F-2A Buffalo Model Aircraft

Reading all this, I can see why Robert McNamara told them to cut this crap out.

Pat

Sorry, although logical, still not correct. The FM-2 was the second Wildcat variant built by General Motors. The F4F was the fourth fighter design from Grumman.

GM built over 1,000 FM-1 aircraft, which were equivalent to the F4F-4. The FM-2 was the F4F-8, or would have been had Grumman actually built any other than the prototype. They were used on the small escort carriers.

As a note, General Motors also built the TBM Avenger, which was their first Torpedo Bomber aircraft. This was also an original Grumman design, the TBF (Grumman's first Torpedo Bomber design, so no design number before the manufacturer's letter code).

Mike

Beancounter Bob couldn't understand a of of things, like why one single uniform couldn't be used by all services, either.

The F-111A and F-111B had a lot less in common than the F-110 and F4H Phantom II, too.

What Worked for Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln didn't always work with the Armed Services

Not quite. Saber/Sabre & Navajo/Navaho are both correct spellings. Leaving the 'k' of of 'knight' & calling a P-38 a 'Lightening', are not alternate spellings of the same words.

Considering the trouble that people in this newsgroup are having understanding the designation scheme, imagine sailors in the Navy trying to get a grip on it. The AAF system made a lot more sense from the viewpoint of knowing what someone was talking about. It didn't exactly help that Curtiss had multiple aircraft types called Hawk and Helldiver either.

Pat

Ok...that I can follow...but I give up...

IMO, the old Navy system was better, because the designation alone told you everything about the a/c. The AAF system only gave you its mission & number & variant. The Navy designation gave you all the info in just a few letters & numbers. I think the Japanese designation system, all services, was simlar to the USN's.

The Japanese Navy system was similar to the US Navy's.

The Japanese Army Air Force system was not at all similar - it used the Ki system where each aircraft was sequentially assigned a Ki- number with no distinction made between types or manufacturers.

Thus the Ki-44 was a Nakajima single-engined fighter/interceptor while the Ki-45 was a Kawasaki twin-engined heavy fighter and the Ki-46 was a Mitsubishi-built twin-engined recon aircraft.

I think they got up as high as the Ki-115, a dedicated kamikaze aircraft built by Nakajima.

Cheers,

eyeball typed out:

I would never assume that. Past experience has suggested otherwise. ;)

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 when Macnamara couldn't as SoD.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

Interestingly enough, some FFs were also built for search purposes and as such were designated SF-1. That's why the post war anti-sub searchplane was the S2F.

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

And not always there, either. At one point he called in a designer and put forth the idea that all makes from Ford should use the same instrument panel regardless of their cost. Now, would the guy who buys a Lincoln really want a car with a dash just like the gardener's Ford? He's to blame for the '61-'62 Mercurys being built with Ford chassis and engines. Mercury almost didn't survive that and they're not doing so hot now again. Could it be the similarity to Fords?

Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.

Except that in the reference site I found, during some eras it was Type/Manufacturer/Model/Series...the time frames and the sequences don't all quite add up, IMO. But I've given up...

I reckon the Japanese Navy's what I was thinking of then.

How about the Army? They'll have a dozen different types of equipment with the same designation! M1 tanks, M1 guns, M1 this, M1 that, m1 etc.

On a lark, I was wondering what a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be designated under the old system.

Pat

...dude...don't hurt my head like that...

That should be looked into also; you could start designating tanks with a "T" prefix, rifles with a "R" prefix and so on. If you went to a two letter prefix (TA-1, RI-12), you have over 600 possible equipment category designations to work with, and repeat designations are eliminated. The Russians figured out something along these lines in WW II regarding ammunition. A lot of their troops were illiterate, but they could read numbers, so ammunition was always given a unique number...you could have a 103 mm round, a 104 mm round, a 105 mm round, and a 106 mm round. In reality all these rounds were of 105 mm diameter, but by giving each a different numerical designation they prevented matching the wrong shell to a gun when ordering supplies. At the moment we have the M16 rifle and M16 landmine, and that's just confusing.

Pat

As near as I can figure it's a F9B5/6 or FA1B5/6 Originally it would have been a F5H in its fighter guise, and a A6H in its attack version? (for some reason, the Phantom II is a AH-1 rather than just AH)