mattnew

My Feedback: (2)

P-40 kittyhawk and later warhawk?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

No correct answers thus far. I'm starting to figure out how HoundDog got him nickname, though; and it's always good to hear from a new face. Welcome, Mattnew. Here's an afternoon clue to aid all your efforts. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

2. Simple.

3. Designed to be easy to repair.

4. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

5. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.
6. Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

7. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

8. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

9. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

2. Simple.

3. Designed to be easy to repair.

4. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

5. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.

6, Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

7. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

8. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

9. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

10. This was not an aircraft without faults, despite what was considered to be excellent maneuverability. Initial testing with the prototype showed considerable vibration from the larger engine, and the aircraft did not respond well to abrupt input from the controls. For this reason, all aerobatic maneuvers were initially forbidden.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Ernie Just look at the Picture above my name ......

And for my next GUESS I'll say the
[h=1]Lockheed F-104 Starfighter[/h]

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

HoundDog; I saw the picture, but figured you were like a good deer dog: No quit and just keeps coming. But, no cigar yet. Here's an extra clue to reward you perseverance. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

2. Simple.

3. Designed to be easy to repair.
4. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

5. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.

6. Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

7. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

8. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

9. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

10. This was not an aircraft without faults, despite what was considered to be excellent maneuverability. Initial testing with the prototype showed considerable vibration from the larger engine, and the aircraft did not respond well to abrupt input from the controls. For this reason, all aerobatic maneuvers were initially forbidden.


11. Initial trials of the aircraft found problems with the manually retracted landing gear. Considerable effort was required. Many of the test pilots openly preferred the smaller engine prototype of the aircraft; but most effort was focused on the larger engine prototype.

scalebirdman

My Feedback: (6)

Xp-77?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Not the Xp-77; but here's a bonus clue to reward your efforts. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

1. Simple.

1. Designed to be easy to repair.

1. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

1. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.

1. Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

1. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

1. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

1. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

1. This was not an aircraft without faults, despite what was considered to be excellent maneuverability. Initial testing with the prototype showed considerable vibration from the larger engine, and the aircraft did not respond well to abrupt input from the controls. For this reason, all aerobatic maneuvers were initially forbidden.

1. Initial trials of the aircraft found problems with the manually retracted landing gear. Considerable effort was required. Many of the test pilots openly preferred the smaller engine prototype of the aircraft; but most effort was focused on the larger engine prototype.

1. The third prototype with the larger engine incorporated several aerodynamic changes. Still, the smaller engine version was put into production.

1. By the time the larger engine version was ready for production, it was very fast, with excellent climbing characteristics. Roll rate was excellent, although it was still not as capable of “high G” maneuvers as some other aircraft of the time. However, loops and split S performance was excellent.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

All;

This bit with the numbers is getting frustrating, but trust me I'm trying to get it straight. Thanks; Ernie P.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

1. Simple.

1. Designed to be easy to repair.

1. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

1. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.

1. Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

1. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

1. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

1. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

1. This was not an aircraft without faults, despite what was considered to be excellent maneuverability. Initial testing with the prototype showed considerable vibration from the larger engine, and the aircraft did not respond well to abrupt input from the controls. For this reason, all aerobatic maneuvers were initially forbidden.

1. Initial trials of the aircraft found problems with the manually retracted landing gear. Considerable effort was required. Many of the test pilots openly preferred the smaller engine prototype of the aircraft; but most effort was focused on the larger engine prototype.

1. The third prototype with the larger engine incorporated several aerodynamic changes. Still, the smaller engine version was put into production.

1. By the time the larger engine version was ready for production, it was very fast, with excellent climbing characteristics. Roll rate was excellent, although it was still not as capable of “high G” maneuvers as some other aircraft of the time. However, loops and split S performance was excellent.

[/QUOTE]
[h=1]Grumman F4F Wildcat[/h]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F4F_Wildcat

zippome

Polikarpov I-16?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

And Zip nails it again! Good thinking, Zip; and you're up again. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Small.

1. Simple.

1. Designed to be easy to repair.

1. The (very reliable) engine was built under license.

1. The first prototype flew with a different engine, because the licensing agreements were still being negotiated. Although this engine was much less powerful, the aircraft was still considered to be acceptable, as speed was still sufficient.

1. Earlier variants used the less powerful engine, but eventually the more powerful engines became available and were used. Thus, two versions of the aircraft were initially produced.

1. When the more powerful engines became available, the aircraft was very light and very fast.

1. Although it was not as maneuverable as some contemporary fighters, it’s speed and climb rates were superior.

1. Testing with the first prototypes was necessary to disprove a predicted tendency to enter an unrecoverable spin. In fact, it was less likely to spin unintentionally than other contemporary aircraft by the same manufacturer. However, the reputation for spinning persisted and that reputation was never completely overcome.

1. This was not an aircraft without faults, despite what was considered to be excellent maneuverability. Initial testing with the prototype showed considerable vibration from the larger engine, and the aircraft did not respond well to abrupt input from the controls. For this reason, all aerobatic maneuvers were initially forbidden.

1. Initial trials of the aircraft found problems with the manually retracted landing gear. Considerable effort was required. Many of the test pilots openly preferred the smaller engine prototype of the aircraft; but most effort was focused on the larger engine prototype.

