It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 70
0
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I'm intrigued to know what number two actually is, I never saw it before. Could it perhaps be what we thought the Indian MCA was going to look like? It certainly seems to vbe carrying French weapons.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Ok, here's the answer. It was a model Denel (a South African manufacturer) showed prior to the unveiling of their Cheetah which had been developed semi-secretly due to the various arms embargoes etc.... the cheetah of course is a Mirage III rebuild with very credible avionics, canards etc - but not an all-new airframe as the model suggests.

The other unnamed one was a Fanwing concept design - fanwing is a new British technology which seems to have the only advantage in that it cannot stall...

[edit on 19-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Cry for a picture of Breguet Br.19GR. It must be "GR". thanks!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Pretty realistic concept art (markings removed):



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
McDonnell Douglas 'MD-XX' double decker precursor to the A380?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
McDonnell Douglas 'MD-XX' double decker precursor to the A380?

Nope. Keep guessing...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


[edit on 20-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   


Nope. Keep guessing...


Thats one of only two conceptslike that I've seen, the other one was by Lockheed in 1980 and I'm sure it isn't that one. So I'm stumped.


But here I'm on my happy hunting ground


1 Beriev Be 10 Mallow

2 MiG 105

3 IAe Pulqui

4 IAe Pulqui II

5 Tsybin NM-1

6 Yak 32 Mantis



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
damn....

Re the airliner from earlier.. think country of vodka...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I'm thinking Antonov.....



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Please bear with me for this one, because I'm not sure how it's going to come out....

This is from Royal Air Force Flying Review - January 1954 (the forerunner of Flying Review International and eventually Air International)

Whilst the author seemed a little sceptical and suspicious, he stated 'we feel justified in reproducing the accompanying cutaway drawing and information from De Vliegende Hollander, the official publication of the Royal Netherlands Air Force.'

The caption to the drawing and photo says 'Three-view silhouette of the new Russian interceptor, provisionally labelled ......... Below, a picture purported to be taken by East German photographer, showing the aircraft in flight.'



Questions......

a). What was this new Russian Interceptor purported to be ?, and
b). What is it really ?
c). Who designed it ?

Sorry, the picture came out a little large - ahhh, that's better!



[edit on 21/3/06 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I'm thinking Antonov.....


OOh, good spot. It was only after you posted this that I began to see a 'low wing An-124' with the same tail design and everything. I'd be very surprised if you are wrong with that guess.

As to your own quiz, I'll be back.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a I can't wait to find out

b Focke Wulf Ta 183

c Kurt Tank


I presume this first fake is related to that piece? The second one is a recent fake I believe.





[edit on 21-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Correct waynos.

The aircraft was provisionally labelled MiG-19 (and this at a time before the MiG-17 had been identified). The photographer concerned turned out to West German rather than East German (don't zay all look da same, Shultz?).

The article goes on to mention the similarity between the Ta 183 and this new aircraft, but states that the Russians never got hold of a prototype or any production drawings, but mentions that a 'few lesser-important members of the design team did pass into the possession of the Russian evaluation teams'.

But really, what a cartoon like cutaway - where did they get the idea of where all the structural bits and pieces were - all so very speculative and yet presented so, so seriously and informatively.

And I don't know where this little gem in the text came from.... 'The cockpit canopy displays British influence.......' - doesn't look at all like it came off a Spitfire to me!

I imagine that your first fake is related to this story, but it is not included in this particular article.

I also seem to recall Roy Braybrook making mention of this fake, and how easily 'experts' can be fooled, in one of his columns in Air International, but cannot at the moment locate it.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Pretty realistic concept art (markings removed):



Ahah! I finally got you guys! It's not an Antonov although that would have been my first guess also. It's the Sukhoi Kr-830 (aka Kp-830?) concept for a twin deck very large airliner which was promoted in the late 90s but hasn't seemed to go anywhere. An interesting feature is that the concept has folding wings to allow it to get closer to the terminal etc... and double front landing gear assemblies...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Cheers planeman, a Sukhoi then? Wow, excellent.

I like the quiz format Wombat hope there's more to come. I like the idea of a few relevant questions to accompany the photo's, I think I might do a fwe myself like that, which might also justify re-using some old photos, lol.

In the same vein as the 'MiG Ta 183', look also at this from 'Flight' in 1952;



What is the story behind this picture?

Or maybe you can identify the following;











posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
1 (the six-engine bomber): Complete guess but I'd say it was a speculative image of the Tu-95 Bear.

2 Blackburn Firecreast (originally thought Firebrand but spotted the wings and researched to arrive at firecreast so not a straight guess)
3 de Havilland Sea Vixen.
4. Rockwell International XFV-12A
5. ...recognise it but can't name it...





[edit on 22-3-2006 by planeman]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
1, yes, buts thats only part of the story. Speculatively called the Tu-200 it was believed to be entering service until the Tu-95 was revealed at Tushino. However, ironically, years later Tupolev designs were revelaed which actually differ from this model only in having a tail that is more closely related to the Bear and in the wings having dihedral instead of anhedral as displayed, the nose and swept wing six engined layout were actually correct! However the design was never pursued and the drawings were locked away until the 1990's so just how it came to be modelled in the west remains a mystery.

2,3 & 4 correct.

Notice also the A-4 Skyhawk nose and F-4 Phantom intakes on the XFV-12, plus the mock up of the FV-12 fighter in the background with its radar nose.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Okay, here's a question I've never heard an answer to, although that may be because I've never heard it asked.

Given that canards are such excellent lift/anti-stall providers, why weren't Navy jets, which have such short take-off runs, sprouting canards like some kind of disease?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Okay, here's a question I've never heard an answer to, although that may be because I've never heard it asked.

Given that canards are such excellent lift/anti-stall providers, why weren't Navy jets, which have such short take-off runs, sprouting canards like some kind of disease?
?
Rafael? Su-33?

Anyway, most conventional naval jets aren't STOL in the classic sense because they use a steam catapult to assist take-off and arrester gear to reduce landing distances. If you land an F-14 on a conventional runway, it's not STOL.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join