No such thing as a "PBY Catalina"?

[k5083]

I must admit I was a bit surprised at last month's Hamilton Air Show when the announcer only referred to the CWH "Goonie Bird" as a C-47, and never once called it a "Dakota" (of course in reality it's neither,,it's one of the few surviving purely civililan DC-3s.)

Who was the announcer? Interloper from stateside perhaps?

Or maybe, like me, a Canuck whose mind was stunted as a kid by overexposure to US media? (In my case the damage was so severe that I lost the ability to function in a civilized society and had to move here.)

August

[David Legg]

I have been following the Catalina elements of this thread with interest and would like to throw in some comments related to some of the specific points raised...

The name 'Catalina' was suggested to the British by Rueben fleet of Consolidated after some other Britsh names (eg: Plymouth) were mooted. Later, in October 1941, the name was adopted officially by Consolidated and the US Navy, ie: not as a nickname. However, the US Navy had been flying PBYs of varying marks since the Autumn of 1936 by which time the habit of calling it the 'PBY' or 'P-boat' was too well established for the British name to enter common usage although the later nickname US Navy 'Black Cat' (also used by the RAAF) was clearly a nod to the Catalina name). The USAAF later used the type (as the OA-10 and OA-10A and B) but were not influenced by the Navy use of 'PBY' and were therefore more willing to refer to their aircraft as Catalinas. It is perhaps interesting to note that US Navy official manuals never use the name Cataliina but only the PBY designation and US Navy Bills of Sale for post-war surplus sales similarly do not use the name Catalina.

Next, the PBN-1 Nomad. The comment was made above that "It's the same basic airframe as the PBY-6 (sic)". In fact, the Nomad was a very different aeroplane. It had a redesigned bow and bow turret, streamilined wing-tip floats, a taller vertical tail and rudder and full-span elevators. Most significantly, it had a re-designed planing bottom with a vee-shaped step instead of the Cataliina's version at right angles to the hull sides. The lower hull beyond the step was also longer than on the Catalina. These modifications were not particularly successful and most of the PBN-1s ended up being supplied to the Soviets under Lend-Lease. The tail modifications did however get used on the PBY-6A amphibian and the Boeing of Canada-built PB2B-2.

Now the Canso. The notion that the name 'Canso' only referred to the amhibious version of the Catalina as stated above is pure myth, albeit oft-repeated. The name Canso was adopted by the Canadians and was applied to all 'Catalina-type' aircraft ordered for the RCAF. It was used on the RCAF flying boat version (Canso) and the RCAF amphibian (Canso A) but never by other air forces and was certainly not applied to the PBY-5A as implied although the Canso A was by and large equivalent to the US Navy PBY-5A. The RCAF did operate some RAF Catalina flying boats on loan but these were not strictly speaking Cansos as they were not built on Canadian contracts. Perhaps not surprisingly, in post-war years, Canadians adopted the habit of referring colloquially to all Catalina-type aircraft as 'Cansos'. The name incidentally came from an area of Canada called the Strait of Canso that also has a town of the same name. An earlier idea to call it the 'Convoy' was sensibly dropped given the likely confusion it would have caused!

Regarding RNZAF Catalinas, PBY-5A is mentioned above in that context but they never had any - its fleet consisted of a mix of PBY-5s and PB2B-1s from RAF orders and the US Navy but all were flying boats, not amphibs.

One final point which comes right back to the original question about the name "Consolidated PBY Catalina". That phrase was used by the publisher in the first part of the title of a book I wrote years ago (see my signature panel below). They chose it but I would much rather they had ommitted the 'PBY' bit as a very large number of the aircraft described therein were never 'PBY's!

[JDK]

Thanks David, nice solid data.

[Rajay]

Likewise types are generally known by the design-manufacturer, rather than any sub-contracted maker, so no 'Boeing Catalina'. (Foreign licence production was different.)

It was always a 'Consolidated...' (generally called the manufacturer, even when built by others - simpler.)

Actually, that is one area where Warbird community tradition and official FAA policy differ.

