HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Ya never got the forum notice Fk'n computers any ways yes it is there . the correct answer is:
Throughout the month of March, this P-38 was assigned a very special project testing a set of
retractable skis.
Now it's your turn again ... any Idea why I never got the notices from any of the forums I'm in.
Has RCU sanctioned me again?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Thank you, Sir. A very good question, BTW. I have no idea why you aren't getting notices. Maybe RCKen can respond. Anyhow.... Here we go again. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

I'll take a stab at it. How about the
[h=1]Northrop YB-49 or the Northrop YB-35?[/h]

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Now there's a couple of good answers; though not what I'm looking for. I hope this extra clue will help your search. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

uncljoe

My Feedback: (8)

How about the Spruce Goose HV-1
semper Fi

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Uncljoe; good thinking, and you're thinking along the right lines; but not where we're headed. Still, your worthy guess is rewarded with yet another clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

(4) During testing, the prototype aircraft proved to be quite maneuverable, with no vices.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

(4) During testing, the prototype aircraft proved to be quite maneuverable, with no vices.

(5) Unfortunately, the test aircraft proved to be too heavy to have the desired climbing abilities.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

And a late night clue as well. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

(4) During testing, the prototype aircraft proved to be quite maneuverable, with no vices.

(5) Unfortunately, the test aircraft proved to be too heavy to have the desired climbing abilities.

(6) The design utilized a rudder with no fixed stabilizer.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

YF-12A SR-71 Black Bird

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

HoundDog, you are nothing if not persistent. Although you aren't correct this time, your efforts will be rewarded with this early morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

(4) During testing, the prototype aircraft proved to be quite maneuverable, with no vices.

(5) Unfortunately, the test aircraft proved to be too heavy to have the desired climbing abilities.

(6) The design utilized a rudder with no fixed stabilizer.

(7) A built in headrest and roll bar were used to protect the pilot.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Fairchild PT-19 Cornell USAF No Head Rest but has a Roll Bar

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Sort of a long shot, because I can't find a picture showing the roll bar, but how about the Junkers J1 "Blechesel" (tin donkey), which was made in large part of steel because aluminum was hard to get?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Top_Gunn;l you do NOT have the answer. However, you're so close I wouldn't feel right about not giving it to you. I actually wanted as an answer the Junkers J2 fighter prototypes. However, the J2 was a direct decendent of the J1 demonstrator aircraft; and not giving you credit might unfairly direct you away from the real answer. So, I'm awarding you the conch shell and you are now up. What is your question for us? Thanks; Ernie P.


Question: What warbird do I describe?

Clues:

(1) This design pointed to the future; and every one knew it.

(2) Unfortunately, the materials available did not allow the design to fulfill its promise.

(3) Although it was very fast, it was not put into production.

(4) During testing, the prototype aircraft proved to be quite maneuverable, with no vices.

(5) Unfortunately, the test aircraft proved to be too heavy to have the desired climbing abilities.

(6) The design utilized a rudder with no fixed stabilizer.

(7) A built in headrest and roll bar were used to protect the pilot.

(8) It was considered to be very aerodynamic for its time; which was one reason it was so fast.

(9) As a result of an earlier prototype aircraft built to demonstrate the new technology to be incorporated, a small series of prototype fighters was ordered.

(10) Unfortunately, these prototypes were not nimble enough to be put into production. Their climb rate was considered to be poor, as well.

(11) The basic problem was that the metal being utilized was too heavy; and aluminum wasn’t available in sufficient quantities to be used. As a result, the planes were rather heavy.

(12) The wing design was quite advanced, with several changes in the curvature of the wing as it progressed from root to tip.

(13) The forward structure of the aircraft was integrated into an integral “box” structure for added strength.

(14) One of the prototypes was fitted with slightly longer wings and expanded ailerons, to decrease the wing loading.

(15) Another was fitted with a new design engine; and achieved a speed greater than most production fighters of the era.

(16) The test pilot was killed after deliberately spinning one of the test aircraft and crashing. This, and the poor climbing ability, effectively ended the project.

(17) At the insistence of the military, as a result of the obvious promise of the advanced design, a rival designer was brought into the project. The rival designer was supposed to help make the aircraft easier to produce in volume. He was later accused of “stealing” several elements of the design for his own future designs.

