wow, that didnt take long!  Over to you, milair....

The gutless Cutlass?

OK, this is a fighter aircraft.....not a very good one, either.  If you were flying one of these, you could be killed just by routinely landing the plane, even when you did everything right.  In just over three years of service, this plane killed more than two dozen of its own pilots, but not a single one of the enemy.  This plane had such bad luck that the original engine it carried would cut out in a slight rain!  Worse, firing your guns often resulted in the same problem--the engine would sputter and stall.....Imagine being ordered to go to war in such a plane? 

Name the plane....

The P-36 also served in Alaska.

Grant

F8fanatic is right. Not only the P-47 but the P-35 and P-43 also never served in Alaska. The P-47 served pretty much everywhere else but some cases that would be stretching the point. P-47s missed North Africa but served with the 12th and 15th AF in the Mediterranean. The 13th AF never had P-47s during the war, so they missed the Solomons including Guadalcanal, but the 18th FG, part of the post war 13th AF had some at Clark. The 43rd FS, part of the 6th AF in Panama had some in 1946. When the 36th FG moved there, the 53rd FS replaced the 43rd. The P-26 and P-63 round out the list of WWII USAAF fighters never serving in Alaska.

Over to you. Glad the right answer came up so quickly.

Best wishes,

Grant

I'm going to say the P-47 thunderbolt in the Aleutians.  I know that the 38, 39 and 40 were there, and the 51 was there later.  But I havent found anything on the Jug being there

That sounds more like the P-40 in western Europe, although it was used in north Africa (where the RAF painted the shark teeth on it that the Flying Tigers later copied), and in eastern Europe by the Russians.  However, the P-38 was used.  As far as I know the P-39 was only used in a restricted capacity (although, I think the same is true of the P-40, so I could be the wrong-way-around!).

The F4U Corsair never served in US hands in Europe?

Sorry for the delay in answering. Here goes.

This popular family of US WWII fighters never served in this rather large area nor with its regional Air Force during its long service history although all of its Air Force contemporaries (fighters) did so at some time in their service lives. What family of aircraft and where did they never appear or serve in at least squadron service?

Best wishes,

Grant

And the winner is... The P39 Aircobra in the hands of a Soviet pilot.

Well done Grant over to you...

Kia Kaha

Jafa

Grigoriy Rechkalov

From Wiki.

Says the majority of his kills were achieved on P 39N-0 number 42-8747 and P 39Q-15 number 44-2547.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoriy_Rechkalov

Listed as 61 in a P-39Q here,  but tally varies according to sources.

http://www.fighteracesonline.com/grigori_rechkalov.htm

Rechkalov was an outstanding fighter pilot, a natural shot who had personal conflicts with his division commanders. It was said that Rechkalov was more interested in building his personal tally than being a fighterleader. Nethertheless there is no misunderstanding of his ability's in the air, flying his P-39Q Air cobra Rechkalov scored 61 victories in just 122 combat missions. Rechkalov was awarded the HSU twice, he became a Major-General of Aviation in 1951.

But listed at 50 here.

http://acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

And listed as 44 here, but it has the most detailed accounting of his claims.

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/soviet_rechkalov.htm

If the last one is correct, then he falls behind Aleksandr I. Porkryshkin who is listed with 48 claims.

Here, link also provided above.

http://acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

Not clear, but perhaps 55 in mostly in 1943, all in P-39s,  according to Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pokryshkin

He flew these P-39s, P-39K-1 BuNo 42-4421 "White 13", P-39N BuNo 42-9004, "White 100",  "white 17", 41-38520, and P-39Q-15 "white 50".

An article of his service here, doesn't detail his claims completely, though.

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/pokryshkin.html

Best wishes,

Grant

sorry no I worded the question a little badly, all the kills were made in the same aircraft type/model.

So I am looking for the aircraft model first and foremost followed by the pilot and number of kills.

Ilmari Juutilainen In a brewter Buffalo. 94 kills total, 34 in a buffalo.

no, no and no I am afraid

P-38, Richard Bong, 40?

The highest "kill" score by any pilot in an american made aircraft was scored in which aircraft?

For a bonus who achieved this feat and what was his score?

Kia Kaha

Jafa

Thanks Tom,

Although others also named the aircraft so the victory is a shared one...

