Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Chuzaburo Jinba of Tokyo Empire University Aviation Labs?

uh.....

Kouken Ki

I don't think the A-26/Ki-77 meets the requirements of the question, because the distance flight was done by the first airplane built, the second was lost on a flight from Japan to Germany.  Dr. Hidemasa Kimura was the engineer on the project.  Tachikawa built the airplanes, and this is another place where the question rules the Ki-77 out because Tachikawa did build airplanes of its own design.  Still, it is a fascinating airplane.  I really need to get up the guts to build the Planet Models kit I'm "saving". 

I was thinking of the Ju-390, which William Green, among others, has said flew from France to within 12 miles of New York and back non-stop undetected in January 1944, but it fails for the same reason, that Junkers designed and flew its own designs. 

wow- you guys have it all pretty much right.

Lets see if I can get these in order:

1) it did not involve crickets- or for that matter cricket players that I am aware of...

2) It was the A-26- or Ki-77 as it was known by the japanese army. It was flown for 57 hours 11 mins for a total distance of 8,900 nautical miles with 211 gals of gas remaining ( or enough for about another 975 miles or so)- flown over a fixed course in manchuria ( starting and finishing in Hsinking, manchuria) to lessen the potential of interception -it made 19 laps over this course. It was, as John says, the first version of the airplane but it made this second flight in july 1944 after the second version disappeared on a direct cargo flight to germany in July 1943.

The actual designer was the Aeronautical Research Institue of Tokyo Imperial University, of which the commitee that designed the aircraft was headed by Dr. Hidemasa Kimura- and was one of the first aircraft to use the Laminar flow wing -predating the P-51 by almost a year.

The builder was the Tachikawa company- an offshoot of the Tokyo Gas and Electric Industries company- which had also built the previous record setting design from the same design group, the "koken" ,which for all the world looked rather like a slightly smaller ANT-25.

John, I might have to disagree with you on the Tachikawa company- while they had a very good engineering department they did not actually design the aircraft they built- that was usually outsourced and that design would then be engineered for production internally.

There is a fantastic article in the July 1976 Airpower that reviews these aircraft, and also inspired me to buy ,but not yet build, the ki-77 kit from planet as well as the ss-1 kit from FE resins.

think it falls on Skybolt to press on....

Keith

 

The "

The Ki-77 is one of the most elegant of airplanes, to my eye.  I think I'll dig out that issue of Airpower and (re)read the article, and I'm quite willing to stand corrected on the matter of Tachikawa having its own design staff.

That was a very obscure aircraft – I'll switch gears to a much more popular one. This aircraft was introduced in the mid-60's, and was the latest in a string of designs produced by its manufacturer since the '30s. It was a family business and still exists today. This particular plane is a very popular trainer, 2 seat, high-wing strut braced design, that was also used by the US military. It's fuselage is steel tube with fabric covering, and the wing is all metal. It has never been involved in a fatal accident and it still widely used.

-Bret

hmmmmm....the guy who dug up the argentinian Mosquito clone calls the Ki-77 obscure....

I'll start out with my ceremonial wrong first answer-I'm gonna go with one of the cessna's -perhaps the 0-1 series?

john should be able to get this one without much effort,

Cheers, keith

I'll go on record as probably the second wrong guess, the Piper J-3 Cub/CPT-75 trainer.

Tom

The O-1 L-19 is an all metal aircraft. The J-3 has ragwings. This plane has metal wings and a steel tube/ fabric covered fuselage. Plus, remember the no fatal thing.
-Bret

when I said crickets before in the last question, it was regarding the silence . . .

skybolt2003 wrote:

when I said crickets before in the last question, it was regarding the silence . . .

Not crickets, but you might hear the sound of us grasshoppers grinding the gearworks in our skulls... the only fabric fuselage metal wing skin airplane I've ever been around or can think of is the Aeronca 11AC Sedan, and that part about no fatal accidents is a hard one for any light airplane.  Pilots are so skillful at finding ways to hurt themselves in airplanes, like flying a perfectly good airplane into a mountain or other forms of Mother Earth.