1. The third prototype with the larger engine incorporated several aerodynamic changes. Still, the smaller engine version was put into production.

1. By the time the larger engine version was ready for production, it was very fast, with excellent climbing characteristics. Roll rate was excellent, although it was still not as capable of “high G” maneuvers as some other aircraft of the time. However, loops and split S performance was excellent.

1. Some initial troubles with the canopy lead to the pilots often leaving the rear portion open.

1. As the aircraft went into production, problems were uncovered. Machine guns tended to jam, because of the way they were fitted into the wings. The fitted cable firing mechanism was rather heavy. This, coupled with the very light controls, made it difficult to aim with precision. Sudden maneuvers resulted in spins; although recovery was straightforward. As production and development continued, problems were resolved, one by one.

1. It was never an easy aircraft to fly. It was a bit “tail heavy” at best; although this did help on bumpy airfields. Pilot visibility was poor; and the aircraft could not be flown “hands off”. Still, its overall performance was excellent.

1. When it went into combat, additional failings became evident. For one, the wings tended to collapse. This was quickly corrected, but it wasn’t forgotten. Pilot armor proved insufficient and fuel tanks sometimes caught fire. Worst of all the problems was the armament. Two machine guns simply weren’t enough. So, a new model was introduced with four machine guns.

1. Eventually, cannons were fitted; although supply problems kept their numbers low.

1. Of course, the continual upgrades, flaps, radios equipment, additional armor, all made the aircraft even more tail heavy. The aircraft became ever more difficult to fly; making constant control input necessary.

1. Different versions were produced; including a two seat trainer version and, interestingly enough, a parasite version.

Answer: The Polikarpov I-16


The Polikarpov I-16 was a Soviet fighter aircraft of revolutionary design; it was the world's first low-wing cantilever monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear to have attained operational status and as such "introduced a new vogue in fighter design."[SUP][1][/SUP] The I-16 was introduced in the mid-1930s and formed the backbone of the Soviet Air Force at the beginning of World War II. The diminutive fighter, nicknamed "Ishak", "Ishachok" ("Donkey", "Burro") by Soviet pilots, prominently featured in the Second Sino-Japanese War,[SUP][2][/SUP] the Battle of Khalkhin Gol[SUP][2][/SUP] and the Spanish Civil War[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] – where it was called the Rata ("Rat") by the Nationalists or Mosca ("Fly") by the Republicans. The Finnish nickname for I-16 was Siipiorava ("Flying Squirrel").

While working on the Polikarpov I-15 biplane, Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov began designing an advanced monoplane fighter. It featured cutting-edge innovations such as retractable landing gear and a fully enclosed cockpit, and was optimized for speed with a short stubby fuselage (similar to the Gee Bee R-1) and a Wright R-1820 radial engine in a NACA cowling. The aircraft was small, light and simple to build.

Full scale work on the TsKB-12 prototype began in June 1933 and the aircraft was accepted into production on 22 November 1933, a month before it took to the air. The TsKB-12 was of mixed construction using a wooden monocoque fuselage and wings based around a KhMA chrome-molybdenum steel alloy wing spar, dural ribs and D1 aluminum alloy skinning on the center and leading edges, with the remaining portions of the wings fabric covered. Another modern feature were the ailerons which ran almost the entire trailing edge of the wing and also operated as flaps (in the manner of more modern flaperons) by drooping 15°. The cockpit was covered by a forty cm (sixteen in) wide canopy which featured an Aldis type tubular gun sight which could slide back and forth on runners fitted with rubber bungee cords. A 225 l (59.4 US gal) fuel tank was fitted directly in front of the cockpit. The main landing gear was fully retractable by a hand-crank. The armament consisted of a pair of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns in the wings, mounted on the outboard side of the main gear and 900 rounds of ammunition.

These features were proposed at first by Andrei N. Tupolev, however the NII VVS was more concerned about the stresses a typical combat aircraft was subjected to in combat, and initially considered the risk too great. However TsAGI, with the help of the 3rd Design Brigade under the leadership of Pavel Sukhoi and Aleksandr Putylov, eventually convinced NII VVS that what was being proposed was not only feasible, but would enhance the aircraft's performance.

The TsKB-12 was designed around the Wright Cyclone SR-1820-F-3 nine cylinder radial engine (rated at 529 kW/710 hp); a license to build this engine under the supervision of the Shvetsov design bureau in the Soviet Union was being negotiated. As the license was not yet approved, Polikarpov was asked to settle for the less powerful M-22 (Soviet-built version of the Gnome-Rhone Jupiter 9ASB which itself was a licensed version of the Bristol Jupiter VI) with 358 kW (480 hp). This was deemed acceptable because the projected top speed still exceeded 300 km/h (185 mph).

