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 10-16-2018, 12:40 PM
  #16451  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. This aircraft was not one of the more famous in its war. As such, it is largely unknown today

2. But it was very nearly much better known.

3. And there is a chance that, had it been the winner in an informal competition with a much more famous aircraft, it would itself be much more famous today.

4. It was not a formal competition as such; but a decision was being made as to which single aircraft type was to be produced in largely increased numbers. And our subject was one of the two under active consideration; although mainly as a backup for the other aircraft.

5. But the question is; “Would it have been famous or infamous”?

6. In trials, it proved to be an able contender.

7. It was fast and handled well.

8. It was very maneuverable.

9. It climbed quickly.

10. It offered its pilot excellent visibility.

11. Two versions were produced for the trials.

12. The second version was quite similar, but with a heavier armament.

13. When it was proposed to an ally, the ally wasn’t informed it was a design for a single seat fighter; and the ally decided not to order any of the type. And the producing country decided to select the other aircraft as its main fighter.

14. Nevertheless, more than 1,000 of the aircraft were produced as fighters.

15. It was very popular with the pilots who flew it. They loved its speed and maneuverability.

16. But there proved to be a wing defect; and there were several losses related to wing failure.

17. As a result, the plane was withdrawn from combat rather quickly.

18. Oddly enough, the wing was apparently quite robust; and the problem was probably in a design area not then well understood.

19. The manufacturer then decided to offer the type as a trainer.

20. It was produced as an advanced trainer, and two versions were produced.

21. And additional bracing was designed for the wings.

22. The trainer versions were used in large numbers by the producing country. Another country bought and used more than 50; and four other countries bought at least one each.

23. It was eventually decided wing flutter was the cause of the wing failures in the fighter versions; or perhaps another related phenomena simply not understood at the time.

24. Either way, its time in active combat service as a fighter was short; perhaps three months in all.

25. When compared to the aircraft which was ultimately selected in place of it, our subject aircraft was faster, more maneuverable, climbed much faster, had a higher service ceiling and was much lighter, with similar endurance. Of course, the wings didn’t fall off the other aircraft
Old 10-17-2018, 02:04 AM
  #16452  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. This aircraft was not one of the more famous in its war. As such, it is largely unknown today

2. But it was very nearly much better known.

3. And there is a chance that, had it been the winner in an informal competition with a much more famous aircraft, it would itself be much more famous today.

4. It was not a formal competition as such; but a decision was being made as to which single aircraft type was to be produced in largely increased numbers. And our subject was one of the two under active consideration; although mainly as a backup for the other aircraft.

5. But the question is; “Would it have been famous or infamous”?

6. In trials, it proved to be an able contender.

7. It was fast and handled well.

8. It was very maneuverable.

9. It climbed quickly.

10. It offered its pilot excellent visibility.

11. Two versions were produced for the trials.

12. The second version was quite similar, but with a heavier armament.

13. When it was proposed to an ally, the ally wasn’t informed it was a design for a single seat fighter; and the ally decided not to order any of the type. And the producing country decided to select the other aircraft as its main fighter.

14. Nevertheless, more than 1,000 of the aircraft were produced as fighters.

15. It was very popular with the pilots who flew it. They loved its speed and maneuverability.

16. But there proved to be a wing defect; and there were several losses related to wing failure.

17. As a result, the plane was withdrawn from combat rather quickly.

18. Oddly enough, the wing was apparently quite robust; and the problem was probably in a design area not then well understood.

19. The manufacturer then decided to offer the type as a trainer.

20. It was produced as an advanced trainer, and two versions were produced.

21. And additional bracing was designed for the wings.

22. The trainer versions were used in large numbers by the producing country. Another country bought and used more than 50; and four other countries bought at least one each.

23. It was eventually decided wing flutter was the cause of the wing failures in the fighter versions; or perhaps another related phenomena simply not understood at the time.

24. Either way, its time in active combat service as a fighter was short; perhaps three months in all.

25. When compared to the aircraft which was ultimately selected in place of it, our subject aircraft was faster, more maneuverable, climbed much faster, had a higher service ceiling and was much lighter, with similar endurance. Of course, the wings didn’t fall off the other aircraft

26. Our subject aircraft was a parasol wing monoplane.
Old 10-17-2018, 08:51 AM
  #16453  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. This aircraft was not one of the more famous in its war. As such, it is largely unknown today

2. But it was very nearly much better known.

3. And there is a chance that, had it been the winner in an informal competition with a much more famous aircraft, it would itself be much more famous today.

4. It was not a formal competition as such; but a decision was being made as to which single aircraft type was to be produced in largely increased numbers. And our subject was one of the two under active consideration; although mainly as a backup for the other aircraft.

5. But the question is; “Would it have been famous or infamous”?

6. In trials, it proved to be an able contender.

7. It was fast and handled well.

8. It was very maneuverable.

9. It climbed quickly.

10. It offered its pilot excellent visibility.

11. Two versions were produced for the trials.

12. The second version was quite similar, but with a heavier armament.

13. When it was proposed to an ally, the ally wasn’t informed it was a design for a single seat fighter; and the ally decided not to order any of the type. And the producing country decided to select the other aircraft as its main fighter.

14. Nevertheless, more than 1,000 of the aircraft were produced as fighters.

15. It was very popular with the pilots who flew it. They loved its speed and maneuverability.

16. But there proved to be a wing defect; and there were several losses related to wing failure.

17. As a result, the plane was withdrawn from combat rather quickly.

18. Oddly enough, the wing was apparently quite robust; and the problem was probably in a design area not then well understood.

19. The manufacturer then decided to offer the type as a trainer.

20. It was produced as an advanced trainer, and two versions were produced.

21. And additional bracing was designed for the wings.

22. The trainer versions were used in large numbers by the producing country. Another country bought and used more than 50; and four other countries bought at least one each.

23. It was eventually decided wing flutter was the cause of the wing failures in the fighter versions; or perhaps another related phenomena simply not understood at the time.

24. Either way, its time in active combat service as a fighter was short; perhaps three months in all.

25. When compared to the aircraft which was ultimately selected in place of it, our subject aircraft was faster, more maneuverable, climbed much faster, had a higher service ceiling and was much lighter, with similar endurance. Of course, the wings didn’t fall off the other aircraft.

26. Our subject aircraft was a parasol wing monoplane.

27. It was produced by a company which had produced other monoplanes earlier in the war; both high wing and shoulder wing.
Old 10-17-2018, 10:12 AM
  #16454  
SimonCraig1
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo, HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The Morane-Saulnier AI?
Old 10-17-2018, 12:13 PM
  #16455  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SimonCraig1 View Post
The Morane-Saulnier AI?
Now that wasn't so hard, was it? You nailed it, SimonCraig1; the Morane-Saulnier A1 it is. And, you get to ask the next question. Congratulations, Sir; and a job well done. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?

1. This aircraft was not one of the more famous in its war. As such, it is largely unknown today

2. But it was very nearly much better known.

3. And there is a chance that, had it been the winner in an informal competition with a much more famous aircraft, it would itself be much more famous today.

4. It was not a formal competition as such; but a decision was being made as to which single aircraft type was to be produced in largely increased numbers. And our subject was one of the two under active consideration; although mainly as a backup for the other aircraft.

5. But the question is; “Would it have been famous or infamous”?

6. In trials, it proved to be an able contender.

7. It was fast and handled well.

8. It was very maneuverable.

9. It climbed quickly.

10. It offered its pilot excellent visibility.

11. Two versions were produced for the trials.

12. The second version was quite similar, but with a heavier armament.

13. When it was proposed to an ally, the ally wasn’t informed it was a design for a single seat fighter; and the ally decided not to order any of the type. And the producing country decided to select the other aircraft as its main fighter.

14. Nevertheless, more than 1,000 of the aircraft were produced as fighters.

15. It was very popular with the pilots who flew it. They loved its speed and maneuverability.

16. But there proved to be a wing defect; and there were several losses related to wing failure.

17. As a result, the plane was withdrawn from combat rather quickly.

18. Oddly enough, the wing was apparently quite robust; and the problem was probably in a design area not then well understood.

19. The manufacturer then decided to offer the type as a trainer.

20. It was produced as an advanced trainer, and two versions were produced.

21. And additional bracing was designed for the wings.

22. The trainer versions were used in large numbers by the producing country. Another country bought and used more than 50; and four other countries bought at least one each.

23. It was eventually decided wing flutter was the cause of the wing failures in the fighter versions; or perhaps another related phenomena simply not understood at the time.

24. Either way, its time in active combat service as a fighter was short; perhaps three months in all.

25. When compared to the aircraft which was ultimately selected in place of it, our subject aircraft was faster, more maneuverable, climbed much faster, had a higher service ceiling and was much lighter, with similar endurance. Of course, the wings didn’t fall off the other aircraft.

