Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Gentlemen; my sincere apologies. I suffered a major computer failure (wireless modem went out) that disabled my desktops, as well as my laptop. No correct answers thus far, so here's a handful of new clues to get us back on track. Thanks; Ernie P.
Question: What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
(1) This was a warbird which was never popular with its pilots.
(2) Although a good aircraft, it suffered in one key area; it suffered mainly in comparison with another contemporary aircraft.
(3) The other aircraft was fielded by the same air force as this one; and the pilots simply preferred the other. Probably with good reason, as the other was an iconic aircraft.
(4) The aircraft you seek was supposedly heavy on the controls, and not quite so maneuverable as was desired.
(5) It was, however, very strong and able to withstand the stresses of steep dives; something not all aircraft of the time could do.
(6) Eventually, several hundred of this aircraft were produced; as it was considered to be a worthwhile and viable aircraft. It was simply considered to be second best, compared to it’s ally.
(7) This aircraft came into being after a formal study of a very effective enemy aircraft.
(8) Essentially, its designers adapted a copy of the wing of the enemy aircraft to one of their own existing designs. That eventually lead to this aircraft.
Question: What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
(1) This was a warbird which was never popular with its pilots.
(2) Although a good aircraft, it suffered in one key area; it suffered mainly in comparison with another contemporary aircraft.
(3) The other aircraft was fielded by the same air force as this one; and the pilots simply preferred the other. Probably with good reason, as the other was an iconic aircraft.
(4) The aircraft you seek was supposedly heavy on the controls, and not quite so maneuverable as was desired.
(5) It was, however, very strong and able to withstand the stresses of steep dives; something not all aircraft of the time could do.
(6) Eventually, several hundred of this aircraft were produced; as it was considered to be a worthwhile and viable aircraft. It was simply considered to be second best, compared to it’s ally.
(7) This aircraft came into being after a formal study of a very effective enemy aircraft.
(8) Essentially, its designers adapted a copy of the wing of the enemy aircraft to one of their own existing designs. That eventually lead to this aircraft.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Man, Zip; I can't leave any track uncovered with you. As soon as I saw you had responded, I thought "Yep; Zip picked up on the clue about the wing". You are deadly sometimes. Well, congratulations once again and I'll look forward to seeing your next question. You are up, Sir. Thanks; Ernie P.
Question: What warbird do I describe?
Clues:
(1) This was a warbird which was never popular with its pilots.
(2) Although a good aircraft, it suffered in one key area; it suffered mainly in comparison with another contemporary aircraft.
(3) The other aircraft was fielded by the same air force as this one; and the pilots simply preferred the other. Probably with good reason, as the other was an iconic aircraft.
(4) The aircraft you seek was supposedly heavy on the controls, and not quite so maneuverable as was desired.
(5) It was, however, very strong and able to withstand the stresses of steep dives; something not all aircraft of the time could do.
(6) Eventually, several hundred of this aircraft were produced; as it was considered to be a worthwhile and viable aircraft. It was simply considered to be second best, compared to it’s ally.
(7) This aircraft came into being after a formal study of a very effective enemy aircraft.
(8) Essentially, its designers adapted a copy of the wing of the enemy aircraft to one of their own existing designs. That eventually lead to this aircraft.
(9) They also relocated the radiator of the existing design. This lead to some initial difficulties, which delayed it’s introduction.
(10) The prototypes of several new aircraft designs were tested; and one noted ace preferred this aircraft to its competitor. But he was definitely in the minority.
(11) Nevertheless, an order for production of a considerable number of aircraft was issued; mainly because of his recommendation.
(12) Official reports indicated the pilots assigned the new aircraft disliked it. However, after getting used to it, they were able to use them quite effectively. Still, they always preferred the other aircraft.
(13) Two of the aircraft wound up in civilian hands after the war.
(14) Both were used in an iconic movie.
(15).Today, both reside in museums.
(16) One is in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.
(17) It was the last of it’s company’s offerings to see widespread service.
(18) The first couple of hundred aircraft had a rather angular fin and rudder design. The remainder utilized a more rounded design, such as used on the original aircraft.
Answer: The Pfalz D.XII.
The Pfalz D.XII was a German fighter aircraft built by Pfalz Flugzeugwerke. Designed by Rudolph Gehringer as a successor to the Pfalz D.III, the D.XII entered service in significant numbers near the end of the First World War. It was the last Pfalz aircraft to see widespread service. Though the D.XII was an effective fighter aircraft, it was overshadowed by the highly successful Fokker D.VII.
