Cavalier Mustang Construction Numbers
Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:38 am
I have asked here before about Cavalier construction number tie-ups with the original North American constuction number. The Consensus is that no such list exists that makes the connection between the two, the reason likely being that this was not a priority for Cavalier.
However here is a more simple question. Is there a list of Cavalier construction numbers? Is there a tie-up with the USAF serials in the range 67- yo 72- ?
Regards,
Mike
However here is a more simple question. Is there a list of Cavalier construction numbers? Is there a tie-up with the USAF serials in the range 67- yo 72- ?
Regards,
Mike
Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:28 pm
There is no connection between any airframe that was a Cavalier-built warplane and any previous USAAF or North American Aviation identity. This is not because it was not a priority or because nobody did the legwork to compile the data. It is because there is no connection at all between "heritage" identities and the new identities.
Cavalier bought surplus Mustang airframes, took them to Sarasota, then completely broke the airframes down into parts stock. They stripped the parts, cleaned them, then primed them and put them into a warehouse to be used for new airframe build-up. When Cavalier (and when I say "Cavalier", I mean it as a blanket term covering the three companies that built "Cavalier Mustangs" -- Trans-Florida Aviation, Cavalier Aircraft Corporation, and Field Services, Inc. ) built up F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, and TF-51Ds they built them up from parts stock without regard to keeping parts together from the same airframe. They took out the best parts they had, supplemented them with new-build or new-old stock NAA parts, and constructed a new airplane. That means the tail cone, doghouse, cockpit, left wing, and right wing might all have originated on different aircraft. They might have even come off an Aussie-built CAC Mustang. Nobody knows, though, since the paint stripping process destroyed the phenolic plastic ID tags that NAA used on components. The USAAF and NAA ID tags that were up in the cockpit were many times stripped from the airframes before they were even sold at disposal. Ones that weren't were taken off when Cavalier put the parts into storage.
The new 67-XXXXX, 68-XXXXX, and 72-XXXX USAF serial numbers were assigned because the USAF considered them all new aircraft (NOT because the previous USAAF serial numbers had been struck from the record, as is popularly published). Also, there was no such thing as a "Cavalier Construction Number." Aircraft built for USAF Military Assistance Program programs (Peace Condor, Peace Hawk, etc) were identified by their USAF serial numbers only. Other airframes that did not have new USAF numbers (like the El Salvador birds) were identified by their air-force's assigned identities.
Again, there is no tie between any USAAF or NAA identity and the new USAF serial number identities of Cavalier F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, or TF-51Ds. If you read somewhere that there IS a connection between a new SN and an old SN, this is the product of someone's imagination or fudged paperwork somewhere along the line. There are exceptions, of course, like N851D#1 and Ed Lindsay's NL51DL, which was the corporate demonstrator, but nothing with a 67, 68, or 72 ID number has a tie-in to a 44- or 45- number.
When talking about civil Mustangs that Cavalier built...well, that's a different story. These airplanes retained USAAF IDs because the FAA required them to.
Is there a complete list? Not exactly. There are relatively complete lists that have been published in books, magazines, and the 'net. Iinformation that has been published by Coggan and is available on the internet is mostly correct (80% maybe), but incomplete. Even what I have compiled personally for my book on Cavalier Mustangs isn't necessarily complete or totally correct, but every time I run across a piece of evidence that fits a new piece of the puzzle I update it. I'm hoping to publish a definitive list in my book within the next year or two.
Cavalier bought surplus Mustang airframes, took them to Sarasota, then completely broke the airframes down into parts stock. They stripped the parts, cleaned them, then primed them and put them into a warehouse to be used for new airframe build-up. When Cavalier (and when I say "Cavalier", I mean it as a blanket term covering the three companies that built "Cavalier Mustangs" -- Trans-Florida Aviation, Cavalier Aircraft Corporation, and Field Services, Inc. ) built up F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, and TF-51Ds they built them up from parts stock without regard to keeping parts together from the same airframe. They took out the best parts they had, supplemented them with new-build or new-old stock NAA parts, and constructed a new airplane. That means the tail cone, doghouse, cockpit, left wing, and right wing might all have originated on different aircraft. They might have even come off an Aussie-built CAC Mustang. Nobody knows, though, since the paint stripping process destroyed the phenolic plastic ID tags that NAA used on components. The USAAF and NAA ID tags that were up in the cockpit were many times stripped from the airframes before they were even sold at disposal. Ones that weren't were taken off when Cavalier put the parts into storage.
