A-1 (AD) Skyraider, A2D Skyshark, SB2D-1 (BTD-1) Destroyer

[ysi_maniac]

With Allison V.3420

[Pablo1965]

Nice Idea, and now, I suppose the next step, will be put the engine, in central position like in the XP75

[ysi_maniac]

Tricycle undercarriage

[Chris707]

Per the earlier post on the Destroyer, a quick take on the prototype:

[NARSES2]

Having built the single seater the multi place one looks far better

[Dizzyfugu]

Recently had the "vision" of a Skyraider with two wing-mounted engines (Tigercat?) and a solid nose (with lots of guns)... maybe with a tricycle undercarriage... Could be a mean thing, but just a vague idea so far. 

[famvburg]

Kinda like the Douglas competitor to the Grumman Tracker here. Third post down. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,584.0.html

[jcf]

Recently had the "vision" of a Skyraider with two wing-mounted engines (Tigercat?) and a solid nose (with lots of guns)... maybe with a tricycle undercarriage... Could be a mean thing, but just a vague idea so far. 

So perhaps something along the lines of the Grumman Design 66/XTSF-1, which was a torpedo bomber based on the Tigercat?
With bombs in the belly and an A-26 style gun-nose in place of the radar.

[PR19_Kit]

I can see why they cancelled it, the designation was just TOO complicated to remember. 

[rickshaw]

I can see why they cancelled it, the designation was just TOO complicated to remember. 

I have the same feeling about all USN pre-1960 designations, all native Russian designations and all Japanese Imperial Naval aircraft designations!   

[jcf]

Really Brian?, I find the classic USN designation system pretty straight forward.
Ditto the IJN alpha-numeric system, the Imperial calendar system on the other
hand, oi what a headache.

[PR19_Kit]

Really Brian?, I find the classic USN designation system pretty straight forward.
Ditto the IJN alpha-numeric system, the Imperial calendar system on the other
hand, oi what a headache.

Other interpretations are available........... 

[rickshaw]

Yes, really, Jon.  I much prefer a simple name and mark system, with perhaps a designation letter as to role.

[NARSES2]

Really Brian?, I find the classic USN designation system pretty straight forward.

Once I took the time to understand it then it became quite easy (thank you Putnams) , but before that  

As for that Design 66 then I like that and it's given me the germ of an idea so thanks for posting Jon

[pyro-manic]

The issue with the USN system is that they got a bit carried away with role-letters in some instances. I don't know the Japanese system, but AFAIK it works in much the same way. I do prefer a name/mark system like Rickshaw, though. The American obsession with type designations seems a bit unnecessary to me, using several entirely different designators for variants of the same aircraft. But then the Americans generally seem to see names as of less importance.