User avatar
jumbojim747
Topic Author
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 pm

Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:48 am

Why do aircraft manufacturers use numbers instead of names for aircraft.?
On a wing and a prayer
 
Fabo
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:30 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:18 am

Easier to keep track of? Easier to compare? Tradition? Dunno...
The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
 
User avatar
jumbojim747
Topic Author
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:36 am

I think its more like you say traditional.
Because they can use numbers for variants and still give an aircraft a name but choose not too
I think Boeing adding dreamliner to to the title of the 787 was a fresh start

[Edited 2012-10-25 00:47:49]
On a wing and a prayer
 
Quokkas
Posts: 1327
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:51 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:30 am

Numbering would be easier to keep track of and easier than trying to think up names that would catch on and sell. But that hasn't prevented aircraft being given names in the past.

Think of DHC Twin Otter, Buffalo and Caribou; all the various Pipers; Embraer Brasilia, Lineage and Legacy; Lockheed's Constellation, Super Constellation and Tristar; Vickers Viscount; and perhaps the most memorable to many, Aérospatiale-BAC's Concorde.
“Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.” Spinoza
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23201
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:37 pm

Quoting jumbojim747 (Reply 2):
I think Boeing adding dreamliner to to the title of the 787 was a fresh start...

The name Intercontinental was used with the 707-320 before it was added to the 747-8 and the 777-200LR is also known as the Worldliner.

[Edited 2012-10-25 11:38:50]
 
citationjet
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:49 pm

The official model designations used on type certificates are typically numbers. Numbers have a connotation of the general airplane characteristics and work well with engineering drawings and documentation of design data. For Cessna 100 series is for single engine pistons, 200 series for higher performance singles; 300 series for light twins, 400 series for twin turboprops; 500 series for small jets; 600 series for mid-size jets; and 700 series for the bigger jets. Business aircraft manufacturers, however, tend to use Marketing names rather than the official model numbers, compared to most airline manufacturers. The Citation Mustang is more well known than the Model 510, for instance.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:04 pm

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 5):
. For Cessna 100 series is for single engine pistons, 200 series for higher performance singles; 300 series for light twins, 400 series for twin turboprops; 500 series for small jets; 600 series for mid-size jets; and 700 series for the bigger jets.

Roughly 2,000 Cessna 401s and 402s were piston-powered.
 
freeze3192
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:10 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 6):

As well as 404's, 414's, 421s, etc. The only two turboprops of the 400 series (excluding the French made model under license from Cessna) were the 425 and 441. Everything else was/is piston powered.
"A passenger bets his life that his pilot is a worthy heir to an ancient tradition of excellence and professionalism."
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:43 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
The name Intercontinental was used with the 707-320 before it was added to the 747-8

The 707 was from the beginning named Stratoliner.

A lot of airliners got names. In addition to those already mentioned: Comet, Caravelle, Coronado (CV-990). When going back in time: DC-3 Skysleaper, DC-4 Skymaster, CV-440 Metropolitan, Fokker Friendship, Bristol Britannia, Boeing Stratocruiser.

But as the thread starter observed, names seem to some extent to have gone out of fashion for western airliners, adopting the Russian style "numbers only". But then we can at least enjoy the first properly named Russian Superjet.

DC-3 Skysleaper??? Yes, that's right. The DC-3 began as a modified DC-2 with a widened cabin. Instead of 1x1 seating it was made for beds on both sides of the aisle. For overnight US transcon flights with a few fuel stops en route. Incidentally that widened fuselage would also fit 1x2 seating.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17114
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:13 am

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 8):
DC-3 Skysleaper??? Yes, that's right. T

Well. Skysleeper.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:57 am

I don't think Americans like names for Aircraft, historically when a certain type has a name and a model number associated with it they will use the number.


For example, the L1011 Tristar, anywhere else in the world it was most often referred to as the Tristar, but not in the US.


The B747 is widely known as the Jumbo, but not in the US.


The same with Military Aircraft, known as the F4 in the US, elsewhere it's commonly referred to as the Phantom.


