Hi there
I'll kick off the 3rd installment of our trivia quiz with this 2-part question:
In the summer of 1940, Samuel Cabot approached the USAAF with a radical type of paint.
1. What was the paint called?
2. What was it used for?
And there's Brownie Points if you can explain how it worked.
All the best
Rowan
General Aircraft
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
This forum is for general aircraft modelling discussions.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Aircraft 'JEOPARDY' Trivia 3
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 05:29 AM UTC
PolarBear
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 07:03 AM UTC
1. The paint was dubbed 'haze'.
2. Painting aircraft :-)
It consisted of two coats of different shades of paint. First, the aircraft was sprayed overall with a very dark base lacquer (black or very dark blue). Then multiple thin coats of a special whitish paint were irregularly applied over the dark base coat - heavier on the undersides, the shadow areas and certain panel lines, lighter on the upper areas. The white lacquer contained a very fine pigment of zinc oxide.
"According to it's inventor- the Boston paint manufacturer Samuel Cabot - the combination of the two paints should have reflected only the wavelength of blue and violet light and absorbed the other parts of the light spectrum: the perfect camouflage in a deep blue sky. In practice this system didn't work all that well. The paint weathered quickly and lost its special qualities all too soon. So the USAAF ordered Lockheed in October 1942 to stop the time consuming process of 'haze' application and instead to use the well-proven olive drab/ neutral grey scheme as on the fighter versions."
All info found on this page, where you'll also find pictures of this beautiful Lockheed F-5A-1-LO Lightning in 1/48 (camouflaged according to the haze concept!)
Cheers!!!
2. Painting aircraft :-)
It consisted of two coats of different shades of paint. First, the aircraft was sprayed overall with a very dark base lacquer (black or very dark blue). Then multiple thin coats of a special whitish paint were irregularly applied over the dark base coat - heavier on the undersides, the shadow areas and certain panel lines, lighter on the upper areas. The white lacquer contained a very fine pigment of zinc oxide.
"According to it's inventor- the Boston paint manufacturer Samuel Cabot - the combination of the two paints should have reflected only the wavelength of blue and violet light and absorbed the other parts of the light spectrum: the perfect camouflage in a deep blue sky. In practice this system didn't work all that well. The paint weathered quickly and lost its special qualities all too soon. So the USAAF ordered Lockheed in October 1942 to stop the time consuming process of 'haze' application and instead to use the well-proven olive drab/ neutral grey scheme as on the fighter versions."
All info found on this page, where you'll also find pictures of this beautiful Lockheed F-5A-1-LO Lightning in 1/48 (camouflaged according to the haze concept!)
Cheers!!!
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 07:45 AM UTC
Hi PolarBear
I think I would call that a perfect answer (including the pun!)!
Over to you...
All the best
Rowan
I think I would call that a perfect answer (including the pun!)!
Over to you...
All the best
Rowan
PolarBear
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 09:01 AM UTC
... and I even managed to add a model to my answer! :-)
Third thread of trivia in such a short time!?! Respect!!!
Speaking about paint, how much paint should you acquire in order to properly coat the exterior of one of these mamas?
The C-5 Galaxy
Since I'm a nice fellow, I'll allow a difference of +/- 300 lb.
- "How can it take off with so much paint?!", worried spectators say...
Cheers!!
Third thread of trivia in such a short time!?! Respect!!!
Speaking about paint, how much paint should you acquire in order to properly coat the exterior of one of these mamas?
The C-5 Galaxy
Since I'm a nice fellow, I'll allow a difference of +/- 300 lb.
- "How can it take off with so much paint?!", worried spectators say...
Cheers!!
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 09:18 AM UTC
The paint weighs 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms).
Andy
Andy
PolarBear
Västra Götaland, Sweden
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Joined: February 23, 2005
KitMaker: 820 posts
AeroScale: 629 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 09:52 AM UTC
Wow! :-)
Over to you, Andy!
Over to you, Andy!
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:08 AM UTC
simple one this, name the aircraft ?
Cheers Andy
Cheers Andy
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:52 AM UTC
XB-42 Mixmaster
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 06:40 PM UTC
Correct Dave, your turn.
The Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster was an experimental bomber aircraft, designed for a high top speed. The unconventional approach was to mount the two engines within the fuselage driving a pair of contra-rotating propellers mounted at the tail, leaving the wing and fuselage clean and free of aerodynamics-reducing protrusions. Two prototype aircraft were built, but the end of World War II changed priorities, and the advent of the jet engine gave an alternative way toward achieving high speed.
The first XB-42 prototype flew on May 6, 1944. Performance was excellent, being basically as described in the original proposal; as fast or faster than the De Havilland Mosquito but with twice the bombload and defensive armament. The twin bubble canopies proved a bad idea, and the aircraft suffered from some instability, vibrations and poor engine cooling - all problems that could probably have been dealt with.
One of the XB-42 aircraft had been destroyed in a crash, but the other was used in flight test programs, including fitting uprated engines and underwing turbojets, making it the XB-42A. In this configuration, it reached 488 mph (785 km/h). Damaged in a hard landing in 1947 after 22 flights, it was repaired but never flew again.
The prototype was struck off charge in 1949 and was given to the National Air and Space Museum, in whose care it remains although it has never been placed on display. (Because it is ugly.) :-) :-)
Thanks Andy
The Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster was an experimental bomber aircraft, designed for a high top speed. The unconventional approach was to mount the two engines within the fuselage driving a pair of contra-rotating propellers mounted at the tail, leaving the wing and fuselage clean and free of aerodynamics-reducing protrusions. Two prototype aircraft were built, but the end of World War II changed priorities, and the advent of the jet engine gave an alternative way toward achieving high speed.
The first XB-42 prototype flew on May 6, 1944. Performance was excellent, being basically as described in the original proposal; as fast or faster than the De Havilland Mosquito but with twice the bombload and defensive armament. The twin bubble canopies proved a bad idea, and the aircraft suffered from some instability, vibrations and poor engine cooling - all problems that could probably have been dealt with.
One of the XB-42 aircraft had been destroyed in a crash, but the other was used in flight test programs, including fitting uprated engines and underwing turbojets, making it the XB-42A. In this configuration, it reached 488 mph (785 km/h). Damaged in a hard landing in 1947 after 22 flights, it was repaired but never flew again.
The prototype was struck off charge in 1949 and was given to the National Air and Space Museum, in whose care it remains although it has never been placed on display. (Because it is ugly.) :-) :-)
Thanks Andy
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 06:47 PM UTC
Careful Andy...
Don't let Chuck hear you calling the Mixmaster ugly! :-)
All the best
Rowan
Don't let Chuck hear you calling the Mixmaster ugly! :-)
All the best
Rowan
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:19 PM UTC
Being old and senile, and with a 3rd thread going, I will probably do the ultimate senile thing and re-ask a question...... :-) :-)
So I will yield to the younger set, and just enjoy reading, and learning, and every once in a while get one right...... :-) :-)
So Andy ask another one....... :-)
So I will yield to the younger set, and just enjoy reading, and learning, and every once in a while get one right...... :-) :-)
So Andy ask another one....... :-)
Posted: Monday, September 05, 2005 - 02:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Being old and senile, and with a 3rd thread going, I will probably do the ultimate senile thing and re-ask a question...... :-) :-)
So I will yield to the younger set, and just enjoy reading, and learning, and every once in a while get one right...... :-) :-)
So Andy ask another one....... :-)
Hi Dave!
Re-asking a question as already been done! :-) I won't say who did this not to ruin his reputation...
I know it is not me to decide but... since you answered the last question... you know the rules!
I wonder what a Grumpy Aircraft Jeopardy Question looks like...
Jean-Luc
Posted: Monday, September 05, 2005 - 09:59 AM UTC
I agee with Jean-Luc
We want Dave! We want Dave!
Seriously, even if a question's been asked before, not everyone's read every post since we started. And, even if they have, the answers haven't always sunk in - I got half caught that way myself!
So, please don' t be shy... you answered correctly and you deserve to set the next question.
All the best
Rowan
We want Dave! We want Dave!
