Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz
03-11-2020, 01:20 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
03-12-2020, 08:46 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Morning and afternoon clues. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
03-12-2020, 09:35 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Not the DH.2, Sir. The DH.2 was a very needed success at a really opportune time. But you are definitely on the right track, and you have earned a bonus clue for your effort. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasnt very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasnt all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system . for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasnt very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasnt all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system . for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
03-12-2020, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
03-12-2020, 09:37 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
37. Which was a bit ironic since most then current enemy aircraft could easily out climb our subject.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
37. Which was a bit ironic since most then current enemy aircraft could easily out climb our subject.
03-13-2020, 07:21 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
37. Which was a bit ironic since most then current enemy aircraft could easily out climb our subject.
38. The pilot was located forward of the center of gravity.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasn’t very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasn’t all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system…. for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
37. Which was a bit ironic since most then current enemy aircraft could easily out climb our subject.
38. The pilot was located forward of the center of gravity.
03-13-2020, 07:40 AM
Ernie would this be the Airco DH.5? Sorry to take so long I have been suffering a stomach virus. I don't think its Coronavirus I'm getting better too quickly.
03-13-2020, 10:46 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft was built by a famous and successful manufacturer.
2. It was designed by a famous and successful designer.
3. Together, those two had produced several famous and very successful aircraft.
4. But this aircraft was an unmitigated failure.
5. It did serve well in a new role; but by then its failure to fulfill its primary role had doomed it. It was simply second best, at its best.
6. In fact, it was little, if any, better than aircraft that were available more than a year earlier.
7. And markedly inferior to aircraft already in service when it arrived.
8. And since all this occurred when men were busily killing each other in the air, its failings were getting men killed.
9. And those men were decidedly unhappy with our subject aircraft.
10. Hundreds of this aircraft were produced.
11. And rapidly withdrawn from service as soon as those superior aircraft were available to replace them.
12. But it was in front line service for a while.
13. And while it was there, a very useful role was discovered at which it was pretty good.
14. But by then, the decision had already been made to withdraw it from service.
15. The basic problem seemed to be that it took too long to get our subject aircraft into service.
16. When it was designed and ordered into production, it would have been quite useful as produced.
17. But by the time it arrived, the war had progressed to the point it simply wasnt very useful.
18. Its engine, which had been perfectly adequate when the aircraft was first tested, was now decidedly underpowered.
19. And since it was a bit on the heavy side, its performance, particularly at altitude, was inferior.
20. And as it tended to lose altitude when turning, its pilots were unhappy.
21. In fact, its performance got progressively worse the higher it flew.
22. Which wasnt all that high to begin with.
23. It had originally been intended to replace a particular earlier aircraft produced by the same company.
24. A very famous and very useful aircraft.
25. It featured a top wing which gave it great forward visibility.
26. But much poorer rearward visibility; which was the direction from which the enemy aircraft which shot it down often came.
27. It featured an improved gun system . for its one machine gun.
28. While other aircraft, particularly its enemies, tended to carry two.
29. Having just produced a particularly outstanding light bomber, its designer and the company for which he worked were possibly more focused on producing and improving that aircraft.
30. Our subject aircraft was, in fact, produced by several companies under license; in addition to its owners.
31. It featured rather large ailerons on both wings.
32. Which were originally returned to their neutral position with rubber cords.
33. The first prototype was produced nearly a year before it reached the field.
34. The first prototype lacked directional control.
35. Which necessitated new tail surfaces being designed.
36. It seemed obvious from the design our subject aircraft was intended to attack enemy aircraft from below.
37. Which was a bit ironic since most then current enemy aircraft could easily out climb our subject.
38. The pilot was located forward of the center of gravity.
39. Which made it very stable and easy to control.
40. A number of design changes were made before it was accepted for service, some of which made manufacture more complicated; rather the reverse of normal procedure.
41. A very slow introduction into field units simply made things worse; as better aircraft were coming into service on both sides.
