The Fighter Collection's Wildcat flies again - Duxford, UK

[Elliott Marsh - GAR]

TFC's Grumman Wildcat flew today for the first time since 2008 - photographs in the link below! Chief Pilot Pete Kynsey was doing the driving. Hopefully we'll see this stubby little machine at Flying Legends in a few weeks!

http://globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/06/17/news-the-fighter-collections-grumman-fm2-wildcat-returns-to-the-sky-170613/?fb_source=pubv1

[Rob W]

Fantastic!

Excuse my ignorance by what was the reason for grounding the Hellcat and Wildcat?

[Iclo]

A major part of the TFC fleet was grounded do a trouble with paperwork. From what I heard the CAA had changed a few of its policies, and started to consider that planes who flew since years were not "legal" to do so.
Very strange when you know the quality and level of the maintenance of this organisation...

[DH82EH]

Thanks for the post Elliott.
Great photos as always!

Andy Scott

[Rajay]

TFC's Grumman Wildcat flew today for the first time since 2008 - photographs in the link below! Chief Pilot Pete Kynsey was doing the driving. Hopefully we'll see this stubby little machine at Flying Legends in a few weeks!

http://globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/06/17/news-the-fighter-collections-grumman-fm2-wildcat-returns-to-the-sky-170613/?fb_source=pubv1

Since it apparently is an R-1820 powered, tall-fin FM-2 Wildcat, it's not a "Grumman" aircraft at all; a Grumman "design" yes, but the particular Wildcat in question is properly identified as an "Eastern" or "General Motors" FM-2 Wildcat.

If it really was a Grumman-built Wildcat, it would have been designated as some variation of F4F. There is no such thing as a "Grumman FM-2" - that qualifies as an oxymoron.

F4F = Fighter 4th Type built by Grumman

FM-2 = Fighter 1st Type* built by Eastern Aircraft/General Motors (the dash numbers indicate progressions of sub-types, FM-2 = second sub-type.)

By the same token, there is no such thing as a "Grumman TBM" - an Avenger built by Grumman is by definition a TBF; an Avenger built by Eastern Aircraft/General Motors is a TBM and would be properly identified as an "Eastern" or "General Motors" TBM Avenger.

*Type sequence numbers were not used until there was a second type to be distinguished; all first types from any particular manufacturer did not use the number "1" as part of their designation. Hence the first Corsairs built by Goodyear were just FG-1's (the most common/well known of which were the FG-1D's) but the second type built by Goodyear, the R-4360 powered Super Corsairs, were F2G-1's and F2G-2's.

[C VEICH]

Potayto - Potahto

[Mike]

Thank you for the correction Rajay. Does that also mean that we are no longer permitted to refer to Vega-built B-17s as Boeings, or Westland-built Spitfires as Supermarine? Casa 1-131 s as Bucker Jungmanns? How about North American Harvards, if they were built by Noorduyen or CCF?

[Invader26]

By the same token, there is no such thing as a "Grumman TBM" - an Avenger built by Grumman is by definition a TBF; an Avenger built by Eastern Aircraft/General Motors is a TBM and would be properly identified as an "Eastern" or "General Motors" TBM Avenger.

Well then the US Navy thought it was as attested in the Flight Manual of my TBM-3E Avenger!

Using your logic we should have Ford B-24's and some Douglas B-17's and a few Bell B-29's too....

[Rajay]

It's not "my" logic; it's the "law" per 14 CFR 45.13(a): "civilian" aircraft that are certified as airworthy by the FAA and as regulated by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations are supposed to be... (obviously the real world is different because people are often or maybe just too frequently ignorant, sloppy and/or lazy and either don't follow the regs properly - or enforce them if that happens to be their responsibility) - are supposed to be officially identified based on the "builder" (i.e. "make" or "manufacturer") and the "builder's model no." and the "builder's serial number" (i.e. not the first customer's model designation or serial number as in the case of ex-military "Warbirds" which were usually assigned different model and serial no. designations than the one used/assigned by the OEM.

