Warbird Information Exchange

I think--could well be wrong--that the common term "Consolidated PBY Catalina" is a misnomer. That the airplane is either a PBY (in USN hands) OR a Catalina (operated by the British or its Commonwealth countries other than Canada, where of course it was the Canso). What say you Pigboat experts?

From this source (emphasis added): http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/we ... pment.html

"This was almost a year after Consolidated had received their first order for the PBY. On 29 June 1935 the US Navy placed an order for sixty Consolidated PBY-1 flying boats. Over 3,000 more aircraft would follow before production ended in 1945.

The US Navy would not adopt the name Catalina until 1 October 1941. The aircraft had first gained that name in 1939, when it was first examined by the RAF. The name was taken from Catalina Island, a holiday island off the coast of California (close to Los Angeles). "

Catalina was the official US Navy nickname.
I wonder if Consolidated officially adopted the name as well?
A better question might be why the Naval Aircraft Factory called their improved versions..."Nomads"? It's the same basic airframe as the PBY-6...but has a different designation (PBN-1..Patrol Bomber Naval Aircraft Factory)...same airplanes with different designations was one of the drawbacks of the USN designation system.
However in the Boeing-built aircraft kept the Catalina name despite their PB2B-1 designation.

_________________
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.

The Canso name only referred to amphibious Catalinas (ie PBY-5A). The flying-boat versions were still called the Catalina in Canada, however not that many were used over here so the Canso name is much more common.

_________________

No Pigboat expert, but the US designation system had no official status in Commonwealth countries, but was widely used informally. Therefore no such thing as a PBY in British Commonwealth service, except where there were exceptions, such as use of US documentation, or informal use of the term, or where an aircraft was taken over from the US unmodified. Conversely the official full name in British Commonwealth service was 'Consolidated Catalina', and the model given by a mark No. as was standard in Commonwealth use, so Consolidated Catalina Mk.I, a PBY-5 equivalent.

I think this may be another area of transatlantic language confusion. In British English a 'nickname' is always informal (an 'official nickname' is a contradiction in terms), where I understand from my American friends referring to an aircraft's name as a nickname is perfectly normal.

In British Commonwealth service the aircraft's name is 'Catalina', its nicknames varied but No.1 was 'Cat'.

Likewise types are generally known by the design-manufacturer, rather than any sub-contracted maker, so no 'Boeing Catalina'. (Foreign licence production was different.)

It's also perfectly reasonable to call a the Douglas transport a C-47 Dakota, where, depending on use, it should be one or other, or 'C-47 / Dakota' as a group term, C-47 generally being seen as the primary of the US designations alphabet soup. I suspect this, and the 'PBY / Catalina' scenario, are cases where a inclusive group of terms becomes modified into a semi-formal designation of its own.

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

<semi-thread-jack alert!>

While we're on this subject, I was talking to an old Navy vet once, and mentioned an SNJ Texan. He said when he served (1950s) the Navy never called them "Texans," just SNJs.

Along similar lines, I've heard that some of the popular nicknames variants of Luftwaffe types like "Dora," "Emil" and "Gustav" were post-war concoctions by allied writers (I've also heard that "Jug" for the P-47 and "Fork-Tailed Devil" for the P-38 were made up by author Martin Caiden in the 1950s.)

SN

I've never heard anyone call them a Texan except those who don't know better (like airshow announcers with a Wikipaedia printout). Obviously I've not spent a lot of time in the US, so my sample may just be too small.

But I have heard T-6 and SNJ as appropriate, and Harvard across the Commonwealth. There's a local SNJ that gets called a Harvard, and then a T-6, by the time we get to SNJ on the corrections, everyone's lost the will to live...

Cheers,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

But some of the US names were adopted by the UK...so some had some standing.
and we all know that some British names were applied to corresponding US Army and Navy types.

I informally used the work "nickname" for the popular name for aircraft since I assumed were all knew what I was referring to.
You're correct, in the UK system, what an American would call a "nickname"...i.e. the popular non-technical designation... would be the formal or official aircraft name in the commonwealth.

