Re: How were Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames chosen?

[Andreas Parsch]

Hobo wrote:
>
> Were the Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames arbitrary constructions or
> was there some sort of logic behind them?

The names (officially called "nicknames") are essentially arbitrary.
However, the first words ("Have" and "Tacit") are not completely
random, because the first two letters must come from a defined subset
allocated to the DOD component or agency, which supervises the program.
The second word can essentially be chosen at will, and in the case of
classified programs is selected to have no connection to the nature of
the program (which is definitely the case for "Blue"). The second word
of open programs is often related to the program, e.g. the conversion
of F-106s to QF-106 drones was made under the name "Pacer Six".

Andreas

[Cub Driver]

re the Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames arbitrary constructions or
>was there some sort of logic behind them?

Arbitrary. I believe they were thrown up by a computer.

It finally dawned on someone that code names tend to be self-breaking
(Overlord!).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Demonpenta2]

>Subject: Re: How were Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames chosen?
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 9/27/2003 6:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Arbitrary. I believe they were thrown up by a computer.
>
>It finally dawned on someone that code names tend to be self-breaking
>(Overlord!).

Well, OK. Then, how do they pick exercise/operational codenames?

And how do they name planes?

Since we're on the subject, how do other countries do all this?

[Cub Driver]

>And how do they name planes?

It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
pilots and crews name it something else entirely.

This was always true to a certain extent. Famously, the P-47
Thunderbolt was the Jug. But it has accelerated as the official names
have become worse and worse.

Should we have a contest on worst plane name and best replacement?

Surely the worse plane name was the B-36 Peacemaker, intended to drop
two or more hydrogen bombs upon the Russians.

And the best replacement of course is the Warthog for the A-10
Thunderbolt II.

Another question: how long has it been since the pilots of a USAF
warplane called it by the name assigned to it by the bureaucracy?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:42:27 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>And how do they name planes?
>
>It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
>air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
>pilots and crews name it something else entirely.
>
>This was always true to a certain extent. Famously, the P-47
>Thunderbolt was the Jug. But it has accelerated as the official names
>have become worse and worse.
>
>Should we have a contest on worst plane name and best replacement?

Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

>
>Surely the worse plane name was the B-36 Peacemaker, intended to drop
>two or more hydrogen bombs upon the Russians.

Not that bad, since the earlier "Peacemaker" was the .45 Colt Single
Action Army. Might really consider the name vindicated when it is
noted that the B-36 never fired a shot in anger over its entire
service life.
>
>And the best replacement of course is the Warthog for the A-10
>Thunderbolt II.
>
>Another question: how long has it been since the pilots of a USAF
>warplane called it by the name assigned to it by the bureaucracy?

Not that long at all. F-15 Eagle.

There are always going to be "official" names and nicknames. Some
nicknames are going to be affectionately bestowed while others are
going to be a result of envy, dislike or disaffection. Some will be
commonly adopted and some will start as pejoratives and grow into
respect. I personally seldom/never use "Thud" to describe the F-105.
Lots of folks do and for most it has become a respected name.

Same thing is true of individual nicknames or "tactical call-signs."
When I was a squadron ops officer I told my guys that they couldn't
determine what they would be called. It would be a name given them,
not one they chose.

We had a guy come into the squadron, a former FAIP, newly qualified in
the F-4. He had name tags made up reading: "Jim Teak Fighter
Pilot". I told him that he wasn't a fighter pilot until other folks
told him he was. He couldn't unilaterally make the declaration. What
he really had was a misspelled name tag. It was supposed to read:
"Jim, Weak Fighter Pilot". From that day on, his nickname was
"Weak". He wasn't, but the name stuck and he bore it proudly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 05:42:27 -0400, Cub Driver >

<snip >
> >Surely the worse plane name was the B-36 Peacemaker, intended to drop
> >two or more hydrogen bombs upon the Russians.
>
> Not that bad, since the earlier "Peacemaker" was the .45 Colt Single
> Action Army. Might really consider the name vindicated when it is
> noted that the B-36 never fired a shot in anger over its entire
> service life.

"God created man, Colt made them equal".

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> From that day on, his nickname was
>"Weak". He wasn't, but the name stuck and he bore it proudly.
>
>
I'll bet he earned a lot of respect for bearing that name
'proudly'. I'll also bet that he figured any reticence in that
regard would not look good.. :).