Many more examples out there.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:17 am

A number is easier to record on a document than a number......imagine numbering aircraft spares by names.......but then theres always a name tag that sticks.....
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
jumbojim747
Topic Author
Posts: 2426
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:05 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:28 am

Hey thanks to all who replied i did know many of the names given to aircraft but they where given after the number name.
I understand that its easier to use numbers then names.
Mel
Just a quick point In australia Toyota uses the chassis number to identify the part that is needed for a particular model i know so becouse every time i try to order a part for my car they ask me for the vin number.
There is a lot more variants in cars then in planes would it be easier to use the cn number for aircraft
Cheers
On a wing and a prayer
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:12 pm

The big reason will be that numbers are great for relating products to one and other, as to where they sit in a model line-up. An example would be when comparing a 737-700 to a 737-800. If one knew nothing about planes, one could/would assume that the 737-800 is either newer model or a larger model than the 737-700 because -800 is larger than -700. Obviously though, this doesn't always hold true.


Brand prestige probably also has something to do with it.
Consider how 'premium' brands such as Audi and BMW give their products model-numbers such as A4, A6, A8 and 3-Series, 5-Series etc
Meanwhile brands of lesser value such as Fiat and Seat give their products names such as Panda, Punto and Leon, Alhambra etc

Personally, I think names generally sound cheaper and less professional than numbers.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
citationjet
Posts: 2259
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:31 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 13):
Personally, I think names generally sound cheaper and less professional than numbers.

I somewhat agree. However the most premium commercial airliner, Concorde was an exception, the manufacturer never gave it a numerical model designation. In fact, the FAA TCDS A45EU lists the aircraft model as "Concorde Type 1".
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
Horstroad
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:50 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
I don't think Americans like names for Aircraft, historically when a certain type has a name and a model number associated with it they will use the number.

I have to disagree... there is a name for most north american aircraft (either official designations, nicknames or both) ... super conny, flying fortress, stratofortress, stratoliner, lancer, spirit, stratocruiser, jumbo, bobby, worldliner, dreamliner, stratotanker, galaxy, globemaster, hercules...

try to find names for airbus aircraft... well there is the Beluga and the adopted name super-jumbo for the A380 (which isn't really inventive)... but what would someone call an A340, A330 or A320

I think americans really like to name their aircraft and I was always wondering why boeing uses such terms as worldliner or dreamliner for marketing but airbus doesn't, not even for the A380...
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:51 pm

Quoting horstroad (Reply 15):

I have to disagree... there is a name for most north american aircraft (either official designations, nicknames or both) ... super conny, flying fortress, stratofortress, stratoliner, lancer, spirit, stratocruiser, jumbo, bobby, worldliner, dreamliner, stratotanker, galaxy, globemaster, hercules...

When was the last time you heard anyone actually use those names ?


My point is, a manufacturer may give a name to an Aircraft in the US but no one over here uses it.


By the way, what's a 'bobby ?! '
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:22 pm

Quoting horstroad (Reply 15):

Max is right. Broadly speaking, the Americans and Germans have rarely used names as principal designations for their aircraft (DC-2, P-51, 727, D.VII, Ju 52) while it was common for the French and especially the British (Caravelle, Mirage, Spitfire, Comet). The Airbus practice must be the result of German influence   No, I think numbers are simply considered more modern.

The American commercial aircraft names such as DC-8 Domestic (ever heard that one?) are often supplementary and temporary marketing gimmicks, think of the ridiculous array of names for the Piper PA-28 series.

Peter 


[Edited 2012-10-27 15:26:03]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:39 am

Quoting jumbojim747 (Reply 12):
There is a lot more variants in cars then in planes would it be easier to use the cn number for aircraft

True....happens out here too....But then again its a number Not a name.
In Aviation The IPC reffered to is based on the particular Aircraft Either s/n or c/n number & each item is reffered to a particular number.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
AmericanAirFan
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:22 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:28 pm

There are actually a fair amount of names. There are names and then there are nicknames. You have to be careful to not confuse the two. The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner in fact has the name "Dreamliner". The Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental incidentally is named "Intercontinental." The Convair 990 was called the Coronado. The Airbus A400M is called the Grizzly. Things such as "Jumbo jet," "mad dog," and "super 90" however are not official names.

At the same time a lot of modern commercial airliners do not have names, but if they're military they have a different number and almost always have a name. Such as the DC-9 being the C-9 Nightengale. Or the Eurocopter EC-145 has a military number and name the Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota. If you want to look to see if an aircraft has an official name go look at Wikipedia. They do a great job of documenting a lot of this information.

I do a lot of Aircraft Recognition in practice for the Aircraft Recognition event that NIFA (National Intercollegiate Flight Association) hosts so it is important that we know aircraft names or lack thereof for both military, and civilian models.
"American 1881 Cleared For Takeoff One Seven Left"
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:57 pm

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 19):
The Convair 990 was called the Coronado.

