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 04-17-2021, 05:08 AM
  #19626  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LaRebel24 View Post
Ok guys all the chores are done so the ride begins!!



Not any of those planes.



Morning clue plus bonus clue



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane


Okay; how about the "Zero"? Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: The Mitsubishi A6M Zero



The Mitsubishi A6M "Zero" was a long range carrier-based fighter aircraft formerly manufactured by Mitsubishi Aircraft Company, a part of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy from 1940 to 1945. The A6M was designated as the Mitsubishi Navy Type 0 carrier fighter (零式艦上戦闘機, rei-shiki-kanjō-sentōki), or the Mitsubishi A6M Rei-sen. The A6M was usually referred to by its pilots as the Reisen (零戦, zero fighter), "0" being the last digit of the imperial year 2600 (1940) when it entered service with the Imperial Navy. The official Allied reporting name was "Zeke", although the name "Zero" (from Type 0) was used colloquially by the Allies as well.



The Zero is considered to have been the most capable carrier-based fighter in the world when it was introduced early in World War II, combining excellent maneuverability and very long range.[2] The Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service (IJNAS) also frequently used it as a land-based fighter.



In early combat operations, the Zero gained a reputation as a dogfighter,[3] achieving an outstanding kill ratio of 12 to 1,[4] but by mid-1942 a combination of new tactics and the introduction of better equipment enabled Allied pilots to engage the Zero on generally equal terms.[5] By 1943, the Zero was less effective against newer Allied fighters due to design limitations. It lacked hydraulic ailerons and a rudder, rendering it extremely unmaneuverable at high speeds, and it could not be equipped with a more powerful aircraft engine. By 1944, with Allied fighters approaching the A6M levels of maneuverability and consistently exceeding its firepower, armor, and speed, the A6M had largely become outdated as a fighter aircraft. However, as design delays and production difficulties hampered the introduction of newer Japanese aircraft models, the Zero continued to serve in a front-line role until the end of the war in the Pacific. During the final phases, it was also adapted for use in kamikaze operations.[6] Japan produced more Zeros than any other model of combat aircraft during the war.[7]
Old 04-17-2021, 08:15 AM
  #19627  
LaRebel24
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Transylvania , LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok guys all the chores are done so the ride begins!!



Good guess Ernie but not the Zero. Good for another clue, plus bonus clues.



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane



4. Crew of 1



5. Used a fighter, ground attack, and dive bomber



6. Less than 500 total built.


Old 04-17-2021, 01:20 PM
  #19628  
LaRebel24
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Transylvania , LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue , with bonus clue



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane



4. Crew of 1



5. Used a fighter, ground attack, and dive bomber



6. Less than 500 total built.



7. Armament on the aircraft initially consisted of 7.92mm machine guns but was upgraded to 20mm cannons in later models.



8. Aircraft was used in combat on the Eastern front and Western front.


Old 04-18-2021, 06:40 AM
  #19629  
LaRebel24
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Transylvania , LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok guys no guesses. These next clues should get you guys on track!!



Afternoon clue , with bonus clue



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane



4. Crew of 1



5. Used a fighter, ground attack, and dive bomber



6. Less than 500 total built.



7. Armament on the aircraft initially consisted of 7.92mm machine guns but was upgraded to 20mm cannons in later models.



8. Aircraft was used in combat on the Eastern front and Western front.



9. When encountered by allied pilots plane was mistaken for another axis fighter.



10. When tested by Luftwaffe pilots the plane was found to be: 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf 109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs.



11. When it came into battle against the American fighters because of heavy losses, all units were withdrawn from combat against Americans in July 1944.



12. Powered by a IAR K14-IV C32 1000A 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial piston engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)


Old 04-19-2021, 06:40 PM
  #19630  
LaRebel24
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Transylvania , LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ok guys no guesses. Work has been busy and I finally have time to add a few clues.



After work clue , with bonus clues.



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane



4. Crew of 1



5. Used a fighter, ground attack, and dive bomber



6. Less than 500 total built.



7. Armament on the aircraft initially consisted of 7.92mm machine guns but was upgraded to 20mm cannons in later models.



8. Aircraft was used in combat on the Eastern front and Western front.



9. When encountered by allied pilots plane was mistaken for another axis fighter.



10. When tested by Luftwaffe pilots the plane was found to be: 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf 109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs.



11. When it came into battle against the American fighters because of heavy losses, all units were withdrawn from combat against Americans in July 1944.



12. Powered by a IARK14-IV C32 1000A 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial piston engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)



13.

