Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
10-10-2015, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Rcguy59; it will make things a bit easier to follow if you put all the clues in each post, as below. Thanks; Ernie P.
Here we go.
Here we go.
- Built as a follow-on to an earlier, very successful design.
- Combat debut in late 1943.
10-10-2015, 05:08 PM
1. Built as a follow-on to an earlier, very successful design.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
10-10-2015, 05:14 PM
1. Built as a follow-on to an earlier, very successful design.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
10-10-2015, 05:52 PM
1. Built as a follow-on to an earlier, very successful design.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
8. Unarmed recon version was pressurized and could hit 435 mph.
9. Only parts of one still exist.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
8. Unarmed recon version was pressurized and could hit 435 mph.
9. Only parts of one still exist.
10-12-2015, 03:57 PM
1. Built as a follow-on to an earlier, very successful design.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
8. Unarmed recon version was pressurized and could hit 435 mph.
9. Only parts of one still exist.
10. Was employed in photo-recon, anti-shipping and bombing roles.
2. Combat debut in late 1943.
3. Armed and unarmed versions were built.
4. Multi-engine.
5. Axis.
6. Was built with both radial AND inline engines.
7. Just over a thousand built.
8. Unarmed recon version was pressurized and could hit 435 mph.
9. Only parts of one still exist.
10. Was employed in photo-recon, anti-shipping and bombing roles.
10-13-2015, 09:13 AM
10-13-2015, 11:09 AM
MJD got it! Junkers Ju 188. The version that used Jumo 213 engines had 4480 hp at takeoff. That's right in there with a Tigercat. here's a pic of a Ju 188E-1.
10-13-2015, 11:47 AM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Okay, I answered and now I have to pay for it. 
Here goes.. hopefully it will stump readers for more than 17 minutes!
1. Developed for a specific air requirement pre WW-II
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed..
Here goes.. hopefully it will stump readers for more than 17 minutes!
1. Developed for a specific air requirement pre WW-II
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed..
10-13-2015, 08:34 PM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
[QUOTE=MJD;12112565]
1. Developed for a specific air requirement pre WW-II
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed.
5. Electric would be a better choice than glow I think, due to the engine orientation on this single engine aircraft.
6. Observation role.
1. Developed for a specific air requirement pre WW-II
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed.
5. Electric would be a better choice than glow I think, due to the engine orientation on this single engine aircraft.
6. Observation role.
10-14-2015, 06:40 AM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
1. Developed for a specific air requirement pre WW-II
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed.
5. Electric would be a better choice than glow I think, due to the engine orientation on this single engine aircraft.
6. Observation role.
7. The other unsuccessful candidate for the role had its number - unusually - reassigned to a unique aircraft that went operational (with a different prefix).
2. Promising charactieristics
3. But, there were two specific issues mentioned that put it out of the running. There were two (AFAIK) other contenders for the role.
4. I think it would make a cool sport scale model, good luck getting the data for anything more detailed.
5. Electric would be a better choice than glow I think, due to the engine orientation on this single engine aircraft.
6. Observation role.
7. The other unsuccessful candidate for the role had its number - unusually - reassigned to a unique aircraft that went operational (with a different prefix).