42. But our subject aircraft had one very great advantage. It was very sturdy and could absorb a lot of damage. And it was very maneuverable at low altitude.
43. Which came in very handy when it was pressed into service as a ground attack aircraft.
44. But by then, the decision had already been made to replace it as soon as other, better aircraft became available in sufficient numbers.
45. Incredibly, less than a year passed between the first design and its introduction to field units.
46. But all this played out during what was perhaps the most rapid period of advance in aircraft knowledge and performance.
47. And a year was a very long time.
48. Our subject aircraft served with distinction during the battle of Cambrai.
49. When a fatal German breakthrough was prevented by the narrowest of margins.
50. A margin perhaps due to the presence and service of our ugly duckling.
Answer: The Airco DH.5
The Airco DH.5 was a British First World War single-seat biplane fighter aircraft. It was designed and manufactured at British aviation company Airco. Development was led by the aircraft designer Geoffrey de Havilland as a replacement for the obsolete Airco DH.2.
The DH.5 was one of the first British fighter designs to include the improved Constantinesco gun synchronizer, which allowed a forward-firing machine gun to fire through the propeller faster and more reliably than the older mechanical gears. It was also one of the earliest biplanes to feature a marked "back-stagger" of its wings. Despite these advances, by the time the DH.5 was fielded, it was already notedly inferior to other fighters that had entered into production and thus proved to be both unpopular and unsatisfactory amongst the pilots of the Royal Flying Corps (RFC). As such, the type was quickly withdrawn from service as soon as supplies of the Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 permitted.
Design and development
Origins
Shortly after completing work upon the twin-seat Airco DH.4 light bomber, Captain Geoffrey de Havilland commenced work on a new single-seat fighter aircraft to replace the obsolete Airco DH.2 fighter, which was designated at the DH.5. The design sought to combine the superior performance of a tractor biplane with the excellent forward visibility of a pusher type. The resultant aircraft was a relatively compact single-bay biplane, while the construction was that of a conventional tractor biplane, the mainplanes were given 27 inches of backward stagger, so that the lower wing was positioned forward of the upper wing. This configuration enabled the pilot to be positioned underneath the leading edge of the wing, providing uninterrupted forward and upward views; aviation author J.M Bruce refers to this approach as having been radical for the era.
The first prototype emerged during late 1916, and underwent manufacturer's trials at Hendon Aerodrome in the hands of test pilot B.C. Hucks. It was powered by a single Le Rhτne 9Ja rotary engine, capable of providing up to 110hp of thrust, which drove a twin-bladed propeller. The fuselage had flat sides aft of the wings and featured relatively short fairings either wise of the circular engine cowling; towards the rear of the airframe, the fuselage tapered to the tail, which comprised a small fin and horn-balanced rudder arrangement. The equal-span single-bay wings were outfitted with atypically large ailerons on both the upper and lower mainplanes, a rubber bungee cord attached to the upper ailerons to return them to their standard position. At one early stage, it was known that the prototype was outfitted with a small hemipherical spinner. As the pilot was seated forward of the centre of gravity, the main fuel tank was necessarily behind the cockpit, below the oil tank. An auxiliary gravity fuel tank was fitted over the top mainplane, offset to the right.
Into flight
Initial test flights with the prototype determined that it lacked sufficient directional control, a finding which led to a revised and enlarged fin and rudder combination being adopted. Early on, the first prototype had been flown in an unarmed state. Around the same time as the revised tail unit was installed, it was also decided to arm the aircraft in preparation for official trials. Upon being armed, the prototype armament installation comprised a single forward-firing .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun, which was either fixed to fire upward at an angle or possibly mounted so that its elevation could be adjusted in flight; in the production installation the gun was given a more conventional fixed mounting on top of the cowl, offset to the left, to fire in the line of flight. Bruce notes that it appeared that the DH.5 was designed with the intention of typically attacking enemy planes from below, a decision that he described as ironic considering its limited operational ceiling in comparison to its contemporaries.
