Grumman Wildcat Bu86690

[Pat Carry]

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned or discussed here but Wildcat Bu 86690 formerly on loan to the Museum of Flight in Seattle is now in England at Old Warden. I should know this but what organization is located at Old Warden, the Shuttleworth collection?

[Vital Spark]

Yes the Shuttleworth collection is based at Old Warden.

[JohnTerrell]

If interested, here are some great photos of the Wildcat now residing at Old Warden with the Shuttleworth Trust: http://forum.planetalk.net/viewtopic.ph ... ht=wildcat

From what I've read it sounds like the aircraft will be displayed in assembled but static condition for the length of this year, to be fully restored to flying status sometime in the future, once such a project can gain more priority.

[The Inspector]

A MARTLET Mk III, lots of interesting schemes should be available, Atlantic sub hunter sounds interesting to me

[Mike]

As an FM-2, it is a Wildcat VI, not a Martlet.

It needs some remedial work before it flies again, which will be carried out once the Spitfire V restoration has been completed in a couple of years.

[The Inspector]

As an FM-2, it is a Wildcat VI, not a Martlet.

It needs some remedial work before it flies again, which will be carried out once the Spitfire V restoration has been completed in a couple of years.

After January 1944 the British popular name went from MARTLET to WILDCAT, just like OAKLAND became PONTIAC.

[Mike]

After January 1944 the British popular name went from MARTLET to WILDCAT

Exactly. The FM-2s, entering service after the name change, were therefore all Wildcat VIs, never Martlets. The Martlet III was a fixed-wing version of the F4F-3.

[Rajay]

As an FM-2, it is a Wildcat VI, not a Martlet....

More importantly, if it is actually an FM-2, it is NOT a "Grumman" at all. It (the airplane itself) is an Eastern Aircraft (i.e. General Motors) Wildcat, although the design according to which it was built belonged to Grumman.

Per FAR 45.13(a) aircraft are supposed to be "officially" identified and formally registered on the basis of who actually "built" it, not necessarily on the basis of who designed it or who owned the design rights at the time (i.e. the type certificate - if it has one.) Not all Warbirds have a stand-alone civilian (i.e FAA) type certification. The pre-G-111 Grumman Albatross is one example; there is no FAA-approved TC for a Grumman model G-64 and each surplus ex-military HU-16 series aircraft that has since flown as a privately-owned civilian aircraft was issued a TC specifically for it, just to codify its operating limitations and parameters.

That is why amateur-built "homebuilts" like a Thorp T-18 or a Vans RV-6 are not registered as such; each individual aircraft is formally identified and registered using the name of the individual who actually built it. Hence N843RF is a "Robert L Evans Jr" model RV6A and N139G is a "Griffith-Thorp" model T-18. That is also why Warbird "replicas" or aircraft "rebuilt" from either almost nothing or components of several different aircraft (i.e. restorations that are not straight forward rebuilds of a single, particular aircraft) are treated the same way, like N3139T which is a "North American-Driskill" P-51D (s/n 004) for example.

I know, I know, I know - almost "nobody" really does it that way in the "real world" especially in the Warbird community (who have always done things however they bloody well wanted to), but that doesn't change the fact that that is how it is supposed to be done according to the regs.

I realize that nobody is going to register a Vega-built B-17 Flying Fortress as anything other than a "Boeing" but based on FAR 45.13(a), it should really be registered as a "Lockheed/Vega" B-17 and an FG-1D is really a "Goodyear" Corsair and not a "Vought" aircraft at all.

It's the difference between talking about the type design in general versus an individual aircraft in particular; yes, they are Boeing and Vought designs generally speaking, but in the examples I mentioned, they are Lockheed/Vega and Goodyear aircraft in particular - at least according to the standard published (but admittedly not even necessarily enforced) by the FAA.

As I have "ranted" here before, also according to the formal guidelines published by the FAA (ref. AC 21-12 and AC 21-13) when surplus military aircraft get a civilian registration and airworthiness certification with the FAA, they are (once again) supposed to be identified using their original manufacturer's construction serial number - if it exists - and NOT a former military serial or Bureau number.

In the case of the Grumman Albatross again, that would mean a "G" series number between G-1 and G-464, but not one single civilian Albatross is registered using its actual Grumman serial number - which never changed by the way and that is the point of a serial number. Military serial numbers were usually changed every time a particular aircraft was transferred from one branch of the service to another.

Given all of that, I think it is "funny" that collectively speaking "we" all spend so much time nit-picking these things here.

[CH2Tdriver]

Is this 'cat ex-Champlin? I see the US reg#. Any idea when it flew last?

Always great news when another one gets air under her wings again!

[Mike]

All the above may be true Rayjay, but is completely irrelevant in this case. The aircraft is now in the UK and will be registered with the CAA in due course, so FARs will not apply.

[Rajay]

All the above may be true Rayjay, but is completely irrelevant in this case. The aircraft is now in the UK and will be registered with the CAA in due course, so FARs will not apply.

On that basis, it is also "completely irrelevant" whether you call it a "Wildcat" or a "Martlet"

And why is it, if you can tell me, that almost everyone misspells my username? It is already right there in front of you; what is so hard about copying it correctly?
It is just R-A-J-A-Y. There is no "y" in the middle.

[Mike]

On that basis, it is also "completely irrelevant" whether you call it a "Wildcat" or a "Martlet"

Not at all. It is simply incorrect to call it a Martlet. The FM-2s were only ever designated the Wildcat VI in FAA service. There is no such thing as a Martlet VI.

[Rajay]

On that basis, it is also "completely irrelevant" whether you call it a "Wildcat" or a "Martlet"

Not at all. It is simply incorrect to call it a Martlet. The FM-2s were only ever designated the Wildcat VI in FAA service. There is no such thing as a Martlet VI.

You apparently missed your own point - and you seem to change the criteria of your argument to suit the current circumstances of the discussion. You need to stick with either what is absolutely correct regardless of the civil aircraft registration requirements or just what is acceptable to the civil aviation authorities.

I said "on that basis" meaning on the basis of its impending registration with the CAA in the UK. They don't give a d@mn whether you call it a "Martlet" or a "Wildcat" - they are simply interested in Manufacturer and Model Number/designation for its civil registration (and serial number of course.) Alternately, they will accept the "common name" such as "Wildcat" (or "Martlet" which is actually less "common") but they sure as hec& aren't going to reject the registration application if its says one versus the other. They also are not going to reject it if it is registered as a "Grumman" FM-2, even though that is, in an absolute sense, as you put it - "simply incorrect."

After all, they're essentially just bureaucrats. That was one of my points earlier in regard to the FAA in the US; one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. While they take the time to specify a particular requirement in the regs on one hand, they don't bother to enforce it with the other.

[bdk]

Yawn....

[Pat Carry]

Is this 'cat ex-Champlin? I see the US reg#. Any idea when it flew last?

Always great news when another one gets air under her wings again!

its this one www.warbirdregistry.org/f4fregistry/f4f-86690.html