PBO - what does this designation mean?

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:17 am

jdvoss wrote:

... the USN aircraft designation system was unique and actually was quite informative.

In the same way that the small print in a user agreement is, yes. :shock:

IMHO, and seriously, it's an excess of data for the use it was put to.

I suppose another lame justification could be that a short designator was briefer to use for signals (such as semaphore and Morse) but if reality's still in touch it would point out the chances of an error (with a letter/number jumble) is always greater than with English words.

But the military, like many other closed-shops, has always had an excessive affair with acronyms and stupid jargon.

Regards,

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:00 am

a bit of clarification,
what I was really referring to with the DC-3 was that it was also know in the military as the C-47, C-48, C-49, C-50,C-51, etc. depending on engines, cabin door type and location, equipment installed, where it came from (if an in service airliner that was impressed) etc. as well as the local reference based on politics, that's why if today you're @ an airfield in Wyoming or Yomommastan, if you say 'Dakota' everyone knows what you are talking about, whereas if you say'SKYMASTER' some will mentally picture a DC-4, others a CESSNA 'pushme-pullyou, and some will think it must be a new TV or movie superhero.
Also remember that up until the 30's the Navy and the Army had different sizes and thread pitches on simular fasteners until they were standardized initially as 'A N' anyone restoring or maintaining an Intenational Harvester vehicle knows what I'm reffering to.

Randy Wilson · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:12 am

There are a lot of questions about the USN designation system in the WWII period for which I have never found a definitive answer. One thing to keep in mind is that some designs, such as the Corsair, could be produced by as many as three companies. Vought was the original builder of the F4U, Goodyear built the Corsair as the FG, while Brewster built it as the F3A. I suspect that part of the reason for the different designations was that each company built the plane with slight variations in components, and that the designations helped make sure that parts matched the different builds.

My old avhistory website is rather stale but I'm slowly working on a redesign, and I hope to add more information to the new site. If anyone does find an error or missing info in any of my tables or articles, please feel free to drop me a note. Thanks.

Randy

P.S. I too got the "too many failed login attemps" prompt when I logged in to post this reply and I haven't logged in for weeks. My guess is that the site is being attacked by bots trying to guess passwords. It might be a good time to think about changing your password for WIX to something pretty strong. My 2 cents.

raconnel · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:46 am

The US Navy wasn't unique. The IJN used such designations as A6M, B5N, D3A, N1K, etcetera. In these examples:
A6M = fighter, 6th design, Mitsubishi
B5N = Carrier Bomber, 5th design, Nakajima
D3A = Dive Bomber, 3rd design, Aichi
N1K = Interceptor, 1st design, Kawanishi (Note that Kawasaki didn't make any Naval aircraft, so no confusion there)

Richard

Randy Wilson · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:53 am

I took a shot at the IJN designations system, too.
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/acdesig/japanese.htm

Randy

raconnel · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:32 am

Nice - Much more accurate than going by memory! :oops:

Richard

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:09 pm

and to this day, the U.S.N. still uses a blender full of gobbledegook to identify jobs groups.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3333

One of the problems with the USN system was that they ran out of letters for the manufacturer designation at 26, and therefore had to re-use letters, so the same letter could be used to designate any one of 3 or 4 different manufacturers.

For example, 'B' was used for both Beech (SNB) and Boeing (PB)

Confused yet? You should be!

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:15 pm

The Inspector wrote:

a bit of clarification,
what I was really referring to with the DC-3 was that it was also know in the military as the C-47, C-48, C-49, C-50,C-51, etc.

Yup. Gottit already. I was adding how lucky we are that all those other forces just used one name. What an idea.

jdvoss · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:29 pm

I must admit that there were many, many inconsistencies by the navy in the designations of the their aircraft prior to 1962.

When NAA developed the next generation of advanced trainer to the SNJ it was originally called the SN2J Trojan. When it went into production (late 40's early 50's) the USN adopted the USAF ID system and became the "T-28". A similar abberation occured when Beech won the contract to build the next primary trainer called the Mentor. In reality the navy would have adopted possibly "SN2B" or maybe "NB". But instead they used the USAF system and it became the "T-34" . The same held true when the USCG picked up usage of the Fairchild C-123...should have been ID's as the "R5Q".

In stark contast when the USN /USCG picked up usage of the Boeing B-17 immediately following WWII they did indeed use a naval designation of "PB-1"(Patrol Boeing). Seems fine but when you realize that nearly all (if not all)of the B-17's acquired were Douglas & Lockheed built A/C (!) and would have been designated the "P4D-1" (Douglas-built) or the PB2O or P3V for Lockheed-Vega. After all, four different firms manufactured the Consolidated Catalinas and were designated as such ( PBY - Consolidated, PB2B - Boeing, PBN - Naval Aircraft Factory, PBV - Canadian Vickers).

As boring as the USAAF/ USAF system is at least it was consistant...until last week when the new tanker contract was announced: the C-46 or to be more accurate the KC-46. Uh, ..wasn't that designation already taken by Curtiss and known as the Commando ???

Sigh,... I give up.

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3333

jdvoss wrote:

As boring as the USAAF/ USAF system is at least it was consistant...until last week when the new tanker contract was announced: the C-46 or to be more accurate the KC-46. Uh, ..wasn't that designation already taken by Curtiss and known as the Commando ???

It is consistent. They got to C-143, started again with the C-1 Trader, and now they're back up to C-46 again

http://www.joebaugher.com/ustransports/cdesig.html

Randy Wilson · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:57 pm

Frankly, I'm still searching for the letter "J" in "North American Aircraft"

Randy

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:14 pm

Perhaps because "N" was already assigned to the Naval Aircraft Factory? and N3N's/PBN Mitchell/P6N Nomad would just drive N3NJeff up the wall?

Randy Wilson · **Posted:** Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:05 pm

What! A plot against N3NJeff! Of course.

Randy

P.S. Jeff - got about 25 hours in the "other" yellow biplane at 18-19 years of age. Quite a few other interesting tailwheel hours since. Can I come fly your N3N? Just foolin' and having fun. Randy

airnutz · **Posted:** Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:12 pm

Randy Wilson wrote:

Frankly, I'm still searching for the letter "J" in "North American Aircraft"

Randy

A remnant from North American's bloodline when they purchased Berliner-Joyce Aircraft in 1933.

Warbird Information Exchange

PBO - what does this designation mean?

Who is online