I will post a question shortly

Kia Kaha

Jafa

Jafa:

You did it!!!!!!!!!!!!

You hit the jackpot withe the bonus question correctly answered to boot!

Your go guy!

Tom T

I am going to suggest the XB15, yes I know it has an X designation but one was produced and used in active service, redesignated XC105 and used as a transport aircraft. Boeing number 294

The key factor is it was significantly underpowered for its possible payload, (maximum take off weight 5,000lbs greater than a B17 with 1,800 less horsepower)

My guess for the negative effect of pre spinning the wheels would be the extra instability caused by the gryoscopic effect of even slighty unbalanced wheels, while i have not found reference to this for this aircraft, I have read the effect of the "Dambuster" mines spinning up made handling the lancasters very difficult.

Kia Kaha

Jafa

Hmmm....

Sorry  Telly,

Brumblwes actually was veeeeeeeeeeeeery close, but as I said

1. "it was produced without the "X" ( or "Y") designation",

2. You gotta also answer at least two out of the three parts to the question.

Now, if you wanna try again you are welcome to, but since I have practically given away the aircraft's designation number, I would like to see you also stab at the other parts to the question.

Now to be fair, if for instance, you go to Wikipedia, they only acknowledge the "X" designation to this bird, but as I understand, in fact this aircraft did make it past the "X" stage and actually a few were actually produced.

Why this is information not currently available on the internet, I do not know.

My reference source is a very old publication regarding the history of the Boeing P-26, where as a side the author went into the legacy of this monstor as well.

Now to be fair, if someone gets the other two parts right, I would see a simple error like sticking an "X" in their answer as moot, since they got at least two out of three.

OK?

Tom T

Or should I use the designation  Y1B-9A which had the Boeing designation model  B-246. the tail resembles the early B-17's.

Mike T.

Are you talking about the Boeing Model 229, which was the prototype for the B17 and I think was originally designed as a possible long range transport (cargo/airliner)?

T_Terrific

Hey Brumbles, since I am essentially making this one a no-brainer with the generous clues I am passing out, I will have to say "Close but no cigar".

However you are closer then Osher, but here is the rub:

As I posited in the initial question: "it was produced without the "X" designation", so the answer I am looking for will not have an "X" in it.

Also although you almost got it, you only answered one out of the two required questions.

Now if you want to try again, you might get one out of two, but you gotta also answer the second one as well.

Tom T

How about the Boeing YB-9?

Mike T.

Hey Brumbles, since I am essentially making this one a no-brainer with the generous clues I am passing out, I will have to say "Close but no cigar".

However you are closer then Osher, but here is the rub:

As I posited in the initial question: "it was produced without the "X" designation", so the answer I am looking for will not have an "X" in it.

Also although you almost got it, you only answered one out of the two required questions.

Now if you want to try again, you might get one out of two, but you gotta also answer the second one as well.

Tom T

XB-15?  If right, someone else can ask the next. 

Close,

Here is a hint:

It was a Boeing aircraft, however now think-what was the most prominant heavy bomber of WWII?

By prominant, I mean this aircraft was used and successfully modified throught WWII, and became the stereotypical heavy bomber legend.

Now knowing the varient's number, the aircraft I am thinking about was it's predecessor, therefore it's designation would be numbers before it.

Now this aircraft was so huge, it literally had sleeping quarters in it's wing roots for the crew.

Tom T

Boeing B-20?

Hi Guys

I thought you would never wear that last question out.

And since it has been a week or so, I guess I get to posit another fun question.

OK, this aircraft inadvertantly turned out to be the prototype for WWII's most famous heavy bomber.

Although it was produced without the "X" designation, it was generally unsuccesful, but it's major problem turned out to be a major asset for it's successor: It's revised power-to-weight ratio.

ONe unusual feature that was also tried for the tirst time, was the attempt to "pre-spin" the main landing gear tires, by having the manufacturer literally mold vanes into the tires sidewalls to catch the air and spin the tire.

This "innovation" nearly caused the plane to crash on landing.

So here is the question:

1. What was this aircraft?
2. What was the key factor in this aircraft's failure?
3. For a bonus, what was the unanticipated negative effect of pre-spinning the huge tires?

Tom T

well that was a "crappy" question....