bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:18 pm
Hello all,
I am working on my business plan/goals/etc for my museum. I am striving to have this museum detailed and to the highest standard of U.S. aircraft history from WW2 and Cold War eras. One item I wanted to talk to you all about is my stance on being properly correct when one describes an aircraft. You might call it being anal, but not really. I just want this museum to be a learning center and I want people to learn details and facts that are sometimes skimmed at other museums. I imagine most people don't even know about some of those small details and that is where I want to shed light on.
For example, people call a F-86 an F-86. Ok, that is fine but there is more to it then that. In reality you can categorize the F-86 into three different distinct types of aircraft:
the F-86A/E/F, the F-86D/L Sabre Dog, and the F-86H Sabre Hog. In fact the F-86D was originally called the XF-95. What I am trying to say in my example is that even though a f-86 is an F-86, the airframes themselves can be categorized differently since each model almost yields a completely different aircraft. That is why I like warbirds so much. There is so many variety of cool aircraft out there and each can sometimes have a different airframe and I think if people saw it that way they might gain a bigger interest. It all boils down to history-and that history can branch out almost to infinity directions. You can bore people with "yeah that there is an f-86". Instead, lets give them the curiosity of, "do you know there are several different types of F-86s? that description can lead the learner to a new outlook and interest in the airplane and add excitement.
Another example is the F-94. I categorize them in two groups, the F-94A/B, and the F-94C. There is enough difference in the F-94C that it warrants a note that it is almost a different aircraft. In fact the F-94C was originally going to be called the F-97.
Im not sure where I am going with this but I just wanted to mention the effort I am making to strive for something different. I think an aviation museum should be a place of learning and also of high quality detail descriptions of our historic aircraft. People can definitely find an interest.
-Nate
I am working on my business plan/goals/etc for my museum. I am striving to have this museum detailed and to the highest standard of U.S. aircraft history from WW2 and Cold War eras. One item I wanted to talk to you all about is my stance on being properly correct when one describes an aircraft. You might call it being anal, but not really. I just want this museum to be a learning center and I want people to learn details and facts that are sometimes skimmed at other museums. I imagine most people don't even know about some of those small details and that is where I want to shed light on.
For example, people call a F-86 an F-86. Ok, that is fine but there is more to it then that. In reality you can categorize the F-86 into three different distinct types of aircraft:
the F-86A/E/F, the F-86D/L Sabre Dog, and the F-86H Sabre Hog. In fact the F-86D was originally called the XF-95. What I am trying to say in my example is that even though a f-86 is an F-86, the airframes themselves can be categorized differently since each model almost yields a completely different aircraft. That is why I like warbirds so much. There is so many variety of cool aircraft out there and each can sometimes have a different airframe and I think if people saw it that way they might gain a bigger interest. It all boils down to history-and that history can branch out almost to infinity directions. You can bore people with "yeah that there is an f-86". Instead, lets give them the curiosity of, "do you know there are several different types of F-86s? that description can lead the learner to a new outlook and interest in the airplane and add excitement.
Another example is the F-94. I categorize them in two groups, the F-94A/B, and the F-94C. There is enough difference in the F-94C that it warrants a note that it is almost a different aircraft. In fact the F-94C was originally going to be called the F-97.
Im not sure where I am going with this but I just wanted to mention the effort I am making to strive for something different. I think an aviation museum should be a place of learning and also of high quality detail descriptions of our historic aircraft. People can definitely find an interest.
-Nate
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:53 pm
Nathan, more power to you!
I sometimes catch a lot of flak for it here on WIX for example (where folks seem to like to argue the most minute details of paint schemes, color tints, sheetmetal stencil "watermarks", faux-asbestos insulated wiring, or the use of randomly colored Anodized rivets for a few examples) but my own pet peeve is that IMHO too many people gloss over basic details - like what I consider to be "proper" identification of aircraft models.
FAR 14 CFR 45.13(a) states that civil-registered aircraft in the US are supposed to be identified on the basis of who actually "built" the specific example in question and as what -and using the "builder's" serial number, not a former military service serial number which was not constant like an OEM "construction" number and changed every time an aircraft was transferred or sold to a different branch of the service, etc. It also doesn't say a darn thing about who originated the design or owns the type certificate under which it may be certified.
