Enter keywords or a search phrase below:
Scorpiomikey Military or civilian??
Military or civilian??
Well, it is a awaiting a FAA certification........so yes, civilian.
"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how i soar"
Recite the litanies, fire up the Gellar field, a poo storm is coming
Check out my blog here.
OK, thanks Milairjunkie!
I am looking for an aircraft that is currently being tested for FAA certification. The manaufacturer has about 300 aircraft of this type on order. Although the manufacturer denies this the type looks like it is a "further development" (some would say an copy) of a very succesfull 1960's design.
PhilB I was looking for the Nord 2200. Milairjunkie has it by 1 minute but I think the moral victory might belong to Borg R3-MC0
I was looking for the Nord 2200. Milairjunkie has it by 1 minute but I think the moral victory might belong to Borg R3-MC0
I'll second that - I was fixated on R.R. powered Russian birds until Borg stepped in with the idea of a French product.
Over to you Borg....................
WWW.AIR-CRAFT.NET
Milairjunkie wins fair and square by one minute...
But I am glad I was on the right track.
Apologies Phil H if you were heading in the right direction and knew the answer - we had a broadband problem this afternoon.
The Nord 2200 was built to an Aeronavale requirement of 1946. It was singularly unique in so much as only one aircraft was built and and it was the only fighter ever built by Nord.
Considering it was meant to be a shipboard fighter, the designers didn't think it important to include folding wings for the prototype and didn't improve the chances of the design by not incorporating them after the accident. The type was powered by a licence built Nene engine.
Ugly enough in its initial design, it was rebuilt after an accident and the opportunity was taken to add a radar installation over the nose giving it a Sabre Dog like look - but by no means as elegant.
The French Government would have preferred a French designed aircraft but the type never lived up to expectation and the DH Venom was licenced built instead. The Venom was named Aquilon in Aeronavale service which was seen by some as ironic as Aquilon is the name in French literature for the North Wind - something the 2200 could never emulate.
I think you are hinting on Nord, with the Noratlas.
And the answer to the question might be the Nord 2200. It was a shipboard fighter that used the Nene engine. It was not select, instead the Aquilon (the licensed build Venom I mentioned earlier) was used by the French navy.
The Nord 2200?
Is it the SE5000 Baroudeur by Sud-Est?
On the bench:
Too much
In the hangar:
Again....too much
Would the transport aircraft in question resemble the C-82 and C-119 families?
Last clue on this one as I'm going away for a week or so with limited net access.
The manufacturer of this type was much better known for a military transport aircraft used by a variety of European air arms in preference to a very similar looking US design.
This question will close and be answered at 23.00 British Summer Time (18.00 EDST)
You are still in the right area Borg, but your assumption may well be the wrong way round!
Mmmmhhhh, since I am in the right direction I am guessing it must be a French aircraft. Maybe a competitor for the licensed build SNCSE Mistral or Aquillio (vampire and venom). I have to do some more research.
It would help if you looked at all the clues.
Well, I quessed "A-7 Corsair did certainly has a Sabredog look also."on 10-05-2012 3:42 PM > This aircraft was a one off in more ways than one. Built to a particular country's specific need, it failed to impress. Its engine was licence built and its intended role was taken by a well known type, licence built under a different type name, both engine design and replacement type coming from the same country..> An accident during development didn't improve its chances, nor did the rebuild improve its looks!on 10-06-2012 5:33 AM > This aircraft was missing a very essential feature for the role it was intended to take and the aircraft that was chosen in its place bore a name which some considered ironic in the circumstances.on 10-07-2012 4:21 AM> The rebuild to this aircraft which didn't improve its looks did give the front end a hint of the Sabre Dog.on 10-07-2012 4:18 PM:> The aircraft flew for just over 5 years in total though it was superceded three years after its first flight by the type that took its intended role.> It was one of a number of one off or experimental types in its country of origin which, due to war, had lacked development.
===try new thingy===
"engine was licence" sounds like (Mikoyan-Gurevich) MiG-15 ???
Occasional factual, grammatical, or spelling variations are inherent to this thesis and should not be considered as defects, as they enhance the individuality and character of this document.
None of the above although Borg has headed in the right direction.
Mystere IVN, it certainly has a Sabredog look...
XF-91 Thunderceptor?
No, but the time frame is roughly similar
La-200?
The aircraft flew for just over 5 years in total though it was superceded three years after its first flight by the type that took its intended role.
It was one of a number of one off or experimental types in its country of origin which, due to war, had lacked development.
The rebuild to this aircraft which didn't improve its looks did give the front end a hint of the Sabre Dog.
This aircraft was missing a very essential feature for the role it was intended to take and the aircraft that was chosen in its place bore a name which some considered ironic in the circumstances.
Thanks Tom, I know that. I repeated the whole question, as the lawyers say, "for the avoidance of doubt"
Phil, the "Edit" icon looks like is a pencil, second from leftthat the end. You (as the original writer) can replace stuff.
Sorry folks, rushing to get the question out before dinner, I mis-edited the question. Here is the full version:
Try this one:
This aircraft was a one off in more ways than one. Built to a particular country's specific need, it failed to impress. Its engine was licence built and its intended role was taken by a well known type, licence built under a different type name, both engine design and replacement type coming from the same country..
An accident during development didn't improve its chances, nor did the rebuild improve its looks!
This aircraft was a one off in more ways than one. Built to a particular country's specific need, it failed to impress. Its engine was licence built and its intended role was taken by a type, again licence built, both engine design and replacement type coming from the same country..
PhilB Folland Gnat?
Folland Gnat?
Sparrowhyperion F-105 Thunderchief?
F-105 Thunderchief?
No, not the Thud - this aircraft came to being at about the same time, but was a fraction of the size, it was also built & flown by more than one country.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
