CG Hu-16 paint specs?

[CoastieJohn]

Dave,

A reply just in. The first part of the response is from an earlier (Feb) source email I hadn't published yet. I cleaned up what I received from two separate emails and put them one quote below to touch on a few things. In deck plate terms specific to this numbering discussion, there is the law and there is the advisory. My source has testified in court for the FAA and NTSB on this very thing. If you have any questions shoot me a PM and I'll work on it.

John

Federal Air Regulations and volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations are the law. AC's and the AIM are advisory (in design and definition) publications and are not law.

Connie's Goat is actually CG 7226.

As with the JRF-5G use to signify a Coast Guard machine - coupled with the fact that one could legally register an aircraft using its: MSN or C/N, USAF, USA, USN, or USCG serial number, along with either the manufacturer's type or design number/name or a military type designator - gives the individual lots of leeway when applying for a civil registration. Connie's Goat could have been registered as an: HU-16B, HU-16E, SA-16B, or G-111, as it was officially known by anyone of those designators.

After the DOD mandated aircraft type designator change, all UF- and SA machines also known as the ALBATROSS received the standard HU- designations as: HU-16A, HU-16B, HU-16C, HU-16D, or HU-16E. As there were no more "A" around, this was not used. USAF long wing SA-16Bs became the HU-16B. USN short wing UF-1s became HU-16C. USCG long wing UF-2Gs became HU-16Es, and the long wing USN UF-2s became HU-16Ds.

A funny thing happened on the way to the FAA registration office - - - the Grumman design that encompassed the long wing modification was actually designated by Grumman as DESIGN MODEL G-111. However, design model G-111 seems almost lost to history as evident from one of the attached PDF documents (I can email this pdf....John) indicating only 8 aircraft in the current FAA database as model G-111 or G111. Actually, the vast majority of the long wing US Military models in the current registration database are listed by their military designation versus the more correct G-111 type designator. Even the few USN UF-1s were designated as HU-16E machines in the 1962 change.

I'm planning a trip to Grumman Bethpage in the late April/early May timeframe to pick up some Duck stuff and I'll see if I can get a copy of the modification date on all of the long wing versions. I'll be happy to provide Rayjay with a copy of it he desires.

BTW, the explanation for the 2 previous Goats question he voiced below is right-on reference the number data listed.

I'm still trying to locate their remains and will provided additional info if I come up with any.

[Rajay]

A reply just in. The first part of the response is from an earlier (Feb) source email I hadn't published yet. I cleaned up what I received from two separate emails and put them one quote below to touch on a few things. In deck plate terms specific to this numbering discussion, there is the law and there is the advisory. My source has testified in court for the FAA and NTSB on this very thing.

Federal Air Regulations and volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations are the law. AC's and the AIM are advisory (in design and definition) publications and are not law.

…the fact that one could legally register an aircraft using its: MSN or C/N, USAF, USA, USN, or USCG serial number, along with either the manufacturer's type or design number/name or a military type designator - gives the individual lots of leeway when applying for a civil registration. Connie's Goat could have been registered as an: HU-16B, HU-16E, SA-16B, or G-111, as it was officially known by any one of those designators.

A funny thing happened on the way to the FAA registration office - - - the Grumman design that encompassed the long wing modification was actually designated by Grumman as DESIGN MODEL G-111. However, design model G-111 seems almost lost to history as evident from one of the attached PDF documents (I can email this pdf....John) indicating only 8 aircraft in the current FAA database as model G-111 or G111. Actually, the vast majority of the long wing US Military models in the current registration database are listed by their military designation versus the more correct G-111 type designator. Even the few USN UF-1s were designated as HU-16E machines in the 1962 change.

I'm still trying to locate their remains and will provided additional info if I come up with any.

I never said that Advisory Circulars are regulatory - they are what I was talking about in terms of FAA published "policy" but, on the other hand, the FARs as published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations are the "law" as you said. Although the Advisory Circulars are just "advisory", it is exactly that "law" that I have been talking about -

14 CFR 45.13(a):

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=2e8003a219432aa1c8750bdbf717a97a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.22&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.22.2.363.3

Sect. 45.13 Identification data.
(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) 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.

THAT is some clear and incontrovertible "law" as far as I am concerned.

In regard to the first part that I highlighted in red above, you still have not been able to quote to me a regulation (a "law") that says that it is OK to use a former military model or serial number in the civilian registration of a "surplus military aircraft" - aka a "warbird." You have only repeated that it has been done many times before. I am not denying that it has been done many times before - I'm just saying that it is contrary to the official regulations (i.e. 14 CFR 45.13(a)(3)) and published "policy" (in the form of two separate AC's - AC21-12C and AC21-13) all of which I was able to specifically cite and quote.

