Sorry to be slow, guys; but things have been busy lately. This one is a bit unusual, but we're all used to that. I hope you enjoy the ride. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.

How about the F-102? Figure I might as well get the ball rolling :rolleyes:

Not the F-102, Sir; although that isn't a bad answer. And, of course, you receive a bonus clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.

Would I have been closer if I had said the F-4 Phantom? I thought about the B-70 but it never got past a "Y"

F4U Corsair

Sparky

Sir; the F-4 would have been no closer that the F-102 in any significant sense. Nor is it the Corsair. So here's a morning clue and a bonus for Sparky. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.

U-2 Dragon Lady?

Sir; the U-2 was never fast enough to be in the same league as our subject aircraft. But you do get a bonus clue to aid your research. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.

I was going to say the RA5C Vigilante but it was flown more than that over Viet Nam

My, my, my... The fish are certainly biting this morning. No, not the Vigilante, Sir; but here's another bonus clue to reward your efforts. Thanks; Ernie P.


(BTW, Al; do certain clues look familiar? Or at least similar?)



What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.

Oh yeah. I've been thinking about this, without success, since before you began the quiz.

Afternoon clue. And I'm happy to be keeping Al amused. Thanks; Ernie P.


Al; do certain clues look familiar?



What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.

Evening clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.



9. Well, that and killing a crewmember and spreading very expensive aircraft debris over a large area.

Morning clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.



9. Well, that and killing a crewmember and spreading very expensive aircraft debris over a large area.



10. Our subject aircraft was designed by a very well-known designer.

Afternoon clue. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.



9. Well, that and killing a crewmember and spreading very expensive aircraft debris over a large area.



10. Our subject aircraft was designed by a very well-known designer.



11. One considered to be among the very best.

Okay Ernie, I think your clue 2 is sending me in the wrong directions.
When you refer to the "X" planes, the Bell X-1(flown by Chuck Yeager) only just topped the speed of sound while the much later X-15 is the fastest aircraft(or should I say "manned missile") ever build. That gives quite a range of speeds to look at

No problem, Sir. I'm happy to explain. This plane was faster than the X-1 by a bunch; and slower than the X-15. But it was as fast, or faster, than anything ever deployed operationally. IOW, it was FAST! Maybe this evening clue will help you narrow the field a bit. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.



9. Well, that and killing a crewmember and spreading very expensive aircraft debris over a large area.



10. Our subject aircraft was designed by a very well-known designer.



11. One considered to be among the very best.



12. And he led a renowned design team.

M-21/d-21

You got it, Sir; although I only needed the D-21 part of the answer. This is a fascinating story, an offshoot of the Oxcart/SR-71 story. The interesting thing is, no one has ever actually owned up to just how fast the D-21 could travel, or how high it could fly. Okay, stang151; you have the floor and we are all waiting for your question. Thanks; Ernie P.


What warbird do I describe?



1. This aircraft was never the fastest thing in the air.



2. But it was about the fastest thing of its day, outside the “purely experimental, X-plane type” of aircraft.



3. It was an operational aircraft.



4. In addition to being fast, it had a very high operational ceiling.



5. It was unarmed.



6. It was used on operational missions a total of four times.



7. And all of them were unsuccessful.



8. Which pretty much ended our subject aircraft’s active life.



9. Well, that and killing a crewmember and spreading very expensive aircraft debris over a large area.



10. Our subject aircraft was designed by a very well-known designer.



11. One considered to be among the very best.



12. And he led a renowned design team.



13. One noted for its ability to fabricate complex structures.



14. And this aircraft was certainly complex, in many ways.



15. Ironically, our subject aircraft was first considered after the highly publicized loss of another aircraft.



16. Another aircraft also designed by this designer and his design team.



17. Our subject aircraft was almost literally designed around the engine.



18. From concept to first flight took less than 3-1/2 years.



19. The first flight was successful, although a bit hair raising for those personally involved.



20. A second flight took place less than two months later.



21. The second flight was successful, and our subject hit the altitude and speed called for in its design specs.



22. Unfortunately, a pump failure led to the loss of the aircraft, though no one was hurt.



23. Less than two months later, a third flight took place. The aircraft went through a complete simulated mission profile without a hitch; although an electronics failure prevented it from dropping its payload.



