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.

 

[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