Was The Grumman "Bearcat" Flown Off Carriers?

[Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium]

Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it even
flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband and my
brother.

Thanks! - Kate

Be Sure to check out my E-Store for great T-shirts, Hats, Bumper Stickers and
MORE at: http://www.cafeshops.com/bumperattack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers?
>

Yes.


>
> Was it even flown by the Navy?
>

Yes.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/024502.jpg

[Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>"Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium" > wrote
>> Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers?

>Yes.

>> Was it even flown by the Navy?

>Yes.

>http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/024502.jpg

THANK YOU Mr. McNicoll !!!

Cheers! - Kate


Be Sure to check out my E-Store for great T-shirts, Hats, Bumper Stickers and
MORE at: http://www.cafeshops.com/bumperattack

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium) wrote:

> Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it even
> flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband and my
> brother.

The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.

[gizmo-goddard]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
.
...
> In article >,
> (Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium) wrote:
>
> > Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it
even
> > flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband
and my
> > brother.
>
> The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.

And they're still flying Grumman. Although the Tomcat is supposed to be on
it's way out eventually, it has served as the Navy's front-line fighter for
longer than any other aircraft.

__!_!__
Gizmo

[John R Weiss]

"gizmo-goddard" > wrote...
>
> > In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> > replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
>
> And they're still flying Grumman. Although the Tomcat is supposed to be on
> it's way out eventually, it has served as the Navy's front-line fighter for
> longer than any other aircraft.

Umm... The Blue Angels are flying the [pre-Boeing] McDonnell-Douglas F/A-18
Hornet. They never flew the F-14 Tomcat.

That means they've been flying McDonnell-Douglas since about 1969 -- F-4 ->
A-4 -> F/A-18!

[gizmo-goddard]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:U1mPb.111345$na.101554@attbi_s04...
> "gizmo-goddard" > wrote...
> >
> > > In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> > > replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
> >
> > And they're still flying Grumman. Although the Tomcat is supposed to be
on
> > it's way out eventually, it has served as the Navy's front-line fighter
for
> > longer than any other aircraft.
>
> Umm... The Blue Angels are flying the [pre-Boeing] McDonnell-Douglas
F/A-18
> Hornet. They never flew the F-14 Tomcat.
>
> That means they've been flying McDonnell-Douglas since about 1969 --
F-4 ->
> A-4 -> F/A-18!

My bad. I mis-read Orval's post and didn't recognized that it was limited to
the Blue Angels. I guess that I took the head fake because the original post
was about the Navy in general.

__!_!__
Gizmo

[Dave LaCourse]

Gizmo writes:


>
>> The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
>> type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
>> replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
>
>And they're still flying Grumman. Although the Tomcat is supposed to be on
>it's way out eventually, it has served as the Navy's front-line fighter for
>longer than any other aircraft.
>
>__!_!__
>Gizmo

Hmmmm. I thought the Angels were flying F-18 Hornets.



Dave

http://hometown.aol.com/davplac/myhomepage/index.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
>

There was no Grumman F-11F. The Blue Angles flew the F-11A Tiger.

[Jack G]

There was an F11F (but not an F-11F) Tiger until September 18,1962 when a
standard military designation system was adopted and the F11F-1 became the
F-11A.

Interestingly, the F11F or F-11A started as a derivative of the F9F and was
given the designation F9F-8 which was changed to F9F-9 when F9F-8 was
assigned to the later Cougars. In April, 1955 after the flight of two
prototypes and three production aircraft, the designation for the Tiger was
changed to F11F-1. In 1962 the DOD merged the Navy designation system into
the existing Air Force designation system which resulted in elimination of
the manufacturer designator and incorporation of a series letter (among
other changes).

The Blue Angels converted to F11F-1's in mid 1957 and were in Tigers until
1968.

Jack

(Basic reference: United States Navy Aircraft Since 1911 Gordon
Swanborough and Peter M Bowers)


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
...
> >
> > The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> > type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> > replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
> >
>
> There was no Grumman F-11F. The Blue Angles flew the F-11A Tiger.
>
>

[John Carrier]

> > The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> > type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> > replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
>
> And they're still flying Grumman. Although the Tomcat is supposed to be on
> it's way out eventually, it has served as the Navy's front-line fighter
for
> longer than any other aircraft.

