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 05-30-2011, 05:53 PM
  #5051  
a65l
Senior Member
My Feedback: (17)
 
a65l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: va veach, VA
Posts: 1,963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Convair c-500 or 600 series and the Lockheed P-3 Orion
Old 05-30-2011, 06:07 PM
  #5052  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Ernie is the closest so far...keep thinking big...

The "competition" was before the DC-10 came into existence...
Old 05-30-2011, 07:28 PM
  #5053  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

C 5 A   &   747
Old 05-30-2011, 07:42 PM
  #5054  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

here's a little info

747 Background

In 1963, the United States Air Force started a series of study projects on a very large strategic transport aircraft. Although the C-141 Starlifter was being introduced, they felt that a much larger and more capable aircraft was needed, especially the capability to carry outsized cargo that would not fit in any existing aircraft. These studies led to initial requirements for the CX-Heavy Logistics System (CX-HLS) in March 1964 for an aircraft with a load capacity of 180,000 pounds (81,600 kg) and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph/805 km/h), and an unrefueled range of 5,000 nautical miles (9,260 km) with a payload of 115,000 pounds (52,200 kg). The payload bay had to be 17 feet (5.18 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 feet (30.5 m) long with access through doors at the front and rear.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Norton_C-5_11-0">[12]</sup>



Featuring only four engines, the design also required new engine designs with greatly increased power and better fuel economy. On 18 May 1964, airframe proposals arrived from Boeing, Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed and Martin Marietta; while engine proposals were submitted by General Electric, Curtiss-Wright, and Pratt & Whitney. After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were given additional study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Norton_C-5_11-1">[12]</sup>



All three of the airframe proposals shared a number of features. As the CX-HLS needed to be able to be loaded from the front, a door had to be included where the cockpit usually was. All of the companies solved this problem by moving the cockpit to above the cargo area; Douglas had a small "pod" just forward and above the wing, Lockheed used a long "spine" running the length of the aircraft with the wing spar passing through it, while Boeing blended the two, with a longer pod that ran from just behind the nose to just behind the wing.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-12">[13]</sup> In 1965 Lockheed's aircraft design and General Electric's engine design were selected for the new C-5 Galaxy transport, which was the largest military aircraft in the world at the time.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Norton_C-5_11-2">[12]</sup> The nose door and raised cockpit concepts would be carried over to the design of the 747.<sup>[14]</sup>



<sup>C5A
</sup>Background



<sup>In 1961, several aircraft companies began studying heavy jet transport designs that would replace the </sup><sup>Douglas C-133 Cargomaster</sup><sup> transport and complement </sup><sup>Lockheed C-141 Starlifters</sup><sup>. In addition to higher overall performance, the </sup><sup>United States Army</sup><sup> wanted a transport with a larger cargo bay than the C-141, whose interior was too small to carry a variety of their </sup><sup>outsized equipment</sup><sup>. These studies led to the "CX-4" design concept, but in 1962 the proposed six-engine design was rejected, because it was not viewed as a significant advance over the C-141.</sup><sup>[2]</sup>



<sup>By late 1963, the next conceptual design was named CX-X. It was equipped with four engines, instead of six engines in the earlier CX-4 concept. The CX-X had a gross weight of 550,000 pounds (249,000 kg), a maximum payload of 180,000 lb (81,600 kg) and a speed of Mach 0.75 (500 mph/805 km/h). The cargo compartment was 17.2 ft (5.24 m) wide by 13.5 feet (4.11 m) high and 100 ft (30.5 m) long with front and rear access doors.</sup><sup>[2]</sup><sup> To provide required power and range with only four engines required a new engine with dramatically improved </sup><sup>fuel efficiency</sup><sup>.</sup>