Length: 8.97 m (29 ft 5 in)



Wingspan: 11 m (36 ft 1 in)



Height: 3.600 m (11 ft 10 in)



Wing area: 17 m2 (180 sq ft)



Empty weight: 2,200 kg (4,850 lb)



Max takeoff weight: 3,030 kg (6,680 lb)



Fuel capacity: 230 kg (510 lb)



14. A more powerful engine was need as the limits of the 1000A were reached, and the BMW 801 was the obvious choice but none could be spared.



15. The prototype was tested competitively against the Heinkel He 112.


Old 04-22-2021, 05:58 AM
  #19631  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LaRebel24 View Post
Ok guys no guesses. Work has been busy and I finally have time to add a few clues.



After work clue , with bonus clues.



What aircraft do I seek?



1. Aircraft was designed in the 1930's and first flew in 1939.



2. Low wing monoplane.



3. All metal monocoque plane



4. Crew of 1



5. Used a fighter, ground attack, and dive bomber



6. Less than 500 total built.



7. Armament on the aircraft initially consisted of 7.92mm machine guns but was upgraded to 20mm cannons in later models.



8. Aircraft was used in combat on the Eastern front and Western front.



9. When encountered by allied pilots plane was mistaken for another axis fighter.



10. When tested by Luftwaffe pilots the plane was found to be: 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf 109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs.



11. When it came into battle against the American fighters because of heavy losses, all units were withdrawn from combat against Americans in July 1944.



12. Powered by a IARK14-IV C32 1000A 14-cylinder two-row air-cooled radial piston engine, 750 kW (1,000 hp)



13.

Length: 8.97 m (29 ft 5 in)



Wingspan: 11 m (36 ft 1 in)



Height: 3.600 m (11 ft 10 in)



Wing area: 17 m2 (180 sq ft)



Empty weight: 2,200 kg (4,850 lb)



Max takeoff weight: 3,030 kg (6,680 lb)



Fuel capacity: 230 kg (510 lb)



14. A more powerful engine was need as the limits of the 1000A were reached, and the BMW 801 was the obvious choice but none could be spared.



15. The prototype was tested competitively against the Heinkel He 112.

Sir; how about the IAR 80? Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: The IAR 80.



The IAR 80 was a RomanianWorld War II low-wing monoplane, all-metal monocoque fighter and ground-attack aircraft. When it first flew, in 1939, it was comparable to contemporary designs being deployed by the airforces of the most advanced military powers such as the Hawker Hurricane and Bf 109E. Production problems and lack of available armament delayed entry of the IAR 80 into service until 1941. It remained in frontline use until May 1945.

Development



In order to ensure that the Royal Romanian Air Force (ARR) could continue to be supplied with aircraft in time of war, the government subsidized the creation of three major aircraft manufacturers in the 1920s and 1930s. The first was Societatea pentru Exploatări Tehnice (SET) which was formed in Bucharest in 1923. Next came Industria Aeronautică Romnă (IAR) which set up shop in Brașov in 1925. Finally there was ntreprinderea de Construcții Aeronautice Romnești (ICAR), which was founded in Bucharest in 1932.



In 1930 the Romanian government issued specifications for a new fighter. Although the government was not anticipating bids from its own aircraft industry, IAR produced several prototypes in response to the tender.



The contract was eventually won by the Polish PZL P.11. The FARR purchased 50 of a modified version called the P.11b, all of which were delivered in 1934. A second contest was also fought between the newer IAR 14 and PZL P.24 designs, and once again the PZL design won a contract for another 50 aircraft.



Although IAR's own designs had not entered production, they nevertheless won the contracts to build PZLs and Gnome-Rhone 14K engines under license. As a result of these and other licence contracts the company had enough money to fund a design studio even if its designs never went into production.



Despite losing to PZL, an IAR design team led by Ion Grosu continued work on fighter designs. He was convinced that the low-wing design of the IAR 24 represented a better design than the PZL gull-wing design, which was often referred to as the "Polish wing". Once again the team studied the new PZL fighter looking to incorporate its best features into a new aircraft, and the result was the IAR 80.

Design



Description: Low-wing monoplane fighter with conventional control surface layout.



Fuselage: The fuselage was circular in cross-section, turning to egg-shaped behind the cockpit where it incorporated a ridge-back. The general fuselage layout was based on the Polish PZL P.24.



Wings: The wings were tapered with rounded tips, the trailing edge angled very slightly forwards. Small flaps ran from the fuselage to a point about 1/3 along the span, where the ailerons started and extended out to the rounded wingtips.



