Aircraft Trivia Quiz

simpilot34 wrote:

The P-40 was mediocre as well, but you quickly learn to make the best of what you got and improvise, and it worked. Very dependable mill on the front of a Boomerang. Sort of like an Aussie Wildcat if you will. My guess for the latest is......P-51? Cheers, Richie

Not a P-51.  The warbird in the lawsuit was rarer.   I'm not sure how many are left, but there aren't many.

 The US learned how to enter combat on their terms against the Japanese and started winning.  The Oscar and Zero had both sacraficed everything for maneuverability at slow speeds.  Allied fighters that were capable of fighting at high speeds were able to beat them.  The P-40 was inferior to the P-47, P-38, and P-51, but with the right tactics, it had the ability to fight Japanese fighters in its terms.

The Boomerang was slow and maneuverable, which put it in the same performance envelope as the Zero and Oscar and both of those planes were superior within that envelope.  It may have been an adequate fighter in 1938, but it was terribly outclassed even when it was designed.

Bill 

bondoman wrote:

It's a Wirraway. that's my story and I'm sticking to it!

In this case, you are correct.  You're up.

 Bill

Who is this, what is he building, and what MUCH more successful a/c was he associated with?

bondoman wrote:

Who is this, what is he building, and what MUCH more successful a/c was he associated with?

Is that Waldo Waterman, a model of an aircar design, and was associated with the much more famous Waterman Racer?

Cheers, Richie

Ok I feel bad...all the way to page 2.

This particular designer was quite successful, and sold his company to one of the big US industrial companies.

Niet, Comrade, however it occurred to me it might be you at the bench...

Another hint, before being bought out by his much larger competitor in this field, he sold these:

Brews wrote:

Total guess - Igor Sikorsky, and helicopters.

Igor was a "hairless" genius. LOL

Nein Mein Herren- he's red/white/blue. He built and sold the first as far as I know all metal monoplanes over here, and may have had some connection with a fellow named Hugo.

Is it William Boeing?

Cheers, Richie

That would be William B. Stout, whose main claim to fame is that he was the engineer behind the Ford Trimotor. The Stout Metal Airplane Company was taken over by Ford, who redesigned it for three engines, adding considerably to safety, reliability, payload and commercial success.

He is seen in this picture with a model of the Stout Skycar. This promising project had the major drawback of being deveolped in 1943, a year in which the US avaition industry had one or two higher priorities than a convertable pasenger car/ aircraft.....

For lots of stuff about this admirable gentleman, see here:

 http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/24/william-b-stout-and-his-wonderful-skycar/#more-992

Cheers,

Chris.

chris hall wrote:

He is seen in this picture with a model of the Stout Skycar. This promising project had the major drawback of being deveolped in 1943, a year in which the US avaition industry had one or two higher priorities than a convertable pasenger car/ aircraft..... Cheers, Chris.

An interesting aside here is the fact that the USAAF looked at the Skycar, and procurred one example as the XC-65 and a modified one later as the XC-107 Skycar III.

Chris you are correct. The car is a Stout Scarab, which as you probably know is a term for beetle. So he was a forward thinker, I'd say.

He sold his company to Ford at about the same time that GM owned 40% of Fokker (which division later became North American)

And Cord  had bought Lycoming and Stinson, later to all become Vultee.

So these co.s were all making strategic moves to the future.

Chris, your question.

OK - what's the link between this:

and this:

?

Cheers,

Chris.

Both were built by Boeing?

Cheers, Richie

simpilot34 wrote:

Both were built by Boeing? Cheers, Richie

No, that cannot be, the giant helicopter is the Huges XH-17, not a boeing. It might have used some parts of the B-29 though, because is used all sorts of different aircrafts parts.

My guess would be that it used the B-29 main gear (altough some sources say it was a C-54 gear)

RemcoGrob wrote:

simpilot34 wrote: Both were built by Boeing? Cheers, Richie No, that cannot be, the giant helicopter is the Huges XH-17, not a boeing. It might have used some parts of the B-29 though, because is used all sorts of different aircrafts parts. My guess would be that it used the B-29 main gear (altough some sources say it was a C-54 gear)

Rem, I think your on to something there. Good luck!

Cheers, Richie

Did use some B-29 parts - not the main gear, though - those did, indeed, come from a C-54.

Bonus questioin - if the XH-17 had been put into production, what major factor would have limitied its tactical usefulness?

Cheers,

Chris.

It's height off the ground would have severely limited its usefulness I would say.

Cheers, Richie

simpilot34 wrote:

RemcoGrob wrote:  simpilot34 wrote: Both were built by Boeing? Cheers, Richie No, that cannot be, the giant helicopter is the Huges XH-17, not a boeing. It might have used some parts of the B-29 though, because is used all sorts of different aircrafts parts. My guess would be that it used the B-29 main gear (altough some sources say it was a C-54 gear) Rem, I think your on to something there. Good luck! Cheers, Richie

 I think I have found it, the XH-17 had borrowed a fuel cel from the B-29

chris hall wrote:

Bonus questioin - if the XH-17 had been put into production, what major factor would have limitied its tactical usefulness? Cheers, Chris.

The range of the XH-17 was very short because, less then 100 km, because of the gas guzzeling rotor-tip jets. That was a servere limitation.

That's the one - B-29 fuel cell! Well done, Rem!

It wasn't so much the height of the thing that would have been a problem - after all, many crane helicopters (CH-54, Mil-10R Harke) are long-legged, so that payloads can be driven beneath them. This was particulalry important in early aerial cranes, which had very poor fuel economy, and needed to have the load hooked on before the engines were fired up.

And yes, you're right about the range - one smallish fuel tank and two very powerful (by late 1940s standards) turbojets acting as gas generators for a max. range (that's range, not tactical radius) of 40 miles!

Your turn, Rem! 

Cheers,

Chris.

My turn? oh dear..

 OK, the XH-17 had rotor jets. What other helicopter with rotor jets whent into production and was used in the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands and ...New Guinea?