Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
06-06-2015, 09:13 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Evenbigger D got it. Now, as for the clues...........
1) One was based on an existing design, the other was designed from scratch The Wildcatfish had the landing gear replaced with twin Edo floats, the wheel openings faired over and fins added to the rear fuse bottom and out toward the ends of the horizontal stabilizer
2) The two planes were designed roughly 20 years apart The XF4F-1 Wildcat was designed in 1935 as a biplane and redesigned twice, resulting in the Wildcat -3 version that was adopted by the Navy in October 1941. The Sea Dart was proposed in 1948 with an order being placed in 1951 with delivery of the first in December 1952
3) Only one of the existing design aircraft was ever made or flown, five of the scratch planes were built but only three ever flew
4) Both planes were built to circumvent a perceived battlefield "problem" The F4F-3S was built due to the perception that it would be some time between the amphibious landing on an island and air fields being made usable, something that proved to be untrue. The F2Y was started due to the problems of operating supersonic aircraft from a carrier deck, something that was overcome with the use of steam catapults and the angled deck
5) In it's nonmodified form, the first had a very good service record, the scratch built's 2nd plane crashed, killing the pilot The Wildcat had a kill-to-loss ratio of 6.9:1 On 4 November 1954, Sea Dart, BuNo 135762, disintegrated in midair over San Diego Bay during a demonstration for Navy officials and the press, killing Convair test pilot Charles E. Richbourg when he inadvertently exceeded the airframe limitations.
6) The existing design modification was inspired by a similar modification by another country to one of their aircraft The Japanese A6M2-N "Rufe" float fighter was used in the Solomon campaign with good results by the Japanese military
7) Both planes were cancelled, in part, due to "poor performance". In the case of the existing design, it was added weight and drag while in the new design, it was underpowered due to having "substitute" engines engines installed when the planned engines were found to be unavailable The Wildcat went from 331 MPH down to 241, an unacceptable drop. The Sea Dart was supposed to be supersonic, only achieving those speeds once and that being in a shallow dive
8) Both planes were developed to use a 'non-standard' runway Obviously water
9) The existing design was powered by a 1200 HP P&W Twin Wasp, the new design was powered by a pair of Westinghouse J34-WE-32 turbines since the intended J46-WE-2 wasn't ready
1) One was based on an existing design, the other was designed from scratch The Wildcatfish had the landing gear replaced with twin Edo floats, the wheel openings faired over and fins added to the rear fuse bottom and out toward the ends of the horizontal stabilizer
2) The two planes were designed roughly 20 years apart The XF4F-1 Wildcat was designed in 1935 as a biplane and redesigned twice, resulting in the Wildcat -3 version that was adopted by the Navy in October 1941. The Sea Dart was proposed in 1948 with an order being placed in 1951 with delivery of the first in December 1952
3) Only one of the existing design aircraft was ever made or flown, five of the scratch planes were built but only three ever flew
4) Both planes were built to circumvent a perceived battlefield "problem" The F4F-3S was built due to the perception that it would be some time between the amphibious landing on an island and air fields being made usable, something that proved to be untrue. The F2Y was started due to the problems of operating supersonic aircraft from a carrier deck, something that was overcome with the use of steam catapults and the angled deck
5) In it's nonmodified form, the first had a very good service record, the scratch built's 2nd plane crashed, killing the pilot The Wildcat had a kill-to-loss ratio of 6.9:1 On 4 November 1954, Sea Dart, BuNo 135762, disintegrated in midair over San Diego Bay during a demonstration for Navy officials and the press, killing Convair test pilot Charles E. Richbourg when he inadvertently exceeded the airframe limitations.
6) The existing design modification was inspired by a similar modification by another country to one of their aircraft The Japanese A6M2-N "Rufe" float fighter was used in the Solomon campaign with good results by the Japanese military
7) Both planes were cancelled, in part, due to "poor performance". In the case of the existing design, it was added weight and drag while in the new design, it was underpowered due to having "substitute" engines engines installed when the planned engines were found to be unavailable The Wildcat went from 331 MPH down to 241, an unacceptable drop. The Sea Dart was supposed to be supersonic, only achieving those speeds once and that being in a shallow dive
8) Both planes were developed to use a 'non-standard' runway Obviously water
9) The existing design was powered by a 1200 HP P&W Twin Wasp, the new design was powered by a pair of Westinghouse J34-WE-32 turbines since the intended J46-WE-2 wasn't ready
06-06-2015, 09:15 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
06-07-2015, 06:32 AM
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver,
WA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Supermarine is a good guess but not what I was thinking about
This company made one of the slowest as well as one of the fastest aircraft of World War II.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
This company made one of the slowest as well as one of the fastest aircraft of World War II.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
06-07-2015, 12:45 PM
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver,
WA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This company made one of the slowest as well as one of the fastest aircraft of World War II.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
06-08-2015, 12:23 PM
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver,
WA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This company made one of the slowest as well as one of the fastest aircraft of World War II.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
They are so different one was named after a bird and the other had a nickname of an "insect".
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
They are so different one was named after a bird and the other had a nickname of an "insect".
06-08-2015, 01:30 PM
Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver,
WA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This company made one of the slowest as well as one of the fastest aircraft of World War II.
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
They are so different one was named after a bird and the other had a nickname of an "insect".
Fieseler was the one, good job
Both aircraft were for low altitude operation.
Engines were of totally different design.
They are so different one was named after a bird and the other had a nickname of an "insect".
Fieseler was the one, good job
06-08-2015, 03:17 PM
My Feedback: (6)
It was the bird name that tipped me off. The only warbird model I've got at the moment is a Storch. I've always thought of the Storch as the model for why Germany was bound to lose the war. A terrific plane in many respects, but putting that many resources into that kind of plane made little sense, and it was hard to fly and so needed skilled pilots. Made a lot more sense just to paint Piper Cubs green. Guys who had flunked out of pilot school could fly them, and anybody who'd grown up around tools could fix them when they broke.. Save the high-tech stuff for other jobs.
OK, here's the next question.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
OK, here's the next question.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
06-09-2015, 04:06 AM
My Feedback: (6)
No right answer yet.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
06-09-2015, 12:29 PM
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Agawam, MA
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-40 Warhawk. Basically rebuilt from an earlier fighter (can't remember the model) with the substitution of an inline engine for the earlier model's radial engine.
Last edited by Antares100; 06-09-2015 at 12:56 PM.
06-09-2015, 03:12 PM
My Feedback: (6)
Lots of good guesses, and the P-39 fits all the clues perfectly. But not the plane I'm looking for.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
06-10-2015, 12:45 AM
The P-40 was a bit more than a re-engined P36 Hawk. The forward fuse was more oval in shape than the round necessitated by the radial engine so major structural changes were incorporated. The wings and the fuse behind the cockpit were all used in the early versions of the P-40, but with one major change, the P-36's single .30 and .50 cowl mounted guns were replaced with two .50's mounted over the engine and another pair in the wings. This was later upgraded to six .50s in the wings. The P40 is a very misunderstood aircraft. In combat, it was found that the Warhawk couldn't turn with the A6M. What many forget is that no other allied fighter could either, including the Spitfire and Mustang, two planes noted for their maneuverability. The Warhawk was hampered at high altitude by the single stage supercharger in it's Allison engine. The power loss at high altitudes prevented it from being able to take on the ME-109 or the later FW-190 at the altitudes air combat normally occurred in Europe. What was learned in the second half of 1942 and through1943 was that, below 15,000 feet, the Warhawk was the equal of and, in some aspects, superior to the German fighters. What made the A6M such a potent adversary, when compared unfairly to the P-40, was that its design was optimized to dogfight at the same altitudes the P-40 was best in. Being slightly bigger and much heavier, the Warhawk had to rely on a higher top speed, better diving characteristics and it's more rugged construction and armor.
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 06-10-2015 at 01:53 AM.
06-10-2015, 04:27 AM
My Feedback: (6)
Not the P-63, elmshoot. Here's this morning's clue.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
5. Flown by some well-known aces, and also (at times) by three pilots who were not aces, but who were very well-known.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
5. Flown by some well-known aces, and also (at times) by three pilots who were not aces, but who were very well-known.
06-10-2015, 05:18 AM
My Feedback: (6)
The P-38 it is, and you are up! Explanation of clues follows.
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
The early versions especially had a low roll rate, which made it poor at dogfights. Galland thought it a second-rate plane (the story about the Germans calling it the "forked-tailed devil" are almost certainly not true: It didn't give them that much trouble, and in any event people don't make up flattering names for enemy aircraft.) It was fast and had superb range, though.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
Not that successful in Europe except for photorecon, but its range made it very useful in the Pacific.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
Britain turned down the balance of an order, which was just as well for us, as we could send them to the Pacific.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
Guns in the nose, so they didn't have to be set to converge at a particular distance.
5. Flown by some well-known aces, and also (at times) by three pilots who were not aces, but who were very well-known.
The three non-aces I had in mind were Lindbergh, St Exupery (in a photorecon version), and Doolittle (who flew one on D-Day to observe the action.)
Looking for an airplane.
1. Like most planes, its performance was very good in some respects but marginal in others, especially in the earlier versions.
The early versions especially had a low roll rate, which made it poor at dogfights. Galland thought it a second-rate plane (the story about the Germans calling it the "forked-tailed devil" are almost certainly not true: It didn't give them that much trouble, and in any event people don't make up flattering names for enemy aircraft.) It was fast and had superb range, though.
2. Its combination of strengths and weaknesses made it more useful in some areas than in others.
Not that successful in Europe except for photorecon, but its range made it very useful in the Pacific.
3. Early in the war, an ally of the country that manufactured it cancelled part of an order because it was disappointed in the plane's performance.
Britain turned down the balance of an order, which was just as well for us, as we could send them to the Pacific.
4. Armament had a feature which made it superior in one respect to that of most other aircraft in its category.
Guns in the nose, so they didn't have to be set to converge at a particular distance.
5. Flown by some well-known aces, and also (at times) by three pilots who were not aces, but who were very well-known.
The three non-aces I had in mind were Lindbergh, St Exupery (in a photorecon version), and Doolittle (who flew one on D-Day to observe the action.)
06-10-2015, 05:26 AM
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Agawam, MA
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Hydro Junkie, thanks for the added info. I pulled up an youtube video, and since the P-40 is one of my favorites, watched a video on it where it gave many of the improvements/mods used in the development of the P-40. Learned something and thought I would try a quick post to see if I was close/correct. Didn't remember all the differenced but found it very interesting how the P-40 developed. A beaautiful plane.