login   |    register

Scale Modeling Sponsors

See Your Ad Here!

General Aircraft
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
Hosted by Kevin Brant
Aircraft Trivia Quiz 2 (Join In)
gastec
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 917 posts
AeroScale: 16 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - 07:53 AM UTC
Arsenal VB10 heavy interceptor?
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - 07:26 AM UTC
Not the Fireball; we're looking for something with two identical engines.

I'm going to be really cruel and disqualify the Ki-64, simply because the engines were separated by the cockpit. The installation I have in mind was truly tandem, in that the engines were mounted end-to-end. If you like, the question could be read as "which other aircraft had tandem engines etc"
c4willy
#305
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Christchurch, New Zealand
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 1,524 posts
AeroScale: 1,373 posts
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 - 02:25 PM UTC
Ryan FR-1 Fireball? Prop at the front jet engine at the rear ..... one turning one burning. Not as successful as they'd hoped.
gastec
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 917 posts
AeroScale: 16 posts
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 - 12:29 PM UTC
Kawasaki Ki-64?

Gary
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2018 - 09:38 AM UTC
Sorry, the He 177 isn't it.

Tandem engines: one behind the other. The usual arrangement is that the front one drives a prop at the front, and the rear one drives another prop at the back. The idea is to produce the power of two engines but with less drag than separate nacelles. If we're talking German, the Dornier 18 is an example.

But the question is about something that had tandem engines, but no prop at the back ...
Berwickboy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 27, 2013
KitMaker: 443 posts
AeroScale: 380 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 - 07:40 AM UTC

Quoted Text

No action in three weeks, so I'll stir the pot with another question.

Which aircraft had tandem engines, but no rear-mounted propeller? Extra points for explaining how the powertrain worked.

Little bit confused with the question but, the first one that comes to mind is the He177 in which the engines both drove into a gearbox which drove the prop
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Sunday, June 17, 2018 - 06:53 AM UTC
No action in three weeks, so I'll stir the pot with another question.

Which aircraft had tandem engines, but no rear-mounted propeller? Extra points for explaining how the powertrain worked.
Removed by original poster on 06/02/18 - 22:13:31 (GMT).
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 - 12:04 AM UTC
Yes it could! You have control, over.
c4willy
#305
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Christchurch, New Zealand
Joined: February 01, 2006
KitMaker: 1,524 posts
AeroScale: 1,373 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2018 - 12:51 AM UTC
Could it possibly be the collision of two Avro Anson Aircraft where they became stuck together and the pilot of the bottom Aircraft landed both planes? He was then brought up on charges for doing so.
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2018 - 12:35 AM UTC
Well, as it's been a few days ...

What was particularly unusual about a collision between two training aircraft over Australia in 1940?
2002hummer
#257
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: October 11, 2011
KitMaker: 632 posts
AeroScale: 364 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 19, 2018 - 12:54 AM UTC
Thanks Martin. I can't think of any good questions so I will open it up to anyone if there are no objections.
brandydoguk
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,488 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 - 06:45 PM UTC
Yes, that's right.

There are two versions of the story. The first was that the red arrows contacted Farnborough to see if it was allowed and were told if they kept within certain speeds and gee limits it would be OK. Otherwise there would be too much stress on the tail. Unfortunately one of the OCUs removed the limiter fuse and exceeded the limits causing damage so the orders to the arrows were to replace the fuses which as you say they did, with u/s ones.

The second version is that when the powers that be heard about the removal of the fuses they hit the roof saying it would take up two years of test pilot time exploring the flight dynamics of the gnat without the fuses so they must be put back.
2002hummer
#257
_VISITCOMMUNITY
Ontario, Canada
Joined: October 11, 2011
KitMaker: 632 posts
AeroScale: 364 posts
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2018 - 07:05 AM UTC
Was it removing "Fuse 13" ? This by-passed the high speed roll limit on the aileron angle of movement. By increasing the movement max angle of movement the roll rates increased. When they were ordered to replace the fuses they got around it by using unserviceable fuses.
brandydoguk
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,488 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - 02:45 PM UTC
No takers?

The team was the red arrows and the aircraft was the one before the Hawk.
brandydoguk
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,488 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2018 - 03:23 AM UTC
Sean that was a cracking question, I actually was close to giving up on it when I stumbled on the answer.

So my question is this:

A famous aerobatic team found they could "tweak" their aircraft to get a significantly improved rate of roll. What was the tweak and how did the team get round being ordered to undo it?
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2018 - 01:33 AM UTC
!!! It was.

So much for that idea ... obscure factoid indeed. You have control, over.
brandydoguk
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,488 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 - 01:18 PM UTC
Was it the wind tunnel?
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Friday, May 11, 2018 - 02:34 AM UTC
Coo, it's been a while. So ...

What design tool, crucial to the development of supersonic aircraft, was invented in 1870?
Berwickboy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 27, 2013
KitMaker: 443 posts
AeroScale: 380 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 - 04:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Stupid of me. In that case the full list would be the brake parachute, the cut-outs in the flaps, and the pylon ejector fairings on the outer wings.

Stupid? not at all, they are so small that noticing them is difficult. The baton is in your hands now
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Thursday, May 10, 2018 - 12:23 AM UTC
Stupid of me. In that case the full list would be the brake parachute, the cut-outs in the flaps, and the pylon ejector fairings on the outer wings.
Berwickboy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 27, 2013
KitMaker: 443 posts
AeroScale: 380 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 09, 2018 - 04:02 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Additional clue: The third items were designed to prevent damage to the wings

This is an 'explosive' clue
Berwickboy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 27, 2013
KitMaker: 443 posts
AeroScale: 380 posts
Posted: Saturday, May 05, 2018 - 03:10 PM UTC
Additional clue: The third items were designed to prevent damage to the wings
Berwickboy
_VISITCOMMUNITY
England - East Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined: April 27, 2013
KitMaker: 443 posts
AeroScale: 380 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 - 04:00 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The braking parachute housing above the jetpipe; cut-outs in the flaps for the 230-gallon tanks; and, er, some more aerials?

Yes, yes, no. The most obvious being the housing, less obvious the cut outs. The third are small items bot not communications related
pigsty
_VISITCOMMUNITY
United Kingdom
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,169 posts
AeroScale: 588 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 - 12:07 AM UTC
The braking parachute housing above the jetpipe; cut-outs in the flaps for the 230-gallon tanks; and, er, some more aerials?