Other details: A bubble canopy was fitted, sliding to the rear to open, providing excellent visibility except over the nose due to its rearward position. A conventional tailwheel landing gear was used, with the main gear wide-set and retracting inward, with a non-retractable tail skid.





The semi-monocoque tail was copied directly from the P.24. The fuselage from the engine back to the cockpit was new, consisting of a welded steel tube frame covered with duralumin sheeting. The wings were mounted low and were of the same design as those used on the early IAR 24, which had competed with the P.24.



According to one source,] the wing profile was taken directly from the Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bomber, in service with the FARR at the time, as the design team lacked the time for wing section studies. As a result, the profile was less favorable for higher speeds, but gave the aircraft more maneuverability. This is highly unlikely as the contract for the SM.79B licence was signed on October 1, 1938, roughly one year after the I.A.R. 80 prototype was completed.



The cockpit's interior, instruments, and gunsight were imported from foreign suppliers. This effort to aggregate a fighter from various sources was a result of the last-minute demands for a frontline fighter.



A Luftwaffe major who tested it in March 1941 had this to say about the IAR 80:



"Takeoff and landing are very good. It's 20–30 km/h slower than the Bf 109E. The climb to 5,000 meters is equivalent. In a dogfight, the turns are also equivalent, although the long nose reduces the visibility. In a dive it's outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator. It's a fighter adequate to modern needs.
Old 04-22-2021, 11:42 AM
  #19632  
LaRebel24
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Transylvania , LA
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

We have a winner!!!

Take it away Ernie.
Old 04-22-2021, 03:45 PM
  #19633  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by LaRebel24 View Post
We have a winner!!!

Take it away Ernie.
Sir; I will do so, probably tomorrow morning. Good question on your part; and I will try to do as well. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 04-22-2021, 04:11 PM
  #19634  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,560
Likes: 0
Received 86 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Good question on your part; and I will try to do as well. Thanks; Ernie P.
Talk about an understatement. You've been twisting our brains into knots for ages and you "will try to do as well"? Are you kidding me?
BTW, LaRebel24, I didn't have a clue as to what plane you were doing. I knew the Polish Air Force had been pretty much destroyed in the first days of the German invasion but I didn't know the Luftwaffe had access to flyable captured fighters. It might have been interesting to see what would have been the results if the Soviet army hadn't attacked from the Polish forces rear and forced them to surrender within a few weeks
Old 04-22-2021, 07:31 PM
  #19635  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
Talk about an understatement. You've been twisting our brains into knots for ages and you "will try to do as well"? Are you kidding me?
BTW, LaRebel24, I didn't have a clue as to what plane you were doing. I knew the Polish Air Force had been pretty much destroyed in the first days of the German invasion but I didn't know the Luftwaffe had access to flyable captured fighters. It might have been interesting to see what would have been the results if the Soviet army hadn't attacked from the Polish forces rear and forced them to surrender within a few weeks
Well, then; let's see if I can do it again. (-: Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was produced in very small numbers.



2. And it wasnt because the plane wasnt well built or couldnt do the job it was designed to do.



3. It was simply because circumstances and needs changed.

Old 04-22-2021, 10:16 PM
  #19636  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,560
Likes: 0
Received 86 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

SR-71 Blackbird
Old 04-23-2021, 05:55 AM
  #19637  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
SR-71 Blackbird
Hydro Junkie; a good guess, but not where we're headed. Here's a bonus clue for your effort, and a morning clue as well. Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was produced in very small numbers.



2. And it wasnt because the plane wasnt well built or couldnt do the job it was designed to do.



3. It was simply because circumstances and needs changed.



4. The numbers produced were small enough that the history is known of every plane produced.



5. In fact, all of the planes had individual names.

Old 04-23-2021, 08:19 AM
  #19638  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was produced in very small numbers.



2. And it wasn’t because the plane wasn’t well built or couldn’t do the job it was designed to do.



3. It was simply because circumstances and needs changed.



4. The numbers produced were small enough that the history is known of every plane produced.



5. In fact, all of the planes had individual names.



6. Names of places and gods.
Old 04-23-2021, 08:38 AM
  #19639  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

How about the Martin Mars?
Old 04-23-2021, 10:51 AM
  #19640  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
How about the Martin Mars?
Al; I figured you'd nail this one pretty quickly, but not quite this quickly. The Martin Mars planes were the largest flying boats produced by the allies in WWII. They were great planes; but the days of large seaplanes were about over when they were first designed. Still, they had very long, and very valued, service as fire fighting water planes for several decades. And their service may not yet be over!

