To build on the Beech/Beechcraft issue above, there are three other similar cases which I have run into from time to time:
First, should the proper format of the Avengers not built by Grumman be "Eastern TBM Avenger" or "General Motors TBM Avenger"? (On a semi-related note, it seems to be an unofficial convention that the license builder is sometimes included in parentheses after the designer's name. As in, "Grumman (Eastern) TBM Avenger". However, this is a bit different from what is being asked here.)
Second, the manufacturer of the Kaydet biplane. Is it "Stearman" "Boeing", "Boeing-Stearman" or something else? For background, the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, which also owned Boeing, acquired the Stearman Aircraft Corporation in 1929. Then, in 1934, as a result of antitrust legislation, UATC was forced to split up. The company was split three ways, with Boeing receiving the Stearman subsidiary. By 1938, it was being referred to as the "Stearman Aircraft division" (usually with a lowercase "D" in "division"). Finally, on 10 September 1941, it was announced that that subsidiary in Kansas was changed to "Wichita Division, Boeing Airplane [C]ompany".
[1]Hyphenated manufacturer names are traditionally only used when the two companies involved are involved in a merger of equals and not a buyout of one by the other. So, the term "Boeing-Stearman" does not seem appropriate. Its worth noting that Cessna and Beechcraft are currently in the same relationship vis-à-vis Textron, but the "brand names" are still used. So, the continual use of a subsidiary's name is not out of the question. However, after the name change in 1941, the name "Stearman" was no longer used. Then, it seems, any aircraft built after that date should be referred to as a "Boeing PT-17 Kaydet". The situation of aircraft completed before that date is less clear and, without additional evidence, could be referred to as either "Stearman" or "Boeing". (For further discussion of this topic, see a
post on aircraft name change hypotheticals.)
Third, the full title of the F4U is often written "Chance Vought F4U Corsair" instead of "Vought F4U Corsair". Of the three cases, this is the one I have the most definite answer for. The correct form is the latter. To be sure, although founded as the "Lewis and Vought Corporation", all but one of the variations of the full name of the company between 1922 and 1961 included "Chance Vought":
[2]- Chance Vought Corporation: 1922-1935
- Chance Vought Aircraft: 1935-1939
- Vought-Sikorsky: 1939-1943
- Chance Vought Aircraft: 1943-1954
- Chance Vought Aircraft, Incorporated: 1954-1960
- Chance Vought Corporation: 1960-1961
Despite this, as far as I am aware, there are no other instances of including the first name of the company founder when writing the full title an aircraft and it seems Vought should be no different.
I have been unsure on how to handle these for a long time, so I am interested in what everyone else's thoughts are. Do you more frequently see one of these formats than the other? If you wrote articles about any of these aircraft, which did you use?