The new 67-XXXXX, 68-XXXXX, and 72-XXXX USAF serial numbers were assigned because the USAF considered them all new aircraft (NOT because the previous USAAF serial numbers had been struck from the record, as is popularly published). Also, there was no such thing as a "Cavalier Construction Number." Aircraft built for USAF Military Assistance Program programs (Peace Condor, Peace Hawk, etc) were identified by their USAF serial numbers only. Other airframes that did not have new USAF numbers (like the El Salvador birds) were identified by their air-force's assigned identities.
Again, there is no tie between any USAAF or NAA identity and the new USAF serial number identities of Cavalier F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, or TF-51Ds. If you read somewhere that there IS a connection between a new SN and an old SN, this is the product of someone's imagination or fudged paperwork somewhere along the line. There are exceptions, of course, like N851D#1 and Ed Lindsay's NL51DL, which was the corporate demonstrator, but nothing with a 67, 68, or 72 ID number has a tie-in to a 44- or 45- number.
When talking about civil Mustangs that Cavalier built...well, that's a different story. These airplanes retained USAAF IDs because the FAA required them to.
Is there a complete list? Not exactly. There are relatively complete lists that have been published in books, magazines, and the 'net. Iinformation that has been published by Coggan and is available on the internet is mostly correct (80% maybe), but incomplete. Even what I have compiled personally for my book on Cavalier Mustangs isn't necessarily complete or totally correct, but every time I run across a piece of evidence that fits a new piece of the puzzle I update it. I'm hoping to publish a definitive list in my book within the next year or two.
Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:43 pm
Fantastic Randy! Thanks for the very informative response!
Mike
Mike
Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:49 pm
I note with interest your comments Randy.
Your summary of the Cavalier Mustang 'manufacturing' process is pretty accurate and ties in with my often published summary of this.
Pretty much all the Mustangs handled by Cavalier where totally 'rebuilt' using different components from different airframes with no reference to data plates; Cavalier had no reason to because as far as they were concerned they had a contract with the U.S. DoD to meet.
One BIG question is how the field modifications undertaken by Cavalier affected these identities. As far as I am concerned pretty much all the identities of the Dominican and Indonesian airframes (the majority of which have since been retrieved) are very suspect; with notable exceptions such as Steve Seghetti's 44-72777 and Tom Patten's aeroplane, both of which i have seen the serial etched in the correct place on the fuse side below the cockpit windscreen. I know for a fact that the identities on the airframes recovered by Stephen Johsnon were unwittingly messed around with as the airframes were shipped (based on correspondence and a file I had from SJ). It won't be the first time this has happened and it won't be the last! Not a deliberate attempt to mislead either.
Pretty much all the information I published on the Cavalier Mustangs was correct to the best of my knowledge and was thoroughly researched. The caveat to this is what I have just written!
regards and HTH Mike
Paul Coggan
pac@warbirdguru.com
Your summary of the Cavalier Mustang 'manufacturing' process is pretty accurate and ties in with my often published summary of this.
Pretty much all the Mustangs handled by Cavalier where totally 'rebuilt' using different components from different airframes with no reference to data plates; Cavalier had no reason to because as far as they were concerned they had a contract with the U.S. DoD to meet.