You got it, Al; so you are now up. Please post your question for us. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was produced in very small numbers.



2. And it wasnt because the plane wasnt well built or couldnt do the job it was designed to do.



3. It was simply because circumstances and needs changed.



4. The numbers produced were small enough that the history is known of every plane produced.



5. In fact, all of the planes had individual names.



6. Names of places and gods.



7. In a kind of strange twist, the plane isnt well known today. Although, if you show a photo to almost anyone, they would probably say Yeah; Ive seen that plane.



8. Some of the planes were lost in military service to various causes.



9. The plane served well in military service.



10. And most of them had long careers in civilian service after they were retired.



11. They served, in all capacities, for at least 70 years.



12. Two still exist, although they are currently non-operational.



13. The original mission of the aircraft was to be long range patrol.



14. But they were utilized as transport aircraft.



15. The design was essentially a scaled up version of an earlier aircraft by the same company.



16. Development began in the late 1930s.



17. With the last of the aircraft delivered in 1947.



18. They were the largest of their type ever produced by the owning country and service.



19. The first aircraft produced was delayed during ground tests by an engine fire.



20. Nevertheless, the ordering service was happy with the first aircraft and placed an order for twenty additional aircraft.



21. The first aircraft was lost in an accident only a few weeks after it first flew.



22. The first of the production aircraft wasnt produced until late in WWII.



23. The end of the war resulted in the owning service reducing their order to only those five aircraft then under production.



24. The five production aircraft served during WWII, ferrying supplies to Pacific islands.



25. One of these aircraft was lost to an engine fire, although the crew successfully escaped the fire.



26. The remaining four aircraft served well, making routine deliveries until the mid-1950s.



27. The last of the production aircraft featured improved engines, allowing a higher payload.



28. This aircraft set a new world record for passenger load.



29. All the aircraft were retired in the mid-1950s; and were stored, awaiting the scrapyard.



30. However, a bid was made by a foreign company which wanted the aircraft for a new purpose.



31. All four remaining aircraft, and all their (very large) inventory of spare parts, were purchased and they were flown to the conversion facility in the foreign country.



32. Over a period of some years, all four were converted for the new mission.



33. The first of the converted aircraft was lost during operations, with its entire crew.



34. A second was destroyed during a typhoon.



35. The other two aircraft served, performing their missions as needed, for several decades.



36. They also became quite famous by performing at local airshows; demonstrating their abilities to perform what was a quite unique civilian mission.



37. As recently as five years ago, at least one of the aircraft was still flying, although its current status is unknown.



38. It is believed the remaining two aircraft are not operational, although efforts are underway for either/both to be sent to museums.







Answer: The Martin JRM Mars



The Martin JRM Mars is a large, four-engined cargo transportflying boat designed and built by the Martin Company for the United States Navy during World War II. It was the largest Alliedflying boat to enter production, although only seven were built. The United States Navy contracted the development of the XPB2M-1 Mars in 1938 as a long-range ocean patrol flying boat, which later entered production as the JRM Mars long-range transport.



Four of the surviving aircraft were later converted for civilian use to firefighting water bombers. Two of the aircraft still remain based at Sproat Lake just outside of Port Alberni, British Columbia, although neither are operational.


Design and development



The Glenn L. Martin Company scaled up their PBM Marinerpatrol bomber design to produce the prototype XPB2M-1 Mars. The XPB2M-1 was launched on 8 November 1941. After a delay caused by an engine fire during ground runs, the aircraft first flew on 23 June 1942. After flight tests with the XPB2M between 1942 and 1943, she was passed on to the Navy. The original patrol bomber concept was considered obsolete by this time, and the Mars was converted into a transport aircraft designated the XPB2M-1R. The Navy was satisfied with the performance, and ordered 20 of the modified JRM-1 Mars. The first, named Hawaii Mars, was delivered in June 1945, but with the end of World War II the Navy scaled back their order, buying only the five aircraft which were then on the production line. Though the original Hawaii Mars was lost in an accident on the Chesapeake Bay a few weeks after it first flew, the other five Mars were completed, and the last delivered in 1947.


Operational history


U.S. Navy service





JRM-1 BuNo 76820, Philippine Mars taking off from San Francisco Bay, 1946



Named the Marianas Mars, Philippine Mars, Marshall Mars, Caroline Mars, and a second Hawaii Mars, the five production Mars aircraft entered service ferrying cargo to Hawaii and the Pacific Islands on 23 January 1944. The last production airplane (the Caroline Mars) was designated JRM-2, powered by 3,000 hp (2,200 kW) Pratt & Whitney R-4360 engines, and featured a higher maximum weight and other improvements. On 4 March 1949, the Caroline Mars set a new world passenger load record by carrying 269 people from San Diego to Alameda, CA. On 5 April 1950, the Marshall Mars was lost near Hawaii when an engine fire consumed the airplane after her crew had evacuated. The remaining "Big Four" flew record amounts of Naval cargo on the San Francisco-Honolulu route efficiently until 1956, when they were beached at NAS Alameda.