Good on him.
--

-Gord.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >And how do they name planes?
>
> It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
> air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
> pilots and crews name it something else entirely.

It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
Thunderchief, etc); Lockheed used astronomy names (Constellation);
Boeing used terms from the atmosphere (Flying Fortress, Super
Fortress, Strato Fortress, etc).

During WWII, some airplanes were first bought by the Brits, and
the Brits gave them their name. This included the Mustang and
the Lightning.

In the early 50's, there was a scandal about the name of the XP-56.
This was a rear engine airplane that made it to prototype stage
in the late 40's as a fast non-jet airplane to cope with the fast
planes coming out of Germany. The plane was named the Ascender.
It came out that this was a word play on the "ass end engine", or
the Ass-ender. From that point on, the Department of Defense took
over the official naming duty.

Prior to Fighting Bob McNemara taking over the DOD in the early
60's, the DOD pretty much used the names that manufactures suggested.
Starting with Fighting Bob, airplane projects became far more
political, and the names became part of the political game.

Some planes since them remained without names for a long period
of time, such as the F-111, F-117, and B-1. The F-111 was given
its official name only shortly before it was retired. Other programs
are given patriotic names, such as Fighting Falcon and Eagle.

The F-22/23 program started as a flyoff between the YF prototypes before
the winner was awarded contracts for full scale development aircraft.
During the flyoff, the planes used manufactures names, the Thunderchief
II and the Lighting II--designed to bring back memories of great WWII
aircraft. Once a winner was selected, the USAF assigned the name
Raptor to the F-22.

Another unique modern name is the F-14 Tomcat. Grumman has a long
history of building "cat" planes for the US Navy. This includes the
F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther and
Cougar (Panther was straight wing, the Cougar was sweptwing), F10F
Jaguar, and the F11F Tiger. When the F-14 project began, the Deputy
Cheif of Naval Operations of Air, Tom Conolly, was responsible for
the project from the Navy. The F-14 project became known internally
as Tom's Cat. The name stuck, and the official name became the
Tomcat.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Bill Silvey]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message


> We had a guy come into the squadron, a former FAIP, newly qualified in
> the F-4. He had name tags made up reading: "Jim Teak Fighter
> Pilot". I told him that he wasn't a fighter pilot until other folks
> told him he was. He couldn't unilaterally make the declaration. What
> he really had was a misspelled name tag. It was supposed to read:
> "Jim, Weak Fighter Pilot". From that day on, his nickname was
> "Weak". He wasn't, but the name stuck and he bore it proudly.

Ed, I've got a question about fighter pilot callnames, nicknames or whatever
you want to call them...I used to work with a Navy pilot at the datacenter I
was employed at a few years back, and he and I had a lot of time to kill on
our shift as it was from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM (not a lot happening on the east
coast in terms of electronic finance at those hours). Anyway, he'd regale
me with tall tales about his various comings and goings (and seemed
pleasantly surprised that I, a mere civilian, had knowledge of garden spots
like Subic Bay, some rudimentary aircraft knowledge, etc.).

AT ANY RATE...one evening I asked him, jokingly, "So, did you have some
ultra-cool fighter pilot name like "Shark" or "Killer" or "Maverick" or
"Iceman"." and he just sort of frosted a bit and said, "No, my 'handle' was
Sparks."

Later that evening (morning) as the shift ended I was packing up* and bade
him goodbye, I'll see you tomorrow** "sparks". Anyway, he frosted again and
shook his head and said "Don't call me that. You don't get to." He never
mentioned it again, didn't act any different than the friendly guy he was
the next day, etc.

Now I realize you're not a Navy pilot nor do you know the circumstances but
is there a particular reason a pilot might get reeeeeeeealy sensitive about
a handle? (For the record I never brought it up again, nor did he, and life
was good.)

*A 12 hour night shift is about a decade long; you tend to bring books (as
in many in a night), CDs, newspaper, magazines, etc. so leaving at the end
of your shift is like moving out of town.

** as in 12 hours from 7:00AM, being 7:00pm that night

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:55:12 -0500, "John A. Weeks III"
> wrote:


>It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
>North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
>Thunderchief, etc);

That would of course be Republic.

