Aircraft Trivia Quiz

OK,

What aircraft was the first to fly with only turbofan power?

Over to you Milairjunkie!

SR.177?

SNCASE / Sud-Est SE-212 Durandal?

LA-250 Anakonda?

A 1950s Interceptor prototype, with speed at altitude to be aided by a rocket motor. A single AA.20 missile was to be carried.

The perfect answer! Over to you MA101

This should be an easy one, I think.  This simple aircraft used a simple engine, one of very few to ever use it, and probably by far the largest user of this aircraft.  It is claimed that this engine was designed in Sweden, but the first patent was in 1906 in Russia, followed by a working example in 1907.  Another version was patented in 1908 in France, and then a German in 1933 developed a more efficient version.

What was the aircraft that made this engine famous?

Thats the one, do you want the bonus points?

Sorry, I meant Trent!

Centhot got the aircraft kinda right, but not the engine. Can you expand on your answer?

The TU-85 was post 50's.

Ah, that was the Meteor which had a very successful installation of the Dart Turboprop (ironically also tested in the Lancaster).

Lol sweet as, i didnt even think of the lancaster.

This pre-1950's aircraft was origonally designed with jet engines. However an early model was pulled for testing and had another type of engine put on it.

What was the aircraft, what was the engine.

Bonus points. What was the serial number of the aircraft. How did this aircraft impact history.

Oh darn, I meant to say had both a engine in the tail or the nose (although not at the same time), which was the Lancaster - it was used as a test bed for Rolls Royce jet and turbo-prop engines.  However, as you answered the question correctly, over to you Scorpio!

B-17 had a turboprop in the nose.

As it's first come first served, here's my first question:  Name any bomber which had a 5th test turboprop in the nose, or a 5th jet engine in the tail?

I just gave the answer, see my last post.

Mike T.

Model used for surface handling / taxi training with something done to the flying controls?

I'll give the answer now, which concerns the one part of the aircraft that nobody mentioned.

The Propellor!

The story is given in "Fantail Fighters" by Jerry Scutts on page 17 under "Training" from an iuncident concerning John A. Blaschke while at Penascola.

"On one occasion while I was a cadet, I attempted to take off across the bay toward Santa Rosa Island. I never did get the OS2U in the air at full throttle and somewhat discouraged, taxied back, feeling guilty that there must have been something wrong with my technique, The ramp duty officer however, had some mechanics measure the propellor diameter.

It turned out that OS2U propellors, which become badly corroded with saltwater after days and weeks of waterborne takeoffs, would develop pits and deformities in the tips. Each evening as they prepared the planes for the next day's flying, the mechanics would conscientiously file down these pits.

What they didn't seem to realize was that this diligent "maintenance" gradually eroded the length of the blades - and the propelloron the OS2U I had attempted to fly that day was approximately 10 inches shorter than the original prescribed length, and of course, could not provide enough power to get the aircraft into the air. When I was given another airplane, I was able to take off very rapidly."

You also see the "well" maintained brings about its own problems. I don't have another question ready, so I'll give the next question to whomever has a question ready.

Mike T.

Leak in  the floats?

Grant

Does everyone else give up?

Mike T.

I thought you said it was well maintained..?    Well, I give up...  I'm out of ideas.

telsono

No, the pilot had done no fault and performed all of the correct take-off procedures. The fault lies with the aircraft and its maintenance.

Mike T.

No, the pilot had done no fault and performed all of the correct take-off procedures. The fault lies with the aircraft and its maintenance.

Mike T.

I don't suppose that the pilot left his dive brakes open?

telsono

Actually, paint had nothing to do with it, but a good try. You'll kick yourself when you find out the answer.

Mike T.

Actually, paint had nothing to do with it, but a good try. You'll kick yourself when you find out the answer.

Mike T.

Yeh, that's what I was thinking.

Scorpiomikey

This would probably fit actually, if an aircraft was fussed over they would be constantly added fresh paint to the chips which would build up over time. And with the kingfisher being severely under powered it wouldn't surprise me.

This would probably fit actually, if an aircraft was fussed over they would be constantly added fresh paint to the chips which would build up over time. And with the kingfisher being severely under powered it wouldn't surprise me.

note to self MUST untie plane from dock before trying to fly.....