This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Not according to Jean Cluny in his DOCAVIA series book on the Latécoères. The early Latés used two digit type no.s, sometimes with variants identified with a third digit e.g. 28-6 (or 28.6). In a footnote to the 330 project, he says that from this time on L used a three digit form, most without a dot or dash but some with a space between the second and third. By his account it seems to have taken a little while to adapt to the new style, for he has a sections on the "Latécoère 340 (ou 34-0)" and the 35-0. After that, as far as I can see, he uses three digits as in 440.
It does seem that the older notation persisted at least in the paint shops. The nose of the 340 carried Latécoère 34 in photos and the 440 (prototype) had Latécoère 44.o painted three times over on one side, on floats, fuselage and fin, though the .o is small and paler so quite hard to see. Later still, the 550 flew carrying 55.0 (now a big final zero) on the side. Some images do show 3-digit numbers; the prototype Latécoère 298 carried 298 N.01 on the fin. The 294 is another. These xy.z images may be the reason that some sources use 44.0 etc. I took the view that Cluny was the L specialist and had spent time thinking about notation, and went along.TSRL (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply