Warbird Information Exchange

Hi all,
I'm working on a model kit review of a Guardian and I like to include info about survivors of the real deal in such articles. Aerial Visuals, Geoff Goodall and Wikipedia all have some contrasting info and I'd like to be able to nail things down definitively. From these sources what I can glean is:

- AF-2W BuNo.123088/N3143G on display at the Chico Air Museum, CA (confirmed by their website which says "one of only six in the world")
- AF-2W BuNo.123100/N3144G* on display at the National Museum of Naval Aviation, Pensacola, FL
- AF-2S BuNo.126731/N9993Z with the Commemorative Air Force in Dallas, TX (under restoration? On static display?)
- AF-2S BuNo.126792/N9995Z with Skyler C. Burchinal in Brookston, TX
- AF-2S BuNo.129233/N9994Z on display at the Pima Air and Space Museum, AZ (painted as N9995Z, confirmed by their website)

*Goodall and the instructions for my model kit say BuNo.126759 was N3144G...?

Any advances/corrections?

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

there is one display at the Commemorative Air Force hangar in Pheonix (Falcon Field). It is static, and that may be the one listed as in Dallas.

The FAA registry reports:

Registration - Serial Number - Owner (Most Recent) - Location

• N3143G - 123088 - Air Station Inc. - Arlington, Washington
• N3144G - 123100 - National Museum of Naval Aviation - Pensacola, Florida[1]
• N9993Z - 126731 - Commemorative Air Force - Dallas, Texas[2]
• N9994Z - 129233 - Sale Reported - Tucson, Arizona[3]
• N9995Z - 126792 - Skyler C. Burchinal - Brookston, Texas[4]

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Okay..

We see the registrations above.
But...
Pima says their AF is N9994Z on the planes page on their website. See below.
But their photo on the same page shows it is marked as N9995Z.

https://pimaair.org/museum-aircraft/grumman-af-2s/

What, if anything, am I missing?

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

Not relevant to the inquiry, but 40 years ago I was driving through Chico and saw these sitting in the middle of all sorts of cool stuff at the Aero Union base.

_________________
Neal Nurmi

---Wingman Photo---

Neal, that's a cool shot!


All the sources I've read are that the Pima machine is N9994Z but, for whatever reason, is painted as N9995Z!

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

The Pima one is indeed incorrectly painted for some reason.
126731/N9993Z is the one at Mesa/Falcon Field (CAF)
126792/N9995Z is sitting outside at Paris/Flying Tigers (39TA) - coordinates N33.64956, W95.65818. It is for sale I think.
NMNA Pensacola think that their aircraft is an AF-2S: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... dian0.html
I thought the one at Chico was also an AF-2S - confirmation anyone?

Regarding designations, I'm working off the late Geoff Goodall's survey of US fire operators (this is the "A" page so is rather long - use your browser's search-in-page function to look for "Guardian")...whereas his own Warbirds Directory lists all of then as AF-2S models, as do Aerial Visuals and Wikipedia.

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

Silly thought, but it would not surprise me if all the civil Guardians were registered as AF-2S variants, irrespective of their original designation. If you strip the military hardware from these airframes (as they must have done for the conversion to fire bombers) I am guessing that the remaining differences were negligible and having a single sub-variant would be easier on the paperwork.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Right, let's see if I can find some clues to figure out if I was making sense in my previous post.

• BuNo 123088, built as an AF-2S according to Joe Baugher. Registration in the FAA database also states AF-2S.
• BuNo 123100 built as an AF-2S according to Joe Baugher. Registration in the FAA database also states AF-2S.
• BuNo 126731 built as an AF-2S according to Joe Baugher. Registration in the FAA database also states AF-2S.
• BuNo 126792 built as an AF-2S according to Joe Baugher. Registration in the FAA database also states AF-2S.
• BuNo 129233 built as an AF-2S according to Joe Baugher. Registration in the FAA database also states AF-2S.

I looked up these numbers on https://www.crouze.com/baugher/navy_ser ... rials.html and https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquir ... berInquiry

There is a TCDS here, formerly held by Aero Union, for the Grumman AF-2S model, meaning that only this subvariant was eligible for a civil registration: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExterna ... 068E5.0001
It was certified as a single-seat type with a retardant tank, for firefighting duties only. One of the official placards stated: "This airplane approved in Restricted Category as aerial tanker for firefighting." and one of the notes says "Prior to civil certification, the aircraft must be modified in accordance with Aero Union Corporation Report 01-85DA-900." To me that reads as a very specific modification to fire-fighting configuration, to be carried out on AF-2S models only. There is a chance that you may have been able to register an AF-2W under experimental rules, but back in 1963, the only interest in the type was for fighting fires, and that is what led to the current survivors still being around.

I don't know if there is a sixth airframe around, seeing as 'one of only six' is mentioned?

Going back to my previous post... it looks like they started the fire-fighting project with AF-2S models only, unless one or more AF-2W airframes were used/bought but did not survive.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

Wouldn't the issue be as simple as...
The S had a weapons bay which, like the Avengers, could be turned into a tank, while Ws had a solid belly with radome.
So if you had your choice of airframes at Litchfield Park to choose from the S is would require less modifications.

Make sense?

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

Doesn't Planes of Fame have the residue of a demilled one?

1973 airshow, Madera?

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

That makes a lot of sense Archer, thanks for doing the legwork on that!


That's (a terrific photo of!) BuNo.123100/N3144G, on display at Pensacola and still in those colours. Apparently Aero Union tried to sell her as a warbird, hence the paint job, but there were no takers.

_________________
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG".
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

"It's his plane, he spent the money to restore it, he can do with it what he wants. I will never understand what's hard to comprehend about this." - kalamazookid, 20/08/2013
"The more time you spend around warbirds the sooner you learn nothing, is simple." - JohnB, 24/02/22

Certainly does, and I don't doubt that this will have played a part in having only AF-2S models surviving into the 21st century. One remaining doubt on my side is whether the -2S/-2W differences were perhaps small enough that you could de-militarise a -2W into what was essentially a -2S? Seeing as they kept the 'finlets' on both variants while only the -2W needed them for directional stability, they both had the access doors on the rear fuselage, and perhaps the solid belly was a section that, along with the radome, bolted onto the edges of what could be a weapons bay, there appears to have been a drive towards commonality between the two models. But that's just me spouting wild theories... nothing more.

_________________
A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net