Latest RAF Historical Faux Pas - Envoy IV
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e25fc6e76.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aircraft in RAF service.Two new Dassault 900LX aircraft have been purchased to replace the BAe146 aircraft that were withdrawn from Service in March.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 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. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 11235265)
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. |
Less? Fewer.
|
Very disappointed that it’s not being called the Wapiti II, only because it’s funny!
|
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11235294)
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 |
Originally Posted by The B Word
(Post 11235255)
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.
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. :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. |
Jhiemenga :ok:
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! |
The Boris Bumble?
|
Originally Posted by eckhard
(Post 11235436)
What’s wrong with:
Dassault Dakota C2; Dassault Devon C2; or Dassault Dominie C3? |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11235441)
The Boris Bumble?
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11235303)
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) |
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)
|
Falcon is a French aeroplane. Cannot have that name used!
|
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 :} |
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11235477)
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)
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11235461)
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.
|
we could be like the Canadians who rename everything just to confuse everyone
|
Originally Posted by Cat Techie
(Post 11235482)
Falcon is a French aeroplane. Cannot have that name used!
|
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 11235676)
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11235661)
we could be like the Canadians who rename everything just to confuse everyone
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11235789)
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. .. |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 11235265)
I'm surprised they never named the '146.
|
Surprised they stuck with "Hornet" for the F/A-18. On the other hand, not many people would connect CC-138 with the Twin Otter! |
It's a nice shiny new aircraft - perhaps call it "ENVY"?
|
Originally Posted by India Four Two
(Post 11236282)
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! |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11235461)
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.
|
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 |
Seems appropriate
European New, Voters Oblivious Yet again...... Hat, Coat, Umbrella, Briefcase. Roller Bag, Emergency exit slide |
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 11237471)
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'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'.
|
Originally Posted by Underbolt
(Post 11238936)
I've still never understood why the F-35 was never given a proper UK designation
|
Originally Posted by Underbolt
(Post 11238936)
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'.
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 11238965)
Neither was the C-17.
|
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11239018)
I did read it was because both were tied into the US certification and engineering systems
|
Originally Posted by Mogwi
(Post 11237471)
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 Jack |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.