Aircraft 'JEOPARDY' Trivia 3
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Monday, September 19, 2005 - 12:23 AM UTC
Correct, Jean-Luc!
Available from Huma in 1/72, no less!
Over to you!
:-)
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 05:01 PM UTC
Ooops... sorry for the delay! I didn't noticed Polabear answered already!
![](../modules/SquawkBox/images/smilies/crying.gif)
I must have the Grumpyoldman syndrome! :-)
My question is: what Italian WW2 fighter was fitted with an arresting hook and tested for the aircraft carrier they planned to build?
Jean-Luc
Better think one hour and build five minutes...
Than think five minutes and build an hour!
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 10:27 AM UTC
Jean-Luc,
Why, I believe that you're thinking of the Reggiane Re 2001. In addition to the hook, there were plans to construct a folding wing-version of the Re 2001, see
http://www.regiamarina.net/arsenals/ships_it/carrier_us.htm Good to know that the Regianne Re 2001 exists in 1/48 from
Classic Airframes.
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 07:23 PM UTC
Hi all!
Sorry for the delay but I'm having connection problems with my ADSL modem and I'm currently using the internal 56k modem: Jeeee!!!! Is that slow!!!! I don't know how the guys with 56k can stand this! Now I know why some spend their entire day on Armorama...
Polarbear, I was thinking of the FIAT G.50! But since the Reggiane 2001 was also tested, your answer is good for me... it's your turn again!
Jean-Luc
P.S. the FIAT G50 is available in 1/48 by Flying Machines and Pacific Coast Models... and I have none of them! Doh!
Better think one hour and build five minutes...
Than think five minutes and build an hour!
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 06:15 AM UTC
Little time to write!!! Got to build the Grumman G-21 Goose!!!!
Speaking of the Goose - During WWII, the Americans used quite a few aircraft named after birds.
a) Please name at least five more!
b) Bonus points if you'll name three "insects" flown by the Yankees during WWII.
Cheers!!!
Virginia, United States
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 326 posts
AeroScale: 273 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 08:21 AM UTC
Hmmmm Alex, what were the,
Grumman Widgeon,
Grumman J2F Duck,
Fisher P-75 Eagle,
Curtiss P-40 Hawk series (Warhawk),
and Curtiss Seagull?
As for insects . . . what were the
Piper Grasshopper,
deHavilland Mosquito PR variants,
and Sikorsky Hoverfly?
And I did this sitting at work without reference book one at hand LOL!!
Mike Still
Mike Still
lapsed IPMS (No. 41674) - I should be pretty ashamed
if it ain't styrene . . . . well, it's probably something else, duh!.
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 09:09 AM UTC
Great answer, Mike!!!
In addition to the birds that you've mentionned, there was also the Curtis SNF
Falcon, the Vought OS2U
Kingfisher, the Curtis SO3C
Seamew (I think that's a bird...), the Curtiss O-52
Owl and probably a couple more! The P-40 Hawk-series was preceeded by the original P-36
Hawk.
With regard to the insects, there was also the Sikorsky
Dragonfly...
Correct and plenty of bonus points! Your turn!!!!
Ps. Who's Alex?
![](../../p.vtourist.com/1091309-A_seamew-Mali_Losinj.jpg)
A seamew?
Virginia, United States
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 326 posts
AeroScale: 273 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 01:23 PM UTC
Sorry I'm late. Work is a truly nasty interference in things of real importance LOL.
Polar, Alex Trebek is the host of Jeopardy #:-)
I'll take big preflight mistakes for $500 Alex - It's the specific item that you did not leave down on commencing takeoff in a P-38 Lightning due to severe aerodynamic issues.
Mike Still
lapsed IPMS (No. 41674) - I should be pretty ashamed
if it ain't styrene . . . . well, it's probably something else, duh!.
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 06:21 PM UTC
Hi Alex... Mike!
Wasn't it taking off while having the side cockpit windows open?
Jean-Luc
Better think one hour and build five minutes...
Than think five minutes and build an hour!
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,495 posts
AeroScale: 643 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 12:41 AM UTC
Hi Mike,
I'll take a guess at the boarding ladder at the rear of the main wing?
Virginia, United States
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 326 posts
AeroScale: 273 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 03:18 AM UTC
Sehr gut Jean Luc!
Leaving the side canopy panels open during takeoff caused some nasty turbulence and lift-dumping that could extend one's takeoff run by a significant distance.
But an honorable mention to Martin, since leaving one's boarding ladder down could make for some interesting commentary from one's fellow Lightning jockeys about having three tails LOL.!
Go get em Jean Luc :-)
Mike Still
lapsed IPMS (No. 41674) - I should be pretty ashamed
if it ain't styrene . . . . well, it's probably something else, duh!.
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 05:35 AM UTC
Danke Mike!
Here is the next:
Wich WW2 biplane flew long enough to receive a NATO codename? And what was that codename?
Jean-Luc
Better think one hour and build five minutes...
Than think five minutes and build an hour!