I think you misread the post. He was referring to the Blues. They never
flew F-14's.

R / John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
>
> There was an F11F (but not an F-11F) Tiger until September 18,1962 when a
> standard military designation system was adopted and the F11F-1 became the
> F-11A.
>

Yup, and the F11F-1F became the F-11B.

[Nice Again]

Hottest a/c ever!! Saw one in a takeoff 'duel' with a jet (can't remember
model). By time jet left ground F-8 at several thousand. Took off straight
up!

"Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium" > wrote in message
...
> Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it
even
> flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband and
my
> brother.
>
> Thanks! - Kate
>
> Be Sure to check out my E-Store for great T-shirts, Hats, Bumper Stickers
and
> MORE at: http://www.cafeshops.com/bumperattack

[Nice Again]

And the 'easy' way of identification was lost forever!

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There was an F11F (but not an F-11F) Tiger until September 18,1962 when
a
> > standard military designation system was adopted and the F11F-1 became
the
> > F-11A.
> >
>
> Yup, and the F11F-1F became the F-11B.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the 'easy' way of identification was lost forever!
>

Eh?

[Pechs1]

The Blues flying Turkeys, that would have been interesting, with the wing
sweep, the inability to run OBC if it was rainin'...would need a squad of RIOs
to get the things in the air..compressor stalls, etc, very interesting. They
would also need a fleet of C-130s for the spares..

Just tongue in cheek Gizmo...don't get too sweated up...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> > type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> > replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.
> >
>
> There was no Grumman F-11F. The Blue Angles flew the F-11A Tiger.
>
>

F-11F was the pre-Mcnamara designation for the Gromman Tiger.

[Jack G]

That was F11F (or F11F-1). The dashes are an important part of the
designation and can not be inserted, omitted or placed randomly.
Jack

>
> F-11F was the pre-Mcnamara designation for the Gromman Tiger.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> F-11F was the pre-Mcnamara designation for the Gromman Tiger.
>

No, the pre-McNamara designation for the Grumman Tiger was F11F.

[Nice Again]

F fighter
8 eighth model
F Grumman

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the 'easy' way of identification was lost forever!
> >
>
> Eh?
>
>

[John Carrier]

> Yup, and the F11F-1F became the F-11B.

Did they ever bother to do that? IIRC, there was just the one J-79 retrofit
aircraft.

R / John

[Jack G]

My source says two J-79-GE-3A airframes: 138646 and 138647. I can not find
a reference to an F-11B designation for these aircraft. Supposedly the
F11F-1F had Mach 2 capability. Must have been quite a ride!

Jack



"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
> > Yup, and the F11F-1F became the F-11B.
>
> Did they ever bother to do that? IIRC, there was just the one J-79
retrofit
> aircraft.
>
> R / John
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Nice Again wrote:
> F fighter
> 8 eighth model
> F Grumman

This has always seemed harder to me than the Air Force/unified system

F Fighter
16 16th type since 1962

Under the Navy designation system, the Hornet would have changed
designations from F5D to F3B (I think) when Boeing bought out McDonnell
Douglas. You'd have had nearly identical aircraft with two different
designations, probably in the same squadrons. Seems rather nonsensical.

(The same system had wartime Corsairs as either F4Us or FGs depending on who
built them.)

>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> And the 'easy' way of identification was lost forever!
>>>
>>
>> Eh?

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> F fighter
> 8 eighth model
> F Grumman
>

I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation system,
it was your message that was a mystery.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message
...
>
> Did they ever bother to do that? IIRC, there was just the one J-79
retrofit
> aircraft.
>

Two aircraft were fitted with the YJ79-GE-3 and designated F11F-1F, bureau
numbers 138646 and 138647. I believe the latter is on display at China
Lake.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> (The same system had wartime Corsairs as either F4Us or FGs depending
> on who built them.)
>

Don't forget the Brewster F3A!

[Leanne]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> (The same system had wartime Corsairs as either F4Us or FGs
depending on who
> built them.)

I am not telling my age, but I have worked on a FM-2 from
Tall-Mantz Aviation, back when one of the world's larger air
forces was owned by them and parked on the west end of what is
now known as John Wayne International.

