This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I noticed that many of the templates in Category:United States Navy aircraft designations navigational boxes are titled "USN/USMC ####### designations pre-1962", but this navbox is titled "USN fighter designations pre-1962"... I thought some of those fighters were indeed used by the Marine Corps. Am I wrong, or was that just an oversight? bahamut0013♠♣ 00:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that there are several instances of duplicated manufacturers and aircraft. For example, the McDonnell FH is also listed as the FD, in a separate part of the box—these are the same aircraft, redesignated after a naming conflict with Douglas. Is there any reason not to list "McDonnell: FD/FH • F2D/F3H • F3H • F4H" instead? Similarly, with Lockheed, the XFV and FO are under separate headings. Why not say "Lockheed: FO • XFV"? And is there a particular order to this list—or should it be alphabetized? TheFeds 21:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - this is quite deliberate. These designations cause enormous confusion to people only acquainted with the USAF/tri-service designations, who expect (for example) F4B to be followed by F4C. This was painfully evident when WP:AIR put these navboxes in place in early 2008, replacing an old "sequence" parameter in ((aircontent)). The USN boxes have been designed to emphasise that the designations are manufacturer-based (or, more precisely, based on a code letter that the Navy assigned to a manufacturer).
The order in all of these boxes is determined by the manufacturer code-letter. In a few cases, this means that manufacturers whose letters were changed or re-assigned (Lockheed, for example) may appear in more than one location in the list. While perhaps annoying, this does faithfully reflect the designation system it documents, for better and for worse!
It's not surprising that the USAF system was chosen over this one when the systems were all rationalized in 1962... --Rlandmann (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS - note also that, to add to the general untidiness, when an aircraft was manufactured under license, it received a new designation as well; hence FM Wildcat, TBM Avenger, and FG Corsair. This practice is also faithfully echoed here. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trouble is, as I've just discovered, the box can only display a maximum of 20 sections....! I'll try to fix this. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've become increasingly convinced that evidence of the existence of a Navy aircraft designated "FN" is apocryphal and may be an example of citogenesis. Joe Baugher claims that the single Seversky NF-1 test aircraft never received a Navy designation or serial number, that it was operated by the Navy under civil registration, and that "NF" was a company designation that stood for "Naval Fighter." Snippets from Seversky histories in publicly searchable databases generally agree, although this seems to be where the NF/FN muddle starts. United States Navy Aircraft since 1911 by Swanborough and Bowers hardly discusses the aircraft at all and never says that it (or Seversky as a company) received a designation. Regarding the NAF, Wings for the Navy: A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917-1956 by Trimble doesn't discuss the NAF having ever embarked on a post-WWI fighter project, much less one that proceeded far enough to receive a formal designation, and given the NAF's controversial history as it relates to private industry, my hunch is that any such project would have been quashed because it would step on too many toes (being small, light and simple single-engined types, fighter and observation aircraft were in ample supply). I think that the current evidence is sketchy and probably stems from typos circulated around the Interwebz forward by sloppy historians, and until more solid evidence emerges, I think we should omit it from the list. Carguychris (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Midland Counties "US Miltary Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909" says "FN - Designation given to a version of the P-35 single-seat monoplane fighter proposal for USN evaluation.". Its a well used source for designations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MilborneOne: I found a reference in the Swanborough and Bowers book as well, it just wasnt' where I was expecting to find it (SMH). Is that the Andrade book to which you refer, and can you please give me a page number? I'm going to edit the P-35 article to properly reflect the designation. Carguychris (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is the John Andrade book, page 191 Andrade, John M (1979). US Miltary Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Midland Counties Pubications. ISBN0 904597 22 9. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
