Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Old 10-25-2020, 04:45 PM
  #19151  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
OK, I'll take this on. New military aircraft.

1. Four engined.
2. Design licensed from the original country which used the design only as a commercial transport.
3. It was used as a military bomber/transport configuration.
Thanks for stepping up, Johnny; Ernie P.
Old 10-26-2020, 03:25 AM
  #19152  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
OK, I'll take this on. New military aircraft.

1. Four engined.
2. Design licensed from the original country which used the design only as a commercial transport.
3. It was used as a military bomber/transport configuration.
Sorry, Johnny; but you know I can't resist taking an early long shot guess. Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: The Mitsubishi Ki-20



The Mitsubishi Ki-20 is a Japanese bomber variant of the Junkers G.38airliner. Mitsubishi manufactured six aircraft under license from Junkers. These aircraft, designated Army Type 92 Heavy Bomber, served through the 1930s. During World War II, the Ki-20 served in a variety of transport and support roles.


Design and development



In the late-1920s, as Junkers developed the Junkers G.38, Mitsubishi representatives in Germany expressed an interest in a military version of this civilian transport. At the time, the G.38 was the largest landplane in the world. Junkers completed a design study for a military bomber/transport, based on the G.38, designated the K.51. This design was not accepted by the Reichsluftfahrtministerium.



The K.51 design study was of interest to Japan. A licensing and manufacturing agreement was reached and in 1932 the first two Ki-20s were completed by Mitsubishi, utilizing Junkers-made parts. A prototype was successfully flown in Japan by a German test pilot in that year.



Four additional Ki-20s were built between 1933 and 1935. All of these subsequent models used Mitsubishi-built parts. Ongoing development focused on engine upgrades to all examples to address the persistent issue of the aircraft being underpowered. Several engine upgrades were completed during the lifetime of these aircraft. The initial Junkers L88 engines were replaced by the more powerful Jumo 204 engines, also built under license by Mitsubishi. Additionally Kawasaki Ha-9 engines were utilized for testing purposes.


Operational history



During World War II, the Japanese originally intended to utilize the Ki-20s to attack the forts at the entrance to Manila Bay in the Philippines and for deep penetration missions into Siberia. For these purposes, they were armed with six gun positions and structurally enabled to carry a 5,000 kg (11,020 lb) bomb load. These aircraft were the largest operated by the Imperial Japanese Army Air Service and their existence within it was kept secret. As a result, they were issued their out-of-sequence Kitai number '20' only when they were finally revealed in 1940.


Surviving aircraft



A single example survived to the end of hostilities as a museum piece in the Tokorozawa Aviation Memorial Hall. All examples of this aircraft were either destroyed during the war or broken up for scrap during the latter portion of the 1940s.


Specifications



Data from Japanese Aircraft, 1910-1941



General characteristics

·

· Crew: 10

·

· Length: 23.2 m (76 ft 1 in)

·

· Wingspan: 44 m (144 ft 4 in)

·

· Height: 7 m (23 ft 0 in)

·

· Wing area: 294 m2 (3,160 sq ft)

·

· Empty weight: 14,912 kg (32,875 lb)

·

· Gross weight: 25,448 kg (56,103 lb)

·

· Powerplant: 4 × Junkers Jumo 204 (Type Ju) 6-cylinder liquid-cooled opposed-piston diesel engines, 560 kW (750 hp) each

·

· Propellers: 4-bladed wooden fixed-pitch propellers



Performance

·

· Maximum speed: 200 km/h (120 mph, 110 kn)

·

· Wing loading: 86.6 kg/m2 (17.7 lb/sq ft)

·

· Power/mass: 0.094 kW/kg (0.057 hp/lb)



Armament

·

· Guns:

o

o 2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns in nose

o

o 1× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon on dorsal position

o

o 2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine guns in each of two upper wing turrets

o

o 1× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) machine gun in each of one lower wing turret

·

· Bombs:

o Up to 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) bombs carried externally

Old 10-26-2020, 01:21 PM
  #19153  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 735
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Gee, Ernie. I had a whole bunch of cool clues all ready too!
Anyway, you're right! Please carry on.
Old 10-26-2020, 02:01 PM
  #19154  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
Gee, Ernie. I had a whole bunch of cool clues all ready too!
Anyway, you're right! Please carry on.
I did that, didn't I? Hmmm...... As I said, I can't resist taking those early long shots. I'll post something this evening. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 10-26-2020, 06:43 PM
  #19155  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

And once again. This one shouldn't go long; although I have been wrong before. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.
Old 10-27-2020, 05:22 AM
  #19156  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.

