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

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Reply

Old 11-07-2018, 07:54 PM
  #16551  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 9,322
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

All hail the conquering hero Hydro Junkie! We shall put you on the finest chariot and parade you through the arch d'triumph! We will throw rose petals as you pass while a Nubian slave rides on your left and whispers "All fame is fleeting" in your ear.
FlyerInOKC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2018, 08:07 PM
  #16552  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Okay you two, laugh it up. I don't think I would want to be royalty anyway, just had to have a little fun with OKC's post " After finding that plane, you the man!!!! Whether you are right or not!"
Now, with the mutual HA HA's out of the way, give me a bit and I'll see what I can come up with.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 03:20 AM
  #16553  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

A later clue, had it been necessary, would have been that a torpedo plane version of the Ansaldo SVA was developed. Talk about a plane that could, and did, do it all! Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 05:36 AM
  #16554  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 9,322
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
A later clue, had it been necessary, would have been that a torpedo plane version of the Ansaldo SVA was developed. Talk about a plane that could, and did, do it all! Thanks; Ernie P.
An impressive plane to say the least. I'm surprised its not better known. Then again you don't see much attention to the Italian front at all. I think most people only know it from Ernest Hemingway. Granted the Italian front was a disaster and Italy was pretty much ignored at Versailles. No wonder the joined the Axis in WWII.

Last edited by FlyerInOKC; 11-08-2018 at 05:42 AM.
FlyerInOKC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:42 AM
  #16555  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
An impressive plane to say the least. I'm surprised its not better known. Then again you don't see much attention to the Italian front at all. I think most people only know it from Ernest Hemingway. Granted the Italian front was a disaster and Italy was pretty much ignored at Versailles. No wonder the joined the Axis in WWII.
Sir; I can only surmise that, since Italy had never produced a successful small aircraft, France and England consciously chose to ignore the SVA. The only successful WWI aircraft, to that point, produced in Italy were those from Caproni, and they were all heavy bombers. It could be France and England, heavily invested in production of the Nieuport, Morane-Saulnier, SPAD, Se5, DH and Camel aircraft preferred not to take a chance on an Italian aircraft. That sounds plausible; but since both countries were actually allowed to test the prototypes aircraft, they certainly weren't acting from ignorance. And that's kind of ironic; because the Ansaldo SVA was designed specifically to correct that false impression of Italian aircraft being a bit behind in the development cycle. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:52 AM
  #16556  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 9,322
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Maybe Italy starting out on the Austrian/German side prewar but not joining in in 1914 and then not switching to the British/French side until April 1915 caused some unspoken suspicions with their WWI allies? They were defiantly treated like the proverbial redhead stepchild at Versailles when the Armistice was negotiated. They remind me of powerful vassals in feudal Japan swapping side some times more than once after the battle started.
FlyerInOKC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 09:30 AM
  #16557  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
Maybe Italy starting out on the Austrian/German side prewar but not joining in in 1914 and then not switching to the British/French side until April 1915 caused some unspoken suspicions with their WWI allies? They were defiantly treated like the proverbial redhead stepchild at Versailles when the Armistice was negotiated. They remind me of powerful vassals in feudal Japan swapping side some times more than once after the battle started.
Sir; perhaps so. Then there's that little thing about Italy not having started a war, and finishing that war, on the same side, in well over 350 years. Of one thing I am sure; when people, or a people, act in a certain way, they generally continue in that direction. It might simply be the allies didn't want to invest too much of their aviation efforts in Italy's hands. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 03:02 PM
  #16558  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Okay guys, I figure it's time to give you something a bit harder than my last few quiz's have been. That said, I found a nice and obscure airplane for you.
With all that said, time for the first couple of clues:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
Good Luck
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 05:53 PM
  #16559  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,199
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

SR-71
F-4
Thank God the Navy never got the F-111
elmshoot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:22 PM
  #16560  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by elmshoot View Post
SR-71
F-4
Thank God the Navy never got the F-111
No, No and No. The SR-71 was built for the Air Force, the F-4 was built for the Air Force, Navy AND Marines and, if not rejected by the Navy, the F-111B would have been the plane on the carrier decks rather than the F-14.
I guess that means you get another clue:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
Good Luck
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 08:22 PM
  #16561  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Okay guys, I figure it's time to give you something a bit harder than my last few quiz's have been. That said, I found a nice and obscure airplane for you.
With all that said, time for the first couple of clues:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
Good Luck
How about the YC-121F? Thanks; Ernie P.

