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 06-29-2020, 08:16 AM
  #18676  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,390
Received 33 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Curtiss Model H?
Old 06-29-2020, 10:44 AM
  #18677  
stang151
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beaumont, CA
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Not the Curtiss You earn another clue.

Looking for the name of a warbird.


1. This airplane introduced many firsts to it's producing country.

2. At the time built was fastest in the sky.

3. A very coveted award followed.

4.The company was awarded the largest contract since the war.

5.The same airframe had several designations [not just dash numbers/letters] for different engines/ equipment.

6. Initial crew of 4 was reduced to 3 in production planes.

7. Early important mission was a "show of force" movement of a group of planes across the country to a far flung frontier and back.

8. The commander of the group had high praise for the plane.

9. Had a very "art-deco" look about it.

10. It's shape earned it the nickname of a" flying"{sea creature}.

11. Alas, technology moves on and passed the plane by. No longer able to defend itself it was pulled out of front line service to training and transport duties.[/QUOTE]

12. Not used in combat by the producing country, did see some action by it's allies. Did not fair well.
Old 06-29-2020, 11:56 AM
  #18678  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by stang151 View Post
Not the Curtiss You earn another clue.

Looking for the name of a warbird.


1. This airplane introduced many firsts to it's producing country.

2. At the time built was fastest in the sky.

3. A very coveted award followed.

4.The company was awarded the largest contract since the war.

5.The same airframe had several designations [not just dash numbers/letters] for different engines/ equipment.

6. Initial crew of 4 was reduced to 3 in production planes.

7. Early important mission was a "show of force" movement of a group of planes across the country to a far flung frontier and back.

8. The commander of the group had high praise for the plane.

9. Had a very "art-deco" look about it.

10. It's shape earned it the nickname of a" flying"{sea creature}.

11. Alas, technology moves on and passed the plane by. No longer able to defend itself it was pulled out of front line service to training and transport duties.
12. Not used in combat by the producing country, did see some action by it's allies. Did not fair well.[/QUOTE]


How about the Martin B-10? It seems to fit all the clues. Thanks; Ernie P.




Answer: The Martin B-10



The Martin B-10 was the first all-metal monoplane bomber to be regularly used by the United States Army Air Corps, entering service in June 1934.[2] It was also the first mass-produced bomber whose performance was superior to that of the Army's pursuit aircraft of the time.[3]



The B-10 served as the airframe for the B-12, B-13, B-14, A-15 and O-45 designations using Pratt & Whitney engines instead of Wright Cyclones. A total of 348 of all versions were built. The largest users were the US, with 166, and the Netherlands, with 121.





Design and development



The B-10 began a revolution in bomber design. Its all-metal monoplane airframe, along with its features of closed cockpits, rotating gun turrets (almost simultaneously with the 1933 British Boulton & Paul Overstrand biplane bomber's own enclosed nose-turret), retractable landing gear, internal bomb bay, and full engine cowlings, would become the standard for bomber designs worldwide for decades.[3] It made all existing bombers completely obsolete. Martin received the 1932 Collier Trophy for designing the XB-10.[4]



The B-10 began as the Martin Model 123, a private venture by the Glenn L. Martin Company of Baltimore, Maryland. It had a crew of four: pilot, copilot, nose gunner and fuselage gunner. As in previous bombers, the four crew compartments were open, but it had a number of design innovations as well.[5][6]



These innovations included a deep belly for an internal bomb bay and retractable main landing gear. Its 600 hp (447 kW) Wright SR-1820-E Cyclone engines provided sufficient power. The Model 123 first flew on 16 February 1932 and was delivered for testing to the U.S. Army on 20 March as the XB-907. After testing it was sent back to Martin for redesigning and was rebuilt as the XB-10.[5][6]



The XB-10 delivered to the Army had major differences from the original aircraft. Where the Model 123 had Townend rings, the XB-10 had full NACA cowlings to decrease drag.[1] It also sported a pair of 675 hp (503 kW) Wright R-1820-19 engines, and an 8 feet (2.4 m) increase in the wingspan, along with an enclosed nose turret. When the XB-10 flew during trials in June, it recorded a speed of 197 mph (317 km/h) at 6,000 ft (1,830 m). This was an impressive performance for 1932.[3]



Following the success of the XB-10, a number of changes were made, including reduction to a three-man crew, addition of canopies for all crew positions, and an upgrade to 675 hp (503 kW) engines. The Army ordered 48 of these on 17 January 1933. The first 14 aircraft were designated YB-10 and delivered to Wright Field, starting in November 1933, and used in the Army Air Corps Mail Operation. The production model of the XB-10, the YB-10 was very similar to its prototype.





