I was close first time! It’s the Xian JH-7 also called the JBC-1 Flying Leopard, a Chinese twin seat twin engined high wing ground attack, using a licence built RR Spey engine.
Yes indeed, the Xian JH-7A. You are the man!
OK, identical question as before, except, this aircraft is single seat for attack, and twin seat for advanced weapons training.
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, this is also a Communist/ex-Communist aircraft, and is sub-sonic
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.
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
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).
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.
Soko J-22 Orao?
We have a winner! The J-22 Orao! I found it whilst looking for the Chinese job. Over to you…
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?
Going to take a stab at it, was it nuclear power and the NB-36?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.