Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Old 01-13-2014, 04:55 PM
  #9226  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

AAGgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old 01-13-2014, 06:49 PM
  #9227  
mattnew
My Feedback: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Haverhill, MA
Posts: 821
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I thought it was going to be the L-133 until it ended up having a tail wheel..... hmmm I'm completely stumped.....
Old 01-13-2014, 07:27 PM
  #9228  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MJD
AAGgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please don't be too frustrated, MJD. For you to be completely frustrated should take several more clues. But here's another clue to aid the process. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) There were only two prototypes constructed; but its influence was perhaps profound.

(2) It was a single seat, single engine, low wing monoplane of all metal construction.

(3) It was equipped with a tailwheel and retractible main landing gear.

(4) It was a promising design, but by the time it was ready for production, other perhaps more capable aircraft were already in production. So, this one was abandoned by the powers that be.

(5) To some it was an unneeded design. But others may well have seen it as a pattern.

(6) It was intended to meet a specific design for use in a certain area; but eventually it was decided to leave both the design and the use unfilled. This was perhaps due to more pressing concerns.

(7) The designs which ultimately obseleted this aircraft were based on other, newer engines with much more power and development potential.
Old 01-13-2014, 08:09 PM
  #9229  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 810
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Caproni Campini N.1?
Old 01-13-2014, 08:24 PM
  #9230  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Ok, this was totally off of a Google search. But here's what I came up with as an answer to this question.

Gloster F.5/34

The Gloster F.5/34 was a British fighter of the 1930s. It was a single-seat, single-enginemonoplane of all-metal cantilever construction; the undercarriage was of the tailwheel type with retractable main units.
Produced in competition with other designs to meet a requirement for a fighter aircraft that could operate in the far East, it was overtaken by more capable designs and the requirement was abandoned with no aircraft being selected.
Old 01-14-2014, 02:25 AM
  #9231  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

You got it, RCKen; Google search or no. You are good at this Google use. And, you are up! There is a persistent legend the Gloster F.5/34 was the model for the Japanese Zero fighter. Look at the photos, compare the specs, and it's easy to understand why the legend exists. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) There were only two prototypes constructed; but its influence was perhaps profound.

(2) It was a single seat, single engine, low wing monoplane of all metal construction.

(3) It was equipped with a tailwheel and retractible main landing gear.

(4) It was a promising design, but by the time it was ready for production, other perhaps more capable aircraft were already in production. So, this one was abandoned by the powers that be.

(5) To some it was an unneeded design. But others may well have seen it as a pattern.

(6) It was intended to meet a specific design for use in a certain area; but eventually it was decided to leave both the design and the use unfilled. This was perhaps due to more pressing concerns.

(7) The designs which ultimately obseleted this aircraft were based on other, newer engines with much more power and development potential.

(8) Development of the design was delayed by the necessity of maintaining the production of other existing aircraft.

(9) Reports from test flights indicated this design was superior in many ways to other contemporary designs. It was able to take off in less space, its initial climb was superior and it was more responsive. It was more maneuverable and lighter on the controls; and pilot visibility was superior.

(10) There is a persistent legend that this plane was the inspiration for a new foreign aircraft; one that ultimately became an enemy.

(11) The enemy aircraft was considered a seminal design; one destined to become far more successful and famous than the original, copied design.

(12) A close study of this aircraft and its supposed copycat would seem to support the copycat theory. The two designs were superficially very similar.

(13) The design specifications and details were very similar. Dimensions, weights and wing loading were very close; as was overall performance.

(14) The name of this fighter was… Well, actually, it didn’t have a name.

(15) It was known only by the design specification it was intended to satisfy.

Answer: The Gloster F.5/34

The Gloster F.5/34 was a British fighter of the 1930s. It was a single-seat, single-engine monoplane of all-metal cantilever construction; the undercarriage was of the tailwheel type with retractable main units.

Produced in competition with other designs to meet a requirement for a fighter aircraft that could operate in the far East, it was overtaken by more capable designs and the requirement was abandoned with no aircraft being selected.

