Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.

15. And contra rotating propellers.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.

15. And contra rotating propellers.

16. And floats.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

cant z.515

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Not the Cant Z.515, elmshoot, as this next clue will show. But a good guess and I hope you try again. Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.

15. And contra rotating propellers.

16. And floats.

17. It used a central float and twin stabilizing floats.

Hydro Junkie

Kawanishi N1K1 Kyofu fighting floatplane

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Great answer, Hydro Junkie; but the Kyofu is not quite what we're looking for. But you earn a bonus clue, and maybe this will help narrow your search. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.

15. And contra rotating propellers.

16. And floats.

17. It used a central float and twin stabilizing floats.

18. The stabilizing floats were intended to retract into the wings.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

I was also thinking of the "Rex"...but it didn't fly until 1942...

Been bouncing something round in my head...
Just a sneakin' suspicion...how 'bout the "Norm"...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_E15K

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

And proptop nails it again! See, that wasn't so hard, was it? The "Norm" was an interesting aircraft, with great potential; but it simply didn't work. They were only intended to be used on small cruisers, acting as lookouts for a squadron of submarines; so they never intended to produce a lot of them. Only fifteen (15) were ever completed. The stabilizing floats retracted into the wings, but sometimes didn't return to the down position when the plane landed; destroying the plane when it landed. And the main float was supposed to be jettisoned if the plane was in danger, increasing its speed. Except that feature was never tried when the plane was tested; only in actual combat. And it didn't work. and so, the plane was shot down by attacking fighters. And the contra rotating propellers were trouble prone and hard to maintain. As I said; interesting innovations that simply didn't work in practice. Good job, proptop; and you are up! Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?

1. Sometimes things just don’t work out as planned.

2. This aircraft was one such attempt that certainly didn’t work as planned.

3. It was intended to fulfill a very narrow role; so large scale production was probably never in the plan.

4. Although it made its way into limited production, the results were very disappointing.

5. The first prototype was produced immediately prior to Pearl Harbor.

6. Five more were built in the next year.

7. The aircraft had no less than three interesting (for the time) innovations, all unique as far as it’s owning service was concerned.

8. None of the three innovations worked quite as planned.

9. This aircraft was intended to be the fastest of its type, for its time. While it was the fastest of its service, it was eventually surpassed by other aircraft of its type.

10. Primarily because two of the three innovations simply didn’t work, and the other was of limited value.

11. Interestingly, the aircraft made it into limited production without one of the innovations actually being tried in practice.

12. It was a specialized type of recon bird.

13. And was, obviously, intended to be able to outrun enemy fighters.

14. This plane used a laminar flow wing.

15. And contra rotating propellers.

16. And floats.

17. It used a central float and twin stabilizing floats.

18. The stabilizing floats were intended to retract into the wings.

19. Which they did.

20. They could then be deployed for landing.

21. Which didn’t always work as designed.

22. And which often ended in the loss of the plane.

23. The central float was designed to be jettisoned in an emergency; to give it extra speed to escape enemy fighters.

24. Which didn’t always work as designed.

25. And which often ended in the loss of the plane.

26. Then again, the jettisonable float was never tried in testing.

27. But was tried in combat.

28. And didn’t work.

29. Single engine.

30. Crew of two.

31. Its code name was that of a noted squadron leader.



32. Fl





Answer: The Kawanishi E15K Shiun The Kawanishi E15K Shiun (紫雲, "Violet Cloud") was a single-engined Japanese reconnaissance floatplane of World War II. The Allied reporting name for the type was "Norm" after Squadron Leader Norman O. Clappison of the RAAF, a member of the Allied Technical Air Intelligence Unit (ATAIU). In 1939 the Imperial Japanese Navy instructed the Kawanishi Aircraft Company to develop a two-seat high-speed reconnaissance floatplane, which was required to have sufficient performance to escape interception by land based fighters. It was planned to equip a new class of cruisers, intended to act as a flagship for groups of submarines, operating six of the new floatplanes to find targets. The first of the new cruisers, Ōyodo was also ordered in 1939. Kawanishi designed a single-engined low-wing monoplane, powered by a 1,460 hp (1,090 kW) Mitsubishi MK4D Kasei 14 14-cylinder radial driving two Contra-rotating two-bladed propellers, the first installation of contra-rotating propellers produced in Japan, while a laminar flowairfoil section was chosen to reduce drag. It had a single main float under the fuselage and two stabilising floats under the wing. The stabilising floats were designed to retract into the wing, while the central float was designed to be jettisoned in case of emergency, giving a sufficient increase in speed (estimated as approximately 50 knots (90 km/h)) to escape enemy fighters. The first prototype of Kawanishi's design, designated E15K1 in the Navy's short designation system made its maiden flight on 5 December 1941. Five more prototypes followed during 1941–42. Problems were encountered with the retractable stabilising floats, resulting in several accidents when the floats could not be lowered for landing, and the system was eventually abandoned, with the stabilising floats being fixed, and a more powerful Mitsubishi MK4S Kasei 24 engine fitted to compensate for the increased drag.

