Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Phil_H wrote:

telsono wrote: I'll guess, first the B-24 Liberator that was derived from flying boats and the Dornier D0-17 that was derived from a fast mail aircraft. There would be also the FIAT BR.20 derived from a passenger aircraft and used as a medium bomber and sold to Japan. Sorry, none of the above. My last clue said that the two that I'm looking for are currently in use by their respective nations of origin - that should narrow the field considerably.

What if we "mutiny" and vote on whose answer we liked best so far?

The fact is most of the world's best performing military aircraft came from an "other origin" then the one it was finally used for, as the usually military spec-built aircraft were usually committee designed and as a result their performance suffered for it.

A hint as to either of the nationalities or the aircraft type might help us here.

Tom

A cryptic clue then.

With respect to the original designs from which these aircraft were derived, each was a first of sorts for similar, though not the same reasons, and each shared the name of a previous design from the same respective manufacturer, both of which were twin engined and first flew in the same year.

I'll give it another try:

The U-2 intended as a high flying reconaissance aircraft and now used by NASA as a high altitude research vehicle.

The Boeing 767 turned from passenger aircraft to the 767 AWACS aircraft used by several countries.

(I've corrected it from the 707/E3, as the 707 had 4 engines.)

Mike T.

Ok, I didn't think it was going to be this difficult...

Though different in configuration, both aircraft are built to perform the same role and both have a prominent visible feature that this role necessitates.

One of these aircraft is unique in it's general configuration, but the other is similar in appearance to an aircraft built for the same role (and with a similar origin) by a former adversary, and one "may" be confused for the other at first glance (but it would be an illusion!!).

EDIT: A further cryptic clue has been added here

jeaton01 wrote:

AWACS and Midas?

Getting closer - there is a somewhat cryptic, yet prominent clue in my previous post. Think outside the box.

EDIT: Both have been flying since the 1960's, yet both are still front-line aircraft in their field.

Oops. It looks like I may have inadvertantly thrown in a bit of a herring.

The "twin engine" reference was in relation to the earlier aircraft of the same name by each respective manufacturer of the aircraft from which the subjects were derived. However, the aircraft I am looking for are not twin-engined.

EDIT: I have edited the clue above jeaton01's post to add another subtle hint 

IL-76 & C-141?

or

A-50 & E-3? 

osher wrote:

IL-76 & C-141? or A-50 & E-3?

Thinking big is good

Look again at the clue above jeaton01's post. There is something of a name game in there - if you can figure it out, it will lead you to at least one. That will also give you the role, and it shouldn't be too hard to work out the other.

This question is getting to me, but I am thinking :

Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the BAC Lightning or is it the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that is the reference

the BAC Lightning has some semblence to the TA-183,

this would get to think about the Ta-154 Moskito that had a similar use as a night fighter to the DeHaviland Mosquito

I think i am way out on a limb, but its a try.

Mike T.

The two aircraft in question are derivatives of civil designs, each of which is recognised as being a "first of a kind". One a world leader and the other for its nation of origin.

To identify the aircraft upon which they are based, you need to look beyond the sky.

osher wrote:

C-5 Galaxy and An-124 Ruslan?

Oops.. Too big

So far, your first answer is probably the closest in that you have the role identified, but not the correct time period. Also, the aircraft in question are products of two allied nations.

Both designs from which these aircraft evolved suffered from simple design flaws resulting in catastrophic failures which, though later rectified cast a shadow over their careers as commercial aircraft. 

We have a winner!

BAe Nimrod and Lockheed P3 Orion

(and the aircraft they evolved from, DH Comet and Lockheed L188 Electra)

To recap:

With respect to the original designs from which these aircraft were derived, each was a first of sorts for similar, though not the same reasons, and each shared the name of a previous design from the same respective manufacturer, both of which were twin engined and first flew in the same year.

DH previously designed the DH88 Comet and Lockheed, the Model 10 Electra in the 1930's

Though different in configuration, both aircraft are built to perform the same role and both have a prominent visible feature that this role necessitates.

Both incorporate a MAD boom

One of these aircraft is unique in it's general configuration, but the other is similar in appearance to an aircraft built for the same role (and with a similar origin) by a former adversary, and one "may" be confused for the other at first glance (but it would be an illusion!!).

A cryptic reference to the Ilyushin IL-38 May, which has a striking resemblance to the Orion, and which was also developed from an airliner design. (I was hoping someone would pick up on the wordplay)

The two aircraft in question are derivatives of civil designs, each of which is recognised as being a "first of a kind". One a world leader and the other for its nation of origin.

The Comet was the world's first successful jet airliner. The Electra was the first US built turboprop airliner.

To identify the aircraft upon which they are based, you need to look beyond the sky.

Comet - well that one is pretty obvious. Electra, from a star in the Pleiades cluster.

Both designs from which these aircraft evolved suffered from simple design flaws resulting in catastrophic failures which, though later rectified cast a shadow over their careers as commercial aircraft.

The Comet suffered from stress-related metal fatigue, attributed to high-stress points associated with the corners of the original square windows, resulting in a number of aircraft breaking up in-flight.

Inadequate engine mounts caused flutter which co-incided with the wing's natural resonant frequency on the Electra, which literally shook the wings off several aircraft.

So, there you are...