Old 10-27-2020, 10:41 AM
  #19157  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.

Old 10-27-2020, 01:13 PM
  #19158  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.

Old 10-28-2020, 02:41 AM
  #19159  
Fidd88
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 72
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

I'll have a go, Horten Ho 229?
Old 10-28-2020, 04:57 AM
  #19160  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Fidd88 View Post
I'll have a go, Horten Ho 229?
Sir; not the Horten Ho 229, but you do earn a bonus clue to accompany the morning clue. Please try again. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.



6. And its qualities were many.



7. However, the need for an aircraft of this type simply no longer existed.

Old 10-28-2020, 05:47 AM
  #19161  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,901
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Sounds like a torpedo bomber, at least the part about not being needed anyway
Old 10-28-2020, 05:28 PM
  #19162  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 735
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

The Flying Flapjack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_XF5U
Old 10-28-2020, 06:17 PM
  #19163  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS View Post
Not the famed Flying Flapjack, Johnny; but you have earned a bonus clue to accompany the afternoon and evening clues. Please try again. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.



6. And its qualities were many.



7. However, the need for an aircraft of this type simply no longer existed.



8. Its primary attribute was its very long range.



9. Which was a very important factor when it was designed.



10. Not so much when it was ready for production.
Old 10-29-2020, 02:31 AM
  #19164  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.



6. And its qualities were many.



7. However, the need for an aircraft of this type simply no longer existed.



8. Its primary attribute was its very long range.



9. Which was a very important factor when it was designed.



10. Not so much when it was ready for production.



11. It was simply felt existing aircraft were capable of getting the job done without interrupting the production lines by introducing a new aircraft.
Old 10-29-2020, 08:18 AM
  #19165  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.



6. And its qualities were many.



7. However, the need for an aircraft of this type simply no longer existed.



8. Its primary attribute was its very long range.



9. Which was a very important factor when it was designed.



10. Not so much when it was ready for production.



11. It was simply felt existing aircraft were capable of getting the job done without interrupting the production lines by introducing a new aircraft.



12. In addition to its incredible range, the new aircraft was capable of performing in a number of roles.
Old 10-29-2020, 08:40 AM
  #19166  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,901
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

How about a PBY-6A Catalina?
Old 10-29-2020, 12:02 PM
  #19167  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 735
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Messerschmitt Me 264?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_264
Old 10-29-2020, 12:45 PM
  #19168  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

I think it's probably the Boeing XF8B. Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XF8B
Old 10-29-2020, 01:12 PM
  #19169  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
I think it's probably the Boeing XF8B. Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_XF8B
Good going, Al. It is indeed the XF8B, as you surmised. I'm guessing you nailed this because of a combination of two or more clues; probably (7) (8) (9) and (11). You got it, Buddy and you are now up. Take it away, Al. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never put into production; although it was realized it had tremendous potential.



2. Only three prototypes were produced.



3. And two of those weren’t finished until after the war ended.



4. However, it would have been a very formidable combatant had it been produced.



5. Its qualities were clearly recognized by the military services.



6. And its qualities were many.



7. However, the need for an aircraft of this type simply no longer existed.



8. Its primary attribute was its very long range.



9. Which was a very important factor when it was designed.



10. Not so much when it was ready for production.



11. It was simply felt existing aircraft were capable of getting the job done without interrupting the production lines by introducing a new aircraft.



12. In addition to its incredible range, the new aircraft was capable of performing in a number of roles.



13. Those roles included acting as an interceptor.



14. And as a long range fighter escort.



15. As a dive bomber.



16. And as a torpedo bomber.



17. And, of course, as a fighter.



18. It was a single engine fighter.



19. With a crew of one.



20. In its day, it was the largest and heaviest single engine aircraft ever produced by its owning country.



21. Easily heavier than, say, a P-47 Thunderbolt.



22. And with a heavier payload.



23. And it was arguably the fastest fighter produced by its owning country in its war.



24. It had an internal bomb bay; which was a bit unusual for a fighter.



25. And, as was perhaps fitting, its tail assembly was adapted from a four engine bomber.



26. Very large fuel tanks.



27. And fittings for carrying more fuel externally.



28. Folding wingtips.



29.







