Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

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

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Old 09-10-2015, 03:41 AM
  #11826  
Evenbigger D
Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Heinkel He 100 is the one. 463.919 mph in 1939......... impressive
Old 09-10-2015, 07:39 AM
  #11827  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 810
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by proptop
After the first few clues that pic of the designer's model popped into my head...but I couldn't recall who or what country had made it...
Just remember: If it's ugly, it's British. If it's weird, it's French and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian. See: http://www.propilots.org/humor/aviation_humor.htm

I can't really think of anything uglier and weirder than a tank biplane, so it must be Russian...


Last edited by JohnnyS; 09-10-2015 at 07:44 AM.
Old 09-10-2015, 08:19 AM
  #11828  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Evenbigger D
Heinkel He 100 is the one. 463.919 mph in 1939......... impressive
Okay; here we go. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
Old 09-10-2015, 10:25 AM
  #11829  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
Old 09-10-2015, 01:37 PM
  #11830  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
  3. Part of the problem was that it was designed to fill one set of requirements; and then the requirements were changed completely.
Old 09-10-2015, 03:52 PM
  #11831  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Guys;

Not a question, really; and definitely not a part of the current question. But can any of you identify the aircraft in the below pictures? Thanks; Ernie P.


Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	2010_USSM0939.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	26.4 KB
ID:	2119232   Click image for larger version

Name:	2010_USSM0964.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	51.1 KB
ID:	2119233  
Old 09-10-2015, 03:54 PM
  #11832  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Albatros
Old 09-10-2015, 05:56 PM
  #11833  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcguy59
Albatros
D.V or D.Va?
It has the fully rounded (cross section) fuselage...that's how you can tell it from a D.III

(now watch...this is a trick question, and I will be wrong...)
Old 09-11-2015, 01:18 AM
  #11834  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by proptop
D.V or D.Va?
It has the fully rounded (cross section) fuselage...that's how you can tell it from a D.III

(now watch...this is a trick question, and I will be wrong...)
Pretty close, proptop; but yes, it's a trick question. It's actually my newest RC plane. It is an Albatros D.Va, though. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 09-11-2015, 01:23 AM
  #11835  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
  3. Part of the problem was that it was designed to fill one set of requirements; and then the requirements were changed completely.
  4. Essentially, it was originally to have fulfilled one role; and then another role was substituted.
Old 09-11-2015, 04:37 AM
  #11836  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

I'm headed to the field, so here's an afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
  3. Part of the problem was that it was designed to fill one set of requirements; and then the requirements were changed completely.
  4. Essentially, it was originally to have fulfilled one role; and then another role was substituted.
  5. It was essentially a Frankenstein aircraft; a part of this one, a piece of that one; some of this and some of that; and a bit of the other.
Old 09-11-2015, 03:50 PM
  #11837  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
  3. Part of the problem was that it was designed to fill one set of requirements; and then the requirements were changed completely.
  4. Essentially, it was originally to have fulfilled one role; and then another role was substituted.
  5. It was essentially a Frankenstein aircraft; a part of this one, a piece of that one; some of this and some of that; and a bit of the other.
  6. Despite which it was actually a very capable aircraft.
Old 09-11-2015, 04:31 PM
  #11838  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Fisher P-75?
Old 09-11-2015, 04:41 PM
  #11839  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

