Conference vmszoo::rc

    What was a B40?
    
    	What was it's advantage?
    
    		What was it's disadvantage?
    
    
    
    Get two of the three right and claim the prize...
    
    
    Tom

    
       Sorry, I was offsite on Friday, and unable to respond to the answers
    to my question. It was in fact the Lockheed XC-35. It was "created" in
    1937.  The heavilt braced cabin was sealed with special neoprene tape.

    re: B-40
    
    
    was this the Boeing YB-40?  Was a B-17 modified to carry some ungodly
    number of machine-guns, and supposed to escort B-17 bombers in lieu
    of fighter escort.  Advantage: a lot of concentrated fire-power.  
    Disadvantage: too slow to keep up with bombers?
    
    Marc

    Marc, Has the answers correct.
    
    Take it away Marc.
    
    Tom

    Re: .4433, Dan,
    
    In _that_ case, I owe Jim Lloyd a second apology since I disqualified
    his answer and took the new question mah' ownself.  sorry 'bout that,
    Jim!  You, not Dan W., are the one that still has one coming...jump in
    the next time the forum's open or, the next time I'm up, I'll defer the
    next question to you.
    
    Meanwhile, back to muh' bucket.  "Glub, gurgle, glorf......."
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Name the *last* US fighter to carry *all* it's weapons internally.
    
    just a note:  the two competing ATF prototypes (the Lockeed YF-22A and
    the Northrop YF-23A) are designed to carry all their ordnance
    internally)
    
    Marc

    F-106?
    
    

    
    F-106 it is.  I was hoping someone would fall into the F-111 trap, but
    no such luck :-)
    
    All yours Jim....
    
    Marc

    The Me-109R (or Me-209 V1) set the world's speed record in 1939 at
    469mph! It was a highly modified aircraft which was unsuitable for
    combat (Called a "vicious little brute" by the pilot) and bore
    virtually no resemblance to the fighter.
    
    What was the nearly stock fighter plane which held the world speed
    record immediatley prior to this?  And what was the speed? And who was
    the pilot?
    
    Best two out of three win!!

    
    Heinkel He 100/V-8 at Oranienburg, Germany  30-Mar-1939.  Pilot was
    Flugkapitan Hans Dieterle, speed was 463.92mph/ 746.45km/h.  This
    flight was approx. a month before the Me-109R flight at Augsburg.
    
    BTW, I believe the Me-109R still exists in a museum somewhere, not
    sure where.  I'll look it up tonight.
    
    Marc  

    Righto!
    
    Go for it
    

    This is from Marc.....he sent me a note saying if he got it right, he
    wanted me to post this.
    
    What was the first plane to exceed 1000 mph? 

    Re: .4442,
    
    Well, I might'a guessed the Bell X-2 but my source says the first
    aircraft to set a world speed record over 1000-mph was the Fairey
    Delta-2.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Right you are, The FD.2 Fairey Delta is the answer he had.
    
    Maybe he said jet airplane??
    
    Right, becasue I would have thought the X-2 or the X-1A etc.  Maybe I
    copied it wrong, but that's the answer he was looking for.
    
    
    

    Re: .-1, Jim,
    
    Yeah, after I posted my guess I got to thinking that I was pretty sure
    Yeager hit 1000+ in the X-1 and my source says the fastest speed
    attained by the X-1A was 2.435 which is comfortably above 1000-mph.
    So, there are apparently some qualfiers to the question like, as you
    suggest, "jet" aircraft, "operational" aircraft, etc.
    
    Oh well, moving right along.....
    
    What was the largest research aircraft ever built?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I'll swag the XB70. Not originally intended to be a research ship,
    that's what it ended up being once it was dropped from the bomber
    program.
    
    Steve

    Re: .4446, Steve,
    
    Pretty good SWAG, amigo....that's the guy ah' wuz' 'a lookin' fer'.
    
    Take 'er away, Estevan.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: .4444, others...
    
    yep, I should have been more specific - "jet a/c" would have been my
    choice of qualifiers on the Fairey Delta question.  Sorry...
    
    Marc

    Whoops, I almost forgot it was my question. Well, I've been saving
    one for so long, I've forgotten the details but this will suffice.
    
    The first allied air kill over Europe was credited to the Brits for
    downing what??????
    
    

    Re: .4449, Steve,
    
    Wull', that should be a Bf-109E which was destroyed by the gunner in a
    Fairey Battle over France in the Fall of 1939.  I'd have to check my
    source for details/dates but memory calls this one to mind.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Al, we may have a (not another one) source conflict here, but lets
    let it run a little while longer and see what turns up.
    
    S.

    
    Blackburn Skuas from the H.M.S Ark Royal downed a Do-18 on
    26-Sep-1939.  The four-man crew was rescued by a British
    destroyer, the H.M.S. Somali.
    
    The first German a/c to be shot down over British soil was a
    He-111H-1 destroyed by a  Spitfire over the Firth of Forth on
    16-Oct-1939.
    
    Marc

    Well, I think this is one of those questions that we better throw
    out and get back on track. According to my source, the first kill
    was credited to a British pilot who intercepted a buzz bomb and, 
    being out of amunition, was able to slip his wing under the wing
    of the buzz bomb and send it spiraling into the ground.
    
    Where both answers point to the fall of 1939 and where Al was first
    in with that, I'll credit Al with the correct answer.
    
    Steve

    Re: .-1, Steve,
    
    I'm havin' trouble accepting a buzz-bomb as the first German
    aircraft destroyed since both the V-1 and V-2 were relatively late
    developments, Germany's last gasp wonder weapons, used late in the war
    as desparate attempts to reverse their inevitable defeat.  Can you
    provide more specifics/details as to dates, circumstances, etc.?  I
    can't help but think you may've gotten some facts jumbled together and
    miscumbobulated the result.  :B^)
    
    Anyhoo, thanx for the nod.  I dug out my source and under the bold-type
    heading "The first German aircraft to be shot down by British aircraft
    during the Second World War," the text reads, "was a Messerschmitt
    Bf-109E destroyed by Sgt. F. Letchford, air gunner of Fairey Battle
    number K9243 of No. 88 Squadron, Advanced Air Striking Force of the
    RAF, over France, on 20 September 1939."  All ah' knows is whut' ah'
    reads in the funny papers...."  :B^)
    
    Next question:  The US Navy's first monoplane, carrier based torpedo
    bomber was also the first American Naval aircraft to feature
    hydraulically-operated folding wings.  Name that plane........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    re: buzz-bombs (V1s) - better check your source.  "Buzz-bombs" didn't
    come along until *way* after 1939.  Anyway, let's move on....ready Al?
    
    Marc     

    
    re: .4454  - how 'bout the Douglas TBD Devastator?
    
    Marc

    Al, your no doubt right about my memory. As I said, I had been saving
    it for a loooooonggggg time. All I member is it had something to do
    with a German aircraft flying over Korea sometime during WWI and
    experienced some sort of trouble with it's jet engines causing the
    pilot to have to use the ejection seat and was then captured by the
    Mongolians.

    Re: .4456, Marc,
    
    You got it, pod'nuh, it was the Douglas TBD [devasted] Devastator. 
    First flown in 1935 and delivered to the Navy in 1937, 75 TBD's were on
    strength with the Navy at the time of Midway, June 1942.  Of these, 37
    were lost during Midway, VT-8 (Torpedo Sqdn.-8) being wiped out to the
    last plane and all but one man, Ensign George Gay, who witnessed the
    epic battle floating on a life preserver amidst the Japanese fleet. 
    Another VT was also decimated during the battle and the Devastator was
    removed from service following Midway.  Nice looking ship, though...would 
    make a terrific RC model except the corrugated skin on the wings would
    be a pain to replicate.
    
    Take 'er away, Marc.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    For three years during WW2, the Finns used an American-made fighter
    against the Russians.  It was eventually replaced by Bf-109s.  Name
    this airplane.
    
    Marc

    The immortal F2A Brewster Buffalo
    
    Terry
    

    
    Bingo!  In fact, the *sole* remaining example of a Buffalo is in a
    Finnish museum.  Okey-dokey, Terry...
    
    Marc

    Perhaps the most famous Finnish aero unit of WWII, using both Buffalos
    and Fokker D21's, had an animal painted on the side of their aircraft
    and derived their squadron name from this animal.
    
    Name the animal and the squadron name.
    
    Terry
    

    Re: .-1,
    
    > Bingo!  In fact, the *sole* remaining example of a Buffalo is in a
    > Finnish museum.
    
    And a danged good place for it too; arguably the ugliest fighter,
    certainly the ugliest American fighter, ever built, the immobile
    Buffalo was "Finnished" before it got started. ;b^) The Buffalo actually
    beat out the F4F Wildcat in competition for the Navy contract, though 
    the latter was belatedly accepted by the Navy due to its need for modern 
    fighters.  And a _GOOD_ thing it was that the F4F was accepted; the
    ungainly Buffalo, in like manner to the Devastator, was decimated in
    combat while the Wildcat, still inferior to the Zero, managed to rack
    up a kill:loss ratio of 6.5-to-1.
    
    My C,A,F, buddy, Gerald Martin, who's flown just about every survivng
    type of WW-II fighter known, from P-38's to P-51's to Corsairs to
    Hellcats to Me-109's to Spitfires, ad nauseum, and whose pilots'
    certificate type-rating became so long the FAA abbreviated it, simply,
    to "Any/all high performance, piston-engined aircraft," says without
    hesitation that the ol' Wildcat is by far the sweetest flying fighter
    he's ever flown, bar none!  He says it's a real pilot's airplane,
    smooth and easy but very responsive on the controls, ready to do it's
    pilot's bidding in a heartbeat.  I've watched Gerald wring the C.A.F.'s
    FM-2 (Goodyear built) Wildcat out at numerous airshows and can testify
    that it performs with almost model-like precision.  Great plane!!!
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    HLeLv 24 had diffrent animals depending upon the flight.  One had a
    Lynx and another had a kicking Moose.  The most famous squadron/flight
    was HLeLv 24 /HavLv 31 which had the Black Lynx.  This squadron had
    many aces and is probably the one you're asking for.  The tradition
    continued after the war.
    
    HLeLv 24 flew an interesting assortment of aircraft, from Fokkers to
    Brewsters to Bf 109's to MiG-21's, all wearing the Black Lynx. 

    
    re: the Brewster Buffalo in the Finnish Museum.
    
    It's actualy known as the Valmyet Hunna.  Apparently, the Finns really
    like the Buffalo and started a factory to manufacture their own copy.
    Thier version was made out of wood and used a Russion M-153 (not sure
    of this) engine.  The museum "Buffalo" is one of these Hunnas.  I guess
    no Brewster example exists anymore  (not that Al Casey would care!)
    
    Marc

    Not so...I wish at least one example of every airplane ever built
    existed _somewhere_.  It's sad that so many memorable and even
    not-so-memorable aircraft have been lost forever and, if that's indeed
    the Buffalo's fate, I'm truly sorry to hear it (even though I can't
    stand the airplane).
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    oops...sorry, Al.  My little wise-crack came out wrong.  Instead of
     (not that Al Casey would care!) it should read (not that Al Casey
    would care :-) )  I know you and everybody else in this file shares
    a love of aviation and care deeply about the disappearence of the
    great and not-so-great planes from this world.  Fortunately, unlike
    the redwoods and elephants, replicas can be built...
    
    Marc

    I defense of the lowly Buffalo, the Finns loved it and I read an
    article somewhere that the bad rep and the poor performance in American
    hands at Midway might have been primarily from not understanding how to
    use the plane. The Americans tried to dogfight the Zero, which was not
    a good way to prepare for a dinnre engagement that night. By the time
    we learned that was not the thing to do, the Buffalo had such a bad
    reputation that nobody was willing to try it out.  The Wildcat was a
    bit more rugged, and fewer of them were initially used, so it survidved
    the learning cureve a bit more.  Actually, the Buffalo outperformed the
    Wildcat in every respect, except combat survivability, which is the
    most important.  The Finns didn't fly against Zeros, and they found the
    plane absolutely satisfactory.

    I will accept Mr. Lloyds answer in .4464 as definitive, although
    I  had in mind the kicking mule squadron.
    I have a plastic model of the Fokker D21 with the kicking mule insignia
    sitting on my display shelf, going on 20 years now. Yes, I dust
    it once in a while.
    Take 'er away.
    
    Terry
    

    Was that a mule?   I thought it was a Moose.
    
    That question forced me into the books!! It also piqued my interest in
    the Finnish AF. Quite a variety of a/c and quite a record of successful
    combat in them!!  From a country with fewer people than Manhattan.
    (Isn't the population less than 3 million?)
    
    On similar lines.  
    
    The Brewster Buffalo was used against allied airmen, and it was an
    allied plane and eventually manufactured in Finland.
    
    What American designed plane was used by the Japanese throughout WWII? 
    
    
    
    

    Re: .4467, Marc,
    
    No offense was taken, mi amigo.  I just wanted to set the record
    straight in case anyone took my Buffalo-bashing to mean I wished it
    ill.  As Jim Lloyd points out, the Finns apparently loved it, ugly or
    not, so it must've had its good points.
    
    Editorial: In another topic, moderator Alton Ryder laments that Trivia
    has evolved from a memory game to a test of who's book has the most
    esoteric/obscure facts details.  I suppose that's a natural enough
    evolution after nearly 5000 replies to the topic but I, tend to share
    Alton's lamentations and wish we could return to questions that didn't
    require us to scurry off to our aircraft encyclopedias looking for the
    answer.  I'm not sure how to approach a reform except, perhaps, to ask
    that a questioner try to select a question from his own memory/knowledge 
    base and that guessers at least _try_ to answer from their own memories
    rather than from a book.  If this is subscribed to at some minimum
    level, perhaps we can restore a bit of the memory game feel the topic
    originally had.  I have only 60-days or so left to kind'a guide this
    topic but, with the emergence of active new Triviaphiles like Marc Reid
    and Jim Lloyd, I think I can leave with the knowledge that Trivia will
    be in good hands and will continue to be informative and, above all
    FUN!  'Nuff said.
    
    RE: Current question,
    
    Sheesh, I'm sure I've heard this before but can't bring it clearly to
    mind...I'll guess the ubiquitous Douglas C-47.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Right you are, it was the C-47, called the Topsy
    
    And for the record, I do not look into books for the answers nor the
    questions, unless I state so.
    
    The Finnish emblem, I did.  Nobody was answering it, so I remembered I
    had a little book on the Finnish AF and took a look.  The other replies
    I do purely from memory, and that's why they aren't always correct,
    often some detail missing.
    
    Now, no offense taken from the accusation, I actually take it as
    flattery.
    
    Maybe if we make a rule that if you do go into a book, you say so!  
    
    Like my Dad used to say when playing Solitaire
    
    "If I cheat and admit I cheat, then I didn't really cheat, 'cause I
    know I cheated!"
    
    Or somehting like that!
                           

    Re: .4472, Jim,
    
    _NOW_ I remember where I saw the "Topsy."  The F-Troop newsletter out
    of So. Cal. intermittently runs a page or two on Japanese aircraft of
    WW-II, alphabetically by Allied code name and now I remember being
    surprised, but not so, to see the Japanese used a copy of the C-47
    throughout the war.
    
    Comment: I never intended to "accuse" anyone of book-lookin' and, in
    fact, am not sure I really care that much.  Like Jim Lloyd, I draw from
    my memory everywhere I can and will refer to "my source" whenever I
    find it necessary to use it.  Obviously, we can't enforce any rule
    regarding reference material and I wouldn't want to if we could...that
    would tend to stifle the topic, I fear.  All I'd like to see minimized
    is the kind of question that asks, how many Dzuz fasteners were used to
    secure the panels of a P-69?"  This is so esoteric that only someone
    using the same reference book has any shot at answering correctly. 
    Hope everyone gets my drift...I'm NOT condemning the use of reference
    materials, just asking that questions be kept reasonably "answerable."
    If you can't honestly say that someone might know the answer to a question
    without poring through a stack of books, it probably isn't a good
    question to ask.
    
    OK, onward and upward:  What peculiar feature was used on the landing
    gear of the F8F Bearcat and what was its purpose?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: F8F
    
    ..hmm, the landing gear.  I know that the wingtips were designed to
    break away in the event of excessively high G forces, and if only one
    wingtip broke off, explosive bolts would blow off the other, but I
    don't remember anything special about the landing gear, so I'll SWAG
    that they had self-sealing tires?
    
    Marc

   RE: .-1, MARC,
    
    Nope!  The jettisonable wingtips were, indeed, another unusual feature
    of the Bearcat (would'a made a good trivia question in itself) but the
    gear had an unusual feature to overcome a common problem with most
    late (high-powered) recip powered Navy fighters.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

I think they didn't fit in the wheel wells so that when they
folded up they also had to shorten themselves a few inches.

Well - some plane did that - might have been a Bearcat.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Re: .-1, Kay,
    
    Yer' on the right track, in fact I'll go ahead and give it to ya'.  The
    problem faced by many high-powered, recip engined fighters was that the
    size of the prop forced long landing gears which, then could not be fit
    into the wheel wells and keep the wells within the wings, i.e. not
    extend the wells into the fuselage.
    
    The P-47 is the one yer' thinking of that hydraulically shortened the
    gear some 8" as it retracted.  The Corsair addressed the problem by
    cranking the wing, i.e. designing in the inverted-gull wing) enabling a
    shorter gear strut.  The Bearcat, took a different tack to the same
    end; as the gear began to retract, the top of the strut (pivot point)
    moved outboard about 8" so the gear could be contained completely within
    the wing.
    
    OK, Kay-ster, take 'er away.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

>    Yer' on the right track, in fact I'll go ahead and give it to ya'.  The

The initials used in the designations of World War II Army planes denoted
the purposes for which the planes were designed.  For example the B-19
was a bomber.  But what was the purpose of each of these aircraft:

O-39
TG-3
A-31
AT-9
L-4
UC-78
Z-4
CG-3
R-4

Now to be fair - always repeat the entire list and whom ever gets
the last one wins.  That is if you can think of 8 out of 9
enter that and you have simplified the problem for someone else.
Let's see - how complicated can I make one question?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Re: .4478,

O-39      Observation
TG-3      Training Glider
A-31      Attack
AT-9      Advanced Trainer
L-4       Liaison
UC-78     Utility Cargo
Z-4       Blimp/airship
CG-3      Cargo Glider
R-4       Reconnaisance
                      
    Warning:  Don't necessarily assume my answers are correct.  Some I know
    to be correct; others are SWAG's.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    This has nothing to do with the current question; only to do with the
    stipulation brought forth by the "rat". Al, you say we should use
    memory when humanly or inhumanly possible and, I wholeheartedly agree;
    I haven't looked in a book for any answers here for way over a year and
    that was only to make sure that I remembered something correctly.
    
    However, Al, the question concerning the landing gear of the Bearcat
    was asked just a couple of months ago, if that long. I know because I
    answered it in the notes file (had the right answer, too). NOW, what
    we really need is a increasing-memory-capacity course to get the old
    cells chugging. I think Al and I need to get together and stimulate
    them with Colorado-Kool-Aid. A good memory is not needed if one can
    get corroboration from another kindred spirit, especially when both
    are in their cups.
    
    
    dh

    I agree with .4479 except the R.
    
    Before WWII, R meant Racer, but in the big one it usually meant R =
    Restricted as in RP-35 meant it wasn;t to be used for combat, etc.  
    
    I don't know what it would mean, but I vote for the last entry correct
    except for R = Restricted.
    
    Anyway if he's right, then I don't have any reason or chance, do I?
    

    In note 1.19 Marc Reid asked for examples of the old from-memory
    questions.  I'd answer him except I think we are about to get some real
    live examples aplenty.  Especially since we seem to have picked up some
    participants with rich memories.  If I *ever* get an answer, I'll have
    an example.  "Oh no, not yet another jet seaplane question!"  :-)

    
    Weren't early US helicopters designated by R?  R for Rotorcraft,
    mebbe..?
    
    Marc

>  <<< Note 539.4479 by UPWARD::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572" >>>
>                       -< STARTING THE BALL ROLLING.... >-

>O-39      Observation               Correct
>TG-3      Training Glider           Correct
>A-31      Attack                    Correct
>AT-9      Advanced Trainer          Correct
>L-4       Liaison                   Correct
>UC-78     Utility Cargo             Correct
>Z-4       Blimp/airship             Wrong
>CG-3      Cargo Glider              Correct
>R-4       Reconnaisance             Wrong   (Rotocraft)

Marc Reid is correct - R = Rotocraft.