Civilian use



In 1959, the remaining Mars aircraft were to be sold for scrap, but a Canadian company, Forest Industries Flying Tankers (FIFT), was formed and bid for the four aircraft and a large spares inventory. The company represented a consortium of British Columbia forest companies, and the bid was accepted and the sale completed in December 1959. The four aircraft were flown to Fairey Aviation at Victoria, British Columbia, for conversion into water bombers. The conversion involved the installation of a 6,000 imp gal (27,000 l; 7,200 US gal) plywood tank in the cargo bay with retractable pick-up scoops to allow uploading of water while the aircraft was taxiing. The scoops allowed 30 tons of water to be taken on board in 22 seconds. Later some of the hull fuel tanks were replaced with water tanks.



The Marianas Mars crashed near Northwest Bay, British Columbia, on 23 June 1961 during firefighting operations; all four crew members were lost. Just over a year later, on 12 October 1962 while parked onshore at the Victoria airport, the Caroline Mars was damaged beyond repair by Typhoon Freda when she was blown 200 yards, breaking her back. The Hawaii Mars and Philippine Mars had their conversion into water bombers advanced and entered service in 1963. They appeared at local airshows, demonstrating their water-dropping ability. Flying Tankers Inc. flew the water bombers to hot spots around the province when a need developed, such as in August 2003, when a large forest fire threatened the outskirts of Kelowna, British Columbia.



On 10 November 2006, TimberWest Forest Ltd. announced they were looking for buyers of the Mars. A condition of sale was that the purchaser would have to donate one plane back to Port Alberni when they were retired, as a historic attraction. The Glenn L Martin Maryland Aviation Museum and British Columbia Aviation Council initiated a joint effort to preserve the aircraft, one for display in Maryland and the other at the current location in Canada. On 13 April 2007, TimberWest announced the sale of both aircraft to Coulson Forest Products, a local forestry company in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The two surviving tankers are presently operated by Coulson Flying Tankers and are based and maintained at Sproat Lake near Port Alberni. On 25 October 2007, the Hawaii Mars ("Redtail") arrived at Lake Elsinore in southern California, on a private contract, to assist with firefighting efforts at the California wildfires of October 2007. Meanwhile, the Philippine Mars had been undergoing "extensive maintenance and renovation" and was expected to be ready to fly again by 2010. As of 13 August 2009, the Hawaii Mars was in service fighting the La Brea fire east of Santa Maria in Southern California.



The aircraft can carry 7,200 U.S. gallons (27,276 litres) of water and each deployment can cover an area of up to 4 acres (1.6 hectares). The aircraft can also carry up to 600 U.S. gallons (2,270 litres) of foam concentrate for gelling the load drop.[10] They are mainly used to fight fires along the coast of British Columbia and sometimes in the interior. As of July 29, 2010, the Martin Mars was being used to fight the Mason Lake/Bonaparte Lake fire north of Kamloops.[11]



On 23 August 2012, the Coulson Group announced that the Philippine Mars, due to its lack of use for five years, would be retired and flown to the National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida to become a static exhibit. The aircraft was repainted to its original U.S. Navy colors and was to have been delivered to the museum in November 2012. After many delays, the trade deal of transferring the aircraft to the museum was put on hold by the Navy in June 2016, pending the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election.



On 10 May 2013, the B.C. provincial government announced that the Hawaii Mars would no longer be placed on contract after the 2013 season, due to not having been used to fight any B.C. fires for two years and the operation of newer and more versatile aircraft by the Coulson group including a Lockheed C-130 Hercules converted to firefighting use. Although Coulson stated that the Hawaii Mars has been under numerous recent upgrades to make it safer and more reliable, no buyers have come forward to purchase the aircraft. Coulson also cautioned against any plans to open the aircraft as a tourist attraction because of the 2013 closure of the Flying Tankers Bomber Base Museum from poor attendance.



