Do Historic Aircraft Keep The Same Registration When Re-painted?

Thanks to all who responded, the concensus seems to be that most warbirds keep their military serials…..most of the time…..

Sorry to join this discussion late, but I think that there is no regulation which requires a warbird to wear its original serial. The CAA give dispensation to wear (any) miltary marks, and the MoD approves the specific one that the owner wants to use. For instance the Hurricane (ex RCAF) which crashed last year was wearing its second fake RAF serial, and for a while had worn none at all. Frankly, I wish they would always wear the original serial, even in museums – it would make keeping track a lot easier!

Have any airframes served under two different serials or once an airframe has a serial it there for life?

I’m sure that there are and have been airframes that got ‘mixed up’ during maintenance/restoration causing the major portions of one airframe to end up with the serial of another. A ‘close to home’ example: Dakota PH-PBA. This airframe was in a museum but a former owner/pilot wanted it airworthy again so an airworthy Dak was bought in the UK and the fuselages swapped. Where is PH-PBA now? Well: the fuselage is out and about flying around with its old registration but the wings, engine nacelles and tail section are still in the museum mated to another fuselage.

There are many other examples I’m sure but I’m not opening that can of worms 😀

The BBMF Dak was ‘re’-registered ZA947 after it was discovered that it had been carrying the wrong registration for a number of years.

BBMF website says: “The Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough then purchased the aircraft, which was allocated the UK military serial number KG661, as it had carried the serial 661 with the Canadians….”

“For some time, however, there had been some doubt about the aircraft’s serial number; research showed that the original Dakota KG661 had been destroyed in an accident, so the aircraft was allocated a new number: ZA947.”

Thanks to all who responded, the concensus seems to be that most warbirds keep their military serials…..most of the time…..

Regards,

Have any airframes served under two different serials or once an airframe has a serial it there for life?

If they change air forces. If they are downgraded to instructional airframes (usually non-airworthy) they are allocated a new serial.

So yes, there are warbirds flying today that have borne different service serials. A certain Mk.V Spitfire was built as JG891 for the RAF, but donned A58-178 for its RAAF service, after being diverted to Australia, and never flew in operational use with the RAF (IIRC) so the serial it currently flies with is both correct, and hardly representative of the aircraft’s main use.

Have any airframes served under two different serials or once an airframe has a serial it there for life?

I came across one when working the Lakenheath Zone, as I was returning to the strip.

He was so pleased with his callsign and telling everybody he was flying a JET Provost that he left most of the important information out of his call :rolleyes:

Moggy

I’m just jealous really. 🙁

😀 😀

I came across one when working the Lakenheath Zone, as I was returning to the strip.

He was so pleased with his callsign and telling everybody he was flying a JET Provost that he left most of the important information out of his call :rolleyes:

Moggy

I’m just jealous really. 🙁

Unless they have a ‘vanity’ callsign. There is a JP group operating using a ‘blades’ callsign.

Moggy

Oh, wasn’t aware of that. Mind you I’ve not listened to air band radio for ages.

I wonder why one and not the other?
Perhaps they see static aircraft in more of a historical context as opposed to flyable planes?
As the BoBMF and CAF (and many others) show, warbirds can be operated in historic context.

If the criteria is historic context, why not on plastic kit decals?

Interesting.

because, WE won the war 😉 😀 😀 😀 😀

In the US it seems any old serial will do, witness PA908 at Wright-Patt which is painted as MBsomeorother… altho i did add “PA908” to several places inside the aircraft that would be visible if it was dismantled, deskined & had the fabric removed…..
Can’t have these bloody colonial chaps ********* about with serial #’s on Spits!

[QUOTE=JDK;1240784]Re: Swastikas

I think it’s exactly about context – a museum building is a space where some of the normal requirements don’t apply, as it were, and it’s a place you are aware you are in, rather than, say, viewing a military aircraft on a (modern) airfield or in the air. That’s just surmise, of course.
…………………

There are apparently circumstances when exceptions are allowed. The Washington Post contained an article back in Oct 06 which gave some explanation (though I don’t know their source) – they said amongst other things that:

“Since the end of the Third Reich, it has been illegal in Germany to display the swastika, give Hitler salutes or embrace other symbols of the Nazi era. The maximum penalty in most cases is three years in prison.