So if anybody can figure out what a Z-4 is they win - else Marc
takes it away.  Let's say by noon today if nobody posts a guess
Marc take the next question.  Here's a hint - the Z is not used
as the first letter of the aircraft purpose as it was in all the
other examples above.  Not that I could think of any aviation
related things that start with Z:-)

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

>  <<< Note 539.4485 by UPWARD::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572" >>>
>                     -< RE: .-1: HOW 'BOUT ZEPPELIN....?? >-

Gee - the only hint I give is that Z isn't used in the name so what does
he choose - Zeppelin.

You've been eating the wrong kind of cactus cowpoke:-)

Or maybe he was just trying to tell me an aviation related term
that starts with a Z?

Well you Zany Zealot I think I'll go Zing my Zero into todays'
Zephyr and ZigZag Bose till I have to go home and Zap.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Close enough to noon - according to my reference aircraft designated
Z were "Obsolete Aircraft".

I believe Marc has the next question.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    Name the US jet a/c that:
    
    o Earned the Collier Trophy for it's design 
    
    o the Thompson Trophy for it's speed
    
    o was awarded the first ever Bureau of Aeronautics Certificate of Merit
      just for being way cool (my words, not theirs..)
    
    Marc

Re: .4486,
    
>Or maybe he was just trying to tell me an aviation related term
>that starts with a Z?
    
    * ZOUNDS!! You got it, pod'nuh!  You asked fer' it so ah' giv' ya' one.
    
Re: .4487,
    
    Oh sure!  After I gave all but two of 'em.  ;b^)  Seriously, go ahead,
    Marc...as I told Donaldo Huff offline this AM, muh' trivia well's been
    gone to more than once too often and I'm starting back from square one
    for the benefit of the new triviaphiles and to see how many of the old
    un's were payin' attention.  :B^)
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Re: .4488, Marc,
    
    We talkin' _early_ jets or more recent here?  Since I think the
    Thompson's been inert for many years, I'll assume an early jet and,
    though this's just a SWAG, _MY_ vote for excellence in design and "way
    coolness" would go to the Lockheed P/F-80 Shooting Star.  I still think
    it had some of the most graceful lines of any aircraft ever designed.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    re: last
    
    nope, not the P/F-80.  The jet I'm looking for came somewhat later.
    I agree with you about the Shooting Star - beautiful, right up there
    with the Hawker Hunter and the Lear Jet for nice lines..
    
    Marc

Aw Shucks, it was the B-58 Hustler.  My cadet's father was a
flight engineer on that doggie and I spent a whole afternoon
looking at a collection of films on that plane's triumphs.

As for questions, I don't know nothing about airplanes, so if I'm
right, its wild card time.

    
    nice guess!  The B-58 is my *alltime* favorite plane. (I lived on
    Carswell AFB in Ft. Worth from 1960-63 when the Hustler was based 
    there.  My old man was a Flight Engineer (mainly on the B-52, but 
    did ride the '58 once in awhile.  He operated the doppler radar.)
    
    But, sadly, the B-58 is not the plane I'm looking for here.  I'm 
    looking for a fighter.
    
    Marc

    Based on the last guess and my speculation that this ship _might_ have
    won the Thompson Trophy, I'll take a shot at another all-time classic
    design, the North American F-86 Sabre.  In fact, didn't Jackie Cochran
    either win the trophy or set some female land speed record flying the
    Sabre??
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    After looking at Al's repsonse, I remembered Jackie Cochran also
    set a civilian women's speed record in the F-104 (I believe the
    15km record which is flown at about 10000 feet, a little safer than
    on the deck for the absolute record). Toni LeVier, daughter of Tony
    LeVier, flew the bird also, but for what reason, I don't know. Darryl
    Grenemyer (spelling?) got the absolute record for his category on
    the deck in a civilian F-104 made from the wreckages of three AF
    birds. I don't if this even touches on the present question in force.
    
    Don

    
    The plance I'm looking for here is the Chance-Vought F-8 Crusader, but
    the F-86 did win two of the three awards, so to keep things rolling
    along, Al gets the next one.  Okay Al -
    
    Marc

    Re: .-1, Marc,
    
    Well, OK, if that's whut'choo want.  The questioner is entitled to ask 
    another question if no one satisfactorily answers his current one
    y'know.  But, I'll be happy to get the ball rollin' again.....(if'n I
    kin' jes' think of something new - may have to revert to some old stuff
    agin' like Don Huff caught me at last time.)  ;b^)
    
    This shouldn't be too difficult and I don't _think_ it's been asked
    before:  What aircraft holds the absolute speed record for propellor
    (recip) driven seaplanes?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    The Soviet Beriev BE-10?  I know it held some altitude records, maybe
    some speed records too?
    
    Marc

    You did say reciprocating, didn't you?
    
    The it has to be the Macchi-Costoldi MC-72 with ??? Agnelli in 1934 at
    440.??? mph.  Powered by a Fiat (actually 2 Fiat engines coupled to a
    contrarotating prop) at 2300 hp.
    
    A MOST beautiful red and brass (since most of the plane was a radiator)
    twin float seaplane.

    Re: .4499, Jim,
    
    The MC-72 is what I was looking for.  Sorry for being a bit tardy
    responding to the guesses but I couldn't get in to RC_notes for quite
    awhile...kept getting something like "Enqueue total exceeded."
    
    Anyhoo, yer' up, amigo, take 'er away.....
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Speaking of seaplanes
    
    What was the world's fastest flying boat?

    I was going to say the Martin P6M, but I'll guess the Sea Dart instead.

    Quite right.
    
    I was sent a message last night with the next question from Mr. Ryder
    
    List all the pure jet flying boats.
    
    I will sit this one out from fairness
    
    Jim

    Welllll, I'd hafta' argue whether the Sea Dart was a flying boat as it
    used hydro-skis rather than a boat hull.  But, since they've already
    been mentioned (and accepted), I'll offer the P6M, the Sea Dart and the
    Saunders-Roe SR A/1.  It seems there should be more than that but
    that's as many as I can think of.  The C-130 Hercules was modified and
    tested with a flying boat hull but this was strictly a developmental
    exercize and never went operational...besides, it wasn't a "pure" jet.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Three out of four so far for Al
    
    I would count the Sea Dart since it sat in the water (rather deeply
    actually) until speed got up, then the skis took over.  I agree it is a
    bit of a judgement call.  One could make the same argument for the
    Blackburn flying boat with the retractable hull (I forgot the name), I
    guess as well.
    
    There's one more.
    
    Hint:  One up manship!!!

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Say What?
    
    Nevahurdovit!

    Re: .-1,
    
    Wull', you _did_ say think one-upmanship so I figgered' the P7M was
    "one up" from the P6M.  Wrong, huh....??
    
    Ah' gots no more guesses, ah'm afeared.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Well the one missing wa the Russian Beriev M-10.  What I meant by one
    upmanship is the competition between USSR and USA to have every
    conceivable weapon.  If we had the P6M, they had to have one too.  They
    also set a bunch of international payload speed distance records etc.
    for propoganda purposes.
    
    Since Al got 3/4 I thnk he deserves to give us a question.
    
    Go to it!

    OK, Jim, Gracias,
    
    Here's one that should last at least a minute or two:
    
    In 1953, it became the world's first supersonic fighter.  Name that
    plane.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    F-100?

    Re: .4511, Jim,
    
    Yep, that's the one I had in mind.  Quite honestly, I kind'a thought
    there might'a been an earlier example of a supersonic fighter; I know
    a specially prepared Hawker Hunter set an absolute speed record of 727
    mph in 1953 and I'd always thought the Hunter was an earlier design than 
    the Super Sabre.  But, according to the narrative on "Wings" last
    night, the F-100 was the world's first supersonic fighter.  Perhaps
    we're talking "operational aircraft here, not specially prepared ships.
    
    Anyhoo, you got what I wuz' 'a lookin' fer', Jim, so take 'er away......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Re: last-2,
    
    Jim was apparently distracted/prevented from getting back into the file
    to ask a new question yesterday, by work no doubt.
    
    We'll give 'im another hour or two and, if we haven't heard from him by
    then, I'll post a new question to get us movin' agin'.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    OK, we'll let Jim slip in with a freebie at some convenient time but
    we'll move along for now.
    
    For the first 6-weeks of its existence (in the early 50's), the newly 
    formed Air Force Flight Demonstration Team was known by a different
    name.  The team, formed at Luke AFB, Phoenix, Arizona, was then flying
    F-84 Thunderjets and their commanding officer didn't like the name; he
    suggested the name Thunderbirds as he felt it was more descriptive of
    the team itself and was closely associated (as a well known Indian
    symbol) with the southwestern U.S., Arizona slecifically, where the
    team had been born.  Of course, the name was adopted and the rest is
    history.  But, what was the original name by which the Thunderbirds
    were known during its first 6-weeks of existence??
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Acrojets?
    
    Marc

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Well, I'm amazed that I had but one guess on the T-birds question,
    especially from all the scale afficianados out there.  Why, because Ron
    Gillman's Violett F-86 which won Top Gun last year and has received  
    W  I  D  E  coverage in all the magazines is done in the early paint
    scheme of the team name I'm looking for.
    
    Rethinking the question, I'm now inclined that I missed the time period
    during which the original name was used; I said 6-weeks but now tend to
    think it must've been 6-months considering that the team changed from
    F-84's to F-86's under the original name.
    
    At any rate, when first formed, the U.S.A.F Flight Demonstration Team
    which became world famous as the Thunderbirds was known as the
    Skyblazers.  Personally, I'm glad they changed it.  ;b^)
    
    OK, here's another T-birds question.  Part of the T-birds mission is to
    demonstrate the capabilities of the latest, state-of-the-art USAF jet
    fighter so the aircraft flown by the Birds has [almost] always been a
    first line fighter.  However, there was one time when a non-fighter was
    used.  Name the plane and state the reason for this one-time diversion
    from the norm.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I'd swag that the plane is either a C130 or a C5A. Whatever is used to
    transport the support personal and gear. I guess it's was used as part
    of a demonstration...
    
    Tom 

    Re: .-1, Tom,
    
    Nope, I'm speaking of the aircraft used in the actual airshow, not the
    transport or other aircraft which have always been part of the T-birds
    support team.  
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Since there were conference access problems most of the day today,
    we'll let the question run over the weekend.  Someone's _sure_ to have
    the aswer bright 'n early Monday.  Have a good 'un, y'all...
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    They flew T-5's.  Why?  I suppose 'cause they were all out of F-5's at
    the local "Fighter Store".

    
    They flew T-38s prior to be outfitted with F-16s.  Why?  Dunno.  They
    flew F-4s before the T-38 which were thirsty and expensive to maintain,
    also probably needed in Vietnam.  Maybe that's why the T-38?
    
    Marc

    As I recall, They switched to T-38s during Carters' breast beating
    hoopla about energy conservation, during the time of no lights on
    the national Christmas tree, turn down the thermostat and freeze
    in the dark, placards on the wall warning of retribution by the
    national energy police, etc. 
    Much was made of the T-38s superior fuel economy, a veritable
    Chevette of the skies, the Air Force self righteously trumpeting
    their part in leading us to the sunny uplands of energy
    self-sufficiency....and well, here we are today.
    
    Sorry, but it is monday morning.
                     ^^^^^^
    
    Terry

    Didn't they also use TA-4's for a while, or was that the Blue Angels?
    
    Yeah, sorry guys, but I was away on business until today, didn't mean
    to hang up the contest.
    
    Jim

    Echoing Jim in .-1, I didn't mean to hold up the topic either but was
    out with the flu-bug yesterday.
    
    Mar Reid was first in with the correct answer.  The only non-fighter
    the T-birds ever flew was the T-38 Talon trainer.  The reason, as Terry
    points out, was its fuel economy, a concession to the [PHONY] fuel crunch 
    of the early 70's.  So, take 'er away, Marc.....
    
    P.S.  A note off-line from Don Huff confirmed my lack of comfort with
    the answer I gave on the T-birds' original name.  Don points out that
    the Skyblazers was/were a team formed in Europe which did not evolve
    into the T-birds.  I waffled with the answer because I'd managed to
    forget the exact name mentioned on the A&E Living Dangerously segment
    on the -birds and "thought" I'd remembered it when I remembered Ron
    Gilman's F-86 model in Skyblazer's livery.  But, I was certain the name
    had the word "Star" in it.
    
    So, I wan't totally comfortable with that answer (which no one answered 
    anyhow) and my off-line conscience, the Huff, confirms that my suspicions 
    were well founded.  So, now we have a secondary, no credit, puzzle to
    solve.  I know the answer was _something_ like "Star Rakers" but just
    can't recall for sure.  Can anyone supply the _real_ original name of
    the USAF Thunderbirds.....???
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    What South American country sent a squadron of P-47s to Italy in 1944 
    to help fight Germany?
    
    Marc

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    re: .4527
    
    my reaction to your first reaction = n o p e    :-)
    
    Marc

    This is of course a real SWAG
    
    Uruguay
    
    Only becasue I believe they had them post war

    Wulllll', OK...so much for first impulses.  Seems to me like we've
    recently (within the last 20-yr.s) obtained a gaggle of P-47's from
    Brazil.  In fact, as I recall, almost every Jug flying in the U.S.
    today was bought back from [I think] Brazil.  Sooooo, I'll guess
    Brazil.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Brazil it is.  The Brazilian First Air Group fought in N. Italy in
    1944/45.  A museum in Rio has a display and the story of their exploits
    and one of the Jugs.  You're up Al...
    
    Marc

    How 'bout that!  Thanx, Marc.
    
    This should be easy:  What was the world's first mach-2 fighter?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

How about the F104 Starfighter??

Glenn Schrader

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

Thanks Al,

Question: What was the first jet aircraft to exceed mach 1?

Have at it,

Glenn

    In a shallow dive, I believe it was the DH-108, a tailless swept wing
    research aircraft.

The De Havilland DH108 is correct.

Ask away,

Glenn

    There were two German made airplanes which flew in US markings in the
    WWII time frame (notice I said time frame since on one of them I'm not
    sure whether it still flew as such after hostilites began).
    
    What were they?
    
    

    
    wild guess - the Bucker Jungmann and Jungmeister aerobatic biplanes?
    There was also a Klemm trainer that might have been in the USA in the
    '30's.
    
    Marc

    I guess I should be more specific, I meant military markings.
    
    Hint:One of them (at least) got a designation...XC-44
    
    The other I believe did also, but am not sure.
    
    So I'll claim victory to the person who gets any one of the two.
    
    Would make a nice exersize in unusual markings for a model, eh?  Raise
    a few eyebrows!

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Yeah, the Ju 52/3mg was one of them.  I believe it got a C number, but
    I don't remember what it was.
    
    The XC-44 was a Bf 108 Taifun purchased for use at the German Embassy
    pre-war and flew as a communications craft.
    
    OK Al, it's yours
    
    Jim

    Hmmmm, 'nuther wild guess pays off.  I had no idea either of these
    aircraft ever wore a U.S. designation and livery.  Isn't the Bf-108 the
    bird that bears quite a resemblance to the Bf/Me-109, especially in the
    rear fuselage and tailfeathers?  It was used for liaison, brass
    transport, etc. by the Germans?? Had about a 4-place (maybe only 2,
    side-by-side) cabin???  Actor Cliff Robertson used to own one of these
    and one was used in the movie The Great Escape...it was the plane
    stolen by James Garner and Donald Pleasance which ran out of fuel just
    short of Switzerland...Pleasance was subsequently killed, and Garner 
    recaptured by German troops.
    
    If you couldn't tell, I'm stalling here as I grope for a new question
    to ask...keeps getting tougher all the time!  Well, here's another
    (should be easy) one that has a movie tie-in:
    
    Who was the highest scoring U.S. ace of the Korean War?  (I was gonna'
    add a little more info but think I'll hold it as clues if no one gets
    it right away.)
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    swag - Jabarra (sp?)
    
    Marc
    
    re: Bf-108  - yep, "The Great Escape" was the movie.  For the movie I
    believe they used a French copy of the Messerschmitt that was
    manufactured by Nord.  I saw a Taifun at Sun & Fun in 1988.  This one
    was painted a really bogus lime green color and the guy had rigged four
    dummy machine guns to the wings.  He made repeated passes at fake tank
    target on the runway, firing the fake machine guns that made a
    rat-tat-tat noise.  For tourists only...    :-)
    
    Marc

    CAPTAIN JOSEPH MCCONNELL was the highest scoring Korean Conflict
    ace. He had been a navigator in WWI and was retreaded into the pilot
    training program instead of being released from active duty. He
    was subsequently killed testing the new F-86H at Edwards. I'm on
    holiday so someone else take it.

    This could be a matter of definition.
    
    Francis Gabreski had a number of Korean victories (I believe maybe 6.5
    or 7.5), but he had ~30 from WWII, flying for Hub Zemke in the 56th (I
    think).
    
    

    Aha!  The Huff has once again sneaked in, answered the question and
    absconded without a trace, leaving no new question in his wake.  Yes,
    the highest scoreing Korean Ace was Joseph McConnell and the Hollywood
    connection I alluded to was the movie, The McConnell Story starring
    Alan Ladd in the title role.
    
    Ok, at Don's behest, I'll throw the forum open.....first one in gets to
    ask the new question
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I can hardly believe it but the forum's been open for nearly 24-hours
    and on one's jumped in with a new question.  Soooo, to get us moving
    again, here's another easy one:
    
    Arguably, it shot down more German aircraft in WW-II than all others
    combined.  Name that plane.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Arguably, it shot down more German aircraft in WW-II than all others
    combined.  Name that plane.......

B-17

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Aha!  That flushed someone out'a the puckerbrush.  Right Kay; according
    to the narrative on the B-17 episode of Wings, gunners on B-17s were
    the unsung aces of WW-II and probably shot down _many_ more German
    aircraft than all other [fighter] aircraft combined.  BTW, before Don
    the Huff calls me on it, "I know," this question has been asked before...
    in fact I asked it.  But, as I said, the ol' trivia well's 'a dryin'
    up.
    
    Yer' up, Kay.  Take it away.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I agree with the answer in terms of claims, but one must temper the
    information with the certainty of multiple claims when 4 B-17s in a box
    are all shooting at the same Bf 109 and it starts pushing smoke.  Post
    war records show that these claims were highly exagerated.
    
    BUT, even with the exagerated claims, the B-17 still ranks as the most
    succesful Messerchmitt killer, but, perhaps  not more than all the rest 
    combined.
    

OK - I'm looking at a color picture of 6 Douglas A-4 Skyhawks.
They are all Red and White and the Flight Demonstration team
from what Country?

1st hint (already) - they are called the Black Knights.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

>    <<< Note 539.4553 by PNO::CASEYA "THE DESERT RAT (I-RC-AV8) 551-5572" >>>
>                    -< SWAG: BLACK KNIGHTS = GERMANY....?? >-

Not even close.

Hint # 2

It is VERY warm there.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Australia or New Zealand?
    

Try within a couple of degrees of the equator.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    okay - Singapore?  I read recently in AW&ST that they were upgrading
    their A-4s rather than replacing them with F-18s.
    
    Marc

>                      <<< Note 539.4557 by NETDOC::REID >>>
>                        -< real close to the equator.. >-
>
>    
>    okay - Singapore?  I read recently in AW&ST that they were upgrading
>    their A-4s rather than replacing them with F-18s.
>    
>    Marc

Correct - the Black Knights are the 143 Squadron of the Republic of Singapore
Air Force.  Nice paint job if any body ever builds an A4.  Side view
is mostly white with red trim and a red tail with a black knight (like the
chess piece) on it.  Top view is mostly red.

I was in Singapore once.  Toured a rubber plantation and watched
snake charmers.  Mostly I remember the ride in.  Our carrier (USS Coral
Sea) was in port with an LST? (landing craft support ship) and we road 
in on LSD's?  Flat bottom landing craft.  Sounded great - they were
not required to meet the 90 at 9 rule!  Ruff (fun) ride.

Anyway - take it away Marc.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    What was the USAF's first successful all-weather fighter to be designed
    specifically for the role?
    
    Marc

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    P-61 Black Widow?
    
    Or is that just night fighter?
    
    Jim

    re: last three
    
    nope, not the F-86, Delta Dart, or P-61.  The plane I'm looking for is
    a jet, however.
    
    Marc

    Hmmmmmmm, I'll haf'ta fire a nastygram off to Wings.  Their narrative
    in the Sabre episode almost quoted the qualifying verbage in yer'
    question, stating [paraphrasing] "...making the F-86 the West's first
    all around, all weather fighter."
    
    Oh well, as long-time triviaphiles know well, this isn't the _first_
    time Wings has presented faulty information...which is why I always
    qualify questions/answers taken from that program with the statement,
    "according to the __________ episode of Wings,".
    
