Type Designator/Osprey Questions

[JediNein]

Greetings,

Does the type designator change for a fighter used solely in flight test research? IOW, will an F/A-18 always be an F/A, or will it change to R-18? This assumes there is some logic to the designation program.

I was listening to a presentation on the Osprey program and got curious about how the V-22 evolved into the CV-22 and MV-22.

And when the Osprey pilots are filling out their airline apps, is the time in type considered multiengine fixed wing or rotorcraft?

Thanks!

 

[tomgoodman]

Designators

Greetings,

Does the type designator change for a fighter used solely in flight test research? IOW, will an F/A-18 always be an F/A, or will it change to R-18? This assumes there is some logic to the designation program.

I think they change the prefix only if the airplane has been modified. Some of the designators used in the AF were: X--experimental; Y--pre-production; N--modified and not restorable to original configuration; R--Reconnaissance; W--Weather; E--Electronic; etc. Suffixes were added to designate different sub-categories of modification. In your example, an R would be added only if the F/A-18 were modified for a reconnaissance role.

 

[Wasted]

Neither, the category on the airline app will be "powered lift."

 

[dtfl]

Neither, the category on the airline app will be "powered lift."

If you make it through a career in that thing!!!!! I was on the board to stand up the AFSOC CV22 squadron. What a waste of $$. The old broken helos can carry more personnel, fuel, cargo and payload (vehicles) than the CV22.

 

[bssthound]

dtfl stated:

What a waste of $$. The old broken helos can carry more personnel, fuel, cargo and payload (vehicles) than the CV22.

Now you've done it; don't take aim at a sacred cow!! Speaking of helos, the black ones are being dispatched from Area 51 to cart your A$$ off to be poked and prodded by little green men. Before you go, do you have any AWC dirty purples??

 

[mzaharis]

Here are some good websites on the Tri-service designation system, originated in 1962:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/index.html
http://www.hazegray.org/faq/designat.htm

AND - the Mother Lode - the DoD Directive 4120.15 that sets out these rules:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l_0504/p412015l.pdf

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

If you make it through a career in that thing!!!!! I was on the board to stand up the AFSOC CV22 squadron. What a waste of $$. The old broken helos can carry more personnel, fuel, cargo and payload (vehicles) than the CV22.

Bet they can't do it at 300+ KTAS. And the reason the CV-22 can't carry as much stuff is cuz you USAF dudes loaded it up with so much crap. Sensors for sensors for sensors. Lot's of stuff that those "old broken helos" don't have to lug around. The non-USAF DCMA guys are probably laughing their a$$es off. Now the MV-22 doesn't seem to have that problem.

 

[GVFlyer]

I haven't flown the MV-22, but I did fly it's predecessor the XV-15. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a helicopter.

It is true that three CH-53Es will carry as much as five Ospreys, just at half the speed.

I am not a huge advocate of the V-22. I think that if you take all the things that could possibly go wrong in an airplane or a helicopter and combine them all in one place, you have the Osprey.

It is most appropriate for the Marine Corps Over-the-Horizon-Vertical-Envelopment mission and the Army/Air Force Special Operations mission - as long as they launch lots of spares so there are no more Desert Ones.

The military has not been a great supporter of the Osprey, but there is a major supplier for some component of the aircraft in just about every congressional district, so they couldn't kill the project.

I was at NASA Moffett when the Pax River V-22 crash occurred. At first, what brought the aircraft down was unknown. The NASA wags at Moffett suggested it was Dick Cheney (then secretary of Defense) with a Stinger.


GV

 

[dtfl]

Bet they can't do it at 300+ KTAS. And the reason the CV-22 can't carry as much stuff is cuz you USAF dudes loaded it up with so much crap. Sensors for sensors for sensors. Lot's of stuff that those "old broken helos" don't have to lug around. The non-USAF DCMA guys are probably laughing their a$$es off. Now the MV-22 doesn't seem to have that problem.

WRONG.
The CV22 has a very small cargo bay...it can carry a quad, but not a Toyota truck or RSOV. It has NOTHING to do with the weight of the AC. And no, the MV22 guys are not laughing because they can't fit anything larger in THEIR cargo compt either. Stick with what you know. This isn't it.

The CV 22 will be great for one mission and one only. If you are familiar with SOF you can figure it out. BUT that mission has occurred how many times in the past 15 years? Hmm...1.....2.....??

The Osprey is a waste of $$ when we are in a military that doesnt have it to throw around. In the Reagan days it would have been a great buy because we could buy it and it would never do much....like the B1 back then.

They should have bought the new CH53 and put the Pave package on it. If theywanted the long range infil capability of the Osprey they should have just bought a few. What will the Osprey do for AFSOC? Give the 160th a lot more to do.

 

[JimNtexas]

The CV 22 will be great for one mission and one only.

Kind of like the F-22.