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 08-01-2020, 07:03 AM
  #18826  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

It is indeed the T2V, which could easily be mistaken for a T-33 at first glance, but the fuselage in profile is quite different because it's deeper and the back of the canopy is higher, to give the instructor a better view. The "family"" referred to in the clues is of course the P-80, T-33, F-94, T2V group, along with Boeing's Skyfox, which nobody ordered.

I look forward to having my brain fried by Ernie yet again.
Old 08-01-2020, 02:02 PM
  #18827  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Who's using your name in vain? I would have thought that would be a compliment to have someone that has my brain fried, like you do to me as well, named after you. If I'm wrong, you have my apologies
Sir; you have my apology. I wasn't at all offended by anything you wrote. I suppose I should have used a better term than "in vain". Maybe just "Using my name"? No, that's not right either. Maybe "using me as an example"? To tell the truth, I can't think of a way to exactly express what I was trying to say. It was intended as a friendly jest or poke at you; not as a slight. Maybe that's it! I think "using my name in jest" better describes what I was trying to express. Trust me: I think too much of you, your contributions to my own knowledge and your opinions to want to offend you. Again, my apologies. It was simply a poorly worded statement. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 08-01-2020, 02:10 PM
  #18828  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
It is indeed the T2V, which could easily be mistaken for a T-33 at first glance, but the fuselage in profile is quite different because it's deeper and the back of the canopy is higher, to give the instructor a better view. The "family"" referred to in the clues is of course the P-80, T-33, F-94, T2V group, along with Boeing's Skyfox, which nobody ordered.

I look forward to having my brain fried by Ernie yet again.
Thanks, Al. I think you did an excellent job of baffling us with that question. And I think my next question will be pretty easy for you guys to figure out. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.
Old 08-01-2020, 05:47 PM
  #18829  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Sir; you have my apology. I wasn't at all offended by anything you wrote. I suppose I should have used a better term than "in vain". Maybe just "Using my name"? No, that's not right either. Maybe "using me as an example"? To tell the truth, I can't think of a way to exactly express what I was trying to say. It was intended as a friendly jest or poke at you; not as a slight. Maybe that's it! I think "using my name in jest" better describes what I was trying to express. Trust me: I think too much of you, your contributions to my own knowledge and your opinions to want to offend you. Again, my apologies. It was simply a poorly worded statement. Thanks; Ernie P.
No apology needed in this case. To be honest, I wasn't sure if I had said something wrong or not so my last post was made with a heavy dose of caution. I've found that many today are easily offended by what is said, either face to face or in a post in an internet thread, so much so in fact that I've actually had people try to get me fired from my job just for asking a question. I didn't think I had said something wrong but, in dealing with a bunch of thin skinned "Momma's Boys" at work where, unfortunately, anything that isn't exactly PC gets a response of complaining to HR or the company's "ethics board" to eliminate the "offender", I was trying to not do the same here. I hope that makes sense
Old 08-01-2020, 05:49 PM
  #18830  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Thanks, Al. I think you did an excellent job of baffling us with that question. And I think my next question will be pretty easy for you guys to figure out. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.
How about the AV-8A Harrier?
Old 08-01-2020, 06:23 PM
  #18831  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
No apology needed in this case. To be honest, I wasn't sure if I had said something wrong or not so my last post was made with a heavy dose of caution. I've found that many today are easily offended by what is said, either face to face or in a post in an internet thread, so much so in fact that I've actually had people try to get me fired from my job just for asking a question. I didn't think I had said something wrong but, in dealing with a bunch of thin skinned "Momma's Boys" at work where, unfortunately, anything that isn't exactly PC gets a response of complaining to HR or the company's "ethics board" to eliminate the "offender", I was trying to not do the same here. I hope that makes sense
Sir; it makes perfect sense. I'm old enough, and experienced enough, not to take offense easily. If some one I consider to be a friend makes a comment that bothers me, I usually just mentally shrug and tell myself "I must have misunderstood; he's not that type of person". Or, if I really don't think that's the case, I just ask "Exactly what did you mean by that"? I have pretty thick skin; and I really don't think any of our little group is in the habit of deliberately offending anyone. And I've observed your writing long enough to know that simply isn't your style. I was simply poking fun at your comment and worded my response poorly. No harm, no foul. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 08-01-2020, 06:26 PM
  #18832  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
How about the AV-8A Harrier?
Not the Harrier; but here's a bonus clue to aid your search. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.
Old 08-01-2020, 06:39 PM
  #18833  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,566
Received 15 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

T-28
Old 08-01-2020, 06:54 PM
  #18834  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