<sup>[</sup><sup>edit</sup><sup>]</sup><sup> Heavy Logistics System</sup>



<sup>The criteria were finalized and an official Request for Proposal was sent out in April 1964 for the "Heavy Logistics System" (CX-HLS) (previously CX-X). In May 1964, proposals for aircraft were received from </sup><sup>Boeing</sup><sup>, </sup><sup>Douglas</sup><sup>, </sup><sup>General Dynamics</sup><sup>, </sup><sup>Lockheed</sup><sup>, and </sup><sup>Martin Marietta</sup><sup>. Proposals for engines were received from </sup><sup>General Electric</sup><sup>, </sup><sup>Curtiss-Wright</sup><sup>, and </sup><sup>Pratt & Whitney</sup><sup>. After a downselect, Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed were given one-year study contracts for the airframe, along with General Electric and Pratt & Whitney for the engines.</sup><sup>[3]</sup>



<sup>All three of the designs shared a number of features. In particular, all three placed the cockpit well above the cargo area to allow for cargo loading through a nose door. The Boeing and Douglas designs used a pod on the top of the fuselage containing the cockpit, while the Lockheed design extended the cockpit profile down the length of the fuselage, giving it an egg-shaped cross section. All of the designs featured </sup><sup>swept wings</sup><sup> and front and rear cargo doors allowing simultaneous loading and unloading. Lockheed's design featured a </sup><sup>T-tail</sup><sup>, while the designs by Boeing and Douglas had conventional tails.</sup><sup>[4]</sup>



<sup>The Air Force considered Boeing's design better than the Lockheed design, although Lockheed's proposal was the lowest total cost bid.</sup><sup>[5]</sup><sup> Lockheed was selected the winner in September 1965, then awarded a contract in December 1965.</sup><sup>[4][6]</sup><sup> General Electric's engine design was selected in August 1965 for the new transport;</sup><sup>[4]</sup><sup> the Pratt & Whitney engine design was developed and later used on the </sup><sup>Boeing 747</sup><sup>.</sup>

Old 05-30-2011, 08:56 PM
  #5055  
proptop
My Feedback: (8)
 
proptop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 7,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

You got it scubajohn...

The company I work for does overhauls of large aircraft...(I do some of the painting )
We typically have a couple C-5's and a bunch of 747's around the area daily...it's an interesting bit of history that I get to see every day...

Your turn John...[8D]
Old 05-30-2011, 09:30 PM
  #5056  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

hi proptop
i was doing a cross country from collage park to austin bucking a headwind so i made a unplaned stop i think it was greenvile miss. anyway i landed at the big tower controled airport it was the bigest duster strip ever old military base and they had 747s everywher i think they wher striping and part swaping them some for sale overseas and some to scrap they look even biger with scafold every where and parking a 172 next to theme

i will think of a qestion and post tomarow
Old 05-31-2011, 01:46 PM
  #5057  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

what is the aircraft and what fixed the problem
1 this aircraft was a good one for the country that built it it had isues at first one of the main problems was controls locking
2 most pilots reported the did identified the problem properly
Old 05-31-2011, 01:48 PM
  #5058  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: scubajohn

what is the aircraft and what fixed the problem
1 this aircraft was a good one for the country that built it it had isues at first one of the main problems was controls locking
2 most of the pilots reported did not identifi the problem properly
Old 05-31-2011, 04:12 PM
  #5059  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: scubajohn


ORIGINAL: scubajohn

what is the aircraft and what fixed the problem
1 this aircraft was a good one for the country that built it it had isues at first one of the main problems was controls locking
2 most of the pilots reported did not identifi the problem properly

Sounds like either the P-38 or the P-47. Both had problems early on in a dive. Thanks; Ernie P.