Answer: The YC-121F .

On 18 August 1950, the United States Navy signed a contract for 11 military transport versions of the Lockheed L-1049. The aircraft were to have been convertible troop/cargo transports, based on the model L-1049B (which was already being constructed as the PO-2W Warning Star). The R7O-1 would have also featured round portholes in place of the rectangular ones on Air Force C-121C Constellations. The aircraft entered evaluation service in the Navy's oldest test squadron, VX-1, based in Patuxent River, Maryland.

In November 1951, an idea came about to build a turbine-powered version of the R7O-1. This new aircraft was designated L-1249A by Lockheed. In 1954, two R7O-1s (then designated R7V-1) were pulled off the assembly line for conversion into prototypes for the new L-1249A. The landing gear was strengthened along with the fuselage and wings of the aircraft. Extra fuel tanks were also added on the wingtips of the two aircraft, increasing the fuel capacity to 7,360 gallons. The wings were also shortened from 123 ft 9 in (37.719 m) to 117 ft 7 in (35.84 m). Finally, four Pratt & Whitney YT34-P-12A turboprop engines, rated at 5,500 bhp (4,100 kW) each, were installed in place of the usual Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone radial engines. The new aircraft was designated R7V-2, and first flew on 1 September 1954. The R7V-2 reached 412 mph (663.05 km/h) making it the fastest transport aircraft in the world at the time. The two R7V-2 aircraft were delivered to the Navy on 10 September the same year.

In 1953, the United States Air Force became interested in the L-1249A project. Two R7V-1 aircraft were again taken off the production lines in 1955 and converted to L-1249A standards. These aircraft, designated YC-121F, were identical to the R7V-2s in service with the Navy. The YC-121F was able to carry a crew of four and 87-106 passengers, depending on the conditions of the flight (transoceanic and overland). Lockheed also had a planned medical evacuation version, able to carry 73 Stretcher cases and a crew of 15. The R7V-2 and YC-121F both had a cabin similar to the R7V-1 and C-121C. The first YC-121F flew on 5 April 1955 and was delivered to the Air Force in July 1955. The aircraft were put into service with the Test Squadron of the 1700th Air Transport Group of the Military Air Transport Service, based at Kelly Air Force Base, Texas. Other aircraft in the Squadron included the YC-97J Stratofreighter and YC-124B Globemaster II, both also powered by T34 engines.[1]
[2]
After undergoing brief testing, the YC-121F was used on regular basis transportation flights. On one occasion, Lockheed test pilot Roy Wimmer managed to reach a top speed of 479 mph (770.88 km/h) in the YC-121F during a 20 degree dive. On 25 January 1957, a new transcontinental record for propeller aircraft was set by a YC-121F which flew from Long Beach to Andrews AFB, Maryland, in four hours and 43 minutes.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2018, 09:49 PM
  #16562  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Not a Super Connie, considering that the Super Connie was a four engine plane with lots of seats. Our subject aircraft was a twin with two seats.
Time for another clue:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
4) This plane had a design feature not seen again on this class of airplane for over a decade
Good Luck

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 11-08-2018 at 10:04 PM.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 03:13 AM
  #16563  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Not a Super Connie, considering that the Super Connie was a four engine plane with lots of seats. Our subject aircraft was a twin with two seats.
Time for another clue:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
4) This plane had a design feature not seen again on this class of airplane for over a decade
Good Luck
Yeah, I think you and I were posting at the same time. Okay; two engines and two crew members. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 06:48 AM
  #16564  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

So I see, looking at the post times.
Time for another clue(or two) as well:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
4) This plane had a design feature not seen again on this class of airplane for over a decade
5) For commonality, this plane used the same engine as another plane being developed by the same manufacturer
6) Neither of the planes in clue 5 were accepted by the service they were being built for due to changing weapon technology
Good Luck
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 07:15 AM
  #16565  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 9,322
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How about the Petlyakov VI-100?
FlyerInOKC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 07:23 AM
  #16566  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Not the VI-100.
You did earn another clue though:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
4) This plane had a design feature not seen again on this class of airplane for over a decade
5) For commonality, this plane used the same engine as another plane being developed by the same manufacturer
6) Neither of the planes in clue 5 were accepted by the service they were being built for due to changing weapon technology
7) Both of the planes in clue 5 were designed to fly at high altitudes
Good Luck
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 08:03 AM
  #16567  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Not the VI-100.
You did earn another clue though:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service
3) This plane was a twin seat, twin engine design
4) This plane had a design feature not seen again on this class of airplane for over a decade
5) For commonality, this plane used the same engine as another plane being developed by the same manufacturer
6) Neither of the planes in clue 5 were accepted by the service they were being built for due to changing weapon technology
7) Both of the planes in clue 5 were designed to fly at high altitudes
Good Luck
Hmmm.... The only thing that comes readily to mind is the Rapier. Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: North American XF-108 Rapier

The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft designed by North American Aviation intended to defend the United States from supersonic Soviet strategic bombers. The aircraft would have cruised at speeds around Mach 3 (3,200 km/h; 2,000 mph) with an unrefueled combat radius over 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi), and was equipped with radar and missiles offering engagement ranges up to 100 miles (160 km) against bomber-sized targets. To limit development costs, the program shared engine development with the North American XB-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber program, and used a number of elements of earlier interceptor projects. The program had progressed only as far as the construction of a single wooden mockup when it was cancelled in 1959, due to a shortage of funds and the Soviets' adoption of ballistic missiles as their primary means of nuclear attack. Had it flown, the F-108 would have been the heaviest fighter of its era. Prior to the project cancellation, the President of the United States Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower noted that raising the F-108 interceptor force would have cost the U.S. taxpayer $4 billion.

LRI-X

A mockup of the XF-108. During the early 1950s, the USAF proposed a very high-performance, long-range interceptor. On 20 July 1955, formal development of what became known as the Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental (LRI-X) was approved, planned as a F-102 Delta Dagger/F-106 Delta Dart replacement. The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955, calling for an interceptor that could fly at 60,000 ft (18,000 m) at a speed of Mach 1.7 (1,122 mph (1,806 km/h), with a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 km). It was to have a two-man crew and at least two engines. A further consideration was that an integrated fire-control system would be fitted, allowing the interception of a bomber at 60 nmi (110 km) and three targets to be destroyed during a single mission. Of the eight interested companies, contracts for preliminary studies were issued to North American Aviation, Lockheed and Northrop on 11 October 1955, five days after the specification's release.[3] Of the paper designs, the North American proposal, dubbed "NA-236", seemed the most promising. The NA-236 shared some similarities with the XF-108, although the most obvious differences were the additions of two finlets at the midspan of the horizontal stabilizers, and canards. Political and budgetary difficulties led to the cancellation of the program on 9 May 1956.

WS-202A

After considerable confusion, the program was reinstated on 11 April 1957 with North American awarded a contract for two prototypes. The designation F-108 was issued, also known as "Weapon System 202A" (WS-202A). North American's company designation was "NA-257", although it was basically identical to the NA-236. At the time, Air Defense Command anticipated an order for 480 aircraft. The resulting design went through considerable evolution, owing to both its cutting-edge technology and continual redefinition of the USAF requirements. Early revisions prominently featured canards, with a span of 19 ft 10 in (6.04 m), and a wing of 53.5 sweep. The aircraft in this configuration would have had a maximum takeoff weight of 99,400 lb (45,088 kg) with a 72,550 feet (22,113 m) operational ceiling. In addition to the F-108's interceptor role, North American proposed it as a penetration fighter to aid its own B-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber prototype. Commonality between the B-70 bomber and the F-108 included the escape capsule and General Electric YJ93 engines. Another role considered was for the F-108 to be "gap-fillers" for the Distant Early Warning (DEW) system; because of its great speed, the F-108 could have scanned up to 278,000 square miles (720,000 km2) per hour. From September 1958, substantial engineering and design changes were implemented; however, SAC had lost interest in the escort fighter concept. To accompany the B-70 all the way to its target and back, the F-108 in its initial concept would have, at best, marginal range. On 30 December 1958, YF-108A preproduction aircraft on order were reduced from 31 to 20 test aircraft and the first test flight was delayed from February to April 1961. The eventual design, which was built as a full-sized XF-108 mockup, was displayed to Air Force officials on 1720 January 1959. The project was given the name "Rapier" on 15 May 1959, following a contest by the Air Defense Command asking airmen for suggestions.

Cancellation

Even as the XF-108 program was progressing well, there were signs that would ultimately lead to its eventual cancellation. Unconfirmed Soviet bomber threats, the overwhelming trend toward offensive and defensive nuclear missiles in the late 1950s and early 1960s, as well as rising costs, contributed to the termination of the XF-108. The cancellation was announced on 23 September 1959. North American continued refining the design through 1960 in hopes that the program might be revived. Despite the extra money and time spent on the Rapier, it was not wholly in vain; the North American A-5 Vigilante supersonic carrier-based nuclear strike bomber developed for the U.S. Navy, which was later modified into a carrier-based reconnaissance aircraft, retained the fuselage/weapon package and systems design of the Rapier. In many ways the Vigilante could be seen as the successful application of the Rapier design principles in a Mach 2 supersonic design. Hughes Aircraft would continue the development of the advanced fire control system and the GAR-9 missile. Development of the F-108 radar and missiles was continued by the USAF and the system was eventually used in the Lockheed YF-12 program. The final configuration for the rear cockpit in the YF-12A looked similar to that of the F-108 since it incorporated the same displays and controls required for the Hughes AN/ASG-18 fire control system.

Design

The initial F-108 configuration featured a very large "cranked" delta wing. There were fixed ventral stabilizers on the wings, mounted at mid-span, and a tall all-moving vertical tailfin, supplemented by two ventral stabilizers that extended when the landing gear retracted. Although some earlier versions of the design had separate tailplanes or forward canards, both were abandoned in the final design. The large fuselage and wing had two and five fuel tanks, respectively, giving an estimated combat radius of some 1,100 nautical miles (2,000 km). Top speed was estimated at 1,980 miles per hour (3,190 km/h), about Mach 3, at 81,800 feet (24,900 m). The aircraft was powered by two General Electric J93 turbojet engines, also used in North American's XB-70 Valkyrie bomber, in the fuselage. The F-108 was intended to carry the Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar, the U.S.'s first pulse-Doppler radar set. It was to have look-down/shoot-down capability, but could track only one target at a time. The radar was paired with an infra-red search and tracking (IRST) system on the wing leading edges. The radar was used to guide the Hughes GAR-9 (later redesignated AIM-47) air-to-air missile, three of which would be carried on a rotary launcher in an internal weapons bay. The GAR-9 was a very large, long-range weapon with its own radar set for terminal homing. It was intended to fly at Mach 6, with a range of almost 112 miles (180 km).

General characteristics

Crew: two Length: 89.2 ft (27.2 m) Wingspan: 57.4 ft (17.5 m) Height: 22.1 ft (6.7 m) Wing area: 1,865 ft (173.4 m) Empty weight: 50,907 lb (23,098 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 102,000 lb (46,508 kg) Powerplant: 2 General Electric YJ93-GE-3AR afterburning turbojet Dry thrust: 20,900 lbf (93.0 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: 29,300 lbf (130.3 kN) each

Performance Maximum speed: Mach 3+, 1,980 mph (1,720 kn, 3,190 km/h) Combat radius: 1,162 mi (1,010 nmi, 1,870 km) Ferry range: 2,487 mi (2,161 nmi, 4,002 km) Service ceiling: 80,100 ft (24,400 m) Wing loading: 55.9 lb/ft (183.4 kg/m) Thrust/weight: 0.56

Armament

Missiles: 3 Hughes GAR-9A air-to-air missiles in a rotary weapons bay
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 08:18 AM
  #16568  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

ERNIE, HOW AND THE HELL DID YOU FIGURE THAT ONE OUT SO QUICK????????????????????????????????????
And here I was, thinking it would at least make it though the weekend
I guess we all know what that means, ERNIE'S UP AGAIN
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 09:14 AM
  #16569  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
ERNIE, HOW AND THE HELL DID YOU FIGURE THAT ONE OUT SO QUICK????????????????????????????????????
And here I was, thinking it would at least make it though the weekend
I guess we all know what that means, ERNIE'S UP AGAIN
Hydro Junkie; How did I figure it out? Well, your first two clues were:
1) This plane was big and fast
2) It was designed for one service but ended up, in a revised form, in a different service

The second clue (use of the word "service" and your own history) made me think American; and "ended up, in a revised form, in a different service" eliminated a lot of possible aircraft. After eliminating American aircraft that weren't picked up by another service, "big and fast" left me thinking of the Super Constellation, the Rainbow, and the Rapier. As soon as you dropped the third clue about it having two engines, that only left the Rapier.

It may not all make sense, but it kind of follows a pattern. Yeah, I know; my logic is all screwed up. But it keeps working, so.... I'll have something up shortly. Thanks; Ernie P.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 09:35 AM
  #16570  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Actually, it makes perfect sense. My next clue was going to be how the fuse was used in a different plane that was accepted, that being the RA-5C Vigilante. As we all know, the Vigilante was accepted by the Navy as a high speed bomber that was later reconfigured into a photo-recon aircraft.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 10:35 AM
  #16571  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Well, here we go again. And I promise I will be nice, and quiet, next time. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird pilot do I describe?

1. This pilot was considered by many to be rather unconventional; and perhaps more than a little bit strange.

2. But he was also very, very effective at his job.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 10:47 AM
  #16572  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 9,322
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Werner Voss, you can't get more unconventional them him!
FlyerInOKC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 11:42 AM
  #16573  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
Werner Voss, you can't get more unconventional them him!
Werner Voss; one of my all time favorite pilots! But, not the pilot for whom we search this time. But for such a great answer, you are awarded not one, but TWO bonus points for your efforts. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird pilot do I describe?

1. This pilot was considered by many to be rather unconventional; and perhaps more than a little bit strange.

2. But he was also very, very effective at his job.

3. And he did something very few other pilots managed; and only one other pilot surpassed.

4. He began his military service in the infantry.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 01:28 PM
  #16574  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,151
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Well, here we go again. And I promise I will be nice, and quiet, next time. Thanks; Ernie P.
I never said you couldn't answer, I just didn't expect it to go so quick.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2018, 03:26 PM
  #16575  
Ernie P.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 4,918
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I never said you couldn't answer, I just didn't expect it to go so quick.
I understood your meaning, Sir; and no offense was taken. I've simply been up a lot lately and don't want to hog the limelight quite so much. But I see the question and my resolve melts away. Here's an evening clue to stir things a bit. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird pilot do I describe?

1. This pilot was considered by many to be rather unconventional; and perhaps more than a little bit strange.

2. But he was also very, very effective at his job.

3. And he did something very few other pilots managed; and only one other pilot surpassed.

4. He began his military service in the infantry.

5. After he requested a transfer, he was certified as a pilot after less than four hours of instruction.
Ernie P. is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service