Type Designator/Osprey Questions

[Scrapdog]

Kind of like the F-22.

Nice flame! As usual a clueless statement from a clueless guy.

Now - back to your original scheduled show...

 

[SIG600]

What will the Osprey do for AFSOC? Give the 160th a lot more to do.

That's funny, I don't care who you are.

 

[mzaharis]

Two matters related to this post:

1. The Center for Defense Information just came out with a report that was very critical of the V-22. Of course, they come up with reports that are critical of about everything that the military does, so I'll leave it up to you to decide the validity of this one.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=ff794bdb-b495-4a19-8403-0fdb8100f5c5&

2. To address the original poster's question about designators, I can think of 2 cases where designators were modified for experimental aircraft, both of which might violate the "letter" of the tri-service designation rules: The NF-16D VISTA (Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft) (see further down on this page - http://www.calspan.com/variable.htm - also http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f16_34.html) and the cranked-arrow F-16XL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL , http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f16_29.html ) which, had it entered service, would have been designated F-16E and F-16F. Instead, the F-15E was selected for that role, and the F-16XL prototypes have been used by NASA for research.

 

[JAFI]

As I recall there have been quite a few pieces of military hardware the the "big" services threw away as "junk" and the Coast Guard and US Marines used for many years and did good service for the country with them. I think the V-22 would be perfect with the USCG and USMC.

 

[AlbieF15]

To answer the original question, the Osprey will be known as the AWGEEZ-01.

 

[mzaharis]

One correction to my prior post - the NF-16D designator is in compliance with the tri-service rules, as the "N" prefix designates an airplane that has been modified extensively for research purposes, and will not be returned to original configuration.

The F-16XL chief designer, Harry Hillaker, claimed he got the name from the Top Flite XL golf ball, so it's probably not strictly compliant.

 

[SIG600]

As I recall there have been quite a few pieces of military hardware the the "big" services threw away as "junk" and the Coast Guard and US Marines used for many years and did good service for the country with them. I think the V-22 would be perfect with the USCG and USMC.

Ya except just about every member of congress has some contractor or sub-contractor in their district building parts for the V-22. Thus it was shoved down the proverbial throat of the military. There are better and cheaper options out there than the V-22, that don't try to rewrite the book. Who knows what history will write on the V-22, but personally I think there were better ways to go.

 

[JAFI]

SIG600, you may be right. Better platforms exist. Remember sometimes the role planned for a piece of hardware changes when it gets to the field.

The P47 was a designed as a high altitude interceptor. It worked better as a dive bomber and ground attack fighter.

The first P-51 was a dive bomber but worked better (after some modification) as a high altitude interceptor.

As to our elected "leaders" in Washington D.C. - - - - -

I think Will Rogers said it best: "We have the best politicians money can buy".

JAFI