By November 1941, many of the initial assembly line challenges had been met and there was some breathing room for the engineering team to tackle the problem of frozen controls in a dive. Lockheed had a few ideas for tests that would help them find an answer. The first solution tried was the fitting of spring-loaded servo tabs on the elevator trailing edge; tabs that were designed to aid the pilot when control yoke forces rose over 30 lb (14 kg), as would be expected in a high-speed dive. At that point, the tabs would begin to multiply the effort of the pilot's actions. The expert test pilot, 43-year-old[30] Ralph Virden, was given a specific high-altitude test sequence to follow, and was told to restrict his speed and fast maneuvering in denser air at low altitudes since the new mechanism could exert tremendous leverage under those conditions. A note was taped to the instrument panel of the test craft, underscoring this instruction. On 4 November 1941, Virden climbed into YP-38 #1 and completed the test sequence successfully, but 15 minutes later was seen in a steep dive followed by a high-G pullout. The tail unit of the aircraft failed at about 3,000 ft (910 m) during the high-speed dive recovery; Virden was killed in the subsequent crash. The Lockheed design office was justifiably upset, but their design engineers could only conclude that servo tabs were not the solution for loss of control in a dive. Lockheed still had to find the problem; the Army Air Forces personnel were sure it was flutter, and ordered Lockheed to look more closely at the tail.

Although the P-38's empennage was completely skinned in aluminum[N 2] (not fabric) and was quite rigid, in 1941, flutter was a familiar engineering problem related to a too-flexible tail. At no time did the P-38 suffer from true flutter.[31] To prove a point, one elevator and its vertical stabilizers were skinned with metal 63% thicker than standard, but the increase in rigidity made no difference in vibration. Army Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth B. Wolfe (head of Army Production Engineering) asked Lockheed to try external mass balances above and below the elevator, though the P-38 already had large mass balances elegantly placed within each vertical stabilizer. Various configurations of external mass balances were equipped and dangerously steep test flights flown to document their performance. Explaining to Wolfe in Report No. 2414, Kelly Johnson wrote "... the violence of the vibration was unchanged and the diving tendency was naturally the same for all conditions."[32] The external mass balances did not help at all. Nonetheless, at Wolfe's insistence, the additional external balances were a feature of every P-38 built from then on.[33]


P-38 pilot training manual compressibility chart shows speed limit vs. altitude.After months of pushing NACA to provide Mach 0.75 wind tunnel speeds (and finally succeeding), the compressibility problem was revealed to be the center of lift moving back toward the tail when in high-speed airflow. The compressibility problem was solved by changing the geometry of the wing's underside when diving so as to keep lift within bounds of the top of the wing. In February 1943, quick-acting dive flaps were tried and proven by Lockheed test pilots. The dive flaps were installed outboard of the engine nacelles and in action they extended downward 35° in 1½ seconds. The flaps did not act as a speed brake, they affected the center of pressure distribution so that the wing would not lose its lift.[34]

Late in 1943, a few hundred dive flap field modification kits were assembled to give North African, European and Pacific P-38s a chance to withstand compressibility and expand their combat tactics. Unfortunately, these crucial flaps did not always reach their destination. In March 1944, 200 dive flap kits intended for European Theater of Operations (ETO) P-38Js were destroyed in a mistaken identification incident in which a RAF fighter shot down the Douglas C-54 Skymaster taking the shipment to England. Back in Burbank, P-38Js coming off the assembly line in spring 1944 were towed out to the tarmac and modified in the open air. The flaps were finally incorporated into the production line in June 1944 on the last 210 P-38Js. Despite testing having proved the dive flaps were effective in improving tactical maneuvers, a 14-month delay in production limited their implementation with only the final 50% of all Lightnings built having the dive flaps installed as an assembly line sequence.[35]

Johnson later recalled:

“ I broke an ulcer over compressibility on the P-38 because we flew into a speed range where no one had ever been before, and we had difficulty convincing people that it wasn't the funny-looking airplane itself, but a fundamental physical problem. We found out what happened when the Lightning shed its tail and we worked during the whole war to get 15 more kn [28 km/h] of speed out of the P-38. We saw compressibility as a brick wall for a long time. Then we learned how to get through it.[36]
Old 05-31-2011, 07:09 PM
  #5060  
scubajohn
Senior Member
 
scubajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: johnsoncity tx, TX
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

yea the dive flap did not slow the plane it pushed the center of lift back wher itbelonged another trick was 8 degrees of flaps helped tighten the turns

looks like you got it from way off just like the p-38 with those strait shooting center mounted guns
Old 05-31-2011, 11:38 PM
  #5061  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: scubajohn

yea the dive flap did not slow the plane it pushed the center of lift back wher it belonged another trick was 8 degrees of flaps helped tighten the turns

looks like you got it from way off just like the p-38 with those strait shooting center mounted guns[img][/img]

Thanks, Scubajohn. It just so happened you asked a question in an area I had been examining. So, it was pretty easy for me to see where you were going. Let's see if I can return the favor for you. Thanks; Ernie P.


