Why did US Navy 1922 system include manufacturer code?

[Kiltonge]

I don't have any literature on the period, so I'd be grateful if anyone could enlighten me as to why the US Navy 1923 aircraft designation system was just so complex?

Why include a code for the manufacturer, what purpose did that serve? Was it really important for the pilot or groundcrew to know that a fighter was made by Grumman or Boeing without referring to the manual?

 

[Apophenia]

When the March 1922 BuAer designation system was first introduced, the BuAer regarded manufacturer codes as important enough to place them first - followed by a role ('class') code and type number. [1] In 1923, that order would be reversed - eg: the Curtiss-designed CS-1 and CS-2 becoming SC-1 and SC-2. But, note that, despite the CS being series-built by the Glenn L. Martin Company, the 'C' for Curtiss manufacturer code was retained.

Curtiss had refused to cooperate with this 'license-production'. As a result, Martin was left to reverse-engineer their CS from Curtiss-made components. And, invariably, Martin introduced its own, preferred manufacturing techniques to the type. Now, keeping 'C' for Curtiss was not a big deal since Martin was the only firm building the CS. It became an issue whenever multiple airframers were contracted to produce copies of the same aircraft design for the USN.

As an example, take a more widely-produced airframe like that of the Curtiss HS-2L - which were supplied to the USN by Curtiss itself, LWF, Standard, Gallaudet, Boeing, and Loughead. Techniques (and materials) used to build those airframes will have varied between each of these manufacturers. That may matter little to crews or staff directing those flying boats to specific missions. But the variety of manufacturing techniques will certainly create challenges for maintainers. Better to know about differences ahead of time before executing a hull repair or know which stores to draw from before replacing a widget that varies between different makers.

___________________________________

[1] BTW, the original 1911–1914 USN aircraft designation system employed a manufacturer code followed by a delivery sequence number. No role or class type prefix was used.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why include a code for the manufacturer, what purpose did that serve? Was it really important for the pilot or groundcrew to know that a fighter was made by Grumman or Boeing without referring to the manual?

I suspect it was for logistics reasons.

But that's a guess.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Why include a code for the manufacturer, what purpose did that serve? Was it really important for the pilot or groundcrew to know that a fighter was made by Grumman or Boeing without referring to the manual?

That feature wasn't actually unique to the USN - the USAAF's system also had a 'manufacturing facility' code, though it's not normally seen in general literature - it isn't particularly interesting to the general reader whether a given B-17G is a B-17G-BO or a B-17G-DL, whilst the difference between an F4F and an F4U is quite significant.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's scheme was an interesting compromise between the two approaches: the B5M and B5N were both built to the 'B5' requirement, by Mitsubishi and Nakajima respectively.

 

[DWG]

I don't have any literature on the period, so I'd be grateful if anyone could enlighten me as to why the US Navy 1923 aircraft designation system was just so complex?

Why include a code for the manufacturer, what purpose did that serve?

The pilot or groundcrew might know what they were dealing with, but what about someone behind a desk in Washington dealing with multiple different aircraft types in a single work day?

 

[DWG]

It's also important to note that while we're used to one or two new types per decade, the USN at the time would be dealing with several new types per year, and half a dozen plus competitors for each of them. They had a lot more aircraft types to keep distinct in an easily recognisable format.

 

[EwenS]

That feature wasn't actually unique to the USN - the USAAF's system also had a 'manufacturing facility' code, though it's not normally seen in general literature - it isn't particularly interesting to the general reader whether a given B-17G is a B-17G-BO or a B-17G-DL, whilst the difference between an F4F and an F4U is quite significant.

The Imperial Japanese Navy's scheme was an interesting compromise between the two approaches: the B5M and B5N were both built to the 'B5' requirement, by Mitsubishi and Nakajima respectively.

IIRC the USAAF plant codes were a WW2 addition. Necessary because, despite much standardisation, there could still be component variations between factories and sub-contractors.

The USN had the same problem as the the Japanese. A competition would be run and designs would be submitted by multiple manufacturers. Usually two would be selected for prototyping from which a final selection would be made.

One where confusion could have occurred without the manufacturer identifier was the replacement forvthe Douglas TBD Devastator.

On 8th April 1940 Grumman received a contract for two prototypes of a torpedo bomber as the XTBF-1. It went into mass production as tge Avenger.

Two weeks later Vought received a similar contract for two prototype torpedo bombers to be designated XTBU-1.As Vought had its hands full sorting out the Corsair and bringing it to full production, responsibility for producing the aircraft went to Consolidated as the TBY-2 Sea Wolf, of which 180 were produced in 1944/45 before the rest of the order was cancelled. It never entered operational service.

Neither Grumman nor Vought had produced a torpedo bomber for the USN prior to the above.