So, I hit the jackpot the other day and now we have the origin of the "Recruit" name for the PT-22. First the announcement of the contest:
Ryan Flying Reporter wrote:
DEFENSE BOND PRIZE IN PT-22 CONTEST
ARMY WANTS A NAME FOR THE PT-22
CONTEST WINNER TO RECEIVE
$25 DEFENSE BOND PRIZE
You've heard of the Lockheed Lightning,
the Douglas Boston, the Boeing Flying For-
tress, the Curtiss Tomahawk, the Consolidated
Liberator and numerous other combat aircraft.
Now the Army's [sic] asking us for a name for
the Ryan trainer to be used instead of the
numbered designation "PT-22". And, we want
the help of every employee in suggesting names
which we may submit to the Army for their fi-
nal selection.
A PT-22 Name Suggestion Contest will be held
with entries to be turned in on the form at the
bottom of the this page to the Personnel Depart-
ment not later than Midnight Monday, April 6th.
Only names submitted on this can be considered.
The short period for submitting the names
is necessary as the Army Air Corps is an-
xious to have the company submit suggested
names without delay.
Special consideration will be given names
which are appropriate to a trainer type of
aircraft – names like "Fledgling", meaning a
young bird which has just acquired its fea-
thers – or like Fairchild's "Freshman", which
implies a beginning student. But any other
class of names will be equally welcome.
Contest judges will be representatives from
the executive staff, engineering, sales, public
relations and the flight line. They will in-
clude Claude Ryan, Millard Boyd, Sam Breder,
Bill Wagner and Joe Rust.
The actual winner of the $25 (par value)
Defense Bond will be the person whose suggested
name for the PT-22 is that approved by the
Arm. The Ryan judges will select from the
names submitted by Ryan employees several
names the committee feels are most suitable
for final consideration by the Army. Conse-
quently, until the Army makes its selection
from among the names submitted by the Contest
Judges, the final award cannot be made.
But, as soon as the judging committee has
chosen the names to be submitted to the Army,
those names and a listing of persons who sub-
mitted them will be published in Flying Re-
porter so that you'll know whether or not
your'e in the running for the $25 Defense Bond
Prize.
In case of duplication of names, the con-
test committee will be sole judge of how the
prize money shall be divided, and every effort
will be made to handle a situation of this
kind as equitably as is possible.
----------------------------------------------------------
| Turn in to Personnel Department
|
| PT-22 NAME CONTEST
|
| I submit the following suggestions as suit-
| able names for the Ryan PT-22 in the contest
| to determine which names shall be submitted
| to the Army for their approval in choosing
| a name for our trainer in place of the num-
| bered designation.
|
| ____________________ ____________________
| ____________________ ____________________
| ____________________ ____________________
| (A maximum of 6 names may be submitted by
| each entrant.)
|
| Name_____________________________________
|
| Department__________ Badge Number__________
(Source: "
Defense Bond Prize in PT-22 Contest,"
Ryan Flying Reporter, 3 April 1942, 3.)
Second, the announcement of the winner(s):
Ryan Flying Reporter wrote:
It's the
"RYAN RECRUIT"
WINNERS ANNOUNCED IN PT-22 CONTEST
The judges of the PT-22 name contest have
finally come out of their huddle (it was a long
one, wasn't it) with the winner, and it's to
be the "RYAN RECRUIT" hereafter when referring
to the popular Ryan low-wing Army trainer.
Judging the contest was quite a problem for
those who sat in on the final decision because
of the great number of names submitted. Then,
when "Ryan Recruit" was finally chosen as the
winner the judges were faced with the problem
of how to split up the $25 par value War Bond-
--but split it up they must since four employees
submitted the winning name. They were:
O. A. ROSEN Inspection
MAXINE LITTLEFIELD Engineering
R. J. MORKOWSKI Manifold
J. D. LIGHT Dispatching
One other employee submitted the name "Re-
cruit", but his entry was received after the
closing date of the contest and so was not
qualified for the prize. Another entry was
"Recruiter," but this name was also ruled
out.
Since there was a duplication of winnig
entries, the judges have ruled that the prize
be equally distributed, with $6.25 each in War
Stamps going to Maxine Littlefield, Rosen,
Morkowski and Light who can collect by con-
tacting Gary Adams, Personnel Manager.
(Source: "
Ryan Recruit,"
Ryan Flying Reporter, 26 June 1942, 3.)
Note that the first article claims "the Army's [
sic] asking us for a name" - that is to say it is not being assigned from on high. Recall that, as per a newspaper article mentioned in a
previous post, we know that North American Aviation specifically requested the name Texan for the T-6. (And, as mentioned in a
post in another thread, played it up, too.) So the companies clearly had some level of agency in the naming process.
Furthermore, this offers a potential explanation as to why the L-5 was the only American liaison aircraft to recieve a unique name. Perhaps the military asked Taylorcraft, Aeronca, Piper, Interstate and Stinson for name suggestions, but only the latter responded to them. This would be supported by the fact that the first article also makes it clear that the naming process is on a tight schedule.
At the same time, the hand of government policy can be seen in influencing the decision as the suggestion to use names implying youth or inexperience is in line with suggested policy mentioned in the memorandum mentioned a
previous post.
It's worth noting that this information comes from the Ryan company newsletter because it indicates that there's a good chance that the origins of other World War II American aircraft names could be found there. Even if there isn't a contest, its exactly the type of news that such a publication would cover.
This is not the first time that multiple people have been noted as submitting the winning name. The same
situation ocurred in the case of the B-21.
Lastly, the first article mentions a "Fairchild Freshman". I've never encountered such an aircraft. Could this have been another example of an ultimately rejected name of the type mentioned in a
previous post?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
