Warbird Information Exchange

In common use, the "A" with a serial number usually means "adopted" -- in other words, that's not the original serial, but it has been registered with that serial for whatever reason.

Very common with Mustangs, especially those returned from service with foreign air forces. It seems that many of them made little attempt to keep serials with the actual aircraft they came from.

As a result, some airplanes are registered with identities that are a "best guess" -- and many times those identities turn out to be incorrect after more information is discovered (for instance, during a repair or restoration). Sometimes owners correct the serials with the FAA, and sometimes they do not.

First of all, my bad. I had too many Web pages open while writing that and had "UC-45J" stuck in my head. And I said it was Taigh's "prize" airplane because he won a prize for it. Simple.



Maybe in this case, but I know of many warbirds that were used by more than one branch of the service, each of which assigned its own "serial number." So which one do you use for a civilian registration; any one you want? That would result in chaos. Hmmm, and since it seems that that is exactly what we have here....

Cessna 310's served in the USAF as U-3A's and U-3B's, later as L-27's. Some of them were later transferred to Air Guard units, the Army, and even the Navy.

The aforementioned Grumman Albatrosses (an earlier post in this thread) were designed for the USN but actually first delivered to the USAF. Many of the early USAF SA-16A aircraft were later rebuilt as long-winged B or, if re-issued to the USCG, as E models (HU-16 after 1962....) The USAF serials were usually truncated for use by the Coast Guard. For example, SA-16A Grumman serial number G-100 was 51-026 in the USAF; it became 1026 in the USCG - and that is how it was registered as N7027T. But by your reasoning, it would have been OK to use 51-026; it had that serial number "first", that was what the USAF gave it and was presumably on the procurement contract to Grumman.

Serial numbers are supposed to be UNIQUE identifiers. They should not change with the owner/operator and the owner/operator should not have a choice to pick whichever prior military "serial" he wants to use. The true serial number should always be the unique, "internal" if you will, manufacturer's serial or construction number. That is how I have always interpreted the regs and it is also the clear intention of the darn AC that I am having trouble finding again - which as I noted before specially excludes the use of prior military serials - probably for just this reason.



Per Point 3, that is all true for Grumman G-21 series Gooses too. Even though the TC (654) recognizes all military model designations except the G-21B pure flying boats (no landing gear at all), it does not recognize the fact that the JRF-1's, -1A's, -2's, -3's, -4's, -5's, and the British JRF-6B versions were actually a mix Grumman models G-36, G-38, and G-39. The single JRF prototype was designated a XJ3F-1 by the USN and FAA, but it was a G-26 to Grumman. And the FAA does not distinguish between any of them; to the FAA, they are all just G-21A's even though there were significant differences in equipment. The JRF-1A's, -4's, and -5's all had big camera well hatches that could also be used for deploying a towed target for aerial gunnery practice - that makes a big difference in a seaplane.

As far as maintenance documentation for Gooses is concerned, it is all problematic. Grumman had a joke of a "Maintenance & Erection Handbook" for civilian owners and they put together a structural repair manual for the Navy - in spite of which most operators still use AC 43.13-1 for a repair reference. All of the "parts manuals" are really just "bills of material" or accounting price lists of spare parts (Those 1942 prices are to die for!) Nothing is illustrated and there are no exploded parts breakdowns. As for AD notes, the few that apply to the Goose series apply equally to all unless differentiated by Grumman serial number.



Also quite true of Gooses. The first Goose intended to be used for the TV show Tales of the Gold Monkey, s/n B-112 registered as N2845D, crashed at sea and sank in the Gulf of Alaska on its way South - in 1982! It is one of many such Gooses still on the registry. Several Gooses that belonged to Antilles Air Boats are still also on the registry - in spite of the fact that Antilles Air Boats folded in 1988 after Hugo destroyed many of its aircraft. Dean Franklin obtained many of them and salvaged or scrapped them. How many "Undel Tri" notations do you have to get before the spurious registrations are purged?

Good handgranade, but not that significant, IMHO, due to the idealistic stance (even in fun.)

Without being rude, that's a bundle of presumptions offered as how things should be - that's as maybe, but it certainly isn't how they are, nor in any realistic time-scale in any universe I see likely to eventuate.

I'd like all sorts of things to be different to how they are, but I wouldn't waste your time even outlining them - it isn't going to happen. Expecting any half century of government or private paperwork to be consistent throughout is, bluntly, naive.

