Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:54 pm
I don't completely agree with JDK. To me, what he describes as a "design authority" sounds more like the old Soviet system under which airplanes were designed by "design bureaus" - i.e. MiG, Sukhoi, Tupolev, etc. The planes themselves were not built by those firms, but under contract in government factories.
Maybe I'm just a little bit more picky than most (there's another word for it that starts with an "a") but I have always felt the need to distinguish between a TBF and a TBM, a F4F and a FM-2, a F4U, FG-1D, a F3A-1, and an AU-1, etc. I don't like to gloss over that kind of thing and I like to give credit where it is due; to me at least, a TBM may be an "Avenger" but it is not a "Grumman Avenger."
While in some cases, the aircraft may be identical licensed copies, in others they are not. The F4F had a P&W R-1830, the FM-2 had a Wright R-1820 and a taller fin. A PBN is not a PBY that was built by the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia; it is actually a different aircraft in several respects and details of the hull and the wingtip floats.
There was also nothing identical about two Gooses - any two Gooses. I'm sure that in addition to the plethora of military designations assigned to the Goose series (OA-9, OA-13, XJ3F-1, JRF-1, JRF-1A, JRF-2, JRF-3, JRF-4, JRF-5, JRF-5G, and JRF-6B), I'm sure that die hard Bethpage waterbird fans will know that in addition to the obvious civilian designations of G-21 and G-21A, there were also the model G-21B pure flying boats for Portugal and the G-38 and G-39 designations for the later military models. There are multitudes of differences, mostly with installed systems and equipment (autopilot, de-ice, camera well, etc.) It wasn't just a matter of who was using it. Yet some people, including the FAA, just gloss over it all and recognize them all as G-21A's.
Since this subject seems to inspire rants, I might as well go for broke and add one about one of my favorite warbird pet-peeves: too many warbird owners have their aircraft registered using the (and possibily just one of several) military serial historically assigned to that aircraft. FAA guidelines on the subject are apparently not familiar to too many people and state that military or ex-military serials should not be used to register the aircraft with the FAA. Only the original manufacturer's serial or "construction" number should be used for civilian registrations.
For examples, the following Gooses are incorrectly registered:
N1048V - s/n 37793 (It should be msn B-46.)
N2579B - s/n 37821 (It should be msn B-74.)
N5542A - s/n 37281 (It should be msn B-33.)
N742PC - s/n 37782 (It should be msn B-34.)
and N5548A - s/n 75-7661 (75-? where did they come up with that? 1975? It should be msn 1150.)
I have seen the same thing on many other warbird registrations.
PS - and the date on the a/w certificate is not the same thing as date of mfg or "model year". There were NO Grumman Gooses built after 1945. (N22932, s/n B-139, for example is registered as a 1946 model. Not!)
Maybe I'm just a little bit more picky than most (there's another word for it that starts with an "a") but I have always felt the need to distinguish between a TBF and a TBM, a F4F and a FM-2, a F4U, FG-1D, a F3A-1, and an AU-1, etc. I don't like to gloss over that kind of thing and I like to give credit where it is due; to me at least, a TBM may be an "Avenger" but it is not a "Grumman Avenger."
While in some cases, the aircraft may be identical licensed copies, in others they are not. The F4F had a P&W R-1830, the FM-2 had a Wright R-1820 and a taller fin. A PBN is not a PBY that was built by the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia; it is actually a different aircraft in several respects and details of the hull and the wingtip floats.
There was also nothing identical about two Gooses - any two Gooses. I'm sure that in addition to the plethora of military designations assigned to the Goose series (OA-9, OA-13, XJ3F-1, JRF-1, JRF-1A, JRF-2, JRF-3, JRF-4, JRF-5, JRF-5G, and JRF-6B), I'm sure that die hard Bethpage waterbird fans will know that in addition to the obvious civilian designations of G-21 and G-21A, there were also the model G-21B pure flying boats for Portugal and the G-38 and G-39 designations for the later military models. There are multitudes of differences, mostly with installed systems and equipment (autopilot, de-ice, camera well, etc.) It wasn't just a matter of who was using it. Yet some people, including the FAA, just gloss over it all and recognize them all as G-21A's.
