 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / March 2008F-2A Buffalo Model Aircraft
The F-2A Buffalo was also known as Brewster Buffalo or Brewster F2A. It is a single seat carrier based fighter used by the United States Navy and Ilmavoimat. Warplanes.com offers F-2A Buffalo Model Aircraft. It is a complete replica of the original aircraft. It was made from a fine mahogany wood and made by our own master craftsmen. The F-2A Buffalo wood model has a span of 16.25 inches and length of 12.25 inches. For more model aircrafts visit: http://www.warplanes.com/ On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, "aircraftsmo...@gmail.com" <aircraftsmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > The F-2A Buffalo was also known as Brewster Buffalo or Brewster F2A. > It is a single seat carrier based fighter used by the United States [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > For more model aircrafts visit:http://www.warplanes.com/ You're using the wrong designation. The Buffalo was designated F2A NOT F-2A. F (Fighter) 2 (2nd fighter model from...) A (Brewster) So, essentially: Aircraft Role Number of the aircraft of the above model from a particular manufacturer Manufacturer. If you're gonna' try and sell stuff on a forum, you should at least get the designation correct. Don't worry they'll get your name spelled right on the bill ;) > On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, "aircraftsmo...@gmail.com" > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > If you're gonna' try and sell stuff on a forum, you should at least > get the designation correct. > Don't worry they'll get your name spelled right on the bill ;) > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > If you're gonna' try and sell stuff on a forum, you should at least > > get the designation correct. Heck, they ought to pay ME for getting their advertising right. 8-D A couple of months ago I was looking for a couple of Matchbox Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknights. Y'all know what? There were more hits showing up spelled "Skynight" than "Skyknight". Almost 2 - 1, IIRC. And I thought "Lightning" / "Lightening" (as in P-38 or BAC) was a dumbass screw-up! > > Don't worry they'll get your name spelled right on the bill ;) > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > A couple of months ago I was looking for a couple of > Matchbox Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknights. Y'all know what? There were more > hits showing up spelled "Skynight" than "Skyknight". Almost 2 - 1, > IIRC. And I thought "Lightning" / "Lightening" (as in P-38 or BAC) was > a dumbass screw-up! You might want to check out the F-86 "Sabre" and "Navaho" missile. Apparently NAA couldn't spell either. :-) Pat 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. > > A couple of months ago I was looking for a couple of > > Matchbox Douglas F3D/F-10 Skyknights. Y'all know what? There were more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pat eyeball typed out: > Don't worry they'll get your name spelled right on the bill ;) I would never assume that. Past experience has suggested otherwise. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, "aircraftsmo...@gmail.com" > <aircraftsmo...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > If you're gonna' try and sell stuff on a forum, you should at least > get the designation correct. Correct, but I think in this case the A is just a Series designation, not the manufacturer - it's in the wrong place, even though it is the right letter for Brewster: http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html  Signature- Rufus Even your own reference lists the Manufacturer as the third position after "Type" and "Manufacturer Series Number". F2A = Fighter; 2nd series; Brewster. An Aircraft Configuration sequence is numeric and follows a dash. Jack G >> On Feb 20, 8:45 pm, "aircraftsmo...@gmail.com" >> <aircraftsmo...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html > Even your own reference lists the Manufacturer as the third position after > "Type" and "Manufacturer Series Number". F2A = Fighter; 2nd series; [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > -- > > - Rufus has anyone forwarded their posts to this guy yet? but then again he may not care, but it does seem odd to spam a group of people who may have bought from him at some time in the future. not too good to piss off your target market... Craig He posts on a number of other groups...I don't think he's concerned with the repeaters On Feb 21, 3:57 pm, "cr...@earthlink.net" <cr...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Even your own reference lists the Manufacturer as the third position after > > "Type" and "Manufacturer Series Number". F2A = Fighter; 2nd series; [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the manufacturer's codes leading the numeric. Signature- Rufus > Even your own reference lists the Manufacturer as the third position after > "Type" and "Manufacturer Series Number". F2A = Fighter; 2nd series; [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >> http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html > I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I > still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the > manufacturer's codes leading the numeric. Seconf number is not really a "series" designation. It's more of a model or design indicator. F2A means it is the 2nd aircraft Brewster designed and had accepted by the Navy. I thin series implies more like a variation on a theme, which os really the dash numeric designator. Think Grumman FF-1 F2F F3F-1 F3F-2 F4F-3 F4F-4 F6F-3 F6F-5 etc. Frank F2F should also have a -#, of some sort, I think. On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > > I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I > > still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Frank >> I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I >> still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Frank Yeah - Type/Model/Series, depending upon the period. But now that you've jogged me with the above, I think yer right about the Buffalo...the A3D (All Three Dead...) would be another example. ...I know it's Type/Model/Series today...gotta start living in the past. Signature- Rufus > >> I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I > >> still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- > - Rufus Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 when Macnamara couldn't as SoD. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >>>> I was also considering the years that the aircraft was produced. I >>>> still think it's a Series designator, as what I read had the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > 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... Signature- Rufus > Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 > when Macnamara couldn't as SoD. > On a lark, I was wondering what a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be designated under the old system. Pat >> Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 >> when Macnamara couldn't as SoD. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Pat ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... Signature- Rufus > ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... 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) http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/Fnavydesig.html http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/list/a.htm Pat >> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... > As near as I can figure it's a F9B5/6 or FA1B5/6 Wouldn't they start over again with -1 and -2 when starting the Boeing F9B designation? The GM-built Wildcats became FM-1s and FM-2s despite Grumman having reached as high as -8 in the Grumman-built F4F series. Cheers, >>> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Cheers, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Signature- Rufus >>>> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! What he said! Frank >> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pat Actually, I think it might be an FAH18-E/F. The McDonnell Aircraft Co. made the initial deliveries, and still holds the name on the type cert on the design. It's just that now McDonnell Aircraft is a wholly owned division of the Boeing Co. ...ok...I need an Exedrin...thanks. Signature- Rufus > >> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > - Rufus Hmm, I think it's more likely to have been AF5H-5/5T or 6. Then the EF-18G would be the EAF5H-5Q. A tanker craft would be KAF5H-5. My favourite vapour designation is the F-111B. ISTR Grumman having designed an F12F so the -111 could have been the F13F. That would possibly make the F-14, the F14F. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > A tanker craft would be KAF5H-5. > > My favourite vapour designation is the F-111B. ISTR Grumman having > designed an F12F so the -111 could have been the F13F. That would > possibly make the F-14, the F14F. > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. 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. > > >> ...dude...don't hurt my head like that... > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ...but they DID go for it. Eventually. Signature- 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 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - 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. > ...but they DID go for it. Eventually. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You'd thinks so, but after 1962 they dropped the manufacturers designators altogether - here's the ref listing them from 1922-1962: http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html#USN1922 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: http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html#1962 Signature- 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 [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - 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. > You'd thinks so, but after 1962 they dropped the manufacturers > designators altogether - here's the ref listing them from 1922-1962: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That would make some sense, I guess... Signature- Rufus > Ah, but my response regarding the McD-D merger was assuming, as > some posts were discussing, what the F-18 would be designated under [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > 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. 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 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Pat > 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, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> Pat Actually, no. A FM Corsair would have been F@M. "G" stood for Goodyear. Pass the aspirin. 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, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Frank What an idiot. F2M!!! 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, [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Frank Which would have been another GM-built fighter following on to the FM Wildcat. Goodyear built FG-1 Corsairs and F2G Corsairs, the F2G being the models with the big engine and the bubble canopy. Brewster was so screwed-up by this time that they produced only F3As. Aside from mismanagement, Brewster was saddled with an old multi-storey factory building that used elevators to move partially-built airfames up and down for finishing. What worked for limited production custom car bodies didn't fit into aircraft production. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. Duh, slip of the pecking fingers & TBM/TBF on my mind I guess, yes, of course, I meant to type GOODYEAR!!!! ;) On Mar 2, 6:30 pm, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote: > > 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, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - One reason we can't agree on what the Hornet would is we're trying to make it fit a system no longer in use. However, if the system were still in use, it wouldn't be that bad. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Pat > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > later Corsairs that were 'dedicated attack role', the AU-1, which, > IIRC, was basically similar to the F4U-7. 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. -snip- > 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. 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, >> Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 >> when Macnamara couldn't as SoD. > On a lark, I was wondering what a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be > designated under the old system. 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, >>> Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that at 14 >>> when Macnamara couldn't as SoD. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Cheers, ...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. Signature- Rufus > ...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. Now, about that F-111B... :-) Pat >>> Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that >>> at 14 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "9" would be next in the Boeing fighter sequence, while "2" would be > next in the Boeing bomber/fighter sequence) 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=12&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 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. > >>> Yep. Back then it was Type/Model/Manufacturer-Series. I got that > >>> at 14 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some versions. The original UH-1, BTW, was designated H-40, before > '62. 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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pat ...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. Signature- Rufus 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.' > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Uh...no. I happened to be working for the folks that lost with XF-34 at the time. Signature- Rufus > 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 [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - 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. > Uh...no. I happened to be working for the folks that lost with XF-34 at > the time. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 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. Signature- Rufus > 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 [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > Because "Y" is for programs/projects which are directly funded by US > Congressional authority. "Y"s are also considered production prototypes as opposed to test aircraft. Pat >> Because "Y" is for programs/projects which are directly funded by US >> Congressional authority. > > "Y"s are also considered production prototypes as opposed to test aircraft. > > Pat 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. Signature- Rufus I still don't buy it, but I have better things to do than bicker about them. :) > Uh...no. I happened to be working for the folks that lost with XF-34 at > the time. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened. Signature- Rufus > I still don't buy it, but I have better things to do than bicker > about them. :) [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - Hmm, so was the confused dipstick. :) > That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 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? > That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Frank is sure, it is the rest of us that have to be convinced... Jack G. 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? On Mar 1, 11:23 am, Rufus <n...@home.com> wrote: > That's ok... I was there, and I know what happened. > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Correction: Should have been Rufus is sure... Sorry Frank. Jack G. > Frank is sure, it is the rest of us that have to be convinced... > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - ...no foul. Signature- Rufus > Correction: Should have been Rufus is sure... Sorry Frank. > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - No prob. Maybe we're getting the location of the confused dipstick.......... :) > Frank is sure, it is the rest of us that have to be convinced... > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Maybe it's the difference between what the engineers refered to them as and what was released to the media...similar sort of circumstance with the AAS-38B FLIR - LORAL wanted to call it "Nighthawk", but that name was already taken by the F-117...though I don't think that was common knowledge at the time. So the "officially", the "Nighthawk" name was never given to the pod...however, I have several "Nighthawk FLIR" patches in my patch collection... Signature- Rufus > 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 [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - I was working at Boeing at the time and the only common name I heard for the Boeing Entry was "JSF" - Joint Strike Fighter - which was of course the name for the DOD Program. Jack G. > Maybe it's the difference between what the engineers refered to them as > and what was released to the media...similar sort of circumstance with the [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> - Show quoted text - I was at McDonnell...our submission against the original RFP was rejected and never got off paper, and then we were bought out and put back in the race...only to lose again... Signature- Rufus > I was working at Boeing at the time and the only common name I heard for the > Boeing Entry was "JSF" - Joint Strike Fighter - which was of course the name [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - IT has nothing to do with solely attack helos, just helos, as I said, H is for helo, then you have its mission in front. The basic H-57 is a Jet Ranger, as in TH-57. I know the USN used it. H-58, another Jet Ranger, the OH-58 Kiowa. H-59 was, IIRC, XH-59, an experimental helo. We all know the H-60 line, not sure what an H-61 is. H-62, IIRC, was