Forgotten Field wrote:
I'm just making historical comments, and not to put too fine a point on it, but all the J2F-6 aircraft were built by Columbia Aircraft Corporation. So technically, they are not "Grumman" Ducks. All totalled, Columbia built half of all Duck production, and were the designers of the XJL-1 which was a proposed replacement of the Duck. Just thought people might be interested. Thanks for the details. I didn't know there were any other real Grumman Ducks around. Anybody got any information on that JF-1?
And JDK's comment in reply:
"
Forgotten Field. Great point re- the makers being Columbia - however the design remains the Grumman Duck. Quite a few aircraft have been built by other manufacturers, sometimes handing over the complete job. A parallel is the Supermarine Walrus which was handed over for later production to Saunders Roe, because (just like Grumman) the parent company got busy with some tedious fighter I can't remember the name of. Fact remains that the maker doesn't get naming rights, that's the designer and design authority. Of course the 'Super Duck' was credited to Columbia as they did design it."
I got jumped on the last time I broached this subject on WIX, but I happen to agree with "Forgotten Field" and I disagree with JDK. Actually, to even further split some hairs, JDK used the term "naming rights." I'm not sure what he specifically means by that. Grumman may have called the F4F the "Wildcat" but the British called it a "Martlet" and it was the US Navy who assigned the type/model designation "F4F" to the Grumman model G-36. Fairchild called the A-10 the Thunderbolt II but of course everyone else just calls it the Warthog.
As far as formal type/model designations go for particular / individual / specific
aircraft (as opposed to any discussion of a general
type design) in the civilian world, it is the "builder" and NOT the "designer" who gets the credit - at least
in the US. According to FAA regulations (see
FAR 45.13), it is the
builder's name (not the designer or even the TC holder) that is
supposed to be used to identify an aircraft - on an FAA registration. (
How you identify it in a magazine article or even over a PA at an airshow is probably of no real concern to the FAA.) Of course, especially when it comes to warbirds, that is often not the case - but as I just mentioned in another thread, the FAA obviously does not review, validate, or authenticate the volumes of paperwork that they require us to file!
Accordingly, a
TBF is a "Grumman" Avenger, but a
TBM is NOT a "Grumman" Avenger; it is a "General Motors" Avenger.
Similarly, an
F4F is a "Grumman" Wildcat, but an
FM-2 is NOT a "Grumman" Wildcat; it is a "General Motors" Wildcat.
The list goes on:
Technically speaking (
according to the FAA) -
An
F4U is a "Vought" Corsair, but
An
FG-1 is a "Goodyear" Corsair, (and an F2G is a Goodyear Super Corsair!)
An
F3A is a "Brewster" Corsair,
etc.
Of course, I know that nobody is going to look at a B-17 and call it anything other than a "Boeing" Flying Fortress, but we all know that there were examples built by Lockheed's Vega division and by Douglas and whatever survivors are still flying,
according to FAR 45.13, should be
registered with the FAA as "Lockheed" or "Douglas" B-17s.
In the same way, most people will call a Catalina a "Consolidated PBY" when in fact some are Canadian Vickers PBV or Boeing PB2B Canso's and, not that we see any of them anywhere around anymore, some were Naval Aircraft Factory PBN Nomads. Also some were not even "Navy" PBY's at all but were instead Army Air Corps OA-10's. And while the PBY-1 through PBY-5A were given "civilian" model designations of 28-1 through 28-5A respectively, not all variants were given such designations and none of them ever received any independent civilian type design certification except as surplus military aircraft.
Similarly (and I was jumped on previously for this, too) according to the same
FAR 45.13 (and as more explicitly discussed in
AC 21-13 and
AC 21-12b, all surplus military aircraft that obtain a civilian certificate of airworthiness and registration are supposed to be identified by their manufacturer's model number and serial number, NOT by their former military designations and serial numbers:
AC21-12b, Paragraph 6 a. (3)(c) states:
“
For surplus military aircraft having a civil model counterpart, enter the civil model designation along with the military model designation in parentheses. If the TC was issued under section 21.27, the military model designation becomes the civil model designation."
That same AC goes on to state under
Paragraph 6 a. (5)(c):“
For surplus military aircraft, enter the manufacturer’s civil serial number. The military serial number should be placed in parentheses following the civil serial number. If no civil serial number exists, enter the military serial number.”
Accordingly, all Grumman Goose aircraft are registered as models "G-21A" regardless of their former military designations. However, there are several still on the registry using their ex-military serials or Bureau numbers instead of their "proper" Grumman "civil" serial numbers, aka "construction" numbers. For examples, N5542A, N742PC, and N1048V are each registered with former military serials 37281, 37282, and 37793 respectively when they are really Grumman c/n's B-33, B-34, and B-46 respectively. One, N5548A - even though it is actually just a wreck -is still registered with the serial number "75-7661" but I have no idea where they came up that one! It was actually Grumman c/n 1150.
On the other hand, even though the Albatross was originally a Grumman model G-64, it never received independent civil certification -
as such (the G-111 was techically a whole 'nuther deal - a complete
re-certification under FAR 25.) Therefore, most surplus HU-16's still flying were registered as just that (an "HU-16") and most were also issued their own independent type certificates with their own unique airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements. However, many are still registered using their former military serial numbers when in fact, according to the regs listed above, they
should be identified by their original Grumman serials or construction numbers (
G-1 through G-464.)
As some people here have pointed out previously, original military serial numbers were often "issued" right at the factory and were even specified in the military procurement contracts - but the FAA regs do not say anything about that contingency. The FAA regs state very clearly that
if a manufacturer's civil serial number exists, it
should be used for civilian registrations.
I know and realize that in the "real world" things are very seldom actually done this way in the warbird community, but as I "proved" with the above citations, it is "supposed" to be done that way.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