The F.5/34 was the first monoplane fighter built by Gloster and the last design penned by H.P. Folland for the company. It was developed in response to Air Ministry Specification F.5/34, for a fighter using an air-cooled engine armed with eight machine guns suitable for hot climate use. Powered by an 840 hp Bristol Mercury IX nine-cylinder radial engine, the F.5/34, unofficially dubbed the "Unnamed Fighter", was the company's first monoplane landplane design and featured many of the trademark Gloster design elements including the tail and close-fitting cowling that resembled the earlier Gauntlet and Gladiator biplane fighters. The low wing cantilever mainplane was built in one piece with light-alloy spars running through from tip to tip and ribs made from channelling with steel and light-alloy tube struts. Duralumin stressed-skin was used on the mainplane and tail unit with fabric-covered Frise ailerons. The fuselage was a monocoque structure built up from light, fabricated oval-section rings with duralumin skinning.

Development was delayed somewhat by the demands of the Gladiator production programme so that flight trials of the first prototype did not commence until December 1937 while the second prototype was not completed until May 1938.

In competition with the Gloster for the requirement were the Bristol Type 146, Martin-Baker M.B.2 and the Vickers Venom, which would be tested by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment. Flight Magazine (July 1 1937) shows the F.5/34 taking off from Hucclecote airdrome and mentions its appearance at the RAF Display of that year. By the time the F.5/34 began its flight tests, the 8-gun Hawker Hurricane was in service and the Supermarine Spitfire in production so that further development of the Gloster fighter was abandoned. However, compared to its contemporaries, test pilots found the F.5/34 prototypes had a shorter takeoff, better initial climb, were more responsive and manoeuvrable due to ailerons that did not become excessively heavy at high speed. Handling was considered very good and the all-round cockpit visibility was far better than the other designs. The Gloster F.5/34 debuted at the 1938 Hendon Air Show, but soon after, both prototypes (K5604 and K8089) were relegated to experimental flying and finally as instructional airframes until May 1941.

A legend exists that the F.5/34 was the inspiration for the Japanese Zero, probably stemming from a superficial similarity between the two machines and Gloster's past links with the Japanese such as the Nakajima A2N.

F.5/34
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 32 ft (9.76 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 2 in (11.63 m)
Height: 10 ft 2 in (3.09 m)
Wing area: 230 ft² (21.4 m²)
Empty weight: 4,190 lb (1,900 kg)
Loaded weight: 5,400 lb (2,449 kg)
Powerplant: 1 Χ Bristol Mercury IX nine-cylinder radial engine, 840 hp (627 kW)

Performance
Maximum speed: 275 knots (316 mph, 509 km/h at) at 16,000 ft (4,875 m)
Service ceiling: 32,500 ft [4] (9,910 m)
Wing loading: 23.5 lb/ft² (88.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.156 hp/lb (0.256 kW/kg)
Time to 20,000 ft (6,100 m): 11 min
Armament
Guns: Eight 0.303-in (7.7-mm) Browning machine guns

Zero
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,410 kg (5,313 lb)
Powerplant: 1 Χ Nakajima Sakae 12 radial engine, 709 kW (950 hp)
Aspect ratio: 6.4
Performance
Never exceed speed: 660 km/h (356 kn, 410 mph)
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 kn, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nmi, 1,929 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns:


Divergence of trajectories between 7.7 mm and 20mm ammunition

7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 aircraft machine guns in the engine cowling, with 500 rounds per gun.
20 mm Type 99-1 cannon in the wings, with 60 rounds per gun.
Old 01-14-2014, 07:27 AM
  #9232  
MJD
My Feedback: (1)
 
MJD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Ok RCKen, where's the next question? This is fun even if I suck at it.
Old 01-14-2014, 08:54 AM
  #9233  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MJD
Ok RCKen, where's the next question? This is fun even if I suck at it.

Actually, I think you're doing pretty well. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 01-14-2014, 09:26 AM
  #9234  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

I'm at a client location this morning and have limited internet access. I'll get a question posted as soon as I'm back at my office here in a little bit.

Ken
Old 01-14-2014, 10:37 AM
  #9235  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

OK guys, I'm back in my office eating lunch. I've got a new quiz worked up for you all. Here goes.

What warbird am I?