One BIG question is how the field modifications undertaken by Cavalier affected these identities. As far as I am concerned pretty much all the identities of the Dominican and Indonesian airframes (the majority of which have since been retrieved) are very suspect; with notable exceptions such as Steve Seghetti's 44-72777 and Tom Patten's aeroplane, both of which i have seen the serial etched in the correct place on the fuse side below the cockpit windscreen. I know for a fact that the identities on the airframes recovered by Stephen Johsnon were unwittingly messed around with as the airframes were shipped (based on correspondence and a file I had from SJ). It won't be the first time this has happened and it won't be the last! Not a deliberate attempt to mislead either.
Pretty much all the information I published on the Cavalier Mustangs was correct to the best of my knowledge and was thoroughly researched. The caveat to this is what I have just written!
regards and HTH Mike
Paul Coggan
pac@warbirdguru.com
Wed Sep 01, 2004 5:33 pm
Paul -
There's no doubt that your writings on the subject are well researched. I reference everyone I can to your "Cavalier Conscripts" article, which I consider the benchmark for published information on the subject.
My comment above that your writings were incomplete and inacccurate in some areas isn't a criticism of your methodology or writings -- merely that in the 19 years since your FlyPast article, there has been more complete information that superceded some of the things you wrote then. Again, I have the most respect for your research and published information.
I've been lucky in that the Lindsay family has given me unparalleled access while researching the story for myself. Their information has led to many other contacts who built the airplanes themselves and have been able to shed light on subjects heretofore not covered in publication.
On a related note, I am interested in contacting you offline regarding "comparing notes" on some of my research.
Cheers!
There's no doubt that your writings on the subject are well researched. I reference everyone I can to your "Cavalier Conscripts" article, which I consider the benchmark for published information on the subject.
My comment above that your writings were incomplete and inacccurate in some areas isn't a criticism of your methodology or writings -- merely that in the 19 years since your FlyPast article, there has been more complete information that superceded some of the things you wrote then. Again, I have the most respect for your research and published information.
I've been lucky in that the Lindsay family has given me unparalleled access while researching the story for myself. Their information has led to many other contacts who built the airplanes themselves and have been able to shed light on subjects heretofore not covered in publication.
On a related note, I am interested in contacting you offline regarding "comparing notes" on some of my research.
Cheers!
Thu Sep 02, 2004 8:36 am
Hi Randy
Apologies if I made it sound like I was having a go at you; not intended. Pretty much all the information concerning Cavalier is cloudy, as you will know not because they were trying to hide anything, but trying to meet deadlines and build military aeroplanes!
Drop me an email offline at any time and I'll do all I can to help; pac@warbirdguru.com will get to me.
javascript:emoticon(':D')
regards
Paul
Apologies if I made it sound like I was having a go at you; not intended. Pretty much all the information concerning Cavalier is cloudy, as you will know not because they were trying to hide anything, but trying to meet deadlines and build military aeroplanes!
Drop me an email offline at any time and I'll do all I can to help; pac@warbirdguru.com will get to me.
javascript:emoticon(':D')
regards
Paul
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:48 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became "Cavalier" F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Randy Haskin wrote:Again, there is no tie between any USAAF or NAA identity and the new USAF serial number identities of Cavalier F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, or TF-51Ds. If you read somewhere that there IS a connection between a new SN and an old SN, this is the product of someone's imagination or fudged paperwork somewhere along the line. There are exceptions, of course, like N851D#1 and Ed Lindsay's NL51DL, which was the corporate demonstrator, but nothing with a 67, 68, or 72 ID number has a tie-in to a 44- or 45- number.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became "Cavalier" F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:50 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became "Cavalier" F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Again, there is no tie between any USAAF or NAA identity and the new USAF serial number identities of Cavalier F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, or TF-51Ds. If you read somewhere that there IS a connection between a new SN and an old SN, this is the product of someone's imagination or fudged paperwork somewhere along the line. There are exceptions, of course, like N851D#1 and Ed Lindsay's NL51DL, which was the corporate demonstrator, but nothing with a 67, 68, or 72 ID number has a tie-in to a 44- or 45- number.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became "Cavalier" F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:51 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Again, there is no tie between any USAAF or NAA identity and the new USAF serial number identities of Cavalier F-51Ds, Mustang IIs, or TF-51Ds. If you read somewhere that there IS a connection between a new SN and an old SN, this is the product of someone's imagination or fudged paperwork somewhere along the line. There are exceptions, of course, like N851D#1 and Ed Lindsay's NL51DL, which was the corporate demonstrator, but nothing with a 67, 68, or 72 ID number has a tie-in to a 44- or 45- number.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:52 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:54 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:58 am
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:01 pm
Thanks again Gents for you informative replies it is much appreciated. I am learning very much from you.
