Viking TX Mk.1?

[Mach 2.2]

I'm currently involved in a discussion with a group of people regarding whether the correct designation for the Viking used by VGSs is T Mk.1, TX. 1, ir TX Mk. 1

Anyone got any ideas what the answer is and why?

Learning point from this Bloggs? Never get reeled by someone into a debate with a spotter Sir...

Thanks in advance.

[ACW418]

The brand new and just been issued Aircrew Manual (AP 101G-1001-15 dated October 2004) calls it a Viking T Mk 1.

ACW

[Lockstock]

Not disputing that it is a T Mk 1, but found this: http://1000aircraftphotos.com/RAFMilitaryDesignations.htm and seems there is a TX designator. Didn't know that!

[Fly Better!]

I used to fly the Vigilant, which is supposed to be a motor glider that was a T mk 1 maybe that should be a TX too but only when the negine was off ?:confused:

[Flik Roll]

^ ^ ^ :confused:

Vigilant definately a Tmk1 (Known as the Vigilant T1)

[BEagle]

Well, in theory it should be:

Vigilant T Mk 1 (Vigilant T1)

Viking TX Mk 1 (Viking TX1)

But theory and practice are two very different things!

[Flik Roll]

what does the X mean?

(Don't say X Factor.....:) )

[Mach 2.2]

Further investigation has revealed TX to be the designation for a 'Training Glider'. Not sure whether it is officially still in use, or is a more historical term. Certainly ACW418's post would suggest the latter.

[Pielander]

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh (I have had a couple of jars), but who gives a monkey's?

As long as you know the difference between a Viking and a winch, you'll be ok, i.e. don't end up spending the entire day in the wrong one.

C Cat 12 months; 300 launches on the Viking T1; 0 launches on the MVGW. Bothered? Don't think so.

:ok:

[Anticlockwise]

LOL @ Pielander! True!

Think M2.2 may have placed a bet on this with a spotter??

Agree with ACW418; all docs I've seen, refer to the Viking and Vigilant as TMk1 (or T1). Only seen the Viking referred to as TX1 in spotters serial guides and the like... not that I read many :8


:ok:

[BEagle]

Probably the same spotters who insisted on referring to 74 Sqn's F4J(UK) a/c as 'Phantom F3'. A designation which was NEVER used.

[hairyclameater]

But Phantom F3 made a lot more sense and did follow "the rules".

Some very strange anomoloies exist in the designations and we went American with the SHAR F/A 2 - what a nonsense! And why Merlin HM? or Nimrod MRA or why change from AEW to ASaC?
And why havent we got a Globemaster C1 or who has ever referred to a Sentry AEW 1 ??

Ive always refered to unpowered gliders as TX and not only spotters mags refer to it this way. Indeed the older Slingsby Cadet and Grasshopper gliders had TX desigs in official publications. The Viking does seem universally to be a TMk1 though.

[Art Field]

Is the aviation world so unimaginative that it has to re-use the names of aircraft still well in the memory. recently we have had Harvard, Typhoon and now Viking, its confusing the hell out of me.

[amb_211085]

Not really that fussed. I've only ever seen it is the T Mk 1 however.

One you can have a lot of fun in and the other flys. That said, I do prefer sitting in the cockpit of a Viking to the nice big yellow target at the end of the runway that some GS students like to aim for!