U.S. Navy Designations (1922-1962)

[memaerobilia]

Another entry that is extremely controversial was left out for now: the F5C.

Though I have no reason to doubt the validity of the argument, I have to mention here the fact that in at least two sources I found the XF5C-1 designation given as a naval version of the PW-8A (see one from 1968 attached below). I don't believe that this could simply have been made up, especially not at that time. Possibly a planned version that was cancelled with the advent of the P-1 (F6C)?

Hello, again, I have just seen this new thread.
You have done a fantastic job, so far..
It will certainly be filled with many challenges. The XF5C-1, F4C-1, PW-8A designations are certain for confusion.

1.Design #39, F4C-1, is somewhat confusingly discussed in aerofiles. In fact, in the Curtiss production charts it is listed as:
Type: Light fighter
primary Model Designation: Hall
Alternated Designation; F4C1 (without the - dash)
Year;1924; Customer: Navy; Engine make; Wright Aeronautical Co.; *Engine: J-3
It is unusual in this chart, that the number produced, is omitted.

2.Typical of Curtiss Designation confusion is the Earlier listing of Design # 34
It appears that all other type 34's with following letter designations, are listed as Hawks. The straight # 34 Without letter addition has unusually left the Primary Designation name, blank
*Even though it lists only "1'" produced, it lists two DIFFERENT versions, Army & Navy, which may be the same plane as tested by each with engine change? etc

Design #34; type: Navy Fighter; (Additional second version is listed as Type:Army pursuit; *NO Primary designation is listed for Either. Alternate Model Designation: (Navy) F4C1; (Additional second version (Army) is listed as XPW8A. Both listed as 1924.
The Navy version is listed *with Curtiss S-3 Engine. (*WITH a special notation that it is the "1st Alum Alloy Design")The Army version is listed with Curtiss D-12

I see nothing in the Curtiss Company production charts relating to a Model XF5C-1.
F4C-1; Design # 34 could have possibly been followed by an "intended?" XF5C-1 in the Design #39? and that designation cancelled as explained with the F-5 Flying boat similarity? Lots of possibilities, of course
Sunday is a busy day for me, and I'd like to get back to this list with some possible omissions I note, such as the Curtiss TS series, the 3 Sparrow Hawk designs, and a few others..Seems to be a lot of the pre-1922 Curtiss Navy designations missing, but I note the reason for starting Navy designations with 1922..

 

[Stargazer]

What you have written here is especially interesting Joe.

Concerning the F4C slot, we know that this was allocated to the Curtiss-Hall F4C-1 "Iron Duke" fighter, or Model 39.

Therefore, the very mention of the Navy variant for Model 34 as being "F4C-1" says two things: 1°) it is a typo done at the time, and 2°) there WAS a planned Navy version of the PW-8A with an S-3 engine, which therefore could only get the next available "F-for fighter slot", namely F5C... The fact that you couldn't find an XF5C-1 in the Curtiss documents may therefore only result from a printing mistake!

 

[Jos Heyman]

In going through Stargazer's listing I have come (so far) across the following three designations that are new to me, in spite of my 50+ years tinkering with US military designations: Curtiss F16C, Convertawings HOC and Douglas O3D.
I would love to get some further information about these designations to add to my database.

 

[Stargazer]

In going through Stargazer's listing I have come (so far) across the following three designations that are new to me, in spite of my 50+ years tinkering with US military designations: Curtiss F16C, Convertawings HOC and Douglas O3D.
I would love to get some further information about these designations to add to my database.

Jos, glad you enjoyed this thread. Only one of these three is 100% sure:

• the F16C designation was a shock to me when I saw it and I cannot say whether it was thought of at the time or the result of a later typo. I actually do wonder if this is not somebody's quoting one of my own invented aircraft, which can be seen online, and to which I had given that very designation... Ah, the web is a pain in the neck at times... Forget about it for now.
• Douglas XO3D-1: wonder where the heck I got this one from. Must be another typo... Sorry.
• The Convertawings XHOC-1 was the Model C Quadrotor prototype as entered in the HO Class observation/liaison helicopter competition in 1952 (designation found in the Spangenberg Archives index).