(18) One of the key elements stolen was the design of the wing.

(19) Overall, this aircraft was definitely considered to be “low drag”.

(20) Armament consisted of one machine gun.



Answer: The Junkers J 2

The Junkers J 2 was the first all-metal aircraft intended as a dedicated military aircraft design, the first all-metal aircraft meant to be a fighter aircraft, and was the direct descendant of the pioneering J 1 all-metal aircraft technology demonstrator design of 1915.

Only some two weeks after the last known recorded flight, on 18 January 1916, of the J 1 "technology demonstrator" design of 1915, the Junkers firm had impressed one Hauptmann Felix Wagenfόhr, head of IdFlieg '​s influential Prόfanstalt und Werft der Fliegertruppe ("Test Establishment and Workshop of the Aviation Troops") department, abbreviated "PuW", enough for Hauptmann Wagenfόhr to submit a contract to the Junkers firm for six all-metal monoplanes, meant to be fighter prototypes, with each to be powered with the Mercedes D.II inline engine (as the J 1 had been), armed with one 7.92 mm (.312 in) lMG 08/15 Spandau synchronized machine gun, and bearing IdFlieg serial numbers E.250/16 to E.255/16. The desired specifications were for an aircraft that had:

• a top speed of 145 km/h (90 mph)

• a flight duration of 90 minutes

• a climb rate to 3,000 m (9,840 ft) altitude within 20 minutes.

The IdFlieg contract for the ordered aircraft also specified that "the greatest maneuverability and nimbleness in flight must be achieved by the aircraft", a possible concern by the German governmental agency, over the usage of the heavy electrical steel sheet metal that made up the earlier J 1's structure. Herr Junkers began wind tunnel and design work promptly upon receipt of the contract paperwork, and eventually, by the end of the spring of 1916, an aircraft emerged from Junkers' Dessau workshops that was much more streamlined in appearance than the J 1 had been.

The J 2 airframe that emerged from the Dessau workshops had an evolved appearance from the J 1, as the fuselage nose now almost completely enclosed the Mercedes D.II engine, except for the open top of the cowling. The J 2's fuselage structure had rounded dorsal and ventral contours, instead of the boxlike right angles of the J 1, possessed a narrower and deeper ventral "belly" radiator enclosure, and used a horizontal stabilizer planform shape that would become familiar on later, all-duralumin Junkers monoplane designs to be built during 1917-18. The "all-moving" rudder still possessed no fixed fin, like the J 1. A faired-in headrest was provided for, as well as a "roll bar" placed above the headrest for additional pilot protection in case of the aircraft flipping on its back during a crash landing. The J 2's landing gear was of the usual vee-type, but a bit taller than the J 1's had been, with the upper ends of the legs anchoring not onto the fuselage "corners" as on the J 1, but on the first wing rib "bay" beyond the wing root, with a long tailskid that emerged from the lower rear fuselage directly below the stabilizer's leading edge root location. The wings had at least three different airfoil changes running from root-to-tip, and had sections of them electrically roll-welded for stronger, more continuous bonding for greater strength. The resulting aircraft was intended to be smaller than the J 1 demonstrator, but with its steel structure, it almost equalled the J 1's completed weight.
One feature pioneered in the J 2, that would also be used in later all-metal monoplanes designed and built by Junkers in World War I, was a "unitized" forward fuselage structural concept, combining the framing of the engine mount, wing roots and cockpit framing into one central integral structure.

