SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Aircraft Trivia Quiz

728407 views
7409 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Monday, May 31, 2010 4:01 PM

There is another that is classed as bigger (even though it has a slightly smaller wingspan than the mars)

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Charleston, SC
Posted by orro on Monday, May 31, 2010 3:09 AM

B747 & DC-10/MD-11 family

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:25 PM

While that is the largest operation propeller driven water bomber. there are 2 that are bigger

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:44 PM

Martin Mars?

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:38 PM

lol its all good. needed an easy one to get the ball rolling (or log)

Worlds largest water bomber

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    April 2010
  • From: Yuma, AZ
Posted by Ripcord on Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:27 PM

Yes I know, that was easy.

Mike

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:23 PM

P-38 lightning?

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    April 2010
  • From: Yuma, AZ
Posted by Ripcord on Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:34 PM

If nobody minds... Kit Builder and take over if he returns...  Until then.  Named "fork-tailed devil" by the Luftwaffe and "two planes, one pilot" by the Japanese, this unique aircraft was used in a number of different roles including dive bombing, level bombing, ground strafing, photo recon missions, and extensively as a long-range escort fighter when equipped with drop tanks under its wings.

Mike

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Sunday, May 30, 2010 9:24 PM

OK, executive decision, everybodys right, now somebody post another question.

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:12 AM

Somebody make an executive decision as to the answer and lets get this moss ridden log rolling again!!!!

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:39 PM

Gunner59

Am I to understand the lead T-38 of the Thunderbirds crashed and the blame was switched by the USAF to pilot error rather than the initial (and fairly subsequent) blame being placed on incorrect ground crew maintenance on the rear stabulator?

I am not expressing any sort of opinion on what did or did not cause the "Diamon Crash", only stating that the circumstances of both crashes were similar in that the whole team followed their lead to there demise.

  • Member since
    April 2010
  • From: Yuma, AZ
Posted by Ripcord on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:07 PM

D.H 106 Comet? It 1947 it was a prototype?

Mike

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posted by Kit builder on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:36 PM

This graceful, if dumpy, British machine first flew in 1947 and was displayed at Farnborough where the announcer was so taken by it, that he not only described its display routine, but its take off from Farnborough's runway, too.

This description was pure fiction as the aircraft in question didn't and couldn't possibly have taken off as described.

Name her.

 

If only....
  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Holt, MI
Posted by Gunner59 on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:08 PM

I'm in my computer mode and am requesting clarification of the answer.

Please ignore the prior Luftwaffe side note. 

Am I to understand the lead T-38 of the Thunderbirds crashed and the blame was switched by the USAF to pilot error rather than the initial (and fairly subsequent) blame being placed on incorrect ground crew maintenance on the rear stabulator?

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, May 24, 2010 10:02 AM

Gunner59

<i> A similar accident happened to the Thunderbirds in the "Diamond crash, where 4 T-38s were lost </i>

The preliminary reports on the T-38 crash was an manfunctioning stabulator on the lead aircraft caused the loop to be wide.  The other aircraft followed the lead aircraft into the deck.

Are you saying the Luftwaffe told their pilots not to follow others so closely in formation or the root cause of the accident was the lead pilots lack of awareness in his altitude?

 

I forgot to mention the policy change (Homer Duuuuh), Luftwaffe formation aerobatic teams were banned immediatley after the crash, & still remain banned.

& yes, it would seem that the lead's loss of awareness cost all four aircraft, as the other three followed their lead.

  • Member since
    April 2010
  • From: Yuma, AZ
Posted by Ripcord on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:11 AM

Wow...  Ask a trivia question about an aircraft and you get every recall, service bulletin, kink, abnomalie (<--spelling), anything that can and has gone wrong with it. lol.  Very interesting though, you can learn something new everyday.Smile

Mike

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Holt, MI
Posted by Gunner59 on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:10 AM

<i> A similar accident happened to the Thunderbirds in the "Diamond crash, where 4 T-38s were lost </i>

The preliminary reports on the T-38 crash was an manfunctioning stabulator on the lead aircraft caused the loop to be wide.  The other aircraft followed the lead aircraft into the deck.

