Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:50 pm
Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:51 pm
Robbie, the first two numbers (Air Force) were the contract date, and the following digits are contract numbers and actually have nothing to do with their production from the manufacturer.
A sample would be a fictious (sp?) such as 45-12345 but it may not of actually been accepted or built until 1946.
Navy/Marine/USCG Bureau Numbers are a whole different monster in themselves.
For some insight, visit Joseph Baughers excellent site at: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html
A sample would be a fictious (sp?) such as 45-12345 but it may not of actually been accepted or built until 1946.
Navy/Marine/USCG Bureau Numbers are a whole different monster in themselves.
For some insight, visit Joseph Baughers excellent site at: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html
Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:52 pm
The system I related is the current one- that was the official explanation of the tail number.
RR
RR
Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:37 pm
The Army still use the '0' prefix on helicopters over 10 years old.
Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:48 pm
kenlyco wrote:[img]
"One of these things is not the same..."
These photos are the odd men out in the 44-72990/N6322T discussion.
Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:57 pm
Those look like 90MM Recoilless rifles on the wingtips- was this some type of test bed?
Robbie
Robbie
Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:50 am
Robbie Roberts wrote:Those look like 90MM Recoilless rifles on the wingtips- was this some type of test bed?
Robbie
Yes, it was a US Marine Corps test of 106mm recoilless rifles. They were mounted on the Army's two Cavalier F-51Ds.
They were also apparently tested on an OV-10, too.
Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:31 am
Randy Haskin wrote:Robbie Roberts wrote:Those look like 90MM Recoilless rifles on the wingtips- was this some type of test bed?
Robbie
Yes, it was a US Marine Corps test of 106mm recoilless rifles. They were mounted on the Army's two Cavalier F-51Ds.
They were also apparently tested on an OV-10, too.
Feel sorry for the pilot when he had to reload in flight...
RR