In May 2015, the Hawaii Mars received a small contract to be used briefly for training Chinese pilots. This was done using the Martin Mars to evaluate against civil certification regulations by The International Test Pilot School, on how to handle such a large amphibious aircraft. These pilots will be involved with the Chinese state owned Aviation Industry Corporation of China as they get ready to launch their forthcoming AVIC TA-600 airplane. Subsequently, in July 2015, the airplane was put back in service after public outcry, being awarded a 30-day contract from the BC Government to help with a particularly bad fire season.



In 2016, the Hawaii Mars made its first appearance at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh in hopes of being sold or leased to a new home or business. One of the pilots on the way to Oshkosh was well-known Kermit Weeks. According to the Smithsonian Channel episode of Mighty Planes Martin Mars, only one Martin Mars is now flying.


Variants



XPB2M-1

Model 170 prototype long-range patrol flying boat powered by four Wright R-3350-8 piston engines, one built, converted to XPB2M-1R.



XPB2M-1R

Prototype converted in December 1943 as a prototype transport version, armament removed, installation of additional cargo hatches and cargo loading equipment, existing hatches were enlarged and the decking was reinforced.



JRM-1

Model 170A, production long range transport variant, originally 20 aircraft ordered later reduced to six. Single-tail design, and having a longer hull with fewer bulkheads and a larger maximum take-off weight. It had also been fitted with equipment for overhead cargo handling and was powered by four Wright R-3350-24WA Cyclone engines with 4-bladed propellers, five built, surviving four converted to JRM-3.



JRM-2

The last JRM-1 on order was completed as the JRM-2 with the engines changed to 3,000 hp Pratt & Whitney R4360-4T engines with 4-blade, 16 ft, 8 in diameter Curtiss Electric propellers. Gross weight increased by 20,000 lb.



JRM-3

Model 170B, conversion of the remaining four JRM-1s re-engined with 2,400 hp Wright R3350-24WA engines turning 16 ft, 8 in Curtiss-Electric props, of which the inboard two engines were fitted with reversible-pitch devices.


Aircraft





JRM-1 Marshall Mars burning near Honolulu, Hawaii, 5 April 1950





The nose of Marshall Mars, photographed by a joint NOAA, University of Hawaii, National Park Service survey in 2004.





JRM-2 Caroline Mars in the St. Johns River at NAS Jacksonville, Florida in 1949



The Old Lady Bureau Number (BuNo) 1520. Ordered on 23 August 1938 and completed as the prototype long-range patrol XPB2M-1, it was first flown on 3 July 1942 and converted in December 1943 to transport variant and designated XPB2M-1R. Assigned initially to VR-8 at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland for crew training, it was later transferred to VR-2 at NAS Alameda, California and scrapped in 1945.



Hawaii Mars I JRM-1 BuNo 76819 first flown on 21 July 1945 and delivered to the United States Navy. It sank on 5 August 1945 in the Chesapeake Bay and was disposed as scrap.



Philippine Mars JRM-1 BuNo 76820, delivered to the USN on 26 June 1946 and assigned to VR-2 at NAS Alameda, California. Converted and re-designated JRM-3. Withdrawn from service on 22 August 1956 and sold in 1959, it was converted to forest fire fighting aircraft and registered CF-LYK (later C-FLYK). The aircraft continued to fly with Flying Tankers Incorporated until she and the Hawaii Mars were purchased in 2007 by the Coulson Group. The Philippine Mars has not flown on fires since the summer of 2006 and was repainted to original U.S. Navy markings in preparation for transfer to be a museum display at the National Naval Aviation Museum at NAS Pensacola, Florida. The plan to ferry her to the museum in April or May 2016 was put on hold. As of September 2020, the Philippine Mars remains stored at the Sproat Lake base along side the Hawaii Mars.



Marianas Mars JRM-1 BuNo 76821, delivered to the USN on 26 February 1946 and assigned to VR-2 at NAS Alameda. Converted and re-designated JRM-3, it was withdrawn from service on 22 August 1956 and sold in 1959. Converted to forest fire fighting aircraft and registered CF-LYJ, the aircraft crashed into Mount Moriarty near Nanaimo, Vancouver Island, on 23 June 1961, when the water drop mechanism failed, leaving the aircraft unable to climb quickly enough to clear a mountain. In the ensuing crash, the crew of four were killed.



Marshall Mars - JRM-1 BuNo 76822, delivered to the USN, converted and re-designated JRM-3. It was destroyed by an engine fire and sank on 5 April 1950 off Diamond Head, Oahu, Hawaii.



