Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > RC Warbirds and Warplanes
Reload this Page >

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Notices
RC Warbirds and Warplanes Discuss rc warbirds and warplanes in this forum.

Knowledge Quiz for Warbird wiz

Old 04-09-2015, 08:45 AM
  #11101  
JohnnyS
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, CANADA
Posts: 810
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I read that it was not really successful: The single Martin K.III Kitten could only climb to 295 feet (Slightly higher than Lake Ontario above sea level). If you need oxygen at that altitude, you have some *serious* medical problems.

The next version, the Martin K.IV Kitten, came out a few years later and was more successful: It could apparently get up to 11,400 feet.
Old 04-09-2015, 09:44 AM
  #11102  
stevegauth30
 
stevegauth30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Maybe with a bigger hamster it could have been a success. So, let me ask this, ( should have asked before hand.) does it have to be a successful military plane? Or anything military aviation related?
Old 04-09-2015, 10:41 AM
  #11103  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by stevegauth30
Maybe with a bigger hamster it could have been a success. So, let me ask this, ( should have asked before hand.) does it have to be a successful military plane? Or anything military aviation related?

Sir; questions have to be "warbird related". Successful? Not hardly! Prototypes are one of the favorite themes. Personally, I prefer questions about aircrew (not just pilots). People are more interesting than the planes. But that's just me. Stick with military aircraft, history, equipment and crew; and you'll be fine. Your question was interesting; and that's a big plus. We're all just trying to learn. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 04-09-2015, 01:24 PM
  #11104  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
Old 04-10-2015, 08:29 AM
  #11105  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
Old 04-10-2015, 08:38 AM
  #11106  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnnyS
I read that it was not really successful: The single Martin K.III Kitten could only climb to 295 feet (Slightly higher than Lake Ontario above sea level). If you need oxygen at that altitude, you have some *serious* medical problems.

The next version, the Martin K.IV Kitten, came out a few years later and was more successful: It could apparently get up to 11,400 feet.
Another 1100' the pilot in command would be required to use supplemental OX2 avter 1/2 hour at that altitde. If I remember my FAR's concerning alttudes concerning supplemental OX2
That's if the FAA/CAA existed in 1919

OH Crap Just had to Google it anyway.

Sec. 91.211 — Supplemental oxygen.

(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry—(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;

(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and

(3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen.
(b) Pressurized cabin aircraft. (1) No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry with a pressurized cabin—
(i) At flight altitudes above flight level 250 unless at least a 10-minute supply of supplemental oxygen, in addition to any oxygen required to satisfy paragraph (a) of this section, is available for each occupant of the aircraft for use in the event that a descent is necessitated by loss of cabin pressurization; and
(ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember's station.
NEXT: Sec. 91.213 - Inoperative instruments and equipment.
PREVIOUS: Sec. 91.209 - Aircraft lights.

Search the FARS for


Last edited by HoundDog; 04-10-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Old 04-10-2015, 04:45 PM
  #11107  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Not part of the War Bird / airplane Quiz but much more Important.

Every AMA member should of gotten this Notic from the AMA Read it Watch it And Comment on the NPRM before April 24th. It's Vital to our hoby with what the FAA wants and will do if we don't make objection to it ... For those that belive the NPRM as written and feature FAR's it will make DO NOT only pertain to Comerical Use of sUAS and TOY MODEL AIR PLANES. It (if inacted as written into FAR's it will out lay any thing over 55 lbs any thing over 87 MPH Max altitude 500' ext.


Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.

U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.

http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0

[TABLE="class: link-enhancr-element, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"]
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"]
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
[/TD]
[TD]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 1, bgcolor: #E5E5E5"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Take Action to Help Preserve Model Aviation's Future. Comment on the FAA NPRM.


[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View on view.exacttarget.com
[/TD]
[TD]
Preview by Yahoo
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"]


[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Last edited by HoundDog; 04-10-2015 at 05:36 PM. Reason: URL
Old 04-11-2015, 07:41 AM
  #11108  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.

Old 04-11-2015, 03:46 PM
  #11109  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by uncljoe
Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II
Old 04-11-2015, 04:01 PM
  #11110  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

No thats not the one I'm thinking of
Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.
5.one proto type had 5 engines

Old 04-12-2015, 04:55 PM
  #11111  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Tonights clue......
Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.
5.one proto type had 5 engines
6.flight tests began in 1964 but a lenghty development period delayed its service debut until early 1970's

Old 04-12-2015, 05:20 PM
  #11112  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by uncljoe
Tonights clue......
Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.
5.one proto type had 5 engines
6.flight tests began in 1964 but a lenghty development period delayed its service debut until early 1970's