The Sedan was never built in the numbers that this plane was . . . Plus, this plane was introduced in 1966 and the company that built it is still in business. (the original company–not some reincarnated version) This plane does have a fuselage x-section similar to the Aeronca 7A series though.

Plus, it has 4 wheels . . .




-Bret

Just kidding about the crickets-altho weren't the japanese looking to use bats to deliver bombs during the war?

How about some large training radio controlled drone thing during the 60"s with fabric wings and a metal fuselage? That way no humans lives will be hurt...,

Regards all.

Keith being helpful

 

I believe the Allies explored using bats and/or pigeons as bomb carriers.

 Bill

600 lbs empty weight - 2 seat tandem.

c'mon you guys! 4 wheels, 600 lbs empty weight.

I got nuthin'

Well, in addition to this type of aircraft, this manufacturer has also made reconaissance aircraft, cropduster aircraft, and helicopters.

skybolt2003 wrote:

Well, in addition to this type of aircraft, this manufacturer has also made reconaissance aircraft, cropduster aircraft, and helicopters.

That indicates Schweizer as the likely maker of this airplane, but I still don't know what it is.

Yes, Schweizer is the manufacturer.
The Air Force Academy used this plane until around 2002.

Ah, this is embarassing!  It is the Schweizer 2-33.  We have all had tunnel vision, I even had it in my head that single-engine was in the question.  Sorta familiar to me, I used to tow them, and got a glider commercial rating in one in 1971 or so.

I was trying hard not to make this into a trick question. I figured you'd get it with the 4 wheels and low empty weight.
The Schweizer SGS2-33 is the most popular glider for primary training in the US. It is very robust, with the steel tube fuselage and it's low stalling speed somewhere under 35 mph depending upon weight. A nice, honest airplane. It has a main wheel, right about on the CG, a small tailwheel, as well as 2 wheels on the wingtips. The main wheel has no suspension, and the instructor who sits in the back seat is right on top of it. If a student misjudges and drops it in, the instructor won't walk very well for a couple of days. Ask me how I know . . .

John, where'd you tow gliders? What kind of tug did you fly?

I'm president of a soaring club here in NY, Valley Soaring. I wind up being stuck in the tug most of the time, or giving demo rides in a 2-33 so I don't get to do much personal soaring anymore, but it is fun.

-Bret

There used to be an airport called Shady Grove just west of Travis Sir Force Base.  I usually towed there or at Truckee airport.  I used Super Cubs, Scouts, and I towed a few times with my 185.  I towed two 2-32's with the 185 once, and it wasn't hard for it.  It was too much for the other gliders, I had to take it easy on them.  The Scouts were better for towing.  I haven't flown a glider in quite some time, but I often think about it.  It must be pretty flying gliders in New York when the snow is gone.  I've been in the Finger Lakes region, and Hammondsport, in that part of New York.  Landing off airport is probably interesting there.

wdolson2 wrote:

I believe the Allies explored using bats and/or pigeons as bomb carriers.  Bill

Personally I was tempted to mention the various drones that heve been developed, or even guess that this contraption was some sort of flight simulator that never left the ground.

Do you think John will ask us a more normal question, that more then one person can answer, Bill?

Frankly, I remain skeptical about Bret's "no fatailty" claim thing, as the gliders in WWII had a lot of fatalities, which was why the Army abandoned them for carrying troops, but I will not debate the topic here. I mean, you could have a guy who died from complications as the result of a crash a month later, but would not be seen as a fatality, since he was not dead in the wreckage or did not die in an ER right away.

Personally I do not believe in the manned flying machine that no one has ever gotten hurt in, any more then the accident-injury proof passenger motor car.