The first production example of the J.2, with IdFlieg serial number E.250/16, was delivered to Adlershof (near Berlin, the home of Germany's first airfield) on 2 July 1916, and started its IdFlieg-mandated static load testing. Otto Mader, one of the J 2's designers, then promised the IdFlieg agency that the following example, serialled E.251/16, would have even greater structural strength than the E.250's airframe possessed. Leutnant Theodor Mallinckrodt, the pilot that had first "hopped" the earlier J 1 some seven months previously, took the E.251/16 example up for the J 2 design's maiden flight on 11 July 1916. Mallinckrodt gave the E.251 example that he flew a good overall evaluation, judging it as "very maneuverable", with good turning qualities and safe aerodynamic behavior. A short time later, IdFlieg test pilots Unteroffiziers Wendeler, and Max Schade, began "wringing out" the six examples of the J 2 as they arrived at Adlershof for their full range of flight evaluation tests.
Unteroffizier Schade would eventually take one of the test aircraft on a flight from Berlin (most likely from the government's Adlershof/Johannisthal facility) to Dessau later in the summer of 1916, achieving the then-high speed of 180 km/h (112 mph) with the aircraft, which was some 16 km/h (10 mph) faster than the contemporary French Nieuport 11, but as the J 2 test aircraft still seemed to come up short in climbing performance tests, when evaluated against wood structure designs, like the then brand-new, Robert Thelen-designed Albatros D.I aircraft, the steel structure of the J 2 made it just too heavy to be able to compete in air combat over the Front.
At least one example (E.253/16) of the J 2 was fitted with slightly longer wings and matching longer ailerons, possibly in an effort to decrease the wing loading of the initial J 2 design, and another tested "upgrade" to the J 2s under test was to fit at least one of the aircraft with the then-new 119 kW (160 hp) Mercedes D.III engine, and one of the J 2s so equipped achieved an amazing-for-the-time 200 km/h (124 mph) at full throttle in testing.

Despite the attempts to improve the J 2's performance and handling, by late in the summer of 1916 Hugo Junkers had come to the realization that the continued use of sheet electrical steel was no longer practical for aircraft construction, writing in his diary that:
"As a result of the first (J 1) and second (J 2) aircraft, one would ascertain that the aerodynamic efficiency was very good. We thought we [the Junkers designers] were over the hill. This, unfortunately, was not the case. We had to start again from the very beginning. The reason was that in spite of the favorable horizontal speed, the aircraft could not meet the military climb specifications...we had to develop an aircraft that not only had low drag for ease of maneuver in the horizontal plane, but that could climb well-an aircraft with a low weight to power ratio...
...This could not be achieved with iron, and we had to choose a new material...light-weight metal. But not only the choice of iron had resulted in high weight. We had built too heavy because we wanted a safe aircraft and partially because we had not extracted the optimum structural strength from the material".
Unteroffizier Schade, after making the record Berlin-Dessau flight, would later lose his life in a crash, from entering a spin on 23 September 1916 in one of the J 2s, and this event, combined with the substandard climbing performance of the J 2 series of test aircraft, caused IdFlieg to withdraw any further governmental support (effectively ending the J 2's contract) for the Junkers firm's advanced monoplane designs until a lighter metal, such as duralumin, was selected for such designs. The first attempt to use duralumin for airframe construction by the Junkers firm was the never-completed J 3 mid-wing, rotary engine-powered, aluminum tubing fuselage single-seat monoplane design, of which only the corrugated sheet duralumin-covered wing structures and "bare" tubular fuselage framing, primarily as an engineering exercise, were finished shortly before the end of 1916.
It is also thought that the contrasting promise of the advanced, low drag features of the Junkers monoplane aircraft designs, versus the Junkers firm's usage of experimental non-traditional sheet metal materials, and the firm's habit of almost constant experimentation obstructing any future hope of producing its advanced designs for the Luftstreitkrδfte, compelled IdFlieg to create the Junkers-Fokker Aktiengesellschaft, abbreviated as Jfa and pronounced as if spelled "iefa" in German, on 20 October 1917,[SUP][1][/SUP] to allow Anthony Fokker, who even flew one of the J 2 aircraft in tests late in December 1916, to improve the future producibility of the advanced designs of the Junkers firm.

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 7.43 m (24 ft 4½ in)
• Wingspan: 11.70 m (38 ft 4⅔ in)
• Height: 3.13 m (10 ft 3Ό in)
• Wing area: 19.00 m[SUP]2[/SUP] (204.52 ft[SUP]2[/SUP])
• Empty weight: 920 kg (2,028 lb)
• Gross weight: 1,165 kg (2,568 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 Χ Mercedes D.III water-cooled engine, 119 kW (160 hp)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 200 km/h (124 mph)
• Range: 615 km (382 miles)
• Service ceiling: 4500 m (14,760 ft)

Armament

• 1 Χ 7.92 mm (.312 in) lMG 08/15 machine gun

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Well, Ernie, if I'd waited until maybe clue 9, I could have been a contender!