 

[Jos Heyman]

Thanks for this info. I will get back to you when I find more 'strange' ones.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

A few designations didn't look too familiar to me, so I tried to look them up. In a quick search, I couldn't find any reference, either in my books or on the web, to:

• Ryan F3R
• CC&F F4W Bearcat
• Radioplane KD3R
• N.A.F. NN
• Great Lakes SBG
• Northrop SBT

I found a spurious reference for SBG ("SBG-1") and none at all for SBT. I wouldn't be surprised if these turn out to be typos for XBG-1 and XBT-1.


On the other hand, a quick browse through standard source (primarily the "Putnam" on US Naval Aircraft) yielded a few designations, which are not in your list:

• Elias EM
• NAF NM
• Wright NW
• Wright WP
• Aeromarine AS (Scout)
• Dayton-Wright SDW
• Culver UC

EN and NM are from the very short-lived M = Marine Expeditionary list, which you didn't include at all.

The Wright WP-1 is quoted as the single example in a "P = Pursuit" category. I know this looks very suspicious (and more like a company than a Navy designation). But at least two sources on Naval aircraft quote it as a "Navy designation", so I thought I'd mention it. I guess you have evidence to prove these sources wrong .
The Culver XUC-1K is reported (by Putnam, and presumably copied from there all over the web : ) as a redesignation of XTD4C-1.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do that, Andreas, I appreciate this sort of detailed and circumstanciated reply!


About the Ryan F3R:

• « The delta-wing Ryan Type 69, formerly the F3R, using a single J40 turbojet of some 8,000 lb. thrust, is an example of American jet-lifter work. »
  (quote from The Aeroplane, Volume 87, 1954 — see attachment)
• « F-109—Designation originally allocated to a VTOL interceptor version of the X-13-RY (see also X-13, F3R). »
  (quote from U.S. military aircraft designations and serials since 1909, Midland Counties Publications, 1979 — see attachment)

About the CC&F F4W:

• CC&F F4W Bearcat: That one too came as a real surprise to me...
  « Bearcat production bv the Canadian Car and Foundry Co. was also considered under the designation F4W-1, but no orders were placed.»
  (from Sea, Sky and Stars: an Illustrated History of Grumman Aircraft, Arms and Armour Press, 1987 — see attachment)

About my mistakes:

• Radioplane KD3R: In all logic, there's GOT to have been something between KD2R and KD4R, at least on paper. The Spangenberg Index mentions the RP-67 as a Radioplane proposal for U.S. Navy, so this could be it. I'm sure I did see "KD3R" somewhere. I'll try to put my finger on it. Let's remove it for now!

• N.A.F. NN: My own Naval Aircraft Factory list doesn't have it either. In all logic, if there was an N2N, there should have been (at least on paper) an NN somewhere... but it's true, I can only trace N2N to N5N at present. Don't know where I got the NN from. Let's remove it!

• Great Lakes SBG: There is an "SBG-1" mentioned next to XBG-1 in a listing at ENGINES & THINGS (JANUARY 2011) as having a P&W R-1535 Twin Wasp, but I think You're right. "SBG" must be a typo for either BG or TBG. Removed. (actually there was an "SBG-1" but it was a prototype civil glider by Aeromarine!).

• Northrop SBT: No "SBT" either. Certainly a typo for XBT. Removed.

About my omissions:

• Elias EM: I totally overlooked the Marine Expeditionary category...
• NAF NM: Same remark. Thanks for the reminder!

• Culver UC: Correct. I DID have the second "UC" designation but didn't know what to make of it. Thanks!

• Wright WP: I forgot to add this one? Shame on me. Of course it's a Navy designation, and accounts for the "F" Wrights starting with F2W and not FW. Before 1924, the mission and company letters were reversed, so "WP" doesn't seem strange to me at all, it's like the Curtiss CR or CF.

Now my questions:

• Wright NW: NW means "Navy-Wright" and is therefore non-standard designation, hence my omitting it. I have actually omitted a few more of the pre-1924 designations when they didn't seem to fit in the letter missions.

• Aeromarine AS: I have always thought that this "AS" was strictly a company designation. AS-1 and AS-2 go back to 1920 and 1921, respectively, and the first attempts at a letter system per mission occurred in 1922 or about. I don't know. Maybe it BECAME a Navy designation?

• Dayton-Wright SDW: Are you sure about this one being a Navy designation? I have always thought this to be a company designation. There is NO example of the Navy ever allocating two letters to designate a company!What do you say?

See? This is exactly why I wanted some feedback on the list. It was bound to have a few mistakes and omissions... Thanks again, Andreas.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

About the Ryan F3R: [...]
About the CC&F F4W:[...]

Thanks for refreshing my memory . Even though I wouldn't bet on F3R being ever officially allocated.

[...]In all logic, there's GOT to have been something between KD2R and KD4R, at least on paper [...]In all logic, if there was an N2N, there should have been (at least on paper) an NN somewhere...

Not doubt about the logic ;D . I just wondered if you had actually seen the designations somewhere. Especially KD3R, because I had made some effort to pin this down when I compiled my UAV listings years ago. And there appears to be no reason whatsoever not to use KD3R. NN, on the other hand, does look a bit off as a designation - if only because "N.N." tends to be read as "unnamed" in some contexts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomen_nescio)

Before 1924, the mission and company letters were reversed, so "WP" doesn't seem strange to me at all, it's like the Curtiss CR or CF.

No problem with the letter sequence, I just wonder about the P-for-Pursuit type letter. All other early fighters were designated as such (CF, UF).

Wright NW: NW means "Navy-Wright" and is therefore non-standard designation, hence my omitting it. I have actually omitted a few more of the pre-1924 designations when they didn't seem to fit in the letter missions.

Ok, you're right. I simply copied "NW" from the Putnam list, but didn't look up the actual aeroplane.

Aeromarine AS: I have always thought that this "AS" was strictly a company designation. AS-1 and AS-2 go back to 1920 and 1921, respectively, and the first attempts at a letter system per mission occurred in 1922 or about. I don't know. Maybe it BECAME a Navy designation?

I don't know either . But you could be right - a company designation which just happens to fit into the first version of the Navy system.

Dayton-Wright SDW: Are you sure about this one being a Navy designation? I have always thought this to be a company designation. There is NO example of the Navy ever allocating two letters to designate a company!What do you say?

I'm sure I've read somewhere in one of the "standard" works that the Navy assigned two-letter manufacturer codes in the very first years of the designation system (mainly to non-US manufacturers). But the evidence for actual designations is very then indeed. Could well be that the "official two-letter codes" have been retroactively invented by historians to explain US Nvay designations like SDW-1 and HPS-1.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I'm sure I've read somewhere in one of the "standard" works that the Navy assigned two-letter manufacturer codes in the very first years of the designation system (mainly to non-US manufacturers).

FWIW, both the U.S. Navy "Putnam" and Andrade's "Designation Bible" list several two-letter manufacturer codes from the 1921(!)-1923 period without specifically commenting these oddities.

 

[The Bushranger]

Sorry if "Thread Necromancy" is considered a problem round these parts, but there were a few designations I'd like to ask about, starting with the Fighters:

-The perrenial "was the P-59 known as YF2L-1 to the Navy", combined with the fact I've seen "XF2L-1" mentioned as referring both to P-63As not picked up, or two P-63Es, and "F2L-1K" applied to Navy-operated P-39Qs...

-"Martin FM", Model 127 - what was this aircraft? I can find nothing on it...

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Sorry if "Thread Necromancy" is considered a problem round these parts, but there were a few designations I'd like to ask about, starting with the Fighters:

-The perrenial "was the P-59 known as YF2L-1 to the Navy", combined with the fact I've seen "XF2L-1" mentioned as referring both to P-63As not picked up, or two P-63Es, and "F2L-1K" applied to Navy-operated P-39Qs...

I just noted that the link to my F2L post in this string was entered as an email rather a hyperlink. I've corrected it. See http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2012/01/what-was-bell-aircraft-f2l.html

 

[Stargazer]

Sorry if "Thread Necromancy" is considered a problem round these parts, but there were a few designations I'd like to ask about, starting with the Fighters:

I do not think it's a problem to anyone around here, especially when resurrecting a thread means contributing new material or asking relevant questions.

FM", Model 127 - what was this aircraft? I can find nothing on it...

Only found one mention of this project myself. It was described a dive bomber project submitted circa 1932 and developed from the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) design #107. Now the problem obviously is with the "Dive Bomber" category, which used the "B" letter ("F" was used for fighters). However, Martin worked on their Model 125 dive bomber which was the BM-1. So perhaps "Model 127 FM-1 dive bomber" was a double typo for "Model 125 BM-1 dive bomber"? (unless there was a Model 127 fighter project and "dive bomber" was a mistake?)
Without further evidence we're a bit at a lost here, I must say. It would be safer to remove the "FM-1" designation for now I think.

 

[Jos Heyman]

I would not remove the Martin FM-1 'designation'. I fully agree it was not official but since it has been mentioned in the references (correctly or incorrectly) it would be more appropriate to keep it in a list with the comments that have been made.
This will make the list complete and will prevent somebody from 'discovering' a new designation at a future date and restarting the whole process of trying to figure out what Martin FM-1 was or was not..

 

[The Bushranger]

Thanks for the replies. I learn a lot here!

Now, here's something I just found that's acutally not included in the lists here: the "Fairchild XR2L-1".

...this would seem to be a very odd bird, as "L" would be either Loening or Bell, not Fairchild! But a close look at the rudder reveals that somebody at NASA had a finger fumble, as XR2K-1 - which, as a Fairchild 22 Model C7 built by Kreider-Reisner is a 'correct' designation - can be clearly seen.


Edit: I also noticed the Vought SBU Corsair isn't listed in the 'SB for Scout Bomber' section?

Edit2: And according to Baugher the Fairchild XSOK-1 was a planned version of the "Model XA.942", which appears to be the Model 91. A pic of the mockup is here.

Edit3: The Edo S2E was the original designation for the OSE, apparently. And it appears that the Edo XTE-1, conversions from OSEs, may have been originally designated Edo XSO2E-1.

Edit4: According to this, there was never a P3N designation assigned.

Edit5: Two Blackburn Swifts were designated Blackburn BST-1, which appears to be in the early 'manufacturer first' series (CT, MT, etc.).

Edit6: The Nash-Kelvinator JRK-1 was to be a license-produced version of the Vought-Sikorsky VS-44.

Edit7: In addition to being the cancelled Model 132 dive-bomber proposal, the designation Martin B2M-1 has been reported as being assigned to Navy-operated B-26s (Marauder Is?).

 

[Stargazer]

Now, here's something I just found that's acutally not included in the lists here: the "Fairchild XR2L-1".
But a close look at the rudder reveals that somebody at NASA had a finger fumble, as XR2K-1 - which, as a Fairchild 22 Model C7 built by Kreider-Reisner is a 'correct' designation - can be clearly seen.

One of the numerous mistakes that emanate from NASA's otherwise laudable effort to document their archives... You'll notice that the R2K was duly listed as a KR-22 on page 2.

Edit: I also noticed the Vought SBU Corsair isn't listed in the 'SB for Scout Bomber' section?

A silly omission on my part. Fixed!

Edit2: And according to Baugher the Fairchild XSOK-1 was a planned version of the "Model XA.942", which appears to be the Model 91. A pic of the mockup is here.

Edit3: The Edo S2E was the original designation for the OSE, apparently. And it appears that the Edo XTE-1, conversions from OSEs, may have been originally designated Edo XSO2E-1.

Edit6: The Nash-Kelvinator JRK-1 was to be a license-produced version of the Vought-Sikorsky VS-44.

Please keep in mind that the list I made is only a BASIC one. I didn't create a "details" column for such explanations (mostly because the forum's interface is an absolute torture when it comes to editing charts). Also, the presence of a question mark "?" doesn't mean the allocation is unknown... it just means that the Model number is not known!

Edit4: According to this, there was never a P3N designation assigned.

True, it's been said for a long time and I overlooked it in my list. I'll add the info.

Edit5: Two Blackburn Swifts were designated Blackburn BST-1, which appears to be in the early 'manufacturer first' series (CT, MT, etc.).

I only listed the "standard" designations, and so the non-standard designations as this one were neglected. Thanks for reminding me.

Edit7: In addition to being the cancelled Model 132 dive-bomber proposal, the designation Martin B2M-1 has been reported as being assigned to Navy-operated B-26s (Marauder Is?).

I didn't know about this one. To me the only naval Marauders were designated JM-1 and used as transports! I'd love to find more sources to confirm it though.

 

[Jos Heyman]

The B2M-1 reference quoted by Bushranger appeared in The Aeroplane, Vol. 64, p.227 (a 1943 publication).
If any of you have access to this (own collection, formal library), we would love to see the full article.

 

[The Bushranger]

Please keep in mind that the list I made is only a BASIC one. I didn't create a "details" column for such explanations (mostly because the forum's interface is an absolute torture when it comes to editing charts). Also, the presence of a question mark "?" doesn't mean the allocation is unknown... it just means that the Model number is not known!

True enough. And glad to be able to help out.

One more thing I found, apparently the Culver UC-1 was not 'U for Utility', but rather the sole 'U for Unmanned' type.

 

[airplane176]

I think that you may want to look here:

http://aircraft.list-of-domains.org/

or specifically here:

http://aircraft.list-of-domains.org/Navy.htm

Roger

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I think that you may want to look here:

http://aircraft.list-of-domains.org/

or specifically here:

http://aircraft.list-of-domains.org/Navy.htm

Roger

In my opinion (documented here: http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/06/navy-aircraft-designation-suffixes.html), description of the suffix letter designations are usually oversimplified.

 

[Stargazer]

I just came across a note I made a while ago about a strange designation found on the web:

XTB3D-1 (A-26) - Design Information Carburetor Ram Investigation. Wing and Fuselage Combination. August 26, 1943 - Feb 2, 1944

Not only this would seem to indicate that some Invader(s) was/were used by the Navy for attack role, but that it/they also received a designation as TB3D.

Fortunately the source is still available:
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf7g5005jm/dsc/

Thoughts, anyone? As this is the title of some official report there doesn't seem to be any room for doubt. Considered (and later canceled) procurement? Experimental evaluation? Any help would be greatly appreciated as I only ever heard of the JD transport version.

 

[hesham]

Maybe this report help;


http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/usa/USMC/USMC-Aircraft%20Designation%20Systems.pdf

 

[Stargazer]

Maybe this report help;

Doesn't. No mention of it in this well-known document, which is not a "report" as you imply but a chapter from an indispensable book that's freely available online from various sources.

 

[Jos Heyman]

In my 50 years time dealing with US military designations I have never run across this one. Which does not mean it did not exists but, as you will no doubt agree, it was never a designation worn on a actual aircraft - rather a project. Well, a new project to look at and search the sources.

 

[Stargazer]

Well, a new project to look at and search the sources.

... which is the spice of life for us researchers, and the beauty of our never-ending quest, isn't it? ;D

 

[Jos Heyman]

....and we have so many individuals doing that in this forum with so many resources, so lets see how strong we are collectively .

As a start, there is a book by Barrett Tillman entitled 'U.S. Navy Dive and Torpedo Bombers of World War II' (September 14, 2001). I do not have it my library, so if anybody has this book (or can find it in the local library) search that book for any mention of the proposed use of A-26s, or similar twin engine aircraft, as torpedo bombers. But do not expect to find the XTB3D-1 designation outright (although it would be the first prize if you do) but rather as a broad mention.

 

[Jos Heyman]

I found an advertisement by Chandler & Evans in Flight of 15 March 1945 that refers to the A-26 Invader as a (potential/) torpedo carrier. From this I would cautiously suggest that XTB3D-1 could have been a proposed torpedo carrying version of the A-26, although the absence of any further references indicates strongly that this designation never got off the paper and may not have been an official US Navy designation.

 

[Stargazer]

I remember mentioning this in another topic, but it hasn't appeared here yet, where it belongs.

The following official 1954 document gave P2D as an alternative designation for the A3D Skywarrior, presumably at a time when a distinct Patrol version was considered.
Why they went back to "P2D" and didn't use "P4D" instead, I couldn't say.

U. S. A. Supplement No. 5 - June 1954
FM 30-30
OPNAV 32P-1200/5
AFM 50/40E

 

[Tzoli]

I would like to ask if anybody know of drawings (3 view or at least top and side views) of the Vought O5U Floatplane?

 

[Silencer1]

I would like to ask if anybody know of drawings (3 view or at least top and side views) of the Vought O5U Floatplane?

Here it is. Source - G.Moran "The Corsair, and other - Aeroplanes Vought. 1917-1977"

 

[Tzoli]

Thank you!
Oh it has a hook? So it could land on carriers?

 

[Silencer1]

Thank you!
Oh it has a hook? So it could land on carriers?

Seem so - check the set of photos here http://www.vought.org/photo/html/pxo5u-1.html

 

[Grey Havoc]

Regarding the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation PTBH:

FD Aircraft 16 - Page 38 - Shipbucket

It is one of the ironies of history that, less than four years after deciding that they didn't need a large seaborne patrol torpedo bomber after all, the USN would find itself bitterly regretting that they didn't have one.

 

[jdisky]

Wasn't a TBM a GM-built TBF? Thought the Mauler was originally a BTM (later AM).

Good point! This is exactly why I needed everybody's proofreading, because a mistake is always possible.

Can either of you please help me understand how to distinguish between the 1943-45 TBM vs TBF Avengers? And which planes went down during Flight 19?

 

[Archibald]

Regarding the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation PTBH:
View attachment 659834

FD Aircraft 16 - Page 38 - Shipbucket

It is one of the ironies of history that, less than four years after deciding that they didn't need a large seaborne patrol torpedo bomber after all, the USN would find itself bitterly regretting that they didn't have one.

I remember reading XPTBH in Le Fana, and thinking "hell of an accronym". It looks like an "angry surprise" caption in a comic (think Tintin Capitain Haddock in a bout of anger).
eXperimental
Patrol
Torpedo
Bomber
Hall

 

[Yellow Palace]

I have a vague recollection that at some point pre-1962, the US Navy split, or intended to split, the 'Q-for-ECM' suffix in two - presumably to differentiate between jamming and ELINT aircraft. I don't seem to be able to find a reference for this, though, and I'm not sure exactly how the split was to work - has anyone come across this before?

 

[Andreas Parsch]

I have a vague recollection that at some point pre-1962, the US Navy split, or intended to split, the 'Q-for-ECM' suffix in two - presumably to differentiate between jamming and ELINT aircraft. I don't seem to be able to find a reference for this, though, and I'm not sure exactly how the split was to work - has anyone come across this before?

I have a copy of the final version of the Navy's regulation for aircraft designations, dated May 1961 . In this document, there is only the suffix "Q" for "Countermeasures". So if the Navy planned a "split" at some time, they didn't actually implement it.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Thanks for sharing and confirming - that's a very useful reference!

 

[Yellow Palace]

I have a copy of the final version of the Navy's regulation for aircraft designations, dated May 1961 . In this document, there is only the suffix "Q" for "Countermeasures". So if the Navy planned a "split" at some time, they didn't actually implement it.

Okay, it looks like the EA-6A was designated A2F-1H, rather than A2F-1Q as would be expected:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/allowances-and-locations/apr1967.pdf

There's also reference to this in the FY62 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/sgp/sgpmbb/0041615580A/0243.pdf

This seems to postdate the final version of the regulations, which do list the EA-6A as A2F-1Q, suggesting that it was a very late change indeed.

 

[BlackBat242]

Can either of you please help me understand how to distinguish between the 1943-45 TBM vs TBF Avengers? And which planes went down during Flight 19?

While the OP hasn't returned since the day he posted that (his sole post) I'll answer for others wondering.

To the best of my knowledge, the only way to differentiate between a TBF and a TBM is to look at the markings or the data plate.
And the markings may well be incorrect if not on an aircraft photographed while in military service.

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Okay, it looks like the EA-6A was designated A2F-1H, rather than A2F-1Q as would be expected:

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/allowances-and-locations/apr1967.pdf

There's also reference to this in the FY62 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy:

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/sgp/sgpmbb/0041615580A/0243.pdf

This seems to postdate the final version of the regulations, which do list the EA-6A as A2F-1Q, suggesting that it was a very late change indeed.

The A2F-1H designation is indeed a bit of a mystery.

My copy of the Navy Regulation I quoted above came with a number of "Supplements", which define new designations between May 1961 and September 1962, plus the Navy's initial reference list of redesignations:

https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/navy1961-62-part2.pdf

https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/navy1961-62-part3.pdf

https://designation-systems.net/usmilav/original-docs/navy1961-62-part4.pdf

Supplement 4, dated 29 September 1961, establishes the designation A2F-1Q. None of the remaining supplements cover any A2F-related stuff ... until the redesignation table, which does indeed show A2F-1H as the former designation of the EA-6A. The "H" appears out of the blue. Also, redefining suffix letters, when the introduction of the new designation system is imminent anyway, doesn't make a lot of sense.