baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin.) (09/13/90)
From: baldwin@usna.NAVY.MIL (J.D. Baldwin.) jem3@pyuxf.bellcore.com (John E McKillop): > >The following is reprinted without permission from AIR FORCE magazine. > >WHAT THEY REALLY CALLED THEM > >EA-6, Grumman Intruder/Prowler = Sterile Arrow There are two different aircraft combined here: the A-6 Intruder, which I have never heard referred to as anything but "Intruder"--and the EA-6B Prowler. In twelve years of active USN service--four and a half with wings --I have never heard the term "Sterile Arrow." Everyone knows they're called "Queers." -- From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au (09/13/90)
From: bxr307@csc.anu.oz.au In article <1990Sep11.024414.14310@cbnews.att.com>, jem3@pyuxf.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) writes: > > WHAT THEY REALLY CALLED THEM > CH-47, Boeing Chinook = Sh*thook; and Hook This helicopter is know here in Oz by its rythming slang name of "Angry Chook" - Chinook ("chook" in OZspeak = Chicken in USspeak. In otherwords a bird that flys although it would rather not if at all possible! :-) Brian Ross
lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang) (09/14/90)
From: lang@hpfcso.fc.hp.com (John J. Lang)
From: jem3@pyuxf.bellcore.com (John E McKillop)
> F-4, McDonnell Phantom II = Double Ugly; Rhino; and Old Smokey
I have also heard this called Aardvark.
Great list, thanks for posting it.
John Langadrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt) (09/18/90)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> In article <1990Sep11.024414.14310@cbnews.att.com> jem3@pyuxf.bellcore.com (John E McKillop) writes: >B-36, Convair Peacemaker = Aluminum Overcast; and Magnesium Overcast >... >C-124, Douglas Globemaster II = Aluminum Overcast; and Old Shaky >... >F-15, McDonnell Douglas Eagle = Great Bird Rodan; Big Bird; Tennis Court > (a match could be played on its fuselage and wings); and Aluminum > Overcast So, which one is the real Aluminum Overcast? :-) >F-117, Lockheed = The Black Jet; Nighthawk; Frisbee; and F-19 (NOTE: > "Wobbly Goblin" is purely a media creation) I thought F-19 was the code applied to the fictitious (?) curvy stealth aircraft, as depicted in several models and a computer game. >EA-6, Grumman Intruder/Prowler = Sterile Arrow The A-6 is the Intruder; the EA-6, the ECM version of the A-6, is the Prowler. Which is the "Sterile Arrow"? >Focke-Wulf FW-190D = Dora; and Ameisenbar (Anteater) Also called "Langnase Dora" - "Long nose Dora". The D version of the FW 190 had a different engine from the earlier versions, and therefore a longer nose. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/20/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> >>B-36, Convair Peacemaker = Aluminum Overcast; and Magnesium Overcast >>C-124, Douglas Globemaster II = Aluminum Overcast; and Old Shaky >>F-15, McDonnell Douglas Eagle = ... and Aluminum Overcast > >So, which one is the real Aluminum Overcast? :-) And from the UK, too. For shame. The "Aluminum Overcast" is the Avro Vulcan; I've never heard any other aircraft given that nickname. >>F-117, Lockheed = The Black Jet; Nighthawk; Frisbee; and F-19 ... >I thought F-19 was the code applied to the fictitious (?) curvy stealth >aircraft, as depicted in several models and a computer game. As has been mentioned before, there is good reason to suspect that F-19 was the designation the angular one was meant to have. "F-117" is a violation of the official designation rules, and the USAF seldom skips a designation number for the benefit of modellers and gamers. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/24/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Why would referring to the aircraft as "F-117" violate the rules? If that's true, then the USAF had better renumber the F/FB-111. That plane first flew on 21 Dec. 1964, 19 months after the F-4C joined operational squadrons. It makes no difference if a number is out of sequence or not. How many of you know what the F-110 was? What ever happened to the F-2, F-6, F-13? MIDN 3/C Allan Bourdius CMUNROTCU
military-request@att.att.com (09/24/90)
From: att!bcr!pyuxd!pyuxf!jem3 The A-6 is an attack aircraft and can carry a lot of ordinance while the EA-6 does not carry armament, i.e., it's sterile. As far as the Aluminum Overcast, the B-36 and C-124 were in service at about the same time and both got the nickname. Since they are both gone now, the name has been assigned to a new aircraft. -- ------------------------------------------------------------- | Jack McKillop | Those who do not remeber the | | Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ | past are condemned to relive | | WORK TEL: 908-699-6268 | it. | | WORK FAX: 908-699-0908 | Geo. Santayana | -------------------------------------------------------------
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (09/24/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
>>>F-15, McDonnell Douglas Eagle = ... and Aluminum Overcast
I always thought the F-15 was the "Twin-Tailed