> Lockheed used astronomy names (Constellation);

Lockheed use "Star-xxxx" as in Starfighter or Shooting Star or
Starfire. Close enough to astronomy for government work.

>Boeing used terms from the atmosphere (Flying Fortress, Super
>Fortress, Strato Fortress, etc).

Like Fortress, Fortress, Fortress?
>
>During WWII, some airplanes were first bought by the Brits, and
>the Brits gave them their name. This included the Mustang and
>the Lightning.

Lockheed's Lightning (astronomy??) wasn't first bought by the Brits.
>
>Prior to Fighting Bob McNemara taking over the DOD in the early
>60's, the DOD pretty much used the names that manufactures suggested.
>Starting with Fighting Bob, airplane projects became far more
>political, and the names became part of the political game.

Don't think we can attribute that to McNamara. On his watch we got the
F-4 Phantom II, named in the tradition of McDonnell with a
supernatural bent following the Voodoo. And the LTV Corsair II,
following Chance-Vought's Corsair.
>

>The F-22/23 program started as a flyoff between the YF prototypes before
>the winner was awarded contracts for full scale development aircraft.
>During the flyoff, the planes used manufactures names, the Thunderchief
>II and the Lighting II--designed to bring back memories of great WWII
>aircraft. Once a winner was selected, the USAF assigned the name
>Raptor to the F-22.

While Lockheed did dub the -22 as Lightning II, Northrop tried Black
Widow II on F-23. Neither manufacturer would have weathered the
backlash of trying to call their airplane Thunderchief.

I always suggested, while I was at Northrop that based on its
appearance and the previous carnivorous insect name tradition that the
-23 be called "Mantis".
>
>Another unique modern name is the F-14 Tomcat. Grumman has a long
>history of building "cat" planes for the US Navy. This includes the
>F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther and
>Cougar (Panther was straight wing, the Cougar was sweptwing), F10F
>Jaguar, and the F11F Tiger. When the F-14 project began, the Deputy
>Cheif of Naval Operations of Air, Tom Conolly, was responsible for
>the project from the Navy. The F-14 project became known internally
>as Tom's Cat. The name stuck, and the official name became the
>Tomcat.

So, if Grumman has a long history of building "cat" named aircraft,
how then is Tomcat "unique"?

[Andreas Parsch]

Demonpenta2 wrote:

>>Subject: Re: How were Have Blue and Tacit Blue codenames chosen?
>>From: Cub Driver
>>Date: 9/27/2003 6:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>Arbitrary. I believe they were thrown up by a computer.

As fas as I know (could be wrong, of course!), the nicknames are _not_
chosen by a computer. And if you think about it, it's not _that_
difficult for a human to come up with a perfectly harmless word - like
"Blue" ;-).

>>
>>It finally dawned on someone that code names tend to be self-breaking
>>(Overlord!).
>
> Well, OK. Then, how do they pick exercise/operational codenames?

You might be interested in this article:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1995/sieminsk.htm


Andreas

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:08:26 GMT, "Bill Silvey"
> wrote:


>Ed, I've got a question about fighter pilot callnames, nicknames or whatever
>you want to call them...I used to work with a Navy pilot at the datacenter I
>was employed at a few years back, and he and I had a lot of time to kill on
>our shift as it was from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM (not a lot happening on the east
>coast in terms of electronic finance at those hours).

>AT ANY RATE...one evening I asked him, jokingly, "So, did you have some
>ultra-cool fighter pilot name like "Shark" or "Killer" or "Maverick" or
>"Iceman"." and he just sort of frosted a bit and said, "No, my 'handle' was
>Sparks."
>
>Later that evening (morning) as the shift ended I was packing up* and bade
>him goodbye, I'll see you tomorrow** "sparks". Anyway, he frosted again and
>shook his head and said "Don't call me that. You don't get to." He never
>mentioned it again, didn't act any different than the friendly guy he was
>the next day, etc.

Quite often a call-sign is "earned" based on an embarrassing
situation. If so, some folks might tolerate it among those who know
the story but not wear it so proudly outside of the community. My best
guess might be that "Sparks" might have had a tail drag incident
somewhere or maybe an oversight leading to taxi, take-off or landing
with some component dragging and creating a pyrotechnic display.

We had a guy in Spain in the F-4 that made a significant switch error
during a night, low-level, nuclear (simulated) delivery during an ORI.
It resulted in dropping the nuke "shape" about eight miles short of
the target. From that day forward he was "Short Round" to everyone.

The worst one I ever heard was recently from an F-16 pilot. His name
tag declared him to be "OBOC". The explanation, when pried out of him,
was that during a cross-country excursion with a number of buddies,
he'd gotten quite lucky with a beautiful young lady, but he had to cut
the evening much shorter than it could have been, because he "Only
Brought One Condom"!!!

There's a female Viper pilot I know named "Shooter"--not because of
her marksmanship or aerial gunnery skills, but as a result of a
drinking misadventure.

[Tex Houston]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Cub Driver
> > wrote:
>
> > >And how do they name planes?
> >
> > It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
> > air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
> > pilots and crews name it something else entirely.
>
> It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
> North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
> Thunderchief, etc); Lockheed used astronomy names (Constellation);
> Boeing used terms from the atmosphere (Flying Fortress, Super
> Fortress, Strato Fortress, etc).
> -john-

Republic Aviation would be really surprised to find out about the "thunder"
series being used by North American.

Tex Houston

[Yeff]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."

I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
the name it would've had a chance.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:55:12 -0500, "John A. Weeks III" >
wrote:

>In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>> >And how do they name planes?
>>
>> It seems to be a collaborative effort between the manufacturer and the
>> air force. Then, after the uniformly awful names are applied, the
>> pilots and crews name it something else entirely.
>
>It used to be something that the manufacturer did. For example,
>North American used the "thunder" series names (Thunderbolt,
>Thunderchief, etc)

You mean Republic, right?

North American built the Mustang and Twin Mustang. They built a series of Navy
fighters all bearing the name Fury and there was the Sabre and Super Sabre.
I don't think that the XF-107 was ever Christened with a name.

Lockheed originally named there XP-38 the "Atlanta". It was the Brits who
bestowed the name "Lightning". Likewise, the Brits named the P-51"Mustang", as
NAA called it the "Apache".

Grumman built fighters in FAA service received the names "Martlet" and "Gannet",
utterly awful to American ears. They eventually adopted Grumman's names of
Wildcat and Hellcat. Grumman also produced three different aircraft based upon
the same airframe, "Tracker", "Tracer" and "Trader". These being the S2F-1, WF-1
and the TF-1. Later these were re-designated S-2, E-1 and C-1.

The common thread to Boeing bombers was the word "Fortress", not really anything
related to the atmosphere.

As far as I can determine, Only Grumman has adhered to tradition over the long
haul. Republic had the Thunderbolt II (A-10), LVT had the Corsair II (A-7),
McDonnell had the Phantom II (F-4 series) and most recently Lockheed-Martin
offered the Lightning II (F-22). Both the A-10 and F-22 have alternate names
(Warthog, etc) now, and the Phantom and A-7 are essentially history.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[Tex Houston]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> > Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."
>
> I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
> the name it would've had a chance.
>
> -Jeff B.


They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
track and protested loudly.

Tex

[Yeff]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:21:59 -0600, Tex Houston wrote:

>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>> Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
>> the name it would've had a chance.
>>
>> -Jeff B.
>
>
> They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
> track and protested loudly.

I can just see a bunch of businessmen all wearing suits, standing on a
flightline and staring at an F-16...

"Is that what we ordered?"

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > > Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
> > the name it would've had a chance.

> They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
> track and protested loudly.

Dassault builds more than Biz-jets.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 23:05:16 +0200, Emmanuel Gustin > wrote:
>I like the original 1918 British system. Surely the paper-pusher who
>determined that henceforth fighters would have names that were
>"Zoological, Vegetable, or Mineral" and must alliterate with the
>name of the manufacturer, had a mischievous streak...

Hmmm...

The Hawker-Siddeley Haricot, the BAE Banana :-)


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia

[Andrew Chaplin]

Tex Houston wrote:
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > > Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
> > the name it would've had a chance.
>
> They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
> track and protested loudly.

Is Dat ssault? :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, says...
>
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Yeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 15:31:07 GMT, Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hands down winner, "Fighting Falcon" replaced by "Viper."
> > >
> > > I'm of the opinion that if they'd just left the redundant "Fighting" off
> > > the name it would've had a chance.
>
> > They tried but the maker of Falcon business jets already had the inside
> > track and protested loudly.
>
> Dassault builds more than Biz-jets.
>

They have a rather successful line of hanger queens and apron weights too.


