JohnnyS

1. It was an interceptor design, that reached as far as concept stage and wind tunnel testing but no further.

2. It had ailerons that also acted as combined rudders and elevators.

3. Three engines were supposed to be used for flight although three booster rockets would be used at start-up.

4. Undercarriage had one main sprung wheel, with 4 smaller outrigger wheels.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Now that is an interesting subject, JohnnyS. With the clues so far rendered, it appears you are talking about the proposed Folke Wulf Triebflugel. Thanks; Ernie P.


This Focke-Wulf VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) fighter/interceptor was designed in September 1944. The three untapered wings rotated around the fuselage and had a gradually decreasing pitch towards the wingtips, thus acting like a giant propeller. At the end of each wing was a Pabst ramjet, Since ramjets do not operate at slow speeds, either the rotor had to be driven by a fuselage mounted takeoff-booster or small Walter rocket engines could have been fitted to each ramjet pod. The pilot sat in a cockpit near the nose and the armament consisted of two MK 103 30mm cannon with 100 rounds plus two MG 151/20 20mm cannon with 250 rounds. Although the Triebflugel was not constructed, a wind tunnel model was tested up to a speed of Mach 0.9.

At Focke-Wulf, Professor Otto Pabst worked on an interesting fast vertical takeoff aircraft named the Triebflugel. Its purpose was to rise quickly from just about anywhere and attack the allied bombers.

Similar to a helicopter, it was powered by THREE large wing-like rotors but unlike a helicopter, the rotors turned around the fuselage. To preclude fuselage torque, the rotors were powered by small ramjets mounted on the tips and these were to be boosted to start speed by rockets. The landing gear casters in the tail were retractable.The use of the ramjet made it possible to use various cheap fuels.

The big problem consisted, however, in passing from the vertical flight to the level flight and back. The landing presented a particularly delicate moment because the pilot did not have good rearward visibility because of revolving airfoil. One wonders how he/she would have bailed out.

JohnnyS

And you are correct, sir!

Over to you, Ernie.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Thank you, Sir. An excellent question; and, in retrospect, I should have let it run a bit longer. However, it sounded familiar; and a bit of checking confirmed my thoughts; so I jumped in. Your question had the potential of running for a lot longer; and I should have let it play out for a while. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Afternoon clue. And, if I may say, a very revealing one. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

(3) It was a WWI biplane.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

I have to go out, so here's an (early) evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.



Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

(3) It was a WWI biplane.

(4) Of pretty conventional construction, for the day and time.

Redback

I'll throw in a guess!

Vickers EFB1

Terry

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Good try, but not what we're looking for. But here's a bonus clue to aid your search. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

(3) It was a WWI biplane.

(4) Of pretty conventional construction, for the day and time.

(5) But with one very prominent difference.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

(3) It was a WWI biplane.

(4) Of pretty conventional construction, for the day and time.

(5) But with one very prominent difference.

(6) Still, nearly 100 of them were produced; a not insignifant number for the time.

zippome

Here's a WAG.... The Spad A.2 ?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Indeed, Sir; you are correct. Very good, Zip! And now you get to ask the next question. I couldn't resist highlighting this early warbird. Check out the picture, and you will understand why there was a certain reluctance on the part of the observer/gunner to fly this particular aircraft. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This warbird was a failure; for what, in retrospect seems to be obvious reasons.

(2) Then again, maybe aviators were thought to be braver or more adventurous in those days.

(3) It was a WWI biplane.

(4) Of pretty conventional construction, for the day and time.

(5) But with one very prominent difference.

(6) Still, nearly 100 of them were produced; a not insignifant number for the time.

(7) It was a fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, which had good performance for its day.

(8) And actually managed to shoot down an enemy aircraft.

(9) The fuselage was considered to be well designed and strong.

(10) The wings were well designed, and in fact the design was used in later and more successful designs.

(11) The main problem seemed to be crew comfort.

(12) The pilot was restricted in his visibility.

(13) And the observers were all noticeably nervous for some reason.

(14) The aircraft were used by two nations.

(15) One was the producer: France.

(16) The other was Russia.

(17) In neither nation was the aircraft popular with its crews.

(18) The main reason seemed to be an issue with crew survivability in case of a crash.

(19) Even a very minor crash.

Answer: SPAD A series (SA1, SA2, SA3 and SA4)


The SPAD A.2 (also called SA.2, A-2 or A2) was a French tractor biplane of 1915 that saw some service with France and Russia in the early stages of the First World War in the fighter-reconnaissance role.

The first military aircraft produced by SPAD's chief designer, Louis Bιchereau, was the SPAD A.1 prototype. Early combat experience had shown it was desirable to have forward-firing machine guns. However, synchronization devices to fire a gun through the propeller were not yet available and several solutions were tested by various manufacturers. One of the most complex was that adopted by Bιchereau on the A.1. In addition to its pilot, the aircraft was designed to carry an observer/gunner placed in a streamlined nacelle in front of the propeller. With this configuration - designed to combine the advantages of the tractor and the pusher types, the observer had a clear field of fire and vision to the front. However, this also seriously limited the pilot's vision, notably during landing, made communication between the pilot and the observer nearly impossible and implied the risk of the observer being hit by the propeller, not to mention being crushed by the motor in even a relatively mild crash or "nose-over". A broadly similar adaptation of the British B.E.2c - the B.E.9 was abandoned for these reasons.

