CG Hu-16 paint specs?

Rajay · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:05 am

I have heard that it is common practice for amphibians to lower their landing gear in the water to prevent inadvertent groundings on the bottom. The tires act as bumpers just in case. Sounded reasonable to me....

gary1954 · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:08 am

Rajay wrote:

I have heard that it is common practice for amphibians to lower their landing gear in the water to prevent inadvertent groundings on the bottom. The tires act as bumpers just in case. Sounded reasonable to me....

Thanks, that was what I was thinking, just unsure :drink3:

Chuck Gardner · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:02 pm

This Albatross was owned by Connie Edwards and is now owned by his son Tex. It is an HU-16E and was not stripped, but sanded and painted over over the original paint to the exact markings it had in the military.

Rajay wrote:

CoastieJohn wrote:

Quote:

the Albatross in this photo (above) is a long-wing version as evidenced by the cambered tip (as is a "real" USCG model HU-16E if this is indeed one - the paint scheme alone doesn't prove that it is.) The short-wing Albatrosses such as the model UF-1 / HU-16C had slots in the outboard wing panel leading edges and an almost symmetrical airfoil at the tip.

That pic above came the CGAA site. I believe that to be the Connie Edwards one.

This real nice one below is another pic of it (i.e the exact same aircraft) from the Flyinghigher site. It shows it as a C model on the tail. (But it is wrong!)

They are both of the same aircraft - N226CG - and according to the latest FAA registration record, Connie Edwards seems to have sold it recently - it is now registered as "Sale Reported."

Also, the FAA actually has it listed as a long-wing "HU-16B" built in 1953 but they have its serial number listed as "7226" which would be valid only as a Coast Guard serial for a HU-16E; according to my records it was originally built in 1951 as an Air Force SA-16A (serial no. 51-7226) and then "upgraded" to a long-wing B model in 1956 or so, but in any case the actual Grumman mfg's serial by which it is supposed to be registered now as a civilian aircraft with the FAA is G-307.

In the larger second photo, it is obviously a long-wing version because of the cambered wingtip without any slots on the outboard wing panels. Regardless of how it is painted, it is not a short-wing model HU-16C (but whether or not it was originally an Air Force model HU-16B, a Navy model HU-16D, or a Coast Guard model HU-16E is not so obvious.) Because the flaps are partially extended, the usually obvious inboard constant chord 70 inch wing extensions are not visible in the second photo, but other features of the later long-winged variants are still evident, including the taller vertical stab and the protruding leading edge of the horizontal stab.

...unlike the original subject of this thread, N216HU. As far as a "correct" paint scheme for a short-wing UF-1G variant of the "Goat" in Coast Guard service, wouldn't the silver paint scheme with the black-bordered yellow band around the waist and wing tips just like an Air Force SAR scheme be a more appropriate?

David Legg · **Joined:** Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:07 pm **Posts:** 338

C VEICH wrote:

The Catalina is now at Buckeye. I'm relatively certain that none of the collection is left at Glendale at this point.

Many thanks indeed for that. Was it flown there (presumably it was as opposed to being dismantled) and do you know the date of transit?

C VEICH · **Joined:** Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:40 pm **Posts:** 1471

David Legg wrote:

C VEICH wrote:

The Catalina is now at Buckeye. I'm relatively certain that none of the collection is left at Glendale at this point.

Many thanks indeed for that. Was it flown there (presumably it was as opposed to being dismantled) and do you know the date of transit?

It was flown but I have no idea of the date, sorry.

CoastieJohn · **Joined:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm **Posts:** 1380

A little more info and color schemes from the CGAA site:

Originally 30 of theses aircraft, also known as the SA-16 Albatross, were purchased by the Coast Guard at a unit cost of $523,000. Later 15 more were obtained from the Air Force. Later still, from 1957 to 1960, 35 more were obtained from Air Force surpluses. All of these aircraft were converted to the stretch-wing version and called the HU-16E.

The UF-1G was modified with longer, modified wing and larger tail surfaces, and became the UF-2G. An early UF-2G shown here.

From the top

UF-2G 7241 delivers suppplies to the USCG Loran Station at Talampulan Island, Republic of the Phillipines, circa 1962. Note what looks like a jato assist.

Rajay · **Posted:** Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:14 pm

CoastieJohn wrote:

A little more info and color schemes from the CGAA site:

Originally 30 of theses aircraft, also known as the SA-16 Albatross, were purchased by the Coast Guard at a unit cost of $523,000. Later 15 more were obtained from the Air Force. Later still, from 1957 to 1960, 35 more were obtained from Air Force surpluses. All of these aircraft were converted to the stretch-wing version and called the HU-16E.

The UF-1G was modified with longer, modified wing and larger tail surfaces, and became the UF-2G. An early UF-2G shown here.

Sorry, but neither of the first two Albatrosses is a long-wing UF-2G - they are both still short-wing UF-1G aircraft as evidenced by the non-cambered wingtip and the short vertical stabilizer. The slots in the outboard wing leading edges are also visible in the first photo - they were used only on the short-wing versions. Compare those particular features to the rest of the photos that you just posted and you should be able to see the differences. (If you were simply going by the information or captions on the CGAA Web site, then they must have had them labelled wrong, too.)

Actually, I just went back and downloaded the two images in question and they were both identified as "UF-1G" aircraft.

CoastieJohn · **Joined:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm **Posts:** 1380

Yup.....CGAA is where I got them from, captions and all. The caption in the right column was wrong for the second one. I was trying to show the different paint schemes.

Rajay · **Posted:** Sat Feb 09, 2013 11:58 am

Chuck Gardner wrote:

This Albatross was owned by Connie Edwards and is now owned by his son Tex. It is an HU-16E and was not stripped, but sanded and painted over over the original paint to the exact markings it had in the military.

Just curious - if it actually is a former Coast Guard model HU-16E, then why is it registered as an (ex-Air Force) model HU-16B?

One other question regarding ex-USCG aircraft - eventually. I've seen plenty of original Grumman data tags in Gooses and they included both Grumman model and serial numbers and, since most Gooses ever built were for the Navy (as models JRF-5 more so than anything else), the USN model and Bureau of Aeronautics serial or "Bu." numbers as well - right from the factory. In many if not actually most cases however, the Coast Guards' aircraft were second or even third hand from other branches of the service and not procured directly from the factory.

In the case of the Edwards' Albatross (N226CG) for example, it was apparently built originally as a short-wing Air Force SA-16A with USAF serial number 51-7226, later (in 1956 or so) it was upgraded to a long-wing SA-16B*, and then only later still transferred to the Coast Guard and re-designated as an HU-16E. Based on that, I'm betting that it never had a Grumman "factory" data tag that ever identified it as serial number "7226" as it is now registered (maybe as "51-7226" for the Air Force contract.) Just as surely, it originally had and still should have a Grumman data tag that identifies it as Grumman serial number "G-307", so (here finally is my question) why is it registered as serial number "7226"?

(*and if it was transferred to the Coast Guard before 1962 when the military aircraft designation standards were unified across all of the services then this particular Albatross was never actually officially identified as an "HU-16B" at all.)

Here's another question. Aren't Coast Guard "serial numbers" more or less just so-called "buzz" numbers more akin to Luftwaffe or even USAF squadron codes than they are to actual manufacturer's serial numbers? Identifying this Albatross as serial no. "7226" is (to me at least) exactly like identify the "Memphis Belle" as B-17F serial number "DF-A"!

CoastieJohn · **Joined:** Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:37 pm **Posts:** 1380

I just got a response back from our CG aircraft expert. He has been doing this for 40+ years now. He's pretty good with most aircraft, especially CG aircraft history and design. Hopefully this will help some. I have another question in about the bigger CG float planes for Mark's thread.

Quote:

CG7226, HU-16A, HU-16B, HU16E, aka = N226CG

First off, one has to have a bit of knowledge regarding exactly what the FAA allows one to register a military aircraft. History tells us that a surplus military machine can be registered utilizing any official number as dictated by U.S. Gov't regulationas. Dating back to the Air Commerce Act of 1926, aircraft manufacturers, through their national organization- AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION, began to affix a standardized aircraft data plate as required by the Act.

The ID plates contained (by CARs) the following info:

1. Name of Company (usually displayed by a company logo)

2. Model number or name of aircraft design

3a. Construction number (C/N), now known as the Manufacturer's Serial Number (msn)

3b. Block number of any mods made to the original model number

4. Date of construction

5. Engine(s) type and serial number as well as name of engine manufacturer

6. Weight information

7. Military tail number if ordered by a branch of the U.S. Military

8. Military aircraft type designator

When the military pruchased an aircraft, it was also assigned a number to be used as a "tail" number as deternined by the service branch. In the case of the USA, USAAC, USAAF, USAF, the tail number depicted the fiscal year of funding for the machine plus the sequence of purchase/funding within the fiscal year. In the case of the aircraft in question, the year was 1952 and the sequence number was 7226, Hence, the USAF number for the aircraft was "51-7226". It was delivered to the USAF as a Grumman HU-16A, C/N G307. When it was later modified to an HU-16B (long wing), the original aircraft data plate then carried as addition to the model number - - - a slash after G307/ and a number signifying the company sequence block number with a letter and either one or two numbers for the mod. I don't have the B mod number but I have been in this aircraft and can attest to the fact that it has an ID plate denoting the required information described, above - Grumman Blue logo and all. Connie Sr. took great pains to keep the machine, inside & out, as original as possible.

