Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
10-14-2015, 06:20 PM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This aircraft was developed just prior to WWII. The winning aircraft is well known.
9. Not a DH-2. Too many booms. However this one had problems with the one it did have, and problems with the tailgroup thusly attached.
9. Not a DH-2. Too many booms. However this one had problems with the one it did have, and problems with the tailgroup thusly attached.
10-15-2015, 07:09 AM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Sorry, not the BV-141. But you're much closer now.. it ain't a de Havilland, or Stinson, or American Champion, or Interstate Cadet, or..
Recap, more clues:
1. Pusher, single engine, single boom, high wing braced monoplane
2. Did not go into production, was competing against two other candidates for an observation role
3. If a bunch had been made then scrapped, the cockpits would have likely showed up as urban backyard greenhouses.
4. Inverted V-8 power
5. Tandem seating for pilot and observer
Recap, more clues:
1. Pusher, single engine, single boom, high wing braced monoplane
2. Did not go into production, was competing against two other candidates for an observation role
3. If a bunch had been made then scrapped, the cockpits would have likely showed up as urban backyard greenhouses.
4. Inverted V-8 power
5. Tandem seating for pilot and observer
10-15-2015, 08:42 AM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
You got it! Love that canopy. These markings would look great on an ultralight.
Genuine Wiki cut 'n' paste:
Design and development
Designed to meet a requirement for an air observation post and army co-operation aircraft the Si 201 first flew in 1938. Evaluated against the Fieseler Fi 156and Messerschmitt Bf 163*. The Fi 156 was ordered into production and only the two prototype 201s were built.
The Si 201 was a high-wing braced monoplane with a tail-wheel landing gear. Powered by an Argus As 10C mounted above the wing and driving a pusher propeller.[SUP][1][/SUP] It had a boxy, fully glazed forward fuselage with room for a pilot and observer in tandem.
Specifications
Data from Warplanes of the Third Reich
General characteristics
* also issued to Me-163
Genuine Wiki cut 'n' paste:
Design and development
Designed to meet a requirement for an air observation post and army co-operation aircraft the Si 201 first flew in 1938. Evaluated against the Fieseler Fi 156and Messerschmitt Bf 163*. The Fi 156 was ordered into production and only the two prototype 201s were built.
The Si 201 was a high-wing braced monoplane with a tail-wheel landing gear. Powered by an Argus As 10C mounted above the wing and driving a pusher propeller.[SUP][1][/SUP] It had a boxy, fully glazed forward fuselage with room for a pilot and observer in tandem.
Specifications
Data from Warplanes of the Third Reich
General characteristics
- Crew: 2
- Length: 10.401 m (34 ft 1 [SUP]1[/SUP]⁄[SUB]2[/SUB] in)
- Wingspan: 14.002 m (45 ft 11 [SUP]1[/SUP]⁄[SUB]4[/SUB] in)
- Height: 3.397 m (11 ft 1 [SUP]3[/SUP]⁄[SUB]4[/SUB] in)
- Wing area: 31.00 m[SUP]2[/SUP] (333.7 sq ft)
- Empty weight: 1,120 kg (2,469 lb)
- Gross weight: 1,440 kg (3,175 lb)
- Powerplant: 1 Χ Argus As 10C air-cooled inverted V8 engine, 180 kW (240 hp)
- Maximum speed: 185 km/h; 100 kn (115 mph) at sea level
- Cruise speed: 150 km/h; 81 kn (93 mph)
- Range: 451 km; 243 nmi (280 mi)
- Service ceiling: 5,502 m (18,050 ft)
- Rate of climb: 4.20 m/s (827 ft/min)
- Time to altitude: 4.5 min to 1,000 m (3,300 ft)
* also issued to Me-163
Last edited by MJD; 10-15-2015 at 08:44 AM.
10-15-2015, 08:45 AM
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Orangeville, ON, CANADA
Posts: 8,658
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
p.s. you'll note that the Wiki picture is of a scale model..
The Siebel Si 201 was designed to meet a specification calling for an air observation post and army co-operation aircraft placing emphasis on STOL and slow-flying performance and all-round visibility. The specification was issued early in 1937, by which time the Luftwaffe was already evaluating the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch, and the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke produced a competitive design, the Bf 163, which, built by the "Weser" Flugzeugbau, flew in 1938 as did also the Si 201. Whereas the Bf 163 closely followed the Fi 156 concept, the Si 201 was unorthodox in that its Argus As 10 eight-cylinder inverted-vee aircooled engine was mounted above the wing as a pusher, driving a four-bladed fixed-pitch airscrew which rotated above a slim, circular-section tailboom. High-lift devices included full-span automatic leading-edge slots, a fixed slot at one-third chord on the outboard wing sections, and four-section Fowlertype flaps which occupied almost the entire trailing edges, the outboard sections serving as ailerons.