To quote Peter M. Bowers*..."Shortly before U.S. entry into the war, the government encouraged the use of type names rather than numbers as a security measure. It was felt that such generalizations as Lightnings for all Lockheed P-38s would do for general public information and discussion and screen current production and developmental stages of the design from those who had no need to know it. In cases where the manufacturer did not choose a name of his own, one was adopted by the Army.Wherever possible, the established British names for American-built aeroplanes were applied retroactivel to the corresponding U.S. Army and navy models."
He concludes by saying such names were continued in the US after the war but "Application is usually limited to such generalized non-technical areas as newspaper accounts involving aeroplanes of the particular model or to air-show commentaruies."

*United States Military Aircraft since 1909, 1989 edition, page 25.

_________________
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.

Sorry John, think you've confused one of the my points. Generally US designations were for US use, and weren't used by the Commonwealth officially (though their fame meant that they were often - incorrectly - used). That designations point is nothing to do with names or nicknames.

For instance in RAF use, it was a North American Mustang Mk.IV, not a P-51D Mustang. Mustang carried over; the P-51D is generally used for most for most occasions but is incorrect (though overwhelmingly common) for an RAF used example. The Grumman Goose wasn't a 'JRF' to Britain.

To go back to the original question, in British and (non-Canadian Commonwealth) English;
It was always a 'Consolidated...' (generally called the manufacturer, even when built by others - simpler.)
'...Catalina...' (the type name, NOT a nickname, and term most often used / used on it's own to specify one of those 'planes.)
'...Mark.I / Mk.I... or just I (Roman, not Arabic, mark, version, equivalent to a USN / USAAF 'designation'.)
Or 'Cat', the nickname for the Catalina.

Most people working with / on Cats would be aware and might use PBY (or variations thereon) and you'd certainly see 'PBY' etc on US originated official documents, but it had no official status, and wasn't adopted as a term, across the Commonwealth.

Hope that's clear!

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Although the two are not strictly analogous inasmuch as AFAIK, Dakota was never adopted by the US services as an official name for the C-47, unlike Catalina. C-47s were Skytrains and C-53s (C-47s set up for paratroopers) were Skytroopers. So "PBY Catalina" is correct, though redundant, US usage whereas "C-47 Dakota" mixes US and commonwealth designators.

August

Thankfully some British names were not only not applied to American aeroplanes, they were dropped in favour of the American name.

Grumman Tarpon just doesn't have the same ring to it! Mind you, the Martlet works better, given that its combat history was well-established before the Wilcats fired their guns in anger.

Cheers,
Matt

_________________
Matt Austin - playing with warbirds since the early 80s.

See my Lee-Enfield videos at - http://www.youtube.com/user/Jollygreenslugg

Well this gets murky for the RNZAF, who's fighter, reconnaissance bomber, dive bomber, 'torpedo' bomber and Catalina squadrons in the Solomon Islands campaign were attached to US Navy wings and groups, and came under their heirachy for both operational orders and sopplies, etc. And so in the Pacific the RNZAF referred to their Hudsons in paperwork as the PBO, and their Venturas as PV-1's, and their Corsairs as F4U-1's or FG-1D's etc, so that our US Allies knew what was being written about. I am certain that the Catalina as it was at home in NZ and at the Fiji Base would have officially been the PBY-5a when at Florida Island and Halavo Bay, etc.

_________________
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

Apology's for the thread drift

Steve

By chance, while flicking through an old copy of Aircraft magazine last night (Australian) from may 1945 l came across an old Lockheed full page add for "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel", the forked tail devil.

So lm guessing that nickname dates at least from 45.

Thanks Dave, that's an excellent example of what I was trying to cover. Officially the RNZAF wouldn't have adopted US designations, but practically, they needed to in this situation; so there'll be plenty of instances of RNZAF personnel using, and no-doubt paperwork recording US designations with, or instead of RNZAF official terms. But the use of US designations for practical reasons doesn't mean they were official, which is where some of the confusion comes in.


Just to be clear, I wasn't implying 'Dakota' had any official US use. However like in reverse, C-47 (and all the other mess of designations) didn't have any Commonwealth authority either, so when writing for a global audience, you need both C-47 and Dakota, which then has been concatenated into a pseudo-designation of its own.

But yes, that's more precise than my comparison.

"Confused? You won't be, after this week's episode of... Designation Soup."

Regards,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I must admit I was a bit surprised at last month's Hamilton Air Show when the announcer only referred to the CWH "Goonie Bird" as a C-47, and never once called it a "Dakota" (of course in reality it's neither,,it's one of the few surviving purely civililan DC-3s.)


Thanks! Always great to learn something from an actual source rather than speculation based on annecdotes.

SN