Warbird Information Exchange

Our CG aircraft guy did a little looking around on this one. Here's a little info. David can cross-check it.

N9825Z. It's had a checkered past so to speak:
Delivered to the USN in December 1945 as BUNO 64107. It carried two construction numbers. Being
built at Consolidated's New Orleans operation. Hence, it initially received a New Orleans c/n of 235.
However, Consolidated eventually changed the c/n numbering at the NO factory to reflect the basis of
previously constructed PBY aircraft numbering system at their main factory at San Diego. This caused
the airframe to receive a c/n of 2177.

After a short stint with the Navy, It was transferred to the NASM in the late 1950s where it was planned
for display for the National Museum of the U.S. Military (NEVER BUILT) in the DC area. It was then put
up for sale on the civil market and modified as a fire bomber in Florida. It continued in these ops,
eventually winding up with a rag-tag outfit (SLAFCO) in WA where it remained until it was sold at
auction in 1999, to a Rick Petersen of Moses Lake, WA. It has been under restoration ever since.

Unique with this airframe, although it appears to have been converted Clipper Bow, it was not the standard
Clipper conversion when it became a fire bomber as a false Clipper Bow made from fiberglass was simply
fitted over its original manufactured airframe. Hence, all original bow fixtures remained as they were in
1945. One thing for sure, Mr. Petersen has done one hell of a job to date.

Though obviously in need of updating, this is what I have on this PBY

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/pbyregis ... 64107.html

And this is how it looked in 2004

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ

Coastiejohn...

Your information contradicts what the owner/restorer told me about the airframe...see the third post in this thread. Namely it was never a fire bomber and has its original nose.

When the owner showed me the aircraft a few years back, he did not mention redoing the nose and from my close examination of it from a inspection stand, it certainly looked to be original, it's unpainted and the metal matched everything else.

Someone is wrong.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.

Thanks...I'll check up on that and see what the deal is.

If you read his post right, you'll see that it was indeed never converted to clipper bow. It had a fibreglass clipper bow copy attached above the original bow. So the original was preserved under a fake fibreglass clipper bow.

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

Here is some more thoughts on it. He may have gotten this from David?? If so, credit David. My buddy lives very close to U-H. He has been researching all CG aircraft that have been assigned, purchased, loaned, horse-traded or stolen by the CG going back to the Model F's. He and his wife have been at this since the 1970's. He gets alot of info from a/c logbooks, AHC's, microfilm, manufacture build sheets, first person acct's, etc. All of his work will be posted on CG Ptero website one of these days for future researchers and historians. He was also a FAA/NTSB accident investigator too. He can get access to stuff alot folks can't. We have another old timer Coastie who has been writing a comprehensive book on the CG's VP-6 in Greenland during WWII. That should be a good one. Here ya go....

Based on FAA records, N9825Z received its initial airworthiness certificate on May 2, 1963 designate as RESTRICTED, FOREST operations.
Hence, the aircraft was initially configured as a fire bomber upon its first civil use. This first owner was the State of Florida where it served
as a water bomber until it was sold to SLAFCO, a large PBY fire bomber operator in Washington state .

The May 1963 certification date coincides with its release for sale to the civil market by the Smithsonian in late 1961 where it had been held
as an artifact for future museum display. The primary reasons (2) it was released for sale was that being the last one (a model 28-6A) the (museum) felt that it was not true representative of the then famous PBY series that saw service throughout WWII. With this fact in mind, the museum management felt that a model 28-5, or 28-5A, would be a better example of the famous WWII Catalina. At the time, the US Navy held a model 28-5 (P-Boat) at NAS Pensacola in the name of the Smithsonian. The Navy eventually obtained this PBY-5 on long term
loan from the museum where it remains on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation today - - - the only Model 28-5 in the US.
The second reason for releasing the PBY-6A was the fact that the planned National Museum of the U.S. Military suffered s very
drawn out, slow death and was eventually canceled.

As the video indicated, it appears somewhere during its history, enough original parts were saved for a complete re-fit the entire interior
as it would have had as it left the factory. At lease one spanking new part has been (or will be) added to the airframe as the current
registration lists both a MODE S 8-bit transponder code of 53332661 a/o a 16-bit code of ADB5B1.

If you could find a Coastie to look at it and review the master aircraft logs, it's based about 30 miles east of SEA.

The best and most complete Catalina history can be found in a USNI published book be David Legg. (Unsolicited plug ( ))

That aircraft being intact like it is $1mil sounds high but where else can one be found like it? I recall another being restored elsewhere in Washington State then it was offered for sale as a Repo.

JohnB - just to stick my nose in here - whilst it is hard to contradict the aircraft's owner, it is nonetheless a fact that before he restored the bow turret area it was covered with a large clipper bow which covered the original turret fittings. In addition, despite the owner apparently saying it was never converted for water bombing, this is contradicted by the FAA Airworthiness file.

