From one of the aforementioned threads:
SaxMan wrote:
The fabled "data plate". Apparently data plates seem to have mystical powers.
DSC_0021 by
onyxsax, on Flickr
That raises an interesting question - to me at least. If the
TBM-1 (its official US Navy designation) was an Eastern Aircraft (General Motors) model no.
GM-2, does that mean that the
FM-2 Wildcats license-built by Eastern/GM were actually their OEM model number
GM-1? Or maybe the "prototype" FM-1 was the GM-1, the TBM-1 was the GM-2, and the FM-2 was a GM-3 (did it come after the TBM-1 or before?) It's enough to make you dizzy!
It probably goes without saying that if you have someone else, especially someone not actually an aviation "professional", engrave the new data tag for you, you'll be extra careful about getting the correct numbers in the proper location. That being said, I am aware of two Grumman G-21A Goose aircraft and one Grumman UF-2/G-111 Albatross which seem to have gotten duplicate/replacement data tags at some point in their respective histories and on which the OEM Grumman and US Navy/Government contract numbers were improperly swapped.
One Goose is
N888GG which belongs to Ron Rivett of Aberdeen, SD; it was listed for sale for a short time last year and they included a photo of its data tag in the Controller.com advertisement. It showed the OEM Grumman model no. as
JRF5 (
also improperly omitting the dash between the "JRF" and the "5") and the OEM Grumman serial number as
37817 (
which was really its USN Bu. no.) and the US Navy/Government serial number as "
B70" but the proper format for the OEM Grumma serial number according to TC 654 should include the dash as in "
B-70".
So too one of the PASCO Gooses currently for sale is actually registered improperly under the wrong serial number because, as I was told by one of the people involved, a local Transport Canada airworthiness inspector made them redo its registration according to its
current data tag - which itself is backwards and therefore also wrong.
C-FHUZ is actually Grumman OEM serial number "
B-83" but it is registered as serial number "
37830" (actually its
former US Navy Bu. no.) because it too seems to have gotten a duplicate/replacement data tag at some point in its history - and they got the numbers backwards in that case too. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to read the TC (
654) and see that "
37830" is not within the range of valid Grumman serial numbers listed right there on the TC.
The Albatross is in fact the very last one built by Grumman; even though it recently went to a new owner in Australia, it is still on the US Register as
N42MY - one of only 13 former military HU-16 aircraft rebuilt and re-certified to FAR Part 25 standards as a civilian model
G-111 under TC
A22SO. It frankly amazes me that those aircraft were not actually given completely new serial numbers when they were converted and upgraded under the new TC, but in fact they were each still identified using their supposedly "former" military serial numbers - which varied between USAF, US Navy, US Coast Guard, and even RCAF formats!
N42MY is currently listed as Grumman G-111 s/n
148329 but that was its ex-USN Bu. no. under the procurement contract on behalf of the
JMSDF, who actually identified it as no.
9056.
The photo that I have of its data tag clearly shows that it is a "duplicate" tag but on it, the aircraft is identified as a Grumman "Manufacturer's" model no.
UF-2, serial no.
148329, manufactured on 3-28-61 while the areas for the "U. S. Government" model and serial no. information are blank. In fact, in terms of its original manufacture in 1961, it would have been identified as a Grumman "
G-111" (one of only a very few long-wing Albatrosses actually built that way from scratch) with Grumman OEM serial no. "
G-464" while under the "U. S. Government" side of the data tag, it would have read model no. "
UF-2" and serial no. "
148329".
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