    Since the Sabre is incorrect, I'll go with the Lockheed F-94.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Al - nope, not the F-94 either.  As far as the the F-86 having all-
         weather capability, some model (not sure which) probably did.
         The plane I'm looking for was designed from the very beginning
         as an all-weather interceptor....keep 'em coming...
    
    Marc

    OK
    
    How about the Curtiss XF-87, a 4 jet night fighter?
    
    

    
    re: XF-87
    
    nope.  Not according to my source.  The plane I'm looking for was
    operational.  Pretty well known.  Hint - a crew of two in tandem 
    cockpit.
    
    Marc

    Would that have been the Martin B-57B?

    This is getting difficult!
    
    It's not the F-94!  That would have been my first guess, but it was a
    jet!  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm........
    
    The F-89?

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    I knew somebody would finally get this :-)    yep, it was the
    Northrop F-89 Scorpion.
    
    Marc

I should have looking at RC Notes, though ill with flu at home. Note 539.4559
was just asking me to respond to it since I, personally, sat in that ejection
seat in the R.O. position in F-89s B, C, D, and J models, besides training
on the F-89H. Nothing like a hot Identification/Firing pass completely under
the radar hood, hoping the pilot didn't do something foolish that would result
in both attacker and target aircraft coming down in leetle peezes. A head-on
pass with both aircraft at 450-500 knots could be both exhilarating and
potentially fatal.

Al, don't get down on too hard on WINGS, or whatever, it all depends on how
the statements are made and in exactly what context.

The P-61 was designed as a "Night" interceptor, not "all weather".
The P-70 was an adaption of the old A-20 "Boston".
The F-89 was the first contracted "all weather jet" to be designed from the
ground up.
The F-94A was thrown into the works (an afterburner modified T-33) using the
F-89A,B,C radar fire control system when it became apparent the Northrop
fighter wouldn't get out into the field because of structural/aerodynamic
problems (wing spar failure and pitch problems). They needed airframes and
Northrop couldn't get them soon enough.
The F-86D was a modification of the standard F-86 series, with afterburner
and a three legged pilot, firing 2.75" Folding fin unguided rockets.

The F-94C, although it looked a lot like the F-94A and B, was actually a
brand new airframe, mucho better than the previous Lockheeds.

By the way, the F-89 could be called "SUPERSONIC" (if you stretched the
context of the word). I have been through the mach in a "J" model! "Course
that was straight down with both burners on from 40 thousand down to 10 thaousanthousand feet. The '89 went from a machine that shed wings to a machine that
literally could not be willfully harmed by a pilot (unless, of course, he
pranged it into mother earth)!

    ADDITIONAL:
    Don't know how that last reply got truncated... I meant to say that
    after the 89 had a fatal structural weakness, the mods to the airframe
    were so good that the aircraft could not be overstressed by the pilot
    unless he planted it underground, still at flying speed.
    
    don

    After that last reply, I almost feel guilty taking the gauntlet.
    
    But, anyway.
    
    I can think of 3 single engined planes which used the corncob (Not
    racing planes, planes built as combat aircraft). (R-4360 that is)  Only
    one was (arguably) put into production.
    
    Name them.

    I _know_ the Super Corsair ran a 4360 and I think the Skyraider did
    too.  As to a third aircraft, wasn't there a (late, perhaps experimental) 
    model of the P-47 that used the corncob.  Of course, the Spruce Goose 
    used 8 of these monsters but, though designed as a trans-oceanic troop 
    transport, it might be a stretch to call it a combat aircraft...ooops.
    it  wasn't a single engine plane so ingore last transmission.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: .4572   CAPITN::HUFF_DO
    
    Great background info on the F-89 and others!  Thanks...
    
    Marc

    The F2G was right (Corncob Corsair)
    
    The AD did not, it used the R-3350
    
    The XP-72 (Corncob Thunderbolt) was right, too and frankly I forgot
    about that one, so that's two.
    
    Therefore I can think of 2 more.
    
    And one of them actually did see some production (0ver 100 built)
    
    If nobody gets them by noon, Al can claim a victory!
    

    
    How about that big Boeing escort fighter, the XF8B-1?  If I remember
    correctly, it had a *big* mutha engine, driving contra-rotating 15'
    props.
    
    Marc

    Marc got the other one, so that makes 3, but it seems hardly fair.
    
    Either gets 'til 1PM to come up with the "production" corncobber, or
    I'll give it to Al, since he has 2 and Marc only has one.
    
    Jim

    
    Martin Mauler?
    
    Marc

    Oooooooh, Marc's last guess sounds like a winner.  Even if not, I'll
    defer to Marc if awarded the question as I haven't got a new one on the
    tip of muh' tongue at the moment.  'Sides, I'd like ta' kind'a slowly
    relinquish the reins of trivia to either Marc Reid or or Jim Lloyd as
    March 29 approaches.  Both appear to have sufficient knowledge and
    interest in the topic to do a good job of watchdogging Triva after I'm
    gone...mebbe' a co-moderatorship (unofficial) of the topic is in 
    order...??
    
    BTW, my C.A.F. buddy, Gerald Martin test flew a restored Mauler (VERY
    rare bird) about 3-years ago.  He said it was like flying a big
    Cadillac with the hydraulic augmented controls.  But, he said _careful
    throttle management on or near the ground was an absolute MUST (which
    leads me to believe Marc's guess is correct).  Gerald said the owner
    (with no experience in a similar type) insisted, over Gerald's advice,
    on flying the big Mauler himself.  Gerald did his best to convince the
    guy to postpone flying it 'til he'd gotten some time/instruction in
    something similar but, what the hey, the guy _did_ OWN the airplane so
    Gerald could only stand back and watch when the owner insisted.
    
    True to Gerald's prediction, the big Mauler got away from this guy on
    the takeoff roll, hooked off the runway, slammed through a fence and
    killed a number of grazing cattle before coming to a stop.  The owner/
    pilot wasn't hurt but substantial damage was done to the rare bird and
    it'll take lots'a time and big bucks before it sees the air again.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: last
    
    Wow!  That's quite a story Al!  I guess, in the case of the cattle, the
    name "Mauler" was pretty appropriate :-)
    
    jeez...I guess I can help moderate this thing, but I'll sure miss your
    answers and comments, Al.  Maybe we can set up an honorary Guest Account
    for you!!??
    
    Marc

    Marc's right. It was the Mauler.
    
    Yeah, Al, we're sure gonna miss you a lot.  The stories are really
    great.  
    
    I must relinquish the honor of moderation, however, since I'll be here
    probably only half time for the next year or so, with a partial
    appointment in Germany at the Max Planck Insititut.  Therefore, it
    wouldn't be practical being here for only 2 weeks out of the month.
    Thanks for the offer, honor etc. but, in the interest of a  good game, I
    think Marc would be able to do a better job.
    
    BTW, this probably makes the Mauler the most powerful production single
    engine and/or single seat piston engined plane ever.  (Unless there was
    an AD which might have had more hp, some of those R-3350's had
    incredible output, but just imagine the torque on 4360 cu in. at
    3500hp!!!!)
    
    Take it away!

    
    okay - what were the official designations of the:
    
                 "HUN"
    
                 "THUD"
    
                 "SANDY"
    
    Marc

    "HUN" = North American F-100 Super Sabre
    
    "THUD" = Republic F-105 Thunderchief
    
    "SANDY" = Douglas AD-1/AH-1 Skyraider
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    bingo!  All yours Al...
    
    
    Marc

    Hokay, Marc, thanx.
    
    Here's a fairly easy one:  This civilian was accorded the highest
    possible recognition by the USAF for his contribution to that service
    in the form of what the Air Force described as probably "the best
    single airplane ever built."
    
    Name the man and the plane.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Donald Douglas and the DC-3/C-47 etc.
    

    I _knew_ that'un wouldn't last very long.  Can _you_ say Wings? :B^)
    
    Take it away, Jim........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    The Fiat biplane fighters had a unique distinguishing design feature.
    What was it?

    Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that they had enormous
    streamlined wheel pants.  Beyond that I can't think of anything unique
    except that most Fiat bipes were quite pretty aircraft.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Hint:
    
    All were designed by the same designer, (Rosatelli?) and the design
    feature determined one of the maneuvers the aerobatic team used in
    their routine.
    
    BTW, yeah they were VERY pretty little airplanes, and by all reports
    they flew as nice as they looked.

    Hmmmmmm, even after the clue, I ain't got a clue!  But, my interest is
    really piqued now.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    The only thing I can come up with is that they were built with very
    short lower wings as compared to their top wings.
    
    
    
    Tom

    The last two traits are real, but not limited to the Fiats.
    
    Concerning the last one.
    
    Think in between
    

    
    They had supporting struts between the wings in a "W" configuration?
    
    Marc

    They used interplane struts only, without additional rigging cables?
    
    Terry
    

    Marc's got it!
    
    They used the "Warren" truss which was that the struts were in the W
    form.  There was a WWI plane (Fiat B.R.I [??]) which also had this
    feature.  (Same designer)
    
    The Italian aerobatic team used to fly   
    
                          / \ / \ / \ / \ 
    
    to mimic thier struts.
    
    And they were indeed truly beautiful little high performance planes.
    
    But all the other responses were right, just not unique to the Fiats. 
    

    
    Who was Frank Luke and for what feat(s) is he most remembered for?  In
    other words, what was his "specialty"?
    
    Marc

He was a barnstormer who's finale was to cut a script L in the
ground with a piece of metal attached to one wing tip.  He did
this one too many times and was killed.

A very long time ago, I had a friend in the Air Force who's
father was a barnstormer in the '30s.  He flew with Luke, but
quit when Luke tried to get him to do this stunt.  He wandered
around for a while between towns, but finally hung it up when he
flew into a town and got jumped by a bunch of government
inspectors who grounded his plane on the spot.

Alas, I don't offhand remember this fellow's name.  In case I'm
wrong, and contrary to many of my notes, I didn't make this one
up!

    Re: .-1, John,
    
    What the heck're ya' doin', smokin' yer' socks in an unventilated 
    room agin'?  ;b^)
    
    Frank Luke was a pilot in WW-I whose specialty was [observation]
    balloon busting.  He has the dubious distinction of being the only
    Congressional Medal of Honor winner to have won this medal while
    officially under arrest.  Luke was a native Arizonan and quite a
    maverick (as indicated above) who courted danger...the more the better. 
    He was eventually killed attacking a balloon and Luke Air Force Base,
    20-miles west of Phoenix is named for this heroic native son.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Al Casey's Frank Luke was the one I was lookin' for.  The *other* Frank
    Luke remains, alas, unknown to me and to aviation history in general :-)
    
    all your's Al
    
    Marc
    
    BTW - I think I read somewhere that even after Frank Luke was shot
    down, he continued to hold off German troops with a pistol until
    they finally got him.  Is this true?
        

Well, no actually it was because I *hadn't* been smoking my socks.
After I lit one up and thought about it awhile, I remembered that
the guy's name was Freddy Lund.  Good story anyway.

    Yeah, I believe that's how it went; the Germans tried to get him to
    surrender but Luke was having none of it and blazed away with his Colt
    .45 automatic until, out of self defense, the Germans were literally
    forced to kill him.
    
    Here's one someone will surely be able to put together:  In 1973, this
    noted aircraft designer was awarded a special recognition by President
    Nixon.  The award recognized an unprecedented string of exceptionally
    successful, sometimes radical designs, any one of which would have been
    the high point of an entire career for another designer.  This
    designer's designer was honored for his patriotism and contribution to
    his country via his many superior designs and, truly, no other has
    approached him in terms of numbers of successful designs.  Name this
    noted American designer and list some of his designs.
    
    I doubt we'll need them but, if required, I can drop a hint or two
    later on. 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    THIS HERE ONE'S EASY, AL. I'LL ANSWER AND DENY THAT I WAS EVEN HERE.
    
    Kelly Johnson: Lockheed P-38, P-80, U-2, SR-71, F-90 and other
    non-mentionables.
    
    huff

    Oh, oh...the Huff snuck in again, answered the question and vanished
    into the ether which means _we_ haf'ta come up with the new question.
    
    What th' heck, let's just throw the forum open to the first triviaphile
    to get in and get a new question posted.
    
    On yer' marks..., get set..., go fer' it............!!
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    The russians held the high altitude record becaus of their pioneering
    efforts with space flight.  However they were to loose their place
    within the record books because of a technicality.  What was the
    circumstances surrounding this technicality?  
    
    Tom
    
    Clue... It pertains to their first manner space flight!

    
    Yuri Gagarin (sp) parachuted out of the capsule before it hit the
    ground.  The rules state that to claim the record, the pilot has
    to stay with the craft.  The Russians lied and claimed that Gagarin
    rode the thing all the way down.  Later it was found out that he 
    ejected and the record was taken away from the USSR.
    
    Marc

    Marc has the correct record.
    
    Your question...
    
    
    
    
    Tom

    
    Anybody care to guess the type of jet a/c that made the first non-stop and
    unrefueled flight acroos the Atlantic Ocean?  Extra credit for the year.
    
    Marc

    Marc
    
    I'd guess a gloster meteor?
    
    
    Tom

    Well, I'm pretty sure it _wasn't_ the deHavilland Comet as <I seem to
    recall that one of its shortcomings (which curtailed international
    sales _before_ the crashes began) was range too short for transoceanic
    service.
    
    I'm sure there was probably an earlier aircraft to accomplish the feat
    but I'll guess the Boeing 707.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: last two
    
    Meteor and Comet from the right country, but not the right a/c.  707 is
    wrong.  Keep 'em coming...
    
    
    Marc

    How about the Canberra?
    
    
    
    Tom

    Yeah, I think I might'a guessed the English Electric Canberra next too
    but, since Tom beat me to it, I'll try the Avro Vulcan.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    The first jet a/c to fly the Atlantic non-stop and unrefueled was an
    English Electric Canberra B.Mk.2 on 21-Feb-1951, which was flown from
    Britain to Baltimore and was later purchased by the USAF to become the 
    first Canberra to carry American markings.
    
    Okay Tom...
    
    Marc

    I've rattled Tom's cage via E-mail so a new question should be
    forthcoming.  If no new question by tomorrow AM, we'll throw the forum
    open, OK?!
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    sorry!!!  I forgot I had the next question and right now I can't come
    up with a new one. So Open Forum is OK with me.
    
    
    Tom

    This plane looked a lot like the P-38.  Maximum speed was about 425,
    and the stall speed was *only 80 mph*.  Crew was two, seated side by
    side.  (I think that took care of the erroneous twin Mustang guesses.)  

    I'm thinking of modeling this plane.  What was it?

    Yup', Northrup P-63 Black Widow would'a been my guess too.  But, since
    it's taken, I'll guess the XP-[mumble] that Howard Hughes built and was
    nearly killed in when he deadsticked it onto a California golf course.
    It was nearly a dead ringer to the P-38 but was somewhat larger.  Can
    someone fill in the "[mumble]?"
    
    BTW, Royal has just announced a twin-.40 t0 .60 size Black Widow kit
    with ~70" span.  Too small nowadays, competition-wise but a nice sport
    scale size.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I think Al's talking about the Hughes XF-11, which was a recon plane
    with 2 R-4360's (or maybe R-3350's, but I think it was corncob).  The
    accident was caused by poor test piloting techniques (Hughes insisted
    on being Superman) and presumably he set the pitch controls wrong and
    the engines got away from him, overrevved and self-destructed.  
    
    Let's see what else was there.
    
    The P-63, the XF-11.  The P-63 never got near 425mph, this leaves the
    XF-11 or maybe the XP-58 Chain Lightning, which was a P-38 on steroids
    and Lycoming (?) engines.
    
    The only other twin boom I can think of is the Fokker G.1, but this
    only hit 295mph
    
    I'll guess XP-58 Chain Lightning
    
    Jim 

    Jim got the right designation and then switched away, so Al has it free
    and clear.
    
    According to Air Trails of November 1948, the XF-11 used spoiler
    ailerons (like the P-61) that permitted full span flaps to attain the
    low stall speed.  Power was a pair of the P&W R-4360-37 28 cylinder
    engines.  The wing span was 101.3 feet; the length 65.4 --- the aspect
    ratio looks very high --- U-2'ish.
    
    It crashed because Hughes reversed pitch on the right engine.
    
    

    Hah! Wile I went into "SEND/AUTHOR" to alert Alton that he had some
    guesses in the queue, he was simultaneously takin' care of business.
    Obviously, you can disregard the mail message, Alton.  
    
    Boy, talk about'cher lucky guesses.  I feel a bit guilty about taking
    it though as I didn't know the correct designation of the ship.  Since
    Jim knew the correct designation (XF-11) and, since I don't have a new
    question in mind, I'll defer to Mr. Lloyd.
    
    Take 'er away, Jim..........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Al really got this right, so now it's my turn to feel guilty, but in
    the interest of keeping the game going.
    
    The B-25G/H wasn't the only plane to carry a 75mm gun.  There was a
    Japanese plane, the Ki.109 which also carried a 75mm cannon with 15
    rounds.
    
    What was it's mission? 

    This is a barely educated guess but didn't the Japanese have a special
    cannon installation intended to be used against American B-29
    formations?  I know the Germans did and I seem to remember the Japanese
    tried something similar. 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Right you are Al
    
    Could you imagine?
    
    Take 'er away!

    Hey, how 'bout that!  'Nuther lucky guess.  But, Jim, can you provide
    any details as to the type of installation?  The Germans set the guns
    in mid-fuselage, pointing almost straight up so they could supposedly
    fire on the bomber from beneath.  I believe they even experimented with
    a device that would fire the guns automatically when activated by the
    target's shadow.  I can never remember the German name for this setup
    but, in literal translation, it meant "Jazz Music."  Were the Japanese
    playing along the same lines or were they doing there own thing?
    
    After WW-II, most aircraft manufacturers expected a terrific upsurge in
    private aviation and hustled to get in on it (though it never really
    came).  North American, using many P-51 Mustang parts, including the
    almost unmodified wing, produced a successful design featuring
    tricycle, retractable landing gear and a 4-place, semi-bubble canopy
    enclosed cabin.  The design endured and many examples still fly
    today...name that plane.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Navion
    
    Terry
    

>    target's shadow.  I can never remember the German name for this setup
>    but, in literal translation, it meant "Jazz Music."  Were the Japanese
>    playing along the same lines or were they doing there own thing?

    The Japanese never really liked Jazz, Al.  They were more into playing
    this avant-garde thing with dissonant chords, on Sitars.  Kabuki, or
    something.

    Re: .4631, Terry,
    
    Well, I thought that one'd last a bit longer...obviously not.  Most, or
    at least many folks aren't aware that the Ryan Navion was first built
    by North American nor are they aware of the Navion's direct lineage to
    the P-51 so I thought I might fool ya's for a bit.  Oh well.....
    
    OK, Terry, yer' up; no copping out now, let's have a good'un......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I happened to be paging through the channels the other night, and
    came across an old Laurel & Hardy movie. I stopped to watch it for
    a few minutes, because they were flying around in an airplane that
    has always attracted me for no reason that I can explain. Anyway,
    this airplane was made famous by "Wrong Way Corrigan". What was
    it, and why did he get his name? Bonus: What year ?
    
    Terry

    To answer the question.....Curtiss Robin
    
    Douglas Corrigan was not permitted to fly to England so he filed a
    flight plan for LA from NY and ended up in Ireland.  He claimed he
    watched his compass upside down the whole way.  Nobody believed him.
    I've read his biography and he claims in there it was an honest
    accident.  I don't believe him, he was an accomplished pilot for many
    years with a number of record distance flights under his belt before
    the event.
    
    I think it was in 1939. (1938?)
    
    
    For the other, the "Schrage Muzik" installation was usually 20mm or
    30mm, but there may have been a 40mm version.  The technique was
    actually first developed by the Japanese and later copied by the
    Germans.  The Germans used it a lot, and there were many that used a
    photo-electric cell to trigger the firing.  Even the Me 163 had some
    vertically firing 30mm(?) mortars built into the wing.  It was a
    devestating weapon.  Schrage Muzik = Jazz Music.
    
    The Ki.109 had a 75mm long barreled cannon coming out of a ventral pan
    firing forward.  It had 15 rounds and I'm not sure if it was hand
    loaded or not.  It was used with some effectiveness against B-29's
    right at the end of the war.  The Ki.109 was a modification of another
    (which I forget, but might be the Ki.96) by Mitsubishi and was one of
    the higher performance twins made in Japan.
    

    You got it Mr. Lloyd, take 'er away.
    
    Terry

    Was that "Flying Deuces?"
    
