I mean at the outset. Later, in 1962, the DOD changed the nomenclature of military aircraft to make all more uniform, but at the beginning of the U.S. involvement of the war, what was the ‘B’ understood to mean?
I’ve found reference to a Douglas made bomber that was called a DB-1.
Yes, I’m having a dispute over this on another message board, all over the
“Yes, I’ve been to Frankfurt before, but it was in 1944, and I didn’t stop!” joke.
The latest version has the punchline altered to include mention of ‘Another Boeing Aircraft’.
The first letter was the type of aircraft. For example, A for Attack and B for Bomber. The second letter was the manufacturer’s code. My dad flew in AD-4N Skyraiders, the designation signifying that the Skyraider is an Attack aircraft made by Douglas. (Skyraiders were known as ‘Able Dogs’, which was an appropriate moniker since they were such capable aircraft.) The TBF Avenger was a TB (Torpedo Bomber) made by F (Grumman – F was also used by Canadian Fairchild from 1942 to 1945).
EDIT:
Maybe the confusion over the ‘B’ standing for ‘Boeing’, etc. stems from the Navy system of using a manufacturer’s code in their designations?
It was the NAVY that identified manufacturer in the ID mark of their aircraft in the WW2 period.
As per Johnny’s example, in the AAC/AAF it was B for bomber. Right in the thread title there’s an example of a non-Boeing: the Consolidated Liberator, aka B-24. Another example is the Martin Marauder, aka B-26 (tip o’the crush cap to David Simmons).
Here is a list (in designator code order) of most of the planes ever in (or considered for) the USASC/USAAC/USAAF/USAF inventories. Running the list shows a wide variety of designations prior to 1923, including manufacturer codes, Army codes that included the Manufacturer’s initials, and simply apparently random codes or numbers. 2892 airplane names
A couple of DB-1 entries can be found on page 3. Note, however, that the designation DB-1 was the manufacturer’s code, not the military’s. “DB-1” was assigned by Douglas to their first bomber model after they changed their internal nomenclature. Douglas had been building bombers since the 1920s, but in the middle of the 1930s they changed the way they identified their own product lines with passenger/cargo planes getting a “DC” (Douglas Cargo) code (hence the DC-3) and bombers getting a “DB” code, hence the DB-1 and later DB-7. (The DB-7 did make it into production as the A-20 Havoc, but it was exported to Britain under the Douglas code as the DB-7 Boston. I do not know whether any of the models DB-2 through DB-6 ever made it off the Douglas drawing boards.) There is a photo of a “DB-2” on the internet, but I do not know whether it is a mislabeled DB-1/B-18B or whether it was an attempt to make a bomber out of the DC-3 that only had a couple of prototypes.
The Douglas DB-1 was an odd bomber version of the DC-2. However, when the USAAC acquired it, it was identified by the military designation B-18 and I do not know whether the Army ever called any plane a DB-1, even during pre-purchase trials.
I’ve found a couple of definitions for a manned target aircraft. One is an aerial target aircraft designed to be towed aloft by another aircraft and fired upon. I’m not sure if that counts as being ‘manned’ though. My first thought was that a manned target aircraft might be a version of an ‘target tow’ aircraft, but I’m not sure why such an aircraft would merit its own designation. I mean, it would basically need a releasable tow hook right? Interestingly, there was an aircraft that was A) manned; and B) actually fired upon. The P-63 Kingcobra existed in the RP-63A and RP-63C ‘Pinball’ versions late in the war. These were fired upon with lead-and-plastic frangible bullets that would disintigrate against its skin. Sensors would illuminate lights on its nose to indicate hits.
‘Ferret’ appears to indicate an electronic warfare or ECM aircraft. As I mentioned, my dad flew in AD-4s during the Korean War. He described it as an AEW (Airborne Early Warning) aircraft, and I never heard him refer to it as a ‘ferret’. But then, he was Combat Aircrew in the Navy and not the AAF/AF and AEW is different from ECM.
Unfortunately I’m not as well versed on these particular subjects as I’d like to be.
That cracks me up. I’m picturing a slow speed strafing run over the target, immediatly followed my the glider landing - because it’s a glider.
I know they were used to get troops on the ground, but my version is more entertaining.
I’m assuming that the reason they are not designated PQP-63 because they came about after the modification of the codes; hence, R (Restricted Operations) P-63.
If anybody is interested in seeing some, there are a b-17, b-24, and b-25, touring the U.S.
I went and saw the b-17 and b-24 a couple of years ago at Moffet Field, and I plan to again this year. They are beautiful machines, even more impressive close up. You are able to crawl around inside as well. The men responsible for flying and restoring them were on hand and very happy to answer any questions.
Another nail in the B = Boeing coffin is that Boeing did not make all of the Flying Fortresses. Boeing Aircraft designed it and manufactured most of them but some were made by Douglas.
And to add my 2¢ to the Navy designation, the TBF was the designation for the Avenger torpedo bomber manufactured (and designed) by Grumman, TBM for General Motors built Avengers. My dad was a crewman in them.