24. The fourth flight, less than two months later, was disasterous.



25. Two aircraft were lost and one crew member killed.



26. More than a year passed before our subject flew again.



27. Several major changes were made in the planned deployment of the aircraft.



28. Although the changes to the aircraft itself were less complex.



29. The first flight after the changes again resulted in the loss of the aircraft, due to a simple stripped nut.



30. The next four flights all resulted in the loss of the aircraft, although, again, no one was hurt in the losses.



31. The next flight was successful in every way.



32. The aircraft flew a complete simulated mission profile with no problems.



33. The next flight used an actual mission profile, to demonstrate the aircraft’s capabilities; although it was flown over friendly territory. It failed.



34. The next two flights were judged to be successful.



35. And thus the decision was made to make the aircraft operational.



36. Four missions were attempted.



37. All of them failed.











Answer: The Lockheed D-21.















The Lockheed D-21 is an American supersonicreconnaissancedrone. The D-21 was initially designed to be launched from the back of an M-21 carrier aircraft, a variant of the Lockheed A-12 aircraft. The drone had maximum speed in excess of Mach 3.3 (2,200 miles per hour; 3,600 kilometers per hour) at an operational altitude of 90,000 feet (27,000 meters). Development began in October 1962. Originally known by the Lockheed designation Q-12, the drone was intended for reconnaissance deep into enemy airspace.



The D-21 was designed to carry a single high-resolution photographic camera over a preprogrammed path, then release the camera module into the air for retrieval, after which the drone would self-destruct. Following a fatal accident when launched from an M-21, the D-21 was modified to be launched from a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Several test flights were made, followed by four unsuccessful operational D-21 flights over the People's Republic of China, and the program was canceled in 1971.

Design and development

In the 1960s Lockheed's secret Skunk Works developed the Mach 3 A-12reconnaissance aircraft for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). After the shooting down of the U-2 piloted by Gary Powers in 1960, a number of different concepts were proposed as alternatives. Kelly Johnson, the leader of Skunk Works, developed the concept of a long-range drone that used much of the A-12's technology. In October 1962 the CIA and the United States Air Force (USAF) instructed Lockheed to study a high-speed, high-altitude drone concept. Johnson specified speeds of Mach 3.3–3.5, an operational altitude of 87,000–95,000 feet (27,000–29,000 m), and a range of 3,000 nautical miles (3,500 mi; 5,600 km). It was intended to make a one-way trip, eject its camera payload at the end of the mission for recovery, then self-destruct. It had a double-delta wing similar to the A-12's wing design. The Q-12 was to be air-launched from the back of an A-12, and used key technology from the A-12 project, including titanium construction and radar cross-section reduction design features.



Johnson wanted to power the Q-12 with a ramjet engine built by the Marquardt Corporation for the BoeingCIM-10 Bomarc long-range surface-to-air missile. Marquardt and Lockheed had already collaborated on several programs and had a close working relationship. The engine, the RJ43-MA-11, required modification, since it was only designed to burn as long as the missile needed to hit a target, while the Q-12's engine needed to operate at high temperatures for at least an hour and a half at high altitudes. The modified engine was designated RJ43-MA20S-4.



A full-scale mockup of the Q-12 was ready by 7 December 1962, and had already undergone preliminary tests to measure its radar cross-section. Marquardt had also successfully tested the modified RJ-43 in its wind tunnel in the meantime. However, the CIA was not enthusiastic about the Q-12, mostly because the agency was overextended at the time with U-2 missions, getting the A-12 up to speed and covert operations in Southeast Asia. The USAF, however, was interested in the Q-12 as both a reconnaissance platform and a cruise missile and the CIA finally decided to work with the USAF to develop the new drone. Lockheed was awarded a contract in March 1963 for full-scale development of the Q-12.