The M-22 powered TsKB-12 first took to the air on 30 December 1933 with the famous Soviet test pilot Valery Chkalov at the controls. The second TsKB-12 with a Cyclone engine and three-bladed propeller flew in January of the following year. Initial government trials in February 1934 revealed very good maneuverability, but the aircraft did not tolerate abrupt control inputs. Thus the TsKB-12 was deemed dangerous to fly and all aerobatics were forbidden. The M-22 version was preferred due to the vibration of the Cyclone-powered aircraft. Pilots commented early on about the difficulty of climbing into the cockpit, a trait that persisted through the I-16's service life. Before continuing test flights the designers had to answer the question of spin behavior. Wind tunnel testing suggested that the TsKB-12, with its short tail, would enter an unrecoverable flat spin, but real-life trials were necessary to confirm this. Since Cyclone engines were rare it was decided to risk the M-22 prototype for this purpose. On March 1 and 2, 1934, Chkalov performed 75 spins and discovered that the aircraft had very benign stall behavior (dipping a wing and recovering without input from the pilot when airspeed increased) and intentional spins could be easily terminated by placing the controls in the neutral position. The stories of vicious spin behavior of the I-16 perpetuated in modern literature is unfounded (perhaps extrapolated from Gee Bee experience). In fact, the I-16's stablemate, the biplane Polikarpov I-153, exhibited much worse spin characteristics.[SUP][[/SUP][SUP]citation needed[/SUP][SUP]][/SUP]

Service trials of the new fighter, designated I-16, began on 22 March 1934. The M-22 prototype reached 359 km/h (223 mph). The manually retracted landing gear was prone to jamming and required considerable strength from the pilot. Most of the test flights were performed with the gear extended. On 1 May 1934, the M-22 prototype participated in the flyover of Red Square. Approximately thirty I-16 Type 1 aircraft were delivered, but were not assigned to any VVS fighter squadron. Most pilots who flew the I-16 Type 1 for evaluation purposes did not find the aircraft to have many redeeming characteristics. Regardless of pilot opinion, much attention was focused on the Cyclone powered aircraft and the M-25 (the license built Cyclone). On 14 April 1934, the Cyclone prototype was damaged when one of the landing gear legs collapsed while it was taxiing.

The third prototype with a Cyclone engine incorporated a series of aerodynamic improvements and was delivered for government trials on 7 September 1934. The top speed of 437 km/h (270 mph) no longer satisfied the Air Force, who now wanted the experimental Nazarov M-58 engine and 470 km/h (290 mph). Subsequently, the M-22 powered version entered production at Factory 21 in Nizhny Novgorod and Factory 39 in Moscow. Because it was the fourth aircraft produced by these factories, it received the designation I-16 Type 4. Aircraft fitted with these new engines required a slightly changed airframe, including armor plating for the pilot and changes to the landing gear doors to allow for complete closure.

The M-25 fitted I-16, the I-16 Type 5, featured a new engine cowling which was slightly smaller in diameter and featured nine forward-facing shuttered openings to control cooling airflow, a redesigned exhaust with eight individual outlet stubs, and other changes. The M-25 was rated at 474 kW (635 hp) at sea level and 522 kW (700 hp) at 2,300 m (7,546 ft). Due to the poor quality of the canopy glazing, the I-16 Type 5 pilots typically left the canopy open or removed the rear portion completely. By the time the Type 5 arrived, it was the world's lightest production fighter (1,460 kg/3,219 lb), as well as the worlds fastest, able to reach speeds of 454 km/h (282 mph) at altitude and 395 km/h (245 mph) at sea level. While the Type 5 could not perform the high-g maneuvers of other fighters, it possessed superior speed and climb rates, and had extremely responsive aileron control which gave it a very good roll rate which led to precision maneuvers in loops and split-Ss.

A total of 7,005 single-seat and 1,639 two-seat trainer variants were produced.

Initial service experience revealed that the ShKAS machine guns had a tendency to jam. This was the result of the guns being installed in the wings upside-down to facilitate the fit. The problem was addressed in later modifications. Evaluations from pilots confirmed the experience with prototypes. Controls were light and very sensitive, abrupt maneuvers resulted in spins, and spin behavior was excellent. An aileron roll could be performed in under 1.5 seconds (roll rate over 240 degrees/second). The machine guns were fired via a cable and the required effort, coupled with sensitive controls, made precision aiming difficult. The rear weight bias made the I-16 easy to handle on unprepared airfields because the aircraft was rather unlikely to flip over the nose even if the front wheels dug in.

The I-16 was a difficult fighter to fly. The pilots had poor visibility[SUP][5][/SUP] and the canopy tended to become fouled with engine oil and the moving portion was prone to slamming shut during hard maneuvers which caused many pilots to fix it in the open position. The front section of the fuselage, with the engine, was too close to the centre of gravity, and the pilot's cockpit too far to the rear. The Polikarpov had insufficient longitudinal stability and it was impossible to fly the aircraft "hand off".[SUP][6][/SUP]