Leanne

[Nice Again]

That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Nice Again wrote:
> > F fighter
> > 8 eighth model
> > F Grumman
>
> This has always seemed harder to me than the Air Force/unified system
>
> F Fighter
> 16 16th type since 1962
>
> Under the Navy designation system, the Hornet would have changed
> designations from F5D to F3B (I think) when Boeing bought out McDonnell
> Douglas. You'd have had nearly identical aircraft with two different
> designations, probably in the same squadrons. Seems rather nonsensical.
>
> (The same system had wartime Corsairs as either F4Us or FGs depending on
who
> built them.)
>
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> And the 'easy' way of identification was lost forever!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Eh?
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Nice Again]

The Navy system wasn't bizzarre. It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
picture) by just the lettr and numbers.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > F fighter
> > 8 eighth model
> > F Grumman
> >
>
> I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation system,
> it was your message that was a mystery.
>
>

[Nice Again]

I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > F fighter
> > 8 eighth model
> > F Grumman
> >
>
> I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation system,
> it was your message that was a mystery.
>
>

[Jack G]

Would that be the Douglas B-26 (JD) or the Martin B-26 (JM) :O)

Jack


"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
> I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > F fighter
> > > 8 eighth model
> > > F Grumman
> > >
> >
> > I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation
system,
> > it was your message that was a mystery.
> >
> >
>
>

[Lynn in StLou]

Nice Again wrote:
> That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!
>

It was was pointed out in another forum that you can tell
the manufacturer of an AF craft if the complete designator
is used. Such as:

P-38J-25-LO
P-47D-25-RE
P-51H-5-NA
B-17F-1-DL (Built by Douglas)
B-17F-1-BO (Boeing)

The Navy simply made it a more integral part of the
designation. I do not know if this holds true still in the
standardised designation system.

--
Lynn in StLou
REMOVE anti-spam measure to reply

[Thomas Schoene]

Nice Again wrote:
> That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!

I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it might be
of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid to be helpful. As
is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as the examples given before
can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same plane!?!) It makes little sense to
use a system that requires different designations for the same aircraft just
because it was built by different companies or the factory changed
ownership.

Moreover, from an amateur's perspective, the Navy system makes it difficult
to instantly recognize which aircraft came first in production, or tell
which are contemporaries of each other. The F4U and F4D aren't even
remotely of the same era, for example, but you can't tell that from their
designations. OTOH, you can tell that the F-14, -15, and -16 came in that
order and probably realize that they are rough contemporaries.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!
>

So what? With that system you wind up with multiple designations for
virtually identical aircraft. A Corsair could be an F4U, an FG, or an F3A.
Boeing, Douglas and Vega all built Flying Fortresses, but under the USAAF
system they were all B-17s.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.
>

The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical aircraft.
That's bizarre.


>
> It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
> picture) by just the lettr and numbers.
>

No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order and
logic.

[Rich]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Kates Saloon and Knife Emporium) wrote:
>
> > Was the Grumman "Bearcat" ever flown off of aircraft carriers? Was it even
> > flown by the Navy? I am trying to settle a dispute between my husband and my
> > brother.
>
> The Bearcat was the second type flown by the Blue Algels -- the first
> type was the Hellcat. In fact, the Angels flew Grummans until the F-4
> replaced the F-11F Tigers about 1969.

And Navy pilots flying F8F-1's set back-to-back climb to time records
from a standing stop to 10000 feet, the first at 100 seconds and then
the second at 97.8 seconds at the 1946 Cleveland Air Show.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.
>

I can picture them both, and the JM too.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it might
be
> of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid to be helpful.
As
> is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as the examples given
before
> can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same plane!?!)
>

Ah, but they're not the same plane! The F4U was, of course, the Vought
Corsair, and the FG was a Corsair built by Goodyear. But the F3B was a
Boeing biplane fighter of the late twenties. The Brewster-built Corsair was
the F3A.

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Nice Again" > wrote

>> The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.

>The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical aircraft.
>That's bizarre.

>> It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
>> picture) by just the lettr and numbers.

>No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order and
>logic.

But.

The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
>

The Navy system didn't allow a B1RD.

[Jack G]

How about a GU11?

Jack
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
> >
>
> The Navy system didn't allow a B1RD.
>
>

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote

>> The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.

>The Navy system didn't allow a B1RD.

