Metadiscussion: "Hercules C-130" etc

Your point is well taken.
Some might think that the C-130 is a Hercules variant, and there might be a C-190 version (rather like a Fiesta 1100 and 1300).
They’d think the C-190 came with a larger engine, sunroof, and nicer seats.:D

BTW: We can’t assume everyone here knows what we’re talkiing about.
Last year on the “other” forum l someone asked what the “B” in B-17 stood for.
Sadly, it wasn’t a school boy, he was a long-time member with more than a hundred posts to his credit.

Erm no it dosen’t as the US designation system dosen’t work that way.

Precisely my point. I know and you know how the system works, but getting the name and designation the wrong way round makes the latter look like a variant/mark number to the uninitiated.

so “Hercules C-130” makes it look as though there might be Hercules C-140 or C-150 variants.

Erm no it dosen’t as the US designation system dosen’t work that way.
If I was to write an article or book for worldwide distribution I would use both Hercules and C-130, as the type is widely known as both and using both ids allows most readers to know what you are talking about.
The fact is is that the journos in question actually don’t have much wrong, it’s not like they have called it a Hercules C.130, C130, or a C-131 and they haven’t called it a Hercules Lockheed, so your Astra Vauxhall argument dosen’t stand up either.
The most you can level at the writers here is that they have got Hercules and C-130 the wrong way around, big deal, or not as the case actually is.
I’m afraid that I have learnt more from Roy Conyers Nesbit than I have the OP.

I’m with the OP on this. OK, it’s not earth-shatteringly important, but by the same token it’s so easy to get right. Journalists seem to love to portray themselves as authoratative on everything they report on, and yet all they need to do to get this kind of thing right (as well as identifying the aircraft correctly in the first place) is to check on Tinterweb or even pop into WH Smiths and spend a few quid on a Bumper Book Of Planes. After all, if they were talking about cars, they wouldn’t say Astra Vauxhall or Focus Ford. Putting the designation after the name also makes it look like it indicates the version of that type, ie just as there was a Lightning (or Lightening as so many insist on calling it) F.1, F.3, F.6 etc , so “Hercules C-130” makes it look as though there might be Hercules C-140 or C-150 variants.

They should know better…
The Associated Press has a frequently updated stylebook…which should be in every journalists desk (at least in America) and there is a section on aircraft designations
(as well as military titles, ranks, organizations). No, it’s not critical, but it does show a level of professionalism to get technical details correct.

Interesting thread! Not for the content where I have to agree with the “pointless”, etc, comments, but for the fact that all the posts have spelling (but not all!), grammar, and syntax of a high order!! Makes a very pleasant change to see a series of exchanges (regardless of the fact that the subject is “niff-naff & trivia”) so well written. Thank you all!
Resmoroh

Pointless discussion ….but FWIW the ICAO designator for the Lockheed Hercules – whatever the model(excluding the C-130J) is C130.(C-130J is C30J)
Similarly for most other makes/models of aircraft.

Does it really matter that much as long as the facts are basically correct?

Um, a C-130 is a Herc is it not? Who cares is a journo misses out a dash, it was substantially correct, which is not too bad considering current state of the media….

Bit of a pointless post really….

Am I missing something here or is this the most pedantic and pointless thread that I have ever wasted my time reading?
Can you really be that knarked about journalists getting designations and names in absolutely the correct order. I’ve worked with servicemen who use the same names.
The F-4 was called the Phantom II in US Navy service, apart from the F-4K/M being the British Phantom, and is the Hercules not the C-130K/J and the C-47 the USAAF designation for the Dakota?

No you are not missing anything pagen, this is the most pedantic and pointless thread ever 😀

Looks like someone left the door from the Modern Mil teeny snakepit open briefly.

Am I missing something here or is this the most pedantic and pointless thread that I have ever wasted my time reading?
Can you really be that knarked about journalists getting designations and names in absolutely the correct order. I’ve worked with servicemen who use the same names.
The F-4 was called the Phantom II in US Navy service, apart from the F-4K/M being the British Phantom, and is the Hercules not the C-130K/J and the C-47 the USAAF designation for the Dakota?

Perhaps too there is an element of appealing to the most amount of people. Im sure generally more people will know what a ‘Hercules’ is than a ‘C-130’ so Hercules is put primarily but is that back up but the designation to give the statement more authority.

Lets face it, if its the press then the picture above the C-130 caption will probably be of an A320 or something anyway!

MH

Did you really think that a journalist would get a briefing note with every tidbit of info he needs? Then think again.

Journalists will always make mistakes, because they’re human. I’d be really happy if the mistakes i make at work would remain limited to the anal level you discribe above.

Journos are (usually) generalists, with (hopefully a lot of) general knowledge. You’re whining from a specialists point of view.

Is there somewhere that clearly lists the correct term for writing down every aircraft type, not everyone knows everything, how often is the F4 correctly labeled the Phantom II?

Can’t blame them for trying, we all make mistakes from time to time, can’t remember the book I was reading, something about aircraft and mentioned more than once that they are stored in a hanger.

I was watching frontline battle machines the other night and they called it the Hercules C130 on there which I thought was either researchers wanting to get to the pub or the guy doing the visuals did not think it mattered.

But what is in a name let alone a designation?

Curlyboy