Operational history



In 1935, the Army ordered an additional 103 aircraft designated B-10B. These had only minor changes from the YB-10. Shipments began in July 1935. B-10Bs served with the 2d Bomb Group at Langley Field, the 9th Bomb Group at Mitchel Field, the 19th Bomb Group at March Field, the 6th Composite Group in the Panama Canal Zone, and the 4th Composite Group in the Philippines. In addition to conventional duties in the bomber role, some modified YB-10s and B-12As were operated for a time on large twin floats for coastal patrol.[7][8]



In February 1936, the U.S. Army Air Corps used 13 49th Bomb Squadron B-10Bs to drop supplies to the residents of Virginia's Tangier Island and Maryland's Smith Island; with ships unable to reach the islands due to heavy ice in the Chesapeake Bay, the islanders faced starvation after a severe winter storm. The B-10B supply flights followed earlier supply flights to the islands by the Goodyear Blimp Enterprise on 2 February 1936 and by the squadron's Keystone B-6A bombers on 9 and 10 February 1936.[9][10]



With an advanced performance, the Martin company fully expected that export orders for the B-10 would flood in. The U.S. Army owned the rights to the Model 139 design. Once the Army's orders had been filled in 1936, Martin received permission to export Model 139s, and delivered versions to several air forces. For example, six Model 139Ws were sold to Siam in April 1937, powered by Wright R-1820-G3 Cyclone engines; 20 Model 139Ws were sold to Turkey in September 1937, powered by R-1820-G2 engines.[citation needed]



On 19 May 1938, during the Sino-Japanese War, two Chinese Nationalist Air Force B-10s successfully flew to Japan. However, rather than dropping bombs, the aircraft dropped propaganda leaflets.[11][12][13][14][15] That followed the project submitted during February 1938. Two French pilots from the 14th International Volunteer Squadron prepared a raid for dropping incendiary bombs over Kagoshima. It was refused.[16]



Dutch Martins fought in the defense of the Dutch East Indies.





Legacy



At the time of its creation, the B-10B was so advanced that General Henry H. Arnold described it as the airpower wonder of its day. It was half again as fast as any biplane bomber, and faster than any contemporary fighter. The B-10 began a revolution in bomber design; it made all existing bombers completely obsolete.[1]



Rapid advances in bomber design in the late 1930s meant that the B-10 was eclipsed by the time the United States entered World War II. The Model 139s in combat in China and South East Asia suffered the same disadvantages as the other early war medium bombers, i.e. not enough armour and guns, while it could not outrun the latest fighters.



An abortive effort to modernize the design, the Martin Model 146, was entered into a USAAC long-distance bomber design competition 1934–1935, but lost out to the Douglas B-18 and much bigger Boeing B-17.





General characteristics

·

· Crew: 3

·

· Length: 44 ft 9 in (13.64 m)

·

· Wingspan: 70 ft 6 in (21.49 m)

·

· Height: 15 ft 5 in (4.70 m)

·

· Wing area: 678 sq ft (63.0 m2)

·

· Empty weight: 9,681 lb (4,391 kg)

·

· Gross weight: 14,700 lb (6,668 kg)

·

· Max takeoff weight: 16,400 lb (7,439 kg)

·

· Powerplant: × Wright R-1820-33 Cyclone (F-3) 9-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, 775 hp (578 kW)

·

· Propellers: 3-bladed variable-pitch propellers



Performance

·

· Maximum speed: 213 mph (343 km/h, 185 kn)

