Question about serial numbers

[Precinct7]

How about RAF Hawks T.1's back in the 90's most of them were rebuild with new fuselages,
as the fuselage it the largest part of any aircraft they were effetely new aircraft,
A friend of mine who only collected aircraft once e.g by c/n in his eyes these were new so started loging them again
but for the serial collector they were the same XX303 original fuselage was still XX303 new fuselage

[Malcolm]

How about RAF Hawks T.1's back in the 90's most of them were rebuild with new fuselages,
as the fuselage it the largest part of any aircraft they were effetely new aircraft,
A friend of mine who only collected aircraft once e.g by c/n in his eyes these were new so started loging them again
but for the serial collector they were the same XX303 original fuselage was still XX303 new fuselage

I believe it's called "Triggers new Broom"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

[Precinct7]

How about RAF Hawks T.1's back in the 90's most of them were rebuild with new fuselages,
as the fuselage it the largest part of any aircraft they were effetely new aircraft,
A friend of mine who only collected aircraft once e.g by c/n in his eyes these were new so started loging them again
but for the serial collector they were the same XX303 original fuselage was still XX303 new fuselage

I believe it's called "Triggers new Broom"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE

I like that !!

[tm74sqn]

How about RAF Hawks T.1's back in the 90's most of them were rebuild with new fuselages,
as the fuselage it the largest part of any aircraft they were effetely new aircraft,
A friend of mine who only collected aircraft once e.g by c/n in his eyes these were new so started loging them again
but for the serial collector they were the same XX303 original fuselage was still XX303 new fuselage

I think it was just the rear fuselage that was replaced on some of the T.1/T.1A Hawks, so cockpit and forward fuselage still original. However, the wingsets were replaced on most of the Hawks (the original wings suffered from fatigue problems).
Cheers, TM74

[ArabJazzie]

As with everything we do, its just whatever floats yir boat! For me, i do civil, military, frames, paint scrapes, OTTs, Osrams and a bit of fudging if ive traveled 1200 miles to see something. If i see the aircraft again and read it off, i will replace the OTT/Osram with the new entry.

When parts are considered, the argument regarding what constitutes what can be claimed is easily sorted if you have a copy of Wrecks and Relics. Cant remember what it says, but it made sense to me. As an example, we have a Piper Tomahawk at work that is a bit cut up, but as the cockpit is complete, i would take it as new if it was required. On the other hand, i have seen the wing set of the Enstone Bristol Freighter but have not taken as new.

For aircraft that have had major repairs, i always go back to my first big job as an aircraft engineer where 2 Cessna 152s survived a ground collision. I made one out of the 2 quite quickly, by swapping engines and a wing. Second hand replacement wings and tailplane parts were sourced for the other one, but they are still the same aircraft. Moving onto the Hawk fuselage, as far as i remember, it was only the rear section of the fuselage that was replaced, and using the previous example, does not constitute enough to be considered a new airframe, especially by considering Triggers Broom. I needed 2 or 3 of the replaced sections that were in storage at Shawbury but there was not enough with regard to W&R.

The best example of muddying the waters as far as i am aware of is depot maintenance of Legacy Hornets. I understand that the airframe can be broken down into 3 or 4 sections and sometimes these sections find their way onto other airframes to get them out the door. Then there is the number of U-2s noted that does not match the number of airframes that exist!

[POL]

Then there is the number of U-2s noted that does not match the number of airframes that exist!

Same issue with C-32Bs. More serials than airframes!

[ArabJazzie]

Then there is the number of U-2s noted that does not match the number of airframes that exist!

Same issue with C-32Bs. More serials than airframes!

I thought some very determined spotters had identified those?

[POL]

They've tied serials up to two airframes, however there are still two airframes unaccounted for which may or may not also use those serials...

[jakdaw]

I'm a "framer". This is one of the best and most interesting threads for a while. I think to answer original poster as has been said already its whatever you are happy with. But most of these additional questions I have had to ask myself too at some point. Have seen parts of aircraft that are larger than some aircraft, to count those or not. Don't even get this hardcore spam collector started on BGA numbers to G-!!

[ArabJazzie]

I'm a "framer". This is one of the best and most interesting threads for a while. I think to answer original poster as has been said already its whatever you are happy with. But most of these additional questions I have had to ask myself too at some point. Have seen parts of aircraft that are larger than some aircraft, to count those or not. Don't even get this hardcore spam collector started on BGA numbers to G-!!

The Bristol Freighter wings at Enstone is a good example of parts that are larger than most of the aircraft around the place!

Not starting you on the BGA thing as competition and RAFBGSA numbers cloud it enough for me!
Arabest,
Geoff.

[Graham]

I read recently that the Dutch rebuilt AH64D's to AH64E's will involve new fuselages is this the same for the army Air Corps ones being rebuilt?
Graham

[Hendon Chipmunk]

I think it's fair to claim any current and previous genuine identities, for example:

F4U-4 Corsair of the Flying Bulls - it currently is and is marked as Austrian civvy OE-EAS, but I think it's fair to claim US Navy 96995 and Honduras Air Force 614.

I don't think it's fair to claim future identities, for example:

C-130 Hercules C1P RAF - I first saw in July 1992 - not fair to claim Austrian Air Force 8T-CC unless I was to actually see her again in her new identity (potentially possible). Also, I can't possibly keep track of every change of identity anyway!

[Freeman Lowell]

I read recently that the Dutch rebuilt AH64D's to AH64E's will involve new fuselages is this the same for the army Air Corps ones being rebuilt?
Graham

Graham,
Good question. JHC Commanding Officer, Rear Admiral Jonathan Pentreath has said that common components from stripped down Apache AH.1 will be incorporated into new AH-64E aircraft. That suggests new airframes?
Freeman

[tommc]

One issue with taking serials of the same "frame" used with multiple operators. Eg, you see loads of German AlphaJets, then take them all again as Portuguese, you could potentially end up claiming more AlphaJets than were actually built!