Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Thu Aug 07, 2025 12:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:13 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1133
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
The American forces apparently called the Lockheed Hudson a PBO. I have worked out that the P and B must stand for Patrol Bomber but what does the O stand for? Is it Observation? Or was O the letter assigned to Lockheed, like in TBF the F = Grumman, etc?

Also, was PBO a designation assigned by the US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Army Air Force or an overall US body?

US three-letter codes are far too confusing for me, I like to stick to good old names like Hudson.

Thanks.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 10:05 am
Posts: 972
Location: Mesa, Az
Don't know about "O" but I believe the Navy used "V" to designate Lockheed, such as PV-2 and P2-V.

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:16 pm
Posts: 382
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Dave Homewood wrote:
The American forces apparently called the Lockheed Hudson a PBO. I have worked out that the P and B must stand for Patrol Bomber but what does the O stand for? Is it Observation? Or was O the letter assigned to Lockheed, like in TBF the F = Grumman, etc?

Also, was PBO a designation assigned by the US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Army Air Force or an overall US body?

US three-letter codes are far too confusing for me, I like to stick to good old names like Hudson.

Thanks.


The Navy does things their own unique way...best and easiest explanation that I have seen was done by Randy Wilson here
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/usnavy.htm
PBO translates into Patrol-Bomber constructed at Lockheed Plant B


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:52 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
O = USN designation for Observation [EDIT: Except when it's the third letter, where it's the manufacturer's code, as flyingsailor's explained above].

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/usnavy.htm

Dave Homewood wrote:
The American forces....

You've lumped a couple of different things there - no such thing at the time as a unified 'American forces'. The US Army (inc Army Air Corps/Forces) and US Navy had separate designations systems (often different for the same 'airplane').

Military Model 14s were known (in all cases) as Hudsons across the RAAF, RAAF, RNZAF, SAAF and stations west, while the same type was known as: A-28 or A-29; AT-18 or AT-18A, C-63 (trooper, none made / used) C111 (for a handful of ex-Dutch model 14s) as well as the aforementioned PBO. Confused? you will be, in the next episode of Aircraft Designations - sorry, Soap.

It remains a puzzle to me why our American enthusiasts have a major allergy to serial numbers and type names, but insist on using a generally over-precise* over-complex and inconsistent designation system, and a warbird's personal name even when it's particularly vague / duplicated. Meanwhile the Commonwealth tend to ignore designations, use type names and serials rather than individual warbird names... Then there's the British descision that Classical Education was dying out and everyone was using Arabic numbers rather than Roman for aeroplane marks, so in 1947 dropping XIX for Spitfire Pr.19 and avoiding Seafire 47 in Roman completely. (Seafire XLVII, since you ask, Centurion.) Why cherry-pick some names or numbers and ignore other names or numbers? :shock:

Regards,

*They all usually get called T-6, C-47s or JRFs even when they're not, but one of the myriad designations for these two standard basic airframes - but they're all Harvards or Daks in Commonwealth service or Geese to everyone.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Last edited by JDK on Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:07 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Bit more on the earlier USAAC/F A- designations for Model 14s here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=FW_50w ... BO&f=false

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:18 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1133
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
So now I have been told that the O stands for the aircraft having been built inn the Lockheed Plant B and also that the O stands for Observation, the latter of which is what I thought it was as I had found that designator in my research though it was not connected to PBO when i found it.

Which is it? Patrol Bomber Observation?

And from this I assume it is a US Navy designation?

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:36 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Dave Homewood wrote:
So now I have been told that the O stands for the aircraft having been built inn the Lockheed Plant B and also that the O stands for Observation,

Sorry, my error - it's for Lockheed Plant B as 'O' occurs in the third place in the designator. It's 'O' for Observation only in the earlier part. flyingsailor and Randy's quoted ref explain. Apologies! I'll edit my earlier post to correct...
Quote:
And from this I assume it is a US Navy designation?