Are you saying the Luftwaffe told their pilots not to follow others so closely in formation or the root cause of the accident was the lead pilots lack of awareness in his altitude?

 

  • Member since
    January 2007
  • From: Holt, MI
Posted by Gunner59 on Monday, May 24, 2010 9:03 AM

The T-38 had a nasty habit of the landing gear coming out when it was involved in high G forces when in a dog fight to train other forces in DAC.  It was replaced by the F-5 and the much better F-5E.

I've seen a well flown F-104 beat a poorly flown F-15 in AC so my guess the the Germans had a mod-kit installed on their jets by the mid-70s that solved the unwanted gear deployment.  The F-104 was a thorny aircraft in the landing or take off cycle. 

 If the Germans banned their jets from DAC in '76 to '82 that would have been news to the fighter pilots of Spang', Bitburg, and a half a dozen other bases. 

 

Anyway, the guess is wheel deployment in high G DAC. 

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Monday, May 24, 2010 4:19 AM

I am going to give this to KitBuilder, as he got the aircraft in question.

I shouldn't have done the two-parter, my mistake. The incident was the loss of 4 German F-104's during practice for the types introduction to service display, it is thought that the lead pilot suffered from a loss of spatial awareness while in low cloud. A similar (although not the same) accident happened to the Thunderbirds in the "Diamond crash", where 4 T-38's were lost. Following the incident the Luftwaffe banned formation aerobatics from the service.

 

  • Member since
    April 2010
  • From: Yuma, AZ
Posted by Ripcord on Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:27 PM

Original fatigue calculations had not taken into account the high number of g-forces loading cycles that the German F-104 fleet was experiencing, and many airframes were returned for depot maintenance where their wings were replaced, while other aircraft were simply retired. Towards the end of Luftwaffe service, some aircraft were modified to carry a black box  which could give an indication of what might have caused the accident?  Just a guess...

Mike

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: New Zealand
Posted by Scorpiomikey on Sunday, May 23, 2010 5:06 PM

i dont know what the incident was, but im gonna guess that the directive put in place was for all pilots to spend time training with other airforces

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"

Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming Hmm 

My signature

Check out my blog here.

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Sunday, May 23, 2010 4:26 PM

No, this incident has nothing to do with the high loss rate of the F-104 with the Luftwaffe, their tasking of the F-104, or its original downwards firing seats.

A similar accident happened with some T-38's, although the cause was not the same.

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Sonora Desert
Posted by stikpusher on Sunday, May 23, 2010 3:02 PM

How about the F-104s were originally fitted with an ejection seat that did not function well at low altitude, which was their primary operational envelope. I would presume the policy was changed requiring a Zero/Zero type bang seat.

 

F is for FIRE, That burns down the whole town!

U is for URANIUM... BOMBS!

N is for NO SURVIVORS...

       - Plankton

LSM

 

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Sunday, May 23, 2010 8:02 AM

The F-104 is the correct A/C, but something specific happened to the Luftwaffe that involved the F-104, the incident in question cause the Luftwaffe to make a specific change in policy which stands to this day.

The incident in question did not involve the dubious safety record of the F-104 with the Luftwaffe, although it did involve an accident.

  • Member since
    February 2008
  • From: Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posted by Kit builder on Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:40 AM

F104 zero/zero launches.

If only....
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Sunday, May 23, 2010 6:12 AM

No, you would need to move on over a decade.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by simpilot34 on Sunday, May 23, 2010 5:03 AM

Me-323 and...... bigger is better??? hehe just a stab in the dark here!!

Cheers, Lt. Cmdr. Richie "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace."-George Washington
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:22 PM

OK, this A/C has a wing thickness to chord ratio of less than 3.4 & also caused the Luftwaffe to end a specific practice?

The A/C & the practice?

  • Member since
    March 2010
  • From: Brisbane
Posted by Julez72 on Saturday, May 22, 2010 5:31 AM

Sure is MilairYes over to you......too easy eh...

 

 

 

  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Scotland
Posted by Milairjunkie on Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:43 AM

Would that be a replacement leg for Sir Bader?

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.