The only "Builder's" serial number, per 14 CFR 45.13(a)(3), ever assigned to the aircraft in question was "G-307"

Serial no. "51-7227" was assigned by the first owner/customer - the USAF and
Serial no. "7227" was assigned by the second owner/customer - the USCG
Neither of those two subsequent serial numbers were assigned by the actual "Builder" - i.e. "Grumman"

And in regard to the second statement above that I highlighted in red, as I said before, according to Ray Wolfe's data, Connie's "Goat" was also NEVER formally or officially identified as a USAF HU-16A, SA-16B, or HU-16B - or for that matter (and still according to Ray's data) it also was never a "G-111". The Grumman design/model no. "G-111" actually applied ONLY to the long-wing conversions carried out for the USAF. According to these records, USAF SA-16A s/n 51-7226 was transferred to the Coast Guard as a model UF-1G BEFORE its long-wing conversion, which was carried for the USCG as a Grumman design/model no. G-234, Job. no. 728, Project no. 12C (i.e. the 12th long-wing Albatross conversion for the USCG)

As a personal observation, I also think that it is "stupid" to have a "mis-matched" official identification - to use a USAF model designation in conjunction with a USCG serial number. I think that at the very least it should be required to have a uniform "offical" identification for purposes of FAA registration and certifications of airworthiness. If the USCG serial number is to be used, so also should the USCG model designation be used, and so forth.

In any case, some additional data of relevance:

The USN long-wing model UF-2 / HU-16D conversions were actually Grumman model/design nos. G-211.
The USCG long-wing model UF-2G / HU-16E conversions were actually Grumman model/design nos. G-234, G-270, and G-288.
The long-wing UF-2 Albatrosses built for the West German Luftwaffe (G-444 through G-448, assigned USN-like "Bu." nos. 146426 through 146430) were actually Grumman model/design nos. G-191.
The long-wing CSR-110 Albatrosses built for the RCAF (G-449 through G-458, assigned RCAF serials 9301 through 9310) were Grumman model/design nos. G-231.
The long-wing UF-2 Albatrosses built for the JMSDF (G-459 through G-464, JMSDF serials 9051 through 9056) were Grumman model/design nos. G-262.

Yes, the whole "G-111" identification issue is ironic because of its non-conformity to historical facts. However, because none of those "other" types of Albatrosses was ever type-certified or approved by the FAA as such, they are not officially recognized by the FAA. The same is true of all of the USAF long-wing "G-111" HU-16B aircraft. The fact that some former military Alabtrosses, including former USAF HU-16B, USN HU-16D, USCG HU-16E, RCAF CSR-110, and JMSDF UF-2 aircraft were modified, converted, upgraded, and re-certified to FAR Part 25 Transport category standards as model "G-111" aircraft under a whole new and separate TC (A22SO) is almost irrelevant here. There were actually 13 of them (not just 8 as mentioned above) by serial numbers listed in that TC but inexplicably several of them are currently registered improperly identified as, for example, legacy ex-USCG model HU-16E aircraft - even though they officially stopped being model "HU-16E" aircraft as soon as they were re-certified under TC A22SO..

It's exactly the same situation as with legacy military Goose aircraft - regardless of the fact that they were actually Army OA-9, Navy JRF-1, -4, or -5, or USCG JRF-2 or -3 variants (and Grumman model/design nos. G-31, G-38, or G-39 respectively), they were all certified as civilian model "G-21A" aircraft only - because that is the only version actually recognized by the FAA (and the CAA before it.)

ALL of this actually goes a long way out of the way to illustrate one of my earlier points - as your USCG historian contact observed earlier, the differences between these Albatross aircraft in particular ultimately boiled down to nothing more than the types of PFD's provided to the crews. In too many cases, the same aircraft carried muliple identities after serving in multiple branches of the service - so how do you choose one over another for an "official" identification? It shouldn't be so arbitrary as it appears to have been so often in the past. "Just pick one!" No! In the end, IMPO it should be boiled down to the true essence of the aircraft - its builder's original identification (or final identification in the cases where the aircraft were significantly converted into something else - as many Albatrosses were.) The military model and serial number designations changed every time the aircraft was transferred to a different branch, but its OEM serial number for example did not.

[CoastieJohn]

I never said that Advisory Circulars are regulatory - they are what I was talking about in terms of FAA published "policy" but, on the other hand, the FARs as published in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations are the "law" as you said. Although the Advisory Circulars are just "advisory", it is exactly that "law" that I have been talking about -

14 CFR 45.13(a):

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=2e8003a219432aa1c8750bdbf717a97a&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.22&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.22.2.363.3

Sect. 45.13 Identification data.
(a) The identification required by § 45.11 (a) through (c) must include the following information:
(1) Builder's name.
(2) 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.

THAT is some clear and incontrovertible "law" as far as I am concerned.

Dave,

Here is part of his response. I believe he is saying 45.13 applies to traditional airframes built by civilian companies for civilian use, not originally for built for military use as was Connie's Goat. He has a much more detailed response. He offered to talk to you about it. If you're interested, PM your email and I'll get you two together to talk FAR's, CFR's and the FAA. He has a wealth of airframe knowledge and info that may be of use to you.

John

45.13 = your traditional airframe constructed by civilian companies for civil use (private, commercial, public use).

YES.................!