Warbird Information Exchange

DOH! I meant a Goose gets stripped:

http://www.antiqueairfield.com/articles ... s-stripped

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Is that the one that lived in Anchorage?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Here's a little history:


http://honorpoint.org/quicklinks/rare-b ... lts-field/

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

I got a really good close up look at the 40 last year @ John Sessions' Vintage Weekend @ KPAE, and superb doesn't start to describe the work done on the airplane, it's very high end cabinetry and meticulous details everywhere. I have a couple shots of it flying formation with Clay Lacy in the DC-2 as they left for home.(an 87 in the frame would have 'made' the photos)

One of my photos is my computer monitor wallpaper.

I know the work will be well above top shelf on the GOOSE.

Thanx Dan-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I was one of Addison's helpers with the Boeing 40 and was there when the Goose arrived.
The basic airframe is in good shape, and as Addison says in the Antique Airfield piece, as he strips the paint he see's how good the airframe really is.
The downside is that it has no systems at all at the present time.
Addison has told me that he wants to dfinish this as a family plane, indoor-outdoor carpeting and a utility interior that will stand up to grandkids getting iin and out of it wioth wet swinsuits.
He plans to keep the USN 3-color scheme and the extended picture windows.
As you say, the man and son Ryan...and all the talented volunteers...do great work.
I went up in the recently restored WACO EQC-6 again lasty weekend, it's a great plane and shows typical Pemberton attention to detail. A real show plane.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

JohnB Check your PM in box

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

May be some more Gooses coming onto the market.
Pacific Coastal Airlines has been forced to retire theirs:
http://www.pacificcoastal.com/id/221/ne ... /News.html

Those guys sure had a run of hard luck a couple years ago.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Just how many airframes are we talking about here?


Dear Santa: I've begun fantasizing lately...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwNI4hWAYoE

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

How hard would it be to get you to share that photo?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Given the issues I'm having with my box of refined sand particles, very.
When I can afford it, I need to take it to the doctor and have someone severely whack it so I can once again send photos.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Four.

Regardless of what the "official" Transport Canada civil register says, C-FHUZ is properly identified as Grumman serial no. B-83.

I had a conversation about that with one of PCA's quality control guys last year and he sent me a photo of its data tag. It appears to me as if the data tag was replaced at some point using a blank aftermarket "replica" data tag and they accidentally swapped the Grumman OEM (i.e. civilian) and "US Government" (i.e. military or USN BuAer.) serial numbers - and as a consequence, some dumba$$ bureaucrat of a Transport Canada inspector made them re-register it using "37830" as its supposed "civilian" serial number.

Anyone who can actually read..., uh, TC 654 for himself can see that "37830" is not in fact a valid "Grumman" serial number. According to TC 654, the only valid serial numbers applicable to the G-21 series range from 1001 to 1200 and B-1 through B-145 (including as well the dashes in order to be formatted correctly.)

All of that makes me wonder what happened to the original data tag in C-FHUZ - and why they apparently did not have it in front of them to use as a reference when engraving/stamping the data tag that is installed in it now.

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"

Perhaps it's the flying version of Johnny Cashs 49/50/51 Cadillac and a pile of unrelated to each other parts sort of 'became' an airplane.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

That's supposedly the story with C-GDDJ (s/n 1184) and N985R (s/n B-86) too. Probably many other Gooses as well.

C-GDDJ (s/n 1184) was the very same Goose that was the subject of the infamous "Endless Summer II" beach crash in Costa Rica, registered as N1257A at the time, I believe. (The movie was released in 1994, so that approximately dates the crash as well. it had to be in that year prior to the movie release.) Rumor is that PASCO supposedly repaired/rebuilt it using additional parts salvaged from s/n 1086, an ex-USCG machine. Possibly others too.

Speaking of ex-USCG machines, N985R's records from the FAA archives in Oklahoma City show that its very first civilian registration came only after it was bought by Ellis Airlines from a surplus (i.e. "junk") auction by the Coast Guard in 1951 and rebuilt. Apparently they too had to cobble a whole airplane together from parts salvaged from several damaged airframes.

_________________
“To invent the airplane is nothing. To build one is something. But to fly is everything!” - Otto Lilienthal

Natasha: "You got plan, darling?"
Boris: "I always got plan. They don't ever work, but I always got one!"

Remember, any dummy can be a dumb-ass...
In order to be a smart-ass, you first have to be "smart"
and to be a wise-ass, you actually have to be "wise"