I'm thinking the Me-262 twin seat trainer or the T-33, both of which were the first trainers powered by turbojet engines
Old 08-01-2020, 07:28 PM
  #18835  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Not the T-28, Me-262 or the T-33. But here's a couple of bonus clues to speed things along. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.
Old 08-02-2020, 06:52 AM
  #18836  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.
Old 08-02-2020, 12:15 PM
  #18837  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

How about the T-6 Texan? It was used for spotting and many were shot down while performing that roll
Old 08-02-2020, 04:05 PM
  #18838  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
How about the T-6 Texan? It was used for spotting and many were shot down while performing that roll
A good guess, Sir; but not where we are heading. Here's a bonus clue to reward your participation and an evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.

Old 08-02-2020, 04:27 PM
  #18839  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

A trainer that got shot to ribbons in combat that later was used as a communications tool? Okay, once again I'm totally lost
And, with that last comment, I can just see Ernie GRINNING from ear to ear
Old 08-02-2020, 07:26 PM
  #18840  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
A trainer that got shot to ribbons in combat that later was used as a communications tool? Okay, once again I'm totally lost
And, with that last comment, I can just see Ernie GRINNING from ear to ear
Well.... YEAH! After all; that is the idea, right? Don't worry, Sir; it will become more clear as we go along. And I do have some ....interesting.... clues coming up. And just to show you I do have a heart, here's a bonus clue. Thanks; Ernie P.




What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.
Old 08-03-2020, 12:47 AM
  #18841  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.
Old 08-03-2020, 07:39 AM
  #18842  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 724
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The B.E.2?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_..._Factory_B.E.2
Old 08-03-2020, 09:10 AM
  #18843  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
Not the B.E.2, Johnny; but here's a bonus clue to accompany the regularly scheduled afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.




What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.
Old 08-03-2020, 04:49 PM
  #18844  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.



14. And very light.
Old 08-04-2020, 12:32 AM
  #18845  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.



14. And very light.



15. It used two contra rotating propellers.
Old 08-04-2020, 05:24 AM
  #18846  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,566
Received 15 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

H-25 HUP Piesecki configuration of propellers

Sparky
Old 08-04-2020, 05:46 AM
  #18847  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by elmshoot View Post
H-25 HUP Piesecki configuration of propellers

Sparky
Not correct, Sparky; but I'll award you a bonus clue for your efforts. Please try again. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.



14. And very light.



15. It used two contra rotating propellers.



16. For its single engine.
Old 08-04-2020, 10:23 AM
  #18848  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.




What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.



14. And very light.



15. It used two contra rotating propellers.



16. For its single engine.



17. And it had a greater than normal amount of dihedral.
Old 08-04-2020, 11:48 AM
  #18849  
Fidd88
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 70
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I think this is a WWI if not pre-war aircraft, with a single engine and chain-drives operating two props. I suspect it may have been one of the 1st flown by a woman. What it might be exactly I wouldn't know - not my period. But that may spark some insight?
Old 08-04-2020, 12:06 PM
  #18850  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 5,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Fidd88 View Post
I think this is a WWI if not pre-war aircraft, with a single engine and chain-drives operating two props. I suspect it may have been one of the 1st flown by a woman. What it might be exactly I wouldn't know - not my period. But that may spark some insight?
Well; let's see, Sir. It was not a WWI aircraft and it was ordered into production during WWII. I'm not sure if it was ever flown by a woman; but if it was, that is purely incidental to the question. But I'll still award a bonus clue for your efforts and include an evening clue as well. Please try again. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was the first of its type.



2. Actually, there had been similar “one offs” and “prototypes” previously; but this was the first truly “finished product” deemed worthy of being put into production.



3. And there were certainly a lot of them produced.



4. This aircraft was unarmed.



5. Although that didn’t keep quite a few of them from being shot to pieces.



6. The loss rate for this aircraft was staggering.



7. Few of them survived the war.



8. It was mainly used in a training role.



9. Although it was later used, after the war, as a communication tool.



10. And yet this, at the time almost unique, aircraft has been largely forgotten; although it certainly was a harbinger of things to come.



11. And, as an aside issue, it had somewhat of a role in changing the social mores and norms of the time.



12. You might say “A star was born”.



13. It was a small aircraft.



14. And very light.



15. It used two contra rotating propellers.



16. For its single engine.



17. And it had a greater than normal amount of dihedral.



18. It featured a large, for the size, vertical stabilizer and rudder.



19. There is at least one of these planes, and engines, on display in at least one museum today.

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.