In early 1918, the Idflieg (Inspektion der Fliegertruppen) distributed to German aircraft manufacturers a detailed engineering report on the SPAD S.VII, whose wing structure Idflieg considered to be well-designed. Pfalz accordingly produced several Pfalz D.III-derived prototypes with SPAD-type wings. These developed into the Pfalz D.XII. The new aircraft was powered by the 180 hp Mercedes D.IIIaü engine and continued the use of LFG-Roland's patented Wickelrumpf plywood-skinned monocoque fuselage construction. Unlike the earlier aircraft, the D.XII used a two-bay wing cellule. Furthermore, the flush wing radiator was replaced with a car-type radiator mounted in front of the engine.
The prototype D.XII first flew in March 1918. Subsequently, Idflieg issued a production order for 50 aircraft. Pfalz entered several D.XII prototypes in the second fighter competition at Adlershof in May/June 1918. Only Ernst Udet and Hans Weiss favored the D.XII over the Fokker D.VII, but Udet's opinion carried such weight that Pfalz received substantial production orders for the D.XII. The aircraft passed its Typenprüfung (official type test) on 19 June 1918.
Difficulties with the radiator, which used vertical tubes rather than the more common honeycomb structure, delayed initial deliveries of the D.XII until June. The first 200 production examples could be distinguished by their rectangular fin and rudder. Subsequent aircraft featured a larger, rounded rudder profile.
The D.XII began reaching the Jagdstaffeln, primarily Bavarian units, in July 1918. Most units operated the D.XII in conjunction with other fighter types, but units in quieter sectors of the front were completely equipped with the D.XII.
While the D.XII was a marked improvement over the obsolescent Albatros D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa, it nevertheless found little favor with German pilots, who strongly preferred the Fokker D.VII. Leutnant Rudolf Stark, commander of Jasta 35, wrote:
[TABLE="width: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]“
[/TD]
[TD]
No one wanted to fly those Pfalzs except under compulsion, and those who had to made as much fuss as they could about practicing on them.
Later their pilots got on very well with them. They flew quite decently and could always keep pace with the Fokkers; in fact they dived even faster. But they were heavy for turns and fighting purposes, in which respect they were not to be compared with the Fokkers. The Fokker was a bloodstock animal that answered to the slightest movement of the hand and could almost guess the rider's will in advance. The Pfalz was a clumsy cart-horse that went heavy in the reins and obeyed nothing but the most brutal force.
Those who flew the Pfalzs did so because there were no other machines for them. But they always gazed enviously at the Fokkers and prayed for the quick chance of an exchange.
[/TD]
[TD]”
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Thanks to its sturdy wing and thin airfoil section, the D.XII maintained the excellent high-speed dive characteristics of the earlier Pfalz D.III. Like most contemporary fighters, however, the D.XII had an abrupt stall and a pronounced tendency to spin. Furthermore, pilots consistently criticized the D.XII for its long takeoff run, heavy controls, and "clumsy" handling qualities in the air. Rate of roll, in particular, appears to have been deficient. Landings were difficult because the D.XII tended to float above the ground and the landing gear was weak. Ground crews disliked the extensive wire bracing of the two-bay wings, which required more maintenance than the Fokker D.VII's semi-cantilever wings. Evaluations of captured aircraft by Allied pilots were similarly unfavorable.
Between 750 and 800 D.XII scouts were completed by the Armistice. A substantial number, perhaps as many as 175, were surrendered to the Allies. Of these, a few were shipped to the United States and Canada for evaluation.
- In the 1920s, two D.XIIs were sold as war surplus to the Crawford Aeroplane & Supply Co. of Venice, California. Though badly deteriorated, the aircraft briefly appeared as props in the 1930 movie The Dawn Patrol. Both D.XIIs were eventually sold to private collectors. Today, one of these aircraft is now displayed at the Seattle Museum of Flight, after it was acquired from the defunct Champlin Fighter Museum, in Mesa, Arizona. The second is exhibited at the National Air and Space Museum, in Washington D.C.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
It helps to have a lot of background knowledge about the era and the planes involved, doesn't it? As I said, I can't leave a track uncovered when you're playing. Again, congratulations. Thanks; Ernie P.
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys!
Almost forgot to post my question!
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Almost forgot to post my question!
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the Sea Dart.
But here's a couple more clues...
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
But here's a couple more clues...
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great guesses! But alas not what I'm looking for today.
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the Cobra. As a bonus clue Pilotal, your first guess was "warmer" .
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure what the swoose goose is! (Except not what I'm looking for)
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
15. Not American,although the engines were.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
15. Not American,although the engines were.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: littleton,
CO
Posts: 993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by psb667; 01-17-2015 at 09:44 PM. Reason: not enough detail post
I don't think the Vought XF5U is correct as it was an American product, see clue 15. And it did not use an existing fuselage, clue 7.
