Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
#9228
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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.
#9230
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
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.
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.
#9231
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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
2Χ 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 aircraft machine guns in the engine cowling, with 500 rounds per gun.
2Χ 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon in the wings, with 60 rounds per gun.
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
2Χ 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 aircraft machine guns in the engine cowling, with 500 rounds per gun.
2Χ 20 mm Type 99-1 cannon in the wings, with 60 rounds per gun.
#9235
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
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
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
#9237
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
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
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
#9238
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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
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
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.
#9239
RCU Forum Manager/Admin
My Feedback: (9)
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.
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.
#9240
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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.
Question: What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
(1) Of all Spitfires, this one was truly unique.
#9241
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.
#9242
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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.
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.
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.
#9244
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
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.
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.