Here's a question I've been thinking about asking for quite a while. Quite a bit different from everything we've had on the thread since the beginning, but a part of aviation history all the same. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

Looking for an event.

1. It took place during a war, but not in a combat zone.

2. It involved more than 100 officers, many of whom were pilots.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Tail Hook?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Not Tailhook, but similar in the sense that it did not make the branch of the service in question look good. So here's another clue:


Looking for an event.

1. It took place during a war, but not in a combat zone.

2. It involved more than 100 officers, many of whom were pilots.

3. Some others were probably navigators or bombardiers. I can't document this, but it's almost certain, given the setting and the circumstances.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

The Revolt of the Tuskegee airman at the Seymour IN training base?

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Very good! It hadn't occurred to me that someone from southern Indiana would probably pick this up early, but it makes sense. One of these years my wife and I are going to get back to Nashville for a few days in the fall. You're up, elmshoot!

Wikipedia calls it the "Freeman Field Mutiny," which is somewhat misleading, as it was a protest, not a mutiny, though that is a catchy title. After the success of the Tuskegee fighter pilots, the USAAF began a program to train black medium-bomber crews. They were treated badly by some of their earliest commanding officers, and finally, at Freeman Field in 1945, more than 100 black officers protested the establishment of an officers' club for white officers only (a violation of Army regulations) by attempting to enter that club. This may have been one of the first attempts at a sit-in, a tactic later used with considerable success in the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Wikipedia has a decent summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Field_Mutiny

At the time of the Freeman Field incident, James Gould Cozzens worked at the Pentagon. One of his jobs was preparing reports for the chief of staff, "Hap" Arnold, about anything General Arnold should know about in case it should come up at a press conference. So Cozzens wrote a series of reports detailing this incident as it developed. After the war, Cozzens used a fictionalized version of the Freeman Field events, moved to a fictional base in Florida, as part of the plot of his Pulitzer Prize winning novel, "Guard of Honor." Cozzens is pretty much forgotten today, which is a shame. "Guard of Honor" is, in my opinion, one of the two or three best novels about the armed forces ever written. It isn't really "about" the protests, it's about how a huge, complex organization deals with a problem that it has to get out of the way so that it can get on with winning the war. Unlike some other novels written right after the war, it doesn't paint the military as a crowd of ignorant fools who can't appreciate the virtues of those unfortunate intellectuals trapped in its coils (e.g. "The Naked and the Dead"). Since there's no combat, and the two main characters were a judge and a magazine editor in civilian life, I suppose it lacks the action needed for a best seller. It wouldn't make a good movie. Great book, though.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Al,
I didn't even notice that you were from Indiana as well! I just took a shot in the dark on my answer. So many stories like this one and others will get lost in the passage of time but are worthy of mention in the footnotes of the war and how we got here (where ever that is).
PS I liked the Tail Hook guess I am a life member of the Tailhook association, I skipped TH 91 to fly a EA-6B Prowler to the Reno Air Races the following weekend.
Sparky
Another plane of mystery and obscurity.....

Single seat airplane.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Welcome, elmshoot. Always good to see a new name asking questions. I'm in the mood to take a really, really long shot... How about the Fleet Model 1? Thanks; Ernie P.