·

· Cruise speed: 193 mph (311 km/h, 168 kn)

·

· Range: 1,240 mi (2,000 km, 1,080 nmi)

·

· Service ceiling: 24,200 ft (7,400 m)

·

· Wing loading: 21.7 lb/sq ft (106 kg/m2)



Armament

·

· Guns: 3 × 0.300 in (7.62 mm) Browning machine guns

·

· Bombs: 2,260 lb (1,025 kg)
Old 06-29-2020, 01:54 PM
  #18679  
stang151
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beaumont, CA
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

It is the Martin B-10 ( knew that I couldn't fool Ernie for too long) a very revolutionary and kinda neat ,if odd, looking bomber. Well earning the nickname "The flying Whale".
Well it's your turn on the hot seat Ernie.
Old 06-29-2020, 07:20 PM
  #18680  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by stang151 View Post
It is the Martin B-10 ( knew that I couldn't fool Ernie for too long) a very revolutionary and kinda neat ,if odd, looking bomber. Well earning the nickname "The flying Whale".
Well it's your turn on the hot seat Ernie.
Thank you, stang151. I'll post something tomorrow. I'm pondering whether I should post a question that might prove problematic, or stick to something a bit less esoteric. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 06-30-2020, 06:09 AM
  #18681  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Okay, less esoteric; but hopefully still interesting. thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.
Old 06-30-2020, 08:13 AM
  #18682  
stang151
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beaumont, CA
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Let's just get the easy/ obvious out of the way. The Lockheed family, maybe the F-104. Designed by Kelly Johnson.
Old 06-30-2020, 08:54 AM
  #18683  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by stang151 View Post
Let's just get the easy/ obvious out of the way. The Lockheed family, maybe the F-104. Designed by Kelly Johnson.
Sir; you may considered the F-104 to be out of the way, as in not correct. But here's a bonus clue to add to the afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.
Old 06-30-2020, 10:26 AM
  #18684  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,390
Received 33 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

I am going to throw out the North American F-86 Sabre designed by Ed Schmued father of the P-51D.
Old 06-30-2020, 11:59 AM
  #18685  
Fidd88
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 62
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Quiet right. No jet can really be considered "iconic".

"Noisy", "dirty", "fast" (in a straight-line) and "butt-ugly" perhaps. I'd throw 'em all out. <grin>

I'll go "Vickers Wellington" designed by Messrs Rex Pearson and Barnes Wallace. (if we're talking iconic) ;-)

Old 06-30-2020, 12:16 PM
  #18686  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,390
Received 33 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fidd88 View Post
Quiet right. No jet can really be considered "iconic".

"Noisy", "dirty", "fast" (in a straight-line) and "butt-ugly" perhaps. I'd throw 'em all out. <grin>
You are correct, REAL airplanes have propellers!
Old 06-30-2020, 12:25 PM
  #18687  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
You are correct, REAL airplanes have propellers!
I agree with that! After all, we have "airplanes" and "jet airplanes". That seems simple enough. Okay; no correct answers thus far, but we have two good guesses that deserve bonus clues and a scheduled evening clue. So, here are three new clues to help all of you find the answer. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.
Old 06-30-2020, 12:53 PM
  #18688  
FlyerInOKC
My Feedback: (6)
 
FlyerInOKC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 11,390
Received 33 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.
Does this clue mean it was considered less than a success or an out right failure?
Old 06-30-2020, 12:58 PM
  #18689  
Fidd88
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 62
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Just for clarification, may we now safely conclude that it is not therefore a jet or turbo-fan propulsion, but rather a prop'd aircraft? We wouldn't want, afterall, anyone to be mislead. ;-)