Last edited by skylarkmk1; 01-17-2015 at 10:09 PM.
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Guys, that pesky job got in the way for a moment!
No correct guesses yet...
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
15. Not American,although the engines were.
16. There were several aircraft that followed in this aircraft's footsteps. Albeit they use a slightly different method to achieve their goals.
17. First flown in 1958.
18. The company that built this was a well known builder of warbirds.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
No correct guesses yet...
1. This was a prototype aircraft .
2. Only 2 were built.
3. One is still on display.
4. This aircraft was proof of concept vehicle, of an idea that a different company had thought of during the previous decade.
5. The concept was a success.
6. But it was not put into production.
7. Since this aircraft was never intended to a production craft, an existing fuselage was used.
8. Twin engined.
9. Other countries also experimented with aircraft that could do what this craft could.
10. The home country of this aircraft developed at least a couple of aircraft to take advantage of the data gathered with this craft.
11. There was an aircraft that never made it off the drawing board that shares its name/designation.
12. One of the follow-up aircraft set 5 FAI records.
13. Piston engines.
14. Fitted with an ejection seat.
15. Not American,although the engines were.
16. There were several aircraft that followed in this aircraft's footsteps. Albeit they use a slightly different method to achieve their goals.
17. First flown in 1958.
18. The company that built this was a well known builder of warbirds.
Ok, there you go!
Thanks!
Zip
Ok, that's it for now...
GO BUCKEYES!
Dornier Do-29
"experimental aircraft developed by Dornier Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Aviation Laboratory) in the 1950s, used to test a tilting-propeller system for short takeoff and landing"
"experimental aircraft developed by Dornier Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Aviation Laboratory) in the 1950s, used to test a tilting-propeller system for short takeoff and landing"
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a winner! Perttime got it!
[h=1]Dornier Do 29[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 315"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"]Do 29[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Do 29 on display at the Dornier Museum[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Role[/TH]
[TD]Experimental aircraft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]National origin[/TH]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD]Dornier Flugzeugwerke[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First flight[/TH]
[TD]12 December 1958[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Primary user[/TH]
[TD]DFL[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Produced[/TH]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Developed from[/TH]
[TD]Dornier Do 27[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
For the original aircraft with this designation, see Dornier Do 29 (1934).
The Dornier Do 29 was an experimental aircraft developed by Dornier Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Aviation Laboratory) in the 1950s, used to test a tilting-propeller system for short takeoff and landing aircraft. The concept was proved to be successful in flight testing, however no further development of the system or aircraft was proceeded with, and at the conclusion of its test program the Do 29 was retired.
[h=2]Design and development[edit][/h]During the Second World War, Heinrich Focke of Focke-Achgelis, a manufacturer of helicopters, developed a design for a short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) aircraft that would utilise a system of pusher propellers, one on each wing in a pusher configuration, to provide downwards thrust and enhance lift.[SUP][1][/SUP] Designated Fa 269, the design was not developed due to the state of the war.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In the 1950s, however, a renewed interest in STOL and VTOL aircraft led to a re-evaluation of Focke's concept, and Dornier was given a contract to develop an aircraft capable of demonstrating the tilting-propeller system. The aircraft, given the designation Do 29, was based on the Do 27 light transport, modified with twin Lycoming GO-480 engines mounted below the wings.[SUP][1][/SUP] These engines drove three-bladed, pusher propellers, that were capable of being tilted downwards to an angle of up to 90 degrees, and the engines were coupled so that symmetrical thrust could be maintained in the event of an engine failure.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The forward fuselage was also modified with a helicopter-like cockpit. A Martin-Baker ejection seat was provided for pilot escape in the event of a crash.[SUP][2][/SUP]
[h=2]Testing[edit][/h]
Two examples of the Do 29 were constructed, while a third was planned but not built, with the first prototype flying on 12 December 1958.[SUP][2][/SUP] In the following flight testing, the propeller system was not rotated further than 60 degrees as opposed to its nominal 90 degree capability,[SUP][1][/SUP] but the aircraft proved to be highly successful, with a stalling speed of 24 kilometres per hour (15 mph) and exceptional short-field performance.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Despite this, however, the tilting-propeller system was not further pursued after the end of the flight test program.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=2]Aircraft on display[edit][/h]One of the Do 29 prototypes survived the program, and is displayed in the Dornier Museum in Germany.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=2]Operators[edit][/h] Germany[h=2]Specifications (Do 29)[edit][/h]
Data from [SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
General characteristics
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD]Aviation portal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD]Germany portal[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and eraRelated lists[h=2]References[edit][/h]Notes
Bibliography
[h=1]Dornier Do 29[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 315"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"]Do 29[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]Do 29 on display at the Dornier Museum[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Role[/TH]
[TD]Experimental aircraft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]National origin[/TH]
[TD]Germany[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD]Dornier Flugzeugwerke[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First flight[/TH]
[TD]12 December 1958[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Primary user[/TH]
[TD]DFL[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Produced[/TH]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Developed from[/TH]
[TD]Dornier Do 27[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
For the original aircraft with this designation, see Dornier Do 29 (1934).