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 06:44 AM UTC
The Polikarpov Po-2 "Mule"
David
Moselle, France
Joined: May 15, 2005
KitMaker: 5,653 posts
AeroScale: 4,347 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 06:59 AM UTC
Hi David!
That's correct! I just read the information on another modeling site. The kit reviewed was Eduard's 1/48 U-2 VVS kit... It's the latest kit I bought and it's a great one!
The plane was used from 1928 to 1952 (!?) and production was more than 20 000 planes (!?) Amazing! If this is not an important plane in aircraft history...
Your turn David...
Jean-Luc
Better think one hour and build five minutes...
Than think five minutes and build an hour!
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 07:07 AM UTC
Which Grumman cat flew combat missions with US forces in Vietnam?
David
Merlin
Senior Editor![KitMaker Network Subscriber](../images/global/km_subscriber_small.gif)
#017
United Kingdom
Joined: June 11, 2003
KitMaker: 17,582 posts
AeroScale: 12,795 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 07:29 AM UTC
Hi David
I think the South Vietnamese were still flying Bearcats... did they suport US forces?
All the best
Rowan
BEWARE OF THE FEW...
As I grow older, I regret to say that a detestable habit of thinking seems to be getting a hold of me. - H. Rider Haggard
California, United States
Joined: July 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,936 posts
AeroScale: 1,168 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 07:59 AM UTC
Probably not the "CAT" you are thinking of but :
"The Tomcat was in service just in time to see the closing stages of the Vietnam war in 1975. It flew top cover during operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of US personnel from Saigon in April of 1975, just before that city fell to the north. The North Vietnamese Air Force did not interfere with the operation, but one Tomcat was slightly damaged by anti-aircraft fire."
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi David
I think the South Vietnamese were still flying Bearcats... did they suport US forces?
All the best
Rowan
Hi Rowan
I believe that the Bearcat was withdrawn from service or being phased out, when the first American advisors arrived in country.
The cat I am thinking of was operated by US forces.
David
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:17 AM UTC
Hi Chuck
You're right I forgot about the Tomcats. You can have the next question. The cat I was thinking of was the TF-9J Cougar, which was used by the marines as an FAC and local reconnaissance.
Here is a picture of the RVHP conversion kit I intend to get around to building someday.
![](https://gallery.kitmaker.net/data/500/tf9j.jpg )
Next time I'll try and think my question through more
California, United States
Joined: July 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,936 posts
AeroScale: 1,168 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:23 AM UTC
Thanks David, just happened to catch that while watching the History channel in Las Vegas.
Here's a "silly" 2 part question I also picked up on while watching too:
Why is the F-117 designated with an "F" when it is an attack aircraft ?
Why is the "NightHawk" F-117, painted Black ?
I found both reasons quite amusing :-)
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 06, 2005
KitMaker: 1,602 posts
AeroScale: 29 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:45 AM UTC
The F117 was designated a fighter because the better pilots would only fly fighters and not bombers.
As for why its black I’m going to guess its for low visibility at night.
California, United States
Joined: July 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,936 posts
AeroScale: 1,168 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:55 AM UTC
Close enough Jacob.
Politics for the "F" designation, they wanted to use the "best fighter pilots" to prove out the plane and "fighter pilots don't fly attack aircraft."
On the "Black paint" yes it flies at night. In a meeting discussing the color scheme at the Pentagon, they were trying to deside how to paint it, when the Secy of Defense chimes in with, "it's going to fly at night right ?, so paint it black"
Next question is all your's
England - North, United Kingdom
Joined: October 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,495 posts
AeroScale: 643 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 09:05 AM UTC
Hi Chuck,
I've read a couple of reasons why the F-117 has an F desgnation. One is that the Airforce was more likely to get funding to develop a fighter than a bomber so they gave it an F number.
Another is that it was for security purposes, to disguise its true purpose.
A third reason I've heard is that pilots would be more inclined to want to fly an F designated aircraft as it has more "pose value" flying fighters than bombers.
The black colour- is it to make the thing appear more intimidating?
California, United States
Joined: July 08, 2003
KitMaker: 1,936 posts
AeroScale: 1,168 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 09:17 AM UTC
Hi Martin,
I've heard those reasons for the "F" designation too. The one they gave on the History channel re: wanting fighter pilots, I found amusing.
The "Black color" comment was amusing too. More intimidating ? You aren't supposed to see it.
:-) I like the camo they had on "Have Blue" myself.
Ofcourse you are just as right as Jacob, so you two toss a coin
By the way I've heard pilots say "if it weren't for the sensor tubes on the front end, the thing wouldn't know which end to put into the wind" :-)
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: June 06, 2005
KitMaker: 1,602 posts
AeroScale: 29 posts
Posted: Monday, September 26, 2005 - 09:18 AM UTC
Wow I actually got it right.
Now lets see what to ask.
This is probably going to be an easy one for you guys but what was the last American aircraft carrier-based fighter with guns as the primary weapon?