EMBQA From United States, joined Oct 2003, 7330 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1237 times:
A search of the FAA data base shows those reg's to be invalid. N123 is a kit plane... N6969 was cancelled. Also... look at the times...4am take off.....arrival 8pm tonight...??
[Edited 2008-07-02 15:53:33]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 72 Reply 3, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
All the USAF T-41A aircraft I ever saw had an N-number displayed as prominently as the AF tail number. I don't know why. The Army T-41B aircraft had only the military tail number.
With military type job specialties being advertised to civilians as they are today I would not be surprised to see anything including Abrams tanks with a California handicapped license plate.
The private sector has no rights which the government is bound to respect.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1072 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 2): It's not uncommon for military aircraft to have N-numbers
It is extremely uncommon to see a active military aircraft with an N number. You will see them during flight test (prototype) before the military takes delivery. However, once in production they don't get an N number just a serial number.
Now civilian owned military aircraft are different. Since they're owned by civilians they must have a N number.
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 3): All the USAF T-41A aircraft I ever saw had an N-number displayed as prominently as the AF tail number
IIRC, those T41s are not actually owned by the USAF, thus they don't have a serial number.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 72 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1061 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7): IIRC, those T41s are not actually owned by the USAF, thus they don't have a serial number.
But the ones I saw DID have an AF number. My ex-USAF friends and I had a long conversation about them while looking right at one. I've been looking for a picture.
1st edit: Well, whaddya know.
Not one of my own pictures but still worth quite a few words.
2nd edit: I just noticed something else. The T-41s all also sported the USAF outstanding unit award:
Which seems to argue against civilian ownership. I've been told they were used at the Academy and I did see them most often at COS.
Of course everything in the USAF has the "outstanding" unit award. I think they stencil them on just about every flat surface they found. They are probably part of new aircraft design from the start. They probably even have low-observable versions for the B-2 and the F-22.
[Edited 2008-07-03 07:23:47]
[Edited 2008-07-03 07:34:25]
The private sector has no rights which the government is bound to respect.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, RR: 53 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1012 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 8): But the ones I saw DID have an AF number. My ex-USAF friends and I had a long conversation about them while looking right at one. I've been looking for a picture
On the photo provided there is a N number, N4973?. And a shortened version is on the vert stab and the cowling. So, I don't see a serial number there.
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 8): 2nd edit: I just noticed something else. The T-41s all also sported the USAF outstanding unit award:
The aircraft are civilian owned but the administrative ties go back to the Student Squadron and the FTW (organization) so the fact it has a OUA means very little.
If you look below the windshield on the pilot side you will see the usual military aircraft data stencil. This included the full military serial number.
But for the skeptics out there, here's another:
Baugher lists this one as USAF 67-14973
Landings.com lists N4973R as being owned by the United States Air Force.
The military has long had a habit of leasing aircraft for certain special projects. When I was on active duty the Army had leased (and crashed) a Beech Queen Air virtually identical to U-8F aircraft already in the inventory. A friend of mine, as a civilian test pilot flew an F-106 borrowed from the USAF because it made a suitable platform for their project. Fairly common.
edit: It would be nice to hear from a Zoomie (with all respect) on this, as they were reportedly used at the Academy.
[Edited 2008-07-03 12:45:09]
The private sector has no rights which the government is bound to respect.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, RR: 53 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 962 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 11): Here is a military aircraft with a civilian registration:
That is not a military aircraft. It is a manufacturer's prototype, as evidenced by the Y prefix. It was involved in the F22-F23 flyoff. The winner of the contract had the prototype purchased and now it's at Wright Pat.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10): There are exceptions to this rule, however:
Granted there are. However, the issue boils down to what pilot operates the aircraft. In all the examples cited the aircraft are owned by some branch of the US military and are operated by civilian contractors. Just like the "Janet" aircraft. To have a civilian operate a military aircraft it has to have a N number. The Janet aircraft are operated by Dyncorp.
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 12): It would be nice to hear from a Zoomie (with all respect) on this, as they were reportedly used at the Academy.[Edited 2008-07-03 12:45:09]
While not a Zoomie, I did go through AFROTC and Hondo many years ago, the aircraft both T-41 and T-37 were still silver.
The second aircraft is now being used by the Yokota AFB Flying Club. While the USAF is the owner anyone with a civilian pilot's license can fly the aircraft through the club which is part of the MWR program. A military pilot without a civilian (FAA) license can not fly the aircraft.
You can clearly see N31907 which landings.com shows as vacant. However the caption says the USAF got rid of this type, so that is consistent with the number being vacated.
The photo data identifies it as USAF 94-0019 which Baugher seems to confirm.
The private sector has no rights which the government is bound to respect.
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 899 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 14): Point is, those two numbers have been painted on that airframe for decades. I used to see them being flown by guys in sage green Nomex. Flying club?
Point is to have only a serial number it has to be flown by only military pilots. The T-41 had a N number and it was flown by civilian contractors, yes nomex flight suits, but they were not current active military pilots. They were civilian pilots.
The Firefly was used at Zoom HQ, again, the instructors were civilian contractors employed by the USAF.
All the flying clubs, while the ownership of the aircraft is directly linked to the USAF, since no active duty military pilots have flight orders to fly the aircraft, a FAA license is required. Thus the N number.
It's really not that difficult of a concept. If the Air Force has a pilot on flight orders and only current and rated pilots it will have a serial number. If a civilian contractor flies it it will have a N number.
SlamClick From United States, joined Nov 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 72 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 851 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 15): It's really not that difficult of a concept. If the Air Force has a pilot on flight orders and only current and rated pilots it will have a serial number. If a civilian contractor flies it it will have a N number.
Okay, that still does not address the well-established fact that some airplanes had both. You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid acknowledging that fact.
Take these two statements of yours:
1. "If the Air Force has a pilot on flight orders and only current and rated pilots it will have a serial number".
2. "If a civilian contractor flies it it will have a N number."
So the fact that the T-41 fleet referenced above had USAF serial numbers 67-XXXXX means that "only" current and rated US Air Force pilots will fly it, and the fact that it has an N-number means that civilian contractor pilots will fly it. Problem is, that cancels out the "only" in statement number one.
The private sector has no rights which the government is bound to respect.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 846 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16): Okay, that still does not address the well-established fact that some airplanes had both
I don't know why the T-41s had a USAF serial. My educated guess would be that it was required due to the way USAF contracts for aircraft, publishes tech data, and assigns MDSs... i.e. bureaucracy
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
PhilSquares From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 796 times:
Quoting SlamClick (Reply 16): So the fact that the T-41 fleet referenced above had USAF serial numbers 67-XXXXX means that "only" current and rated US Air Force pilots will fly it, and the fact that it has an N-number means that civilian contractor pilots will fly it. Problem is, that cancels out the "only" in statement number one.
The simple fact is, when a flight plan is filed the registration used is the N number, not the serial number. If you look at the serial number on the aircraft you pictured, you will find the digits are contained in the N number. A USAF aircraft that has only a serial number can only be flown by a rated pilot on aeronautical orders for that specific type of aircraft.
You keep referring to the "well established fact", I disagree. It is not a well established fact and you haven't established it at all. All the examples you have shown are flown by civilian contractor pilots, not military pilots.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Feb 2008, 123 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 3906 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 3566 posts, 