If memory correct, "Coronado" was first used as an unofficial marketing name by Swissair for their 990 fleet. I can't recall AA, the largest 990 customer, ever using the Coronado name for their 990s.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2315
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:28 am

Quoting AmericanAirFan (Reply 19):
The Airbus A400M is called the Grizzly.

Actually they renamed it 'Atlas' back in July for some reason. Personally, I think Grizzly sounds much better.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...riat-a400m-reborn-as-atlas-373861/

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 14):
In fact, the FAA TCDS A45EU lists the aircraft model as "Concorde Type 1"

Didn't know that. Thanks.  
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
Horstroad
Posts: 362
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:19 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:28 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):
My point is, a manufacturer may give a name to an Aircraft in the US

that´s my point, too...

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):

By the way, what's a 'bobby ?! '

737
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:56 pm

Because people can't spell!

Quoting horstroad (Reply 15):
what would someone call an A340, A330 or A320

The flying hairdryer, the 767 killer and the lcc flier
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no clothes.
 
3MilesToWRO
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:04 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 21):
Actually they renamed it 'Atlas' back in July for some reason. Personally, I think Grizzly sounds much better.

But what's a grizzly doing in Europe? Atlas has a meaning related to heavy lifting and sounds really good. Was even "Grizzly" a real name of the type? I thought it's one of those ridiculous names NATO gives to aircrafts (like Flanker, Fagot or Foxbat).
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:51 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 24):
Was even "Grizzly" a real name of the type?

Yes. I was at Farnborough one year with the A400M parked right in front of us...it had Grizzly badges and symbology all over the place.
Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 24):
But what's a grizzly doing in Europe?

Well, it's a big bear of an airplane, and I think everyone knows what a grizzly is even if they don't have them locally. Nobody complained about the DeHavillant Cariboo or Beaver (that I know about) despite those animals being confined to a pretty small part of the globe.
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 25):
Yes. I was at Farnborough one year with the A400M parked right in front of us...it had Grizzly badges and symbology all over the place.

Grizzly was only ever a nickname, but maybe Airbus thought it would stick. The RAF made it clear though that they would not accept that name. Atlas is a bit more appropriate to a transport and alliterative as well.

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 24):
I thought it's one of those ridiculous names NATO gives to aircrafts (like Flanker, Fagot or Foxbat).

NATO doesn't give those names to NATO aircraft. They are just codenames, simple mnemonics to replace the real numeric designations.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17114
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:44 pm

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 24):
I thought it's one of those ridiculous names NATO gives to aircrafts (like Flanker, Fagot or Foxbat).

The reason they are "ridiculous" is that they have to follow a strict system. Fighters start with F and jet powered aircraft have two syllables (props have one). There are only so many two syllable words that make any kind of sense. The code names only apply to potential adversary aircraft.

Bombers start with B (Bear, Backfire), helicopters with H (Hind) and so forth. The one/two syllable rule applies throughout.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:26 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 27):
The reason they are "ridiculous" is that they have to follow a strict system.

They did have to be a bit silly.

If I recall correctly the MiG-15 was originally 'Falcon', but that was deemed 'too laudable'.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:42 am

Quoting 3MilesToWRO (Reply 24):
...those ridiculous names NATO gives to aircrafts (like Flanker, Fagot or Foxbat).

Those "names" are called "NATO Reporting Names". They are given not just to aircrafts, but practically every bit of potentially adversary piece of hardware, missiles, ships, submarines etc. They all begin with a letter which indicates the type of weapon, for instance we all know the Scud missile from the Gulf War One, S = ground to ground missiles.

NATO Reporting Names are designed to be easy not to confuse even on a noisy communication link, also by NATO staff who are less than 100% familiar with the English language, Italians, Turks, Danes, Scotsmen   etc.

Therefore, for instance if the MiG-15 had been named Falcon, then there would never have been a Fagot, too easy to confuse. And very likely the MiG-15 was indeed ultimately named Fagot because the two vocals in Falcon and Fagot are identical in the same sequence. There is no other Russian fighter plane with A and O in that sequence, but there is a Foxbat (MiG-25).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Why Numbers Not Names For Aircraft?

Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:24 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 13):
Personally, I think names generally sound cheaper and less professional than numbers.

Blah. The British had a knack for coming up with good names. Stratoliner or Sonic Cruiser sounds simply pretentious. The Brits bought the P-51 and named it the Mustang. The Comet, Trident, Britannia, Vanguard, Viscount, etc.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests