Cub Driver writes:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:29:36 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote:

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the
Japanese to adopt a Western and incorrect form of their prized
aircraft designation system grin

But it was a Japanese system! And I suspect they adopted it because
they couldn't understand their own.

I certainly take your point, but I still think we are looking at two
different things he

1. aircraft design specs, via some ministry specification: the Navy
chose something that looked like the USN coding system, but this
applied to the design as a whole. The Army used a kitai number,
also unambiguous, as you point out.

2. Actual plane designation, based on the system that the plane was
first produced/designed in the nefarious imperial year system, and
airplane type. Woe behold if the Navy decided to order two of the
same aircraft type in the same year :-)

These two systems are not exclusive, since to any design spec can be
added the aircraft description, (e.g., SBD-3 Dauntless carrier-based
scout bomber, or G4M1 model 1 Type 1 land attack plane).

(Can you imagine the tower on a Japanese base, saying that a flight of
Type 97 Heavy Bombers escorted by a flight of Type 97 Fighters is
coming in, followed by a flight of Type 97 Light Bombers?)

I don't know what they would say! I must see if I can find a picture
of something like this grin.

But Dan, have you seen any Japanese books that use the design names
for aircraft (A6M, Ki-67, etc.). I haven't, except that sometimes they
are given once when aircraft specs are shown, since the designation is
part of the specs. Strangely, it is on plastic model boxes where the
Ki number and Navy design names are most often visible, perhaps due to
space limitations!

Cheers, Gernot
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan