If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70. That is why I asked. Not long after fighters got north of 100, the USAF started over again. Bombers followed not long after. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Cub Driver
wrote: Long before the B1 and B2 there was the B52, B58, and B70. That is why I asked. Not long after fighters got north of 100, the USAF started over again. Bombers followed not long after. In what is mostly a comedy what-if, I picture some hotshot P-38 driver hearing an F[1]-22 is nearby, and laughing at the idea of dogfighting an antique until "WTF was THAT?" [1] Yes, I know, I know, it should have been P-22, and F-22 would have been a recon bird at the time. Still... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Andreas Parsch" wrote in message ... The speculation is rather academic anyway, because the was a valid reason why the JSF demonstrators used [snip] non-sequential numbers. That valid reason being the assignment of the intervening numbers, X-33 and X-34, to other projects. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
The speculation is rather academic anyway, because the was a valid reason why the JSF demonstrators used [snip] non-sequential numbers. That valid reason being the assignment of the intervening numbers, X-33 and X-34, to other projects. .... and that the X-32 slot, originally assigned to the JAST (Joint Advanced Strike Technology) program, was taken over by the JSF program. Although JSF's objectives were much different than JAST's (develop - in the long term - an operational aircraft vs. "only" technology demonstration), JSF was effectively a continuation of JAST by another name. Therefore keeping the allocated vehicle designation was a logical decision, even if the JSF demonstrator(s) wouldn't be _purely_ experimental machines. If JSF hadn't had JAST as a precursor program, it's IMHO much more likely the aircraft would have been designated F-24/25 from the beginning. Andreas |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian ATC aircraft designation | abripl | Home Built | 2 | February 4th 05 05:35 PM |
Designation Book | David R Townend | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | September 4th 04 02:29 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |
Aircraft Designation Book | David R Townend | Home Built | 0 | October 16th 03 02:25 AM |