Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Hi,

Yes G. Morrison is correct.  From what I have read it was standard practice for French (and Belgian) aircraft at the time that pulling the throttle back (toward the pilot) would increase power.  However, for UK and US fighter aircraft throttles were configured so that power increased as the throttle was moved forward. 

As such, although issues such as the use of metric units or unfamiliar harnesses could be an issue in some circumstances, the "reversed" throttle configuration could pose a significant risk to flight operations at anytime (and especially during landings as G. Morrison noted).  As such, one of the books that I have read listed it as the most imporrtant safety change required on the plane (it may have been in America's 100,000 but I'm not sure because I'm away from my sources).

The French version had the throttle designed to be moved backward to increase power.

The British modification reversed that to the more standard forward to increase power.

Yes that could be a problem on takeoff!

Increased armor for the fuel tanks 

To Daniel Ficke & Stikpusher,

No, but close.

Ok, how about switching the instruments from metric to imperial (or whatever the term is for inches, pounds, gallons, etc.). There is certainly a safety aspect there. Knots vs km/h, meters vs feet...

On 16 December 1940, the XF4F-3 prototype, BuNo 0383, c/n 356, modified from XF4F-2, was lost under circumstances that suggested that the pilot may have been confused by the poor layout of fuel valves and flap controls and inadvertently turned the fuel valve to "off" immediately after takeoff rather than selecting flaps "up". This was the first fatality in the type.

Hi,

Sorry about that.  I don't really post here that often, and just happened across the previous question by chance without being familiar with the rules of the challenge.

As for my question, I don't really think its minutiae, as its mentioned in most every source I've read about the plane, including Wikipedia (though not all sources point it out as 'specifically' being a safety hazard, though the safety implications should be pretty readily apparent).

So far none of the responses address the issue.

Regards

PFJN

Gentlemen, I seriously hope this is not the situation that appears to be occuring here. To quote from "page one", regarding this forum's rules, which I allowed an exception to today but now beginning to regret doing so, as I assume contributing participants, including myself, have at least one question in mind when they posit an answer, and to frustrate them is not our purpose here.

To quote:

"But, please by posting "trivia", I did not mean "minutia", which can go to details about any aircraft that only the owner/manufacturer;s personnel would know! In other words, I can't find it through normal sources, and you do not referance a personal source, as I do to give the guys a chance, then such questions can be ignored, and we can move on who can ask a decent question, not obscure, generally unavailable, minutia"

,  
Since "PFJN", the initiator of the last question, does not acknowledge any participant's answers, as well as worrying us beyond the 24-hour rule, unless he suddenly"wakes-up" after this post, as it obviously appears to be "minutia", then I therefore open the forum to the recently active participants modelcrazy and stikpusher.

Tom T

Wait-wait!

No kidding-a little window underneath the pilot's cockpit floor to see the damn thing he was going to land on-even in the fog.

I mean, we would not want the pilot to land on the Tirpitz, unless it was a suicide  mission, and as we know, suicide was against the law in ancient Rome.

Tom T

A battery-driven electric starter-motor?

Remember the Douglas Devastators, same era,

Saved for later.

Tom T

How about a seat harness? Replacing whatever the French were getting with a Sutton harness?

Fog Lights and turn signal lamps?

Tom T

Higher tail wheel.

stikpusher

Just seeing if PFJN had a question for us yet...

 

Hi,

Sorry it took me so long to come up with a question, but here goes.

I hope this hasn't been asked before, but what was the major safety related change that the UK had to make to the Grumman G-36A/Wildcat/Martlet aircraft that they took over from a French order in 1940?

Regards

Pat

OK,

Thanks Pat.

I officially withdraw my question, bundle it up and keep it in my stash for later.

Tom T

Just seeing if PFJN had a question for us yet...

I'm sorry, Mr. Stick, but what was the question?

Impressive visual!-Keep trying!

Tom T

Well, PFJN (Is that for Private First Class Jane????)

Well, you are not supposed to make us wait beyond the 24 hour rule, unless you or someone you know recently died. I mean I am tired of being killed, personally speaking.

Can you ask us a question, or do you need me, or one of us  to do it for you?

Tom T

PFJN

Hi,

I thought it was the Brewster B-239s flown by Finland @ 26:1.

 

PFJN

Hi,

I thought it was the Brewster B-239s flown by Finland @ 26:1.

 

That's funny, but true. such a goofy little plane.

tempestjohnny

Ok. The best kill to loss ratio of any fighter in WWII belonged to what?

 

FM-2 Wildcat

Hi,

I thought it was the Brewster B-239s flown by Finland @ 26:1.

F6F Hellcat with a 19:1 ratio.

Spitfire?

I am not sure John. I got a reference book with this feature in it back in the '90's.

Like I said, it got buried as we shoved stuff around for three hurricanes and a recent flood-but I don't mind working on it.

Maybe that should be my next question when it is my turn again

Tom T

I'm sorry, Crazy, you're  right, I mixed you two up. Had a hectic evening yesterday.

Like you said, Johnny got it, unless he declines to you.

I'll leave that up to you guys!

Tom T

Waaaa? Johnny got the right answer, isn't it his turn? I can come up with somethin if you want though.

T_Terrific

Looks to me like you got it, Johnny, from also checking Wikipedia

I was thinking of a Naval gunfighter conversion, but my archives got buried, and it might have been the Phantom as well.

Tom T

I mean, they had the b___s to put an auto-loading cannon into the door of an internal munitions-bay door to counteract the Russian "Close-in-Combat" philosophy which prefers the gun over the rocket that they trained the NV pilots use in the Soviet designed Mig's.

It was a cool design-it wasn't visually there to the 'Cong driver, (U.S. pilot thinks: "Lessee, close in, push button, swing out, prepare to fire-_____") then, Mig driver thinks, "Where did that come fro_.............???????"

 

I can think of 2 aircraft where that was done, both Air Force.  First was the F-106, but there was a bump on the aircraft.  Second was the F-111.  Neither one really required the gun to swing out to fire.  I'm curious, what application are you thinking of?

John