Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV

Old 25th May 2022, 13:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 924
Red face Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV



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aircraft in RAF service.Two new Dassault 900LX aircraft have been purchased to replace the BAe146 aircraft that were withdrawn from Service in March.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 . 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…
The B Word is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 13:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: River Thames & Surrey
Age: 73
Posts: 9,508
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.
chevvron is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 13:52
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 24,594
Originally Posted by chevvron View Post
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
NutLoose is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 14:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 2,392
Less? Fewer.
langleybaston is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 14:37
  #5 (permalink)  
MG
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 564
Very disappointed that it’s not being called the Wapiti II, only because it’s funny!
MG is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 14:45
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 24,594
Originally Posted by langleybaston View Post
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-...g-one-correct/

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...s-or-one-fewer
NutLoose is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 14:50
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by The B Word View Post
The Envoy I, II and III designators were not the RAF’s - they were the manufacturer’s . Airspeed made the AS6 Envoy I, the AS6D Envoy II and the AS6E/J/K Envoy III.
From Wikipedia: "During May 1937, the King's Flight took delivery of a single Envoy III as a replacement for a 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.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 15:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 72
Posts: 793
Of course we all know that the name given to an airplane is its most important feature.

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.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 15:36
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 576
Jhiemenga

Envoy then it should be the Envoy CMk 1…
Surely Envoy IV CC Mk 1

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.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 16:49
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 154
Jetty McJet-Face.
DuncanDoenitz is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 18:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: France / Qatar
Age: 67
Posts: 1,091
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!
eckhard is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 18:18
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 736
The Boris Bumble?
Ninthace is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 19:01
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,260
Originally Posted by eckhard View Post
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 is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 19:08
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,260
Originally Posted by Ninthace View Post
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 ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 19:30
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Falkland Islands
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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-...g-one-correct/

https://english.stackexchange.com/qu...s-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)
Aurora Australis is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 19:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,525
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)

Davef68 is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 19:47
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 391
Falcon is a French aeroplane. Cannot have that name used!
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 25th May 2022, 20:31
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 24,594
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
NutLoose is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 22:02
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,260
Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
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).
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 25th May 2022, 22:24
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Inverness
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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.

Last edited by Nil_Drift; 25th May 2022 at 22:26. Reason: Technicality
Nil_Drift is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.