Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Sounds like we're fully half way there- the first part of the question is a slightly different version of this same aircraft- and then which pieces did it share in common with a production model?

great answer on the YP -47M ... he never actually competed in this aircraft- it developed serious leaks in the newly added tankage (something like 1500 gallons PLUS drop tanks -always wondered how they figured out where to drop those during the race over the U.S.). 

Bill Odum stalled in one of the sharper turns-could not recover in time before he crashed into a home near the race course killing the mother and child occupants. He was an interesting choice to be a racing pilot- he was a transport pilot during the war flying C-46's over the hump- and a long distance record setting pilot post-war-not the hot-shot ex-fighter jock type that you would expect to be flying in the Thompson Trophy races.

almost there,Keith

I thought the XP-72 was the fastest WW II prop driven aircraft.  Another P-47 but different engine, prop, cowl, and lower forward fuselage.

XP-47J Superbolt, a lightweight version with the same R-2800 varient as the M and N version of the P-47.

The XP-72 used the R-4360, and I think was a direct outgrowth of the XP-47J.
-Bret

Absolutely correct skybolt- the XP_47J was the actual fastest US fighter @504 mph- the Xp-72 wuld have been the fastest if they could have gotten the turbo supercharger bugs worked out- they were estimating 550plus mph- (imagine a Me 262 pilot's face when a "skinny" p-47 not only catches up to him but passes him by..) but it never quite lived up to that potential.

The floor is yours, skybolt ...

They were saying the P-47M was faster than a V-1 rocket. In a dive it could have caught an ME-262.

Bill Odum was an interesting character – he had no experience flying pylon races, and in fact he admitted before the Thompson race he's never flown inverted before. Obviously he had no high-perfomance experience, although he certainly was a talented, and very experienced pilot. He apparently had plans to make a round-the -world record attempt in a Mosquito after the National Air Races.
I've read several theories about why Beguine crashed – it is clear he overshot a pylon turn and cut inside the course – when he turned back the other way he lost control. High speed stall? Engineers who worked on Beguine don't think so. Other things like high aileron sensitivity caused by the wingtip radiators (inertia, tip plate effect, and possibly weight inbalance) caused him to overbank and possibly get disoroented. In any event, flying that low and fast, there isn't much room for error. Other factors might have been a rearward CoG caused by a full fuel load at the start of the race, which makes for a very pitch sensitive aircraft and modifications to the control system with a bob-weight which would have reversed in an inverted attitude would have contributed. A real tragdey indeed, but miraculous that more people weren't hurt – it crashed into a crowded residential neighborhood, and the father and friends of the dead were outside watching the race. I love this stuff, but I'll think of a more general question for the next.

-Bret

skybolt2003 wrote:

They were saying the P-47M was faster than a V-1 rocket. In a dive it could have caught an ME-262. -Bret

Actually, like the Russian Mig-15 of the Korean War, the Me-262 was somewhat overrated, and it had more of a "shock effect" then anything else when it first came out.

Against unescorted bombers, they could be deadly (as was any other heavily-gunned fighter), but in the book titled "The Mighty Eighth" in the chapter regarding German jets, the early encounters were almost comical, inasmuch as most '262 pilots just saught to "Haul A..." whenever they spotted an American fighter, especialy since they had no endurance (10 minutes) nor decent cockpit armor. They were essentially just a "hit-and-run" shock weapon and on one occasion, when a bomber escort group spotted a '262 hugging the ground, they decided to go down and have some fun with him, the German pilot literally crashed his own plane to avoid combat with them (he could not outrun them as they were in a steep dive), and was incidentally killed when the group decided to destroy the crashed plane by strafing so it could not be recovered, so that German pilot had a bad day all around. Couldn't win for loosing!

Also, in order to ensure an acurate hit on a B-17, due to their inadequate gunsite, they had to throttle back and became "sitting ducks" for any escort fighters.

