Designation systems: origin and features

[Silencer1]

We frequently studying various companies' and air forces' aircraft as a consequtive line projects or designations. The earlier project, the smaller the number.
I decided to asks: what are origins of designation systems?
Until 20th century there were few techical objects, that have been evolved and advanced, project after project. For example, naval ships or steam locomotives.
Aircraft builders quickly raise the number of projects and prototype (that single company able to produce in small period of time) to dozens.
Moreover, small companies and individuals produce their own aircraft.
Thus, the "numbered" or "alphabetical" systems emerged: "Model 1", then "Model 2" and so on. Or "Model A", "Model B" and further
Perhaps, the customers (private companies or states) wants to clearly understand and count, what inventory of different examples they have - and this lead to usage of producer's name and aircraft military role inclusion to name - Junkers Ju-88, or Grumman F3F.

Some companies and countries doesn't :like" numbers and abbreviation - hense UK "Spitfire" or "Vulcan".
Some companies likes the "lucky" digits as Boeing 7x7 or, Tupolev 1x4.

I see an important role of "consequtive" designation systems: any unused number provokes questions about the object, that could named with it. If there were B-15 and B-17 - what's B-16?

That's all my thoughts at the moment.
I hope, that forum members discovers another useful features of different designation systems.

 

[Archibald]

Maybe it started with steam locomotives ? I remember there was a system to classify them by the numbr of "pair of wheels": small big small, hence things like 241.
And from there it never stopped.
Except Dassault maybe. They completely and definitively suck at aircraft naming.

One of the weirdest and most tortured classification system I can think of from the top of my head is NASA pre STS-51L shuttle flight system.

Why 51L ? because 5 - 1 - L, but WTH does it means ?

"5" is "1985"
"1" is Cape Canaveral, Florida - because USAF would soon open "2" that is: Vandenberg SLC-6, California.
And "L" ? well it is the 12th letter in the alphabet, hence...

STS-51L : 1985's 12th Shuttle mission, from The Cape.

... and then it went down the drain, because Shuttle flights were delayed hence the logical alphabet letter sequence was pretty screwed.

Even more when "5" nearly happened in February... 1986 ! At a time when the "6" mission, A, has already launched... in October of "5" !

Luckily after Challenger disaster common sense returned and the missions were numbered without years or letters. Bad luck, because of delays, the numbers, too, ended all over the place.

List of Space Shuttle missions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And don't start me about Apollo. NASA just like Dassault sucks at designations / classifications - at least for missions.

 

[Schneiderman]

Some companies and countries doesn't :like" numbers and abbreviation - hense UK "Spitfire" or "Vulcan".

Spitfire = Supermarine Type 300 (for the Mk1, each Mk had a different number)
Vulcan = Avro Type 698

 

[riggerrob]

Why did brits retain Roman numerals for so long? e.g. Spitfire Mark XXIV?????? Why that British fascination with Greek and Roman classics?

Boeing went with 747-100 to designate a generation, then subdivided them into production batches for specific airlines e.g. 747-110 for American Airlines, 747-120 for British Airways, etc. I am guessing at exact batch numbers. The most recent 747-800 has radically differnet engines, avionics, etc.

Airbus uses A300, A310, A320 to describe different lengths of similar airframes.
Cessna started by using the first digit to designate the number of engines: 120, 140, 150, etc. They tried to use slightly different numbers to designate major variations e.g. Cessna 180, 182, 185 and 188 Ag Wagon all use the same wing and tail panels.
But Cessna got a bit confused with later and larger single-engined airplanes like: 205, 205, 207, 208 and 210 (all of which I have skydived from). Cessna restarted with 300 series and 400 series to designate light, piston-pounding twins.

Skydiving parachutes initially got fancy names: Strato-Star, Strato-Flyer, Strato-Cloud, Strato-Cloud XL. The "XL" in Strato-Cloud XL was the first hint at a parachute's size. When (mid 1980s) other manufacturers started offering the same model in different sizes, then they started calling them Sabre 2-170, with 170 meaning 170 square feet.

I sort of understand why automobile manufacturers add letter designations to denote fancier trim, engine, suspension packages, the trend towards letter designations on motorcycles baffles me.????????????

Now manufacturers of fighter planes talk about various Blocks or Tranches with different avionics or weapons systems.

 

[Apophenia]

Why did brits retain Roman numerals for so long? e.g. Spitfire Mark XXIV?????? Why that British fascination with Greek and Roman classics? ...

