PBY FOR SALE ?

[CoastieJohn]

I suppose I'll ask an open question to the folks who wheel and deal in vintage aircraft/parts/pieces. Is there a negative stigma or devaluation attached to an aircraft that has a history of being converted to and/or used as a fire bomber?

[David Legg]

I suppose I'll ask an open question to the folks who wheel and deal in vintage aircraft/parts/pieces. Is there a negative stigma or devaluation attached to an aircraft that has a history of being converted to and/or used as a fire bomber?

Interesting question which I cannot answer from the point of view of the sectors mentioned but can comment on from the perspective of an operator.

Our UK-based Catalina (G-PBYA) was a water bomber for over thirty years in Canada, France and, briefly, Chile. Latterly it was operated by one of the Canadian Provinces (Saskatchewan) and I think it fair to say that whilst fire fighting is tough on the airframe, the government-operated tankers in Canada were very well looked after. So, for us it was a good acquisition even though it had spent a little while in the open after being 'retired' from the fire suppression role and, mechanically, not a negative factor and it is without doubt the 'busiest' airworthy Catalina in the world.

We now fly ours mainly in the air show sector and again what we have found is that being an ex-fire bomber is not a negative factor. Visitors are always genuinely interested to know about its fire suppression role - indeed, I think for some younger people, that role has more resonance for them than, say, convoy escort because of media cover of forest fires. When we show people around we point out where the tank was and how it was filled and emptied and this is always of interest even though virtually all trace of its water bombing past has been removed. Colour scheme-wise, I think show organisers prefer military schemes but during our first season with our current Catalina (2004) we kept it in its former Saskatchewan Province water bombing scheme of yellow, red and green and it was quite popular, even earning the nickname 'Rasta Cat'. However, from a commercial point of view, we replaced that scheme in 2005 with a USAAF one that has relevance to the geographical area we are based in.

As an aside, a quick count of Catalinas/Cansos that are currently airworthy (16 based on those that have flown in the past 12 months or so) shows that 11 of them are former fire bombers, mostly with Canadian operators. So, the industry has been a huge influence on keeping the type flying. The five airworthy aircraft that do not have a fire fighting heritage are ZK-PBY, N222FT, N4NC, N9521C and N96UC.

[RuudLeeuw]

Very much enjoyed G-PBYA's flying performance at Duxford's Flying Legends last month. The white c/s is quite refreshing among all the camo painted warbirds.

cheers
Ruud

[David Legg]

Very much enjoyed G-PBYA's flying performance at Duxford's Flying Legends last month. The white c/s is quite refreshing among all the camo painted warbirds.

cheers
Ruud

Thanks Ruud and good to hear from you. The c/s has a relevance to our part of the UK and our base - for those who do not know it, see https://www.catalina.org.uk/history-of-44-33915/

The original 44-33915 actually visited Duxford in 1945!

[RuudLeeuw]

Hi David,
likewise; recently read up on its history as I am compiling pages for my website, an account on my recent England trip and the DXF air show.
G-PBYA is exemplary for such restoration; pity the global crisis these past 10 years crushed so many similar attempts.
atb
Ruud

[JohnB]

Is there a negative stigma or devaluation attached to an aircraft that has a history of being converted to and/or used as a fire bomber?

I'm not one if the guys with deep pockets who actually buys warbird, but I'll make a guess...

It's not that anyone has issues with water bombing per second, after all that's how many of the B-17s and TBM survived long enough to become "warbirds", it's just that in this case, most PBY fire bombers lost their nose turret and had internal changes made to facilitate their new role.
Starting out with an airframe that was never converted means you're closer to stock military configuration. That saves time and money, as well as making for a more correct airframe.

On the other hand, an aircraft that was recently operating and licensed, should be in better mechanical/operational shape than one that hasn't flown in many years.

Again I'll make a guess and say some will still chose the stock example. Most of the items and systems to get the ship flying should be readily available, however many of the airframe and interior pieces are very scarce, if not impossible to find.