Okay - - - for aircraft purchased by the USN/USMC, the BUNO and and type are entered vs. the USAF info above. Now it gets a little quirkie...............................

If one purchases a surplus military machine, it can be registered using the C/N (msn), the service branch tail number, or the number in use by the last gov't operator. Since the USCG uses only the last 4 numbers of military tail or serial number, that number could also be used. Hence, the civil operator may register this machine utilizing any of the following:

1. C/N or msn (G307)

2. USAF Tail number (51-7226)

3. USCG Tail number (7226)

Remember, all of these numbers were applied to the machine via U.S. Gov't regulations. As the last major mod was the long wing, the aircraft went from being an HU-16A to an HU-16B. However, the USCG called their machines HU-16Es as the aircraft type simply to denote "their" particular designation while the USAF continued to classified them as an HU-16B. The Navy called their long winged version as an HU-16D. The
latter two aircraft designators were sort of a verbal assignment regarding their specific service assignment, I've spent time in USAF HU-16B, The USN UF1 & UF-2 HU-16D, and the USCG UF-2G (HU-16E) building 4+00 flight time per month for pay and they were all identical except for the design of the PFDs (may west).

Whereas the last military operator of 7226 was the USCG, the aircraft is/was registered utilizing the last 4 digits of the USCG tail nunber. Although the CG called it an HU-16E, the ID plate showed it was an HU-16B after it was modified with the long wing.

I have really run into major problem while researching USCG aircraft history. Some machines actually had up to 4 serial numbers that they could have been registered under: C/N, USAF, USN BUNO, and USCG No.

When the universal military designation process went into effect in 1962, the following aircraft designators were changed as indicated:

SA-16A = HU-16A

SA-16B = HU-16B

UF-1 = HU-16C (USN short winged version)

UF-2 = HU-16D (USN long winged version)

UF-1G = USCG (short winged version) NOT USED AS ALL ASSIGNED HAD BEEN RE-WINGED

UF-2G = HU-16E (USCG long winged version)

More on the GOOSE and B-17s tommorow - - - Dottie is calling me for supper

Rajay · **Posted:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:42 am

My notes and comments are included "inline" in blue font to address specific issues that I highlighted in red....

CoastieJohn wrote:

I just got a response back from our CG aircraft expert. He has been doing this for 40+ years now. He's pretty good with most aircraft, especially CG aircraft history and design. Hopefully this will help some. I have another question in about the bigger CG float planes for Mark's thread.

Quote:

CG7226, HU-16A, HU-16B, HU16E, aka = N226CG

First off, one has to have a bit of knowledge regarding exactly what the FAA allows* one to register a military aircraft. History tells us that a surplus military machine can be registered utilizing any official number as dictated by U.S. Gov't regulations. Dating back to the Air Commerce Act of 1926, aircraft manufacturers, through their national organization- AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION, began to affix a standardized aircraft data plate as required by the Act.

*"Allows" might have to be further parsed. There is obviously a big difference between what is required by the regs or other official references (which I will discuss below) and what the FAA actually enforces or lets owners get away with.

History? Can you be any more specific or formal with a "valid" reference, such as a FAR? From what I've read and studied, such "history" is wrong. Here's one such more formal and valid reference for you. According to FAA Advisory Circulars AC 21-12b and AC 21-13 which specifically pertain to the requirements for the application for and issuance of any civil certificate of airworthiness and the airworthiness certification of all surplus military aircraft (respectively) all civil-registered aircraft (including surplus military ones) are supposed to be officially identified in terms of airworthiness certification and registration using their original manufacturer's (OEM) model and serial numbers if such numbers exists. Former military serial numbers or other identifications can be used only if such OEM identification numbers do not exist. If both do exist, the OEM civil identification numbers should be used as the primary identifications but the former military identification numbers may be included in parentheses off to the side, but they are not required.

In the case of the Grumman Albatross, the factory did issue OEM serial numbers - G-1 to G-464 (with the dashes) and therefore according to the above mentioned references those "G-" series serial numbers should always be used for the FAA registration and airworthiness certification of all civilian-owned Grumman Albatross aircraft. However, because the "design number" G-64 never received independent civil certification, it is not appropriate to use "G-64" as a civil "model" identification and the use of some variation of "HU-16" is appropriate according to these references.

Of course, the model G-111 did receive independent civil certification but that designation officially applies only to the 13 particular aircraft which were specifically so converted by Grumman and re-certified by the FAA under Part 25 - although on the basis of the aformentioned references they all were incorrectly identified even on TC A22SO using a variety of former (USAF, USN, and USCG) military serials instead of their actual Grumman OEM serial numbers.

The ID plates contained (by CARs) the following info:
1. Name of Company (usually displayed by a company logo)
2. Model number or name of aircraft design
3a. Construction number (C/N), now known as the Manufacturer's Serial Number (msn)
3b. Block number of any mods made to the original model number
4. Date of construction
5. Engine(s) type and serial number as well as name of engine manufacturer
6. Weight information
7. Military tail number if ordered by a branch of the U.S. Military
8. Military aircraft type designator

*NOTE: By the "current" FARs (as opposed to the very old and out-of-date CARs originally referenced here - but not actually specified at all beyond just "CARs") the items highlighted in red are NOT specified, much less required, by the "current" regulation 14 CFR 45.13(a) which has been in effect since Jan. 10, 1967 (meaning that it was probably in effect at the time that the Albatross in question first passed into civlian hands) as follows:

§ 45.13 Identification data.
(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
(1) Builder's name (i.e. the name of the actual builder - not the designer or the TC holder at the time - and not the builder's name for the aircraft, either.)
(2) Builder's model designation.
(3) Builder's serial number.
(4) Type certificate number, if any.
(5) Production certificate number, if any.
(6) For aircraft engines, the established rating.

If one purchases a surplus military machine, it can be registered using the C/N (msn), the service branch tail number, or the number in use by the last gov't operator. Since the USCG uses only the last 4 numbers of military tail or serial number, that number could also be used. Hence, the civil operator may register this machine utilizing any of the following:

1. C/N or msn (G-307)
2. USAF Tail number (51-7226)
3. USCG Tail number (7226)

NOT according to the references I cited; that all may be just a common misconception within the warbird community. The statement above about the Coast Guard using truncated or partial serial numbers also does not make any sense to me in regard to the formal identification requirements of the FAA; while it may have been just fine for the USCG, do you really believe that a federal bureacracy like the FAA would knowingly accept that - i.e. truncated, partial, or otherwise incomplete serial numbers? I believe that the only reason that the FAA appears to accept such "mistakes" is because they are such a large and cumbersome bureaucracy and they don't bother to validate or confirm all of the paperwork and data that they require us to submit. As the old saying goes, the left hand does not know what the right one is doing and vice versa!

Whereas the last military operator of 7226 was the USCG, the aircraft is/was registered utilizing the last 4 digits of the USCG tail number. Although the CG called it an HU-16E, the ID plate showed it was an HU-16B after it was modified with the long wing.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I doubt that the Albatross in question was ever officially identified as an "HU-16B" while in USAF service. If as I suspect, it was transferred from the USAF to the USCG before 1962, it would have been offically identified only as an SA-16B prior to becoming an HU-16E.

IMHO, it would be nice if anyone wanting to weigh in further on this issue would actually find and read the two Advisory Circulars I mentioned first....

shrike · **Posted:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:40 pm

You can cite all the FAR's and AC's you want to, but we both know the ultimate correct answer is 'Whatever you can get the right guy at the FSDO to sign off"

If, for whatever reason, it pleased the Administrator, or his Designee to sign off the certificate with the information provided, then that IS the required information of record, and 'correcting' it would be a nest of snakes no one in their right mind would want to get into.

In my own research of my glider, I found at least 5% of total production to have been registered under the Army serial, when the factory c/n is not only on the same plate, but stamped (ink on wood) on every major assembly.

Arguing about someone's paint scheme is one (either mildly annoying, or harmless fun) thing, arguing about the validity or accuracy of their certificate is quite another with much more grave consequences

Rajay · **Posted:** Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:01 pm

shrike wrote:

You can cite all the FAR's and AC's you want to, but we both know the ultimate correct answer is 'Whatever you can get the right guy at the FSDO to sign off"

I would argue only that such an "answer" is not "correct" at all - just the reality of the situation. There will always be a difference between the way things "should be" and the actual "reality" or the "real world."

Rajay · **Posted:** Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:17 pm

CoastieJohn wrote:

I just got a response back from our CG aircraft expert.

Quote:

CG7226, HU-16A, HU-16B, HU16E, aka = N226CG

When the military pruchased an aircraft, it was also assigned a number to be used as a "tail" number as deternined by the service branch. In the case of the USA, USAAC, USAAF, USAF, the tail number depicted the fiscal year of funding for the machine plus the sequence of purchase/funding within the fiscal year. In the case of the aircraft in question, the year was 1952 and the sequence number was 7226, Hence, the USAF number for the aircraft was "51-7226". It was delivered to the USAF as a Grumman HU-16A, C/N G307. When it was later modified to an HU-16B (long wing), the original aircraft data plate then carried as addition to the model number - - - a slash after G307/ and a number signifying the company sequence block number with a letter and either one or two numbers for the mod. I don't have the B mod number but I have been in this aircraft and can attest to the fact that it has an ID plate denoting the required information described, above - Grumman Blue logo and all. Connie Sr. took great pains to keep the machine, inside & out, as original as possible.

Whereas the last military operator of 7226 was the USCG, the aircraft is/was registered utilizing the last 4 digits of the USCG tail nunber. Although the CG called it an HU-16E, the ID plate showed it was an HU-16B after it was modified with the long wing.

Regarding all of the previous controversy here about the validity of the registration of Connie Edwards' (now his son's apparently) Albatross N226CG (Grumman OEM s/n G-307) and its "current" registration as a USAF model "HU-16B" with USCG serial no. "7227", I just recently found some data on Ray Wolfe's Albatross Web site that shows that G-307 was originally built as a short-wing (Grumman model/design no. G-64) USAF model SA-16A with s/n 51-7227 and that it was transferred to the US Coast Guard still as a short-wing model UF-1G (s/n 7227) prior to its eventual conversion into a long-wing UF-2G (which was re-designated as an HU-16E after 1962.)

That means that G-307 was never a USAF model HU-16B! It was also never designated as an HU-16A or as an SA-16B. Since it was with the USAF only before 1962 and only as a short-wing, it would have been designated only as a model "SA-16A" during that time.

According to Ray Wolfe’s data, Albatross c/n G-307 was converted from a short-wing G-64 (USCG model UF-1G) into a long-wing USCG model UF-2G (Grumman design/model no. G-234) in conjunction with Job no. 728, Project no. 12C (i.e. the “number signifying the company sequence block number with a letter and either one or two numbers for the mod” that was mentioned by CoastieJohn’s contact. Although Ray didn't have the exact dates of the conversion, it appears to have been done between late 1957 and early 1958.

If G-307 had been converted actually for the USAF as an SA-16B (and re-designated as an HU-16B only after 1962) it would have been noted as a Grumman design/model no. G-111 and the “Project” no. would have ended in a “B” suffix.

So, according to Ray Wolfe's data (and Ray is "Mr. Albatross" - and of course, so is Dennis Buehn come to think of it...) it is NOT valid for N226CG to be registered as a "USAF" model "HU-16B".

Rajay · **Posted:** Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:49 pm

Oh, and speaking of Ray Wolfe's Albatross database,

CoastieJohn, I also found an answer to the issue that I recently PM'd you about...

The two supposed model "HU-16E" Albatrosses that are listed under Section V of TC A33SO of which I have so far been unable to find any photos confirming that that were actually upgraded/converted into long-wing UF-2G / HU-16E Albatrosses (apparently they were scrapped long before any "warbird" fans took note of them or otherwise documented them) - they were in fact listed there as long-wing conversions done for the US Coast Guard:

Grumman short-wing G-64 Albatross OEM c/n G-259 delivered to USCG as UF-1G s/n 1272 was converted into long-wing Grumman design/model no. G-270 as a USCG model UF-2G (HU-16E) in accordance with Job no. 783, Project no. 61C.

Grumman short-wing G-64 Albatross OEM c/n G-371 delivered to USCG as UF-1G s/n 1294 was converted into long-wing Grumman design/model no. G-270 as a USCG model UF-2G (HU-16E) in accordance with Job no. 783, Project no. 62C.

But of course, if you are still able to confirm that information with your USCG aircraft historian contact, that'd be great too!

Thanks again!

Warbird Information Exchange

CG Hu-16 paint specs?

Who is online