Unlike the Air Farce, the USN/USMC are military services, and
have a sense of humor; so they never let inconsequential
technicalities stand in the way of a joke.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
>
> How about a GU11?
>

Nope. What type aircraft would the letters GU designate? Where's the
manufacturer's letter?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unlike the Air Farce, the USN/USMC are military services, and
> have a sense of humor; so they never let inconsequential
> technicalities stand in the way of a joke.
>

I guess the USAF types must just have a more sophisticated sense of humor.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
> >
>
> The Navy system didn't allow a B1RD.
>
>

Ah, but it DID allow R4Q and R4Q2 :)

[Thomas Schoene]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> How about a GU11?
>>
>
> Nope. What type aircraft would the letters GU designate?

It's a special type used to deliver letters to the mail buoy. Its presence
has been known to attract seabats, which the crews capture and take aboard
ships as pets.





Or in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, but it DID allow R4Q and R4Q2 :)
>

No, but it could have allowed R4Q-2, if a manufacturer had been assigned the
letter Q.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Or in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
>

See my previous post about sophisticated humor. If you have to say it's a
joke, it ain't.

[Thomas Schoene]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it
>> might be of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid
>> to be helpful. As is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as
>> the examples given before can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same
>> plane!?!)
>>
>
> Ah, but they're not the same plane! The F4U was, of course, the
> Vought Corsair, and the FG was a Corsair built by Goodyear. But the
> F3B was a Boeing biplane fighter of the late twenties. The
> Brewster-built Corsair was the F3A.

Hmm, I think we just proved our collective point. :-)



--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Jack G]

Q was assigned to:

Bristol
Fairchild
Stinson
Chas. Ward Hall Inc.

The R4Q-1 and R4Q-2 were the Marine version of the Fairchild C-119 Packet -
AKA Flying Boxcar.

Jack

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
...
> >
> > Ah, but it DID allow R4Q and R4Q2 :)
> >
>
> No, but it could have allowed R4Q-2, if a manufacturer had been assigned
the
> letter Q.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Q was assigned to:
>
> Bristol
> Fairchild
> Stinson
> Chas. Ward Hall Inc.
>
> The R4Q-1 and R4Q-2 were the Marine version of the Fairchild C-119
Packet -
> AKA Flying Boxcar.
>

Thanks, but R4Q-1 and R4Q-2 are not R4Q and R4Q2.

[Thomas Schoene]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> Or in the immortal words of Foghorn Leghorn, "That's a joke, son."
>>
>
> See my previous post about sophisticated humor. If you have to say
> it's a joke, it ain't.

Or sometimes jokes aren't funny if told to people with no sense of humor.
Nevermind.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Tex Houston]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Q was assigned to:
>
> Bristol
> Fairchild
> Stinson
> Chas. Ward Hall Inc.
>
> The R4Q-1 and R4Q-2 were the Marine version of the Fairchild C-119
Packet -
> AKA Flying Boxcar.
>
> Jack

The C-82 was the Packet, the C-119 and R4Q were the Flying Boxcars.

Tex

[Pechs1]

OJ-<< The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs
>><BR><BR>

or GU11
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Nice Again]

You're obviously not a Navy aviator.

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Nice Again wrote:
> > That's one of the points, you can tell the mfg. Doh!
>
> I'd call it a bug, not a feature. If it told you the designer, it might
be
> of some value, but manufacturer names are often too fluid to be helpful.
As
> is, the system is potentially quite confusing, as the examples given
before
> can show (F4U, FG and F3B are the same plane!?!) It makes little sense to
> use a system that requires different designations for the same aircraft
just
> because it was built by different companies or the factory changed
> ownership.
>
> Moreover, from an amateur's perspective, the Navy system makes it
difficult
> to instantly recognize which aircraft came first in production, or tell
> which are contemporaries of each other. The F4U and F4D aren't even
> remotely of the same era, for example, but you can't tell that from their
> designations. OTOH, you can tell that the F-14, -15, and -16 came in that
> order and probably realize that they are rough contemporaries.
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[Nice Again]

Oh yeah! Like C-130 and C-131.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.
> >
>
> The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical
aircraft.
> That's bizarre.
>
>
> >
> > It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
> > picture) by just the lettr and numbers.
> >
>
> No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order
and
> logic.
>
>

[Nice Again]

