pd1

SEPECAT Jaguar ?

zippome

Neither the Harrier, nor the Jaguars. But..............
Oh, I'll tell you later...

zippome

But.....Much like the Jaguar....
It was a product of a Multi-national consortium that was formed to build this aircraft.

zippome

What we have so far..

1. It was designed to fit a specification issued in the 50's.

2. Did not fly until the 60's.

3. 3 main versions.

4. Only 2 versions were really used .

5. But this aircraft was used by more than a few nations.

6. Twin engined.

7. While several were lost due to accidents, and at least one structural failure, only one was downed by hostile fire. (as far as I can tell)

8. This aircraft is still in "front line" service.

9. Not a U.S. aircraft.

10.It carries the name of something that can be shimmery and lovely, but can also be deadly.

11. One aspect of it's design shares a name with a tootsie roll product! (Chew on that one !)

12. Only 2 nations are still using this aircraft, and one is in the process of replacing it.

13. Which will leave one nation using it, and it is the nation that built them.

14. A product of a multinational consortium.

Ok, That's whatcha get for a start......

Thanks!
Zip

zippome

What we have so far..

1. It was designed to fit a specification issued in the 50's.

2. Did not fly until the 60's.

3. 3 main versions.

4. Only 2 versions were really used .

5. But this aircraft was used by more than a few nations.

6. Twin engined.

7. While several were lost due to accidents, and at least one structural failure, only one was downed by hostile fire. (as far as I can tell)

8. This aircraft is still in "front line" service.

9. Not a U.S. aircraft.

10.It carries the name of something that can be shimmery and lovely, but can also be deadly.

11. One aspect of it's design shares a name with a tootsie roll product! (Chew on that one !)

12. Only 2 nations are still using this aircraft, and one is in the process of replacing it.

13. Which will leave one nation using it, and it is the nation that built them.

14. A product of a multinational consortium.

15 This aircraft has seen a bit of action,and seems to be quite versatile. From dropping laser guided bombs on Isis/Isil to SAR activities looking for missing airliners.

Ok, That's whatcha get for a start......

Thanks!

zippome

Nothing is ringing any bells?😶

zippome

What we have so far..

1. It was designed to fit a specification issued in the 50's.

2. Did not fly until the 60's.

3. 3 main versions.

4. Only 2 versions were really used .

5. But this aircraft was used by more than a few nations.

6. Twin engined.

7. While several were lost due to accidents, and at least one structural failure, only one was downed by hostile fire. (as far as I can tell)

8. This aircraft is still in "front line" service.

9. Not a U.S. aircraft.

10.It carries the name of something that can be shimmery and lovely, but can also be deadly.

11. One aspect of it's design shares a name with a tootsie roll product! (Chew on that one !)

12. Only 2 nations are still using this aircraft, and one is in the process of replacing it.

13. Which will leave one nation using it, and it is the nation that built them.

14. A product of a multinational consortium.

15 This aircraft has seen a bit of action,and seems to be quite versatile. From dropping laser guided bombs on Isis/Isil to SAR activities looking for missing airliners.

16. With an mission endurance of 18 hours, it has replaced drones on some missions that couldn't stay on station as long.

Ok, That's whatcha get for a start......

Thanks!

JohnnyS

Tu-22m?

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Zip; this one seems to have all of us baffled. Thanks; Ernie P.

zippome

Not the Tu-22, but.............

They did serve on opposing sides in a shooting conflict. Although, as it was a bit of a protracted conflict, I don't know if they served at the same time. And they served in different roles.
Thanks,
Zip

zippome

At least one nation equipped their aircraft to carry "special weapons". Even though that nation did not actually have any "special weapons" of their own.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Just a spit ball.
Mirage 2000
there are lots o variants of the Mirage and the Israelis built one with a J-79 but it was one motor not two.
Sparky

zippome

Not the mirage. BUT....... this too was born in France.

elmshoot

My Feedback: (6)

Rafael

JohnnyS

Breguet Atlantic But I ***cannot*** figure out the tootsie roll clue...

zippome

Johnny S Nails it!

One of the design features is a "Double Bubble" fuselage!
Ok, maybe that was a "STRETCH"!
HA!
I just kill me!


As for the tootsie roll...

I was just trying to keep it fun. And it was ... for me anyway!
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/q90nH3yxZLs/maxresdefault.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breguet_Atlantic

Thanks guys! It had been awhile and I quite enjoyed it!

Zip

JohnnyS

Cool! That was a good one.

OK, here's one that should be fun:

1. Turbine powered.
2. Retractable skid landing gear.
3. 5 were built. 2 were prototypes, and the last 3 were pre-production. However the aircraft did not go into production.

pd1

Convair XF2Y-1 Sea Dart ?

Hydro Junkie

The Sea Dart had retractable ski rather than skids

JohnnyS

New clue: 1. Turbine powered. 2. Retractable skid landing gear. 3. 5 were built. 2 were prototypes, and the last 3 were pre-production. However the aircraft did not go into production. 4. The skids incorporated a crude suspension/damping system made of rubber rings.

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Zip; great job! Thanks; Ernie P.

JohnnyS

New clue:
1. Turbine powered.
2. Retractable skid landing gear.
3. 5 were built. 2 were prototypes, and the last 3 were pre-production. However the aircraft did not go into production.
4. The skids incorporated a crude suspension/damping system made of rubber rings.
5. First flight August 1953, although it's NOT listed in the "1953 in aviation" page on Wikipedia.

JohnnyS

New clue:
1. Turbine powered.
2. Retractable skid landing gear.
3. 5 were built. 2 were prototypes, and the last 3 were pre-production. However the aircraft did not go into production.
4. The skids incorporated a crude suspension/damping system made of rubber rings.
5. First flight August 1953, although it's NOT listed in the "1953 in aviation" page on Wikipedia.
6. During testing, it was proved it was able to land on beaches, frozen lakes, motorways, even marshes.

Come on, let's have some guesses!

Ernie P.

My Feedback: (3)

Okay, I'll hazard a guess. How about the SNCASE S.E.5000 Baroudeur? Thanks; Ernie P.


The SNCASE S.E.5000 Baroudeur was a French single-engined lightweight fighter designed by SNCASE (Sud-Est) for the NATO NBMR-1 "Light Weight Strike Fighter" competition. An unusual design without a conventional landing gear, it used a wheeled trolley for take-off and three retractable skids to land. The Baroudeur did not enter production.

The Baroudeur was a lightweight fighter, designed to operate from grass airfields, conceived and designed in the early stages of the Cold War. The Baroudeur (French Foreign Legion slang for brawling soldier) was the brainchild of Wsiewołod "John" Jakimiuk, a Polish engineer who had worked on similar concepts at PZL and Avro Canada. The rationale behind the design was to operate tactical jet interceptors from unprepared sites in case the air force bases were destroyed in a preemptive strike (drawing from the German experience in the last stages of WWII). It used a wheeled trolley that could be used for take off from grass, and three retractable skids (the third at the tail for landing) for take off from snow- or ice-covered surfaces. The skids incorporated a crude suspension/damping sysrtem made of rubber rings. The three-wheeled trolley had provision to use rockets (two or four according to terrain plus two back-up) if needed to assist. Apart from the landing gear the aircraft was a conventional shoulder-wing monoplane with a 38 degree swept wing and tail surfaces and powered by a SNECMA Atar 101C turbojet with wing-root intakes. The first of two prototypes flew on the 1 August 1953. Three pre-production aircraft designated the S.E.5003 were also built with Atar 101D turbojet engines but the type was not ordered into production.

Extensive testing was conduced by test pilot Jacques "Tito" Maulandi and though the underfunded prototypes proved troublesome, the design also showed some promising characteristics. It was later dubbed a "Jet dirt bike" for its off-road capabilities. It proved capable to fly with its take off trolley in place (so it could easily switch to another unprepared airstrip), to take off with the skids only on some suitable terrain (sometimes with RATO rockets for extra thrust), to land on beaches (it was test flown off the La Baule beach; on one occasion barely escaped the incoming tide), frozen lakes, motorways, even marshes.
It managed a barely supersonic speeds reaching 1,135 km/h (705 mph) over Istres air base. Testing also included high speed runs with a mocked-up crude rocket propelled airplane (with straight wings and some working controls) on the real rocket-powered trolley, complete with final separation at over 160 km/h (100 mph). On one such occasion the test pilot suffered concussion and light injuries when the trolley cartwheeled at high speed and became unmanageable. The SE 5000 was entered, along with the promising Breguet Taon in the NATO test session for a lightweight fighter but lost out to the Fiat G91.
The five prototype and preproduction Baroudeurs were disposed of as gunnery targets at Cazaux airforce base in south-west France but a non-profit concern organisation (Ailes du Bourget , with ties witth Le Bourget Air Museum) managed to scavenge most of the remains of three or four wrecks to create one SE 5000 in display condition.

JohnnyS

AANNDD we have a WINNER!

Well done sir! I was trying to lead you towards a rotary wing answer to draw out the quiz, but YOU saw through it. Well done and please go ahead with your quiz!