Aircraft Trivia Quiz

ditto ditto ditto !!!

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

Tom S.

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.

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.

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

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. 

A:

Yak 38 (?)

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

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?

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

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.  

Wild guess A-4 Skyhawk

A:

B-66 Destroyer (?)

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.

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.

No & No.

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

Not what I had in mind.

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

Answers on a postcard.

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.

Milairjunkie wrote:

SBD-2 Dauntless BuNo 2106. The only survivor of the Battle of Midway. Recovered from Lake Michigan in 1994, where it was lost during CQ training in 1943. Now restored & on display at NMNA Pensacola. ???????????????????????????

100% Milairjunkie.  Right on the nose.  Have you been there to see the aircraft? And just to be a good sport about it, here are a few pics.  I thought it was pretty interesting and I hope that you do too.

SBD-2 Dauntless BuNo 2106.

The only survivor of the Battle of Midway.

Recovered from Lake Michigan in 1994, where it was lost during CQ training in 1943. Now restored & on display at NMNA Pensacola.

???????????????????????????