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.
Looking forward to comments on this particular point.
TIA
Mike
YIKES!!!!!!
Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:04 pm
My sincere appologies for the multiple posts! I kept getting an error message when I was trying to post. I tryied changing my post in different was and trying again, repeating the process, etc. Apparently they all posted!!!
Ooooppssss.. Uhhhhhh Scott... Could you help clean things up around here a bit?
Mike
Ooooppssss.. Uhhhhhh Scott... Could you help clean things up around here a bit?
Mike
Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:34 pm
quote="mrhenniger"]I have see printed information that indicates NA P-51 44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541. Apparently it later went to Indonesia at F-367 and is now with the RNZAF Museum. So in the context of previous comments like Randy's above, is this a realistic s/n tie up, i.e. 44-74827 to 72-1541? Is it possible that in some way a major airframe compent like the fuselage remained identified and was identified as becoming 72-1541? It would seem from previous comments this is not likely the case.[/quote]
Tough question to answer.
First off, I don't agree with your comment that "44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541." The 72-XXXX Cavaliers that went to Indonesia were built up from ex-Cavalier parts stock (Cavalier was liquidated in 1971 for financial reasons related to the Enforcer project). By this time there wasn't quite the same inventory sitting around, and I think that Field Services (who actually built the airplanes) had to buy up some components to complete the contract. This means it's certainly possible that some parts may have been put in there that were not completely stripped of identity. I know for a fact, though, that the 72-xxxx airplanes were not simply rebuilds of specific intact airframes, nor did they leave the factory with a 44-xxxxx number attached to an ID plate or any of the paperwork.
So, as to how the 44-xxxxx number came to be attached to the airframe...I don't know. Perhaps Paul C can shed some light on the subject. It's theoretically possible that during a rebuild or restoration that this ID number was found on one of the components. It's also possible that the RNZAF museum wanted an airplane with a USAAF number so the Indonesians attached a number for an airplane they owned.
As Paul said in his earlier post, there were a lot of serial-number games played with the Indonesian airplanes, especially when they were exported as surplus.
You can make your own judgment as to if an ID number on one component "makes" the rest of that airplane have the same identity. Knowing how the airplanes were built, I think that's an unrealistic viewpoint.
Tough question to answer.
First off, I don't agree with your comment that "44-74827 became Cavalier F-51D 72-1541." The 72-XXXX Cavaliers that went to Indonesia were built up from ex-Cavalier parts stock (Cavalier was liquidated in 1971 for financial reasons related to the Enforcer project). By this time there wasn't quite the same inventory sitting around, and I think that Field Services (who actually built the airplanes) had to buy up some components to complete the contract. This means it's certainly possible that some parts may have been put in there that were not completely stripped of identity. I know for a fact, though, that the 72-xxxx airplanes were not simply rebuilds of specific intact airframes, nor did they leave the factory with a 44-xxxxx number attached to an ID plate or any of the paperwork.
So, as to how the 44-xxxxx number came to be attached to the airframe...I don't know. Perhaps Paul C can shed some light on the subject. It's theoretically possible that during a rebuild or restoration that this ID number was found on one of the components. It's also possible that the RNZAF museum wanted an airplane with a USAAF number so the Indonesians attached a number for an airplane they owned.
As Paul said in his earlier post, there were a lot of serial-number games played with the Indonesian airplanes, especially when they were exported as surplus.
You can make your own judgment as to if an ID number on one component "makes" the rest of that airplane have the same identity. Knowing how the airplanes were built, I think that's an unrealistic viewpoint.