This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Re: bringing specification to the table

Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:11 pm

Rajay wrote:
And too the USAAC / USAAF / USAF may not have made a “big deal” about it, but they certainly did in fact distinguish between different manufacturers of the same types of aircraft just as the Navy did too...


Which I fully acknowledge with the NA in my F-86 block number example.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The original post question was about ID-ing aircraft for display.
Anyone who has done FAA paperwork knows that the legal designations of aircraft are sometimes very different (usually following modifications or mergers) than expected.
The fact remains that aircraft are generally known by one designation....you might get brownie points from anorak and rivet counters for calling a "Stearman" PT-17 a Boeing, or a B-17 a Douglas, or a B-24 a Ford, but you won't be making yourself clear to the general public...or to many pilots.

Re: bringing specification to the table

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:07 am

Thanks for everyone chiming in. My original post was more about making some effort to distinguish the differences in the different variants of some aircraft.

Yes in a example of the Boeing B-17, lets say you have one on display at your museum. You could write on the placard, "Boeing B-17G" This B-17 blaa blaa blaa explanation etc etc. The Boeing B-17 was also built under contract by Vega and Douglas, and this particular B-17 on display was built by Vega". It's not hard, and pretty simple to hit all the points without over doing it.

As far as the F-86 is concerned, its a good example how one airframe can branch out to almost different aircraft, and there is too much generalization in the type, and that's a bit of disservice to educational history. Its just my intent to briefly note the differences.

The B-29/B-50. Almost the same aircraft, but enough difference in the B-50 to warrant a different aircraft. Even though the new designation was more about beating budget issues then anything.

Re: bringing specification to the table

Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:18 am

I would also like to mention that when at all possible I try to use pre-62 Navy aircraft designations. Post 62 designations are way too confusing for one thing. But also because lots of people are not even aware of the early designation system and I rarely see it used, even on the WIX forum. :shock: On a third note, its interesting and one sure has to study to remember all the numbers and letters!

F4H, SNB, F7U, R3Y, F9F-2, F9F-6, F2H, HUP, HRP, etc........ :rolleyes:
Post a reply