The use of the word 'frame'

[Deleted]

I notice that increasingly posters are mistakenly using the word 'frame' to describe a particular aircraft. No doubt the word is an American import, but like most US imports, it's a misunderstood one. It's short for airframe, the correct definition of which is the complete aircraft minus engines: Wiki

The airframe of an aircraft is its mechanical structure, which is typically considered to exclude the propulsion system

So, if you're calling it an airframe, it's either a glider or something waiting to be scrapped, because the engines are always the first thing to be taken off.
The expression originated because aircraft manufacturers produce an airframe, but not of course the engines, and Flight Global has adopted the expression 'airframer' some time ago, which like most US expressions, is correct but unnecessary, to describe a major aircraft manufacturer.

[CloudWarrior]

I notice that it is becoming a trend for certain posters to come over all pedantic.

[Deleted]

The airframe never changes - but the engines do....so perhaps they are right in only collecting "frames" as they couldn't be sure if they'd seen the same engines before ;D

Dave
(who doesn't collect anything)

[viscount]

'Garstonboy' may not ike the term 'frame', then in his initial post describes exactly why it is used by today's enthusiast.

"Back in the day" (a term I dislike) "spotters" (a term I can put up with) logged the registration etc and knew they had seen that aircraft. It may be seen again years later with another identity, so you recorded a footnote it had been seen years before with a different registration.

Today Boeings and Airbus's change registration with the season, 15 identities in a lifetime are not uncommon. The one thing that ties them together is that all the various registrations have been applied to the same airframe (with or without engines). So spotters now collect 'frames ie an airframe, not whatever identity is being worn as registratons can change by the week.

To me its evolution, once started the trend is unstoppable. By fighting it you join the "old brigade". Mind you, I'm happy to join them when it comes to using written English without full stops and Capital letters! There are more important issues than the creeping adoption of the term 'frame.

Never met, yet, a spotter who logs engines though! After all an engine will have an identity, but not a registration. A 'frame has both identity and a frequently (in some cases) changing registration.

Brian
(who records registrations and collects lots of pieces of paper)

[Deleted]

I'm willing to bet that the average enthusiast couldn't give a **** about which engine is hanging on the airframe - I certainly couldn't when I was collecting registrations.
I agree with Viscount that especially these days, an aircraft can carry many different registrations in its' lifetime; it will also carry many different engines. But without its engines it cannot fly and is therefore (presumably) of less interest to the average enthusiast. At that point whatever registration it was carrying will be the last one, because it cannot get a CofA and by extension, a registration, and so it becomes an airframe, and an airframe is not capable of flight - simples. ;D

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2011 13:25:16 GMT 1 @garstonboy said:

But without its engines it cannot fly and is therefore (presumably) of less interest to the average enthusiast.

Not so!

Many spotters, myself included, spend many a happy day hunting down wrecks and relics

GC

[Biggles]

Could some clarify it was a "flying ****" , as mentioned by Garston boy?

[Deleted]

Jul 29, 2011 13:44:40 GMT 1 @silverback said:

Jul 29, 2011 13:25:16 GMT 1 @garstonboy said:

But without its engines it cannot fly and is therefore (presumably) of less interest to the average enthusiast.

Not so!

Many spotters, myself included, spend many a happy day hunting down wrecks and relics

GC

As I did myself, and I'm still interested in them, but I was always in the minority.