Tennis Court."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !military-request@att.att.com (09/27/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Why would referring to the aircraft as "F-117" violate the rules? If that's >true, then the USAF had better renumber the F/FB-111. That plane first flew >on 21 Dec. 1964, 19 months after the F-4C joined operational squadrons. The numbering was wrapped around to the beginning after the F-111; there are no legitimate F numbers higher than 111. The F-4 was in Navy service before it arrived in the USAF, and its number was chosen (as part of the unified numbering scheme) to preserve as much similarity to its old Navy number as possible. Current F numbers are working past 23, with a suspicious gap at 19 as previously mentioned. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (09/27/90)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > Why would referring to the aircraft as "F-117" violate the rules? If that's > true, then the USAF had better renumber the F/FB-111. That plane first flew > on 21 Dec. 1964, 19 months after the F-4C joined operational squadrons. > It makes no difference if a number is out of sequence or not. How many of you > know what the F-110 was? What ever happened to the F-2, F-6, F-13? The F-110 was built by MacDonnel and was called the "Phantom II". F-110 was an Air Force number, while the Navy version was called the F4H-1. When the Air Force and Navy standarized thier aircraft numbering systems, the number F-4 was chosen. The F-111 was not really out of sequence. The program started before the great renumbering. The F-110 became the F-4. The F-109 was a Bell VTOL fighter that was never produced. F-108 was a fighter companion to the Valkyrie that never went beyond mock-up. The F-107 lost to the F105 in a fly-off. The rest of the century series is fairly well know. F-2 Banchee. Korean war era fighter, produced by McDonnell. Known as the F2H and F2H-1 through F2H-4. F-6 Skyray. Post-Korean delta wing carrier based fighter, produced by Douglas. Known as the F4D-1 (1951). Douglas tried to develop variants known as the F5D Skylancer (1956) and the F6D Missileer (1960), but they never caught on. The F4D was based on the F3D Skyknight (1948), which also never caught on very well. F-13?? I could not find a listing for the F-13 anywhere. I would not blame Grumman for not wanting the Tomcat called F-13 being that it was a "follow-on" to the ill-fated Navy version of the F-111. There is precedence for skipping numbers. P-73 and P-74 were skipped. The F-117 might not be out of sequence. I have heard rumors that the numbers F-112 to F-116 refer to various Mig and Su planes. I wouldn't even be surprized if the F-118 was a Mig-29...rumor has it that some of the former Soviet allies would do anything more hard cash. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
umhudso7@ccu.umanitoba.CA (Wayne Hudson) (09/28/90)
From: Wayne Hudson <umhudso7@ccu.umanitoba.CA> In article <1990Sep20.022328.15430@cbnews.att.com> writes: >From: att!utzoo!henry >>From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> >>>F-117, Lockheed = The Black Jet; Nighthawk; Frisbee; and F-19 ... >>I thought F-19 was the code applied to the fictitious (?) curvy stealth >>aircraft, as depicted in several models and a computer game. >As has been mentioned before, there is good reason to suspect that F-19 >was the designation the angular one was meant to have. "F-117" is a >violation of the official designation rules, and the USAF seldom skips >a designation number for the benefit of modellers and gamers. But I thought the 'F-19' has turned out to be alot like the new (Lockheed?) entry into the ATF competition (mach 2+, w/ some stealth capabilities). It reportedly (haven't seen anything of it myself) has the same basic shape, but differences in things like the tail being angled out instead of in (but at the same angle...). Anyone else? There was speculation that Testors acually HAD good spy info, just got the wrong company... -- Wayne Hudson "Optimism:the belief that everything will work out - umhudso7@ccu.umanitoba.ca fine. Irrational, bordering on insane" K9, Dr. Who
elec140@canterbury.ac.nz (10/03/90)
From: elec140@canterbury.ac.nz In article <1990Sep28.014435.13932@cbnews.att.com>, umhudso7@ccu.umanitoba.CA (Wayne Hudson) writes: > But I thought the 'F-19' has turned out to be alot like the new (Lockheed?) > entry into the ATF competition (mach 2+, w/ some stealth capabilities). > It reportedly (haven't seen anything of it myself) has the same basic shape, > but differences in things like the tail being angled out instead of in (but > at the same angle...). Anyone else? There was speculation that Testors > acually HAD good spy info, just got the wrong company... Sounds like you're talking about the YF-22 and YF-23 developmental ATF's. Apparently they are capable of supersonic cruise (without afterburners) and have 'semisteath' capabilities. If anyone wants to know more there has been a discussion on these aircraft in sci.aeronautics, rec.aviation, and rec.models.rc?! over the last week or so. ********************************************************* Chris Kaiser Postgrad - Elec Eng Dept Canterbury University Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND E.MAIL: c.kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz ********************************************************* "When you're fresh out of lawyers You don't know how good it's gonna feel" - Al Stewart, 1988 *********************************************************