    Howard Hughes had 4 goals in life
    
    Become the Richest Man in the World
    Become the World's Greatest Pilot
    Become the World's Greatest Golfer
    Become the World's Greatest Movie Producer
    
    He was probably successful in 1, he did well as a producer, if not
    aesthetically, he was a champion class golfer, but as a pilot he left
    someting to be desired.  He had two major crashes in his life, which
    apparently contributed to his rather odd lifestyle later on.
    
    Describe them.
    
    Hint:  One was related to 3 of his stated goals.

    Well, we already touched on one, the XF-11 which Hughes crashed into a
    southern Calilfornia golf course after screwing up the pitch setting on
    one or both props.  He was seriously injured in this crash and wasn't
    expected to survive for awhile.  I've read that it was after recovering
    from this crash that Hughes began getting really "spooky," a condition
    which got progressively worse over the years until he became the
    reclusive hermit most of us remember in the years prior to his death.
    
    The above seems to indicate that the first serious crash Hughes
    suffered was prior to the XF-11 incident but, scratch as I may, I can't
    seem to come up with it.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I know of three crashes Hughes was involved in:
    
    1. He crashed a bipe on the set of "Hell's Angels" trying to prove that
    a stunt the pros refused to fly because it was impossibly dangerous
    was, as stated, impossible.
    
    2. He crashed his H-1 racer after setting a speed record when the
    engine quit.
    
    3. He crashed in the XF-11 when the starboard prop reversed. This plane
    had 3 bladed contra-rotating Curtis props. The second prototype had
    a single four bladed Hamilton per engine ( this aircraft was used for
    chase aircraft at Edwards for years and years - finally scrapped out)
    
    Hughes never preflighted sufficiently to keep himself out of hot water;
    both the H-1 and the XF-11 accidents were attributed to careless
    prelflighting by Hughes, himself!
    
    don
    

    -.1 is right.  Forgot about the H-1 wheels up landing. I remember now
    the pictures of the plane in a field somewhere.  I was thinking about
    the Hell's Angels crash.  Just to show what kind of guy Mr. Hughes
    really was.
    
    Take it away!
    

    
    This question in two parts; either part answered gets the next
    question.
    
    1. Ed Heath, of Heathkit fame and designer/builder/racer of the Heath
    "Baby Bullet" used a most inovative lap counter in this aircraft to
    keep track of number of laps flown. Name that device.
    
    2. Why does a duck fly upside down?
    
    
    dwh

    Sheeeeeesh!  We finally get "The Huff" ta' actually post a question 'n
    look what he does... ;b^)
    
    I have no idea what Heath used for a lap counter but am eager to learn
    what it was.
    
    On the "duck" question, I'd haf'ta say a duck flies upside down either
    to keep its back dry or to avoid "quacking up."  :B^)  :B^)
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    ..quacking up.   I *knew* somebody would come up with that! 
    
    Everyone knows that ducks are genetically pre-programmed to follow terrain 
    landmarks while migrating.  They fly upside down to better able to
    navigate and to confuse hunters.  Also, flying upside down prevents ice
    from building up on the control surfaces....(yeah, right :-) )
    
    Marc

    OK, here's a SWAG at the lap counter Ed Heath used in his Baby Bullet:
    I'll guess he used a desk calendar and tore a page off after every lap.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    1. Heath used an old, hard rubber comb, previously breaking out teeth
    so that just one tooth per required lap remained. He fastened the comb
    to his instrument panel and broke out a tooth per accomplished lap in
    the race. No teeth left = race finished.
    
    2. The winner of this portion is ol' AL C. He got it; the duck DOES
    fly upside down to prevent "QUACKING UP"..
    
             TAKE IT AWAY, AL!!!!
    
    
    
    don

    Sheesh......who'd 'a thunk it?!  
    
    Interesting stuff about Heath's lap-counter...the ACE comb company
    must'a loved 'im.
    
    Lessee', what to ask next....??  OK, here's one someone's sure to know:
    
    What was a J-2 Cub?  And please be specific.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    The fore runner to the J-3 Cub?????? 8^)
    
    Steve

     For some reason I have this picture in my head of aircraft that looks
    very much like the well known J-3 Cub, but this one had a single seat
    cockpit and had a 3 cylinder radial. Fuselage was kinda tub shaped. 
    
    Bernie

    I think the previous response is describing the Aeronca C-3.
    
    The J-2 Cub was built by Taylor, before Piper took it over and started
    with the J-3 and other J's after that.  It was derived from earlier
    models, like the E-? Cub.  I believe the J-2 had a 40hp A40 or
    equivalent.(Continantal? although Lock Haven is in Lycoming County!)
               

    I really hate to pass over yer' answer, Steve, but that's why I said 
    to "be specific."  Any boob (no reflection intended) could figger' that
    a J-2 Cub was probably a predecessor of the J-3 Cub.  ;b^)  ;b^)  So, I
    wanted a little detail to show you _really_ knew the answer.
    
    And, that's exactly what Jim did in .4650.  He hit the proverbial nail
    precisely on the head and is the winner.
    
    Take it away, Jimbo...........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Well, seeing as how Jim Lloyd appears to be unable to ask another
    question for us at the moment, I'll turn it over to Steve Smith after
    all.
    
    How 'bout it, Steve...got a question for us.....??
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    This was asked before many moons ago, so I'll test peoples memory.
    
    What was the name of Lindburgh's co-pilot on his solo flight across
    the Atlantic?????? WARNING......this could be a trick question.
    
    
    
    
    				Seriously
    
    
    The gulf war brought about many new innovations in tactical weapons
    delivery. One concerned attacking tanks. Name it.
    
    Steve

>    The gulf war brought about many new innovations in tactical weapons
>    delivery. One concerned attacking tanks. Name it.

    They discovered that Laser Guided 500 Pound Bombs were more effective at
    tank busting, when the tank was heavily revetted, than Maverick Missles
    were.

    Re -1
    
    Right on the button. Exactly the answer I was looking for. Besides
    being much cheaper, as you state, it also had the advantage of allowing
    the pilots to virtually stay clear of anti-aircraft fire while
    delivering the bomb.  ssssaaaalllll yours.
    
    Steve

    With one refuling, to top off tanks after takeoff, this aircraft has the
    greatest range of any plane of its type in the US inventory, more than
    10000 nautical miles.

    What is a B-2 Stealth Bomber?  Orrrrrrr, What is the B-1??
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Well, Al, you could just list every plane in the current US inventory.
    Somehow, though, I don't think that's in the spirit of Trivia.

    Never the less, I'll give it to you for the first guesss.  The B-2 does
    indeed have the highest range of any other bomber now, or ever, in the
    US inventory.


    Randy

    Thanks, Alex..., er, ah, Randy,
    
    Yeah, I know, but I was reasonably sure it was one or the other and
    couldn't decide which one, sooooooooo........ 
    
    Anyhoo, what to ask.......??  Try this one:
    
    What structural feature of the A6M Zero hindered it throughout its
    operational life, regarding both upkeep and maintenance in the field 
    and upgrading/improving the basic design. 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Lemme' try to clarify the current question as it's come to my attention
    that some may not understand what I'm looking for.
    
    There was something special/unusual/maybe unique about the way the Zero
    was physically constructed and this "something" hampered field
    maintenance/repair of the plane as well as inhibited upgrading of the
    basic design.  What was this "something?"
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    	It was made in Japan :-)
    

    Re: .-1,
    
    Yer' on the right track.  The "feature" I'm looking for did indeed make
    the Zero very difficult to maintain/upgrade.  Now, if you can just
    pinpoint the "feature"........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Al,
    	How about a UNibody?  THe plane was made as one piece making it
    difficult to fix in the field by using major assemblies from other
    downed aircraft.  
    
    	If yes, the british Spitfire was also built in a similar manor.
    Perhaps not structurally but with similar results.
    
    
    
    
    Tom

    RE: .4663, Tom,
    
    That's it, pardner'!  Unlike most Allied (and Axis) fighters, the
    Zero's wing was built as an integral part of the fuselage. 
    Cannibalism, as widely practiced by the U.S. (and others) was not
    possible with the Zero as you couldn't simply mate a good wing from one
    aircraft with the good fuse from another; once any major component of
    the plane was heavily damaged, the entire plane was scrap, period!
    
    This "feature" also prohibited all but the simplest of upgrades/improve- 
    ments to the basic airframe.  Thus, the Zero failed to keep pace with the 
    rapidly advancing Allied designs and quickly fell into obsolescence.  The 
    one-time scourge of the Pacific became an also ran because of its inability
    to keep pace with the state-of-the-art.
    
    OK, Tom, take it away........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Thank's AL 
    
    What was the first Bomber/Bomber Prototype to have a flying
    speed of 500mph?
    
    
    Tom

    Well, whut' th' heck, since no one else's taken a SWAG at it, I'll
    guess the Boeing B-47.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    The German Arado Ar-234 Blitz?
    
    Marc

    Seeing as how Tom T. seems to be indisposed this AM, how 'bout you
    posting a new question for us, Marc?  Neither of us may be correct but
    I think yer' closer than I am and I'd like to keep the topic moving, at
    least for another 12-working days. :B^(  After that, I'd appreciate it
    if you'd pick up the reins of [un-] official Trivia moderator...can do?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    I would consider it an honor to moderate this trivia game!  Big shoes
    to fill, but I'll do my best :-)
    
    Anyway, here's a new question to keep things rollin' -
    
    President Dwight D. Eisenhower had at his disposal for official use a
    plane he called the "Columbine II".  This plane has been recently
    restored and is touring the country next summer in honor of Ike's 100th
    birthday.  What kind of plane is the "Columbine II" ?
    
    Marc

    Well, I think it's one of two but I'm not sure which so I'll try one,
    then, if incorrect, the other.
    
    How 'bout the Douglas DC-6?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    try the other :-)
    
    Marc

    Wellllllll, OK.  But, now I'm a bit dubious about my second guess; I
    know it was used as a presidential plane but really thought the DC-6
    was the better choice for Ike's ship.
    
    Anyhoo, I'll try the Lockheed Super Constellation.  One of these that
    had been some(?) president's personal plane used to be displayed at the
    Pima Air Museum in Tucson...is it possible, I wonder, that this is the
    plane that was restored and is presently on tour???
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Home-run Al.  Yep, it's a Connie.  I'm not sure if it was the one at
    Pima.  The story I read (in National Geographic, of all mags) said it
    was one of four that a Western rancher had been using for the past
    25 years for parts to keep one Connie flying as a crop sprayer (??..!)
    Anyway, somebody came along and looked at the registration number and
    realized it was Ike's old plane.  He and the rancher then kicked in
    about $250,000 apiece to get it restored and flyable.  From the 
    accompanying picture, I's say they did an excellent job.  All shiny
    aluminum with red trim.  Sorta like the old TWA/Connie colors.  All
    yours Al...
    
    Marc

    Marc, 
    
    I'm pleased that you've consented to become the unofficial Trivia 
    custodian...I know it's in good hands and you'll keep things
    moving and in some semblance of order.
    
    I'll be off from this afternoon 'til next Tuesday for our Spring
    version of the 1/8 Air Force R/C Scale Fly-In so this is probably as
    good a time as any to hand over the reins.
    
    I don't do anything special aside from just looking in on the topic
    regularly and taking whatever measure is appropriate to get things
    rolling again when it has stalled.  This might include throwing the
    forum open, asking a new question my(your)self, E-mailing a questioner
    asking him to check the answers on his current question or, if no
    guesses have been forthcoming after a reasonable time (usually 24-hr's
    max), to reveal the answer and ask a new question.  Whatever you deem
    appropriate to keep the topic active.
    
    So, with that, I turn the reins over to you.  I'll be around another
    2-weeks so, should you have any questions or seek any advice, you have
    merely to ask and I'll gladly render whatever assistance I can.  So
    should all Triviaphiles refer Trivia-related issues, suggestions, ques-
    tions, etc. to Marc as he is now [un-]official Trivia moderator, guru 
    and janitor.
    
    Good luck, Marc, and I hope you have as much fun with the topic as I have 
    over the past several years.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	     	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Re: .4673,
    
    Wull', alright!  'Nuther barely scientific W.A.G. pays off, eh?
    
    Here's one I just learned and was a bit surprised at:  What was the
    first nation to make military use of aircraft?
    
    Note: "Aircraft" does not include balloons, airships, etc...it applies
    strictly to fixed-wing, heavier-than-air craft.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Oh I don't know. How about France.
    
    Steve

    RE: .-1, Steve,
    
    Good guess but NOPE!  
    
    HINT:  The event took place PRIOR to the outset of WW-I.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Italy?

    Re: .-1, Marc,
    
    Yup', that's the one.  According to last night's episode of WINGS,
    Italy made the first military use of airplanes during its conflict with
    Turkey in 1911. The application was mostly reconnaisance/observation but,
    nonetheless, it opened the eyes of the world's military powers as to
    the value of the airplane.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    What was the *last* piston-powered bomber to serve with the RAF?
    
    Hint:  not the Avro Shackelton - it's a maritime reconn. a/c
    
    Marc

    My guess'd be the deHavilland Mosquito.  Though technically a fighter
    bomber, it should qualify and it was used up 'til the late-50's/early-
    60's.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    good guess, but not the Mosquito.  The plane I'm lookin' for here is
    a true bomber, a heavy.
    
    Marc

    Lancaster

    
    re: last
    
    on the right track...
    

    Liberator

    
    re: last
    
    I'll give you a break since you were closing in with the Lancaster
    answer, but drifting away with the Liberator :-) 
    
    The plane I was looking for is the Avro Lincoln which was essentially
    a scaled-up Lancaster (bigger engines, stretched fuselage, more guns)
    The RAF ordered over 500 of them, the last one being withdrawn from
    front-line service in 1955.  FYI - the last Lancaster was withdrawn
    from the RAF Coastal Command in 1954, but the RCAF and France flew
    Lancasters until 1964.   Take it away.
    
    Marc

    Thanks Marc, I had completely forgotten about the Lincoln. 
    
    Unfortunately I have to do the old cop-out trick as I'm on my
    way to a meeting. So it's open forum to the first one in.
    
    Steve

Glad you were busy Steve - gives me a chance.

The first flight across the United States was made by Cal Rodgers in 1911.
Was there anything unusual about this historic flight?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    As a matter of fact, he said he was so bored, he'd never do it
    again.

    
    I think -1 is right.  I read somewhere that the guy thought the whole
    thing was a drag and wouldn't do it again.  There was a prize involved
    for the winner who completed the flight in less than x days and he
    actually took about twice as long to as specified and didn't get the
    money.
    
    Marc

>                      <<< Note 539.4690 by NETCUR::REID >>>
>
>    
>    I think -1 is right.  I read somewhere that the guy thought the whole
>    thing was a drag and wouldn't do it again.  There was a prize involved
>    for the winner who completed the flight in less than x days and he
>    actually took about twice as long to as specified and didn't get the
>    money.
>    
>    Marc

I have to run so I'll let Marc claim victory with his answer of "took about
twice as long".

Here's the real answer.

=============================================================================
The First flight across the United States was made by Cal Rodgers in 1911.
What was unusual about this historic flight?

The coast-to-coast flight took 49 days and included 69 stops (23 in Texas
alone).  Rodgers crashed 19 times en route, and when he arrived in Pasadena,
Calif., his leg was in a cast.  Of the original aircraft that departed New
York, only the rudder and one strut survived the journey.
=============================================================================

Kinda reminds me of my Berliner-Joyce P16.

Take it away Marc.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    Name the famous non-military aviator who, while flying unofficially in 
    the Pacific during WW2, coaxed a Corsair into the air with 4,000lbs. of
    bombs (twice the normal load) and took out a Japanese airfield.
    
    Marc   

    Charles Lindberg?

                            - Dan Miner

    
    re: .1
    
    Absolutely!    
    
    
    take it away Dan...
    
    Marc

    I'm not really prepared to ask a question right now but will do so
    anyway instead of wimping out...

    The following paragraphs are from a book I have.  I found the
    wording of the last paragraphs amusing...

        "For most people, the word 'MiG' is purely and simply synonomous
        with a Soviet fighter.  Not litterally true, this reflects the
        fact that the vast majority of Soviet fighters in the jet age
        have stemmed from the design bureau named after _____ _______
        and _______ _________.   
                [ trivia question: fill in blanks... - DGM ]

        "Soviet warplanes are seldom described with any accuracy in the
        West.  They are portrayed as highly capable threats, comparable
        to the best of the West's fighters, when it is time to make
        defense plans and draft budgets; but when the astronomical unit
        cost of Western systems have to be explained to the public, the
        Soviet fighter is depicted as a crudely designed and rudely
        constructed agricultural impliment.

        "If there is one central theme in this book, it is that MiGs are
        neither Porches nor wheelbarrows.  Rather, they are fighting
        machines designed to rigidly utilitairan standards, many of them
        set by factors which do not apply or are not considered
        important in the West.  Another difference is that many of the
        criteria by which the Soviet Union's planners assess the merits
        of an aircraft design can be applied equally to a tank, ship or
        missle system.

        "It is from the world of armour that the author's favourite
        parable about the differences between Soviet and Western design
        differences is drawn.  In the course of the Eastern campaign of
        World War II, the Wehrmacht captured one of the Red Army's
        deadly T-34 tanks and shipped it back to one of the German
        manufacturers for assessment.  The engineers' response, in
        essence, was that they could never build a T-34 because it would
        not pass their quality control inspection.  The rest is history."

        [FYI - book contains British spellings... I tried to keep them.]

    If you missed the trivia question, it is to fill in the blanks in
    the first paragraph...

               _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    Gee, I didn't think that question would bring trivia to a screaching
    halt!  I figured that the Desert Rat would have the answer in a
    millisecond.  Come to think of it, I haven't seen him in here all
    day...  Must be he has to do some of that "work" stuff.  :-)

    Anyway, the answer is Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Guryevich.

    No time to come up with another question for now, so ready, set, GO
    (Next noter with a question gets it...)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    Al said he'd be out for the 1/8th Air Force spring fun-fly over the
    long weekend (doesn't want to admit to drinking green beer ;^)

    
    re: Dan's MiG question -
    
    I had the Mikoyan part but coulnd't remember the other guys name.  Good
    question.  How about somebody throwing one in...maybe Jim Reith??  If
    no new question is forthcoming by noon, I'll enter one.  Thanks, Marc.
    

    Sorry Marc. Without good reference books (which I don't keep at work) I
    don't feel confident asking anything harder than:
    
    What plane is "Cub Yellow" named for

    Jim was right, I took vacation last Friday and this Monday to bracket
    the Spring 1/8 AF Scale Fly-In.  But Dan's right too; if I'da been
    here, I'da jumped on his question like a Duck on a Junebug! 
    
    Since no one else's jumped in with a question, here's one to continue
    Dan's theme.  The alpha-characters in all the following designations
    represent the name or names of the designer(s).  Name 4 of 5 (2, maybe
    3 are absolute gimme's) to win:
    
    1. MC-202
    2. Me-110
    3. Ta-152
    4. La-5FN
    5. Yak-9
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Aw c'mon youse guys, not even one guess??  This _can't_ be that
    difficult...as I said at least two, maybe three of the answers are
    absolute gimme's.  Le's hear from someone.......!!
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I guess that the color "Cub Yellow" is named after the Sopwith Camel.
    It's the color they used for the Rudder Pedals.

    That's correct.
    
    It's also the color of the curb I park near at the local airport ;^)
    
    

    No takers ?! I'll jump in.
    
    MC= Macchi-Castoldi
    
    Me = Messerschmitt
    
    Ta=  Tank (Kurt)
    
    La=  Lavochin (sp?)
    
    yak= Yakolev
    
    Terry

    Re. .4702/3:  Arrrrrrrrgh!!  :B^)
    
    Re. .4704:  Spot on, amigo..., 5-for-5!  BTW, I believe the correct
    spelling is "Lavochkin."
    
    Take 'er away, Terry...........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    If you haven't seen the episode of Wings featuring VTOL aircraft,
    this will be nearly impossible to answer, even then it won't be
    easy.
    
    When Bell Aircraft was doing its early research on VTOL aircraft,they
    built one that flew sucessfully.It used the entire fuselage and
    fin assy. from another aircraft that was originally built for an
    entirely different purpose.
    
    What was the make and model of the original aircraft that Bell
    cannabilized from ? 
    
    Easier version: What type of aircraft was it ?
    
    Hint: What type of aircraft do I have a tendency to include in my
    trivia questions ? On at least one occasion, anyway.
    
    Terry

    Pretty tough one, Terry.  Looks like you should reveal the answer and
    ask a new question since this one's gone pretty close to 24-hours
    without a guess.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

      I don't recall the Bell designation of the airplane, but they
    simply took a Schewizer 1-26 glider fuselage intact, and grafted
    on all the VTOL structure. Looked like it flew pretty well in the
    Wings footage.
    
