F-2A Buffalo Model Aircraft

It seems that not all helicopters changed their designations in '62 else we wouldn't still be talking about H-54s. That designation pre-dates 1962, IIRC. That partly explains why we have such high designation numbers. Also you're talking about AH, CH and SH series when it really is an all-H system and the prefix letter shows the mission of the aircraft. As noted elsewhere some choppers did get re-designated into a 'rational' system, just not all.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Loading thread data ...
I brought that subject up a long time ago and Al S provided an answer. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to make sense to me. I may still have it saved in a file. If I get a chance I'll look it out.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Perhaps - but McNamara's tri-service designation scheme was instituted in 1962 and the first Hueys weren't delivered to the Marines until February, 1964.
I'm pretty sure the Marine Hueys were UH-1Es from the gitgo.
Reply to
Bill Shatzer
Reply to
Pat Flannery
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.
Reply to
frank
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.
Reply to
Rufus
"Y"s are also considered production prototypes as opposed to test aircraft.
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
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.
Reply to
Rufus
I don't think the USN would have gone for the AF/FA mess. I think they would have had some had some hornets designated purely F5H for fighters & A?H for the attack versions. What was the last McD USN attack a/c prior to an 'A-18'? If I fighter could carry bombs, fine & if an attack a/c could fight, fine, but otherwise I think we'd have seen AF4Us, AF6F or FADs. The USN did have separate designations for later Corsairs that were 'dedicated attack role', the AU-1, which, IIRC, was basically similar to the F4U-7.
Reply to
frank
I still don't buy it, but I have better things to do than bicker about them. :)
Reply to
frank
...but they DID go for it. Eventually.
Reply to
Rufus
That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened.
Reply to
Rufus
I was referring to the 'old style' system. OTOH, would the USN created a new designation for McDD after they merged? Their a/c were no longer H or D, but H & D, so surely they would've come up with a new identifier.
Reply to
frank
Hmm, so was the confused dipstick. :)
Reply to
frank
You'd thinks so, but after 1962 they dropped the manufacturers designators altogether - here's the ref listing them from 1922-1962:
formatting link
Also notice that several of the letters were shared across various companies/designers during various periods. Dunno when McDonnell and Douglas merged...guess would be that they merged after the inclusion of the manufacturing designator was dropped from the nomenclature in 1962 - yes, they merged in 1967 (after looking it up...). So I doubt it was ever an issue, other than in contract-keeping, if that even.
From 1962 to the present all the designations became mission-specific only:
formatting link
Reply to
Rufus
-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,
Reply to
Bill Shatzer
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.
Reply to
Mad-Modeller
Didn't someone go into this regarding the designations of the Goodyear-built derivations of the Vought F4U Corsair, which did indeed have separate Navy fighter designations? I still like the implications to the logic of the Navy designation schemes that we all still can't agree on what a Super Hornet would be designated as. That says a lot right there as far as the logic of the system went. You can say a lot against Robert McNamara, but apparently he had his head screwed on straight in regards to this aircraft designation situation at least. The whole thing was apparently a Brazilian Cluster F***k. Even on the Air Force side, when a F-84 "Thunderjet" turns into a F-84 "Thunder streak" there are problems.Those were two very different aircraft. At least when it comes down to variants of the F/A-18, one at least can recognize which aircraft is being referred to, and immediately visualize it in one's head. It was a Hornet...now it's a Super Hornet, and it's noticeably bigger. "Yes... the one with the square air intakes and stealth stuff...that one." Oh God... just for some logic in it all. :-) Robert McNamara, where is your logic, gigantic ego, and horribly crooked teeth when we need you? All is forgiven... let's rephrase that... in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king....okay, you cocked up royally on Vietnam, but you 'fessed up to it in a book, which made you a complete outcast in the Democratic Party. But as far as I know you had nothing to do with Iraq, and nowadays that could be considered a near-saving grace, small that it is. ....until at least egos...vast, cool, and unsympathetic...start 'fessing up to it in _their_ books....and inevitably blaming someone else for its failure. William F. Buckley is dead, and one wonders about the last thoughts that went through his mind as he keeled over at his desk, and realized what his part had been in respect to the future of his nation, conservatism, the Republican Party, and the National Review magazine. Unlike Benjamen Franklin at the constitutional convention, I suspect he saw a _setting_ sun, and with good reason. :-)
Pat
Reply to
Pat Flannery
Ah, but my response regarding the McD-D merger was assuming, as some posts were discussing, what the F-18 would be designated under old system, & the old system surely would have had to accomodated the merger of McD & D. Or maybe that would have stayed with 'H' since McD is first in their name.
Reply to
frank
I think I vaguely recall a discussion about Corsairs at one point. Vought's was F4U, GM's was FG or F2G & Brerwster's was F3A, IIRC. Regarding USAF & current military designations, that's why it's important to quote the a/c complete designation rather than just "P-51" (gee, which version?) or as you mentioned "F-84", or like Italeri did when the released their 1/72 B-52. Duh, OK, WHICH VERSION??? It's strange how so many a/c designs were an outgrowth of the same design, yet received a totally new designation, such as the F-86 & YF-93(?) or even the F-80 & F-94, or the F-102 & F-106, & others, but yet the basic F-84 went its entire career, from a just Post - WWII straight-winged a/c to a whole new swept-wing, with 2 different forward fuselages even (for the RF version), yet it never changed designations. Regarding the old USN system, one of the most common screw-ups I see is "Grumman TBM". Nooooo, Grumman's is a TBF, GM's is a TBM.
Reply to
frank

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.