SB2C Helldiver
Old 09-11-2015, 07:37 PM
  #11840  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcguy59
Fisher P-75?
That would be it, rcguy59. Congratulations and you are now up to ask the next question. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
  1. This aircraft suffered from being “not available for production within the required time”. IOW; it couldn’t be brought into large scale production before the need had passed.
  2. In addition, it was argued that the new aircraft could not do anything that couldn’t be done almost as well by existing aircraft already in production.
  3. Part of the problem was that it was designed to fill one set of requirements; and then the requirements were changed completely.
  4. Essentially, it was originally to have fulfilled one role; and then another role was substituted.
  5. It was essentially a Frankenstein aircraft; a part of this one, a piece of that one; some of this and some of that; and a bit of the other.
  6. Despite which it was actually a very capable aircraft.
  7. The prototype aircraft were delivered, designed to meet the original requirements.
  8. But the needs of the service had changed, and now they urgently needed a different type of aircraft.
  9. So, a small handful of aircraft were ordered, modified to meet the new requirements.
  10. A pretty sizeable order for the modified aircraft was also made; but with the stipulation that the entire order could be cancelled if the modified aircraft weren’t satisfactory for their new role.
  11. And, guess what? By the time the modified aircraft was ready for production, the “urgent need” had passed and the powers that be decided it wasn’t satisfactory. So the order was cancelled.
  12. In all, less than 20 (combined) of both variants were produced.
  13. It had a great name.
  14. It also had some initial development problems, as most new aircraft do.
  15. The designers had missed the center of gravity a little bit.
  16. The new engine wasn’t delivering the expected power, and it tended to overheat.
  17. Worse, one of the control surfaces took a lot of effort to move in flight.
  18. And even worse than that was the poor spin characteristics.
  19. Corrections were made; a new canopy design, some engine improvements and a modified tail assembly.
  20. From first flight of the modified aircraft to the date everything had been corrected was around nine months.
  21. But nine months after the order had been placed, the world looked a lot different.
  22. By then, the need for a new aircraft had passed. Existing aircraft were getting the job done, and the end was in sight.


Answer: The General Motors/Fischer P-75 Eagle

The General Motors/Fisher P-75 Eagle was a fighter aircraft designed by the Fisher Body Division of General Motors. Development started in September 1942 in response to United States Army Air Forces requirement for a fighter possessing an extremely high rate of climb, using the most powerful liquid-cooled engine then available, the Allison V-3420. The program was cancelled after only a small number of prototypes and production aircraft had been completed, as it was no longer required in its original role, could not be quickly deployed, and possessed no significant advantages over aircraft already in production.

[h=2]Design and development[/h]
The first XP-75 in flight
In October 1942, the contract for two prototypes, designated XP-75, was signed with the Fisher Body Division of GM. The design concept was to use the outer wing panels from the North American P-51 Mustang, the tail assembly from the Douglas A-24 (SBD), and the undercarriage from the Vought F4U Corsair in a general layout much as in the Bell P-39 Airacobra with the engine located amidships with the propeller driven through an extension shaft. At an early design stage, however, Curtiss P-40 Warhawk outer wing panels were substituted for the P-51 panels.
In mid-1943, the need for long-range escort fighters became more urgent than fast climbing interceptors so a decision was made to order six more XP-75 airplanes modified for the long-range role. At this time, an order for 2,500 production aircraft was also let, but with the stipulation that if the first P-75A was not satisfactory the complete order might be canceled.
At the time, General Motors was busy in several projects towards the war effort, including the mass production of several different aircraft types, among them the Grumman TBF Avenger. Some sources claim that the P-75 was the result of a scheme to get General Motors out of being forced to build Boeing B-29 Superfortresses; the P-75 project being a "high-priority" project to help GM avoid the added strain of Superfortress production. Bearing the name, "P-75 Eagle" was significant as the designation harkened back to the French 75 gun in World War I, considered a symbol of defeating the Germans. The "Eagle" was given extensive media coverage prior to its first flight, being trumpeted as a "wonder plane". The designations XP-73 and XP-74 were never issued.

[h=2]Operational history[/h]
Fisher P-75 Eagle on display at the National Museum of the USAF in the Research & Development Gallery
Powered by a V-3420-19 24-cylinder engine rated at 2,600 hp driving co-axial contra-rotating propellers, the XP-75 flew for the first time on 17 November 1943. The second XP-75 flew shortly thereafter, with all six long-range XP-75s entering the test program by the spring 1944. The test program brought up numerous teething problems, including miscalculation of the fighter’s center of mass, failure of the engine to produce its expected power, inadequate engine cooling, high aileron forces at high speed, and poor spin characteristics. Redesigns were introduced into the long-range XP-75s including a modified tail assembly, new "bubble" canopy, and a V-3420-23 engine that corrected most of the deficiencies by the time the first P-75A Eagles entered flight test in September 1944.
By this time, the Army Air Force decided to limit the number of combat aircraft types in production and not enter into large-scale production of new types that might not be available before the war ended. As the twin-engine Lockheed P-38 Lightning, along with the single-engine Republic P-47 Thunderbolt and North American P-51 Mustang, demonstrated excellent long-range capabilities, the production run of the P-75A Eagle was substantially terminated on 6 October 1944. It was decided to use the six completed production aircraft for experimental work and development of the V-3420 engine. As a result of those events, the P-75A did not complete formal performance trials due to termination of the production contract. Ultimately, only eight XP-75s and six P-75As were built.