At the start of Spanish Civil War in 1936, Republican forces pleaded for fighter aircraft. After receiving payment in gold, Joseph Stalin dispatched around 475[SUP][7][/SUP] I-16 Type 5s and Type 6s. The first I-16s appeared in Spanish skies in November 1936.[SUP][8][/SUP] The Polikarpov monoplanes had their baptism of fire on 13 November 1936, when twelve I-16s intercepted a Nationalist bombing raid on Madrid. Soviet pilots claimed four air victories and two German Heinkel He 51 pilots were killed. But the Soviets suffered losses too; the group commander collided with an enemy aircraft and another I-16 pilot crash landed.[SUP][9][/SUP] The Polikarpovs immediately began dominating the enemy He 51s and Arado Ar 68 biplanes[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] and remained unchallenged until the introduction of the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The arrival of the newest Bf 109Bs and the overwhelming numerical superiority of Nationalist fighters were the primary cause of the heavy I-15 and I-16 combat losses suffered by throughout 1937.[SUP][10][/SUP] A number of aviation publications called the new Soviet fighter a "Boeing" due to the incorrect assumption that it was based on the Boeing P-26's design. The Nationalists nicknamed the stubby fighter Rata (Rat), while the Republicans affectionately called it Mosca (Fly).
Combat experience showed that the I-16 had deficiencies; several aircraft were lost after structural failure of the wings which was quickly remedied by reinforced structures. Heavy machine gun bullets could sometimes penetrate the armored backrest and fuel tanks occasionally caught fire in spite of being protected. The hot Spanish summers required the addition of oil radiators, and dust adversely affected the life of the engines. Although some aircraft accumulated up to 400 hours of flying time, the average life of an I-16 was 87 days, of which one sixth was spent on maintenance. The biggest complaint in service was the light armament of only two 7.62 mm (0.30 in) machine guns. This was urgently addressed with the Type 6 which added a third ShKAS in the bottom of the fuselage. The four-gun Type 10 was nicknamed "Super Mosca" or simply "Super". The total number of I-16s delivered to Spain from 1936 to 1938 amounted to 276. When the war ended on 1 April 1939, 187 Ratas had been lost in Spain: 112 lost in combat, one shot down by anti-aircraft fire, eleven destroyed on the ground, one force-landed and 62 lost in accidents.[SUP][11][/SUP]

Another 250 I-16 Type 10s were supplied to China. This model added a second set of 7.62 mm (0.30 in) ShKAS machine guns, armor behind the pilot, and had a slightly upgraded 560 kW (750 hp) M-25 engine. In 1939, of the 500 I-16s[SUP][12][/SUP] deployed to the fighting at Nomonhan, approximately 112 were lost during the battles of Khalkhin Gol, of which 88 were destroyed in aerial combat, primarily against the all metal Ki-27 IJA fighters.[SUP][13][/SUP] During test trials in Russia of a captured Ki-27, the aircraft proved superior to the Soviet I-152 (I-15bis), I-153, and the I-16 in aerial combat, as well as having a faster take off and lower landing speed requiring shorter airstrips than the I-16, which needed 270 meters to stop and 380 meters for take off.[SUP][14][/SUP]

Further attempts were made to upgrade the firepower of the aircraft using 20 mm (0.79 in) ShVAK cannons, making the I-16 one of the most heavily armed fighters of the period,[SUP][15][/SUP] able to fire 28 pounds of ammunition in three seconds. Pilots loved the results, but the cannons were in short supply and only a small number of the I-16 Type 12, 17, 27, and 28 were built. The cannons adversely affected performance with 360° turn time increasing from fifteen seconds in the Type 5 to eighteen seconds. The Type 24 replaced the skid with a tailwheel and featured the much more powerful 670 kW (900 hp) Shvetsov M-63 engine. The Type 29 replaced two of the ShKAS guns with a single 12.7 mm (.50 in) UBS. Types 18, 24, 27, 28, and 29 could be fitted to carry RS-82 unguided rockets.

A 1939 government study found the I-16 had exhausted its performance potential. The addition of armor, radio, battery, and flaps during the aircraft's evolution exacerbated the rear weight distribution problems to the point where the aircraft required considerable forward pressure on the stick to maintain level flight and at the same time developed a tendency to enter uncontrolled dives. Extension and retraction of the landing flaps caused a dramatic change in the aircraft's attitude. Accurate gunfire was difficult.
The pilots nicknamed the aircraft Ishak (Russian: Ишак, Donkey/Hinny) because it was similar to the Russian pronunciation of "I-16". When Operation Barbarossa erupted on 22 June 1941, 1,635 of 4,226 VVS aircraft were I-16s of all variants, fielded by 57 fighter regiments in frontier areas.[SUP][16][/SUP] The main assault delivered by the Luftwaffe's Luftflotte 2 (in support of Wehrmacht Army Group Centre) was directed against the Soviet Western Special Military District, that deployed 361 (424 according to other sources) I-16s.[SUP][17][/SUP] During the early phase of the campaign the I-16 bases were the main targets for the German aircraft and after 48 hours of combat, of the 1,635 Polikarpov monoplanes in service on 21 June 1941, only 937 were left.[SUP][18][/SUP] By 30 June the number of I-16s in western front line units had dropped to 873, including 99 that required repairs.[SUP][19][/SUP] To stem the Luftwaffe aerial assault several I-16 pilots adopted the taran tactic and sacrificed their lives, ramming German aircraft.[SUP][19][/SUP]

Its main opponent in the sky in 1941 was the German Messerschmitt Bf 109.[SUP][20][/SUP] The I-16 was slightly more maneuverable than the early Bf 109s and could fight the Messerschmitt Bf 109E, or Emil, on equal terms in turns. Skilled Soviet pilots took advantage of the Polikarpov's superior horizontal maneuverability and liked it enough to resist the switch to more modern fighters. The German aircraft, however, outclassed its Russian opponent in service ceiling, rate of climb, acceleration and, crucially, in horizontal and diving speed, due to better aerodynamics and a more powerful engine. The main versions of the I-16 had a maximum speed of 450–70 km/h (279–91 mph), while the Bf 109E had a maximum speed of 560–70 km/h (347–53 mph), the more streamlined Bf 109F Friedrich could hit 615–630 km/h (372-390plus mph). Superior speed was the decisive factor in a dogfight, so German pilots held the initiative and could decide if they wanted to chase their opponents, could attack them from above and behind and then gain altitude for a new attack. Meanwhile, Polikarpovs could only defend each other by forming a defensive circle or via horizontal maneuverability.[SUP][20][/SUP]

Moreover, in terms of armament, Messerschmitts had a slight edge on the I-16. The Emil carried two wing-mounted 20mm MG FF cannons and two synchronized 7.92 mm MG-17s with a weight of a one-second salvo of 2.37 kg, while the most common version of the I-16 – armed with just two synchronized and two wing-mounted 7.62 ShKAS – could deliver 1.43 kg of bullets each second.[SUP][21][/SUP] Finally, the ammunition storage on a Messerschmitt exceeded that of the I-16, carrying 1,000 rounds for each machine gun (plus sixty rounds for each cannon), while the Polikarpov carried just 450 rounds for each ShKAS gun.[SUP][22][/SUP]

The I-16 had a more durable engine than the liquid-cooled engine of the Bf 109. Around half of all produced I-16s were still in service in 1943, when they were finally replaced.

Specially modified I-16s were used in the Zveno parasite aircraft experiments using the Tupolev TB-3 as a mothership.

The Luftwaffe was known to have captured some I-16 and UTI-4 two-seat trainers (two of which were marked with the Stammkennzeichen codes DM+HC and DM+HD) and flown from the Erprobungstelle Rechlin central Luftwaffe test facility by Kampfgeschwader 200 (KG 200).[SUP][23][/SUP] The Luftwaffe was not the only air force able to test its fighters against the I-16; the Japanese captured a few I-16s as well,[SUP][2][/SUP] and the Romanian Air Force also got one when a Soviet pilot defected.[SUP][24][/SUP] The Finnish Air Force (FAF) captured some I-16s (along with several other Soviet types). During the Winter War and the Continuation War, the Finns captured six I-16s and one I-16UTI. Two of the captured I-16s and I-16UTIs were put back into flying condition and flight tested.[SUP][25][/SUP]

perttime

On the numbers thing, Ernie P: in the posts that have "1" for every row, the rows show as lists.
If I interpret the code right, each row is a separate list - with empty rows between them.

When I get to list clues, I just manually number the clues/rows. Then they are pretty sure to show only mistakes that I make....

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Thanks, Perttime; I'll look at that. I just created a Word document and the program decided how to list them. Thanks; Ernie P.

perttime

... double post ... Posting was a bit sticky but I was pretty sure I didn't click anything twice

perttime

Word is sometimes too smart for the good of mere mortals. Then, when you move the stuff to a different environment (forum), results can be unpredictable.

Redback

Like double posts LOL!!!

zippome

Ok Guys, Here we go again!

1. This is a well known aircraft, seen around the world at airports and airshows all over.
2. This aircraft came a full circle with a plane designed for the civilian market, but was inspired by a warbird. This new aircraft then found a new market in the military.
3. Served in different roles in different militaries around the world.
4. The aircraft was produced in it's various forms , military and civilian for over 30 years.

Ok guys!

Any guesses?

Thanks!
Zip

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

The first thing that comes to mind is the P-51/Cavalier Mustang/Piper Enforcer series. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Cavalier Mustang was a post-World War II civilian-modified version of the North American P-51 Mustang aircraft. Although originally intended as a high speed personal aircraft, the Cavalier was also exported for use as a fighter and close air support aircraft to third world air forces.

In 1957, newspaper publisher David Lindsay (1922–2009) formed Trans Florida Aviation Inc. His intention was to transform surplus military P-51s into executive business aircraft. These aircraft were initially called the Trans-Florida Executive Mustang, soon renamed the Trans Florida Aviation Cavalier Mustang. The first of the Executive Mustangs was built in 1958 and for the next few years, only a handful of airframes were built and sold.

To construct the Executive Mustang, Trans Florida purchased military surplus P-51s. The airframes were completely disassembled, the military equipment stripped out, and then rebuilt with a second seat, new avionics, plush leather interiors, luggage bays and civilian paint schemes. By 1961, the aircraft were renamed Cavalier 2000, referring to the 2,000-statute-mile (3,200 km) range. Five different Cavalier models were eventually offered: the Cavalier 750, 1200, 1500, 2000 and 2500, differing in fuel capacity, with the name indicating the approximate range of the aircraft. Over the course of the next decade, nearly 20 of these aircraft would be constructed. Several FAA approved modifications to the Cavalier design would be made during that time, including canopy frame mounted cockpit fresh air vents, 96-US-gallon (360 l; 80 imp gal) wingtip fuel tanks, fuselage baggage door, 60 gallon ammo/gun bay fuel tanks, and a 14-inch (360 mm) taller vertical stabilizer.

