Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

This plane had two significant "firsts", what was the plane and what were the two "firsts"?
Six cylinder engine
Only one built destroyed by the RAF early in WW2
Essentially an experimental or pioneer aircraft
2 seater, 81mph
Wing construction technique was later used in B17s
"early in WW2" is a very misleading twist
mid-wing monoplane without exterior bracing struts or wires (on the wing)

Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

This plane had two significant "firsts", what was the plane and what were the two "firsts"?
Six cylinder engine
Only one built destroyed by the RAF early in WW2
Essentially an experimental or pioneer aircraft
2 seater, 81mph (the 2 seater was an original design requirement but the final aircraft may have been a single seater........sorry)
Wing construction technique was later used in B17s
"early in WW2" is a very misleading twist
mid-wing monoplane without exterior bracing struts or wires (on the wing)
made of metal but not the type normally associated with aircraft

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Evenbigger D; good question. You are doing well. I've had a feeling as to where you were headed for a while, but one clue doesn't match up. So, I have a question for you, concerning your clue "2 seater, 81mph (the 2 seater was an original design requirement but the final aircraft may have been a single seater........sorry)". Was perhaps the "81 mph" a design requirement? And the actual aircraft easily exceeded that speed in testing? Thanks; Ernie P.

Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

This plane had two significant "firsts", what was the plane and what were the two "firsts"?
Six cylinder engine
Only one built destroyed by the RAF early in WW2
Essentially an experimental or pioneer aircraft
2 seater, 81mph ....was the original design requirements but the actual plane went 110mph and may have been a single seater........sorry again
Wing construction technique was later used in B17s
"early in WW2" is a very misleading twist
mid-wing monoplane without exterior bracing struts or wires (on the wing)
made of metal but not the type normally associated with aircraft

JohnnyS

So not the Stipa-Caproni then?

Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

This plane had two significant "firsts", what was the plane and what were the two "firsts"?
Six cylinder engine
Only one built destroyed by the RAF early in WW2
Essentially an experimental or pioneer aircraft
2 seater, 81mph ....was the original design requirements but the actual plane went 110mph and may have been a single seater........sorry again
Wing construction technique was later used in B17s
"early in WW2" is a very misleading twist
mid-wing monoplane without exterior bracing struts or wires (on the wing)
made of metal but not the type normally associated with aircraft
German

JohnnyS

Junkers J 1 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J_1
1. World's first practical all-metal aircraft.
2. First aircraft to fly with cantilever wings.

Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

Junkers J 1 -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J_1
1. World's first practical all-metal aircraft.
2. First aircraft to fly with cantilever wings.

And JohnnyS is up

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Just background. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Junkers J 1, nicknamed the Blechesel ("Tin Donkey" or "Sheet Metal Donkey"), was the world's first practical all-metal aircraft. Built early in World War I, when aircraft designers relied largely on fabric-covered wooden structures, braced with struts and exposed rigging lines, the Junkers J 1 was a revolutionary development in aircraft design, being built and flown only 12 years after the Wright Brothers had first flown the "Flyer I" biplane in December 1903. Herr Junkers' experimental all-metal aircraft never received an official "A" nor an "E-series" monoplane designation from IdFlieg and the then-designated Fliegertruppe, probably because it was primarily intended as a practical demonstration of Junkers' metal-based structural ideas, and was officially only known by its Junkers factory model number of J 1. It should not be confused with the later, armoured all-metal Junkers J 4 sesquiplane, accepted by the later Luftstreitkrδfte as the Junkers J.I (using a Roman numeral).

Hugo Junkers, who had already established his engineering credentials by the invention of a type of calorimeter and in the construction of internal combustion engines, first became interested in aviation in 1907 when a colleague named Hans Reissner, a professor at the Technische Hochschule in Aachen, approached him for assistance in aircraft construction. Five years later Reissner, with Junkers' help, began construction of his all-metal canard design, which he named the Ente ("Duck"). Junkers' firm built the flying surfaces, and radiator of Reissner's design. The problems encountered in constructing the Ente got Junkers' mind working on the problems of airframe design, and solving the problem of eliminating the then-prevalent exterior bracing from airframes. He patented the concept of the flying wing aircraft in Germany in 1910. When World War I broke out his mind turned to military matters.

After the outbreak of World War I Hugo Junkers and his company's research institute, or Forschungsanstalt, began the engineering work to realize Junkers' idea of creating aircraft designs that dispensed with drag-producing exterior bracing. His work on Reissner's Ente design had convinced him of the necessity to use metal as the main structural material, but since the apparently ideal metal alloy for aircraft construction, duralumin, had only been invented some six years earlier in Germany, and was initially prone to flaking and other undesirable characteristics when worked in sheet metal form, Junkers first all-metal aircraft designs had to use sheets of heavier electrical steel, similar to the types of ferrous sheet metals used in laminated-core AC electrical transformers.