26. Our subject aircraft was a parasol wing monoplane.

27. It was produced by a company which had produced other monoplanes earlier in the war; both high wing and shoulder wing.

28. It was powered by a single rotary engine.

29. Armed with either one or two machine guns.

30. Wingspan was a bit under 28 feet.

31. Length was less than 19 feet.

32. Empty weight was under 1,000 pounds.

33. Service ceiling was over 22,000 feet.

34. It climbed to 10,000 feet in less than eight minutes.

















Answer: Morane-Saulnier Type AI



The Morane-Saulnier Type AI was a single seat parasol-wing fighter developed during 1917 and that entered service early in 1918, but that had to be withdrawn after a number of wing failures.

During 1916 Morane-Saulnier had attempted to produce a single-seat version of their Type P parasol reconnaissance aircraft, but without success. The company then moved on to develop two entirely new single seat fighters, the biplane Type AF and the parasol-wing Type AI.The new aircraft was of largely conventional construction. The fuselage had a circular cross section, but was constructed around a wooden framework, not as a monocoque (an experimental monocoque version was produced during 1917). The flat wing was swept back, with a section cut out in the rear centre to improve the pilot's view. It was supported by parallel lift struts which ran from the base of the fuselage to a point two thirds of the way along the wing, and that were braced with one pair of compression struts. Strength tests on the wing showed that it should have been totally safe.

Both the Type AI and Type AF were powered by a 150hp Gnome Monosoupape rotary engine. Earlier Morane-Saulnier aircraft had been given very large propeller spinners, but on the AI this was removed and replaced with a well designed annular cowling.

The first prototype was armed with a single 7.7mm synchronized Vickers machine gun, and was given the official designation MoS 27.C1. It underwent official tests at Villacoublay on 7-9 August 1917, with Eugéne Gilbert at the controls. During this trials the aircraft reached a top speed of 135mph at 9,840ft, and took 7 minutes 25 seconds to reach that altitude. Handling trials, with Lt René Labouchère at the controls, followed on 11 September, and the new aircraft was judged to be very manoeuvrable and responsible to controls, with an excellent view from the cockpit.

Work on a second version, armed with two Vickers guns, was carried out at about the same time and this aircraft, the MoS 29.C1, underwent official trials at Villacoublay on 8 September. It had larger tail surfaces which reduced its climbing speed, but was otherwise similar to the MoS 27.

The Royal Flying Corps was informed of the new aircraft by the British Aviation Commission in Paris on 12 August 1917, in a report that described its rigid parasol wing but didn't mention that it was a single seat fighter. Trenchard decided that he didn't want the new aircraft, and none were produced for the British.

The Type AI was ordered in large numbers by the French, and as many as 1,210 were produced. It entered service early in 1918, and three escadrilles converted to the new aircraft, changing designations as they did. Escadrille N.156 was first, becoming MSP.156 on 9 February. N.161 followed, becoming MSP.161 on 21 February, and N.158 was last to make the change, becoming MSP.158 on 4 March.The new fighter was popular with its pilots, who liked its speed and manoeuvrability, but in service conditions the parasol wing proved to be dangerously weak. A number of aircraft were lost when their wings either came off or folding in the air - in one example Lt. Jean Coutary was killed when his aircraft lost its wing over his airfield on 26 February, and other aircraft suffered the same fate in combat. The reason was unclear, but was probably related to wing flutter or a similar phenomenon not then understood.

By mid-May the Type AI had been withdrawn from front line service.
Morane-Saulnier responded by converting the Type AI into an single seat advanced trainer. Two versions were produced, the MoS 30.E1 with a 120-135hp Le Rhône engine and the MoS 30bis.E1 with a 90-95 hp engine. The guns were removed and fuel capacity reduced. Supplementary wing bracing was also introduced. The MoS 30 was used in large numbers by the French. Fifty one MoS 30.E1s were purchased by the US Air Service in France, and were used at their training base at Issoudun. After the war three were sold to Belgium, while single aircraft went to Japan, Switzerland and the Soviet Union.