In the US, according to 14 CFR 45.13(a) all civilian-registered aircraft, including ex-military "warbirds", are supposed to be identified by the name of the person or company who actually "built" (i.e. manufactured or assembled) them - not necessarily who designed them or who owns or owned the TC under which they were certified. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a "Grumman" FM-2 or a "Vought" FG-1D - at least in terms of official FAA registration and identification policy. It's an Eastern Aircraft or General Motors FM-2 and a Goodyear FG-1D. That being said, that regulation and policy are not exactly something that the FAA actually enforces either - and as I have said before, I'll never hold my breath waiting for someone to identifiy a Vega-built B-17 as a "Lockheed" product. Nevertheless, that actually would be "proper" according to the aforementioned reg and policy.

Similarly, according to other FAA policy (ref. AC 21-12B and AC 21-13) all civilian-registered ex-military "warbirds" are supposed to be identified and registered using their original manufacturer's (OEM) model designation and serial or "construction" number (if such numbers exist) and NOT by their former military model or type designations and serial numbers, especially since such numbers changed over time if the aircraft was transferred from one branch of the service to another.

Once again, however, that is something that the FAA apparently does not actually enforce since, for example, every Grumman HU-16 series Albatross currently on the civilian registry is in fact registered using a former military serial number and not one of them is registered actually using its OEM Grumman serial number (which should fall within the range of G-1 through G-464.) In the case of the Grumman Albatross, the model (design number) G-64 was never certified or approved by the FAA, so the use of some form of "HU-16" is still appropriate according to the references I cited earlier, but surprisingly even when the 13 model G-111 Albatrosses were rebuilt and recertified under TC A22SO and Part 25, each one of them was identified by a former military serial number - some of which were USN format, some USAF, some USCG, and some foreign (Canada and even JMSDF.) What a cluster$@#&!

[JohnB]

In the US, according to 14 CFR 45.13(a) all civilian-registered aircraft, including ex-military "warbirds", are supposed to be identified by the name of the person or company who actually "built" (i.e. manufactured or assembled) them - not necessarily who designed them or who owns or owned the TC under which they were certified.

Which is why what we call Stearmans (the WWII-era Model 75 as opposed to the pre-war "square tails") are Boeings.

[JDK]

Likewise types are generally known by the design-manufacturer, rather than any sub-contracted maker, so no 'Boeing Catalina'. (Foreign licence production was different.)

It was always a 'Consolidated...' (generally called the manufacturer, even when built by others - simpler.)

Actually, that is one area where Warbird community tradition and official FAA policy differ.

What I was talking about had nothing to do with the FAA nor anything to do with the warbird community.

It was an explanation of an aspect of the British Commonwealth's W.W.II era nomenclature for aircraft.

Regards,

[BAJ]

Just for interest the official RAAF report on the delivery flight of the 2nd Catalina Serial A24-2 across the Pacific in March 1941 notes the aircraft as a :

1) "Catalina Aircraft"

2) TYPE....Consolidated twin-engined flying boat , Model 28/5/MA

[JDK]

Thanks, BAJ. Who were the crew? Was Dickie Cohen one?

[ErrolC]

A couple of NZ and Australian Government telegrams from January 1941 (as well as various earlier documents) refer to 'PBY Flying Boats', as well as Hudsons. Understandably, memo for OC RNZAF Suva in May 1943 talks about re-arming with 'Catalina Aircraft'.

[JDK]

Thanks Errol, such original source material is great!


But also a caution; relating back to my earlier comments, just as we are all familiar in our own professional lives, something on an official document does not make that term official. (And there are some very odd things on documents that you'd think would be definitive docs but aren't - such as (IIRC) a 'Sopwith Demon' ref on a Hawker's engineering drawing of the Hawker Demon.)

Regards,

[ErrolC]

The NZ Government had been discussing PBY's with Consolidated (and Whitehall and Canberra) for some time, well before any British name was proposed, so continuing the conversation using the same terms would be logical - for whatever that is worth! BTW the early Consolidated input was 'we can make the airframes, but get your order in fast, and you need to talk to the British about getting the engines'.
Hence near begging-letters to Canberra in January 1941 asking for say 3 of the PBY's that they had been allocated, NZ having few Hudsons (and the Vildebeests not being worth mentioning apparently) - the above details are from documents printed in 'Dumbo Diary', which was on my desk last night. There may be more in the Official Histories (especially 'Documents Relating to NZ's Participation in WWII', which has some great London-Canberra-Wellington exchanges from e.g. May 1940).