Between 1964 and 1965, Trans Florida completed an IRAN inspection of over 30 F-51Ds of the Dominican Air Force (FAD) in Sarasota.

In 1967 the company was renamed Cavalier Aircraft Corporation.

Cavalier F-51D

Cavalier Mustang, formerly of the Bolivian Air Force

In 1967, a decade after creating their first civilian P-51 conversion, Trans Florida was contracted by the United States Department of Defense to create military specification F-51Ds for export. These military aircraft incorporated most of the improved features of the civilian Cavaliers but were optimized as ground attack fighters. These aircraft were called Cavalier F-51D Mustangs; nine single control (F-51D) and two dual-control (TF-51D) aircraft were built.[SUP][2][/SUP] The aircraft were given new 67-XXXXX and 68-XXXXX serial numbers. Nine (including the two TF-51s) were given to Bolivia, under a program called Peace Condor and two, with tip tanks, were sold to the United States Army for use as chase aircraft, one of which is preserved at the Air Force Armament Museum at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

Cavalier Mustang II
In 1967, Cavalier developed an outgrowth of the F-51D designed for close air support and counter-insurgency operations, calling this aircraft the Cavalier Mustang II. The Mustang II had improved avionics, structural improvements to the wing to allow more external weapons carriage on four additional hardpoints and an improved Rolls-Royce Merlin V-1650-724A engine.

Two batches of Mustang IIs were constructed: the first group was built for El Salvador in 1968 and the second group was constructed for export to Indonesia in 1972 and 1973. The five Mustang IIs (including one TF-51D) built for El Salvador featured wingtip fuel tanks to increase combat range. Five Mustang IIs and one TF-51D were built for Indonesia in 1972, but they did not have tip tanks due to a U.S. State Department restriction on their combat radius.

Cavalier Turbo Mustang III/ Enforcer
Main article: Piper PA-48 Enforcer

Piper PA48 Enforcer in the Research & Development Gallery at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force

In 1968, Cavalier mated a Rolls-Royce Dart 510 turboprop to a Mustang II airframe. This privately funded prototype was also intended for the same CAS/COIN mission that the Mustang II was built for. The Turbo Mustang III had radically increased performance, along with an associated increase in payload and decrease in cost of maintenance due to the turbine engine. Despite numerous sales pitches to the United States Air Force, neither the U.S. military nor any foreign operators purchased the Turbo Mustang III. Seeking a company with mass production capability, the Turbo Mustang prototype, now called "The Enforcer," was sold by Lindsay to Piper Aircraft in 1971.

Cavalier Aircraft Corp. was closed in 1971 so the founder/owner, David Lindsay, could help develop the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. Lindsay set up a new company, Field Services Inc., to complete a Cavalier Mustang II contract for Indonesia. Many of the civil Mustang conversions, as well as many re-imported former military Cavaliers, have been restored into P-51Ds and fly on the U.S. and European air show circuits today

zippome

Not the cavalier/mustang. But a very good try. New clue this evening.

zippome

Ok Guys, Here we go again!

1. This is a well known aircraft, seen around the world at airports and airshows all over.
2. This aircraft came a full circle with a plane designed for the civilian market, but was inspired by a warbird. This new aircraft then found a new market in the military.
3. Served in different roles in different militaries around the world.
4. The aircraft was produced in it's various forms , military and civilian for over 30 years.
5. The guys that designed this bird had built bombers .
6. Two of these aircraft were purchased to carry some precious cargo.
7. These 2 aircraft were to be the smallest in the lineage of aircraft built to carry out this mission.
8. These 2 aircraft also set the "tone" of all the aircraft that followed in it's mission.
9. A fighter pilot helped make this aircraft famous.

Ok guys!

That should help things along!

Thanks!
Zip

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[h=1]Northrop T-38 Talon[/h]
[h=2]Variants[/h]

• N-156T : Northrop company designation.
• YT-38 : Prototypes, two built with YJ85-GE-1 engines, later designated YT-38A and four pre-production aircraft with YJ-85-GE-5 engines, later designated T-38A.[SUP][20][/SUP]
• T-38A : Two-seat advanced training aircraft, production model, 1,139 built.[SUP][20][/SUP]
• T-38A(N) : Two-seat astronaut training version for NASA. See T-38N below.
• AT-38A : A small number of T-38As were converted into weapons training aircraft.
• DT-38A : A number of US Navy T-38As were converted into drone directors.
• GT-38A : Permanently grounded aircraft, often due to flight or ground mishap, converted into ground procedural trainers or aircraft maintenance trainers.
• NT-38A : A small number of T-38As were converted into research and test aircraft.
• QT-38A : Unmanned target drone aircraft.
• AT-38B : Two-seat weapons training aircraft.
• T-38C : A T-38A with structural and avionics upgrades.[SUP][5][/SUP]
• T-38M : Modernized Turkish Air Force T-38As with full glass cockpit and avionics, upgraded by Turkish Aerospace Industries under the project codename "ARI" (Turkish: Arı, for Bee).[SUP][21][/SUP]
• T-38N : Former USAF T-38As bailed to NASA and T-38As directly assigned to NASA that received an Avionics Upgrade Program (AUP), modernizing communications and navigation systems, replacing outdated avionics, and adding a weather radar, flight management system, altitude alert systems, and modern controls and displays.[SUP][22][/SUP]
• N-205 : "Space trainer" variant proposed in May 1958, with triple rocket engines for vertical launch.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] Capable of Mach 3.2 on its way to an altitude of 200,000 feet (61,000 m).
• ST-38 or N-205B : Revised proposal in April 1963 for the new Aerospace Research Pilot School, with a rolling takeoff, top speed of Mach 3.3 and a ceiling of 285,000 feet (87,000 m), high enough to qualify its pilots for astronaut wings.
• T-38 VTOL Proposed vertical takeoff variant with four lift nozzles behind the pilot.

