Which aircraft had most varients?

C130?????

… and Meteors 😉

Dan

…and the Hunters 😉

There’s always the Canberra, if you include the export versions and the Martin-built examples.

And that’s a much more useful question. An aircraft changes designation when it suits a paper-pusher or accountant for it to do so, and almost never when it makes sense from an engineering or maintenance point of view.

There were a couple of examples when ‘on the shelf’ names/designations which had been passed were re-used for a real aircraft by the USAAF/C to ensure they got a ‘plane. A new name or designation would require new funding permission, or public scrutiny – much better to slide it under a previous code and get on with it. Once was for parsimony, another time was for a top secret and revolutionary engine-powered type, IIRC.

Then of course the trick was sometimes played the other way round in the USA in order to give the impression that the service was actually getting a more up-to-date type than was the case – I’m thinking of the B29/B50 in particular.
Then in U.K one could possibly argue some similar cases exist ( e.g Lancaster Mk5 /Lincoln etc…)

How about the Miles M2 series of Hawk trainers?

New variant or type?

I guess this is a worthy point to raise. The B-52 first entered service in 1954 and has been continually upgraded to such a degree that the current models bear only structural similarities to the original.

How many mores modifications are going to be made before it becomes the B-53?

I guess the same could be said of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf-109s, during WWII they each underwent many significant changes yet never became known as a new aircraft.

The Lancasters that flew on the Dambusters raid in 1943 had significant changes to the aircrafts structure to carry the Upkeep bomb, the installation of the specialised release mechanism and the addition of searchlights to enable the aircraft to fly at the necessary 60 feet for successful dropping of the bomb. Yet this aircraft was still known as a Lancaster, why didn’t these changes warrent a change of aircraft model rather than simply variant?

This ties in nicely with something that has bugged me for years. When does a ‘varient’ become a seperate type.

And that’s a much more useful question. An aircraft changes designation when it suits a paper-pusher or accountant for it to do so, and almost never when it makes sense from an engineering or maintenance point of view.

There were a couple of examples when ‘on the shelf’ names/designations which had been passed were re-used for a real aircraft by the USAAF/C to ensure they got a ‘plane. A new name or designation would require new funding permission, or public scrutiny – much better to slide it under a previous code and get on with it. Once was for parsimony, another time was for a top secret and revolutionary engine-powered type, IIRC.

Hmmm…

This ties in nicely with something that has bugged me for years. When does a ‘varient’ become a seperate type.

For instance are the airbus A319/A320/A321 – which differ primarily by the amount the fuselage has been stretched are they all the same type, seprerate types or even the A320 family? Are the DC9 and its derivatives the MD80 and Boeing 717 seperate types?

Equally give the huge developement and lack of commonality between them are the Mk1 Spitfire and Seafire FR47 really the same type?

I don’t think there is any ‘deffinitive’ answer, but whats in a name anyway?

Steve.

Probably something mass built by the Chinese as no two are the same.

…As JDK says, not always as easy as looking at the Mk number. The Hurricane MkI had something like 24 differences (some as major as metal or canvas wings) without getting a different designation. Other aircraft on the other hand (Macchi Mc202 Folgore, Vought F4U for example) had different designations simply by having been built in different factories.

The Fairey Battle had, I think, (as a bomber) four Mks but these corresponded to the designation of the Merlin powering it and there were no airframe differences. The Blackburn Skua had two Mks but one of these was for the two prototypes (which differed in a number of significant ways from each other) and there would be those who would tell you that not two airframes were identical – does this mean there were 192 versions of the Skua?!

More seriously, in terms of the number of stages of evolution, I struggle to think of an aircraft that has had more alterations to its airframe and powerplant than the Spitfire. On the other hand, there’s also the question of when does something become a different aircraft? I believe the Spitfire Mk21 was going at one stage to be called the ‘Valiant’ as it shared so little with its forebear.

So we’re back to the start. The Supermarine Swift and Gloster Javelin both had an unusual number of versions for peacetime aircraft that didn’t serve for all that long. The Huey sounds likely – and how many versions of B52 have their been?

Bit of an indefinable question, although a good one – what’s a ‘version’ or mark? A different designation / letter?

Doesn’t always apply. Certain aircraft changed to a new name for a more minor change than others changed a designation letter.

Apples and oranges IMHO.

A good question to explore though!

The Huey (Bell 204,205, 209, 212, 214, 412), would be right up there as the new USMC AC finally made it to the “Z” version.
Some versions…
Short fuselage (Bell 204, UH-1 A, B, C, E, M, F and P) (with at least three engine sizes/types),
Longer fuselage…Bell 205 (UH-1D, H, etc) single and twin-eninge variants…with both two and four bladed rotor systems.
and the AH “Cobra” versions with a narrow front fueslage…both single and twin engines and with two or four rotors.
BTW: it’s been in production for 50 years…

C-130.

when i was young i always got confused with the way we gave designations to exported aircraft.. types like Hunter Fmk-53, what was the Saudi Lightnings Fmk-55 or something.. i used to think how come the RAF uses Fmk-6s while we sold mk-55s to the Saudis 😀 😀 😀 .. why did the MOD use such designations…

The Lightning Mk 55 had some operation diffences to the F6, like it could carry bombs for starters. Most export aircraft have different equipment fits, hence the new mark numbers, plus the prefix number indicates its for export as most of those aircraft will be allocated a British XXNNN serial for their test flights before delivery.

when i was young i always got confused with the way we gave designations to exported aircraft.. types like Hunter Fmk-53, what was the Saudi Lightnings Fmk-55 or something.. i used to think how come the RAF uses Fmk-6s while we sold mk-55s to the Saudis 😀 😀 😀 .. why did the MOD use such designations…

The Wright Flyer 😀
Sorry.

that is a very good question… i would think for WW2 types it would be between the Spitfire, Mosquito, ME-109, JU-88.. for jet types i would think the MIG-21 would be head and shoulders above the rest, though i may be wrong.. 🙂

43 Marks of Mossie (of which 35 marks of which were actually built and operated).

30 Marks of Spitfire and Seafire (not counting wing or role sub versions)

Mig 21 – 50 different prototypes and production marks (this inculdes variants built in China) and upgrades.

The ‘109 would be pretty high on the list, since not only were there different variants of the basic aircraft, but there were also numerous designations depending on what armament was fitted.

The Spitfire is oft-quoted as being some 40-odd variants….

that is a very good question… i would think for WW2 types it would be between the Spitfire, Mosquito, ME-109, JU-88.. for jet types i would think the MIG-21 would be head and shoulders above the rest, though i may be wrong.. 🙂