# A-1 "Skyraider"



## plan_D (May 15, 2005)

This may sound like a stupid question but; Why is the "Skyraider" designated A-1?

I know the logic behind American designations but this one just doesn't fit it in. It goes backwards. The A stands for Attack and the number after is the design number like A-36 is the 36th attack design on U.S drawing boards. How is the "Skyraider" the first? Did they restart the process in the 60s?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 15, 2005)

Good question. It's like the "Century Series" fighters. F-100, F-101, F-102, and so on. 
My guess is just what you said: They restarted it. Why is anyone's guess. FJ or evan might know.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2005)

The original designation was AD-1 (Attack Douglas 1) under the post war navy designation system. During the war years when it was being developed it was originally designated XBT2D-1. In the 1960s it was redesignated A-1.


----------



## evangilder (May 15, 2005)

US military designations have always been one of those things that has irritated me. You get used to the way they designated in one era, then it changes for the next. But FBJ is correct for the era is was created, in Yoda speak: Attack, Douglas, 1.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 16, 2005)

I understand that the designation system was standardised in 1962, so both air force and navy used common type designations. So the AD-1 became the A-1, in line with airforce attack designators.


----------



## plan_D (May 16, 2005)

Okay, thanks. 

I thought U.S designations were logical until now.


----------



## evangilder (May 16, 2005)

Well, they make more sense now. The old WWII designations were different for the Army than the Navy. They both made sense once you understood how they worked, especially with the Navy.


----------



## BombTaxi (May 16, 2005)

Yeh, the Navy ones were wierd. The Wildcat of WW2 fame was the F4F...but the Phantom (of Vietnam fame) was the F4H, while the Corsair was the F4U...then post 1962, F-4 referred to the Phantom only. Odd system!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 16, 2005)

BombTaxi said:


> Yeh, the Navy ones were wierd. The Wildcat of WW2 fame was the F4F...but the Phantom (of Vietnam fame) was the F4H, while the Corsair was the F4U...then post 1962, F-4 referred to the Phantom only. Odd system!



F4A3BD-2Y


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2005)

Bless you


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 19, 2005)

blimey!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 19, 2005)

I will not!


----------



## HealzDevo (May 25, 2005)

Yes Wierd designation system isn't it? Consider this, although the F-117 Stealth Fighter isn't really an actual fighter but more a bomber with fighter capabilities it is known as the F-117. Also the B-1B Lancer after the B-29, the B-52, the B-47, the B-50 etc.


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2005)

The F-117 is designated a fighter because they want to please the pilots into thinking they're flying a fighter. The correct designation would be A-117 or F/A-117.


----------



## evangilder (May 25, 2005)

Agreed, D. They are allegedly capable of carrying air to air missiles. But for the attack role, that is where they do best.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2005)

plan_D said:



> The F-117 is designated a fighter because they want to please the pilots into thinking they're flying a fighter. The correct designation would be A-117 or F/A-117.



The 117 designation came from aircraft "117" among the first coming down the assembly line. For the longest time no one knew the designation of "the article." When Lockheed was putting together the "-1" AKA the pilot's manual, there were numerous pages referring to "117" so the name stuck. At the same time you had the "foamers" thinking that the F-19 was the real deal, so this really confused things as well, but made the security guys happy.

The F-117 was the first configuration with the smaller V tail. The "A" model came with the larger tailplane and "other" modifications as well. This was probably done on the 5th or 6th production model, with all other retrofitted.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 1, 2005)

Still you get what I am saying don't you? There was apparently an idea to make a type called the Seahawk for the US Navy but apparently the project was cancelled. At least nothing further seems to have come of it... Also there is the B-1B Lancer. The B-2 Spirit. The B-52 which seems to be totally out of wack with the rest of the sequence. Probably changed so the US forces could claim that some embarassing problems didn't occur like the B-70 Valikyrie, and those Pogos and other types. Wipe the record and start off at zero and try and keep those types from becoming public knowledge. If that was the intention in this day and age they have failed, to keep these types information under lock and key.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey now, the XB-70 was cool! Some prototypes make it, some do not. It's part of the free-market economy and competition in it. It makes for better airplanes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> Still you get what I am saying don't you? There was apparently an idea to make a type called the Seahawk for the US Navy but apparently the project was cancelled. At least nothing further seems to have come of it... Also there is the B-1B Lancer. The B-2 Spirit. The B-52 which seems to be totally out of wack with the rest of the sequence. Probably changed so the US forces could claim that some embarassing problems didn't occur like the B-70 Valikyrie, and those Pogos and other types. Wipe the record and start off at zero and try and keep those types from becoming public knowledge. If that was the intention in this day and age they have failed, to keep these types information under lock and key.



Actually the DOD numbering designation system changed in the early 1960s. The B-52 designator was assigned in the late 40s when the B-52 was conceived. When Robert McNamara was the US Sec. of Defense in the early 1960s, he wanted standardization though out the military, that's why the numbering system went back to "1." The McDonnell F-110 became the F-4, etc.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 7, 2005)

Still it seems a rather odd way of doing things. Even if it was standardized. Still a lot of information was surpressed about some failures, even still there is doubt over whether we know of all of them... Quite odd and ecentric aircraft were developed during the 50s like the Pogo and that. The Pogo was an attempt to create a VTOL fighter that failed. Still Area 51 could be used to hide some of those failures. (Looks around for any US Government CIA agents...)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> Still it seems a rather odd way of doing things. Even if it was standardized. Still a lot of information was surpressed about some failures, even still there is doubt over whether we know of all of them... Quite odd and ecentric aircraft were developed during the 50s like the Pogo and that. The Pogo was an attempt to create a VTOL fighter that failed. Still Area 51 could be used to hide some of those failures. (Looks around for any US Government CIA agents...)