    Ok, next question is up for grabs.
    
    Terry
    

    Geeeez, I can't believe the forum's stood open since early this
    morning with no takers.  Lessee' if'n I can come up with one ta' get us
    movin' agin':
    
    The cooling air intake/scoop on this aircraft was so perfectly designed
    that the air flowing through it actually produced enough thrust to
    offset its inherent drag.  Therefore, the scoop had a "free-ride,"
    aerodynamically speaking.  To what aircraft will we find this "free" 
    scoop attached? 
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Mustang
    

    Re: .-1, Marc,
    
    Rightchooare, amigo.  I'd begun to think everyone'd gone into a coma
    back there.
    
    Take 'er away.........
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

     
    In 1964 the the (then) North American OV-10 Bronco went head-to-head
    with another similiar a/c for the US Services joint LARA (Light Armed
    Reconn. Airplane) contract.  The losing plane actually had better
    performance, but the Bronco was chosen.  Name the loser.
    
    Marc

    Re: .-1, Marc,
    
    By "similar a/c" do you mean similar planform, i.e. twin engine, twin
    boom, etc.?
    
    Onliest plane I can think of that fits the description _did_ find a job
    as a FAC (Forward Artillery Control) plane and that's the Cessna
    Skymaster push-puller.  Am I anywhere in the ballpark??
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    "similiar" does mean twin-boom, twin engine, tandem cockpit, roughly
    the same weapons.  Not the Skymaster, though.  The a/c I'm looking 
    for here came from a very "hot" builder of the '50s and '60s.  The 
    company is somewhat on the decline these days, and if you believe 
    Aviation Week, they will be defunct if no big contract comes their way
    soon.   By "hot", I mean technology-wise, not climate.
    
    Marc

    Hmmmmmmmm, sounds like Piper or Beech but I haven't a clue as to the
    aircraft in question.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    okay, this was a little tuff since the plane in question went nowhere.
    It was the Convair Model 48 Charger.  Very similiar in appearance &
    performance to the Bronco, except the wing-span was even shorter.  One
    interesting feature that Convair incorporated was a detachable pod that
    bolted on to the rear of the stubby fuselage between the booms that
    could carry 6 paratroopers on COIN missions.  Convair was into pods
    back in those days.  Remember the Hustler?   Next one in with a
    question will be batter up.
    
    Marc

Hmm, Convair reminded me of something.


Where did the Atlas missle program get it's name?

    re: last
    
    Good question!  I think it might have had something to do with the
    B-36 Peacemaker and SAC.  Am I on the right track?
    
    Marc

RE:.4718


Marc,
The man who made sure the B-36 got built is the same man who was behind building
the Atlas missile. But ATLAS sure wasn't his name. Something else of his did 
share the name though.... 

    
    ....hmmm.  This is like a riddle.  Putting some of your clues
    concerning the B-36 and a famous name, I'll SWAG General LeMay?
    I haven't the faintest idea about his wife's name and I'm probably
    dead wrong anyway, so I'll jes' Control-Z outta here...
    
    Marc

    It's gotta' be Steve Reeves and his lovely wife, Atlas.  Or, wait a
    minute, maybe it was Lou Ferrigno and _his_ lovely wife, Atlas.  Or
    maybe it was Charles Atlas and his lovely wife, Athena. 
    Orrrrrrrrr.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    re: last
    
    No, Al - you got it all wrong.  I think it was Dobie Gillis and _his_
    wife Atlas, not Steve Reeves' wife Atlas.  Different Atlas...
    

RE: .4720

Nope, when I say this guy wsa behind both of these projects I mean he got them
built for the people like General Lemay. In other, one of HIS companies did the
building.

RE: .4721

Al,
Of all the people, I figured you'd have the best shot at this. Must be short timer's
 diesease or something. 8^) Actually, this guy's wife was well known in aviation
circles and most people would agree that characterizing her as an atlas would
hardly be acurate...


Last hint:
This man's famous wife could easily be credited as being responsible for the
creation of the USAF amoung other things. Convair was one of his companies but
not the first. The special one gave its name to the missile.

If no one gets it I'll post the answer later this evening since I won't be in 
till late tommorrow.

    Ahhhhhh-HAH!  Now I got it!!  It was Conrad Vultee and his famous wife,
    Amelia Airhead.  Conrad's special company was Atlas Van Lines, thus he
    named his first rocket after a moving van, the Peterbilt!  ;b^)
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Something in the sub(un)conscious says this must be Floyd Odlum and his
    wife Jackie Cochran.
    
    huff

    Don't remember exactly what, but the Atlas started out as the X-11 and
    then the X-12 and I believe it was an acronym for something.
    ATmospheirc Longrange And can't think of Something
    
    

RE: .4724
Somehow, I get the feeling that short timer knows the answer but is having 
some fun in order to avoid coming up with another question. 8^)

RE: .4725

Yep, Mr Huff, you got the right people. As its late in the day I'll give it to 
you for at least gettting that far. Floyd's first company was Atlas Tool. After 
he bought Convair, one of the engineers had done a lot of work with a missile 
design. The Airforce made a desision around that time to drop long range 
missiles in favor of long range bombers thus leaving the US high and dry without
a missle program. At the urging of powerful friends, Floyd Odlum kept the 
missle project alive with his own funds and that project evolved into the Atlas
Missile project. The missile was named after Floyd Odlum's original company, 
Atlas Tool

I've been readin a biography on Jackie Cochran. It's been very interesting and
the two of them both seem larger than life in a number of ways.

    Re: .-1, Dan'l,
    
    Nope, I really didn't know the specifics of the Atlas story at all.  I
    _did_ suspect the "wife" you hinted at was Jackie Cochran but had no
    idea who she was married to or any of the rest of the saga.
    
    I'll E-mail Don and see if he's in a position to ask and bird dog a new
    question for us.  Frequently, he's unable to do so so we may have ta'
    throw the forum open.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    I'll throw one out jes' to get things moving along:
    
    Name the a/c that the US forces called the "Sweetheart of Okinawa." 
    The Japanese had a less endearing name for it.
    
    Marc

I seem to recall this from wings.  The P-47.

    
    ..nope, not the P-47.

Just guessing - P-38?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Nope, I'm sure the "Sweetheart of Okinawa" was the Vought F4U Corsair
    and that the Japanese called it "Whistling Death" because of the
    whistling noise made by the wing-root air intakes in certain flight
    attitudes/regimes.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Right short-timer.  You got *both* names right.  All yours...
    
    Marc

    I'm 'way behind on stuff required by my boss(es), so must defer for a
    while. Go to it, Al. Do one for the gipper.
    
    dh

    OK, following in the same vein, here's a repeat from way back when. 
    Those with good memories (or some command of German) may find this one
    fairly easy.
    
    What WW-II allied fighter was referred to by the Germans as,
    
    		"Das Gabelshwanz Teufel"  ??????????
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    using my 3 years of high school German -
    
    "The Fork-tailed Devil"  - the P-38
    
    Marc

    Correct-a-mundo, Marcus.  Take 'er away.......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    along the same lines:
    
    Which allied a/c was known by the enemy as "Whispering Death"?   Not
    the Corsair this time...
    
    Marc

    F-117A?

    I'm pretty sure this was also a WW-II aircraft but can't for the life
    of me think offhand which one it might be.  Just for giggles, I'll
    guess the deHavilland Mosquito but that's a pure SWAG.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    I'll try one of those SWAG answers that seem so prevalent lately: how
    about those tank buster and anto personnel aircraft, the P-39???
    
    Just a SWAG, you understand, just a SWAG!!
    
    Don H.

    Bristol Beaufighter. Its radial engines were very quiet. The Japanese
    gave this aircraft its nick name.
    
    Angus

    By George, I b'lieve Angus has it.  I knew I knew the answer and was
    certain it was Britizh but couldn't come up with it 'til I heard it. 
    Bob Frey and I have done some rudimentary documentation searches on the
    Beaufighter as a potential twin Masters scale project and I know now
    that that's where I came upon the info.
    
    BTW, good to see you back Angus...long time no hear from.  Since Marc
    doesn't seem to be around yet this AM and, acknowledging the time
    difference, I'll go out on a limb and award you the question so, if
    yer' still around, you have time to post a new question.
    
    Take 'er away, Angus......
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    Thanks Al. I do keep an eye on the conference, but work prevents too
    great an involvement. However, my Black Magic is nearing completion, so
    I should contribute a bit more soon.
    
    My questions are: what is the name of the stand off missile to have
    been carried by the Vulcan bomber and how was it carried?
    
    Any bit gets a winner.
    
    A clue: it wasn't carried like Hound dog (sp?)
    
    Angus

    
    I think it was the Blue Steel.  Really big, and carried semi-recessed
    on the Vulcan centerline.
    
    Marc

    Since it was go-home time for Angus, he sent me the answer (below) and
    Marc hit the nail right on the ol' head.  Sooooo, take 'er away,
    Marc.....
    
                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                        Date:     25-Mar-1991 05:20pm GMT
                                        From:     Angus McDonald @REO F3
                                                  MCDONALDA
                                        Dept:     Information Services
                                        Tel No:    
                                        Doc No:   007557

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _pno::caseya )


Subject: RC answer

    Al,
    
    Sorry to offload this one on you, but its going home time here and it 
    would be nice to keep the Aircraft trivia rolling.
    
    The answers I am looking for to my question are:
    
    Blue Steel is the name of the missile.
    
    The missile was carried in the bomb bay of the vulcan, but was so large 
    only half fitted in.
    
    Angus
    PS If any body puts Blue Streak, they're wrong. Blue streak was a rocket, 
    not unlike the Atlas.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    What was the "Bock's Car?"
    
    Marc

    The B-29 which dropped the big one on Nagasaki
    
    Now in the USAFM
    
    

    
    re: last
    
    Yep, that's it.  All yours Jim..
    
    Marc

    Neither the Lancaster nor the Halifax were originally designed to be 4
    engined bombers.
    
    Why did they end up as such?

    
    I'm not sure about the Halifax, but the Lancaster originally started
    out as a twin-engine medium bomber known as the Manchester.  The
    Manchester was a flop because it was underpowered and it's engines
    were problematic (caught fire alot)
    
    Marc

    Close, but be a bit more specific.
    

    
    Okay - you forced me to the books!
    
    Both the Halifax and Lancaster started life as twin engine medium
    bombers, and bothe were to have the same engine - the Vulture. 
    Problems and delays with the Vulture forced the designers to redesign
    the planes as four engined bombers with Merlins.  Closer?
    
    Marc

    Yeah...that's what I wanted, the failure of the Vulture.  It's
    interesting how the failure of an engine program can ruin good ideas. 
    The J40 is another failure that comes to mind.
    
    Next!

    Name the famous German designer who assisted an Indian development team
    in the 1960's in designing and building the first Indian combat a/c,
    the HAL HF-24 Marut fighter.
    
    Marc

						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Tanks alot!
    
    Marc

    Oh swell!  Now I gotta' come up with a new question.
    
    Oh ratz!  I can't think of a thing at the moment, Marc...hows 'bout you
    go ahead and ask another 'un.....OK?
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    okay - a qwik one:
    
    Identify the only WW2 bomber named after an actress.  Not a nickname -
    an "official" name.
    
    Marc

    
    no takers?  okay - some hints:
    
    It's not unusual for a fighter to become a bomber, but in the case of
    this plane, the reverse was true - a bomber became a (specialized)
    fighter.
    
    The US called this plane the "______" and one of our allies called it
    the "_____" after an American actress.
    
    Marc

    Well, my first thought was the Japanese "Betty" but I dismissed it 'til
    I read yer' hint...sounds like it just could be after all.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    nope...not a "Betty".  Not Japanese.
    
    Marc

    
    P-61 is on the right track, only because it was what the mystery plane
    became - a night fighter.
    
    Marc

    Almost sounds like we're talking about the Me-110 here but I don't know
    the code names we're looking for.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    more hints - last ones :-)
    
    The mystery plane is American, we called it the "______".  The RAF used
    it, they called the "______", after an American actress. 
    Coincidentally, the actress's name is also a fairly warlike word, used
    to describe chaos and destruction.
    
    Marc

    Alright, you're other hints tell me it was the A-20, which became a
    P-70, and which the Brits called (I though it was just called the
    Havoc?) ????.  
    
    Actress???  Called Havoc???  Puzzled!!!

    A-HA!  GIVE THE QUESTION TO JIM, IF CORRECT, BUT THE CONNECTION IS, OF
    COURSE TO ACTRESS JUNE HAVOC.
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
    Yep, June Havoc!  The US called it the Boston, the Brits called it the
    Havoc.  June Havoc was the sister of another, more famous American
    actress, but I can't remember who.  Dorothy Lamour??  I dunno, before
    my time...okay Jim, if you want it...
    
    Marc

    I've never heard of June Havoc!
    
    Back to Hollywood
    
    What did Ronald Reagan, Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart do in the big
    one?  (Not the same thing!)
    
    

    
    June Havoc was the younger sister to the stripper/actress Gypsy Rose
    Lee. Finally became a nun after a couple of disastrous love lives, now
    married to Fred McMurray (long time). She was well known during WWII.
    
    Reagan was still making war movies (lousy) in 1944; Major Clark Gable
    flew in B-17s as a gunner; Stewart was a B-17 pilot. Lots of well known
    actors flew in WWII as fighter/transport/bomber pilots.
    
    dwh

    Quite right, except that Clark Gable was a sergeant.  I knew he flew
    some missions, but I doubt he did a full tour. Reagen made training
    films for the USAAF.  They have an exhibit about him at the USAFM.
    
    Take it away!
    
    Not related to a/c or this note, but a Clark Gable story i heard.
    William Faulkner and Gable at a party for writers.  Gable went
    to talk to him and asked him who he thought were the best 3 living writers 
    in the English language. (This part might not be correct exactly).
    Faulkner replied, Hemingway, Steinbeck, and William Faulkner.  Gable
    said, "Oh, you're a writer, what sort of things do you write" .
    Faulkner replied followed with "And what do you do?"
    
                 

    Well, it appears Don is preoccupied and cannot ask a new question for
    us, which is usually the case.  Therefore, I suggest we throw the forum
    open; first one in gets to ask the new question.
    
    On yer' marks..., get set.., GO FER" IT.........!!
						 __
				|      |        / |\	   	       
      	         \|/		|______|__(o/--/  | \	   	       
      | |        00	       <|  ~~~  ____ 04 ---- | --------------------
    |_|_|        (O>o		|\)____/___|\_____|_/	   Adios amigos, Al
      |     \__(O_\_	        |	  |___/	 o	   (The Desert Rat)

    
         The first Nation to launch rockets from an airplane was ________
    
         The year was ____
    
         They were used aginst _____________
    
    
                                 (2 out of 3 will take it)

    
    swags -
    
    China against Japan, 1937?
    
    Marc

    
    
      Nope on all counts
    

    
    France
    
    1915? (perhaps (14))
    
    Germans
    
    And they were "LePurier" (or something close to that..)..  They were
    fired from the inter-plane struts of the Nieuport-11.. (although this
    may not have been the first use of them).
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    
    
          Yes, It was France, and it was 1915/16. They were used against
    German Observation Balloons. Ignition was controlled in the cockpit,
    which was linked by electrical wires to the rockets.
    
                                           Take it away!

    Over the years, the Thunderbirds have flown 8 different jets.
    
    Can anyone name 5 of them??  
    
    (The data is taken from a print titled "Thunderbird Lead" and is a
    picture of the formation that never was...  One of each of them flying
    over Nellis AFB).
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    
    F84 E OR G
    F84 F
    F100 C
    F105
    F100 D 
    F4
    T38
    F16
    
    F105 WAS FLOWN IN 5 AIRSHOWS. ON THE ARRIVAL PITCHOUT FOR THE 6TH AT
    HAMILTON AFB, CALIFORNIA, ONE AIRCRAFT EXPLODED. ACTUALLY BROKE A WING
    DUE TO MAIN SPARE FAILURE. AIRCRAFT GROUNDED AND WHEN SMOKE CLEARED,
    TBs WENT TO NOW AVAILABLE F100 Ds. WITH AIR REFUELING NOW AVAILABLE
    WITH THIS MODEL, THEY COULD TRAVEL TO EUROPE FOR SHOWS. THIS WAS THE
    END OF THE LINE FOR THE EUROPEAN TEAM, THE "SKYBLAZERS".
    
    DON

    All yours....  Nice job!
    
    It was the F84G, the F105B, the F4E, T-38A and F-16A if anyone really
    wants to know the individual model numbers..
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

     
    The BLUE ANGELS were very much a dedicated GRUMMAN AIRCRAFT team down
    through the years except for one stint with F4s and now with the F18s.
    All the jets produced by GRUMMAN were used by the BLUES with the
    exception of the F-14 Tomcat and the GRUMMAN  F-XX XXXXXX. Name that
    plane.
    
    One hint.... the aircraft, though built and flown, did NOT become
    operational.
    
    don

    
    I left out another "stint" exception the BLUES used, the MD Skyhawk.
    The memory gets older.
    
    dwh

    
    The experimental swing-wing Jaguar?
    
    Marc

    The XF10F-1 Jaguar?
    
    An early variable sweep experiment.
    
    

    
    Both Marc Reid and Jim Lloyd got the right answer but Marc came up 20
    minutes earlier. So by all rights (and the clock) the next requestor
    should be Marc. Take it away.
    
    dwh

    
    What was the "Swoose Goose"?
    
    Marc

    A drunk Howard Hughes talking about his spruce plane?

    
    re: last 
    
    wrong, but funny.  :-) :-)
    
    Marc

    
    It was the Vultee XP-54 fighter.  Very strange plane.  Had a droopable
    (is that a word?) nose, so that the cannon elevation could be raised
    or lowered during flight.
    
    OPEN QUESTION TIME  - next one gets it.......
    
    Marc

    
    
        What did Douglas Corrigan do to earn his name " Wrong Way Corrigan"
    
        Be specific.
    
    

      Since no one else seems to be taking a stab at it, I thought I'd give
    it a try.
      Wasn't he attempting to set a record or something for a coast to
    coast when after one of his stops for fuel, he accidently took off and
    flew in the wrong direction for several hundred miles before
    discovering his mistake? Hence the nickname "wrong way Corrigan."
    
      Hows that?
    
    Bernie

    Exact dates, times, takeoff points, landing town are not in my cranial
    matter, but generally:
    
    Irish citizen Douglas Corrigan wanted to go home to the old sod in
    Ireland and couldn't get state department clearance to fly his single
    engined aircraft there. So he pretended to fly from the east coast to
    california but when airborne, turned eastbound and flew to Ireland,
    claiming he "misread" his compass by 180 degrees and since he couldn't
    see the ground during his flight, didn't know he was over ocean. He
    came back to the states, guest-appeared on several media events, even
    was in a couple of low-budget movies. He claimed always that he was the
    "victim" of poor compass design. And, of course, all believed him.
    
    Somebody throw in a new question.
    
    dwh

    From Wings
    
    	Name at least six paricite (sp) aircraft.  Some of the six may
    have been designed for other purposes but flew in this role for
    one reason or another.
    
    
    	G_____
    	M_____
    	S______
    	H______
    	N_______ __
    	N_______ ___
	N_______ ___
    	
    
    	There are many more and I'll take anything that's right.
    
    
    Tom

    
       BTW, Mr Huff was correct regarding Corrigan. Sorry for the late 
    response, I was on vacation yesterday and unable to log in.

    I assume we are looking for names of planes or manufacturers name with
    model number as specified with the leading in alpha character and
    specific number of dashes - I suppose.
    
    Since I do not have cable and have to rely on the old memory, all I
    can come up with is:
    
    MacDonnell GOBLIN, hauled and recovered from a B-29.
    FICON, RF84F, modified to be airlaunched/recovered by B-36
    Navy rigid airship MACON and its biplane fighters
    
    
    that's the extent of this memory.
    
    don huff
    

    XF-85 Goblin
    GRF-84F FICON
    F9C Sparrowhawk
    Polikarpov I-16 
    Polikarpov I-15
    The Short Mercury
    
    And several German Ju-88, Ju-488/Me 109 Fw 190 Mistel combinations
    
    The Japanese Ohka can in a way be classified as such as can the X-1's,
    the X-2, the X-15 and the French Leduc ramjet experimental craft.
    
    Only the first three were really parasite planes in the sense of being
    able to be recovered after launch. I can't thinkl of any others.
    
     The Russian experiments were attached to ANT-20 bombers, with one 
    photograph with as many as 5 (!!) airplanes in attendance.
                                      
    The Short Mercury was attached to the Miles (I forgot)...Maia, flying
    boat as a way to get mail across the Atlantic.  The Mercury was a twin
    float seaplane carried by the Maia and released after takeoff and a
    short flight, like a two stage rocket. 
    