This one should be pretty easy to search out; but it highlights an interesting development in warbird gun technology. And, it’s a development the details of which may surprise and interest a few of you. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: Who warbird gun do I describe?


Clues:

(1) It began with a secret circular directed to aircraft manufacturers and engine suppliers.

(2) The circular pointed out all current aircraft guns suffered because they were originally developed for land use.
Old 06-01-2011, 04:57 PM
  #5062  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Sorry for the delay, folks. So, here's a couple more clues. Thanks; Ernie P.


This one should be pretty easy to search out; but it highlights an interesting development in warbird gun technology. And, it’s a development the details of which may surprise and interest a few of you. Thanks; Ernie P.

Question: Who warbird gun do I describe?

Clues:

(1) It began with a secret circular directed to aircraft manufacturers and engine suppliers.

(2) The circular pointed out all current aircraft guns suffered because they were originally developed for land use.

(3) The circular stated aircraft guns should be small, multibarreled, have high rates of sustained fire, be able to handle high speeds, high altitudes and be able to fire straight down.

(4) The circular suggested the guns should be operated by the aircraft engine or electrical power.
Old 06-01-2011, 05:39 PM
  #5063  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Another clue and off to bed. Thanks; Ernie P.


This one should be pretty easy to search out; but it highlights an interesting development in warbird gun technology. And, it’s a development the details of which may surprise and interest a few of you. Thanks; Ernie P.

Question: Who warbird gun do I describe?

Clues:

(1) It began with a secret circular directed to aircraft manufacturers and engine suppliers.

(2) The circular pointed out all current aircraft guns suffered because they were originally developed for land use.

(3) The circular stated aircraft guns should be small, multibarreled, have high rates of sustained fire, be able to handle high speeds, high altitudes and be able to fire straight down.

(4) The circular suggested the guns should be operated by the aircraft engine or electrical power.

(5) The circular invited new ideas from firms which had not previously been involved in manufacturing machine guns; and offered government financial and material assistance.
Old 06-01-2011, 05:49 PM
  #5064  
Redback
Senior Member
 
Redback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: GraftonNew South Wales, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

M61 Vulcan made by General Electric?

Terry
Old 06-01-2011, 11:28 PM
  #5065  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: Redback

M61 Vulcan made by General Electric?

Terry

No, sorry. Your guess is a bit slow and a lot late. Thanks; Ernie P.


This one should be pretty easy to search out; but it highlights an interesting development in warbird gun technology. And, it’s a development the details of which may surprise and interest a few of you. Thanks; Ernie P.

Question: Who warbird gun do I describe?

Clues:

(1) It began with a secret circular directed to aircraft manufacturers and engine suppliers.

(2) The circular pointed out all current aircraft guns suffered because they were originally developed for land use.

(3) The circular stated aircraft guns should be small, multibarreled, have high rates of sustained fire, be able to handle high speeds, high altitudes and be able to fire straight down.

(4) The circular suggested the guns should be operated by the aircraft engine or electrical power.

(5) The circular invited new ideas from firms which had not previously been involved in manufacturing machine guns; and offered government financial and material assistance.

(6) The result was a multibarreled gun capable of firing over 7,000 rounds per minute.

Old 06-01-2011, 11:55 PM
  #5066  
The Raven
Senior Member
 
The Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Fokker-Leimberger?
Old 06-02-2011, 12:47 AM
  #5067  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: The Raven

Fokker-Leimberger?
That's the answer I seek! And you're up, The Raven! Thanks; Ernie P.

