Aircraft Trivia Quiz

Ok, how about the XF-84H, mating a jet engine with a supersonic propeller?

Sorry, no.

The Technology (not concept) refered to was identical in both aircraft.

The VZ-1 & jet pack both flew, whereas from the two aircraft designed to use the technology mentioned, one type flew, the other type didn't even reach a working prototype - both of these were also true aircraft (well, winged - you know what I mean) as well.

Um, ok im gonna go with the Hiller VZ-1 Pawnee. The technology being "personal lift vehicle" as it were. The other "vehicle" in this class was the Bell jet pack. which became a gimmick. Im guessing im way off the mark, but yeah thats my guess.

I was gonna say the Goodyear Inflatoplane. but i couldnt match it to any of the criteria lol.

I say lets keep running with the question currently going.

Scorpiomikey

Ok, so is there a new question? or whats happening now?

Scorpiomikey

Ok, so is there a new question? or whats happening now?

Milair- the "hijacked by buddies" notion comes from having seen it happen before here. No one is accusing anyone here of doing that.

Ok, so is there a new question? or whats happening now?

I also found the question a bit open ended & unclear with regards to exactly what was being taken from the previous question - was it the original only, or was it the original + the additional clues? this is why I asked for clarification on the question.

I have also seen plenty of questions (some from myself no doubt) that unwittingly applied to more than one aircraft - It was my impression that in these instances that the questioner will often reply "sorry no the aircraft I had in mind" - rule allowing or not this does seem to happen & be accepted? I would imagine that most instances of this are caused by a lack of research as opposed to being some sort of wheel within a wheel?

Where is the "hijacked by buddies" notion coming from? I simply asked for clarification & gained the answer osher had in mind through that clarification. I have simply supplied a response to a question, nothing more, nothing less, I also figured that as this type of situation has happened in the past there wouldn't be an issue.

I am happy to abide by the original rule of first answer fitting the question as opposed to what the questioner actually had in mind - as such, if it's felt I should - I will more than happily retract my last question?

EDIT: if the question is still in the running -  Simpilot, the aircraft nuclear propulsion project came to an end in 1961 & the NB-36 did to a fashion fly with it's technology - so I'm affraid it's not that.

Here is the original question posted 9/02 by Milaire Junkie:

"This is a twin engined, twin seat, high wing, ground attack (primarily) aircraft which remains in service. It suffered a protracted development & uses a license built version of a well known powerplant."

No mention of originating country's bloc or government,  no worries...

The correct answer ending up being the Jiang

Now here is Osher's question post based on his proper reply with the Jiang posted on 9/3

"OK, identical question as before, except, this aircraft is single seat for attack, and twin seat for advanced weapons training."

Again no mention of western/eastern bloc etc. At least not till clarification. No worries again. I just suppose that it will be helpful for generic clues like communist block and such to be posted in the original question. Especially when the original question can apply to several aircraft.

It's all good though. I am still here to learn and play.

Yes, and Osher you hit on it. The question and it's crafting are far harder than getting the answer. It takes time to make a question wiki, or near wiki proof.

In a nut shell, that's about it. If the answer fits a question, then it sticks, even if it wasn't what the questioneer was looking for.

OK, so, we reinforce the rule - if the answer fits the question, then it's the answer.  The question can be subtly amended, but, if the answer is correct before the change is made, then it sticks.  This of course increases the onus on the questioner to be careful in the question.

Yes, the "Guess What I'm thinking" type stuff between 2 people is often what forces threds like this to push up the dasies. That (as well as technicality type stuff) are  what Tom T. (who started this thred) adressed when he started this.

Osher, that's my vote and that's the rules, as Rail pointed out. Here's the thing, and I don't think you are doing this, but on several occasions this thread got hijacked by two buddies who play "guess what I'm thinking" back and forth and everyone else loses interest.

As I said, I pondered this, and agree that my question missed a vital element.  However, over the past few years, answers that fit the question have been over-ruled, because it wasn't the answer in question, and this has happened to me.  If we wish to make it so that any answer that fits the question wins, that's fine by me, and we can do that going forward.

bondoman

I don't get it. A guy won the quiz, and he got ignored through some version of "guess what's in my pocket". Trivia quizzes don't work like that. It's as much a challenge for the question creator to craft one that is unambiguous as it is to guess correctly.

If this was a pub contest, there'd be trouble.

I don't like these new rules.

I agree. It said right on page 1 of this (now) 5 year-old thred (which has been going well since I've been aboard) that it is suppose to be like the American Jepardy! game show. Even if it wasn't the answer sought after, as long as it was right, the person (in this case, Stik) would get it.

Check post 1 on Page 1. It has the rules, and it states that the whole "but it's not what I'm looking for" stuff is what caused a simaler thred to die on another forum.

I don't get it. A guy won the quiz, and he got ignored through some version of "guess what's in my pocket". Trivia quizzes don't work like that. It's as much a challenge for the question creator to craft one that is unambiguous as it is to guess correctly.

If this was a pub contest, there'd be trouble.

I don't like these new rules.

Going to take a stab at it, was it nuclear power and the NB-36?

Cheers.

In the 1950 an technology was being developed that was going to be the "next big thing" in military aviation. Considerable amounts of money were thrown at the technology, which two aircraft were initially designed to use. The technology was scrapped in 1959, but one of the two aircraft was built & flew without the technology.

This Western aircraft never reached production.

What was the aircraft & the technology?

We have a winner!  The J-22 Orao!  I found it whilst looking for the Chinese job.  Over to you...

Soko J-22 Orao?

I'm not sure where the specs on the engines came from, just that, whilst ex-Communist (the design was from the 1970's), it uses licenced western engines.  Not sure about the development bit - I forgot that was part of the original question, sorry!  However, the rest is the same:

High wing; ground attack; single or twin seat; twin engine, using a licenced built western engine; sub-sonic; ex-Communist (the country is not Communist anymore); still in service.

More clues:

Rolls-Royce engines; European country; a history of producing aircraft; the designation sounds Swedish; the name sounds like an American cookie.

I'm confused here, I would have said Su-25, but it doesn't match some of the facts. Can you confirm that the following apply to the question;

Ground Attack (Primarily),

SIngle seat (operational)

Twin Seat (Weapons training),

High Wing,

Sub Sonic,

Remains in Service,

Protracted Development,

Communist / Ex Communist origin,

Twin Licenced Engine, which are older than 1972 & produce more than 14840lb thrust (each).

Yes, I did ponder this, as the answer does match the question, leading to the thought: if the answer matches, does this mean a winner?  However, we have precedent that this is not the case, which is why I clarified my question, to narrow down the choice of answers.  In this case, the question was refined to include 'Communist' and 'sub-sonic'.  Actually, the F1 would have answered the first one too, that I answered, but it also wasn't the answer.  However, if no one gets it within a few days, I'll pass it to Stik

Hold yer ponies there Osher...I think Stik nailed it. His choice of engine even predates the RB199, although it's not clear whether that came with the new question.

OK, this is also a Communist/ex-Communist aircraft, and is sub-sonic

How about Mitsubishi F-1 (single seat attack) and T-2 (twin seat trainer) using a license built Rolls Royce Turbomeca Adour- the Ishikawajima-Harima TF40-IHI-801A

OK, identical question as before, except, this aircraft is single seat for attack, and twin seat for advanced weapons training.

Yes indeed, the Xian JH-7A. You are the man!