Since this subject seems to inspire rants, I might as well go for broke and add one about one of my favorite warbird pet-peeves: too many warbird owners have their aircraft registered using the (and possibily just one of several) military serial historically assigned to that aircraft. FAA guidelines on the subject are apparently not familiar to too many people and state that military or ex-military serials should not be used to register the aircraft with the FAA. Only the original manufacturer's serial or "construction" number should be used for civilian registrations.
For examples, the following Gooses are incorrectly registered:
N1048V - s/n 37793 (It should be msn B-46.)
N2579B - s/n 37821 (It should be msn B-74.)
N5542A - s/n 37281 (It should be msn B-33.)
N742PC - s/n 37782 (It should be msn B-34.)
and N5548A - s/n 75-7661 (75-? where did they come up with that? 1975? It should be msn 1150.)
I have seen the same thing on many other warbird registrations.
PS - and the date on the a/w certificate is not the same thing as date of mfg or "model year". There were NO Grumman Gooses built after 1945. (N22932, s/n B-139, for example is registered as a 1946 model. Not!)
Last edited by Rajay on Wed Mar 18, 2009 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:59 pm
Good grief.., a lot of data. Far more than I expected.
I was expecting a 'Just because'!
Thanks a lot!!!!
I was expecting a 'Just because'!
Thanks a lot!!!!
Wed Mar 18, 2009 2:41 pm
Invaders definitely were in the Pacific.
Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:02 pm
The Pacific Theater of the war saw A-26's just at the near end of the conflict. They were assigned to the 5th AF 3rd BG and were based in Okinawa. I would be interested in the extent of action that they saw. Intestingly the majority of those in Okinawa had wrap-around OD paint schemes as applied at the Douglas Long Beach factory. See photos in Scott Peterson 's book "A-26 and B-26 Invader", pg 31.
Thu Mar 19, 2009 7:31 am
330th, we like to talk... 
Your welcome! It was just thought caused by a IMHO failure of the designation system, and was just a few random comments. I was meant to be working.
Er, my examples were pretty accurate, and not Russian - certainly in the Commonwealth, the design company/original manufacturer (if you prefer) is/was the correct way of naming a type - Supermarine Walrus Mk.II were built by Saunders Roe for instance, but they were, officially Supermarine Walruses.
Depends what for. If it's on the ramp, I'd like to be able to identify the type without needing to be sub-sub-sub specific while I walk up to it - 'Avenger' if you like. Certainly where the difference matters, be precise.
Sure, no argument with different sub types, but again, let's accept that or most people most of the time it's a PBY, because that's accurate enough - and that includes the guys using them at the time.
Yup, it's anal to need to identify every variant with a completely different designation every time - and, as I said, people just don't do it. When you need too fine. I don't think the British Mark system is perfect, but you can call a type (in combat, on the field in the air) without having to say that the PBY might be a PBN - and you couldn't say PB, because that was too vague. 'Cat' or 'Catalina' worked, as did in practice however inaccurate 'PBY' or 'Canso'.
Jeeze - exactly. When I was researching the Goose at the NMUSNA, I had to check five files for photos rather than one covering Gooses. Some of those files had one photo in. And guess what, some of them were in the wrong designation folder.
Sure, again, when you need to specify a coastguard vs a Navy example it's good to be specific, but it helps a lot to have a catch all name until you need to be specific. Otherwise it's that other 'a' word, autistic.
Grumman Goose? Most know it; by all means after then specify. I'm reasonably able to keep up, but I'd have to look up what a OA-9 is. The front cover of our book will have 'Grumman Goose' on it, and won't take any designations.
We might prefer what we grew up with, at base, but it's not hard to show that a plethora of complex and re-used numbers and letters designations are guaranteed to confuse.
Just my opinion, of course!
Rajay wrote:I don't completely agree with JDK.
