USAF Tail-number format

[Randy Haskin]

The registry says it did indeed go to Cavalier at one point.

Martin is right, and the registry is wrong. The only 'Cavalier' in that airplane is the canopy, which was purchased from Cavalier. All of the other maintenance work was performed by Aero Sport at Chino.

[Swiss Mustangs]

and to prove it.....



Martin

[Chief]

I just came across this concerning the tail number of the C-124 on display at Charleston.
This aircraft was on active duty in our flight ("Blue 7") at Dover AFB DE, the 1607th ATW. In fact we had all 10 of the 52-1070 series aircraft (52-1070 through 52-1079) at Dover.
Before I became the flight chief, I was the crew chief on 52-1074. The display C-124 at Charleston only had 52-1072 on it's tail when it was in our flight.
I have been on base at Charleston to look at "52-1072" and can't understand the reason for the extra "0".

[BCalmes]

Thanks for the explanation of contract year vs. construction year. I was wondering about the "discrepancy" between the P-38's serial number 44-53087 and its June 1945 construction date.

[aerovin]

Good source for the leading "0" is Buzz Numbers by Dave Menard and Pete Bowers. They excerpt Technical Order 1-1-636, date unknown, that specifies a "0" will precede the radio call numbers painted on the airframe to avoid having duplicate call numbers on USAF aircraft (overlapping fiscal year purchased i.e. 1942 and 1952 both leading the serial numbers with a "2").

As per the USAF T.O., it is a zero and not an "O", though there are examples out there where the number appears to be painted as an "O" by mistake. In many cases, the painted serials were abbreviated. I have one photo of B-17G 44-83684 painted with just "0-4684" on the tail. This seems particularly true in 1960s and later USAF fighters.

[jamesintucson]

I've seen the leading 0 (definately a zero and not an O) in photos as late as the 1960s mostly on transport and tanker aircraft. I can think of two examples here at Pima neither of which has ever been repainted by the museum the KB-50 and the KC-97. Both were in service into the 60s. Even if the system was supposed to be gone by then not everyone stopped using it.

James

[BTBackseater]

Here is a link to a site that has a list of serial numbers and explains tail / serial numbers and buzz numbers
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html

[BTBackseater]

As to using "O" for obsolete, I've never seen it done or seen it documented anywhere. I maintain a couple of Block 5 F-16's that are nearing 30 years old and they carry standard s/n markings.

Here you go. This is P-51D 44-72990, ex N6322T, which the US Army purchased in April 1967. You can see clearly that the tail marking is O-72990.

72990 to RCAF as 9283 in 1945. To civilian registry as N6322T
in 1951. To US Army 1967 for use as chase plane in
AH-56 program. Now on display at US Army Aviation Museum,
Ft Rucker, AL.

[famvburg]

So is it an "O" or a "0", it looks like a "0" to me, as it looks like the other which is definitely a "0".

As to using "O" for obsolete, I've never seen it done or seen it documented anywhere. I maintain a couple of Block 5 F-16's that are nearing 30 years old and they carry standard s/n markings.

Here you go. This is P-51D 44-72990, ex N6322T, which the US Army purchased in April 1967. You can see clearly that the tail marking is O-72990.

[Roger Cain]

Good source for the leading "0" is Buzz Numbers by Dave Menard and Pete Bowers. They excerpt Technical Order 1-1-636, date unknown, that specifies a "0" will precede the radio call numbers painted on the airframe to avoid having duplicate call numbers on USAF aircraft (overlapping fiscal year purchased i.e. 1942 and 1952 both leading the serial numbers with a "2").

As per the USAF T.O., it is a zero and not an "O", though there are examples out there where the number appears to be painted as an "O" by mistake. In many cases, the painted serials were abbreviated. I have one photo of B-17G 44-83684 painted with just "0-4684" on the tail. This seems particularly true in 1960s and later USAF fighters.

What Scott said

[Dave Smith]

According to a British magazine back in the 1960s (Air Pictorial I think it was), the O stood for Obsolescent, rather than Obsolete. The difference, according to my dictionary, is that obsolete means "no longer in use", obsolescent means "becoming obsolete". Around that time, there were C-47s and other types at UK bases with the O-prefix.

[Dave Smith]

According to a British magazine back in the 1960s (Air Pictorial I think it was), the O stood for Obsolescent, rather than Obsolete. The difference, according to my dictionary, is that obsolete means "no longer in use", obsolescent means "becoming obsolete". Around that time, there were C-47s and other types at UK bases with the O-prefix.

[aerovin]

According to a British magazine back in the 1960s (Air Pictorial I think it was), the O stood for Obsolescent, rather than Obsolete. The difference, according to my dictionary, is that obsolete means "no longer in use", obsolescent means "becoming obsolete". Around that time, there were C-47s and other types at UK bases with the O-prefix.

I think the Brits were wrong. I happens rarely, but it's possible.

[Chris Brame]

My dad shot these when 44-72990 showed up at Palwaukee Airport in Wheeling, IL in '73 or '74:

[Robbie Roberts]

What the Air Force tod me in school was that the first digit was the end digit of the year the aircraft was accepted for service, and the next 4 was the sequential order that the aircraft was accepted. For example-

Aircraft tail number 50030, which is a KC-10A, was accepted as the 30th aircraft(of all types) accepted by the USAF in 1985. There was nothing said about 10 year overlap of numbers. I think it probably resolves itself in that in any given year, only certain aircraft will be produced- they haven't made a KC-10A since the early 1990s, so any matching tail numbers will be on a different type, or types. As a the paperwork carries the model on it, along with the tail number, it is pretty easy to figure out what you've got there...

Robbie