Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Don't think either of these actually dropped iron bombs in anger, which is one of the three criteria the aircraft has to satisfy. I can think of at least one supersonic aircraft, designed from the ground up as a bomber/ ground attack aircraft, which has.

Cheers,

Chris.

I am thinking that the B-1B would qualify as it did use the GBU-31 and GBU-38 bombs in Iraq. The JDAM is bolted onto iron bombs, so technically it dropped iron bombs as that is how they are built.

Mike T.

The fastest bomber ever, I believe was the XB-70 Valkyrie. The restrictions on the question are a lil unfair I think. Regardless if bombs were dropped in anger or testing, it was designed from the outset as a bomber and is a conventional aircraft.

The question should have been "What is/was the fastest 'operational' bomber ever?" Not trying to ruffle feathers but just wanted to make a valid point I think.

Cheers, simpilot34

Jeet yet?

I'm going to make a stretch here and suggest two possibles:

 F-15E Strike Eagle & Su-34 "Fullback"

 The -34 is probably out due to the fact that it hasn't dropped "in anger" and (after I researched it) doesn't reach Mach 2 due to fixed intakes even though it has the -27's engines.

 But the -15E was designed for ground attack, has dropped in anger (on five occasions), and reaches Mach 2.5 (or so they say anyway).

Backfire seems like a good candidate. Not the XB-70, since it was never intended to drop bombs (ICBMs and SLBMs having taken over that role by the time the go-ahead for the two aircraft was given). It was purely a research aircraft, and had no weapons bay, nor could one be fitted without severely compromising combat radius.

B-1B nowhere near as fast as the Backfire (Mach 1.25 at altitude, vs. Mach 2.3), so even if we count smart bombs as iron bombs (and for the purposes of this question, we don't. By iron bombs, I mean dumb iron bombs) it wouldn't be the fastest bomber.

Must check bomber versions of the MiG-25, but I think that since it was originally designed as a fighter/ recce aircraft, it wouldn't count, in the same way that F-4s and F-15E (both based on air superiority designs, and F-15E still theoretically capable of an air superiority role with AIM-9s and cannon once you've got rid of all the air-to-ground stuff) don't count.

Did the Vigilante ever drop a bomb in anger? Don't think so, but might be worth checking.

Also remember that the USA and Soviet Union Russia are not the only countries, post-war, to have designed, developed and produced ground attack/ bomber aircraft.

Cheers,

Chris.

Uhh... the F-15E "Strike Eagle" although derived from an interceptor/fighter is indeed a dedicated bomber... exclusively created to drop high explosives in bombing attacks. It's A REALLY fast bomber too. The fastest? That I do not know! DANG!

The 'regular' F-15 is capable of Mach 3...

Yeah, but derived from an interceptor/fighter, not ab initio as a bomber/ ground attack. That's the point. Doesn't count. Sorry.

Cheers,

Chris.

I love wikipedia....

The Echo is recorded at around Mach 2.5. Unofficially, its probably greater...possible anyway.

 I can understand the point of the aircraft being "originally" designed for the role instead of it being a variation of an existing airframe. 

In that context and, as you pointed out, it doesn't have to be US or Russian....what about the GR1 Tornado?  It was originally designed as a supersonic ground attack plane and matches the Backfire's speed.  (wiki has Mach 2.34 listed).

As I read Wiki, max speed of the Backfire is Mach=2.3. for the Tornado GR.4a, it's Mach=2.34, so that would make the Tornado faster. The Tornado dropped iron bombs in anger in Desert Storm (the JP233 runway denial cluster bomb system, for sure. Not sure about other dumb iron bombs).

Well done, S_Karre! Your turn!

Cheers,

Chris.

Oh poo. ok.... Chris.

S_Karrde---> OH! Good call with the British "Tornado"

Thanks trexx.  Okay, here we go...this might be an easy one.

How many flight computers were used on the X-29 project

Suppose Richard Branson were to borrow a Tupolev Bear, and re-paint it in Virgin Atlantic colours? Should be able to do it in less than six hours.

Cheers,

Chris.

Lucien Harpress wrote:

How 'bout the Boeing C-97?

January 9, 1945 a C-97 flew west to east, Seattle to DC in 6 hours 4 minutes for an average speed of 383 mph.

United used to have a First Class departure from SFO to Honolulu in a 377, and the coach flight left 1 1/2 hours later in a DC-7 and arrived at the same time. Wouldn't do to have the peons get there first!

And I may have botched the wording a little so it wouldn't be a direct lift from wiki- the C-97 set the record at that time and later records were all held by jets, but for all I know other props did it later and faster. But it would either have had to refuel in flight or carry an awful lot of it, both of which are constricting factors.

Yes, I must confess- wikipedia was my friend for that one.  I just wasn't sure if the C-97 was tuboprop or not- turned out it wasn't.

Okay, on to the question- what aircraft used this engine arrangement?

Prolly not too hard, but I really like the aircraft in question, so here we go.  Sadly, no kit that I know of exists for it.  So sad. 

That would be the Brabazon. Those mills are the Bristol Centaurus, two per nacelle, which was also the power for the Tempest.

I don't know of any models either though I seem to recall a vac in 1/144- more on that in a minute.

There is an obscure Bristol Britannia on the shelf down at the LHO. They want big bucks for it, but I make make them an offer.

....which probably makes this the quickest correct answer yet.  It is the Brabazon, and I'm just hoping somebody releases a 1/72 kit of it eventually.  Perhaps if I write a letter to Revell Germany...

But I digress.  The floor is yours! 

Wuddatt??

It is parts of the XC-99. The cargo version of the B-36.

Cheers, simpilot34

Lucien Harpress wrote:

....which probably makes this the quickest correct answer yet.  It is the Brabazon, and I'm just hoping somebody releases a 1/72 kit of it eventually.  Perhaps if I write a letter to Revell Germany...

As curious as the Brabazon was, it was a bit of a wacky trip for the British aircraft industry to be working on a civil airliner while the war was in full swing, and DH, for one, were too overloaded to work on a jet fighter. As it turned out, the Vampire only just missed seeing action.

Brews wrote:

As curious as the Brabazon was, it was a bit of a wacky trip for the British aircraft industry to be working on a civil airliner while the war was in full swing, and DH, for one, were too overloaded to work on a jet fighter. As it turned out, the Vampire only just missed seeing action.

Not really. From late 1943, it was clear which way the war was going to go, the only question was would it end in late 1944 or eary 1946. No new-design aircraft would be in production and service by then, and there would be limited need for new high-performance combat aircraft in a post-war environment.

However, the British civil aviation industry was in a sorry state. The most advanced aircraft was probably the Short Empire flying boat, and the Yanks had gone and built gurt long runways all over the place. So HMG set up a committee to discuss and develop aircraft for the post-war world, and to keep the workers in the British aviation industry in jobs (governments did that sort of thng in those days, remember). Sadly they forgot that there would be several thousand war US surplus transport aircraft, and their production lines, ready and able to take up such post-war demand as ther was.

Finally, remember that the Brabazon was the only really big failure of the Brabazon Committee. Relative successes, at least, included the DH Comet, the Bristol Britannia and the DH Dove. In post-war America, Convair and Lockheed would have been overjoyed with that sort of success rate. If you want a real example of how state intervention can bu**er up a civil avaiation industry, look at France.

Cheers,

Chris.