Hawaii Mars II JRM-1 BuNo 76823, delivered to the USN on 23 April 1946 and assigned to VR-2 at NAS Alameda. Converted and redesignated JRM-3, it was withdrawn from service on 22 August 1956 and sold in 1959. Converted to forest fire fighting aircraft and registered CF-LYL (later C-FLYL), it remains the only aircraft of this type in service and flew with FIFT (Forest Industries Flying Tankers), FTI (Flying Tankers Inc.) and the Coulson Group at Sproat Lake, British Columbia, Canada until 2013 and briefly in 2015. According to aircraft fleet information provided by the Coulson Aviation website, "Coulson Aviation has significantly upgraded the Hawaii, bringing it to the higher aviation and safety standards of modern-day firefighting. The next-generation Hawaii Mars has an EFIS glass cockpit and the ability to stream live data from certain key on-board indication systems. Other data now available from the aircraft include real time flight tracking, load data measuring, aircraft performance statistics, atmospheric condition at drop readings, and accurate drop location reporting. The aircraft also is equipped with a satellite phone and cockpit voice recorder, Coulson Group Vice President Britt Coulson told CNN's Thom Patterson during a tour of the flight deck in 2016.



Caroline Mars JRM-2 BuNo 76824, delivered to the USN on 10 May 1948 and assigned to VR-2 at NAS Alameda. It was sold in 1959 and converted to forest fire fighting aircraft by Forest Industry Flying Tankers. Registered CF-LYM. the aircraft was damaged beyond repair during Typhoon Freda at Victoria, Canada on 12 October 1962.


Specifications (JRM-3 Mars)



Data from Janes Fighting Aircraft of World War II



General characteristics



Crew: four (with accommodations for a second relief crew)



Capacity: JRM Mars - 133 troops, or 84 litter patients and 25 attendants or 32,000 lb (15,000 kg) payload, including up to seven Willys MB jeeps



Water/foam load: Mars waterbomber - 60,000 lb (27,000 kg)



Length: 117 ft 3 in (35.74 m)



Wingspan: 200 ft 0 in (60.96 m)



Width: 13 ft 6 in (4.11 m) Hull beam



Height: 38 ft 5 in (11.71 m) afloat, 48 ft (15 m) beached



Hull draught: 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m)



Wing area: 3,686 sq ft (342.4 m2)



Empty weight: 75,573 lb (34,279 kg)



Gross weight: 90,000 lb (40,823 kg)



Max takeoff weight: 165,000 lb (74,843 kg)



Fuel capacity: Hawaii Mars: 6,485 US gal (24,550 l; 5,400 imp gal) Philippine Mars: 13,200 US gal (50,000 l; 11,000 imp gal)



Powerplant: 4 Wright R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone 18-cylinder radial engines, 2,500 hp (1,900 kW) each



Propellers: 4-bladed Curtiss Electric, 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m) diameter variable-pitch propellers



Performance



Maximum speed: 221 mph (356 km/h, 192 kn)



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



Range: 4,900 mi (8,000 km, 4,300 nmi)



Service ceiling: 14,600 ft (4,500 m)



Drop speed: 138 mph (120 kn; 222 km/h)



Landing approach speed: 115 mph (100 kn; 185 km/h)



Touchdown speed: 92 mph (80 kn; 148 km/h)



Fuel consumption (cruise): 420 US gal (1,600 l; 350 imp gal) per hour



Fuel consumption (operations): 780 US gal (3,000 l; 650 imp gal) per hour



Operations duration (normal): 5 1/2 hours



Area covered, single drop: 3 to 4 acres (1.2 to 1.6 ha)



Drop height: 150 to 200 ft (46 to 61 m)



Full water tank load: 7,200 US gal (27,000 l; 6,000 imp gal)

Old 04-23-2021, 01:07 PM
  #19641  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

The clue about having individual names was what did it for me. There may be other warbirds that fit that clue, but the Mars is the only one I can think of. This quiz will probably go as fast as that one. The challenge is coming up with clues that aren't giveaways but still give people a fair shot at getting it.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Pretty much every design has to be a compromise. This one was less so than most, and in particular less so than the airplanes it faced in combat.

2. Total production was a five-figure number. This was not an obscure airplane.

Last edited by Top_Gunn; 04-23-2021 at 01:44 PM.
Old 04-23-2021, 03:26 PM
  #19642  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,560
Likes: 0
Received 86 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

F4U Corsair
Old 04-23-2021, 06:55 PM
  #19643  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
The clue about having individual names was what did it for me. There may be other warbirds that fit that clue, but the Mars is the only one I can think of. This quiz will probably go as fast as that one. The challenge is coming up with clues that aren't giveaways but still give people a fair shot at getting it.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Pretty much every design has to be a compromise. This one was less so than most, and in particular less so than the airplanes it faced in combat.

