JDK's Fiendish Quiz No.1

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3333

Outside my area of knowledge, but when did Amiot start building Ju-52s / AAC1 Toucans?

Nord NC.900 / Fw190

Fieseler / Morane Saulnier Storch variants

Messerschmitt / Nord-built Me108s

I'm not sure whether French production of the above types re-started before the end of WWII (or even when the 'end of WWII' is for the purposes of this exercise - VE Day or VJ Day?)

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:03 pm

Mike wrote:

JDK wrote:

5. How many types can you name that were in production on opposing sides in W.W.II?

Please sir, can I play?

JB-2 Loon / V-1

Yes, as long as you behave. :rolleyes:

Good answer! I'd assumed the Loon was a postwar development, but not so, apparently. After a quick look, I now have an image of thousands of loons being fired at Tokyo...

So we have:

1. C-47/ Showa L2D "Tabby"
(Lisunov Li-2 doesn't count because the USA (first producer) and USSR (other producer) were never actually at war during the period of W.W.II (39-45 or 41-45) Likewise the B-29 / Tu-2 "Bull" doesn't count for the same reason. And, incidentally, the PBY/Canadian built Canso/and Russian GST doesn't count because the Commonwealth wasn't at war with Russia prior to 1941 either.)
2. JB-2 Loon / V-1
3. Douglas DC-2/Nakajima AT-2 / Ki-34 (I'm not clear if this was a licence produced DC-2 or a Japanese design based on the DC-2 - open question!)
Matt also offered:
4. "NAA T-6 Texan/Harvard. This is a shakey one as the CAC Wirraway and Kyushu K10W1 were developments of early variants of the type but weren't the same. Related, yes, the same, no. To stretch it further, the
5. Douglas DC4E was sold to Japan and became the basis of the Nakajima G5n. Neither were successful." I don't think they qualify, but certainly worth a mention.

The AAC-1 was postwar, I understand. But... [Ah, you've been editing your leeste ef Fronch plenes.]

Jollygreenslugg · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:11 am

[quote="JDK"]1. C-47/ Showa L2D "Tabby"
(Lisunov Li-2 doesn't count because the USA (first producer) and USSR (other producer) were never actually at war during the period of W.W.II (39-45 or 41-45) Likewise the B-29 / Tu-2 "Bull" doesn't count for the same reason. And, incidentally, the PBY/Canadian built Canso/and Russian GST doesn't count because the Commonwealth wasn't at war with Russia prior to 1941 either.)/quote]

I offered the Li-2 but not the Tu-2 because the USSR were at war with Japan, even if it was only for a week before the Japanese surrendered. So, for a few days, the Soviets (who had built the Li-2) were at war with the Japanese (who built the L2D) thus making two nations who had the basically the same type in their inventories at war with each other. Mind you, I'm not sure how many of the 500-odd L2Ds were still in existence in August 1945. The Tu-2 is outside the WW2 timeframe.

Cheers,
Matt

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:33 am

Hi Matt,
You are quite right! :oops:

Likewise Mike's French air force, I guess counts, if they were in production before the demise of the last Axis power, Japan.

I'm becoming very grateful I don't have to set exam questions!

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

The glider question:

I'll bet the answer is in this master Thesis from 2008:

GLIDERS OF WORLD WAR II:
“THE BASTARDS NO ONE WANTED”
BY
MICHAEL H. MANION
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF
THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES
FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES
AIR UNIVERSITY
MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA
JUNE 2008

url: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo ... =ADA493762

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:34 am

God find! I'd hope so. But what?

rreis · **Joined:** Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:42 pm **Posts:** 441

JDK wrote:

God find! I'd hope so. But what?

Hadn't the time to read it yet. From your lead on the wing platform, they all were high-wing machines but I notice a drift to a two platform wing in the later types (inner, constant chord and the outer part tapered). I would think, if not aerodynamically, these outer parts could be removed in a easier way, facilitating transport or some sort of reuse in the field?

JDK · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:45 am

Nope!

dhfan · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:00 pm

JDK wrote:

The rounds question is a good one, thanks for the illustration, which shows why the British Colt Browning .303 had to be redesigned to take a different round to the US .30 gun, although it remained essentially the same weapon. I note the British round is the only rimmed example; did that have a major difference in the chamber and extraction principle? (Obviously the design differed, but could a design that worked for one be adapted, without a major change in the mechanical process, to the other?)

Regards,

What I know about armament and ammo can be written in very large letters on a very small piece of paper.

But - many years ago, I used to go with my Dad to the police shooting range. The ammo was all described on the boxes as rimfire and IIRC the striker mark was right on the edge. I guess extraction could be easier, because there's something to get hold of if necessary, and presumably it's simple enough to redesign the striker plate to hit in a slightly different place. We used .22 rifles and pistols so this is only a guess that .303 was the same.

Pogmusic · **Posted:** Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:34 pm

DHFAN,
No, the .303 is a center fire cartridge. The rim is used primarily for extraction. The Russians and Japanese both had rimmed cartridges. The Japanese used an identical cartridge to the .303 and the Russians had the 7.62.54R. The disadvantage of the rimmed cartridge in stacked magazines is that if you did not stack the rounds with the lower round rim behind the upper round, it could lead to a round not being able to be chambered because the lower rounds rim holding the chambering round back.

dhfan · **Posted:** Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:11 am

Thanks.

Told you I didn't know much.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:05 pm

So... No guesses on the military glider's proposed use changing from the early war wing ***** and **** to the later war example?

Zachary · **Posted:** Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:26 pm

JDK - off topic, but I love the Porco Rosso quote! One of my favorite movies...

Zack

Aeronut · **Posted:** Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:43 am

I cant' vouch for other nation's gliders but the original British concept of operations was to use the gliders to drop paratroops rather than air land them. Both the Hotspur and the Horsa were used in paratroop trials and I'd hazard a guess that the Horsa was also the first aircraft in the world to drop supplies out of the doors using a roller floor. The Horsa and the Hengist were designed from the start to drop supply containers, the Horsa carried them in the wing (one reason the main undercarriage of the Horsa was designed to be dropped after take off) and the Hengist carried then vertically in the fuselage.
Whilst only the Horsa of the three gliders I've mentioned made its name in operations, the Hotspur was a 'nearly run' combatant, as in May 44 Canadian Spitfire Squadrons were having fun towing them with their Spits, the aim being to use the gliders to carry spares, fuel, ammo and ground crew to the Advanced Landing grounds in Normandy. In the end this never happened and the Hotspur spent its service career as a trainer.

JDK · **Posted:** Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:39 am

Very interesting, but not what I was looking for!

Like the area you've explained, what was intended often gets obscured by the fact it don't actually happen in use.

Cheers

Warbird Information Exchange

JDK's Fiendish Quiz No.1

Who is online