Stats MoS.27.C1
Engine: Gnome Monosoupape N
Power: 150hp
Crew: 1
Wing span: 27ft 11in
Length: 18ft 6 3/8in
Height: 7ft 10 1/4in
Empty Weight: 926lb
Loaded Weight: 1,428lb
Max Speed: 140mph
Cruising Speed:
Service Ceiling: 22,965ft
Endurance: 1hr 45mins
Armament: one 7.7mm Vickers machine gun
Bomb-load: none

Last edited by Ernie P.; 10-17-2018 at 12:15 PM.
Old 10-17-2018, 12:19 PM
  #16456  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

This was to be the final clue. Thanks; Ernie P.




35. And Ernie P. has one. But it's just a little one.





Old 10-18-2018, 06:38 AM
  #16457  
CF105
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wasn’t that also the “experimental/prototype” flown at the end of the movie “The Blue Max”?
Old 10-18-2018, 07:39 AM
  #16458  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 10,783
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CF105 View Post
Wasn’t that also the “experimental/prototype” flown at the end of the movie “The Blue Max”?
The prototype at the end of the Blue Max is suppose to be the Dornier - Zeppelin D.1. At least it was the D.1 prototype test flight the scene was based on. The D.1 killed Wilheim Reinhardt who had assumed Richthofen command after he was killed. Hermann Goering flew first test flight of the D.1 and it was suppose to be grounded for structural upgrades. Reinhardt took it for a test flight and the top wing failed killing him. Goering was his replacement as commander of JG 1. I have a partially completed project of a small scale D.1. I fell in love with this Ugly Duckling's radiator. Here is where the plans are: DORNIER D.1 38? Plan386


One of the prototypes from 1918
Old 10-18-2018, 10:17 AM
  #16459  
SimonCraig1
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo, HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sorry for the delay guys, I'm working on a question. if I don't some up with one soon, I'll turnt he floor open.
Old 10-18-2018, 10:20 AM
  #16460  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Actually, I believe the "prototype fighter" referred to in the movie Blue Max was probably inspired by the Fokker E.V., which had some problems (caused by shoddy construction by a Fokker contractor) with the wing initially. After the problems were fixed, the plane was re-designated as the Fokker D VIII. However, what is interesting is the actual plane used in the flying scene was a privately owner 1930's era Morane 230 parasol trainer; a direct descendant of the Morane-Saulnier A1 of the last question. Check Wikipedia for more info. Thanks; Ernie P.



From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Max
The "death-trap" monoplane at the end of the film, known as the "Adler" (German for eagle) in the novel, may have been inspired by the Fokker E.V, which was a late-war monoplane design which did indeed rapidly gather a reputation for poor construction of the wing, resulting in several crashes before being modified and re-designated the Fokker D.VIII. In the film it is portrayed by Patrick Lindsay's Morane 230 Parasol trainer, with a faired-over front seat to simulate a monoplane fighter visually.
Old 10-18-2018, 10:26 AM
  #16461  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
The prototype at the end of the Blue Max is suppose to be the Dornier - Zeppelin D.1. At least it was the D.1 prototype test flight the scene was based on. The D.1 killed Wilheim Reinhardt who had assumed Richthofen command after he was killed. Hermann Goering flew first test flight of the D.1 and it was suppose to be grounded for structural upgrades. Reinhardt took it for a test flight and the top wing failed killing him. Goering was his replacement as commander of JG 1. I have a partially completed project of a small scale D.1. I fell in love with this Ugly Duckling's radiator. Here is where the plans are: DORNIER D.1 38? Plan386


One of the prototypes from 1918
I think you missed something, FlyerInOKC. The Dornier-Zeppelin D.1 was a biplane; not a parasol wing monoplane. There was (after the war) a parasol wing plane (the Do H Falke) developed from the D.1. But the plane in the movie was a dressed up 1930's era Morane 230 parasol trainer. Your recounting of the death of Wilhelm Reinhardt was spot on, though. Thanks; Ernie P.

From Wikipedia:
The Dornier Do H Falke was a German single-seat fighter, designed by Claude Dornier and built by Dornier Flugzeugwerke. Although an advanced design for its time, being evaluated by the United States Navy as the Wright WP-1, it did not go into production.The company started to design a prototype fighter in the early 1920s, based on earlier wartime designs like the Zeppelin-Lindau D.I.

It was an all-metal high-wing cantilever monoplane, with the wing above the fuselage on four small struts. It had a conventional cantilever tail unit and a fixed tailskid landing gear. The pilot had an open cockpit just behind the trailing edge of the wing. The aircraft was powered by a Hispano-Suiza piston engine located in the nose. Two aircraft were built by the Swiss subsidiary of Dornier and three by S.D.C.M.P. in Italy, to avoid restrictions on military aircraft production in Germany. It first flew on 1 November 1922, but failed to go into production. One of the Falkes was converted to a floatplane in 1923, powered by a 261 kW (350 hp) BMW IVa V-12 engine, as the Dornier Seefalke.