Northrop F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and the F-5E/F Tiger II

[h=2]Variants[/h] [h=3]Single-seat versions[/h]


RTAF F-5 and USAF F-15 in the background





A trio of USAF aggressor squadron F-5Es in formation


N-156FSingle-seat fighter prototype. Only three aircraft were built. YF-5AThe three prototypes were given the U.S. Air Force designation YF-5A. F-5ASingle-seat fighter version of F-5, originally without radar, but was later equipped with AN/APQ-153 radar during upgrades. F-5A (G)Single-seat fighter version of the F-5A for the Royal Norwegian Air Force. XF-5AThis designation was given to one aircraft used for static tests. A.9Designation of Spanish Air Force Northrop F-5A which served in the Ejιrcito del Aire F-5C Skoshi Tiger12 F-5A Freedom Fighters were tested by the US Air Force for four and a half months in Vietnam. F-5E Tiger IISingle-seat fighter version with AN/APQ-159 replacing earlier AN/APQ-153 in F-5A. F-5E Tiger IIIUpgraded version of the F-5E in use by the Chilean Air Force, with EL/M-2032 radar replacing the original AN/APQ-159. F-5E/FA single Swiss Air Force F-5E with F-5F Wings. Currently (2011), this aircraft is part of the Museum at Meiringen air base F-5GThe temporary designation given to the Northrop F-20 Tigershark, armed with General Electric AN/APG-67 radar. F-5NEx-Swiss Air Force F-5Es used by the U.S. Navy as "aggressor" aircraft, with AN/APG-69 replacing the original AN/APQ-159. Intended to replace high-time USN/USMC F-5Es in the adversary role, and see service through to 2015.[SUP][10][/SUP] F-5SUpgraded version of the F-5E in use by the Republic of Singapore Air Force, equipped with the Galileo Avionica's FIAR Grifo-F X-band radar and are capable of firing the AIM-120 AMRAAM.[SUP][36][/SUP][SUP][37][/SUP][SUP][38][/SUP] F-5T TigrisUpgraded version of the F-5E of Royal Thai Air Force by Israel, also armed with EL/M-2032. F-5EMUpgraded version of the F-5E of Brazilian Air Force armed with Italian Grifo-F radar.F-5TIIIUpgraded version of the F-5E, in service with the Royal Moroccan Air Force. F-5E Tiger 2000Upgraded version of Taiwan AIDC, equipped with the GD-53 radar, capable of firing the TC-2 Sky Sword II, MIL-STD-1553B Link and GPS/INS [h=3]Reconnaissance versions[/h] RF-5ASingle-seat reconnaissance version of the F-5A fighter. Approximately 120 were built.[SUP][109][/SUP] RF-5A (G)Single-seat reconnaissance version of the F-5A fighter for the Royal Norwegian Air Force. RF-5E TigereyeSingle-seat reconnaissance version of the F-5E fighter. The RF-5E Tigereye was exported to Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. RF-5E TigergazerSeven upgraded single-seat reconnaissance version of the F-5E for Taiwan by ST Aerospace.[SUP][37][/SUP] RF-5S TigereyeSingle-seat reconnaissance version of the F-5S for the Republic of Singapore Air Force.[SUP][37][/SUP] AR-9Spanish reconnaissance aircraft B.TKh.18Thai designation of the RF-5A [h=3]Two-seat versions[/h]


Chilean F-5F Tiger II just after delivery in 1977





A Spanish F-5M Freedom Fighter at Dijon Air Base


AE.9Spanish designation of the Northrop F-5B.F-5-21Temporarily designation given to the YF-5B.YF-5BOne F-5B was fitted with a 5,000 lbf (2,268 kgf) General Electric J85-GE-21 engine, and used as a prototype for the F-5E Tiger II.F-5BTwo-seat fighter version for the Republic of Korea Air Force, armed with AN/APQ-157 radar.F-5B(G)Two-seat trainer version of the F-5B for the Royal Norwegian Air Force.F-5B MTwo-seat trainer version in use by the Spanish Air Force for air combat training.F-5DUnbuilt trainer version.F-5F Tiger IITwo-seat trainer version of F-5E Tiger II, AN/APQ-167 radar tested, intended to replace AN/APQ-157, but not carried out.F-5F Tiger IIIUpgraded trainer version of the F-5F in use by the Chilean Air Force.F-5TUpgraded F-5F in use by the Republic of Singapore Air Force.[SUP][37][/SUP]F-5FMUpgraded trainer version of the F-5F for the Brazilian Air Force. [h=3]Foreign variants[/h]