1. At first glance I am often mistaken for a more famous warbird from the same time frame.
2. First introduced in 1942, but had a relatively short military lifespan
Old 01-14-2014, 10:43 AM
  #9236  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,344
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Wild guess: P-63?
Old 01-14-2014, 11:40 AM
  #9237  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn
Wild guess: P-63?
That's a good guess, but not the plane I am going for here.

What warbird am I?


1. At first glance I am often mistaken for a more famous warbird from the same time frame.
2. First introduced in 1942, but had a relatively short military lifespan
3. This plane also had 2 guns mounted in the nose
Old 01-14-2014, 01:44 PM
  #9238  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RCKen
That's a good guess, but not the plane I am going for here.

What warbird am I?


1. At first glance I am often mistaken for a more famous warbird from the same time frame.
2. First introduced in 1942, but had a relatively short military lifespan
3. This plane also had 2 guns mounted in the nose
How about the early Mustangs; which were often mistaken for Bf 109's? Specifically, the A-36 Apache; which had twin .50's mounted in the nose and was introduced in 1942? Thanks; Ernie P.


The North American A-36 Apache (listed in some sources as "Invader", but also called Mustang) was the ground-attack/dive bomber version of the North American P-51 Mustang, from which it could be distinguished by the presence of rectangular, slatted dive brakes above and below the wings. A total of 500 A-36 dive bombers served in North Africa, the Mediterranean, Italy and the China-Burma-India theater during World War II before being withdrawn from operational use in 1944.

With the introduction of the North American Mustang I with the RAF Army Co-operation Squadrons in February 1942, the new fighter began combat missions as a low-altitude reconnaissance and ground-support aircraft. Supplementing the Curtiss P-40 Tomahawks already in service, Mustang Is were first supplied to No. 26 Squadron RAF, then rapidly deployed to 10 additional squadrons by June 1942. First used in combat over the Dieppe Raid on 19 August 1942, a Mustang of No. 414 (RCAF) Squadron downed one of the formidable Focke-Wulf Fw 190, the first victory for a Mustang.[2] Despite the limited high-altitude performance of the Allison V-1710 engine, the RAF was enthusiastic about its new mount which "performed magnificently."[3]

During the Mustang I's successful combat initiation, North American's president Howard "Dutch" Kindelberger pressed the newly redesignated U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) for a fighter contract for the essentially similar P-51, 93 of which had passed into the USAAF when the Lend-Lease contract with Britain ran out of funds. The Mustang IA/P-51 used four 20 mm Hispano wing cannon in place of the original four .30 in (7.62 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns and two .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns mounted in the wings and two .50 in (12.7 mm) "chin" machine guns. No funds were available for new fighter contracts in fiscal year 1942, but General Oliver P. Echols and Fighter Project Officer Benjamin S. Kelsey[4] wanted to ensure the P-51 remained in production.
Old 01-14-2014, 02:21 PM
  #9239  
RCKen
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
 
RCKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 27,759
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

I thought that I had a difficult one this time. But Ernie has it correct. I was thinking of the A-36 Apache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36_Apache


What warbird am I?


1. At first glance I am often mistaken for a more famous warbird from the same time frame.
2. First introduced in 1942, but had a relatively short military lifespan
3. This plane also had 2 guns mounted in the nose
4. Modifications resulted in the loss of some of the guns mounted in the wing
5. While this plane was a modification of an existing warbird, the modifications required for its new role required a complete redesign of the wing.
6. This plane was powered by and Allison engine.
7. Modifications to the wing included strengthening the wing, fitting with bomb racks, and adding dive brakes.
8. 500 of this plane were produced.
9. Plane was designed for an attack/dive bomber role.
10. Plane was first deployed to North Africa in early 1943.
11. Plane could be put into a dive at 12,000' and the dive brakes would limit the plane speed to 390 mph.
12. In a dive bombs were released between 2,000'-4.000'
13. This plane had some serious accidents because of improper dive techniques, including one dive at over 450 mph that caused the plane to shed both wings.
14. Even though this variant had it's own name, most pilots tend to call it by the name given to the plane it was based on.
15. The Germans gave is a flattering and fearsome name of "Screaming Helldiver".
16. Even though these planes had a breif life, they played a major role in the Allied war effort.
Old 01-14-2014, 07:02 PM
  #9240  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Thank you, RCKen. This next question can only have a very few clues before the answer becomes obvious; but I think it will make a good question nonetheless. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) Of all Spitfires, this one was truly unique.
Old 01-14-2014, 07:19 PM
  #9241  
MajorTomski
 
