WW2 American Aircraft Numbering

[Fukuryu]

1 hour ago, Ed Russell said:

The F7F was to be called the Tomcat but, depending on which reference you believe, it was rejected as "having sexual connotations" or "too silly" and it became the Tigercat.

Interesting. So, 30 years later, the people in charge of names became (a) less prude or (b) less smart. Or both.

[Space Ranger]

On 2/10/2022 at 12:23 PM, Graham Boak said:

Or from the B-1 to the B-1?  or what about the B-26?  Then when it comes to the same type of airframe with different engines...  P-78? B-38?  have a try at the various C-xx designations given to the Douglas two-engined transports.  Every system, every nation, has its peculiarities.

Most of the designation differences are due to maintenance requirements and logistics. For example, Martin's B-10 used Wright Cyclone engines, but the B-12 used Pratt & Whitney engines on the same airframe. The different designations made it easier to order repair parts for the respective models. The different C- designations for Douglas's twin-engined transports stem from the fact that many of them were impressed into service from different airlines and had different engines, auxiliary equipment, and interior configurations, and the different designations made it easier to keep tabs on maintenance and spare parts ordering.

 

The B-26 is a special case. The designation was originally assigned to Martin's Marauder medium bomber, and A-26 to Douglas's Invader, but following WW II, the Marauder was dropped from the USAAF inventory, the A-for-Attack designation was dropped, and the Invader became the B-26.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Space Ranger

[Tailspin Turtle]

As Michael noted above, when the Army Air Forces became the US Air Force in 1947, Attack airplanes became Bombers. It may not have been a coincidence that at about the same time, the Navy dropped Scout and Torpedo prefixes for its carrier-based Bombers in favor of simply using the overall Attack designation that the USAF had abandoned…

 

Another bit of designation trivia with respect to the Douglas A-26 becoming the B-26 after WW II as a result of the redesignation change: during the Vietnam War, the US was not supposed to base bombers in Thailand so B-26s that were operated from there became A-26s again…

 

More trivia, the F-105 was clearly to be utilized for an attack mission (tactical nuclear strike) as was its replacement, the F-111A, but both were designated as fighters anyway by the Air Force. The Navy variant, the F-111B, was not a fighter either, but to be fair, there was no letter designation for a carrier-based transport equipped with a humongous radar to identify and designate aerial targets a long way away to be destroyed by its armament, really big radar-equipped missiles.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Tailspin Turtle
Correct 1957 to 1947 (D’Oh!)

[e8n2]

24 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

As Michael noted above, when the Army Air Forces became the US Air Force in 1957, Attack airplanes became Bombers. It may not have been a coincidence that at about the same time, the Navy dropped Scout and Torpedo prefixes for its carrier-based Bombers in favor of simply using the overall Attack designation that the USAF had abandoned…

 

Another bit of designation trivia with respect to the Douglas A-26 becoming the B-26 after WW II as a result of the redesignation change: during the Vietnam War, the US was not supposed to base bombers in Thailand so B-26s that were operated from there became A-26s again…

 

More trivia, the F-105 was clearly to be utilized for an attack mission (tactical nuclear strike) as was its replacement, the F-111A, but both were designated as fighters anyway by the Air Force. The Navy variant, the F-111B, was not a fighter either, but to be fair, there was no letter designation for a carrier-based transport equipped with a humongous radar to identify and designate aerial targets a long way away to be destroyed by its armament, really big radar-equipped missiles.

Two things.  You may have had a brain fart as the Air Force became a separate service in 1947, not `57.  It's a common malady for us seasoned citizens ;-).  The second thing is that the A-24 became the F-24 when the attack category was dropped.  Doubtful if many A-24s were still around at that time, although I can remember a year or two ago somebody on BritModeller came up with a picture of an F-38 that had the red strip in the white bars of the national insignia!

Later,

Dave

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello,

we seem to forget USAF briefly put missiles under fighter and bomber designation system. So, Falcon air-to-air missile became F-98 fighter and Matador cruise missile B-61 bomber. Cheers

Jure

[Tailspin Turtle]

8 hours ago, e8n2 said:

Two things.  You may have had a brain fart as the Air Force became a separate service in 1947, not `57.  It's a common malady for us seasoned citizens ;-).  The second thing is that the A-24 became the F-24 when the attack category was dropped.  Doubtful if many A-24s were still around at that time, although I can remember a year or two ago somebody on BritModeller came up with a picture of an F-38 that had the red strip in the white bars of the national insignia!