Next up, jeaton01

The specific type of flutter was whirl mode flutter, which the Electra's outboard propellers entered if speed and turbulence were great enough to trigger it.  The engines' rubber mounts were not stiff enough to damp out the motion of the props, which then increased until the outboard engines were oscillating to the point that the wings failed.  I remember the news reports, and that one of the things that made the wing failures so hard to accept was that the Electra was one of the strongest airliners ever built, one of the first to have chem milled wing skins.  However, it was also one of the fastest and highest powered, as well.  I have an old Flying magazine with an article about the new Electra on a sales tour, with a photo out the window showing two props feathered, the caption saying the airplane had no problem holding altitude in that condition.  Lockheed added more strength to the wing and improved the engine mounts and the problem went away, but during the time that the airplane was still flying in airline service, before the cause was found and fixed, speed restrictions were placed on the aircraft.

The Comet crashes were equally hard to understand, but were the result of pressurization fatigue even at low airframe hours, because there was a window near the top of the cockpit which was poorly located for pressurization stresses, and when the window frame cracked the fuselage basically unzipped from there back.  Apparently the Caravelle, which has a Comet forward fuselage, incorporated the fix for the Comet, since it had no pressurization accidents.

I'll try to come up with a new question tomorrow morning.

jeaton01 wrote:

The specific type of flutter was whirl mode flutter, which the Electra's outboard propellers entered if speed and turbulence were great enough to trigger it.  The engines' rubber mounts were not stiff enough to damp out the motion of the props, which then increased until the outboard engines were oscillating to the point that the wings failed.  I remember the news reports, and that one of the things that made the wing failures so hard to accept was that the Electra was one of the strongest airliners ever built, one of the first to have chem milled wing skins.  However, it was also one of the fastest and highest powered, as well.  I have an old Flying magazine with an article about the new Electra on a sales tour, with a photo out the window showing two props feathered, the caption saying the airplane had no problem holding altitude in that condition.  Lockheed added more strength to the wing and improved the engine mounts and the problem went away, but during the time that the airplane was still flying in airline service, before the cause was found and fixed, speed restrictions were placed on the aircraft. The Comet crashes were equally hard to understand, but were the result of pressurization fatigue even at low airframe hours, because there was a window near the top of the cockpit which was poorly located for pressurization stresses, and when the window frame cracked the fuselage basically unzipped from there back.  Apparently the Caravelle, which has a Comet forward fuselage, incorporated the fix for the Comet, since it had no pressurization accidents. I'll try to come up with a new question tomorrow morning.

There was a British made movie titled "No Highway in the Sky", made in 1951, based on the novel by the same name that depicted a similar structural failure/airline crash situation regarding a fictitious airline named the "Reindeer", where Jimmy Stewart plays an eccentric scientist who figures out the reason for the airplane's crashes.

In the movie, the problem is associated with a structural fatigue/failure problem in the fuselage due to excessive flexing/vibration caused by the aircraft's unusual biplane elevator tail design.

Tom

This airplane clearly had better operational performance than its adversarial counterpart, even though the country making the "counterpart" claimed their airplane was the first to reach a certain speed benchmark.  Compared to production in the the country who first built it, it was produced in greater numbers by an ally.

This airplane flew combat missions. 

OK, demolish me!

jeaton01 wrote:

This airplane clearly had better operational performance than its adversarial counterpart, even though the country making the "counterpart" claimed their airplane was the first to reach a certain speed benchmark.  Compared to production in the the country who first built it, it was produced in greater numbers by an ally. This airplane flew combat missions.  OK, demolish me!

 From the first part, I would have said the F-15 and the adversary was the MiG-25.  Though if the F-15 has been produced by anyone else, it was not in large numbers.

 I can't think of any plane that was built in larger numbers in a foreign country.   Unless this is a WW I question.  Some of those aricraft may have been. 

 Bill

I am guessing, the F-86 vs. MiG 15. Both had high allied production. Performance claims went back and forth. Canadair produced a good many F-86's while the Czech Republic, Poland and China also produced MiG-15's under various designations.

Mike T.

Oh, no, not British at all. 

I'll add another hint.  This is a design after WW II, and it is a multi-engine aircraft.  It fought in the same war as its contemporary but never head to head.

osher wrote:

Hmmm, this is intriguing. In the jet age, it's rare for an aircraft to be built in another country.  Of western aircraft, I can't think of anything British (which it's not anyway), European, or American which qualifies, except some American types built by the Canadians, and the Mirage III copy built by the Israelis.  There have been some CKD kits sold on, but even they're not so common, except maybe the F-5, but even then, home production is higher.  This means, it must be a Russian design, copied by the Chinese, North Koreans, etc.  As the Russians and Chinese broke off relations in the 1960's (if memory serves), I believe it would be one of the older MiG designs.  It's opponent would be the F-84B or C Thunderjet, which was a lot of talk, but had some serious flaws.  The later ones met the MiG-15, but was beaten by it (but did meet it, removing it from this answer).  Maybe the F-84F, the first swept wing, which I believe was in Korea, but didn't meet the MiG-15?

The main Chinese aircraft today is a home built copy of the Mig-21.  They have built lots of them.  Though I don't see where it meets the other criteria.  Between the Mig-15, 17, and 21, the only one that had  a much touted western adversary was the Mig-15 vs. the F-86 in Korea. 

Bill 

wdolson2 wrote:

The main Chinese aircraft today is a home built copy of the Mig-21.  They have built lots of them.  Though I don't see where it meets the other criteria.  Between the Mig-15, 17, and 21, the only one that had  a much touted western adversary was the Mig-15 vs. the F-86 in Korea.  Bill

Poor Farmer Ivan... Always the forgotten member of the family. He did have two engines though, and claimed to be the first supersonic fighter, though the F100 would argue with that...  Not sure about the production numbers though.