"DITTO" what Warren said.
Bob
General Aircraft
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Aircraft Trivia Quiz 2 (Join In)
Bigrip74
Joined: February 22, 2008
KitMaker: 5,026 posts
AeroScale: 2,811 posts
Posted: Monday, January 17, 2011 - 01:54 PM UTC
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Monday, January 17, 2011 - 09:39 PM UTC
Remember: "despite having none of its engines". Parasite fighters do have their engines, as did the X-planes; and the Guppy only transported bits of aircraft as a rule.
Another clue: not all of the airframe was present.
Another clue: not all of the airframe was present.
AussieReg
Associate Editor
#007
Joined: June 09, 2009
KitMaker: 8,156 posts
AeroScale: 3,756 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 01:03 AM UTC
Maybe something salvaged. How about Glacier Girl, the P-38, hung under a helicopter ??
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 05:18 AM UTC
Didn't think of salvage! But it's not that. The airframe in question was brand-new.
md72
#439
Joined: November 05, 2005
KitMaker: 4,950 posts
AeroScale: 3,192 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 05:58 AM UTC
OK, Sean, I'll pitch in a couple.
Shuttle Enterprise, being carried aloft by the transporter for glide tests.
Fully assembled F-16's sans wings being hauled from Ft. Worth to Belgium inside a C-5A to make it look like the European assy line was functioning...
Shuttle Enterprise, being carried aloft by the transporter for glide tests.
Fully assembled F-16's sans wings being hauled from Ft. Worth to Belgium inside a C-5A to make it look like the European assy line was functioning...
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 09:45 PM UTC
Still not the Space Shuttle, nor the Buran!
Another conspiracy theory I'm not familiar with ... but that takes us back to the Guppy, sort of. The key with the aircraft I'm thinking of is that it was airborne, not just being carried aloft - in the sense that it was generating lift of its own. But it's not the X-1 or the X-15 or anything else like that, as explained earlier.
Quoted Text
Fully assembled F-16's sans wings being hauled from Ft. Worth to Belgium inside a C-5A to make it look like the European assy line was functioning...
Another conspiracy theory I'm not familiar with ... but that takes us back to the Guppy, sort of. The key with the aircraft I'm thinking of is that it was airborne, not just being carried aloft - in the sense that it was generating lift of its own. But it's not the X-1 or the X-15 or anything else like that, as explained earlier.
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:27 PM UTC
Is the Boeing 747-236B "City of Edinburgh" the right answer refering to "Speedbird9" or "Jakarta Incident"?
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:31 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Is the Boeing 747-236B "City of Edinburgh" the right answer refering to "Speedbird9" or "Jakarta Incident"?
It only flew for a short time with no power, not 5 hours Michal. The glide path of a 747 is not good enough for it to stay aloft for 5 hours just gliding.
Was it an aircraft being towed by another aircraft, like an aircraft being towed by an aerial tanker?
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 - 10:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextIs the Boeing 747-236B "City of Edinburgh" the right answer refering to "Speedbird9" or "Jakarta Incident"?
It only flew for a short time with no power, not 5 hours Michal. The glide path of a 747 is not good enough for it to stay aloft for 5 hours just gliding.
Was it an aircraft being towed by another aircraft, like an aircraft being towed by an aerial tanker?
Ok, it looks that I missed something or missunderstood...another try:
I found this but this is about glider which doesn't have engines at all.
"Charles Atger of France flew an Arsenal Air 100 glider for 56 hours, 15 minutes until 2 April 1952 at Romanin les Alpilles near Saint-Rémy-de-Provence in France"
jaypee
Joined: February 07, 2008
KitMaker: 1,699 posts
AeroScale: 1,384 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 01:55 AM UTC
some kinda airship? Tat could be airborne without engines
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 09:31 PM UTC
"Despite having none of its engines" - so it was designed to have engines but had none. So, no gliders.