Or GU2L

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >"Nice Again" > wrote
>
> >> The Navy system wasn't bizzarre.
>
> >The Navy system had multiple designations for virtually identical
aircraft.
> >That's bizarre.
>
> >> It made it easy to identiy a/c (mental
> >> picture) by just the lettr and numbers.
>
> >No easier than the USAAF/USAF system, which had the advantages of order
and
> >logic.
>
> But.
>
> The USAAF/USAF system didn't permit any fun aircraft, like B1RDs.
> --
> OJ III
> [Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Nice Again]

Those are L's.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How about a GU11?
> >
>
> Nope. What type aircraft would the letters GU designate? Where's the
> manufacturer's letter?
>
>

[Nice Again]

See what I've been talking about.
Douglas

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Would that be the Douglas B-26 (JD) or the Martin B-26 (JM) :O)
>
> Jack
>
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > >
> > > "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > F fighter
> > > > 8 eighth model
> > > > F Grumman
> > > >
> > >
> > > I did not ask for an explanation of the Navy's bizarre designation
> system,
> > > it was your message that was a mystery.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Nice Again]

There were two entirely different B-26s.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I can picture the JD in my mind but I have trouble with the B-26.
> >
>
> I can picture them both, and the JM too.
>
>

[Jack G]

Officially, both were "Packets". "Flying Boxcar" was a popular nickname
applied to both types.

Jack


"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Q was assigned to:
> >
> > Bristol
> > Fairchild
> > Stinson
> > Chas. Ward Hall Inc.
> >
> > The R4Q-1 and R4Q-2 were the Marine version of the Fairchild C-119
> Packet -
> > AKA Flying Boxcar.
> >
> > Jack
>
> The C-82 was the Packet, the C-119 and R4Q were the Flying Boxcars.
>
> Tex
>
>
>

[Tex Houston]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Officially, both were "Packets". "Flying Boxcar" was a popular nickname
> applied to both types.
>
> Jack
>


I offer:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od27.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od26.htm

The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, pp 642-643

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher3/cdesig.html

Google seems to be down and I probably have dozens of books in the other
room which will probably support me even more.

Tex

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Or sometimes jokes aren't funny if told to people with no sense of humor.
> Nevermind.
>

I suppose that's true as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those are L's.
>

They're 1s, this is an L.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> There were two entirely different B-26s.
>

No ****.

[Jack G]

Take a look at :

http://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/off_site_tour/airborne01.htm (read the
text)

http://www.qmfound.com/performance_of_packet_planes.htm

Jack



"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Officially, both were "Packets". "Flying Boxcar" was a popular nickname
> > applied to both types.
> >
> > Jack
> >
>
>
> I offer:
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od27.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od26.htm
>
> The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, pp 642-643
>
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher3/cdesig.html
>
> Google seems to be down and I probably have dozens of books in the other
> room which will probably support me even more.
>
> Tex
>
>

[Nice Again]

This is a 1, and this is an l.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Nice Again" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Those are L's.
> >
>
> They're 1s, this is an L.
>
>

[Tex Houston]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
> Take a look at :
>
> http://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/off_site_tour/airborne01.htm (read
the
> text)
>
> http://www.qmfound.com/performance_of_packet_planes.htm
>
> Jack


We can do this one-upmanship forever. Not worth the grief of waste of
band-width. I'll just say unclear.

Tex

[Jack G]

OK with me -

Jack


"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack G" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Take a look at :
> >
> > http://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/off_site_tour/airborne01.htm (read
> the
> > text)
> >
> > http://www.qmfound.com/performance_of_packet_planes.htm
> >
> > Jack
>
>
> We can do this one-upmanship forever. Not worth the grief of waste of
> band-width. I'll just say unclear.
>
> Tex
>
>

[Jack G]

Those are ONES. The joke is like in : "Here comes another GU-eleven on a
bombing run!!! "

Jack


"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
> Those are L's.
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > "Jack G" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > How about a GU11?
> > >
> >
> > Nope. What type aircraft would the letters GU designate? Where's the
> > manufacturer's letter?
> >
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack G" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those are ONES. The joke is like in : "Here comes another GU-eleven on a
> bombing run!!! "
>

I realize it was a poor attempt at humor, the point is GU11 does not fit the
pre-1962 Navy designation system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nice Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a 1, and this is an l.
>

No, this is an L. Only uppercase letters are used.