Despite these problems, the E15K1 was ordered into limited production as the Navy Type 2 High-speed Reconnaissance Seaplane Shiun Model 11. Six were sent to Palau in the South Pacific, but these were quickly shot down by Allied fighters, as the jettisonable float failed to separate on demand (although subjected to wind tunnel testing, the float separation system had never been tested on the actual aircraft). This resulted in the cancellation of production in February 1944, with only 15 Shiuns completed, including the six prototypes.

Commander of 12rh recon Sq. (Shiun Sq.), Lt Kiyoshi Aikawa wrote "Never made again such aircraft as Shiun".He wrote reliability of Shiun is too low, and need high Maintenance effort.

Data from Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War[8] General characteristics· Crew: Two· Length: 11.59 m (38 ft 0 in)· Wingspan: 14.00 m (45 ft 11 in)· Height: 4.95 m (16 ft 2⅞ in)· Wing area: 30.0 m² (323 ft²)· Empty weight: 3,165 kg (4,978 lb)· Loaded weight: 4,100 kg (9,039 lb)· Max. takeoff weight: 4,900 kg (10,803 lb)· Powerplant: 1 Χ Mitsubishi MK4S Kasei 24 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine with two two-blade contra-rotating propellers, 1,159 kW (1,540 hp)at 5,500 m (18,045 ft) Performance· Maximum speed: 468 km/h (253 knots, 291 mph) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft.) (float attached)· Cruise speed: 296 km/h (160 knots, 184 mph)· Range: 3,373 km (1,820 nmi, 2,095 mi)· Service ceiling: 9,836 m (32,270 ft)· Wing loading: 136.7 kg/m² (28 lb/ft²)· Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)· Climb to 6,000 m (19,700 ft): 10 min Armament· 1 Χ 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine gun in rear cockpit

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

The Japanese had quite a few interesting and unusual designs, aye? I recall reading of a problem of harmonics and/or vibrations caused by 2 (x2) blade contra props...seems that when the blades cross they set up a chop chop pulsating vibration...which is exacerbated by the 2 bladed props.
3 or 4 props blades lessen the effects...I guess because they are closer together...different frequency or timing of the pulsations / chop chop effects?

Anywayze...got a subject in mind..
Will be back later this eve with more, but will get us started now...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Got a plane in mind...
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Sorry; can't resist. The Thunderbolt? Thanks; Ernie P.

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Ahhh...but that would be far too easy...(as in nope...not what we're lookin fer...)

Hydro Junkie

I was going to say the Corsair until you threw a wrench into it by saying it had twin engines. That said, how about the Lightning

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

Nope...not the Lightning...
I have a penchant for obscure aircraft, at least where our quiz thread here is concerned...
(gotta try to make ya'll scratch your heads for a little while...)
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well...
7) Designed to be utilized as a Bomber...Recon, or Torpedo attack craft...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well...

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Fisher P-75 Eagle

and a lovely plane to behold in person at the USAF museum, If it had USN on one version I'd put it on my someday list.
Sparky

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Great looking airplane, I wonder if it has a "Body by Fisher" label on it?

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

When I worked at a Body and Paint shop, we used to jokingly call it "Body by Fissure"

But I digress...nope...not the P-75

Be back in a few...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

O.K...let's add another clue or two...
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well... 9) The bomb bay could be used to house bombs or depth charges...
10) The first flight(s) were after the end of the war...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

O.K...let's add another clue or two...
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well...
9) The bomb bay could be used to house bombs or depth charges...
10) The first flight(s) were after the end of the war...
11) Some of the later versions were modified after the war, for Anti-Submarine Warfare / Detection use, but they were Short lived...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

O.K...let's add another clue or two...
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well...9) The bomb bay could be used to house bombs or depth charges...
10) The first flight(s) were after the end of the war...
11) Some of the later versions were modified after the war, for Anti-Submarine Warfare / Detection use, but they were Short lived...
12) The ASW versions were Turboprop engined, with single props (not contra-rotating) and transformed a decent looking plane into a hideous (IMO) looking thing that also had rather abysmal flight characteristics.
13) The first aircraft to use the name was a late 1920's biplane...almost 20 years prior...

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Fairey Gannet

One of the ugliest airplane to ever make production.

FlyerInOKC

My Feedback: (6)

Now that's ugly to the bone!

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

I will agree with ya on the ugly part...but...not the Gannet...
Not quite the same "twin engined" layout...

proptop

My Feedback: (8)

O.K...let's add another clue or two...
1) Monoplane...
2) Twin engined...
3) Propeller driven...
4) Manuf. used the same name twice...for two totally different aircraft...almost 2 decades apart...
5) Designed to a mid-war requirement...(WW2)
6) Thinking of the above mentioned contra props...some versions had these as well...9) The bomb bay could be used to house bombs or depth charges...
10) The first flight(s) were after the end of the war...
11) Some of the later versions were modified after the war, for Anti-Submarine Warfare / Detection use, but they were Short lived...
12) The ASW versions were Turboprop engined, with single props (not contra-rotating) and transformed a decent looking plane into a hideous (IMO) looking thing that also had rather abysmal flight characteristics.
13) The first aircraft to use the name was a late 1920's biplane...almost 20 years prior...
14) It had folding wings...which oughta narrow the field somewhat...
15) A few were used as target tugs...but there were so many other (more common) types available after the war that our quiz aircraft became superfluous.