Warbird Information Exchange

You wouldn't be the first.
Go ahead and fly...if you crack up a B-25, you'll probably get cited because the aircraft wasn't a "N-B25" so you aren't legal in it.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

What he said

Another example to rant about ... If your so inclined. Me? I could give a s-h-i- ... .... Which should actually be stated, "I couldn't give a ...."


http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1491530/

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

...or even, "...if you're so inclined".

It never ends!

I understand all decisions have consequences, some more serious than others. I contend that the repercussions of leaving the hyphen out of an aircraft designation, in a post, on an Internet forum, are so negligible as to nearly prove my previous statement false.



I'm not sure asking a question is the same as offering a diagnosis. Never been accused of being a troll (or a doctor for that matter) before but I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later. Touchy much?

This may be a bit OCD as a topic, but I do think it's a worthy debate. Too much in history is being rewritten by those who don't understand the subtlety of such things. One thing has often made me wonder however - the subject of US Naval type designations, especially with reference to manufacturer code letters.

Most (for instance), do it in the the 'mission letter - type number - manufacturer code letter' order, so that we have, for instance F4F, F5F, F6F, F7F, F8F etc for the various Grumman Cats.

However, how did Ryan manage to follow suit with the XF2R(-1) but not the preceding FR-1 Fireball or the later XFR-4?

North American seems to have adopted a similar route with is Fury series (FJ-1, FJ-2, FJ-3 and FJ-4 (and FJ-5)), which I assume should have really been, 'F1J, F2J, F3J and F4J'. Ditto the AJ Savage. But why the apparent variety in the way these types were described?

It's worth noting that NAVAER 00-25Q-13 (Model Designation of Naval Aircraft) of October 1947 lists the manufacturer code letters, but makes no attempt to standardise the way they were applied. For info, the following were listed as manufacturers at that time:

B - Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle
C - Curtiss Wright Corporation, Columbus
D - Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monica Plant/Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., EI Segundo Plant
E - Edo Aircraft Corporation, College Point
F - Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., Bethpage
H - McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, St. Louis (formerly 'D')
J - North American Aviation Inc., Los Angeles
M - Glenn L. Martin Company, Baltimore
N - Naval Aircraft Factory, NAMC Philadelphia
O - Lockheed Aircraft Corp., (Factory "B") Burbank
Q - Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp., (Fairchild Aircraft Div.) Hagerstown
R - Ryan Aeronautical Company. San Diego
U - Chance Vought Aircraft Div. of United Aircraft Corp., Stratford
V - Lockheed Aircraft Corp., (Factory "A") (formerly Vega), Burbank
Y - Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp., (San Diego Div.) San Diego

The Grumman series should be FF F2F F3F F4F etc. F for fighter, F for Grumman with the '1' assumed, and the '2' etc only coming in when the same manufacture makes a subsequent type. The AJ is NAA's first attack design accepted. the next one would be A2J, then A3J etc

The FJ Furies are considered all to the same Type, with the -1,-2 being variations only

The Ryan starts with FR. the '-1' is a variation on the FR, not a new designation. Next Ryan, as you say, is XF2R. the dash after the R indicates a variation on the the basic airframe, not a new type, so XFR-4 is a variation on FR, otherwise it would be F4R and make you wonder what happened to the F3R.

There are bound to be screw ups and politics. The current F-35 is a prime example. It was a follow up to the X-35 demonstrator, but was popularly termed F-35 instead of (I think) F-24 which is where it SHOULD fall. The B-50 should have been the B-29E or F, but there would have been no funding for more "old" B-29's bombers, but yes for the "new" B-50

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Seems as usual we're playing with fire here and pushing the limits of civility - and probably in a few cases during this thread, stepping a bit past them. I think that is a shame. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and at the very least we should all respect that fact. I happen to agree with JohnB, quemerford, etc. but everyone knows how common opinions are - just like something else, everyone has one.

Still, here is another example of the difference a hyphen can make - although I will grant the fact that it makes no iota of difference in maintaining or preserving the aircraft itself (however, I don't remember ever seeing that as a mandatory criterion for posting a comment here.)

A Grumman S2F (aka “Stoof”) is not the same thing as a Grumman S-2F. The hyphen does make a difference there. The first (old) designation required a sub-type dash number; an S2F-1 was later re-designated as an S-2A and the S2F-3 became the S-2D after 1962 – and note that there wasn’t always a one-to-one alphanumeric correlation. The post-1962 designation S-2F was used to replace the earlier designation of S2F-1S1 which was a very specialized sub-type with unique Julie/Jezebel ASW equipment.

Also, in regard to a much bigger difference - an F4D is not the same thing as an F-4D. Note the "F4D" currently registered to the Collings Foundation is NOT a Douglas F4D "Skyray" (aka "Ford") delta-wing Navy interceptor from the 1950's; it is a USAF variant of the McDonnell (before the merger with /take-over by Douglas) F-4D "Phantom II" from the 1960's that was originally designated as the F4H series by the Navy and F-110 by the USAF.