Don't assume, check. ;) The ref flyingsailor and I both posted (WIX member Randy's article) explains this minefield and gives the lists. PBO is a USN Designation, and the only US Navy designation for the type. US Army Hudsons were A-16 etc, as per my list above and the book ref I gave.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:44 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1133
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
Thanks James, I had looked at the links and had already done a lot of googling trying to work it out, but find it all a bit confusing. Isn't asking on Wix considered as 'checking;? :)

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:57 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Dave Homewood wrote:
Thanks James, I had looked at the links and had already done a lot of googling trying to work it out, but find it all a bit confusing.

Randy's article made good sense to me (thanks Randy!) and gets bonus points by not pretending it's a sensible, foolproof system. If it takes 15 pages in a book to explain properly, as he says...
Quote:
Isn't asking on Wix considered as 'checking;?

Yeah, for a given value of 'checking' and my first answer is correct for a given value of 'correct'. :shock:

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:14 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am
Posts: 7961
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA.
And, when THAT makes sense, sit down and figure out just how many designators were applied to the basic DC-3 design depending upon who originally owned it (airlines not the military), engines, door locations, equipment, configuration of the cabin, then there's the Naval desigantions-----and foreign services that used the 'GOONEY', Soviet copies both licensed and pirated, or had the designator changed so 'it won't appear to be a Yankee airplane' like the Japanese built versions-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:44 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 5:42 pm
Posts: 6884
Location: The Goldfields, Victoria, Australia
Indeed, Inspector as I touched on above. For instance, they're Dakotas across the British Commonwealth, whether in RAF, RN, RAAF, RAN, RNZAF, SAAF, IAF, RCAF, or RCN (and others) service. If we take an average of two designations per service (a low measure of the USN USAAF alphabet soup) that's one name instead of SEVENTEEN more designations.

FWIW, it makes sense to me if a type is built or used by a separate nation it gets a different designation (names make more sense retained, assuming the language can cope - the problem with car names). If a type is radically different in equipment for a job, certainly it need be different; but a grab-bag of alphabet soup for different arms using the same machine, or minor equipment differences? It's just silly.

But then I can only remember one of the two structural difference between a Supermarine Seagull V and a Walrus... :lol:

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:20 pm
Posts: 863
Location: Lincoln, California
Then, of course, the Navy PB-1W and PB-1G (Army B-17), neither of which were built by Boeing but would be implied by the designation. But, a Boeing design, just like the Vought Corsair built by Vought was the F4U but the same airplane built by Goodyear was the FG. Clear to me.

_________________
Scott Thompson
Aero Vintage Books
http://www.aerovintage.com
WIX Subscriber Since July 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:48 pm
Posts: 841
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
OK, here is a bit of clarification on the "O" in PBO. Prior to 1962 the USN aircraft designation system was unique and actually was quite informative. The last letter in an aircraft type indicated the manufacturer. For example "A" in F2A Buffalo meant it was constructed by Brewster, "B" stood for Boeing(as in F4B), "C" stood for Curtiss (as in SB2C), and so on. "O" was assigned to Lockheed as in PBO Hudson, JO Electra, R5O Lodestar, and "V" was assigned to Vega, a subsidiary of Lockheed, who constructed the PV Ventura. When WWII ended Lockheed formally absorbed Vega Aircraft Corp into their organization and dropped the usage of the "O" for naval aircraft and picked up the "V" usage from the Vega merge for all future naval aircraft (e.g P2V Nepune, R7V Super Connie, WV Warning Star). The manufactiurers code letter was assigned by the Dept of the Navy.

Note:As there were more naval aircraft manufacturers than letters in the alphabet multiple firms would sometimes be assigned the same last letter! For example PV Ventura was made by Vega, SNV Valiant was made by Vultee and the PBV Catalina (Canso) was made by Canadian-Vickers!! Presumably it was to keep the enemy confused. Must have been a good strategy because many people are still confused 70 years later!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:17 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am
Posts: 7961
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA.
One of my all time pre MacNamara designators was the FAIRCHILD C-119 in U.S. MARINES use as the R4Q2

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:44 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1133
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
I understand it a lot better now, thanks for all the posts. I still maintain it was a crazy, confusing system. Why not simply use the manufacturer's name like the rest of the world does rather than a code letter? That's the navy for you I guess.

_________________
The Wings Over New Zealand Forum http://rnzaf.proboards.com

The Wings Over New Zealand Show http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/WONZ_Show.html

Wings Over Cambridge http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group