    
    

    LLoyd,
    	I'd have to say you have surpassed the answers asked for.
    Your question...
    
    Tom

    Actually on second thought, the answer really wasn't quite right.  I
    don't think that the "droped" planes can really be called parasites,
    since they weren't recoverable.
    
    As I think about it, I believe ther was a Sperry Messenger and some
    British experiments with a Sopwith something or other as well.
    
    Anyway.....
    
    Question
    
    What was the first OPERATIONAL single seat twin engined military
    airplane?
    

    
    P-38?
    
    Marc

    	Hmmmmm, mebbe, could be, the Dehavilland Mosquito????
    
    
    
    	That brings the question; If people who live in Boston are called
   "Bostonians" are people who live im Moscow called "Mosquitoes"???
    

    Both wrong, but last entry closer.
    
    I fno answer by tomorrow noon, I'll post it (If I can get to the tube)

    
    Westland Whirlwind?
    
    Marc

    
    
    	How about the Fokker D XXIII ?   
    
    Tom

    Marc's right
    
    Not sure the Fokker ever reached operational status, in fact I think it
    only existed as a prototype.
    
    Take it away Marc

    re: Whirlwind
    
    that was just a guess!  I really thought the P-38 flew earlier.  The
    Whirlwind was a real neat looking plane - not a big success, though.
    I think there was a follow on later in the war called the Welkin?  Real
    *long* wings, supposed to be a high-altitude interceptor. Give me a few
    minutes on a new question, gotta think...
    
    Marc

    
    got one - just read this the other day.  Very interesting..
    
    Anybody know what WW2 fighter plane was tried as water bomber after
    WW2?  It dropped two 1000lb. water bombs on forest fires.  Actually
    dived straight down at the fire before releasing.  Worked pretty good,
    although the idea was dropped because the Catalina (and others) could
    drop more water at one time.
    
    Marc

    Just a swag
    
    Hellcat?

To carry 2000 pounds of bombs in WWII and be a fighter it would have
had to been a pretty big fighter - so I'll guess P-47.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    Good reasoning Kay.  The P-47 is correct.  I was thumbing through a
    copy of Air Classics or Air Combat (or Air mumble..) last week at a
    bookstore and came across the story.  Had some photos of a P-47 dive
    bombing a forest fire I believe was burning in Washington State.
    The stuff real trivia is made of :-)
    
    All yours..
    
    Marc

>    All yours..

Sorry for the slow response - been tied up.

Wind Tunnel tests - Part 1

OK - picture this.  You have 3 pound coffee can.
In it you mount a Leasure 05 Black Label electric motor with a 5.5 x 5 
prop on the can center line with the prop about 3.5 inches from one end 
of the can, which had the bottom removed.

A several layer shell of cardboard was place over this assembly
with a total length of 12 inches.  A small airfoil of 3 inch cord
and 6 inch span was placed in the chamber at an angle of attack of 14
degrees.  The propeller sucked the air over and under the airfoil.
This whole assembly was placed on a Ohaus lab balance and found to 
weigh 860.9 grams.  The airfoil was approximately a Clark Y.

There is a battery and switch mounted on the outside of the can but
included in the weight.  The whole thing sits on the scale and
you flip the switch.

The question is

Was the weight of the wind tunnel with the motor running

a) less and why?
b) the same and why?
c) greater and why?

This is not a trick question - the prop is normal and not a reverse
pitch prop and spinning in the direction you would naturally assume.

fyi this is from Model Builder Jan-1986 and April-1986.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    b
    
    For the same reason that a fan in the back of a sailboat will not make
    it move.
    
    Jim

>                     <<< Note 539.4813 by DEMING::LLOYD >>>
>                                     -< b >-
>
>    b
>    
>    For the same reason that a fan in the back of a sailboat will not make
>    it move.
>    
>    Jim

I like your line of reasoning but answer b is wrong.  It does not stay
the same weight.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    The answer is A) will be lighter with the fan on.  This is not a
    reaction-reaction problem.  Just lift.  Think of it this way:

    If you had an airfoil mounted on a little stand such that there was
    room for air to flow above and below the airfoil, and you placed it
    on a scale.  It would weigh X.  Then if you blew air over the
    airfoil, it would weigh less.  

    The fan in the "wind tunnel" Kay described simply blows (pulls) air
    across the airfoil.

    Above analysis (guess) assumes the tube is set to blow air
    horizontally and that the horizontal forces do not effect the
    accuracy of the scales.

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

><<< Note 539.4815 by RGB::MINER "Dan Miner, DTN:225-4015, HLO2-1/J12 (@ H11)" >>>
>                          -< A) lighter w/ motor on >-
>
>    The answer is A) will be lighter with the fan on.  This is not a
>    reaction-reaction problem.  Just lift.  Think of it this way:

Right - take it away Dan.

Below is the long (but not any better answer).

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

This question is likely to be controversial - All I can do is point to my
reference for those who disagree.  There are 3 other follow up
Wind tunnel questions that I can post over time from the same
article in Model Builder Magazine - Jan-1986.

The answer is a) the wind tunnel weights less.

Turning on the motor changes the measured weight on the
scale from 860.9 grams to 855.3 grams.  The data indicated 
a decrease in weight of 5.6 grams, or a lift of 5.6 grams, however you
want to state it.  No equipment was available to measure airspeed,
so no attempt was made to measure barometric pressure, temperature,
or humidity - which would allow us to calculate the lift coefficient.

However, under standard conditions the described airfoil at a velocity
of 9.1 feet per second indicates a lift coefficient of 1.0, which at
8.3 feet per second becomes 1.2.  These coefficients are near those
to be expected for a Clark Y airfoil under these conditions.

At this stage we have a wing generating lift due to air passing over and
under it.  

The experiment was repeated several times with the same results.  At the end 
the decaying battery voltage showed a smaller decrease in lift, or the
change in weight.

    OK, thanks, Kay.  Following along the same lines, here's one that I
    first heard many years ago, and have actually tested it myself.  
    This is NOT a trick question.

    You are in your car with the windows rolled up and the
    airconditioner and other fans are all turned off.  (No airflow in
    the car.)  You have a helium balloon floating on the ceiling of your
    car near the middle.  What happens to the balloon when:

        1) you accelerate.
            a) the balloon moves towards the back of the car
            b) balloon doesn't move
            c) the balloon moves towards the front of the car

        2) you take a sharp left corner.
            a) the balloon moves towards the right of the car
            b) balloon doesn't move
            c) the balloon moves towards the left of the car

    I promise this is the last "Mr. Wizard" question that I'll post
    here.  Well, at least for this week.  :-)

    Boy, if Al Casey could only see us now...  :-)

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    the balloon moves towards the front?
    
    and the corresponding direction which I can't remember, opposite to
    where your head wants to go.
    

    1. Balloon to the back
    2. Balloon to the right side
    
    
    						Dave
    

RE: Note 539.4818 by DEMING::LLOYD 
>>    the balloon moves towards the front?
>>    and the corresponding direction which I can't remember, opposite to
>>    where your head wants to go.

    This is correct.  When I first heard this I didn't believe it.  So,
    I tried it out.  Sure enough, the balloon goes the opposite way from
    what you would expect for a heavier than air object.

    Here's why.  It's true that the rubber is heavier than air, but the
    helium and rubber combination is still lighter than air.  So, when
    you accelarate, the (heavier) air rushes to the back, forcing the
    (lighter) balloon to the front.  Similarly for corners, slowing
    down, etc.

    Take it away (First name?) DEMING::LLOYD.

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    The Tupolev Bear is a direct descendent of what World War II airplane? 

     Since Russia was/is a friend of our country, I'll guess the B-29 since
    it does resemble it except for the countra-rotating props
    configuration. The type of propulsion used it said to give the aircraft
    jet engine speeds but at considerably less fuel consumption, there by
    having increased range.
    
    Bernie

    Quite right
    
    The Tupolev Bear is a direct descendent of the Tu-4 Bull which was a
    copy of an interned B-29.  In fact the Bear's fuselage is long and
    skinny becasue it is the same cross section and construction as the
    B-29.
    
    Takeraway

     The oldest existing B-17 is in the possesion of the Smithsonian and
    awaiting restoration.
     What is the name on the side of the aircraft?
    
    Bernie

    Swoose?
    
    

     CORRECT ANSWER !!  Next one's yours.
    
    

    I'll be away for a few days, so this question will be left to the
    moderator to deal with (Marc, it's you now isn't it?)
    
    The original Me 109 and the original Ju 87 flew with the same engine.
    
    What is the irony?
    

Just a side note on the Swoose.  That was on a documentary this
weekend, was it the Smithsonian program, or was it GI Diary?

Anyway, Swoose was pieced together from various B17s that were
shot up on the ground when the Japanese hit the Philipines.  So
it really isn't an "original" 17.  The shots they showed of it in
the museum restoration room with battle patches on the fuse were
really nice.  Very interesting shots of other planes, including a
pristine just-restored FW-190.

After being pieced together, the plane went on to have a fine
combat record, even I think, some missions in Europe (strange,
but I thought that's what the moderator said).

In researching the P40, there's a picture of one in taken Japan
with Japanese markings in the Squadron/Signal book.  It was
picked up off the dock after they captured Manilla and taken back
to study.   The pix shows that it was shot up a bit during our
raids, but still with the big rising sun on the side.  Don't ask
me what this has to do with the Swoose.

    The answer was correct, both flew originally with RR Kestrel engines
    which came from the same shop as the Merlin, which proceeded to power
    the planes which shot most of them down.
    
    Go to it.
    
    

    First one in gets it as its almost home time here.
    
    Angus

What bit of nature gave people inspiration to try the flyying wing concept?

    
    The swallow?
    
    Marc

    I think it's the bat.

                                - Dan

RE: last couple

close but not quite. We're talking a true flying wing.

    How about those things that fall off of oak trees and spin down like
    helicopters.
    
    S.

    I saw it on a movie the other night about Jack Northrop..........It was
    similar to -.1, but it wasn't from a Maple tree, but from something
    else.  It didn't spin like the "helicopters" from a maple tree, but
    actually glided like a flying wing.  I think it was from some kind
    "milkweed" sort of plant.
    
    Not good enough, probably, but someting like that.

    RE:539.4837
    
    You got it. "The WING Will Fly" showed how part of the inspiration for
    the wing came from watching the seed pod of a plant common in Europe
    fly.
    
    take it away.

    What was unique about the Russian fighter plane designed by 
    Nikitin-Ivchenko (or something like that) the IS-?
    
    I realize this is a bit obscure, but the designer only built this
    particualr plane as far as I can tell and it was certainly like no
    other!!!
    

>                     <<< Note 539.4839 by DEMING::LLOYD >>>
>                  -< The Nikitin-Ivchenko was really special >-
>
>    What was unique about the Russian fighter plane designed by 
>    Nikitin-Ivchenko (or something like that) the IS-?
>    
>    I realize this is a bit obscure, but the designer only built this
>    particualr plane as far as I can tell and it was certainly like no
>    other!!!

If a person waits long enough his question has to come up.

The IS-1 is a great looking (perhaps the best) biplane with
a unique feature that the bottom wing folds up into the
top wing and it looks for all the world like a mono-plane when
retracted.  The gear also retract at the same time up into the
bottom of the bottom wing which is hidden in the top wing.
The wing tips fold at about mid wing so it looks a bit like
the wing just sort of tucks itself under the wing.

Great plane - I left my name and address with the Russians when
they were at the WRAM show and asked for any details they had on
the plane.  We'll see.

The only thing I have ever seen is the drawing and 3 views in the
book "War planes of the second world war - volume three - FIGHTERS"
by William Green.

If you or anybody else has any documentation on this truly unique and
beautiful airplane - please copy me.

P.S. Actually is't Nikitin-Sevchenko and the IS-2 is the same as the IS-1
     but with "improved fuselage and wing retract mechanism".  Never seen
     a picture or drawing of an IS-2.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
    

    
    re: last
    
    *Very* interesting concept, but, why?  And, did it fly?
    
    Marc

>    *Very* interesting concept, but, why?  And, did it fly?
    
Marc, to get the takeoff and landing speed of a bipe and the top
speed of a mono.  Yes - they flew but because of the maintenance
problems with the wing folding mechanism it never went into full
production.  Also there were now monoplanes coming out at this
time that could out run it.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    re: last
    
    Thanks.  I thought maybe it had something to do with maneuverability..
    
    BTW - Are you familiar with the Czech Avia 534 family of pre-WW2 biplanes?
    Very beautiful design - IMHO, the best looking bipe ever built.  Fast, too.
    
    Marc
    

OK - I'll assume I have the go ahead on the last question and hop
in with a new one.

This is Wind Tunnel Test - Part 2.

Please refer to note 539.4812 for details of the first wind tunnel.

Now picture this.

This wind tunnel that was mounted on a scale.  Now we build
a sealed box (one with 6 sides) and place the whole wind tunnel
inside it such that it has enough room around the front and
read and sides and top and bottom for plenty of airflow.  That is
the new box is much larger than the original wind tunnel in every
dimension and the wind tunnel is elevated a few inches to promote
free air flow.  Only the battery and switch are outside of the
sealed box.

Now we place the sealed wind tunnel on the scale (Model Builder did)
and it weights 1471.6 grams.

Now you flip the switch.

The question is

Was the weight of the wind tunnel with the motor running

a) less and why?
b) the same and why?
c) greater and why?

This is not a trick question - the prop is normal and not a reverse
pitch prop and spinning in the direction you would naturally assume.

fyi this is from Model Builder Jan-1986 and April-1986.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Kay is obviously right, and I thought that would be a tough one!!!
    
    This would be the ultimate challenge mor a model builder!
    
    I can just imagine the aerodynamics when the bottom wing is in
    transition!!!!!
    
    Go for it!

    Well, Kay..

    I'de say that if you could get an enclosed box to weigh less as a result
    of the operation of some machine inside the box, you've got the key to
    rescind the laws of thermodynamics.

    So, I say the box weighs the same. The airflow over the foil creates
    lift, but that lift is generated against the air inside the box.  For
    every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Since the air
    inside can't escape the system to exert it's opposite reaction on
    something that isn't on the scale, it's got to exert it on the inside of
    the box and cancel the lift being generated by the airfoil.

    it's that old question, does a truckload of canaries weigh less if all
    the canaries are flying inside the truck?


    Randy

    No change
    
    For the reason I said for my earlier wrong answer.
    
    

><<< Note 539.4846 by LEDS::COHEN "The more you drive, the less intelligent you become" >>>
>       -< If Newton were alive today, he'd be rolling over in his grave >-
>
>    Well, Kay..
>
>    I'de say that if you could get an enclosed box to weigh less as a result
>    of the operation of some machine inside the box, you've got the key to
>    rescind the laws of thermodynamics.
>
>    So, I say the box weighs the same. The airflow over the foil creates
>    lift, but that lift is generated against the air inside the box.  For
>    every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Since the air
>    inside can't escape the system to exert it's opposite reaction on
>    something that isn't on the scale, it's got to exert it on the inside of
>    the box and cancel the lift being generated by the airfoil.
>
>    it's that old question, does a truckload of canaries weigh less if all
>    the canaries are flying inside the truck?
>
>
>    Randy

Great explanation - but the wrong answer.
The weight did not stay the same.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    OK, Kay, I changed my mind, I say it still gets lighter.

    Any motor/prop force reaction is predominantly horizontal, so whether it
    is canceled out when the airflow hits the back of the box, or not,
    the motor prop doesn't effect the weight on the scale.

    That leaves the lift generated by the airflow over the wing to consider. 
    Does the lift produced by the wing "push back" on the inside bottom of
    the box, cancelling the lift (like blowing on a Sail, when you're on the
    boat)?  Upon reconsideration, I'de have to say no, not much if at all. 
    Bernoulli, and all that.

    The flow of air over an airfoil doesn't result in a force vector in the
    down direction, only upward, as lift, and backward, as drag.  So, the
    drag component can be ignored.  The lift component produces an
    uncancelled, upward force.  The box gets lighter.


    Randy

RE .-1

The airfoil generates lift by accelerating air downwards (F=MA). The downwash
from the wing hitting the bottom of the box is going to cancel the lift.

Since the box is a closed system, the only force acting on it is due to it's
contact with the scale. The only way to reduce the weight of the box is to
reduce it's mass, which won't happen just by turning the motor on.

If this were to actually work, then as you increase the power of the motor 
then at some point the box would lift off of the scale and start to fly.
Also, since the box is closed, this would not depend on there being air outside
of the box. This would allow an interplanetary "flying saucer" kind of 
thing with no external visible means of propulsion. 
WE'VE GOT A BREAKTHROUGH HERE, CALL THE INQUIRER!!!! 8^)

Glenn Schrader

    I say the box gets lighter.
    The majority of the lift comes from the higher velocity/reduced
    pressure on top of the wing causing the wing to want to move up into
    the lower pressure area and away from the higher pressure area on
    the bottom. Any air accelerated downward by the bottom of the wing,
    and striking the bottom of the box, is a lesser force and insufficient
    to cancel the net lift.
    
    The "flying saucer" effect (intriging concept) would not occur because
    as the prop continues to increase in speed/thrust a point would
    be reached where the overall turbulence/backflow in the enclosed
    box would prevent the wing from generating any greater lift. Also, prop
    cavitation would occur at some point, resulting in the same leveling
    off of lift.
    
    Terry

I put a note in here sometime ago disabusing someone of the notion of any 
"force" on the top of the wing in flight. There isn't *any*. .485 was pretty
much correct about the airfoil building up high pressure underneath it. Since
the same pressure pushing the wing up will push box down there shouldn't be any
weight change.

Now for a question. What was the magnitude of the weight change? Relatively 
small? Was the box sealed? Completly airtight? If the box was tight, but not
totally tight I could see a weight change due to the rise in temperature which
would be caused by the drive mechanism for the prop. From my physics days this
apparatus is a closed system with the exception of the battery and switch. The
only thing that can change the perceived state of the box to an outside observer
is the action of an influence also from outside of the box. So like a hot air
baloon the weight could change due to lowering the density of the air inside the
box by the application of energy from outside of the box.

Please don't let this go too much further. I'm very curious about the
explanation given in the article.

Randy

><<< Note 539.4849 by LEDS::COHEN "The more you drive, the less intelligent you become" >>>
>                          -< Rationalizers Anonymous >-

>    OK, Kay, I changed my mind, I say it still gets lighter.


Randy wins - the box gets lighter.  The explanation given in the magazine
article is pretty thin and after all only one man's theory but the fact is 
it does get lighter.  The reply about heat doesn't sound too valid because
in fact as the battery runs down and the voltage decreases the motor
gets hotter then ever before and in fact the box starts to gain
weight back as the battery tapers off. 

The box containing the wind tunnel weighed 1471.6 grams.
From the article:

====================================================================
"The total weight when the battery was plugged in was 1469.9 grams,
which indicates an airfoil lift of 5.7 grams.  This data was also
repeated until the battery started coasting down.  Frankly I
am surprised that this value was so close to that obtained
with the tunnel in the free atmosphere, for this tunnel is
certainly not of optimum design".

=====================================================================

Then quoting out of context the article goes on to say

====================================================================

"Was there a definite unbalance, indicating lift?"
"Yes."
"Does this indicate that the bird cage is lighter with the bird
in flight?"
"Yes."

So Randy take it away.

P.S.  It gets better - stay tuned for Wind Tunnel Question #3.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    I agree with the earlier message.  If the system is closed there is no
    way the weight can change.  If it did, then the system was not closed
    as described, or there was something wrong with the scale.  Even if the
    gas in the box were heated up there wouldn't be a change in weight, just
    a change in pressure. (it would be higher,  PV=nRT, and since n can't
    change in a closed system, the pressure increases)  The ridiculous
    limit to the argument is the flying saucer invention mentioned earlier
    (Very Clever Argument!!!)
    
    If the system was truly closed and the magazine says that the weight
    changed, the magazine's wrong!
                                  

I don't have a question so the first one in can take it.

I'll have to ponder the previous answer. Its definitely the obvious intuitive
answer, but it doesn't agree with the way a closed system should behave (in my
limited understanding). Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Randy

Ok, I changed my mind. A 747 at rest weighs, say 300,000 lbs. (Don't harass me 
if this is several orders of magnitude off - it makes no difference to the 
question). What is its weight when it levels off at cruising altitude? The 
answer to this may have something to do with the previous question. I haven't 
worked it out completly yet.

