Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Hahahaha...... I know what this is, but I will refrain from answering it and let someone  else have it....  I posted about it several years ago.

LMAO!! I just found a recent press release which includes the following:

the fighter-bomber had the ability to track down enemy aircraft, engage in combat, target locations on the ground, and carry an assortment of weapons and ammunition.

Impressive....... 

No, I have never seen one of those before - is it some sort of obscure Russian prototype or something?

Nice one!!

A prototype no more. They have recently attained operational squadron service, but I'm not saying which country.

I think the bright marking might mean that they are target tug's?

I know it's an Iranian designed & built aircraft, I've seen it before, but as for which one...  I'll guess the Azarakhsh

I didn't know about that one, but I have heard that the Iranian's are designing & developing some pretty radical & impressive aircraft these days.

I even heard that they have a hypersonic, parasite fighter fitted, autonomous nuclear powered bomber. The parasite fighters are to combat any possible threat from the Aurora.

osher

I know it's an Iranian designed & built aircraft, I've seen it before, but as for which one...  I'll guess the Azarakhsh

Very close.....

Borg R3-MC0

osher:

I know it's an Iranian designed & built aircraft, I've seen it before, but as for which one...  I'll guess the Azarakhsh

 

Very close.....

Close indeed. Azarakhsh is said to be the predecessor of the aircraft pictured above.

(Sorry Borg, it's your question, so I shall now take a back seat and watch. )

Ah, the Saeqeh (thank-you Wikipedia!)?  The picture on Wiki is in the same scheme even!

osher

Ah, the Saeqeh (thank-you Wikipedia!)?  The picture on Wiki is in the same scheme even!

And I thought you where going to say the F-5.... But no, you are right, it is the Saegeh! It looks like a slightly modfied F-5 but (ofcourse) is far more capable (cough)...even more capable then an F-18 (cough, cough)_

Borg R3-MC0

But no, you are right, it is the Saegeh! It looks like a slightly modfied F-5 but (ofcourse) is far more capable (cough)...even more capable then an F-18 (cough, cough)_

I guess the reasoning is that the F-18 is, ultimately, a descendent of the F-5, and so is theirs, but it's newer...... LMAO!!!

The ME-262 and the U-2 both needed (for differing reasons) assistance of something, which air forces always try and avoid.  What was it?

Taxiing I believe. The 262 had a weak nose strut and also to preserve fuel, so it was often towed by the Kettenkrad. The U-2 had to be careful of its extended wings and their associated droop.

Nope, this was something that occurred in the air

im just gonna bump this to keep it going

Maybe I made it too obscure?  OK, the ME-262 needed to be helped in by a pilot of a FW-190, because it was very vulnerable during landing, whilst the U-2 needed another pilot, in a sportscar, to help the aircraft land.  As a quick one, to pass onto someone else, try this:

What large aircraft landed on a carrier, to prove it could be done, for future operations, that never occurred?

KC-130F refueler transport BuNo 149798

Both aircraft had optimal operating speeds which were close to the speed of sound, but neither aircraft was structuraly capable of this  - some carelessness at high speed would result in an out of control aircraft & an imminently disintegrating airframe.

Not 100% sure on this one, but at high altitude both were coffin dodgers, flying close to their stall speed & "coffin corner"?

I was thinking of the Hercules, but, the KC-135 would certainly meet the criteria of my question!  Over to you Scorpio

OK, I guess I got that one wrong, but speaking of U-2's & strange carrier operations;

Question is, where is the guy in the sports car!!!

This poster knows of the C-130 series transports landing on a carrier.

You're saying a KC-135 (a 707 derived model) landed on a carrier? 

Look at the picture of the C-130 on Forrestal.  There might be twenty feet between the wing tip and the carrier island.  The KC-135 had a larger wingspan than the C-130 and a heck of a lot higher landing speed. 

Here is a PDF of the sutability trials:  http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/025982d.pdf

I don't believe a KC-135 landed on a carrier and neither should anybody else. 

This is yours to prove. 

I beleive if you actually look at my answer i did say the hurcules, it was a KC130F that did it, not a KC135, i also listed the buno number of the aircraft that did it, so yeah, if youd like to review that one.

A total of 21 full-stop landings and 29 touch-and-go landings were made on four separate trips to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal (CVA-59) in 1963. The trials aircraft, an in-service Marine Corps KC-130F tanker, underwent only minor modifications at Lockheed’s plant in Marietta in early October 1963 prior to the carrier tests.

This is a visual question

Really really easy

Whats this aircraft?

[View:/themes/fsm/utility/:550:0]

I'm gonna say an F2H.

similar time period, but no

Hawker Sea Hawk

did i actually make a difficult question? nope, similar, again right sorta era (i think) let me know if you need another hint. also bear in mind the cavity has been stripped of alot of the equipment

I am just going off the vaguest of the wing mounted air intakes and the shape of the nose.

DeHavilland Vampire

yes, t.11 sitting in a dark hangar down in ashburton next to a fully restored c-47 named Amy

over to you stik

Just to add a little about the KC-130F earlier, I had the pleasure of seeing the VERY one that did the trials, when I was stationed on Guam back in 89-90 time frame. It landed with one prop feathered and stayed right across from our hangar for about a week.

OK, this aircraft was used to calibrate the Chain Home radar stations due to it's unique characteristics.