One Seefalke was shipped to the United States of America by the Wright Aeronautical Company, who fitted it with a licence-built Wright-Hisso H-3 engine. It was evaluated by the United States Navy with the designation Wright WP-1. It performed well, but the Navy considered the monoplane fighter too advanced for its needs.

Last edited by Ernie P.; 10-18-2018 at 10:30 AM.
Old 10-18-2018, 10:57 AM
  #16462  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 10,783
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

The actual airplane used in the final scene was a French Morane-Saulnier MS.230 standing in for a Fokker E.V. The story line was taken from the July 3, 1918 death of Haupmann Wilhelm "Willli" Reinhardt. I guess the story was too good to pass up so Hunter put it in the book. From Wikipedia article on Wilhelm Reinhardt:

In popular culture[edit]

The death of Reinhard flying a prototype is closely paralleled in the book and film The Blue Max.
Old 10-18-2018, 11:07 AM
  #16463  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 10,783
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

The Blue Max is still one of my favorite movies to watch, I upgraded my VHS tape to DVD some years ago. I still need a new copy of The Great Waldo Pepper I seem to have lost my copy. Lousy movie but great flying scenes. I bought Wake Island because my avatar is the star of the movie as the Japanese airplanes attacking Wake Island not the actors playing the military officers.
Old 10-18-2018, 01:10 PM
  #16464  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
The actual airplane used in the final scene was a French Morane-Saulnier MS.230 standing in for a Fokker E.V. The story line was taken from the July 3, 1918 death of Haupmann Wilhelm "Willli" Reinhardt. I guess the story was too good to pass up so Hunter put it in the book. From Wikipedia article on Wilhelm Reinhardt:

In popular culture[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilhelm_Reinhard_(pilot)&action=edit&section=1]edit]

The death of Reinhard flying a prototype is closely paralleled in the book and film The Blue Max.
The Blue Max is one of the great flying movie. Flyboys is also a good one; and The Great Waldo Pepper as well. Yeah, the Reinhardt story was a good add; so I suppose it was a great way to end the story. I wish The Red Baron had stuck closer to history, though. It was an obvious choice for a great flying movie; but the politically correct add ins killed it. A few very good scenes; but the story wasn't up to par. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 10-19-2018, 04:39 AM
  #16465  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 10,783
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

I agree Red Baron had great potential but they blew it.

Last edited by FlyerInOKC; 10-19-2018 at 11:24 AM.
Old 10-19-2018, 09:58 AM
  #16466  
SimonCraig1
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hilo, HI
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Hi Guys, I'm firing blanks at the moment if someone else wants to jump please do so.
Simon
Old 10-21-2018, 08:44 AM
  #16467  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by SimonCraig1 View Post
Hi Guys, I'm firing blanks at the moment if someone else wants to jump please do so.
Simon
Gentlemen; the floor is open to anyone who wishes to ask a question. If no one posts a question, I will post something this evening rather than letting us continue at idle. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 10-21-2018, 11:31 AM
  #16468  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,959
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Since I've been "idle" for over a week, I'll throw something out there for your guys to ponder a bit.
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was the first aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
Good Luck
Old 10-21-2018, 12:37 PM
  #16469  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Since I've been "idle" for over a week, I'll throw something out there for your guys to ponder a bit.
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was the first aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
Good Luck
Thanks for stepping in, Sparky; Ernie P.
Old 10-21-2018, 02:44 PM
  #16470  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Since I've been "idle" for over a week, I'll throw something out there for your guys to ponder a bit.
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was the first aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
Good Luck
Sparky; how about the Wackett? Built by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation (CAC), the people who also produced the Boomerang and Kangaroo, it used a Gypsy Major engine. Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: The CAC Wackett The CAC Wackett trainer was the first aircraft type designed in-house by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation of Australia. The name was derived from its designer Lawrence Wackett. The type was designed to meet RAAFSpecification 3/38 for an ab initio training aircraft.[1] It was a tandem seat fixed tailwheel-undercarriage monoplane aircraft with a fuselage of steel tube and fabric construction and wings and tail made of wood. Despite the simplicity of the design, construction of the first of two CA-2 prototypes, begun in October 1938, was not completed until September 1939 (this was partly because CAC was still building its factory during this time period).

