Used airplane salesmen don't know what they're selling

The source for references and discussion on all types & marques of this Grumman amphibian: photos, plans, manual pages & documents.

Used airplane salesmen don't know what they're selling

Postby Rajay » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:46 pm

Don't trust a used airplane salesman either...

Saw this ad recently and because I was so inclined, I decided to double-check it...

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/GRUMMAN-HU-16A/GRUMMAN-HU-16A/1226133.htm

Turns out that they couldn't have been more wrong. N7027Z is NOT a Grumman HU-16A Albatross.

An HU-16A is the short-wing USAF variant.

N7027Z is actually a long-wing US Navy variant; that makes it an HU-16D under the the post-1962 unified DOD military aircraft designation system
(pre-1962 it would have been/was designated as a model UF-2.)

You can tell it's a long-wing variant (without necessarily seeing its planform from the top) by the shape of the wingtips, the rudder, and the relationship of the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer to the leading edge of the vertical stabilizer. And by Courtesy's own admission, it has "Complete logs and records including original U.S. Navy Log"

Even worse, according to FAA type certificate no. A33SO* ex-USN Bu. no. 137911 is listed under Section V as an ex-US Coast Guard model HU-16E.** WTF?!!!

*http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/c8c11618cd8b38e786257785004edb45/$FILE/A33SO%20Rev%207.pdf

**KInda covered that under a different thread here http://theflyingboatforum.forumlaunch.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1419

According to my notes, it was the 17th design number G-211 long-wing conversion project for the US Navy, Grumman project code no. 17D.

And of course, its actual (i.e. "correct") civilian OEM serial or "construction" number is G-384.

What is it about Grumman Albatrosses in particular that cause so many so-called aviation "professionals" to get so much about them so wrong?
On that list, in addition to the "salesmen" at Courtesy, I also include, the owner(s), the FAA ASI and/or DAR(s) who signed-off its certificates of airworthiness and registration, the mechanics who work on it, the FAA engineers and/or administrators who approved TC A33SO, and given a few more minutes, I may think of even more.... Even so, as it is it already represents too much incompetence IMHO.

Image
Rajay
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: The Southern Part of Heaven

Return to Grumman HU-16 Albatross Reference Archive



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Help keep this forum ad-free - please Donate


This free, ad-free forum is hosted by ForumLaunch
cron