Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Good question, with an interesting A/C & story behind it. Pensacola isn't exactly just "round the corner" for me, according to Google Earth it about 4100 miles away, so no I havn't been to see 2106 recently. Although if I do holiday in Florida again, I will consider a visit.

Now I have the not-so-easy task of figuring out a decent head scratcher - back soon.

This versatile A/C family featured an early example of thrust vectoring - on the first four prototypes only.

Answers on a postcard.

Not what I had in mind.

No & No.

This is a subsonic military A/C, which as far as I know, certain variants of are still in service.

No.

However, if you consider that A/Cs forebearer & in turn consider that forebearer's most unique feature,  & in turn consider that features reason for being - this will bring you closer to the A/C in question.

However, if you consider that A/Cs forebearer & in turn consider that forebearer's most unique feature,  & in turn consider that features reason for being - this will bring you closer to the A/C in question.

The A/C that I mention above maybe the F-8, but that is only there to get you going in the correct direction.

The Gunfighter had a unique feature to make it easier to operate in its environment, the A/C in question had its unique feature for similar reasons.

A:

B-66 Destroyer (?)

Wild guess A-4 Skyhawk

No, none of those.

To avoid confusion I should point out that this is not a VTOL A/C of any type, it also flew before any of the "workable" VTOLs.  

if you consider that A/Cs forebearer

 F8U Crusader...

& in turn consider that forebearer's most unique feature

 variable wing incidence...

& in turn consider that features reason for being

 lower takeoff/landing speed...

- this will bring you closer to the A/C in question.

F7U Cutlass? tailless aircraft with extra long nose gear to increase the wing incidence (to airflow) during launch.

GS

Your logic is spot on, but the A/C is wrong.

The thrust vectoring involved uses variable direction of the jet pipe (or pipes) as opposed to deflection?

Milairjunkie wrote:

Your logic is spot on, but the A/C is wrong. The thrust vectoring involved uses variable direction of the jet pipe (or pipes) as opposed to deflection?

Forgot the thrust vectoring. 

GS

A:

Yak 38 (?)

Trexx - No, as said this A/C flew before any feasible VTOL & the YAK was a late arrival on the VTOL scene, this A/C is not VTOL either.

MQM107 - as said this is thrust vectoring from the engine(s?) exhaust nozzle(s?), although not mechanically the same as the common modern bi or tri axis arrangements - its far simpler. As was touched on earlier it is not for the purpose of increased agility. 

bertman wrote:

so it's been 5 days, no one seems to have any clue. why not give yourself a point, say the answer (or not), give another less obscure question and/or let someone else :) personally, these long obscure or many-parted questions kill the mood... and especially when there is a long string of them. if noone agrees with me, just ignore me. :p

And who are you bertman - not someone to my knowledge who is a regular participant in this thread?

This question is neither long, obscure or multipart - it involves a very common service A/C, details of which are readily available on the WWW, Wiki even has details of the prototypes having thrust vectoring, including pictures.

It was my impression that several regulars on this thread appreciate the questions that require a bit of research? It was also my impression that the thread was called "aircraft TRIVIA quit", & not "easy questions on aircraft".

I belive the Shamen once had a song titled "Firestarter" - you know the one - "I,m a firestarter, twisted firestarter" - quite appropriate for attempted arson.

If anyone is of the same opinion as bertman, please make me aware & I will withdraw these comments & the concerned question.

RemcoGrob wrote:

bertman wrote: so it's been 5 days, no one seems to have any clue. why not give yourself a point, say the answer (or not), give another less obscure question and/or let someone else :) personally, these long obscure or many-parted questions kill the mood... and especially when there is a long string of them. if noone agrees with me, just ignore me. :p

 And I'm a regular here when there are a steady flow of good questions.  The original poster included rules about question duration...maybe they should be looked at...

Personally, I beieve that if a question can not be gotten with in a day or two's time, useful clues or a new question should be submitted.

ditto ditto ditto !!!

These "guess what I'm thinking" questions don't work for me either.

Tom S.

I feel I have provided additional, relevant information throughout the duration of this question, increasing the ease of which it may be correctly answered with. I also feel that I have responded to answers in a pretty prompt manner - it's not like I have asked the question, gone away & let it die.

Several answers have not considered some of the fact's provided, such as that it is subsonic, that is flew before the Harrier & other VTOLs, that is is not VTOL, that it come from a family of versatile A/C - some of which still serve, that is a carrier based A/C, or that the vectoring was proposed to ease carried handling.

I argue the fact that this is an obscure question, or that I have failed to provide enough information - come on, how many subsonic carrier A/C which flew in the early sixties are still in, or have very recently been in service.

I think I got it:

The A2F-1; the prototype of the A-6 Intruder. Its nozzles could tilt downwards.

Yes WarHammer25, the Grumman Intruder / Prowler.

The first 4 of the 8 YA2F-1 prototypes had adjustable exhaust nozzles in an effort to reduce landing speed - but the concept was found lacking & deleted.

You may now see why I have been arguing the A/C & questions obscurity???

You turn WarHammer25.