Tom

Okay – this large bomber's initial design was started in early 1941, and the last varient of it was still in service until the mid-1980's. It at various times carried a range of armament including turrets, and multiple machine guns and up to 8 20mm cannons. Some versions could also carry 16 rockets, slung underwing. It was the last US aircraft to use the Emerson ball turret. One example set a world record that stood into the 80's.

It also had a competetor that was a larger aircraft, and was built in limited numbers. It wound up being used in the roll of spy aircraft.

Name these 2 aircraft . . . (and if you want the word record)

-Bret

Lockheed P2V, which held a distance record from Perth Australia to Columbus Ohio, 11,235 miles unrefueled.  Truclent Turtle, September 1947.  The other airplane is the Martin P4M Mercator.

No, I'm sorry. That's completely wrong.
Try again.

Zounds!!

skybolt2003 wrote:

No, I'm sorry. That's completely wrong. Try again.

 wow- saved me the trouble of guessing the exact same 2 aircraft and getting them qually as wrong.......

Keith

Sorry John,
of course you are right. That was a joke, and then my wireless router crashed before I coud say, you got it too fast. I guess that was an easy one.
The Neptune was the only US land based patrol bomber designed as such – it predeccesor and succesor were both offshoots of airliners (another trivia question??)
The Neptune was designed from the start to use the Wright R-3350, which at the time was the most powerful radial engine available. It could carry a similar bomb load at a better range than the B-17 (it started design in 1941) with only 2 engines but longer range planes were already on the drawing boards and the engines were needed for higher priority projects. It was put on the back burner until Germany surrendered. The Neptune had a large bomb bay and could carry a variety of weapons. It went from carrying a large defensive weaponry (including the Emerson ball turret mounted in the nose) to carrying a wider array of electronic equipment for sub detection. As time went on it got heavier and eventually 2 Westinghouse jet turbines were slung under pods on the wing for additional power. Later still tip tanks provided additional fuel load. Kawasaki of Japan built the Neptune under license, and the last varient of the P2 was powered by turboprops and retired by the Japanese in 1985. The Argentine Navy used the extensively during the Falklands war against Britain in the early 80's.
The Martin Mercatur was bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Neptune. The ones ordered were turned into Elint machines, and retired in the mid-50's.
The Neptune was also used as an excellent fire bomber, although most are grounded now, due to cancellattion of federal contracts after the catostrophic failure of a C130A and a PB4y airtanker.
Bret

sorry and I won't do that again.

It's too late, he already slashed his wrists with a plastic knife...NOT!

I'll put up a new question by tomorrow morning.  I have trouble with my router/DSL setup sometimes too.  Lately every time I try to log on to the wireless router with my laptop it crashes the whole system after a few minutes.  Very frustrating, especially since it has worked well for several years.

This airplane was an improvement on an earlier design, and it was the first airplane to set a particular record, with the help of its younger brother.  The record was intended to make Stalin uncomfortable. 

Name the type, the name of the particular airplane, and the record.

Hmmm.. my instincts are telling me the B-50A which was a much improved version of the B-29.  It made the first non-stop around the world flight, refueled in the air 4 times by KB-29M aircraft, the tanker version of the B-29. 

Oh, and it made Stalin uncomfortable because we now had aircraft that could deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. 

Well, that one didn't last too long, did it!  Good job, Scott, over to you.  The name of the airplane was Lucky Lady II. 

 

Doh, in my rush to post my answer, I forgot to type the name of the aircraft... whoops....

Here is one based on a bit of WWII Irony.....

One of this Axis aircraft's many claims to fame is that several of them were employed by the British as a light duty communications and liason aircraft.  At that time it was the fastest aircraft of this type in British service.

Please list the aircraft's name and designation in both Axis and Allied service.  

ME-108, called the Messerschmidt Aldon by the Brits.
Also manufactured by tghe French after the war.
Used in many film projects over th eyears to represent ME109's

-Bret

skybolt2003 wrote:

ME-108, called the Messerschmidt Aldon by the Brits. Also manufactured by tghe French after the war. Used in many film projects over th eyears to represent ME109's -Bret

Aye laddy. 

The Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun is considered to be the pre-cursor to the fabulous Bf 109.  The Bf 108 actually saved Messerschmitt after the disaster that befell
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke when Erhard Milch cancelled an important contract and the company went into bankruptcy.  The company was reformed under Willy Messerschmitt and had some serious hurdles to contend with, not the least of which was Erhard Milch who hated Messerschmitt and did everything possible to try to block them from ever producing any aircraft again.  The Bf108 proved to be far superior to it's contemporaries and helped Messerschmitt to get back into the aviaton business. 

When WWII broke out, the Brits impounded 4 Bf108 aircraft, renaming them the Messerschmitt Aldon, where it served well and was faster than any other British aircraft of the type.  They did cause some confusion though often being mistaken for the Bf109. The French continued to produce it after the war as the Nord 100.

Well done Bret, you're up!

No, I'm sorry I'm completely wrong. Okay, I'll cut that.
The BF-109 was a pretty interesting design. It had many forward features – nice airfoil design with leading edge slats. The wing and tail group seemed to be pretty much carried over to the the 109. Imagine what would happen if you took the frame of an aircraft designed for around 240 hp and the hung 1200 or more hp on it!

As an aside to the last question, my dad was a flight engineer for Pan Am. He flew Stratocruisers, which was the airliner version of the B-50, and our good friend had been a flight engineer in the AF on B-50's. They spent hours together discussing/remembering how many problems they encountered with the enignes on them. I remenber my dad screaming out at night in his dreams about shutting down flaming enigines, and prop bladed slinging off ice and being so out of balance they were afraid a blade would let loose. . .

Also, when I was a kid, my dad flew out of SFO and we lived in Palo Alto, CA. I could see the blimp hangars at Moffett Field from our house. I remember dark blue P2's in the pattern, along with the brand new P3's. Our next door neighbor was a P2 commander, and I obvioubsly knew that it was a superiour aircraft – I rememember talking to him about it at length. Must have been 4 or 5 at hte time.

This aircraft first flew in June, 1946 and was the first twin-engine aircraft ever designed and built in this particular country. It was of all wood construction, and powered by 2 Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp engines. Intended as a fast attack bomber, it carried 4 20mm cannons and had a bomb load of around 1,700 lbs. 100 were built, and they remained in service until the 60's.

-Bret

hmmm . . . was that too vague?
Any guesses or should I give a hint or two??

-Bret

 

Hmmmmm... how about the Iae 24 calquin? seems to fit- they were production manufactuering the R-1830 so it's a guess at best- but I thought it was made from metal- kinda like a blurry mosquito sorta looking plane.

 

My best shot at it

Regards all, Keith

hudskit wrote:

Hmmmmm... how about the Iae 24 calquin? seems to fit- they were production manufactuering the R-1830 so it's a guess at best- but I thought it was made from metal- kinda like a blurry mosquito sorta looking plane.   My best shot at it Regards all, Keith

Bulls Eye!  The I.Ae 24 Calquin was Argentina's answer to the Mosquito - not an exact copy, but it sure looks like they made liberal use of one.  They originally intended it to use Merlins, and it was of wood construction. Makes you wonder what if you strapped a couple of R-2800's on it and made it into a x-country racer!

 

definately could be quite the contender...but I've always been a "Green Valley Turtle" fan ...

 My personal favorite....a Thorne/Merlin  powered Airacobra prepped by Greenameyer for racing........

 

 

 Keith

 

*bump*

Keith, whatta you working up a really, really hard question??

-B

If only I could think of one that tough...had an out of town install but back now.

Okay- To continue in my modest efforts to interest modelers in air racing....

Please name the first three aircraft designs to incorporate retractable landing gear in their design?

as a hint -the first design was built but never actually flew....

but the next 2 did!

And to be fair I think Skybolt should count to 100 slowly before answering....

(Just kidding, bret-but maybe you could just type slowly...)

 

one hundred one . . . one hundred two . . .