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 07-10-2019, 05:14 AM
  #17326  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by elmshoot View Post
Pby-4
Not the PBY-4 elmshoot but a good early try! I award you a morning clue plus a bonus clue.

I'm looking for an infamous warbird.

1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
Old 07-10-2019, 08:42 AM
  #17327  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

I'm going to be away from the computer this afternoon so I thought I would post another clue to give you all something to chew on.
I'm looking for an infamous warbird.
1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
Old 07-10-2019, 07:16 PM
  #17328  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Check back I see we have no nominationed aircraft so let's add a clue.

I'm looking for an infamous warbird.
1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
7. The aircraft was powered by two engines from a well known manufacturer still a major producer in industry.
Old 07-11-2019, 05:49 AM
  #17329  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Sorry guys I almost forgot the morning clue! This one should act as a flashing light.
I'm looking for an infamous warbird.

1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
7. The aircraft was powered by two engines from a well known manufacturer still a major producer in industry.
8. This airplane had only one production run and suffered a high loss rate. More than 50% were loss in accidents.
Old 07-11-2019, 08:44 AM
  #17330  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue and one bonus. I'm looking for an infamous warbird.

1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
7. The aircraft was powered by two engines from a well known manufacturer still a major producer in industry.
8. This airplane had only one production run and suffered a high loss rate. More than 50% were loss in accidents.
9. This airplane at one time held the record for the most maintenance hours per flying hour.
10. This airplane was only flown by the country of origin and by only one service.
Old 07-11-2019, 05:50 PM
  #17331  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,554
Received 14 Likes on 13 Posts
Default

Brewster Buffalo
Old 07-11-2019, 05:53 PM
  #17332  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,511
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by elmshoot View Post
Brewster Buffalo
The Buffalo was built and flown by the US Navy and Marines as well as the Finnish Air Force. That means the Buffalo isn't it.
Old 07-11-2019, 07:31 PM
  #17333  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
The Buffalo was built and flown by the US Navy and Marines as well as the Finnish Air Force. That means the Buffalo isn't it.
You are correct its not the buffalo but elmshoot did earn an extra clue! I'm looking for an infamous warbird.

1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
7. The aircraft was powered by two engines from a well known manufacturer still a major producer in industry.
8. This airplane had only one production run and suffered a high loss rate. More than 50% were loss in accidents.
9. This airplane at one time held the record for the most maintenance hours per flying hour.
10. This airplane was only flown by the country of origin and by only one service.
11. This airplane was converted to a tanker to fuel its under powered replacement after take off so the replacement could take off with a useful weapons load.
12. Its considerably later than a Brewster Buffalo.
Old 07-12-2019, 04:33 AM
  #17334  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,511
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Almost sounds like the B-50 being used as a tanker to fuel a B-52 as they had to be fueled in flight or they couldn't get off the ground EXCEPT the B-50 carried up to 10 men so that can't be it either
Old 07-12-2019, 05:32 AM
  #17335  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Almost sounds like the B-50 being used as a tanker to fuel a B-52 as they had to be fueled in flight or they couldn't get off the ground EXCEPT the B-50 carried up to 10 men so that can't be it either
Same idea but smaller aircraft. You are get closer.
I'm looking for an infamous warbird.

1. This airplane's roots started out with an unusual specification.
2. The service leadership had second thoughts and the design was modified to drop this specification but the initial prototype kept an unusual tail feature.
3. The initial order was for 3 prototypes and each one was sufficiently different due to changing specifications to cause a change in name. (And I thought I my specs was wishy washy!)
4. This airplane was armed.
5. The first three aircraft produced under the production order were used as prototypes (bringing the number of prototypes to six) because the airplanes role changed from it's initial specification.
6. The aircraft is a single seater.
7. The aircraft was powered by two engines from a well known manufacturer still a major producer in industry.
8. This airplane had only one production run and suffered a high loss rate. More than 50% were loss in accidents.
9. This airplane at one time held the record for the most maintenance hours per flying hour.
10. This airplane was only flown by the country of origin and by only one service.
11. This airplane was converted to a tanker to fuel its under powered replacement after take off so the replacement could take off with a useful weapons load.
12. Its considerably later than a Brewster Buffalo.
13. This airplane was from the same time period as the B-50 and B-52.
14. It killed the commanding officer of the first squadron to operate it in front of the press.
Old 07-12-2019, 12:03 PM
  #17336  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Supermarine Scimitar
Old 07-12-2019, 12:14 PM
  #17337  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by adavis View Post
Supermarine Scimitar
We have a winner! It's scary to think it was used to carry a nuke with those crash statistics. I actually found it list as No.8 in the 10 Worst airplanes built by the British. The idea of using a rubber deck on a carrier and not have landing gear on the aircraft made me wonder about the Naval planners' drinking habits.