Randy

    I've wanted to ask a question here for a long time, but not being at
    the right place at the right time, I never got in. So I guess that this
    is the right time. Many moon ago, I bought a C.G. Anniversary J-3 Cub,
    and I've since then wanted to build it as true to scale as can be. So I 
    went to the Orange Mass. airport to talk to a pilot who was supposed to
    have a J-3 out there. I wanted to ask him if I could take some pictures
    and measure his plane. But he wasn't there at that time. But, a
    mechanic that worked there said that he had a magazine that had some
    stuff in it about the J-3. He gave it to me and said that I could have
    it to keek for my very own. Well when I got it home, I read it through
    about eighty bazillion times, looking at the specs, pictures, and all
    of the other good junk about the beautiful J-3. Anyway trying not to
    ramble any more, the question: How many J-3 Cubs were made during their
    lifespan ?   How many are still in the air?(as of 1986)
    		
    
    		Ray...
    
    

    
    Wow...Counting the 6000 or so L-4s for the military, I'll guess about
    20,000 Cubs were built, and maybe 2000 are still flying?
    
    Marc

    NOPE...
    
    Too many on the first and not enough on the second.
    
    
    Ray...
    
    

    Well it has been about 24 hrs. since I entered the questions and didn't
    get the right answers so I'l give them and ask a new one.
    
    The answers are....  
    
    1. 14,125 J-3's built
    2. As of 1986 4,277 were still flying
    
    Next question.....
    
    In the summer of 1940 William D. Strothmeier, a salesman for Piper,
    gave demonstration flights of the the J-3 all across the country to try
    to sell the plane. While at Camp Polk , Lousiana, he invited an Army
    colonel along for a ride, so that he could check bivouac ares. The
    colonel said that he had a private pilot certificate, earned flying a
    Stearman while on duty in the Phillipines in 1937 and 1938. The colonel
    later helped convince the Army to buy 5,673 L-4's. Who was the colonel?
    
    
    		RAY...
    
    
    uy 5,673 L-4's. Who was the colonel?

>        <<< Note 539.4855 by TINCUP::OSWALD "TANSTAAFL!" >>>
>                -< Actuallyt I aint got one >-
>
>I don't have a question so the first one in can take it.
>
>
>Randy

    Actually, Randy, it wasn't your question, anyway.  It was mine.  I'm the
    original Randy.  You're just a pale wraithlike imitation.  Nyah Nyah.


>><<< Note 539.4849 by LEDS::COHEN "The more you drive, the less intelligent you become" >>>
>>                          -< Rationalizers Anonymous >-
>
>>    OK, Kay, I changed my mind, I say it still gets lighter.
>
>
>Randy wins - the box gets lighter.  The explanation given in the magazine

    You see, Kay was offering *ME* the question.  NOT *YOU*, you usurper,
    you!

    You're just lucky I don't have a question handy anyway, now that the J3
    questions snuck in.  And, even if I did have one, I wouldn't want to
    post it now, after this insult.  I'm goin' home.  I don't want to play
    anymore.  Shucks.

    I thought there were actually people Moderating this conference so these
    types of horrible accidents wouldn't happen!  Where were they?  Asleep
    at the Yoke, no doubt!
    
    Boy, do I feel slighted!   


    Randy "*The REAL THING*" Cohen

    8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 

    
    RE: .4860
    
    Patton?
    
    
    Marc

    The colonel did become a general but it wasn't Patton.
    
    

Oh me, Oh my, I'm so confused. Everybody calls me Randy, but now he says *hes*
Randy, and my name plate says Randy, but *his* reply says Randy.... I must have
finally lost it. Now I don't know who I am.


Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllp.


Actually, I was flipping through trivia pretty quickly not paying much 
attention. The question intrigued me, but for whatever reason I missed your
correct answer and assumed Kay was replying to me. Please oh please oh please
forgive me. Nobody likes my question anyway, although I've pretty much convinced
myself that the answer explains why the box got lighter while not revoking the
laws of physics.


Ever so humbly yours,
Randy

    re: .4863
    
    just guesses, but, LeMay?, MacArthur?     I could go on....:-)
    
    Marc

    Now we've degenerated to Randy talking to himself (at least he replied
    to Randy's message P^)

Hap Arnold?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    No to all the answers so far.
    
    Clue #2: The general stayed in England for most of the WW2.
    
    
    
    

Eisenhower?

    Yep ....   who later became our pres.
    
    Take it away.....
    
    
    

There is a visible difference between B52s which carry cruise missiles and
other B52s. This difference was created due to an arms control treaty and
allows the ones carrying cruise missiles to be identified visually. What
is the difference?

Glenn Schrader

    
    re: last
    
    Good question!  I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm curious if the same
    visual identifier is required of Soviet ALCM bombers?
    
    Thanks, Marc.

>    Good question!  I'm not sure of the answer, but I'm curious if the same
>    visual identifier is required of Soviet ALCM bombers?

Hmmmm. Good question. Probably yes but I wasn't involved in that end of things.

GS

    
    Okay - just a guess: I recently saw a picture of a B-52 that was
    painted all white.  Is that it?  An all-white paint job?
    
    Marc

>    Okay - just a guess: I recently saw a picture of a B-52 that was
>    painted all white.  Is that it?  An all-white paint job?


Nope.

    I'de guess the intent was to allow verification of the number of Cruise
    Missle equipped B52s to be performed easily.

    One half of me says it had to have been some particular marking that
    could be observed with Strategic Reconnaissance, so it's a particular
    paint scheme observable from above or alongside.

    The other half says, nah, that would mean the Ruskies would have to be
    pretty trusting of us (and us of them), not to "forget" to paint some of
    the planes.  Since the Russians have been traditionally suspicious of us
    in the past, I rationalize that the change would have to be structural,
    something that would be required to enable the plane to carry a Cruise
    Missle, something that would not be easily performed to a non equipped
    B52.  What that could be, I'm not sure.  Perhaps the Cruise Missle
    equipped B52s had a modification in the area of the Bomb Bay,
    eliminating the dual-bay configuration in favor of a single, longer bay
    to accomodate the missle.


    Randy *The REAL THING* Cohen.

    
    hmm - .4876 (the *real* Randy) has got me thinking.  Structural changes
    make sense.  I know that the B-52s carry the ALCMs both internally and
    externally.  When carried outside, they are on huge pylons under each
    wing.  Are the pylons the distinguishing feature?
    
    Marc

No right answers yet but to keep the topic moving I'll give it to Randy Cohen.
It's a structural change all right. What they did is where the wing roots
meet the fuse some additional fairings were added. Kind of like a big fillet
that made the chord wider and blended into the fuse. Not only were they big 
enough to be seen from a satellite but they improved the fuel economy!
The missiles were stored in the bomb bay on rotary launchers (6 per launcher)
so they weren't visible from the outside. There were some versions with
missiles on pylons but these weren't manditory.

GS

>No right answers yet but to keep the topic moving I'll give it to Randy Cohen.

    I want all you "faux" Randys out there to notice he said "Randy Cohen",
    the one who comes with the Certificate of Authenticity, not some cheap
    knock-off...


    So, todays Final Jeopardy Question is on the subject of "Aeronautical
    Firsts".  So, contestants, if you're ready... [insert sound of Jeopardy
    "bell" here]  The answer is...


    "May 9th, 1926"

    What date followed May 8th in the year 1926? 8^)

>    What date followed May 8th in the year 1926? 8^)

    Sorry, that's incorrect.  You lose all your money, and end up in third
    place.  Third place prize today is a lifetime supply of Q-Tips, the
    cotton swab with a heart of gold, and 12 cases of Hormel Refried Beans,
    the can of beans with a heart of gold.

    Hormel Refried Beans ??!!!? Good grief Randy,have you no shame ?
    
    Old El Paso Refritos are semi-acceptable if you fancy yourself a
    Mexican cuisine poseur, but of course Rosarita brand is the only
    serious choice if you must buy them in a can, rather than making
    your own.
    
    Oh yes, the trivia question... ummm, that was the date that Charles
    Lindbergh arrived in San Diego to make the deal with Ryan to build
    the Spirit of St. Louis. 
    The company president took him out to lunch. They had chimichangas,
    posole with goat meat, and of course refritos.
    
    Terry

>    The company president took him out to lunch. They had chimichangas,
>    posole with goat meat, and of course refritos.

    Terry,

    Not the answer I was looking for (although the anniversary of Lindy's
    flight is, I think, May 19th, or somesuch).

    And, according to my reference (the World Book of Esoteric Aeronautical
    Facts), they had Gazpacho, Sizzling Fajitas with Rice, and Strawberry
    Margaritas.


    Keep trying...


    The *REAL* Randy.

    
    5/9/26  - first flight over the North Pole by Byrd.  Lived on guacamole
    and refried beans during the flight.  Swallowed the worm while passing
    over the pole....
    
    Marc

>    5/9/26  - first flight over the North Pole by Byrd.  Lived on guacamole
>    and refried beans during the flight.  Swallowed the worm while passing
>    over the pole....

    Marc,

    Close enough...

    It was actually Salsa (Extra Hot) and those blue Corn Tortilla Chips.



    Randy

    
    When was the *last* air-to-air engagement fought that resulted in a
    a/c being shot down by cannon fire alone (no missiles involved)?
    
    
    Marc

     re: last
    
     The current question (.4886) does *not* include the Iraqi helicopter
     shot down by an A-10 a couple of months ago.  The question concerns
     conflicts prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
    
     marc

    
    I'm to going to be out of town for the rest of the week, so I'll answer
    the current question, and then open the floor to the first one in with
    a new question:
    
    The answer is the Falkland Island conflict.  Royal Navy Sea Harriers
    shot down 4 of their 20 Argentine victims with cannon fire, the rest with
    missiles.  Next!
    
    Marc

    Well, nobody bit, so I'll add one.
    
    During the Gulf war a Russian made helicopter was shot down by a bomber in a
    most unique manner.  What was it?
                                       

    They dropped a bomb on it while it was airborne. I heard the Iraqi
    pilot died of...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     embarassment!

    Righto
    
    Go for it!
    
    Jim

    I don't have a question ready at the moment so it's open forum time.
    First one with a question, gets it. Maybe one of the chopper guys can
    keep the chopper theme going for a couple of rounds. I know I'd learn
    some from some chopper discussion.
    
    Re: answer
    
    I was very interested in the technological aspect of the Gulf War. I
    was exposed to some of the smart technology in previous jobs and it's
    always interesting to see if it does what it's designed for. I'm always
    amused when someone manages to use something in a creative way and that
    incident certainly fit that description (although it is a shame that so
    many young lives were lost due to one man's determination)

    I don't participate in Trivia much because I don't know much. I
    heard recently an interesting anecdote about a famous aviator:
    Charles Lindberg.  Given a slightly different twist of history,
    he would have had a different name. What name might he have had?
    
    Dave
    

    Well, either everybody's stumped, or not interested. I don't want
    to hold things up, so I'll give you the answer. This was from a
    Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" episode a week or so ago.
    
    It seems that Charles' grandfather was an official in the home
    country (I don't remember which Scandinavian country). They were
    having increasing difficulty with the fact that surnames were derived
    from the father's name, rather than having a family surname that passed
    down from generation to generation. Grandfather was a proponent of
    permanent surnames. He decided to start with his own family. Rather
    than just keep his current surname, he allowed his two sons to pick
    a new surname. It was popular to pick a couple words from nature,
    so one son picked "trees", the other picked "mountains". This became
    Lindbergh (I'm not sure of the exact spelling).
    
    Later on, Grandfather emigrated to the U.S., and one of his sons had
    a son he named Charles, who became famous. 
    
    If grandfather had not changed his name in this way, but just kept his
    own surname and passed it on, the most famous aviator in history would
    have been named:
    
    Charles Manson
    
    
    
    
    
    I don't have any more trivia (aren't you glad), so it's open to
    anybody!
    

    
    
    	When Lockheed and Boeing were lock in combat trying for the
    design contract for what was to become the C5A Galaxy Boeing
    lost.  This prompted the company to design another aircraft.
    
    Name that aircraft?
    
    
    Tom

    Right you are,  Your question!!!
    
    
    Tom

    
    re: .4894  Charles Lindburgh a/k/a Charles Manson..
    
    now that's Aviation Trivia!  great question, thanks.
    
    
    
    new question:
    
    The last Japanese a/c shot down by the US (after both a-bombs were dropped)
    were shot down by what type of aircraft?
    
    Hint: joined the fray just before the end of the war, flew only two
    missions over Japan.
    
    Marc

    I know what the answer is, but it's cheating
    
    let's just say it was unpressurized and big
    
    If no-one else gets it I'll claim victory!!!!!
    
    

    
    Consolidated B-32 Dominator  - Jim Lloyd is *itchin'* to get in here,
    so take it Jim!
    
    Marc

    WHO was Winnie Mae?  (Not what?)

    No Answers???
    
    The daughter of the man who owned the plane?  Wiley Post only owned the
    Winnie Mae for a short time and was later bought by Winnie Mae herself,
    and Wiley still flew it.  Now rests at the NASM.
    
    Another Lockheed Question
    
    Why was the Lockheed Air Express designed as a parasol?
    

    No action eh?
    
    Well it was a parasol becasue the airline pilots of the time preferred
    open cockpits and the parasol wing gave them better visbility than a
    straight rear cockpit Vega might have done.
    
    I'll leave it open for someone else since I have to go away for a few
    days
    
    

    What was/is the largest and fastest glider?

    I think I know the answer, but I'm looking for confirmation before
    saying it in front of a bunch of cub scouts.

    I also believe that  *all*  fixed wing aircraft are inherently gliders,
    but I'm only looking for planes that always dead-stick the landings.
    
    Alton

    
                 The space shuttle?

    Kevin has the answer that I expected.

    Would the space shuttle also be the heaviest?  How about wing span?

    Hmmmn. Does this mean that the fastest man-carrying plane and the 
    fastest model plane are both gliders?  That is a bold statement.

    I'd agree that the space shuttle is the heaviest glider.
    The Me 323 Gigant would be a candidate for longest wing span glider.
    A control line speed plane would be the fastest model airplane.
    

    TERRY,
    
    Gotta be careful about stretching out notes:
    
    Fastest model airplane (FAI recognized speed record) is a European
    SAILPLANE (no motor/engine). Set a speed record and since
    documentation wasn't the best, reset the record the following year. I
    believe it was somewhere around 230 mph (someone correct me if I'm
    wrong)! Control line speed is only up around 210 somewhere.
    
    huff

    The fastest RC plane is an Arrow slope racing glider, clocked at 249
    mph in Austria.  Of course, the Austrians have some good mountains for
    slope racing.
    
    From "How to Build and Fly Radio Controlled Gliders" 
    

    How were these gliders flying when they were clocked?
    
    ajai

    The article I read said that they dove pretty much straight down and
    pulled out level (did the wings clap?) and flew through the speed
    course and then pulled up and did a pass in the opposite direction.
    This MUST be an incredible thing to see.

    Sure seems as though RC notes and this conference in particular has
    lost much of its life without the "Rat" interjecting his rare wit and
    incredible storehouse of knowledge. I sure miss him.
    
    huff

    
    
    I figure that the RC notes in general and this note in particular need
    a little kick in the shorts so, unless anyone has an objection I'm
    going to be the moderator of this specific note.  To help the process
    along I ask that anyone who answers a trivia question corrcetly and
    henceforth asks the next question please end me the answer on Vaxmail
    
    ARMORY::TENEROWICZT
    
    If your not able to get in for awhile and the correct answer is given
    I'll jump in and keep the process moving. OK??
    
    Tom

    
    
    OK that should have been "Send" me the answer. 
    
    
    
    To get the process moving...
    
    
    What ws the first US manufacturing and american piloted aircraft to
    shoot down a german aircraft in WWII?
    
    
    Tom

>    What ws the first US manufacturing and american piloted aircraft to
>    shoot down a german aircraft in WWII?

I'll guess a P40.  It could have been an American wearing a British uniform
early in the war.

I'm glad you're taking the time to make this active again Tom.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    Nope Kay,
    
    	It was american built,american fueled,american maintained and
    american piloted.
    
    	keep the guesses coming.. I'm hoping to have no question last more
    than 24 hours.  I'll also get a monitor for when I'm out on vacation
    (in a few weeks).
    
    Tom

>    What ws the first US manufacturing and american piloted aircraft to
>    shoot down a german aircraft in WWII?

OK - my last guess is a B17.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    From "WINGS"  I watched this weeks show and they had the P38.
    
    They said that a group of P38's were used to help patrol the
    northern waters off of greenland for U boats and German
    aircraft.  On one ocassion a P38 found a german Condor and quickly did
    it in. So the answer ws the P38.
    
    
    
    
    Next Question...
    
    
    What is the only surviving Gee Bee manufactured original aircraft?
    
    
    
    Tom

    Off the top of my head:
    	I believe the "Conquistadore" Q-somthin or other, a stretched
    version of the R1-2/7-11, which sits in a Mexican museum SOMEWHERE.
    I really should have waited for someone with harder facts.
    
    Don

     Don,
    	Not at all, if one waits, one may be too late. But in your
    case NOPE!!!  Keep thinking!  This aircraft has been modeled
    and featured in the AMA magazine.
    
    Tom

    
    WHAT, NO MORE GUESSES.
    
    Well the answer is the Zeta,  a two passenger low wing sport plane.
    Seems that it was found a number of years ago in a barn in Hadley Ma.
    restored and then given to the Springfield Quadrangle Museum in
    Springfield,Ma..  There it hangs from the ceiling.
    
    
    
    Next question.  WHat was the first US fighter (not proto) to
    fly at twice the speed of sound.
    
    Tom

    
    
    Mr Weir has it right.  I caught this item watching wings the week. It
    was a program about the defecne dept in general. a little different
    slant to a wings program but you did see a lot of interesting
    aircraft.
    
    Your question...
    
    
    
    Tom

    
     Next One,
    
        What year was the last 727 produced?

    
    Mr Weier seems to have stepped out so I'll continue the note until he
    returns...
    
    
    
    
    One interesting fact prompted possibly the best twin engined passenger
    and cargo design ever.  The plane is the DC3/C47. What prompted it's
    design over an already successfull Boeing design?
    
    
    Tom

    The DC-2 was notably smaller, was touted as an "overnight sleeper" with
    space for only 14 pax. Douglas needed something larger, to compete with
    the Boeing 247(?). Wingspan on the '3 was 5 to 6 feet longer than the
    DC-2.
    
    don

    Don,
    	THat's all good, valid information on the DC 3 but not what I was 
    looking for.  I was looking for the relationship that forced American
    Airlines into getting Douglas to design an aircraft to compete against
    the Boeing 247.
    
    
    	The reason was...  American tried to order aircraft from Boeing
    and if boeing hadn't been 50% owned by United they would have filled
    the order.  Hence is boeing hadn't been 50% owned by United we may have
    not seen one of if not the best two engined passenger/cargo aircraft
    built.  
    
    
    	Dan Weier sent me his answer of "1984" for the last built 727
    so lets throw the Forum open.
    
    
    Tom

    
    	Wel-l-l, rediscovering this note again recently, let me throw out a
    question based on Don's note title (Re-.2)
    
    	What made "the" (only 1 to MY knowledge) the DC-2 1/2 what it was.
    (I hope this wasn't asked sometime back in the deep recesses of this 
    note).
    		Fred G.

    It wouldn't be something like a DC2 fuse on a DC3 wing, would it?
    
    
    Tom

    
    	Tom: You're so close as to make me feel like a nitpicker but try
    again.
    		Fred G.

    It wouldn't be something like a DC2 fuse on a DC3 wing, would it?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Oh, I said that already once....... Maybe a DC2 wing on a DC3 fuse?
    
    Tom,again...

    
    	Tom: That's it. I have (HAD??) an old account from an early '40's
    Popular Mechanics (I think) that I haven't seen in years and had
    forgotten about until Don H. mentioned it. It told of a DC-3 in the 
    (I think) Phillipines when they were being overrun be advancing 
    Japanese troops. It had 1 irrepairable wing and no replacement so 
    someone(s) rigged an available DC-2 wing panel and it was flown out. 
    I forgotten what the difference was in wing length and area but it 
    must have been a bear to trim.
        It's your question---
    
    		Fred G.

    They made a "Sleeper" DC3 for long flights.  It had one very noticable
    feature that was later excluded on all passenger and cargo DC3's.
    
    What was this noticable feature?
    
    Tom

Port Hole windows?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################
    
                       

    
    	How about curtains to cover the windows???
    
    
    Carl T.

    Although Mr Weier and Mr Fisher both have unique answers to my question
    the token is passed to Mr Fisher.  I was looking for the Porthole
    windows as then could be seen from the exterior of the aircraft.
    Take it away Mr Fisher..... 
    