Sorry

Tom

Well, I don't think that question was too esoteric – I thought I remembered at least a couple of guys here mentioning they'd had glider training in 2-33's.
The 2-33 is far different from the Waco's flown in battle during WWII, as is the mission each was flying. Those guys were flying at night and landing wherever they could under fire. Not too many guys make off-field landings in 2-33's - they are trainers and don't usually go x-country, which is really the only time you'd be excused for landing off the airport. They land very slowly and are quite controllable. Having said that, I've flown them in wave, aand conditions I would conservatively describe as "sporting." I've towed upwind, released and hovered over the ground motionless, then backed up on downwind, slid over on base with no ground track, then accelerated into final. Very fun, but probably not recommended.
They are quite strong too - we had alittle problem with our tow ropes one day. Our supplier had changed ropes, so we got a batch that wouldn't stay together. One of our tow pilots took off on a very hot day with 2 big guys in a 2-33, not climbing out very well. At about 100' the rope came apart (the loop that held the tow ring slid apart) and the glider was on its own with very few options. The student flying put his hands up in the air and the instructor, a good friend, took over and basically crashed in to a very rough field that had been dug up a couple of days before. He made a perfect low energy touch down and the glider broke in half. They were perfectly fine. The only problem was that for some reason this student refused to wear shoes when flying (the better to feel the rudder pedals with, I guess) and they had to walk out through a field of brambles.

Schweizer is located in El Mira NY, actually Horseheads, and it is considered the home of soaring in the US. Actually, our club is the oldest continually operated soaring school in the US. Ginnie Schweizer helped found it and taught there (she was Ginnie Bennis then until Paul Schweitzer took her away . . .)
THere is quite a bit of farmland around for off airport landings, while we don't get wave like in the Sierras, we do get wave to around 16000 feet a few times a year. Plus regular ridge soaring and decent thermals to 8,000'.
Our tow fleet is a PA-18A with 160 hp, and a few years back I found a PA-25 Pawnee with 180 hp for the club. It is a perfect tug in my opinion. Pawnees started life with 150 hp and were pretty well regarded as underpowered. They beefed them up quite a bit and hung a 6 cylinder 235 hp mill on them. That worked well. But some guys took the lightweight 150 airframe and put 180 hp on them. Stripped of all the ag gear and with a borer prop, it climbs nearly as well as a 235 on a lot less fuel, with much lower maintenance costs. And, as with any plane, lighter weight means a better flyer. We also have a PA-22/20 (remember the last trivia series question??) as out last resort backup tow plane. Its a Tripacer converted to a Pacer, and something isn't right with it. Only a couple of us will fly it - it's twictchy as heck. And with the short wings, it's a lousy tow plane.

Any forum members located near Middletown NY should shoot me a PM if you're interested in a glider flight. I'm always happy to take a fellow enthusiast up for a ride. And anyone here considering learning to fly - think about leanring to soar first. You learn how to really fly and control an aircraft, you learn how to use a rudder and what the wind does to an aircraft, and you learn how to land without an engine. That's a skill I've taken advantage of in a powered airplane several times now, and I credit my glider training in my calm response to each event.

The Pawnee I am also familiar with, but only by working on them.  We used to call the 150 hp version the Puny, which it was as an agplane but I don't doubt it's a good towplane.

I will post a new question tonight or tomorrow morning. 

 

The 150 wasn't quite there - but it was a much lighter airframe. So, if you add another 30 hp with not a lot more weight, its a very decent performer.
I remember flying my friends 90 hp Super Cub, and being amazed at how delightful it was to fly compared to our 150 later 160hp version. The big problem with the older PA-25s is the single fuselage mounted gas tank. I was told by an old cropduster - if you have to crash, don't hit anything with the nose. Good advice no matter what you're flying, but he went on to describe the many Pawnee pilots with badly bunred extemeties.

Just a note about the bats.  It was a serious project, and the test run worked well, too well actually, as they half destroyed the airbase they were being released at!  The project was abandoned because of another project, codenamed Manhatten...  There are websites about the Bat Bombers you can visit.