The fuselage was of welded steel-tube construction with metal skinning and the plywood-covered wing was of wood. The pilot and observer were seated in tandem in the extensively-glazed forward fuselage, the observer being positioned ahead of the pilot with his seat offset to starboard. The first of two prototypes of the Si 201 flew during the early summer of 1938, revealed excellent short take-off and landing characteristics, and was found to possess acceptable slow-flying characteristics closely comparable with those of the Storch, but at the upper end of the speed scale tail flutter proved troublesome. Considerable effort was expended in damping out oscillation in the tailboom which developed under certain flight conditions, and the second prototype, which featured some simplification of the high-lift devices, was flown with a somewhat sturdier tailboom. The most serious shortcoming of the Si 201 proved to be the extremely limited cg travel permitted by its configuration, and when Siebel was ordered to abandon further development of the aircraft the problem of tail flutter remained largely unsolved.
The Siebel Si 201 was designed to meet a specification calling for an air observation post and army co-operation aircraft placing emphasis on STOL and slow-flying performance and all-round visibility. The specification was issued early in 1937, by which time the Luftwaffe was already evaluating the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch, and the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke produced a competitive design, the Bf 163, which, built by the "Weser" Flugzeugbau, flew in 1938 as did also the Si 201. Whereas the Bf 163 closely followed the Fi 156 concept, the Si 201 was unorthodox in that its Argus As 10 eight-cylinder inverted-vee aircooled engine was mounted above the wing as a pusher, driving a four-bladed fixed-pitch airscrew which rotated above a slim, circular-section tailboom. High-lift devices included full-span automatic leading-edge slots, a fixed slot at one-third chord on the outboard wing sections, and four-section Fowlertype flaps which occupied almost the entire trailing edges, the outboard sections serving as ailerons.
The fuselage was of welded steel-tube construction with metal skinning and the plywood-covered wing was of wood. The pilot and observer were seated in tandem in the extensively-glazed forward fuselage, the observer being positioned ahead of the pilot with his seat offset to starboard. The first of two prototypes of the Si 201 flew during the early summer of 1938, revealed excellent short take-off and landing characteristics, and was found to possess acceptable slow-flying characteristics closely comparable with those of the Storch, but at the upper end of the speed scale tail flutter proved troublesome. Considerable effort was expended in damping out oscillation in the tailboom which developed under certain flight conditions, and the second prototype, which featured some simplification of the high-lift devices, was flown with a somewhat sturdier tailboom. The most serious shortcoming of the Si 201 proved to be the extremely limited cg travel permitted by its configuration, and when Siebel was ordered to abandon further development of the aircraft the problem of tail flutter remained largely unsolved.
10-15-2015, 10:15 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo,
HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, let's see how long this one lasts....
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against it contemporaries.
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against it contemporaries.
10-15-2015, 02:13 PM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo,
HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
10-16-2015, 06:57 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo,
HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice tries both of you but not the correct answer...
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament.
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament.
10-16-2015, 08:34 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo,
HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another guess another clue
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament
5. The better known design was supplied by an ally country.
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament
5. The better known design was supplied by an ally country.
10-16-2015, 02:11 PM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo,
HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not sure if I'll have a chance to post again today so here's another clue, this one should help a lot...
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament
5. The better known design was supplied by an ally country.
6. Because of the country’s natural resources and general shortages of metals an unusual but not unique material for the time was used where ever practical in the airframe.
I’m looking for a rather obscure aircraft:
1. Unfortunately for the country developing the plane, events overtook its development and only one prototype was produced and test flown.
2. Test flights of the prototype showed it would have made a good match against its contemporaries.
3. Power was provided by the type of engine used on a much better known, long established aircraft.
4. For simplification it adopted everything in front of the firewall from the better known design including the armament
5. The better known design was supplied by an ally country.
6. Because of the country’s natural resources and general shortages of metals an unusual but not unique material for the time was used where ever practical in the airframe.
10-19-2015, 07:27 AM
I' ve seen the Pyφrremyrsky prototype several times, so it is no wonder bells started ringing.
"The Pyφrremyrsky design was considered quite successful. It could outclimb the Bf 109G-6 and it was very manoeuvrable. The only major problem with the design was found to be the low-quality glue used in the joints.
The aircraft was still in the prototype stage when the war ended and this also meant that the funds allocated for the project decreased."
http://ww.airliners.net/photo/1164417/
New question in a moment...
"The Pyφrremyrsky design was considered quite successful. It could outclimb the Bf 109G-6 and it was very manoeuvrable. The only major problem with the design was found to be the low-quality glue used in the joints.
The aircraft was still in the prototype stage when the war ended and this also meant that the funds allocated for the project decreased."
http://ww.airliners.net/photo/1164417/
New question in a moment...
10-19-2015, 08:52 PM
Not quite what I was thinking of.
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
10-20-2015, 05:21 AM
Not P-47N either.
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
4) After the initial order, several more followed, as it became clear how good it was.
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
4) After the initial order, several more followed, as it became clear how good it was.
10-20-2015, 08:26 AM
Not a P-51 or Spitfire
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
4) After the initial order, several more followed, as it became clear how good it was.
5) The company that built it ceased aircraft production after the peace treaty.
What warbird?
1) Its rate of climb and high service ceiling were its most notable features.
2) Apparently, landings could be tricky.
3) At a quick look, it appears very similar to the preceding model, but has different wings and some other improved details.
4) After the initial order, several more followed, as it became clear how good it was.
5) The company that built it ceased aircraft production after the peace treaty.