Supermarine Scimitar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to searchScimitarClick image for larger version

Name:	300px-Scimitars_62.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	9.3 KB
ID:	2264778Scimitars of 736 Naval Air Squadron at Farnborough 1962RoleNaval strike fighterNational originUnited KingdomManufacturerSupermarineFirst flight19 January 1956Introduction1957Retired1969StatusRetiredPrimar y userRoyal NavyNumber built76The Supermarine Scimitar was a British naval fighter aircraft operated by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. The prototype for the eventual production version flew in January 1956 and production aircraft were delivered in 1957. It saw service with the Royal Navy from 1958 until 1969, replaced in service by the Blackburn Buccaneer.

Contents

Design and development[edit]

The Scimitar stemmed from a number of designs from Supermarine for a naval jet aircraft, initially to a requirement for an undercarriage-less fighter aircraft to land on flexible "sprung" rubber decks,[1] which would allow for a lighter and simpler structure.[2] Supermarine's design to meet this requirement was the Type 505, featuring a thin, straight wing and a V-tail (or "butterfly tail") to keep the tail surfaces away from the jet exhausts, and to be powered by two Rolls-Royce Avon turbojets, mounted side-by-side in the fuselage. In 1948, the Admiralty had second thoughts about the undercarriage-less fighter and Supermarine reworked their design by including a nosewheel undercarriage, becoming the Type 508.[3] The Vickers-Supermarine Type 508 was the first Scimitar ancestor and shared the layout of the Type 505, i.e. a twin-engined straight-winged type with a V-tail. Pitch control was by moving the whole tail, with elevators for additional pitch control when working in tandem and to replace the rudder on a conventional tail when working differentially. Ailerons were fitted to the wings for lateral control and leading and trailing edge flaps were also fitted to the wings.[4]
[5] An order for three Type 508s was placed in November 1947, to Specification N.9/47.[5]

The first Type 508 made its maiden flight from Boscombe Down airfield on 31 August 1951, with the aircraft carrying out carrier trials aboard HMS Eagle in May 1952.[6] The second aircraft had significant differences, carrying a cannon armament and was different enough in detail to be renamed the Type 529, flying for the first time on 29 August 1952.[5] One unusual modification was the larger tailcone for a proposed tail-warning radar.[7] The maximum speed of the straight-winged Type 508 and 529 was relatively modest, with the Type 529 reaching 607 mph (977 km/h) and it had already been decided when the Type 508 first flew, to redesign the third prototype with swept wings to improve performance. The resulting Type 525 also featured conventional swept tail surfaces as well as blown flaps to reduce the aircraft's landing speed and first flew on 27 April 1954.[8] It later crashed but the basic design had already proved sound enough to proceed with an outwardly fairly similar looking aircraft, the Type 544, to specification N.113.[9] A total of 100 were ordered, although the Royal Navy had changed the specification to a low level strike aircraft with nuclear capability rather than a fighter.

The first of the Type 544s serving as prototypes for the later production series flew on 19 January 1956. The aircraft evolved more with the third Type 544 incorporating different aerodynamic changes and a stronger airframe for the new low level role - to quote Flight; "To permit uninhibited manoeuvring in thick turbulent air at low levels while carrying heavy loads of strike weapons, the structure is extremely sturdy".[9] Various aerodynamic "fixes" to try and counter pitch-up effects at high speed and altitude included flared-out wing tips and wing fences. The tailplane was also changed from dihedral to anhedral. The combined modifications led to the final Type 544 being considered the "production standard". The first production Scimitar flew on 11 January 1957.[10]

The aircraft pioneered fuel flow proportioning and integral main-plane tanks, along with "blown" flying surfaces to reduce landing speeds.

