Chek wrote:
> >
> > With all the recent interest in the big new F-105, I know there's a few RAC
> > fans out there.
> > Looking through a recent Finescale this evening, I suddenly wondered why the
> > F-84F was the more advanced airplane
> > compared to the F-84G?
> > I know this is general, but recent experience tells me that the answer will
> > be posted before I even get the chance to get to the library/or do some
> > digging on the net tomorrow (when I should be working - tee hee :)
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Chek
>
> I'd suppose it was the swept wings and whatever aerodynamic refinements
> were done to the fuselage.
> The F started out as just an E with swept wings but by the time it hit
> production there was something less than 40% parts commonality.
>
> Bill Banaszak, MFE
The G was a straight-wing upgrade of the E, whilst the F was swept wing. I think the G went into production mainly because the F was delayed by development issues until about 1953.
The F-84F was not intended to be designated in the F-84 series. It was, in fact, orginally designated as the YF-96A. Changing the designation to F-84F has been explained as a political sleight-of-hand move to make it easier to obtain funding from Congress. The thinking apparently was that Congress would more readily provide funding for a progressive development of a tried and proven aircraft rather than a more risky new generation. A similar approach was taken for the F-86D Sabre which was originally designated YF-95A. Given this view of the world, one wonders why the F-101 Voodoo series wasn't the F-88B, F-88C, F-88D, etc. After all, the F-106 Delta Dart was originally the F-102B before common sense returned to this process. Even today, however, this mentality has resurfaced with the F/A-18 designation - a clear attempt to manipulate Congress into providing funding for a "multi-role" capability. So why didn't we have the F/A-100 Super Sabre, the F/A-105 Thunderchief, and the F/A-4 Phantom II? The F-4 Phantom, of course, was originally the F-110. This change, however, we can't attribute to funding motives - it was strictly due to the intellectual shortcomings of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. He just couldn't deal with the differences in Air Force and Navy designation systems. Rather than make the effort to understand, he simply decreed all designations were to be standardized so he wouldn't be confused. And thus history was rewritten . . .
Well, what was the logical basis for virtually identical aircraft having completely different designations? In fact, I would not be surprised to learn that, pre-McNamara, the USN and USAF used different part numbers for the same piece of metal. Would a desire to use a single tracking number for a part be evidence of "intellectual shortcomings" or logistical pragmatism?
McNamara's decision had nothing to do with "logistical pragmatism." It had everything to do with McNamara's emporer complex. He had no respect or tolerance for military tradition, did not trust the military leadership, and ignored its advice. He put his trust instead in the young "whiz kids" who had never done anything except count beans, been professional academics, or worked at Ford Motor Company. McNamara was a graduate of Berkeley and Harvard. Ouch. He made a name for himself at Ford as a member of the "statistical control experts team." Bean counter terrorists. And Kennedy put them in charge of the Defense Department. To refer to the Navy's Phantom as an F4H-1 and the Air Force's version as the F-110 offended McNamara's bean counter mentality. This is the same bean counter McNamara who spent billions trying to make the F-111 a carrier fighter. I guess there are beans and then there are beans. This is the same McNamara who was the architect of the Vietnam gradualism doctrine, placing military targets off-limits, designating geographical sanctuaries for the VC, prolonging the war by years. I jogged past the Vietnam War Memorial this morning. I wonder how many names on that wall are there because of the leadership of Robert McNamara? When Tricky Dick and Mel Laird finally turned the military loose, the war was over in 11 days. Having spent 24 years in the Air Force, I hope my antipathy for McNamara isn't showing through. My reference to his intellectual shortcomings has to do with his complete inability to grasp any concept in the abstract or variations of a common theme - if you couldn't categorize it or quantify it with a number, it had no meaning to him. Hence his fixation with the aircraft designation numbering system. By the way, it wasn't the F4H-1/F-110 anomoly that irritated him - it was the F4H/F4D designations. Two F-4s! Oh the humanity! So the Skyray became the F-6A and everything was put into its proper order.