MiG-25

[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 315"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]MiG-25PU two-seat trainer[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Role[/TH]
[TD]Interceptor andreconnaissance aircraft[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD]Mikoyan-Gurevich OKB[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First flight[/TH]
[TD]6 March 1964[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Introduction[/TH]
[TD]1970[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Status[/TH]
[TD]Limited service[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Primary users[/TH]
[TD]Russian Air Force
Algerian Air Force
Syrian Air Force
Military of Turkmenistan[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Produced[/TH]
[TD]1964–1984[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Number built[/TH]
[TD]1,186[SUP][1][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Developed into[/TH]
[TD]Mikoyan MiG-31[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Old 04-13-2015, 07:00 AM
  #11113  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Close but NO cigar !!!!Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.
5.one proto type had 5 engines
6.flight tests began in 1964 but a lenghty development period delayed its service debut until early 1970's
Hopefully the last clue
7. KAL 902 & KAL 007 edited by adding the KAL 902 (JWB)


Last edited by uncljoe; 04-13-2015 at 10:28 AM.
Old 04-13-2015, 01:20 PM
  #11114  
Ernie P.
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bealeton, VA
Posts: 7,086
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by uncljoe
Close but NO cigar !!!!Aircraft, Im thinking of...
1. incorporated some "tried and tested systems & equipments."
2.designers decided NOT to adopt a variable geometry which was internationally favored at that time.
3.had a all moving tailplane & standard rudder
4. production aircraft had a redesigned outer wing with the leading edge reduced to 45 degrees and greater span.
5.one proto type had 5 engines
6.flight tests began in 1964 but a lenghty development period delayed its service debut until early 1970's
Hopefully the last clue
7. KAL 902 & KAL 007 edited by adding the KAL 902 (JWB)

Well, that should generate some pretty fair guesses. Thanks; Ernie P.
Old 04-13-2015, 01:26 PM
  #11115  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Ernie P.
Well, that should generate some pretty fair guesses. Thanks; Ernie P.
Special afternoon Bonus clue.......
TWO confrmed Kills !!!!
Old 04-13-2015, 03:52 PM
  #11116  
stevegauth30
 
stevegauth30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sukhoi SU-15 ?
Old 04-13-2015, 04:21 PM
  #11117  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

BINGO !!!
We have a winner !!




[h=1]Sukhoi Su-15[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is about the supersonic Su-15 "Flagon". For the earlier subsonic interceptor, see Sukhoi Su-15 (1949).
[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 315"]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"]Su-15[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Role[/TH]
[TD]Interceptor[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Manufacturer[/TH]
[TD]Sukhoi OKB[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First flight[/TH]
[TD]30 May 1962[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Introduction[/TH]
[TD]1965[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Retired[/TH]
[TD]1996 (Ukraine)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Status[/TH]
[TD]Retired[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Primary users[/TH]
[TD]Soviet Air Defence Forces
Ukrainian Air Force[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Produced[/TH]
[TD]1965-1979[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Number built[/TH]
[TD]1,290[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The Sukhoi Su-15 (NATO reporting name 'Flagon') was a twin-engined supersonic interceptor developed by the Soviet Union in the 1960s to replace the Sukhoi Su-11 and Sukhoi Su-9, which were becoming obsolete as NATO introduced newer and more capable strategic bombers. The Su-15 was a major part of the Soviet interceptor force until the fall of the Soviet Union.
The aircraft is best known for having been involved in the downing of Korean Air Flight 007.
[h=2]Contents[/h] [hide]

