1962 United States Tri-Service Aircraft-Designation System

[Andreas Parsch]

If the H-13 alone was a problem, why not keep it as H-13 in the new system and allocate H-7 to H-12 and then jump to H-14?

That would have been one option, using the "old" series for subsequent allocations was another. I don't see "lack of common sense" in the latter.

The first option was effectively used in the V-series, where the old XV-3 from the defunct V-for-Convertiplane series was taken over as XV-3A in the new V-for-V/STOL sequence.

Why even "H-13" in the first place, since the number "13" was skipped from every other designation series after the war?

"Modern triskaidekaphobia" began with the omission of F-13 (around 1970). Before that, #13 wasn't an issue. Between 1945 and 1970, only two series passed that mark (H and X), and both had -13 allocated. The omission of C-13 in the 1930s was a big exception - there were lots of -13 designations otherwise.

With the plethora of C-130 versions, why not use the skipped C-30 of the new series for continuation of the Hercules versions?

C-130 has still some series letters left. Right now there is no need to use another design number, and should the Herc ever reach C-130Z, there are enough "tricks" to avoid the introduction of a new number anyway .

Creation of T-1 and T-2 for USN trainers made even less sense that the Navy had never given it's Trojan a USN designation, it had always been T-28B (in an early attempt at a standardized USAF/USN system), so T-41 and T-42 would have made perfect sense!

Agreed!

Why stubbornly continue to list the main designator "K-" in official documents since 1955 when there has NEVER been ANY aircraft to receive a tanker-only designation?

Defining a mission designator before its first actual use, and keeping it around for a while, it is not really "stubborness", I would say . After all, it was eventually cancelled even though there wasn't even a need for that (like, say, "K" needed for a different purpose). The R-for-Reconnaissance primary mission letter hasn't been used either (for "regular" designations at least), and it's still alive and well.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

... and F-35 was used because Lockheed Martin wanted to continue on from X-35.

Just for the record: AFAIK Lockheed did not want "F-35", since internally they had already begun to use "F-24" for the forthcoming JSF production version. But this is only hearsay. In any case, the way in which the F-35 designation was announced (after a question at the JSF contract award press conference) gave the impression that it was made up on the spot. I know as a fact, that the process of request and allocation of an official MDS designation had not even been started at that time.

Why in the 'olden days' a sequence was so sacred instead of the almost free-for-all that takes place, is something I just don't know. Perhaps it has something to do with computerised records (no need to go through many hard copy documents, perhaps? ??? ?).

That's a thought which I had too. With electronic databases, everything can found equally fast, so it's no longer necessary to use a scheme which can be handled well in manual searches.

So don't expect conformity: new person, new ideas etc. etc. And don't expect rational explanations for what was done in the past.....

Amen ;D !

 

[Stargazer]

Some forum members surely knew about it, but I've just discovered the existence of the PZL-Mielec C-145A and Dornier C-146A designations in the DoD inventory.

http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/467765/c-145a.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/467729/c-146a-wolfhound.aspx

 

[Jos Heyman]

Thanks for those references. Although the designations were known to me, the data sheets gave some interesting additional information.
With respect to the C-145As, as far as I know the aircraft received a serial but also retained their civil registration. So far I have encountered serials 09-0305 (N305ST), 09-0310 (N310MV), 09-0317 (N317JG), 09-0319 (N319TW), 09-0320 (N824KD), 09-0321 (N279DH), 09-0322 (N322PW), 09-0323 (N323FG), 09-0324 (N324HA), 09-0329 (N329JD), 12-0338 (N338CH), 13-0341 (N341ML) and 13-0342 (N342BD).
As far as the C-146A is concerned, I have encountered more serials than are necessary for 17 aircraft: 97-3091, 97-3093, 05-3058 (sometimes shown as FY 95), 09-3106, 10-3068, 10-3077, 11-3013, 11-3031, 11-3016, 11-3026, 11-3075, 11-3097, 11-3104, 12-3040, 12-3047, 12-3050, 12-3060, 12-3070 and 12-3085 which serials were based on the c/n. It seems that the C-146A designation was only applied in September 2012. Also, one aircraft was designated as NC-146A and was used to support the development of remotely controlled aircraft.
I have also attached a photo of the C-146A.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for the details. Obviously there were more C-146A Wolfhound aircraft registered than claimed — unless of course the State Department's Air Wing aircraft are not included in the USAF count. I'm including photos of two of the latter.

As for the C-145A, although the data sheet does not mention a name, several official pages call it the C-145A Skytruck (its original PZL-Mielec name) so I guess it is in use. I'm enclosing a couple of pics of this as well.

 

[Grey Havoc]

With regards as to the Wolfhound, maybe it's the old rotating serials game?

 

[Nagumo]

Have any H- designation russian helicopters Mi-8/-17 used by U.S.Army?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Have any H- designation russian helicopters Mi-8/-17 used by U.S.Army?

Simple answer : No.