I gather from your comments that the possibility that the Air Force and Navy might use different part numbers for common equipment items is offensive. Welcome to government. To carry your views to their logical conclusion, we should do away with the separate branches and just have one military service. That would certainly solve that part number problem. Say, didn't the Canucks already try that? And can you believe Wal-Mart and Target use different inventory numbers for Coleman coolers? Who let those guys out of nomenclature jail?
By the way. To characterize the naval and air force F-4s as "virtually identical aircraft" would likely generate another whole thread of opinions. Then, of course, we'd have to throw in the British Phantoms as "virtually identical aircraft." And then those Germans! And where do the Brits get off with those FG and FGR designations? Weren't they paying attention to Big Bob? Boy that must have grated on his nerves. To think the McNamara nomenclature police had no jurisdiction outside the colonies. And I'll bet those unruly Brits have a whole different set of part numbers!
Second by the way. I'll bet you like the designated hitter rule don't you?
Chek probably doesn't know what a wonderful intellect McNamara had. Had he had his way every car Ford built would have had the same basic dashboard just to cut costs. I can see a logical reason for changing the designations and it wasn't the first time the system had been changed but in no way does that make me "pro-McNamara"!
an F-4B-4,, F-4F-4 and F-4U-4. All three fighter based > fighters, but wastly different.
And all three were from different companies. That's what the second letter is telling the reader. The Phantom started service life as the F4H-1 with the 'H' meaning that it was the fourth fighter design from McDonnell's and the -1 meaning first service model.
on the contrary.
Quite right but that ignores the inter-service rivalries from that time. The Army and the Navy always did things their own way and the Air Force, born in the Army, followed suit. It's not logical but it is human. My only gripe was if I, a junior high-schooler could figure out the designation scheme, what was this cabinet member's problem? :)
Well to be a bit pedantic. Under the old Navy nomenclature
F4H-1 breaks down as
F - The type is fighter
4H - It's the 4th design produced by manufacturer H (McDonnell)
-1 it's the first model of that design.
The first design produced by a manufacturer of a fighter omitted the design number. So the first McDonnell Aircraft design was the FH-1 not the F1H-1.
In the old Navy system, sometimes the same basic design could have different looking designations, so that the FG-1D and F4U-1D were the same design, but produced by Goodyear and Vought respectively.
The F-4B-4 was a Boeing, the F-4F-4 was from McDonnell Douglas and the F-4U-4 was from Vought.
The Army simply numbered all basic fighter designs consecutively starting in 1924 with the Curtiss P-1 Hawk. The P for Pursuit became F for Fighter when the Air Force was established as a separate branch in 1948. At that time planes currently still in service were redesignated so the P-51 became the F-51. In 1962 the DOD went to a unified numbering system for all services. At that time, the Navy's F4H-1F became the F-4A, and the Air Forces F-110A became the F-4C. Both of these planes were McDonnell-Douglas Phantom IIs.
There's not much by Larry Niven that I wouldn't recommend. Perhaps "Achilles choice", and I have to be in ten right frame of mind for the "dream park" books. I've also heard bad things about "destiny's road" too, though I haven't read it myself.
add protector and the ringworld engineer stories. those are also known space stories. another great series for fantasy modeling would be kieth laumer's retief and bolo stories. someday i will scratch build a groaci.
Especially if you can score a first edition hardback of "Ringworld". This had the major-league-snafu, of Niven having the Earth rotate in the wrong direction!...
I have always dreamed of scratchbuilding some "General Products"-hulled ship.....but that DANG transparent hull!...lol....I have not found the shampoo bottle yet, that is "just right"!
I've never actually seen this edition; but I assume that the "mistake" is in Chapter 1, where Louis Wu is celebrating his birthday. At the stroke of midnight, he teleports "one time zone over" so that he can celebrate for one more hour. He does this repeatedly. I assume that before he corrected it, Niven has him going in the wrong direction. Is this correct?
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.