Actually, it seems amazing to me how many really fast firing guns were developed during and prior to WW1. Who would have thought there was a German aircraft gun capable of firing 7,200 RPM in WW1? Fortunately, German shell cases had deteriorated due to the Allied blockade; and the sub-standard shell cases burst and jammed the gun.


This one should be pretty easy to search out; but it highlights an interesting development in warbird gun technology. And, it’s a development the details of which may surprise and interest a few of you. Thanks; Ernie P.

Question: Who warbird gun do I describe?

Clues:

(1) It began with a secret circular directed to aircraft manufacturers and engine suppliers.

(2) The circular pointed out all current aircraft guns suffered because they were originally developed for land use.

(3) The circular stated aircraft guns should be small, multibarreled, have high rates of sustained fire, be able to handle high speeds, high altitudes and be able to fire straight down.

(4) The circular suggested the guns should be operated by the aircraft engine or electrical power.

(5) The circular invited new ideas from firms which had not previously been involved in manufacturing machine guns; and offered government financial and material assistance.

(6) The result was a multibarreled gun capable of firing over 7,000 rounds per minute.

Answer: The WW1 Fokker-Leimberger.


Airborne Firearms should be small, lightweight, multibarreled, sustain high rates of fire in bursts handling aircraft speeds of over 130MPH and operate at high altitude temperatures of -40 degrees Celsius, and practical for firing vertically downwards. Siegert suggested operating such weapons mechanically, either by the aero engine or electrical power sources used for the wireless. He invited new ideas from firms formerly unconcerned with firearms and offered financial and material assistance for experimentation: manpower, aero-engines, trial weapons and other facilities would be made at once.

Background: Electric motor-driven Gatling gun
The ancestor to the modern minigun was made in the 1860s. Richard Jordan Gatling replaced the hand cranked mechanism of a rifle-caliber Gatling gun with an electric motor, a relatively new invention at the time. Even after Gatling slowed down the mechanism, the new electric-powered Gatling gun had a theoretical rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute, roughly three times the rate of a typical modern, single-barreled machine gun. Gatling's electric-powered design received US Patent #502,185 on July 25, 1893.[1] Despite Gatling's improvements, the Gatling gun fell into disuse after cheaper, lighter-weight, recoil and gas operated machine guns were invented.
During World War I, Germany was working on the Fokker-Leimberger, an externally-powered 12 barrel Gatling gun in the 7.92x57mm Mauser round capable of firing over 7,000 rpm, but its spent brass ruptured.[2] None of the guns became operational during the war except the Siemens example which was tried on the Western Front with a victory using it during air combat. However, the Fokker-Leimberger was used in development of what eventually became the Minigun.[citation needed]