Globally, there's no presumption, for instance, for a civil registration to remain unique outside the period of use by a particular aircraft, nor for a civil registration to remain the same if a business changes or an aircraft changes hands - this is a civil norm, the environment the aircraft starting the discussion are in - NOT the military environment. Even in the Military, there might be consistency within a service, but it's generally the norm - not the exception - that services will differ in serial process and allocation. And I fail to see a problem here unless you need to rank your paperclips by size. (And if you do, I'm not paying for you to be employed in my government... )

At bottom, here there is a requirement to keep track of an identity of an object through its history. This is a paperwork exercise, not to be confused with validating the object or work or safety of that. Documentation is a record, not the facts. It is a good enough system to maintain a document trail, which is all it needs to be. Greater precision is attractive to reggie spotters, and others with an (IMHO) unbalanced attention to numbers, but of no real merit even to the professionals in the warbird field (as demonstrated above).

If you really want the FAA to tighten up on the precision of their paperwork requirements and application, I'm not standing anywhere near you - you'll not be gathering advocates anywhere - in the FAA or outside...

Try the provenance trail of renaissance artwork if you want to see some really interesting paperwork.

Just my opinion, ymmv.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well put James. After reading your response I simply deleted what I was writing save one comment:

Rayjay,

I think you should apply to the FAA to be an inspector. With your passion to correct the flawed registration system I bet you will go far. Should you need a letter of recommendation just ask.


Incidentally James, it was nice to meet you in person at OSH. You too were taller than I expected!

_________________
To donate to the PV-2D project via PayPal click here http://www.twinbeech.com/84062restoration.htm

We brought her from: to this in 3 months: Help us get her all the way back

All donations are tax deductible as the Stockton Field Aviation Museum is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. Tell a friend as the Harpoon needs all the help she can get.

Thank you!

Taigh Ramey
Vintage Aircraft, Stockton, California
http://www.twinbeech.com
'KEEP ‘EM FLYING…FOR HISTORY!'

Funnily enough, back in the early 90s I used to pass by the fuselage of 44-73029 in California every day. At the same time the 51 wearing said serial was in a hangar out east. The current owner and his dad even visited the shop and walked straight past it. I was wondering if they would look closer at the remnants of the serial and recognize it. They didn't though!

T J

_________________
Make my day, punk!

I think that if Rajay is frustrated with the state of Grumman Goose serial numbers, his head will positively explode if he starts digging into the data on US registered P-51s!

Your trying to rake up some muck here it seems.
What is your issue?
There are things that are in the history of this aircraft that your don't have a clue about.
It isn't even your place to start an adversarial thread like this.
Comments closed on my end.
Rich

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Now isn't that the truth. I am still impressed that Dick Phillips hasn't ended up in the funny farm after 45+ years of trying to follow all of this... Anyone heard from Dick lately by the way?

T J

_________________
Make my day, punk!

He would not make it as a FAA inspector, since the Goose was certified under the old CARs, it's maint manual would have been CAM 18, not 43.13.
Back then you were expected to know how to do repairs without a ton of reference material, since so much of it was supposed to be commen scense.

Then the papermakers got involved.........................................

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Hey Rich, I apologize. I was not trying to start an "adversarial thread" and I certainly wasn't trying to pick on your particular P-51 in any way. While you were actually the first one to bring it up, the only thing that I can really say about it is that it looks like a fabulous and well cared for bird. After seeing the many (many!) photos of it and of your shop that were posted in the thread started by Gary Hilton, I was really impressed with both of them.

I also wasn't trying to teach you the complete history of your own airplane. I was just trying to point out that just because some piece of information has not yet been found, does not mean that it does not exist or that an effort should not be made to find it. I happen to enjoy that kind of information research. I also enjoy a spirited and informed debate. I sometimes take what I know to be a slightly outrageous position (the "Devil's Advocate" position) just to stir up reaction, interest, or participation. It is never my intention to offend. (and I hereby apologize to anyone who has been offended.)

By quoting the info from Braugher's database, I was just pointing out that there are other sources of data from which relevant information can be culled. In fact, I have already pointed out elsewhere, several times probably, that I have not always found Braugher's information to be "consistent" with other sources. That's a round-about way of saying that it might not be correct, but then again maybe the problems that I've seen were with the other sources. Who knows? To me, the fun is in continuing to look and cross-check whatever data is out there.