--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[Tex Houston]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> They have a rather successful line of hanger queens and apron weights too.
>
Do they keep these 'hanger queens' in a hangar?

Tex

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > They have a rather successful line of hanger queens and apron weights too.
> >
> Do they keep these 'hanger queens' in a hangar?

bah

speeling flams

;')

--
0763rd Messkit & Gameboy Repair Company
404th Area Support Group (Lemming)

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> >Another unique modern name is the F-14 Tomcat. Grumman has a long
> >history of building "cat" planes for the US Navy. This includes the
> >F4F Wildcat, F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, F9F Panther and
> >Cougar (Panther was straight wing, the Cougar was sweptwing), F10F
> >Jaguar, and the F11F Tiger. When the F-14 project began, the Deputy
> >Cheif of Naval Operations of Air, Tom Conolly, was responsible for
> >the project from the Navy. The F-14 project became known internally
> >as Tom's Cat. The name stuck, and the official name became the
> >Tomcat.
>
> So, if Grumman has a long history of building "cat" named aircraft,
> how then is Tomcat "unique"?

The process by which it was named was unique. It ended up with a
name that was essentially an inside joke, in an era where the DOD
normally controlls the names and tries to get political mileage
out of each name.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message >...
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > They have a rather successful line of hanger queens and apron weights too.
> >
> Do they keep these 'hanger queens' in a hangar?

That was really cute....the first seventeen times you pulled it, that
is. When are you going to come up with a new word to spell for
everybody?

Brooks

>
> Tex

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Corey C.
Jordan > wrote:

> The common thread to Boeing bombers was the word "Fortress", not really
> anything related to the atmosphere.

Only the bombers ended up with the Fortress suffix. They also
used suffixes of "lifter" for cargo planes, "tanker" for the
KC-135, and I forget what they called the passenger planes.
Was it the Stratocrusier, or the Stratoliner?

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Cub Driver]

>During WWII, some airplanes were first bought by the Brits, and
>the Brits gave them their name. This included the Mustang and
>the Lightning.

Or more remarkably, the P-40. The RAF called the small-jawed B & C
model the Tomahawk, the large-jawed D etc the Kittyhawk.

This was a double tribute: to the long line of Curtiss Hawk warplanes,
and to two American icons.

The USAAF and Curtiss then tried to play catchup by retroactively
naming all P-40 models as the Warhawk, which to seem has always seemed
to lack something.

Perhaps what we ought to do is hire out the naming of our aircraft to
the RAF (Air Ministry?), which seems to have a knack for it.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>So, if Grumman has a long history of building "cat" named aircraft,
>how then is Tomcat "unique"?

Because it's a *good* name? That certainly is unique in the annals of
postwar U.S. warplanes.

Well, okay: Raptor. I make another exception for Raptor as well.
That's a very good name!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[vincent p. norris]

>Or more remarkably, the P-40. The RAF called the small-jawed B & C
>model the Tomahawk, the large-jawed D etc the Kittyhawk......

>The USAAF and Curtiss then tried to play catchup by retroactively
>naming all P-40 models as the Warhawk, which to seem has always seemed
>to lack something.

I was a high school kid, aviation nut and prolific model-builder
during WW II.

My recollection is that *at that time*, the U.S. aviation and model
airplane mags called the small-jawed P-40s Tomahawks, the D (and
perhaps E) Kittyhawk, and the F and subsequent models Warhawk. How
long that continued, I don't know; I got out of school, enlisted, and
no longer saw the mags.

vince norris

[robert arndt]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >So, if Grumman has a long history of building "cat" named aircraft,
> >how then is Tomcat "unique"?
>
> Because it's a *good* name? That certainly is unique in the annals of
> postwar U.S. warplanes.

One of the earlier unofficial proposed names was "Alleycat", so I
don't buy the "Tom's Cat" story as "unique". A better substitution is
more likely.
>
> Well, okay: Raptor. I make another exception for Raptor as well.
> That's a very good name!

This also started off as "Superstar"- a horrible name. Raptor is more
fitting, but not as a bird of prey... just a dinosaur that should get
a taxpayer extinction.

Rob (being sarcastic on purpose)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com