The camera and its film magazines with an inertial navigation system were carried in a cramped "Q-bay" below the drone's air intake. These components were built into a module that fit into the bay and was known as a "hatch". The hatch would be ejected at the end of the mission and then snagged out of the air by a JC-130 Hercules, a technique that had been developed by the USAF to recover film canisters from satellites. If the C-130 missed, the hatch was equipped with flotation devices so it could be recovered by ship if released over water. Honeywell built the avionics systems; new construction techniques and materials had to be developed for the systems to withstand the high temperatures, extreme vibrations and lack of space in the D-21.



In late 1963 the project was named Tagboard; the Q-12 was re-designated D-21 while the A-12 version launcher became M-21 (D- for "daughter" and M- for "mother"). Two of the original 18 A-12 aircraft were designated as M-21s with serial numbers 60-6940 and 60-6941. The M-21 was a two-seat version of the A-12, with a pylon on the fuselage centerline between the vertical stabilizers to carry the drone in a nose-up attitude.

Testing and carrier change

A D-21 mounted on an M-21 began captive flight-testing on 22 December 1964. Aerodynamic covers were initially placed over the D-21's intake and exhaust to reduce drag, but had to be removed after the first few tests, as no way of discarding them at Mach 3 without damaging the drone or carrier plane could be devised.



The D-21 was first launched from an M-21 on 5 March 1966. The drone was released but stayed close to the M-21's back for a few seconds, which seemed like "two hours" to the M-21 crew. A second launch took place on 27 April 1966; the D-21 reached its operational altitude of 90,000 ft (27,000 m) and speed of over Mach 3.3 (2,200 mph; 3,600 km/h), though it was lost due to a hydraulic pump failure after a flight of over 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi; 2,200 km). The USAF's interest in the program continued and more D-21s were ordered after the second launch. A third flight took place on 16 June with the D-21 flying 1,550 nmi (1,800 mi; 2,900 km) through its complete flight profile, though its camera hatch was not released due to an electronics failure.



The fourth and final launch from an M-21 on 30 July ended in disaster. Unlike the three previous launches this one was performed straight and level, not in an outside loop to assist in the separation of the drone from the aircraft. The D-21 suffered engine problems and struck the M-21's tail after separation, leading to the destruction of both aircraft. The two crew ejected and landed at sea. The pilot, Bill Park, survived, but the Launch Control Officer, Ray Torrick, drowned.



Following the accident, Johnson suggested launching the D-21 from the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber and adding a solid rocket booster to get it up to speed. The drone was modified by adding attachment points on its spine to mate with the carrying pylon on the B-52 and its belly attachment points were adapted to accommodate the rocket booster necessary to increase its speed and allow its ramjet to operate. Its vertical stabilizer was increased in size by approximately 20%. The modified drone version was designated D-21B (there was no D-21A). Two B-52Hs were modified to carry a pair of drones each by means of two large underwing pylons that replaced the smaller pylons used for the AGM-28 Hound Dog cruise missiles. The tail gunner's and electronic warfare officer's stations were replaced with two launch control stations. Command and telemetry systems were added, and high-speed cameras were installed to track the drones as they separated from the pylons. The launch control officer on the B-52H could communicate with the D-21B and could make it self-destruct.



The solid-propellant rocket booster was both larger and heavier than the drone; it was 44 feet 4 inches (14 m) long and weighed 13,286 pounds (6,000 kg). It had a folding tail fin on the bottom to stabilize it while the rocket was firing. The booster had a burn time of 87 seconds and a thrust of 27,300 pounds-force (121 kN). During ground handling everyone within 25 feet (7.6 m) was required to wear anti-static straps to prevent any discharge of static electricity that might ignite the booster.



The first attempted launch of a D-21B was on 28 September 1967, but the drone fell off the B-52's launch pylon due to a stripped nut on the pylon before the aircraft reached its intended launch point. Johnson admitted that the incident was "very embarrassing". Three more launches were performed from November 1967 through January 1968. None were completely successful, so Johnson ordered his team to conduct a thorough review before renewing launch attempts. The next launch was on 10 April 1968. It also failed as the engine did not ignite. On 16 June the D-21B finally made a completely successful flight; it flew at the specified altitude and course for its full range, and the hatch was recovered. The next two launches were failures, followed by another successful flight in December. A test in February 1969 to check the inertial navigation system using an actual mission profile was a failure. The next two flights in May and July succeeded.

