Pemberton Goose Comes Alive

[Dan K]

Successful engines run on 3/19. All I can say is how good she'll look on Lake Winnebago come July.

https://www.facebook.com/Pemberton-Sons ... 204493784/

[OD/NG]

It's looking great! Quick question for those in the know. On this picture:



I assume that the two vertical red lines both above and below the national insignia are prop strike arc lines. I've never seen it like this before where the lines are offset between the upper and lower sets and not in alignment. What is the purpose of that?

[JohnB]

I was at the engine run/taxi test yesterday, it was great to see it move under its own power. The engines fired right up and there were no leaks. Ever the gentleman, Addison loaded the Goose up with sons (who were at the controls), wife, daughters in law, grandkids, volunteers helpers and taxed it to the airfield restaurant where he treated everyone to pie.

About the markings...I was wondering that myself, but I think the photo shows the answer.
The top stripes are the usual prop warning.
The bottom stripes show where to cradle it for gear tests The small white stencil below the star says "CRADLE HERE".
I'd assume at least some USN aircraft were like that. Addison isn't one to make stuff up.

[TheBoy]

It's looking great! Quick question for those in the know. On this picture:
I assume that the two vertical red lines both above and below the national insignia are prop strike arc lines. I've never seen it like this before where the lines are offset between the upper and lower sets and not in alignment. What is the purpose of that?

That's a pretty valid question and one we get quite often. The truth is that's the way it was originally - and we don't know why either. We actually really vacillated on what we wanted to do here because it stands out so much and just looks 'wrong.' There are many other military Goose schemes that have the prop arcs painted similar to this but they are lined up we thought about lining them up. But when it came down to it, this particular scheme we are emulating had them this way so that's what we did.

[StangStung]

Fantastic. Love to see a beautiful plane with a well researched scheme. The best of all worlds!

[TheBoy]

Fantastic. Love to see a beautiful plane with a well researched scheme. The best of all worlds!

Thanks, but don't get too excited. It is full-gloss and the "US NAVY" on the aft fuselage isn't accurate (gasp! blasphemy! ). Our goal all along with this airplane is to have a fun airplane we can enjoy. I'm sure we'll succeed with that. Historical accuracy was never the intention with this project.

[OD/NG]

It's looking great! Quick question for those in the know. On this picture:
I assume that the two vertical red lines both above and below the national insignia are prop strike arc lines. I've never seen it like this before where the lines are offset between the upper and lower sets and not in alignment. What is the purpose of that?

That's a pretty valid question and one we get quite often. The truth is that's the way it was originally - and we don't know why either. We actually really vacillated on what we wanted to do here because it stands out so much and just looks 'wrong.' There are many other military Goose schemes that have the prop arcs painted similar to this but they are lined up we thought about lining them up. But when it came down to it, this particular scheme we are emulating had them this way so that's what we did.

Fantastic, thanks for the info! Best of luck on the flight testing! It's nice to see a Goose in a military scheme - something that is not exactly common.

[ignomini]

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the upper stripes on the old photo are in a clearly different position to the ones on the restored aircraft. Although it's hard to tell, it looks to me as though they were lined up on the military paint scheme. What am I missing?

[Rajay]

I believe that if you were able to see the stripes from directly perpendicular to where they are located on the side of the fuselage, you'd see that the front upper stripe is aligned with the aft lower stripe.

The prop arc is the prop arc and that is essentially a fixed position on the fuselage, but the stars on the two aircraft are 1) different sizes and 2) may not be aligned exactly alike in any case, so they intersect the warning stripes at different points. In other words, it is likely the case that the stripes are actually in exactly identical placement on each fuselage, but the stars themselves are a little bit different.

Whereas they appear to start at the same location between Hull Stas. 2 and 3 (based on the obvious rivet lines) and the prop arc corresponds approximately to Hull Sta. 7 on both of them, the smaller star on the Pemberton Goose does not go back as far as the one in the old photo does and therefore intersects the prop arc stripes further back on the star itself.

I base my assessment that the Pemberton Goose star is smaller on the fact that there is a significant gap between its bottom edge and the chine but on the old Navy photo (actually a Grumman publicity shot) the bottom edges of those stars (on both of the two Gooses in the shot) actually come very close to the chine on each aircraft. Also the Pemberton star seems to terminate just in front of the windshield pillar (and the instrument panel) at Hull Sta. 9 whereas in the old Navy shot it seems to go just behind them.

In any case, I think that the earlier analysis by someone else that only the top set of stripes pertains to the prop arc and the bottom set are for something else entirely - apparently the hull cradle which ought to align with an internal bulkhead to prevent damage from all of its weight being concentrated on the sheet metal in between the hull frames. There is in fact a major hull bulkhead at Sta. 7 - it's the aft end of the forward baggage area separating it from the cockpit - and the prop arc, based on the offset stripes, falls just behind it (since the hull cradle must align exactly with it.)

Bottom line: as someone else said actually much more than "once" - "it's his airplane and he paid to restore it so he's free to paint it any way he wants..." or something to that effect.

Last edited by Rajay on Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[OD/NG]

Thanks for the info Rajay, good analysis.

I agree that each owner should paint their airplanes exactly how they want to. I don't believe anybody here is criticizing the paint job, but rather just want to learn from others about markings that are not commonly seen by a lot of us.

Personally, I think the paint job looks fantastic, by the way. It will clearly be a stunner when finished.

[Rajay]

Just for reference, I found this image of the index of Hull Station numbers for a Grumman Goose online:



The major bulkheads inside a Goose fuselage are located at Stations 1, 3, 7, 13, 26, 29, 31, and 33 - and 36 serves as the rudder post. The forward baggage area is between stas. 3 and 7. The cockpit is between stas. 7 and 13. The main cabin is from 13 to 26 and the aft baggage area is stas. 26 - 29. The tailwheel "doghouse" is from sta. 29 to 31 and the MLG is mounted between sta. 10 and 13 plus sta. 13 aligns with the front spar of the wing and that is where the fuselage and wing bolt together along with a second set of fittings at sta. 16 which aligns to the aft spar in the wing - and to the main step on the bottom of the hull too.

[JohnB]

My assumption was based entirely on the photo. I'm no Goose or USN markings expert.
The cradle does line up with the forward/lower stripes.
It certainly could be a coincidence...but probably not.

I've known the Pembertons for a dozen years.
I'm sure Addison has the cradle in the correct/specified place.