In July 1915 the Junkers firm got its first aircraft construction contract No. 96/7.17 A7/L from the German government, to produce a two-seat all-metal aircraft with a 130 km/h (81 mph) top speed, a wing loading of 50 kg/m² (10.2 lb/ft²) and using a 75 kW (101 hp) engine. Junkers engineers Otto Mader, head of Junkers' Forschungsanstalt, and Hans Steudel, director of Junkers' structural materials and testing department, started the work on the design of what would become the Junkers J 1 in September of that year, and by November 1915 the completed J 1 was ready for initial flight testing.

The Junkers J 1 was a mid-wing monoplane with a cantilever wing, without exterior bracing struts or wires. External bracing was only used for support of the horizontal stabilizer and the undercarriage.

The fuselage used welded strip-steel angle stock and I-beam sections along with some steel tubing to form its main internal structure, with 42 cm (17 in) wide sheet steel panels wrapped around the fuselage to form its covering. The innovative cantilever structure for the wings were also covered in chordwise sheet steel panels. The wing root had a depth of about 75% of the height of the fuselage at the root's thickest point, and the wing had at least three airfoil changes, along with tapering of the leading and trailing edge angles between the wing's root and the wingtip. These changes in wing section would become a Junkers design hallmark on the later 1918 Junkers D.I. single seat all metal fighter design, which was covered with corrugated duralumin. The J 1 also relied on steel panels with spanwise corrugations running from root to tip as a structural element hidden under the smooth outer metal covering to increase the wing's strength. This particular design element of the J 1 was used on later all-metal aircraft, such as the wings of the American Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bomber design of 1935.

The 90 kW (120 hp) Mercedes D.II six-cylinder liquid-cooled inline engine selected for the design had a simple, clamshell-like horizontally split cowling enclosing the engine's crankcase and lower cylinder block, and an advanced engine radiator layout, placing the radiator in a ventral position under the forward fuselage, with the front of the radiator housing's opening just behind the front gear strut's attachment points to the fuselage, and with the radiator's housing having a width equal to that of the fuselage above it.

The single vertical tail surface was of an "all-flying" design (with no fixed fin) and the entire tail surface structure and covering also consisted of formed and sheet steel, much like the wings, however the angle of incidenceof the stabilizer could be adjusted on the ground.

Before the Junkers J 1 could fly for the first time, IdFlieg, the Inspektorat der Fliegertruppen, the aviation administration arm of the German army, required that static load tests be done on the J 1, with the usual static loading trials carried out on the J 1's structure with sand bags, loading and strength tests, as well as a test of the static thrust that would be obtained with the chosen engine and propeller combination. The static tests were completed on 3 December 1915, preceding the engine thrust tests. The Junkers factory did not yet have its own test field in Dessau, so the completed J 1 was taken to the Fliegerersatzabteilung 1 (FEA 1) airfield in Dφberitz just west of Berlin for its flight testing program.

On 12 December, Leutnant Theodor Mallinckrodt of FEA 1 was assigned to taxi and briefly "hop" the J 1, which he managed to do successfully up to almost a 3 m (9.8 ft) altitude, but a gust of wind caught the starboard wing during the "hop" as the J 1 descended, with the port wingtip scraping the ground and the J 1's left side of the fuselage was bent inwards towards the rear of the wing mount. Repairs were made through the holiday period at the end of 1915, and more static load tests were carried out to check on the integrity of the repairs.

The second attempt at flight for the J 1 was carried out at Dφberitz by Gefreiter (Private) Paul Arnold of the FEA 1 unit, on 18 January 1916. During this flight the J 1 reached an altitude of only 80 m (260 ft), following a 200 m (660 ft) takeoff run, and the variable incidence stabilizer had been incorrectly set, in the mistaken belief that the J 1 was tail-heavy. Later that day, after the stabilizer's incidence adjustment was corrected to give level flight trim, Leutnant Mallinckrodt made another attempt, this time reaching 900 m (3,000 ft), with a shorter takeoff run than before. The in-flight handling of the J 1 was acceptable, and it was stable in flight.

On the following day, 19 January, Mallinckrodt once again took the J 1 up for its only known "high performance" flight test, which consisted of a 7 km (4.3 mi) course, at varying altitudes from 200–300 m (660–980 ft), and managed to get the J 1 up to a top speed of 170 km/h (110 mph). The J 1 was compared to the popular Rumpler C.I two-seat armed observation biplane, which was some 30 km/h (19 mph) slower in its top speed, even though the Rumpler biplane had the more powerful Mercedes D.III engine, but due to the lighter weight of the Rumpler's wood-and-fabric structure it had a much better climb rate than the J 1 with its experimental steel structure.