Operational history[edit]

Click image for larger version

Name:	220px-US_Navy_and_Royal_Navy_aircraft_refueling_c1962.jpeg
Views:	24
Size:	5.7 KB
ID:	2264779
An 803 NAS Scimitar from HMS Hermes with US Navy aircraft over the Mediterranean SeaAt the time of introduction most of the Royal Navy's carriers were quite small and the Scimitar was a comparatively large and powerful aircraft. Landing accidents were common and the introduction of the type was marred by a fatal accident which took the life of Commander John Russell, commanding officer of 803 Naval Air Squadron, the first squadron to operate the Scimitar. After a perfect landing on the newly recommissioned HMS Victorious and in full view of the press, one of the arrestor wires broke, and Russell's Scimitar (serial XD240) fell into the sea. With no means of ejecting through the jammed canopy and despite the best efforts of the crew of the Westland Whirlwind planeguard helicopter to perform a rescue, Russell's Scimitar sank to the bottom and Cdr Russell drowned.[11] The incident was later broadcast by British Pathé News.[12] Overall the Scimitar suffered from a high loss rate; 39 were lost in a number of accidents, amounting to 51 % of the Scimitar's production run.[1]

At one time, it held the record of 1,000 maintenance hours per flying hour.[citation needed] Although the Scimitar could operate as a fighter, the interceptor role was covered by the De Havilland Sea Venom and then the de Havilland Sea Vixen. The Scimitar itself was replaced by the Blackburn Buccaneer. The Scimitar was kept initially as a tanker to allow the underpowered Buccaneer S.1 to be launched from aircraft carriers with a useful weapons load. To save weight, the Buccaneer would take off with minimum fuel then top up from a Scimitar. Late in the Scimitar's operational career, examples were flown between 1965 and 1970 by the Fleet Requirements Unit (FRU) based at Bournemouth Airport (Hurn). The FRU was managed by Airwork Services and provided realistic flight operations for land and sea-based naval training units.[citation needed]

Variants[edit]

Click image for larger version

Name:	220px-Supermarine_508_two-view_silhouette.png
Views:	13
Size:	16.4 KB
ID:	2264780
Supermarine 508 research aircraft

Predecessors[edit]

Type 508Straight-wing research aircraft.Type 529Straight-wing research aircraft.Type 525Swept-wing research aircraft.

Prototypes[edit]

Type 544Prototype for the Scimitar F.1, 3 built by Vickers-Armstrong Experimental Department at Hursley Park

Production model[edit]

Scimitar F.1Single-seat multi-role fighter aircraft, 76 built by Vickers-Armstrong at South Marston. Original order was for 100 aircraft in 1952 later reduced to 76.

Operators[edit]

Name:  23px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
Views: 561
Size:  683 Bytes United Kingdom

Survivors[edit]

Click image for larger version

Name:	220px-Supermarine-scimitar.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	8.2 KB
ID:	2264782
XD220 in Intrepid Museum

Specifications[edit]

Data from Supermarine Aircraft since 1914[20]

General characteristics
  • Crew: 1
  • Length: 55 ft 3 in (16.84 m)
  • Wingspan: 37 ft 2 in (11.33 m)
  • Height: 17 ft 4 in (5.28 m)
  • Wing area: 485 sq ft (45.1 m2)
  • Empty weight: 23,962 lb (10,869 kg)
  • Gross weight: 34,200 lb (15,513 kg)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Avon 202 turbojet engines, 11,250 lbf (50.0 kN) thrust each [21]
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 640 kn (736 mph; 1,185 km/h) at sea level
  • Range: 1,237 nmi (1,424 mi; 2,291 km)
  • Service ceiling: 46,000 ft (14,000 m)
  • Rate of climb: 6,751 ft/min (34.30 m/s)
  • Time to altitude: 45,000 ft (14,000 m) in 6 minutes 39 seconds
Armament
Old 07-12-2019, 01:26 PM
  #17338  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The rubber deck was actually tested...


=Adrian=
Old 07-12-2019, 07:07 PM
  #17339  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

I wonder how much the belly had to be reinforced to take the pounding?
Old 07-13-2019, 11:22 PM
  #17340  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok - I think this one will be quite quick...
  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country.
Old 07-15-2019, 04:51 AM
  #17341  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok - I think this one will be quite quick...
  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
Old 07-15-2019, 06:42 AM
  #17342  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,511
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Kind of sounds like the Mig 15, it was powered by a British Nene Turbojet engine. That said, I doubt it was the Mig
Old 07-16-2019, 08:48 AM
  #17343  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok - I think this one will be quite quick...
  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.

Old 07-20-2019, 07:44 AM
  #17344  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok - I think this one will be quite quick...
  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
Old 07-21-2019, 12:31 PM
  #17345  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
  • One of the prototypes crashed.
Old 07-23-2019, 03:11 AM
  #17346  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
  • One of the prototypes crashed.
  • First supersonic aircraft of its type.
Old 07-24-2019, 07:36 AM
  #17347  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
  • One of the prototypes crashed.
  • First supersonic aircraft of its type.
  • The country which produced this aircraft was, at about the same time, also producing prototypes for other aircraft with which it shared a particular capability, but for different roles.
Old 07-24-2019, 08:56 AM
  #17348  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,461
Received 34 Likes on 34 Posts
Default

Nakajima J8N-1 „Kitsuka?
Old 07-25-2019, 10:03 AM
  #17349  
adavis
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 477
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
  • One of the prototypes crashed.
  • First supersonic aircraft of its type.
  • The country which produced this aircraft was, at about the same time, also producing prototypes for other aircraft with which it shared a particular capability, but for different roles.
  • Six engines.
Old 07-25-2019, 10:35 AM
  #17350  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,927
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by adavis View Post
  • Fighter
  • Produced by a consortium.
  • Engines manufactured by a different country...
  • ...Which was previously an enemy.
  • A majority of of the companies in the consortium well known warbird manufacturers - one not so.
  • Only prototypes built.
  • One of the prototypes crashed.
  • First supersonic aircraft of its type.
  • The country which produced this aircraft was, at about the same time, also producing prototypes for other aircraft with which it shared a particular capability, but for different roles.
  • Six engines.
Sir; you have had two answers without having responded directly to them. Please confirm of deny the accuracy of all future answers, to eliminate any confusion. Thanks; Ernie P.

Okay; I'm back; I'm tanned, rested and ready. How about the EWR VJ 101; the first supersonic VTOL fighter aircraft to break Mach 1?




Answer: The EWR VJ 101



The EWR VJ 101 was an experimental German jet fighter vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) tiltjet aircraft. VJ stood for Versuchsjäger, (German for "Experimental Fighter").[3] The VJ 101 was one of the first V/STOL designs to have the potential for eventual Mach 2 flight. During the 1950s, as various nations took an interest in developing VTOL-capable aircraft, the German Federal Government issued a request to the nation's recently revived aviation industries for them to study possible designs for such aircraft. In response, in 1960, German engine manufacturer MAN Turbo commenced work on a suitable engine in close cooperation with British engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce Limited. Likewise, aircraft firms Heinkel, Bölkow and Messerschmitt performed their own studies before coming together to form a joint venture company, EWR, for the purpose of developing and manufacturing their design for a supersonic VTOL fighter aircraft, which was soon designated as the VJ 101 D. The Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) were suitably impressed to place an order for a pair of experimental prototypes to be produced to demonstrate the design's capabilities. A pair of prototype aircraft, collectively known as the VJ 101 C and individually known as the X-1 and X-2, were constructed and participated in a five-year test program. The intention was for the VJ 101 to eventually be developed as the basis for a successor for the German Air Force's inventory of American Lockheed F-104G Starfighter interceptors. However, development of the VJ 101 C was greatly complicated by the changing requirements of the BMVg, who decided to transform the aircraft's envisioned mission profile from the interceptor role to a more general fighter instead, greatly changing the performance requirements for it to fulfil. During 1968, development of the VJ 101 was ultimately cancelled.
Design and development