On 9 December 1916, the first DH.5 prototype commenced its service trials at the Central Flying School. The official report compiled from the observations of its pilots was largely favourable, stating that it possessed satisfactory stability and controllability, its favorable qualities for reconnaissance and agility, but also observed a poor view to the rear. The type's speed was a significant advance over its DH.2 predecessor, but it was also recognized that some existing fighters were already capable of exceeding its capabilities, especially its climbing abilities. It has been speculated that performance may have been negatively impacted via the adoption of an alternative four-bladed propeller during testing.
Production
By the time that trials had commenced in France, superior types such as the Sopwith Camel and the Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5 were not far behind. The performance of the new fighter was also inferior in most respects to the earlier Sopwith Pup. The provision of a single machine gun at a time when most fighters carried two also meant the aircraft was considered to be somewhat under-armed for operations in 1917. Nevertheless, on 15 January 1917, the DH.5 was ordered in quantity production in the form of two contracts for a combined 400 aircraft. A total of four manufacturers were involved in producing the type: Airco (200), British Caudron (50), Darracq (200) and March, Jones & Cribb (100).
The design of the DH.5 was subject to extensive changes prior to entering mass production. A substitute fuel system was adopted, which included an additional five-gallon gravity tank mounted above the upper wing and a pressured main tank directly behind the pilot's seat. The appearance of the aircraft was drastically changed via the revised fuselage, which now had an octagonal cross section and featured additional stringers around the area of the engine cowling. Directional control was also altered, introducing a rudder that lacked a horn balance. Unusually, some of these changes made the aircraft more complex to manufacture.
In terms of its construction, the main fuselage structure was produced in two sections that were butt-joined at an attachment point upon the rear-section struts. Extensive use was made of plywood across the structure, while the remainder used conventional wire-braced wooden box-girden. While some DH.5s were built with the original rubber bungee return springs on the ailerons, later-built examples used a system of pulleys and balance cables. A major positive feature of the aircraft was its great structural strength, which was revealed during April 1917 in destructive testing.
Operational history
The introduction of the DH.5 to squadron service with the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) was protracted; according to Bruce, these delays, which had been mainly generated as a result of Airco's focus having been centered upon the more successful DH.4, had greatly hindered the type's prospects. On 1 May 1917, the first DH.5 arrived with No. 24 Squadron of the RFC; deliveries were slow, as the squadron had only a handful of the type by 7 June. The DH.5 was not well regarded by the squadron, and this negative attitude would not be a unique outlook.
Soon after entering service, the DH.5 quickly proved to be most unpopular amongst the RFC. Its unconventional appearance led to rumours (that were largely unfounded) of handling difficulties. There were also claims that the DH.5 had gone into service against the wishes of its designers. What was true was that the DH.5's performance would rapidly drop off at altitudes in excess of 10,000 ft (3,000 m) and that while it was very manoeuvrable, it tended to lose altitude quickly in combat. The unusual position of the upper mainplane resulted in an unfortunate blind spot above and to the rear (which was the very direction from which a single-seater would generally be attacked from).
The robust construction, good performance at low altitude and the pilot's good forward field of view made the aircraft a useful ground-attack aircraft. In this capacity, the type served with distinction in the Battle of Cambrai. During the battle, the DH.5 had, in conjunction with Sopwith Camels, provided airborne mobile machingun coverage to friendly troops on the ground, strafing enemy trenches and leading to extensive losses. However, the process of replacing the type had already commenced beforehand, and the meritorious performance at Cambrai did little to halt this withdrawal.
The DH.5 has the historical distinction of having formed the initial equipment of No. 2 Squadron Australian Flying Corps, the first Australian fighter squadron. It did not prove satisfactory, incidents in which enemy twin-seater planes were able to escape the single-seat DH.5 were not uncommon. It served mainly in the ground-attack role until December 1917, when the type was replaced by the S.E.5a. By this time, the withdrawal of the type from the Western Front was already almost complete - the last DH.5 squadron receiving the S.E.5a in January 1918. DH.5s issued to training units proved unpopular and the type soon vanished from RFC service. A number of retired aircraft were reused as trials machines, some of these tests included alternative gun mountings, jettisonable fuel tanks and plywood coverings.