Answer: The Boeing XF8B





The Boeing XF8B (Model 400) was a single-engine aircraft developed by Boeing during World War II to provide the United States Navy with a long-range shipboard fighter aircraft. The XF8B was intended for operation against the Japanese home islands from aircraft carriers outside the range of Japanese land-based aircraft. Designed for various roles including interceptor, long-range escort fighter, dive-bomber, and torpedo bomber, the final design embodied a number of innovative features in order to accomplish the various roles. Despite its formidable capabilities, the XF8B-1 never entered series production.




Design and development



The XF8B-1 was, at the time, the largest and heaviest single-seat, single-engine fighter developed in the United States. Boeing called the XF8B-1 optimistically, the "five-in-one fighter" (fighter, interceptor, dive bomber, torpedo bomber, or level bomber). It was powered by a single 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-10 four-row 28-cylinder radial engine, driving two three-bladed contra-rotatingpropellers. It would be the largest single-seat piston fighter to fly in the U.S. to date. The large wings featured outer sections which could fold vertically, while the fuselage incorporated an internal bomb bay and large fuel tanks; more fuel could be carried externally. The proposed armament included six 0.50 inch (12.7 mm) machine guns or six 20 mm wing-mounted cannons, and a 6,400 lb (2,900 kg) bomb load or two 2,000 lb (900 kg) torpedoes. The final configuration was a large but streamlined design, featuring a bubble canopy, sturdy main undercarriage that folded into the wings, and topped by a variation on the B-29 vertical tail.

The contract for three prototypes (BuNos 5798457986) was awarded 4 May 1943, although only one was completed before the war ended. It first flew in November 1944. The two remaining prototypes were completed after the war, with the third (BuNo 57986) evaluated at Eglin Air Force Base by the United States Army Air Forces.


Operational history



To expedite testing and evaluation, a second cockpit was fitted to the first two prototypes to allow a flight engineer to help monitor the test flights. The second seat was easily accommodated in the roomy cockpit.



Although testing of the promising XF8B concept continued into 1946 by the USAAF and 1947 by the US Navy, the end of the war in the Pacific and changing postwar strategy required that Boeing concentrate on building large land-based bombers and transports. The advent of jet fighters led to the cancellation of many wartime piston-engined projects; consequently, since the USAF lost interest in pursuing the project and the U.S. Navy was only prepared to offer a small contract, Boeing chose to wind down the XF8B program. Tests at Boeing Field were marred by an accident in which a test pilot accidentally retracted his landing gear on final approach. Investigation later found this to have been caused by a faulty micro switch. This occurred just as first shift was ending, and as many workers watched from the Plant 2 steps, the XF8B-1 bellied onto the concrete of Boeing Field. As the test program was concluded, the prototypes were scrapped one by one, with 57986 lingering on into 1950.


Operators[edit]



United States

·

· United States Army Air Forces

·

· United States Navy

Specifications (Boeing XF8B-1)



Data from Jane's all the World's Aircraft 1947, Boeing XF8B-1 "Five-in-one" fighter., Last of the Line: Boeing's XF8B-1 Multi-purpose Fighter



General characteristics

·

· Crew: 1

·

· Length: 43 ft 3 in (13.18 m)

·

· Wingspan: 54 ft (16 m)

·

· Height: 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)

·

· Wing area: 489 sq ft (45.4 m2)

· Empty weight: 13,519 lb (6,132 kg)

·

· Gross weight: 20,508 lb (9,302 kg)

·

· Max takeoff weight: 21,691 lb (9,839 kg)

·

· Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney XR-4360-10 28 cylinder four-row air-cooled piston engine, 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) for take-off; (3,600 hp (2,700 kW) war emergency with water injection)

·

· Propellers: 3-bladed 2x Aeroprop, 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m) diameter contra-rotating co-axial propellers



Performance

·

· Maximum speed: 450 mph (720 km/h, 390 kn) + (with war emergency power and water injection)

·

· Cruise speed: 190 mph (310 km/h, 170 kn)

·

· Range: 2,800 mi (4,500 km, 2,400 nmi)

·

· Service ceiling: 37,500 ft (11,400 m)

·

· Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)

·

· Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (0.240 kW/kg)



Armament

·

· Guns:

·

· 6x 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon

or

·

· 6x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) machine guns

·

· Rockets: provision for rockets under the outer wings

·

· Bombs:

