Warbird Information Exchange

Calling the thing a T-6 does not HONOR the original T-6, it is a insult, and it does not fall in line with current designation system, The last trainer was the T-45, so how do we go from 45 to 6, were there 61 trainer models that I don't know about ?

As to the other planes sharing a designation or name, the name Eagle was used before, by a plane that was a flop, but the company that built it was no longer in business. There was a F-15 before, but it was not a fighter, it was a photo recon plane, so there never was a F-15 Eagle before, There was a FISHER P-75 Eagle, and a Northrop F-15 Reporter,

The AF calls it the texan II, which means it is a heritage name, and in NO other case has a heritage name been used for a plane that was not produced by the original or a descendant company.
examples are
P-47 Thunderbolt, Republic Aviation, A-10 Thunderbolt II, Republic/Fairchild Aviation
P-38 Lightning, Lockheed Aviation, F-35 Lightning II, Lockheed/Martin
C-74 Globemaster, Douglas Aviation, C-124 Globemaster II, Douglas Aviation, C-17 Globemaster III, McDonald Douglas,
P-61 Black Widow, Northrop Aviation, YF-23 Black Widow II, Northrop Avaition,

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

No, the last "new" trainers introduced into service prior to the T-6 were the Beech T-1 and the Slingsby T-3, both in the early 90s. The T-46 was the last designation given out of the "old" system in the 80s (even though the airplane was never purchased or put in service).

The next "block" of designations (including T-6) were allocated for the JPATS contenders, of which there were seven.



Don't remember that one. McDonnell, perhaps?

_________________

I still fail to see how calling this aircraft the T-6 Texan II is any kind of an insult or dishonor to the orignial T-6. They are/were both early stage training aircraft for the Air Force. Why not call it the T-6 Texan II. "Hey guys, our new primary trainer that we intend on using for a long while is gonna be the T-6? What should we call it? Oh hey, how about tying it into the Air Force's heritage and calling it the Texan II?"



Huh, so McDonnell Douglas can use the name from an aircraft built by a company that's "no longer in business", but Hawker Beechcraft can't take the name from a defunct company, unless the previous aircraft that used the same name was a flop? Also, Fisher Body is still in business, as various divisions of GM. From Wikipedia "Fisher Corporation (metal stamping), General Safety (seat belts), Fisher Dynamics (seat mechanisms & structures), and TeamLinden (seat mechanisms)"



Yeah, and they also didn't use to let black people play baseball. Times change. Things change. There are only so many names out there. Deal with it.

Notice in my references that the F-15 Eagle was not named the Eagle II, because it was not meant to be a salute to a flop, nor was it called a Eagle II because the plane was not built by Fisher or General motors, it was a entirely new name for a new fighter and was never intended to be a heritage name.

In the case of the texan II, it was intended from the beginning to be a heritage name, but doing so the AF violated their own naming history in the case of heritage names, in every other case, the names used were for products made by the same company that made the original, as a tribute to both the aircraft and the company. Beech has NOTHING to do with North American Aviation, Rockwell, or even Boeing, if the AF really wanted to honor a trainer that Beech made, they should have called it the T-34 Mentor II.

I noticed you had a throw a race reference into your argument, are you really that desperate to try to make your point ?

I am firm about the name because the T-6 has been such a large part of my life, and the name texan II is dishonoring a legendary company and one of the greatest training planes ever built.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Where is there any Airforce policy that states that any aircraft that are going to be called "_____ II" has to be made by the original manufacturer of the first aircraft or by a conglomeration that includes the original company? They aren't "violating" anything, they're merely doing something different/new.  There also weren't any heritage names period, until, correct me if I'm wrong, the Globemaster II.

"Oh god, they named an aircraft the Globemaster II! They're violating their own naming history!!!"

And yes, I'm well aware that the F-15 Eagle wasn't intended to be a heritage aircraft. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the point you were trying to make. And if you also knew it wasn't meant to be a heritage aircraft, then why bring it up in the first place?

As to the other heritage names you listed, some of 'em are pretty thin. Thunderbolt II, naming a ground attack aircraft after a fighter that, admittedly, saw great success as a ground attack aircraft in the war.  Black Widow II, naming a stealth fighter after a night fighter? Sure both are stealthy. But both of those naming decisions are pretty thin from a heritage standpoint.

In my mind, Texan II makes perfect sense. Naming your new primary training aircraft that will presumably be in service for quite a while after what is most likely the most prolific primary trainer in US armed forces history and was used for many years? Good call. Both T-6's also had combat applications and were/are going to be used by armed forces around the world.

