Multiple official names for one type

presumably the same will apply to the F-35 – I doubt we will call it ‘Lightning II’ (shouldn’t that be ‘Lightning III’ in our case ??) – although ‘Dave’ is a great name for it.

Ken

I suggest Basil as in Basil Fawlty is more appropriate. 😀

…. and what a difference a hyphen can make……

An F4F is a Grumman Wildcat, but an F-4F is a German Phantom.

Then there’s F4 itself…..

F4B – from Boeing
F4D – from Douglas
F4F – from Grumman
F4G – Corsair from Goodyear
F4H – from Mc Donnell
F4U – Corsair from Chance Vought

(Have I missed any ?? – I know its the US Navy assigning a letter for manufacturers)

… or how about….

A-6E
E-6A
EA-6

OK – I’ll stop and get a life…..

Ken

PS – Don’t get me started about the use of the letter V for Heavier-than-Air – CVN-65, VFA-100 etc.

Wrong. FG Corsair from Goodyear, followed by the F2G Super Corsair.

The RAF apparently did receive six A-36s ex-USAAF stocks in Italy, where they were used for long range fighter-recce missions. Earlier, in North Africa, four P-51s (not P-51As) had been so handed over and used.

Lockheed had originally dubbed the P-38 aircraft Atalanta in the company tradition of naming planes after mythological and celestial figures.
It was again the British who named it the Lightning.
As for the A-36/P-51 debate, I have seen in publications photos of A-36’s in RAF service?
We received one for evaluation, however P-51A’s that look similar the ” Mustang MK I” were of course.

Ken,
Excellent and a good summary of what’s wrong with such a system – one letter out of place and it’s a whole different aircraft – often enough in the same era.

QUOTE “Neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names for any P-51 variant – they were all Mustangs if they were named at all”
Actually the official name for the A-36 was ” Apache”, the unofficial name was ” Invader” although most called it a Mustang, apart from the Germans who called it the “screaming helldiver”
USAF link- http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=493

You’d think they’d get it right, wouldn’t you? It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I got tired of the bull people peddled without evidence and aggressive assertion about this topic and dropped it.

(Any reference to “the enemy called it X” without an enemy document to prove it up is probably bull, too. ‘Whispering Death’ for the Beau, disappointing though it is for people to accept, certainly is. See the discussion and ref to the British propaganda document that proves it on this very forum.)

Regards,

presumably the same will apply to the F-35 – I doubt we will call it ‘Lightning II’ (shouldn’t that be ‘Lightning III’ in our case ??) – although ‘Dave’ is a great name for it.

Ken

Why “Dave”?

…. and what a difference a hyphen can make……

An F4F is a Grumman Wildcat, but an F-4F is a German Phantom.

Then there’s F4 itself…..

F4B – from Boeing
F4D – from Douglas
F4F – from Grumman
F4G – Corsair from Goodyear
F4H – from Mc Donnell
F4U – Corsair from Chance Vought

(Have I missed any ?? – I know its the US Navy assigning a letter for manufacturers)

… or how about….

A-6E
E-6A
EA-6

OK – I’ll stop and get a life…..

Ken

PS – Don’t get me started about the use of the letter V for Heavier-than-Air – CVN-65, VFA-100 etc.

QUOTE “Neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names for any P-51 variant – they were all Mustangs if they were named at all”
Actually the official name for the A-36 was ” Apache”, the unofficial name was ” Invader” although most called it a Mustang, apart from the Germans who called it the “screaming helldiver”
USAF link- http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=493

On a slight tangential……

One thing that has always fascinated me is the tendency for the US to use the letter/number to describe a type, whereas we Brits tend to use the name…

For example……

TBM, Avenger…

Or even Tarpon? 🙂

Got to be careful about this, as Ken’s noted;

One thing that has always fascinated me is the tendency for the US to use the letter/number to describe a type, whereas we Brits tend to use the name…

And that goes a lot further. The whole approach to naming (mostly military) aircraft in the US is fundamentally different to the UK (or Commonwealth), and ‘names’ have completely different status – as do some of the words.

For instance to many Americans a ‘nickname’ is what we’d call the aircraft’s given, official name – Spitfire or Mustang, and not ‘Spit’ or ‘Stang’ as we understand nickname. (I’m looking at you, John Boyle to correct or elaborate..)

Further, the F-111 was actually, unusually and officially named Aardvark at the type’s retirement from US service. Yet Aardvark was sponsored and driven by General Dynamics before the type entered service. So you can say a USAF F-111 is an Aardvark, correctly, but that’s also an anachronism. Bizarre.

As Ken’s noted, Americans in the military and enthusiasts love their designations, even when it’s (IMHO) pointlessly confusing – it’s always a Avenger, whether it’s a TBM or a TBF – let alone the alphabet soup you get if trying to cover what we call a Douglas Dakota or a Grumman Goose. For civilians there’s the Waco designation system – the US equivalent to pounds shillings and pence, because the explanations for both start with “It’s really very simple. Wah~wah~wah….” 😀

But on the flipside, while British enthusiasts can be (over) wed to aircraft serials (starting mystery meat threads here that ‘XY357 has done something’) US ‘buffs’ always prefer a Mustang’s name over a serial or N Number even if it takes a para to explain which ‘Old Crow’ it is they’re referring to!

Then there’s “the maker”. We have no problem with ascribing it to the design authority; it’s a Grumman Wildcat. But you talk about a General Motors FM2 over in the USA, and magazines like Practical Mechanics in the 30s and 40 wouldn’t name an aircraft, or manufacturer at all.

I did manage to get my head around the A-36’s names story, but I’ve lost the thread, and I suspect the will to live if I tried to recap it.

Regards,

On a slight tangential……

One thing that has always fascinated me is the tendency for the US to use the letter/number to describe a type, whereas we Brits tend to use the name…

For example……

They would say ‘F-4’, while we would call it a Phantom.

Others….

C-130, Hercules
P-51, Mustang
B-17, Fortress
TBM, Avenger
PBY, Catalina
C-47, Dakota

…. the list could go on……

Must be something in the national psyche ????

Although we are now going the US route with, say the C-17 – we rarely call it a ‘Globemaster II’ – presumably the same will apply to the F-35 – I doubt we will call it ‘Lightning II’ (shouldn’t that be ‘Lightning III’ in our case ??) – although ‘Dave’ is a great name for it.

Ken

Thanks chaps! Yes it is difficult to separate the official and unofficial, or industry-sponsored, names. I’ll keep digging.

A couple more that have surfaced:

F-111: Raven, Aardvark

( Obviously the former for the EF and the latter in the last year of service )

B-45: Tornado, Flying Cartographer

( yes, the latter was official for the RB! )

Per FM30-30, Canberra was indeed official for the B-57 and variants so I’ll strike that from the list.

I believe part of the B-57 deal was that Martin would try to promote the name Canberra in the US, but of course it was never officially called that in the USAF.

Neither Apache nor Invader were ever official names for any P-51 variant – they were all Mustangs if they were named at all.

I rather doubt the Counter Invader as ever being official.

I also believe, although can’t say so certainly, that the B-57 did not have an official USAF name either.

The Thunderstreak was a different aircraft that adopted the F-84 designation to escape funding restrictions. As for the Thunderflash, I guess that bad habits are catching.

I suspect the Spectre and Kiowa Warrior, if ever official, were limited to specialised variants.