Later,

Dave

That’s what happens when you write and then edit a post well past your bedtime. Thanks for the A-24 anecdote.

[72modeler]

On 2/5/2022 at 5:03 PM, Bertie Psmith said:

N for Novice?

Or maybe for "nugget," as I believe that was the term used to describe a newly-commissioned naval aviator.

Mike

[e8n2]

15 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

That’s what happens when you write and then edit a post well past your bedtime. Thanks for the A-24 anecdote.

I know what you mean!

Later,

Dave

[fishplanebeer]

Apologies for resurrecting this post but just have another quick question please.

 

Following the process adopted for the Corsair and Hellcat why were the Wildcats built by General Motors referred to as FM1 and FM2 instead of F1M and F2M given that those manufactured by Grumman were F4F's? I guess the same question also applies to those Corsairs built by Goodyear which logically should have been referred to as F1G's?

 

Regards

Colin.

[Dervish]

11 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Apologies for resurrecting this post but just have another quick question please.

 

Following the process adopted for the Corsair and Hellcat why were the Wildcats built by General Motors referred to as FM1 and FM2 instead of F1M and F2M given that those manufactured by Grumman were F4F's? I guess the same question also applies to those Corsairs built by Goodyear which logically should have been referred to as F1G's?

 

Regards

Colin.

A hyphen makes all the difference, they should be the FM-1 and FM-2, the first and second versions of the FM. There would have been no F1M, the FM would have been followed by the F2M as different General Motors fighter designs. For example Grumman naval fighters were FF, F2F, F3F, F4F etc.

[Graham Boak]

The number one was always omitted in this place,, so there could be no F1M but only FM-1.  If they had used the system you suggest the FM-2 would have been the F1M-2.  Ditto for FGs.  or the FH Phantom, the NJ and SNJ (NA-16/Texan variants), SBC Helldiver, or indeed a long string of others, many prewar but some post (AD, AM, JD...), .

 

You may also ask why the second version of the Mustang was the P-51A, or the FJ-1 bore next-to-no relation to the FJ-2 or 3, and the FJ-4 looked different again.  The answers are out here in the histories.  Systems change with the times, as do the excuses given for not following whatever was laid down.  F-35, anyone?  SR-71?  

[fishplanebeer]

Aha, thank you, although the American system and its application, or not as the case may have been, seems to lack a certain rigour and ease of comprehension.

 

Regards

Colin.

[Graham Boak]

It was very rigorous for the years of its application, until changes occurred.  Rather like the British naming system.. More strictly, they were, for the USArmy.AF system was not a twist on the Navy's system but a simpler and less informative one,  Both did what they needed to do at the time, and as times changed so did they.  If the non-user was confused decades later, that didn't matter at the time, nor should it have.

[e8n2]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The number one was always omitted in this place,, so there could be no F1M but only FM-1.  If they had used the system you suggest the FM-2 would have been the F1M-2.  Ditto for FGs.  or the FH Phantom, the NJ and SNJ (NA-16/Texan variants), SBC Helldiver, or indeed a long string of others, many prewar but some post (AD, AM, JD...), .

 

You may also ask why the second version of the Mustang was the P-51A, or the FJ-1 bore next-to-no relation to the FJ-2 or 3, and the FJ-4 looked different again.  The answers are out here in the histories.  Systems change with the times, as do the excuses given for not following whatever was laid down.  F-35, anyone?  SR-71?  

As I stated previously in this thread, the F-35 was because of marketing, as least as far as I am concerned unless somebody can come up with an official document with a logical rational for not calling it the F-24 as it should have been.  Absolutely nobody would have confused the F-24 Banshee with an F-24 Lightning II.  As for the SR-71, it seems to me that I read recently that the designation was supposed to be SR-71, the 71 following after the B-70.  Somebody in the press decided it would be a good idea to claim that LBJ messed up on the designation of the aircraft and cause trouble between LBJ and LeMay.

Later,

Dave

[Graham Boak]

I know the reason for the F-35, the point was that such distortions still occur. even in the much simpler and well-publicised system.  As for the new to me description of the SR-71 designation story, frankly this is rather unconvincing.  It is quite clear that the 71m followed on from the 70, but not as R-71.  So it would still  become an isolated and erratic designation.