Operational history

Four operational missions with the D-21B took place under the codename of Senior Bowl. These were conducted over the People's Republic of China from 9 November 1969 to 20 March 1971 to spy on the Lop Nor nuclear test site. The USAF's 4200th Support Squadron, based at Beale Air Force Base, California, flew the missions, usually from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.[19]



The Chinese government never reported spotting the D-21B in flight. The first one failed to turn around and continued straight on, crashing in the Soviet Union. Another test flight was conducted on 20 February 1970 in a successful attempt to correct any problems. The second operational mission, however, was not until 16 December 1970. The D-21B reached Lop Nor and returned to the recovery point, but the hatch had a partial parachute failure and was lost at sea with its photographs.[17]



During the third operational mission, on 4 March 1971, the D-21B flew to Lop Nor and returned, and released the hatch, which deployed its parachute, but the midair recovery failed and the hatch fell into the water. The destroyer that tried to retrieve the hatch ran it down and it sank. The fourth, and last, operational flight of the D-21B was on 20 March 1971. It was lost over China on the final segment of the route over China's Yunnan province; wreckage was found by local authorities. In 2010, after being in the junkyard of the China Aviation Museum for years, the wreckage was moved to the exhibition area.



On 23 July 1971, the D-21B program was canceled due to its poor success rate, the introduction of a new generation of photo reconnaissance satellites, and President Richard Nixon's rapprochement with China.[23] A total of 38 D-21 and D-21B drones had been built, 21 of which were expended in launches. The remaining 17 were initially stored at Norton Air Force Base, California, then moved to the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base "boneyard" near Tucson, Arizona,[24] in 1976 and 1977. With the base open to the public, the D-21 drones were quickly spotted and photographed. The Air Force called them GTD-21Bs with the GT standing for Ground Training.[25]



The fate of the D-21 that had disappeared on the first operational flight was finally revealed in February 1986 when an official from the CIA returned a panel to Ben Rich that he had been given by a Soviet KGB agent. The drone had self-destructed over Siberia and the Soviets had recovered the wreckage.[26] The Tupolev design bureau reverse-engineered the wreck and produced plans for a Soviet copy, named the Voron (Raven), but it was never built.[27]



In the late 1990s NASA considered using a D-21 to test a hybrid rocket-based combined cycle engine, which operates as a ramjet or rocket, depending on its flight regime. Ultimately NASA used a derivative of the agency's X-43A hypersonic test vehicle for the experiments.

Specifications (D-21)

D-21 and D-21B without booster

·

· Wingspan: 19 ft 0.25 in (5.8 m)

·

·

Length: 42 ft 10 in (13.1 m)

·

· Height: 7 ft 0.25 in (2.1 m)

·

· Launch weight: 11,000 lb (5,000 kg)

·

· Maximum speed: Mach 3.35 (2,300 mph; 3,600 km/h; 2,000 kn) (conversions estimated at the service ceiling altitude)

·

· Service ceiling: 95,000 ft (29,000 m)

·

· Range: 3,000 nmi (3,500 mi; 5,600 km)

·

· Engine: 1 x Marquardt RJ43-MA-20S4ramjet, 1,500 lbf (6.7 kN)

Wow , OK . The first 5 clues ,and the ones about the design team, pointed to the A-12/ SR 71 projects. The ones about the failed missions stumped me until I remembered the M-21/D-21 crash(s) which took the life of the LCO. There is a short on u tube that shows the release and brake-up of the pair. Not one of the Skunk Works finest projects, but at the time and the technology involved, still pretty impressive. I will try to get something up by tomorrow.

Stang151; you are up, buddy. Please post your question and first clue(s). Thanks; Ernie P.

OK here we go.

Looking for the name of a warbird.

1. Was ment to be an interim between a proven but ageing design and a much better follow-on.

2. Not considered worth the effort for full production because of the small increase in performance.

3. Included a drag reducing design for the cockpit area that was considered for the original but rejected by the " High Command" as too radical.

Boy, that second clue sure sounds familiar; maybe because there were several "follow-ons" that fit that description. Well, the first one that came to mind was the various experimental P-38's variants that were built. In addition to the "unwanted" last variant of the standard P-38, there was the XP-49 and XP-58. Thanks; Ernie P.


Answer: P-38 variants (XP-49 and XP-58 Chain Lightning)



The Lockheed XP-49 (company Model 522) was an advancement on the P-38 Lightning for a fighter in response to U.S. Army Air Corps proposal 39-775. Intended to use the new 24-cylinder Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine, this proposal, which was for an aircraft substantially similar to the P-38, was assigned the designation XP-49, while the competing Grumman Model G-46 was awarded second place and designated XP-50.

History

Ordered in October 1939 and approved on January 8, 1940, the XP-49 was to feature a pressurized cockpit and armament of two 20 mm (0.79 in) cannon and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. Two months into the contract, a decision was made to substitute the Continental XI-1430-1 (or IV-1430) for the X-1800. The XP-49, 40-3055, first flew on 11 November 1942. The prototype force-landed on 1 January 1943, when the port landing gear failed to lock down due to combined hydraulic and electrical system failures.[1] The XP-49 next flew 16 February 1943, after repairs were made. Preliminary flight data showed performance was not sufficiently better than the production P-38, especially given the questionable future of the XI-1430 engine, to warrant disruption of the production line to introduce the new model aircraft.[citation needed] Consideration of quantity production was therefore abandoned.



The aircraft was flown to Wright Field, and after various problems, further work on the XP-49 was halted, and Lockheed focused their energies on improving the P-38 instead.







The Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning was an American long-range fighter developed during World War II. Although derived from the successful P-38 Lightning, the XP-58 was plagued by technical problems with its engines that eventually led to the project's cancellation.

Design and development

The XP-58 was a Lockheed Aircraft Company funded initiative to develop an improved Lightning as a long-range fighter following the release by the U.S. Army Air Corps of the Lightning for sale to Britain on 20 April 1940. Initially, two designs were formulated, both using the Continental IV-1430 engines. One would be a single-seat aircraft with one 20 mm (.79 in) cannon and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The second would be a two-seat aircraft with the addition of a flexible .50 in (12.7 mm) gun at the end of each tail boom.[1]



In July 1940, Lockheed decided to switch to Pratt & Whitney XH-2600 engines as the aircraft would be underpowered with the Continental engines, with the aircraft having two seats and designated "XP-58".[1] However, soon Lockheed was advised the development of the XH-2600 engine was terminated. After consideration of the engine alternatives, the design was changed to use two Wright R-2160 Tornado engines, as well as a change of the rear-facing armament to two turrets, one upper and the other lower on the fuselage, each turret containing two .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. As support equipment for the two crewmen was added, the estimated weight of the XP-58 grew to 34,232 lb (15,527 kg) by August 1941.[2]



In March 1942, the USAAF placed an order for a second XP-58 that would incorporate increased fuel tanks to obtain a range of 3,000 mi (4,800 km). The Air Force were uncertain about the role and armament of the aircraft, and in September 1942, a decision was made to convert the aircraft for a role as a low-altitude attack aircraft, armed with a 75 mm (2.95 in) M5 autocannon. Adequate aircraft were already available for this mission, with the Douglas A-26 Invader and Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly under development. As a result, the second XP-58 was canceled and the role of the design reverted to that of a high-altitude fighter, using large-bore cannon firing high-explosive shells to break up bomber formations.[3][4]



The 37 mm (1.46 in) M4 autocannon was originally selected for a quadruple mount in the nose, but the trajectory of the 37mm shells dropped lower than other weaponry, limiting its effective range. A hydraulically articulated nose that could be bent up to correct this problem was tried, but was dismissed as too complex. Then, a 75 mm (2.95 in) M5 autocannon paired with twin .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns was tried and proved much more successful.

Or maybe the Ju 188?

Yep; definitely on the list. I chose the P-38 because I remember reading about the production delay of three weeks being a big factor. Thanks; Ernie P.