By the end of January 1916, Junkers had been given a contract to further develop his all-metal concept, and the later Junkers J 2 single-seat fighter, which would never see front line service, was the follow-on to the J 1.

The Junkers J 1 was probably not flown again after January 1916. However, it survived World War I, and was placed on display in a Berlin aviation museum. Sadly, it met its end during one of the earliest Royal Air Force bombing raids on Berlin during World War II.

JohnnyS

Friends,

I just got handed a serious incident to deal with and I'm about to lose all my free time until further notice: I have to pass the conch to whoever has a good question. Sorry about that!

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

JohnnyS; sorry to hear about the other issues, but we all know things do happen. I wish you success in dealing with them. Okay, folks; the floor is open to any one who has a question ready to go. First to post has the floor. If no one posts anything by tomorrow afternoon, I will do so. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Going once. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Going twice. Thanks; Ernie P.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Sold! Or rather, not sold. Whatever... Here's an easy question to keep things moving along. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Interestingly, this combat aircraft was developed from a trainer aircraft.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Interestingly, this combat aircraft was developed from a trainer aircraft.
2. Actually, a trainer aircraft which was developed from a combat aircraft.

Evenbigger D

My Feedback: (1)

T33

pilotal

F-5 freedom fighter

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

No correct answers thus far, although some very good guesses. Here's an extra clue to reward participation.Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Interestingly, this combat aircraft was developed from a trainer aircraft.
2. Actually, a trainer aircraft which was developed from a combat aircraft.
3. The warbird in question was the first to utilize a newly developed engine system, which increased speed significantly.

castlebravo

F-94?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-94_Starfire

CB

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Well, I figured this one would be easy, but not quite that easy. Good job, castlebravo; and you are now up to ask the next question. The most fascinating clue, to me, is at the end. An F-94 was lost in combat, trying to turn with a biplane? Wow! Who would have thought? Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

1. Interestingly, this combat aircraft was developed from a trainer aircraft.
2. Actually, a trainer aircraft which was developed from a combat aircraft.
3. The warbird in question was the first to utilize a newly developed engine system, which increased speed significantly.
4. Although it was considered a successful aircraft, and successfully fulfilled the role for which it was intended, it did not have a long service life.
5. A single variant of the type eventually gave its name to all the aircraft of the type.
6. It was developed as an in-house project, because there was so little initial official interest in the new aircraft variant.
7. A new wing was designed for the new variant.
8. A more powerful engine was fitted; which delivered a lot more power.
9. A longer nose was fitted, to house a new type of radar.
10. The guns were removed from the redesigned nose, and a new type of armament fitted.
11. Initially, the new armament created problems; some of which caused rather severe problems with the engine.
12. The problems were severe enough to endanger the aircraft.
13. The new armament often blinded the crew.
14. So, the new armament was moved to the wings.
15. And fitted in pods.
16. Several hundred were produced.
17. It served in combat, destroying a number of enemy aircraft.
18. It destroyed a number of enemy aircraft during night interceptions.
19. It also served as a night escort fighter.
20. Incredibly, one of the type was lost which attempting to turn with an enemy biplane.

Answer: The F-94 Starfire






The Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor. The aircraft reached operational service in May 1950 with Air Defense Command, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in the all-weather interceptor role.
The F-94 was the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953. It had a relatively brief operational life, being replaced in the mid-1950s by the Northrop F-89 Scorpion and North American F-86D Sabre interceptor aircraft. The last aircraft left active-duty service in 1958; Air National Guard service in 1959.

The F-94C Starfire was extensively modified from the early F-94 variants. In fact, it was initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm, so Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation. To improve performance, a completely new, much thinner wing was designed, along with a swept tail surface. The J33 engine was replaced with a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48, a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which dramatically increased power, producing a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning. The fire control system was upgraded to the new Hughes E-5 with an AN/APG-40 radar in a much larger nose. The guns were removed and replaced with all-rocket armament consisting of four flip-up panels in a ring around the nose, each containing six rockets. According to test pilot Tony LeVier, the F-94C was capable of supersonic flight.

The F-94C was the only variant to be officially named Starfire. With time, the entire F-94 family has adopted the name. The first production F-94C aircraft were delivered in July 1951, 387 examples being delivered before May 1954. The largest problem discovered in service was the nose-mounted rockets, which blinded the crew with their smoke and fire. The most severe problem associated with firing the nose-mounted rockets was that the exhaust could cause a flameout of the jet engine, which could lead to loss of the aircraft. Mid-wing fuel and rocket pods were added, each holding 12 rockets. Most of the time, the nose rockets were not installed, and the mid-wing pod rockets were the sole armament. This version of the aircraft was extensively used within the Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) air defense system.

