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 12-12-2015, 06:09 PM
  #12426  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.
Old 12-12-2015, 07:33 PM
  #12427  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Old 12-12-2015, 07:35 PM
  #12428  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.
Old 12-12-2015, 09:14 PM
  #12429  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.

8. At one point in it's service life, it's .50 cal. guns were replaced by 20mm cannons.
Old 12-13-2015, 02:44 AM
  #12430  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.

8. At one point in it's service life, it's .50 cal. guns were replaced by 20mm cannons.

9. It was built by three different manufacturers.
Old 12-13-2015, 03:21 PM
  #12431  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Sounds like the B-35. It's latest incarnation is the B-2 Spirit
Old 12-13-2015, 04:36 PM
  #12432  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Looks like you've covered your bases. Next time do one at a time..MOR HINTZ.
FWIW...if you get the MA mag, check out page 103 in the Dec issue....a great pic of a "scratch bash" built DH 108 Swallow. Sort of like the Hortons.
Old 12-13-2015, 05:20 PM
  #12433  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The DH-108 was actually inspired by the Me163. The wing sweep was increased in hopes of supersonic performance. The airplane had serious (and fatal) handling issues and was basically a dead-end. The fuselage was modified from a Vampire unit. Due to the rearward movement of the center of pressure of a wing in supersonic flight, about the only tailless, supersonic airplanes to succeed have been deltas.
Old 12-13-2015, 05:24 PM
  #12434  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Sounds like the B-35. It's latest incarnation is the B-2 Spirit
Check out clue #6 and compare it to the B-35.
Old 12-13-2015, 05:27 PM
  #12435  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.

8. At one point in it's service life, it's .50 cal. guns were replaced by 20mm cannons.

9. It was built by three different manufacturers.

10. This warbird pioneered the use of what is now known as SAS (Stability Augmentation System) AND anti-lock brakes.
Old 12-13-2015, 05:41 PM
  #12436  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

F-104 Starfighter.
Old 12-13-2015, 05:48 PM
  #12437  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

F-4 Phantom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonn...F-4_Phantom_II




OOPS the F-4 had 20 mm canon added but I Don't think it ever had 50 cals. none the less i'm going with the venerable McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II\\
Old 12-13-2015, 05:55 PM
  #12438  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Not the F-104 or the F-4. Take another look at clue #3...
Old 12-13-2015, 05:59 PM
  #12439  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.

8. At one point in it's service life, it's .50 cal. guns were replaced by 20mm cannons.

9. It was built by three different manufacturers.

10. This warbird pioneered the use of what is now known as SAS (Stability Augmentation System) AND anti-lock brakes.

11. This warbird's landing gear was quite novel at the time, though it was used for very good reasons.
Old 12-13-2015, 06:34 PM
  #12440  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

P-47 Thunderbolt http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-2.html
and the A-10 Thunderbolt II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch...Thunderbolt_II
Old 12-13-2015, 07:01 PM
  #12441  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You guys are thinking too small!

1. This warbird never saw combat in it's intended role, though some were lost to hostile action.

2. When introduced, it was among the fastest military aircraft of it's time.

3. It was also one of the heaviest.

4. It was demanding to fly, even more so to land.

5. It established design elements that are so common today that we hardly give them a second thought.

6. The amount of time between the maiden flight of the prototype and the last flight of a production example was almost 40 years.

7. It's successor has lasted even longer.

8. At one point in it's service life, it's .50 cal. guns were replaced by 20mm cannons.

9. It was built by three different manufacturers.

10. This warbird pioneered the use of what is now known as SAS (Stability Augmentation System) AND anti-lock brakes.

11. This warbird's landing gear was quite novel at the time, though it was used for very good reasons.

12. The vast majority of WW2 fighters had a gross weight of LESS than this warbird's payload.
Old 12-13-2015, 07:27 PM
  #12442  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Buff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, the B-52. It's just got to be!

Last edited by porcia83; 12-13-2015 at 07:32 PM.
Old 12-13-2015, 07:31 PM
  #12443  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
F-4 Phantom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonn...F-4_Phantom_II




OOPS the F-4 had 20 mm canon added but I Don't think it ever had 50 cals. none the less i'm going with the venerable McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II\\
I think a single 50 cal was strapped to the bottom of the plane initially,I seem to recall the first models not having any guns, later the gun pod was attached, and then later models had a single unit built in.
Old 12-13-2015, 09:49 PM
  #12444  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Buff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit: Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding, the B-52. It's just got to be!
Fairly close, but see clue #6...
Old 12-14-2015, 04:10 AM
  #12445  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Has to be the B-47

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 12-14-2015 at 04:12 AM.
Old 12-14-2015, 04:16 AM
  #12446  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I said that about the B-52, but I think you're right.
Old 12-14-2015, 06:30 AM
  #12447  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Has to be the B-47
[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 315"]
[TR]
[TH]Role[/TH]
[TD]Strategic bomber/Aerial reconnaissance[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD]Boeing Aircraft Company[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Designer[/TH]
[TD]Boeing[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First flight[/TH]
[TD]17 December 1947 <----------[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Introduction[/TH]
[TD]June 1951 30 years[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Retired[/TH]
[TD]1969, B-47E Not 40
1977, EB-47E <---------------[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Primary user[/TH]
[TD]U.S. Air Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Number built[/TH]
[TD]2,032[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Unit cost[/TH]
[TD]US$1.9 million (B-47E)[SUP][1][/SUP]equivalent to $20.1 million in current value[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Old 12-14-2015, 07:34 AM
  #12448  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You got it, HoundDog. Clue #6 said last flight, not retirement. Have a look at this: http://johnweeks.com/b47/b47castle.html


Last edited by rcguy59; 12-14-2015 at 07:37 AM.
Old 12-14-2015, 07:40 AM
  #12449  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

B 52
Flight test evaluation of an advanced stability augmentation system for B-52 aircraft.


Read More: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/...journalCode=ja
Old 12-14-2015, 07:58 AM
  #12450  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The B-47 was a hell of an achievement in it's day. Not many airplanes designed in the mid to late 40's still appear as modern as the B-47 does. Without it, Boeing would never have attempted the model 367-80 when they did. Structurally and aerodynamically, the B-47 was infinitely more complex than it's contemporaries, the F-86 and MiG-15. At Boeing, the airplane was known as the "Sacred Airplane" because upon seeing it for the first time, most people's reaction was "Holy Christ !".

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.