F-2A Buffalo Model Aircraft

frank wrote:


I'm inclined to agree with you about the AF/FA mess. AFAIK, the only McDonnell attack design was the original Phantom, the AH-1. That would argue for an A2H. Then again some designs did carry a suffix 'B' because they were carrying bombs. We could visualise an F5H-1B.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mad-Modeller wrote:
-snip-

Just to clarify, the original McDonnell Phantom was never anything other than the FH-1.
The initial project designation for what eventually became the FH-4 Phantom II was AH-1.
Cheers,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

I'd guess F9B-1 and F9B-2 - the ninth fighter from Boeing with the "E" being the dash 1 and the "F" the dash 2.
Or, they might have choosen to resurrect the old BF (bomber/fighter) designation which was used between 1934 and '37 - in which case, the Super Hornets would be the BF2B-1 and the BF2B-2.
{The XF8B-1 was the previous last Navy fighter built by Boeing while the 1935 Boeing XF6B prototype was redesignated as the XBFB-1. Thus "9" would be next in the Boeing fighter sequence, while "2" would be next in the Boeing bomber/fighter sequence)
Cheers,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Shatzer wrote:

...It's not a Boeing fighter - it's a McDonnell fighter. Still says so on the manufacturer's plate. So it's H, and 18.
...now I need TWO Exedrin.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

Now, about that F-111B... :-)
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bill Shatzer wrote:

After the question of all the Army "M" designations came up, I noticed that they don't apply that concept to helicopters, which us a two-letter prefix instead (OH,UH, AH, CH)... although I doubt we had 63 other types of attack helicopters prior to the AH-64 Apache or 46 other cargo helicopters prior to the CH-47 Chinook. Even this government website doesn't seem to explain where the numbers in the designation come from: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index &type=0&sequence=3 Except that "Newer-generation helicopters are usually assigned higher numbers." So I assume that the numbers apply to all types of helicopters, and the AH-64 was the 64th type of helicopter in U.S. Army use? That doesn't work either...the standard Huey is the UH-1, and the Huey Cobra the AH-1; it should be something like UH-1 and AH-2 if that were the case, and they were starting all over again from scratch in 1962.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The H covers all US helos. The first added-on letter designates its mission. The reason the Cobra is AH-1 as it was derived from the UH-1, so it's the bona fide attack version of the Huey, hence AH-1 HueyCobra. Same went for the S-67 Blackhawk, supposedly had it gone in service, it would have been AH-3, as it was derived from the H-3 series from Sikorsky. Even tho the USAF's Jolly Green Giant & USN's Sea King are quite different, they're still H-3s, it's just the USAF's are HH or CH & the USN's are SH or I think occasionally UH for some versions. The original UH-1, BTW, was designated H-40, before '62.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
frank wrote:

This still doesn't explain where the AH-64 Apache came from. The only attack helicopters between it and the Cobra were the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, and the Bell-built competitor to the Apache, the YAH-63. Unless the ACH-47 armed Chinook screwed up the numbering sequence. But even with that, where are the AH-57 to AH-62? There's the UH-60 Black Hawk, but that shouldn't be in the AH sequence, should it? The Navy designations were overly complex, but at least they were consistent. Interesting photo here BTW, the Bell Model 209 prototype Cobra with retractable landing skids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bell_209.jpg
It really changes the looks, but the small decrease in drag probably wasn't thought to be worth the added complexity or risk of the gear failing to extend due to battle damage.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

...ok. That one's actually easy. First, there isn't a "sequence" of aircraft numbers - but there is a numerical sequence of contract designations during RFP for the initial paper design studies.
The example I'm most familiar with is the case of the XF-32 and XF-35, which were the end competitors for JSF. There were initially six (or so...) design proposals submitted during the RFP; four of which never made it past the initial selection stages. For example, one of those - MCAIRs - was XF-34 and was eliminated in the first round and never made it off paper. The remainders teamed up to actually develop the two down selected designs for final compete - those happened to be XF-32 and XF-35 as submitted by each designer and as assigned by contract in the RFP contract rotation. Lockheed won the JSF downselect, and so now you have F-22 and F-35 both coming from the same builder.
This makes it look like there are "skips" in the "series", but the fact it that there isn't really a series. At least not in modern times.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually. that's not correct. The 2 JSF 'winners' were the X-32 & X-35, not XFs. I haven't checked, but I think they are in sequence for the 'X-planes'. F-32 & F-35 came about by some dipstick not knowing the system at a news conference & much as the RS-71 became the SR-71 due to LBJ's slip, the dipstick, when asked their service designation, said, something like, 'well, they are the X-32 & X-35, so they'll be the F-32 & F-35.'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Uh...no. I happened to be working for the folks that lost with XF-34 at the time.
--
- Rufus


frank wrote:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why were they not YF instead of XF, then? We don't see XFs any more & your post is the first time I've ever seen them referred to as XFs.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Because "Y" is for programs/projects which are directly funded by US Congressional authority. "X" is experimental, and my theory on this is that it is because JSF is HEAVILY dependent on foreign funding (much like Typhoon), and was/is from the outset an aircraft which was to be sold to the international community. It's supposed to replace both the F-16 and the Harrier, and all of those allied operators were presumably involved in the draft of the original specification and share cost in some manner.
Also, programatically an X project is much easier to cancel if any of the projected Customers make the decision to pull out of the deal because the DoD (and consortium) could presumably be able handle the stop-work negotiations directly with the submitters and not have to go through Congress. Handy biz tool for such collaborative projects - allows all participants to keep their options open.
BTW - most recent UCAV projects are "X" designated.
--
- Rufus

frank wrote:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rufus wrote:

"Y"s are also considered production prototypes as opposed to test aircraft.
Pat
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pat Flannery wrote:

Yes - and that's where the Congressional authorization part comes in. In the "Y" case there WILL be a selectee, and there WILL be a production contract let. Or at least that is the intent - politics are always politics.
"X" aircraft are not only "experimental", but also may be developmental in nature - like UCAVs. Those would be funded by discretionary funds not requiring that higher level approval/authorization.
--
- Rufus

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I still don't buy it, but I have better things to do than bicker about them. :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened.
--
- Rufus

frank wrote:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmm, so was the confused dipstick. :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ya know, I do find it extremely strange that if I Google XF-32 & or XF-35, I come up empty handed regarding a/c. OTOH, if I Google either X-32 or X-35 or F-32 or F35, I find both a/c. You sure about your designations?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank is sure, it is the rest of us that have to be convinced...
Jack G.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.