Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV
Thread Starter
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aircraft in RAF service.Two new Dassault 900LX aircraft have been purchased to replace the BAe146 aircraft that were withdrawn from Service in March.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.
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.
. 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…
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,908 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
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.
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.
Less? Fewer.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,908 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
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
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.
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.
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.
Jhiemenga 
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.
Envoy then it should be the Envoy CMk 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.
Jetty McJet-Face.
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!
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!
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 ...
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Falkland Islands
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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)
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)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,908 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
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
they should have called the smaller runabout the Delta Flyer.
Beam me up Seven of Nine
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).
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