the overgrown Chinook proposal, the CH-62. Got it? > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pat > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pat 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. We were talking "what ifs" in terms of the old system, and manufacturer's codes - H was the manufacturer's code for McDonnell Aircraft Corp. http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html#USN1922 Signature- Rufus > 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 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - Another kink was that prior to '62, the USAF used S for Search & Rescue & A for Amphibian. USAAF/USAF PBY Catalinas were designated OA-10, Observation & Amphibian, not a-for-attack. The Grumman Albatross was originally, in USAF guise, the SA-16, Search & Rescue Amphibian. In '62 it became the HU-16. In this case, when an H was placed in front of the primary mission identifier, it means Search & Rescue, so the Albatross became SAR, Utility 16. SAR C-130s were HC-130 & the SAR-type helos are HH-xx. The USCG's Falcon 20s are HU-25. I think in the very early days of USAAC, they used T for Transport. I think the Curtiss Condor was T-32, maybe. > We were talking "what ifs" in terms of the old system, and > manufacturer's codes - H was the manufacturer's code for McDonnell [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Another kink, regarding the USA naming their a/c after Indian tribes, their L-19 / O-1 was named Bird Dog, & AFAIR, none of the DeHavilland-Canada a/c used by the Army were ever given Indian names. The P-51 & T-28 used by them for chase planes were never named after indians, tho the original A-36 Mustang was called the Apache. The USA used several other a/c that were never 'properly' named, as well. The Huey, in reality, is called Iroquois. The UH-60, to avoid confusion with the S-67 Blackhawk, contrary to many people's writing, is Black Hawk, who wasn't a tribe, but an Indian chief, IIRC. > Another kink was that prior to '62, the USAF used S for Search & > Rescue & A for Amphibian. USAAF/USAF PBY Catalinas were designated [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > The original UH-1, BTW, was designated H-40, before '62. The prototypes were designated XH-40 and YH-40 but the original 1959 US Army service designation was HU-1 - thus the "Huey" nickname as a phonetic reading of the HU-1 designation and reading the "1" as an "I". Cheers, ISTR reading that it was another notch deeper than that. The USMC version was HU-1E, which spelled, 'Huie'. > > The original UH-1, BTW, was designated H-40, before '62. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Cheers, > ISTR reading that it was another notch deeper than that. The > USMC version was HU-1E, which spelled, 'Huie'. 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. >>>The original UH-1, BTW, was designated H-40, before '62. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >>Cheers, > F2A means it is the 2nd aircraft Brewster designed and had accepted by the > Navy. Not exactly. Ordinarily, the F2A designation would indicate the second -fighter- aircraft (not the second aircraft period) built by Brewster and accepted by the Navy. But, in this particular case, there had previously been an FA fighter built by General Aviation Corp. (formerly Atlantic Aviation) in the early 1930s when the manufacturer's designator "A" had been assigned to that company. GAC went out of business in 1933 (IIRC) and the "A" designation was re-assigned to Brewster in 1935 - the "B" designation having already been assigned to Boeing and unavailable. Thus when the Buffalo was ordered by the Navy, it was assigned the designation F2A to avoid confusion with the earlier General Aviation FA fighter - even though it was the first Brewster fighter accepted by the Navy. Another peculiarity of the Navy system was that the suffix letter referred to the actual manufacturer of the aircraft and not the original designer. Thus, the General Motors-built versions of the F4F Wildcat became the FM-1 and FM-2 even though Grumman had designed the aircraft and the Brewster-built versions of the F4U Corsair became the F3A even though it had been originally designed by Vought. The one exception seems to have been the J2F-6 "Duck" which was built by Columbia Aircraft Corp. but which retained the Grumman "F" designator. I've never been able to figure out just why they did that. Cheers, >> F2A means it is the 2nd aircraft Brewster designed and had accepted by >> the Navy. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Cheers, Ok...I did read something about the manufacturer's designation being placed in a two-letter position before the numeric, but being that the F4F and the FM-2 were produced during the same era, how did it get moved from end to before? i.e. - why wasn't it "FA-2 Buffalo" or "F2M Wildcat"? Signature- Rufus -snip- > Ok...I did read something about the manufacturer's designation being > placed in a two-letter position before the numeric, but being that the > F4F and the FM-2 were produced during the same era, how did it get moved > from end to before? i.e. - why wasn't it "FA-2 Buffalo" or "F2M Wildcat"? The Navy didn't use the "1" in the sequence designation. There was, for instance, no Grumman F1F or Curtiss SB1BC - those aircraft were simply designated as FF-1 (for "fighter" and "Grumman") and SBC-1 (for "scout bomber" and "Curtiss"), the "-1" indicating the first model of the basic aircraft. The FF went on to have an FF-2 model (dual control version of the FF-1) while the SBC[1] went on to SBC-3 and SBC-4 editions with different engines. The second fighter aircraft from Grumman was then designated the F2F-1 and the second scout bomber from Curtiss as the SB2C-1. For special purpose or minor variations, a final letter suffix was attached to the basic model designation - thus we got the F6F-5N or the F4U-1D. This final letter designation was used both to designate a special purpose aircraft variation (thus the "N" for nightfighter in F6F-5N) or as a sequence designator for minor variations in