The Fokker-Leimberger was an early example of an externally powered machine gun of Imperial German origin that predated the M134 Minigun. It had 12 barrels and could fire over 7200RPM, but its spent brass ruptured. The weapon was experimented with during World War I until the armistice.
History
The development of the Fokker-Leimberger dates back to a secret circular by the-then Major Wilhelm Siegert (a Prussian Air Corps inspector) directed to German aircraft and engine suppliers on August 16th 1916. It was pointed out that all current Aircraft Guns suffered from their relation to the demands of land forces. Airborne Firearms should be small, lightweight, multibarreled, sustain high rates of fire in bursts handling aircraft speeds of over 130MPH and operate at high altitude temperatures of -40 degrees Celsius, and practical for firing vertically downwards. Siegert suggested operating such weapons mechanically, either by the aero engine or electrical power sources used for the wireless. He invited new ideas from firms formerly unconcerned with firearms and offered financial and material assistance for experimentation: manpower, aero-engines, trial weapons and other facilities would be made at once.
This very sensible memorandum spawned up a series of engine operated aircraft weapons from the companies of Siemens, Autogen, Szakatz-Gotha, Fokker and some startingly good ideas. None of the guns became operational during the war except the Siemens example which was tried on the Western Front with a victory using it during air combat. There is little doubt that these weapons would have been effective had the war lasted into 1919.
Fokker and his right-hand armament expert, H.W. Luebbe (who together had developed the pioneering Stangensteuerung gun synchronizer for aircraft armament in 1914) produced several designs. One had a direct drive by a crank from an MG08 machine gun. The other was the revolutionary Leimberger 12-barrel gun. This was fired soon after the issue of the memorandum above. The barrels, which were mounted within a drum-like rotor, were half cut-away along the axis of the bore. The matching half of the breech was formed by a corresponding depression in a second drum-like rotor of smaller diameter which rotated underneath the barrel cylinder. When the two breech halves of these rotating parts joined up, spur-gear like, the barrel attained its firing position with the cartridge in place. The feeding belt with the cartridges was carried right through the split breech of the two rotating elements, much like a chain between sprockets. The cartridges were not extracted, as the spent cases were still in the belt after firing. There was no reciprocating breech block. Firing took place by percussion when the breech closed perfectly (firing pin on swash plate). The gun was therefore extremely simple. It was devoid of any reciprocating parts and free from the defects which affected the Maxim MG08. Moreover, it could be fired at any speed. The upper rate of fire was limited solely by centrifugal stresses and by the burn time of the propellant.
In air combat, the gun had to be pre-rotated so as to fire at a top rate as soon as the trigger released the cartridge feed; otherwise too much time would be lost accelerating the mechanism. There is no record of ballistic performance, but it would seem that the lengthy barrels might adversely affect the stability of the projectile. There can be little doubt the barrel material had a long life, considering the air-cooling and the low sequence of fire through the individual barrels.
Versions of this rifle calibre gun were fired over 7,200 rounds per minute. The weapon, however suffered from too many jams as the quality of German cartridge-case material had seriously deteriorated, and often the cases tore open in the gun.

Old 06-02-2011, 04:31 PM
  #5068  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: The Raven

Fokker-Leimberger?
You are up, Sir. Please post your question. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 06-02-2011, 06:34 PM
  #5069  
The Raven
Senior Member
 
The Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Identify me:

1. I was a unique design, incorporating many pioneering technologies of the day.
2. I was the first to show a particular innovation, which has only been seen on few aircraft since.
3. Only a few examples were built, one reputedly flew although historical records leave this open to debate.
4. Most of my major components were sourced from other designs.
Old 06-03-2011, 04:49 AM
  #5070  
DeferredDefect
Senior Member
 
DeferredDefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: , ON, CANADA
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Is it the Rockwell XFV-12?
Old 06-03-2011, 06:36 PM
  #5071  
The Raven
Senior Member
 
The Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: GraemeEllis

Is it the Rockwell XFV-12?

Sorry, that's not it.
Old 06-03-2011, 06:39 PM
  #5072  
The Raven
Senior Member
 
The Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Identify me:

1. I was a unique design, incorporating many pioneering technologies of the day.
2. I was the first to show a particular innovation, which has only been seen on few aircraft since.
3. Only a few examples were built, one reputedly flew although historical records leave this open to debate.
4. Most of my major components were sourced from other designs.
5. Some of my components were sourced from enemy aircraft!
6. I was multi-engined, with an intent for up to six engines.
Old 06-04-2011, 02:29 AM
  #5073  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: The Raven

Identify me:

1. I was a unique design, incorporating many pioneering technologies of the day.
2. I was the first to show a particular innovation, which has only been seen on few aircraft since.
3. Only a few examples were built, one reputedly flew although historical records leave this open to debate.
4. Most of my major components were sourced from other designs.
5. Some of my components were sourced from enemy aircraft!
6. I was multi-engined, with an intent for up to six engines.
Well; if no one else wants to try, I know one aircraft that fits. The Ju 287. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Junkers Ju 287 was a German flying testbed built to develop the technology required for a multi-engine jet bomber. It was powered by four Junkers Jumo 004 engines, featured a revolutionary forward-swept wing and was built largely from scavenged components from other aircraft. The flying prototype and an unfinished second prototype were captured by the Red Army in the closing stages of World War II and the design was further developed in the Soviet Union after the end of the war.