Britain's wars may have been "won on the playing field of Eton" but the designation systems came out of 'Oxbridge' types ... many of whom did read the Classics

"what's B-16?"

Probably a rhetorical question ... but answerable: The USAAC designations XB-16 and XB-16A were applied to the Martin Model 145 projects - one conventional-looking 4-engined type, the other a twin-boomed 6-engined design.
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/martin-xb-16-and-xb-16a-bomber-projects-model-145.11590/

 

[Schneiderman]

Why did brits retain Roman numerals for so long? e.g. Spitfire Mark XXIV??????

1) I really don't know
2) Bad example, the Spitfire XIX was the last Mk to use Roman numerals, after that is was Arabic, so Spitfire Mk24, not XXIV

 

[Hood]

At some point though the decision (circa 44-45?) was made to switch to Arabic numerals from numbers higher than 20.
Oddly the same with naval gun mountings too, Mk XXVI often becoming Mk 26 in later documents by the 1950s.
The Army and Navy were equally wedded to Roman numerals for their equipment, though the Army did mix and match, e.g. .303in Rifle No.2 Mk.II (i.e. the second .303in rifle, second version thereof).

I suspect the growth in designation systems was linked to the growth in technical drawings, it made it easier to catelogue drawings and identify differences between models easier. And of course the more kit users had, the greater the temptation to assign their own designations so they knew what they had and to make it clear to the user what they were using and what training and parts were needed. An artifact of industrialisation and mass production.

Which is why with less new stuff these days and smaller inventories designations can be more looser and tuned for publicity e.g. B-21.

 

[Silencer1]

Some companies and countries doesn't :like" numbers and abbreviation - hense UK "Spitfire" or "Vulcan".

Spitfire = Supermarine Type 300 (for the Mk1, each Mk had a different number)
Vulcan = Avro Type 698

You are right! I'm not precise in my statement about using the project numbers in UK. Seems, that most of them use numbers, but during WW2 and later most militray aircraft have common names as combination of names (Company+Airframe). Neither general public, nor pilots doesn't knew any numbers, if I understand correctly. From other hand, Air Ministry knew projects' names, as they comes with companies' proposals.
So, many UK aircraft successfully used "Company+Airframe" designations, with no direct clue to the company' design timeline or their purpose.
For me, Supermarine Stranraer sounds very close to Supermarine Spitfire!

 

[Silencer1]

"what's B-16?"

Probably a rhetorical question ... but answerable: The USAAC designations XB-16 and XB-16A were applied to the Martin Model 145 projects - one conventional-looking 4-engined type, the other a twin-boomed 6-engined design.
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/martin-xb-16-and-xb-16a-bomber-projects-model-145.11590/

Thanks for mentioning this particular project. It also prove my idea, that in "good old days" even lacoons in the project numbers row allows to think, what are hide between the numbers? Intellegence work has been much easier!

 

[Apophenia]

Good point about public awareness (or the lack thereof) of type numbers. Although this sometimes worked the otherway around. An example was RLM attempts to apply 'popular' names to Luftwaffe aircraft better known by their type designations.

Today, it is common to see online references to, for example, the Junkers Ju 188 Rache ('Avenger'). While any air-minded person in WW2 Germany would have been aware of the Ju 188, few would have recognized the appellation 'Rache'.

For me, Supermarine Stranraer sounds very close to Supermarine Spitfire!

But more important than similar sounds was the context of those names.

RAF patrol flying boats tended to be named for harbour towns and bases. The Southampton had been named for Supermarine's works at Woolston, Southampton. That design was improved to become the Supermarine Scapa which, in turn, was further developed into the Stranraer - named after a harbour town on the west coast of Scotland.

Spitfire had no such connotations. Instead, it was simply meant to be evocative of a fire-spitting, multi-gunned interceptor. Why? 'Spit fire' was a generic term for fire-breathing dragons in myth, heraldry, etc.

That said, it seems more likely that the Supermarine naming came from HMS Spitfire. All ten Royal Navy vessels with that name were smaller, agile ships ... which also seems a propos for Mitchell's later fighter aircraft.

BTW: The RN ship name Spitfire was a 'sanitized' translation of the Spanish Cacafuego (which had bee captured by Drake). But 'spitfire' can also refer to a quick-tempered or fiery-tempered person (usually female). Again, not a bad association for an interceptor fighter.

Also worth mentioning is that unnamed British military aircraft tended to get known solely by the number of the Air Ministry Specification being responded to. For example, the aircraft which would become known at Hucclecote as the Gloster G.39 was referred to by officialdom as the Gloster F.9/37.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I suspect the growth in designation systems was linked to the growth in technical drawings, it made it easier to catelogue drawings and identify differences between models easier. And of course the more kit users had, the greater the temptation to assign their own designations so they knew what they had and to make it clear to the user what they were using and what training and parts were needed. An artifact of industrialisation and mass production.

I suspect another aspect of it is an increasing dependence on supply chains as organisations grew and equipment stopped being managed locally. If the railway company has three locomotives based in a local station, then formal designation isn't necessary. The railway workers know if they need the big one, the little one, or the new one. If the soldiers are casting their own bullets from billets of lead, then it's unnecessary for anyone else to know (or maybe even care) what size the bullet moulds are.

But when things have to be requested from Head Office, which then places an order with the factory or instructs someone else to send the kit to you, everyone involved needs to know exactly what's being ordered. So you need to know that the 'big locomotive' is a Class 17, or that the soldiers have the Mark III musket, in order to request the right things.

 

[Schneiderman]

For example, the aircraft which would become known at Hucclecote as the Gloster G.39 was referred to by officialdom as the Gloster F.9/37.

Even then the G.39 was not an official designation, it comes from a numbering system applied retrospectively after WW2. When I look at pre-war Gloster drawings and brochures there is no unique project numbering and no obvious designation system in the titles.
The system set up by Vickers immediately after WW1 and subsequently adopted by Supermarine is, by contrast, simple and logical. Each new project gets a unique sequential Type number which is then used on all the official drawings (other than for parts carried over from earlier projects). Tenders and brochures, however, also have a sequential Specification number that is different from the Type number, so some opportunity for confusion there. And, you guessed it, there are exceptions even for these neat and tidy systems. Add to that the Mk numbering used for 'evolving' aircraft, such as the long line of Spitfires, and you then have three official designations; Type, Company Specification, and Mk. Then, for government funding, there will be an official Air Ministry Specification, as in the Gloster noted above. Not to mention the allocation of both formal and informal names. Oh what fun.

 

[robunos]

Spitfire had no such connotations. Instead, it was simply meant to be evocative of a fire-spitting, multi-gunned interceptor. Why? 'Spit fire' was a generic term for fire-breathing dragons in myth, heraldry, etc.

That said, it seems more likely that the Supermarine naming came from HMS Spitfire. All ten Royal Navy vessels with that name were smaller, agile ships ... which also seems a propos for Mitchell's later fighter aircraft.

According to 'Names with Wings', by Gordon Wansborough-White, Airlife, ISBN 1 85310 491 4, the Spitfire was named under the '1932 System', in which fighters were to be named with "General words indicating speed, activity or aggressiveness."

cheers,
Robin.

 

[riggerrob]

Dear RLBH,
Good point about designation systems getting modified to simplify the supply chain.
For example, the first M4 Sherman tanks were designed around the French 75 mm gun and used stock ammo that had already been in the US Army supply chain for many years. Later (1944?) the M4A2E8 variant introduced a longer-barreled higher-velocity anti-tank with the same caliber, but a larger chamber (where the brass case sits just before firing) but referred to the new gun as 76 mm to simplify logistics. A logistics officer only had to know "75" or "76" to know which type of ammo to push forward.
Also in 1944, the British introduced the Sherman V Firefly modified to mount a British-designed, 17-pounder, anti-tank gun. The 17-pounder was also 76.2 mm in caliber, but Brits referred to it as "17-pounder" to simplify logisitics.
Whether a gun is 75 mm or 76 mm depends upon whether you measure inside diameter on the lands or on the grooves.

 

[Hood]

The 17-pounder was also 76.2 mm in caliber, but Brits referred to it as "17-pounder" to simplify logisitics.
Whether a gun is 75 mm or 76 mm depends upon whether you measure inside diameter on the lands or on the grooves.

Alongside the 76.2mm 17pdr there was another gun, the Vickers 77mm HV for the A34 Comet tank. This gun was actually of 76.2mm calibre with a shortened 17pdr barrel but retaining the 3in cartridge case and a standard 3in breech. It was designated 77mm to indicate that standard 17pdr ammo couldn't be fired from this gun.

 

[Archibald]

Today, it is common to see online references to, for example, the Junkers Ju 188 Rache ('Avenger'). While any air-minded person in WW2 Germany would have been aware of the Ju 188, few would have recognized the appellation 'Rache'.

Rache against the machine. Or (for the french) rache de dent.
(I'll get my coat...)