I'll try Avro "Manchester" which was a complete turkey with the original RR Vulture engines, themselves a rare failure for an otherwise exceptional company.
Old 06-30-2020, 01:39 PM
  #18690  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FlyerInOKC View Post
Does this clue mean it was considered less than a success or an out right failure?
That's a difficult question (I'm really trying to give you an honest answer) and I suppose that would be in the eye of the beholder. After all, the plane flew. It flew less well than others, but it didn't have tendencies to fail to get airborne or kill its crew, so I guess it wasn't all that bad. But it should have been a bright star and it was more related to the Dog Star. Later clues will help you understand the exact dimension of its failure. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 06-30-2020, 01:44 PM
  #18691  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Fidd88 View Post
Just for clarification, may we now safely conclude that it is not therefore a jet or turbo-fan propulsion, but rather a prop'd aircraft? We wouldn't want, afterall, anyone to be mislead. ;-)

I'll try Avro "Manchester" which was a complete turkey with the original RR Vulture engines, themselves a rare failure for an otherwise exceptional company.
I haven't said anything that rules out a jet or turbojet. I just said "real airplanes", in my opinion, have propellers. Otherwise, we wouldn't differentiate between airplanes and jet or rocket powered airplanes. That having been said, we move to your (incorrect) answer. No, not the Manchester. But here's a clue to help you get closer to the correct answer. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.
Old 06-30-2020, 02:43 PM
  #18692  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 723
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Heinkel He 177 Greif?
Old 06-30-2020, 03:03 PM
  #18693  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,366
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 22 Posts
Default

Okay guys, does that mean the US Navy's E2C/D Hawkeye would be a real airplane with it's twin turboprop drive? After all, IT DOES HAVE PROPELLERS!!!!!
In fact, the C had a four bladed design that was similar, though larger, to that used on the P-47, P-51 and the F8F Bearcat. The D uses a 6 bladed prop with swept tips for better efficiency
Old 06-30-2020, 07:06 PM
  #18694  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
Heinkel He 177 Greif?
Not the Greif, JohnnyS; but you do earn a bonus clue for your participation. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.



9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.
Old 07-01-2020, 12:33 AM
  #18695  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

All; Clue 9 is a bit convoluted in its wording. As a clarification, the below statement is to indicate the people writing the requirements for a new aircraft openly stated a preference for a new engine which was then under development. This was not an absolute; aircraft using other engines were allowed to enter the competition. In fact, the aircraft which won the competition did not use the preferred engine. The designer and company building our subject aircraft complied with that preference, however. Thanks; Ernie P.


9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.
Old 07-01-2020, 04:19 AM
  #18696  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.



9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.



10. A particular engine which used a particular cooling system.
Old 07-01-2020, 01:50 PM
  #18697  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

I've been busy, sorry. Afternoon and evening clues. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.



9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.



10. A particular engine which used a particular cooling system.



11. A cooling system which, at the time, proved to be cumbersome, fragile and trouble prone.



12. As a result, the engine used proved to be a problem.
Old 07-02-2020, 02:59 AM
  #18698  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.



9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.



10. A particular engine which used a particular cooling system.



11. A cooling system which, at the time, proved to be cumbersome, fragile and trouble prone.



12. As a result, the engine used proved to be a problem.



13. Although the engine was, itself, derived from a notably successful design.
Old 07-02-2020, 05:01 AM
  #18699  
Fidd88
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 62
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Jerry HS129?
Old 07-02-2020, 12:33 PM
  #18700  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Not the Hs129, no matter what engine was being used. But you have earned a bonus clue for your participation, to accompany the scheduled afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was designed by an iconic designer.



2. A designer who had already designed several iconic aircraft.



3. It was built by an iconic manufacturer.



4. A manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft.



5. And it used an engine built by an iconic engine manufacturer.



6. An engine manufacturer which had already produced several iconic aircraft engines.



7. In fact, by anyone’s reckoning, it should have been a notable success.



8. But it wasn’t.



9. This was, ultimately, largely due to the designer and manufacturer following a stated preference on the part of the people writing the requirements for a particular engine then under development.



10. A particular engine which used a particular cooling system.



11. A cooling system which, at the time, proved to be cumbersome, fragile and trouble prone.



12. As a result, the engine used proved to be a problem.



13. Although the engine was, itself, derived from a notably successful design.



14. It probably didn’t help that the new engine simply didn’t produce the power of the earlier engine.



15. A number of manufacturers produced aircraft designed to meet a government specification.

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.