There are numerous exceptions, which grant special license to artists, educators and film makers. Past court opinions, including a Supreme Court ruling from the 1970s, carved out exemptions for public display of the swastika as long as the intent was to protest what it stood for.”

Re: Swastikas

I wonder why one and not the other?
Perhaps they see static aircraft in more of a historical context as opposed to flyable planes?
As the BoBMF and CAF (and many others) show, warbirds can be operated in historic context.

I think it’s exactly about context – a museum building is a space where some of the normal requirements don’t apply, as it were, and it’s a place you are aware you are in, rather than, say, viewing a military aircraft on a (modern) airfield or in the air. That’s just surmise, of course.

If the criteria is historic context, why not on plastic kit decals?

Ah, because if they didn’t ban them, we’d be overrun with lots of very very small Nazis. :rolleyes: Yes, seems beyond explanation to me, too.

Unless they have a ‘vanity’ callsign. There is a JP group operating using a ‘blades’ callsign.

Moggy

All the civilian owned warbirds not showing their civil registration that I’ve heard talking to air traffic use their civil reg as their callsign not their military serial so, as was mentioned earlier, that is the ID the authoritoes are concerned with.

And another factoid…..to confuse the potential enemy it is a well used tactic to mark several airframes with the same external military serial and codes. The actual ident is displayed inside the undercarriage bays or in very small numerals on the data panel below the cockpit , for example C135 intelligence gathering aircraft, U2 variants.

(You can’t have an airworthy aircraft with a Swastika also, although static museum aircraft can and do show it)…

I wonder why one and not the other?
Perhaps they see static aircraft in more of a historical context as opposed to flyable planes?
As the BoBMF and CAF (and many others) show, warbirds can be operated in historic context.

If the criteria is historic context, why not on plastic kit decals?

Interesting.

Just to clarify one small point. In the UK, the CAA grant an exemption from wearing the civil registration i.e. G-ASJV. Permission to wear a military scheme is granted by that schemes originator i.e the RAF. The two are tied together but there is a difference.

You have to demonstrate permission for the latter for the former to be granted. Whilst the scheme does not have to be original to that specific aircraft, G-MSTG for example, it is supposed to be an accurate scheme.

It may be different in foreign parts, I’m sure I’ve seen warbirds in the US with their civilian reg showing as well.

It is different in foreign parts, of course. 😉

In America, it’s not unknown for several aircraft to be concurrently painted to represent the same aircraft, such as Chuck Yego’s Glamorous Glennis on several Mustangs and when a certain George Bush was President, it seemed every Avenger was in his colo(u)rs – including one in the UK.

As to the need to display the civil N number, I’m not au fair with the details, but clearly there are exemptions.

IIRC, In Canada, and certainly in Australia, ex-military aircraft have to display their registration, but are exempted to do so with only small letters under the tail.

In Germany, a similar system is in place, with a small- tail marked civil registration being required. (You can’t have an airworthy aircraft with a Swastika also, although static museum aircraft can and do show it) and there is the bizarre situation of the Lufthansa Ju-52/3m D-AQUI being unable to re-use its genuine pre-war registration (the code system puts the a/c in the wrong weight band) so it is registered D-CDLH, which is displayed under the tail while D-AQUI is written in big letters in the normal places…

I agree that most RAF marked aircraft wear their military serial as a rule. However they dont have to, take G-MSTG, currently she carries an exemption from the CAA to carry the Markings of Major Bill Price’s Raydon based Janie and as such the serial 44-14419 (abbreviated to 414419). However in reality she was allocated the serial 45-11518 when leaving the factory and then spent the rest of her service life as NZ2427 in New Zealand.

Certainly as long as I’ve seen her she’s displayed MH434.

But she is, in fact G-ASJV

And was once OO-ARA

Depends how nit-picky one wants to be. The current ID of the aircraft is the construction number (CBAF 5562 as always) and the current civil registration – MH434 is one of the previous owner identities. As it’s the first, and in a sense the most important, while no longer operated by the RAF, it’s generally accepted that ‘434 is as relevant today as it was initially, although Moggy’s right that the ID the officials would be interested is G-ASJV.

Cheers