Background

During the 1950s, rapid advances in the field of jet propulsion, particularly in terms of increased thrust and compact engine units, had contributed to an increased belief in the technical viability of vertical takeoff/landing (VTOL) aircraft, particularly within Western Europe and the United States.[4] During 1950s and 1960s, multiple programmes in Britain, France, and the United States were initiated; likewise, aviation companies inside West Germany were keen not to be left out of this emerging technology. Shortly after 1957, the year in which the post-Second World War ban upon West Germany operating and developing combat aircraft was lifted, German aviation firms Dornier Flugzeugwerke, Heinkel, and Messerschmitt, having also been allowed to resume their own activities that same year, received an official request from the German Federal Government that urged them to perform investigative work on the topic of VTOL aircraft and to produce concept designs.[5] As such, multiple companies commenced work on their own conceptual designs for VTOL-capable interceptor aircraft; in order for these designs to be operationally relevant and viable, it was recognised that it would be necessary for the flight performance to equal that of conventional interceptors of the era, such as the modern Lockheed F-104G Starfighter.[6] In conjunction, Germany's Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) championed for the merger of the competing companies; it deliberately withheld the issuing of a development contract in order to incentivise companies to undertake such activities.[7] In conjunction with these efforts, German engine manufacturer MAN Turbo received a contract from the BMVg to conduct their own work into addressing the specific issues surrounding VTOL-capable engines. It was quickly realised that such efforts would require working with a foreign engine manufacturer; as such, during March 1960, an initial agreement of co-operation was signed between MAN Turbo and British engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce Limited.[6] Under the terms of the 10-year contract established, Germany would acquire knowledge of the latest advances in jet engine technology via Rolls-Royce, as well a joint-development arrangement under which work would be shared, production conflicts minimised, and mutual consensus reached on key decisions.[6] In March 1960, the BMVg issued a development contract to MAN Turbo for a light single-spool turbojet engine, while Rolls-Royce would serve as a major subcontractor on the project; the result of their collaborative efforts for the contract would be the Rolls-Royce/MAN Turbo RB153 turbofan engine.[6] The RB.153 engine was initially a relatively straightforward scaled-up version of the earlier Rolls-Royce RB108 engine that had been developed for sustained supersonic flight; however, during early 1960, interest in the engine's further development as a suitable powerplant for a VTOL aircraft emerged.[6] Consequently, new models of the engine were developed to address the specific requirements of its new VTOL role, including the RB.153.17 and the RB.153.25 lift engine. However, during December 1961, as a result of changes in the BMVg's priorities for the envisioned VTOL, considerable engine changes were necessitated in respond; as such, development work on the RB.153 was effectively shelved in favour of the Rolls-Royce RB145 engine.[

Testing and evaluation

A pair of prototypes were completed, known as the X-1 and the X-2.[19] The X-1 was to be outfitted with an arrangement of six RB145 engines: two being mounted vertically in the fuselage for lift and four within the swivelling nacelles, each of which being able to generate 2,750 lbf of thrust. The X-2 was to have the swivelling engines equipped with an afterburner, which would enable them to produce a wet thrust of 3,840 lbf each. In turn, this was projected to enable the aircraft to attain its design speed of Mach 1.8.[12] Although the nacelle engines were capable of producing adequate thrust as to allow the aircraft to steadily hover on dry thrust alone, concerns over the smoothness of transition from dry thrust to reheat led to a requirement being approved for the aircraft to have the ability of taking off vertically under reheat. Accordingly, this required a very short reheat pipe to be adopted in order to provide the necessary ground clearance.[12] The reheated engines featured a relatively simple two-position nozzle, which could switch between reheat and non-reheat; the inlet duct was also capable of being moved forward when the aircraft was moving at slow speeds or during a hover, which opened an auxiliary air intake.[12] On 10 April 1963, the X-1 made its first hovering flight.[19] On 20 September 1963, the first transition from hovering flight to horizontal flight took place. The X-1 was first publicly exhibited at the May 1964 Hannover Air Show. The VJ 101C X-1 flew a total of 40 aerodynamic flights, 24 hover flights and 14 full transitions. In the course of these tests, the sound barrier was broken for the first time by a vertical takeoff aircraft; however, on 14 September 1964, a defect in the autopilot caused the X-1 to crash, sustaining some damage as a result. On 29 July 1964, the VJ 101 C flew at Mach 1.04 without use of an afterburner. On 12 June 1965, the second prototype, X-2, conducted its first flight.[19] On 22 October 1965, the X-2 performed a successful transition with a new autopilot system installed. The tests were subsequently continued with X-2, which in contrast to X-1 was fitted with afterburners. However, the project was cancelled in 1968. The proposed VJ 101 D Mach 2 interceptor was never completed. Today, VJ 101 C X-2 is on public display at the Deutsches Museum in Munich. While the VJ 101C did not proceed to production status, various other projects of the era to develop supersonic-capable VTOL fighter aircraft, including the Mirage IIIV and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 (a supersonic parallel to what would become the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, a subsonic VTOL combat aircraft that reached operational service), ultimately met similar fates. The Harrier jump jet and, substantially later, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, has since demonstrated the potential of VTOL fighters.

General characteristics
· Crew: 1
· Length: 15.7 m (51 ft 6 in)
· Wingspan: 6.61 m (21 ft 8 in)
· Height: 4.1 m (13 ft 6 in)
·Max. takeoff weight: 6,100 kg (13,420 lb)
· Powerplant: 6 × Rolls-Royce RB145 turbojets, 12.2 kN (2,750 lbf) each ·

Performance

· Maximum speed: Mach 1.04 achieved

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.