Similarly, if the hyphens are that important to a "correct" model designation, then it must be just as important to represent and interpret the letters and numbers on each side of the hyphen correctly too. IMHO.

To wit:

“Vought” FG-1D Corsair = WRONG!

An FG-1D is not a “Vought” Corsair because it was not “built” by Vought; while the “Corsair” in general is accurately characterized as a Vought design, a particular FG-1D Corsair aircraft is accurately identified only as a “Goodyear” because it was built actually by Goodyear. Same with the F2G-1 and F2G-2 Super Corsairs, which were the second fighter series produced by Goodyear for the Navy.

“Vought” F3A-1 Corsair = WRONG!

An F3A-1 is also not a “Vought” Corsair because it was not “built” by Vought either; it is a Brewster F3A-1 Corsair because it was built actually by Brewster.

“Grumman” TBM-3E Avenger = WRONG!

A TBM-3E is not a “Grumman” Avenger because it was not built by Grumman; it matters not one iota who designed it and it is an Eastern Aircraft or General Motors TBM-3E Avenger specifically because that is who actually built it. An Avenger that was actually built by Grumman was/is designated as a TBF series; without the “F” manufacturer code, it is not a Grumman. (I dare anyone to post a photo of a valid or legitimate "Grumman" data tag in a TBM series aircraft.)

“Grumman” FM-2 Wildcat = WRONG!

An FM-2 is also not a “Grumman” Wildcat because it was not built by Grumman; it too is an Eastern Aircraft or General Motors FM-2 Wildcat specifically because that is who actually built it. A Wildcat built actually by Grumman was/is designated as an F4F series aircraft; without the secondary “F” manufacturer code, it is not a Grumman.

The whole bloody reason that the Navy had those two different designations was to differentiate between the two different manufacturers. To ignore or dismiss that fact as supposedly irrelevant is IMHO both careless and irresponsible - and also does a major disservice to all of the folks who worked for those "other" companies contributing so much to the war effort, etc. It disrespects them and denies them proper credit for what they did - again IMHO.

Also, while I'm at it…

“Grumman” SCAN 30 Widgeon = WRONG!

A model “Type 30” Widgeon is also not a “Grumman” because it was not built by Grumman and it was actually built in France by S.C.A.N. (aka Societe' Construction Airo-Navales) therefore the “make” (aka mfg.) is actually and properly identified as SCAN.

I personally attribute a lot of these kinds of issues (i.e. mistakes) to FAA bureaucrats who both don't know and don't care about the differences and/or distinctions. I believe both that we should never help out, support, or contribute to such bureaucratic ignorance and also that we (those of us who do know better - whether we are "experts" or not) have a higher responsibility to make the effort to do and get things "right" because it matters for that fact alone.

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

Boeing F4B:



McDonnell F-4B:



Big Difference!

Also note that just because Douglas merged with/bought out McDonnell and later Boeing bought out McDonnell-Douglas does NOT mean that the F-4B Phantom II (2nd photo above) is now a "Boeing" F-4B because Boeing did not build it...

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

Another spelling pet peeve I just ran across for the umpteen gazillionth time (on a warbird news site, no less): It's FLAK not FLACK. There is no "C" in the word. "Flak" is short for "Fliegerabwehrkanone," literally "pilot warding-off cannon." Gotta love the way the Germans build massive single words for things.

SN

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

You guys must be really bored.

_________________
Matt

Yep! not much going on today ...

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Speaking of an F4B ... ever see one this shinny?


F4B-4 assigned to Naval Air Station (NAS) Anacostia in Washington D.C

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

While that is somewhat true regarding what is for me a very "slow" day without much to do at work, being "bored" is not really the issue in my case in regard to this subject or conversation. I am simply not very tolerant of sloppiness or apathy in general, neither of which I believe should be allowed to exist especially in aviation. As the man said:

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

For a more relevant example, last year I had a major repair job on a Cessna 182T G1000. While we were replacing the firewall and doing other major airframe repairs, the engine was sent out for a Sudden Stoppage Inspection (SSI.) When it came back, the logbook entry for it stated that in addition to several other AD's the shop in OK had complied with AD 96-23-10 and AD 92-15-05. Mind you we're talking about a Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 engine, but those two AD's are applicable to Pratt & Whitney JT3D engines and Fokker F28 series aircraft respectively. I suspect that the guy who did that paperwork simply made 2 typographical errors - which I'd have to characterize more as "significant" rather than "minor." However, he apparently also did not bother to proof-read or double-check his work, and in my "book" that means he was guilty of both sloppiness and apathy. It also necessarily begs the question, what other things did he or others in his shop overlook, skip over, neglect, or miss during the SSI of that engine?

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"