In the case of Grumman Albatrosses, the military model designations and serial numbers changed every time a particular aircraft was transferred from one branch of the service to another - which seemed to happen more often than was common with other types. The only thing that remained essentially constant was the Grumman-issued "G-" series serial number. Using anything else for a civilian registration would (and has) resulted in what essentially amounts to chaos. If you check even some of the type certificates for various versions of the Albatross, "Navy" serial numbers are used to ID what are supposed to be ex-USAF short-wing "A" models or long-wing "B" models and vice-versa (USAF and/or USCG serial numbers used to ID what are supposed to be ex-USN short-wing "C" models or long-wing "D" models, etc.)

The issue of serial numbers in particular is not supposed to be a smorgasbord of multiple choice options that you can choose from at your whim; they are supposed to be hard and fast and unique ID numbers - assigned by the manufacturer.

Here's another clue for you all that I picked up from my experience in aircraft manufacturing; when the FAA says "builder" they essentially mean "assembler" and not necessarily "fabricator." In the cases of Ector or Air Repair L-19/O-1 series "Birddogs" they were all "built" using surplus parts originally fabricated by Cessna, but the aircraft themselves were assembled by Ector and Air Repair; as a result and per 14 CFR 47.33(d), the aircraft in questions were officailly identified as Cessna-Ector model 305A and Cessna/Air Repair Inc model 305F aircraft - and they each had a serial number of a unique format that could not be so much as confused with an actual "Cessna" serial number. That is what is legal and appropriate for an aircraft of, in this case, a Cessna type certificated design that was actually "built" by someone else.

Similarly, with Experimental "homebuilts" they may be generally known by their designer's name (a Thorp T-18 or a Vans RV-whatever) but when a specific example is "built" and registered, it is officially identified by the name of the "builder" and not as a Thorp or Vans aircraft.

So, what the Navy once thought or the Warbird community has gotten away with for so many years is irrelevant; according to the FAA and the FAR's, an Eastern/General Motors TBM-3E is NOT a "Grumman" and a Vega-built B-17 is NOT a "Boeing" either. (Does your TBM-3E have a "Grumman" data tag or an Eastern/GM data tag?) What you want to call it on this forum does not really matter so much, or on a sign at an airshow, or even in a magazine article, but in order to be correct and proper in terms of official FAA paperwork, their respective certificates of registration and airworthiness should ID them as "Eastern" or "General Motors" TBM-3E and "Vega" or "Lockheed" B-17G (and in these cases the use of their military model designations is appropriate only because no separate civilian model equivalent, a Grumman G-40 or a Boeing 299 for examples, was ever certified by the FAA or one of its predecessors.)

[Ollie]

I guess I can't wait to see the CWH's Victory Aircraft Lancaster.

[Invader26]

how about a nice Boeing A-20 Havoc or a Studebaker R-1820? My T-28 had a Lycoming R-1820-86A [no reference to Lycoming in the PFM!]...
I did see a Curtiss P-47G once...or twice..

60 Canadair built Sabres for the USAF were referred to as North American F-86E Sabre.

[Rajay]

Remember now, I'm talking about the rules that apply ONLY to civilian-owned aircraft registered with the FAA.

14 CFR 45.13(a) does not apply and has never applied to aircraft (or engines) owned and operated by the US military or any foreign-owned or operated aircraft of any kind.

[Mike]

So what you're telling us is that, since the "Grumman FM-2 Wildcat" referred to in Elliott's opening post is operated in the UK, under the registration and jurisdiction of the CAA, your point is enitirely irrelevant in any case.

[C VEICH]

We're a tough crowd Rajay!

[SaxMan]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the plane would look more striking without the invasion stripes.

I imagine it is meant to represent an FM-2 that took part in the invasion of Southern France? Did any take part in the Normandy invasion? I don't seem to recall that, but I'll admit my knowledge of FAA operations isn't overly extensive outside of the usual (Bismarck pursuit, attacks on the Tirpitz, etc.)