Seems like a perfect fit to me. Although I don't disagree that Mentor II may have been a better choice.

I still fail to see how calling this aircraft the Texan II is "dishonoring a legendary company and one of the greatest training planes ever built." How does it take anything away from what North American accomplished throughout their long and illustrious history of aircraft manufacturing? How does it take anything away from what the original Texan was, an aircraft that trained thousands of pilots how to fly combat aircraft around the world, which is precisely what the purpose of the Texan II is?

If anything, I think the name Texan II is an honor to the original Texan.



I noticed you had to assume that I used a reference about blacks not being allowed to play baseball because of the racial reasons behind that fact, missing my point completely. Are you really that worked up about the Texan, or are you just purposely trying to misinterpret what I wrote to make your point?

My mistake, I was watching baseball highlights on Sportscenter at work and it was the first thing that came to mind. Let me rephrase:

They also never used to give aircraft heritage names, period. Times change. Things change. There are only so many aircraft names out there. Deal with it.

Hey Matt,

I'm curious about why you dislike the Raytheon/Beech T-6. Not bashing you or anything, just plain ol' curious. (I'm an engineer; "curious" is in my nature!)

My (non-pilot) opinion is that the Texan II is a neat airplane that seems to be very capable. I've watched them fly, and they're quite maneuverable with a great initial climb. The USN and USAF pilots that I've spoken with at air shows seem to really like them. The Texan II is the next great "pilot maker" for the US military and some of our allies, and I think it really does honor the original Texan (definitely one of the world's all-time great "pilot makers" and one of my favorite warbirds).

Someone suggested that they could have called it the "Mentor II". That might have been confusing since T-34 Mentors were still in service when the Texan II was introduced.

_________________
Dean Hemphill, K5DH
Port Charlotte, Florida

They could've called it the Kansan II -- Built by Beech in WWII as the AT-11

_________________
Cheers!

Lance Jones

Or they COULD have called it "The Airplane Formerly Known as Pilatus PC-9"

"Mentor II" might be one thing, but "T-34" would be out of sequence. Not that something like that has stopped DoD before. Mentioning heritage names tho, & jumping both manufacturers & service branch, but Vought's Corsair lineage is not right. Technically, the Corsair should have been the Corsair II & the A-7 should have been the Corsair III since Vought's O2U was named Corsair originally. I guess they wanted everyone to forget that.

The Beech T-6 "dishonors" the mighty Six?

Matt, you're straight off your rocker here. While I understand that you don't agree with the naming process, it's ludicrous to make the jump to the Beech T-6 being a "dishonorable" part of the family.

Your rage here is inexplicable from where I'm sitting. I could maybe understand if the Beech T-6 turned out to be a complete turd of an airplane, or was somehow revealed to be wicked dangerous, or was just plain a bad airplane.

The facts, though, are that the Beech T-6 has all ready proven itself to be a fantastic trainer for both the USAF and USN. It has trained in the neighborhood of 8,000 pilots in the USAF alone in the short decade it has been on duty. It is slated to remain the primary USAF trainer for at least two more decades.

It is better in most ways than the Tweet (which I, personally, think was a phenomenal trainer and I did my primary training in) it replaced as the USAF's primary trainer. I have flown it several times, and find it to be very good both in terms of plain old stick and rudder, but also in terms of being able to build other airmanship attributes in student pilots (I say that as someone who trains students who graduate the T-6 training pipeline). In fact, the airplane has so much "untapped" capability that the USAF has numerous times wanted to expand the airplane's role in the USAF training pipeline and perform some of the portions of the advanced training syllabus, too.

So, while it's okay to disagree with the USAF's naming decision, and wish that somewhere along the line a different training aircraft that meets different criteria for naming conventions would be used. Hell, I agree that they should have used a different name, too, but it has nothing to do with the Beech T-6 somehow sullying the name of the North American Six.

To say that the Beech T-6 somehow 'dishonors' the original is to be completely ignorant of just what kind of trainer the current T-6 is.

_________________

You get there exactly the same way you get from F-107 to F-4.

_________________
Always looking for WW2 Half-Tracks and Parts.

I wonder if the F-35 Lightning II dishonours the P-38? Or the mighty English Electric Lightning?

Well then what would you do with Curtis Hawks for cryin' out loud?
PW-8, P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6, P-11, P-14, P-15, P-19, YP-17, P-20, P-21, P-22, P-23 P-36, XP-37, P-40, P-60 and P-62

The P-36 should have been the Hawk XVII?

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

shoulda called it the T-28 E or F maybe?

_________________
"WHAT ME WORRY?"

There's already a T-28F (Fennec)

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.