Seriously, even if a question's been asked before, not everyone's read every post since we started. And, even if they have, the answers haven't always sunk in - I got half caught that way myself!
So, please don' t be shy... you answered correctly and you deserve to set the next question.
All the best
Rowan
Posted: Monday, September 05, 2005 - 11:28 PM UTC
Dave must be thinking up a hard question for us
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:19 AM UTC
OK, sorry for the delay.... scanner and me really never have gotten along.
Another simple one, name the aircraft:
Another simple one, name the aircraft:
Tigercat
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 09:56 PM UTC
Boeing XPBB-1 Sea Ranger
David
David
Grumpyoldman
_ADVISOR
Florida, United States
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Joined: October 17, 2003
KitMaker: 15,338 posts
AeroScale: 836 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 10:45 PM UTC
Very good Dave...... you are correct.
Only one built, never flew a combat mission, but was able to carry a greater bomb load than a B-29.
Only one built, never flew a combat mission, but was able to carry a greater bomb load than a B-29.
Tigercat
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 10:59 PM UTC
A Vietnam question. The US Navy formed two squadrons to support the "brown water navy", name the squadrons and aircraft they flew?
David
David
Posted: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:41 PM UTC
HC-1- flying ex-Army UH-1B's.
HA(L)3- known as the Seawolves flying UH1B Gunships
The Black Ponies -Flying Rockwell OV-10A 'Bronco's' that the Navy borrowed from the Marine Corps.
I think this is right as the info came from all over the web
:-)
HA(L)3- known as the Seawolves flying UH1B Gunships
The Black Ponies -Flying Rockwell OV-10A 'Bronco's' that the Navy borrowed from the Marine Corps.
I think this is right as the info came from all over the web
:-)
Tigercat
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Joined: July 20, 2005
KitMaker: 216 posts
AeroScale: 0 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 12:16 AM UTC
Thats right Andy. There was also VAH-21 flying AP-2H Neptune gunships.
David
David
Posted: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 12:50 AM UTC
Britains first atomic bomb was the Blue Danube, which became available in 1953. So Britains first atomic bomb unit was formed,
What was the squadron ?
When did it become operational?
Where was there base?
What did they fly?
Thanks Andy
What was the squadron ?
When did it become operational?
Where was there base?
What did they fly?
Thanks Andy
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 09:15 AM UTC
Oh come on guys, this question can't be that hard, i thought it up not Magnus Magnusson off Mastermind :-) :-) :-)
Defcon1
Illinois, United States
Joined: May 03, 2005
KitMaker: 174 posts
AeroScale: 132 posts
Joined: May 03, 2005
KitMaker: 174 posts
AeroScale: 132 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 12:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Britains first atomic bomb was the Blue Danube, which became available in 1953. So Britains first atomic bomb unit was formed,
What was the squadron ?
When did it become operational?
Where was there base?
What did they fly?
Thanks Andy
Is it no. 1321 flight
Operational on April 1954
At RAF Wittering
flying Vickers Valiant
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 01:30 PM UTC
Correct David. Your turn.
It only took 9 years from proposal to the V bombers to reach squadron service, which is quite a short time for this ambitous project. Even though the jet powered Canberra was in Bomber Command service 1951its bomb bay was too small to carry the bomb.
Thanks Andy
It only took 9 years from proposal to the V bombers to reach squadron service, which is quite a short time for this ambitous project. Even though the jet powered Canberra was in Bomber Command service 1951its bomb bay was too small to carry the bomb.
Thanks Andy
Defcon1
Illinois, United States
Joined: May 03, 2005
KitMaker: 174 posts
AeroScale: 132 posts
Joined: May 03, 2005
KitMaker: 174 posts
AeroScale: 132 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 07:13 PM UTC
Easy one. Which of the following aircraft has tandem landing gear?
1. Y1B-17
2. B-32
3. XB-47
4. B-18
5. B-52
6. B-25
7. XB-36
8. B-1
9. B-29
10. XB-26
Hint: There are three in the above list.
1. Y1B-17
2. B-32
3. XB-47
4. B-18
5. B-52
6. B-25
7. XB-36
8. B-1
9. B-29
10. XB-26
Hint: There are three in the above list.