Airships - well, one without any engines would be a balloon, really. I suppose that's a sort of aircraft, but it's not at all what I have in mind.
Airships - well, one without any engines would be a balloon, really. I suppose that's a sort of aircraft, but it's not at all what I have in mind.
jaypee
Joined: February 07, 2008
KitMaker: 1,699 posts
AeroScale: 1,384 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 10:18 PM UTC
SC Global Flyer? I dunno maybe they did tests or had an accident without the engine.
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 09:35 PM UTC
Sorry!
One more clue: it had a little help from another aircraft, from the same company.
One more clue: it had a little help from another aircraft, from the same company.
janhendriks
Joined: June 25, 2008
KitMaker: 121 posts
AeroScale: 119 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - 08:30 PM UTC
i remeber a story about an F-86 losing it's engine as a result of combat damage after an engagement with MIG-15's over North Korea. One of it's squadron mates formated up on it's tail and pushed it to safety. But... a flight of 5 hours seems to push it a but much
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - 09:38 PM UTC
I can see where you're coming from, but ... no.
Bigrip74
Joined: February 22, 2008
KitMaker: 5,026 posts
AeroScale: 2,811 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:49 AM UTC
A KC-135 or equivilent tanker pulling a fighter / attack a/c along?
Bob
Bob
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 12:22 PM UTC
Already said that Bob... 
Bigrip74
Joined: February 22, 2008
KitMaker: 5,026 posts
AeroScale: 2,811 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 04:36 PM UTC
Sorry about that Warren, I guess I missed it on the first go around. 
. This one has me stumped to no end 
Bob
. This one has me stumped to no end Bob
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 04:44 PM UTC
It just makes no sense to me so I am staying out of it. There is no way a powered aircraft could stay aloft for five hours with its engine missing. A powered glider could stay up that long but the engine is still attached so it doesn't count.
Griffon65
Joined: November 06, 2008
KitMaker: 363 posts
AeroScale: 51 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 05:59 PM UTC
Space capable rockets (for lack of better words) have a tendancy of losing their engines and can remain "airborne" for hours. Maybe it was something from the early space program?
pigsty
Joined: January 16, 2007
KitMaker: 1,226 posts
AeroScale: 640 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 09:29 PM UTC
I really didn't think this one would be so tricky!
To recap:
* not a spacecraft
* designed to have engines, but engines not installed
* brand-new airframe, not salvage, but not complete
* generating lift, so not in bits inside something bigger
* being helped by another aircraft from the same manufacturer - not necessarily the same type of aircraft
One more clue: triangular.
To recap:
* not a spacecraft
* designed to have engines, but engines not installed
* brand-new airframe, not salvage, but not complete
* generating lift, so not in bits inside something bigger
* being helped by another aircraft from the same manufacturer - not necessarily the same type of aircraft
One more clue: triangular.
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 09:37 PM UTC
One more guess.. One of the lifting body aircraft tested by NASA?
jaypee
Joined: February 07, 2008
KitMaker: 1,699 posts
AeroScale: 1,384 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 09:43 PM UTC
I thought you'd said it wasn't a glider.
In that case a me321 / me323?
In that case a me321 / me323?
Mecenas
Joined: December 23, 2007
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
KitMaker: 1,596 posts
AeroScale: 1,275 posts
Posted: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 09:51 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I thought you'd said it wasn't a glider.
In that case a me321 / me323?
I just had to say the same but then I asked uncle Google and found that Me-321 (glider) was first but it later got motorised becoming Me-323. Sean says "designed to have engines, but engines not installed" so it doesn't fit in my opinion. I have no other ideas...
warreni
Joined: August 14, 2007
KitMaker: 5,926 posts
AeroScale: 2,201 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 06:29 AM UTC
.. and there is no way an Me-321 ever flew for five hours.. 
Must be a prototype being towed somewhere maybe..
Must be a prototype being towed somewhere maybe..
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 AeroScale and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.