The first prototype flew for the first time on 19 September 1939 fitted with a
Gipsy Major engine. The aircraft proved to be underpowered with this engine so the second prototype was fitted with a Gipsy Six prior to its first flight in early November the same year (the first prototype was subsequently also re-engined with a Gypsy Six). Although in-flight performance was improved, the heavier engine negated any benefits to take-off performance obtained from the increased power, so the decision was made to install a Warner Scarab radial engine driving a Hamilton two-bladed propeller. The two prototypes were fitted with Scarabs in mid-1940.
Old 10-21-2018, 04:48 PM
  #16471  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,959
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Nope, not the Wackett. How about another clue to help you out?
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was the first aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
4) This plane was a 2X2, twin seater with twin engines

5) This plane had a "unique" weapon system
Good Luck
Old 10-22-2018, 01:07 PM
  #16472  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,959
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

No guesses? Sounds like it's clue time. One note, clue one has been slightly revised as I found it to be not totally accurate.
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was one of the first SUCCESSFUL aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
4) This plane was a 2X2, twin seater with twin engines

5) This plane had a "unique" weapon system
6) This plane had all of the latest tech when in use
7) This plane was operated by only one country other than the country that built it
8) Almost 700 of this plane were manufactured, crossing five distinct variations with several sub-variants
Good Luck
Old 10-22-2018, 03:38 PM
  #16473  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
No guesses? Sounds like it's clue time. One note, clue one has been slightly revised as I found it to be not totally accurate.
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was one of the first SUCCESSFUL aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
4) This plane was a 2X2, twin seater with twin engines

5) This plane had a "unique" weapon system
6) This plane had all of the latest tech when in use
7) This plane was operated by only one country other than the country that built it
8) Almost 700 of this plane were manufactured, crossing five distinct variations with several sub-variants
Good Luck
Sparky; this is mainly to eliminate the below plane(s) from consideration. I'm not sure it meets all the clues, but it keeps coming to mind and I want to put it to rest. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Soko J-22 Orao (Serbian: Орао, lit. 'eagle') is a Yugoslav twin-engined, subsonic ground-attack and reconnaissance aircraft. It was designed as a single-seat main attack version or as a combat capable two-seat version for advanced flying and weapon training. It was developed as a joint Yugoslav-Romanian project in the 1970s for the air forces of both nations. It was built by SOKO in Yugoslavia and by Avioane Craiova as the IAR-93 Vultur in Romania.





The Avioane Craiova IAR-93 Vultur (Vulture) is a twinjet, subsonic, close support, ground attack and tactical reconnaissance aircraft with secondary capability as low level interceptor. Built as single-seat main attack version or combat capable two-seat version for advanced flying and weapon training, it was developed as a joint Yugoslav-Romanian project in the 1970s for the air forces of both nations. The Romanian aircraft were built by I.R.Av. Craiova as IAR-93, and its Yugoslav counterpart by Soko as the Soko J-22 Orao. For Romania, the IAR-93 was intended to replace MiG-15s and MiG-17s in the fighter-bomber role.
Old 10-22-2018, 04:15 PM
  #16474  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,959
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

No and No, but good guesses. That will get you another clue:
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was one of the first SUCCESSFUL aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
4) This plane was a 2X2, twin seater with twin engines

5) This plane had a "unique" weapon system
6) This plane had all of the latest tech when in use
7) This plane was operated by only one country other than the country that built it
8) Almost 700 of this plane were manufactured, crossing five distinct variations with several sub-variants
9) This plane was slightly slower than other planes of the time used in the role it was designed for
Good Luck
Old 10-22-2018, 05:07 PM
  #16475  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
No and No, but good guesses. That will get you another clue:
Looking for an airplane:
1) This was one of the first SUCCESSFUL aircraft designed and built by this country
2) It used the same engine as another plane designed by an ally but built by this country
3) It used design features from planes built by allies
4) This plane was a 2X2, twin seater with twin engines

5) This plane had a "unique" weapon system
6) This plane had all of the latest tech when in use
7) This plane was operated by only one country other than the country that built it
8) Almost 700 of this plane were manufactured, crossing five distinct variations with several sub-variants
9) This plane was slightly slower than other planes of the time used in the role it was designed for
Good Luck
Okay; I just noticed the change to Clue 1. That was giving me fits. Now I'm on the right track. 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.