In an earlier thread on this forum which had drifted onto the subject of this aircraft I commented: "Notwithstanding what the current owner says about BuNo 64017/N9825Z (and I guess he ought to know), the FAA Airworthiness file has a document within it dated 26Jun63 stating that, whilst owned by the Florida Board of Forestry, Florida Forest Service, work was carried out by Max E Horn, Tallahassee, FL. This work included, and I quote: "Converted space between bulkheads 4 and 5 into chemical tanks to be used for fire bombing." The document goes on to quote dimensions and there is also a related drawing showing the tank installation and drop door arrangement. This PBY was registered to the Florida Board of Forestry between 18Aug61 and 25Apr73 when it was acquired by SLAFCO. So it may be a reasonable assumption that it was indeed used as a fire fighter during that time (and, although I have no proof) may have carried the tanker code '158' previously mentioned. I am not aware that it flew as a fire fighter after acquisition by SLAFCO however."

Referring back to that document now, I see that it also states: "...modified nose of hull by installing a fibreglass fairing built by Demers Aircraft of Aurora, Oregon."

None of the above is to denigrate the great work that Rick Petersen has carried out on his PBY-6A over the years and I hope he eventually gets it to flying condition.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record

David,

Just to be clear here though - unless there is clear evidence of drop doors on the exterior of the aircraft, converting the spaces may have only been a configuration issue (i.e. they were already closed-off areas and they simply "plugged" any threaded outlets to it with caps so as the "chemical" wouldn't mix with other fluids), so it's entirely possible that both the paperwork and the owner are correct. In addition, having a fiberglass cover is not a clipper bow conversion. There is a significant amount of structural work done for the clipper conversion to make that area more sound for heavy seas. The fiberglass top is non structural and thus it would be correct to state that it was not converted, just covered, unlike most aircraft with the clipper nose.

Finally, just as the FAA had a hard time keeping up with the actual airworthiness of any given aircraft on the registry (how many were scrapped in the 1970s and 1980s and still on the registry 2 years ago?), you can't take filed paperwork as gospel. The paperwork filed is simply to make the airplane legal and has to be put in ahead of time. Because it was a listed STC, the scope of work is the same for all aircraft which received that modification and was likely submitted for all at the same time. However, this does not mean it was actually done and the airplane would still be legal to fly without all the modifications made as the STC simply authorizes the aircraft to be modified and declared airworthy with those modifications, not that it must have the full scope of work done. This is why (for example) there are several On Mark Marksmen conversions that never got the DC-6 windscreen conversion, but are still listed as Marksmen.

Thanks CAPFlyer. To be fair, I did quote from the FAA file by saying that ""...modified nose of hull by installing a fibreglass fairing built by Demers Aircraft of Aurora, Oregon." and, in my own words "it was covered with a large clipper bow which covered the original turret fittings". I didn't state that it had undergone the full clipper bow structural conversion but do not believe it is unfair to say it had a clipper bow in terms of its overall shape.

The point about the drop doors is interesting and referring back to the aforementioned document in the FAA file, it says: "...the belly of the aircraft has two holes cut, one in each tank, of approx 20" x 64" and drop gates are installed....". Given that the document was signed off by the company carrying out the work it seems a reasonable assumption that it was actually done but I have not inspected the aircraft in question and have been careful to say that the owner should know what he is talking about.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record

I found photos online that show it with a clipper bow and no blister windows.

http://www.a-26invader.co.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/n9825zww.jpg

I couldn't hot link this one...

http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p102060098/h70EFE661#h70efe661

Richard

_________________
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

Here's a shot from 1966 in Florida, from the web:



https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1024189

_________________
Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

Again, this is not a "work performed" document. This is a Supplimental Type Certificate modification which has standard approved wording. The application of the STC to the aircraft cannot be taken as proof that the modification has been implemented either partially or fully. Unless you have seen the logbook entries stating that the STC has been completed in full, then I would tend to believe the owner and SLAFCO that the full conversion was never completed on the aircraft.

What I have seen is the FAA Major Repair and Alteration Form (Airframe, Powerplant, Propeller or Appliance) which is signed by Max E Horn of Tallahassee, FL and dated 02May63 staying that the work had been carried out for the owner of N9825Z (Florida Forest Service, Florida Board of Forestry) and that the aircraft was approved for return to service, that work including the conversion to carry chemical tanks for fire bombing, the inclusion of hull drop doors and the fibreglass nose mod. Perhaps I am missing something but why would Max Horn sign that document if he had not carried out the work. Despite what you say, it seems to me that this document is a "work performed" document as you call it.

The same Airworthiness file includes a Special Airworthiness Certificate dated "5/2/63" which I assume is May 2nd (I'm British) and it specifies the classification as Restricted in the Fire Fighting category.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record

Further to the above, I am not 100% sure but do those look like drop doors in the photo of N9825Z here? https://www.na3t.org/air/photo/AG05005

Maybe, maybe not.

_________________
David Legg
Editor, The Catalina News
The Catalina Society
Author: Consolidated PBY Catalina - The Peacetime Record