    
    Tom

First Tom and Jeff are exempt from the next question.  Because they
are building one.  The Beechcraft C-45J (Military version of the Beech 18
light transport) is was called by what common name?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

Bambo bomber?

>                        <<< Note 539.4941 by STOHUB::JETRGR::EATON "Dan Eaton St.Louis,MO,USA, 445-6522" >>>
>                                                               -< ? >-
>
>Bambo bomber?

No - but close - there is at least one e in it and also an o and a r.  But it's one word.
Come to think of it - perhaps you weren't so close after all :-)

Hint - perhaps there is some way we can hurry this not along a bit.

Next guess?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

I'm going to be off line for a while but Tom Tenerowicz knows the correct
answer so here's one last hint before I leave.

It starts with the sound X.

Take it away Tom.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    	Kay/Tom: Expeditor is the name and it's funny that though this type
    was still in heavy use while I was in the Air Force, I never heard the
    name used.
    		Fred G.

    
    You got it Fred,  Your question...
    
    Tom

    
    	Thanks for the wake up call Tom. 
    
    	Continuing on in the Twin Beech mode, this airplane was used by
    both the Air Force and Navy in a variety if cargo, training and utility
    roles. 
    	Name 3 of 5 designations that saw this plane in service to the Navy
    for cargo and training (2 desig's.) and the Air Force for cargo and 2
    training roles (3 desig's.). For a non-prize extra, what popular P & W
    engine did this and quite a few other airplanes use?
    		Fred G.
    

    
    	In the interest of keeping this alive, if there are no responses by
    10 AM, I'll give the answers I sought and ask another question.
    		Fred G.

    
    	Wel-l-l here's the answers that I was looking for regarding the
    other Twin Beech military desigantions;
    
    	U.S.Navy;
    	  Cargo----------------------JRB
          Training-Genl.twin eng.----SNB
    	U.S.Air Force;
    	  Training-Navigational------AT-7
    	      "   -Genl. twin eng----AT-11
    	  Utility--------------------UC-45
    
    Now here are two questions. Either one gets you the next shot.
    
    	1. Who was the 1st Naval Aviator to attain 5 victories in jet
    	  aerial combat?
    	2. (this list of questions is from Oct. 1987 so I hope it's still
    	  true) What is the only 3 engined helicopter in the free worl?
    		Fred G.

    
    	Looks like I chose another low volume response area.
    
    Answers to the prevailing questions:
      1. 1st Naval Av./5 vict. in jet aerial combat--
    	Major John F. Bolt, USMC.
      2. Only 3 eng'd. helicopter in frre world.
    	Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion.
    
    I'll try 1 more. A set of 4 questions. Answer 3 and it's your'n.
    
      Boeing had a string of successes with heavy bombers. 4 that I can
    think of were the B-17, B-29(B-50), B-47 & B52. What were the names
    given these high flyers? 
    		Fred G. 

B-17 Flying Fortress
B-29 Super Fortress
B-47 Strato Bomber
B-52 Stratofotress

    
    	Take it away Dan. I had Strato Jet for the B-47 but agree with the
    others.
    		Fred G.

Why did Germany excell in Gliders between WWI and WWII?

    They were using them to smuggle hydrogen for their blimps?

Hmmm. Why would they be building blimps?

    To illuminate Lakehurst NJ??
    
    They had a serious program going to do both silent recon and infantry
    placement that made them build many large gliders. I thought this was
    mostly in the WWII timeframe but I suppose that could be what you're
    actually looking for.

    They built gliders 'cause they were banned from making powered 
    aircraft from the WWI treaty.

                       _____
                      |     \
                      |      \                          Silent POWER!
      _        ___________    _________   |            Happy Landings!
     | \      |           |  |         |  |
     |--------|-  SANYO  + ]-|  ASTRO  |--|              - Dan Miner
     |_/      |___________|  |_________|  |
                      |       /           |     " The Earth needs more OZONE,
                      |      /                       not Castor Oil!! "    
                      |_____/

    I don't know how to answer this in a few words, so:
    
    Under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, they weren't allowed to
    build powered aircraft that could be put to military purposes.
    
    By the mid '20s the Wassekuppe area was being used for glider sport
    flying and training for the various aviation clubs that had sprung
    up.
    
    In ~'26, the concept of thermal flying was discovered, as opposed
    to the slope soaring previously done. This provided impetus to build
    more efficient designs.
    
    By '33 it was obvious that lot of basic training could be done in
    gliders. Hitler was quick to capitalize on this. 
    Also, since soaring was an Olympic event, and national prestige
    could be enhanced by doing well, several German companies made
    special effort and achieved great success in designing high performance
    sailplanes. Several FAI records were set, and soaring in general
    was regarded as a legitimate sporting activity. 
    
    In the meantime the Luftwaffe was training thousands of pilots in
    gliders.
    
    The rest is as they say, history.
    
    Terry
    

re:539.495
 >They had a serious program going to do both silent recon and infantry
 >placement that made them build many large gliders. I thought this was
 >mostly in the WWII timeframe but I suppose that could be what you're
 
You've given an example of some of the pioneering work they did but WHY were
they farting around with so many unpowered airplanes in the first place?

    Wow! Notes collision in the trivia topic. Whodda thunk it?

Wow. That went quick. Dan Miner got the correct answer in first so he gets it.
Terry got all the details. I picked this up from the Bantam books aviation 
series book, "Test pilot for the 3rd Reich"

    
    SEEING as Dan Miner has the question but seem to be out I'll ask a
    supplimental question until Dan returns in order to keep things moving.
    
    The US Marines flew the B25 Mitchell during WWII.  However they
    didn't call it a B25 or a Mitchell.  What was it's Marine designation.
    
    
    Tom

    Dan should be down at the Gremlin combat contest after lunch today. He
    might have bagged the entire day or there might be a little Miner
    (minor) recently. His wife is due (or should that be DUE) real soon
    now.

    	
    	I'll be out for two weeks on vacation starting this afternoon.  So
    anyone asking a question should send the answer to Zendia::Reith as
    Jim has agreed to monitor this note while I'm out. (Thank's again Jim)
    
    
    
    Tom

    I've got the current answer but I'll be out of the office this
    afternoon. I'll verify guesses tomorrow and monday (so please make some
    8^)

    I'll defer my question to Tom's since I'm swamped w/ work... :-(

    
    	Tom: I gather that your question regarding the Navy/Marine
    designation for the Mitchell still stands. I'll say it's PBJ. That 
    is what Kirk Douglas termed the "B-25" that he flew off to glory in 
    in a John Wayne movie (In Harm's way??).
    		Fred G.

    Tom is off for a couple of weeks but he sent me the answer and you're
    right. It was the PBJ.
    
    You turn to ask the question, Fred.

    
    	O.K., following the same theme, the U.S. Navy also used the B-17
    Flying Fortress in patrol duties. What was it's designation?
    		Fred G.

    
    	Wel-l-l it's looks like I've done it again with a lousy question.
    I had said that it was the U.S. Navy that used the B-17. I hope it
    wasn't misleading. I should have said U.S. Coast Guard. The designation
    was PB-1 and they had a "G" suffix for an air/sea rescue role and a "W"
    for early warning.
    
    	I'll try another pair. Answer either and it's your's.
    
    	1. What was the U.S. Navy's last piston engined attack plane?
          (production began in 1945 and it saw service in Korea and into
          the early Vietnam years).
    	2. What U.S. Naval Aviator became the first American to orbit the
    	  earth?
                  Fred G.
                         

>                     <<< Note 539.4969 by VSSCAD::GERRY >>>
>                          -< Let's try sumpin' else. >-
>
>    
>    	Wel-l-l it's looks like I've done it again with a lousy question.
>    I had said that it was the U.S. Navy that used the B-17. I hope it
>    wasn't misleading. I should have said U.S. Coast Guard. The designation
>    was PB-1 and they had a "G" suffix for an air/sea rescue role and a "W"
>    for early warning.

Fred you fink - I looked up the answer last night in a great B17 book I
recently acquired.  The PB1-W's were specially fitted with early warning
radar for search purposes.  These planes had sealed bomb bays and external
fuel tanks for longer range.  They look like Lockheed P2V Neptunes at first
glance.  If you had given me another hour I would have got it!
    
>    	I'll try another pair. Answer either and it's your's.
>    
>    	1. What was the U.S. Navy's last piston engined attack plane?
>          (production began in 1945 and it saw service in Korea and into
>          the early Vietnam years).
>    	2. What U.S. Naval Aviator became the first American to orbit the
>    	  earth?
>                  Fred G.

OK - I guess AD Skyraider (Spads).  We had a Skyraider squadron on board the
USS Oriskany in the South China Sea during 1966.
                         
Gus Grissom?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    	Kay: OOPS! My apology for jumping the gun. But you've got the
    Skyraider answer right.
    	I'll hold the answer on the second question and ask it later if I
    get the opportunity again.
    		Fred G.

>                     <<< Note 539.4971 by VSSCAD::GERRY >>>
>                             -< We have a WINNAH! >-

OK - back to B17's (PB-1's).  I just have to add that my Berliner-Joyce
P16 was first designated PB-1 (Pursuit Biplace) then they changed
the designation to P16.

Anyway - back to B17's (again).

12,731 B17's were manufactured by three manufactures.

Boeing made 6981.
3,000 were made by another manufacture
and another 2,700 were made by a third manufacture.

I know - it doesn't add up exact.

FYI 4,750 were lost on combat missions.

OK - name the other two manufactures.

If you can't name both but you get one right you
can win if nobody else gets the second one.

Hint - they are both still in the Aircraft business although
one changed their name a bit.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    	  I think that Lockheed was contracted to build the Fortress.
    
    	I also have a confusing memory that Vega built some. Confusing in
    thatVega was just a model of a Lockheed aircraft but I'll throw those
    two entrys in.
    
    	By the way, Kay, I've tried to send mail to you and for some reason
    it just won't go.(?)
    
    		Fred G.

>                     <<< Note 539.4973 by VSSCAD::GERRY >>>
>                            -< Out of confusion--y >-
>
>    
>    	  I think that Lockheed was contracted to build the Fortress.
>    
>    	I also have a confusing memory that Vega built some. Confusing in
>    thatVega was just a model of a Lockheed aircraft but I'll throw those
>    two entrys in.

Well Fred - Vega(Lockheed) built 2.700 B17's.

Anybody know who built the other 3,000?

Hint - They also changed their name - that is they
merged and had it hyphenated with another aircraft company.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

    
    	  Well, seeing no one else is entering I'll "scatter shot" a couple
    of guesses. How about either Consolidated-Vultee or Chance-Vought?
    		Fred G.
    (Maybe I'll look in my copy of Jablonski's "Flying Fortress" tonight)

>                     <<< Note 539.4975 by VSSCAD::GERRY >>>
>                               -< Howzabout--?? >-
>
>    
>    	  Well, seeing no one else is entering I'll "scatter shot" a couple
>    of guesses. How about either Consolidated-Vultee or Chance-Vought?

No - here's another hint.

The manufacture that built 3.000 B17's also presently builds
one of our top of the line fighters.

Who is that manufacture?

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

   What was it....Douglas aircraft, now Mickey D. Douglas?



            Jim

>                    <<< Note 539.4977 by WILLEE::CAVANAGH >>>
>
>   What was it....Douglas aircraft, now Mickey D. Douglas?

Correct Jim, 3,000 B17's were built by Douglas.

So take it away Jim - you have the next question.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

  Here's a question I stole from another file:



  What was the letter/number designation and nickname of the OTHER
4 engine bomber that flew missions against Japan in WWII??

  It was NOT the B-17, B-24 or B-29 nor any derivative of them....



  Bonus points for the manufacturer.



                          Jim

Wild guess - B18 Bolo (Douglas).

I say wild because I don't remember every seeing anything about the
B18 and have no idea if it has 4 engines - but I was reading this
book last night "Pilots also have prayers" or something close to that
and this fellow Harmon who was just going overseas to join the Africa
campaign with his new B25 Mitchell was talking about B18's.  So they
were in the war at the right time.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

  Nope!  Not the B18.

  I'll give this question until noon and then enter the answer and a new 
question.


              Jim

How about the Dominator? I think it flew briefly at the end of WWII.

    
    	Another in the wild guess category; I have a couple of articles
    that refer to a Douglas 4 engined bomber but only as the XB-19 but
    on the chance that it went into production, I'll say the B-19.
    	Another article mentions a Douglas B-22 (no "X" designation). 
    I'll throw that in also as time on this question runs out.
            Fred G.
         

  I'll give it to Dan with the Dominator!  
 
  It was the B-32 Dominator and was built by Convair (according to the source
in the other anonymous file -  have to keep it anonymous so I can steal more
questions if I ever answer another in here!  8^)


  Take it away Dan..............

    I think the B-18 Bolo was two engined plane mostly used for bombardier
    training.  There's one in the small museum area at Lowry AFB in Denver. 
    It was featured in the movie "Bombardier".
    
    Bruce B.

Germany used a lot of interesting glider designs during WWII. What was there
10-12 man troop transport glider originally designed for?

><<< Note 539.4987 by STOHUB::JETRGR::EATON "Dan Eaton St.Louis,MO,USA, 445-6522" >>>
>
>Germany used a lot of interesting glider designs during WWII. What was there
>10-12 man troop transport glider originally designed for?

Testing tow planes :-)

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

re: .4988


>>Germany used a lot of interesting glider designs during WWII. What was there
>>10-12 man troop transport glider originally designed for?

>Testing tow planes :-)

Nah, THAT was what the Gigante (sp?) was originally built for!  8^)

    Since no one's come up with the answer and I'm on vacation and about
    ready to leave the house to go flying I'll give the answer so the note
    can move along.
    
    What I was looking for was that the German's 10-12 man glider was
    originally designed as a mail truck for the German post office. The
    idea was to use these to deliver mail to remote villages where a normal
    plane wouldn't  be able to land and take off. Beats me what they planed
    to do about getting the gliders (and pilots) back. As Hitler brougth
    Germany closer to war. the design goals changed somewhat to accomodate
    the environment. 
    
    An interesting story about these gliders was told in the book about
    Hanna Reitsch I just read. She was asked to give a demo flight for some
    German brass. She was towed up in the glider with the full complement
    of troops and gear onboard while the brass and the designer watched
    from below. A troop transport was in the air  at the same time and the
    idea was to se who could get the troops down in one piece the quickest.
    Hanna and the glider won which really impressed the brass so they
    decided that she should repeat the performace with the brass onboard
    also so they could get a real feel for the process. This went off
    without a hitch and as the brass were walking away she noticed the
    designer crawling out of the back of the glider. She asked him what he
    was doing and he told her that with all the brass onboard he figured he
    was better off dead if a crash occured than to have to face the wrath
    of the German high command for losing their generals.
    
    The floors open. First one in with a question gets it.
    
    You all have a good weekend.

  I'll jump in....



   The A3-D Skywarrior had the UNofficial nickname 'All 3 Dead".


   Why?

    Although I've never heard of that expression before, here's a WAG. The
    Air Forces B-66 had ejection seats but the A3-D had a "slide chute"
    type of emergency egress; completely useless if aircraft not upright,
    carefully controlled and with lots of time to go through all the
    internal body movement to get into and down the slide.
    
    The B-52 had ejection seats for some crewmembers and empty holes in
    its belly (left after someone ejected) for the remainder of the belly
    crew to "roll through" manually. Needless to say, these crewmembers
    (usually two of them) always got killed in bailout/accidents. The tail
    gunner usually bought it also.
    
    Who determines all these "save cash" aircraft scenarios.
    
    Don

  According to my source, the A3 didn't have any egress system and if
the plane went down you had 3 dead crewmen.  Hence - A3-D = All 3 Dead.





  The forums open............take it away anyone.....

I'm sure you'll give the answer do Don.  I just gotta add
that I was assigned to an A3D squadron (VAH-4) and flew one
flight in an A3D off the USS Oriskany - talk about fun.  I
was riding in the 3rd crewman's seat facing aft.  The real
3rd crewman was sitting on the floor (the blow down egress
path).  We also had a top hatch that was always left open
during CAT shots so we could climb out that if we took a cold
cat and landed in the water.  Anyway I second Don's answer
they were called All 3 Dead because we had no ejection seats
and had to climb out.  When A3D's went down they usually took
all three crew members but I must also add that they seldom
went down.  The pilots called them Cadillacs of the sky.  They
were much smoother (bigger and heavier) than the other navy
planes.  They are still the largest carrier based aircraft
in the world.

The catapult shot and arresting gear landing are an experience
I shall never forget.  Cat shot = 0 to 140 knots in 4 seconds.
Arrested landing = 100 knots to 0 in 3 seconds but very non-linear.
All the G force in landing builds up to the end - that is when
you first grab the wire you don't feel the deceleration at all
it is as if you come to the end of the rope and it
starts to build very fast.  Fun stuff - play the top gun tape again!

Most of our A3D missions involved being the ships tanker so
our bomb bay was filled with out tanker package.  The duty of
the tanker was to top off the out going bombers (attack planes)
and fighters before each combat sortie.  Then remain on station
above the golf of Tonka and wait for the returning missions
and fuel up any dangerously slow returning aircraft.  Since
jets consume much more fuel at sea level than they do at altitude
we can extend the range of our planes considerably by toping them
up on departure and giving them $5.00 worth of gas as they return.
Frequently on landing operations a pilot will have difficulties
catching the arresting wire.  If he misses the wire more than
2 or 3 times he frequently becomes fuel critical (too much time
spend in the landing pattern down at sea level) so he has to take
it back up to altitude and visit the tanker for another $5.00 worth.
For this reason the A3D has to be the first plane off in the morning
and the last one back at night.

Every morning when we launch the first A3D there is a conference 
between the catapult officer, the A3D pilot and the fuel officer.
They fuel the A3D proportionally to the morning steam pressure
available to the catapult.  The plane can carry much more than
the catapult is capable of accelerating to flying speed.  Between
each combat mission the returning A3D will radio the ship and
tell them how many thousands of fuel it has left on board so that
the A3D coming up for the next launch will have room on board to
transfer fuel from the returning A3D.  So it is quite an operation
keeping a tanker on station 5000 feet or so above the carrier.
Also when landing the A3D has a much lower landing weight than it's
take off weight.  So it has to transfer the fuel to someone else
or dump it.  A3D's dumping fuel was a nice air show because the
fuel was pumped out the wing tips.  The pilots almost always threw
in a roll during this pass over the ship.  The big skywarrior
rolls great - the pilot I road with did one for me - fun stuff.

As an aside to get a feel for how big and heavy an A3D is one
of the only flight deck accidents involving one of my squadrons
planes when when our CO was landing one night in heavy weather.

The deck was pitching bad and he landed a little hot (faster
than 100 knots).  When his tail hook grabbed the arresting
cable it broke a 20 foot section off and the piece went swirling
down the flight deck and cut the legs off the flight deck safety
officer and the duty hospital corpman.  The force didn't slow up
the skywarrior enough and as far as our CO knew he just missed
the wire (boltered) and he went around for another attempt.
This time with only 3 wires remaining he snagged another one and
it ripped the tail hook out of the plane - again the pilot
didn't realize there was anything different other than another
bolter so around he went for a 3rd attempt.  This time of course
he boltered because he had no tail hook.  After this attempt
they radioed him about the tail hook and he aborted the Cubi Point
in the Philippines.  They didn't tell him about the injuries to
the flight deck personnel until later.  Our CO (Cmdr K. Farras)
was a great guy and a great pilot.  I'm sure he felt real bad about
the injuries caused by his accident.  As history would have it
later during that same cruise we had a major fire on board the
ship and 54 people died including Cmdr. Farras.

Talk about rambling - and this wasn't even a question or answer.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################

  So Kay.....are you trying to say you know more about A3's than I do?? 8^)


  Ok, I admit it!  Don has the next question!


   Take it away Don.



                Jim



   

    As long as we're on A3's.... The stats on the A-3 versus the USAF
    version B-66 showed more accidents with the '66 and, even with the 66's
    ejection seats, more people were lost because of the lopsided accident
    rate. Even though they were not really the same aircraft (the A-3 was
    an earlier design) they looked quite similar. Training for the observer
    position in the B-66 was lumped as B-57/66 qualified.
    
    What was the main reason for the higher accident rate in the B-66?
    
    dh

    Since no one has come aboard to WAG an answer, here 'tis:
    
    The A3 had Pratt and Whitney J-57s, a very reliable engine, of
    somewwhat higher thrust than the B-66 J-71 Allison, which had a fairly
    lousy reputation for reliability.
    
    Conference is wide open, first in gets the question.
    
    don h

Why were B-17's called Flying Fortresses?

And no it doesn't have to do with all the offensive 
capabilities the ships had. That came later.