[h=2]Development[edit][/h]Recognizing the limitations of the earlier Su-9 and Su-11 in intercepting the then-new Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, particular in terms of radar and aircraft performance, the Sukhoi OKB quickly began the development of a heavily revised and more capable aircraft. A variety of development aircraft evolved, including the T-49, which shared the fuselage of the Su-9 (including its single engine), but used cheek-mounted intakes to leave the nose clear for a large radome for the RP-22 Oryol-D ("Eagle") radar (NATO "Skip Spin"), and the T-5, essentially a heavily modified Su-11 with a widened rear fuselage containing two Tumansky R-11 engines.
These led to the T-58, which combined the twin engines with a modified version of the T-49's nose, but with side inlets further back, behind the cockpit. It was approved for production on 5 February 1962, as the Su-15, and the prototype first flew on 30 May 1962. It entered service testing 5 August 1963, but its service entry was delayed by political infighting with the Yakovlev OKB over production line capacity in Novosibirsk, which was also building the Yak-28P. The Su-15 proved to be superior in most respects other than range, and it was officially commissioned on 3 April 1965. Series production began the following year, and it entered service with the PVO in 1967, replacing Su-9s, Su-11s, and Yakovlev Yak-25s. The initial Su-15 received the NATO reporting name "Flagon-A". A simplified trainer version, the Su-15UT (NATO "Flagon-C"), with no radar or combat capability, entered service in 1970.
Initial delta-winged Su-15s had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and so Sukhoi investigated a new wing design with extended wingtips (increasing wing area) and boundary layer control. Su-15s with the new wing went into production in 1969. They were dubbed "Flagon-D" by NATO, although the Soviet designation was unchanged.
Also in 1969 testing began of the upgraded Su-15T with the Volkov Taifun ("Typhoon") radar, which was based on the MiG-25's powerful RP-25 Smerch-A ("Tornado") radar (NATO "Foxfire"). The Taifun proved troublesome, however, and ceased production after only 10 aircraft had been built. It was followed in December 1971 by the Su-15TM (NATO "Flagon-E"), with the improved Taifun-M radar (NATO "Twin Scan") and provision for UPK-23-250 gun pod or R-60 (AA-8 "Aphid") short-range air-to-air missiles. Aerodynamic demands forced a redesign of the radome with an ogival shape, earning a new NATO reporting name, "Flagon-F", although again the Soviet designation did not change. A comparable combat-capable trainer, the Su-15UM(NATO "Flagon-G"), followed from 1976. The final Su-15UMs, the last Su-15s produced, came off the line in 1979.
Various OKB proposals for upgraded Su-15s with better engines and aerodynamics to satisfy a VVS requirement for a long-range tactical fighter were rejected in favor of the Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter.
[h=2]Design[edit][/h]

Su-15 Flagon A



Sukhoi Su-15



Su-15 Flagon C



A Su-15TM preserved at the Ukrainian Air Force museum in Vynnytsia



at the Aviation museum of Zhulyany Airport, Kiev, Ukraine

Although many components of the Su-15 were similar or identical to the previous Su-9 and Su-11 (NATO reporting name "Fishpot"), including Sukhoi's characteristic rear-fuselage Air brake (aeronautics)s, the Su-15 abandoned the shock-inlet cone nose intake for side-mounted intake ramps with Splitter plate (aeronautics) feeding two powerful turbojet engines, initially the Tumansky R-11F2S-300. The change allowed room in the nose for a powerful search radar, initially the RP-22 Oryol-D (NATO 'Skip Spin'). The early Su-15 ("Flagon-A") had pure delta wings like its predecessors, but these were replaced from the 11th production series onward by a new 'kinked' delta planform of increased span and area, with a small wing fence above each outer pylon and blown flaps to improve landing characteristics. This was accompanied by a new tail of greater anhedral and a vertical fin of reduced height.
The Su-15 had maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a rate of climb of 228 m/s (very important parameter for an interceptor aircraft). Take-off and landing speeds were comparatively high, with a take-off speed of 247 mph (395 km/h) for early delta-winged 'Flagon-A's and 231 mph (370 km/h) for the larger-winged 'Flagon-F.' While the controls were responsive and precise, the aircraft was unforgiving of pilot error.
Despite its powerful radar, the Su-15, like most Soviet interceptors before the late 1980s, was heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI), with aircraft vectored onto targets by ground radar stations. It was fitted with the Lazur-S datalink system, which transmitted instructions to the pilot to accomplish the interception. The later Su-15TM had a Vozdukh-1M datalink and SAU-58 (sistema automaticheskogo upravleniya, automatic control system) capable of carrying out completely automatic, 'hands-off' interceptions until the last moments of the interception.
Primary armament of the Su-15 was the R-8/K-8 (AA-3 "Anab"; later R-98) air-to-air missile. Early models carried two missiles, but 'Flagon-D' and later versions could carry four. Like most Soviet missiles, the R-98 was made in both infrared and semi-active radar homing versions, and standard practice was to fire the weapons in pairs (one semi-active radar homing, one IR homing) to give the greatest chance of a successful hit. The IR homing missile was normally fired first in order to prevent the possibility of the IR missile locking on to the radar homing missile. Later 'Flagon-F' models often carried two R-98s and one or two pairs of short-range R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid') missiles. Late-model 'Flagons' also sometimes carried a pair of UPK-23-250 23 mm gun pods on the fuselage pylons, each containing a two-barrel GSh-23L cannon.
[h=2]Operational history[edit][/h]The Su-15 formed a significant part of the V-PVO's interceptor force, and was designed to intercept easier targets such as the American B-52 and U-2, and the British V bombers, leaving the more difficult targets such as the XB-70 and B-58 to the faster MiG-25P. The Taifun radar of the Su-15TM was optimised for counter-countermeasure operation, as opposed to range. As an interceptor, the task of the Su-15TM was to fly under autopilot, using GCI commands sent through the datalink. The radar would only be turned on as the interceptor approached the target in order to provide targeting parameters for the radar homing K-8/R-8/R-98 missiles, the high power of the radar allowing it to 'burn through' enemy ECM signals. If all else failed, IR homing versions of the K-8 would provide a last opportunity to shoot down the intruder, along with any gun pods the Su-15 might be carrying.
The Su-15 was optimised for the high-altitude interception role with its fast climb-rate and high speed at high altitude but lacked look-down/shoot-down capability, even with the Su-15TM's more sophisticated Taifun radar. This eventually led to the MiG-23P, which did have look-down/shoot-down capability, becoming the preferred asset of the V-PVO, especially once NATO switched to low-level penetration tactics. Even so, the Su-15 remained an important part of the V-PVO until the fall of the Soviet Union.
As one of the V-PVO's principal interceptors, the Su-15 was involved in several attacks on foreign aircraft that inadvertently crossed into Soviet airspace:
  • One such attack was in 1978, when Korean Air Flight 902 veered into Soviet airspace and was attacked over Murmansk by a PVO Su-15. Although the civilian aircraft survived the missile hit, two passengers were killed, and the damaged plane subsequently made a forced landing on a frozen lake.
  • In a 1981 incident, a Baku-based Su-15 collided with an Argentine Canadair CL-44 of Transporte Aιreo Rioplatense (killing the three Argentines and one Briton aboard) which was delivering arms from Israel to Iran after it strayed into Soviet airspace. The Soviet pilot said the collision was intentional, while Western aviation experts believed it accidental.[SUP][1][/SUP]
  • In the Korean Air Flight 007 incident in 1983, a Korean Boeing 747 was shot down near Moneron Island, after it veered into restricted Soviet airspace, by a Su-15TM based on Sakhalin, killing all 246 passengers and 23 crew.
The Su-15 was also credited with shooting down five reconnaissance balloons sent to spy on Soviet territory in 1975.
A close supersonic fly-by of Yuri Gagarin's MiG-15 by an SU-15 led to Gagarin's death in 1968. Computer models show that the SU-15 passed "within meters" of the MiG.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Although it was produced in large numbers (1,290 of all types), the Su-15, like other highly sensitive Soviet aircraft, was never exported to the Warsaw Pact or any other country due to its sophisticated systems. Some Su-15 were reported to be deployed in Egypt in 1972 but were used with Soviet crews. At one point, the Su-15 was considered as a strike fighter, but proved to be too specialised as an interceptor to be used in that role.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Su-15 was abruptly retired from the new Russian Air Force in 1993 to comply with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. Most were hastily scrapped in favour of more advanced interceptors, including the Su-27 and MiG-31, but some are in reserve storage for emergency use. In Ukraine, the last Su-15s (at Kramatorsk and Belbek) were withdrawn from use in 1996.