General characteristics
Crew: two, pilot and co-pilot
Length: 18.30 m (60 ft)
Wingspan: 20.11 m (65 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.70 m (15 ft)
Wing area: 61 m² (655 ft²)
Empty weight: 12,500 kg (27,500 lb)
Loaded weight: 20,000 kg (44,000 lb)
Powerplant: 4 (prototype #1) or 6 (prototype #2) × Junkers Jumo 004B-1 turbojets, 8,825 kN (1,984 lbf) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 555 km/h (329 mph)
Range: 1,570 km (980 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 580 m/min (1,890 ft/min)
Armament
Guns: 2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns in tail turret
Bombs: 4,000 kg (8,818 lb) of bombs (proposed)
Old 06-05-2011, 12:35 AM
  #5074  
The Raven
Senior Member
 
The Raven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: Ernie P.


ORIGINAL: The Raven

Identify me:

1. I was a unique design, incorporating many pioneering technologies of the day.
2. I was the first to show a particular innovation, which has only been seen on few aircraft since.
3. Only a few examples were built, one reputedly flew although historical records leave this open to debate.
4. Most of my major components were sourced from other designs.
5. Some of my components were sourced from enemy aircraft!
6. I was multi-engined, with an intent for up to six engines.
Well; if no one else wants to try, I know one aircraft that fits. The Ju 287. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Junkers Ju 287 was a German flying testbed built to develop the technology required for a multi-engine jet bomber. It was powered by four Junkers Jumo 004 engines, featured a revolutionary forward-swept wing and was built largely from scavenged components from other aircraft. The flying prototype and an unfinished second prototype were captured by the Red Army in the closing stages of World War II and the design was further developed in the Soviet Union after the end of the war.

General characteristics
Crew: two, pilot and co-pilot
Length: 18.30 m (60 ft)
Wingspan: 20.11 m (65 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.70 m (15 ft)
Wing area: 61 m² (655 ft²)
Empty weight: 12,500 kg (27,500 lb)
Loaded weight: 20,000 kg (44,000 lb)
Powerplant: 4 (prototype #1) or 6 (prototype #2) × Junkers Jumo 004B-1 turbojets, 8,825 kN (1,984 lbf) each

Performance
Maximum speed: 555 km/h (329 mph)
Range: 1,570 km (980 mi)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 580 m/min (1,890 ft/min)
Armament
Guns: 2 × 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns in tail turret
Bombs: 4,000 kg (8,818 lb) of bombs (proposed)

You win Ernie! I knew that mentioning 6 engines would be a strong clue.

The most interesting thing was the forward swept wings. Not sure if the materials of the day were up to that though....
Old 06-05-2011, 06:41 AM
  #5075  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,103
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz


ORIGINAL: The Raven


ORIGINAL: Ernie P.


ORIGINAL: The Raven

Identify me:

1. I was a unique design, incorporating many pioneering technologies of the day.
2. I was the first to show a particular innovation, which has only been seen on few aircraft since.
3. Only a few examples were built, one reputedly flew although historical records leave this open to debate.
4. Most of my major components were sourced from other designs.
5. Some of my components were sourced from enemy aircraft!
6. I was multi-engined, with an intent for up to six engines.
Well; if no one else wants to try, I know one aircraft that fits. The Ju 287. Thanks; Ernie P.


<clip>

You win Ernie! I knew that mentioning 6 engines would be a strong clue.

The most interesting thing was the forward swept wings. Not sure if the materials of the day were up to that though....
Thank you, Sir. Actually, the biggest clue was number 5; only Germany (to my knowledge) had been reduced to cannabalizing parts from enemy aircraft to use in new designs. The clue about six engines simply locked it in. I'll post a new question shortly. Thanks; Ernie P.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.