The Fleet Model 1 (originally the Consolidated Model 14 Husky Junior) and its derivatives were a family of two-seat trainer and sports plane produced in the United States and Canada in the 1920s and 1930s. They all shared the same basic design and varied mainly in their powerplants. They were all orthodox biplanes with staggered, single-bay wings of equal span and fixed tailskid undercarriage. Accommodation was provided for two in tandem, originally sharing a single open cockpit, but in most examples in separate open cockpits. The fuselage was made of welded steel tube with triangular-layout Warren truss construction pattern side structures typical of the time, and the wings had a wooden spar with duralumin ribs, the entire aircraft being fabric-covered. Despite a superficial resemblance to Consolidated's highly successful Trusty and Husky designs (hence the "Husky Junior" nickname), the Model 14 was an all-new design.
Originally created as a means for Consolidated to enter the civil market, the company abandoned this ambition shortly before the completion of the first prototype. The manufacturing rights were purchased by designer and Consolidated company president Reuben Fleet to put into production under his new enterprise, Fleet Aircraft. It was an immediate success, and in the first year of production alone, over 300 machines were sold. Consolidated quickly responded by buying Fleet Aircraft and retaining it as a subsidiary while opening a second production line at Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada. The Canadian manufacturing was a great success, with some 600 examples built for the Royal Canadian Air Force as the Fleet Fawn (Model 7) and Fleet Finch (Model 16).
A small number of U.S.-built machines were purchased by the U.S. military, including a batch evaluated by the United States Army Air Corps as the PT-16 but not bought in quantity. One initial prototype aircraft and six subsequent specialised production N2Y trainers were purchased by the United States Navy. These N2Y-1 aircraft were equipped with hooks to catch the trapeze on two U.S. Navy airships, the USS Akron and the USS Macon. The N2Y-1 parasite aircraft were used to train pilots that would subsequently fly the longer distance single-seat F9C Sparrowhawks reconnaissance aircraft. The two-seater N2Y-1 also acted as service aircraft, flying passengers to the inroute airships.
United States manufacturing rights were eventually sold to Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, which intended to produce the Brewster B-1 based on the Canadian Model 16F.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Another plane of mystery and obscurity.....

Single seat airplane.

I am 60, my dad flew them, he was desiginated a naval aviator in 1941.

Single engine

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

How about the Navy's Brewster F2A Buffalo? Thanks; Ernie P.


The Brewster F2A Buffalo was an American fighter aircraft which saw service early in World War II. Designed and built by the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation, it was one of the first U.S. monoplanes with an arrestor hook and other modifications for aircraft carriers. The Buffalo won a competition against the Grumman F4F Wildcat in 1939 to become the U.S. Navy's first monoplane fighter aircraft. Although superior to the Grumman F3F biplane it replaced and the early F4Fs, the Buffalo turned out to be a disappointment because the weight of added equipment was not balanced by an increase in horsepower.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Ernie, Nope

Single seat airplane.

I am 60, my dad flew them, he was desiginated a naval aviator in 1941.

Single engine

Radial engine

Wright R1820

Curtis electric 4 blade 10'2" propeller

None exist today nadda zip not a single one

Less than 1000 were produced I belive

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

There are still a number of contenders, but how about the Curtiss SC Seahawk? Thanks; Ernie P.


The Curtiss SC Seahawk was a scout seaplane designed by the Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company for the United States Navy. The existing Curtiss SO3C Seamew and the Vought OS2U Kingfisher were 1937 designs that, by 1942, needed to be replaced.


Work began in June 1942, following a US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics request for scout seaplane proposals. Curtiss submitted the Seahawk design on 1 August 1942, with a contract for two prototypes and five service test aircraft awarded on 25 August.[1] A production order for 500 SC-1s followed in June 1943, prior to the first flight of the prototypes.

While only intended to seat the pilot, a bunk was provided in the aft fuselage for rescue or personnel transfer. Two 0.5 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns were fitted in the wings, and two underwing hardpoints allowed carriage of 250 lb (113 kg) bombs or, on the right wing, surface-scan radar. The main float, designed to incorporate a bomb bay, suffered substantial leaks when used in that fashion, and was modified to carry an auxiliary fuel tank.

The first flight of a prototype XSC-1 took place 16 February 1944 at the Columbus, Ohio Curtiss plant. Flight testing continued through 28 April, when the last of the seven pre-production aircraft took to the air. Nine further prototypes were later built, with a second seat and modified cockpit, designated SC-2; series production was not undertaken.

The first serial production Seahawks were delivered on 22 October 1944, to the USS Guam. All 577 aircraft eventually produced for the Navy were delivered on conventional landing gear and flown to the appropriate Naval Air Station, where floats were fitted for service as needed.

Capable of being fitted with either float or wheeled landing gear, the Seahawk was arguably America's best floatplane scout of World War II. However, its protracted development time meant it entered service too late to see significant action in the war. It was not until June 1945, during the pre-invasion bombardment of Borneo, that the Seahawk was involved in military action. By the end of the war, seaplanes were becoming less desirable, with the Seahawk being replaced soon afterward by helicopters.

Tri-color camouflage and markings on the Seahawk were in accordance with US Navy regulations from 1944, 1945 and later postwar regulations.