2. Total production was a five-figure number. This was not an obscure airplane.
The first plane to come to mind is the FW 190. The second is the Zero. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 04-24-2021, 04:21 AM
  #19644  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Well, that didn't take long. It is the Zero. Fast and maneuverable, but no armor protection for the pilot, slow in a dive and in a high speed dive almost impossible to control, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and a carburetor than wouldn't allow negative-G maneuvers. Even today, you see claims that the Zero was a much better airplane than the Wildcat, but once we figured out that it wasn't a good idea to get into a dogfight with one they were pretty evenly matched. Even in early 1942 Wildcats had a slight edge in victories over the Zero. Here's a concise account of the pros and cons, which despite its own data refers to the Zero as "superior" : https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/...ese-warplanes/
Old 04-24-2021, 04:31 AM
  #19645  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Top_Gunn View Post
Well, that didn't take long. It is the Zero. Fast and maneuverable, but no armor protection for the pilot, slow in a dive and in a high speed dive almost impossible to control, no self-sealing fuel tanks, and a carburetor than wouldn't allow negative-G maneuvers. Even today, you see claims that the Zero was a much better airplane than the Wildcat, but once we figured out that it wasn't a good idea to get into a dogfight with one they were pretty evenly matched. Even in early 1942 Wildcats had a slight edge in victories over the Zero. Here's a concise account of the pros and cons, which despite its own data refers to the Zero as "superior" : https://militaryhistorynow.com/2021/...ese-warplanes/
Al; my only question was what you meant by (para) "less compromise". The Zero was built for long range performance and maneuverability, with few or no compromises. No self sealing gas tanks, no armor and anywhere you hit it, you hit a gas tank. It performed (but not well at higher speeds) very well, but at a heavy cost in vulnerability. Okay; I'll get something up later today or tomorrow. Right now, I'm headed to the flying field. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 04-24-2021, 04:52 AM
  #19646  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 9,560
Likes: 0
Received 86 Likes on 83 Posts
Default

Actually, the A6M was only highly maneuverable below 175 knots. Once it got faster than that, it was a real hand full for the pilot. It also lacked firepower. While it was armed with a pair of 7.7mm machine guns over the nose, it's two 20mm cannon only had 60 rounds each. It also was unable to effectively roll to the right, something that would become a major issue when the Hellcat and Corsair showed up with their considerably better performance. What was discovered at Coral Sea and Midway was once the Japanese pilot had run out of 20mm shells, he had to kill the pilot of the American plane to take it down. The 7.7s just lacked the punch and even a Dauntless Dive Bomber could outgun an A6M after it ran out of cannon shells. Still worse for the Japanese was that, if flown by a competent pilot, the Dauntless could and did down Japanese planes in the same way some of the two seaters could back in WWI. With the rear gunner protecting the rear and sides, the pilot could become a fighter pilot and, at Coral Sea, the Dauntless "Dog Fighter" was deadly to all of the the Japanese planes, including the A6M
Old 04-24-2021, 05:39 AM
  #19647  
Top_Gunn
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Granger, IN
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P. View Post
Al; my only question was what you meant by (para) "less compromise". The Zero was built for long range performance and maneuverability, with few or no compromises. No self sealing gas tanks, no armor and anywhere you hit it, you hit a gas tank. It performed (but not well at higher speeds) very well, but at a heavy cost in vulnerability. Okay; I'll get something up later today or tomorrow. Right now, I'm headed to the flying field. Thanks; Ernie P.
Yes, that was my point. The Zero was designed to be maneuverable and long ranged. That meant it had to be light, so things like armor and firepower were sacrificed to achieve that goal. The Wildcat was a much more balanced design, and, in my opinion anyway, at least as good an airplane if not better.
Old 04-24-2021, 11:46 AM
  #19648  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Okay; new question and a new opportunity to excel. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft served the armed forces of three countries.



2. And none of them were the country of origin.

Old 04-25-2021, 03:42 PM
  #19649  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Sorry, guys; a long day. So here's three new clues at once. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft served the armed forces of three countries.



2. And none of them were the country of origin.



3. It served with more than one service in one of those countries.



4. It.was considered to be fast for its day.



5. And quite maneuverable.

Old 04-26-2021, 01:55 AM
  #19650  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft served the armed forces of three countries.



2. And none of them were the country of origin.



3. It served with more than one service in one of those countries.



4. It.was considered to be fast for its day.



5. And quite maneuverable.



6. It was considered to be a fairly typical aircraft of its type.


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.