The nacelle (called a "pulpit") was fitted with a flexible Lewis machine gun on a tubular mount, and incorporated air intakes on its sides to redirect some air towards the 80-hp Le Rhτne 9C rotary engine, which was largely screened by the nacelle. It could also be hinged down to give an easier access to the engine or to start it. A wire mesh screen was installed behind the observer, to stop him from hitting the propeller.

Aside from this unorthodox configuration, the aircraft was of a rather standard wood and fabric construction. The wings had a one-bay design. To prevent the long wires from vibrating excessively in flight, two light vertical struts were added in the middle of the bay to retain and strengthen the wires, giving the aircraft the looks of a two-bay biplane.

The fuselage was reportedly strong and well-designed.
The first flight of the A.1 took place in May 1915. The aircraft reached a top speed of 95 mph (153 km/h).

The SPAD A.2 was an improved version of the A.1 which first flew on 21 May 1915 and later went into production. A total of 99 were produced (42 for France and 57 for Russia). Its flight characteristics were still disappointing, and the aircraft was not well loved by its crews. In spite of this lack of success, the design brought valuable experience to Bιchereau and his team, and some features, notably the one-bay wing with intermediate struts, were to be used later by Bιchereau for the SPAD S.5, which would lead to the extremely successful S.VII and S.XIII fighters.
Russian models were modified to use skis instead of wheels for winter operations.

The A.2 had a short and inauspicious career in the French Aviation Militaire. Its crews did not appreciate it and it was quickly replaced in service by better types as the introduction of synchronizing gear rendered the entire concept of the A.2 obsolete. Few details are available concerning its career.

The Imperial Russian Air Service was the other user of the SPAD A.2 and kept it in service for a much longer time, due to a shortage in available aircraft on the Russian-German front. Although Russian crews also thought very little of the SPAD, at least one crew was successful with it. On November 25, 1916, Russian pilot Karpov and his observer Bratolyubov shot down a German aircraft near the village of Vulka.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Zip; you're up. Please post your question. Thanks; Ernie P.

MJD

My Feedback: (1)

Yeah, that would qualify as a "prominent difference"! Wow, that's wild.

The Jane's book of worst aircraft is probably a good resource for this quiz forum. I have a couple of models that should qualify.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Yeah; talk about being literally "hung way out there". Still, how much different than some of the early British single seat pushers? Either way, a very cold and lonely place to fight a war. Thanks; Ernie P.

zippome

Allright guys, here we go again!

1. Of the less than 50 built, most had 4 engines. There was one version built as a test bed with 2 engines.
2. Most had a tri-tail vertical stabilizer, although a twin tail version also flew.
3. Used by both civilian and military operators.

Ok guys, name that aircraft!

Thanks!
Zip

zippome

Allright guys, here we go again!

1. Of the less than 50 built, most had 4 engines. There was one version built as a test bed with 2 engines.
2. Most had a tri-tail vertical stabilizer, although a twin tail version also flew.
3. Used by both civilian and military operators.
4. It had a power limited ceiling of under 10,000 feet.
5. Designed by a manufacturer that went bankrupt.
6. The design was manufactured by the company that bought them up.

Ok guys, name that aircraft!

JohnnyS

Handley Page Marathon?

zippome

That's it! The Miles/Handley Page Marathon. Thought that would be a good subject in honor of the Boston Marathon. Anyway, Johnny ....
You're up!

JohnnyS

Thanks!!

OK, here's a weird one.

1. It was never actually built, but there were engine tests performed relatively successfully.
2. It would have been BIG, FAST and LOUD, and the engine controls would have been pneumatic.
3. It would have been unmanned.
4. One of the reasons it was never built was that they could not figure out where they could possibly test fly it.

zippome

Just for giggles..... Project Orion?

JohnnyS

No, but good guess.


1. It was never actually built, but there were engine tests performed relatively successfully.
2. It would have been BIG, FAST and LOUD, and the engine controls would have been pneumatic.
3. It would have been unmanned.
4. One of the reasons it was never built was that they could not figure out where they could possibly test fly it.
5. Extremely long range.

JohnnyS

1. It was never actually built, but there were engine tests performed relatively successfully.
2. It would have been BIG, FAST and LOUD, and the engine controls would have been pneumatic.
3. It would have been unmanned.
4. One of the reasons it was never built was that they could not figure out where they could possibly test fly it.
5. Extremely long range.
6. If you were underneath the flight path as it went by, you would hear about 150 dB of noise and pretty soon afterwards your hair would start to fall out.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

Could it be That B 36 that had a nuclear power plant......\

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

I've been wondering that myself, uncljoe. I asked a question about that some time ago. But the engines weren't actually nuclear powered in the test flight aircraft. Thanks; Ernie P.

Redback

Nuclear plants are usually quiet, at least until the alarm goes off!!

Sounds like something powered by nuclear detonations rather than (hopefully) controlled fission.

Terry