[h=2]Specifications (XP-75)[/h]
Fisher XP-75 3/4 front view (S/N 43-46950)
General characteristics
Performance
Armament
  • 6x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) wing mounted machine guns
  • 4x .50 caliber (12.7 mm) fuselage mounted machine guns
  • 2x 500 lb (227 kg) bombs
Old 09-12-2015, 12:22 AM
  #11841  
psb667
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: littleton, CO
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What size is your dv.a? Im almost done with a park size albatross. Im assembling.
Old 09-12-2015, 04:20 AM
  #11842  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS
Just remember: If it's ugly, it's British. If it's weird, it's French and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian. See: http://www.propilots.org/humor/aviation_humor.htm

I can't really think of anything uglier and weirder than a tank biplane, so it must be Russian...

The Fischer P-75 could, I guess, show that those countries weren't alone with their unusual, or weird, etc. designs, aye!?
Old 09-12-2015, 12:52 PM
  #11843  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

The giveaway for me was the use of various existing parts of other airplanes. I guess that's what happens when an auto manufacturer tries to design an airplane. To me, the P-75 was an abortion and looked it. The V-3420 was interesting, but that's about it. A local museum has a V-3420 on display. Massive beast!

OK, this should be an easy one.

1. A modification of an existing design, by a different manufacturer.
Old 09-12-2015, 01:29 PM
  #11844  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

2. As is usually the case, the modifications were an attempt to gain higher performance. In this case, they actually succeeded.

3. This wasn't easy, as the existing airplane already had excellent performance.
Old 09-12-2015, 02:37 PM
  #11845  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by psb667
What size is your dv.a? Im almost done with a park size albatross. Im assembling.
The top wingspan on mine is 89". Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 09-12-2015, 08:30 PM
  #11846  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by psb667
What size is your dv.a? Im almost done with a park size albatross. Im assembling.
Question, psb667; Is your Albatros a foamie made by Parkzone? Because if it is, we both have copies of the same aircraft. I have the foamie electric powered D.Va as well as the larger fuel powered plane; and I'm hoping to start work on the foamie soon. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 09-13-2015, 10:08 AM
  #11847  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

4. Several hundred were ordered but very few actually delivered, through no fault of the airplane itself.
Old 09-13-2015, 07:08 PM
  #11848  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcguy59
4. Several hundred were ordered but very few actually delivered, through no fault of the airplane itself.
There are still quite a few aircraft that match all the clues, but how about the Aussie Mustang? Thanks; Ernie P.


Aussie Mustangs CA-17/18
In 1942 the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) was looking for a new fighter aircraft. They decided on the P-51 Mustang as their high altitude interceptor. In late 1943, an agreement between NAA and the RAAF was reached. An Australian aircraft company, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC), would build P-51Ds under license in Australia.



As part of the agreement, NAA would supply 100 P-51D Mustangs unassembled and Packard would supply some 80+ -3 Merlin engines. Delays mounted and the first CAC P-51 did not fly until April 1945. In all, 80 P-51s were completed from these parts and designated CA-17Mk.20, A68-1 to A68-80.

As the war came to an end, the total scratch built CAC P-51s was reduced to 120 aircraft. The CAC new built P-51s were designated CA-18. Versions would be the Mark 21, Mark 22, and Mark 23.



The Merlin V-1650-7 was used in the CA-18Mk.21 models. The CA-18Mk.23 use the British built Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or 70 versions. The CA-18Mk.22 were modified like the F-6D reconnaissance versions. The last CA-18Mk.23 came off the production line in 1952.

Australia also received 298 P-51Ds from the U.S. under Lend-Lease. After the Aussie Mustangs were surplussed, Australia became a popular site for P-51 airframes and parts. Restorers and collectors alike would travel down under to make deals and trades. Several P-51s have remained in Australia and are kept airworthy and well cared for by their pilots and owners.
Old 09-13-2015, 07:33 PM
  #11849  
rcguy59
My Feedback: (8)
 
rcguy59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Nope, not the Commonwealth Mustang.

5. Most of the improved performance was the result of a new engine.
Old 09-13-2015, 11:01 PM
  #11850  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,523
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Gloster Meteor

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.