[Tailspin Turtle]

https://youtu.be/jl0hMfqNQ-g

[e8n2]

21 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I know the reason for the F-35, the point was that such distortions still occur. even in the much simpler and well-publicised system.  As for the new to me description of the SR-71 designation story, frankly this is rather unconvincing.  It is quite clear that the 71m followed on from the 70, but not as R-71.  So it would still  become an isolated and erratic designation.

As for what should have been, and should still be F-24, it doesn't matter one bit if some idiot can't understand how the designation system works.  The next available number in the fighter category was 24 and that is what it should have been.  The aircraft procured under the X for experimental designation are never meant to be turned into operational service aircraft.  The fact that it happened this time was because somebody forgot about using a XF or YF designation for the two flyoff competition aircraft.  As for the SR(RS)-71, I have a feeling that politics had something to do with it.  They may have had some extra bomber money left over after the cancellation of the XB-70 so decided to use that instead of asking Congress for new funds.  Don't know, I wasn't even 10 at the time!

Later,

Dave

[Giorgio N]

On 2/26/2022 at 9:21 PM, Graham Boak said:

The number one was always omitted in this place,, so there could be no F1M but only FM-1.  If they had used the system you suggest the FM-2 would have been the F1M-2.  Ditto for FGs.  or the FH Phantom, the NJ and SNJ (NA-16/Texan variants), SBC Helldiver, or indeed a long string of others, many prewar but some post (AD, AM, JD...), .

 

You may also ask why the second version of the Mustang was the P-51A, or the FJ-1 bore next-to-no relation to the FJ-2 or 3, and the FJ-4 looked different again.  The answers are out here in the histories.  Systems change with the times, as do the excuses given for not following whatever was laid down.  F-35, anyone?  SR-71?  

 

Not that other systems do not include their share of controversial designations. The Harrier story in both the US and UK is not that different from the FJ-3/4 as in both countries the second generation Harriers were designated as new variants of an existing type, even if they are in reality pretty different aircraft.

Of course whoever controls the money is often easier to convince if something new is presented as an evolution of a tried and trusted design rather than a brand new type requiring new logistics etc, that is the most common reason for this kind of things.

[Giorgio N]

On 2/27/2022 at 7:06 AM, e8n2 said:

As I stated previously in this thread, the F-35 was because of marketing, as least as far as I am concerned unless somebody can come up with an official document with a logical rational for not calling it the F-24 as it should have been.  Absolutely nobody would have confused the F-24 Banshee with an F-24 Lightning II.  As for the SR-71, it seems to me that I read recently that the designation was supposed to be SR-71, the 71 following after the B-70.  Somebody in the press decided it would be a good idea to claim that LBJ messed up on the designation of the aircraft and cause trouble between LBJ and LeMay.

Later,

Dave

 

Not the first time this happened: Northrop's Tigershark received the designation F-20 on request from the manufacturer to help boost the chances of success of the type. The F-20 designation was supposed to promote this as a brand new aircraft and not simply as a new variant of the F-5. I seem to remember that the idea of going straight to 20 rather than 19 was also considered a way to promote this as the start of a "new generation" of fighters, again just a commercial trick. Trick that didn't fool anyone in the end...

I'm not sure about this, but the F-20 may also be the only instance of an official designation given to a type that actually never served with the US military

[gingerbob]

48 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

but the F-20 may also be the only instance of an official designation given to a type that actually never served with the US military

 

Well, designations were given when a prototype was ordered, and not all of those prototypes resulted in a complete airplane, so in that sense there are others with official designations.

 

I think we tend to give "bureaucratic rigidity" too much credit.  Every system is likely to have its exceptions, and every system is also likely to evolve over time, rather than following the same rules from start to finish.

[Giorgio N]

1 hour ago, gingerbob said:

 

Well, designations were given when a prototype was ordered, and not all of those prototypes resulted in a complete airplane, so in that sense there are others with official designations.

 

I think we tend to give "bureaucratic rigidity" too much credit.  Every system is likely to have its exceptions, and every system is also likely to evolve over time, rather than following the same rules from start to finish.

 

Of course, I forgot about all the many prototypes that had designations. These however were ordered by the USAF or the Navy, not sure any of the F-20 prototypes was ever ordered by the USAF, weren't they all funded with Northrop money ?
My understanding was that the USAF agreed to give an official designation as the lack of one was seen as a potential limit for the success of the type. IIRC there were (and may also still be) legal constraints on the sale abroad of aircraft types that were not at least nominally part of the US military system, having an official designation helped with this as well.

