Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
08-20-2018, 04:31 PM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not the "Wind Indicator". But here's a bonus clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
08-21-2018, 06:36 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had never heard of the P-64 till now! That's what I like about this thread: always discovering "new" aircraft. So no, not the P-64. Today's clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
08-21-2018, 08:18 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but no cigar. You do earn a bonus clue though:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
08-22-2018, 06:21 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a new clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
08-23-2018, 06:21 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New day, new clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
08-24-2018, 08:01 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ye gads! I’ve killed the thread!
Friday clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
Friday clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
08-24-2018, 07:11 PM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking that was part of the problem. Here's the Saturday clue, it should help:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
13 - Entered service in 1941.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
13 - Entered service in 1941.
08-26-2018, 10:34 AM
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday clue:
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
13 - Entered service in 1941.
14 - Clue #5 relates to the role for which the plane was originally intended.
1 - Single engine, tail dragger.
2 - Built for a particular role. It was actually rejected for that purpose but accepted anyway for another job.
3 - The manufacturer is one that RC scale modellers are likely aware of, but not one of the “big” names.
4 - The plane in question contained a number departures from the company’s previous aircraft.
5 - The landing gear included an unusual feature.
6 - Built in small numbers (barely 100) for a single service that accepted it reluctantly.
7 - Despite the small production run, at least two airframes survive to this day. One is even airworthy and performs at airshows.
8 - A polite person might say this plane has "a lot of character". Most just say it's ugly. Certainly it's impossible to mistake it for anything else!
9 - Equipped only two units during its brief career.
10 - Never saw combat.
11 - Which is a good thing, considering it was unarmed & unarmored.
12 - Was found to be easy to fly... which relates to clue #2.
13 - Entered service in 1941.
14 - Clue #5 relates to the role for which the plane was originally intended.
08-26-2018, 08:16 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
It's being clever, Johnny is. Nevertheless, maybe it's time to move on. How about the Fleet Model 60K Fort? Thanks; Ernie P.
Answer: Fleet Model 60K Fort
The Fleet Model 60K Fort was the only aircraft designed and built by Canadians during the Second World War and was also the first all-metal monoplane built by Fleet Aircraft of Canada (Fort Erie). It was intended to be an intermediate trainer employed for pilot training between the de Havilland Tiger Moth primary trainer and the North AmericanHarvard advanced trainer. Although it served with the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, the Fort was redundant and was used to train wireless (radio) operators and had a relatively short operational career.
The Fort was originally designed as an advanced flying trainer and in 1940 orders were placed for 200 to be built for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. The Fleet 60 was designed as a monoplane with a low elliptical wing and a raised rear cockpit. An unusual feature was the fixed undercarriage. Although fixed, the undercarriage was fitted with a retractable fairing. This feature was intended to familiarize student pilots with an undercarriage retraction mechanism but without causing external damage by a forgetful student. Production was delayed, however, as the first Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) model was not flying until 18 April 1941. The availability of the Fairchild Cornell, and a change in what constituted an "advanced" trainer, led to the contract's being sharply cut back, and only 101 Forts were ultimately delivered to the RCAF between June 1941 and June 1942.
.
Operational history
Initially, the RCAF did not want to order the Model 60K, and their concerns proved valid. Pilot trainees found the Fort relatively easy to master, thereby making it unsuitable for transition to combat aircraft (e.g., Hawker Hurricane). Also, the RCAF decided that pilots who had soloed in Fleet Finches and de Havilland Tiger Moths could proceed to Harvards without training on Forts. The Forts were then used to train wireless operators at No. 2 Wireless School, Calgary and No. 3 Wireless School, Winnipeg.
Two models were built, one having a 250 hp (190 kW) Jacobs engine and the other having a 330 hp (250 kW) Jacobs. The more powerful engine gave the revised Fort a top speed of 193 mph (311 km/h) and the cruising speed 163 mph (262 km/h). It then climbed at 1,650 feet (500 m) per minute and had a range of 610 miles (980 km). Loaded weight was slightly increased to 2,900 pounds (1,300 kg).
The last Forts saw active service in 1944 and they were phased out of use by 1945; the last Model 60K was retired in 1946.
Answer: Fleet Model 60K Fort
The Fleet Model 60K Fort was the only aircraft designed and built by Canadians during the Second World War and was also the first all-metal monoplane built by Fleet Aircraft of Canada (Fort Erie). It was intended to be an intermediate trainer employed for pilot training between the de Havilland Tiger Moth primary trainer and the North AmericanHarvard advanced trainer. Although it served with the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, the Fort was redundant and was used to train wireless (radio) operators and had a relatively short operational career.
Design and development
.
Operational history
Initially, the RCAF did not want to order the Model 60K, and their concerns proved valid. Pilot trainees found the Fort relatively easy to master, thereby making it unsuitable for transition to combat aircraft (e.g., Hawker Hurricane). Also, the RCAF decided that pilots who had soloed in Fleet Finches and de Havilland Tiger Moths could proceed to Harvards without training on Forts. The Forts were then used to train wireless operators at No. 2 Wireless School, Calgary and No. 3 Wireless School, Winnipeg.
Two models were built, one having a 250 hp (190 kW) Jacobs engine and the other having a 330 hp (250 kW) Jacobs. The more powerful engine gave the revised Fort a top speed of 193 mph (311 km/h) and the cruising speed 163 mph (262 km/h). It then climbed at 1,650 feet (500 m) per minute and had a range of 610 miles (980 km). Loaded weight was slightly increased to 2,900 pounds (1,300 kg).
The last Forts saw active service in 1944 and they were phased out of use by 1945; the last Model 60K was retired in 1946.
08-27-2018, 07:18 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
08-27-2018, 10:56 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Lots of posts, though none with a correct guess; so more clues are due. Thanks; Ernie P.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
08-27-2018, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
An evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
08-27-2018, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Not a bad guess, Hydro junkie; but not correct. This pilot isn't as well known as Sakai. But here's another clue to aid your search. Thanks; Ernie P.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
5. And in coming years he was haunted by the three that died; often talking about how they died.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
5. And in coming years he was haunted by the three that died; often talking about how they died.
08-28-2018, 02:16 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
5. And in coming years he was haunted by the three that died; often talking about how they died.
6. He flew through the entire war.
We all know German pilot Adolph Galland wrote a famous book “The First and the Last”. This question is about another pilot; one who can also claim to be The First and the Last.
What warbird aircrew member do I describe?
1. This pilot flew more than 100 combat missions.
2. His first combat mission was very nearly his last.
3. He was the only member of his flight to avoid being shot down on that memorable day.
4. Three pilots survived; and three died.
5. And in coming years he was haunted by the three that died; often talking about how they died.
6. He flew through the entire war.