Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
10-29-2015, 02:36 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
10-29-2015, 02:48 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. In service for the better part of two decades.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. In service for the better part of two decades.
10-29-2015, 03:02 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
10-29-2015, 03:15 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10-29-2015, 03:22 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
10-29-2015, 03:28 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
10-29-2015, 03:54 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark
10-29-2015, 04:52 PM
1. Conceived in the mid-50's.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
12. The lack of ailerons was due to the designers' incorporating full-span flaps. This was in response to a ridiculous short-takeoff requirement that was later dropped.
2. Placed alongside a modern warbird, it still appears viable.
3. It pioneered systems still in use today.
4. Like many of it's contemporaries, it was difficult to maintain and required a high level of pilot skill, especially in the landing phase.
5. It lacked ailerons.
6. It failed in it's intended role.
7. Designed and produced by a company that no longer exists, it was only used by it's parent country.
8. It had an internal bomb bay intended for strategic nukes, yet could still outrun an F-18.
9. It saw combat in it's adopted role.
10. The role it served in was eventually taken over by fighters.
11. It set a performance record that stood for over a decade.
12. The lack of ailerons was due to the designers' incorporating full-span flaps. This was in response to a ridiculous short-takeoff requirement that was later dropped.
10-29-2015, 05:14 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: FL
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh wow. I actually looked at that one briefly but moved on thinking there's no way it wouldn't have ailerons. But upon review, it lines up almost perfectly with the clues.
I love that plane, but I think I'll let someone else answer.
I love that plane, but I think I'll let someone else answer.
Last edited by Andy_S; 10-29-2015 at 05:15 PM. Reason: almost
10-29-2015, 08:35 PM
Has to be the RA-5C Vigilante. Was designed as a supersonic bomber with bombs being dropped out of the rear of the plane. Failed in that role but excelled as a high speed recon bird. Flew a small amount of bombing missions but flew a lot of recon missions over Viet Nam, operating from the various aircraft carriers assigned to provide air support. It had the highest loss per sortie average of any aircraft in use at the time
Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 10-29-2015 at 08:48 PM.
10-29-2015, 10:13 PM
Originally designated A3J. The original specification called for it to be able to be launched from a carrier that was moored to a pier. That's how it got it's massive wing area and full-span blown flaps. Five years after initial procurment, it was put back into production due to it's high attrition rate. When landing, it was said to be absolutely unforgiving at the ramp. It was also one of the very first "fly-by-wire" aircraft, ten years before the term even came into common use. One of many Mach 2 airplanes to be powered by GE's wonderous J79. Over to you, HJ.
10-31-2015, 02:28 PM
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Shelby Twp.,
MI
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there are many, but a quick few: P-51 (US aircraft using British engine). SPAD (French aircraft using Spanish engine). Sopwith various (British aircraft using French engines)
10-31-2015, 05:43 PM
I knew it would go quick but never expected that quick.
The Mig-15 used an engine developed by Rolls Royce. The plans for a RR Nene were given to a Russian as a payoff to a bet, so one story goes, over a game of Billiards. Another is that twenty-five were given to the Soviet Union as a gesture of goodwill - with reservation to not use for military purposes - with the agreement of Stafford Cripps. The Soviets reneged on the deal, and reverse engineered the Nene to develop the Klimov RD-45, and a larger version, theKlimov VK-1, which soon appeared in various Soviet fighters including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15
The Mig-15 used an engine developed by Rolls Royce. The plans for a RR Nene were given to a Russian as a payoff to a bet, so one story goes, over a game of Billiards. Another is that twenty-five were given to the Soviet Union as a gesture of goodwill - with reservation to not use for military purposes - with the agreement of Stafford Cripps. The Soviets reneged on the deal, and reverse engineered the Nene to develop the Klimov RD-45, and a larger version, theKlimov VK-1, which soon appeared in various Soviet fighters including Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15
10-31-2015, 05:52 PM
Stalin asked "What fool sells his own secrets?" when told of the engine deal. The Brits were desperate for any foreign trade at the time, being essentially bankrupted by WW2. I'll need a bit of time to come up with a question.
10-31-2015, 06:41 PM
1. Another product of the "Nifty Fifties".
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
10-31-2015, 07:47 PM
1. Another product of the "Nifty Fifties".
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
10-31-2015, 08:37 PM
1. Another product of the "Nifty Fifties".
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
11-01-2015, 12:01 AM
1. Another product of the "Nifty Fifties".
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
7. The company that built the engine doesn't build engines anymore.
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
7. The company that built the engine doesn't build engines anymore.
11-01-2015, 10:18 AM
1. Another product of the "Nifty Fifties".
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
7. The company that built the engine doesn't build engines anymore.
8. Employed an early form of variable geometry.
2. Very ambitious project that didn't get past the prototype stage, although it did actually fly.
3. Two were built but only one was flown.
4. Originally conceived as an evolutionary follow-on to an existing type, it quickly morphed into something entirely new and different.
5. Over 100 production examples were ordered, but the entire contract was canceled before any could be built.
6. Grossly under-powered by an engine whose reliability left much to be desired.
7. The company that built the engine doesn't build engines anymore.
8. Employed an early form of variable geometry.