It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Aircraft picture quiz

page: 32
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:31 AM
After an exhausting search through pictures of Nakajimas and Kawasakis and the like I now believe no 5 to be the *cough* Curtiss XA-14.

Japanese my arse

I give up with number 3 three though, when I look at it it is screaming 'Vultee' at me but I really don't have a clue.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by waynos]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:05 AM
Good job. Your close on the Curtiss. It is a YA-18 which is an A-14 with different engines. Gotta love those early designations. Glad you enjoyed your Japanese aircraft experience though as I enjoyed the Ambrosinni and the Sukhoi.

So that's just #3 Should I give it away? Awwww.

Vought V-326 series high altitude test plane

I'd never even heard of that one.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Veltro]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 06:22 AM
Dassault Falcon 100

Originally posted by Veltro

Fiat Fc.20 CANSA


Originally posted by Veltro
#4. Sukhoi t6-1 prototype - That's my final guess as I found a pic of that exact airframe.

In my land, that´s what we call cheating...

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Peronemlin]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:21 AM
In the days of my youth it was called a Falcon 10 but I believe it did cghange top Falcon 100 at some point so yes, correct.

numbers 2& 3 that remained unidentified in my last lot were the Helio Twin Courier and the particularly attractive Sukhoi Su-80.

Be careful with this next lot;

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:57 PM
1. Focke Wulf FW-159
2. Messerschmitt Me-309

5. NA XB-28 Dragon

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:07 PM
all three correct

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:30 PM
I cant guess. Number three is making me laugh too much. Could've got those German types though. Oh well.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:42 PM
You want to know something even more ridiculous about no 3?

It was no bigger than the Me 309 pictured above it!

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Peronemlin

Originally posted by Veltro
#4. Sukhoi t6-1 prototype - That's my final guess as I found a pic of that exact airframe.

In my land, that´s what we call cheating...

What? How is that cheating? I searched for ever to find that. I narrowed it down after a few wrong answers and was sure after I found a pic of the same airframe on one site. Please explain? I really don't appreciate being called a cheat.

Here is the pic in question. Note it is the same airframe as in Waynos pic but a different view.

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:19 PM

#3. Airspeed A.S.39 Fleet Shadower
#4. Boeing XB-39 Superfortress - Allison engined version of the B-29

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Veltro
What? How is that cheating? I searched for ever to find that...

You are saying you searched for a pic of it and that´s not cheating?

May I ask you what cheating is then?

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:48 PM
After guessing it was an SU-24 Fencer Waynos said I was wrong but I knew it looked like one, possibly an early model. I then dug through my books and sites to find out the name of the prototype and found the T-6-1, a prototype with fixed downturned wings, there was also the T-6-2 with variable wings and other early versions.

The page on the T-6-1 also had a pic someone took at an aircraft museum in Russia, the pic was the same aircraft as Waynos has shown, same number on the fuselage and everything, bison bomber in the background but different angle, possibly different photographer.

My comment to Waynos about that being my last guess was because I knew I had finally found the correct aircraft and the picture I found by coincidence during my research verified that for me. I couldn't just google the whole Russian Airforce, I had to have a basic idea to start from, which I investigated and verified.

How is researching the same as cheating? If I think I know what an aitcraft is and I look through my resources until I figure it out that is cheating? I thought that's what aircraft identifaction and this thread was about? Just like with the Fleet Shadower above. I was pretty sure I knew the name but I needed to know so I looked in one of my books.

If having to defend myself against insults and accusations of foul play is what this thread is going to degenerate into I don't think I'm going to waste the hours I sometimes spend figuring out a tough one here anymore.

Edit: I see I was Insulted again. It seems to be a losing battle and I don't want to argue anymore. I'm sorry if for reasons which elude me I ruined anyone's enjoyment of the thread. But if the consensus is that I am a cheater then I will not post here anymore. Thanks.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Veltro]

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:53 PM
I thought we were supposed to answer the planes we know... not to search for it...

Too bad, I had a lot of fun here, but I don´t like cheaters.

So, bye bye, I´m out.

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:47 AM
Well that looks like the thread has come to a very sad end

Maybe we could all just cool off for a couple of days and see?

For the record, IMHO;

1 - having not a clue what a plane is but either backtracking the original photo or trawling through aircraft sites looking for the same = cheating

2 - knowing the basic identitiy (ie definitely something to do with the Su-24 but what exactly) and then confirming this in your own research = not cheating.

I suppose it is a fine line but there's nothing wrong with checking up on facts your not certain of, as long as you admit it when you really do not know what a plane is, for example it would be cheatring if you see a picture that is clearly some sort of US X-plane and so search a photo database of all X-planes until you found it.

Having said that, and I literally just though of this as I typed, actually putting in some work to identify a plane you don't know might not be such a bad thing as it a, keeps the thread moving along nicely, and b, broadens the knowledge base of everyone reading the thread as well as the person who found it allowing everyone to identify a plane they couldn't previously.

What we have in these few pages is basically a catalogue of the wierd and wonderful for anyone prepared to read back through it and if the point is aircraft identification, should it matter that much HOW we identify them? After all, all the pics hosted on tinypic, which must be the vast majority on this thread, are untraceable in themselves, which would be cheating if it were possible, and in order to search out an aircrafts ID you must have some idea what you are looking for in the first place, youcan't just type 'aeroplane' in google and expect to find the answer can you. I feel this is a debate in itself and maybe, if anyonwe wants to continue with the thread a series of ground rules needs to be established as to what is acceptable?

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 04:23 AM

I would not get overly worked up about this. This thread is only a bit of fun. If he wants to take it too seriously and then get upset about it then more fool him. I have enjoyed this thread immensely and hope to continue to do so. I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable in this field but have not seen more than half of the weird and wonderful planes shown so far.

I do not get annoyed that someone else gets the correct answe. I am just happy to learn what each plane is.

So keep up the good work and if he wants to go in the huff and sulk in the corner like a child then it is his loss not ours.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 04:31 AM
you are right of course but these two have been stalwarts of the thread contributing pictures as well as answers and its a shame to see them going off like that. While the thread started out as mine it definitely evolved into a sort of three way partnership, with ever welcome contributions from everyone else of course.

Still like you say, its a bit of fun and a chill out thread really so here are the rules for the thread as dictated by Waynos;

1 aircraft pictures are there to be identified, the point is to be the first with the correct name.

2 obey all the rules.

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:33 AM
I've been doing this for the past month or 2 and Waynos and the rest make it something to look forward to. I've been going about it in the same fashion all along and all of a sudden it's a problem and I'm being called a cheat. Have I answered too many correctly or something?

I have tried to be as calm as possible in my replys and explain myself. If that's seen as taking this to seriously then I don't know what else to say.

Waynos: I found 2 on your last quiz, look in an above post.

[Edit: Unimportant rambling removed]

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Veltro]

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:49 AM

I was not having a go at you, mate. I do not think what you or Waynos have been doing is "cheating".

Keep up the good work.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:01 AM
I know you weren't, I just said that because I dont want to seem to be taking this for more than it's worth. It's early in the morning and I tend to ramble.

I hope Peronemlin can understand and will keep posting. I get upset about being called dishonest as I'm sure anyone would, but this seems to have just been a big misunderstanding.

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:19 AM
Veltro, I missed those two answers, they were both correct
That means that set has been cleared up now so I will post a new selection as soon as I have them (thank god for 'The Chronicle of Aviation'!)

edit because of clumsy fingers

[edit on 8-3-2005 by waynos]

top topics

<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in