Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV

[The B Word]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1370/image_468541caa3ea6348c0c8e2622ed9351e25fc6e76.jpeg

A new aircraft type to Royal Air Force service is to be named the ‘Envoy IV’ in a nod both to its crucial role in defence diplomacy and to previous Envoy aircraft in RAF service.Two new Dassault 900LX aircraft have been purchased to replace the BAe146 aircraft that were withdrawn from Service in March. The new Envoy aircraft will be based at RAF Northolt with No 32 (The Royal) Squadron, initially under contract with Centreline AV Ltd. For the first two years, the aircraft will be operated by mixed crews of RAF and Centreline staff, before upgrading to a full military and operational capability in 2024.

Enhancing our international presence, deepening our current defence relationships, and building new ones, is critical to UK security. The new Envoy aircraft will transport members of the Royal Family, government and military leaders around the world more quickly and efficiently than before. The Envoy can fly further, faster, and more sustainably than the aircraft it replaces.

The name reflects the role of the aircraft in defence diplomacy and relationship building. The original Envoy aircraft in RAF service was known as the Envoy III. It was a twin-engine light transport aircraft, used by the RAF before and during World War 2 in the communications role; one of which served with the ‘King’ s Flight’ – a precursor to today’s No 32 (The Royal) Squadron.

The Envoy I, II and III designators were not the RAF’s - they were the manufacturer’s :ugh:. Airspeed made the AS6 Envoy I, the AS6D Envoy II and the AS6E/J/K Envoy III. Further the AS10 variant was known as the Airspeed Oxford in RAF service.

The so-called “Envoy IV” is being built by Dassault - they didn’t even buy Airspeed, so there is no connection between the companies.

Also, is Envoy even the right name? It’s a bit awkward and implies political and diplomatic roles?

What clowns came up with this? What is wrong with Falcon (we don’t have an aircraft called Falcon) and if we did use Envoy then it should be the Envoy CMk 1…

[chevvron]

I'm surprised they never named the '146.
By the way, even though they were developed in France, the name 'Falcon' was assigned by the US operators and slowly caught on with other users.
The 'original' British Falcon was the Slingsby built Falcon T1 (single seat) and T2 (two seat) of 1931.

[NutLoose]

I'm surprised they never named the '146.
By the way, even though they were developed in France, the name 'Falcon' was assigned by the US operators and slowly caught on with other users.
The 'original' British Falcon was the Slingsby built Falcon T1 (single seat) and T2 (two seat) of 1931.

Surely that would be the 136 as it has one less engine ;)

[langleybaston]

Less? Fewer.

[MG]

Very disappointed that it’s not being called the Wapiti II, only because it’s funny!

[NutLoose]

Less? Fewer.


You can have one fewer on your aircraft if that floats your boat, but I have one less on mine...OK :)

https://commonenglisherrors.com/one-less-thing-vs-one-fewer-thing-one-correct/

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/481506/one-less-or-one-fewer

[Jhieminga]

The Envoy I, II and III designators were not the RAF’s - they were the manufacturer’s :ugh:. Airspeed made the AS6 Envoy I, the AS6D Envoy II and the AS6E/J/K Envoy III.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Envoy): "During May 1937, the King's Flight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Flight) took delivery of a single Envoy III as a replacement for a de Havilland Dragon Rapide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Dragon_Rapide); this aircraft received the registration G-AEXX and was painted in distinctive red and blue colours."
If we accept that No.32 (The Royal) Squadron is a direct descendant of the King's Flight, I can live with the choice of using the Envoy IV name. While a tenuous link, at least someone took the trouble to look at the history of the Squadron instead of just assigning something meaningless. I'm sure the type's job will be more of a diplomatic nature than is implied by it operating in the Royal Air Force.

[GlobalNav]

Of course we all know that the name given to an airplane is its most important feature. :rolleyes:

But it's common in the USAF and perhaps other military services for the given name to be discarded by those who love to fly them - e.g., Viper, BONE, Buff, Warthog. I recall a previous thread along those lines.

[SLXOwft]

Jhiemenga :ok:

Envoy then it should be the Envoy CMk 1…

Surely Envoy IV CC Mk 1 :E

No mention of DAS ... one presumes they will get one?

Shame the DH(/HS/BAe etc.)125's early Jet Dragon name didn't catch on.

<NERD>Besides Envoy IIIs Pxxxx series aircraft included some Percival Vega Gull IIIs so may be using a manufacturer's series number raised no objections at the time.</NERD>

Wapiti would no doubt be seen as cultural (re-)appropriation.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Jetty McJet-Face.