To me that means that there is no such thing as a "Grumman" TBM Avenger or a "Grumman" FM-2 Wildcat; those airplanes are examples of Grumman designs but the aircraft themselves were built by and therefore properly identified as "Eastern Aircraft" or "General Motors" aircraft. If an Avenger or a Wildcat was actually "built" by Grumman and properly identified as such, then it would be a model TBF or F4F. As much as anything else, "TBM" and "FM-2" meant "not Grumman" as far as the Navy was concerned. Saying "Grumman TBM" is to me like saying "Ford Cougar" or "Mercury Mustang" or "Chevy Firebird" or "Pontiac Camaro"; after all they're all the same thing, right? Actually - not!
I recently corresponded with Barry Schiff at AOPA Pilot magazine about this very same issue because the first question in the Test Pilot quiz he compiled for the March 2017 issue was "What was the largest single-engine American airplane built and deployed during World War II?" His answer was "the Grumman TBM Avenger" so of course I had to write and tell him that there is and was no such thing. I suggested that if he meant the type in general, then "Grumman Avenger" would have been sufficient and that specifying "TBM" was not only inaccurate but unnecessary as well.*
Similarly, the Widgeons built in France by SCAN were not "built" by Grumman even though they are examples of a Grumman type design and are certified all under the same TC A-734 - and their dates of US certification do not equate to dates of manufacture as the registration specifies. so when the ex-Fantasy Island Widgeon (N4453) recently went up for sale as a "1967 Grumman G-44A" I had to call "BS" on that. It was "built" in 1949 in France, then disassembled and stored for many years, then re-assembled and certified here in the US, but none of that means it is a "1967 Grumman G-44A"; It is really and more properly identified as a 1949 SCAN Type 30, serial no. 31, which happens to be a license-built "copy" of a Grumman G-44A, but it is not an actual Grumman G-44A. There actually were in fact significant differences in that the SCAN Type 30 Widgeons were built to Metric standards for materials and hardware and also were not Anodized as were all of the seaplanes and other Navy aircraft built actually by Grumman.
Similarly, Vought designed and built the original F4U Corsair series, but that does not mean that F3A-1 and FG-1D series Corsairs are "Vought" aircraft too; those others are examples of the Vought design, but they were actually built by Brewster and Goodyear respectively and in terms of official identification on certificates of registration and airworthiness for examples, they should be so identified per the applicable regs.
*FYI: Mr. Schiff also went further in his answer in the magazine to mention that the Avenger had a maximum allowable gross weight of 17,893 lbs. I told him that since he brought up weight instead of physical dimensions of length, wingspan, & height, that although physically smaller than the Avenger, according some of my reference sources (such as Combat Aircraft of the World 1909 - present edited by John W. R. Taylor of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft, c. 1969) the Republic P-47D and P-47N Thunderbolts operated up to distinctly higher maximum gross weights of 19,400 lbs. and 20,450 lbs. respectively.
He also posed to me what he expected was a trump card to his side of things - the fact that Douglas and Lockheed each built examples of the B-17G "Flying Fortress" and "you wouldn't call them anything other than 'Boeing' would you?" Well, in general or informal terms, that's true, but in terms of official documentation and the aforementioned certifications in particular, "yes" I would call them something other than "Boeing." I think that Collings' model B-17G-85-DL should in fact be registered and officially identified as a "Douglas B-17G" because that is who actually "built" it as the regs specify - and by the same token a B-17G-xx-VE which was built by its Vega division would be properly identified, at least officially speaking, as a "Lockheed" B-17G. Doing that would open up a whole new world of education for people who have no idea that the war effort was such a collaborative effort for example.
He also was under the impression that the Army Air Force and USAF did not similarly specify "manufacturer" in their aircraft model designations as did the USN prior to 1962, so besides the B-17 issue, I also sent him photos of two different Lockheed P-38 Lightnings flown by top ace Maj. Richard I. Bong. The close-ups show distinctly that "P-38J" was an abbreviated and less than complete designation and that they were in fact more completely identified as models P-38J-15-LO serial no. 42-103993 and P-38J-20-LO serial no. 44-23461 wherein of course the "LO" code specified "Lockheed" as the manufacturer, but whereas the P-47C was built by Republic, the similar P-47G was license-built instead by Curtiss.
I sometimes catch a lot of flak for it here on WIX for example (where folks seem to like to argue the most minute details of paint schemes, color tints, sheetmetal stencil "watermarks", faux-asbestos insulated wiring, or the use of randomly colored Anodized rivets for a few examples) but my own pet peeve is that IMHO too many people gloss over basic details - like what I consider to be "proper" identification of aircraft models.