In the Pacific, Far East Air Force (FEAF) equipped three squadrons with F-94Bs, and Air Defense Command deployed the 319th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron to South Korea to provide a jet air-defense umbrella over the Seoul area.
The first shipment of F-94Bs arrived in Japan in March 1951, being assigned to the 339th Fighter-All Weather Squadron at Johnson Air Base. Also arriving was a mobile training unit from Chanute AFB, Illinois to provide transition training for the F-82G Twin Mustang pilots into the new jet interceptor. In May, F-94Bs began to re-equip the 68th FAWS at Itazuke Air Base, while rotating pilots and radar operators to Suwon Air Base in South Korea where they flew combat missions over North Korea with the F-82Gs as well as air defense alert over Seoul. In July, the 4th FAWS began receiving the F-94As at Naha Air Base, Okinawa. Training for the squadrons proceeded though the summer and in August, the first Fifth Air Force Operational Readiness Test was held by the 339th FAWS with the F-94. Various issues with the aircraft, as well as issues with the Ground Control Interception radar graded the test as "fair".[SUP][6][/SUP]

In early December 1951 the appearance of Communist MiG-15 jets over Seoul raised alarm bells at FEAF Headquarters. The only interceptors over Seoul were about six F-82Gs along with some Marine Grumman F7F Tigercats. FEAF ordered the 68th to move two F-94Bs to Suwon to supplement the F-82Fs. The Twin Mustangs along with the F7Fs would continue their armed reconnaissance and weather missions against North Korean targets, while the F-94s would fly interception missions over South Korea and the Yellow Sea. Care was made not to fly the Starfires anywhere that a crash would allow the communists access to the wreck if it were shot down.[SUP][6][/SUP]
In January 1952, ADC was ordered to deploy the 319th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron from the 25th Air Division at Larson AFB, Washington to Japan, and to relieve the 68th FIS at Itazuke. A detachment of the ADC squadron was sent to Misawa AB to fly air defense missions over Northern Honshu and Hokkaido against any intruding Soviet aircraft from Sakhalin Island or the Vladivostok area. At Suwon, the 68th had a total of fifty-eight interceptions during February during nighttime hours. It was in February 1952 that the first F-94 was lost in an night interception while pursuing an unknown aircraft over the Yellow Sea. The cause of the loss was unknown, however a B-26 pilot observed an explosion in the air between the island of Taeyonp'yong-do and the city of Haeju in North Korea. A search was made for the aircraft and crew, which continued for almost three months. It was finally concluded the aircraft had crashed and broken up over the Yellow Sea, with the wreckage settling in deep water with the classified equipment lost at sea.
In March 1952 the 319th FIS began flying operational missions at Suwon, providing Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) for B-29 Superfortress missions at night. The 68th was relieved and reassigned to Japan, but would remain on one-hour alert for possible combat duty over Korea. In June, the first F-94 contacts against enemy jets was made and the interceptor crews believed at the time that the communists were testing radar-warning equipment. On several occasions just when they were ready to fire on the enemy aircraft, it would start evasive action that indicated the MiGs were equipped with a form of warning radar (as the F-94s were). Other intercepts would take place over North Korea and the F-94 was credited with several air-to-air victories, including the first jet-vs.-jet night victory against a MiG-15. One F-94 was listed as lost due to enemy action, six more to non-enemy causes on combat missions, two were declared as missing on a combat mission and three were lost in accidents. One F-94 was lost when it slowed to 110 miles per hour (180 km/h) during pursuit of a Po-2 biplane.
After the Armistice in Korea in June 1953, the F-94s continued to fly air defense missions over Japan and South Korea. Beginning in 1954, the F-86D Sabre Interceptor began replacing it in operational service. By the end of 1954, the Starfires had been sent back to the United States for Air National Guard duty.

castlebravo

Alrighty...I'm game
This Warbird was also a combat aircraft....developed from a trainer....developed from a combat aircraft. Only 23 made....some still operational.....

CB

castlebravo

Next clue... It's engine was also used in something that might sit on your front porch or destroy your entire city.....


CB

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Well, that's a clue you don't see very often. Other than a big Doberman, I'm clueless. Thanks; Ernie P.

castlebravo

OK...last clue before I go lose at pool league......
It has two unique airframe features.....one called a "Hotdog" and the other something Esmerelda's saivior or Igor might admire......



CB

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Upon due reflection, I suppose a big cat could sit on the porch or destroy a city. Thanks; Ernie P.