AF-2 Guardian

[RuudLeeuw]

Hi,
I photographed an AF-2 Guardian at Chico,CA which I was told was one of the first Guardians converted to air tanker, if I recall correctly.
As yet I have not been able to identify it.
It has been sold or donated to Jimmy Leeward of Ocala,FL but will be transferred from the Aero Union compound to the 'air museum' compound awaiting transportation.
All explained on:
http://www.ruudleeuw.com/usa08-chico.html
In the progress of finding details I came across the tailnumber N9995Z for a Guardian which is on display at Pima air museum (but is in fact N9994Z by some sources) and another one owned by Jimmy Leeward.
So that is my second question: do we have 2 N9995Z's, one in AZ and one in FL???
Thks for yr time.

[kenlyco]

Here are three I found>

[kenlyco]

One more..

[Roger Cain]

Those first two pictures posted should be credited to Ron Olsen's collection which can be found at:

http://www.ronsarchive.com/oou04/pages/ ... 4_1866.htm

http://www.ronsarchive.com/oou05/pages/6809ck07-250.htm

It's not nice for people to chop off copyright info from a picture. .......

[Dan K]

I photographed an AF-2 Guardian at Chico,CA which I was told was one of the first Guardians converted to air tanker, if I recall correctly.
As yet I have not been able to identify it.

...my second question: do we have 2 N9995Z's, one in AZ and one in FL???

Unless I'm really missing something obvious (and I am frequently guilty of that), I believe the FAA database has simple answers for both of your questions.

N9993Z, Bu# 126731, is currently owned by the CAF.

N9994Z, Bu# 129233, has been obtained by Pima (mis-marked as N9995Z ?)

N9995Z, Bu# 126792, is owned by Jimmy Leeward in Ocala, FL

N3143G, Bu# 123088, has been obtained by Jimmy Leeward


Again, perhaps I misinterpreted your questions and the answers are not so easy. The only discrepancy I found between the FAA database and the info already posted is that N3143G is registered as an AF-2S, rather than as an AF-2W (as listed with the ronsarchive photo above).

[RuudLeeuw]

Many thanks for these replies.
I must be a complete individual of questionable judgement as I don't see the 'obvious'; I don't know how to check the FAA database without a tailnumber.
Glad this silly person found patient people to spell it out for him, thanks.

[Dan K]

Many thanks for these replies.
I must be a complete individual of questionable judgement as I don't see the 'obvious'; I don't know how to check the FAA database without a tailnumber.
Glad this silly person found patient people to spell it out for him, thanks.

Ruud,

Here's the page I used to access the FAA database:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/

Once there, try clicking on "Make/Model":

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... nquiry.asp

In "Manufacturer" box type "Grumman". In "Model" box type "AF-2"

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry ... dfind.y=13

[jamesintucson]

The one here at Pima is 129233 and should have N9994Z as its registration. When Aero Union repainted the plane before delivering it here they put the wrong number on it. We'll change it to the right one someday when it goes into restoration for a new paint job.

James

[RuudLeeuw]

Thanks.
Confusing with that database is that 'AF-2' works but 'AF-2 Guardian' did not. Did not realize only 4 exist.
But whatever, it doesn't specify/proof that the 'wreck' at Chico (California!!) is any of those, does it? Could be out of Registry for ages..?
Will use this info in the caption, maybe I get confirmation of identity at some later date.
Thanks for the info, guys!

** Update:
One missing:
N3144G Bu# 123100 (Tanker number 30), restored and given to the Naval Aviation Museum in Florida
And someone identified 'mine' as;
N3143G, Bu# 123088, the first 'production' AF built after prototypes, but NEVER used as a tanker even though it once had a mockup 'tank'. Recently purchased by Jimmy Leeward, a/c is still in Chico temp "display" at the Chico Air Museum ***

[Dan K]

Thanks.
Confusing with that database is that 'AF-2' works but 'AF-2 Guardian' did not. ***

You are correct...the database is very "touchy" in the way you described.

But what did you expect from today's FAA ?