[eckhard]

What’s wrong with:

Dassault Dakota C2;
Dassault Devon C2; or
Dassault Dominie C3?

OK; the jet Dominie was never the “Dominie II” but at least these three names keep alive the old habit of alliteration!

[Ninthace]

The Boris Bumble?

[DaveReidUK]

What’s wrong with:

Dassault Dakota C2;
Dassault Devon C2; or
Dassault Dominie C3?

That's not how it works. "C.2" (or, more correctly "C Mk. 2") indicates that the same aircraft type (not an older type with the same name) has existed as a Mk. 1 at some stage.

[DaveReidUK]

The Boris Bumble?

Having failed, to my chagrin, to appreciate the significance of the first Envoy IV's registration - G-ZAHS - until it was pointed out to me, it occurred to me that it might be spending much of its time (though probably not) transporting someone who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever ...

[Aurora Australis]

You can have one fewer on your aircraft if that floats your boat, but I have one less on mine...OK :)

https://commonenglisherrors.com/one-less-thing-vs-one-fewer-thing-one-correct/

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/481506/one-less-or-one-fewer


Sorry, this comment is probably better suited to the “English language hamsterwheel” thread, but both of your links would suggest that langleybaston is correct in saying that it should be “fewer” engines. Engines are “countable nouns” - therefore “fewer” is correct.
(E.g. “less sand” vs. “fewer grains of sand” - sand is not countable, grains are, as are engines)

[Davef68]

There is historical precedent for following the manufacturer's numbering, the military DH Herons and Comets were C2 and C4, matching the DH designations (i know it's not exactly the same). but this is a bit American (Texan II, Lightning II, Globemaster III)

[Cat Techie]

Falcon is a French aeroplane. Cannot have that name used!

[NutLoose]

Surely as the Voyager is the long range U.K. VIP aircraft,
they should have called the smaller runabout the Delta Flyer.

Beam me up Seven of Nine :}

[DaveReidUK]

There is historical precedent for following the manufacturer's numbering, the military DH Herons and Comets were C2 and C4, matching the DH designations (i know it's not exactly the same). but this is a bit American (Texan II, Lightning II, Globemaster III)

Actually the RAF's Herons were C.2, C.3 and C.4 (civil Herons were all Series 1/x or 2/x, the military ones were all equivalent to Series 2).

[Nil_Drift]

That's not how it works. "C.2" (or, more correctly "C Mk. 2") indicates that the same aircraft type (not an older type with the same name) has existed as a Mk. 1 at some stage.

That didn't work with Voyager. There is the KC Mk2 and KC Mk3 but there was never a KC Mk1. It's according to the number of hoses.

[Asturias56]

we could be like the Canadians who rename everything just to confuse everyone

[chevvron]

Falcon is a French aeroplane. Cannot have that name used!
As I sad above, the Falcon is a british built glider of the '30s and the Falcon was the American version of the Dassault Mystere 20.

[treadigraph]

As I sad above, the Falcon is a british built glider of the '30s and the Falcon was the American version of the Dassault Mystere 20.
Tsk tsk Chevvron, you overlook the lovely and very British Miles Falcon of 1934 - surely an executive aircraft in its time! :)

[Davef68]

There's not been a military Falcon before (although some Miles ones were impressed during WW2), mainly because for a lot of the 20th Century, bird of prey names were reserved for Rolls Royce engines.(there were exceptions to that) so Falcon CCmk 1 would have been quite in order. be interesting to see if once it gets fully militarised, it actually gets a role designator.

[Martin the Martian]

I'm excited that after 75 years we are abandoning Arabic numerals and role prefixes. We now have the Typhoon IV, the Hawk II, the Chinook VI and of course the XVII Globemaster and XXXV Lightning.

[sandiego89]

we could be like the Canadians who rename everything just to confuse everyone

Indeed, took me a while to figure out what an Aurora was. Surprised they stuck with "Hornet" for the F/A-18.

[NutLoose]

There's not been a military Falcon before (although some Miles ones were impressed during WW2), mainly because for a lot of the 20th Century, bird of prey names were reserved for Rolls Royce engines.(there were exceptions to that) so Falcon CCmk 1 would have been quite in order. be interesting to see if once it gets fully militarised, it actually gets a role designator.


Modern era Rolls Royce Jet engines were named after rivers, Conway, Tyne, Trent, Adour, Dart, Clyde, Avon, Derwent, Medway etc..
You have to go way back to their piston engines to really find the bird names.