Your welcome! It was just thought caused by a IMHO failure of the designation system, and was just a few random comments. I was meant to be working.
To me, what he describes as a "design authority" sounds more like the old Soviet system under which airplanes were designed by "design bureaus" - i.e. MiG, Sukhoi, Tupolev, etc. The planes themselves were not built by those firms, but under contract in government factories.
Er, my examples were pretty accurate, and not Russian - certainly in the Commonwealth, the design company/original manufacturer (if you prefer) is/was the correct way of naming a type - Supermarine Walrus Mk.II were built by Saunders Roe for instance, but they were, officially Supermarine Walruses.
Maybe I'm just a little bit more picky than most (there's another word for it that starts with an "a") but I have always felt the need to distinguish between a TBF and a TBM, a F4F and a FM-2, a F4U, FG-1D, a F3A-1, and an AU-1, etc. I don't like to gloss over that kind of thing and I like to give credit where it is due; to me at least, a TBM may be an "Avenger" but it is not a "Grumman Avenger."
Depends what for. If it's on the ramp, I'd like to be able to identify the type without needing to be sub-sub-sub specific while I walk up to it - 'Avenger' if you like. Certainly where the difference matters, be precise.
While in some cases, the aircraft may be identical licensed copies, in others they are not. The F4F had a P&W R-1830, the FM-2 had a Wright R-1820 and a taller fin. A PBN is not a PBY that was built by the Naval Aircraft Factory in Philadelphia; it is actually a different aircraft in several respects and details of the hull and the wingtip floats.
Sure, no argument with different sub types, but again, let's accept that or most people most of the time it's a PBY, because that's accurate enough - and that includes the guys using them at the time.
Yup, it's anal to need to identify every variant with a completely different designation every time - and, as I said, people just don't do it. When you need too fine. I don't think the British Mark system is perfect, but you can call a type (in combat, on the field in the air) without having to say that the PBY might be a PBN - and you couldn't say PB, because that was too vague. 'Cat' or 'Catalina' worked, as did in practice however inaccurate 'PBY' or 'Canso'.
There was also nothing identical about two Gooses - any two Gooses. I'm sure that in addition to the plethora of military designations assigned to the Goose series (OA-9, OA-13, XJ3F-1, JRF-1, JRF-1A, JRF-2, JRF-3, JRF-4, JRF-5, JRF-5G, and JRF-6B),
Jeeze - exactly. When I was researching the Goose at the NMUSNA, I had to check five files for photos rather than one covering Gooses. Some of those files had one photo in. And guess what, some of them were in the wrong designation folder.
Sure, again, when you need to specify a coastguard vs a Navy example it's good to be specific, but it helps a lot to have a catch all name until you need to be specific. Otherwise it's that other 'a' word, autistic.
Grumman Goose? Most know it; by all means after then specify. I'm reasonably able to keep up, but I'd have to look up what a OA-9 is.
The front cover of our book will have 'Grumman Goose' on it, and won't take any designations.
We might prefer what we grew up with, at base, but it's not hard to show that a plethora of complex and re-used numbers and letters designations are guaranteed to confuse.
Just my opinion, of course!
Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:07 am
My favorite designation cluster is the DC-3, C-41A, C-42, C-47, C-48, C-49, C-50, C-51, C-52, C-53, C-68, C-84, C-110, C-117, R4D, Dakota, DST, DST-A, BT-67, L2D?, Li-2?....
http://www.douglasdc3.com/dc3specs/dc3specs.htm
http://www.douglasdc3.com/dc3specs/dc3specs.htm
Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:47 am
Jack Frost wrote:k5dh wrote:The Invader's designation was changed from B-26 back to A-26 during its service in Southeast Asia. It seems we weren't supposed to be using bomber aircraft, but attack aircraft were acceptable.
I guess those were Boeing A-52s that were 'attacking' Hanoi during the Vietnam war, right?
<GRIN>
It was the Thai government who refused to have bombers making stop-overs in their country. Hence the re- designation of the B-26K to A-26A.
T J