Warbird Information Exchange

This is from the FAA database:

N24927 is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 18 Type Registration Corporation
Manufacturer Name CONSOLIDATED VULTEE Certificate Issue Date 09/06/1991
Model RLB3O Status Valid
Type Aircraft Fixed Wing Multi-Engine Type Engine Reciprocating
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 50452054
MFR Year 1940 Fractional Owner NO

What is stamped on the manufacturers data plate?

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

Just FYI.....That RLB-30 status is in the process of being changed with the FAA as we speak, back to B-24A/LB-30, like Consolidated called it. There is no reason to get into any real arguments about what this airplane is, as it is both a B-24A and LB-30. It was built as a B-24A, then delivered as an LB-30 (which Consolidated still called a "B-24A Conversion"). The only difference at the time between the B-24A's and the LB-30's were some avionics and armament packages.

I, too, get tired of the Collings Foundation saying that they have the "World's only flying B-24," but the CAF has a lot to do with that, as they are often times their own worst enemy. RickH could probably help me explain why Collings says what they say. Either way, no matter if you think AM927 is a B-24A or an LB30, it's still a Consolidated built B-24...period! Personally, I tire of the "us against them" bullsh*t and just wish that we could all share the skies and try to help one another honor our Vets and teach the younger generations about the history of these Warbirds.

Wouldn't be cool to see both B-24's in formation together?

Gary

Gary, I'm down here in Texas far removed from what goes on with the bombers on tour. I think that when some of this stuff gets into print it gets changed at the whim of the writer , who, more often than not, doesn't get the complete quote. What I've heard told to people is that the B-24J is the only fully restored B-24 flying in the world.

A fine line to a news reporter but to those of us in this community a big distinction.

I think the us against them situation was fostered originally by some of the older generation who felt that the CF B-24 was treading on their territory. It also happened with other groups that have come along since the CAF started, CF was not the only group to receive shots across the bow.

Think back to how some of the older more established groups got their start. VAC, Yankee, Kalamazoo, etc... Some of those groups were started by former CAF Wing members in their respective areas who weren't happy with actions taken by the parent organization.

I'm just glad that the old animosities amongst the flying warbird community seem to be a distant memory, I wish the same could be said for some of the static museums and their attitudes about the flyers.

Well said Rick. Thanks.

Gary