the basic model (thus the "D" in F4U-1D for the fifth minor variation of the F4U-1 - the F4U-1A being the second variation of the basic F4U-1). [1] Strictly speaking, there was no SBC-1. The XSBC-1 and XSBC-2 were protoype aircraft and the SBC-3 was the first production model. Cheers, > -snip- > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Cheers, The number wasn't what I was getting at - it's the order of the letter designators with respect to the numeric positionally in the string. The order "F4F and "FM-2" appear to conflict in opposition to each other with any "standard" for building the string given that production of both aircraft were within the same period as my previous reference link cited. Another example - why couldn't it have been "FU4-1D" instead of F4U-1D? Signature- Rufus -snip- > The number wasn't what I was getting at - it's the order of the letter > designators with respect to the numeric positionally in the string. The > order "F4F and "FM-2" appear to conflict in opposition to each other > with any "standard" for building the string given that production of > both aircraft were within the same period as my previous reference link > cited. There's no conflict - just the number designator was omitted from the designation of the first aircraft in each manufacturer's sequence. "FM-2" was the functional equivalent to "F1M-2" but by convention the "1" sequence number was omitted and just understood. The sequence number was only used for the second and subsequent aircraft of a particular type from a manufacturer. > Another example - why couldn't it have been "FU4-1D" instead of F4U-1D? Because that would not conform to the Navy's designation system. The second character in the designation is always a numeral indicating the type sequence by the manufacturer -except- for the first aircraft of that type by that manufacturer where the sequence number ("1") was omitted. Cheers, > -snip- > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Cheers, Ok...I understand about omitting "1", but F4F and FM-2 still seems inconsistent to me...but they are what they is...your SBC example makes sense and I can follow that one. I would have expected "F4F" and "F2M" or "FF-4" and "FM-2" as consistent pairs if there was a standard. Thinking about it, I guess the design didn't actually originate at GM, they just built them...so technically, it was an F4F-2, manufactured by GM, which would make it an FM-2? Signature- Rufus > Ok...I understand about omitting "1", but F4F and FM-2 still seems > inconsistent to me...but they are what they is...your SBC example makes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > didn't actually originate at GM, they just built them...so technically, > it was an F4F-2, manufactured by GM, which would make it an FM-2? 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 >> Ok...I understand about omitting "1", but F4F and FM-2 still seems >> inconsistent to me...but they are what they is...your SBC example [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Mike Ok...that I can follow...but I give up... Signature- Rufus > The Navy didn't use the "1" in the sequence designation. There was, > for instance, no Grumman F1F or Curtiss SB1BC - those aircraft were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > control version of the FF-1) while the SBC[1] went on to SBC-3 and > SBC-4 editions with different engines. Reading all this, I can see why Robert McNamara told them to cut this crap out. Pat > Reading all this, I can see why Robert McNamara told them to cut this > crap out. 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 ** mike ** > What Worked for Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln didn't always work with the > Armed Services > 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 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. > > What Worked for Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln didn't always work with the > > Armed Services [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat > 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, I reckon the Japanese Navy's what I was thinking of then. > > IMO, the old Navy system was better, because the designation > > alone told you everything about the a/c. The AAF system only gave you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Cheers, 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. > > What Worked for Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln didn't always work with the > > Armed Services [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat > 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. > 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 > > How about the Army? They'll have a dozen different types of > > equipment with the same designation! M1 tanks, M1 guns, M1 this, M1 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Pat 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. > > Reading all this, I can see why Robert McNamara told them to cut this > > crap out. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > mike > ** 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. 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. Nothing is ever simple regarding military aircraft designators, marking, or finishes. The prototype of the Brewster Buffalo was designated XF2A-1 The Brewster Fighters ordered for the US Navy on the initial contract in 1938 were designated "F2A-1" 11 were delivered to the Navy. 43 of these were released to Finland in 1940. The prototype XF2A-1 was converted to become the XF2A-2 in 1939. The F2A-2 was ordered in 1940 with 43 delivered to the US Navy. An export version was ordered by the British and the Netherlands East Indies. These were given the Brewster Model Designation "399" There were 108 F2A-3 aircraft delivered to the US Navy in 1941. There never was an "F2A" Jack G. >> F2A means it is the 2nd aircraft Brewster designed and had accepted by >> the Navy. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Cheers, |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.