The Dornier Do 29 was an experimental aircraft developed by Dornier Flugzeugwerke and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt (German Aviation Laboratory) in the 1950s, used to test a tilting-propeller system for short takeoff and landing aircraft. The concept was proved to be successful in flight testing, however no further development of the system or aircraft was proceeded with, and at the conclusion of its test program the Do 29 was retired.
[h=2]Contents[/h] [hide]
- 1 Design and development
- 2 Testing
- 3 Aircraft on display
- 4 Operators
- 5 Specifications (Do 29)
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 External links
[h=2]Design and development[edit][/h]During the Second World War, Heinrich Focke of Focke-Achgelis, a manufacturer of helicopters, developed a design for a short-takeoff-and-landing (STOL) aircraft that would utilise a system of pusher propellers, one on each wing in a pusher configuration, to provide downwards thrust and enhance lift.[SUP][1][/SUP] Designated Fa 269, the design was not developed due to the state of the war.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In the 1950s, however, a renewed interest in STOL and VTOL aircraft led to a re-evaluation of Focke's concept, and Dornier was given a contract to develop an aircraft capable of demonstrating the tilting-propeller system. The aircraft, given the designation Do 29, was based on the Do 27 light transport, modified with twin Lycoming GO-480 engines mounted below the wings.[SUP][1][/SUP] These engines drove three-bladed, pusher propellers, that were capable of being tilted downwards to an angle of up to 90 degrees, and the engines were coupled so that symmetrical thrust could be maintained in the event of an engine failure.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The forward fuselage was also modified with a helicopter-like cockpit. A Martin-Baker ejection seat was provided for pilot escape in the event of a crash.[SUP][2][/SUP]
[h=2]Testing[edit][/h]
Two examples of the Do 29 were constructed, while a third was planned but not built, with the first prototype flying on 12 December 1958.[SUP][2][/SUP] In the following flight testing, the propeller system was not rotated further than 60 degrees as opposed to its nominal 90 degree capability,[SUP][1][/SUP] but the aircraft proved to be highly successful, with a stalling speed of 24 kilometres per hour (15 mph) and exceptional short-field performance.[SUP][1][/SUP]
Despite this, however, the tilting-propeller system was not further pursued after the end of the flight test program.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=2]Aircraft on display[edit][/h]One of the Do 29 prototypes survived the program, and is displayed in the Dornier Museum in Germany.[SUP][1][/SUP]
[h=2]Operators[edit][/h] Germany[h=2]Specifications (Do 29)[edit][/h]
Data from [SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
General characteristics
- Crew: 1 (pilot)
- Length: 9.5 m (31 ft 2 in)
- Wingspan: 13.2 m (43 ft 4 in)
- Height: 2.69 m (8 ft 10 in) [SUP][4][/SUP]
- Wing area: 21.8 m[SUP]2[/SUP] (235 sq ft)
- Gross weight: 2,400 kg (5,291 lb) [SUP][4][/SUP]
- Max takeoff weight: 2,500 kg (5,512 lb)
- Powerplant: 2 × Lycoming GO-480-B1A6 geared opposed piston engines, 200 kW (270 hp) each
- Propellers: 3-bladed
- Maximum speed: 290 km/h (180 mph; 157 kn)
- Minimum control speed: 24 km/h (15 mph; 13 kn)
- Range: 400 km (249 mi; 216 nmi)
- Service ceiling: 6,500 m (21,325 ft)
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD]Aviation portal[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD]Germany portal[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and eraRelated lists[h=2]References[edit][/h]Notes
- ^ Jump up to:[SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] [SUP]c[/SUP] [SUP]d[/SUP] [SUP]e[/SUP] [SUP]f[/SUP] [SUP]g[/SUP] [SUP]h[/SUP] [SUP]i[/SUP] Goebel, Greg. "Dornier Civil Aircraft". VectorSite, April 2010. Accessed 2010-06-10.
- ^ Jump up to:[SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] Luftwaffe: Projekte: Do 29. In: Geschichte der Luftwaffe. Bundeswehr. Accessed 2009-06-15.
- Jump up^ Winchester 2005, pp. 84-85.
- ^ Jump up to:[SUP]a[/SUP] [SUP]b[/SUP] Green 1960 p.90-1
Bibliography
- Green, William. Observer's book of aircraft (1960 ed.
-