MajorTomski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 2,536
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P.
Thank you, RCKen. This next question can only have a very few clues before the answer becomes obvious; but I think it will make a good question nonetheless. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) Of all Spitfires, this one was truly unique.
OK two unique Spit airframes:
Technically the prototype K5054 was different from all other spits, It took a lot of mods to get it to Mk.I configuration.

Or, the "Speed Spitfire" an early Mk. I highly modified strictly for speed, couldn't go back to a combat configuration.
Old 01-15-2014, 02:44 AM
  #9242  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MajorTomski
OK two unique Spit airframes:
Technically the prototype K5054 was different from all other spits, It took a lot of mods to get it to Mk.I configuration.

Or, the "Speed Spitfire" an early Mk. I highly modified strictly for speed, couldn't go back to a combat configuration.
Great answer, but there was another "unique" Spitfire; and that's the one I want. Thanks; Ernie P.


Sorry guys, having some problems posting this. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) Of all Spitfires, this one was truly unique.

(2) There was only ever one.
Old 01-15-2014, 03:53 AM
  #9243  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 478
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Spitfire with DB605 engine?

Best Regards,
=Adrian=
Old 01-15-2014, 05:18 AM
  #9244  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by adavis
Spitfire with DB605 engine?

Best Regards,
=Adrian=
That's the one, Adrian. Good job; and you are now up! Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) Of all Spitfires, this one was truly unique.

(2) There was only ever one.

(3) Any yet, any RAF pilot would have agreed, that one was one too many.

Answer: The German Daimler Benz powered Spitfire VB

German Daimler Benz powered Spitfire VB

In November 1942 a Spitfire VB EN830 NX-X of 131 Squadron made a forced landing in a turnip field at Dielament Manor, Trinity, Jersey, under German occupation at the time. This aircraft was repairable and started being test flown in German markings and colours at the Luftwaffe's central research facilities at Erprobungsstelle Rechlin. There it was proposed that the Spitfire's Merlin engine should be replaced by a Daimler-Benz DB 605A inverted Vee-12 engine; the Spitfire was sent to Echterdingen, south of Stuttgart, where Daimler-Benz operated a flight testing division.

When the Merlin engine was removed it was discovered that the fuselage cross section was virtually identical to that of the engine nacelle of a Messerschmitt Bf-110G. Consequently a new engine support structure was built onto the Spitfire's fuselage and the DB 605 engine and cowling panels added. A propeller unit and supercharger air intake from a Bf 109 G completed the installation.

Other changes made were to replace the Spitfire instruments with German types, and to change the 12-volt electrical system to the German 24-volt type. In this form the Daimler-Benz Spitfire started flying in early 1944. It was popular with German pilots and was flown regularly until destroyed in a USAAF bombing raid on 14 August 1944.
Old 01-16-2014, 02:36 AM
  #9245  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Adavis;

Adrian; you are up, buddy. Please post your question. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 01-16-2014, 05:49 AM
  #9246  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 478
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sorry about the delay - I'll have something ready later today.

Best Regards,
=Adrian=
Old 01-16-2014, 11:35 AM
  #9247  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 478
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Next warbird:-

1) Single engine.

2) Low wing.

3) Monoplane.

4) Mainly built from wood.

Best Regards,
=Adrain=
Old 01-16-2014, 12:23 PM
  #9248  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 810
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Bell XP-77?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_XP-77
Old 01-16-2014, 03:06 PM
  #9249  
JDMJim
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Joliet, IL
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hurricane
Old 01-17-2014, 03:29 AM
  #9250  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 478
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Next clue:-

1) Single engine.

2) Low wing.

3) Monoplane.

4) Mainly built from wood.

5) Less than 50 produced.

Best Regards,
=Adrain=

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.