[e8n2]

18 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I'm not sure about this, but the F-20 may also be the only instance of an official designation given to a type that actually never served with the US military

If you mean it was not given an actual AF serial number, it actually did have serial numbers 82-0061 through 0065 issued.  82-0065 was cancelled before completion.  If you mean an official designation given, serial numbers assigned and then not bought, that has actually happened at least one.  The C-10 was a version of the Handley-Page Jet Stream, serial numbers from fiscal year 1968 were assigned, Airfix even produced a model of it (and it is being re-released as part of their vintage kit promotion), and then due to labor problems and the company going bankrupt (receivership for our British brethren), it was cancelled.  This allowed McDonnell Douglas to then push to have the tanker version of the DC-10 become the KC-10, another designation that should never have been that was done for marketing purposes.  Between the wars there may have been more instances of things like that happening.  As to why they didn't go with F-19 for the Tigershark, it was sort of being played with to make everyone not involved with the stealth fighter program think that was going to be its designation.  This website:

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/index.html

 

has a good discussion on what was going on with the stealth fighter and the various flavors of F-117, supposedly.

Later,

Dave

[MikeC]

On 2/27/2022 at 6:06 AM, e8n2 said:

As for the SR-71, it seems to me that I read recently that the designation was supposed to be SR-71, the 71 following after the B-70.  Somebody in the press decided it would be a good idea to claim that LBJ messed up on the designation of the aircraft and cause trouble between LBJ and LeMay.

Certainly "SR" (Strategic Reconnaissance) makes more sense under the system than "RS", which under the rules of the system would seem to denote a primary role of strike (ie nuclear) with a secondary role of reconnaissance.

 

But as has been pointed out,

18 hours ago, gingerbob said:

... we tend to give "bureaucratic rigidity" too much credit.  Every system is likely to have its exceptions ...

True for various reasons, not least because maybe not everyone working in the system fully understands the way it works, and/or is less than rigourous in applying the rules.

 

[Giorgio N]

9 hours ago, e8n2 said:

If you mean it was not given an actual AF serial number, it actually did have serial numbers 82-0061 through 0065 issued.  82-0065 was cancelled before completion.  If you mean an official designation given, serial numbers assigned and then not bought, that has actually happened at least one.  The C-10 was a version of the Handley-Page Jet Stream, serial numbers from fiscal year 1968 were assigned, Airfix even produced a model of it (and it is being re-released as part of their vintage kit promotion), and then due to labor problems and the company going bankrupt (receivership for our British brethren), it was cancelled.  This allowed McDonnell Douglas to then push to have the tanker version of the DC-10 become the KC-10, another designation that should never have been that was done for marketing purposes.  Between the wars there may have been more instances of things like that happening.  As to why they didn't go with F-19 for the Tigershark, it was sort of being played with to make everyone not involved with the stealth fighter program think that was going to be its designation.  This website:

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/index.html

 

has a good discussion on what was going on with the stealth fighter and the various flavors of F-117, supposedly.

Later,

Dave

 

I mean that the type received an official designation even if was built as a private venture and there was no interest from the USAF in any purchase (although later there were some discussions on a possible contract for ANG or aggressor service). As said before, I seem to remember that in order to be exported through FMS the type needed an official US designation anyway

In the case of the C-10 at least initially there was an intention to purchase the type... and yes, good point about the later KC-10, another example of a marketing driven designation...

Thanks for the link, I often consult that site for their pages on the US missiles. Reading the history of the F-20 designation confirms what I remembered about Northrop pushing for the "20" to show it as a very innovative type (that it wasn't but that's another story).

[pigsty]

11 hours ago, MikeC said:

Certainly "SR" (Strategic Reconnaissance) makes more sense under the system than "RS", which under the rules of the system would seem to denote a primary role of strike (ie nuclear) with a secondary role of reconnaissance.

It wouldn't, though.  An RS-anything would have to have been a recon version of a fixed-wing carrier-borne anti-submarine aircraft.  That's because S meant anti-submarine in the US; it meant strike only in the UK.  By the time the SR-71 was announced S was properly established (the S2F had just been redesignated the S-2, and the Sea King was the SH-3) and the S-3 Viking was in the planning stages.  I fancy - though I can't prove - that "SR-71" was made up purely for that one aircraft type and had only the most tenuous link to the B-for-bomber series, not least because the only Blackbird ever to even try to carry weapons was an interceptor.