FAR 14 CFR 45.13(a) states that civil-registered aircraft in the US are supposed to be identified on the basis of who actually "built" the specific example in question and as what -and using the "builder's" serial number, not a former military service serial number which was not constant like an OEM "construction" number and changed every time an aircraft was transferred or sold to a different branch of the service, etc. It also doesn't say a darn thing about who originated the design or owns the type certificate under which it may be certified.
To me that means that there is no such thing as a "Grumman" TBM Avenger or a "Grumman" FM-2 Wildcat; those airplanes are examples of Grumman designs but the aircraft themselves were built by and therefore properly identified as "Eastern Aircraft" or "General Motors" aircraft. If an Avenger or a Wildcat was actually "built" by Grumman and properly identified as such, then it would be a model TBF or F4F. As much as anything else, "TBM" and "FM-2" meant "not Grumman" as far as the Navy was concerned. Saying "Grumman TBM" is to me like saying "Ford Cougar" or "Mercury Mustang" or "Chevy Firebird" or "Pontiac Camaro"; after all they're all the same thing, right? Actually - not!
I recently corresponded with Barry Schiff at AOPA Pilot magazine about this very same issue because the first question in the Test Pilot quiz he compiled for the March 2017 issue was "What was the largest single-engine American airplane built and deployed during World War II?" His answer was "the Grumman TBM Avenger" so of course I had to write and tell him that there is and was no such thing. I suggested that if he meant the type in general, then "Grumman Avenger" would have been sufficient and that specifying "TBM" was not only inaccurate but unnecessary as well.*
Similarly, the Widgeons built in France by SCAN were not "built" by Grumman even though they are examples of a Grumman type design and are certified all under the same TC A-734 - and their dates of US certification do not equate to dates of manufacture as the registration specifies. so when the ex-Fantasy Island Widgeon (N4453) recently went up for sale as a "1967 Grumman G-44A" I had to call "BS" on that. It was "built" in 1949 in France, then disassembled and stored for many years, then re-assembled and certified here in the US, but none of that means it is a "1967 Grumman G-44A"; It is really and more properly identified as a 1949 SCAN Type 30, serial no. 31, which happens to be a license-built "copy" of a Grumman G-44A, but it is not an actual Grumman G-44A. There actually were in fact significant differences in that the SCAN Type 30 Widgeons were built to Metric standards for materials and hardware and also were not Anodized as were all of the seaplanes and other Navy aircraft built actually by Grumman.
Similarly, Vought designed and built the original F4U Corsair series, but that does not mean that F3A-1 and FG-1D series Corsairs are "Vought" aircraft too; those others are examples of the Vought design, but they were actually built by Brewster and Goodyear respectively and in terms of official identification on certificates of registration and airworthiness for examples, they should be so identified per the applicable regs.
*FYI: Mr. Schiff also went further in his answer in the magazine to mention that the Avenger had a maximum allowable gross weight of 17,893 lbs. I told him that since he brought up weight instead of physical dimensions of length, wingspan, & height, that although physically smaller than the Avenger, according some of my reference sources (such as Combat Aircraft of the World 1909 - present edited by John W. R. Taylor of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft, c. 1969) the Republic P-47D and P-47N Thunderbolts operated up to distinctly higher maximum gross weights of 19,400 lbs. and 20,450 lbs. respectively.
He also posed to me what he expected was a trump card to his side of things - the fact that Douglas and Lockheed each built examples of the B-17G "Flying Fortress" and "you wouldn't call them anything other than 'Boeing' would you?" Well, in general or informal terms, that's true, but in terms of official documentation and the aforementioned certifications in particular, "yes" I would call them something other than "Boeing." I think that Collings' model B-17G-85-DL should in fact be registered and officially identified as a "Douglas B-17G" because that is who actually "built" it as the regs specify - and by the same token a B-17G-xx-VE which was built by its Vega division would be properly identified, at least officially speaking, as a "Lockheed" B-17G. Doing that would open up a whole new world of education for people who have no idea that the war effort was such a collaborative effort for example.
He also was under the impression that the Army Air Force and USAF did not similarly specify "manufacturer" in their aircraft model designations as did the USN prior to 1962, so besides the B-17 issue, I also sent him photos of two different Lockheed P-38 Lightnings flown by top ace Maj. Richard I. Bong. The close-ups show distinctly that "P-38J" was an abbreviated and less than complete designation and that they were in fact more completely identified as models P-38J-15-LO serial no. 42-103993 and P-38J-20-LO serial no. 44-23461 wherein of course the "LO" code specified "Lockheed" as the manufacturer, but whereas the P-47C was built by Republic, the similar P-47G was license-built instead by Curtiss.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:06 pm
One could also branch out into those who call the F-86 (in all its variants) an "F86" or worse, an "f86". This doesn't seem to matter much until the same person writes "f4f" and you have no idea if they mean a Phantom (F-4F) or a Wildcat (F4F-).
But back to F-86s: one could describe them (since the model derived from North American Aviation) by their model numbers NA-151 (F-86A) etc...
It's a minefield.
But back to F-86s: one could describe them (since the model derived from North American Aviation) by their model numbers NA-151 (F-86A) etc...
It's a minefield.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:01 pm
Nathan wrote:Hello all,
In fact the F-86D was originally called the XF-95.
-Nate
Nate,
This one is not quite correct: there was no 'XF-95'.
This period of Sabre history is a muddle, with cancelled P-86B/F-86B contracts reverting to a mix of P-86A (F-86A) and F-86C; in the midst of all of that was the F-86D.
Both F-86C and F-86D started out life with those USAF designations (or in fact planned as USAAF P-86C (North American NA-157) and P-86D (NA-164)). Circa October 1948 the F-86C was re-designated by the USAF as the YF-93A and the F-86D became the F-95 around the same time (though never 'XF-95'). The change seems to have been precipitated by the Air Force Senior Officer’s Board, which was reluctant to grant funding for production of F-86Cs when it was already committed to providing budget for the F-86D interceptor for FY 1949 and 1950. One can only guess, but it seems likely that at that time it was easier to fund a new aircraft than a new variant. That supposition has been quoted before but not substantiated in primary sources. The decision was later reversed of course.
Since the first F-86Ds were going to be launched as service test machines, those first aircraft really should have been 'YF-95A', but I can find no contemporary NAA or USAF records to indicate that. Be very wary of consulting books since they contain a great deal of plagiarised mistakes.
By the time of their roll-out the first service test (prototype) YF-86D was still marked 'F-95' (#1 flew on 22 December 1949), but circa July 24, 1950 the USAF officially changed back to F-86D though you'll find documents dating from late 1949 which had already note the change. Certainly both of the YF-86D prototypes are marked 'YF-86D' on their record cards, with no mention at any point of the 'YF-95A' or 'F-95' designation.
As I said, it's a minefield.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:08 pm
quemerford wrote:One could also branch out into those who call the F-86 (in all its variants) an "F86" or worse, an "f86". This doesn't seem to matter much until the same person writes "f4f" and you have no idea if they mean a Phantom (F-4F) or a Wildcat (F4F-).
But back to F-86s: one could describe them (since the model derived from North American Aviation) by their model numbers NA-151 (F-86A) etc...
It's a minefield.
And speaking of the Collings Foundation, they have a McDonnell Douglas Phantom II but it is incorrectly registered as a model "F4D" which is really a Douglas Skyray - it should be as you said with that all significant hyphen an F-4D. The problem is that once coded into their bureaucratic paperwork, it is next to impossible to "fix" because too many of the FAA bureaucrats 1) don't know the difference and 2) don't care.
Plus, again technically speaking, their Phantom II is listed as a "1965" model but the merger with Douglas did not take place until 1967 so at the time it was and should remain just a "McDonnell" F-4D because that is who actually built it, not some later iteration of the company. Just like it is not now a "Boeing" just because Boeing bought out and absorbed MD.
But in terms of official FAA standards for identification of ex-military "warbirds" the regs and other applicable references such as advisory circulars AC21-12C and AC21-13 regarding the issuance of airworthiness certificates, IF the aircraft type was originally certified by the civilian authority (CAA or FAA) then it should be identified using that civilian or manufacturer's model designation and serial numbers. Only if there was no original civilian model certification should it be identified using its military model and/or serial number. Since the NA-151 series was never type certificated as such, then ex-military or surplus "warbird" variants qualifying for token certification instead only on that limited basis can be properly identified as "F-86A" aircraft.
AC21-12C: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/4bdab3423dac042d86257a790064a302/$FILE/AC%2021-12C.pdf
AC21-13:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/2af8ad5a27b40642862569c3007469b6/$FILE/AC%2021-13.pdf
Same thing with the Grumman Albatross; unlike the Goose, Widgeon, and Mallard, there was no original civilian certification of the design no. G-64 series. It was only after ex-military examples were declared surplus and sold to new civilian owners, and they in turn had to apply for their own limited (as opposed to "Limited") or more often "Restricted" type certificates based on custom-written maintenance plans, etc. that TC such as nos. A2GL, A20NM, A23NM, and A33SO were issued for civilian certification of Albatrosses. In fact, the later "G-111" designation used for the Part 25 conversions and upgrades done under new TC A22SO (Standard category) in the late 1970's and early 1980's was previously used "in-house" by Grumman to identify the first "long-wing" conversions done specifically for the USAF - and there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between them.
All of the long-wing conversions done for the USN were design nos. G-211 and for the Coast Guard, they were done in 3 different sets as design nos. G-234, G-270, and G-288. Most of the Albatrosses now "certified" as models G-111 were built as design no. G-191 series aircraft for the Luftwaffe, G-231 series as CSR-110 aircraft for the RCAF, and G-262 series aircraft for the JMSDF contracted through the USN as models UF-2 - and all of which were built from the "get-go" as long-wing variants, not converted from earlier short-wing models.
That is also why ex-military variants of the Goose, which were really Grumman design nos. G-26, G-31, G-38, and G-39 were all certified as civilian models G-21A after being "de-milled" and otherwise brought up to civil standards for avionics, navigation lights, etc. FYI:
G-26 = USN prototype model XJ3F-1
G-31 = USAAC models OA-9
G-38 = USN models JRF-1, JRF-4, JRF-5, and British JRF-6B
G-39 = USCG models JRF-2 and JRF-3
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:59 pm
Excellent summary, Rajay, I wholeheartedly agree! It is a sore spot with me when people use incorrect designations for aircraft.
The one that I despise the most is the one mentioned earlier - F4
It could mean:
F-4 - as in photo-recon version of the P-38E
F4F - as in Grumman Wildcat
F4U - as in Chance-Vought Corsair
F-4 - as in McDonnell Douglas Phantom
F4D - as in Douglas Skyray
F4B - as in Boeing P-12
or other ones that I'm sure I'm leaving out.
Proper designations and terminology are very important! For example, how many people out there know the difference between an Fw-190 and an FW-190? They are separated by about 70 years in date of manufacture.
The FAA has very few people that know anything about warbirds, as a consequence there are a lot of errors in official paperwork. I know of one multi-place warbird that was inadvertently registered as a "standard" category aircraft many years ago, when clearly it is not! Legally, that aircraft could be used to give passenger rides for hire with no FAA Exemption, unlike what is currently required. The paperwork has never been fixed because "the FAA does not care", I have been told.
It's even worse with the NTSB. Anybody try to do a records search in the on-line aircraft accident database for warbirds that were built by more than one manufacturer? As mentioned above, it is a minefield to try to get accident summaries on Corsairs, Wildcats, and even Mustangs built as "experimentals" by non-aircraft manufacturers. It's even worse for foreign built aircraft!
Designations matter!
The one that I despise the most is the one mentioned earlier - F4
It could mean:
F-4 - as in photo-recon version of the P-38E
F4F - as in Grumman Wildcat
F4U - as in Chance-Vought Corsair
F-4 - as in McDonnell Douglas Phantom
F4D - as in Douglas Skyray
F4B - as in Boeing P-12
or other ones that I'm sure I'm leaving out.
Proper designations and terminology are very important! For example, how many people out there know the difference between an Fw-190 and an FW-190? They are separated by about 70 years in date of manufacture.
The FAA has very few people that know anything about warbirds, as a consequence there are a lot of errors in official paperwork. I know of one multi-place warbird that was inadvertently registered as a "standard" category aircraft many years ago, when clearly it is not! Legally, that aircraft could be used to give passenger rides for hire with no FAA Exemption, unlike what is currently required. The paperwork has never been fixed because "the FAA does not care", I have been told.
It's even worse with the NTSB. Anybody try to do a records search in the on-line aircraft accident database for warbirds that were built by more than one manufacturer? As mentioned above, it is a minefield to try to get accident summaries on Corsairs, Wildcats, and even Mustangs built as "experimentals" by non-aircraft manufacturers. It's even worse for foreign built aircraft!
Designations matter!
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:05 pm
quemerford wrote:It's a minefield.
I agree it is a minefield- how to balance things between the casual visitor, the enthusiast, or the toughest: the rivet counter...
I think a museum should display the popular model suffix, and name: P-51D Mustang, F-4D Phantom II, etc. Lesser known manufacturing or model numbers would be lost on most.
Licence production gets murkier. I do not take it quite as seriously as Rajay above (nothing wrong with his comment, but we can take it too far- agree museums need to get it correct, but we should allow a little latitude in other places). If someone at an air show called a TBM a Grumman Avenger, called a Vega B-17 a Boeing B-17 or if the Enola Gay was referenced to as a Boeing B-29, I would not shout at the visitor or docent and scare little children by shouting "WRONG, it was built at the Martin Omaha plant under license! .." I do agree that museums have a higher standard and should strive for proper designations, with the best solution something along the lines of a display placard stating "the aircraft on display was manufactured under license by General Motors as a ...." Other honesty helps: "the aircraft on display is B-25J serial number xxxxxx, but is depicted to represent B-25B serial number xxxxxxx on the Dolittle raid..."
I won't even get into the UK designations: GR-1/GR.1/GR1/ ???
And how about the "Congressional" Medal of Honor?
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:48 pm
Next you guys will tell me there's no such thing as a pilot's license, that they're actually certificates.... 
Phil
Phil
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:05 pm
OD/NG wrote:It could mean:
F-4 - as in photo-recon version of the P-38E
F4F - as in Grumman Wildcat
F4U - as in Chance-Vought Corsair
F-4 - as in McDonnell Douglas Phantom
F4D - as in Douglas Skyray
F4B - as in Boeing P-12
or other ones that I'm sure I'm leaving out.
Only one I can think of is the obvious one - F4H - as in McDonnell Phantom II
Then again, I guess we "SHOULD" be calling the F4H and F-4 the "Boeing" Phantom II since Boeing has redesignated the F/A-18, and B-1B as "Boeing" products.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:31 pm
quemerford wrote:Nathan wrote:Hello all,
In fact the F-86D was originally called the XF-95.
-Nate
Nate,
This one is not quite correct: there was no 'XF-95'.
By the time of their roll-out the first service test (prototype) YF-86D was still marked 'F-95' (#1 flew on 22 December 1949), but circa July 24, 1950 the USAF officially changed back to F-86D though you'll find documents dating from late 1949 which had already note the change. Certainly both of the YF-86D prototypes are marked 'YF-86D' on their record cards, with no mention at any point of the 'YF-95A' or 'F-95' designation.
As I said, it's a minefield.
My mistake-YF-95 not XF-95. Regardless rather there is documentation regarding the use of the YF-95 designation. Somewhere someone had the thought that it had to be designated a different aircraft. Cause really, the F-86D is almost a completely different aircraft and I can see why it almost was given a different aircraft number. .
Re: bringing specification to the table
Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:28 am
Nathan wrote:
My mistake-YF-95 not XF-95. Regardless rather there is documentation regarding the use of the YF-95 designation. Somewhere someone had the thought that it had to be designated a different aircraft. Cause really, the F-86D is almost a completely different aircraft and I can see why it almost was given a different aircraft number. .
But wait! There's more! The B-50 could well have been simply a B-29D, but the new number was adopted as much for budgetary reasons as anything to get "new" airplanes, instead of building more "old" airplanes
Re: bringing specification to the table
Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:06 am
My two cents after a career as an Air Force public affairs officer where, as you might expect, I had ample occasions to discuss aircraft with "laymen".
First...try to understand your audiences (note the "s").
Remember, you'll be addressing both buffs and laymen.
If you're trying to inform a general audience in a placard about an aircraft, I might very refer to a TBM as a Grumman Avenger. Why, because that's what most people call it. Certainly, at the bottom of the card I would acknowledge that "this example is one of XXXX Avengers produced by General Motors at their New Jersy plant". But unless the theme of the display oh s discussing the wartime production sources for material, what the people want to know is what the aircraft was and what it did.
Yes, the Navy made a big deal about naming an aircraft after who made it.
But remember, the USAAF/USAF (who also know a thing or two about aeroplanes) did not. Even the biggest plane nerds on the planet wouldnt walk up to a B-17 and call it a Douglas B-17...even though that's who made it. It was designed by Boeing, so that's what it is.
Yes, it's fun for us to get all nerdy and go technical...but if you get too deep, people's yes glaze over and you lose their interest. I know, I see it I'm my wife's eyes when I discuss tech stuff with her. I've taken her to countless airports and museums in the last 25 years...so she knows the feeling!
Simply put, you're trying to tell a story...to a wide range of people.
Yes, by all means refer to a F-86 as a "F-86D-25 NA", but don't do it on first reference.
Remember, you're trying to inform and educate, not demonstrate how much you know.
First...try to understand your audiences (note the "s").
Remember, you'll be addressing both buffs and laymen.
If you're trying to inform a general audience in a placard about an aircraft, I might very refer to a TBM as a Grumman Avenger. Why, because that's what most people call it. Certainly, at the bottom of the card I would acknowledge that "this example is one of XXXX Avengers produced by General Motors at their New Jersy plant". But unless the theme of the display oh s discussing the wartime production sources for material, what the people want to know is what the aircraft was and what it did.
Yes, the Navy made a big deal about naming an aircraft after who made it.
But remember, the USAAF/USAF (who also know a thing or two about aeroplanes) did not. Even the biggest plane nerds on the planet wouldnt walk up to a B-17 and call it a Douglas B-17...even though that's who made it. It was designed by Boeing, so that's what it is.
Yes, it's fun for us to get all nerdy and go technical...but if you get too deep, people's yes glaze over and you lose their interest. I know, I see it I'm my wife's eyes when I discuss tech stuff with her. I've taken her to countless airports and museums in the last 25 years...so she knows the feeling!
Simply put, you're trying to tell a story...to a wide range of people.
Yes, by all means refer to a F-86 as a "F-86D-25 NA", but don't do it on first reference.
Remember, you're trying to inform and educate, not demonstrate how much you know.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:19 am
JohnB wrote:My two cents after a career as an Air Force public affairs officer where, as you might expect, I had ample occasions to discuss aircraft with "laymen".
First...try to understand your audiences (note the "s").
Remember, you'll be addressing both buffs and laymen.
If you're trying to inform a general audience in a placard about an aircraft, I might very refer to a TBM as a Grumman Avenger. Why, because that's what most people call it. Certainly, at the bottom of the card I would acknowledge that "this example is one of XXXX Avengers produced by General Motors at their New Jersy plant". But unless the theme of the display oh s discussing the wartime production sources for material, what the people want to know is what the aircraft was and what it did.
Yes, the Navy made a big deal about naming an aircraft after who made it.
But remember, the USAAF/USAF (who also know a thing or two about aeroplanes) did not. Even the biggest plane nerds on the planet wouldnt walk up to a B-17 and call it a Douglas B-17...even though that's who made it. It was designed by Boeing, so that's what it is.
Yes, it's fun for us to get all nerdy and go technical...but if you get too deep, people's yes glaze over and you lose their interest. I know, I see it I'm my wife's eyes when I discuss tech stuff with her. I've taken her to countless airports and museums in the last 25 years...so she knows the feeling!
Simply put, you're trying to tell a story...to a wide range of people.
Yes, by all means refer to a F-86 as a "F-86D-25 NA", but don't do it on first reference.
Remember, you're trying to inform and educate, not demonstrate how much you know.
Well said!
Re: bringing specification to the table
Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:35 pm
CAPFlyer wrote:Only one I can think of is the obvious one - F4H - as in McDonnell Phantom II
Then again, I guess we "SHOULD" be calling the F4H and F-4 the "Boeing" Phantom II since Boeing has redesignated the F/A-18, and B-1B as "Boeing" products.
Apparently you missed my point. I was not talking about active duty military aircraft because for the most part FAA regulations do not apply to them and they are not “registered” with the FAA. If they were to be so registered, it would not matter who currently claims them as their own or continues to support them – or as I said before who currently owns the type certificate if applicable. 14 CFR 45.13(a) says that they should be officially identified in terms of registration and other certifications based on who actually “built” them.
Here’s another example of where even the FAA bureaucrats got it wrong. After the tragic crash of the Chalk’s G-73T Turbo Mallard in December 2005, the FAA came out with AD 2006-01-51 which purports to be applicable to “Frakes Aviation (Gulfstream American) Model G-73 (Mallard) series airplanes…” but there is no such thing because neither Frakes nor Gulfstream American ever “built” a G-73 series aircraft. Each and every G-73 Mallard that has ever existed was built and originally certified by the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation of Bethpage, NY.
Gulfstream American of Savannah, GA and Frakes Aviation of Cleburne, TX were simply subsequent owners of the applicable type certificate (A-783) but they never “built” any G-73 series aircraft. Also too, none of the “Grumman” G-73 aircraft ever became anything else in terms of official identification or certification regardless of whether or not they were modified by the Frakes turbine engines STC (which does not change the fundamental identification of the affected aircraft) – and regardless of the successions of transfers of ownership of TC A-783.
*Note that the "G-73T" identification is a popular affectation and is not really "official" in any way outside of an ICAO flightplan for example. As far as type certification is concerned, they are all still "Grumman" and just "G-73" regardless of whether or not they have been modified by Frakes STC no. SA2323WE.
JohnB wrote:My two cents after a career as an Air Force public affairs officer where, as you might expect, I had ample occasions to discuss aircraft with "laymen".
First...try to understand your audiences (note the "s").
Remember, you'll be addressing both buffs and laymen.
If you're trying to inform a general audience in a placard about an aircraft, I might very refer to a TBM as a Grumman Avenger. Why, because that's what most people call it.
Yes, the Navy made a big deal about naming an aircraft after who made it.
But remember, the USAAF/USAF (who also know a thing or two about aeroplanes) did not. Even the biggest plane nerds on the planet wouldn’t walk up to a B-17 and call it a Douglas B-17...even though that's who made it. It was designed by Boeing, so that's what it is.
Remember, you're trying to inform and educate, not demonstrate how much you know.
If you would go back and read what I wrote again, you will see that I never advocated a “blanket” re-identification of all such aircraft in accordance with the standards of 14 CFR 45.13(a); instead, I was suggesting that only in terms of formal or official identification of such aircraft in regard to civilian registration or airworthiness certification through the FAA should such technically picky and “correct” identifications as “Eastern TBM” or “Douglas B-17G” be used. In other words, I was already saying that it does depend on the “audience” just as you suggested too. I don’t care what you say to your friend at an airshow and your suggestion for museum placards works for me too.
And too the USAAC / USAAF / USAF may not have made a “big deal” about it, but they certainly did in fact distinguish between different manufacturers of the same types of aircraft just as the Navy did too – as the manufacturer’s code in the full, formal model designations indicate; hence their distinctions between B-17G-xx-BO, B-17G-xx-DL, and B-17G-xx-VE series aircraft.
Either way, based on the strict letter of the law, I believe that the model B-17G-85-DL “Flying Fortress” that belongs to the Collings Foundation for just one example should be formally registered with and certified by the FAA as a “Douglas” B-17G because that is in fact who built it.
Re: bringing specification to the table
Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm
That is actually a great question. As some people have pointed out, I think you need to be able to address both the layman who just knows it is an 'airplane' as much as a rivet counter who likes details. I've seen a few museums that address both with the same stone.
The first column is the 'airplane' one that says it's a Boeing B-17G that was used by the 8th AF in Europe, and has the generalities....bomb load, range, armament, the 'short story'.
But then the second column is the one for the rivet counters that says this B-17 was contract-built by Vega on blah, blah, blah, and served with X squadron and Y squadron, and then during the 1950's was used as a cloud-seeder or fire bomber or whatever. The Museum purchased the aircraft in 1978 and is painted to represent....
Lets face it...no matter what you do you'll always run into the guy who insists that the B-17 is a B-24 and he knows it because his dad flew them in the big war....explaining it to his wife who couldn't care less, standing within ear-shot of a rivet counter who is stewing because it is painted like a B-17F, not a G. So find the happy medium.
The first column is the 'airplane' one that says it's a Boeing B-17G that was used by the 8th AF in Europe, and has the generalities....bomb load, range, armament, the 'short story'.
But then the second column is the one for the rivet counters that says this B-17 was contract-built by Vega on blah, blah, blah, and served with X squadron and Y squadron, and then during the 1950's was used as a cloud-seeder or fire bomber or whatever. The Museum purchased the aircraft in 1978 and is painted to represent....
Lets face it...no matter what you do you'll always run into the guy who insists that the B-17 is a B-24 and he knows it because his dad flew them in the big war....explaining it to his wife who couldn't care less, standing within ear-shot of a rivet counter who is stewing because it is painted like a B-17F, not a G. So find the happy medium.