· 6,400 lb (2,900 kg) bombs

or

·

· 2x 2,000 lb (910 kg) torpedoes
Old 10-29-2020, 02:38 PM
  #19170  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Well, if 757jonp is back, I'll defer to him. If he doesn't post something by tomorrow I'll come up with something, though at the moment my only idea is one that will leave us with maybe three clues. The XF8B took longer than it should have, mostly because I spent a lot of time looking at German stuff, and especially bombers. Clue 12 was really the tip-off.
Old 10-29-2020, 03:03 PM
  #19171  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,901
Likes: 0
Received 34 Likes on 33 Posts
Default

Funny you would say that, Al. That same clue was what had me thinking the PBY-6A. It was a faster more versatile plane than the 5A so......
Old 10-29-2020, 07:12 PM
  #19172  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
Well, if 757jonp is back, I'll defer to him. If he doesn't post something by tomorrow I'll come up with something, though at the moment my only idea is one that will leave us with maybe three clues. The XF8B took longer than it should have, mostly because I spent a lot of time looking at German stuff, and especially bombers. Clue 12 was really the tip-off.
Okay, 757jonp; if you're back, now is the time to jump in. Otherwise, Al will be up. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 10-30-2020, 08:05 AM
  #19173  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

OK, here we go again with an obscure but very interesting airplane.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Only one built.

2. It flew well and was very versatile, but it was not quite versatile enough to enter production.

3. It was a twin-engine monoplane.
Old 10-30-2020, 09:18 AM
  #19174  
Ernie P.
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,153
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
OK, here we go again with an obscure but very interesting airplane.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Only one built.

2. It flew well and was very versatile, but it was not quite versatile enough to enter production.

3. It was a twin-engine monoplane.
Lots of candidates at this stage, but I do enjoy taking early and long shots. How about the IMAM Ro.58? Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: The IMAM Ro.58



The IMAM Ro.58 was an Italian twin-engined, two-seat monoplane heavy fighter and attack aircraft, a development of the IMAM Ro.57. First flown in May 1942, it was considered a general improvement over its predecessor, mainly due to the substitution of higher power Daimler-Benz DB 601 engines for the Fiat A.74 engines used on the Ro.57. Initially it had many problems and during the maiden flight only the proficiency of the test pilot, Adriano Mantelli, saved the plane.



It was easily recognizable because it appeared to have a long hump over the fuselage (to accommodate two crew members as opposed to one in the Ro.57). The Ro.58 was a twin-tailed aircraft, in layout similar to the Bf 110.



The performance of the aircraft with the DB 601 engines was much better than even many single engine fighters of the time (605 km/h at 5,000 m, 1,500 km endurance, 10,500 m ceiling).



More heavily armed than its predecessor, with five forward-firing MG 151s; three in the nose and two under the belly (the underbelly guns were not present during the first flight tests) and one 12.7 mm rear-facing Breda-SAFAT machine gun.



Tested alongside an Me 410 it was found to be superior, but even so it initially had its share of problems that delayed production. By the time it was refined it was too late for Italy, and there were no resources even for single-engine fighters, much less the more expensive twin-engined ones.



As with the Ro.57, which was not put into production in 1940 or 1941, the Ro.58, better armed and faster appeared only in May 1942, and too late to be produced in any numbers, as Italy surrendered to the Allies in September 1943.



General characteristics

·

· Crew: Two

·

· Length: 9.89 m (32 ft 4 in)

·

· Wingspan: 13.40 m (43 ft 10 in)

·

· Height: 3.39 m (11 ft 1 in)

·

· Wing area: 26.2 m2 (282 sq ft)

·

· Empty weight: 4,350 kg (9,570 lb)

·

· Gross weight: 6,100 kg (13,420 lb)

·

· Powerplant: 2 × Daimler-Benz DB 601A-1 , 876 kW (1,175 hp) each



Performance

·

· Maximum speed: 605 km/h (378 mph, 328 kn)

·

· Range: 1,500 km (940 mi, 820 nmi)

·

· Service ceiling: 9,800 m (32,000 ft)



Armament

·

· 3 × fixed, forward-firing 20 mm MG 151 cannons in nose

·

· 2 × fixed, forward-firing 20 mm MG 151 cannons under belly

·

· 1 × flexible, rearward-firing 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun in rear cockpit
Old 10-30-2020, 11:07 AM
  #19175  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,156
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Default

Not the IMAM Ro.58. Bonus clue below.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Only one built.

2. It flew well and was very versatile, but it was not quite versatile enough to enter production.

3. It was a twin-engine monoplane.

4. In addition to its lack of one aspect of versatility, the service it was designed for considered it somewhat too slow for at least some of its roles.

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.