Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Vickers VC-10? T tail, double engines either side of the tail.

Official maximum speed is well under sonic, but i figure in a shallow dive it would be capable.

sea master was american, F8 said earlier both aircraft were made by the same country

Martin P6M-2 Sea Master and Handley Page Victor. The P6M-2 was reported to have exceed the speed of sound in the old Wings/Airpower article, but the aircraft is generally reported as subsonic. It was also planned to be fitted with an air refueling kit in the bomb bay. Both had T tails. The Victor had its engines embedded in the wings and the Seamaster had them above the wings. 

Best wishes,

Grant

Guess I should clarify on the engine similarities.  They are not in the exact same place ,but they are mounted in pairs.  The Buccaneer is not the one. 

the other one i wanna say is the blackburn buccaneer, but that was a buddy refuel system. not a dedicated tanker. Other than that it fits the profile perfect, High T tail, wing root mounted engines.

bae 146?

Nimrod was also subsonic, the one we're looking for could break the speed of sound.

Nimrod?

Nope, here's a clue.

the common design features between the two aircraft are the tailplane arrangement and, somewhat, the engine layout.

The Tornado tanker version?

Nope, not the Vulcan, it was strictly subsonic.

My guess is Victor and Vulcan, both part of the British "V" range both appear able to reach supersonic speeds.

For the bonus:

 Both had wingroot engines?

Kia Kaha

Jafa

I cannot find any reference to the Tu-16 being supersonic....but I did also specify that the two planes were made by the same country.  And yes, the Victor is one of them. 

F-8fanatic

I'll take a shot at this...

 

Alright, I am looking for two aircraft.  They were, as far as I know, the only air-refueling tanker that could fly supersonic.  And by "tanker" I am not referring to any of the fast jets that could carry a buddy store, but instead actual aerial refueling tanker planes.  The catch is, neither one was designed to routinely fly that fast, in fact, one of these was specifically to be limited to no more than .96 Mach, due to control problems above that.  They both had two specific design features in common that were not found on most of their contemporaries of the period.

 

Name the planes, and for bonus, name the two design features that they shared.

I'm gonna say the tankers made from the Handley Page Victor and the Tu-16Z. Both had in their intial version retained their internal bomb bay bombing capability, and both had their engines mounted in the wing roots.

The Kc-135 is firmly subsonic, and I have not heard of anything about a B-58 tanker.  Would be pretty strange to see one, though!

Well, lets seee, there's the KC-35, and didn't they make an experimental variant of the old B-58.

Scorpiomikey

Im probably completley off mark with this, but im going to take a stab with the boeing 747 (capable of supersonic in a dive) and the avro vulcan, not sure if it could get through the wall, but the engines were later developed to go on the concorde.

No, not those two.  Remember, we are talking about aerial refueling tankers.  The 747, well, I guess you could consider it a tanker, only 4 of them were ever put into service(with Iran), but Boeing's proposed KC-33 variant to compete with the KC-10 never came to be.  And the Vulcan was strictly subsonic.  The two planes in question were built by the same country

Im probably completley off mark with this, but im going to take a stab with the boeing 747 (capable of supersonic in a dive) and the avro vulcan, not sure if it could get through the wall, but the engines were later developed to go on the concorde.

I'll take a shot at this...

Alright, I am looking for two aircraft.  They were, as far as I know, the only air-refueling tanker that could fly supersonic.  And by "tanker" I am not referring to any of the fast jets that could carry a buddy store, but instead actual aerial refueling tanker planes.  The catch is, neither one was designed to routinely fly that fast, in fact, one of these was specifically to be limited to no more than .96 Mach, due to control problems above that.  They both had two specific design features in common that were not found on most of their contemporaries of the period.

Name the planes, and for bonus, name the two design features that they shared.

Thank you.  I hadn't logged in for quite a while, but was just discussing this subject with an R/C modeling friend this past Sunday, so was fairly certain I knew the answer.

I'm afraid it would take me a week or better to come up with something worth posting as I'm at work until the middle of next week.  So I'm willing to pass the torch to the first poster to submit a worthy question.

Correctamundo!

The solution was as you said to enlarge the stabalizer and they also lengthened the wings a tad.  It's all yours.

Rich

Tango Juliet

I believe that would be the F-100 Super Sabre and the correction was to return the original, larger vertical stabilizer to the airframe from the smaller one they had replaced it with.

I believe that would be the F-100 Super Sabre and the correction was to return the original, larger vertical stabilizer to the airframe from the smaller one they had replaced it with.

Okay.  I have been racking my brains for one, so here it is..

This early cold war era jet fighter set several records in the early 50s.  However, despite successful flight testing, it soon showed controlability issues and after several crashes was grounded.  The design was modified and it returned to service in the mid 50s.  It served many years in both the tactical fighter and fighter-bomber roles.  The last variant of the type to be produced was a two seat trainer.  The last of these planes was retired from the Air National Guard in the 1980s.

Name the plane and for extra credit, describe what was done to correct the original designs control problems.

This should be an easy one.

Hmmm... Give me a day to think up a really good one.

Jafa

Sorry guys I was out of the country for the last week, I look forward to Sparrows question.

Sorry guys I was out of the country for the last week, I look forward to Sparrows question.

Well, Sparrow, since it has beenover a week and Jafa has not responded, I would say as the "runner-up" you are welcome to post the next challenge!

Tom

I have heard that story as well.  I'm kind of into airship history and I seem to remember reading it in one of my book.  It might be "Giants in the Sky".  Not sure though.

T_Terrific

Well, Jafa's answer is the answer I was thinking of, wherein the airship was a VIP tour and the captain panicked when  the British Sopwith parasol pilot started pestering him with his Webley handgun, and so he suddenly dedided to lose altitude allowing the Sopwith driver to literally bomb the airship out of the air..

Unfortuantely, I have only erad this account in two erferences one of which I owned, but was lost in a move, thusly I also no longer have the particulars.

If it is OK with you-all, as far as I am concerned, Jafa has it.

Tom T

Well, Jafa's answer is the answer I was thinking of, wherein the airship was a VIP tour and the captain panicked when  the British Sopwith parasol pilot started pestering him with his Webley handgun, and so he suddenly dedided to lose altitude allowing the Sopwith driver to literally bomb the airship out of the air..

Unfortuantely, I have only erad this account in two erferences one of which I owned, but was lost in a move, thusly I also no longer have the particulars.

If it is OK with you-all, as far as I am concerned, Jafa has it.

Tom T

The 8 October incident you are thinking of was not an aerial victory--on that date in 1914, a pair of RNAS Sopwith Tabloid aircraft set out to attack the zeppelin sheds at Cologne and Dusseldorf.  This was the first British air raid over German territory of the war.  The target at Cologne was not located, and so that pilot bombed the train station instead.  The other pilot dropped two 20 pound bombs on the sheds at Dusseldorf, and in the process destroyed zeppelin Z.IX on the ground.  The airship was in the shed when the attack took place.

hmm LZ25 was destroyed on the 8th October 1914 by bombing, but it was in it's hangar at the time.