I could tell you that these "failures" were never hidden from the public once the cat was out of the bag. The XFV-1 was indeed a failure but was never hidden from the public's eye. It was actually on display in 1978 during an open house at Lockheed's Burbank facility. As far as Area 51 being used to hide there aircraft, well as a former Lockheed employee with 10.5 years employment and a veteran of the U-2, SR-71 and F-117A programs, I could tell you that none of these "failures" are being hidden there. Read about the PAO (Public Accounting Office) it's actually really hard to hide anything except if its a DARPA activity....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 7, 2005)

" far as Area 51 being used to hide there aircraft, well as a former Lockheed employee with 10.5 years employment and a veteran of the U-2, SR-71 and F-117A programs"

F22 Raptor, B2-Spirit and Mimic designs of Alien Spacecraft


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> " far as Area 51 being used to hide there aircraft, well as a former Lockheed employee with 10.5 years employment and a veteran of the U-2, SR-71 and F-117A programs"
> 
> F22 Raptor, B2-Spirit and Mimic designs of Alien Spacecraft



The F-22 was never there. It was flown out of Edwards and Dobbins AFB (that was the last program I worked on before leaving Lockheed). The First two prototypes were hand built at Burbank and trucked to Edwards were they were assembled and used for the YF-22/ YF-23 flyoff. The B-2 was built in Plant 42, Palmdale CA. The first one was flown directly to Edwards and the rest were produced right there at Plant 42, again the B-2 never seen Area 51.

The SR-71, U-2 and F-117A were built in Burbank, and trucked or flown in pieces to Area 51 for final assembly and production test flight. During the summer of 1980 through 1982 C-5s would land at Burbank Airport, pick up sub assemblies of the F-117A and fly them out, usually at night....

As far as space ships, I cannot confirm or deny....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

Actually Avero Canada Tried to develop flying Saucers for the USAF, didnt work out but quite pathetic nevertheless


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

I went to Area 51 as a military member. Yes, I saw some odd aircraft that later were revealed as the F-117. They do have a lot of neat toys there to play with.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Actually Avero Canada Tried to develop flying Saucers for the USAF, didnt work out but quite pathetic nevertheless


Hmmm, I'm surprised the RCAF didn't give those a whirl.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

The B2 looks like the B35/B49 from the 40's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> The B2 looks like the B35/B49 from the 40's.


It has the same wing span!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Avero Canada Tried to develop flying Saucers for the USAF, didnt work out but quite pathetic nevertheless
> ...



Actually the USAF wasnt going to test them before we did 
(for safety reasons)

Anyway I think it got like 3ft off the ground before it exploded.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 8, 2005)

I was joking, man.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Nonskimmer said:
> 
> 
> > 102first_hussars said:
> ...



They actually made hovercraft out of them....


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 8, 2005)

had an awesome climb rate though 0- 6 ft in less than .5 second


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 8, 2005)

pbfoot said:


> had an awesome climb rate though 0- 6 ft in less than .5 second


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 8, 2005)

Oh sure, laugh at the old fella.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

Ya just know the crash in Rosswell was our saucer, because the guy that stepped out of the reckage was a confused old man looking for a 
Tim Hourtens


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 9, 2005)

Nah, it probably _was_ Tim Horton.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)




----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

I saw few of his restraunts in Michigan and North Dakota, I wonder if theyre trying to expand out of Canada.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 9, 2005)

Well if you saw them in Michigan and North Dakota, I would say yes. They're coffee shops, not really restaurants. You can get soup and sandwich specials for lunch, but for the most part it's just coffee, donuts, and "Timbits".

The best damn coffee on the planet, I might add. 
I love the stuff.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

I heard an American company bought it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 10, 2005)

What, the entire chain? I hadn't heard that.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2005)

tims is hooked up with wendys somehow i don't think its an ownership thing though


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 10, 2005)

Well Farhad from the Max three blocks from my house could be wrong


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Actually Avero Canada Tried to develop flying Saucers for the USAF, didnt work out but quite pathetic nevertheless



If you go to Fort Eustis, Virginia you can see one of these at the Museum there. That is where I did my training on the Blackhawk and they have one of these hovering saucer things. It was a failure as you said.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Mar 9, 2017)

syscom3 said:


> The B2 looks like the B35/B49 from the 40's.


It ought to; it's from the same source. Northrop design.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 3, 2017)

It had to do with the fact that McNamara wanted to have the USAF and USN use the same designations for their aircraft, and reset the USN designs, and any new aircraft at 1.

The USN didn't evidently want to ditch the attack-designation for one reason or another (possibly so the USAF couldn't dictate terms), so they simply added it. And on that note: The AD was the oldest, so it became the A-1.


FlyboyJ

I thought the F-117 was given its designation to simply confuse people?


----------