So as you are referring to the 20th Century and as we have moved on from that, perhaps the Millenium Falcon would have been apt. :E

Don't forget we have had the Kestrel, Harrier, Merlin, Hawk etc as RAF aircraft, I do wonder if the reasoning is to avoid confusion in military circles with the F16 Falcon, even though it's supposed to be the Fighting Falcon... Or was.


..

[parishiltons]

I'm surprised they never named the '146.

They probably did not want to admit that they were operating them and hoped they would go away quietly. Even Charles had an unsuccessful go at getting rid of one for them, didn't he?

[India Four Two]

Surprised they stuck with "Hornet" for the F/A-18.

They even kept the number - CF-18. Similarly with the CF-104.

On the other hand, not many people would connect CC-138 with the Twin Otter!

[Ascend Charlie]

It's a nice shiny new aircraft - perhaps call it "ENVY"?

[Davef68]

They even kept the number - CF-18. Similarly with the CF-104.

On the other hand, not many people would connect CC-138 with the Twin Otter!

Officially, the Hornet is the CF-188 (You can see what they did there - the Globemaster is CC177).

[Underbolt]

That's not how it works. "C.2" (or, more correctly "C Mk. 2") indicates that the same aircraft type (not an older type with the same name) has existed as a Mk. 1 at some stage.

Was the Harrier GR5 really the same aircraft as the GR3? 🤷‍♂️

[Mogwi]

Don't forget we have had the Kestrel, Harrier, Merlin, Hawk etc

The MERLIN started out as the European Helicopter Industries 01 (EHI 01) which became the EH 101 somehow. The competition to name it for the RN came up with MARLIN. Pretty good seeing that it was to be an ASW helicopter. Somehow this morphed into MERLIN.

Lucky it wasn’t cincelled.

Mog

[Big Pistons Forever]

Seems appropriate

European New, Voters Oblivious Yet again......

Hat, Coat, Umbrella, Briefcase. Roller Bag, Emergency exit slide

[Roland Pulfrew]

Don't forget we have had the Kestrel, Harrier, Merlin, Hawk etc

The MERLIN started out as the European Helicopter Industries 01 (EHI 01) which became the EH 101 somehow. The competition to name it for the RN came up with MARLIN. Pretty good seeing that it was to be an ASW helicopter. Somehow this morphed into MERLIN.

Lucky it wasn’t cincelled.

Mog

I understand that EHI 01 and EH 101 was a typo that was never corrected. Probably the same with the Marlin ;)

[Underbolt]

I've still never understood why the F-35 was never given a proper UK designation - Lightning FGR.7 or FGR.8, depending on whether or not the English Electric F.7 was ever deemed to 'exist'.

[DaveReidUK]

I've still never understood why the F-35 was never given a proper UK designation

Neither was the C-17.

[Davef68]

I've still never understood why the F-35 was never given a proper UK designation - Lightning FGR.7 or FGR.8, depending on whether or not the English Electric F.7 was ever deemed to 'exist'.
Neither was the C-17.

I did read it was because both were tied into the US certification and engineering systems

[DaveReidUK]

I did read it was because both were tied into the US certification and engineering systems

Either that, or somebody thought that Lightning II Mk.1 (and ditto Globemaster III) would just be confusing. :O

[Union Jack]

Don't forget we have had the Kestrel, Harrier, Merlin, Hawk etc

The MERLIN started out as the European Helicopter Industries 01 (EHI 01) which became the EH 101 somehow. The competition to name it for the RN came up with MARLIN. Pretty good seeing that it was to be an ASW helicopter. Somehow this morphed into MERLIN.

Lucky it wasn’t cincelled.

Mog

Additionally, don't forget that RNAS Worthy Down was HMS KESTREL, RNAS Kete was HMS HARRIER and, perhaps a little more significantly than "Somehow" in the current context, RNAS Donibristle was HMS MERLIN, and of course RNAS Culdrose is HMS SEAHAWK rather than plain old HAWK. :D

Jack

[Archimedes]

I've still never understood why the F-35 was never given a proper UK designation - Lightning FGR.7 or FGR.8, depending on whether or not the English Electric F.7 was ever deemed to 'exist'.

Because FGR.7 would suggest a variant of the original Lightning. The correct UK designation following custom and practice would've been something like Lockheed Lightning FG.1. Doubtless Lord West would've demanded it be called the Sea Lightning FA1 or something... (actually, that may be why the US designation was used, to prevent a tedious bunfight over the name amongst retired RN and RAF VSOs - 'Sorry, my Lord, but F-35B Lighting is the correct designation and you'll have to lobby the US about a possible change to Sea Lightning')