Old 04-13-2015, 04:48 PM
  #11118  
stevegauth30
 
stevegauth30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Wow, I got another one. I'll have one posted soon.
Old 04-14-2015, 05:04 AM
  #11119  
stevegauth30
 
stevegauth30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Bristol, CT
Posts: 4,002
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

sorry guys, I didn't get one up last night. It will have to wait until after work today unless somebody has one ready, you could fire away.
Old 04-14-2015, 08:01 AM
  #11120  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Here is a softball (i think)
1. This country chose to build its own all -weather fighter rather than buying American F 86's Sabers
2,

Last edited by uncljoe; 04-14-2015 at 01:05 PM.
Old 04-14-2015, 02:34 PM
  #11121  
herbarnold99
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sweden? Saab Lansen?
Old 04-14-2015, 04:15 PM
  #11122  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

No that's not the one.
Here is a softball (i think)
1. This country chose to build its own all -weather fighter rather than buying American F 86's Sabers
2, Named after a bird of pray.
Old 04-14-2015, 05:51 PM
  #11123  
elmshoot
My Feedback: (6)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nashville, IN,
Posts: 1,704
Received 32 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

Fiat G.91
Old 04-14-2015, 06:05 PM
  #11124  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Elmshoot , that's not it either
1. This country chose to build its own all -weather fighter rather than buying American F 86's Sabers
2, Named after a bird of pray.
3.Only 140 were delivered and a significant porportion of these ended up in another country

Old 04-15-2015, 06:54 AM
  #11125  
uncljoe
My Feedback: (8)
 
uncljoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 5,111
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Two Am clues
1. This country chose to build its own all -weather fighter rather than buying American F 86's Sabers

2, Named after a bird of pray.
3.Only 140 were delivered and a significant porportion of these ended up in another country
4.The "other country" converted 67 to ECM (electronic countermeasures)role later in its career.
5. Had tandem main gear.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.