A Canadian CF-116


[h=4]Licensed versions[/h] CF-5Fighter versions for the Canadian Forces Air Command built under license by Canadair. Its Canadian designation is CF-116. NF-5ASingle-seat fighter version of the CF-5A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force; 75 built. NF-5BTwo-seat training version of the CF-5D for the Royal Netherlands Air force; 30 built. SF-5ASingle-seat fighter version of the F-5A for the Spanish Air Force; built under licence in Spain by CASA. SRF-5ASingle-seat reconnaissance version of the RF-5A for the Spanish Air force; built under license in Spain By CASA. SF-5BTwo-seat training version of the F-5B for the Spanish Air Force. Built under license in Spain by CASA. VF-5ASingle-seat version of the CF-5A for the Venezuelan Air Force. This designation was given to some Canadair CF-116s which were sold to the Venezuelan Air Force. VF-5DTwo-seat training version of the CF-5D for the Venezuelan Air Force. KF-5EF-5E built in South Korea for Republic of Korea Air Force. First introduction: September 1982; 48 built. KF-5FF-5F built in South Korea for Republic of Korea Air Force. First introduction: September 1982; 20 built.

perttime

Learjet?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Kind of a weird one, but the C-5/747/C-19 seems to fit the clues. Thanks; Ernie P.


C-5/747/C-19
In 1963, the United States Air Force started a series of study projects on a very large strategic transport aircraft. Although the C-141 Starlifter was being introduced, they believed that a much larger and more capable aircraft was needed, especially the capability to carry outsized cargo that would not fit in any existing aircraft. These studies led to initial requirements for the CX-Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) in March 1964 for an aircraft with a load capacity of 180,000 pounds (81,600 kg) and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph or 805 km/h), and an unrefueled range of 5,000 nautical miles (9,260 km) with a payload of 115,000 pounds (52,200 kg). The payload bay had to be 17 feet (5.18 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 feet (30.5 m) long with access through doors at the front and rear.

Featuring only four engines, the design also required new engine designs with greatly increased power and better fuel economy. On May 18, 1964, airframe proposals arrived from Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed and Martin Marietta; while engine proposals were submitted by General Electric, Curtiss-Wright, and Pratt & Whitney. After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were given additional study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.

All three of the airframe proposals shared a number of features. As the CX-HLS needed to be able to be loaded from the front, a door had to be included where the cockpit usually was. All of the companies solved this problem by moving the cockpit above the cargo area; Douglas had a small "pod" just forward and above the wing, Lockheed used a long "spine" running the length of the aircraft with the wing spar passing through it, while Boeing blended the two, with a longer pod that ran from just behind the nose to just behind the wing. In 1965 Lockheed's aircraft design and General Electric's engine design were selected for the new C-5 Galaxy transport, which was the largest military aircraft in the world at the time. The nose door and raised cockpit concepts would be carried over to the design of the 747

C-19 – The U.S. Air Force gave this designation to the 747-100s used by some U.S. airlines and modified for use in the Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet.

zippome

Some cool and interesting answers, however none are what I'm looking for.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by zippome
Ok Guys, Here we go again!

1. This is a well known aircraft, seen around the world at airports and airshows all over.
2. This aircraft came a full circle with a plane designed for the civilian market, but was inspired by a warbird. This new aircraft then found a new market in the military.
3. Served in different roles in different militaries around the world.
4. The aircraft was produced in it's various forms , military and civilian for over 30 years.
5. The guys that designed this bird had built bombers .
6. Two of these aircraft were purchased to carry some precious cargo.
7. These 2 aircraft were to be the smallest in the lineage of aircraft built to carry out this mission.
8. These 2 aircraft also set the "tone" of all the aircraft that followed in it's mission.
9. A fighter pilot helped make this aircraft famous.


AP-4 demonstrator

the AP-10improved

P-44 Rocket

P-43 Lancer

the XP-47A

finally the XP-47B


In 1939, Republic Aviation designed the AP-4 demonstrator powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine with a belly-mounted turbocharger. While the resulting Republic P-43 Lancer was in limited production, Republic had been working on an improved P-44 Rocket with a more powerful engine, as well as on a fighter designated the AP-10. The latter was a lightweight aircraft powered by the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V-12 engine and armed with eight .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns. The United States Army Air Corps (USAAC) backed the project and gave it the designation XP-47.

As the war in Europe escalated in spring 1940, Republic and the USAAC concluded that the XP-44 and the XP-47 were inferior to the German fighters. Republic unsuccessfully attempted to improve the design, proposing the XP-47A. Kartveli subsequently came up with an all-new and much larger fighter which was offered to the USAAC in June 1940. The Air Corps ordered a prototype in September, to be designated the XP-47B. The XP-47A, which had almost nothing in common with the new design, was abandoned.