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

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Reply

Old 04-12-2018, 12:10 PM
  #15676  
Sekhet
My Feedback: (1)
 
Sekhet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Martinsville, WV
Posts: 120
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Well, the first plane that comes to mind is the Grumman FF, so let's get it out of the way first. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Grumman FF "Fifi" (company designation G-5) was an American biplane fighter aircraft operated by the United States Navy during the 1930s. It was the first carrier aircraft with retractable landing gear. It was produced under licence in Canada and known as the Goblin in Canadian service and Delfin (enolphin) in Spanish service.
Shazam, good job Ernie, seems like some strange magic go'n on here.
Sekhet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2018, 12:42 PM
  #15677  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 8,957
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I was thinking the F2F or F3F myself since they were early Grumman birds. I didn't know the FF was also built and flown by Canada and Spain
The Japanese bought one just to reverse engineer the retractable landing gear.
FlyerInOKC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2018, 02:24 PM
  #15678  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 6,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
The Japanese bought one just to reverse engineer the retractable landing gear.
Funny part is they never used the design as all of their planes used wing mounted gear. AFAIK, the only planes that ever used that style gear were the FF through the Wildcat. I've never seen any other plane with this style gear installed
Hydro Junkie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2018, 02:42 PM
  #15679  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
Darn it Ernie you are too good! I didn't think anyone would catch on so quick since it had never really touted for its war service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_FF
Not so much good as just lucky, FlyerInOKC. I'll have something up shortly. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2018, 02:45 PM
  #15680  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Funny part is they never used the design as all of their planes used wing mounted gear. AFAIK, the only planes that ever used that style gear were the FF through the Wildcat. I've never seen any other plane with this style gear installed
Sure you have, Hydro Junkie; you just forgot about them. How about the Consolidated PBY Catalina; The Grumman flying boats (Mallard, Albatross and Goose, among others) and even the Short SA6 Sealand all used variations of the same idea. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2018, 04:19 PM
  #15681  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

And here we go again. I hope you all enjoy the ride. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 05:17 AM
  #15682  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Today's clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 07:47 AM
  #15683  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 8,957
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Sounds like most of the airplanes Howard Hughes built!
FlyerInOKC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 08:12 AM
  #15684  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
Sounds like most of the airplanes Howard Hughes built!
Perhaps so, FlyerInOKC; but this had nothing to do with Mr. Hughes. Here's a bonus clue for you. Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just donít work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didnít work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 08:20 AM
  #15685  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

All;

A few interesting observations about this forum. This forum has been in use on a daily basis for more than eight (8) years. There have been more than 15,000 replies; and we're approaching 3/4 million "views". Not bad, I'd say. Obviously, we have long ago gone through all the better known warbirds, or at least the commonly known facts dealing with those warbirds. I'm still enjoying the interplay and knowledge gained; so here's a sincere "Thank You" to all you experts who have added to the fun. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 03:22 PM
  #15686  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 6,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I know I've not been involved with this thread near that long but I have to agree, it's amazing what's been used for quiz subjects and how much has been talked about. Any bets this thread hits 30,000 posts?
Hydro Junkie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 07:03 PM
  #15687  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I know I've not been involved with this thread near that long but I have to agree, it's amazing what's been used for quiz subjects and how much has been talked about. Any bets this thread hits 30,000 posts?
It will if we keep going. Speaking of which, tomorrow is going to be a long day, so here's my morning clue a bit early. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just donít work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didnít work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2018, 08:10 PM
  #15688  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 6,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I was thinking the XB-15 or the XB-19 but neither one had more than the prototype built. How about the Heinkel HE-280 twinjet fighter
Hydro Junkie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 01:45 AM
  #15689  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I was thinking the XB-15 or the XB-19 but neither one had more than the prototype built. How about the Heinkel HE-280 twinjet fighter
The He-280 was an interesting bird, but not the one we're seeking. None of those, Hydro Junkie; but here's a bonus clue for the attempt. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just donít work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didnít work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 04:03 AM
  #15690  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 1,805
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How about the Arado Ar 231?
Top_Gunn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2018, 03:50 PM
  #15691  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
How about the Arado Ar 231?
Not the Arado, Al. But here's another clue to aid your research. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just donít work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didnít work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as its owning service was concerned.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 02:10 AM
  #15692  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as its owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

Last edited by Ernie P.; 04-15-2018 at 02:14 AM.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2018, 08:46 AM
  #15693  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 07:36 AM
  #15694  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 06:01 PM
  #15695  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

No answers for a couple of days, so I guess you guys need more clues. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 01:36 AM
  #15696  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 06:21 AM
  #15697  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 8,957
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How about the Nakajima J1N?
FlyerInOKC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 07:52 AM
  #15698  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
How about the Nakajima J1N?
Good guess, FlyerInOKC, but not correct. But here's a bonus clue to help you out. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just donít work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didnít work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as itís owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didnít work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice. 12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 02:56 PM
  #15699  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 6,908
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How about the D4Y1 Suisei (Comet)? It's first combat operation was at Midway as a water cooled DB 600G scout bomber. It was later reconfigured to use a Kinsei 62 radial engine. It was able to outrun all allied fighters used in the Pacific EXCEPT the P-38, P-39 and all P-40s after the B version. It didn't have to face any of these until after the US Marines captured Henderson Field in the second half of 1942 and, even then, it was initially just the P-39 and that wasn't able to cope with with the escorting A6Ms

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 04-17-2018 at 05:46 PM.
Hydro Junkie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2018, 07:28 PM
  #15700  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,690
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
How about the D4Y1 Suisei (Comet)? It's first combat operation was at Midway as a water cooled DB 600G scout bomber. It was later reconfigured to use a Kinsei 62 radial engine. It was able to outrun all allied fighters used in the Pacific EXCEPT the P-38, P-39 and all P-40s after the B version. It didn't have to face any of these until after the US Marines captured Henderson Field in the second half of 1942 and, even then, it was initially just the P-39 and that wasn't able to cope with with the escorting A6Ms
An interesting aircraft all on its own; but not the interesting plane for which we seek, Hydro Junkie. Concentrate on Clue (7). And again, here's a bonus clue for your efforts. Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy