectations far exceeded the actual results.

 The Allies would have had to train a lot more pilots and build a lot more smaller aircraft to deliver the same kinds of tonnage as the strategic bombers, but the job could probably have been done better with fighter bombers and Mosquitos. 

Germany's fighters would have been harder pressed for one thing.  They had few night fighters that could catch a Mosquito and daylight bombing with fighter bombers would have been tougher too.  Though they probably could have gotten quite a few fighters to eject their bombs short of the target.

My father graduated high school in 1938.  Many of his classmates were among the first in the 8th Air Force.  He said every one of them that went into the 8th AF was killed.  He was fortunate to end up in a special unit of photographers.  He saw some combat, but no plane he was in was ever hit. 

Bill 

Don't forget that Herman Goering himself gave a huge credit to the eighth airforce for destroying Germany's ability to wage war before he killed himself. I think it's hard to measure it's total effectiveness in the tonnage it brought to the target when you have to consider that it did bring the Luftwaffe up to fight which ended up being extreemly costly for them.

I would also have to figure that fighters weighed down with bombs would have been an easy target for enemy fighters would it not? I've heard the auguement that the Mosquito was a better bomber cause it was so fast, but is it really still faster when it has a 4000lbs bomb load?

Just to add to the discussion since we're on a roll with it, the Strategic bombing campaign tied up a huge amount of Germany's resources.  Many aircraft were pulled off the front lines and  put into service in the Defense of the Reich, which obviously had a huge impact on air superiority on both the Eastern and Western Fronts.  The Luftwaffe was almost non-existant during the liberation of France.  Also thousands of 88mm Flack guns and crews needed to man them were required.... those resources were sorely needed elsewhere.  The biggest impact of strategic bombing was with oil.... the German's achilles heel.  

The effectiveness of the bombing campaign on the war armaments industries can be debated forever.  German war production remained very strong and they even hit some record production numbers during the peak of the bombing campaign. 

espins1 wrote:

The effectiveness of the bombing campaign on the war armaments industries can be debated forever.  German war production remained very strong and they even hit some record production numbers during the peak of the bombing campaign.

That was because the average factory bombed by the U.S. "Mighty Eighth Air Force", was typically a manufacturing plant with machine-tools, bombed in the day time.

As it turned out, the Germans were manufacturing at night anyway, so not many workers were killed, and since the typical engine lathe is impervious to the typical demolition bomb they dropped that mostly just detonated on contact with the factory roofs, punching big holes in them and collapsing materials on them, only to be cleaned off and running again by nightfall anyway.

The main brag for the Eighth was their claimed destruction of Luftwaffe fighters, and basically "taking the heat off" of the RAF night bombings.

Tom

T_Terrific wrote:

espins1 wrote: The effectiveness of the bombing campaign on the war armaments industries can be debated forever.  German war production remained very strong and they even hit some record production numbers during the peak of the bombing campaign.  That was because the average factory bombed by the U.S. "Mighty Eighth Air Force", was typically a manufacturing plant with machine-tools, bombed in the day time. As it turned out, the Germans were manufacturing at night anyway, so not many workers were killed, and since the typical engine lathe is impervious to the typical demolition bomb they dropped that mostly just detonated on contact with the factory roofs, punching big holes in them and collapsing materials on them, only to be cleaned off and running again by nightfall anyway. The main brag for the Eighth was their claimed destruction of Luftwaffe fighters, and basically "taking the heat off" of the RAF night bombings. Tom

Aye laddy, in fact there was a point during the Strategic Bombing campaign where the strategy was actually to use the bombers as bait, i.e. the 8th Air Force's primary mission was the destruction of the Luftwaffe, and it worked quite well.  The Luftwaffe was just simply overwhelmed.  They could replace the planes, but the loss of experienced pilots was devastating.

F

wdolson2 wrote:

My father has frequently commented on the same thing.  He has said that P-51s could have carried one 500 lb bomb and a fuel tank and for 10 men, 10 aircraft could deliver 5000 lbs of bombs on the target.  More tonnage than a B-17 usually carried. My father graduated high school in 1938.  Many of his classmates were among the first in the 8th Air Force.  He said every one of them that went into the 8th AF was killed.  He was fortunate to end up in a special unit of photographers.  He saw some combat, but no plane he was in was ever hit.  Bill

About the same time as my dad, Bill.

In looking back we tend to forget things like my father was the only one of five brothers who got a day job, (we were still in the midst of the Great Depression then) since he graduated at the top of his class for typing speed. His other brothers all went to work for the Civilian Conversation Corps, which was nothing more then a make-work program invented by FDR to get masses of unemployed people off of the streets (there were riots in the primarily white midwest back then involving unemployed white males demanding work) and give them work. It also prepared many of those who adapted to the regimented lifestyle to become the first volunteers when the call came up to prepare for war, which my dad and two of his brothers did. His other two borthers got a plastics manufacturing and a construction jobs where their physical disabilities were not seen as a problem, since the draft made many jobs for those left behind.

The main emphesis of using masses of unemployed men, then conveniently transferred from the CCC's to the various branches of the military, once again, get them off of the streets and keep them busy.

The Japanese conveniently gave FDR the excuse he needed to mobilize them, including my dad (who was the oldest) and two of his brothers, who went into the Navy (he and his next youngest) and the Army (the next-to-the-youngest).

In building their massive military bureauocricies, the Mighty Eighth generals demanded things like more B-17's (with 10 crew members each), B-24's, more P-38's, '47's, etc.

The result was that the Boeing, Lockheed and Consolidated factories were humming with "Rosie Riveters"(as well as the Colt-Browning and ammunition manufacturers) and more men were killed flying for the Eighth then died in the D-Day invasion.

The result was full employment, no inflation, and fully-used formerally controversial big ticket items, like the heavy-bombers (generals are notorious for competing for big-ticket item bragging-rights), and the USAAF then showing it was then a large enough force with its own bloated bureaucracy to become a seperate military branch, the USAF.

That essentially what the masses of men and machines we called the Mighty Eighth we threw at the Gemans did for our society.

Personally, I have nothing but respect for those veterens I occasionally meet who came back with "bragging rights" from essentially what was a war of attrition for both Germany and Japan.

Tom

Wonders what question Keith is cooking up for us next

Tom

What? who? ...me?...

Okay- my favorite topic- national air racing- in it's pre-war (WWII) timeline that is...

What was the origin of the name of the Laird "Solution" air racer"

The name of it's most famous pilot?

 The name of it's modernized, rebuilt version?

Finally- the the modification/ enhancement that caused it's premature retirement from air racing and how did that resultant crash set the path for the emergence of the mighty Gee Bee to legendary status?