Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th June 2018 at 15:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would assume that this followed on from ship-building practice, where the builder would allocate a 'ship number' or 'yard number'.
By: - 18th June 2018 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
German manufacturers used 'werke' numbers that differed from tail/service numbers during WW1. I do not know what British practise was during this time period.
Regards
John
By: - 18th June 2018 at 18:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure that Ron is not suggesting that manufacturers lacked such a system before Air Britain existed, merely the use of the actual term C/N for clarity, in place of the variety of such terminology.
However, as far as I know there was no German service numbering system that existed alongside manufacturing werke numbers, at least until late in the war when the system was standardised to avoid duplication. I suspect this is confusion with the radio call sign (four letters) issued to all German aircraft, which differed from the letter/number/two letters carried by operational units.
By: - 19th June 2018 at 00:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks to all who have responded.
Graham assumes correctly that I am trying to ascertain the origins of the term "C/N" as a descriptor for the serial number issued by the manufacturer.
By: - 19th June 2018 at 01:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C/n was used by the aviation registration body in the U.K. pre WWII. The term certainly was not introduced by Air-Britain! If you use the CAA site and look at the following link to the first card recording the registration for example of G-ACTF you will find the term “Constructor’s Number” already in use.
https://cwsprduksumbraco.blob.core.windows.net/g-info/HistoricalLedger/G-ACTF-1.pdf
By: - 19th June 2018 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Consul
Thank you for that most helpful response. Am I interpreting that document correctly if I deduce that the form (C.A. 113) was introduced by the Air Registration Board in October 1938 (10/38) and that the details for G-ACTF were retrospectively transcribed from a register to the new card (the stamp on the card is illegible). This would date the earliest documented use of "Constructor's No." at October 1938 but presumably it could have been in use earlier. Do we know what term was used in the preceding "Register"? We have at least eliminated the Air Britain furphy.
Rgds
By: - 19th June 2018 at 10:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hi morning,
a interesting question, I've just had a look on the CAA site G-INFO, when I entered G-EASD the aircraft details have serial number E5. Further down the entry is view registration details, and again view entry for pre 1986, this gives the photocopy of the original registry card which then gives construction number E5 registered 26-3-20...
The entry for G-EAAE a HP.O/400 ex airforce is on the aircraft details page its given as serial number HP16, and its pre 1986 original card its c/n number is D8350, its RAF serial...
regards,
jack...
By: - 19th June 2018 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For HP O/400 G-EAAE the 'HP.16' is it's Fleet Number, nominally in the Handley Page Transport fleet, but the list also includes a number of aircraft that HP sold overseas (possibly intended for local HP-sponsored airlines). This was used briefly as the company had become impatient with the international efforts to regularise civil registrations, and found the use of the original RAF serial unwieldy (and highlighting the war-like origins of the aircraft was unwelcome). As HP invented and re-invented their airline aspirations, and as O/400 derivatives proved themselves rather fragile in airline service, a number of their aircraft became 'bitsas' (i.e. bits of this, bits of that) and I don't think there was ever at that time a single 'works' number that was separate from an externally visible identity.
By: - 19th June 2018 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
hi,
thanks LaztB for the extra info always useful. My 2 examples were of the earliest civil registrations I could find, and from the CAA cards of these 2 registered in 1920, the card has construction no. printed on...
regards,
jack...
By: - 20th June 2018 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks everyone for the ongoing contributions. It would appear that the earliest recorded use of "Constructor's No." is the ARB card Form C.A. 113 which was introduced in October 1938 (See Post #6). Evidently many aircraft which were registered much earlier than 1938 were transcribed to this new card and their identities recorded in the column headed "Contructor's No." These identities may or may not have been classified as Constructor's Numbers before they were transcribed to the new card. The objective now is to find a reference to Constructor's No. earlier than 1938.
I am also interested to know if the term was ever used by an American manufacturer.
By: - 20th June 2018 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Ron et al.
Trevor Boughton's Man and Aerial Machines had an article plus follow-ups on this subject many years ago. It covered British, Australian and American aircraft. I will dig it up and have a look...
By: - 20th June 2018 at 12:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A lot of people (including some in this thread) refer to something called a "construction number".
Is this simply a corruption of "Constructor's Number" or does it have any valid basis? . .
By: - 20th June 2018 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You could say the answer to that lies in what the constructor puts on the plate. Some read 'serial number'. Some read 'construction number'. Both are constructor's numbers.
By: - 21st June 2018 at 06:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably started with the first cars being made maybe?
By: - 22nd June 2018 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US were certainly using it by 1933
By: - 22nd June 2018 at 03:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US were certainly using it by 1933
ZRX61 Please clarify. Using what by 1933?
By: - 22nd June 2018 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Construction/Constructor's Number and Serial Number are NOT the same thing: c/n (whichever version you choose) refers to a manufacturer's sequence number, assigned by them.
Serial number is usually the term used to indicate an in-service identifier for military aircraft in the same way as 'registration letters/marks/numbers' indicate civilian versions of same.
Serial number is also the term used to describe components of an aircraft which usually have a finite service life assigned to them.
Back on-topic I recall as a spotty pre-teen being told about 'con numbers' by an elder member of LAAS (remember them?), but at the time having no idea what it referred to. Nowadays in the industry we seem to use the term 'MSN' rather than c/n.
By: - 22nd June 2018 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Construction/Constructor's Number and Serial Number are NOT the same thing
Sorry Sabrejet but I can't agree with you there. There are many cases where the same number is described as a serial number or a constructor's number.
Serial number is also the term used to describe components of an aircraft
or indeed the entire airframe!
It could be speculated that the use of "serial" to denote an identity assigned by the manufacturer as well as an identity assigned by a military customer created the circumstance where somebody decided to coin the term "Constructor's Number" to eliminate any confusion.
My latest research into Australian government issued registration and airworthiness forms indicates that the term "Constructor's No." was in use as early as 1921. This suggests to me that British use of "Constructor's No." would have been earlier than 1921.
The term "Manufacturer's Serial Number" was in Australian use (for an American aircraft) as early as 1941.
Rgds
By: - 22nd June 2018 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apologies for being "picky" but surely the question should read, when did the term "constructors number" come into use.
It is not a matter of "inventing" it.....
By: - 23rd June 2018 at 02:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sabrejet, I agree with some of your comments, but not all of them. Serial number does not necessarily apply to the military equivalent of the civilian registration; it may be true in some services but in fact not for the RAF and RAAF. if you look at the record cards and such things, the form actually says registration (although often something like just 'aircraft'). The point is that the usual identifiers on the aircraft are actually registrations; The UK and Australian boards developed out of the same systems, and you have civil and military registrars and registrations.
What you say about component serial numbers is absolutely true and extends to aircraft as well, and it just depends on what the manufacturer calls it. The point being what 'serial' means; these numbers are sequential and relate generally to the production sequence. Normally, an aircraft serial or construction number never changes, where as the registration, military or civilian, can change.
Obviously I'm making generalisations and there are exceptions within the UK and Australia, and in some other countries this system just doesn't apply.
Posts: 238
By: Ron Cuskelly - 18th June 2018 at 12:56
I am wondering about the origins of the term C/N for Constructor's Number. It has been suggested that it was first coined by Air Britain to describe the serial number assigned to an airframe by its manufacturer and to differentiate that number from a subsequent "serial number" as assigned by the military. So who was first to use it and when?