No original aircraft has survived but an airworthy full-scale reproduction, built in the United States by John Shiveley, is on display in the Aviation Heritage Centre, Omaka Aerodrome, New Zealand.
Specifications
Replica DH.5 ZK-JOQ at the Classic Fighters 2015 airshow in Blenheim, New Zealand
General characteristics
·
· Crew: 1
·
· Length: 22 ft 0 in (6.71 m)
·
· Wingspan: 25 ft 8 in (7.82 m)
·
· Height: 9 ft 1 1⁄2 in (2.781 m)
·
· Wing area: 212.1 sq ft (19.70 m2)
·
· Empty weight: 1,010 lb (458 kg)
·
· Gross weight: 1,492 lb (677 kg)
·
· Fuel capacity: 26 imp gal (31 US gal; 120 L)
·
· Powerplant: 1 Χ Le Rhτne 9J nine-cylinder rotary engine, 110 hp (82 kW)
·
· Propellers: 2-bladed, 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter
Performance
·
· Maximum speed: 102 mph (164 km/h, 89 kn) at 10,000 ft (3,050 m)
·
· Endurance: 2 hr 45 min
·
· Service ceiling: 16,000 ft (4,900 m)
·
· Time to altitude:
o 12 min 25 s to 10,000 ft (3,050 m)
o 27 min 30 s to 15,000 ft (4,570 m)
Armament
·
· Guns: 1 Χ 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun
·
· Bombs: racks for four 25 lb (10 kg) bombs under fuselage
03-13-2020, 11:50 AM
I am looking for a Warbird good luck!
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
03-13-2020, 07:33 PM
Evening clue, I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
03-14-2020, 06:04 AM
What no guess yet?! You guys just aren't trying Morning clue time. I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
03-14-2020, 03:05 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
What no guess yet?! You guys just aren't trying Morning clue time. I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
03-14-2020, 04:37 PM
I'll throw you another bone Ernie. Evening clue time. I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
03-15-2020, 06:32 AM
The Mosquito is not the airplane I have selected but a good guess. Still I think a bonus clue with the morning clue is warranted. I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
7. The new engines greatly improved the rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the cruising speed.
8. The airplane had a bomb bay under the nose.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
7. The new engines greatly improved the rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the cruising speed.
8. The airplane had a bomb bay under the nose.
03-15-2020, 11:52 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
The Mosquito is not the airplane I have selected but a good guess. Still I think a bonus clue with the morning clue is warranted. I am looking for a Warbird.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
7. The new engines greatly improved the rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the cruising speed.
8. The airplane had a bomb bay under the nose.
1. This aircraft was considered to be a incremental improvement over the earlier model it was based on.
2. The earlier model proved to be unstable and was never considered for full-scale production however, several variants did make it into production.
3. There was a parallel development of another airplane during the modifications of the original aircraft but it was cancelled in favor of our our subject airplane when it showed hardly any substantial aerodynamic improvement.
4. The airplane had a two member crew.
5. One of the improvements was a more powerful V12 engine.
6. The airplane had two engines.
7. The new engines greatly improved the rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the cruising speed.
8. The airplane had a bomb bay under the nose.
Answer: The Me-410
The Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse (Hornet) was a German heavy fighter and Schnellbomber used by the Luftwaffe during World War II. Though an incremental improvement of the Me 210, it had a new wing plan, longer fuselage and engines of greater power. The changes were significant enough for the aircraft to be renamed the Me 410.
Design and development
Development of the Me 210 had been underway since 1939 but the aircraft proved unstable and was never considered for full-scale production. Modifications to the layout produced the Me 210C and 210D, which proved somewhat superior. As studies progressed on the Me 210D, and with a separate parallel attempt to improve upon the 210 with the Messerschmitt Me 310 in the second half of 1943 which provided almost no aerodynamic improvement over the 210's risky handling qualities it was instead decided to introduce a new model, the Me 410.
The major change between the Me 210 and 410 was the introduction of the larger (at 44.5 litre, 2,715 in3 displacement) and more powerful Daimler-Benz DB 603A engines, which increased power to 1,750 PS (1,730 hp, 1,290 kW) compared to the 1,475 PS DB 605s used on the Me 210C - the interim Me 310 design experiment actually used the DB 603 powerplant choice first. The engine performance increased the Me 410's maximum speed to 625 km/h (388 mph), greatly improved rate of climb, service ceiling, and most notably the cruising speed which jumped to 579 km/h (360 mph). It also improved payload capability to the point where the aircraft could lift more war load than could fit into the bomb bay under the nose. To address this, shackles were added under the wings for four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs. The changes added an extra 680 kg (1,500 lb) to the Me 210 design, but the extra engine power more than made up for the difference. As with the Me 210, the 410's rear gunner used the same pair of Ferngerichtete Drehringseitenlafette FDSL 131/1B turrets mounted on each side of the aircraft, each still armed with a 13 mm (.51 in) MG 131 machine guns, retaining the same pivoting handgun-style grip, trigger and gunsight to aim and fire the ordnance as the 210 did.
The new version included a lengthened fuselage and new, automatic leading edge slats, both of which had been tested on Me 210s and were found to dramatically improve handling. The slats had originally been featured on the earliest Me 210 models, but had been removed on production models due to poor handling. When entering a steep turn, the slats had a tendency to open due to the high angle of attack, analogous to the opening of the slats during the landing approach. (This problem was first observed on the Bf 109V14 and V15 prototypes for the Bf 109E), which added to the problems keeping the aircraft flying smoothly. However, when the problems with the general lateral instability were addressed, this was no longer a real problem. The wing panels of the earlier Me 210 had been designed with a planform geometry that placed the aerodynamic center in a rearwards direction in comparison to the earlier Bf 110, giving the outer sections of the wing planform beyond each engine nacelle a slightly greater, 12.6° leading edge sweepback angle than the inner panels' 6.0° leading edge sweep angle. This resulted in unreasonable handling characteristics in flight for the original Me 210 design. The new Me 410 outer wing panels had their planform geometry revised to bring the aerodynamic center further forwards in comparison to the Me 210, thus making the leading edge sweepback of the outer panels identical to the inner wing panels with both having identical 5.5° sweepback angles, which improved handling.
Deliveries began in January 1943, two years late and continued until September 1944, by which point a total of 1,160 of all versions had been produced by Messerschmitt Augsburg and Dornier Mόnchen. When it arrived, it was liked by its crews, even though its improved performance was not enough to protect it from the swarms of high performance Allied fighters they faced at this stage of the war.
03-15-2020, 07:10 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Thank you. Sir. I'll have something up tomorrow. If anyone is interested, the giveaway was a combination of three clues: (1) There weren't that many twin engined panes with V-12 engines; (2) a crew of two meant heavy fighter rather than bomber; and (3) the initial directional instability reminded me of the Me-410. Thanks; Ernie P.
03-16-2020, 09:25 AM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Morning and afternoon clues. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft, unlike my last offering, was a success.
2. In fact, it was very successful.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft, unlike my last offering, was a success.
2. In fact, it was very successful.
03-16-2020, 02:05 PM
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
Nothing quite so well known, Sir; but you do earn a bonus clue along with an evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft, unlike my last offering, was a success.
2. In fact, it was very successful.
3. It was produced in the thousands.
4. And flown by many nations.
What warbird do I describe?
1. This aircraft, unlike my last offering, was a success.
2. In fact, it was very successful.
3. It was produced in the thousands.
4. And flown by many nations.